Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 11:00:06 GMT -5
Judging by the inclusion of acts like Wilco and The White Stripes, top 10 hits are not a criteria
|
|
Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...
Diamond Member
All Lives Can’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 18,333
|
Post by Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... on Mar 7, 2013 11:12:34 GMT -5
I understand that but they should atleast do some research... Look at it this way; if they did all the research they had to and had to decide whether Mariah Carey or, say, Led Zeppelin (who I think are already there, but I think it's a reasonable example) was going to be listed, which one do you think they would pick? Or maybe that's not a good example? I was referring to them including artist like Taylor, Rihanna, Gaga, etc......and not Mariah, Whitney,etc. So no, that was not a good example.
|
|
Ballroom Blitzed
New Member
It doesn't really mean anything!
Joined: September 2012
Posts: 409
|
Post by Ballroom Blitzed on Mar 7, 2013 11:16:09 GMT -5
Fair enough. I misunderstood your post.
Sorry.
|
|
Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...
Diamond Member
All Lives Can’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 18,333
|
Post by Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... on Mar 7, 2013 11:18:50 GMT -5
You don't have to apologize. Its all good. :)
|
|
Rodze
2x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 2,546
|
Post by Rodze on Mar 7, 2013 11:19:53 GMT -5
Well if by opinion you mean "Someone check who has more followers on Twitter. We need more hits on our website.", then yes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 11:23:50 GMT -5
By opinion, I mean no statistical criteria is being used (at least it seems that way)
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,170
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Mar 7, 2013 11:27:34 GMT -5
Like every opinion, even theirs is biased.
|
|
|
Post by Quixotic Music Lover on Mar 7, 2013 11:36:24 GMT -5
This list is more to do with artistic merit as opposed to record sales or chart success. If it was an awards show it would be the Grammys not the American Music Awards. Thus no Lady Gaga or Mariah Carey. Of course artistic merit is very subjective and has a tendency to bring the music snobs out of the woodwork. I personally would not have Mariah Carey on a list of immortals. I have never found her music anything more than safe, middle of the road music for the masses. Same with Whitney Houston and Beyonce. But I would also not develop a list like this. It is kind of pointless because it is so subjective. How does one define a musical artist in today's world of mass marketing/hype and technology?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 11:38:14 GMT -5
Yes and regarding technology and if we add a youtube component we must also include Baauer ;)
|
|
Linnethia Monique
Diamond Member
Still 100% Snackable
🗣 NOW GET YOUR BOOTS AND YOUR COAT FOR THIS...
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 24,208
|
Post by Linnethia Monique on Mar 7, 2013 11:55:49 GMT -5
This list is more to do with artistic merit as opposed to record sales or chart success. If it was an awards show it would be the Grammys not the American Music Awards. Thus no Lady Gaga or Mariah Carey. Of course artistic merit is very subjective and has a tendency to bring the music snobs out of the woodwork. I personally would not have Mariah Carey on a list of immortals. I have never found her music anything more than safe, middle of the road music for the masses. Same with Whitney Houston and Beyonce. But I would also not develop a list like this. It is kind of pointless because it is so subjective. How does one define a musical artist in today's world of mass marketing/hype and technology? You must be an avid reader of Pitchfork.
|
|
brucelover
Gold Member
Banned
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 685
|
Post by brucelover on Mar 7, 2013 12:29:36 GMT -5
I detect lies, fallacies and MESS
|
|
|
Post by Get Your Life. on Mar 7, 2013 12:50:26 GMT -5
I'm kind of dumbfounded by the Rihanna naysayers. If anything, she deserves to be on this list for single-handedly starting the dance craze that is still going on 6 years later. Compound that with her single sales and album sales and it's kind of baffling that anyone would suggest she shouldn't be included.
I think the same goes for those mentioned that have been left out: Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, George Michael, Janet Jackson, others. But including Britney would most likely mean they would have to include the Backstreet Boys and/or N'Sync which I'm sure the whole world would decry. She didn't single-handedly produce any musical trend (unless you pair her with the two boy bands I just included) and while her album sales and longevity are astounding, I believe her absence is because of the BSB/N'SYNC equation.
Now I can't even fathom leaving credence to their exclusion of Janet & Mariah.
|
|
moore746
Gold Member
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 832
|
Post by moore746 on Mar 7, 2013 12:54:05 GMT -5
I'm kind of dumbfounded by the Rihanna naysayers. If anything, she deserves to be on this list for single-handedly starting the dance craze that is still going on 6 years later. Compound that with her single sales and album sales and it's kind of baffling that anyone would suggest she shouldn't be included. I think the same goes for those mentioned that have been left out: Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, George Michael, Janet Jackson, others. But including Britney would most likely mean they would have to include the Backstreet Boys and/or N'Sync which I'm sure the whole world would decry. She didn't single-handedly produce any musical trend (unless you pair her with the two boy bands I just included) and while her album sales and longevity are astounding, I believe her absence is because of the BSB/N'SYNC equation. Now I can't even fathom leaving credence to their exclusion of Janet & Mariah. Britney brought electropop and dubstep to Top 40. Also, there would be no Lady Gaga as we know her without Britney.
|
|
|
Post by Get Your Life. on Mar 7, 2013 12:57:38 GMT -5
I'm kind of dumbfounded by the Rihanna naysayers. If anything, she deserves to be on this list for single-handedly starting the dance craze that is still going on 6 years later. Compound that with her single sales and album sales and it's kind of baffling that anyone would suggest she shouldn't be included. I think the same goes for those mentioned that have been left out: Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, George Michael, Janet Jackson, others. But including Britney would most likely mean they would have to include the Backstreet Boys and/or N'Sync which I'm sure the whole world would decry. She didn't single-handedly produce any musical trend (unless you pair her with the two boy bands I just included) and while her album sales and longevity are astounding, I believe her absence is because of the BSB/N'SYNC equation. Now I can't even fathom leaving credence to their exclusion of Janet & Mariah. Britney brought electropop and dubstep to Top 40. Also, there would be no Lady Gaga as we know her without Britney. I don't concur on either account. There would be no Lady Gaga as we know her without Madonna & Grace Jones & Kylie Minogue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 13:15:44 GMT -5
I believe we've found ourselves in an era where a certain group of Pop stars find themselves with fans across the board, reminiscent of the late 80's and early 90's when someone like Janet Jackson could score a top 10 single on the Rock charts while simultaneously dominating the Pop charts. That didn't happen in the late 90's and early 00's, hence why Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera are not included. That's my best guess, anyway. Yeah this probably hits the nail on the head. Honestly the Green Day inclusion while a band like Linkin Park is left off is more surprising to me than any of the diva stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Quixotic Music Lover on Mar 7, 2013 13:21:14 GMT -5
This list is more to do with artistic merit as opposed to record sales or chart success. If it was an awards show it would be the Grammys not the American Music Awards. Thus no Lady Gaga or Mariah Carey. Of course artistic merit is very subjective and has a tendency to bring the music snobs out of the woodwork. I personally would not have Mariah Carey on a list of immortals. I have never found her music anything more than safe, middle of the road music for the masses. Same with Whitney Houston and Beyonce. But I would also not develop a list like this. It is kind of pointless because it is so subjective. How does one define a musical artist in today's world of mass marketing/hype and technology? You must be an avid reader of Pitchfork. To be honest I had to google "Pitchfork" but yes what you say makes sense. I am a big fan of indie music. When I listen to internet radio about 80% of the time I am tuned in to an alternative music station, and 20% to Top 40. Rolling Stone comes out with these lists every so often to spur sales and discussion (their 500 greatest singles and 500 greatest albums are a great read). Fun to look at but not worth getting one's knickers in a knot over.
|
|
moore746
Gold Member
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 832
|
Post by moore746 on Mar 7, 2013 13:22:31 GMT -5
Britney brought electropop and dubstep to Top 40. Also, there would be no Lady Gaga as we know her without Britney. I don't concur on either account. There would be no Lady Gaga as we know her without Madonna & Grace Jones & Kylie Minogue. Those women are certainly influences as well, but Lady Gaga herself has said multiple times that Britney has been a major influence.
|
|
|
Post by Push The Button on Mar 7, 2013 14:32:48 GMT -5
I don't believe Gaga has named Britney as an influence musically, but more of an influence on how to be a Superstar. The way Britney marketed herself and sold her product to her fan base.
As Gaga was a tween who came of age around 1999, you'd be hard pressed to find a young girl who wasn't a huge fan of Britney around that time.
|
|
Rodze
2x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 2,546
|
Post by Rodze on Mar 7, 2013 15:03:13 GMT -5
Honestly the Green Day inclusion while a band like Linkin Park is left off is more surprising to me than any of the diva stuff. notsureifserious Green Day is way more "immortal" than Linkin Park. Despite trying, LP still doesn't have their "American Idiot" as far the world is concerned.
|
|
ddlz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2011
Posts: 2,165
|
Post by ddlz on Mar 7, 2013 15:26:52 GMT -5
Rolling Stone's credibility is up there with MTV Movie Awards. I don't understand why people still bother reading and posting their articles around the web.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 19:48:27 GMT -5
I don't get the point of declaring someone 'immortal' before we've really had a chance to see how their music stands the test of time. I could certainly make a guess as to who will have great legacies but we have no way of knowing how people will feel about today's music or artists twenty years later.
The other big flaw in this list is the blatant inconsistency. Leaving Mariah and Whitney off while including Beyonce and Rihanna is like declaring Usher and Miguel future legends but then paying R. Kelly and Prince dust. No claims of genre preference or tendency to skew toward artists with more fans across multiple genres can reasonably explain the 'logic' in that.
Most outlets suck at making lists though so this isn't really a surprise. I figure someone's publicist put RS up to it.
|
|
spooky21
Diamond Member
Secretly I'm so amused that nobody understands me.
Joined: April 2005
Posts: 11,669
|
Post by spooky21 on Mar 8, 2013 7:49:17 GMT -5
This list is more to do with artistic merit as opposed to record sales or chart success. If it was an awards show it would be the Grammys not the American Music Awards. Thus no Lady Gaga or Mariah Carey. Of course artistic merit is very subjective and has a tendency to bring the music snobs out of the woodwork. I personally would not have Mariah Carey on a list of immortals. I have never found her music anything more than safe, middle of the road music for the masses. Same with Whitney Houston and Beyonce. But I would also not develop a list like this. It is kind of pointless because it is so subjective. How does one define a musical artist in today's world of mass marketing/hype and technology? And exactly what kind of "artistic merit" Rihanna, Taylor Swift or Beyonce, or Lady Gaga acheived with their music that in any way compares to Mariah's musicianship and or achievements? Mariah or Whitney not being on a Rollingstone Immortals List is absolutely no issue but that defense of their absence claiming "artistic merit" is total bullshit considering some of the acts on said list. Other than that list skewing Indie and Rock, there is no other logical explanation other than RollingStone having their own subjective definition of what an "immortal" artist is. It is their list after all and they are allowed that much.
|
|
|
Post by neverduplicated on Mar 8, 2013 11:18:58 GMT -5
I do think it's ridiculous to claim that artists who have been out for less than a decade (or in some cases, less than 5 years!) are somehow "immortal." Yes, Rolling Stone can predict who will become an immortal, but we have no idea whether some of these artists will be immortal 20 years from now.
As for some of the exclusions... I do think that Mariah Carey and Fleetwood Mac not being included is absolutely crazy. Whether you like her music or not, Mariah should be considered an immortal for her voice, vocal compositions, influence, and the fact that she's one of the few female pop stars to write almost the entirety of her discography. As for Fleetwood Mac, they made one of the most legendary and enduring albums of all time, their catalog continues to sell well to this day despite being 30+ years old, and their mix of male and female lead vocals and harmonies is truly inspiring and has certainly stood the test of time better than most of these new additions.
And yes, we all get it's just a list and its all subjective, but Rolling Stone should really try to gain some perspective given their stature and history in the music world. And saying they are a rock'n'roll magazine does not explain anything in this case when loads of the artists they've included are not rock'n'roll and many notable omissions are.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,883
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Mar 8, 2013 11:34:29 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Rumors was ranked quite high on Rolling Stone's 500 Albums list. And the 1975 album also featured.
|
|
|
Post by Peaches. [Ch, r. is] on Mar 8, 2013 11:36:58 GMT -5
Gaga hasn't proven longevity but I feel she's more deserving than Rihanna. She'll be remembered for a few hits but not for herself at all. I do agree that Gaga was added too soon. Same with Rihanna and Taylor. I disagree entirely. Rihanna is a huge worldwide star and with every era her celebrity increases. She's been in the industry for almost 8 years and has yet to "peak". Gaga on the other hand had one extremely successful era then a "good" era. She hasn't been out long enough to warrant a spot like Rihanna. I mean, I don't think Rihanna should be here just yet either, but there's a better argument for her than for Gaga imo. As for Taylor, she's the only mainstream girl to have massive commercial success on top of huge critical acclaim. The only other girl this decade (maybe even in the last two decades?)has been Adele. But Taylor has proved that she can adapt, tweak her sound and STILL be wildly successful. Record breaking album sales, successful singles, huge tour & tons of critical acclaim. It's pretty clear to me that Taylor will have a lasting career.
|
|
|
Post by Love Plastic Love on Mar 8, 2013 15:17:55 GMT -5
Gaga on the other hand had one extremely successful era then a "good" era. I think this proves just how huge Gaga is or was though. Her "good" era outsold most other pop stars huge massive successful eras. Lol. It is a testament to how massive and successful she is that her "good" or "Ok" cd still outsells others cds that are considered huge smash hits from other pop stars As for the list, well, it is random and only opinion-based. I don't think we can truly start to make a list like this until at least 20 years after an artist is out. So, I will start thinking about putting Gaga and Rihanna on a list like this in 2025-2030 or so.
|
|
musicjunky318
5x Platinum Member
A Joy & The Laughter
Joined: November 2007
Posts: 5,168
|
Post by musicjunky318 on Mar 8, 2013 15:46:42 GMT -5
Britney's essay on Madonna was beautiful.
|
|
ILLUSION
5x Platinum Member
Dupe
"casually cruel in the name of being honest"
Joined: October 2012
Posts: 5,944
|
Post by ILLUSION on Mar 8, 2013 16:59:01 GMT -5
They're honoring GaGa because of the giant impact she's had on the Pop industry already, not her longevity. I don't really think anyone can argue her impact hasn't been extremely significant.
Not saying other artists' (ie: Britney) haven't been significant either, that's just my argument for why they chose GaGa
|
|
shayne
New Member
Joined: February 2013
Posts: 4
|
Post by shayne on Mar 9, 2013 21:12:21 GMT -5
They're honoring GaGa because of the giant impact she's had on the Pop industry already, not her longevity. I don't really think anyone can argue her impact hasn't been extremely significant. Not saying other artists' (ie: Britney) haven't been significant either, that's just my argument for why they chose GaGa This...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2013 9:49:10 GMT -5
Just as long as The Beatles are still #1 on the list, it's all good. :)
|
|