VH1 s**ts on The Beach Boys

[Bill Ed]

I find it pretty amusing that so many people believe that the set of pop performers can be linearly ordered in any meaningful way. To say that the Beach Boys are #15 in the some ordering is meaningless. That said, there probably is some positive correlation between a high ranking in lists of this sort and the ability to induce a herd mentality in youngsters.

[Ron]

So, really, the list should better communicate that it's a list of most popular performers, -- where no one would deny that The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, and so on undeniably have a hold on -- and not necessarily ones chosen based solely on artistic merit, where I think it could be plausibly argued these folks seem to lack. Of course, that is what VH1 and Rolling Stone do, so to complain about them doing the former and not the latter is to miss the point: it's the former they're concerned about.

It's all subjective of course.  In my opinion though, the Beatles, Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley are without a doubt some of the best, judged on artistic merit, of all time.  It's not always mutually exclusive to have popular artists, and then your talented artists.  Do you really feel Elvis Presley lacked artistic merit?  I've seen people argue Michael Jackson was talentless (which I find laughable) but I'm not sure I've met many people who don't appreciate Elvis as talented.

To each his own I suppose! 

[Awesoman]

So, really, the list should better communicate that it's a list of most popular performers, -- where no one would deny that The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, and so on undeniably have a hold on -- and not necessarily ones chosen based solely on artistic merit, where I think it could be plausibly argued these folks seem to lack. Of course, that is what VH1 and Rolling Stone do, so to complain about them doing the former and not the latter is to miss the point: it's the former they're concerned about.

Ron has already pointed this out, but I have to ask, how do the above-mentioned performers *not* have artistic merit?  Elvis Presley was a founding father of rock & roll!  That's got to count for something!

[The Heartical Don]

i love me some Oasis. 

So you're a soccer hooligan then? Which club? And what brand of tramp juice do you steal in Asda?

[Jason]

So, really, the list should better communicate that it's a list of most popular performers, -- where no one would deny that The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, and so on undeniably have a hold on -- and not necessarily ones chosen based solely on artistic merit, where I think it could be plausibly argued these folks seem to lack.

This statement just proves the accusations of people who say that Beach Boys diehards listen to nothing else but the Beach Boys. I mean, sure, it's "cool" to rag on the Beatles, like it's "cool" to rag on Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Moody Blues, and the Doors. Michael? Sure, he's been a punchline for the better part of fifteen years. Same can be said about Elvis, although he was a punchline as far back as 1965. Your "plausible arguments" seem to be inherently rooted in the myths around those performers and not their artistic merits, of which all three, not to mention every artist in that top 20, have in spades whether you or anyone else here want to admit it or not.

I don't mean to come off like a jerk (I'm known for having the subtlety and grace of a locomotive), but this has to be said.

[Mahalo]

So, really, the list should better communicate that it's a list of most popular performers, -- where no one would deny that The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, and so on undeniably have a hold on -- and not necessarily ones chosen based solely on artistic merit, where I think it could be plausibly argued these folks seem to lack.

This statement just proves the accusations of people who say that Beach Boys diehards listen to nothing else but the Beach Boys. I mean, sure, it's "cool" to rag on the Beatles, like it's "cool" to rag on Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Moody Blues, and the Doors. Michael? Sure, he's been a punchline for the better part of fifteen years. Same can be said about Elvis, although he was a punchline as far back as 1965. Your "plausible arguments" seem to be inherently rooted in the myths around those performers and not their artistic merits, of which all three, not to mention every artist in that top 20, have in spades whether you or anyone else here want to admit it or not.

I don't mean to come off like a jerk (I'm known for having the subtlety and grace of a locomotive), but this has to be said.

Agreeing with everything you say, I believe that the BB's are much worthier than 15, and perhaps should be #1 based on artistic merits...not perhaps, but definitely. Not to put down the other artists, but I truly feel that the BB's painted with a more powerful, playful, and original stroke than everyone else, whether or not the public agrees or not.... artistically speaking, not sales or popularity. Love and Mercy.

Besides, they kicked ASS on tours throughout the years thanx to Mike and Carl, playing to sold out shows year after year while under the image of a bunch of squares. Hell, they would out- perform any rock group IMO, without all the lights and effects, just pure musical beauty and innocence...Objectiveness is foreign to many BB fans, but I try to be as objective as possible...I'm sure that I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[The Heartical Don]

So, really, the list should better communicate that it's a list of most popular performers, -- where no one would deny that The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, and so on undeniably have a hold on -- and not necessarily ones chosen based solely on artistic merit, where I think it could be plausibly argued these folks seem to lack.

This statement just proves the accusations of people who say that Beach Boys diehards listen to nothing else but the Beach Boys. I mean, sure, it's "cool" to rag on the Beatles, like it's "cool" to rag on Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Moody Blues, and the Doors. Michael? Sure, he's been a punchline for the better part of fifteen years. Same can be said about Elvis, although he was a punchline as far back as 1965. Your "plausible arguments" seem to be inherently rooted in the myths around those performers and not their artistic merits, of which all three, not to mention every artist in that top 20, have in spades whether you or anyone else here want to admit it or not.

I don't mean to come off like a jerk (I'm known for having the subtlety and grace of a locomotive), but this has to be said.

Agreeing with everything you say, I believe that the BB's are much worthier than 15, and perhaps should be #1 based on artistic merits...not perhaps, but definitely. Not to put down the other artists, but I truly feel that the BB's painted with a more powerful, playful, and original stroke than everyone else, whether or not the public agrees or not.... artistically speaking, not sales or popularity. Love and Mercy.

Besides, they kicked ASS on tours throughout the years thanx to Mike and Carl, playing to sold out shows year after year while under the image of a bunch of squares. Hell, they would out- perform any rock group IMO, without all the lights and effects, just pure musical beauty and innocence...Objectiveness is foreign to many BB fans, but I try to be as objective as possible...I'm sure that I really don't know what I'm talking about.

Disclaimer: the above comment by noname was in no way inspired by Michael Love's Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Induction Speech.

[A Million Units In Jan!]

Again I was just pointing out pretty much the only reason Nirvana are not just considered a footnote in early '90s music today. If you seriously read my post and interpreted it that I actually think Mike Love should shoot himself to shift a few more records than I suggest you have a break from your computer and have a nice liedown...........

Where did I say I interpreted that 'Mike should shoot himself to shift a few more records'? I never said that. I said the bit about Mike and the shotgun was stupid. Because it was a stupid comparison, even jokingly.

[Autotune]

well, the word "artist" can be used loosely of course. But shouldn't Mozart, Michelangelo or Shakespeare top a list with such name?

[The Heartical Don]

well, the word "artist" can be used loosely of course. But shouldn't Mozart, Michelangelo or Shakespeare top a list with such name?

Well, Mozart was done in at age 37 by one Charlie Manson. And Shakespeare was only a minor scribe, said mr Manson dictated him those classics ascribed to him. About Michelangelo, I am not so sure. Perhaps the guys from Wishbone Ash painted his stuff.

[lance]

Personally, I'm not bent out of shape by a) a VH1 list.
                                                                b) 15.

That's pretty good, if you ask me, think of all the great bands etc. that didn't even make their top twenty. AS for me, I think as far as impact goes, I'd put them at about the same.

[The Heartical Don]

Personally, I'm not bent out of shape by a) a VH1 list.
                                                                b) 15.

That's pretty good, if you ask me, think of all the great bands etc. that didn't even make their top twenty. AS for me, I think as far as impact goes, I'd put them at about the same.

Which is an eminently sane perspective.

[LostArt]

Never forget that it was the Stones who took little known black American blues records and made the music acceptbale (to white American audiences) and wildly popular.

I thought it was Pat Boone who did that.    

[Ron]

I saw the Stones once in concert, in 1998 or so.  It was absolutely the best concert I've ever been to, and i'm not a huge Stones fan.  They put on one hell of a show. 

[Menace Wilson]

Creed "rewrote the rules" for pretentious, self-important "Christian" hard rock bands.  Were one of the best selling acts of the last couple decades.  Wonder why they aren't on the list? 

[Runaways]

i love me some Oasis. 

So you're a soccer hooligan then? Which club? And what brand of tramp juice do you steal in Asda?

i'm a pre-med student in texas.  SORRRRRYYYYY

[Awesoman]

...I'm sure that I really don't know what I'm talking about.

Well I'm with you on this part... 

[Ron]

Creed "rewrote the rules" for pretentious, self-important "Christian" hard rock bands.  Were one of the best selling acts of the last couple decades.  Wonder why they aren't on the list? 

Yeah, I agree with you on that.  I like Oasis and Nirvana, Creed is a whole different story.  I can't stand Christian Rock, and I'm a Christian I suppose.  It's just god awful, no pun intended.  Gospel music is good, Christian rock is evil.  It may actually be the source of evil in the world, period.  Maybe if there was no Christian rock, everybody would get along. 

[JaredLekites]

These lists mean nothing.

[Alex]

Why the hell wasn't Neutral Milk Hotel on the list? These damn VH1 people, they really need to get on the ball!!

[Mike's Beard]

Granted on a top 20 list you can't have everyone but I do feel there are some artists who should have been included over some who where. Neil Young anyone? Hendrix? Chuck Berry, the guy who virtually invented rock n'roll? As much as I like Prince's 80's stuff can he really be considered a more influential artist than these guys mentioned above? As much as the BB's are my favourite band I would not jockey that they should be in the top 5 on that list, their impact on the music world just wasn't THAT huge in the grand scheme of things. I'd still say they should be ahead of Nirvana, U2 and that sad old hag Madonna.

[The Heartical Don]

I so miss the Shaggs in the list.

[Awesoman]

Granted on a top 20 list you can't have everyone but I do feel there are some artists who should have been included over some who where. Neil Young anyone? Hendrix? Chuck Berry, the guy who virtually invented rock n'roll? As much as I like Prince's 80's stuff can he really be considered a more influential artist than these guys mentioned above? As much as the BB's are my favourite band I would not jockey that they should be in the top 5 on that list, their impact on the music world just wasn't THAT huge in the grand scheme of things. I'd still say they should be ahead of Nirvana, U2 and that sad old hag Madonna.

Odder still, don't they make a "Top 100" list like every other year?  Haven't they done this list before?  Why do another one?

[Surfing Moose]

These lists are always fun because everyone is annoyed, either their beloved artist is missing or an artist is in the list which is very doubtful to be in it (Hello Prince and Madonna, I mean you!)

As a Beach Boys Fan I think it sucks that they are not in the Top 5, where they belong. Nothing less!
But with common sense I think #15 is a good result, isn't it?

Still desperately seeking Wishbone Ash... Where are they? Can't find them and that must be a mistake from those VH1 guys.

[runnersdialzero]

Oasis and Nirvana are great bands. Sad that so many here are too cool for them or wouldn't give them a chance outside of hearing two of their singles.

On that note, f*** the Beach Boys - "Fun Fun Fun" and "Kokomo" are absolute trash.