Rolling Stone Top-100... Why No Paul?
-
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.
-
Rolling Stone is adept at what are known as 'culture wars'. The purpose of these is to turn the creative process into a competitive sport; as such music can be promoted aggressively in a way that we don't see with theatre or cinema or with the arts in general. Fans can then be divided into factions and those factions can be exploited by music journalists and record companies. In the case of music journalists it is to establish reputations for themselves as adjudicators who create an accepted cultural narrative; in the case of record companies, to drive record sales among fans who become a part of this narrative either by accepting it or by rejecting it. What occurred in the case of Lennon and McCartney was that the break-up of the Beatles became the biggest and earliest test of these culture wars; the Beatles story need a hero and a villain of equally epic proportions; if Lennon was to be as good as they would have him be, McCartney had to be as bad as they dared hope. They opted for Lennon as their choice of hero, but that by itself was not enough - McCartney had to be demonised to make sure the narrative stuck. But they went too far; as Lennon's light faded throughout his solo career, and as McCartney became more and more commercially successful, so the original character assassination of Paul had to be added to and embellished, even as the Beatles faded into history - they couldn't afford to have it unravel. These two men, once friends, the greatest songwriting partnership of the 20th century, were used by music journalists as fodder in their culture wars. It's an irony that the rebel figure of Lennon is the establishment choice, while the non-rebel figure of McCartney is their hate figure. Once you see the music establishment has been wearing its trousers back to front for 40 years, it's hard to take it seriously.
-
audi:
But there are many brilliant lyricists whose records are mediocre.
True. But I wouldn't dare compare Elvis to them. I'm comparing him to the likes of Dylan, the Stones, Chuck Berry and Hendrix.
-
Yes...and he outsold all of them combined. And Hendrix was a diehard Elvis fan. Dylan said Elvis' version of "Tomorrow Is A Long Time" is the best version of every Dylan-cover ever made.
-
Getting back to the subject, this list is practically moot because it left out Wings/McCartney.
-
yankeefan7:
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..
Actually Rolling Stone hasn't been particularly generous with its reviews of Paul's recent albums of original songs. RS hasn't given 4 stars to a single one of Paul's recent albums put out under his own name. Not one. This is a magazine that gave 4 stars to that atrocious Mick Jagger Superheavy album and yet didn't give 4 stars to Chaos and Creation????? RS gave Memory Almost Full 3.5 stars. Chaos got 3 stars. You know what recent album RS gave 4 stars to? Paul's covers album: Run Devil Run. That's a backhanded compliment if ever I've seen one: It's basically saying "see, his best album is him singing someone else's songs." Don't get me wrong: I love Run Devil Run. But both Rolling Stone and that blowhard critic Robert Christgau gave the highest ratings they'd ever given to one of Paul's albums to Run Devil Run. Don't tell me that wasn't a purposeful slight. It was. Jann Wenner and Christgau are friends and both worship Lennon. And if you go to the RS page that lists the magazine's supposedly current ratings of Paul's albums (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/paul-mccartney/albumguide),,) this pathetic excuse for a magazine hasn't even updated its ratings of Paul's early albums. Rolling Stone still lists Ram as 3 stars even though its most recent review gave the Ram reissue 4.5 stars. It's still listing McCartney II as 2 stars even though its most recent review gave the McCartney II reissue 3 stars. It still lists McCartney as 2.5 stars even though the magazine's most recent review gave the McCartney reissue 3.5 stars. So it's STILL lowballing Macca as a songwriter and a solo artist -- and has done so for 40 freaking years. It's new music sites like Pitchfork and Allmusic and The Quietus and the AV Club that have led the way in rethinking Paul's solo work. NOT Rolling Stone. Oh, and guess which recent solo album of Paul's that Rolling Stone did give 4 stars to: Electric Arguments. So it gave 4 stars to an album that it doesn't even list under Paul's name (just under "The Fireman") and it doesn't even list the album on its page about McCartney's solo work. Check the list --:http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/paul-mccartney/albumguide -- Electric Arguments is not there. But, yes, I'll grant you that Rolling Stone has thrown Paul a bone by praising his live performances. They've just undercut him as a songwriter since he left the Beatles. Edited to add: Squid's point about John and Paul being used in the culture wars is spot on. This all really ticks me off. Obviously.
-
audi:
Yes...and he outsold all of them combined. And Hendrix was a diehard Elvis fan. Dylan said Elvis' version of "Tomorrow Is A Long Time" is the best version of every Dylan-cover ever made.
Sales aren't the main criteria here. Or rather, they shouldn't be. These seem like isolated little matters. The Beatles were Elvis fans too, but they were better. Elvis was a fan of many artists that came before him that he ultimately became way better than. And what Dylan said about "Tomorrow is a Long Time" may very well be the case, but that's hardly evidence he's a better artist than Dylan. And I realize this is all subjective...
-
The media , of which Rolling Stone is part of, has always been jealous of Paul McCartney. That's why they play him down, always have. They resent anyone they can't copy, and no one can copy McCartney's talent - never could, so they try to minimize his talent and pretend he doesn't exist.
-
seventieslord:
audi:
Yes...and he outsold all of them combined. And Hendrix was a diehard Elvis fan. Dylan said Elvis' version of "Tomorrow Is A Long Time" is the best version of every Dylan-cover ever made.
Sales aren't the main criteria here. Or rather, they shouldn't be. These seem like isolated little matters. The Beatles were Elvis fans too, but they were better. Elvis was a fan of many artists that came before him that he ultimately became way better than. And what Dylan said about "Tomorrow is a Long Time" may very well be the case, but that's hardly evidence he's a better artist than Dylan. And I realize this is all subjective...
The Beatles completed the development of rock & roll. Can't deny that -- the genre just wouldn't be the same without them. Still, as writers are the focus of this debate, does Buddy Holly outrank Elvis?
-
audi:
seventieslord:
audi:
Yes...and he outsold all of them combined. And Hendrix was a diehard Elvis fan. Dylan said Elvis' version of "Tomorrow Is A Long Time" is the best version of every Dylan-cover ever made.
Sales aren't the main criteria here. Or rather, they shouldn't be. These seem like isolated little matters. The Beatles were Elvis fans too, but they were better. Elvis was a fan of many artists that came before him that he ultimately became way better than. And what Dylan said about "Tomorrow is a Long Time" may very well be the case, but that's hardly evidence he's a better artist than Dylan. And I realize this is all subjective...
The Beatles completed the development of rock & roll. Can't deny that -- the genre just wouldn't be the same without them. Still, as writers are the focus of this debate, does Buddy Holly outrank Elvis?
No. I would not put Holly ahead of Elvis. His peak was not nearly as high, and sadly, lacks any kind of longevity to flesh out his career. He was only slightly more prolific a lyric writer than Elvis. On the compilation I have, he ?co-wrote? about two thirds of them, with no sole songwriting credits going to him. He?s got lots going for him, and his songwriting is one advantage over Elvis, but the total package? No way. Chuck Berry, on the other hand... a legit case could be built.
-
Truce.
We agree.
-
yeah its a shame that rolling stones didn't acknowledge Paul. I wonder if he is offended by this? If I was he I would be. lol