IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post Reply
JR
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:54 pm

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by JR » Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:13 pm

Am aware of that, DocBrown- I even prefaced it with my comment. Was just adding something for discussion. :)

User avatar
Live in Phoenix
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 am

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Live in Phoenix » Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:38 pm

Nassim wrote:How many songs did Buddy Holly record by the way ?
Hi, let me interject here ... about 200 :ugeek:

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:47 pm

Nassim wrote: How many songs did Buddy Holly record by the way ?
If you count everything that has been released it's well over 100, but no way should he be in the top 5 either. Not prolific enough, even though the cause of that was his death. He was exceeedingly prolific in the short amount of time that he was recording.

User avatar
Luke JR68
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Luke JR68 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:11 pm

Bruce wrote:
Nassim wrote: How many songs did Buddy Holly record by the way ?
If you count everything that has been released it's well over 100, but no way should he be in the top 5 either. Not prolific enough, even though the cause of that was his death. He was exceeedingly prolific in the short amount of time that he was recording.
This is probably explained by your "music is a product intended for entertainment, not art" argument, but can you really justify saying that the work of an artist with a 40 year career is more valuable than that of an artist that only managed to pour their heart and soul into 2-3 albums :D ?

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:37 pm

Luke JR68 wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Nassim wrote: How many songs did Buddy Holly record by the way ?
If you count everything that has been released it's well over 100, but no way should he be in the top 5 either. Not prolific enough, even though the cause of that was his death. He was exceeedingly prolific in the short amount of time that he was recording.
This is probably explained by your "music is a product intended for entertainment, not art" argument, but can you really justify saying that the work of an artist with a 40 year career is more valuable than that of an artist that only managed to pour their heart and soul into 2-3 albums :D ?
Depends on the act. There are plenty of acts with 40+ year careers who never did much of any significance.

But any all time list that ranks Radiohead higher than Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong and James Brown is useless.

Jonathon
Different Class
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:13 am

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Jonathon » Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:48 pm

It's funny how a pitchfork list from 11 years ago has set the tone for how we view the 90s. http://pitchfork.com/features/staff-lis ... e-1990s/1/ I'm still cross referencing, but I think 30-35 albums in the top 40 saw increases this year.
Last edited by Jonathon on Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Luke JR68
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Luke JR68 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:49 pm

Bruce wrote:
Luke JR68 wrote: This is probably explained by your "music is a product intended for entertainment, not art" argument, but can you really justify saying that the work of an artist with a 40 year career is more valuable than that of an artist that only managed to pour their heart and soul into 2-3 albums :D ?
Depends on the act. There are plenty of acts with 40+ year careers who never did much of any significance.

But any all time list that ranks Radiohead higher than Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong and James Brown is useless.
At least we can agree on the first part :mrgreen:
So what is it about Radiohead's 20 year career that you take issue with, aside from the fact that their music just doesn't do it for you, while it does for many of the people and critics today?
Kudos for hitting 1000 posts by the way :music-rockon:

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:57 pm

Luke JR68 wrote: So what is it about Radiohead's 20 year career that you take issue with,
The fact that in 20 years they have not even managed to release 100 different studio songs yet. The fact that their music is only of interest to a relatively small demographic. The fact that they have not had massive hits the way that other top acts have.

Rolling Stone ranked tham as the #73 act of all time. That's a lot more realistic than ranking them in the top 5.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:00 pm

What if instead of using the songs and album lists to create a greatest artist list Henrik started an artist ranking based only on artist lists from critics and industry people.

Nick
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2251
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Nick » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:09 pm

I really think the only fair way to weigh albums vs songs is by using the number of albums lists and songs lists. If there are 100,000 lists in total and 60,000 are albums lists and 40,000 are songs lists, then weigh albums vs songs appropriately. This will also resolve the issue of "what's more important- albums or songs?" because once the amount of albums and songs lists are figured out, it will be clear which one the critics think are more important.

Also, Radiohead have almost definitely released more than 100 studio songs.

Jonathon
Different Class
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:13 am

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Jonathon » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:16 pm

Bruce wrote:
Luke JR68 wrote: So what is it about Radiohead's 20 year career that you take issue with,
The fact that in 20 years they have not even managed to release 100 different studio songs yet. The fact that their music is only of interest to a relatively small demographic. The fact that they have not had massive hits the way that other top acts have.

Rolling Stone ranked tham as the #73 act of all time. That's a lot more realistic than ranking them in the top 5.
Popularity and wide appeal have nothing to do with the quality of a work of art. If anything, it can ultimately be indicative of something dumbed down to appeal to a less sophisticated mass audience. Think about Michael Bay's Transformers films.

I personally consider Radiohead superior to all the acts you listed, though I feel your pain with the Arcade Fire, an even newer band with just 4 albums, with an even smaller core audience, who now outranks titans like Van Morrison and Joni Mitchell.
Last edited by Jonathon on Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JimmyJazz
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1293
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:28 am
Location: Arizona

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by JimmyJazz » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:17 pm

Bruce wrote:What if instead of using the songs and album lists to create a greatest artist list Henrik started an artist ranking based only on artist lists from critics and industry people.
I don't usually have much of an interest in engaging with you, Bruce, as all of us here are perfectly aware of, but rather than putting pressure on Henrik and his very busy life, where we should just be happy about the hard work that goes into the massive list updates every year, I think maybe I would be willing to take up that challenge of yours. Just give me a formula of some sort, and I will collect those lists and get to work. Then we will see just how right (and/or wrong) we all are on every point made by everybody in this now-tedious thread. :mrgreen:

Actually, I do remember JR was doing a project that was exactly how you described. I recently talked to him in private about that out of curiosity, but said that he got pretty sidetracked on it.

User avatar
BleuPanda
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 3242
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by BleuPanda » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:20 pm

According to Wikipedia there are 148 recorded Radiohead songs. They have quite a few great obscure tracks as well, such as "Talk Show Host" from the Romeo and Juliet soundtrack and "Cuttooth" as a B-side to Knives Out. I'm actually surprised Talk Show Host isn't listed here yet.

User avatar
Luke JR68
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Luke JR68 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:25 pm

Bruce wrote:What if instead of using the songs and album lists to create a greatest artist list Henrik started an artist ranking based only on artist lists from critics and industry people.
Out of curiosity, what is the problem with judging an artist based on the work they create... I have no problem with incorporating artist lists as well if Henrik wanted to (which I don't believe he has any intention of doing), but considering the point of an artist is to create art, why not judge them based on that art :D ?

McJagger
Strange Fruit
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 8:20 pm

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by McJagger » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:34 pm

I'm delighted to see a new Bowie album and song in their respective top 1000 lists. Who would have predicted that at the beginning of 2013?

Nick
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2251
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Nick » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:35 pm

Jonathon wrote:
I personally consider Radiohead superior to all the acts you listed, though I feel your pain with the Arcade Fire, an even newer band with just 4 albums, with an even smaller core audience, who now outranks titans like Van Morrison and Joni Mitchell.
Arcade Fire do have 2 number 1 albums though. So it's not as if their audience is all that small. In fact, they probably have a much bigger audience than say, Tom Waits or Frank Zappa or Patti Smith.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:38 pm

Jonathon wrote:
Popularity and wide appeal have nothing to do with the quality of a work of art. If anything, it can ultimately be indicative of something dumbed down to appeal to a less sophisticated mass audience.
What makes you think that what you term "a less sophisticated" audience would have less idea about a work of art?

Perhaps the snobbishness of more sophisticated listeners is compelling them to refuse to acknowledge that they like many huge hits. Why else would they call them "guilty pleasures?" Why would anybody ever feel guilty about liking a particular recording? The only viable answer can be snobishness. They don't want the other snobs to laugh at them. Like a high school kid in the 70s who liked the Osmonds better than Led Zeppelin. He'd be afraid to tell his friends that for fear of being mocked.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:39 pm

BleuPanda wrote:According to Wikipedia there are 148 recorded Radiohead songs.
That's counting live versions of songs already released as studio versions.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:43 pm

Luke JR68 wrote:
Bruce wrote:What if instead of using the songs and album lists to create a greatest artist list Henrik started an artist ranking based only on artist lists from critics and industry people.
Out of curiosity, what is the problem with judging an artist based on the work they create... I have no problem with incorporating artist lists as well if Henrik wanted to (which I don't believe he has any intention of doing), but considering the point of an artist is to create art, why not judge them based on that art :D ?
That's fine, but Henrik is tweaking the artist rankings to get a result that he likes better. EVERY acclaimed item by each act should get its full value for the artist ratings rather than what Henrik does, weighting the higher ranking items more than the lesser ranked items, and only counting each act's top 15 items towards the ranking.

Henrik has made the arbitrary decision that longevity is not important and he maneuvered the artist rankings to reflect that arbitrary belief.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:44 pm

Nick wrote: Tom Waits or Frank Zappa or Patti Smith.
Three disgustingly overrated artists that only appeal to a miniscule demographic.

Nassim
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1836
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:35 pm
Location: Paris

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Nassim » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:46 pm

Bruce wrote:
BleuPanda wrote:According to Wikipedia there are 148 recorded Radiohead songs.
That's counting live versions of songs already released as studio versions.
No it's not. That's actually not even counting songs they did play live but never recorded in studio. And I don't think that's counting covers, but I don't think many have been officially recorded in studio (though a few did, and many have been recorded live which I assume would still count).
Last edited by Nassim on Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Romain
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:25 pm
Location: Lyon, France

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Romain » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:47 pm

Bruce wrote:
Jonathon wrote:
Popularity and wide appeal have nothing to do with the quality of a work of art. If anything, it can ultimately be indicative of something dumbed down to appeal to a less sophisticated mass audience.
What makes you think that what you term "a less sophisticated" audience would have less idea about a work of art?

Perhaps the snobbishness of more sophisticated listeners is compelling them to refuse to acknowledge that they like many huge hits. Why else would they call them "guilty pleasures?" Why would anybody ever feel guilty about liking a particular recording? The only viable answer can be snobishness. They don't want the other snobs to laugh at them.
YOU... YOU... YOU... it was you who said that ? The snob among snobs. The guy who don't admit music can be listenable after 1977 ? Message after message, you spit at the face of other because they enjoy Radiohead or Nirvana... YOU !

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:56 pm

Romain wrote: The guy who don't admit music can be listenable after 1977 ?
It's 1987.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:57 pm

Romain wrote: YOU... YOU... YOU...
I never would have thought that you were an Ames Brothers fan.

Last edited by Bruce on Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Henry
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:39 pm

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henry » Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:58 pm

Bruce wrote:
Nick wrote: Tom Waits or Frank Zappa or Patti Smith.
Three disgustingly overrated artists that only appeal to a miniscule demographic.
Bruce - While I am no fan of Waits and only enjoy Zappa and Patti in small doses, I suspect that your view that these acts are "disgustingly" overrated is of little consequence to the rest of us.

The term 'miniscule" may be correct, but in my view wide appeal is only one factor to consider in determining whether an act is highly rated in terms of acclaim.

I wonder if you have heard Smith's song "Because the Night" (ranked at 432). I find it to be very enjoyable. Of course, Patti Smith doesn't rank highly in my all time list because I do not enjoy many of her songs very much. But, I do not confuse my enjoyment with appropriate acclaim rating. In my view, Patti Smith as a top 100 artist is too high. But, I am not troubled by this at all. Peace.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:03 pm

Henry wrote: I wonder if you have heard Smith's song "Because the Night" (ranked at 432).
Of course. It was a huge hit and is the only passable thing she ever did. That's because she did not write the song and the writer (Springsteen) came up with a very catchy hook.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:06 pm

Henry wrote:
Bruce - While I am no fan of Waits and only enjoy Zappa and Patti in small doses, I suspect that your view that these acts are "disgustingly" overrated is of little consequence to the rest of us.
If that was true then people here would not get so upset when I voice these kinds of opinions.
Henry wrote: In my view, Patti Smith as a top 100 artist is too high. But, I am not troubled by this at all. Peace.
That just elitists trying tell the common man what he SHOULD be listening to rather than what he likes to listen to (Chicago, Garth Brooks, etc...).

Nassim
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1836
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:35 pm
Location: Paris

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Nassim » Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:13 pm

Bruce wrote: Henrik has made the arbitrary decision that longevity is not important and he maneuvered the artist rankings to reflect that arbitrary belief.
The sheer fact that he increased the number of albums and songs taken into account to 15 is a proof that he thinks longevity matters. He just doesn't think that's as important as YOU do.
Anyway, as he said the list should not be taken too seriously as lots of other aspects are not taken into account. Queen gets higher placement in lots of lists thanks to the charisma of Freddie Mercury and his live performances, Elvis or Michael Jackson would get boosts for being major icons even beside their music (you can not "rank" Michael Jackson's moonwalking at the Motown's birthday or the Thriller video, but this has a major place in the modern music history), the cultural phenomenon that the Beatles were, the legends around Robert Johnson, the fashion trends launched by Madonna... those are impactful things you can not measure adding albums and songs.

And yes, at is has been said, JR had a project of making an artists list based on existing artists lists.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:17 pm

Nassim wrote:
The sheer fact that he increased the number of albums and songs taken into account to 15 is a proof that he thinks longevity matters.
The fact that the first item is weighted 15 times as much as the 15th item is proof that he doesn't.

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5179
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henrik » Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:25 pm

Henrik wrote:Very few people who prefer Rolling Stones over Beatles, do this because Rolling Stones continued after their peak.
Bruce, please let me know if you disagree with this.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:30 pm

Henrik wrote:
Henrik wrote:Very few people who prefer Rolling Stones over Beatles, do this because Rolling Stones continued after their peak.
Bruce, please let me know if you disagree with this.
The Rolling Stones peak lasted at least twice as long as the Beatles peak did. The Beatles peak was probably 1963 to 1969, 7 years. I'd put the Stones peak at 1965 to 1981, 17 years. That's the point.

A lot of baseball players had a better peak than Hank Aaron, but Aaron's peak lasted at least twice as long as most other player's peaks did.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:41 pm

BleuPanda wrote:According to Wikipedia there are 148 recorded Radiohead songs.
I count 89 songs on the 8 studio albums.

Are you saying that they have 59 other songs that are either only on singles or other places without including live versions of studio songs?

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:46 pm

Henrik wrote:
Henrik wrote:Very few people who prefer Rolling Stones over Beatles, do this because Rolling Stones continued after their peak.
Bruce, please let me know if you disagree with this.
This is also an isolated case of two acts who don't sound very similar. Many people who like the Stones better than the Beatles do so simply because they prefer more of an R&B or blues influenced sound.

A better question would be if more people who like the Stones better than the Yardbirds do so because the Stones made so much more music than the Yardbirds did, even though both bands were similar for a few years.

There were probably many people who liked the Yardbirds better than the Stones in 1964-1965, but not so many by the 1970s when the Stones were still making great music and the Yardbirds were long gone.

User avatar
Luke JR68
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:21 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Luke JR68 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:08 pm

Bruce wrote:
Luke JR68 wrote:
Bruce wrote:What if instead of using the songs and album lists to create a greatest artist list Henrik started an artist ranking based only on artist lists from critics and industry people.
Out of curiosity, what is the problem with judging an artist based on the work they create... I have no problem with incorporating artist lists as well if Henrik wanted to (which I don't believe he has any intention of doing), but considering the point of an artist is to create art, why not judge them based on that art :D ?
That's fine, but Henrik is tweaking the artist rankings to get a result that he likes better. EVERY acclaimed item by each act should get its full value for the artist ratings rather than what Henrik does, weighting the higher ranking items more than the lesser ranked items, and only counting each act's top 15 items towards the ranking.

Henrik has made the arbitrary decision that longevity is not important and he maneuvered the artist rankings to reflect that arbitrary belief.
Even if I did agree that Henrik is manipulating the formula to fulfill his own musical whims (which I don't, in case that isn't easy to see already), it doesn't make a difference, because this is HIS site. We are only here because he is generous enough to share it with us... I guess the point I'm getting at is that, as Henrik has said, there is no problem with helpful suggestions on how the site could be improved. However, its when accusations start to get thrown around that problems arise.

Sorry if I'm fanning the flames guys, but I wanted to get that out.

User avatar
BleuPanda
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 3242
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by BleuPanda » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:10 pm

Bruce wrote:
BleuPanda wrote:According to Wikipedia there are 148 recorded Radiohead songs.
I count 89 songs on the 8 studio albums.

Are you saying that they have 59 other songs that are either only on singles or other places without including live versions of studio songs?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying...seriously, it takes a single google search to find this out if you don't believe me.

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5179
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henrik » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:11 pm

Bruce wrote:What if instead of using the songs and album lists to create a greatest artist list Henrik started an artist ranking based only on artist lists from critics and industry people.
Yes, what if? Bing Crosby would be ahead of Sex Pistols? My decision to use only the 6 most acclaimed albums and songs, when I first created the artists list, was actually based on the artists lists from critics I had found. Most of them had artists/bands with short careers like Sex Pistols, Joy Division, Nick Drake and Nirvana very high, and I wanted to mirror that (to some extent). For critics it's the impact/influence that counts. It doesn't matter if that impact is based on 10 or 1000 songs.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:12 pm

BleuPanda wrote:
Bruce wrote:
BleuPanda wrote:According to Wikipedia there are 148 recorded Radiohead songs.
I count 89 songs on the 8 studio albums.

Are you saying that they have 59 other songs that are either only on singles or other places without including live versions of studio songs?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying...seriously, it takes a single google search to find this out if you don't believe me.
If true then it's even worse for album rankings to be so much more a part of things when a big act like this has 40% of their released songs that are not on any of their albums.

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5179
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henrik » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:15 pm

Luke JR68 wrote:Even if I did agree that Henrik is manipulating the formula to fulfill his own musical whims (which I don't, in case that isn't easy to see already)
I certainly don't. My favorite band is The Cure. With 8 ranked albums and 17 ranked songs I'm pretty sure that they would rank higher with a simple summarization.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:15 pm

Henrik wrote:
Bruce wrote:What if instead of using the songs and album lists to create a greatest artist list Henrik started an artist ranking based only on artist lists from critics and industry people.
Yes, what if? Bing Crosby would be ahead of Sex Pistols? My decision to use only the 6 most acclaimed albums and songs, when I first created the artists list, was actually based on the artists lists from critics I had found. Most of them had artists/bands with short careers like Sex Pistols, Joy Division, Nick Drake and Nirvana very high, and I wanted to mirror that (to some extent). For critics it's the impact/influence that counts. It doesn't matter if that impact is based on 10 or 1000 songs.
If critics think that the Sex Pistols had more impact and influence than Bing Crosby they are insane.

You are likely looking at artist lists that are rock music only.

No legitimite critic would ever say that the Sex Pistols had more impact or influence than Bing Crosby.

User avatar
BleuPanda
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 3242
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by BleuPanda » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:18 pm

Bruce wrote:
Henrik wrote:
Bruce wrote:What if instead of using the songs and album lists to create a greatest artist list Henrik started an artist ranking based only on artist lists from critics and industry people.
Yes, what if? Bing Crosby would be ahead of Sex Pistols? My decision to use only the 6 most acclaimed albums and songs, when I first created the artists list, was actually based on the artists lists from critics I had found. Most of them had artists/bands with short careers like Sex Pistols, Joy Division, Nick Drake and Nirvana very high, and I wanted to mirror that (to some extent). For critics it's the impact/influence that counts. It doesn't matter if that impact is based on 10 or 1000 songs.
If critics think that the Sex Pistols had more impact and influence than Bing Crosby they are insane.

You are likely looking at artist lists that are rock music only.

No legitimite critic would ever say that the Sex Pistols had more impact or influence than Bing Crosby.
I honestly don't know what reality you live in where Bing Crosby has left a bigger legacy than Sex Pistols. This is 2014, correct?

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:21 pm

Crosby was one of the first singers to exploit the intimacy of the microphone, rather than using the deep, loud "vaudeville style" associated with Al Jolson and others. Crosby's love and appreciation of jazz music helped bring the genre to a wider mainstream audience. Within the framework of the novelty-singing style of the Rhythm Boys, Crosby bent notes and added off-tune phrasing, an approach that was firmly rooted in jazz. He had already been introduced to Louis Armstrong and Bessie Smith prior to his first appearance on record. Crosby and Armstrong would remain professionally friendly for decades, notably in the 1956 film High Society, where they sang the duet "Now You Has Jazz".

During the early portion of his solo career (about 1931–1934), Crosby's emotional, often pleading style of crooning was popular. But Jack Kapp (manager of Brunswick and later Decca) talked Crosby into dropping many of his jazzier mannerisms, in favor of a straight-ahead clear vocal style.

Crosby also elaborated on a further idea of Al Jolson's: phrasing, or the art of making a song's lyric ring true. His success in doing so was influential. "I used to tell Sinatra over and over," said Tommy Dorsey, "there's only one singer you ought to listen to and his name is Crosby. All that matters to him is the words, and that's the only thing that ought to for you, too."

Vocal critic Henry Pleasants wrote:

[While] the octave B flat to B flat in Bing's voice at that time [1930s] is, to my ears, one of the loveliest I have heard in forty-five years of listening to baritones, both classical and popular, it dropped conspicuously in later years. From the mid-1950s, Bing was more comfortable in a bass range while maintaining a baritone quality, with the best octave being G to G, or even F to F. In a recording he made of 'Dardanella' with Louis Armstrong in 1960, he attacks lightly and easily on a low E flat. This is lower than most opera basses care to venture, and they tend to sound as if they were in the cellar when they get there.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:23 pm

BleuPanda wrote:
I honestly don't know what reality you live in where Bing Crosby has left a bigger legacy than Sex Pistols. This is 2014, correct?
Quite the opposite. Crosby is an all time legend. "White Christmas" alone makes him much more significant than the Sex Pistols entire career.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:25 pm

SEARCH RESULTS

"Bing Crosby" over 43 million results
"Sex Pistols" over 7,800,000 results

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5179
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henrik » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:26 pm

Bruce, I'm just curious, are you aware of any artists lists from critics with Bing Crosby ahead of Sex Pistols? I'm not trying to prove anything.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5179
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henrik » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:31 pm

Bruce wrote:SEARCH RESULTS

"Bing Crosby" over 43 million results
"Sex Pistols" over 7,800,000 results
Just out of curiosity I made a google search myself and I got
"Bing Crosby" 1 660 000 results
"Sex Pistols" 3 450 000 results

Again, I'm not trying to prove anything. The number of search results doesn't say that much, I think. I don't think objective measures of impact are available at all.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

User avatar
BleuPanda
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 3242
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by BleuPanda » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:33 pm

Bruce wrote:SEARCH RESULTS

"Bing Crosby" over 43 million results
"Sex Pistols" over 7,800,000 results
You're not even doing it right. You can't just search Bing Crosby because it will eventually start giving results for both "Bing" and "Crosby" with no mention of the other. If you actually search for the two terms in their entirety, the results come back as such:

"Bing Crosby": 1.66 million
"Sex Pistols": 3.45 million

So, doing the search properly reveals Sex Pistols has twice as many internet references, not that the amount of internet references means anything. Stop trying to fudge data, especially when the data you're trying to use is entirely meaningless.

Nick
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2251
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Nick » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:38 pm

All this talk of influence, sales, and popularity is really off topic. This is a website devoted to critical acclaim. All that matters is whether music critics like the Sex Pistols more than Bing Crosby, not who sold more or who appears more on a google search.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:39 pm

Henrik wrote:Bruce, I'm just curious, are you aware of any artists lists from critics with Bing Crosby ahead of Sex Pistols? I'm not trying to prove anything.
Yes.

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

4. Bing Crosby
(not ranked) - Sex Pistols

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:39 pm

BleuPanda wrote:
Bruce wrote:SEARCH RESULTS

"Bing Crosby" over 43 million results
"Sex Pistols" over 7,800,000 results
You're not even doing it right. You can't just search Bing Crosby because it will eventually start giving results for both "Bing" and "Crosby" with no mention of the other. If you actually search for the two terms in their entirety, the results come back as such:

"Bing Crosby": 1.66 million
"Sex Pistols": 3.45 million

So, doing the search properly reveals Sex Pistols has twice as many internet references, not that the amount of internet references means anything. Stop trying to fudge data, especially when the data you're trying to use is entirely meaningless.
I did it properly with the quotes and got the results that I posted.

User avatar
Bruce
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:42 pm

Nick wrote:All this talk of influence, sales, and popularity is really off topic. This is a website devoted to critical acclaim. All that matters is whether music critics like the Sex Pistols more than Bing Crosby, not who sold more or who appears more on a google search.
That would be true if there had been a contant number of music critics over the past 100 years, but there hasn't. Most living music critics do not know enough about the entire history of recorded music to be able to render a legitimite opinion.

The earliest list that Henrik even uses is 1952 which is AFTER Crosby's peak.

Crosby revolutionized singing.
Last edited by Bruce on Tue Jul 29, 2014 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply