|
|
Post by when the pawn... on Sept 9, 2010 21:45:54 GMT -5
5. Bob Dylan
4. Rolling Stones
3. Led Zeppelin
2. Michael Jackson
1. The Beatles
Surprised LZ is higher than the Stones but not mad at all - this is how I'd personally rank them.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,908
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Sept 9, 2010 22:14:30 GMT -5
I like watching these shows. The 1998 list (and others, like 100 Greatest Women) had a narrator amidst the comments, whereas this one didn't.
I too didn't expect Janet Jackson to rate all that high, based on past performances on such lists- but, I agree that it's baffling how she could be absent and Beyonce and Justin Timberlake rank as high as they do.
|
|
Verisimilitude
8x Platinum Member
'90s Zealot
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 8,963 
|
Post by Verisimilitude on Sept 9, 2010 22:26:34 GMT -5
other extremely surprising omissions:
Blondie
Red Hot Chilli Peppers
Cher
The Mamas & The Papas
had this been 2000 instead of 2010, alot of the acts in the top 100 would not be there
|
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on Sept 9, 2010 22:55:22 GMT -5
5. Bob Dylan 4. Rolling Stones 3. Led Zeppelin 2. Michael Jackson 1. The Beatles Surprised LZ is higher than the Stones but not mad at all - this is how I'd personally rank them. The Stones are the better band, but that's not all that surprising given how groundbreaking & influential Zeppelin was. Agreed - I think I prefer the Stones catalogue but Zeppelin deserved the higher spot. I'd put Madonna in the top 10 instead of Prince and then, out of order, the right 10 artists are there. |
|
|
|
Post by blazingeagles on Sept 10, 2010 1:35:55 GMT -5
For the most part, I like this list. There is always going to be artists that you disagree with being on the list or artists you feel have been wronged by not being included.
That said I would like to ask how the Sex Pistols aren't even in the top 100? That's the biggest question. I do think Usher should rank higher than JT and Usher didn't even make the list. It's just a matter of opinion by what's influencial at that time. The 1998 list had a lot more blues artists like BB King, Stevie Ray and others but no rap and not many hard rock artists which this one includes. For the most part I think this list is on point with a few mistakes but it's all opinion. (sad to see no Soundgarden).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2010 9:40:18 GMT -5
5. Bob Dylan 4. Rolling Stones 3. Led Zeppelin 2. Michael Jackson 1. The Beatles Surprised LZ is higher than the Stones but not mad at all - this is how I'd personally rank them. I didn't see the special, so does this mean that the Beatles came in at #1 again? |
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,908
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Sept 10, 2010 11:48:51 GMT -5
^Yes- The Beatles continue to rule.
chatoyant, VH1 had its prior Greatest Artists of Rock and Roll list in spring 1998. It included 36 or 37 acts not on this new list. Cher doesn't garner much artist acclaim, so not surprising to see her omitted. She's one of my favorite females, though.
The Sex Pistols omission was one of the surprises; the band was 46 on the 1998 list, and placed 58 on both Rolling Stones and Life lists of greatest artists/rockers. Entertainment Weekly even had the Pistols at 69 on its 100 Greatest Entertainers list back in late 1999, and SP was 54 on VH1's Pop Culture Icons list. And there is more. So, it's not like SP lack notable acclaim.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2010 12:43:36 GMT -5
^Yes- The Beatles continue to rule. chatoyant, VH1 had its prior Greatest Artists of Rock and Roll list in spring 1998. It included 36 or 37 acts not on this new list. Cher doesn't garner much artist acclaim, so not surprising to see her omitted. She's one of my favorite females, though. The Sex Pistols omission was one of the surprises; the band was 46 on the 1998 list, and placed 58 on both Rolling Stones and Life lists of greatest artists/rockers. Entertainment Weekly even had the Pistols at 69 on its 100 Greatest Entertainers list back in late 1999, and SP was 54 on VH1's Pop Culture Icons list. And there is more. So, it's not like SP lack notable acclaim. Thanks HolidayGuy. |
|
d.t.m
6x Platinum Member
D.T.M.
Joined: March 2006
Posts: 6,437
|
Post by d.t.m on Sept 10, 2010 12:56:28 GMT -5
The list was already outrageously flawed, but MJ should have been #1.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2010 13:08:54 GMT -5
The list was already outrageously flawed, but MJ should have been #1. MJ greater than the Beatles? Not according to most music critics and historians. |
|
Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...
Diamond Member
All Lives Can’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 18,421
|
Post by Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... on Sept 10, 2010 13:09:51 GMT -5
The list was already outrageously flawed, but MJ should have been #1. I agree. I've never cared for the Beatles, never have never will. I don't get their hype at all. I find them beyond boring. I feel that in the past decade half the world decided to just praise the Beatles like never before. A bunch of them were not even born during that era or even close to it and they're simply going with the flow to make it look like their musical taste is that more profound. Barf. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2010 13:14:07 GMT -5
The list was already outrageously flawed, but MJ should have been #1. I agree. I've never cared for the Beatles, never have never will. I don't get their hype at all. I find them beyond boring. I feel that in the past decade half the world decided to just praise the Beatles like never before. A bunch of them were not even born during that era or even close to it and they're simply going with the flow to make it look like their musical taste is that more profound. Barf. You would be in the minority with that view. People have been praising the Beatles since the 60's, when the group were still together and setting records on the charts. The amazing thing about the Beatles is that even after the end of the group, and even after the deaths of two of its members, and even after 40 years!?! people are STILL praising them and they are still selling boatloads of albums. They are the biggest selling artists in world history. Sorry, but that's not all just based on recent "hype." |
|
Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...
Diamond Member
All Lives Can’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 18,421
|
Post by Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... on Sept 10, 2010 13:18:17 GMT -5
I agree. I've never cared for the Beatles, never have never will. I don't get their hype at all. I find them beyond boring. I feel that in the past decade half the world decided to just praise the Beatles like never before. A bunch of them were not even born during that era or even close to it and they're simply going with the flow to make it look like their musical taste is that more profound. Barf. You would be in the minority with that view. People have been praising the Beatles since the 60's, when the group were still together and setting records on the charts. The amazing thing about the Beatles is that even after the end of the group, and even after the deaths of two of its members, and even after 40 years!?! people are STILL praising them and they are still selling boatloads of albums. They are the biggest selling artists in world history. Sorry, but that's not all just based on recent "hype." They always had praise but it seems to me like now more than ever they've been getting this Godly-like praise that's just baffles me. And ofcourse I'm in the minority, trust me I know. |
|
d.t.m
6x Platinum Member
D.T.M.
Joined: March 2006
Posts: 6,437
|
Post by d.t.m on Sept 10, 2010 13:32:19 GMT -5
I just feel MJ's music has touched the hearts of more people across the globe than the Fab Four did.
I'm not a lamb, but I almost can't wait for Mariah to beat The Beatles' #1 record just to see those music historians and rock purists recoil in horror.
|
|
Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...
Diamond Member
All Lives Can’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 18,421
|
Post by Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... on Sept 10, 2010 13:46:32 GMT -5
I just feel MJ's music has touched the hearts of more people across the globe than the Fab Four did. Agree again. When I hear artist praise Michael I believe it, I actually see it. I see the influence. You can tell they really were inspire by him. When you hear certain artist praise the Beatles it just sounds fake to me, especially these young a$$ artists. Oh the Beatles are #1, why? Just cause you hear how influential they were to many of the great/older artist. They just try to sound deep and sh!t by saying the Beatles are it.  |
|
d.t.m
6x Platinum Member
D.T.M.
Joined: March 2006
Posts: 6,437
|
Post by d.t.m on Sept 10, 2010 13:57:08 GMT -5
Yep, I really believe that many years from now MJ's musical legacy will continue to outshine The Beatles.' The media has long sought to quietly undermine his influence and success(i.e. Thriller selling 51mil WW as opposed to 104mil).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2010 14:50:10 GMT -5
I just feel MJ's music has touched the hearts of more people across the globe than the Fab Four did. I'm not a lamb, but I almost can't wait for Mariah to beat The Beatles' #1 record just to see those music historians and rock purists recoil in horror. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Mariah to do that. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2010 14:58:49 GMT -5
I just feel MJ's music has touched the hearts of more people across the globe than the Fab Four did. Agree again. When I hear artist praise Michael I believe it, I actually see it. I see the influence. You can tell they really were inspire by him. When you hear certain artist praise the Beatles it just sounds fake to me, especially these young a$$ artists. Oh the Beatles are #1, why? Just cause you hear how influential they were to many of the great/older artist. They just try to sound deep and sh!t by saying the Beatles are it. How young are you? Because if you ask most artists who came of age in the 60's, 70's and even the 80's, they will almost all tell you they were influenced by the Beatles to some extent at one point or another; from U2 to Ozzy Osbourne; from Pat Benatar to Bruce Springsteen. There's really almost no way to measure just how influential they were and still are because the evidence for it has literally been EVERYWHERE for the last 40 years; especially among rock/pop groups and singer/songwriter type of artists. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2010 15:03:53 GMT -5
Yep, I really believe that many years from now MJ's musical legacy will continue to outshine The Beatles.' The media has long sought to quietly undermine his influence and success(i.e. Thriller selling 51mil WW as opposed to 104mil). MJ's musical legacy, such as it is, has never outshone the Beatles. In his prime, he was the closest thing to them in terms of popularity, but even there he was never quite as popular as they were. And yes Thriller has outsold every other album in the universe, but what about the rest of MJ's catalog? It wasn't selling that greatly up until his death last year. The Beatles catalog has continued to sell well since its original release over 40 years ago. That's why despite the phenomenal success of one of MJ's albums, the Beatles continue to outsell him to this day. |
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,908
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Sept 10, 2010 15:55:08 GMT -5
^Most importantly, commercial success isn't a determing factor to determine the "greatest." MJU always was respected and revered as an artist, but like any big talent that passes at an earlier-than-expected age, his reverence has gotten even higher in the wake of his passing.
BTW- Thriller has not sold 104 million albums- definitely in excess of 50 million by now, probably even 60m- but in no way as much as 104m.
|
|
d.t.m
6x Platinum Member
D.T.M.
Joined: March 2006
Posts: 6,437
|
Post by d.t.m on Sept 10, 2010 16:05:55 GMT -5
^The Guinness Book of World Records has it at 104mil WW and they presented him with a plaque. MJ even said it himself at the World Music Awards in 2006.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,908
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Sept 10, 2010 22:18:38 GMT -5
^IMO, the figure is too high. And, of course, the World Music "Awards" is always exaggerated, anyhow, so MJ may have got caught up in the hoopla (like he did at the VMAs that year, thinking there was a millennium award being given to him).
Regardless, Thriller is the biggest-selling album of all time worldwide. And it's got a heap of acclaim to go along with the commercial success. As a solo act, Off the Wall and Thriller are his artistic benchmarks.
|
|
d.t.m
6x Platinum Member
D.T.M.
Joined: March 2006
Posts: 6,437
|
Post by d.t.m on Sept 11, 2010 2:16:54 GMT -5
I actually like OTW more than Thriller, but definitely give him his props for both.
|
|
jumpb4uthink
7x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by jumpb4uthink on Sept 11, 2010 14:54:39 GMT -5
Watchin this now on vh1. Very informative and interesting. Like the divesity of the artists. Most importantly, the list gives you insight into the artist along with their music.
|
|
jumpb4uthink
7x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by jumpb4uthink on Sept 11, 2010 15:18:59 GMT -5
^IMO, the figure is too high. And, of course, the World Music "Awards" is always exaggerated, anyhow, so MJ may have got caught up in the hoopla (like he did at the VMAs that year, thinking there was a millennium award being given to him). Regardless, Thriller is the biggest-selling album of all time worldwide. And it's got a heap of acclaim to go along with the commercial success. As a solo act, Off the Wall and Thriller are his artistic benchmarks. The Beatles vs MJ critical aclaim based on music historians? Album influence - how they progressed? |
|
