IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

User avatar
Sweepstakes Ron
Higher Ground
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 3:32 pm
Location: Here, There, and Everywhere

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Sweepstakes Ron » Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:45 pm

acroamor wrote:Hey Bruce, if you don't approve of the way that things are run on this website, you can leave and you won't be missed at all. In fact, there's a great community at a website called http://boards.4chan.org/mu/ that I'm sure would be very open to someone like you. :mrgreen:
Whoa now. Bruce is bad, but not THAT bad. Besides, he'll get thrown out of there the second he confesses to not liking Neutral Milk Hotel and/or Death Grips.
"Music is powerful, man. It speaks to a primal pit in our brains. It makes anyone want to get up and get their knees going!"
— Jake the Dog

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5217
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 8:46 pm

I am aware that this thread should have been locked a long time ago, but it feels good to let it all out tonight...
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

irreduciblekoan
Different Class
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by irreduciblekoan » Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:47 pm

Bruce wrote:
irreduciblekoan wrote:we listeners and critics have come to venerate artists who create albums.
Not me. And not most listeners either. Especially nowadays in the digital age. The vast majority of people do not listen to full albums. They listen to a mix of songs on their IPods and computers. and on the radio where nobody plays full albums.
I didn't say we venerate the albums they create, just that we venerate artists who make albums. Obviously much of the population during the Album Era have been more into the hit singles of the day, from Hendrix's Purple Rain to Rihanna's Umbrella to now. What I meant was that those artists also all made albums, unlike in the 1930s and 1940s. I was just trying to point out that it's the artists of the Album Era that will get the most attention now, even if their hit singles are still the most popular things they've done. Mine was more a statement about the era that critics and listeners will pay most attention to, rather than about how we only listen to albums (which I know is far from the truth).

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
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 8:49 pm

GucciLittlePiggy wrote: I have a question for Bruce: I haven't really been around this forum all that long, but it seems to me that you have little interest in or are at least displeased with the opinions of most critics, the very thing this site is based on. I'm just curious why you stick around site. Please don't take this as me trying to get you to leave or anything, I'm honestly just curious and I may be very wrong about your thoughts on critics.
My middle name is Lists.

I love lists and also love math. I'm interested in what critics think, but take it with a grain of salt as most of them are very biased towards white guitar oriented rock and roll and also have way too much concern over lyrical meanings IMO. There's also the prevailing critical idea that music did not become significant until the mid-1960s.

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5217
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 8:51 pm

Henrik wrote:
irreduciblekoan wrote:While I certainly disagree with Bruce on many things, as most of us do, I will have to say that I completely agree with him about including ALL songs and ALL albums when calculating artists lists.
Here is a list with all ranked items included and with the same weight. I have rename it to "The 1000 Most Recommended Artists of All Time". This will end the discussion, right? Well almost, because I have found a way to weight albums and songs equally. Tweaking yes, but it works. What I have done is that I have taken a copy of the top 3000 albums and used it for the 3100-6000 positions as well. It's just a thing to make a balance between albums and songs, and I don't think it's unfair to any types of artists. Also (a minor note), I have used 7000 instead of 6100 for the "not on the list" value.

This new list is very interesting.
The Beatles are still number one overall, but Bob Dylan is now the number 1 album artist, ahead of The Beatles (with or without the 3100-6000 copy).
Radiohead are still as high as #7 while Elvis drops to #11.
Miles Davis is the 4th album artist and the 9th artist overall, John Coltrane #26, Charles Mingus #68.
Kanye West climbs to #18.
Sex Pistols are still in the top 100, at #86.

The full list is here: http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/Current/t ... native.htm
Before anyone says anything, I don't think the 3001-6000 copy was very good. It was made in a rush before I had to put my kids to bed.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

Gillingham
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Gillingham » Tue Jul 29, 2014 8:58 pm

Thanks a lot Henrik!

Lots of good changes, lot of disappointing changes, as usual.
The one thing that striked me most though, was the general poorer acclaim of all jazz music. Really not happy with that, and I was surprised almost all jazz albums got a beating, top to bottom. A shame really.

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5217
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 9:11 pm

Gillingham wrote:Thanks a lot Henrik!

Lots of good changes, lot of disappointing changes, as usual.
The one thing that striked me most though, was the general poorer acclaim of all jazz music. Really not happy with that, and I was surprised almost all jazz albums got a beating, top to bottom. A shame really.
Well, we need to find more jazz lists, or lists that include a lot of jazz.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

DocBrown
Full of Fire
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:15 am
Location: Edmonton, Canada

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by DocBrown » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:14 pm

Nassim wrote:
Listyguy wrote:
Luke JR68 wrote:This thread went downhill rather quickly...
I regret making it deeply.
Sorry, we know we should not answer to provocation. I say "don't feed the troll" often enough to know better.
Anyway, I blocked him, I won't see his messages ever again and AM forum will go back to being the nicest place on the internet !
Congratulations, Nassim, you just improved your life as much as quitting smoking, winning the lottery and ending a loveless marriage. Just remember to login every visit or the troll will poke his head out from under the bridge!

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
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 9:15 pm

Henrik wrote:
Gillingham wrote:Thanks a lot Henrik!

Lots of good changes, lot of disappointing changes, as usual.
The one thing that striked me most though, was the general poorer acclaim of all jazz music. Really not happy with that, and I was surprised almost all jazz albums got a beating, top to bottom. A shame really.
Well, we need to find more jazz lists, or lists that include a lot of jazz.
I think the problem is that most jazz lists are genre specific.

This DDD Jazz album list was done more like a critic's list than a typical objective DDD list. The editor, Rick Varner, is the one DDD editor who does not believe in objective criteria. Maybe you would like to include it in your next update.

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_ ... lbums.html

Gillingham
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 938
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Gillingham » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:21 pm

Henrik wrote:
Gillingham wrote:Thanks a lot Henrik!

Lots of good changes, lot of disappointing changes, as usual.
The one thing that striked me most though, was the general poorer acclaim of all jazz music. Really not happy with that, and I was surprised almost all jazz albums got a beating, top to bottom. A shame really.
Well, we need to find more jazz lists, or lists that include a lot of jazz.
Guess you're right. Still, I maybe even expected it to do better instead of worse, since it wasn't doing particularly well anyway.
And for this site I'd prefer general lists that include more jazz instead of purely jazz-based lists. But I don't know how feasible that is.

JR
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:54 pm

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by JR » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:24 pm

Thanks for that alternative artist list, Henrik. Is there a full top 1000 for that, or just the top 200 for now?

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5217
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 9:29 pm

JR wrote:Thanks for that alternative artist list, Henrik. Is there a full top 1000 for that, or just the top 200 for now?
It's just an experiment that I, as I said above, is no longer happy with. When I am happy, I will post a top 1000.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

irreduciblekoan
Different Class
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by irreduciblekoan » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:36 pm

I like that this site includes genre-specific lists by publications/sites that specialize in that genre. So, for example, AM has metal lists by Decibel and Terrorizer, and several jazz lists from jazz-based magazines. It's great because I believe those albums would be so much lower, if not totally absent, without such lists. Like Henrik says, we need to find more jazz sources and see if the more prestigious jazz magazines and sites out there have made lists recently. In fact, it's those genre-specific lists that I find the most interesting.

Bruce, you mentioned the DDD jazz list and how it wasn't simply subjective by one author like most DDD lists. What did you mean? What did Rick Varner, the maker of that list, do differently? As a longtime jazz listener, I think that list is a great one, and if possible to be eligible for AM, it would be nice for Henrik to include it. But we need to make sure that the methodology was different from the usual DDD list.

JR
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:54 pm

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by JR » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:40 pm

OK, H- I may have missed the "experiment" part. :) Finetuning is a good thing.

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
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 9:41 pm

irreduciblekoan wrote:I like that this site includes genre-specific lists by publications/sites that specialize in that genre. So, for example, AM has metal lists by Decibel and Terrorizer, and several jazz lists from jazz-based magazines. It's great because I believe those albums would be so much lower, if not totally absent, without such lists. Like Henrik says, we need to find more jazz sources and see if the more prestigious jazz magazines and sites out there have made lists recently. In fact, it's those genre-specific lists that I find the most interesting.

Bruce, you mentioned the DDD jazz list and how it wasn't simply subjective by one author like most DDD lists. What did you mean? What did Rick Varner, the maker of that list, do differently? As a longtime jazz listener, I think that list is a great one, and if possible to be eligible for AM, it would be nice for Henrik to include it. But we need to make sure that the methodology was different from the usual DDD list.
Most all of the lists follow an objective criteria which includes popularity, influence, impact, acclaim and/or social impact. The lists are not supposed to in any way reflect the taste of the author. Rick was the first one to make lists for the site so Lew allows him to continue to make lists his way, which are based mainly on his own opinion of the music.

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5217
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 9:43 pm

Hmm, even if the methodology was right (meaning it is Rick Varner's own favorite jazz albums), would it not be a genre list from a non-genrespecific site?
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

User avatar
Mattceinicram
Different Class
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:26 am
Location: Indiana when home. Minneapolis, Minnesota during college

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Mattceinicram » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:45 pm

irreduciblekoan wrote:I like that this site includes genre-specific lists by publications/sites that specialize in that genre. So, for example, AM has metal lists by Decibel and Terrorizer, and several jazz lists from jazz-based magazines. It's great because I believe those albums would be so much lower, if not totally absent, without such lists. Like Henrik says, we need to find more jazz sources and see if the more prestigious jazz magazines and sites out there have made lists recently. In fact, it's those genre-specific lists that I find the most interesting.

Bruce, you mentioned the DDD jazz list and how it wasn't simply subjective by one author like most DDD lists. What did you mean? What did Rick Varner, the maker of that list, do differently? As a longtime jazz listener, I think that list is a great one, and if possible to be eligible for AM, it would be nice for Henrik to include it. But we need to make sure that the methodology was different from the usual DDD list.
Talking about genre specific lists, Pitchfork releases a top 40 metal albums list every year. I think it would be cool if it was included. It would at least give some metal albums a shot of making it on the site since unfortunately metal get's completely ignored by a lot of publications.

Here are some links to the past few:
2013: http://pitchfork.com/features/show-no-m ... s-of-2013/
2012: http://pitchfork.com/features/show-no-m ... s-of-2012/
2011: http://pitchfork.com/features/show-no-m ... s-of-2011/

Also does anyone here follow The Needle Drop? He put's out his ratings and EOY lists every year as well. They include metal albums and a bit more variety than a lot of the stereotypical EOY lists other publications put out. I find no reason to not consider him a legitimate source at this point.
Check out my music review blog! Matt and Music! mattandmusic.blogspot.com

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5217
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 9:47 pm

Bruce wrote:
irreduciblekoan wrote:I like that this site includes genre-specific lists by publications/sites that specialize in that genre. So, for example, AM has metal lists by Decibel and Terrorizer, and several jazz lists from jazz-based magazines. It's great because I believe those albums would be so much lower, if not totally absent, without such lists. Like Henrik says, we need to find more jazz sources and see if the more prestigious jazz magazines and sites out there have made lists recently. In fact, it's those genre-specific lists that I find the most interesting.

Bruce, you mentioned the DDD jazz list and how it wasn't simply subjective by one author like most DDD lists. What did you mean? What did Rick Varner, the maker of that list, do differently? As a longtime jazz listener, I think that list is a great one, and if possible to be eligible for AM, it would be nice for Henrik to include it. But we need to make sure that the methodology was different from the usual DDD list.
Most all of the lists follow an objective criteria which includes popularity, influence, impact, acclaim and/or social impact. The lists are not supposed to in any way reflect the taste of the author. Rick was the first one to make lists for the site so Lew allows him to continue to make lists his way, which are based mainly on his own opinion of the music.
Everyone else at DDD think that there are objective criteria for music?
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5217
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 9:51 pm

Bruce wrote:
Henrik wrote:
Bruce wrote:You won't find any critic, music magazine person or music industry person who knows more about the entire history of recorded music than I do.
Except you have never heard of "Get Lucky", never listened to Radiohead, pretty much don't know anything about music after 1987....
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Check the 300 Greatest Pop Artists list. Radiohead and many other modern acts are listed. I don't let my own taste affect the lists.

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


41. Madonna
60. U2
64. Mariah Carey
73. Run-D.M.C.
74. Public Enemy
93. R. Kelly
94. Jay-Z
96. Garth Brooks
109. Bon Jovi
136. Whitney Houston
138. Metallica
164. Eminem
173. Eric B. and Rakim
193. LL Cool J
205. Beastie Boys
212. Mary J. Blige
219. REM
220. 2 Pac
222. Elvis Costello
227. Pearl Jam
229. Outkast
234. N.W.A
249. Beyonce
260. Iron Maiden
263. Notorious B.I.G.
273. Nirvana
274. Radiohead
278. Kanye West
290. Usher
299. Nas
Yes you do. If you didn't, Radiohead would be in the top 10 of your list.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

User avatar
Mattceinicram
Different Class
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:26 am
Location: Indiana when home. Minneapolis, Minnesota during college

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Mattceinicram » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:55 pm

Henrik wrote: Yes you do. If you didn't, Radiohead would be in the top 10 of your list.
Not to mention he has expressed his hatred for Velvet Underground, who just happens to be ranked 279 on this list. Probably the most ridiculous ranking for them I've ever seen.
Check out my music review blog! Matt and Music! mattandmusic.blogspot.com

User avatar
Mattceinicram
Different Class
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:26 am
Location: Indiana when home. Minneapolis, Minnesota during college

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Mattceinicram » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:56 pm

Sweepstakes Ron wrote:
acroamor wrote:Hey Bruce, if you don't approve of the way that things are run on this website, you can leave and you won't be missed at all. In fact, there's a great community at a website called http://boards.4chan.org/mu/ that I'm sure would be very open to someone like you. :mrgreen:
Whoa now. Bruce is bad, but not THAT bad. Besides, he'll get thrown out of there the second he confesses to not liking Neutral Milk Hotel and/or Death Grips.
Bruce wouldn't last 5 minutes at /mu/ :D
Check out my music review blog! Matt and Music! mattandmusic.blogspot.com

jdizzle83
The Only Way Is Up
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:06 am

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by jdizzle83 » Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:26 pm

I don't post much around here, but with reading this thread and noticing a lot of criticism, I just have to say thank you to Henrik for his work. I personally agree with the formula you've been using - it's a great balancing act of incorporating the old with the new. Keep it up!

slick
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 734
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:58 pm
Location: Waukesha, Wisconsin

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by slick » Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:51 pm

Wow! You miss a lot when you do not check the AM forum in a day. Perhaps the most interesting thread in a while!!!

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
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 11:08 pm

Henrik wrote: Yes you do. If you didn't, Radiohead would be in the top 10 of your list.
The criteria of the list is:

These 300 Greatest Popular Music Artists were ranked for their Popularity,
Influence, and Impact in Popular Music.

Acclaim is not even part of the criteria so how could they possibly be top 10?
Last edited by Bruce on Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
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 11:10 pm

Mattceinicram wrote:
Henrik wrote: Yes you do. If you didn't, Radiohead would be in the top 10 of your list.
Not to mention he has expressed his hatred for Velvet Underground, who just happens to be ranked 279 on this list. Probably the most ridiculous ranking for them I've ever seen.
Based on this criteria:

These 300 Greatest Popular Music Artists were ranked for their Popularity,
Influence, and Impact in Popular Music.

They score very little in popularity and impact since they were not even known very well during their day. The only criteria they do well in is influence. Most people who were listening to music in the late 60s would not even be able to name one song by the VU.

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
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 11:15 pm

Henrik wrote: Everyone else at DDD think that there are objective criteria for music?
Here's the criteria of a typical DDD list:

Rock 'n' Roll Artists of the 50's are based equally on Commercial Impact, Influence, Musical Impact and Cultural Impact.

The editor is not supposed to consider his own taste at all. In fact I did many lists on the site where I never even heard most of the records on the list. All the year lists in the late 1990s and the 2000s for instance.

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
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 11:20 pm

Henrik wrote:Hmm, even if the methodology was right (meaning it is Rick Varner's own favorite jazz albums), would it not be a genre list from a non-genrespecific site?
Yes, but this is why the jazz stuff is not doing so well here. There are very few places where people rank jazz on the same list as rock. You use lots of "Greatest Rock Albums" and "Greatest Rock Songs" lists, so why not "Greatest Jazz Albums" lists.

User avatar
Mattceinicram
Different Class
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:26 am
Location: Indiana when home. Minneapolis, Minnesota during college

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Mattceinicram » Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:27 pm

Bruce wrote: Influence, Musical Impact and Cultural Impact.

The editor is not supposed to consider his own taste at all. In fact I did many lists on the site where I never even heard most of the records on the list. All the year lists in the late 1990s and the 2000s for instance.
Not trying to make an argument, but can you please explain how you judge that objectively? I'm curious.
Check out my music review blog! Matt and Music! mattandmusic.blogspot.com

User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 5217
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 11:30 pm

Bruce wrote:
Henrik wrote: Everyone else at DDD think that there are objective criteria for music?
Here's the criteria of a typical DDD list:

Rock 'n' Roll Artists of the 50's are based equally on Commercial Impact, Influence, Musical Impact and Cultural Impact.

The editor is not supposed to consider his own taste at all. In fact I did many lists on the site where I never even heard most of the records on the list. All the year lists in the late 1990s and the 2000s for instance.
Exactly what are these influence and impact things? Impact on who? I remember when you suddenly became a snob and said that Justin Bieber has no influence at all, so I suppose you mean impact on people like yourself, i.e excluding teenage girls, hipsters and non-Americans.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
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 11:32 pm

I research each item's popularity and also each item's acclaim. This site was very instrumental in my rankings for these later years. The top 20 or so was already determined by going through the decade lists that were already done on DDD.

You can check the lists and tell me if you think I did a good job.

Here's the link to 1995:

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/bg_hi ... ts_95.html

You can get to all of the other years from that page.

User avatar
Mattceinicram
Different Class
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:26 am
Location: Indiana when home. Minneapolis, Minnesota during college

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Mattceinicram » Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:40 pm

Henrik wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Henrik wrote: Everyone else at DDD think that there are objective criteria for music?
Here's the criteria of a typical DDD list:

Rock 'n' Roll Artists of the 50's are based equally on Commercial Impact, Influence, Musical Impact and Cultural Impact.

The editor is not supposed to consider his own taste at all. In fact I did many lists on the site where I never even heard most of the records on the list. All the year lists in the late 1990s and the 2000s for instance.
Exactly what are these influence and impact things? Impact on who? I remember when you suddenly became a snob and said that Justin Bieber has no influence at all, so I suppose you mean impact on people like yourself, i.e excluding teenage girls, hipsters and non-Americans.
Exactly. For me, I'm 20 years old. I'm a bit on the younger side. I hate to break it to you Bruce, but artists like Radiohead, Kanye have had more of a "influence" and "cultural impact" on me and others around my age bracket than most artists from the 50s. Is it really fair to say that my generation can't be given any legitimate consideration in music's history?
Last edited by Mattceinicram on Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Check out my music review blog! Matt and Music! mattandmusic.blogspot.com

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
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 11:41 pm

Henrik wrote: Impact on who?
Impact on the world of music.

For instance someone like Gene Vincent had more impact than his popularity would suggest. There were Gene Vincent fan clubs all over Europe. He also had cultural impact as a generation of teenagers and young adults in Europe started to dress like Gene Vincent.

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
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 11:45 pm

Mattceinicram wrote: but artists like Radiohead, Kanye have had more of a "influence" and "cultural" impact on me and others around my age bracket than most artists from the 50s.
But have they had as much impact on this generation as the stars of the 50s had on that generation?

Keep in mind that in those days music was not near as fragmented as now. Most people listened to the hits of the day back then. Nowadays people who like rap may not even ever hear anything by Radiohead, or people who like alternative may not even like hip hop. My buddy's 18 year old daughter is a big Radiohead fan but she does not like any hip hop.

User avatar
Mattceinicram
Different Class
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:26 am
Location: Indiana when home. Minneapolis, Minnesota during college

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Mattceinicram » Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:51 pm

Bruce wrote:
Mattceinicram wrote: Exactly. For me, I'm 20 years old I'm a bit on the younger side. I hate to break it to you Bruce, but artists like Radiohead, Kanye have had more of a "influence" and "cultural" impact on me and others around my age bracket than most artists from the 50s. Is it really fair to say that my generation can't be given any legitimate consideration in music's history?
Influence only means musical influence on other musicians.

What cultural impact do you think that Radiohead has had?

Keep in mind that cultural impact is about other things aside from music, like in how people dress or cut their hair, or in things that become part of the language or in affecting politics, etc....
You must be trying way to hard to ignore modern artists than if you can't see how Radiohead has affected other musicians.

Let me get this straight, hair-cuts and way people dress is a more legitimate and objective way to rank an artist's greatness over their acclaim? If that's your logic their is a whole plethora of hipster artists and rappers that must be considered the greatest artists of all time.
Check out my music review blog! Matt and Music! mattandmusic.blogspot.com

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
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 11:57 pm

Mattceinicram wrote: Let me get this straight, hair-cuts and way people dress is a more legitimate and objective way to rank an artist's greatness over their acclaim? If that's your logic their is a whole plethora of hipster artists and rappers that must be considered the greatest artists of all time.
Acclaim is just the musical taste of a relatively miniscule number of people, music critics. I don't see why there's any reason to believe that these (mostly) journalism majors would have any better musical taste than the general public.

Personally I don't like the cultural impact portion of the DDD criteria and don't use it on my lists, but many of the other editors there do use it. It was conceived by an editor there called Sampson, who is very well regarded on the site.

DocBrown
Full of Fire
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:15 am
Location: Edmonton, Canada

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by DocBrown » Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:01 am

Mattceinicram wrote: Exactly. For me, I'm 20 years old I'm a bit on the younger side. I hate to break it to you Bruce, but artists like Radiohead, Kanye have had more of a "influence" and "cultural" impact on me and others around my age bracket than most artists from the 50s. Is it really fair to say that my generation can't be given any legitimate consideration in music's history?
I remember reading a review of the Edmonton Folk Music Festival in the very late 90's or early 00's. The Edmonton Folkfest is a very prestigious event for musicians, having a 35 year history and a strong focus on world music. Like many folk festivals modelled on Newport, the daylight hours are spent in Master Classes and workshops where headliners and emerging acts recombine to explore their art collectively. The reviewer noted that every workshop act she saw (and this was 12 to 15 years ago) included at least one Radiohead song.

The explanation is simple; what musical influence is common to West African Soukous musicians, Ukranian Dobro players and Inuit throat singers? And what can be adapted to such a broad palette of performers?

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:18 am

Radiohead is #14 on the DDD list of greatest artists of the 1990s and #4 on their list of greatest artists of the 2000s.

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

They are #93 on the site's list of the Greatest Rock Artists of all time:

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

BTW, I do not edit any of these lists.

DocBrown
Full of Fire
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:15 am
Location: Edmonton, Canada

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by DocBrown » Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:23 am

While I'm on the subject of musical influence, let's consider Tom Waits, both beloved and oft maligned around here. By my count Tom has produced 20 studio albums in 40 years, 4 additional "official" live albums and there are, by RYM accounts, seven tribute albums to him (I know of two others). There's also a soundtrack co-credited to Crystal Gayle. My Waits collection is far from complete, but I do have a couple of bootlegs and four of those tribute albums. Yet there are 477 songs in my iTunes library credited to Tom Waits! Browsing through the list, well over half of all these songs are covers, by a who's who of artists. While his voice is sometimes a challenging listen (even to me, and I'm a huge fan), Waits must be among the most revered American songwriters of his generation, right up there with Dylan and Springsteen, and perhaps among the most prolific.

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:32 am

DocBrown wrote:While I'm on the subject of musical influence, let's consider Tom Waits, both beloved and oft maligned around here. By my count Tom has produced 20 studio albums in 40 years, 4 additional "official" live albums and there are, by RYM accounts, seven tribute albums to him (I know of two others). There's also a soundtrack co-credited to Crystal Gayle. My Waits collection is far from complete, but I do have a couple of bootlegs and four of those tribute albums. Yet there are 477 songs in my iTunes library credited to Tom Waits! Browsing through the list, well over half of all these songs are covers, by a who's who of artists. While his voice is sometimes a challenging listen (even to me, and I'm a huge fan), Waits must be among the most revered American songwriters of his generation, right up there with Dylan and Springsteen, and perhaps among the most prolific.
What are the biggest hit songs that Waits has written?

Has any song that he has written ever been a top 10 hit single by any act?
Last edited by Bruce on Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:34 am

Waits is #86 on the DDD list of greatest rock songwriters.

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

DocBrown
Full of Fire
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:15 am
Location: Edmonton, Canada

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by DocBrown » Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:06 am

Bruce wrote: Has any song that he has written ever been a top 10 hit single by any act?
Why, yes, yes it has. But since you know more about music than any critic alive, you already know that don't you, Bruce?

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:10 am

DocBrown wrote:
Bruce wrote: Has any song that he has written ever been a top 10 hit single by any act?
Why, yes, yes it has. But since you know more about music than any critic alive, you already know that don't you, Bruce?
As far as I know he's only had one top 10 hit, Rod Stewart's version of "Downtown Train."

Henry
Full of Fire
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:39 pm

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henry » Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:28 am

Bruce wrote:
But any all time list that ranks Radiohead higher than Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong and James Brown is useless.
That is gross overstatement of the comparative importance of the performers.

To be useless, the list would have "no use" because of this comparison that you personally disagree with.

Such a view as your is nonsensical on its face.

If you cannot make a credible criticism, I recommend that you avoid embarrassing yourself.

For example, you could have more reasonably stated that any list that ranks Radiohead higher than Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong and James Brown is of very limited utility because its credibility would likely be called into questions. Personally, while I recognize the importance of James Brown and enjoy several of his songs, I prefer Radiohead over Mr. Brown generally :-)

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:54 am

Henry wrote:
Bruce wrote:
But any all time list that ranks Radiohead higher than Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong and James Brown is useless.
That is gross overstatement of the comparative importance of the performers.

To be useless, the list would have "no use" because of this comparison that you personally disagree with.

Such a view as your is nonsensical on its face.

If you cannot make a credible criticism, I recommend that you avoid embarrassing yourself.

For example, you could have more reasonably stated that any list that ranks Radiohead higher than Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong and James Brown is of very limited utility because its credibility would likely be called into questions. Personally, while I recognize the importance of James Brown and enjoy several of his songs, I prefer Radiohead over Mr. Brown generally :-)
Calling it useless is just a figure of speech.

jdizzle83
The Only Way Is Up
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:06 am

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by jdizzle83 » Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:46 am

Bruce, why go on a website called Acclaimed Music to criticize the idea of celebrating acclaimed music?

A few things I've been thinking as I've read through your comments:

The Gene Vincent argument seems kind of silly. Is PSY the greatest musician of the last ten years? If we look at how he has over a billion views on youtube, how he inspired so many parodies, Halloween costumes, bobble heads, a dance craze, etc, we could argue that he is, because he has had a huge cultural impact. I mean, he's gotta be in the top 10 for sure!

In general, critically acclaimed work seems to stand the test of time much more than fads do. A lot of the rock and roll music of the 50s was, in many ways, a fad. The reason it survives is because it influenced the rock made in the 60s, when rock and roll "grew up." I notice that generation after generation discover the Beatles, but honestly, I don't see the same thing happening with Elvis. His cultural impact is HUGE, and there's some great work there, but people aren't actually reaching to listen to him like they do the Beatles. Not to discredit Elvis entirely, but just looking at the reality of it.

You could argue that the pre-1960s works are important because of how they influenced the Beatles and others...but I would say look at all those who influenced Shakespeare. We know Shakespeare, we still study Shakespeare, but can the general public name those who influenced him?

Critically acclaimed work often does become what people know best, or what reaches the most people. A hundred years from now, more people will be discovering Neutral Milk Hotel then the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync.

You note that the amount of songs an artist recorded or their longevity should be viewed as more important than those who burned bright quicker. So Jimi Hendrix, who had the largest impact on guitarists ever, should be discredited because he didn't actually record for long? There's case after case I could make for why this is a bit of an invalid argument. Just because Danielle Steele has written hundreds of books doesn't make her a better writer than JD Salinger.

Going back to influence, you must be out of your mind to think that Bing Crosby is more influential culturally and musically than the Sex Pistols. I can look out my window and see kids dressed like punks listening to the Sex Pistols...I"m not seeing anyone trying to emulate Bing Crosby. That's not to discredit him entirely.

I'm not going to attack your integrity or you as a person or anything, that's not really my bag...hope that's cool with you because it seems like shitting on someone's country or or ideas is kind of the way you like to do things

User avatar
Mattceinicram
Different Class
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:26 am
Location: Indiana when home. Minneapolis, Minnesota during college

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Mattceinicram » Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:55 am

jdizzle83 wrote:Bruce, why go on a website called Acclaimed Music to criticize the idea of celebrating acclaimed music?

A few things I've been thinking as I've read through your comments:

The Gene Vincent argument seems kind of silly. Is PSY the greatest musician of the last ten years? If we look at how he has over a billion views on youtube, how he inspired so many parodies, Halloween costumes, bobble heads, a dance craze, etc, we could argue that he is, because he has had a huge cultural impact. I mean, he's gotta be in the top 10 for sure!

In general, critically acclaimed work seems to stand the test of time much more than fads do. A lot of the rock and roll music of the 50s was, in many ways, a fad. The reason it survives is because it influenced the rock made in the 60s, when rock and roll "grew up." I notice that generation after generation discover the Beatles, but honestly, I don't see the same thing happening with Elvis. His cultural impact is HUGE, and there's some great work there, but people aren't actually reaching to listen to him like they do the Beatles. Not to discredit Elvis entirely, but just looking at the reality of it.

You could argue that the pre-1960s works are important because of how they influenced the Beatles and others...but I would say look at all those who influenced Shakespeare. We know Shakespeare, we still study Shakespeare, but can the general public name those who influenced him?

Critically acclaimed work often does become what people know best, or what reaches the most people. A hundred years from now, more people will be discovering Neutral Milk Hotel then the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync.

You note that the amount of songs an artist recorded or their longevity should be viewed as more important than those who burned bright quicker. So Jimi Hendrix, who had the largest impact on guitarists ever, should be discredited because he didn't actually record for long? There's case after case I could make for why this is a bit of an invalid argument. Just because Danielle Steele has written hundreds of books doesn't make her a better writer than JD Salinger.

Going back to influence, you must be out of your mind to think that Bing Crosby is more influential culturally and musically than the Sex Pistols. I can look out my window and see kids dressed like punks listening to the Sex Pistols...I"m not seeing anyone trying to emulate Bing Crosby. That's not to discredit him entirely.

I'm not going to attack your integrity or you as a person or anything, that's not really my bag...hope that's cool with you because it seems like shitting on someone's country or or ideas is kind of the way you like to do things
Thank you for taking the time to write this out. This was very thought out and well written. You do raise some fantastic points!
Check out my music review blog! Matt and Music! mattandmusic.blogspot.com

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:51 am

jdizzle83 wrote:The Gene Vincent argument seems kind of silly. Is PSY the greatest musician of the last ten years? If we look at how he has over a billion views on youtube, how he inspired so many parodies, Halloween costumes, bobble heads, a dance craze, etc, we could argue that he is, because he has had a huge cultural impact. I mean, he's gotta be in the top 10 for sure!
Never heard of him/her/it, but cultural impact is only 25% of the criteria and I've already said that I don't like it and don't use it on my lists.
jdizzle83 wrote: In general, critically acclaimed work seems to stand the test of time much more than fads do.
There's other things beside acclaimed music and fads. And if you're gonna call something "critically acclaimed" you have to go back to when it was current. If you check contemporary reviews of the Velvet Underground you'll find that not only were they NOT acclaimed, they were bashed by most critics. It's only when they started to become popular in the 1980s or so that critics jumped on the bandwagon.
jdizzle83 wrote: A lot of the rock and roll music of the 50s was, in many ways, a fad. The reason it survives is because it influenced the rock made in the 60s, when rock and roll "grew up."
Horseshit. It survives because it's great, PERIOD. Nobody has ever made records that are as exciting as what Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Elvis, Jerry Lee and others were doing in the 50s.
jdizzle83 wrote: I notice that generation after generation discover the Beatles, but honestly, I don't see the same thing happening with Elvis. His cultural impact is HUGE, and there's some great work there, but people aren't actually reaching to listen to him like they do the Beatles. Not to discredit Elvis entirely, but just looking at the reality of it.
The Beatles are the greatest act ever, but many more people nowadays listen to Chuck berry, Elvis, Little Richard Buddy Holly and other great 50s acts than listen to most other 60s acts aside from the Beatles.
jdizzle83 wrote: You could argue that the pre-1960s works are important because of how they influenced the Beatles and others...but I would say look at all those who influenced Shakespeare. We know Shakespeare, we still study Shakespeare, but can the general public name those who influenced him?
We don't use the ignorance of the general public to decide who is influential and who isn't. We don't consider George Thorogood to be more influential than the guys he copied his style from (Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Elmore James, John Lee Hooker) just because most white people in 2014 are more interested in hewaring another white person perorm the blues than they are in hearing the real thing.
jdizzle83 wrote: Critically acclaimed work often does become what people know best, or what reaches the most people. A hundred years from now, more people will be discovering Neutral Milk Hotel then the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync.
20 years from now more people will be familiar with the unaclaimed macarena than with any song by NMH. The unacclaimed Chicago is a much bigger act in 2014 than the highly acclaimed Television. The unacclaimed Kenny G is a much bigger act in 2014 than the highly acclaimed Specials.
jdizzle83 wrote: You note that the amount of songs an artist recorded or their longevity should be viewed as more important than those who burned bright quicker. So Jimi Hendrix, who had the largest impact on guitarists ever, should be discredited because he didn't actually record for long? There's case after case I could make for why this is a bit of an invalid argument. Just because Danielle Steele has written hundreds of books doesn't make her a better writer than JD Salinger.
Never said it should be "more important." I said that everything they do should count for its full weight.
jdizzle83 wrote: Going back to influence, you must be out of your mind to think that Bing Crosby is more influential culturally and musically than the Sex Pistols. I can look out my window and see kids dressed like punks listening to the Sex Pistols...I"m not seeing anyone trying to emulate Bing Crosby. That's not to discredit him entirely.
Crosby's influence is in every vocalist. They might not know it because there's layers in between. But anybody who sings nowadays owes a debt to Crosby. "White Christmas" alone is more influential and culturally impactful than the entire Sex Pistols catalog. I don't know about the rest of the world, but the Sex Pistols are nobodies in the USA. I've never heard any of their music on the radio in my 56 years. Far more people are familiar with Bing Crosby through his movies and music than have any idea who the Sex Pistols are.

Nick
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2273
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Nick » Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:02 am

Bruce wrote:
The Beatles are the greatest act ever, but many more people nowadays listen to Chuck berry, Elvis, Little Richard Buddy Holly and other great 50s acts than listen to most other 60s acts aside from the Beatles.
I'm not really sure how you can claim to know what the general population is listening to when you've never heard of Psy, "Get Lucky", or pretty much any music post-1987.

That aside, I'm in my 20's, and I can assure you that the statement you've made is absolutely false. I've spoken to countless teenagers, 20 somethings, and other members of the "younger crowd" and I can assure you, the big 60's acts are infinitely more popular than any of the big 50's acts. When I was in high school I would see kids wearing tons of Beatles, Doors, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, etc. shirts, but not once did I see a single Elvis or Buddy Holly or Chuck Berry shirt. Even on my local radio stations you will almost never hear any music from the big 50's acts, but you will hear tons of music from the big 60's acts.

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:16 am

Nick wrote:
Bruce wrote:
The Beatles are the greatest act ever, but many more people nowadays listen to Chuck berry, Elvis, Little Richard Buddy Holly and other great 50s acts than listen to most other 60s acts aside from the Beatles.
I'm not really sure how you can claim to know what the general population is listening to when you've never heard of Psy, "Get Lucky", or pretty much any music post-1987.

That aside, I'm in my 20's, and I can assure you that the statement you've made is absolutely false. I've spoken to countless teenagers, 20 somethings, and other members of the "younger crowd" and I can assure you, the big 60's acts are infinitely more popular than any of the big 50's acts.
How many people in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s have you spoken to?

How many of the teens that you have spoken to are non white?

There may be more people in their teens listening to the Doors than Chuck Berry, but the percentage of those listening to older music at all is miniscule compared to those who are listening popular current music.

Besides, young people prefer 60s music over 50s music not because the music "grew up," but because they identify more with the drug culture that later 60s music represents than they do with the sentimentality of doo wops and the piano and sax breaks of Little Richard and Fats Domino.

User avatar
Bruce
Full of Fire
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce » Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:25 am

BTW, when I officiate baseball and basketball games at high schools, if there is music playing before the game and during breaks it's either current stuff or 1970s rock.

Post Reply