Rolling Stone Top-100... Why No Paul?
-
left hand man:
What some of you don't seem to realize is that if McCartney did a concert filled with his post Beatles music it would be packed! It may not be packed with the die hard Beatle freaks, but it would be packed with all the fans of his post Beatles music! Paul McCartney has more than just Beatle fans, and there's plenty of them all over the world! You guys seem to be only thinking of America, this mans music is universal, people all over the world know his music, so let him do a Wings/solo tour and just watch who and how many come!!
We will never know but there is no way he would sell out arena's or stadiums without doing Beatle songs. Heck, I am willing to bet he could not sell out a small venue if it was announced it was Wings/Solo only. I would love it but definitely would be in the minority. Think about this board, how many people would pay big dollars to see him do show that had no Beatle songs. Off the top of my head, I can think of maybe 10.
-
yankeefan7:
left hand man:
What some of you don't seem to realize is that if McCartney did a concert filled with his post Beatles music it would be packed! It may not be packed with the die hard Beatle freaks, but it would be packed with all the fans of his post Beatles music! Paul McCartney has more than just Beatle fans, and there's plenty of them all over the world! You guys seem to be only thinking of America, this mans music is universal, people all over the world know his music, so let him do a Wings/solo tour and just watch who and how many come!!
We will never know but there is no way he would sell out arena's or stadiums without doing Beatle songs. Heck, I am willing to bet he could not sell out a small venue if it was announced it was Wings/Solo only. I would love it but definitely would be in the minority. Think about this board, how many people would pay big dollars to see him do show that had no Beatle songs. Off the top of my head, I can think of maybe 10.
I disagree. Let's start a list of people who would pay big bucks to see only Wings/solo songs: (Copy and add your name) 1. Nancy R
-
Nancy R:
yankeefan7:
left hand man:
What some of you don't seem to realize is that if McCartney did a concert filled with his post Beatles music it would be packed! It may not be packed with the die hard Beatle freaks, but it would be packed with all the fans of his post Beatles music! Paul McCartney has more than just Beatle fans, and there's plenty of them all over the world! You guys seem to be only thinking of America, this mans music is universal, people all over the world know his music, so let him do a Wings/solo tour and just watch who and how many come!!
We will never know but there is no way he would sell out arena's or stadiums without doing Beatle songs. Heck, I am willing to bet he could not sell out a small venue if it was announced it was Wings/Solo only. I would love it but definitely would be in the minority. Think about this board, how many people would pay big dollars to see him do show that had no Beatle songs. Off the top of my head, I can think of maybe 10.
I disagree. Let's start a list of people who would pay big bucks to see only Wings/solo songs: (Copy and add your name) 1. Nancy R
I hope you prove me wrong and you could add my name to the list - lol. Only problem is talk is cheap, people can say anything on a fan site but would they actually cough up the money to see such a show.
-
Pretty simple everybody: Rolling Stone sucks (and has for a very long time now). And lists that attempt to put songs or artist in order of greatness or imprtance are dumb. End of discussion.
-
Freaky Orthopedic:
Pretty simple everybody: Rolling Stone sucks (and has for a very long time now). And lists that attempt to put songs or artist in order of greatness or imprtance are dumb. End of discussion.
It is just a magazine stating the collective opinion of those they used in a poll. RS is not claiming they are right and nobody else knows anything about music. These things are done for "fun" and to promote discussion, no harm in doing that IMO.
-
The harm is when they get it totally wrong, and give out a misleading message! I say again, the fans of McCartney's music after the Beatles would fill any place! You can definitely add my name to that list of people who would pay to see McCartney do a post Beatles show, I'd go with the quickness!
-
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....
-
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"...
-
yankeefan7:
Freaky Orthopedic:
Pretty simple everybody: Rolling Stone sucks (and has for a very long time now). And lists that attempt to put songs or artist in order of greatness or imprtance are dumb. End of discussion.
It is just a magazine stating the collective opinion of those they used in a poll. RS is not claiming they are right and nobody else knows anything about music. These things are done for "fun" and to promote discussion, no harm in doing that IMO.
I think it's clear that they think they went to great lengths to make this a "proper" list. Still no excuse for Paul's exclusion.
-
left hand man:
The harm is when they get it totally wrong, and give out a misleading message! I say again, the fans of McCartney's music after the Beatles would fill any place! You can definitely add my name to that list of people who would pay to see McCartney do a post Beatles show, I'd go with the quickness!
we are not a sample of the general public. We are a sample of people who care enough about the Beatles (and about Macca in general) to join a message board to talk about them and him.
-
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.
-
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"...
My actual hobby (more than music) is debating such things about hockey players. You actually can reach something resembling a consensus if you spend enough time hammering it out and letting the good ideas a methodologies for evaluation rise to the top.
-
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.
-
left hand man:
The harm is when they get it totally wrong, and give out a misleading message! I say again, the fans of McCartney's music after the Beatles would fill any place! You can definitely add my name to that list of people who would pay to see McCartney do a post Beatles show, I'd go with the quickness!
Well so far there are 3 of us would pay to see a post Beatle show, not exacly a overwhelming response.
-
If you're looking for an overwhelming response from any forum or messageboard you're never going to get it! Many people probably aren't even looking at this forum. I have no doubt about it though because on too many music related sites people are asking McCartney to perform more of his Wings/solo music. All the millions of Wings fans are still around, and they are all over the world!
-
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.
-
Nothing makes the case better this ass-kicking argument/birthday-tribute from the brilliant mind of John Fugelsang:
-
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."
-
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
-
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.
It could have been worse, like Ringo and George could have been on the list with Paul still out. The Frog Chorus is a better piece of music than the best piece of music of most of the artist of the Rolling Stone list, go figure...