The Smiley Smile Message Board

Excuse my language but the 15th greatest artists of all time.


You have to be kidding me

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2010/08/exclusive-vh1-names-the-100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-see-the-top-20/1 (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2010/08/exclusive-vh1-names-the-100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-see-the-top-20/1)

What are you complaining about? They beat Madonna, isn't that enough?

99% of the world poops on the Beach Boys, and I say foda them. When it comes down to it great art cannot be ignored or overshadowed by fads, media, or other, lesser artists.

But, but ,but, but they're behind Nirvana?  WTF?  Maybe if Mike had blasted himself in the head with a shotgun after "Little Deuce Coupe" they be up a couple of places higher? At least they beat soddin' U2!

...... and if The Beatles get voted No1 (which they will) , please feel free to join me in a collective groan across cyberspace.   ::)

Part of me is irritated at their placement, the other part of me says 'Hey, at least they got recognized!'

Eh, besides a few good hits, I don't see how Michael Jackson or the Rolling Stones are in the top 5. And NIRVANA!?! Come on VH1! They had two decent hits.....and it was nothing too groundbreaking.

I agree with the Beatles, Led Zep, and definitely Bob Dylan, but jeesh, how the foder did Michael Jackson get on that list!? I mean, granted, grabbing your crotch and moonwalking at the same time during a concert is an amazing feat, but does that really warrant a place on the top 100 artists list?

Matching Quiz

A.      Prancing              1.  U2

B.       Pretentious         2.  Nirvana

C.       Postmortem         3.  Bob Marley

D.       Pot Head              4. Prince

Personally, I am on a mission to spread the Gospel of Brian to all my friends, co-workers, and family. However because of Beatle brainwashing, the un-friendly club music qualities of the Beach Boys, and who knows whatever stereotypes that exist of The Beach Boys, this is an uphill battle. However, I HAVE seen results... because the music does not lie.

Wow...I know the BB should have been rated higher, and I know you guys are upset over it, but those were two of the most musically ignorant posts I have read in a while.

I'm more worried about what isn't in the top 20. Os Mutantes, The Moody Blues, Galaxie 500, Love, Stereolab, Lady Gaga....so many great artists left out!

...but these AOR-orientend lists are notorious for their lethality. If you listen all the way through the top-10, you'll die of boredom.

Arnaldo says :     You are so right global one!

Well, in my opinion, the Stones, Led Zeppelin, and Nirvana have no business in the top 20, but that's me. I'd like all of our over-caffeinated fans on this board to remember that this VH1 list is just ONE opinion.

And besides, I thought the 100 Greatest Albums in Rock 'n Roll list was simultaneously better and worse than this list. For one, Pet Sounds was #3, beating every other Beatles album on the list to that point. Nevermind was #2. Revolver was #1. I can dig Revolver as #1 since it is a poll that no doubt had the grubby mitts of Rolling Stone involved in its selection, but Nevermind at #2? THAT is batshit crazy.

It's not that bad a ranking, usually in a lot of these lists the BBs are missed out altogether.

IMHO Nirvana is perhaps the most overrated band of the past 20 years. Only Oasis qualifies also for such a title.

Ok, my personal taste got in the way....I recognize MJ's contribution to the pop world. Based on the charts I can see how he is in the top 100 (and sadly the top 5). I don't care for songs like 'Beat It' or 'Thriller' nor do I care for most the music that was inspired by it....it's just not my taste.

One of the worst bands of all time...

At least they're ahead of Wishbone Ash...

I hear that, how that shower of Mancunian primates ever sold one record is beyond me. Liam Gallagher has got to be THE worst frontman of all time and possibly worst singer of all time into the bargain. I'm surrounded by morons where I work who constantly refer to them as the best band ever, unbelievable.

Hey!! Don't be dissing Oasis...or at least not What's The Story Morning Glory? You can crap the rest of their catalog all you want!! :lol :lol

Now everybody, sing along now! "Sheee's electric. She's in a fam-a-lee full of eccentrics..."

I'll take Led Zeppelin over Oasis anyday..... ;)

You may think Oasis was bad, but where were you when we were getting high? Have you ever listened to Oasis during a champagne supernova?

I couldn't agree more, on both fronts.  Nirvana had two gigantic hits.  One was a ripoff of Killing Joke, and the other was heavily influenced by The Pixies (a far superior band).  Never understood why they got so friggin huge.  Still don't.  

As for Oasis, they weren't fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Blur (imo).  

Nirvana, like the Beatles, were the right band at the right time.

Tomato tomotto ;D

At least they turned people on to The Vaselines.

I like Oasis and Nirvana, neither belong in the top 15 though. 

I'd probably do more like

1. Frank Sinatra
2. The Beatles
3. Elvis Pressley
4. Michael Jackson
5. The Beach Boys

if I was going to do a list. My favorites are the Beach Boys, but as far as influence, talent, star power, exitement level, popularity, etc. I'd say that list is about right.  Sinatra at the top for many, many reasons.  I'm not a huge fan but his complete dominance of everything he ever attempted puts him at the top in my opinion.  He did it his way, musically, for like 60 years.  That shits on everybody.  Michael Jackson is so high because of his incredible talent but also because of his longevity.  I believe actually he and the Beach Boys share a similar statistic, Michael had a #1 hit when he was about 12 or so with "Ben", then had a #1 hit in his 40's, 30 years or so later.  The Beach Boys had a #1 hit with I Get Around in 64 or 65, then again with Kokomo in the late 80's, that's pretty rare to have #1 hits 20 years apart.  I think Sinatra may have done the same, though.  I don't know if "Free as a Bird" pulled it off.  Elvis probably did it as well.  Michael though has got to have the record, anybody else with more years of #1's? 

No way, that list needs an influx of newer talent. If you're going to put Presley on there, might as well add Madonna, too.

Right on! I felt the same way when I read it. Especially the bit about Mike blowing himself away with a shotgun.
It's funny how upset people get over this kind of stuff. It's just somebody's opinion, it isn't like VH1 is the be-all end-all. Get a grip, people. Cripes.

Madonna isn't on any of those 5's level, imho.  I looked up the Statistic on Michael too, Ben was #1 in 1972, "You are not alone" was #1 in 1995.  So that's only 23 years.  Kokomo may have beat that stretch. 

I like how the list doesn't seem to include Chuck Berry at all...

@Ron

That list looks just about right, to me. I might switch Elvis with the Beatles, but definitely those 5 make my list.

Which band in my post are you responding to? The one that is still only remembered today because the singer shot himself, or the one that is kept in the papers because of it's frontman's "selfless contributions towards raising poverty awareness".   ;)



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...........

The Beach Boys aren't the greatest artists of all time.  There are artists that are more accomplished than them (such as the Beatles, the Stones, Dylan, etc.).  To come in at 15 is pretty darn good.

Clearly rock & roll is not your thing.    8)

May this reference never grow tired.  ;D

Dylan? Composer, yes, artist, no. The guy could never sing a lick in my opinion. My dog howls prettier than he sings. From what I'm seeing here so far, is that performers who sing melodic songs tend to make the list. Songs with great melodies and the performers who sing them tend to be be remembered better. The songs and the sounds and the performances become etched in our memories.

No, Nirvana would not be a footnote if Cobain hadn't have died. I know most people on this board have a prejudice against anything recorded past the late 70s (if not earlier) but that is ridiculous.

Why is it that these lists get everyone so up tight? Its just a opinion. Right now the Stones, Beatles, Dylan boards are probably going right-on while the Pink Floyd, U2 ones are bitching how they were beat by the Beach Boys. Who gives a sh*t? :p

Made the list as No2 U.S band. Not shabby IMO.

Goddam filter. If I want to say merda, I'll say merda! If I want to say sh*t, I will.

It's not that complicated folks.  It's not a question of whether or not you *like* the artist, it is a matter of what they have accomplished.  The Beatles are among the most accomplished in modern music.  Their influence and impact on pop culture is incalculable.  Same goes for Dylan, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Marvin Gaye, etc.  Michael Jackson took the world by storm in the 80's with Thriller, and with the exception of *maybe* Elvis Presley, name me a single solo artist that achieved the world-wide fame he did.  I can't think of any other album where 7 of 9 tracks hit the top 10 charts.  That's nothing to scoff at.  Nirvana is up there because they completely changed the rules with Nevermind and jump-started alternative rock with that album.  

Sure, the Beach Boys are probably one of my favorite groups but I am not blindly devoted to them.  No one can deny the influence they have had in music and while I agree that they don't always get the credit they deserve, they are still not *the* best.  The group's career overall has been spotty; especially post-Pet Sounds.  But they're perhaps the most successful American band of all time, and making it to #15 is pretty good.

To flip this around, I'm a big fan of the group Chicago; love their early horn-infused albums.  They don't get the credit they deserve but I would hardly pair them with the bands listed in VH1's top 20. 

But it isn't about singing.  It's about the artist's overall impact on pop culture.

I first saw Oasis and Blur on the same late night TV programme circa 1993. I said to myself then, "Blur have more talent but Oasis will be more popular". I've never thought much Oasis....they are perhaps better than mediocre but much of their output is deravitave and not especially clever or entertaining.

To be honest I don't have many issues with VH1's list, however. Michael Jackson was very talented, not really my kind of music but I actually own and enjoy Thriller and Bad to some extent. He was a talented writer and one of the all time great performers/entertainers. For that he should be recognised.....though his songs themselves are rarely musically challanging that's not the point. Neither were Marvin Gaye's but he was a great.

Now....the stones....I really see what people are saying here. I've always preferred the Beatles over the Stones but I have many friends who would go the other way. At their very best the Stones were said to have the best live shows on the planet, and certainly they have continued to put out records better than Oasis' efforts for over 40 years - something even the Beach Boys haven't done. They also consistently still sell out huge tours, even after most people would have retired. The Stones have staying power and, though I haven't tried, I bet I could pick at least two songs from each and every one of their albums that I like. 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. Their influence may be greater than you realise.

If Cobain were still alive today than Nirvana would be held in esteem no more really than Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Temple Pilots and Smashing Pumpkins etc.. (All bands that I liked growing up) Granted "Nevermind" would still very much be regarded as an iconic record from that era but it was only once Curt offed himself that suddenly everyone and his gran decided they were a Nirvana fan.

I notice you're not disputing my Bono comment.  ;D

This is just one list. Make your own top 100 list to twiddle your knob/ring your doorbell to if you so wish.

The overall opinion dictates that the bands in the top 20 on this list are pretty much unshakable in the public's mind. Trying to argue the merits of the bands in that top 20, regardless of whether you like their music or not, is a futile endeavor.

i love me some Oasis. 

Nope...some of us were fans before Nevermind came out.

Bono annoys the hell out of me, and he's lost a lot of range in his voice, but U2 is in the HOF for a reason.  Not my favorite band by a long shot, but I'm not going to pretend  that there's no artistic merit or that they haven't had an overall impressive body of work.

Oddly enough, aside from Pearl Jam, the other bands were negatively compared to Nirvana back then, and that has only increased with the passing of time. Kind of upsets me to see STP listed above as they are my favorite non-BB group, but not going to pretend they are/were anything groundbreaking, just really good music.  


Exactly. It's about impact.  But logic doesn't work with some people. I guaran-damn-tee someone read one of my posts and just shrugged it off with "typical  kid".

That's why I said as a composer, yes.

Yeah, my older brother was big on them when Bleach was first knocking around, so I know they're out there.

Being as it's a VH1 poll I'm amazed there's no mention of The Eagles or Fleetwood Mac.  This is not the griping of some internet fanboy whose favourite group was missed out here- these are two of the biggest selling rock acts of the last 30 years. Infact between them don't they hold the #1 & #2 spot for biggest selling rock albums ever?

I think Rolling Stone got it pretty much right a few years ago. They put the Boys at #12 and the list was pretty solid.

Preach it brother.  And I was wondering; what the time is that is on your watch?

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.

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.

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! 

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I thought it was Pat Boone who did that. :-\   :lol

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. 

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?  >:D

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

Well I'm with you on this part...  :ohyeah

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. 

These lists mean nothing.

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

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.

I so miss the Shaggs in the list.

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?

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.

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.

I can't speak for those in other countries, but as an Englishman I can tell you that in their home country back in the mid 90's Oasis fever was EVERYWHERE and it was excruciating!! You could not go anywhere without hearing their music. If Liam took a dump the tabloids saw fit to run a frontpage article on it and people up and down the country where copying the Gallagher haircut and spouting the phase "mad for it". Thankfully it subsided when Be Here Now was released to criticism (oddly enough the only Oasis record I quite like some stuff from). Without a doubt the most overrated band of all time.

I don't think 'too cool' has anything to do with it. I like Nirvana and learnt to play guitar listening to them, cant say I listen to them much now but have nothing against them.
However, as far as Oasis goes I heard all their albums as my friends were into them, I just thought they were bloody awful at a time when pop music was getting exciting and interesting again what with Blur, Suede, Pulp etc getting into the mainstream and the charts. It seems that as soon as Oasis turned up it was like dumbing it all down again, and the bands that came in their wake were monstrous.
Part of their unappeal also came from the utter tosh that dribbled out of the Gallagher brothers - for a band so obviously influenced by the Beatles, they didn't show anything near the level of melodicity, interesting chord changes, wit, or variety of styles that they did.


This hits it on the head, if you're a kid now getting into Oasis without all the baggage etc 15 years on then fair enough, but for us British music fans who didn't like Oasis and were bludgeoned by them and their bullmerda at the time I think it leaves rather a bad taste in the mouth...

At that time I thought there was another musical direction in the UK that was very much more interesting than Oasis and Blur combined: Massive Attack, and Portishead. Both built an interesting catalogue that stood the test of time well.

'Unfinished Sympathy' is awesome and timeless.

'Mezzanine': ditto.

'Portishead 1, 2, 3, 4' : all wonderful to these ears.

Would we consider them so overrated if they hadn't been so omnipresent in the 1990's?

I will happily confirm what 'mikes beard' says, Oasis were bloody everywhere...you couldn't escape them even in elevator muzak.

Shockingly many (not least of all Gobshite Liam himself) were declaring that Oasis were 'the best band since The Beatles'. Putting aside my stance on the Beatles for just a second, I'm amazed anyone could say that and keep a straight face.

Their eyebrows are funny, mind. Did I hear anyone mention the name 'Lombroso'?

They do make new lists every year, which I never understood. Just like 'The top 100 albums of all time' or whatever magazines put out. I mean, why should it change every year? Because maybe an album comes along and bumps 100 down to 101? Stupid. And the top 5 usually consist of 'Sgt. Pepper', 'Revolver', 'Pet Sounds', something by Dylan (either Blonde On Blonde or Highway 61 Revisited) and  'What's Goin' On' by Marvin Gaye.

i'd never say oasis was high on creativity, pretty low.  But, i'd definitely call them one of the best and last rock n roll bands we've had.

sometimes attitude and the way you carry yourself matters.  Oasis live, even if liam's voice is crap, is something to behold.  I really feel they're the last band who really has "presence".  They don't even move but they're in complete control of everyone

What does me is that everytime one of these lists are concocted there is always this need to stick one or two VERY recent albums into the mix as if in a desperate attempt to convince people that modern music is just as vibrant and inspired as it was 30-40 years ago at it's apex. Oasis being a classic example and more recently groups such as Coldplay and Kings of Leon.

Oh well, at least everytime a Best Single of all time list comes around Good Vibrations hits the top spot!

What I meant to add to the above is that there are dreamers who think the apex is now, not when it really was. Face it, you just missed it. Not your fault. But don't try to cram the crap of today and claim it'll been around for nearly as long as the "apex" period. Just get over it. I have one poster in  mind on this board.

Right. Coldplay stinks to high heaven. And I harbour serious intents of murdering Chris Martin, as he married Gwyneth Paltrow, the actress with the mostest and bestest beauty and intelligence.

As for the lists... I think they just are a selling point. Every edition with a 'list' will attract extra buyers who never were that keen on shelling out money for a rock mag. But a list provides some 'security', a guide on how to become literate in all things pop. In my younger days lists could make me go to my shop and buy a 'classic' unheard. In most cases, my choice turned out to be at least OK. But with today's lists, I don't do that any more. There's just so much junk in there, such desperate attempts at presenting the greatest common denominator.

I refuse to accept that it is my getting older that stands in the way. I observe a serious lack of invention in today's pop/rock. There surely is a lot of irony in current opinions; a result is the mass adoration of the completely talent-free Lady Gaga. Meh.

I've noticed more and more young people digging back to the past to find music of genuine quality, whether it's Pet Sounds or London Calling.  I had a 17-year-old girl compliment me on my Syd Barrett t-shirt the other day....coulda knocked me over.  :lol 

     

Same here. It is delightful to see someone in their teens expressing a deep love for Nick Drake, Tim Buckley, early Van Morrison, or Wishbone Ash.

 :lol

I'm 21 and am just waiting for the Great Wishbone Ash Renaissance to sweep my generation. Soon, fellas, soon!

Lady Gaga is quite good.

Preach it brother, i'm with you 100%.  There was a show about 5 years ago, where that f****t from Coldplay got up on stage with Gwenyth Paltrow at a charity show, and said something political about somebody or another.  When Liam took the stage (knowing he hates Coldplay) he basically said Chris 'and that silly bird he's married to' should keep their fucking mouths shut about politics when they're there to raise money for charity.... and then proceeded to give one hell of a show. 

That, to me, is one of the things that makes a great Rock band.  Cockiness is what made rock and roll so great.  Anybody ever see Danny & The Juniors do "Rock and Roll is here to Stay" ?  All wearing Glasses, the lead singer impossibly beligerant about how great his music is, etc.  Oasis carry that tradition. 

Indeed :)

Can you give me the home address of Liam Gallagher? I have a serious issue with that eyebrow.

In a top 20 it's only fair to have two artists from the '80s at least and two from the '90s. I nominate Michael Jackson and Prince from the '80s and Oasis and Nirvana from the '90s. The '00s I need to assess later.

'50s: Elvis Presley and Fats Domino
'60s: Beach Boys and Phil Spector
'70s: Beach Boys and Curtis Mayfield
'80s: Michael Jackson and Prince
'90s: Oasis and Nirvana

How 'bout...
50s-Bo Diddley and Buddy Holly
60s-Beach Boys and The Lovin' Spoonful
70s-Big Star and Jonathan Richman & the Modern Lovers
80s-Jesus and Mary Chain and REM
90s-Barenaked Ladies, The Flaming Lips, Neutral Milk Hotel
00s-The Arcade Fire, Wilco, Feist, Rilo Kiley, New Pornographers, The Shins, Animal Collective, Neko Case, MGMT...can't narrow it down...
10s-so far...The Drums, Surfer Blood, Beach House, The Pains of Being Pure At Heart...more to come...

I just watched the show of this (I hadn't seen this thread beforehand otherwise I would have NEVER watched it). It was complete garbage!! I mean really, the BBs between Madonna & Nirvana? & freaking Nirvana beat them!!! I watched the entire thing and honestly there were more people NOT on the list at all that should've been than were actually deservedly on it. I don't know why I even watch these dumb shows cause they just get me fuming. It was the first time ever that I was actually semi happy the Beatles were #1 because if Michael Jackson had got it I would've become physically ill. Any "Greatest Artists of All Time" list that has absolutely no Hank Williams, Patsy Cline, or any Country period (besides Johnny Cash), has Nirvana, The Who, Led Zeppelin,  The Stones, etc. ahead of the BBs, and has the King of Rock N Roll at #8 (!!!!!!!!!!) behind Prince & MJ is absolutely asinine. Things like this majorly piss me off >:( It's scary to think that 200 "artists" are so incredibly ignorant of music

I watched it, too. VH1 did this ("100 greatest artists of all time") in 1998 and the Beach Boys were #13 then. Michael Jackson went from 40th in 1998 to 3rd in 2010. That is absurd. He did nothing from 1998 to 2010 except for having his untimely death. How Elvis is behind Prince and Michael is unthinkable. Just look at the "artists" they polled though--a pretty pathetic and talentless group overall.

For the part about the Beach Boys, though, it was really cool seeing the classic footage of them singing live on the tube. 15th sucked, IMHO, they should be in the top 8 at least, but when I read blogs on the internet showing the listing and practically all of the few comments on the Boys say they should be either 90th, not on the list at all, or they are way to close to the top, I'll take 15th just to piss them off. Poor, clueless souls.

Can anybody give me some examples of the artists that were polled for this thing? No doubt Chris Martin is lurking in there.......

i suppose the arcade fire, but none of those others.  I'm curious to see how the killers look in a few years.  after not really liking their debut, they turned into one of my favorite bands.  the drums are ok.  i think Vampire Weekend has a shot. wait, barenaked ladies?

I was watching this on VH1 earlier in the week. Beyonce was ranked ahead of:
Cheap Trick
Cream
Grandmaster Flash
Otis Reading

Turned it off asap.

such a worthless bunch of merda!

The Moody Blues weren't even on the list!

Need I say anymore?

Nor was Roxy Music!

And speaking of Beyonce: how did she even make it on a list Nina Simone is absent from??

Considering that critics were never too fond of the Moody Blues, I'm not at all surprised.

The Moodies are one of the all time great bands.  They really cranked out a bunch of great songs in the 1960's and 70's.

I like some of their stuff myself.  But the reason they are not recognized is because they couldn't win over many rock critics. 

The problems with these lists are basically that everyone has a different opinion for who should go on. There will NEVER be a top xxx list where everyone or even anyone is satisfied. EVER. Never seen a greatest album/artist/whatever list where people weren't bitching it out. Basically, they're like assholes, they're stinky, they're everywhere, and no one likes to deal with 'em.

They are, as many human activities and products, just a substitute for warfare.

Yes, Barenaked Ladies! They've consistently released strong album after strong album...usually the singles being the weakest tracks...their more recent stuff hasn't been quite as great as their 90s heyday...but 1996's Born On A Pirate Ship and 2000's Maroon are modern day classics. I see BNL as similar to the BBs pre-1990s in that they are grossly underrated and misunderstood. Maybe they're not on the same level as the BBs, Beatles, Dylan, etc., but they are (or were, before Steven Page quit) better than Nirvana, Michael Jackson, and Coldplay.

Are they better than Wishbone Ash? That's the relevant issue.

I keep thinking to myself I will check out some Wishbone Ash stuff on youtube, having never heard ANYTHING by them. However, I have so far refrained from doing so in case I actually like them, in which case this running gag would become less funny.  ;D

Actually, it's the same here. For me they're just a group mentioned by some Amazon-reviewer who found Brian horribly bad and WA the best of the planet. The only thing I did so far was to seek out some of their 'Argus' lyrics, which were terribly, terribly infantile. But well - the same can be said for 80% of 'Love You'.

Muddy waters indeed. Perhaps, dear Beard, we'll meet again someday on the 'Son Of Argus' message board.

Do you think such a board exists? Maybe that's where nobody ended up going to.

 :lol gotta log off, and no finer way exists than with a jolly good gag.

See, this ties in with what Curtis was saying. In many people's opinion, no way in hell BNL were better than Michael Jackson or Nirvana.

and The Grateful Dead: not even on the list????? But Genesis was?

Genesis, but no Yes????

Ugh

The people who are saying Michael Jackson didn't deserve to be near the top of the list (or isn't very talented), come on. I'm not even a huge fan (I have Off the Wall and some Jackson 5 stuff), but that man was talented and a great entertainer. Amazing voice. Go and listen to Who's Loving You by the Jackson 5. He was 12 or so, and he sounds incredible. Watch him dance sometime.

And as for Nirvana, Cobain wrote some great melodies, but more importantly for impact, they helped change the course of music in the 90s. (Goodbye, Color Me Badd!) I was in HS when Nirvana was popular, and kids were devastated when Cobain died. He meant a lot to generation X. (And again, I wasn't even a big fan)

Also, I'd like to know whether people who say Lady Gaga is talentless have actually heard her music or seen her perform. I'm not very familiar with her stuff except Poker Face, but I'm curious. I do sort of like her persona. Much less holier-than-thou than Madonna.

Coldplay maybe but Nirvana and Michael Jackson?  NO WAY.

70's Genesis rule.
80's Genesis suck.

Haven't been a fan of M.J. since I was about nine but he undoubtedly belongs on that list. If he was still alive I'd suspect he'd be a few places lower down. Nothing boosts an artist like dieing. That has been proved many times. Which brings me to..............

...Nirvana. They weren't responsible for the demise of Color Me Crap, more they helped make groups such as Guns n Roses and Motley Crue unhip overnight. I still maintain that if it had been Eddie Vedder who'd put a gun in his mouth, than it would have been he who was elevated to the Gen X figurehead position (he was infact the music press's first choice as posterboy but wouldn't play ball) and it would be Pearl Jam making these lists. When Curt died Nirvana went from 'one of the big alt rock bands' to 'THE' alt rock band.

As for GaGa - I'm convinced she must spend long hours into the night thinking up what outlandish, attention grabbing thing she can do next.

Okay, I cannot recall a single song by Wishbone Ash and can only say I'd seen their albums for sale used in thrift shops. But I did google a Wishbone Ash message board:

http://wishboneashforums.com/index.php (http://wishboneashforums.com/index.php)

And I joined. I have the same user name as here (rogerlancelot although obviously that is not really my name). Anybody else want to join and see if we can confuse these people? Or would that be trolling? I don't want to be rude with them, I just want to pretend that I know more about them than I do (which is actually nothing). Damn, reminds me of when I used to make prank phone calls when I was a kid. Oops, I still make them and I'm 37 now.....

Thanks for the inspiration, Mr. Don, and hope to see you there!

You MUST start a thread on there "Who's better Wishbone Ash or The Beach Boys?"  ;D

Sad to say I need to listen to a few samples of Wishbone first. But I'm on it first thing in the morning. I will proudly share the experiences with my friends here at SS.

 :3d

Testify. Michael Jackson, despite being a mess personally, was a hell of a pop star.

But could he do THE CHICKEN DANCE!  ;D

In response to Mike's Beard: ..

"Nirvana. They weren't responsible for the demise of Color Me Crap, more they helped make groups such as Guns n Roses and Motley Crue unhip overnight. I still maintain that if it had been Eddie Vedder who'd put a gun in his mouth, than it would have been he who was elevated to the Gen X figurehead position (he was infact the music press's first choice as posterboy but wouldn't play ball) and it would be Pearl Jam making these lists. When Curt died Nirvana went from 'one of the big alt rock bands' to 'THE' alt rock band."

I have to disagree with the part about Nirvana making Guns N Roses unhip overnight: though when it comes to Poison, you're dead right! .... From where I was at that time, Guns N Roses certainly did  A LOT of pre-Nirvana damage to the reigning hair bands. They brought back a great deal of the seediness of rock n roll that had, frankly been gone a long long time. They also showed that you could be a mainstream hit-making metal band and NOT have big teased hair, and that was a huge blow to all those clowns. If anything Guns N Roses swiftly made themselves unhip. First by the great tight but loose n creative rock n roll drummer Steve Adler being fired and replaced by boring "dum dum duh-duh-dum" Matt Sorum, then Axl's all-consuming Elton John obsession: stupid overblown videos: releasing two albums at the same time (Use Your Illusion 1 n 2) and the systematic firing/quiting spree of all the original GnR members other than Rose.... I think this scenario was a big blow to mainstream metal in and of itself in that the biggest band of the time (metal-wise) couldn't even keep it together and imploded before even reaching their peak.

........ THEN came Nirvana and it was history!

True nobody did more to balls up G'N'R than Axl himself. By the time they finally put out a new album no one cared, they were a joke.

In the minority here, but I've always despised GNR, esp. vocally. Then again, I hate pretty much everything Aerosmith did from the 80s on...

Can't stand the whiny vocals.  See, Robert Plant could actually sing . Axl Rose and Steven Tyler are poor imitations IMHO. And, to be honest, Robert Plant was a bad Robert Plant impersonator from the 80s on...  :D


But...getting off topic now.

I don't mind Axl's voice, but compared to Plant, there is no question that Plant is by far a much better singer.

Anyone here listen to his collaboration with Alison Krauss Raising Sand? Plant is still hitting those high notes!

I never thought about G'n'R as a metal band, like Iron Maiden or Testament. Or a pop metal band like Poison or Warrant. More like a late 80's version of 70's Aerosmith.

Like the BBs with Smiley I guess? :)

The only GNR song I actually care for is the Manson cover... >:D >:D >:D

Sacrilege, I know, but I can't stand Plant's vocals either. I think he overemotes far too much.

I like his voice up until about mmm...Presence. His voice changed a lot from the early to late 70s. It became much more whiny...I can't STAND overly whiny vocals. Probably same reason why I though AC/DC with Bon Scott was badass and the version with Brian  Johnson is just ass. :lol

To my ears Bon Scott is the definition of whiny/high-pitched vocals. Granted, I love his vocals on 'It's A Long Way To The Top' but that's about it.

Something did happen to Plant's voice, and it was pretty drastic.  You can hear it as early as the "new" recordings on Physical Graffiti...his voice breaks and he struggles to hit the higher notes.     

Bon Scott AND Brian Johnson are two of the best hard rock singers of all time.

They are also two of the greatest frontmen ever!

Loving Bon does not have to come at the expense of Brian. You don't have to hate him in order to praise Scott. Brian did not murder and eat Bon in order to take his place. Bon's death was a tragedy but the band carried on and continued to put out ass-kicking music, including what is probably the greatest hard rock album of all time WITH Brian!

But I can understand preferring Bon. He wrote better lyrics, for one, but Brian had POWER. Still has it today!

I honestly, like that there are basically 2 AC/DCs. Neither Bon nor Brian were exactly Carl when it comes to being "great" singers. I can get tired of either of them after a while, which is cool because if I burn out on Bon, I can throw on some Brian and it sounds badass and fresh, then I get tired of him, so I go back to Bon  :p

 :smokin count me in, RL... same name too...

Erm... due to a typo (honest!) I'm registered there as The Heartical Con... :-[

For those of you who hate Nirvana, think of this; The first record label they were signed to was Sub Pop. Sub Pop was close to going under when Nirvana left them to sign with DGC. In the negotiations, part of the agreement was that Sub Pop would get a percentage of future royalties from Nirvana records, as well as having their Sub Pop logo on Nirvana albums. So Nirvana helped keep Sub Pop from going under, therefore enabling Sub Pop to stay in business and release a rare 7-inch single of IJWMFTT promoting the Pet Sounds box set.

"LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! PRESENTING THE HEARTICAL CON!!!"   :lol

They still blow.

Nope.

I don't like Nirvana at all, either. I was right in that target market during their ascent, but it just never connected at all with me. And of course there's nothing to make a guy hate a band worse than other people loving a band he already hates, so as they became deified, it just drove me nuts. My first thought when he shot himself--horribly rude as it may be--was along the lines of "f***, now he's going to be remembered as a legend forever."

and as the rest of us will not be remembered at all!

I just responded to your post over on the WA board! :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

That part of it is fine with me.

Nirvana were the only "grunge" group I never really liked. I have a very unique reason for disliking them. Back in 1994, I was a 15 year old high school kid. Like many people that age I was attempting to learn the guitar. I switched to bass when a guy from my class told me of a bass and amp going cheap. He also mentioned that the bass player from his group had walked out recently. Long story short, I bought the bass and joined his group. Initially it was great fun bangin out a few covers and just having a blast. However, this guy was a complete Curt Cobain freak and did his best to impersonate his demented whiny vocal style and distorted guitar riffs in everything we did. No matter what song we tried or wrote it invariably got put through the Cobain mangler. Imagine a T-Rex or Doors cover done in a bad Nirvana style; I can tell you from first hand experience the results are not pretty. In the end I had enough and quit, but by this point Nirvana had gone from a band I didn't particularly like to one I outright despised.

Your reasons for hating Nirvana and Oasis aren't very good.

Hey, you are blessed you never had to hear our singer do a Curt Cobain style cover of "Break on Through". If you did you would feel the same.

Got any tapes to share?

I really wish I did. Oddly enough I used to bump into the guy now and then and he once proudly informed me that he had played drums on a song that was the B side to a #17 smash hit in Canada. I wish I could remember the name of the song/band!

maybe it was the B-side of "Hand Me Down World" by the Guess Who, that got to number 17...

I just thought of something.

Where in the holy name of ungodly fuckness is Rick Astley on this list?!?

I was gonna ask exactly the same about David Soul! WE DEMAND A RECOUNT!

That was a very cool album.  Plant just came out with a new album last month that has been receiving some nice reviews.  I haven't listened to it yet.

I probably would've hated Nirvana, but I remember in about 1990 going down to this place called Jabberjaw in a bad part of LA (this was a great place where you could drop in any night of the week and see some wonderful weird music: until the whole 90's indie-cred thing exploded, then it was only "cool" bands who played there) ..... just because there was a rumor going around that David Bowie and Iggy Pop were going to be there to check out some band. So we head down there...... and, needless to say, I was blown away by Nirvana and forgot all about Bowie and Iggy (though, I know at least Bowie was there).... So, yeah, Nirvana: overrated: perhaps. Nirvana great: absolutely!

Yeah, I've seen in on amazon - but I'm frightened away by the album cover every time lol.