IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

[jdizzle83]

Don't know how to do the quote thing...

Bruce: "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."

This is just absolutely false. I don't think one person on this forum would agree with that. By a large margin, more people listen to the Rolling Stones, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, etc than listen to the acts you mentioned. Chuck Berry could not fill a stadium out on tour, while the Stones still can.

Bruce: "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."

True that there are other things besides acclaimed music and fads. And I can agree that not everything that now finds acclaim always did. Typically, something that is popular at the time that doesn't find acclaim doesn't remain in the cultural conversation. However, things that aren't popular, and that people may actively dislike at the time, such as the Velvet Underground, may find acclaim later, and after that will likely last. No one really discovered the poems of Emily Dickenson until 50 years after her death; now they will live on in eternity. Same thing with the Velvet Underground. But I don't see One Direction finding acclaim 50 years from now and then doing the same.

Bruce: "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."

Okay, I can agree that some of it is great and culturally canonical. That period will always be looked back on as very exciting for music. But the way you feel about how exciting that music is, is the way others feel about the Sex Pistols. And more kids and teens will discover music, themselves, catharsis, etc through punk then early rock and roll. That's not a value judgment, just the way it is. Many will also do the same through the Who, the Beatles, the Stones, Zeppelin, etc. It's just not typically happening through those 50s artists...the legacy is actually dwindling in many respects. I Love Lucy was one of the most watched television shows of its time, and will always be a classic television show, and people will always understand and latch on to some of its cultural references - but more people are doing that with the The Simpsons now then I Love Lucy, and more people will continue to discover it in the future. Sometimes the thing that set the standard gets kind of left behind a bit and viewed more as a cultural artifact than something people are still actively engaging with.

Bruce: "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."

Yes, you're right about that I guess. I'm not sure I get your point here actually. I guess one could argue that we should be looking at all those who influenced Elvis rather than Elvis if this is your logic? But of course we don't consider George Thorogood to be more influential than Muddy Waters or Howlin' Wolf, that's just silly sir. I think this depends on the case...

Bruce: "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."

True about Macarena...but doesn't mean it's more influential, or better...it's a dance craze. People who discover NMH are actually going to discover an emotional, artistic experience. I don't think anyone would argue that just because Transformers is a super famous movie it brings the same experience as discovering something that emotionally resonates with you. Both can be fine, but the thing that emotionally hits you is going to truly live on, not just peripherally but within people. That's what a lot of the acclaimed albums and songs do: they become something special in people's lives, and have a deep impact on them personally. Like the music of the 50s does for you, Bruce. And this is what makes it "the greatest" - this is just a collective group saying that this music really means a lot to them. This isn't the music that they hear a lot and enjoy - this is the music that moves them, that changes lives. A lot of people like music, but don't necessarily get that experience. Just because more people might discover and enjoy Katy Perry doesn't mean that they are feeling the deep emotional enjoyment others feel when discovering Radiohead. And some feel that deep connection for Katy Perry too, and that's cool as well. But it's interesting that certain artists seem to create this deep feeling for people more than others: Springsteen, Bowie, Prince, Beatles, Stones, Dylan, etc seem to be artists that really create this feeling for people...Velvet Underground and Television and Sex Pistols do too, whereas more well-known pop artists might not. And regarding your comments about the Sex Pistols: that's a band that has literally changed countless lives. It doesn't matter that they may not be on the radio...what matters is that there are kids out there, as there have been for over 30 years, who hear their music and think: I want to do something, be something, different than what I was before. I am changed. No offense to Bing Crosby, but I don't see a lot of people completely changing their lives after hearing "White Christmas." I know for many kids in the punk rock scene, the Sex Pistols literally changed their identity, their whole way of thinking about the world! Doesn't that make them one of the most important music acts of all time?

Music is a powerful, passionate thing, isn't it?

[Bruce]

Don't know how to do the quote thing...

Bruce: "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."

This is just absolutely false. I don't think one person on this forum would agree with that. By a large margin, more people listen to the Rolling Stones, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, etc than listen to the acts you mentioned. Chuck Berry could not fill a stadium out on tour, while the Stones still can.

Led Zeppelin hardly qualifies as a "60s act." They are a 70s act.

Bruce: "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."

True that there are other things besides acclaimed music and fads. And I can agree that not everything that now finds acclaim always did. Typically, something that is popular at the time that doesn't find acclaim doesn't remain in the cultural conversation. However, things that aren't popular, and that people may actively dislike at the time, such as the Velvet Underground, may find acclaim later, and after that will likely last. No one really discovered the poems of Emily Dickenson until 50 years after her death; now they will live on in eternity. Same thing with the Velvet Underground. But I don't see One Direction finding acclaim 50 years from now and then doing the same.

But plenty of unacclaimed acts are and will remain big draws, like Michael Buble for instance.

Bruce: "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."

Okay, I can agree that some of it is great and culturally canonical. That period will always be looked back on as very exciting for music. But the way you feel about how exciting that music is, is the way others feel about the Sex Pistols. And more kids and teens will discover music, themselves, catharsis, etc through punk then early rock and roll. That's not a value judgment, just the way it is. Many will also do the same through the Who, the Beatles, the Stones, Zeppelin, etc. It's just not typically happening through those 50s artists...the legacy is actually dwindling in many respects. I Love Lucy was one of the most watched television shows of its time, and will always be a classic television show, and people will always understand and latch on to some of its cultural references - but more people are doing that with the The Simpsons now then I Love Lucy, and more people will continue to discover it in the future. Sometimes the thing that set the standard gets kind of left behind a bit and viewed more as a cultural artifact than something people are still actively engaging with.

We'll see if today's TV shows are still running regularly 60 years later like I Love Lucy and the Honeymooners are.

Bruce: "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 hearing another white person perorm the blues than they are in hearing the real thing."

Yes, you're right about that I guess. I'm not sure I get your point here actually. I guess one could argue that we should be looking at all those who influenced Elvis rather than Elvis if this is your logic? But of course we don't consider George Thorogood to be more influential than Muddy Waters or Howlin' Wolf, that's just silly sir. I think this depends on the case...

My point is that an act who is influential does not lose its influence because people decades later who like the stuff they influenced do not know about him directly. Bing Crosby's immense influence on Sinatra is still there whether or not the younger folks who listen to Sinatra are aware of Crosby.

Bruce: "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."

True about Macarena...but doesn't mean it's more influential, or better...it's a dance craze. People who discover NMH are actually going to discover an emotional, artistic experience.

That's a matter of opinion. Many more people who would hear NMH would NOT discover an emotional experince than those who will. And the fact that a song is popular because it's a dance craze is no less of a reason for the song to be significant than any other reason. How many dance crazes last for decades?

I don't think anyone would argue that just because Transformers is a super famous movie it brings the same experience as discovering something that emotionally resonates with you.

Transformers certainly emotionally resonated with millions of people. Many of them may have only been 10 years old, but so what.

Both can be fine, but the thing that emotionally hits you is going to truly live on, not just peripherally but within people. That's what a lot of the acclaimed albums and songs do: they become something special in people's lives, and have a deep impact on them personally.

But what makes you think that acclaimed acts like Television bring any more emotional impact than unacclaimed acts like Kenny G and Michael Buble do with their millions of fans?

Like the music of the 50s does for you, Bruce. And this is what makes it "the greatest" - this is just a collective group saying that this music really means a lot to them. This isn't the music that they hear a lot and enjoy - this is the music that moves them, that changes lives. A lot of people like music, but don't necessarily get that experience. Just because more people might discover and enjoy Katy Perry doesn't mean that they are feeling the deep emotional enjoyment others feel when discovering Radiohead.

You have no way of knowing whether or not Katy Perry fans feel more or less emotional enjoyment than Radiohead fans.

And some feel that deep connection for Katy Perry too, and that's cool as well. But it's interesting that certain artists seem to create this deep feeling for people more than others: Springsteen, Bowie, Prince, Beatles, Stones, Dylan, etc seem to be artists that really create this feeling for people...Velvet Underground and Television and Sex Pistols do too, whereas more well-known pop artists might not.

I think you're wrong here. I think that well known pop artists like Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Beyonce and Barbra Streisand and others create incredible deep feelings for their fans.

And regarding your comments about the Sex Pistols: that's a band that has literally changed countless lives. It doesn't matter that they may not be on the radio...what matters is that there are kids out there, as there have been for over 30 years, who hear their music and think: I want to do something, be something, different than what I was before. I am changed. No offense to Bing Crosby, but I don't see a lot of people completely changing their lives after hearing "White Christmas." I know for many kids in the punk rock scene, the Sex Pistols literally changed their identity, their whole way of thinking about the world! Doesn't that make them one of the most important music acts of all time?

No, because the punk movement involved a relatively small number of people. During Crosby's prime it was calculated that 50% of all music on the radio in a given week was from Bing. He was more famous in his time BY FAR than any musical act is today. What percentage of people 60 and over do you think know who Radiohead is?

[Bruce]

BTW, any of you who wants to stop by the 1950s Music Newsgroup and tell us much better modern music is than 50s music, please stop by.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en# ... -r+b.1950s

[Bruce]

Bing Crosby had OVER 350 hit singles. And in those days the chart was only a top 20 or top 30 in his later years.

The world's music charts rank him as the #3 songs act of all time after the Beatles and Elvis:

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

Here's some examples of Bing's immense cultural impact:

Yank magazine recognized Crosby as the person who had done the most for American G.I. morale during World War II and, during his peak years, around 1948, American polls declared him the "most admired man alive", ahead of Jackie Robinson and Pope Pius XII. Also in 1948, the Music Digest estimated that Crosby recordings filled more than half of the 80,000 weekly hours allocated to recorded radio music.

Crosby exerted an important influence on the development of the postwar recording industry. He worked for NBC at the time and wanted to record his shows; however, most broadcast networks did not allow recording. This was primarily because the quality of recording at the time was not as good as live broadcast sound quality. While in Europe performing during the war, Crosby had witnessed tape recording, on which The Crosby Research Foundation would come to have many patents. The company also developed equipment and recording techniques such as the laugh track which are still in use today. In 1947, he invested $50,000 in the Ampex company, which built North America's first commercial reel-to-reel tape recorder. He left NBC to work for ABC because NBC was not interested in recording at the time. This proved beneficial because ABC accepted him and his new ideas. Crosby then became the first performer to pre-record his radio shows and master his commercial recordings onto magnetic tape. He gave one of the first Ampex Model 200 recorders to his friend, musician Les Paul, which led directly to Paul's invention of multitrack recording. Along with Frank Sinatra, Crosby was one of the principal backers behind the famous United Western Recorders recording studio complex in Los Angeles.

During the "Golden Age of Radio", performers often had to recreate their live shows a second time for the west coast time zone. Through the medium of recording, Crosby constructed his radio programs with the same directorial tools and craftsmanship (editing, retaking, rehearsal, time shifting) being used in motion picture production. This became the industry standard.

Crosby won an Academy Award for Best Actor for his role as Father Chuck O'Malley in the 1944 motion picture Going My Way, and was nominated for his reprise of the role in The Bells of St. Mary's opposite Ingrid Bergman the next year, becoming the first of four actors to be nominated twice for playing the same character. In 1963, Crosby received the first Grammy Global Achievement Award. Crosby is one of the 22 people to have three stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (a star for motion pictures, radio, and audio recording).

[irreduciblekoan]

Thank you, jdizzle, for the incredible replies. I couldn't have countered Bruce's arguments better myself.

[jdizzle83]

You make a lot of good points regarding how music creates an emotional experience. I guess I'll say that yes, many people find an emotional response listening to all types of music including those not traditionally thought of as acclaimed. I'm not discounting that. I'm saying I see the acclaimed music site as representation of people who truly love and feel emotional, passionate responses from music, and who often times have experienced a wide breadth of it. The legacy of music will be passed down by those most passionate about it. A wine connesiurs list of favorites is certainly going to be different than an amateurs, and I would probably find their opinion more valid because they're better educated on the subject. In the end, however, it's subjective, and everyone has a right to their opinion.

A lot of your other arguments against what I saiid seem to lack any real point. Your Transformers argument cracks me up!

As a guy who loves lists so much, you're actually starting to sound like you think lists and the idea of objectivity in regards to art is pretty stupid. I don't actually understand why you're on this site! You clearly seem to disagree with it as a whole and with everyone on it. To each their own I guess!

[Romain]

Bruce, you miniscule knowledge about music amazed me all the time.

[JimmyJazz]

Dude, your hate on for some of these acts is becoming a complete joke by now. You tout how "objective" and "scholarly" your lists are, but I have a seriously hard time buying that when you deliberately exclude or underrate acts that are just as important culturally and artistically as many of the artists you obsessively praise to death (and, in many cases to be honest with you, much more so). Case in point to your low rankings for Radiohead, Nirvana, and the VU.

VH1's 100 Greatest Pop Music Artists list from back in 2010 is a good example of how assasine your bias truly is. This was a list compiled from not just music journalists, but also many major music industry players, as they state clearly. The top 10 is definitely predictable (and not that far removed from the AM one either, both versions mind you). You have the Beatles, the Stones, Michael Jackson, Dylan, Zeppelin, Elvis, James Brown, Stevie Wonder, Prince, and, shock!, Hendrix (seriously, you clearly don't understand just how many young budding guitar players revere this man's very name)...

But, what do we find when we venture just outside those 10? Almost in the Top 10 is Bowie (whose influence you definitely are underrating, which is clearly indicative of an American bias, for a guy who is so obsessed with sales, you do realize he is like one of the Top 30 Best Selling Acts of all time IN THE WORLD, right?), and you can find Nirvana (THE act that defined 1990s culture) sitting alongside Madonna, and the VU (who have influenced the entire course of one of the most signicant music genres of modern times, alternative rock, almost single handedly, very few acts in pop history can say that at all) sit right by Bruce Springsteen (Before you quibble about rankings, BTW, I am just being metaphorical, rankings don't really mean much when they are like one or two spaces apart from each other).

And, low and behold, while Chuck Berry and Aretha Franklin find their way into the Top 30, guess who is also in it...
RADIOHEAD (they were like the only act in that Top 30 that is still producing widely acclaimed work to this day, I think that is VERY signifcant on a list like that)

Furthermore, perhaps you have heard of this book, it's called the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rock. Quite a few years ago, this book caught my eye, and it exposed me to a lot of classic pop and rock music (this is before AM exposed me to even more, of course, for which I, and many others, are very grateful for). I previously had no interest in music at all much, but this book hit me at that time when young people really start to get into music full-on. I don't agree with all of the opinions in it, per se, but the amount of scholarly body of work from various, yes, "shitty journalists with shitty majors" in the book is still quite good and solid to my eyes. In the book, they list a bunch of "key artists" for every decade of rock, from the 1950s to the 2000s, this book was published before the current decade, though I can garuantee you that, at this point, if the book was to be revised, it would probably feature Arcade Fire and Kanye for sure:

1950s:
- Elvis Presley
- Buddy Holly
- Bill Haley and His Comets
- Lonnie Donegan
- Ray Charles
- Everly Brothers
- Chuck Berry

1960s:
- The Beatles
- The Rolling Stones
- The Who
- The Kinks
- Cream
- Bob Dylan
- Jimi Hendrix
- The Byrds
- The Beach Boys
- The Velvet Underground
- Aretha Franklin
- Otis Redding
- James Brown
- Sly and the Family Stone
- Stevie Wonder

1970s:
- Led Zeppelin
- Pink Floyd
- Queen
- Eagles
- David Bowie
- Elton John
- ABBA
- Bee Gees
- Rod Stewart
- The Clash
- Ramones
- Patti Smith
- Sex Pistols

1980s:
- Michael Jackson
- Prince
- Madonna
- U2
- The Police
- Bon Jovi

1990s:
- Nirvana
- REM
- Metallica
- Red Hot Chili Peppers

2000s:
- Radiohead
- Eminem
- Coldplay
- Green Day

Obviously, the choice of artists is flawed to my eyes, though perhaps not yours, in several respects (Bill Haley but not Little Richard, Bon Jovi but not the Smiths, Green Day but not the White Stripes?) but in general, I think it is largely a good summation of the greats of the modern pop era. I would like to note that only a select few acts had four, rather than two pages, dedicated to them, if we are going to go on such banal things as how many searches or how long an act's wikipedia page is: Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Beatles, Stones, Dylan, Beach Boys, Stevie Wonder, Zeppelin, and... suprise surprise, Radiohead, once again! That is some pretty elite company I do say so myself, and this book was compiled by a whole bunch of rock critics, so clearly, in a pretty common and widely found reference book like this, that is pretty much a solid indication of pop canonization to my eyes.

I think the real reason that you are so bitter in your posts is that you don't want to see all of this older, pre-Beatles music go neglected, as many of have been stating to you that they will. I can, admittedly, somewhat sympathize with this, I greatly enjoy a lot of the music you praise, and have an Ipod filled with tons of old rock and jazz and country and blues classics. Billie Holiday might have possibly the most moving voice I have ever heard, and there are very few great musical moments as a solo belted out by Louis Armstrong. However, I also greatly enjoy much of the acts you denigrate, like the VU and Radiohead, and consider them to be among the greats as well. I like to consider myself a pretty well-rounded audiophile, who dips in all sorts of genres and styles and time periods. I think there are lots of great music from a long time ago, but that doesn't mean that there isn't great music being produced during my generation either. I can say this, just for your own knowledge, as a young man who is just entering college at the age of 18. While it was easy to find people to discuss certain popular acts like the Beatles or Zeppelin or Dylan or Prince with, as well as about modern acts like Radiohead or Eminem, I can confess that it was often hard to find a place to talk about, say, Billie Holiday, or Chuck Berry, or Miles Davis, or, even yes, The Velvet Underground or the Smiths.

That is until I stumbled upon this wonderful website, which was so diverse, electic, and open to music from all time periods and genres, whether currently or widely popular or not, and was open to holding peaceful, friendly discussions about the different merits of every type and era of music. I thought that this place was like a cultured and intelligent haven...

Well, that is until you showed up.

[Romain]

That is until I stumbled upon this wonderful website, which was so diverse, electic, and open to music from all time periods and genres, whether currently or widely popular or not, and was open to holding peaceful, friendly discussions about the different merits of every type and era of music. I thought that this place was like a cultured and intelligent haven...

Amen.

[peteevans]

I must admit to a feeling of utter despair to know that my heroes, Steely Dan, despite being in the VH1 acclaimed artists lists, have thre e albums in the R Stone top 500 albums of all time, also be in their list of top ten songwriting teams, be in the acclaimed music acclaimed artist top 75, loads of other critical acclaim over 40 years and be one of the top 200 selling artists of all time yet they just cannot make it into the most important top 300 list of all as chosen by Bruce himself !!

[DocBrown]

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

I would think most here would agree that ship has long since sailed.

[Listyguy]

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.

You are such a hypocrite....you've argued the ignorance of the public concept for over a year on this forum. You clearly don't know what the hell you're saying, you just try to hide your faulty opinions behind a wall of words, and quickly change the subject when you see you're about to be beaten.

[Rob]

I don't have to much too add to what has been said, but there is one thing that still bothers me about Bruce's comments and that is that he dismisses Radiohead as significant, because they apparently aren't popular. In what world isn't Radiohead a popular band? As someone in his mid-twenties myself Radiohead has been one of the great constants among many people my age. Most people I know my age, younger or slightly older (say to mid-thirties) love Radiohead, pretty much on par with other iconic 90's acts as, say, Nirvana, U2 or 2Pac (these three endure well, too). And no, these people mostly don't read the critics, aren't specifically educated in music or snobs.

Apparently Radiohead wouldn't be popular based on sales. Well, they didn't do badly on that account in Europe, especially the UK, but there were many better selling acts, yes. But is that the only way to know how popular something is? For some reason, Radiohead has not only endured more than some big sellers, but seem to have grown in popularity too. You can't read such a thing in sales. But Radiohead keep selling out concerts in big halls. In The Netherlands here we have a huge musical event at the end of every year on a radio station where the listeners can vote for the top 2000 songs of all time, which will be broadcast completely the week before the new year. This is a popularity contest if there ever was one, because it attracts many, many voters. The list is very populist in nature. And look, there they are: Radiohead, in the top 200 with several songs. This means that they got a lot of votes.

These guys are very popular and well-known, not only an act for a niche.

[Jonathon]

Most sales estimates I've seen for Radiohead put them at 25-30 Million records sold worldwide. That's a very large "niche". That's between half and a third of what Nirvana, one of the best selling acts of the last 20 years, has sold.

OK Computer has sold roughly 7 Million copies worldwide, and The Bends isn't far behind. That's roughly what upper-tier "mainstream" indie acts like Arcade Fire, The Flaming Lips and Wilco have sold worldwide, and more than acts like Animal Collective, LCD Soundsystem, and Sufjan Stevens will sell in a century. They split the difference between My Bloody Valentine and Metallica in terms of mainstream awareness. Like Rob said, they're not veritable hitmakers, but they do have a huge, loyal following.

[PlasticRam]

In The Netherlands here we have a huge musical event at the end of every year on a radio station where the listeners can vote for the top 2000 songs of all time, which will be broadcast completely the week before the new year. This is a popularity contest if there ever was one, because it attracts many, many voters. The list is very populist in nature. And look, there they are: Radiohead, in the top 200 with several songs. This means that they got a lot of votes.

These guys are very popular and well-known, not only an act for a niche.

I heard a couple of years ago that Bohemian Rhapsody wins every year. Is that true?

[Bruce]

Most sales estimates I've seen for Radiohead put them at 25-30 Million records sold worldwide.

Bing Crosby is at half a billion. And that's mostly from when the USA had about half the poulation that it does now.

Katy Perry is at 92 million, at least THREE TIMES as many as Radiohead.

[Harold]

In The Netherlands here we have a huge musical event at the end of every year on a radio station where the listeners can vote for the top 2000 songs of all time, which will be broadcast completely the week before the new year. This is a popularity contest if there ever was one, because it attracts many, many voters. The list is very populist in nature. And look, there they are: Radiohead, in the top 200 with several songs. This means that they got a lot of votes.

These guys are very popular and well-known, not only an act for a niche.

I heard a couple of years ago that Bohemian Rhapsody wins every year. Is that true?

Every year, hell. Bohemian Rhapsody wins every day, son. Every. Damn. DAY.

[Harold]

Most sales estimates I've seen for Radiohead put them at 25-30 Million records sold worldwide.

Bing Crosby is at half a billion. And that's mostly from when the USA had about half the poulation that it does now.

Katy Perry is at 92 million, at least THREE TIMES as many as Radiohead.

I had no idea 30 million was such an unimpressive number. I really do learn something every day here.

[slick]

Am I the only one following this thread that went from kind of liking Bing Crosby to hating him because of Bruceology???

[Bruce]

Most sales estimates I've seen for Radiohead put them at 25-30 Million records sold worldwide.

Bing Crosby is at half a billion. And that's mostly from when the USA had about half the poulation that it does now.

Katy Perry is at 92 million, at least THREE TIMES as many as Radiohead.

I had no idea 30 million was such an unimpressive number. I really do learn something every day here.

30 million means thay have roughly 5 million hard core fans. Not really that many in the worldwide scheme of things. They are certainly nowhere near Michael Jackson's league.

[Romain]

Am I the only one following this thread that went from kind of liking Bing Crosby to hating him because of Bruceology???

No, it's the principal Bruce effect : since I know he was in Digital Dream Door, I removed the link in my "favorite" and I am never went there.

Unlike the king Midas, all this guy touch becomes dull. He is really not "Bruce almighty".

[Honorio]

Damn, I wanted to say something in this thread about the update but every time I got free time I find something new to read, so I finally read the entire thread, something that I deeply regret now. During the first two "pages" there were some interesting discussions but from page 3 the thread became again the disgusting (and, worse enough, predictable and boring) showcase of someone that tend to confuse his "opinions" with "facts." But I'm not going to play his game again, so I'll leave it here.

But after the bitter comes the sweet. Now I wanted to give my congratulations to Henrik for his splendid work. The update was, as always, awesome.
Although I still need to dig deep on the data seeing the information that him, Live in Phoenix, Listyguy, Luke JR68, Bruno, Nassim and other gently provided I'm delighted to see many of the changes. Comparing the albums/songs/artists entering with the albums/songs/artists I particularly agree (and I mean with that the changes match with my tastes, just to clarify) with:
- Albums entering the Top 100 and Top 200 (not the case with the albums entering the Top 500).
- New albums of the year and new songs of the year (hooray for "Random Access Memories").
- New songs on the Top 100.
- "Songs that boosted their rank" (hooray for "Comfortably Numb").
- New #1 songs for every artist (not the case with the changes on #1 albums of every artist, especially in Tom Waits' and PJ Harvey's cases).
Anyway I can't agree at all (again, I mean it don't mach with my preferences/tastes) with the changes on the artists list, like many had stated before. A change that Henrik made in the formula in this other thread reduced the general disagreement (and mine too).

Unlike previous updates, this time Henrik recieved quite a lot of criticism regarding his methods, something that many of us (including me) see as unfair, although that many of us (including Henrik) see as something positive the fact that people can express their opinions. Trying to summarize the points of conflict I find mainly two:
a) Albums artists vs. songs artists. Henrik summarized perfectly the pros and cons of both options in the thread about the new artists list. And I think the solution he found is optimal.
b) Newer albums/songs vs. canonical albums/songs. The discussion in this issue has been centered mainly in using EOY lists vs. all time lists. The supporters of giving less weight to the EOY lists (kargetina, irreduciblekoan, …) argument that "there is no actual cannon and if there is it's way too easy to enter it," "believe the "test of time" needs to be taken into consideration" while the supporters of not modifying Henrik's formula (Nassim, BleuPanda) argumented that the list is "a measure of acclaim of the albums' lifetimes" and "present what albums are most recommended so far of their lifetime." Other arguments were that "if we throw out EOY lists, the list is going to get pretty static and boring" and the variability over the years ("an album can debut very high in the AM all-time list, but if it is not included in lists from the following years, which will have higher weights, the album will quickly drop"). A very interesting debate.

Other points raised in the thread like longevity and fame (this infamous Bing Crosby vs. Sex Pistols debate) were absolutely predictable and boring.

My opinion?
a) I agree with the alternative list.
b) Henrik should continue including EOY lists, I don't think he is introducing any bias with it, he is simply doing a list more dynamic and evolutive.

Congratulations again, Henrik.

[Henrik]

Thanks Honorio! Great summary!

Listyguy, I have an idea for your initial post. If you want you can add a link directly to Honorio's post, so that new readers don't have to read the mess in between.

[digifuwill]

I agree with, well, I think it's every one without exception, that Bruce has been insufferable throughout this and other threads. But on at least one point, he is 100% correct and you guys are dead wrong. I can't believe it's gone this long without anyone backing him on the Bing vs. Sex Pistols debate.

I like the Sex Pistols. A lot. I appreciate both their music and their deeper cultural significance. (Unfortunately, the latter was all that I encountered until my early 20s, when I purchased their album after falling in love with The Clash. American media (and American kids' music collections) have been devoid of the actual music of the Sex Pistols and most other classic punk bands since the mid-80s (at least).)

So I fully recognize that the Sex Pistols are a very, very big deal. But this one's not even close. Bing is HUUUUUUUUGE.

There are umpteen different authoritative sources you can turn to (besides Bruce) to find out just how iconic and influential Bing Crosby was and is. Maybe check out his Wikipedia page? Alternatively, the first three sentences of AllMusic's bio for him are an accurate introduction:

"Bing Crosby was, without doubt, the most popular and influential media star of the first half of the 20th century. The undisputed best-selling artist until well into the rock era (with over half a billion records in circulation), the most popular radio star of all time, and the biggest box-office draw of the 1940s, Crosby dominated the entertainment world from the Depression until the mid-'50s, and proved just as influential as he was popular."

Crosby was a trailblazer, but was immensely popular, too. Few artists have been able to simultaneously attain his level of artistic success and financial success for any duration. The Sex Pistols had two big years. Crosby had - conservatively - ten years at least as big. His voice defined American masculinity in the popular consciousness for an entire generation.

Seriously, think Michael Jackson. But bigger.

Go listen to Al Jolson and Rudy Vallee. Then re-listen to Crosby's White Christmas. The difference is astounding.

Frankly, I'm surprised that, on this of all sites, so many (wrongly) believe that the match-up tilts the other way.

[Live in Phoenix]

Der Bingle is a giant, with like forty #1s, but he doesn't seem to show up on critics' lists, which poses quite a problem for a site like this that tallies them up.

[Bruce]

The Sex Pistols had two big years. Crosby had - conservatively - ten years at least as big.

Bing had more like 25 years where he was bigger than the Sex Pistols were in their biggest year.

Frankly, I'm surprised that, on this of all sites, so many (wrongly) believe that the match-up tilts the other way.

I wish I can say I am surprised, but I am not. As little as I know about current music, many around here know even less about pre-1960s music. To even mention the Sex Pistols in the same discussion with a monumental figure like Bing Crosby is ludicrous.

[Bruce]

Der Bingle is a giant, with like forty #1s, but he doesn't seem to show up on critics' lists, which poses quite a problem for a site like this that tallies them up.

Bing was at his peak between 65 and 85 years ago. That's just too long ago for critics, most of whom only really care about rock.

[Bruce]

Go listen to Al Jolson and Rudy Vallee. Then re-listen to Crosby's White Christmas. The difference is astounding.

I am happy to see that my favorite Rudy Vallee song is now listed on the site:

Stein Song (University of Maine Fighting Song)
1930

And I do like several Jolson things. Jolson actually became very popular with a new generation in the late 1940s when the movies about his life were done. He was Jackie Wilson's idol. Jackie even did an album of Jolson songs in the 1960s.

[Bruce]

Here's one of the coolest things Bing ever did, with Louis Armstrong from the movie "High Society."

And here's some great 1920s stuff from Bing with Paul Whiteman's Orchestra:

[Bruce]

MORE BING:

Debuting in 1931, his radio program became a big success, attracting as many as 50 million listeners during its peak, and lasting nearly 30 years on the airwaves.

[Romain]

I agree with, well, I think it's every one without exception, that Bruce has been insufferable throughout this and other threads. But on at least one point, he is 100% correct and you guys are dead wrong. I can't believe it's gone this long without anyone backing him on the Bing vs. Sex Pistols debate.

So I fully recognize that the Sex Pistols are a very, very big deal in the world. But this one's not even close. Bing is HUUUUUUUUGE in the USA.

There are umpteen different authoritative sources you can turn to (besides Bruce) to find out just how iconic and influential Bing Crosby was and is in the USA. Maybe check out his Wikipedia page? Alternatively, the first three sentences of AllMusic's bio for him are an accurate introduction:

"Bing Crosby was, without doubt, the most popular and influential media star of the first half of the 20th century in the USA. The undisputed best-selling artist until well into the rock era (with over half a billion records in circulation), the most popular radio star of all time in the USA, and the biggest box-office draw of the 1940s in the USA, Crosby dominated the entertainment world from the Depression until the mid-'50s, and proved just as influential as he was popular in the USA."

Crosby was a trailblazer, but was immensely popular, too. Few artists have been able to simultaneously attain his level of artistic success and financial success for any duration. The Sex Pistols had two big years in the world. Crosby had - conservatively - ten years at least as big. His voice defined American masculinity in the popular consciousness for an entire generation in the USA.

Seriously, think Michael Jackson. But bigger.

Go listen to Al Jolson and Rudy Vallee. Then re-listen to Crosby's White Christmas. The difference is astounding.

Frankly, I'm surprised that, on this of all sites, so many (wrongly) believe that the match-up tilts the other way.

It's just a last attempt to explain why there is a huge bias in the way of seeing these two artists. Nothing else.

[irreduciblekoan]

I guess one could argue that the Sex Pistols were more influential around the world in general. After all, look at all the punk and post-punk bands that were and still are coming out of Europe and Asia.

[Bruce]

Bing had big hits in many countries.

http://tsort.info/music/cnqg74.htm

[irreduciblekoan]

I think that ultimately this is just an impossible argument to win on either side because there's nothing really to "win." We can say that Beethoven was the single most important figure in Western music, and we may be right. We can say that Bing Crosby was the single most important male vocalist of the 20th century, and we may be right. Likewise, we can also say that more of today's most popular music was directly influenced by the Sex Pistols than either Beethoven or Crosby, and we may also be right. Nobody is going to argue with Beethoven's or Crosby's overall influence on modern music. Same with Parker and Ellington. But nobody can also argue against the Velvet Undergrounds and the Sex Pistols' direct influence on countless bands of the last 30-40 years.

Bottom line is they are ALL important and it's fruitless to argue about degrees. After all, there will always be someone earlier, who influenced anybody we talk about. Crosby had his own idols, who had their own idols. Beethoven was influenced by Bach and Haydn, who were in turn influenced by their own idols. Ultimately, we're talking about an art form that has had a fluid history filled with great minds. Why must we get so hung up about which of those great minds are "better" or more important?

[irreduciblekoan]

The key word is "direct." Of course we can say that without Beethoven there would be no rock n roll. But heck, we can say that without Haydn, there would be no Beethoven, and without Tallis and Palestrina, there would be none of them at all. Does that mean Tallis and Palestrina were the greatest composers ever? Or even the most influential? We can even go earlier than them if we really tried.

[Honorio]

Thanks Honorio! Great summary!

Listyguy, I have an idea for your initial post. If you want you can add a link directly to Honorio's post, so that new readers don't have to read the mess in between.

Many thanks Henrik but I can't agree. The first two pages included very interesting lists.

[Henrik]

All I said was that, according to the critics best artists lists that I've seen, Bing Crosby would be far below Sex Pistols. Those artist lists are however subjective and they should be. Music is subjective. I think summarizing critics lists is fun and interesting, but I don't believe in objective measures of greatness in music.

Unfortunately music criticism and listmaking (other than charts) didn't take off until when Bing Crosby's popularity had waned considerably. We just have to live with that.

[Rob]

30 million means thay have roughly 5 million hard core fans. Not really that many in the worldwide scheme of things. They are certainly nowhere near Michael Jackson's league.

But my whole point is that success, or more precisely how well an artist is known, isn't exclusively measured in record sales, especially not in this day and age. Of course I don't suggest Radiohead has the same reach Michael Jackson had, just that a lot of people know who they are and love them. You don't sell out stadium concert after stadium concert on a whim. Most bands would kill to get Radiohead's stature.

In The Netherlands here we have a huge musical event at the end of every year on a radio station where the listeners can vote for the top 2000 songs of all time, which will be broadcast completely the week before the new year. This is a popularity contest if there ever was one, because it attracts many, many voters. The list is very populist in nature. And look, there they are: Radiohead, in the top 200 with several songs. This means that they got a lot of votes.

These guys are very popular and well-known, not only an act for a niche.

I heard a couple of years ago that Bohemian Rhapsody wins every year. Is that true?

Usually yes, but two times another song has one: Avond by Boudewijn de Groot and Hotel California by the Eagles. The top 5 is always the same five: Bohemian Rhapsody, Avond, Hotel California, Stairway to Heaven and Child in Time. Ironically, Bohemian Rhapsody is the only one of those I don't like.

The most recent version of the list can be found here: http://www.radio2.nl/top2000
Be warned though: it contains no Bing Crosby or Sex Pistols.

[Honorio]

Sorry for jumping in a debate that I myself defined as "boring and predictable" but I think that lately there has been two very accurate statements on the subject:

After all, there will always be someone earlier, who influenced anybody we talk about. Crosby had his own idols, who had their own idols. Beethoven was influenced by Bach and Haydn, who were in turn influenced by their own idols.
The key word is "direct." Of course we can say that without Beethoven there would be no rock n roll. But heck, we can say that without Haydn, there would be no Beethoven, and without Tallis and Palestrina, there would be none of them at all. Does that mean Tallis and Palestrina were the greatest composers ever? Or even the most influential? We can even go earlier than them if we really tried.

All I said was that, according to the critics best artists lists that I've seen, Bing Crosby would be far below Sex Pistols. Those artist lists are however subjective and they should be. Music is subjective. I think summarizing critics lists is fun and interesting, but I don't believe in objective measures of greatness in music.
Unfortunately music criticism and listmaking (other than charts) didn't take off until when Bing Crosby's popularity had waned considerably. We just have to live with that.

Excellent argumentation both. If we compare the recorded ouput of Bing Crosby and the Sex Pistols and try to find "objective measures of greatness in music" probably many people (including many critics) would chose Bing. But there are other arguments I can't buy like:

1. Crosby as an innovative artist: Bruce included a very interesting study about the vocal innovations introduced by Crosby (by the way, you simply copied and pasted from Wikipedia, I just checked it, not a problem but you should have stated that these were not your words), mainly based on:
a) "Crosby was one of the first singers to exploit the intimacy of the microphone:" agree with that but this is more product of a technological innovation than an artistic decision, and the same can be said about many of his contemporary artists, for instance Billie Holiday couldn't have made a singing career without microphones.
b) "Crosby bent notes and added off-tune phrasing, an approach that was firmly rooted in jazz:" also agree but, is this not the same argument (both positively and negatively: white guys stoling the black guys original ideas) used for so many artists? Maybe Bing Crosby was the first in line on the trend of stealing the innovations of the black musicians thus taking the style to mainstream (and earning a lot of money on the process), followed by Elvis Presley, The Rolling Stones or Eminem, just to name a few significant names.
c) "Crosby also elaborated on a further idea of Al Jolson's: phrasing, or the art of making a song's lyric ring true:" well, probably this is the main feature of Crosby's singing, but probably this trait has been the one that got a least lasting influence.

2. The "influence and longevity" argument: based on the accurate observation of irreduciblekoan that "the key word is "direct"" and assuming the Wikipedia statement that Crosby peak year was 1948 I find more lasting "direct" influence of Sex Pistols than Crosby. Sex Pistols' peak was 1977, 37 years ago, and their influence is still obvious in many bands of today. 37 years after Crosby's peak (in 1985) the direct influence of Bing Crosby on the music was much less obvious.

[irreduciblekoan]

Another small thing to keep in mind is that we shouldn't treat Sex Pistols like a one-hit wonder who had two years of greatness. Sure, as a specific band, that was true, but Johnny Rotten was the creative force behind them, and he continued to create great, influential music years afterwards with Public Image Ltd. If we wanna consider the combined body of work and influence of not just Sex Pistols, but Johnny Rotten, it is nothing to scoff at. He not just innovated punk but also post-punk, and thus his direct influence is very broad since those styles are still alive and kicking to this day.

[Bruce]

2. The "influence and longevity" argument: based on the accurate observation of irreduciblekoan that "the key word is "direct"" and assuming the Wikipedia statement that Crosby peak year was 1948 I find more lasting "direct" influence of Sex Pistols than Crosby. Sex Pistols' peak was 1977, 37 years ago, and their influence is still obvious in many bands of today. 37 years after Crosby's peak (in 1985) the direct influence of Bing Crosby on the music was much less obvious.

1948 was Crosby's overall peak as a star, which counts movies and other stuff. His peak as a recording artist was in the 1930s. He was the biggest recording artist of the 1930s and of the 1940s, but he was bigger in the 1930s. Whitburn's rankings have him with 17,906 points in the 30s and 13,864 in the 40s. He's the #1 ranked act of the 1890-1954 pre-rock period, and has 40% more points than the #2 act (Paul Whiteman).

[Bruce]

All I said was that, according to the critics best artists lists that I've seen, Bing Crosby would be far below Sex Pistols. Those artist lists are however subjective and they should be. Music is subjective. I think summarizing critics lists is fun and interesting, but I don't believe in objective measures of greatness in music.

Unfortunately music criticism and listmaking (other than charts) didn't take off until when Bing Crosby's popularity had waned considerably. We just have to live with that.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that we can't recognize intellectually that crosby was a far greater artist than the Sex Pistols.

I just looked at the NME 50 greatest debut albums and it does not include the first Elvis album or the first hendrix album. Or the first Zeppelin album or the first Doors album. I don't think a magazine that has an agenda like that (to promote more modern music to attract readers) should be included in your rankings.

[Nick]

All I said was that, according to the critics best artists lists that I've seen, Bing Crosby would be far below Sex Pistols. Those artist lists are however subjective and they should be. Music is subjective. I think summarizing critics lists is fun and interesting, but I don't believe in objective measures of greatness in music.

Unfortunately music criticism and listmaking (other than charts) didn't take off until when Bing Crosby's popularity had waned considerably. We just have to live with that.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that we can't recognize intellectually that crosby was a far greater artist than the Sex Pistols.

I just looked at the NME 50 greatest debut albums and it does not include the first Elvis album or the first hendrix album. Or the first Zeppelin album or the first Doors album. I don't think a magazine that has an agenda like that (to promote more modern music to attract readers) should be included in your rankings.

Maybe NME has an agenda, maybe they don't. There's no way we can say for sure, and I think it would be wrong to not include a list simply because we assumed the list makers intentions had ulterior motives. Is it so inconceivable that the critics just didn't regard those debuts among the greatest? Once we start saying what opinions critics can have and what ones they can't we are headed for a bunch of trouble.

[Jeff]

I never knew that people took the artist rankings here so seriously. I like the artists pages, since I can see which albums are most highly recommended for a specific artist, but I never paid that much mind to the rankings. For example, I study classical music history during the interwar years, so I would find it shocking that George Gershwin and Aaron Copland are ranked over 1000 if I didn't take the artist rankings with a huge helping of salt. There's even a disclaimer stating as much.

I think it helps if you recognize that probably 90% of these lists come from rock critics, who until recently were not known for their musical eclecticism (perhaps still not, but more recent EOY lists certainly have more diversity than older ones, possibly as a consequence of rock's increasing irrelevancy, but hopefully instead as a result of a younger generation being more open to different kinds of music than their rockist predecessors). I personally find it unfathomable that revered hip hop artists like Three 6 Mafia and UGK do not have any trace of their '90s work listed. Or that freakin' Juan 'the originator' Atkins is only just listed as a result of the most recent update expanding the songs list. Or that even something like Usher's Confessions is bubbling under, despite being widely seen as one of the premier R&B albums of the 2000s. Then I remember that hip hop, techno, and R&B are not genres that the average rock critic usually deals with. Likewise, I would not come here expecting to see Bing Crosby place highly on the artists list, even if he does have a great deal of cultural significance. But, there are entire communities and magazines dedicated to other genres falling outside the purview of rock critics. So, if I want to discover more Memphis rap from the '90s, I know that I can simply go there instead of treating Acclaimed Music as the one and only word in what is respected in music.

Great update by the way.

[Henrik]

I agree, but that doesn't mean that we can't recognize intellectually that crosby was a far greater artist than the Sex Pistols.

I have probably made this clear before, but I don't know what this means. The only way I can relate to the word great is when someone use it to define music that to him or her is better than (just) good.

I don't think things like sales charts or views on youtube can be taken as something else than measures of attention. The most viewed youtube videos probably have both the highest number of likes and dislikes.

That's all I have to say.

[slick]

I grow tired of this debate... I am officially withdrawing from this thread!!!

[Bruce]

I agree, but that doesn't mean that we can't recognize intellectually that crosby was a far greater artist than the Sex Pistols.

I have probably made this clear before, but I don't know what this means. The only way I can relate to the word great is when someone use it to define music that to him or her is better than (just) good.

How about replace "great" with "historically significant."

[Nassim]

I just looked at the NME 50 greatest debut albums and it does not include the first Elvis album or the first hendrix album. Or the first Zeppelin album or the first Doors album. I don't think a magazine that has an agenda like that (to promote more modern music to attract readers) should be included in your rankings.

[/quote]

Well, since I went to the forum without logging in first, let's answer this blatant intellectual dishonesty :
First things that's written on top of the NME page :
"This is NME’s celebration of the best debut albums from the last 50 years. It's not a countdown. Instead, we've selected one album from each year."
So Led Zeppelin first album is not here because it is considered inferior to the Stooges self titled and Hendrix and the Doors albums because they are considered inferior to the Velvet Underground & Nico, some considerations which are debatable (but supported by many critics) and in any case don't seem much like following any agenda.

[Romain]

I agree, but that doesn't mean that we can't recognize intellectually that crosby was a far greater artist than the Sex Pistols.

I have probably made this clear before, but I don't know what this means. The only way I can relate to the word great is when someone use it to define music that to him or her is better than (just) good.

How about replace "great" with "historically significant."

No because what is "historically significant" for you is not necesseraly "historically significant" for another guy.

Seriously Jeff said the thing... it's not important at all.

The fact that an artist is in the list is already something good because this allows, scrolling through the list, to find a new artist you don't know or songs by this artist you don't know.
Except the 10 first position (and even), the fact that an artist be at the 23th or at the 156th position is really not that important.

Somehow these artists are necessarily great, maybe not by your taste, maybe not in your country, but he is great to enough people somewhere to appear here.

Whatever, vive the music and vive Bing Crosby... and the Sex Pistols... and Henrik.

[Bruce]

No because what is "historically significant" for you is not necesseraly "historically significant" for another guy.

Historically significant is not based on what you or I think in 2014. It's based on what the world thought in Crosby's day and on his influence on others who came after him.