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.