Rolling Stone Top-100... Why No Paul?
-
Squid:
yankeefan7:
I guess you did not read the "Pipes of Peace" review because they do mention George Martin. From the review, "Underneath all the elaborate arrangements and high-sheen production on Pipes of Peace (provided by George Martin, who also worked on Tug of War)"
You've really got to start reading things deeper than face value - what those reviews are about is written all over them. Of course i read the POP review and saw Martin's name tucked away like it didn't exist, while it was prominent in the TOW review. Personally I don't give a fig about RS, but this is a forum and here is a thread to discuss. What do you want us to do - sit on our hands?
OK. I have read the reviews and just think differently from you. I don't find mentioning a producer's work or songriting partner in review is giving them the major credit for the good review instead of McCartney. I never said things like this should not be discussed, why not it is a forum. I did say that I think people are a little bit too sensitive when McCartney does not get a good review or he is not as high in a poll as they think he should be.
-
Michelley:
Squid:
yankeefan7:
I guess you did not read the "Pipes of Peace" review because they do mention George Martin. From the review, "Underneath all the elaborate arrangements and high-sheen production on Pipes of Peace (provided by George Martin, who also worked on Tug of War)"
You've really got to start reading things deeper than face value - what those reviews are about is written all over them.
Absolutely. The utterly patronizing tone in all of those RS reviews seems pretty obvious to me, unless you're wearing some serious blinders. In the RS world, Lennon always gets to be "the genius," Paul is always just "the craftsman." The fact is: When people come to the RS site looking for reviews of Paul's albums, this is the page they see: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/paul-mccartney/albumguide And even when the magazine does admit that it was wrong -- and upgrades its reviews of McCartney (3.5 stars), Ram (4.5 stars), and McCartney II (3 stars)-- the magazine's MAIN page listing its reviews of Paul's albums sticks to the old ratings for all 3 albums (2.5 stars, 3 stars, and 2 stars, respectively). That same page misreports Paul's albums as 3-star reviews that Yankeefan found were actually gave 4 stars to. That same page omits the magazine's 4.5 star review of Electric Arguments. That same page gives it's highest rating for a Paul-only solo album to ah album of covers -- a nice passive-aggressive way of saying "this guy's best album is a bunch of songs written by someone else." For anyone paying attention, it's obviously a steady and not very subtle campaign of undercutting the man and his work. But this is all old news. And that list of 100 greatest artists is old news. It does feel good to know that in the larger music world, no one cares anymore what RS thinks about music. We're just rehashing ancient history here.
OK, just a few points to your answer. First, I would think McCartney himself would call Lennon a song writing "genius" so what is the harm of RS doing it also. I can't remember having read RS call McCartney a "craftsman". RS is usually are quite complimentary about the melodies/hooks that McCartney can write with such ease. If McCartney has been criticized by RS for anything while writing songs it has been his lyrics which at times can be pretty lame for a man of his incredible talent. The album guide thing you refer to is probably due to laziness and not intent on downgrading McCartney IMO. RS should really correct it but I am willing to bet you that they have no idea it has not been updated on their link. As for the album of mostly covers (Run Devil Run), the record does have three McCartney original songs. The RS review also states that these originals are very good and fit in with the other 50's classics. All major artists (including McCartney) still do interviews with RS so they must feel the magazine has some value and reach a audience they want to reach for their new record/concert tour etc. Finally, I enjoy reading record reviews of my favorite artists. I will not agree with reviews all the time but find it interesting to read different opinions. I will also read reviews from different media sources which may include RS, NY Times, USA Today or even ITUNES.
-
yankeefan7:
OK, just a few points to your answer. First, I would think McCartney himself would call Lennon a song writing "genius" so what is the harm of RS doing it also.
Of course there's no harm in them calling John a genius. He was. But Paul was/is, too. The harm is in them never (or rarely ever) calling Paul a genius. The following sentence from a 2009 RS article about the Beatles breakup is how McCartney routinely gets treated by RS magazine:
Though Lennon is more commonly regarded as the Beatles' true genius (which is inarguable: he wrote the bulk of their masterpieces and until the last couple years of their career, wrote the best tracks on their albums), it is also fair to say that without McCartney, the Beatles would not have mattered in history with such ingenuity and durability.
So ... Lennon is the "true genius" and that is "inarguable" because he "wrote the bulk of their masterpieces." Right. And Paul gets a pat on the head for being good at marketing the band to preserve its place in history. And that is how RS treats Paul ALL the time. Strawberry Fields Forever is a masterpiece. Penny Lane is just a pretty song. John is the artist. Paul is the pop star.
All major artists (including McCartney) still do interviews with RS so they must feel the magazine has some value and reach a audience they want to reach for their new record/concert tour etc.
Well, it reaches an aging white male rock audience that still buys albums. Of course artists talk to RS. It's a media outlet for a targeted audience. But RS hasn't set the agenda in music in several decades. And thank goodness. Because the only reason Ram is now recognized as a masterpiece is thanks to Web sites like Pitchfork and AV Club that critiqued the music without an agenda.
-
Michelley, if I ever need a lawyer, I want YOU on my side, gal.
-
audi:
Michelley, if I ever need a lawyer, I want YOU on my side, gal.
I just like to marshall my evidence, that's all. It would be nice to see Paul get evenhanded treatment -- not special treatment for his weakest work, just proper respect for the genius of his best work.
-
Michelley:
yankeefan7:
OK, just a few points to your answer. First, I would think McCartney himself would call Lennon a song writing "genius" so what is the harm of RS doing it also.
Of course there's no harm in them calling John a genius. He was. But Paul was/is, too. The harm is in them never (or rarely ever) calling Paul a genius. The following sentence from a 2009 RS article about the Beatles breakup is how McCartney routinely gets treated by RS magazine:
Though Lennon is more commonly regarded as the Beatles' true genius (which is inarguable: he wrote the bulk of their masterpieces and until the last couple years of their career, wrote the best tracks on their albums), it is also fair to say that without McCartney, the Beatles would not have mattered in history with such ingenuity and durability.
So ... Lennon is the "true genius" and that is "inarguable" because he "wrote the bulk of their masterpieces." Right. And Paul gets a pat on the head for being good at marketing the band to preserve its place in history. And that is how RS treats Paul ALL the time. Strawberry Fields Forever is a masterpiece. Penny Lane is just a pretty song. John is the artist. Paul is the pop star.
All major artists (including McCartney) still do interviews with RS so they must feel the magazine has some value and reach a audience they want to reach for their new record/concert tour etc.
Well, it reaches an aging white male rock audience that still buys albums. Of course artists talk to RS. It's a media outlet for a targeted audience. But RS hasn't set the agenda in music in several decades. And thank goodness. Because the only reason Ram is now recognized as a masterpiece is thanks to Web sites like Pitchfork and AV Club that critiqued the music without an agenda.
From RS below. These examples are from RS top 500 songs of all time. Three of the four Beatle songs that are in the top 20 are definitely McCartney songs, see below. The other song in the top 20 (I Want To Hold Your Hand) was definitely a collabaration and not a Lennon song. "Yesterday" #13 Paul McCartney's greatest ballad holds a Guinness World Record as the most recorded song of all time; seven years later, there were 1,186 versions by artists as varied as Frank Sinatra, Otis Redding and Willie Nelson. But McCartney's original reading ? cut on June 14th, 1965, at EMI's Abbey Road studios in London ? remains the most beautiful and daring of all: a frank poem of regret scored and sung with haunted elegance. There are no other Beatles on the record. None were needed "Hey Jude" #8 Paul McCartney wrote "Hey Jude" in June 1968, singing to himself on his way to visit Lennon's soon-to-be-ex-wife, Cynthia, and their son, Julian. The opening lines were, McCartney once said, "a hopeful message for Julian: 'Come on, man, your parents got divorced. I know you're not happy, but you'll be OK.'" McCartney changed "Jules" to "Jude" ? a name inspired by Jud from the musical Oklahoma! ? and presented a demo tape to Lennon, who loved the song. He also thought McCartney was singing to him, about his relationship with Yoko Ono and the strains on the Lennon-McCartney partnership. But his self-centered reading underscored the universal comfort in McCartney's lyrics and the song's warm, rolling charm, fortified in the fade-out by a 36-piece orchestra whose members (with one grumpy exception) also clapped and sang along ? for double their usual fee. "Let It Be" #20 Inspired by the church-born soul of Aretha Franklin, an anxious Paul McCartney started writing "Let It Be" in 1968, during the contentious sessions for the White Album. His opening lines ? "When I find myself in times of trouble/Mother Mary comes to me" ? were based on a dream in which his own late mother, Mary, offered solace during a tumultuous time for both the band and the culture, assuring him that everything would turn out fine. "I'm not sure if she used the words 'Let it be,'" McCartney recalled, "but that was the gist of her advice." McCartney unveiled a skeletal version of "Let It Be" to the other Beatles at an even worse time: during the initial, disastrous Let It Be rehearsals in January 1969. John Lennon, the group's resident heretic, was brutally dismissive, mistaking McCartney's secular humanism for self-righteous piety. Yet the Beatles put special labor into the song, getting the consummate take on January 31st ? the day after their last live performance, on the roof of their Apple offices in London. (R&B musician Billy Preston, a friend of the band's from its early days, contributed the gospel-flavored organ part.) George Harrison later took a couple of cracks at adding a guitar solo: The single version features his solo from April 30th, 1969, and the album cut's solo was taped at the final Beatles recording session, on January 4th, 1970. Released four months later, "Let It Be" effectively became an elegy for the band that had defined the Sixties. OK, When RS does not like record like RAM it is because they have agenda and when I show positive 4-5 star reviews of McCartney records, you and "Squid" complain about the "hidden" message behind the positive review (credit to the producers like Martin, Godrich etc). IMO - maybe if they write a review that says McCartney walks on water and is God's gift to music you and others will be satisfied. BTW - RS was not the only media outlet that dismissed RAM in the 70's. It was generally panned by everyone. History has been kind to the record and that is nice but let's not try and say that RAM was loved by everyone but RS in the 70's. See below. "Upon its release, Ram was poorly received by music critics, and McCartney was particularly stung by the harsh reviews − especially as he had attempted to address the points raised in criticism of his earlier album, McCartney, by adopting a more professional approach this time around. Jon Landau in Rolling Stone called Ram "incredibly inconsequential" and "monumentally irrelevant", and criticized that it lacks intensity and energy. He added that it exposes McCartney as having "benefited immensely from collaboration" with the Beatles, particularly John Lennon, who "held the reins in on McCartney's cutsie-pie, florid attempts at pure rock muzak" and kept him from "going off the deep end that leads to an album as emotionally vacuous as Ram." Playboy accused McCartney of "substituting facility for any real substance", and compared it to "watching someone juggle five guitars: It's fairly impressive, but you keep wondering why he bothers." Robert Christgau of The Village Voice panned his songs as pretentious "crotchets ... so lightweight they float away even as Paulie layers them down with caprices." Writing some four years later, Roy Carr and Tony Tyler from NME claimed that "it would be naive to have expected the McCartneys to produce anything other than a mediocre record ... Grisly though this was, McCartney was to sink lower before rescuing his credibility late in 1973." His fellow ex-Beatles, all of whom were riding high in the critics' favour with their recent releases, were likewise vocal in their negativity. Lennon famously hated the album, dismissing his former songwriting partner's efforts as "muzak to my ears" in his song "How Do You Sleep?". Even the affable Starr told Britain's Melody Maker: "I feel sad about Paul's albums ... I don't think there's one [good] tune on the last one, Ram ... he seems to be going strange. To Audi - the defense rests - LOL !!!
-
Ammar:
left hand man:
The point is those albums were still much better than RS has ever given them credit for!
exactly... and RS is not doing Paul a favor by writing what should be written on master piece like "Tug Of War" the way they treated him for years makes no one believe he can make one decent solo album! I will always hate what they did to him continuously!
Really, did you read the 4 star reviews of CHAOS,DR and FITD? Did you read the review of "Press To Play"? I am willing to bet you RS liked "Press To Play" better than 75% of the people who post on this board.
-
Maybe if they write a review that says McCartney walks on water and is God's gift to music you and others will be satisfied.
Come now. That's a strawman argument and you know it. As I just wrote in my last post: "It would be nice to see Paul get evenhanded treatment -- not special treatment for his weakest work, just proper respect for the genius of his best work." So no one here is calling for false praise of crappy work. And no one is saying RS has never praised McCartney. The point is the magazine's general bias in favor of exaggerating John's work and under-rating Paul's. I'm really not sure why you're continuing to argue this point as RS's favoritism toward Lennon is widely accepted. Even the magazine's own writers have admitted they changed reviews of McCartney's albums from positive to negative AT JANN WENNER's request. When RS manages to leave off McCartney's name from a list of 100 Greatest Artists, you think that's not purposeful bias? OK, then let's look at another RS list -- the magazine's list of 100 Greatest Guitarists. Somehow RS finds a way to include Lennon's name on that list -- at No. 55, for goodness sake. Which is ridiculous. Lennon was great at many things but the only person that would argue that he belongs on a list of 100 Greatest Guitarists in the history of rock and roll is a total Lennon fanboy. By comparison: Guitar World has a list of 100 greatest guitarists. John's name isn't on it. LA Times, Hot Guitarist and Spin Magazine all have lists of the Greatest Guitarists. Guess what? Lennon isn't on any of those lists, either. But somehow RS not only managed to put Lennon's name on its list of 100 Greatest Guitarists, but to put him at No. 55!! Seems like you are the one who is refusing to see what's right in front of you.
-
Michelley:
Maybe if they write a review that says McCartney walks on water and is God's gift to music you and others will be satisfied.
Come now. That's a strawman argument and you know it. As I just wrote in my last post: "It would be nice to see Paul get evenhanded treatment -- not special treatment for his weakest work, just proper respect for the genius of his best work." So no one here is calling for false praise of crappy work. And no one is saying RS has never praised McCartney. The point is the magazine's general bias in favor of exaggerating John's work and under-rating Paul's. I'm really not sure why you're continuing to argue this point as RS's favoritism toward Lennon is widely accepted. Even the magazine's own writers have admitted they changed reviews of McCartney's albums from positive to negative AT JANN WENNER's request. When RS manages to leave off McCartney's name from a list of 100 Greatest Artists, you think that's not purposeful bias? OK, then let's look at another RS list -- the magazine's list of 100 Greatest Guitarists. Somehow RS finds a way to include Lennon's name on that list -- at No. 55, for goodness sake. Which is ridiculous. Lennon was great at many things but the only person that would argue that he belongs on a list of 100 Greatest Guitarists in the history of rock and roll is a total Lennon fanboy. By comparison: Guitar World has a list of 100 greatest guitarists. John's name isn't on it. LA Times, Hot Guitarist and Spin Magazine all have lists of the Greatest Guitarists. Guess what? Lennon isn't on any of those lists, either. But somehow RS not only managed to put Lennon's name on its list of 100 Greatest Guitarists, but to put him at No. 55!! Seems like you are the one who is refusing to see what's right in front of you.
I will be the first to admit RS has favored Lennon, never have said any differently in all my posts. I will also tell you that I do not think any of Lennon's solo records are better than mediocre. IMO - RS thought of Lennon as more "avant garde" and "hip" than McCartney. I believe this fit the image of their magazine better. Paul and Linda were too "square" for them and I think this led to some of the favoritism. I also believe that once Lennon was tragically murdered everything he did was given a elevated status. I agree, Lennon was not a great guitarist and that is a good example of bias. I will note that McCartney was included on top bass guitarists (#3) by RS readers and the RS comment was quite complimentary. (see below) McCartney Bass Guitar "Paul McCartney gets so much attention for his brilliant songwriting in The Beatles that his stunning bass playing abilities are often overlooked. But listen to any Beatles songs and focus on his deeply melodic, flawless bass parts. He took on the role reluctantly after original bassist Stuart Sutcliffe left the group and nobody else wanted to take over his instrument. He soon mastered it, but also proved adept at guitar and drums - as he proved when Ringo Starr briefly quit during the making of 1968's The White Album and Paul took his place behind the kit in the studio with great ease." OK, my whole point has been to show that RS has consistently praised McCartney records even though they obviously loved Lennon. I would be willing to bet that at least 75% of his records after the Beatles have been positive reviews. RS has praised McCartney's best work IMO, BOTR, TOW and CHAOS are generally considered his best with the possible inclusion of "FP". You have agreed with me that RS has always praised his live performances. I also provided three examples of "McCartney" written Beatle songs making the top 20 of RS 500 Greatest songs. I will end with while RS (Wenner) may have put Lennon on a pedastal, McCartney has been consistently recognized as a brillant songwriter, musician and live performer by RS and not to see that is putting blinders on also.
-
yankeefan7:
Michelley:
Maybe if they write a review that says McCartney walks on water and is God's gift to music you and others will be satisfied.
Come now. That's a strawman argument and you know it. As I just wrote in my last post: "It would be nice to see Paul get evenhanded treatment -- not special treatment for his weakest work, just proper respect for the genius of his best work." So no one here is calling for false praise of crappy work. And no one is saying RS has never praised McCartney. The point is the magazine's general bias in favor of exaggerating John's work and under-rating Paul's. I'm really not sure why you're continuing to argue this point as RS's favoritism toward Lennon is widely accepted. Even the magazine's own writers have admitted they changed reviews of McCartney's albums from positive to negative AT JANN WENNER's request. When RS manages to leave off McCartney's name from a list of 100 Greatest Artists, you think that's not purposeful bias? OK, then let's look at another RS list -- the magazine's list of 100 Greatest Guitarists. Somehow RS finds a way to include Lennon's name on that list -- at No. 55, for goodness sake. Which is ridiculous. Lennon was great at many things but the only person that would argue that he belongs on a list of 100 Greatest Guitarists in the history of rock and roll is a total Lennon fanboy. By comparison: Guitar World has a list of 100 greatest guitarists. John's name isn't on it. LA Times, Hot Guitarist and Spin Magazine all have lists of the Greatest Guitarists. Guess what? Lennon isn't on any of those lists, either. But somehow RS not only managed to put Lennon's name on its list of 100 Greatest Guitarists, but to put him at No. 55!! Seems like you are the one who is refusing to see what's right in front of you.
I will be the first to admit RS has favored Lennon, never have said any differently in all my posts. I will also tell you that I do not think any of Lennon's solo records are better than mediocre. IMO - RS thought of Lennon as more "avant garde" and "hip" than McCartney. I believe this fit the image of their magazine better. Paul and Linda were too "square" for them and I think this led to some of the favoritism. I also believe that once Lennon was tragically murdered everything he did was given a elevated status. I agree, Lennon was not a great guitarist and that is a good example of bias. I will note that McCartney was included on top bass guitarists (#3) by RS readers and the RS comment was quite complimentary. (see below) McCartney Bass Guitar "Paul McCartney gets so much attention for his brilliant songwriting in The Beatles that his stunning bass playing abilities are often overlooked. But listen to any Beatles songs and focus on his deeply melodic, flawless bass parts. He took on the role reluctantly after original bassist Stuart Sutcliffe left the group and nobody else wanted to take over his instrument. He soon mastered it, but also proved adept at guitar and drums - as he proved when Ringo Starr briefly quit during the making of 1968's The White Album and Paul took his place behind the kit in the studio with great ease." OK, my whole point has been to show that RS has consistently praised McCartney records even though they obviously loved Lennon. I would be willing to bet that at least 75% of his records after the Beatles have been positive reviews. RS has praised McCartney's best work IMO, BOTR, TOW and CHAOS are generally considered his best with the possible inclusion of "FP". You have agreed with me that RS has always praised his live performances. I also provided three examples of "McCartney" written Beatle songs making the top 20 of RS 500 Greatest songs. I will end with while RS (Wenner) may have put Lennon on a pedastal, McCartney has been consistently recognized as a brillant songwriter, musician and live performer by RS and not to see that is putting blinders on also.
Well said Yankee totally agree. ..actually I don't quite agree with your statement about John's solo records being mediocre.. but that a matter of opinion.
-
Michelley:
Maybe if they write a review that says McCartney walks on water and is God's gift to music you and others will be satisfied.
Come now. That's a strawman argument and you know it. As I just wrote in my last post: "It would be nice to see Paul get evenhanded treatment -- not special treatment for his weakest work, just proper respect for the genius of his best work." So no one here is calling for false praise of crappy work. And no one is saying RS has never praised McCartney. The point is the magazine's general bias in favor of exaggerating John's work and under-rating Paul's. I'm really not sure why you're continuing to argue this point as RS's favoritism toward Lennon is widely accepted. Even the magazine's own writers have admitted they changed reviews of McCartney's albums from positive to negative AT JANN WENNER's request. When RS manages to leave off McCartney's name from a list of 100 Greatest Artists, you think that's not purposeful bias? OK, then let's look at another RS list -- the magazine's list of 100 Greatest Guitarists. Somehow RS finds a way to include Lennon's name on that list -- at No. 55, for goodness sake. Which is ridiculous. Lennon was great at many things but the only person that would argue that he belongs on a list of 100 Greatest Guitarists in the history of rock and roll is a total Lennon fanboy. By comparison: Guitar World has a list of 100 greatest guitarists. John's name isn't on it. LA Times, Hot Guitarist and Spin Magazine all have lists of the Greatest Guitarists. Guess what? Lennon isn't on any of those lists, either. But somehow RS not only managed to put Lennon's name on its list of 100 Greatest Guitarists, but to put him at No. 55!! Seems like you are the one who is refusing to see what's right in front of you.
FYI - see below for people who voted for the RS Top 100 guitarists. I guess these people are all fanboys. We assembled a panel of top guitarists and other experts to rank their favorites and explain what separates the legends from everyone else. Featuring Keith Richards on Chuck Berry, Carlos Santana on Jerry Garcia, Tom Petty on George Harrison and more. THE VOTERS: Trey Anastasio, Dan Auerbach (The Black Keys), Brian Bell (Weezer), Ritchie Blackmore (Deep Purple), Carl Broemel (My Morning Jacket), James Burton, Jerry Cantrell (Alice in Chains), Gary Clark Jr., Billy Corgan, Steve Cropper, Dave Davies (The Kinks), Anthony DeCurtis (Contributing editor, Rolling Stone), Tom DeLonge (Blink-182), Rick Derringer, Luther Dickinson (North Mississippi Allstars), Elliot Easton (The Cars), Melissa Etheridge, Don Felder (The Eagles), David Fricke (Senior writer, Rolling Stone), Peter Guralnick (Author), Kirk Hammett (Metallica), Albert Hammond Jr. (The Strokes), Warren Haynes (The Allman Brothers Band), Brian Hiatt (Senior writer, Rolling Stone), David Hidalgo (Los Lobos), Jim James (My Morning Jacket), Lenny Kravitz, Robby Krieger (The Doors), Jon Landau (Manager), Alex Lifeson (Rush), Nils Lofgren (The E Street Band), Mick Mars (Mötley Crüe), Doug Martsch (Built to Spill), J Mascis (Dinosaur Jr.), Brian May, Mike McCready (Pearl Jam), Roger McGuinn (The Byrds), Scotty Moore, Thurston Moore (Sonic Youth), Tom Morello, Dave Mustaine (Megadeth), Brendan O?Brien (Producer), Joe Perry, Vernon Reid (Living Colour), Robbie Robertson, Rich Robinson (The Black Crowes), Carlos Santana, Kenny Wayne Shepherd, Marnie Stern, Stephen Stills, Andy Summers, Mick Taylor, Susan Tedeschi, Vieux Farka Touré, Derek Trucks, Eddie Van Halen, Joe Walsh, Nancy Wilson (Heart)
-
yankeefan7:
I think people are a little bit too sensitive when McCartney does not get a good review or he is not as high in a poll as they think he should be.
Hey, it's not that he's not as high as he should be... it's that he's not there at all! How long would this list have to be before RS would finally include him? That's the problem - that he's obviously a top-100 artist of all-time, that Lennon was 31st and he somehow wasn't even top-100.
-
yankeefan7:
From RS below. These examples are from RS top 500 songs of all time. Three of the four Beatle songs that are in the top 20 are definitely McCartney songs, see below. The other song in the top 20 (I Want To Hold Your Hand) was definitely a collabaration and not a Lennon song.
Interesting how that ended up. So either they got it wrong about Lennon being the genius of the group, or they are wrong about what the four "best" Beatles songs of all-time are (impactful, significant, whatever). Or, it was two different journalists at two different times. Or, maybe Lennon was the main writer for most of the other 9 songs that made the list. 3.5 of the top 4 being Paul is probably just a "smalls ample anomaly". I think if one was to grab the 50 "best" Beatles songs we'd see a breakdown of approximately 50/50, give or take two songs.
-
Michelley:
OK, then let's look at another RS list -- the magazine's list of 100 Greatest Guitarists. Somehow RS finds a way to include Lennon's name on that list -- at No. 55, for goodness sake. Which is ridiculous. Lennon was great at many things but the only person that would argue that he belongs on a list of 100 Greatest Guitarists in the history of rock and roll is a total Lennon fanboy. By comparison: Guitar World has a list of 100 greatest guitarists. John's name isn't on it. LA Times, Hot Guitarist and Spin Magazine all have lists of the Greatest Guitarists. Guess what? Lennon isn't on any of those lists, either. But somehow RS not only managed to put Lennon's name on its list of 100 Greatest Guitarists, but to put him at No. 55!!
This, obviously, is a very good point.
-
yankeefan7:
FYI - see below for people who voted for the RS Top 100 guitarists. I guess these people are all fanboys.
After awhile, these discussions start to feel a bit like a dog chasing its tail. You're very trusting of a list handpicked by Rolling Stone. I'm not so trusting. The magazine conveniently doesn't explain how the voting worked, and how much weight its own writers and editors had in the final rankings. Lennon is on that list of 100 Greatest Guitarists because RS wanted him to be on that list, not because he is one of the 100 Greatest Guitarists in rock history, as evidenced by his omission from the lists of great guitarists published by Guitar World and all the other magazines I cited. That's RS bias. McCartney's omission from the list of 100 Greatest Artists makes no sense -- except as part of RS's decades long treatment of Lennon as "the true genius" and Paul as a good showman. Unrefuted: The magazine's album guide for Paul's albums repeatedly under-reports its own ratings for Paul, and has failed to update any of its improved ratings for Paul's early solo work -- showing a far more negative picture than is the case. One mistake, I could accept as an accident. But that list is riddled with omissions. Also unrefuted: Jann Wenner forced reviewers to change a positive review of McCartney album to a negative one, sabotaging Macca's reputation and career for years to come. That's bias. And I also agree with Squid that RS gives Lennon full credit for the best work on his solo albums, but on Paul's best solo albums, it often emphasizes Paul's producer (George Martin or Godrich, etc) or makes some comment about how Paul works better with a strong collaborator to "keep him in line." It's such patronizing comments that grate. But of course you're not required to agree with me.
-
Michelley:
yankeefan7:
FYI - see below for people who voted for the RS Top 100 guitarists. I guess these people are all fanboys.
After awhile, these discussions start to feel a bit like a dog chasing its tail. You're very trusting of a list handpicked by Rolling Stone. I'm not so trusting. The magazine conveniently doesn't explain how the voting worked, and how much weight its own writers and editors had in the final rankings. Lennon is on that list of 100 Greatest Guitarists because RS wanted him to be on that list, not because he is one of the 100 Greatest Guitarists in rock history, as evidenced by his omission from the lists of great guitarists published by Guitar World and all the other magazines I cited. That's RS bias. McCartney's omission from the list of 100 Greatest Artists makes no sense -- except as part of RS's decades long treatment of Lennon as "the true genius" and Paul as a good showman. Unrefuted: The magazine's album guide for Paul's albums repeatedly under-reports its own ratings for Paul, and has failed to update any of its improved ratings for Paul's early solo work -- showing a far more negative picture than is the case. One mistake, I could accept as an accident. But that list is riddled with omissions. Also unrefuted: Jann Wenner forced reviewers to change a positive review of McCartney album to a negative one, sabotaging Macca's reputation and career for years to come. That's bias. And I also agree with Squid that RS gives Lennon full credit for the best work on his solo albums, but on Paul's best solo albums, it often emphasizes Paul's producer (George Martin or Godrich, etc) or makes some comment about how Paul works better with a strong collaborator to "keep him in line." It's such patronizing comments that grate. But of course you're not required to agree with me.
OK, let's say you are correct and RS writers had more weight and got Lennon on the list. Considering he is a Beatle and a legend, is 55th really that impressive? McCartney would rank much higher as a all time bass player than that even by RS. In my posts, there have been several comments about McCartney being a incredible bass player by RS. I did not look at the guitar list but I would think Harrison was higher ranked than Lennon. You are absolutely right that McCartney not making the top 100 is absolutely ridiculous. Matter of fact, I may even write a letter to RS and ask them are they kidding me - lol. As for the album ratings, I can't believe there is a evil plot against McCartney because I truly doubt that many people really check the album ratings. As for Wenner forcing the reviewer to change their rating, that is petty and downright wrong. If I was a reviewer, I would have said F*** you to Wenner and started looking for a new job. Finally, I guess I just don't get that upset when a record review of McCartney writes about a producer or says somebody like Elvis Costello brings outthe best in McCartney.
-
Say what you want, but RS leaving THE GREATEST MUSICIAN, COMPOSER and SONGWRITER IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC off of their list is completely and totally a case of them being BRAINDEAD! I'm not excepting any excuses for them, they've dogged McCartney out way too many times! In fact I think McCartney should be #2 right behind the Beatles! If you're documented and acknowledged as THE GREATEST MUSICIAN, COMPOSER AND SONGWRITER IN MUSIC HISTORY, who and how can anyone be higher? That's the question I would ask the clueless people at RS! I'm not sensitive to their disrespect of McCartney, I'm totally ticked!!
-
left hand man:
If you're documented and acknowledged as THE GREATEST MUSICIAN, COMPOSER AND SONGWRITER IN MUSIC HISTORY, who and how can anyone be higher?
Easy there left hand, he's not been documented as the greatest 'musician', there are lots of people out there who can play a vast majority of instruments, a few even members of this board.. and to be the greatest songwriter is subjective to taste. Paul is documented as being 'the most successful' songwriter, in terms of record sales, and #1 hits. and as you should know, the most successful music in terms of sales does not alway translate into being the best artistic work in the eyes of critics.
-
kapoo:
Paul is documented as being 'the most successful' songwriter, in terms of record sales, and #1 hits.
Right. And a lot of that is due to Beatles songs as well, correct? And those are already accounted for in the Beatles #1 ranking.
-
So does this mean they haven't overlooked Paul after all, since he was a member of The Beatles?