Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2010 11:20:09 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. The Ed Sullivan appearance cemented the Beatles' status as the country's newest pop sensation so to speak, but it didn't make them in America, because they already had the #1 song in the country "I Want to Hold Your Hand," and a fast rising album on the charts before they ever set one foot on American soil.
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on Aug 27, 2010 11:21:15 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. *Bows down* Outstanding post. I've recently come around to understand Nirvana's impact and yes, I do think they deserve their #14 rank. I don't really get why Coldplay is so high. They are certainly the rock band of the 00s but what did they do so special besides transition from Radiohead wannabes to U2 wannabes. I like a lot of Coldplay's music, they've written some great songs. I just don't think they've offered much we didn't have already. Also puzzled at A. Keys - she's very good...but IMO, not deserving of a spot on this list. I think Kanye has earned a spot and I stand by my conspiracy theory that voting for this list took place late '09/early '10 when his backlash was in full effect. And while I'm ok with Jay-Z and Beyonce's placement, that time frame would further explain their high ranking. Just a theory.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2010 11:21:59 GMT -5
The Ed Sullivan appearance cemented the Beatles' status as the country's newest pop sensation so to speak, but it didn't make them in America, because they already had the #1 song in the country "I Want to Hold Your Hand," and a fast rising album on the charts before they ever set one foot on American soil. And Nirvana had already had two #1 albums when Kurt died.
|
|
Sir Benji
Diamond Member
The One
Joined: April 2008
Posts: 13,352
|
Post by Sir Benji on Aug 27, 2010 11:39:03 GMT -5
VH1 didn't actually come up with the list. oh well that makes much more sense but the list is still somewhat shocking (and appalling) and it's still probably gonna make them look worse than they already do
|
|
as485y
Gold Member
Joined: November 2009
Posts: 670
|
Post by as485y on Aug 27, 2010 12:08:58 GMT -5
WHO made the list? voted on by industry?
|
|
like2throw
New Member
Joined: March 2010
Posts: 451
|
Post by like2throw on Aug 27, 2010 13:03:20 GMT -5
Up until 1994 Pearl Jam was the biggest band in the world. Had Vedder died instead of Cobain Pearl Jam today would be in the top 20 alltime instead of Nirvana
I wish the Smashing Pumpkins made the list, but their peak was way too short (two albums) so I understand.
|
|
|
Post by divalasvegas82 on Aug 28, 2010 5:05:37 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. The Grammys may be looked down by some, and I agree that they aren't always the best indicator of talent or importance, but it is an award that is forever attached to a singer's name just like an Academy Award. When a singer dies or is mentioned in an article, if he or she won a Grammy, that would likely get more mention than if he or she made a critics list, which are subject to change. Some acts who are now considered great weren't when they first arrived on the musical scene, and there are some acts who were considered great for a certain time but not so much nowadays. A perfect example is The Knack. Many people today would find it laughable that critics were calling them the next Beatles in 1979. I think critics lists are vital for consumers looking to purchase music beyond what the radio plays, but I don't think those lists are the be all and end all of great music. At the end of the day, the quality of music is subjective.
|
|
|
Post by divalasvegas82 on Aug 28, 2010 5:12:12 GMT -5
No Janet Jackson??? I didnt expect her to be any higher than 50, but she definitely deserved to be on the "...all time" list more than some others (i.e Justin Timberlake). I know she's fallen off since 2004, but come on. What's so astonishining to me is that after 2004, JT became an even bigger star, while Janet has been largely irrelevant this past decade. I do agree that she deserves to be on the list, even if she hasn't had a great album out in awhile.
|
|
worldwide
2x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 2,145
|
Post by worldwide on Aug 28, 2010 18:03:47 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 Yeah, right. She might have the potential but she can't touch MC.
|
|
BlueSwan
Gold Member
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 663
|
Post by BlueSwan on Aug 29, 2010 1:42:05 GMT -5
Up until 1994 Pearl Jam was the biggest band in the world. Had Vedder died instead of Cobain Pearl Jam today would be in the top 20 alltime instead of Nirvana. In the US, yes. In the world, no. Pearl Jam were big, but not megastars outside of the US. Otherwise, I totally agree with you. I was a bit of a Nirvana fan back then and the thing people forget is that by the time Kurt Cobain killed himself, Nirvana were heading for the dumper. In Utero was nowhere near as succesful as Nevermind and people were growing tired of their sound. Aside from "Heart Shaped Box", the singles off In Utero weren't succesful. The world was moving on from this sound.
|
|
|
Post by kt1990 on Aug 29, 2010 8:33:21 GMT -5
Regina Spektor's getting interviewed as well, which makes me quite happy indeed. +1. I'll be watching just for her.
|
|
seanblain
2x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2005
Posts: 2,045
|
Post by seanblain on Aug 29, 2010 9:51:02 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 :) Mariah was the architect of the current urban/pop genre of music today. Starting in 1995 she had a string of hit records that crushed the record books and redefined the remix.
|
|
midan1
New Member
Joined: March 2007
Posts: 47
|
Post by midan1 on Aug 29, 2010 14:40:47 GMT -5
The list is a joke.
Mariah Carey should be Top 10.
Also Shakira should have made the list.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2010 14:42:12 GMT -5
The list is a joke. Mariah Carey should be Top 10. Also Shakira should have made the list. And who would you kick out of the Top 10 in order to put Mariah in there?
|
|
|
Post by Positive Tension on Aug 29, 2010 16:07:25 GMT -5
Depeche Mode and Janis Joplin, among other great acts/bands, being lower than Timberlake and Beyonce, is all kinds of wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Push The Button on Aug 29, 2010 19:02:50 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. You can't be serious. I can't name one Beyonce performance, anywhere. All I hear about her is how she steals writing credits.
|
|
as485y
Gold Member
Joined: November 2009
Posts: 670
|
Post by as485y on Aug 29, 2010 19:13:31 GMT -5
^ LOL and shes more respected and more awarded than Mariah so keep hating.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2010 20:49:20 GMT -5
^ LOL and shes more respected and more awarded than Mariah so keep hating. Yep! Beyonce is loved and respected people shouldn't be surprised. Just because the people behind their computer screens don't like it, it's true. I do wish Mariah was ranked alittle bit higher but I understand why in a way.
|
|
cartman2002
5x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 5,727
|
Post by cartman2002 on Aug 29, 2010 21:40:19 GMT -5
I think Eric Clapton and the Eagles arent on the list because their record companies wouldn't let them permission to air their songs on the special.
|
|
|
Post by Push The Button on Aug 30, 2010 19:37:33 GMT -5
^ LOL and shes more respected and more awarded than Mariah so keep hating. Ok? I still can't name one Beyonce performance. I'm not denying she has pull in the industry. How else can you steal writing credits and still get Grammy's?
|
|
Choco
Diamond Member
lavender haze
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,082
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Aug 30, 2010 22:54:41 GMT -5
^ LOL and shes more respected and more awarded than Mariah so keep hating. Ok? I still can't name one Beyonce performance. I'm not denying she has pull in the industry. How else can you steal writing credits and still get Grammy's? It's not our fault that you have been living under a stone. She was everywhere last year when Single Ladies was about to smash, performing it... then she did it again for the VMAs, and then she did 'If I Were a Boy/You Oughta Know" at the Grammy's earlier this year.
|
|
as485y
Gold Member
Joined: November 2009
Posts: 670
|
Post by as485y on Aug 31, 2010 10:18:46 GMT -5
^ right! Single Ladies on SNL was EPIIIIC
|
|
|
Post by Push The Button on Aug 31, 2010 14:29:31 GMT -5
Ok? I still can't name one Beyonce performance. I'm not denying she has pull in the industry. How else can you steal writing credits and still get Grammy's? It's not our fault that you have been living under a stone. She was everywhere last year when Single Ladies was about to smash, performing it... then she did it again for the VMAs, and then she did 'If I Were a Boy/You Oughta Know" at the Grammy's earlier this year. I obsess over Pop culture. Every time I saw Beyonce, she was doing the same choreography in every performance. She does the same thing so they all run together. I'm apparently not the only one that thinks so, since she's not exactly a big touring artist. But, this is not the Beyonce thread.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,883
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Sept 1, 2010 0:08:22 GMT -5
Adonis, I get your points RE the Grammys- but, it's still the lkeast successful in awarding what's perceived as great quality work- if that's even its intention (which it may not be- it's not "Best Album of the Year," after all)- than awards like the Osacars. Plus, another factor against it is the huge number of categories.
If one looks at past similar lists- VH1's 1998 list, Rolling Stone's Liufe's 100 Rock & Rollers of All Time, etc. they will see who the acs are who usually fare well on these kinds of things. And, ofcourse, for albums and songs lists, the acclaimedmusic site is a great resource.
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,170
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Sept 1, 2010 6:59:33 GMT -5
Every time I saw Beyonce, she was doing the same choreography in every performance. She does the same thing so they all run together. I'm apparently not the only one that thinks so, since she's not exactly a big touring artist. Why should she change the choreography of 'Single Ladies' when it's so iconic? That would be stupid. And also, Beyoncé isn't a big touring artist? Please! She just grossed $100 million with her last tour and has been selling out huge arenas since her solo debut. You've got to be kidding.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2010 16:01:34 GMT -5
:kii:
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Sept 5, 2010 23:17:12 GMT -5
Regina Spektor's getting interviewed as well, which makes me quite happy indeed. +1. I'll be watching just for her. Do you wanna be, like, best friends or whatever?
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,074
|
Post by Dammn Baby on Sept 7, 2010 21:55:11 GMT -5
Timberlake and Beyonce certainly do not belong on here. Justin is on here but Frank Sinatra isn't? Beyonce but not Janet Jackson?
Mary J. Blige is represented but no Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, Gladys Knight or even Anita Baker?
Did a bunch of 10-year-olds compile this?
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,074
|
Post by Dammn Baby on Sept 7, 2010 21:57:44 GMT -5
I hate these kinds of lists. Who decides? Is there a vote? And how in the hell is Mariah lower than, of all people, George Michael? I can certainly understand that one. His catalogue has a lot more critical respect than Mariah's.
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,074
|
Post by Dammn Baby on Sept 7, 2010 21:59:53 GMT -5
No Janet Jackson??? I didnt expect her to be any higher than 50, but she definitely deserved to be on the "...all time" list more than some others (i.e Justin Timberlake). I know she's fallen off since 2004, but come on. What's so astonishining to me is that after 2004, JT became an even bigger star, while Janet has been largely irrelevant this past decade. I do agree that she deserves to be on the list, even if she hasn't had a great album out in awhile. Not really all that astonishing. Justin was basically just beginning his solo career at the time, and Janet had already been at the top of her game for over 15 years and was nearing 40.
|
|