I don't have an answer to that one either.

I don't think PP&M are rock, but I've raised that issue before.

I think I've already weighed in on Whitney, but I think she was rock, at least in the early part of her career.

Like to see the debut album by Moby Grape considered.
Here are a few reviews/opinions why.

Rate Your Music……….. one of the most acclaimed debut albums of all time

Amazon ……………..the sheer brilliance of this San Francisco-based quintet's self-titled 1967 debut.

Rolling Stone Record Guide said Moby Grape’s "debut LP is as fresh and exhilarating today as it was when it exploded out of San Francisco during 1967's summer of love.

Acclaim has nothing to do with the criteria.

No question that the Moby Grape album is acclaimed, but it was never very popular. Can you show me where it has a lot of influence or impact? More so than, say, the Big Star or Jeff Buckley record, since those stand right now at the bottom of the list (and they're also not big in the popularity categories)?

I'm not saying that the Moby Grape album belongs, but it actually was pretty popular, getting to #24 on the Billboard album chart in a 27 week run.

It's the #75 album of 1967 on Rate Your Music.

Here's some other reviews/opinions on the album, also from Rate Your Music........

This is one of the most disappointing albums I've ever heard. No psychedelia at all - just bogstandard 60s rock with a bit of soul. Avoid at all costs if you're looking for something trippy.

I love psychedelic music. So I have revisited this one many times over the years hoping that this time I'd discover its charm. No such luck.

I never really got this. Uninspired and amateurish. Most every band in a garage at the time churned out at least one song better than anything on this snoozefest. Give me pretty much anything else being released in 1967 over this.

Spotty, erratic, and poorly produced, but the songs are solid. "Omaha" is a classic.

"Omaha's" great. The rest....ugh. Hyped to death in '67. Lots on the table in '67.

A great example of how rock & roll went in the completely wrong direction.

Moby Grape's much heralded debut seems like a product of its time. In other words, I'm not really sure what it offers to today's listener other than a Grateful Dead-like rock pastiche. And as noted in my review of American Beauty, I don't find this type of rock terribly engaging. Though, if you're a fan of the Dead, Moby Grape would be a good band to check out.

The record is mostly mid tempo, slowing down for "8, 05" and "Naked, if I Want To." Moby Grape seems to mix psychedelic pop and some form of blues rock with harmonized vocals. The record oozes that late 60s, free love feel. "Come in the Morning" and "Omaha" sound similar to Derek and the Dominos, but not as well done. Overall, though, the problem is that the songs aren't all that noteworthy. Albeit short, each song seems to be a one-trick pony. Perhaps many listens of this album will uncover a deeper appreciation, but, on the surface, Moby Grape is not a special record.

How about including the Flying Burrito Brothers' The Gilded Palace of Sin? Very acclaimed and influential.

With the two main creative forces on the album being already established as members of The Byrds, I don't think it could be considered eligible.

Brett:
Being a listmaker I too stand firm on the stated criteria of my lists and as such I respect yours.

So for my own information & being curious I checked a few of the many online definition sources. This is from the Free online dictionary:
1. acclaim: to acknowledge publicly the excellence of (a person, act, play, film, record etc.)
2. impact: The power of making a strong, impression

Seems to be a very small difference/designation between the 2 terms. More a matter of one’s perspective in my opinion. Moby Grape’s debut album made a impact/impression by being acknowledged (acclaim) publicly and appears ( in print ) to be held in that regard to this day
by what the general public ( popularity ) would consider respected sources such as Rolling Stone ie:their Record Guide, Amazon who huge numbers of people rely upon to describe the music they are wanting to purchase etc and by Rate Your Music which Bruce often cites.

In the area of influence, Patrick Simmons & Tom Johnston of The Doobie Brothers are often quoted as saying their band with 3 guitars & 3 part harmonies were totally modeled after Moby Grape and though this may be just one example…..that band (The Doobies) have had a long, popular and successful career stemming from the influence of Moby Grape. Just sorting through the various ideas everyone has to place value & importance on the records we talk about

For instance:Bruce
I found a quote from Rate Your Music, a site you often refer to and one I’ve begun to use
( thanks to you ) that offered an opinion/review of the Grape’s debut album that was similar to mine. Then you found the following opinion/review ( from the same site ) with a completely opposite view of the same album. Which points up the fact that anyone, us included can always find differing points of view to discuss or argue any subject we care to engage in.

Btw, these 2 examples you offered are, in my opinion, far far away from an actual review of the merits of this or any record and are obviously someone’s personal opinion or taste rather than a professional attempt to dissect and/or explain this album.

This is one of the most disappointing albums I've ever heard. No psychedelia at all - just bogstandard 60s rock with a bit of soul. Avoid at all costs if you're looking for something trippy.

I never really got this. Uninspired and amateurish. Most every band in a garage at the time churned out at least one song better than anything on this snoozefest. Give me pretty much anything else being released in 1967 over this.

So I found this one which is exactly the opposite of the 2 you offered but from a positive perspective. This is a lengthy review so I have paraphrased here but he does break down the songs in the actual & complete review in a professional manner.

I agree with this ‘review’ in one very important regard in that “Moby Grape” the album, has never been psychedelic in any way. Never was meant to be, never was recorded to be.
Never was presented at the time of release as such. When I was compiling my own Psych list for ddd.com and throughout the extensive interviews I conducted this record was never mentioned as a ‘psych’ anything. Hence I did not include it on my Psych list.

Now having said all that, did Moby Grape, the band ever put out psych songs/albums etc ? Absolutely and solely because of 2 elements that controlled their destiny and eventually killed their legacy. Matthew Katz their ( psycho ) manager and producer who didn’t have a clue how to manage or produce a band and of course Skip Spence, their drummer/guitarist and Moby Grape’s version of Syd Barrett who contributed heavily to the Grape’s psych infused follow-up LP ‘WOW’ and yrs later after losing most of his mind recorded a true psych classic ‘Oar’.

So here is the review I found and mentioned above……….

George Starostin’s Music review, online.
Re: Moby Grape,
This album has stood the test of time better than most of its contemporaries.This is good, professional songwriting, not a single song is really "misguided" or "fillerish".
One thing I can't quite understand is why this album is often called "psychedelic". Oh sure, it was written by a bunch of free-thinkin' hippie-minded people smack dab in the middle of 1967 San Francisco. I guess that kinda nails it, doesn't it? Wrong. Nothing on this record is psychedelic, except that the guitar tones remind one of Jefferson Airplane (which doesn't immediately make them psychedelic) no, indeed, in reality Moby Grape's debut is mostly reminiscent of contemporary Buffalo Springfield records, with a little less country influence, mayhaps. It's straightahead pop that often has its roots in traditional American music, no more and no less.

And thus the serious implication: Moby Grape is a record I wouldn't hesitate to recommend to anybody who can't stand a single whiff of the psychedelic excesses of bands like the Airplane or QMS or the pre-1970 Grateful Dead. It's an honest, down-to-earth, "authentically moving" record. The songs are complex enough and they're wonderfully conceived and planned out, keeping me listening, and you know what? Most of these tunes you get warmed to pretty quickly.
It is, actually, one of those albums where the songwriting is so even it's hard to pick favorites; One thing's for certain - the record really stands out from everything else made in the same environment in the same time period.


So just another example of the difference in opinions widely circulated and readily available to make a point. Like Bruce said, Moby Grape the album actually was popular and with the examples I’ve offered in terms of influence & impact/acclaim I still offer up for consideration Moby Grape’s debut album. But ultimately it's your list and as a listmaker I respect that..............

BTW, Bruce & Brett you’d like this guys site as he breaks down his reviews year by year as you do & is an interesting read whether you agree with his assessment or not.

George Starostin's site is friggin' awesome.
Used to constantly visit that site back around 03/04. His reviews are just fantastic to read.

The guy apparently knows very little about 50s music if this segment below is indicative of his reviews:

There is one significant element about Buddy which no one can deny: he was primarily a songwriter, not a performer.

Several of the best known songs that Holly did (Rave On, Oh Boy) were not only not written by him, they were also recorded by other artists before he did the songs.

Saying that he was primarily a songwriter, not a performer, is preposterous.

Then this moron says....

The most amazing thing, perhaps, and the main fact that proves Buddy's genius as a songwriter, is that he's that rare performer whose songs don't sound better even when covered by great bands or artists.

If Holly was pirmarilly a songwriter rathr than a performer, the opposite should be true.

This guy is even dumber than I thought. In his Carl Perkins review he says:

The Beatles made him popular, with their versions of 'Honey Don't', 'Matchbox', and 'Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby', all far superior to the original recordings,

Those Beatles versions of the three songs are not a pimple on the ass of Carl's versions of the same songs.

Next the stupid bastard says...

This collection, I suppose, is quite all right, showcasing his early successes along with later, more moderate hits such as 'Put Your Cat Clothes On',

"Put Your Cat Clothes On, was NOT a hit,. and not later. It was a track he recorded for Sun that was not issued in the 50s. It was first released in the mid-1970s.

This segment in his Fats Domino review tops it all.

Fats Domino wasn't actually a rock'n'roll performer. Most of the time, he was doing his stuff big band style, and his whole output reeks of jazz and jazz-pop more than anything else.

George Starostin is a fucking moron who knows nothing about early rock and roll.

Starostin clearly admitted that he wasn't quite as knowledgeable on 50's rock as he is on 60's and 70's. That's why the section for 50's rock is very small compared to other decades and styles he talks about. It's not because he values them any less, but because he just hasn't heard the plethora of great 50's stuff that many of us have on ddd.



Classic Bruce here.
I know it's pointless to argue this because there is NO objectivity involved, but personally I think The Beatles' version of Matchbox is much better.



Or maybe he just has a different definition of 'rock and roll'.

He knows little about 60s also, claiming below that "If You Need Me" is Motown, in one of his Rolling Stones reviews.

And then, towards the end, you're forced to sit through yet another obligatory Motown "soulful" bit, 'If You Need Me', every bit as unconvincing as 'You Can Make It...' and even more so.

He later claims that a Chicago blues classic is "southern blues."

With all this rock'n'roll swirling around, there's less space for classic blues than usual, but they sure don't waste the little there remains with 'Little Red Rooster' - a great example of their adoration for Southern blues, this time featuring Brian with his slide guitar as the main hero.

He also thinks that "It's My Life" by the Animals was a "cover tune."

ending its blistering course with the last Animals' single for Columbia: a cover tune named 'It's My Life',

The Animals version is the original version of the song. I guesss this moron thinks that if the song was not written by somebody in the band, it must be a cover.

All he has to do is google the song and read what it says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_My_Li ... imals_song)

It's My Life" is a song written by Brill Building songwriters Roger Atkins and Carl D'Errico. The song was originally performed by British rock band the Animals, who released it as a single in October 1965 (see 1965 in music)[1] and was one of three songs that the Animals recorded by Brill Building songwriters.

More idiocy from this clown:

Mainly due to the inclusion of 'Needles And Pins', of course. Today, most people only know that song as performed by the Ramones, of course; but while the Ramones' version is pretty classy and serves as a great decoration for what I consider to be one of the band's best albums (Road To Ruin), it hardly adds all that much to the original - and yes, I said "original"; it's true that the song was penned by Jack Nietzsche and Sonny Bono, but as far as I know, it was originally intended for the Searchers,

That "as far as I know" is very telling, as he does not know much. "Needles and Pins" was of course done originally by Jackie DeShannon, and was a chart hit in the spring of 1963, and no way that most people know this song by the Ramones rather than the Searchers.

The schmuck also claimed that the Rolling Stones did the best known version of "Route 66. " I guess he missed the legendary Nat King Cole version that is in the Grammy Hall Of Fame.