Rolling Stone Top-100... Why No Paul?
-
still more tremendous, essential, historical, musicians that are not in the list... lol Johann Sebastian Bach "the father of music" (nothing less...) Frank Sinatra Barbra Streisand Puccini, Verdi, Tchaikovsky... Carlos Gardel Burt Bacharach Bon Jovi
-
yankeefan7:
seventieslord:
yankeefan7:
21st Century Paul:
This reminds me of the discussion there is about who's the best football (soccer for the USA) player now, if Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo. There are some that say "Messi is the best and Cristiano is not even some of the 50 best" and viceversa... "Cristiano is the best and Messi not even in the top 50"... Some things are BEYOND opinion... It's like making a 100 Best Basketball Players of All Time List without Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson. Or a best classic composers list without Mozart, Bach or Beethoven. It's different from the discussion of who's better if "Bill Russell or Will Chamberlain" "Kobe Bryant or Jordan"... "Maradona or Pele" or "Mozart or Beethoven"...
IMO - it would have been interesting to "poll the jury" of people who voted on this top 100. It would have been interesting to ask them why McCartney was not on top 100 and Lennon was 31 and hear the reasoning.
Do we know who voted on it? Sorry if this was brought up before. Every entry is accompanied by an article by someone who admired them - usually another musician. If those were the types of people who made the list, there's no way that Paul didn't make it based on voting. The results had to be doctored after the fact by RS. There's no rule (besides intellectual honesty) that says they couldn't use the voting results as a guide and then tweak it as they see fit.
The top 100 guitarists actaully named everyone who voted but this category only mentioned a name or two, see beloow. "In 2004 ? 50 years after Elvis Presley walked into Sun Studios and cut "That's All Right" ? Rolling Stone celebrated rock & roll's first half-century in grand style, assembling a panel of 55 top musicians, writers and industry executives (everyone from Keith Richards to ?uestlove of the Roots) and asking them to pick the most influential artists of the rock & roll era. The resulting list of 100 artists, published in two issues of Rolling Stone in 2004 and 2005, and updated in 2011, is a broad survey of rock history, spanning Sixties heroes (the Beatles) and modern insurgents (Eminem), and touching on early pioneers (Chuck Berry) and the bluesmen who made it all possible (Howlin' Wolf). The essays on these top 100 artists are by their peers: singers, producers and musicians. In these fan testimonials, indie rockers pay tribute to world-beating rappers (Vampire Weekend's Ezra Koenig on Jay-Z), young pop stars honor stylistic godmothers (Britney Spears on Madonna) and Billy Joel admits that Elton John "kicks my ass on piano." Rock & roll is now a music with a rich past. But at its best, it is still the sound of forward motion. As you read this book, remember: This is what we have to live up to."
The "start of rock and roll" is a pretty subjective thing too. Check out some songs by Wynonie Harris and Louis Jordan (1940s), and try to tell me that's not rock and roll. If I'm wrong, then please enlighten me on what distinguishing features made "That's All Right (Mama)" RNR when Harris and Jordan weren't.
-
21st Century Paul:
seventieslord:
21st Century Paul:
No Paul because it's Rolling Stone, same old story. BASIC flaws on the list 1 All "artists" are musicians... lol. Shakespeare, for instance, did some interesting things... 2 All artists are mainstream 3 Way most, almost all of the artist are from only 2 nations, the USA or the UK. So no Bee Gees, ABBA, Serrat, etc, etc, etc 4 It's all pop music, no room for people that are from the USA and UK but not "pop", and have written some of the best music ever like John Williams!, Phillip Glass!, Lloyd Webber! etc. 4 Even if the list is seen as "best USA and UK pop musicians on the mainstream ever... Some absurd ranks like Elton John at #49.. no Billy Joel, no Pink Floyd, and even no Queen! (and of course no Freddie Mercury or Brian May) When only in some seconds of some Queen songs there is more creativity than in all the career of some in this top 100. Even in Freddie's solo work, like the Barcelona album. The list is only important cause Rolling Stone is the magazine related to music with biggest sales, but that doesn't make them right at all. McCartney, Queen, Beethoven and Mozart didn't make it to the list, I'm wondering if The Beatles belong there then. Queen at Live Aid, labeled as the best rock performance ever by the rest of the artists there, almost all of the best of the best were there, and they were the best of that... and yet... well....
Bee Gees and ABBA were eligible but missed... Bee Gees I can see missing, but not ABBA. They should be in Madonna/MJ territory, right? Floyd and Queen are there. Joel? Well you can't have room for everyone. I don't think he quite makes the cut.
...no Supertramp, no Oasis... I can go on
Oasis I could definitely see. I was thinking about that the other day. Supertramp... again, you can't have everyone. And the 70s are extremely well-represented.
-
21st Century Paul:
still more tremendous, essential, historical, musicians that are not in the list... lol Johann Sebastian Bach "the father of music" (nothing less...) Frank Sinatra Barbra Streisand Puccini, Verdi, Tchaikovsky... Carlos Gardel Burt Bacharach Bon Jovi
I assume the last one was just to see if anyone was really paying attention to what you were saying. I was!
-
seventieslord:
Check out some songs by Wynonie Harris and Louis Jordan (1940s), and try to tell me that's not rock and roll. If I'm wrong, then please enlighten me on what distinguishing features made "That's All Right (Mama)" RNR when Harris and Jordan weren't.
Sam Phillips was quoted as saying "if I could find a White man who sounded Black I could make a million dollars." When Elvis walked into Sun Studios, that's exactly what happened. That was the start of Rock 'n' Roll.
-
Rolling Stone is so darn frustrating as far as Paul is concerned...
-
beatlesfanrandy:
Sam Phillips was quoted as saying "if I could find a White man who sounded Black I could make a million dollars." When Elvis walked into Sun Studios, that's exactly what happened. That was the start of Rock 'n' Roll.
Great quote
-
Well, there's the "distinguishing feature" I was looking for, I guess... haha... except it's not that funny ops: When I look them up, they're mostly described as "jump blues" but I have a compilation by each of them, and as far as I'm concerned, that's every bit as rock and roll as Bo Diddley.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
seventieslord:
Check out some songs by Wynonie Harris and Louis Jordan (1940s), and try to tell me that's not rock and roll. If I'm wrong, then please enlighten me on what distinguishing features made "That's All Right (Mama)" RNR when Harris and Jordan weren't.
Sam Phillips was quoted as saying "if I could find a White man who sounded Black I could make a million dollars." When Elvis walked into Sun Studios, that's exactly what happened. That was the start of Rock 'n' Roll.
well, I guess Elvis and 1954/55 is the start of rock and roll making money, going mainstream... Anyway I think Beethoven was already rock and roll so go figure
-
So apparently RS was smart enough to call Band On the Run the album of the year in 1974. Good on them. But then, why was it just 413th all-time on their "500 greatest albums" list? Was 1973/74 Music really that bad that its best album was only 413th all-time? I doubt it. So which 1973/74 recordings suddenly became better than Band On the Run... and why?
-
seventieslord:
So apparently RS was smart enough to call Band On the Run the album of the year in 1974. Good on them. But then, why was it just 413th all-time on their "500 greatest albums" list? Was 1973/74 Music really that bad that its best album was only 413th all-time? I doubt it. So which 1973/74 recordings suddenly became better than Band On the Run... and why?
...same old reason, because they are Rolling Stone...
-
seventieslord:
So apparently RS was smart enough to call Band On the Run the album of the year in 1974. Good on them. But then, why was it just 413th all-time on their "500 greatest albums" list? Was 1973/74 Music really that bad that its best album was only 413th all-time? I doubt it. So which 1973/74 recordings suddenly became better than Band On the Run... and why?
Very good point!!
-
I lost my interest/respect 4 the 'reporting' of Rolling Stone somewhere in 1990. The only reason I ever buy it, is if someone interesting is featured, such as the Special Collectors Edition of The Beatles 100 Greatest Hits, or the copy of Paul on the cover from last year. (he looked so good there. ) Now they have that Boston Bomber idiot on the cover for August? Really? Rolling Stone is more irrelevant than ever, so tacky. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/17/rolling-stone-dzhokhar-tsarnaev_n_3608979.html?utm_hp_ref=uk?ncid=GEP jmo.
-
seventieslord:
So apparently RS was smart enough to call Band On the Run the album of the year in 1974. Good on them. But then, why was it just 413th all-time on their "500 greatest albums" list? Was 1973/74 Music really that bad that its best album was only 413th all-time? I doubt it. So which 1973/74 recordings suddenly became better than Band On the Run... and why?
I have defended RS a bunch in this thread but now they really got to be kidding about McCartney. They ranked the 15 Greatest Live Acts currently and McCartney was #15. The one thing that really got me was Tom Petty was ranked #13, definitely a SMH moment.
-
kapoo:
beatlesfanrandy:
Sam Phillips was quoted as saying "if I could find a White man who sounded Black I could make a million dollars." When Elvis walked into Sun Studios, that's exactly what happened. That was the start of Rock 'n' Roll.
Great quote
Rock and Roll started with the Elvis co-penned "Heartbreak Hotel". Period. The song still makes my hair stand-up. Elvis' production, vocals, & delivery is simply amazing.
-
JoeySmith:
kapoo:
beatlesfanrandy:
Sam Phillips was quoted as saying "if I could find a White man who sounded Black I could make a million dollars." When Elvis walked into Sun Studios, that's exactly what happened. That was the start of Rock 'n' Roll.
Great quote
Rock and Roll started with the Elvis co-penned "Heartbreak Hotel". Period. The song still makes my hair stand-up. Elvis' production, vocals, & delivery is simply amazing.
I agree...somewhat. But for mine, Rock and Roll started with the opening credits of The Blackboard Jungle. Rock Around The Clock - Bill Haley and his Comets.
-
yankeefan7:
seventieslord:
So apparently RS was smart enough to call Band On the Run the album of the year in 1974. Good on them. But then, why was it just 413th all-time on their "500 greatest albums" list? Was 1973/74 Music really that bad that its best album was only 413th all-time? I doubt it. So which 1973/74 recordings suddenly became better than Band On the Run... and why?
I have defended RS a bunch in this thread but now they really got to be kidding about McCartney. They ranked the 15 Greatest Live Acts currently and McCartney was #15. The one thing that really got me was Tom Petty was ranked #13, definitely a SMH moment.
I think Paul's boring setlist has much to do with his lower ranking myself. The Stones are high because they've been away for quite awhile so, "absence makes the heart grow fonder" as far as they are concerned. As for Tom Petty, i saw him with the Heartbreakers last year at the Royal Albert Hall and enjoyed it more than my last few Paul gigs.
-
BOYCIE:
yankeefan7:
seventieslord:
So apparently RS was smart enough to call Band On the Run the album of the year in 1974. Good on them. But then, why was it just 413th all-time on their "500 greatest albums" list? Was 1973/74 Music really that bad that its best album was only 413th all-time? I doubt it. So which 1973/74 recordings suddenly became better than Band On the Run... and why?
I have defended RS a bunch in this thread but now they really got to be kidding about McCartney. They ranked the 15 Greatest Live Acts currently and McCartney was #15. The one thing that really got me was Tom Petty was ranked #13, definitely a SMH moment.
I think Paul's boring setlist has much to do with his lower ranking myself. The Stones are high because they've been away for quite awhile so, "absence makes the heart grow fonder" as far as they are concerned. As for Tom Petty, i saw him with the Heartbreakers last year at the Royal Albert Hall and enjoyed it more than my last few Paul gigs.
McCartney's "boring" setlist is because people like you and me have seen him numerous times. The first time fans don't think it is boring at all. McCartney plays close to 3 hrs and some of the greatest songs in rock history. He is amazing muscian and is quite charming in between songs. Yes, you and me know the stories but once again the first time people eat it up. The one time I saw Tom Petty he was good but had the personality of a potted plant.
-
yankeefan7:
McCartney's "boring" setlist is because people like you and me have seen him numerous times. The first time fans don't think it is boring at all. McCartney plays close to 3 hrs and some of the greatest songs in rock history. He is amazing musician and is quite charming in between songs. Yes, you and me know the stories but once again the first time people eat it up. The one time I saw Tom Petty he was good but had the personality of a potted plant.
As has been discussed infinitum on the ROCKSHOW section the first timers have had many chances to see Paul play his side of the Beatles oeuvre over the last few years. I think the only answer is for Paul to play a smaller tour like the early Wings gigs and announce them as a "non Beatle" show, but that's as likely as him dropping his current way of doing things. I see Steely Dan are playing the Beacon Theatre in NY seven times and are mixing it up quite a bit, similar to Tom Petty's residency there a few weeks back. STEELY DAN AT THE BEACON THEATRE Sept 30 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Aja - Plus Selected Hits Oct 01 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Greatest Hits Night Oct 03 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Royal Scam - Plus Selected Hits Oct 04 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Gaucho - Plus Selected Hits Oct 05 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Audience Request Night Oct 07 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Aja - Plus Selected Hits Oct 08 New York, NY new Beacon Theatr * now Greatest Hits Night
-
BOYCIE:
yankeefan7:
McCartney's "boring" setlist is because people like you and me have seen him numerous times. The first time fans don't think it is boring at all. McCartney plays close to 3 hrs and some of the greatest songs in rock history. He is amazing musician and is quite charming in between songs. Yes, you and me know the stories but once again the first time people eat it up. The one time I saw Tom Petty he was good but had the personality of a potted plant.
As has been discussed infinitum on the ROCKSHOW section the first timers have had many chances to see Paul play his side of the Beatles oeuvre over the last few years. I think the only answer is for Paul to play a smaller tour like the early Wings gigs and announce them as a "non Beatle" show, but that's as likely as him dropping his current way of doing things. I see Steely Dan are playing the Beacon Theatre in NY seven times and are mixing it up quite a bit, similar to Tom Petty's residency there a few weeks back. STEELY DAN AT THE BEACON THEATRE Sept 30 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Aja - Plus Selected Hits Oct 01 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Greatest Hits Night Oct 03 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Royal Scam - Plus Selected Hits Oct 04 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Gaucho - Plus Selected Hits Oct 05 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Audience Request Night Oct 07 New York, NY new Beacon Theatre * now Aja - Plus Selected Hits Oct 08 New York, NY new Beacon Theatr * now Greatest Hits Night
What a brilliant concept. "Corporation McCartney" would never do it. HE SHOULD!!!!!!!!!!