| DDD Forum https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/ |
|
| 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=259 |
Page 153 of 457 |
| Author: | Sampson [ Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
We just go into great depth about the best ways to do the lists, how to evaluate the criteria in the fairest most in-depth way possible, how to stop personal opinions from influencing rankings and so forth... and then Neg says, "Aww, screw all that guys, so what's your top five off the top of your head?". Gotta love DDD. 
|
|
| Author: | Classic Rock Junkie [ Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
Bruce wrote: If you're asking who should be the top 5 on this list, I'd say: 1 - Beatles 2 - Elvis 3 - James Brown 4 - Bob Dylan 5 - Chuck Berry That's how I'd do it. Honestly, I think for the top 5 (or at least top 4) we've run through criteria breakdowns and had so many arguments about their placements it's pointless to do it again. Outside of top 4, well yeah we can reconstruct the list (the whole 7+ always looked questionable to me), but I think we've argued the top 4 enough to understand that's probably the proper rankings, unless we wish to open the can of Elvis vs. Beatles and Dylan vs. Brown again. We've done it lots of times, and iirc it's always ended up like this. |
|
| Author: | Negative Creep [ Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
Sampson wrote: We just go into great depth about the best ways to do the lists, how to evaluate the criteria in the fairest most in-depth way possible, how to stop personal opinions from influencing rankings and so forth... and then Neg says, "Aww, screw all that guys, so what's your top five off the top of your head?". Gotta love DDD. It wasn't related to the list at all, I was just curious....  No reason why we can't go on with the prior discussion. |
|
| Author: | J.B. Trance [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
Sampson wrote: Brian puts in more time and effort at DDD than almost anyone I don't know how Brian does it. He's a moderator administrator, works on and edits lists, and then makes all sorts of posts on this forum. Yes, I also appreciate him for his hard work ethic and tolerance to withstand crap that comes up every now and then at DDD. I can't imagine how Lew is able to withstand all sorts of pressure as well. Quote: I just don't like seeing any list go up and be commented on (and potentially influenced by those comments, even subconsciously) while it is still being worked on. I'm not saying your way is wrong or bad either; I'm just saying we have different approaches, and that's fine. |
|
| Author: | Negative Creep [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
I agree with you guys on Brian. In addition to what J.B. said, he's also one of the most civil and respectful people on this site. These lists must be a pain in the ass to compile... |
|
| Author: | ClashWho [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
Sampson wrote: I can make a far better argument for Stevie to be #4 overall and the Beach Boys #5 than I could make for the Who to make the Top 10 or 15. Then The Who is one of your blind spots, because it's really easy. Sampson wrote: Their popularity is really far behind. Wonder and The Beach Boys have over 60 hits apiece, the Who don't even have half that. From 1968 to their breakup in 1982 The Who overwhelmingly outperformed the Beach Boys on the album charts in the USA: 1968 Who Magic Bus - The Who on Tour - #39 Beach Boys Friends - #126 1969 Who Tommy - #4 Beach Boys 20/20 - #68 1970 Who Live at Leeds - #4 Beach Boys Sunflower - #151 1971 Who Who's Next - #4 Who Meaty Beaty Big & Bouncy - #11 (mostly non-hits collection) Beach Boys Surf's Up - #29 1972 Beach Boys Carl and the Passions - "So Tough" - #50 1973 Who Quadrophenia - #2 Beach Boys Holland - #36 The Beach Boys in Concert - #25 1974 Who Odds & Sods - #15 (non-hits collection) Beach Boys Endless Summer - #1 (hits collection) 1975 Who Tommy motion picture soundtrack - #2 Who The Who By Numbers - #8 Beach Boys Spirit of America - #7 (hits collection) Beach Boys Good Vibrations - Best of the Beach Boys - #25 (hits collection) 1976 Beach Boys 15 Big Ones - #8 Beach Boys Live in London - #75 1977 Beach Boys Love You - #53 1978 Who Who Are You - #2 Beach Boys M.I.U. Album - #151 1979 Who The Kids Are Alright motion picture soundtrack - #8 Beach Boys L.A. (Light Album) - #100 1980 Beach Boys Keepin' the Summer Alive - #75 1981 Who Face Dances - #4 1982 Who It's Hard - #8 Are the Beach Boys really more popular? If you were a concert promoter in the late sixties, through the seventies and into the eighties (and through to today), who would you book? You really think that because the Beach Boys racked up a ton of hits from 1963 - 1966 that they are forevermore more popular than The Who? That's not the way the world works. Sampson wrote: The influence of all three are close, I have it BB, Who, Wonder on the DDD list. Yeah, I think The Who are more influential than The Beach Boys, as I explained in my post to Bruce. They're one of the keystone acts influencing hard rock, power pop and art rock. Surf rock didn't have much staying power. The Beach Boys have a ton of influence in studio techniques, but The Who's massive influence in the live arena, and the enormous impact of Pete Townshend on guitarists, Keith Moon on drummers, John "The Ox" Entwistle on bassists, and Roger Daltrey on hard rock vocalists, has to more than make up for that. Sampson wrote: Musical Impact - again all three do well, but the Beach Boys and Wonder are two of the elite of all time here, completely off the charts and just a clear notch above the Who. They do very well, but not nearly as well as the other two. That's just not true. The Who are every bit as much in the elite of the elite in musical impact as The Beach Boys and Stevie Wonder are. This is just your Who blind spot again. Why do you think VH1 Rock Honors devoted a two-hour special to The Who featuring numerous guest stars paying tribute to The Who? Previous editions of that program honored four different acts over the two hour show. But that one was just The Who for the whole two hours. They're also Kennedy Center Honors recipients, along with Brian Wilson and Stevie Wonder, which isn't directly musical impact, but is certainly reflective of The Who's extraordinarily lofty stature. The largest poll of musicians Rolling Stone ever did was their 500 Greatest Albums poll, where The Who landed seven albums in the countdown, more than anyone except for The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen. That's certainly indicative of their huge musical impact. Sampson wrote: Cultural Impact same thing. Stevie wins it, Beach Boys and Who are lower down. How? What is Stevie Wonder's cultural impact? I can't think of anything apart from fame. Sampson wrote: The Who aren't sniffing the Top Ten if this is done accurately. There's just a logjam up there of major artists with much deeper resumes. The Who don't do poorly in anything, but there's no area that they crush in versus the all-time greats, and to edge ahead you kinda need at least one area that you soar above the rest you're competing against. Well, there's only four criteria and ten slots in the top ten, so that's impossible. Of course The Who can sniff the top ten. I resent that you thought the only reason The Who are in the top ten on this site is because of me. The Who have ALWAYS been in the top ten on this list. It had nothing to do with me. So why do you think The Who have been in the top ten on this list since day one? They've been as high as #3 and as low as #8. The only impact I had on the top ten was reversing the short-lived decision to rank Led Zeppelin higher than The Who. But they've always been in there somewhere. Sampson wrote: Their best area is influence but there's at least fifteen artists better than them there and another fifteen that are really close. There aren't fifteen artists that do better across the criteria than The Who. Sampson wrote: That means whoever does better elsewhere is going to win and in this case it's plainly obvious both the Beach Boys and Wonder do significantly better in Commercial Impact and Musical Impact. It's not plainly obvious when it comes to musical impact. The Beach Boys are widely considered to be a band that failed to keep pace with The Beatles. While The Who are widely considered to be prime contenders for the title of World's Greatest Rock Band. No one has ever called The Beach Boys that. They might be called America's greatest rock band, but that's because we know The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Who are battling each other over the global title. Sampson wrote: The contest is over right there, but the final nail in the Who's coffin is figuring in the Beach Boys take influence, while Wonder takes Cultural, which all adds up to the Who on the outside looking in. Well, like I said, I think The Who wins influence. I also think that's fairly obvious. And I still don't know what Stevie Wonder's cultural impact is. Eddie Murphy impressions? Sampson wrote: I know you don't want to hear it, my friend, but Top Twenty over a 65 year period is a helluva accomplishment. Gerry & The Pacemakers would take that in a heartbeat if that's any consolation. Cute. I'm concerned that you're so convinced that you're right that you can't be persuaded no matter what I say. |
|
| Author: | Sampson [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
You always do this Clash, focus solely on the areas the Who do well in, even when it comes to commercial impact focusing on their peak years to the exclusion of everything else. Furthermore, as a Beach Boy fan yourself, you know that their popularity fell off once Brian dropped out of controlling the group. Imagine the Who if Townshend had become a recluse. The BB's biggest album in the 70's came with Brian back as producer (15 Big Ones). But anyway you look at it, The Beach Boys kill The Who in Commercial Impact over the course of their career. Twice as many hits (The Who had just ONE Top Ten U.S. single and Townshend is on record saying that singles was the status of a great band, or something to that effect - I know you must have the quote someplace). The Beach Boys by contrast had 15 Top Ten Singles, four #1's. Even in England they're pretty much even on the singles charts, with with the Beach Boys hitting The Top Five more than The Who did in their own country! They also have more Top Ten albums and more #1 albums in the U.K. than the Who. Furthermore, the Beach Boys had Top Ten albums in America during the period when rock albums weren't going Top Ten very often. It is a far far more significant feat in context to have three Top Ten albums in 1963 alone than having them a decade or two later, just because of the way the market was for albums then. Remember, context is crucial in evaluting things over time. It is a massive blow-out in this area and there's no way, considering the other criteria have no big wins for the Who, that they can make it up. It's just not possible. Oh, and while no one is disputing the Who's prowess or popularity as a live band, remember that the Beach Boys in the 70's were the American juggernaut among live artists. Rolling Stone magazine, back when they actually focused on music, named them Band Of The Year for 1974 on the basis of their touring alone. Don't brush aside their popularity. The Eagles, at the height of their fame, played shows with the Beach Boys and were amazed that every single song they played the audience knew every note to, it was daunting for them to try and follow and that's when they had the biggest selling albums in the world and their own greatest hits sold more than anything ever had. I also said that in influence it is close, the Beach Boys have a slight edge as I see it, but again you're trying to give influence credit simply for them being good at what they do. Actually, Brian Wilson was far more influential to bass playing than Entwistle, even though The Ox could wipe the floor with Brian AS a bassist. But Brian was the one who introduced melodic basslines to rock and that had much more influence on the instrument and the way songs were written than how well Entwistle played. As for Stevie. You DO realize that he is the most singularly responsible person for getting Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday, don't you? There are how many national holidays in America? Eleven... and Wonder was relentless in forcing the issue, writing the song "Happy Brithday" (which oddly enough went to #2 in the U.K.) for the cause, using his popularity and his influence to constantly pressure people in public office, including Reagan who finally met with him and agreed to sign the bill, to make King's birthday a national holiday. That's pretty freaking huge cultural impact. But overall, while the Who are certainly among the elite in rock, all of the musical impact things you cite are also true (or similar honors have been bestowed upon) at least 20 others in rock. Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, Chuck Berry, James Brown, Elton John, Tina Turner, Smokey Robinson, Diana Ross, Brian Wilson, Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartney have all gotten Kennedy Center Honors as well. Since you need to be alive to be so honored that excludes a number of other huge rock icons from getting it, so you need to assume that guys like Elvis Presley, Marvin Gaye, Sam Cooke, Roy Orbison, Jimi Hendrix, Buddy Holly, Curtis Mayfield and Otis Redding would've been all but assured of being similarly honored. Fats Domino received the National Medal Of The Arts from the President, which is an honor on par, if not even slightly greater than the Kennedy Center Honors. There's more than twenty names right there, all of whom have Commercial, Musical and Cultural Impact as well as Influence to match virtually anyone. Throw in the Rolling Stones, Little Richard, Run-D.M.C., Madonna, Prince, The Everly Brothers, Led Zeppelin, Michael Jackson (who only recently passed away) and a handful of others of that stature and we're already at thirty names on par with that level of performer historically. What you're saying about the Who isn't untrue, but there are too many others who have similar credentials for them to be a slam dunk Top Fifteen. But the only way to find out is to do what I've been saying all along, start from scratch and evaulate all artists under each criteria individually, then tally things up. It's not hard, but it takes awhile to do it right, since we're talking five hundred names perhaps that need to be studied intently. Maybe the Who will be higher than I estimated and you can celebrate, or they might be even lower and you can wrongly claim I have a Who blind spot, but there's only one way to be certain. I can do it if you want, but I'm not going to put in all that time and effort and usurp Brian's list in the process just to placate you unless you pay me handsomely to do it.
|
|
| Author: | Bruce [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
Sampson wrote: As for Stevie. You DO realize that he is the most singularly responsible person for getting Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday, don't you? There are how many national holidays in America? Eleven... and Wonder was relentless in forcing the issue, writing the song "Happy Brithday" (which oddly enough went to #2 in the U.K.) for the cause, using his popularity and his influence to constantly pressure people in public office, including Reagan who finally met with him and agreed to sign the bill, to make King's birthday a national holiday. That's pretty freaking huge cultural impact. To me, this means absolutely nothing towards ranking the greatness of musicians. Suppose Pete Townshend discovers a cure for cancer? Do the Who now vault ahead of everybody else on the list? Does Ronald Reagan move up on the list of great actors because he did something great outside of acting? Does Jim Bunning move up on the list of great pitchers because he was a US senator? Let me go on record right now that I don't buy this "cultural impact" portion of your criteria, and I also don't buy that different parts of the criteria should all be "weighed equally." None of the 40 or so lists I've done on the site have considered "cultural impact" and each list weighs different parts of the criteria in different portions. How could it be possible that each portion of ANY criteria coincidentally ended up being equally important in relation to each other? When you evaluate the greatness of ANYTHING or ANYBODY there's no way that different portions of qualities that are included in the evaluation should all be weighed equally. That's just intellectual laziness. |
|
| Author: | ClashWho [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
Geez, Sampson, if you can't even acknowledge John Entwistle's massive influence as a rock bassist, then I'm just gobsmacked. To dismiss Entwistle (and Moon, Townshend, and Daltrey) as merely good at what they do, and not also enormously influential at what they do, is just plain wrong. Hopefully you didn't actually do that when you compiled your influence list. Or perhaps you did and that might explain why you have the Beach Boys a couple notches higher than The Who. Additionally, is it Commercial Impact or is it Chart Success? It seems like you think they're the same thing. But they're not. Do you want Pete Townshend's bank account or do you want Brian Wilson's? You sure you know the answer to that? You talk about the Beach Boys' four #1 hits. "Kokomo" was a #1 hit for the Beach Boys in 1988. The Who went on tour in 1989 and netted 50 million dollars. Net. Not gross. Who wins commercial impact for those years? What would you rather have, one percent of the Beach Boys' "Kokomo" or one percent of The Who's 1989 tour? I doubt all four of the Beach Boys' #1 hits equal the commercial impact of one major Who tour. Sampson wrote: Furthermore, as a Beach Boy fan yourself, you know that their popularity fell off once Brian dropped out of controlling the group. It happened before that, sadly. Smiley Smile missed the top forty. Friends, the last album Brian was heavily involved in until 15 Big Ones, failed to make the top 100. |
|
| Author: | ClashWho [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
Bruce wrote: Sampson wrote: As for Stevie. You DO realize that he is the most singularly responsible person for getting Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday, don't you? There are how many national holidays in America? Eleven... and Wonder was relentless in forcing the issue, writing the song "Happy Brithday" (which oddly enough went to #2 in the U.K.) for the cause, using his popularity and his influence to constantly pressure people in public office, including Reagan who finally met with him and agreed to sign the bill, to make King's birthday a national holiday. That's pretty freaking huge cultural impact. To me, this means absolutely nothing towards ranking the greatness of musicians. Suppose Pete Townshend discovers a cure for cancer? Do the Who now vault ahead of everybody else on the list? Does Ronald Reagan move up on the list of great actors because he did something great outside of acting? I agree with this criticism. Cultural Impact should have something to do with the music. Not mere celebrity. Elvis Presley's cultural impact grew directly out of his performances. It was Fats Domino's concerts that helped integrate rock audiences. If kids wore a white glove, it's because they saw it in Michael Jackson's music videos. If Stevie Wonder lobbied Ronald Reagan for a Martin Luther King holiday, that's great, but it has nothing to do with Rock 'n' Roll. And I doubt a song that failed to hit the Hot 100 had anything to do with it. It's nice that it got him a big UK hit, though. |
|
| Author: | Zach [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
ClashWho wrote: Bruce wrote: Sampson wrote: As for Stevie. You DO realize that he is the most singularly responsible person for getting Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday, don't you? There are how many national holidays in America? Eleven... and Wonder was relentless in forcing the issue, writing the song "Happy Brithday" (which oddly enough went to #2 in the U.K.) for the cause, using his popularity and his influence to constantly pressure people in public office, including Reagan who finally met with him and agreed to sign the bill, to make King's birthday a national holiday. That's pretty freaking huge cultural impact. To me, this means absolutely nothing towards ranking the greatness of musicians. Suppose Pete Townshend discovers a cure for cancer? Do the Who now vault ahead of everybody else on the list? Does Ronald Reagan move up on the list of great actors because he did something great outside of acting? I agree with this criticism. Cultural Impact should have something to do with the music. Not mere celebrity. Elvis Presley's cultural impact grew directly out of his performances. It was Fats Domino's concerts that helped integrate rock audiences. If kids wore a white glove, it's because they saw it in Michael Jackson's music videos. If Stevie Wonder lobbied Ronald Reagan for a Martin Luther King holiday, that's great, but it has nothing to do with Rock 'n' Roll. And I doubt a song that failed to hit the Hot 100 had anything to do with it. It's nice that it got him a big UK hit, though. Agreed, as well. |
|
| Author: | Classic Rock Junkie [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
Here was my understanding of cultural impact and musical impact Cultural impact is an artists effect on the general public as an artist, not as an actor, not as a political activist, as an artist. Musical impact is an artists effect on the music industry and other musicians/studio techniques etc. |
|
| Author: | McMurphy [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
Quote: Here was my understanding of cultural impact and musical impact Cultural impact is an artists effect on the general public as an artist, not as an actor, not as a political activist, as an artist. Musical impact is an artists effect on the music industry and other musicians/studio techniques etc. I think you're right about cultural impact, but I think musical impact has more to do with how they other artists reacted to their work. As in, how much of a positive response they got from their peers. What you described sounds more like influence to me. |
|
| Author: | StuBass [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
I would tend to think that "cultural" impact should address how the artist impacts "culture"...which is why it's called CULTURAL impact, with musical impact reflecting an artists impact on music. The Beatles are a prime example, whereas in addition to musical impact, they impacted the culture at large...dress, hairstyles, even their influence on drugs, religion, etc. |
|
| Author: | J.B. Trance [ Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 100 Greatest Rock Artists (under revision) |
Classic Rock Junkie wrote: Here was my understanding of cultural impact and musical impact That's just it--your understanding. This is what I've been saying all along: the criteria can be interpreted in a number of ways if not addressed specifically, which the editors here are all guilty of. For instance, the simple criterion of "popularity". OK. Popularity as in American popularity, English-speaking countries popularity, worldwide popularity...does this factor in concert ticket sales, artist merchandise, artist-propelled TV/radio shows, music charts... While some of the factors differ in degree of reliability or accuracy, you can use "popularity" with one or some or all of the combinations above. The visitors to the list would have to work within a vague context of "popularity." |
|
| Page 153 of 457 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|