EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:38 pm

Henrik wrote:My view on popularity, influence and impact is obviously borrowed from critics and there are other ways to look at it. Again there is no right or wrong, because there are no objective measures of these criteria.

Savoy, thanks for the discussion. I have nothing more to say now.
There are certainly objective measures of popularity ( music charts, gold records, platinum records, etc...). It's an objective fact that "Thriller" is the most popular album of all time, and that "Candle In The Wind -97" is the biggest selling single of all time.

By only going by the lists of critics you are essentially letting the musical taste of a couple hundred people decide what is great for the other billions of people on the planet. There's also the problem that many of the magazine lists that you use come with an agenda. The lists are made to appeal to their type of readers. They know that their readers are of a certain age and race, lifestyle, etc. So they're gonna tailor their lists to make those readers happy.

In the 1950s "Star Dust" by Artie Shaw was considered to be the greatest recording of all time, yet it is not even listed at all on your site. Obviously rock magazines like Mojo are not gonna list Artie Shaw records on their all time lists.

Your site is great for comparing songs and albums from the same year to each other, but it doesn't work well for comparing modern acts to older acts because there are just not enough lists available from the old days for you to put into your data.

User avatar
Romain
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 4396
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:25 pm
Location: Lyon, France

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Romain » Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:47 pm

Blanco wrote:Hey SavoyBG, I usually do not say what I'm about to say, but I could not help it. Anyway I do not think you care much, but see, this game really seems like a very good idea (Thanks Henrik). It's fun, and you learn not only music, but also why the judgment of others. The problem is that from my perspective, as opposed to playing Henrik's "Survivor", your EXTINCTION games are just not fun, (Well, Ok... At least wholesome fun. I almost died laughing with some arguments in the last game.'ll use some of them as examples in my next work on fallacies and dogmatic beliefs.) they do not teach anything really, do not leave me anything useful ... nothing, Bruce.

Well, I could simply not play, but I like the theme of the game, and I realized that if you create these games, neither Henrik nor I nor anyone else will create another game of the same style at the same time or within a few weeks, probably. I'd like to play with the list of AM. Playing fairly, and not you answering each of the other players who are wrong from your perspective. I mean, this would be fine, except that it instead of giving valid reasons, you resort to things like
.

Thanks Blanco ! I don't know who you are, but I bless you ! If only my english could be better, I could say the same thing.
This forum, for years, is a haven of peace where all tastes are promoted and shared in a good agreement, but since two month, someone come and say : your taste is a shit taste, your list is a shit list and I'll show you the truth.

If it continues, I will boycott all the threads you created SavoyBG (like some of the regulars began to do I think) and even not come at all in the forum.

Jirin
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2681
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:12 am

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Jirin » Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:25 pm

I don't see the need for building favoritism into the game by making it harder to eliminate the top ones. Either they all should need two strikes or none of them should. An artist being placed highly on a list does not mean it is crazy not to agree with that placement.

BTW, what are we going to do about the fact that two artist elimination games were started by two different posters six minutes apart from each other, just play them both out? It'll be interesting to see how the lists differ.

I think good sales are a good argument for including an artist on a list of greatest of all time, but bad sales are not a good argument against including one. The top selling artists, and the niche artists who slowly built up a lasting fanbase over several decades both belong on the list.

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:40 pm

Jirin wrote:I don't see the need for building favoritism into the game by making it harder to eliminate the top ones. Either they all should need two strikes or none of them should. An artist being placed highly on a list does not mean it is crazy not to agree with that placement.

BTW, what are we going to do about the fact that two artist elimination games were started by two different posters six minutes apart from each other, just play them both out? It'll be interesting to see how the lists differ.

I think good sales are a good argument for including an artist on a list of greatest of all time, but bad sales are not a good argument against including one. The top selling artists, and the niche artists who slowly built up a lasting fanbase over several decades both belong on the list.
And they are both on the list. Niche artists like the Grateful Dead, the Ramones, Lead Belly, and others who did not have big chart hits are on the list.

User avatar
Listyguy
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2324
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:34 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Listyguy » Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:46 pm

SavoyBG wrote: Whether I have heard a Nirvana song or not is not relevant (I have) to calculating their historical standing among the all time great recording artists. My personal opinion of their music is just not relevant.
It seems to shine through pretty clearly all over the place.
SavoyBG wrote: A career that only consists of 38 tracks is a pretty strong argument for not ranking an act among the 30 greatest acts of all time.
Funny you should say that. Jimi Hendrix released the same number of studio albums as Nirvana (excluding all his posthumous stuff, and "The Cry of Love", which wasn't with the Experience), but he is without a doubt worthy of the top 10.
And herein lies the problem with Nirvana and this list: they're not even in the top 200!

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:10 pm

Listyguy wrote:
SavoyBG wrote: Whether I have heard a Nirvana song or not is not relevant (I have) to calculating their historical standing among the all time great recording artists. My personal opinion of their music is just not relevant.
It seems to shine through pretty clearly all over the place.
SavoyBG wrote: A career that only consists of 38 tracks is a pretty strong argument for not ranking an act among the 30 greatest acts of all time.
Funny you should say that. Jimi Hendrix released the same number of studio albums as Nirvana (excluding all his posthumous stuff, and "The Cry of Love", which wasn't with the Experience), but he is without a doubt worthy of the top 10.
And herein lies the problem with Nirvana and this list: they're not even in the top 200!
Jimi Hendrix is nowhere near the top ten acts of all time.

Do you guys think that rock and roll is the only kind of music that there is?

Hendrix is not in the league of people like Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Billie Holiday, Ray Charles, and several other giants of music.

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:12 pm

Listyguy wrote:
SavoyBG wrote: Whether I have heard a Nirvana song or not is not relevant (I have) to calculating their historical standing among the all time great recording artists. My personal opinion of their music is just not relevant.
It seems to shine through pretty clearly all over the place.
SavoyBG wrote: A career that only consists of 38 tracks is a pretty strong argument for not ranking an act among the 30 greatest acts of all time.
Funny you should say that. Jimi Hendrix released the same number of studio albums as Nirvana (excluding all his posthumous stuff, and "The Cry of Love", which wasn't with the Experience), but he is without a doubt worthy of the top 10.
And herein lies the problem with Nirvana and this list: they're not even in the top 200!
There's not a huge difference between #125 and #275. After the top 100 or so there's a few hundred acts that are all fairly close.

User avatar
Listyguy
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2324
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:34 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Listyguy » Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:29 pm

SavoyBG wrote: Jimi Hendrix is nowhere near the top ten acts of all time.

Do you guys think that rock and roll is the only kind of music that there is?

Hendrix is not in the league of people like Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Billie Holiday, Ray Charles, and several other giants of music.
Do think that music stopped being made 50 years ago?

None of them come close to Hendrix, in any way. He mastered his instrument in a way nobody has ever, or will ever again, master theirs. Furthermore, he has created three of the greatest albums of all time is a two year span. He is unquestionably one of the ten greatest artists of all time.

And hold the boat, you think you're so genre diverse? There's a whopping ONE country act in the entire top 50 and ZERO rap artists.

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:35 pm

Listyguy wrote:
SavoyBG wrote: Jimi Hendrix is nowhere near the top ten acts of all time.

Do you guys think that rock and roll is the only kind of music that there is?

Hendrix is not in the league of people like Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Billie Holiday, Ray Charles, and several other giants of music.
Do think that music stopped being made 50 years ago?

None of them come close to Hendrix, in any way. He mastered his instrument in a way nobody has ever, or will ever again, master theirs. Furthermore, he has created three of the greatest albums of all time is a two year span. He is unquestionably one of the ten greatest artists of all time.

And hold the boat, you think you're so genre diverse? There's a whopping ONE country act in the entire top 50 and ZERO rap artists.
First off, there's Johnny Cash and Hank Williams and Jimmie Rodgers in the top 50. That's three country artists.

Secondly, your opinion of Hendrix's albums is not relevant to this. And, he did not master his instrument any better than Charlie Parker mastered the sax or Jamie Jamerson mastered the bass and louis Armstrong mastered the trumpet.

Even AM barely has Hendrix at #10, and that's with only rock artists in the top ten. You'd be laughed at by music historians for even suggesting that hendrix was greater than Louis Armstrong.

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:49 pm

Listyguy wrote:None of them come close to Hendrix, in any way. He mastered his instrument in a way nobody has ever, or will ever again, master theirs.
GREATEST ALL GENRE GUITARISTS

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_guitar-all.html

Criteria: - Criteria: - These are the 100 greatest guitarists of all genres of music and styles of guitar. They were picked for their importance in the guitar world including innovation, respect from other guitarists, influence on both other players as well as on styles of playing, impact, legendary status, and overall importance on shaping the guitar world. Plus for the playing abilities including technique, creativity, versatility, musicaldepth & expression both in composing & performing, live energy and improv skills, and originality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: This is a list of guitarists which 'includes' all musical genres. Not guitarists who 'play' all genres.

1. Andres Segovia (classical)
2. Django Reinhardt (jazz)
3. Chet Atkins, CGP (country)
4. Jimi Hendrix (rock)
5. Paco de Lucia (flamenco)
6. Agustin Barrios Mangore (classical)
7. Ramon Montoya (flamenco)
8. Julian Bream (classical)
9. Charlie Christian (jazz)
10. B.B. King (blues)
11. T-Bone Walker (blues)
12. Merle Travis (country)
13. Wes Montgomery (jazz)
14. John Williams (classical)
15. Michael Hedges (contemp fingerstyle)
16. Lonnie Johnson (blues)
17. Eddie Lang (jazz)
18. Lenny Breau (jazz)
19. John McLaughlin (fusion)
20. Joe Pass (jazz)
21. Sabicas (flamenco)
22. Blind Blake (ragtime, blues)
23. Robert Johnson (blues)
24. John Fahey (contemp fingerstyle, folk, va.)
25. Davey Graham (british folk, contemp fingerstyle)
26. Doc Watson (folk)
27. Danny Gatton (rockabilly, va.)
28. Adrian Legg (contemp fingerstyle)
29. Narciso Yepes (classical)
30. Laurindo Almeida (brazilian)
31. Les Paul (jazz)
32. Christopher Parkening (classical)
33. Pat Metheny (fusion, jazz)
34. Sol Ho'opi'i*(hawaiian)
35. Jeff Beck (rock)
36. Eddie Van Halen (rock)
37. Ritchie Blackmore (rock)
38. Alexandre Lagoya and Ida Presti (classical)
39. Phil Keaggy (rock, contemp fingerstyle)
40. Allan Holdsworth (fusion)
41. Baden Powell (brazilian)
42. Nino Ricardo (flamenco)
43. George Van Eps (jazz)
44. Jim Hall (jazz)
45. Ed Bickert (jazz)
46. Kenny Burrell (jazz)
47. Franco(soukous, rumba)
48. Carlos Paredes (fado)
49. Freddie Green (jazz)
50. Eric Clapton(rock, blues)
51. Jimmy Page (rock)
52. Albert King (blues)
53. Hank Garland (country, jazz)
54. Chuck Berry (rock)
55. Tommy Emmanuel, CGP (contemp fingerstyle)
56. Leo Kottke (contemp fingerstyle)
57. Tony Iommi (rock)
58. King Bennie Nawahi (hawaiian)
59. Enver Izmailov (fusion)
60. Stanley Jordan (jazz, fusion)
61. Robert Fripp (avant-garde, rock)
62. Oscar Moore (jazz)
63. Ernest Ranglin (ska, jazz)
64. Gabby Pahinui (hawaiian slack key)
65. Vishwa Mohan Bhatt (indian)
66. Johnny Smith (jazz)
67. Roy Buchanan (rock)
68. Bill Frisell (fusion, jazz)
69. Manuel Barrueco (classical)
70. Kazuhito Yamashita (classical)
71. Jimmy Bryant (country, jazz)
72. Duane Allman (rock, blues)
73. James Burton (rockabilly)
74. Freddie King (blues)
75. Elmore James (blues)
76. Earl Hooker (blues)
77. Juanjo Dominguez (tango, va.)
78. Roberto Grela (tango)
79. Mother Maybelle Carter (country)
80. Stevie Ray Vaughan (blues)
81. Steve Vai (rock)
82. Yngwie Malmsteen (rock)
83. Steve Morse (rock)
84. Eric Johnson (rock)
85. Tony Rice (bluegrass)
86. Bola Sete (brazilian, folk fusion)
87. Richard Thompson (british folk)
88. John Renbourn (british folk)
89. Bert Jansch (british folk)
90. Buddy Guy (blues)
91. Steve Cropper (r&b, blues)
92. Robert White/Joe Messina/Eddie Willis (r&b)
93. Scotty Moore (rockabilly)
94. Barney Kessel (jazz)
95. Tal Farlow (jazz)
96. Jimmy Raney (jazz)
97. Howard Roberts(jazz)
98. George Benson (jazz, r&b)
99. Debashish Bhattacharya (indian)
100. Ry Cooder (blues, va.)

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5409
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Henrik » Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:52 pm

Just like we can have our own favorite artists, we can have our own view of the greatest artists. It is as simple as that. Listyguy and SavoyBG, if you haven't agreed to disagree when I wake up tomorrow this will be another closed thread.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:59 pm

Henrik wrote:Just like we can have our own favorite artists, we can have our own view of the greatest artists. It is as simple as that. Listyguy and SavoyBG, if you haven't agreed to disagree when I wake up tomorrow this will be another closed thread.
Henrik, I have no problem agreeing to disagree and just getting on with the intention of this thread. Other posters keep sidetracking it to criticize the list that's being used. If they don't want to participate in the game that's fine with me. It would be better then if they just avoided the thread.

John
Let's Get It On
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:00 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by John » Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:03 am

I kind of agree with Savoy here although I think you're doing a bad job of defending your list. :D While I think Nirvana is crazy low, I think his list is a top 200 of artists who have stood the test of time. It's not claiming to be a rock list, it's claiming to be a list of influential artists of the time.

The argument that Hendrix belongs higher because he mastered his instrument like no other is crazy. There are far better guitar players, he was a master, but more importantly unique. Coltrane, Buddy Rich, Robert Johnson. Those guys mastered their instrument like no other.

Those who are arguing are simply missing the point that this isn't a greatest rock artists list and you're also missing the fact that all lists are flawed in some way. Funny thing is, I think you're missing the point too Savoy with the low song count argument and popularity. While artists like The Mills Brothers were very popular at the time, their popularity has severely waned to the level that most people born after 1970 wouldn't be able to identify a single song of theirs. I think you are trying to account for that same thing with artists from the 1970's-current but are forgetting to do the same with some of the lesser known 40's-50's artists. I believe Frank Sinatra belongs at #3. Bing Crosby is fine at #4. Both are very popular still today. I don't agree with Al Jolson at 16, although I do think he belongs in the top 100, Tommy Dorsey and the Mills Brothers would probably be the two most glaring artists in the top 50. Very popular in their time, but faded fast to all those other than lovers of their genres. I think the biggest thing is that it's almost impossible to judge artists based on lasting appeal since you only have 10-30 years that you can truly make a judgment call on that. Artists from the jazz era faded because jazz faded. Rock hasn't faded yet (at least to the level that jazz and big band did), and who knows if it ever will. If it fades away left only to those who still embrace the genre, artists like Nirvana will be like The Mills Brothers in 50 years. But, it's impossible to determine that. So fair or not, artists who have been around longer get judged on lasting appeal while younger artists don't simply because it's too early to tell. But, I don't think it's fair to make a claim that Nirvana or Radiohead, or Justin Bieber for all I care won't be relevant in 50 years. That may end up being the case, but again, it's impossible to know.
Last edited by John on Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

John
Let's Get It On
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:00 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by John » Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:22 am

Overall though, minus a few quibbles with the top 100, I think this is a solid list. It's not often that you see a list tackle the popular artists of four generations in one list and I think you did a decent job.

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:47 am

John wrote:Overall though, minus a few quibbles with the top 100, I think this is a solid list. It's not often that you see a list tackle the popular artists of four generations in one list and I think you did a decent job.
Thanks. You ought to read up on the Mills Brothers some. They are easily the greatest vocal group of all time, highly influential, and they were extremely popular for about 40-50 years. Their first record was a #1 hit from 1931 (Tiger Rag). They were in demand all over the world in the 30s through the 60s, and even spent 6 months to a year at a time in Europe due to their overwhelming popularity there. They recorded a lot in England back then and even had some things that were released in the UK but not here.

As for not defending my list well in your opinion, I am debating with people who don't want to learn anything about music they don't already know much about. No matter what I say to the Hendrix fan I'm not gonna convince him that Jimi does not belong in the top ten.

Check out the Mills Brothers here, and remember, the only instrument on these records is a guitar. Everything else is done with their voices:

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:10 am

182. Pete Seeger and the Weavers gone. This list is gonna be awesome at the end if no one else is gonna play.


1. Beatles
2. Elvis Presley
3. Frank Sinatra
4. Bing Crosby
5. Michael Jackson / Jackson 5
6. Louis Armstrong
7. James Brown
8. Billie Holiday
9. Bob Dylan
10. Johnny Cash
11. Duke Ellington
12. Ray Charles
13. Chuck Berry
14. Hank Williams
15. Aretha Franklin
16. Al Jolson
17. Glenn Miller
18. B.B. King
19. Nat King Cole
20. Rolling Stones
21. Ella Fitzgerald
22. Muddy Waters
23. Stevie Wonder
24. Beach Boys
25. Benny Goodman
26. Charlie Parker
27. Miles Davis
28. Little Richard
29. Louis Jordan
30. John Coltrane
31. Bessie Smith
32. Bob Marley and the Wailers
33. Mahalia Jackson
34. Tommy Dorsey
35. Mills Brothers
36. Led Zeppelin
37. Marvin Gaye
38. Woody Guthrie
39. Jimi Hendrix
40. The Who
41. Madonna
42. Jimmie Rodgers
43. Robert Johnson
44. Sam Cooke
45. Bruce Springsteen
46. Queen
47. Abba
48. Pink Floyd
49. Buddy Holly and the Crickets
50. Elton John
51. Temptations
52. Drifters / Clyde McPhatter / Ben E. King
53. Prince
54. Barbra Streisand
55. Tony Bennett
56. Diana Ross and the Supremes
57. Fats Domino
58. Otis Redding
59. Billy Murray and the American Quartet
60. U2
61. Smokey Robinson and the Miracles
62. Fats Waller
63. Eric Clapton (solo and with bands)
.........................64. Mariah Carey
65. Ink Spots
66. Count Basie
67. Howlin' Wolf
68. Johnny Mathis
69. George Jones
70. Eagles
71. Enrico Caruso
72. Perry Como
73. Run-D.M.C.
74. Public Enemy
75. Paul Whiteman
76. Dizzy Gillespie
77. Henry Burr and the Peerless Quartet
78. Big Joe Turner
79. Merle Haggard
80. Scott Joplin
81. Willie Nelson
82. Jimmy Dorsey
83. Paul Simon & Art Garfunkel
84. Bee Gees
85. John Fogerty & Creedence Clearwater Revival
86. Jerry Lee Lewis
87. Bo Diddley
88. Patsy Cline
89. Andrews Sisters
90. Everly Brothers
91. Charles Mingus
92. Thelonious Monk
93. R. Kelly
94. Jay-Z
95. Eddy Arnold
96. Garth Brooks
97. Rod Stewart
98. David Bowie
99. Dolly Parton
100. Jelly Roll Morton

101. Carter Family
102. Ike & Tina Turner
103. Jackie Wilson
104. Sarah Vaughan
105. Billy Joel
106. Doors
107. T-Bone Walker
108. Judy Garland
109. Bon Jovi
110. Harry Belafonte
111. Sly and the Family Stone
112. Neil Young
113. Conway Twitty
114. AC/DC
115. Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
116. Four Tops
117. Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons
118. George Clinton / Parliament / Funkadelic
119. Ozzy Osbourne / Black Sabbath
120. Bill Monroe
121. Roy Orbison
122. Bobby Darin
123. Crosby, Stills and Nash
124. Isley Brothers
125. Kinks
126. Kingston Trio
127. Fleetwood Mac
128. Brenda Lee
129. Dinah Washington
130. Santana
132. Platters
133. Neil Diamond
134. Kenny Rogers
135. Dells
136. Whitney Houston
137. Yardbirds
138. Metallica
139. Bill Haley and the Comets
140. Bobby "Blue" Bland
141. John Lee Hooker
142. Stan Getz
143. Ray Price
144. Donna Summer
145. Leadbelly
146. Buck Owens
147. Byrds
148. Wynonie Harris
149. Sonny Til and the Orioles
150. Etta James
151. Harry James
152. Clovers
153. Elmore James
154. Frank Zappa / Mothers Of Invention
155. Wilson Pickett
157. Webb Pierce
158. Ravens
159. Soul Stirrers
160. Chicago
161. Loretta Lynn
162. Lester Young
163. Janis Joplin
165. Grateful Dead
166. Coleman Hawkins
167. Paul McCartney and Wings
168. Ramones
170. Dean Martin
171. Art Tatum
172. Joan Baez
173. Eric B. and Rakim
174. John Lennon
175. Peter, Paul and Mary
176. Patti Page
177. Sonny Rollins
178. Yes
179. Robins / Coasters
180. Sammy Kaye
181. Ruth Brown
183. Ernest Tubb
184. Dionne Warwick
185. Billy Ward and The Dominoes
186. Peggy Lee
187. Sonny Boy Williamson II (Rice Miller)
188. Van Morrison
189. Luther Vandross
190. Earth, Wind and Fire
191. Charley Patton
192. Son House
193. LL Cool J
194. Cab Calloway
195. Al Green
196. Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys
197. Ethel Waters
198. Glen Campbell
199. The Clash
200. Genesis / Phil Collins

User avatar
Otisredding
Full of Fire
Posts: 1634
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:00 am
Location: Banyoles, Catalonia (Spain)

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Otisredding » Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:22 am

1. Beatles
2. Elvis Presley
3. Frank Sinatra
4. Bing Crosby
5. Michael Jackson / Jackson 5
6. Louis Armstrong
7. James Brown
8. Billie Holiday
9. Bob Dylan
10. Johnny Cash
11. Duke Ellington
12. Ray Charles
13. Chuck Berry
14. Hank Williams
15. Aretha Franklin
16. Al Jolson
17. Glenn Miller
18. B.B. King
19. Nat King Cole
20. Rolling Stones
21. Ella Fitzgerald
22. Muddy Waters
23. Stevie Wonder
24. Beach Boys
25. Benny Goodman
26. Charlie Parker
27. Miles Davis
28. Little Richard
29. Louis Jordan
30. John Coltrane
31. Bessie Smith
32. Bob Marley and the Wailers
33. Mahalia Jackson
34. Tommy Dorsey
35. Mills Brothers
36. Led Zeppelin
37. Marvin Gaye
38. Woody Guthrie
39. Jimi Hendrix
40. The Who
41. Madonna
42. Jimmie Rodgers
43. Robert Johnson
44. Sam Cooke
45. Bruce Springsteen
46. Queen
47. Abba
48. Pink Floyd
49. Buddy Holly and the Crickets
50. Elton John
51. Temptations
52. Drifters / Clyde McPhatter / Ben E. King
53. Prince
54. Barbra Streisand
55. Tony Bennett
56. Diana Ross and the Supremes
57. Fats Domino
58. Otis Redding
59. Billy Murray and the American Quartet
60. U2
61. Smokey Robinson and the Miracles
62. Fats Waller
63. Eric Clapton (solo and with bands)
.........................64. Mariah Carey
65. Ink Spots
66. Count Basie
67. Howlin' Wolf
68. Johnny Mathis
69. George Jones
70. Eagles
71. Enrico Caruso
72. Perry Como
73. Run-D.M.C.
74. Public Enemy
75. Paul Whiteman
76. Dizzy Gillespie
77. Henry Burr and the Peerless Quartet
78. Big Joe Turner
79. Merle Haggard
80. Scott Joplin
81. Willie Nelson
82. Jimmy Dorsey
83. Paul Simon & Art Garfunkel
84. Bee Gees
85. John Fogerty & Creedence Clearwater Revival
86. Jerry Lee Lewis
87. Bo Diddley
88. Patsy Cline
.........................89. Andrews Sisters
90. Everly Brothers
91. Charles Mingus
92. Thelonious Monk
93. R. Kelly
94. Jay-Z
95. Eddy Arnold
96. Garth Brooks
97. Rod Stewart
98. David Bowie
99. Dolly Parton
100. Jelly Roll Morton

101. Carter Family
102. Ike & Tina Turner
103. Jackie Wilson
104. Sarah Vaughan
105. Billy Joel
106. Doors
107. T-Bone Walker
108. Judy Garland
109. Bon Jovi
110. Harry Belafonte
111. Sly and the Family Stone
112. Neil Young
113. Conway Twitty
114. AC/DC
115. Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
116. Four Tops
117. Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons
118. George Clinton / Parliament / Funkadelic
119. Ozzy Osbourne / Black Sabbath
120. Bill Monroe
121. Roy Orbison
122. Bobby Darin
123. Crosby, Stills and Nash
124. Isley Brothers
125. Kinks
126. Kingston Trio
127. Fleetwood Mac
128. Brenda Lee
129. Dinah Washington
130. Santana
132. Platters
133. Neil Diamond
134. Kenny Rogers
135. Dells
136. Whitney Houston
137. Yardbirds
138. Metallica
139. Bill Haley and the Comets
140. Bobby "Blue" Bland
141. John Lee Hooker
142. Stan Getz
143. Ray Price
144. Donna Summer
145. Leadbelly
146. Buck Owens
147. Byrds
148. Wynonie Harris
149. Sonny Til and the Orioles
150. Etta James
151. Harry James
152. Clovers
153. Elmore James
154. Frank Zappa / Mothers Of Invention
155. Wilson Pickett
157. Webb Pierce
158. Ravens
159. Soul Stirrers
160. Chicago
161. Loretta Lynn
162. Lester Young
163. Janis Joplin
165. Grateful Dead
166. Coleman Hawkins
167. Paul McCartney and Wings
168. Ramones
170. Dean Martin
171. Art Tatum
172. Joan Baez
173. Eric B. and Rakim
174. John Lennon
175. Peter, Paul and Mary
176. Patti Page
177. Sonny Rollins
178. Yes
179. Robins / Coasters
180. Sammy Kaye
181. Ruth Brown
183. Ernest Tubb
184. Dionne Warwick
185. Billy Ward and The Dominoes
186. Peggy Lee
187. Sonny Boy Williamson II (Rice Miller)
188. Van Morrison
189. Luther Vandross
190. Earth, Wind and Fire
191. Charley Patton
192. Son House
193. LL Cool J
194. Cab Calloway
195. Al Green
196. Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys
197. Ethel Waters
198. Glen Campbell
199. The Clash
200. Genesis / Phil Collins

stone37
Let's Get It On
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:39 am

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by stone37 » Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:06 am

Goodbye to Peter Paul and Mary (#175).

1. Beatles
2. Elvis Presley
3. Frank Sinatra
4. Bing Crosby
5. Michael Jackson / Jackson 5
6. Louis Armstrong
7. James Brown
8. Billie Holiday
9. Bob Dylan
10. Johnny Cash
11. Duke Ellington
12. Ray Charles
13. Chuck Berry
14. Hank Williams
15. Aretha Franklin
16. Al Jolson
17. Glenn Miller
18. B.B. King
19. Nat King Cole
20. Rolling Stones
21. Ella Fitzgerald
22. Muddy Waters
23. Stevie Wonder
24. Beach Boys
25. Benny Goodman
26. Charlie Parker
27. Miles Davis
28. Little Richard
29. Louis Jordan
30. John Coltrane
31. Bessie Smith
32. Bob Marley and the Wailers
33. Mahalia Jackson
34. Tommy Dorsey
35. Mills Brothers
36. Led Zeppelin
37. Marvin Gaye
38. Woody Guthrie
39. Jimi Hendrix
40. The Who
41. Madonna
42. Jimmie Rodgers
43. Robert Johnson
44. Sam Cooke
45. Bruce Springsteen
46. Queen
47. Abba
48. Pink Floyd
49. Buddy Holly and the Crickets
50. Elton John
51. Temptations
52. Drifters / Clyde McPhatter / Ben E. King
53. Prince
54. Barbra Streisand
55. Tony Bennett
56. Diana Ross and the Supremes
57. Fats Domino
58. Otis Redding
59. Billy Murray and the American Quartet
60. U2
61. Smokey Robinson and the Miracles
62. Fats Waller
63. Eric Clapton (solo and with bands)
.........................64. Mariah Carey
65. Ink Spots
66. Count Basie
67. Howlin' Wolf
68. Johnny Mathis
69. George Jones
70. Eagles
71. Enrico Caruso
72. Perry Como
73. Run-D.M.C.
74. Public Enemy
75. Paul Whiteman
76. Dizzy Gillespie
77. Henry Burr and the Peerless Quartet
78. Big Joe Turner
79. Merle Haggard
80. Scott Joplin
81. Willie Nelson
82. Jimmy Dorsey
83. Paul Simon & Art Garfunkel
84. Bee Gees
85. John Fogerty & Creedence Clearwater Revival
86. Jerry Lee Lewis
87. Bo Diddley
88. Patsy Cline
.........................89. Andrews Sisters
90. Everly Brothers
91. Charles Mingus
92. Thelonious Monk
93. R. Kelly
94. Jay-Z
95. Eddy Arnold
96. Garth Brooks
97. Rod Stewart
98. David Bowie
99. Dolly Parton
100. Jelly Roll Morton

101. Carter Family
102. Ike & Tina Turner
103. Jackie Wilson
104. Sarah Vaughan
105. Billy Joel
106. Doors
107. T-Bone Walker
108. Judy Garland
109. Bon Jovi
110. Harry Belafonte
111. Sly and the Family Stone
112. Neil Young
113. Conway Twitty
114. AC/DC
115. Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
116. Four Tops
117. Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons
118. George Clinton / Parliament / Funkadelic
119. Ozzy Osbourne / Black Sabbath
120. Bill Monroe
121. Roy Orbison
122. Bobby Darin
123. Crosby, Stills and Nash
124. Isley Brothers
125. Kinks
126. Kingston Trio
127. Fleetwood Mac
128. Brenda Lee
129. Dinah Washington
130. Santana
132. Platters
133. Neil Diamond
134. Kenny Rogers
135. Dells
136. Whitney Houston
137. Yardbirds
138. Metallica
139. Bill Haley and the Comets
140. Bobby "Blue" Bland
141. John Lee Hooker
142. Stan Getz
143. Ray Price
144. Donna Summer
145. Leadbelly
146. Buck Owens
147. Byrds
148. Wynonie Harris
149. Sonny Til and the Orioles
150. Etta James
151. Harry James
152. Clovers
153. Elmore James
154. Frank Zappa / Mothers Of Invention
155. Wilson Pickett
157. Webb Pierce
158. Ravens
159. Soul Stirrers
160. Chicago
161. Loretta Lynn
162. Lester Young
163. Janis Joplin
165. Grateful Dead
166. Coleman Hawkins
167. Paul McCartney and Wings
168. Ramones
170. Dean Martin
171. Art Tatum
172. Joan Baez
173. Eric B. and Rakim
174. John Lennon
176. Patti Page
177. Sonny Rollins
178. Yes
179. Robins / Coasters
180. Sammy Kaye
181. Ruth Brown
183. Ernest Tubb
184. Dionne Warwick
185. Billy Ward and The Dominoes
186. Peggy Lee
187. Sonny Boy Williamson II (Rice Miller)
188. Van Morrison
189. Luther Vandross
190. Earth, Wind and Fire
191. Charley Patton
192. Son House
193. LL Cool J
194. Cab Calloway
195. Al Green
196. Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys
197. Ethel Waters
198. Glen Campbell
199. The Clash
200. Genesis / Phil Collins

stone37
Let's Get It On
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:39 am

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by stone37 » Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:31 am

For the most part, I concur with John's excellent post. This list highlights a lot of important artists and reminds us that the history of popular music did not begin in 1997, or 1982, or 1977, or 1963, or 1955. It might encourage us to dig a bit deeper, do some more research, and think more broadly about the history of recorded music.

However, when I read lists like this, it makes me think of "great athlete" lists. Such lists raise an obvious dilemma: how do you evaluate a Roger Federer against a Michael Jordan against a Babe Ruth against a Pele? In short, can you compare athletes from different sports? By the same token, can you really compare a Miles Davis to a Metallica to a Al Jolson to a Billie Holiday to a ABBA? The idioms of these performers are just so different I am not sure how relevant the comparisons are. For example, is being the best instrumental jazz artist better than being the third best rock act or the second best jazz vocalist or the best blues singer?

In terms of periodization, 20th-century music makes me think of tennis. I would divide tennis into two periods. The first begins in the 1920s and ends in 1967 (the years before 1920 are a continuation of the late-19th century). The second period is the open era, which began in 1968 at the French Open. In terms of recorded music, 1954-1955 is the dividing line. I might urge you to divide the history of recorded music into smaller segments and create lists of the defining artists of each era.

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:53 am

stone37 wrote:In terms of periodization, 20th-century music makes me think of tennis. I would divide tennis into two periods. The first begins in the 1920s and ends in 1967 (the years before 1920 are a continuation of the late-19th century). The second period is the open era, which began in 1968 at the French Open. In terms of recorded music, 1954-1955 is the dividing line. I might urge you to divide the history of recorded music into smaller segments and create lists of the defining artists of each era.
That's already been done, at least with each decade of the rock era, the greatest rock artists of each decade. BTW, Hendrix is only #10 for the 1960s (it's not my list either).

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists50s.html

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists60s.html

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists70s.html

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_ ... 80pop.html

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists90.html

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artists00s.html

User avatar
Honorio
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2724
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:38 am
Location: L'Eliana, Valencia, Spain

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Honorio » Sat Jun 08, 2013 11:06 am

Sorry Savoy BG for the length of my post, I made it so long because it’s probably my last post on a thread by yours. And sorry in advance for some bitter tone on my arguments, you don’t know me but I assure to you that this is not my usual behaviour. Maybe I just got my fill this time.
SavoyBG wrote: Are these acts of old times?

5. Michael Jackson / Jackson 5
...
200. Genesis / Phil Collins
Well, the answer is actually yes. They are old acts. I took the time to calculate the time passed between the peak year of these bands/artists and today (I used the year you pointed in this same thread if available although I disagree in most choices, Queen in 1991? Bowie in 1983? Metallica in 1996?) and the average was… 27,51 years! And that was your selection of newer acts on your list, a grand total of 31 out of 200. So, definitely, your list is filled with old acts.

But there would be no problem at all with this fact if you have called your list “favourite artists”. Every bias is completely justified when we talk about tastes. You don't like many artists from recent years? That's perfect, why not? Not everyone needs to be (or can be) horizontal.

The problem here is that you called it “greatest”. And (even worse) you defined greatness in terms of popularity, influence and impact. Your criteria didn’t include acclaim (recognition from experts), artistic values (obviously this is the most difficult item to measure), originality or technical proficiency. But the worst of it all is that your list is filled by exceptions and you usually twist, bend or even break your own rules according to your own convenience. So we have:

A) Impact, defined by you as “the industry reaction to their releases at the time”, so you are talking about “money”. Some act is great because it produced money enough, isn’t it? More exactly if the artist sold enough in the US as measured by Billboard charts, because many of the artists on your list probably did not sold a single record at the time outside the US. And, as I told before, you use this argument completely at your own convenience, as Nassim brilliantly pointed about Robert Johnson and the Velvet Underground. And be careful with this kind of argument if you don't want to receive another remark like the one by Nick about “Radiohead have had 2 number 1 albums in the USA, and 3 other albums that landed in the top 3” that sounded really hilarious to me.

B) Popularity but, as you said many times, “lasting” popularity. And I agree with you in that point to a certain extent (while I couldn't care less about impact as you defined it). Probably an artist cannot be really “great” if it fails to connect with a significant audience, even if this is the worst place to say this. Many people here (Fred, HRS, sonofsamiam, Mindrocker or Charlie Driggs to name a few) are proud to fill their lists with obscure artists that despite not having popularity at all can provide us some fascinating and rewarding music listening experiences. But the most shocking of it all is your peculiar way of conceiving popularity. Many of us (that are active music listeners) are not too familiar with some artists on your list. I’m afraid that your criteria for popularity can be showcased by one of your pearls: "among people I know none of them could even name a song by Nirvana". Wow, that’s sad, that’s really sad. I suppose that this could be the perfect definition of “getting old” for a music listener, the moment when you don’t really care about new music that don’t fit with the music that shaped your tastes during the glory days and you prefer to worship again and again the same names. Like that Simon & Garfunkel about old people: "Memory brushes the same years”. I got also some friends that still listen to the same artists that we used to listen when we were young. But I wouldn’t dare to consider the only “popular” artists the ones that are popular among my circle of friends.

C) Influence. Of course, this is a capital part of greatness in music. But, since we talk about music and no song is able to change the course of history, we are talking of musicians that influence other musicians. And here you (again) overestimate or underestimate the influence of some acts according to your convenience. For you it’s obvious the huge influence of some acts (doo-wop for instance) while it’s something you can’t prove right or wrong. Sadly (I would like to listen some of these gorgeous vocal harmonies on the music of today) the influence of doo-wop faded quickly from the early 70s. Unless you try to say that every vocal harmony band owe some debts to doo-wop, something that would be a fallacious argument, vocal harmonies were here way before do-wop. And, for not using again the Velvet Underground and Nirvana examples, why about David Bowie? Bowie was/is popular, sold many records and his influence is huge. Why is he almost outside your Top 100? Because you and your circle of friends don’t like his music? So, please stop selling your list as objective. I don’t buy it. It’s a very very very subjective list. If you simply remove these acts you don’t really like but you feel it should be included because of “objective greatness” reasons (The Police as you told it) you will end with a very good list of your favourite artists (subjective) and not with this failed list of greatest artists (supposedly objective).

And talking about fallacious arguments, you use many of them even adding some criteria (different to those three I just commented) if it fits with your arguments:
a) Long vs. short career. Apart of having too many exceptions in your list (Creedence Clearwater Revival to name only one) you simply don't consider great enough those “Club of 27” artists because of their premature death. Apart of being tremendously unfair, is it the quantity of the output a justified reason for greatness? Is it not true that many of the artists with longer careers spend the latter half of their careers repeating a formula and reviving their moments of glory without adding anything relevant? If Elvis Presley would have joined this “Club of 27” and died in 1962, should we have consider him less great? Probably the opposite!!
b) Rock and roll vs. other styles. You just stated: “Do you guys think that rock and roll is the only kind of music that there is?”. OMG, but if probably the main flaw on your list is how tremendously narrow it is talking about styles! Savoy BG, do you think that rock and roll, early jazz and rhythm and blues are the only kinds of music that there are? There are simply too many styles not represented at all in your list, I’m not going to name it. And here it comes the most obvious bias: more than 99,99% of these artists are from US and UK. Let me add an example. In Spain we had a great artist named Camarón that had impact (sold and still sells many records in Spain), popularity (just try to find a single Spanish person that don’t who was Camarón) and influence (he set the bar for all the following flamenco singers). But he comes from a niche market, not many know Camarón outside Spain so he can’t be that great, isn’t it? Same from Jacques Brel in Belgium and France, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan in Pakistan, Youssou n’Dour in Senegal and so on. Are only US and UK artists allowed to be great? Any artist from the rest of the world simply cannot be great? Only Abba, Marley and U2 made your list and we all know which language they use/used on their songs. And the anecdotal presence of Enrico Caruso in your list does not invalidate my argument.
c) Mastery. It was supposed that technical skills were not taken into account for compiling the list but you can use it if it fits to your argument, even including an (excellent by the way) list of greatest guitar players. And, using your own words, “you’d be laughed at by music historians” stating that Louis Armstrong was the best trumpet player ever. Not even was the best jazz trumpet player. The main merit of Louis Armstrong (as well as Hendrix’s) was his originality, his creativity, his ability to innovate. And this is what really matters, something that it’s (sadly) not included on your criteria, the ORIGINALITY. Many artists on your list (Bing Crosby to name one) were very good performers, they even defined the state of the art of a certain style on a certain historical period but they didn't really created something new.
d) And finally, a set phrase that you use profusely but it's another fallacious argument: “x is not in the same league as y”. Why not? In which league? Are your favourites in a different league than my favourites? Hendrix is not in the same league as Ray Charles? They belong to the league of music, of good black music, of artists that innovate inside their styles, of (yes) great artists.

Sorry for this rant, SavoyBG. And sorry for the paternalistic tone of the following paragraph, especially given the fact that I’m younger than you (but not too much, I’m 48 years old). I’m aware that my words (or the words from any other AMer) won’t change your mind and won’t make any difference in your attitude. But this site used to be like an oasis inside the aggressive world of the music forums out there. We simply played games about our FAVOURITES albums, songs and artists and we never tried to present our tastes and preferences like the absolute truth. If you want to introduce again and again some games based on your personal lists without participating on the many interesting games going on here, please don’t count on me. I won’t participate on any of these games to inflate your ego. And I’m not even going to argue with you no more. But if you come here with an open mind, you try to listen to the music that other people suggests and try to learn from people with many different tastes, this is going to be an experience that it’s going to enrich you as a music listener.

jamieW
Full of Fire
Posts: 1560
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:19 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by jamieW » Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:23 pm

SavoyBG wrote: As for not defending my list well in your opinion, I am debating with people who don't want to learn anything about music they don't already know much about. No matter what I say to the Hendrix fan I'm not gonna convince him that Jimi does not belong in the top ten.
Surely, you can see the irony in this comment SavoyBG, since you've admitted in past posts that you have no interest in modern music (including never having heard of Arcade Fire or a single Radiohead song). The second part of your quote is equally ironic, since there's clearly nothing anyone here could ever say to convince you of the huge influence of artists such as Nirvana or the Velvet Underground. I'm far from a confrontational person, and I could never express myself as eloquently as Honorio (certainly one of the best, most vivid writers on the forum), but even I couldn't let that quote slide. I've made many great discoveries through your recommendations, and would have no issue with you defending the quality of the artists on your lists. It's when you try to degrade other great artists in defense of yours that it does become an issue (especially when your knowledge of many of these artists appears to be limited, to put things mildly). I will continue to make comments based upon recommendations of yours (like the CCR album) that I enjoy. However, this will be the last time I get roped into responding to a negative comment, since it's already the second time I've said something about the way you present yourself, and this is territory far outside my comfort zone.

User avatar
Dan
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 881
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:41 am
Location: Newcastle, England

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Dan » Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:35 pm

I wasn’t going to say anything as I decided a while ago not to participate in any of SavoyBG’s threads, but I share Honorio’s (and some other people’s) frustrations about the effect his posts have had on the Forum, and there is just one thing I want to get off my chest:

I’ve always looked forward to going on the Forum because it’s such a friendly and positive place, but recently the first thing that goes through my mind before logging on is “I wonder how much negativity there will be today.”
...will keep us together.

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:28 pm

jamieW wrote:
SavoyBG wrote: As for not defending my list well in your opinion, I am debating with people who don't want to learn anything about music they don't already know much about. No matter what I say to the Hendrix fan I'm not gonna convince him that Jimi does not belong in the top ten.
Surely, you can see the irony in this comment SavoyBG, since you've admitted in past posts that you have no interest in modern music (including never having heard of Arcade Fire or a single Radiohead song). The second part of your quote is equally ironic, since there's clearly nothing anyone here could ever say to convince you of the huge influence of artists such as Nirvana or the Velvet Underground.
I'm well aware of the influence of these acts. That's why they are on the list.

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Sat Jun 08, 2013 1:32 pm

Honorio wrote:your selection of newer acts on your list, a grand total of 31 out of 200.
That's exactly where it should be.

Recorded music has been around for 125 years. If we look at acts that have been big over the past 15 years, that's 15/125 or 12%.

31/200 is 15.5%.

So I actually have MORE newer acts on the lists than I would need to, to accurately represent the past 15 years.

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:06 pm

Honorio wrote:Your criteria didn’t include acclaim (recognition from experts),
Music critics are NOT experts. They are rarely even musicians. Music critics are journalism majors who need to find something to write to fill up their columns. They are just guys who shit out of their assholes just like we do. Their taste is no better (or worse) than your taste or my taste.

User avatar
Romain
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 4396
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:25 pm
Location: Lyon, France

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Romain » Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:24 pm

Honorio...thank you! With all my heart, thank you!

And SavoyBS, your latest demonstation is the funniest thing you've said, and it's another proof you can tell total nonsense, just to prove you're right.

If you take the number of songs for each years, do you think the result will be the same?

How many songs were recorded in 1895, 1907, 1922, 1935 ? How many in 1995, 2003, 2011 ?

User avatar
Honorio
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2724
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:38 am
Location: L'Eliana, Valencia, Spain

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Honorio » Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:32 pm

Thanks Romain, Dan and jamieW
SavoyBG wrote:31/200 is 15.5%.
So I actually have MORE newer acts on the lists than I would need to, to accurately represent the past 15 years.
Those 31 acts you selected don’t represent accurately the past 15 years. In fact only 3 of these 31 acts had their peak year within the last 15 years, R.Kelly (2003), Jay-Z (2001) and Eminem (2002). So 3/200 is only a 1,5%.
By the way, I found very interesting this page you linked, TSORT. It’s an excellent way of measuring objectively “success” (or “impact” if you prefer), just like the way Henrik did it with “acclaim.”

User avatar
SavoyBG
Let's Get It On
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by SavoyBG » Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:39 pm

Honorio wrote:Thanks Romain, Dan and jamieW
SavoyBG wrote:31/200 is 15.5%.
So I actually have MORE newer acts on the lists than I would need to, to accurately represent the past 15 years.
Those 31 acts you selected don’t represent accurately the past 15 years. In fact only 3 of these 31 acts had their peak year within the last 15 years, R.Kelly (2003), Jay-Z (2001) and Eminem (2002). So 3/200 is only a 1,5%.
By the way, I found very interesting this page you linked, TSORT. It’s an excellent way of measuring objectively “success” (or “impact” if you prefer), just like the way Henrik did it with “acclaim.”
You do realize that TSORT uses my DDD lists of the top songs of each year as part of their calculations, right?

http://tsort.info/music/charts.htm

Source Song Charts

DDD Year 1947 - 1975 internet social network Songs of the year from DigitalDreamDoor.com

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5409
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Henrik » Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:10 pm

I deleted the last two posts.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5409
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Henrik » Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:19 pm

SavoyBG wrote:You do realize that TSORT uses my DDD lists of the top songs of each year as part of their calculations, right?
The thing is that the list is called "the biggest music acts" or as they state in the sentence after "the world's most high charting musical act". They don't say they're "the greatest artists". And about their use of DDD (and AM), I'm not sure why, I think it would be a better ("cleaner") analysis if they just counted sales.

I never use the word best or greatest on my website. I use "top albums" and "top songs", and on the home page "the most recommended music", which is what it is based on the critics' lists I've got my hands on.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

User avatar
Dan
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 881
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:41 am
Location: Newcastle, England

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Dan » Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:25 pm

Henrik, you might have to press the delete button again... :mrgreen:

BILLBOARD CHART:

1 | The Here We Go Again Band | Hey Savoy, You're Not the Fountain of All Knowledge... Your Opinions Are Subjective
...
437 | SavoyBG | I'm Always Right and Everyone Else Is Always Wrong
...will keep us together.

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5409
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Henrik » Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:29 pm

SavoyBG wrote:Music critics are NOT experts. They are rarely even musicians. Music critics are journalism majors who need to find something to write to fill up their columns. They are just guys who shit out of their assholes just like we do. Their taste is no better (or worse) than your taste or my taste.
I warned you in another thread about comments like this. This is a place where we think music critics matter. If you don't then go to another forum.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

User avatar
HRS
Let's Get It On
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:59 am
Location: Brazil

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by HRS » Sat Jun 08, 2013 3:53 pm

I'm with Honorio! :D

Moreover: Where does the internet gets into this conversation? All I've been reading for quite a while is something like "artist x never had a platinum record, never was a big seller." I've known people who spent most of the 80s and 90s feeding their ears with mixtapes made by colleagues and friends; I know tons of people whose CD's collection is forty times smaller than the number of records and songs that they downloaded. Many of them cultivated the habit of listening to music through headphones and computer rather than in a Stereo. This whole industry is crumbling down; discuss sales is like discussing which movie was rented the most on a local Blockbuster. I never owned a record by 95% of the artists I truly enjoy and I'll be damned if this isn't a trend that will only get stronger with each generation. I just started my still-small vinyl collection because of all the support of people on this forum. And I feel like I only woke myself to start building such a thing because I grew up among CD cases and Vinyl boxes. Why own record? -- it's the question of most people I know. Why buy something that's available for free all over streaming websites and P2P networks? (depending of the country, that is) Had I depended of local record stores, I wouldn't come to know 1/40 of the artists I enjoy. There's some artist big in China or Egypt who changed local music, or even music overall, and I have never heard of him. Music went global with the internet. It's not so hard to be influenced by african music, by middle eastern singing style. Though, as with basically anything in life, it never equals to experience by yourself with all of your senses; Live and pulsing in front of you, inside yourself.

Anyway, If one go to Youtube right now and search for embarrassing music from last decade you'll actually see plenty of commenters writing about "the good old times" and how "music these days suck". That's a process of assimilation. Savoy, you look like someone who has a longing for music that is no longer being produced or recorded on the very same way you tend to love. When you point a band that you enjoy from "current times" they actually channel their influences -- the ones who you enjoy so much -- that they actually seem to belong in a previous era, frozen in a time that no longer exists in contemporariness. Music is not atemporal from this stand point; some might say that it walks in cycles, but each successive cycle is not the same as the one before. Music doesn't acquire a second naiveté after the end of an era and start of another one. Joanna Newsom is not Joni Mitchell; James Murphy is not David Bowie; Tom Waits is not Beefheart, etc etc. It's common to feel more attached to music from a certain span of time of your life. When you had my age, you didn't have a third of the access to the music I have today; not only because of the internet, but also because of time itself. I started to listen to Joni Mitchell when I had 14 years old; that had implications to how I built my emotional, personality. Nicolas wrote something very interesting recently in one line; he said that he believed tastes are senses and not reason. I'm completely with him. Thomas Mann had a character on "The Magic Mountain" called Settembrini that enters in an argument with the main character, Hans Castorp, over the power of music. Settembrini believed that music flames emotions, not the reason; it's a manipulation of the senses -- for good or evil. The more I get older -- though I'm only 20 -- the more I feel like the italian had a point. Some music just attracts me more -- hence, Laura Marling's Once I Was an Eagle is my favorite 2013 record, the album that connected with me the most, and one doesn't have to go far to figure why; some music just attracts you more. The problem is that you tend to turn this personal perception of yours into a scientific fact; into some kind of unarguable religious dogma. When we are discussing with you, is less of a conversation and more of a debate founded on passions -- who will win? who will have the greatest argument? who will be converted?

It used to be sad to see such a great potential, since you are very knowledgeable in music from the era you love the most, go wasted because of passion and vanity; moreover, arrogance -- which I personally believe is something that poisons even the wisest of men, though he would be wise enough to avoid such an attitude. These days I just feel indifferent, I even visit less and less the forum. I've grown to be used to great conversations, great gains emotionally in music and even beyond -- I'm a great friend of nj and he was helping me with my love life just yesterday! -- but now, like Dan, all I see is negativity. Some smugglers stole my phone and my ipod two days ago and they took all the music I ever had. You know what I felt to have someone come over with a gun, point to me and ask for everything I had? I felt nothing; all that music had impacted my identity already; the material need of it was gone. Bringing back to a macro-sphere, the idea that one needs to own a material version of music to "count" or even be influenced by it is more and more ridiculous. I just can't stand read on a Kindle or a computer; Someone told two months ago that read half of Ulysses on it. The impact that this novel might achieve on myself or this person is not dependable of who bought in paper or downloaded the PDF; who read under a bookcase placed over the bed or sit with the eyes glued on a screen.

The process of assimilation will, one way or another, reach the contemporary music that you never listened to, the music that I will never listen to in the future, the music that the teenage girls that move this market listen to and beyond. Mark my words, with or without respect, there's every chance that people will remember Justin Bieber in the future. Many said people wouldn't remember Madonna, Sinatra or Janet Jackson or Whitney or Michael and though this generations aren't as fond of them as they are of the contemporary music they are so much bombarded through television, internet and other mediums, there's always someone digging them and being influenced by them. That is also true to Vashti Bunyan, to Bert Jansch, to Neu!, to any other band whose material is avaliable somewhere. Mass influence goes way beyond music; it's about marketing -- one doesn't have to look far to realise how Omniscient someone like Beyonce is just for the strength of her name and advertising deals -- it's about strategy, it's about building a fan base through supra-artistic ways -- Twitter communication, Facebook, Instagrams, TV. We live in a Society of Spectacle, after all.

Back in the day I used to be elitist. I used to feel that a Bergman movie is incomparable to Fast and Furious; Joanna Newsom is no Lady Gaga nor Katy Perry. These days I feel like they are apples and bananas; different focus, driven by different needs -- internal and external needs; different experiences in their own right. If I prefer one to another, is just a matter of taste. If I call one for the masses and another for knowledgable people, this just says more about how I perceive the world and arts rather than the material itself. We are all part of the masses; we just have different sensibilities and drives and focus. If I can compare Proust's prose to Albert Camus's is basically because I have built them to do it. If people love placing two female artists one against the other, is because they built that inside themselves; even worse, society might have built this.

Why should I expect Henrik to show me the truth? Or critics? Or journalists with majors? Or you? Or anyone else -- musicians and admirers? All the great Henrik man does is collect lists that are themselves permeated with sensibilities, tastes, politics and a lot more. All I do is expose how I feel. All you do is fight for your truth in a poor way and drive people nuts living miles and oceans away from them. And that's just part of the power of the internet. You speak about popularity based on sales and momentary attention; I love people who went unnoticed, deconstructed their times, were ahead of their peers on this and now receive more and more attention and exposition -- even being hailed by those very same institutions and offsprings of those that once placed them under the rug.

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5409
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: EXTINCTION - 200 Greatest Artists

Post by Henrik » Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:14 pm

HRS, I read you great post and after that I deleted my own last posts as well.

Instead of comparing decades (which was what I did) or argue what artists are the greatest we should just love the music we love.

THE END.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

Locked