I eventually hope to do a brief "rock overview", with its development from the early Sixties and at least up to the beginning of the punk/New Wave era traced according to the general pattern and my subjective interpretations. But that'll probably happen later, when I review not only the giants, but also the ugly ducklings of rock (Uriah Heep, anybody?). Meanwhile, I have found some delight in categorizing the artists I have already reviewed, and what follows are some brief explanations, clarifications, modifications and apologies.

Apologies first. SPECIAL DISCLAIMER: I do, in fact, admit that it's impossible to "pigeonhole" any given band or artist in the simplest sense of the word, directing them to one niche and letting them stay there. The worst result of such a thing is obvious: much too often, this leads to people thinking of an artist as "doing THAT thing" and refusing him the right to do anything else, even if he is good at that. Therefore, all Paul McCartney rockers suck; Gentle Giant's pop records are abysmal; Bob Dylan's Selfportrait is a 'nosedive' (to quote Mark Prindle); and the Stones are the worst candidates to do a disco song ever.

This is definitely hogwash. But, like most things on this planet, "pigeonholing" can actually be transformed into a weapon of destruction only in the hands of fools or dirty bastards. When used with discretion and caution, though, "pigeonholing" can be a great tool if you wish to get a good grasp of music's (and not only music's) history and set a straight, chronologically and stylistically correct and systematic overview of it in your head instead of letting everything flow into a disjointed mess. Not to mention that I find expressions like "How can you call Led Zeppelin a heavy metal band if they also did 'Tangerine' and 'D'yer Mak'er'?' far more senseless and limited than what their authors think the "pigeonholer" to be. Led Zeppelin WAS a heavy metal band. They had a lot of different additional touches, to be sure, but their essence, their main schtick, the "pole" around which everything else reverted, was their innovative and fresh brand of metallic riffs. It is obvious that a heavy metal fan can "dig Led Zep" even if he hates their acoustic ballads, but you'll hardly find a mellow folkie "digging Led Zep" if the mere thought of something heavier than Joan Baez' voice makes him shudder. Say: "Led Zep was one of the world's greatest heavy metal bands" and many people will get interested (and maybe some of them will appreciate Led Zep's other stuff, too). Say: "Led Zep was a great band that did great songs in many genres", and what?

So I don't see anything necessarily bad about categorization. Another thing is how to do it. I have chosen a mixed principle, based on both chronology and genre specifications. Some of the bands (most notably the earlier ones - the Beatles, for instance) are indeed very hard to categorize by genre, since they were more or less similar to Renaissance artists in their do-it-all attitude. On the other hand, the distinct styles of the late Sixties/early Seventies are way too many to lump them all into one category. Thus, a perfect categorization will be the one that combines both principles. And here it is; not that it's necessarily perfect - I invite anybody to mail suggestions and supposed improvements. Keep in mind, though, that I wouldn't want to make any more groups than the eight ones below, for the readers' convention. Later on I'll probably add some more - if I ever get around to reviewing post-1977 artists... and I hope I will...

I. THE FEARLESS PIONEERS (British Invaders and American "Folkies")

This one's the easiest to explain - artists that mostly emerged in the early Sixties, 1965 (the last "pre-art period" year) being the borderline; so it does include such relative 'late-comers' as the Byrds and the Who, two bands essential for rock's genesis.
Overall period rating: 4.44 out of 5. This is the site's highest rating, far, far above all the others, and I'm not surprised - after all, this period includes all of my five-star rated artists. Innovation and fresh, resplendent genius oozes out of most of these bands, if only because they were the first to, well, to do DA TING. Of course, there were quite a few lesser acts then, but for the most part, time had already chewed 'em up. Does anyone even remember Gerry and the Pacemakers these days? Guess not. This is our Golden Age that supplied us with our most reverend icons, want it or not.

II. THE AUDACIOUS ALCHEMISTS (Psychedelia and Serious Pop of the late Sixties)

This is not really "art-rock" yet: it's usually artists who were still mostly working in the "pop" vein, without striding too far away from conventional song structure apart from maybe extending their songs to overkill (Cream, Velvet Underground, etc.). They are all hugely different from each other in style, which is, once again, not too surprising: these were the guys that took their cue from the Beatles and Dylan and ran off in a thousand directions. Their relative "lightweightness", however, as well as their obvious ties to the hippie epoch and the ideals of love and beauty (or - death and ugliness, as in the Doors' and Velvets' case, but it's just the opposite side of the same medal), is what links them all together.
Sidenote 1: I put the Bee Gees here, because I feel their Sixties period to be their best one. They could have easily fit into category VII as well, though.
Sidenote 2: I put the Monkees here, too, as they did follow the Beatles' psychedelic debauches after all. Their category is debatable, though.
Overall period rating: 2.4 out of 5. Whaddaya want? These guys weren't always geniuses.

III. THE INNOVATIVE PHILOSOPHERS (Art-Rock of the late Sixties/early Seventies)

A good category. Includes primarily those who were stepping away from the "roots" and dabbling in classical, jazz and medieval influences. These guys mostly popped out after Sgt Pepper - all inspired by 'She's Leaving Home' and 'A Day In The Life', no doubt. I do prefer these art-rockers over the more intricate "proggers", simply because they managed to find the perfect balance between conventional structure and intelligent innovation. Not to mention that they mostly either lacked pretention (like Frank Zappa) or were at least easily undserstandable (like the Moodies).
Overall period rating: 2.2 out of 5. In reality, it must be higher - the boring Traffic and the short-careered Syd Barrett spoil the real result.

IV. THE ENLIGHTENED PSEUDO-PROPHETS (First generation Progressive Rock)

What comments do I need to give? I should only reiterate that I differ "prog-rock" from "art-rock": I view "prog" as a subdivision of "art", characterised by a very high reliance on non-bluesy influences (primarily classical and jazz), incredibly complex song structures and arrangements, difficult, pretentious lyrics and, of course, tons of conceptual albums. In this respect, for instance, Procol Harum does not qualify as a prog-rock band (hardly any conceptual albums, relatively simple song structures), and neither do the Moody Blues (lots of concepts, but more or less simple pop aspirations and very lightweight lyrics).
Overall period rating: 2.3 out of 5, but that's also debatable - I haven't reviewed Uriah Heep yet. Or Rush, for that matter.

V. THE GRITTY AXEMEN (Vintage Hard 'n' Heavy)

No need to explain this category. Hard rock and heavy metal from Led Zep to Thin Lizzy. Sidenote: I also put Jeff Beck and Mountain in this category; the former because I consider his 1968-69 hard rock period to be his defining moment (and not the fusion period of 1975-6), and the latter because want it or not, axeman Leslie West did dominate the band more than psychedelist Felix Pappalardi. Since the section ended up being so devoted to "axemen", I have also added Robin Trower, although he could also belong to category VI and even VII.
Overall period rating: 1.85 out of 5. Never was a particularly big fan of hard'n'heavy.

VI. THE KEEPERS OF THE FLAME (Intelligent Roots Rock)

Hardly needs any explanation, either. This period starts somewhere around 1968 - the period when "roots" came into fashion again, what with the Stones 'revival' and the Byrds going country and Southern rock springing up. The genre has since then become one of the most despised among the "intelligent" crowds, but let's not forget, after all, that roots are roots and if you do 'em well, roots are your soul.
Sidenote 1: I do include Rod Stewart here, as his first and best period is clearly in the 'roots' pattern.
Sidenote 2: I also include Neil Young here - isn't he the 'salt-of-the-earth' or something? He must be.
Overall period rating: 1.75 out of 5. Well, more often roots rock is boring than not, and the rating is sabotaged by a frequent lapse of taste from the Eagles and Lynyrd Skynyrd.

VII. THE SECOND-HAND TUNESMITHS (Unambitious Seventies melodists)

A great heap of dudes that wrote good melodies in the Seventies, but most of them along already well-established patterns. That's actually the only thing that ties them together. These are really hard to categorize - you could select some minor categories, but these would have to include, along with "glam" and "power pop" and "introspective rock" and "proto-punk", something like "ex-Beatles rock", so I dumped 'em together instead.
Overall period rating: 2.33 out of 5. Thank the ex-Beatles for pumping up the rating.

VIII. THE EVER RESTLESS PURSUERS ("Europeanized" Pop/Rock of the Seventies)

The section most coveted by Mr Rich Bunnell. These are the guys that tried to do more or less the same things to rock that "proggers" tried to do - that is, lead it away from the blues and further into the unknown - but did it with more respect towards conventional melodicity and with a somewhat bigger respect towards commercial success. Selected gimmicks include: reliance on synthesizers and electronics (the German scene ==> Brian Eno ==> David Bowie's late Seventies period), flirtation with opera (Queen), endless switchings between prog and pop (Argent), etc., etc.
Overall period rating: 2.75 out of 5. Not bad for such a bunch of psycho dudes.