|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Aug 25, 2010 18:21:41 GMT -5
Madonna will always be the #1 female artist of all time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2010 18:26:47 GMT -5
but the most serious WTF is Bruce Springsteen down at #21 behind Nirvana (???), Bowie, Pink Floyd, Queen, Marvin Gaye, a bunch of people who just don't have the depth in quality of Bruce's catalog of music or the epic scope of his career as a live performer...there is no way on earth Bruce shouldn't be in the top 10. In my book, the very top of a list like this should be artists who are the total package - writing the music and the lyrics, playing an instrument, performing live, lasting a long time, the whole deal. Legendary and influential as they are, you can't say that about Dylan, Elvis, James Brown, even to some extent Hendrix. Bowie doesn't have the same depth in his catalog as sodding Bruce Springsteen? Bob Dylan isn't a good writer, doesn't play an instrument, perform live, and hasn't lasted a long time? Just no.
|
|
as485y
Gold Member
Joined: November 2009
Posts: 670
|
Post by as485y on Aug 25, 2010 18:28:54 GMT -5
LOL at Beyonce being in front of Whitney, Mariah, Mary, Alicia, Janis... Are they kidding?! Yeah, no offense to Beyonce, but it's laughable that's she's ahead of all those other legends, and not to mention Janet Jackson didn't even make the list! Its bc Beyyonce has the potential to be bigger than them all...and in a way she already passed Mary,Alicia,and Mariah
|
|
repentyourself
6x Platinum Member
#jodisangels
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 6,629
|
Post by repentyourself on Aug 25, 2010 18:37:04 GMT -5
Yeah, no offense to Beyonce, but it's laughable that's she's ahead of all those other legends, and not to mention Janet Jackson didn't even make the list! Its bc Beyyonce has the potential to be bigger than them all...and in a way she already passed Mary,Alicia,and Mariah Stop.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2010 18:41:05 GMT -5
Dylan's a terrible live performer, has been since forever. And no, you get to the end of Bowie's epic songs in less than a whole CD. He's not remotely in the same class. He hasn't put out anything special since the early 80s. Those are both your opinion and your opinion only. Dylan may be the go to on Pulse when people want to talk about an artist with a non-Diva voice, but that doesn't make him a bad live performer. I don't know what else you could be referring to. His acclaimed and era defining live guitar work perhaps? And really? David Bowie's music has ranged from music hall and folk rock, to glam rock, to R&B and soul, to art rock to electronica, to psychedelica to new wave. He's had one of the most varied and storied careers in the history of rock music. His discography is both wider and deeper than Springsteen's. Comparing Bowie to Bruce of all people when Bruce is more or less a glorified pub singer who's repeated the same cliches about New Jersey every men for forty years is a joke.
|
|
slw84
7x Platinum Member
I only tolerate legends
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 7,896
|
Post by slw84 on Aug 25, 2010 18:48:17 GMT -5
colson- how would pointing out how what acts do or don't do make anything "worse"? LOL slw- Madonna has enjoyed a lot of acclaim as an *artist*- which, as Bob Dylan can attest, does not mean touting outstanding vocal abilities. :) The debut and Virgin albums came to enjoy more reverence over time, but with the third album, she showed the maturing of her artistry., which culminated with Like a Prayer. In essence, what has made her stand ut from most others is the whole package- the capable singing, the music, the videos, the stage shows, and all she's done with that to inspire debate and discussion in culture. Timberlake has had two solo albums, right? So, yeah, I'd agree that his placement is kinda high. Someone like Janet Jackson should place above him- but, the last decade may have hurt her more than I thought. Holidayguy.. Your research, intellect, and mostly your insight continues to amaze me. Keep it coming. I wasn't questioning her impact as an "artist" but to compare her to Eminem who has undeniable talent backing up the controversy and the entertainer package makes it an unfair comparison was my point. Compare two innately talented people not two people that are creative, savvy, garner controversy, etc. but one is regarding as one of the best rappers of their career and the other is a singer who isn't great at singing. it's bizarre but I don't even support Em's records but have madonna's. Trying to be objective, though ;)
|
|
Stephen
Gold Member
Captain of Carrie's Shade Patrol
Joined: January 2011
Posts: 785
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Wow, did they just ignore country music? Even Johnny Cash is a tad too low for comfort.
|
|
slw84
7x Platinum Member
I only tolerate legends
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 7,896
|
Post by slw84 on Aug 25, 2010 18:52:17 GMT -5
Yeah, no offense to Beyonce, but it's laughable that's she's ahead of all those other legends, and not to mention Janet Jackson didn't even make the list! Its bc Beyyonce has the potential to be bigger than them all...and in a way she already passed Mary,Alicia,and Mariah Stop it, already. LOL She has not surpassed Mariah. The Alicia one I can except that Alicia's records are versatile, stand the test of time, and have some actual artistry with commercial appeal as well. Mary...um...I can see where you are going with that. I happen to rank those for as 1) Mariah 2) Beyonce 3) Mary 4) Alicia Minus the dancing/performing it seems where 1) lacks 3 and 4 make up for it and vice versa. IMO. I have all of their albums too :)
|
|
|
Post by slicknickshady on Aug 25, 2010 18:54:28 GMT -5
That list is a joke. Justin Timberlake making the list makes it's null and void. Yeah, That Dude Timberlake, made the list. and not that i'm bashing this group at all, but does anybody find Rage Against The Machine's entry in this list very random? :o :o :o I love Rage. But they are below Tool on my all time list.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2010 19:01:46 GMT -5
Dylan's long been notorious for being diffident about his audience and prone to lots and lots of off-nights, that's hardly just my opinion. Bruce never takes an off-night live. I like Dylan, he's one of the greatest songwriters ever and massively influential, and should absolutely be top 20, maybe top 10. But he doesn't compare to Bruce as a performer, any more than Elvis compares to Bruce as a songwriter. Bob may not be the greatest live performer of all time, but he's still very good. His failings live do not make up the difference in other categories though. To say Dylan is below Bruce overall is just laughable. YYou clearly have not spent much time with Bruce's catalog if you're just writing him off as cliches. Bowie hasn't written anything in decades with the power and contemporary resonance of The Rising, and The Rising isn't even one of Bruce's 5 best albums, not even close. You clearly have not spent much time with Bowie's catalog. I actually like Bruce, but he's the very definition of an artist whose epic moments you could get to the end of in one disc. He was very successful in his time but hardly hugely influential and if anything is too high on the list. I don't know why recent work is even relevant when both gentlemen peaked decades ago, not that Bruce's has been anything to write home about. Bowie released eleven studio albums between 1969 and 1979. Each was era defining, critically acclaimed and influential at the time and in the present day. His work since has been patchy, but that goes for Spingsteen's whole career. There is no comparison. You're just a stan.
|
|
slw84
7x Platinum Member
I only tolerate legends
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 7,896
|
Post by slw84 on Aug 25, 2010 19:02:04 GMT -5
That list is a joke. Justin Timberlake making the list makes it's null and void. Yeah, That Dude Timberlake, made the list. and not that i'm bashing this group at all, but does anybody find Rage Against The Machine's entry in this list very random? :o :o :o I love Rage. But they are below Tool on my all time list. This.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2010 19:27:44 GMT -5
The point is, Bowie's years of really mattering is really limited to a little over a decade. And there's a reason why Bruce is still selling out arenas night after night around the globe even today, as he has for decades. I disagree, but even if that were true, in that decade Bowie was more influential and acclaimed than Bruce has been through his whole career. Each of the 11 albums defined the era? Puh-leeze. I was there. Bowie was never the defining force the way Springsteen or Zeppelin were at different times in the 70s, or Bruce or Michael Jackson in the 80s, let alone defining for every one of his 11 albums in that period, certainly not in the US. Did I say he was commercially successful in the US? No I did not. That's the whole point though. Yes Springsteen was more successful in the States but that doesn't mean he was better. Bowie was more critically acclaimed and had much, much bigger influence. Having two big commercial eras hardly means he should be high up on a list like this. I always find name-calling a highly persuasive form of argumentation. Persuasive? What because you're going to persuade me or I'm going to persuade you? I doubt it. Fact is that you're stanning. If you don't like name-calling (it's not name-calling by the way) then don't do it. ;)
|
|
jumpb4uthink
7x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 7,325
|
Post by jumpb4uthink on Aug 25, 2010 20:06:00 GMT -5
Madonna will always be the #1 female artist of all time. she is now so suck it up...
|
|
as485y
Gold Member
Joined: November 2009
Posts: 670
|
Post by as485y on Aug 25, 2010 21:10:12 GMT -5
Its bc Beyyonce has the potential to be bigger than them all...and in a way she already passed Mary,Alicia,and Mariah Stop it, already. LOL She has not surpassed Mariah. The Alicia one I can except that Alicia's records are versatile, stand the test of time, and have some actual artistry with commercial appeal as well. Mary...um...I can see where you are going with that. I happen to rank those for as 1) Mariah 2) Beyonce 3) Mary 4) Alicia Minus the dancing/performing it seems where 1) lacks 3 and 4 make up for it and vice versa. IMO. I have all of their albums too :) I love Mariah like LOVE her but shes a joke in the industry unfortunatly.... its sad actually, theres a reason why she only has 6 Grammys. I love her music but her voice is the star here...and its gone. Beyonce is on her way to being the biggest female star since Madonna. Can you tell me one memorable Mariah performance? I am a huge fans and Id have think.
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,170
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Aug 25, 2010 21:14:02 GMT -5
^ WBT/FLAB at the 2006 Grammys. ;)
|
|
Gravity.
7x Platinum Member
Mischief Managed
Truth.
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 7,962
|
Post by Gravity. on Aug 25, 2010 21:31:27 GMT -5
Wow, did they just ignore country music? Even Johnny Cash is a tad too low for comfort. Crazy. Hank Williams, Loretta, or maybe even Reba or George Strait should've made the list.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,883
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Aug 25, 2010 21:36:16 GMT -5
The Grammys aren't the best measure of anything (as has been discussed much). When VH1 had that 100 Greatest Women list, one of the explanations given for Mimi' omission was that she's considered a lightweight (compared to some others). I think that's her downfall in regards to being viewed as one of the great artists. She's good at what she does, but just hasn't taken the steps to go beyond. But, she said that she wanted to make music that the fans will enjoy, and she's done that.
Dylan is a classic example of someone not having an out-of-this-world voice, who transcends that with his artistry. A great singer does not necessarily make a great artist, as we've seen enough times.
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on Aug 26, 2010 8:48:16 GMT -5
I don't know why recent work is even relevant when both gentlemen peaked decades ago, not that Bruce's has been anything to write home about. The point is, Bowie's years of really mattering is really limited to a little over a decade. And there's a reason why Bruce is still selling out arenas night after night around the globe even today, as he has for decades. Why does length of career matter? The Beatles were around for what, 7 years? What matters is output, quality, influence, etc...not years on the charts. Obviously, a lot of that comes down to opinion but I don't really see why Springsteen is ahead of Bowie. I also don't know why it'd matter how well Bruce's tours are doing now - are his new albums and tours really adding to his legacy?
|
|
|
Post by femalevocallover on Aug 26, 2010 12:41:59 GMT -5
The one thing this is making me realize is just how many acclaimed acts there are in the world. I don't really see a ton on the list that seem horribly out of place, but at the same time so many seem to be missing. Mostly there are just some that are not my personal taste on the list, but I don't know that you could ever make a list where anyone would love every single choice. I don't think there is anything wrong with Beyonce and Justin Timberlake being on that list, by the way. Both are artists who were in tremendously successful groups at young ages who then went on to very successful solo careers which received both critical and commercial acclaim. Britney has the commercial part down but not really the critical part -- and it hurts her that she is not considered a naturally great singer and does very little writing. Christina I think has simply not had a consistent enough career. I think her voice is widely regarded as great but her releases have been sporadic both in quantity and quality. Outstanding post and I didn't even agree with JT being on the list but I forgot about him being with NSYNC. That makes his inclusion more credible.
|
|
|
Post by femalevocallover on Aug 26, 2010 12:51:33 GMT -5
Stop it, already. LOL She has not surpassed Mariah. The Alicia one I can except that Alicia's records are versatile, stand the test of time, and have some actual artistry with commercial appeal as well. Mary...um...I can see where you are going with that. I happen to rank those for as 1) Mariah 2) Beyonce 3) Mary 4) Alicia Minus the dancing/performing it seems where 1) lacks 3 and 4 make up for it and vice versa. IMO. I have all of their albums too :) I love Mariah like LOVE her but shes a joke in the industry unfortunatly.... its sad actually, theres a reason why she only has 6 Grammys. I love her music but her voice is the star here...and its gone. Beyonce is on her way to being the biggest female star since Madonna. Can you tell me one memorable Mariah performance? I am a huge fans and Id have think. Nope, only 5 grammys but I get your point. It amazes me that people have a hard time dealing with Beyoncé even being on this list. The woman has 16 Grammys(the 3rd highest female of all time) including 3 Contemporary R&B Album Grammys(the genre that MJ birthed), not to mention having vocal grammy in R&B, Traditional R&B and Pop Vocals. She has redefined that genre with her music and performing, and she's influenced many artists in that genre. In fact, Billboard said that MC's EOM was influenced by Bey's DIL. Not to mention she has recorded many songs, counting as a part of DC, being part of the fabric of the industry and what we listen to especially in Pop Music. She has at least 3 songs as a solo artist(CIL, Irreplaceable and SL) that she will already be remembered by even by casual music fans. And she's beloved by her peers and even though who have come into the industry before her. How many artists can truly say that? It's one thing not to like her music but it is another thing not to see this.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Honestly, I've been around the music scene for decades and this is the first time I've ever encountered people who'd seriously argue with a straight face that Bowie was a bigger deal or greater artist than Bruce. Learn something new every day at Pulse. And I'd say the exact opposite. I honestly can't wrap my head around it. I'd say the fact that he remains the most vital force in live music after four decades of epic shows is significant. He's still making quality music (5 studio albums since 2002) and doing new things, like his Seeger Sessions album breathing fresh life into classic American folk songs or the release of multiple albums' worth of previously unreleased high-quality material, which he did with the 4-CD Tracks set in 1999 and is rumored to be looking at doing again. The #1 thing that's really added to his legacy in the past decade or so was The Rising album, which to date is really the only musical endeavor to successfully grapple with the aftermath of 9/11. It was a big canvas of a traumatic national event to paint on, and only Bruce was up to the task. Actually, based on Metacritic, Bowie's work since 2000 averages 73, while Springsteen's averages 78. It's hardly a world of difference. In fact, Bowie's highest score since 2000 is 86, while Springsteen's is 82.
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on Aug 26, 2010 13:41:46 GMT -5
I agree that it is impressive that Springsteen has remained a huge touring force but at the end of the day, when considering his legacy, I don't really care that he's still touring his hits from the 70s and 80s. Live performance matters but his legacy/mark on the industry is tied to his work in the aforementioned decades, like Bowie. If either of them were to release a craptastic album next year, I don't think anyone would change how they feel about him as an artist. Upcoming albums matter for the contemporary artists on the list, like Beyonce, Coldplay etc (while one could argue that Radiohead, Jay-Z, Eminem and Green Day have a pretty substantial catalogue).
I'd still rank the contemporaries as such: Radiohead, Eminem, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Kanye West, Green Day, OutKast, Coldplay, Justin Timberlake
|
|
as485y
Gold Member
Joined: November 2009
Posts: 670
|
Post by as485y on Aug 26, 2010 16:22:39 GMT -5
I love Mariah like LOVE her but shes a joke in the industry unfortunatly.... its sad actually, theres a reason why she only has 6 Grammys. I love her music but her voice is the star here...and its gone. Beyonce is on her way to being the biggest female star since Madonna. Can you tell me one memorable Mariah performance? I am a huge fans and Id have think. Nope, only 5 grammys but I get your point. It amazes me that people have a hard time dealing with Beyoncé even being on this list. The woman has 16 Grammys(the 3rd highest female of all time) including 3 Contemporary R&B Album Grammys(the genre that MJ birthed), not to mention having vocal grammy in R&B, Traditional R&B and Pop Vocals. She has redefined that genre with her music and performing, and she's influenced many artists in that genre. In fact, Billboard said that MC's EOM was influenced by Bey's DIL. Not to mention she has recorded many songs, counting as a part of DC, being part of the fabric of the industry and what we listen to especially in Pop Music. She has at least 3 songs as a solo artist(CIL, Irreplaceable and SL) that she will already be remembered by even by casual music fans. And she's beloved by her peers and even though who have come into the industry before her. How many artists can truly say that? It's one thing not to like her music but it is another thing not to see this. Exactly
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2010 8:08:25 GMT -5
31. John Lennon (16)
I have to say it's a little weird and somewhat sad to see John Lennon's placement on this list go down as time goes on. I guess it probably has a lot to do with the fact that he's been dead nearly 30 years now, and inevitably, his influence will continue to wane in the years to come. Still, sad.
36. Paul McCartney (62)
On the other hand, it's also interesting to see Paul McCartney's placement on this list has considerably gone up since the last one, although he is still behind John Lennon by a little bit. I guess between being Knighted, and having his more recent albums gain more favorable reviews, Paul has achieved a kind of new respectability which tended to elude him for the most part back in the 70's and 80's, back when he was having his greatest post-Beatles commercial success.
Very interesting and at times, eye opening list.
|
|
|
Post by femalevocallover on Aug 27, 2010 8:46:53 GMT -5
I agree that it is impressive that Springsteen has remained a huge touring force but at the end of the day, when considering his legacy, I don't really care that he's still touring his hits from the 70s and 80s. Live performance matters but his legacy/mark on the industry is tied to his work in the aforementioned decades, like Bowie. If either of them were to release a craptastic album next year, I don't think anyone would change how they feel about him as an artist. Upcoming albums matter for the contemporary artists on the list, like Beyonce, Coldplay etc (while one could argue that Radiohead, Jay-Z, Eminem and Green Day have a pretty substantial catalogue). I'd still rank the contemporaries as such: Radiohead, Eminem, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Kanye West, Green Day, OutKast, Coldplay, Justin Timberlake Well, if you count her work with DC, Bey's catalogue is not shallow(4 official albums with DC and 3 as a solo artist) also...and I think she's getting to the point where albums won't matter to her either. This next album, I believe will cement it, if there is any doubt. JMO. Though it is different for female artists usually than it is for male artists. And I would rate Bey over all over them(even over her husband who has more #1 albums than even Elvis) because her sound is the sound of the 00s and even a big part of the 90s(with DC, The Writings On the Wall, people don't realize how influential that album is to Contemporary R&B artists especially). Urban Music is a big part of Pop Music, especially in the decade of the '00s and Bey is a massive part of that. And I am not just saying that because I am a fan. I am saying it because it's true. Like I am a fan of Teena Marie but I wouldn't say this of her.
|
|
BlueSwan
Gold Member
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 663
|
Post by BlueSwan on Aug 27, 2010 9:46:10 GMT -5
Subjectively, I think Pet Shop Boys is the greatest band of all time, but I can sort of understand why they didn't make this list (people having bad taste and all...).
BUT, Abba at #81?? Abba is the biggest pop group of all time (if you count The Beatles as a rock group). By any objective measure Abba should be top 5 or at the very least top 10. Not only were they ridiculously succeful in their heyday, but their songs remain as popular as ever, contrary to most acts on this list.
I like Nirvana. Infact, I like Nirvana more than most other acts in the top 20. But please, Nirvana doesn't belong near the top of that list. Had Kurt Cobain not killed himself, Nirvana would today be regarded as curious one-hit-wonders (Smells Like Teen Spirit).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2010 10:10:26 GMT -5
I'm more surprised New Order aren't on the list than I am the Pet Shop Boys aren't.
About Nirvana. Their most obvious parallel is Pearl Jam. They had a similar sound and similar levels of success and they made the list too, albeit a lot lower than Nirvana. However, Nirvana were the ones who really broke the grunge sound and almost single-handedly ended hard rock's place as the Alternative genre of choice. Nirvana were also more successful worldwide. Because of that alone they'd be guaranteed a higher position than Pearl Jam's #93 and certainly wouldn't be regarded as "curious one-hit-wonders".
However, the fact is Kurt Cobain did kill himself and that probably did help propel him to an iconic status. The Beatles wouldn't have reached the same audience and been as influential had they not performed on the Ed Sullivan show. But they did. You could go through the whole list and say "so and so wouldn't be there if this hadn't happened".
This whole board seems to have the mentality that rock stars die solely to keep their favourite divas from being higher up on various lists. Who's to say that Nirvana wouldn't have been even more successful had Kurt lived? Who's to say that before he died their influence wasn't spread as far as it should have been and his death was instrumental in inspiring a whole generation in a way that it unfortunately wouldn't have been had he lived?
The point is that, yes, if you feel that Nirvana are so high on that list because Kurt Cobain is dead that's fine, but that doesn't mean it's not an accurate representation of their status, regardless of how they achieved it.
|
|
Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...
Diamond Member
All Lives Can’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 18,332
|
Post by Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... on Aug 27, 2010 10:36:12 GMT -5
I like Nirvana. Infact, I like Nirvana more than most other acts in the top 20. But please, Nirvana doesn't belong near the top of that list. Had Kurt Cobain not killed himself, Nirvana would today be regarded as curious one-hit-wonders (Smells Like Teen Spirit). Amen!
|
|
Sir Benji
Diamond Member
The One
Joined: April 2008
Posts: 13,352
|
Post by Sir Benji on Aug 27, 2010 11:07:55 GMT -5
I can't this list no way in hell does Beyonce or Jay-z need to be above the likes of Little Richard, Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Tupac, Biggie, or even OutKast (in Beyonce's case) VH1 has just lost what little credibility they had with me
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2010 11:09:53 GMT -5
VH1 didn't actually come up with the list.
|
|