Rolling Stone Top-100... Why No Paul?
-
As I'm sure most of you know, Rolling Stone magazine compiled a list of the top-100 artists of all-time. It's a good list overall that serves its purpose - it's not too heavy on any one era, genre, gender or race, and seems to take influence and cultural impact into account as much as how the music has stood up. It also isn't based solely on fame; there are a lot of "hipster" choices on there... like Talking Heads, for example. I consider myself an appreciator of all good music, and I own at least an introduction by 75 of these 100 artists (and in many cases, a lot more) The Beatles are #1, I recall Lennon is about #31, but I couldn't believe there was no room for Macca on this thing. If you want to call the Beatles one entity, and say all their solo work rolls into that #1 ranking, fine. But if we're breaking them all up and judging them individually, I can't fathom how John can be so incredibly high on the list and Macca not at all. John's peak solo output was as good as, or perhaps better than Paul's, but I don't see how he achieved in 8 albums what Paul has in 25. I saw on these threads not too long ago, someone mentioned that without the Beatles, Paul would have eventually made a name for himself and would have achieved something in the Billy Joel/Bruce Springsteen level of fame and acclaim. I think that's a good start for a bare minimum. This is a guy who's a top-5 singer ever, a virtuoso musician and probably the best writer of melodies in the last 50 years (I know there were a few epic standards writers before him). Is this fallout of him being considered the "lightweight" of the core Beatles immediately following the breakup? Has he really not shaken that reputation yet? I look at someone like Elvis Costello, who made the list (I forget how high). I respect him greatly, but can anyone say his impact on music and his volume of great songs is anywhere near Paul's, really? They worked together in the 80s; does anyone think it was Paul going "OMG, I can't believe I'm working with Elvis Costello!!!" ? I doubt it.
-
There is really no way to know how far, or even if, McCartney's music career would have gone had the Beatles not happened. Take into account things like he was planning on being a teacher, going to college and such. He may never have made it out of Liverpool. That's not a slam on Paul. Had there been no Beatles, we would probably not have Billy Joel or Bruce Springsteen or many others who were either directly or indirectly influenced by the Beatles. FWIW, without the Beatles we probably would never have heard of Lennon, Harrison or Starr either. It was a perfect storm of music, style, talent, charisma, and the times.
-
RMartinez:
There is really no way to know how far, or even if, McCartney's music career would have gone had the Beatles not happened. Take into account things like he was planning on being a teacher, going to college and such. He may never have made it out of Liverpool. That's not a slam on Paul. Had there been no Beatles, we would probably not have Billy Joel or Bruce Springsteen or many others who were either directly or indirectly influenced by the Beatles. FWIW, without the Beatles we probably would never have heard of Lennon, Harrison or Starr either. It was a perfect storm of music, style, talent, charisma, and the times.
I agree with all that. My point about Joel/Springsteen is to point out what level of quality and impact his solo career ranks at. So if the Beatles are already accounted for and can't affect his ranking in any way, I still honestly don't see how he doesn't get a spot in the top-100. This far behind John is just mind boggling.
-
seventieslord:
RMartinez:
There is really no way to know how far, or even if, McCartney's music career would have gone had the Beatles not happened. Take into account things like he was planning on being a teacher, going to college and such. He may never have made it out of Liverpool. That's not a slam on Paul. Had there been no Beatles, we would probably not have Billy Joel or Bruce Springsteen or many others who were either directly or indirectly influenced by the Beatles. FWIW, without the Beatles we probably would never have heard of Lennon, Harrison or Starr either. It was a perfect storm of music, style, talent, charisma, and the times.
I agree with all that. My point about Joel/Springsteen is to point out what level of quality and impact his solo career ranks at. So if the Beatles are already accounted for and can't affect his ranking in any way, I still honestly don't see how he doesn't get a spot in the top-100. This far behind John is just mind boggling.
I agree. Strange. Still, Rolling Stone can be an odd bird. One of my fave bands is Cheap Trick, American rock legends to my mind, and they never make these lists. Go figure.
-
Music critics just think Paul's music is shallow and as you say lightweight so he's not taken seriously at all i'm afraid. The list is a joke really.
-
BOYCIE:
Music critics just think Paul's music is shallow and as you say lightweight so he's not taken seriously at all i'm afraid. The list is a joke really.
It's a joke in general, or for not having Paul? The thing is, I think it's got a ton of positives, and very few omissions. I could do with some Fleetwood Mac on there as well, personally. And Hank Williams top-20, not 79th or whatever. But my only MAJOR complaint is no Macca. I'm open to the possibility that I'm just a fanboy, but I like to think I have a good objective basis to my conclusions and I just can't see how he's not there.
-
seventieslord:
BOYCIE:
Music critics just think Paul's music is shallow and as you say lightweight so he's not taken seriously at all i'm afraid. The list is a joke really.
It's a joke in general, or for not having Paul? The thing is, I think it's got a ton of positives, and very few omissions. I could do with some Fleetwood Mac on there as well, personally. And Hank Williams top-20, not 79th or whatever. But my only MAJOR complaint is no Macca. I'm open to the possibility that I'm just a fanboy, but I like to think I have a good objective basis to my conclusions and I just can't see how he's not there.
A joke for having no Macca. I know Paul's post Beatle music has been very up and down quality wise, but i would say the same of John's music and for most artists who've been around for 40 years or more, the list is ludicrous.
-
Is this available online somewhere? I'm not seeing it on the Rolling Stone website. My personal feeling is that Rolling Stone is full of cr*p basically and has been for years. It tries too hard to be cool, its reviewers unashamedly biased or complete fluffball throwers and it bears no relationship whatsoever to the magazine it once was. The only things in it worth any serious consideration these days are any articles from Matt Taibbi and Mikal Gilmore (and those are sporadic). One shouldn't be surprised Paul was neglected/omitted and RS has always been pro-John/meh-Paul from the very beginning. I am bemused by the thought of who "their panel" considered more worthy of inclusion..."can't wait" to see it.
-
That is an old list. It came out in 2008 or so. Why isn't Paul on it? Because Rolling Stone's editor Jann Wenner had/has a massive fanboy crush on John Lennon. Wenner felt it was his duty to inflate John's solo work and diminish Paul's. I remember being irritated by that Rolling Stone list in 2008. Since then, I've learned the lengths to which Jann Wenner went to harm Paul's reputation. When Paul's first solo album came out, the Rolling Stone reviewer at the time gave it a positive review. Jann Wenner intervened and actually pressured the reviewer to rewrite it and make it a negative review. That's how much of a Lennon fanboy Wenner was. Appalling behavior that harmed Paul's reputation for years. The thing is: It's been fun to watch Rolling Stone eat crow lately. For example Rolling Stone gave Ram a terrible review when that album first came out. But when Paul reissued Ram a year ago -- now that the album is widely regarded as Paul's masterpiece and got glowing reviews -- Rolling Stone hilariously gave the reissue 4.5 stars. Paul must have felt good about that. In short: Rolling Stone magazine is a joke. So I wouldn't lose any sleep over any of its idiotic lists. After all, this is the magazine that put Mick Jagger's horrible Superheavy album on its list of the top 50 albums of 2011.
Why? Because Jann Wenner also has a crush on Mick Jagger -- not because the album was any good. If John Lennon belongs on any such list, then so does Paul. But it's taken Paul most of his solo career to get the appreciation he deserves for his best albums. -
Michelley:
Since then, I've learned that when Paul's first solo album came out, the Rolling Stone reviewer at the time gave it a positive review. Jann Wenner intervened and actually pressured the reviewer to rewrite it and make it a negative review. That's how much of a Lennon fanboy Wenner was. Appalling behavior that harmed Paul's reputation for years.
Wow - this does not surprise me but I'd never heard it before. Where did you hear/read this, Michelley?
-
Holly Days:
Michelley:
Since then, I've learned that when Paul's first solo album came out, the Rolling Stone reviewer at the time gave it a positive review. Jann Wenner intervened and actually pressured the reviewer to rewrite it and make it a negative review. That's how much of a Lennon fanboy Wenner was. Appalling behavior that harmed Paul's reputation for years.
Wow - this does not surprise me but I'd never heard it before. Where did you hear/read this, Michelley?
It's from a 2012 interview in the LA Review of Books wiith Greil Marcus, the music critic. He tells the story of Wenner intervening to pressure the reviewer to change the review from positive to negative. Here's the link: http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?id=591&fulltext=1 And here's the relevant quote:
There was one incident where Paul McCartney makes his first solo record and people thought it was wonderful: this rough, homemade one-man-band album. It was accompanied by a press release, a self-interview, about why he no longer needed the Beatles and how little he thought of them ... this real obnoxious statement, you know? I assigned it to a friend of mine, Langdon Winner, and Jann saw the piece and said: "We can't run it this way ? he's just reviewing it as if it's this nice little record. It's not just a nice little record, it's a statement and it's taking place in a context that we know: it's one person breaking up the band. This is what needs to be talked about." I said I didn't agree and "in any case it's up to Langdon to say what he wants to say." Jann said, "We have to talk about this." So we went to dinner that night and spent three f-cking hours arguing about this record review. Finally he convinced me. So I went over to Langdon's and sat down with him and spent three more hours arguing with him until I convinced him! Now to me this was the essence of great editing, of how you put out a publication that is utterly honest. All that time spent over one 750 word review! And it was worth it.
Worth it? To publish a one-sided biased review that inaccurately blames ONE PERSON for the breakup of the band??? When even back then it was John saying he was the one who wanted out and Paul was the only one who really wanted the Beatles to stay together??? How does this make any sense? Of course when you actually read Paul's self-interview today, you see he didn't in fact say the Beatles were over. He didn't attack any of the other Beatles. All he said was he enjoyed being with his family more. Paul was angry. But apparently only John was allowed to be angry. John's anger was "honest." Paul's anger was somehow "dishonest." Which is garbage. And just plain unfair. And it astounds me that Greil Marcus viewed Wenner's appalling behavior as a sign of good editing.
: : Really it was just a sign of Wenner's obsession with Lennon. It was a sign of TERRIBLE editing -- biased editing, of someone getting only one side of the story and running it. Unfortunately, back then the music media was a small incestuous little circle and Wenner's word carried a lot of weight. Now of course, no one pays any attention to anything Wenner or Rolling Stone says about music. A bit of karma there. Paul's been fighting his way back for the past 40 years. And that's why his Archive Collection is so important. Sorry for the rant. I still can't get over the fact that Marcus can't see how wrong he was. -
Michelley:
It was in an interview in the past 2 years with Greil Marcus, the music critic. He tells the story of Wenner intervening to pressure the reviewer to change the review to a negative. The amazing thing is that Greil Marcus viewed that as a sign of what a good editor Jann Wenner was.
: : Wenner believed John Lennon's BS blaming Paul entirely for the Beatles' breakup, so Wenner felt that the review of Paul's first album should take that slant against Paul. Back then the music media was a small incestuous little circle and Wenner's word carried a lot of weight. Now of course, no one pays any attention to anything Wenner or Rolling Stone says about music. I think Wenner forcing a reviewer to change a review to praise his pet artist is a sign of a terrible editor.Thanks for the info - I *am* surprised by Greil Marcus' stance there, especially as he's always come across as (and been perhaps a tad smug about being?) a pretty independent thinker. Shameful indeed but again, par for the course for Wenner.
-
Holly Days:
Is this available online somewhere? I'm not seeing it on the Rolling Stone website. My personal feeling is that Rolling Stone is full of cr*p basically and has been for years. It tries too hard to be cool, its reviewers unashamedly biased or complete fluffball throwers and it bears no relationship whatsoever to the magazine it once was. The only things in it worth any serious consideration these days are any articles from Matt Taibbi and Mikal Gilmore (and those are sporadic). One shouldn't be surprised Paul was neglected/omitted and RS has always been pro-John/meh-Paul from the very beginning. I am bemused by the thought of who "their panel" considered more worth of inclusion..."can't wait" to see it.
Here is is, I'm not sure if someone has compiled it into a list somewhere for easier perusal. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/talking-heads-20110426 Things that stand out to me: - I like Skynyrd, but their music hasn?t aged all that well. They seem to blend in more rather than stand out. In the realm of a hundred other bands and artists I like but realize aren?t top-100? like Cheap Trick, Boston, Grand Funk Railroad, April Wine, Leonard Cohen, Deep Purple, Foo Fighters, Green Day, etc. - Yardbirds were the breeding ground for elite guitarists, and I highly enjoy their music, but they were only around a few short years. - I know nothing of Gram Parsons! - 85th for Sabbath is terrible; this is the most influential metal band of all-time. Respect the genre! - I had no idea James Taylor was someone people considered a top-100 artist, I thought he was just an adult contemporary guy with a few enduring pleasing mellow songs. - Something about the Eagles at 75 doesn?t sit right with me? I?d have them somewhat higher. - Hank Williams at 74 is one of the greatest injustices here. This guy IS country. He was the innovator, Cash was the popular one with the voice and the longevity. They should both be top-20, one after the other. - If Radiohead is often known in critical circles as the best band of the last 20 years, shouldn?t they be a lot higher than 73? - I know nothing of Jackie Wilson. - I should now point out that the lack of Robert Johnson on this list is a glaring error. Johnson was perhaps THE biggest influence on the 50s generation of chess blues artists, who in turn led to Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry and finally the Stones, and RNR exploded. His impact is immeasurable. - Was Cream REALLY that good? At least consolidate their output into boosting Clapton a few spots. - Not a fan of Phil Spector at 64 on this list. He was a talented producer, but still just a producer. - Maybe I?m biased, but Metallica was the first band to bring thrash metal to the masses and deserves higher than 61. - Sex Pistols at 60? I have a hard time with a one-album band making the list, impactful or not. - Were Grateful Dead really that impactful? And the Allman Brothers? - Love the old Blues, but working backwards from 100, the first artist you see is Howlin? Wolf at 54. Then you get to Diddley at 20 and Muddy at 17. I?d spread them out a bit. Wolf is only known to Blues enthusiasts, although he sang a ton of what are now blues standards. I?d get him into the 80s and BB King (who was omitted) into the 90s. - I?ve never really understood the Byrds? appeal. I have their best-of, and it?s half Dylan covers, literally. Don?t you have to have a good cadre of your own songs to get on this list? - Maybe a few older posters can explain, was Van Morrison ever that big? I had no idea. - Again, Lennon at 38 doesn?t bother me, but then Paul should be within 10 of him, either way wouldn?t bother me. - Madonna and Jacko at 36 and 35 seems low for the old king and queen of pop, doesn?t it? - Neil Young at 34 is way too high. I grew up on him in Canada, and he?s not THAT good. - What are your thoughts on the Everly Brothers at 33? That seems awfully high. - Smokey Robinson is at 32, with the Four Tops and Temptations in the 70s/80s. Can their legacies be separated by that much? Tough call for me to make, as I wasn?t around then. Musically, I find them fairly interchangeable. - The Who are great, but 29 seems a bit high for a band who kinda rode the Beatles/Stones wave. I?d put them more in Kinks territory (though obviously higher) - When you see Fats Domino at 25 and then Jerry Lee Lewis at 24, you know something?s wrong. Jerry was the better piano player, but that?s it. Fats wrote better tunes, was relevant for much longer, was more influential, and didn?t have the massive personality flaws Lewis had (borderline pedophile, likely murderer). Lewis was highly relevant for a couple years with 3-4 good singles (two great ones) but after that, was an inconsequential country crooner. Fats deserves his 25th spot; Lewis deserves a token spot similar to the 99th spot Carl Perkins received (although Perkins definitely had more noteworthy songs, he had none of GBOF-caliber) - Springsteen at 23. Fair. McCartney territory, IMO. - U2 is good, but overrated. I can stomach them at 22 though, given the effect they have on a lot of other people. - Velvet Underground at 19? I understand there need to be some hipster selections, and they?re as good for that as anyone, but 19 puts them in really elite company. - Zeppelin is one of my all-time favourites, but 14 seems pretty high when you look at where some other heavy bands like Aerosmith and AC DC placed. - Buddy Holly at 13 is a little high if only for longevity reasons. I just passed Muddy Waters at 17 and Waters? impact was greater and for longer. - Aretha Franklin is 9th. Is this fair? Maybe I need to be better educated here. She?s known as the best singer ever. But can someone who?s ?just? a singer rank this high? - Just gotta say, they really got it right with Chuck Berry up at #5. If we?re looking at early rockers, rockabillies and bluesmen combined influence on the development of both the Beatles and the Stones (the pillars of modern rock and roll), he tops the list. Easily. His music was the best of his generation, and unlike most of the others, he wrote most of it himself. He set the new standard that they built on. - Stones and Dylan could be 2/3 or 3/2 for all I care. They?re in more or less the right spot. - This is probably controversial, but Elvis is a tad high. He had an extremely impactful couple of years where he put out some iconic songs, then went to war, came back and did horrible soundtrack albums for a decade before his big comeback where he ultimately settled into being a Las Vegas crooner. In terms of peak, he?s 2nd all-time behind the Beatles. He?s a top-5 singer ever, top-3 in stage presence/charisma ever, a true heartthrob hunk, but he really made good music for about 2 years, and by my count, never wrote a song. (he co-wrote 8 that I counted). Chuck Berry peaked at the same time, and was, in my opinion, just as good. The finished musical output was a tad lower in quality, admittedly (we?re comparing him to Jailhouse Rock, Hound Dog, Heartbreak Hotel, Don?t Be Cruel, for chrissake), but then Chuck was the sole architect behind his music (not a songwriting team) and a far, far superior guitarist. - Did I miss ABBA on this list? Surely they have to be there somewhere. They were the best ever at what they did. This may make it look like I have major disagreements with the list. I think it?s good, and those are the tweaks I would make.
-
Michelley:
That is an old list. It came out in 2008 or so. Why isn't Paul on it? Because Rolling Stone's editor Jann Wenner had/has a massive fanboy crush on John Lennon. Wenner felt it was his duty to inflate John's solo work and diminish Paul's. I remember being irritated by that Rolling Stone list in 2008. Since then, I've learned the lengths to which Jann Wenner went to harm Paul's reputation. When Paul's first solo album came out, the Rolling Stone reviewer at the time gave it a positive review. Jann Wenner intervened and actually pressured the reviewer to rewrite it and make it a negative review. That's how much of a Lennon fanboy Wenner was. Appalling behavior that harmed Paul's reputation for years. The thing is: It's been fun to watch Rolling Stone eat crow lately. For example Rolling Stone gave Ram a terrible review when that album first came out. But when Paul reissued Ram a year ago -- now that the album is widely regarded as Paul's masterpiece and got glowing reviews -- Rolling Stone hilariously gave the reissue 4.5 stars. Paul must have felt good about that. In short: Rolling Stone magazine is a joke. So I wouldn't lose any sleep over any of its idiotic lists. After all, this is the magazine that put Mick Jagger's horrible Superheavy album on its list of the top 50 albums of 2011.
Why? Because Jann Wenner also has a crush on Mick Jagger -- not because the album was any good. If John Lennon belongs on any such list, then so does Paul. But it's taken Paul most of his solo career to get the appreciation he deserves for his best albums.Good points but you have to admit RS has given McCartney good reviews for his records the last 10-20 years. RS has also been very complimentary about McCartney's live performances..
-
I prepared myself to be disappointed at where Elvis might've appeared on that list. As happy as I am to see that he ranked at #3, why should I respect ANY list of this sort that would make such an egregious oversight to omit Paul Friggin' McCartney????
-
seventieslord:
Holly Days:
Is this available online somewhere? I'm not seeing it on the Rolling Stone website. My personal feeling is that Rolling Stone is full of cr*p basically and has been for years. It tries too hard to be cool, its reviewers unashamedly biased or complete fluffball throwers and it bears no relationship whatsoever to the magazine it once was. The only things in it worth any serious consideration these days are any articles from Matt Taibbi and Mikal Gilmore (and those are sporadic). One shouldn't be surprised Paul was neglected/omitted and RS has always been pro-John/meh-Paul from the very beginning. I am bemused by the thought of who "their panel" considered more worth of inclusion..."can't wait" to see it.
Here is is, I'm not sure if someone has compiled it into a list somewhere for easier perusal. ... - This is probably controversial, but Elvis is a tad high. He had an extremely impactful couple of years where he put out some iconic songs, then went to war, came back and did horrible soundtrack albums for a decade before his big comeback where he ultimately settled into being a Las Vegas crooner. In terms of peak, he?s 2nd all-time behind the Beatles. He?s a top-5 singer ever, top-3 in stage presence/charisma ever, a true heartthrob hunk, but he really made good music for about 2 years, and by my count, never wrote a song. (he co-wrote 8 that I counted)...
I would encourage anyone who believes that Elvis hit his artistic peak pre-Army to listen to all of his early '60s recordings, '60-'63 particularly (excluding the soundtracks). Also, from his return-to-form blues singles in '67 all the way through his May '71 sessions, Elvis honed his craft and made music that I consider superior to the Sun sides, as well as his 1956-58 body of work.
-
audi:
seventieslord:
Holly Days:
Is this available online somewhere? I'm not seeing it on the Rolling Stone website. My personal feeling is that Rolling Stone is full of cr*p basically and has been for years. It tries too hard to be cool, its reviewers unashamedly biased or complete fluffball throwers and it bears no relationship whatsoever to the magazine it once was. The only things in it worth any serious consideration these days are any articles from Matt Taibbi and Mikal Gilmore (and those are sporadic). One shouldn't be surprised Paul was neglected/omitted and RS has always been pro-John/meh-Paul from the very beginning. I am bemused by the thought of who "their panel" considered more worth of inclusion..."can't wait" to see it.
Here is is, I'm not sure if someone has compiled it into a list somewhere for easier perusal. ... - This is probably controversial, but Elvis is a tad high. He had an extremely impactful couple of years where he put out some iconic songs, then went to war, came back and did horrible soundtrack albums for a decade before his big comeback where he ultimately settled into being a Las Vegas crooner. In terms of peak, he?s 2nd all-time behind the Beatles. He?s a top-5 singer ever, top-3 in stage presence/charisma ever, a true heartthrob hunk, but he really made good music for about 2 years, and by my count, never wrote a song. (he co-wrote 8 that I counted)...
I would encourage anyone who believes that Elvis hit his artistic peak pre-Army to listen to all of his early '60s recordings, '60-'63 particularly (excluding the soundtracks). Also, from his return-to-form blues singles in '67 all the way through his May '71 sessions, Elvis honed his craft and made music that I consider superior to the Sun sides, as well as his 1956-58 body of work.
However, he was still having songs written for him at this time, wasn't he?
-
One does not have to be a composer to be a brilliant artist. For example, look at all four hit versions of "I Heard It Through The Grapevine." Also, Doc Pomus said that Elvis Presley and Ray Charles were the only two artists who repeatedly brought a vision to his songs that not even he had imagined when he wrote them.
-
audi:
One does not have to be a composer to be a brilliant artist. For example, look at all four hit versions of "I Heard It Through The Grapevine." Also, Doc Pomus said that Elvis Presley and Ray Charles were the only two artists who repeatedly brought a vision to his songs that not he had imagined when he wrote them.
True, I am not saying that lyric writing is a prerequisite. But it is a piece of the puzzle, and this high up on the list, we're comparing him to others who did have that piece of the puzzle, and were some of the best of all-time at it.
-
But there are many brilliant lyricists whose records are mediocre.
