It's not quite what we've proposed, but it's close: The Acclaimed Music website. I've snooped around here before to take a look at their Greatest Albums list, but I never realized they had a Greatest Artist list as well. It's a pretty imposing place, all in all. They not only rank albums and artists into one big universal chart for each, they also rank albums by decade and even by year. They've even tried to rank songs, but to me such an effort is only of marginal interest. Their methodology (explained under the Q&A's section) sounds pretty statistically thorough, and their database looks rather comprehensive (incorporating lists not only from England and America, but also from Ireland, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Norway, Sweden, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain, Serbia, and even Turkey). Please note, however, that it only takes into account critic's lists; the artists and the general public are not represented (as we had proposed). Nevertheless, I think we might agree that the results of their list are a noticeable improvement over the Rolling Stone list. Let's take a good look:
1) Pink Floyd comes in at #21
As I had suspected, their absence from the Rolling Stone list was more of a fluke than a trend. This placement reflects my notion of Pink Floyd' stature in the rock canon: not too high up there, but certainly up there. Sure, maybe I'd rank them higher myself, but at #21, I have absolutely no complaints. Already I like this list more.
2) Other big names excluded by RS appear in fighting form here
Floyd aren't even the highest-ranked band that was excluded from the RS list: R.E.M. makes it to #12 on this one. Talking Heads come in at #26, Creedence at #35, Tom Waits at #69, and Fleetwood Mac at #83.
3) The revenge of the Brits
The Transatlantic Divide has been rectified. Witness the Smiths at #27, the Pixies at #44, Blur at #46, Joy Division at #52, Oasis at #53, and the Jam at #56. Now let's go outside the top 100 here and see how close the other ones got: T.Rex at #102, Queen at #113, the Stone Roses at #122. I wasn't far off. But alas, as predicted, Suede comes in at a distant #175. I guess their standing has faded a bit with time? Or maybe they were never too highly regarded in the first place? All I know is that I'm glad Pulp placed above Suede at #90. But why the Verve (#145) and the Manic Street Preachers (#153) as well? Finally, ABBA comes in at #203. I thought they were slightly more admired in Europe than in America, and maybe they are, but apparently not by much.
4) The Generation Gap closes
To me this list does a great job of still including the early rock and roll (and soul) stars without overstating their importance in the overall picture. Chuck Berry slides from #5 to #67, Little Richard from #8 to #89, Buddy Holly from #13 to #78, Sam Cooke from #16 to #110, Bo Diddley from #20 to #194, Jerry Lee Lewis from #24 to #165, Fats Domino from #25 to #237, The Everly Brothers from #33 to#114, Roy Orbison from #37 to#132, Jackie Wilson from #68 to #312, Carl Perkins from #69 to #454, and The Shirelles from #76 to #398. Poor old Ricky Nelson slips from #91 to #799. My point wasn't that that these artists shouldn't be included, but rather that they shouldn't push more complex and multifaceted acts like Pink Floyd, R.E.M. and Talking Heads off the list. The early rock and roll stars were great, straightforward performers, but in the end I'm simply more impressed by acts (in the mold of the Beatles) who treated their own careers like they were works of art in themselves. This list seems to share my sentiments.
5) Beer Rock lingers
The Allman Brothers slide from #52 to #183, Aerosmith slips from #57 to #111, and Lynyrd Skynyrd drops from #95 to #156, but The Eagles only fall from #75 to #92, AC/DC somehow hovers from #72 to #75, and Guns n' Roses actually rises from #92 to #83. In other words, the jury's still out.
6) Rap hangs around
Some fall: Run-DMC from #48 to #94, Dr. Dre from #54 to #152, N.W.A. from #83 to #189, and Tupac from #86 to #384. Some rise: Public Enemy from #44 to #29, the Beastie Boys from #77 to #34, and (to our chagrin?) Eminem from #82 to #71. We also get two new rap entries in the top 100: OutKast at #54 and Missy Elliott at #87. Keep going and there's plenty more: Kanye West at #125, Grandmaster Flash at #131, Jay-Z at #135, De La Soul at #142, A Tribe Called Quest at #169, L.L. Cool J. at #177, Eric B. and Rakim at #178, and the Notorious B.I.G. at #198. We'll let everybody's entourage fight this one out.
7) Artists not on the RS list (besides the names already mentioned):
A lot more recent alternative/indie rock acts seem to have made it into the top 100 here. There's Beck at #38, Sonic Youth at #50, New Order at #56, PJ Harvey at #63, Bjork at #64, Massive Attack at #65, The White Stripes at #70, The Cure at #73, Nick Cave at #84, Primal Scream at #85, and - lo and behold - who's this at #86? Why it's Pavement! Congratulations Yoggoth. In terms of the classic rock era, the list leans more toward underground/cult acts in general: Lou Reed (as a solo artist) at #49, Kraftwerk at #59, Brian Eno at #77, Captain Beefheart at #79, Frank Zappa at #80, Leonard Cohen at #96, and Nick Drake at #98. Then there are those mainstream artists who probably just didn't happen to make the Rolling Stone list: Steely Dan at #61, Frank Sinatra at #72, Paul Simon at #92, Blondie at #95, and the Pet Shop Boys at #100 (I suspect the Transatlantic Divide came into play on that one). Oh, and there's John Coltrane at #62 (but who the hell is he anyway?).
Leaving the RS list behind, here are some general observations on this list alone:
1) This thing is freaking long! Look at the bottom 200: Flipper? Planxty? Pentangle? If your favorite act didn't make it somewhere onto this list, then you might as well shove a hot poker up your ass.
2) Prince at #7? Radiohead at #18? Oh, but I could go on all day. Better to let you guys have a say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I suppose that the Pixies were more popular on this side of the pond, but were they more critically acclaimed? I'm not a great historian of rock criticism, so I can't comment. I only say this because you assign them to the civilised side, when they are from Boston.
Glad to see REM in there, as well as Oasis and Pulp. I think it is peculiar that the Beatles should be the 94th best band of the 1970's. And you can't have Prince or Bruce Springsteen above the Beach Boys.
I can see Run-DMC, Dr. Dre, Grandmaster Flash, and De La Soul, but OutKast are silly-high.
I think some of the relative strength of different genres can be explained by the specific critic lists that our man Franzon uses to compile the list. Certainly somethings to think about for the ultimate list. His weighting system is very interesting, and I would like to play with the weights and the critic lists. And to fix it so Eminem was deleted from all lists of greatitude. I wonder if he would be in anyone's list if he didn't exist as a celebrity, but purely as a recording artist.
Yeah, I was going to comment on the Pixies as well. Sure they sold more over there but their sound was much more influential in the States.
One problem with rap is that it reintroduces the single/album artist divide which rock largely left behind. Even glowing Outkast reviews acknowledge that their albums are spotty.
As far as weighting goes, the problem with adding input from the general public is that you will have momentarily popular bands cluttering your list. Your survey results would change weekly. Maybe you could take different surveys and come up with an average over the course of a decade.
1) The Pixies
I know they're American, but the reason I listed them as part of the Transatlantic Divide is because, as far as I understand it, they actually became a part of the pop culture consciousness in England, whereas in America they really did not, and thus lists from England were much more likely to include them in the canon of top 100 rock artists - and guess what, guys, I was fuckin' right. Back in college, maybe before "Where Is My Mind?" was used in Fight Club, most people I met had never really heard of the Pixies; instead they would have thought the great bands deserving of inclusion in the top 100 would have been Pearl Jam, Green Day, Smashing Pumpkins, Weezer or The Offspring. How did those bands do in Britain? The Transatlantic Divide was pretty strong in the late 80s-early 90s. My impression is that the British music scene has been a lot more hip than the American music scene, so much so that a lot of American cult acts often make a bigger impact in England (for example, Tom Waits' 80s albums actually made the Top 40 over there, while they barely scraped the Top 200 over here). Critical acclaim is only part of the story. Rolling Stone can't just put bands on their list that their readership has never heard of (despite what they might say), but if people in England know the Pixies like we know Pearl Jam here, then their magazines are much more likely to list them.
2) Eminem
I actually like Eminem, but I only like his second album (The Marshall Mathers LP). If Eminem had more than one great album, then maybe he'd be a serious candidate for the Top 100, but as it is, he just hasn't done enough worthwhile stuff. I can see how people can think he is totally without talent, however.
3) My fuller take on the list:
To me, the point of a list like this is to give people who have just walked out of a cave and have almost no knowledge of popular music a good roadmap of what they need to hear first if they want to get a reasonable idea of what the best and most important rock music is. Thus the artists need to be ranked by some combination of influential/unique/just plain good. Given that criteria, I think it's easier to point out where this list is weird. The question is: would the caveman/idiot child get a good idea of rock history/great music from this list? If we agree on that more universal goal, then it's easier to set personal preferences aside. For example, I might like Pink Floyd more than the Beach Boys, but I agree that the Beach Boys should be placed higher. By the same token, I disagree that U2 should be above The Clash. So let's see how it looks:
Artists who I think are ranked too highly:
David Bowie
Bruce Springsteen
Prince
R.E.M.
U2
Nirvana
Radiohead
Elvis Costello
Beck
Lou Reed
OutKast
New Order
The Police
PJ Harvey
Bjork
Massive Attack
The White Stripes
Eminem
AC/DC
Captain Beefheart
Frank Zappa
Guns n' Roses
Nick Cave
Primal Scream
Missy Elliott
Pet Shop Boys
Artists who I think are ranked too low:
Buddy Holly
Ray Charles
Ramones
Sly & The Family Stone
The Beach Boys (maybe)
You know, it was easier for me to say an artist was too high than too low. Why was that? I just went through it on the spur of the moment anyway, so I might change my mind if I looked at it again. I didn't go outside the top 100 either. Any thoughts?
Well I started to make a list but I realized that I would probably move at least 750 of the 1000 and that would take too long.
My list would be similar to yours Little Earl, although I like Beefheart more than you do.
Now that I think about it, my fundamental problem is that I don't think that more than about 20-30 of the people on that list are great artists. I'm sure I like Bjork more than you do, but I really don't care if she makes it on any lists. And if ACDC is on a list it pretty much invalidates the whole thing. Why not put my improvised KDVS performances up there? More artistically valid than ACDC...
"Yew...shook me awwwlll naaaght long!"
You know I'm a big fan of Safe As Milk. I just thought he was too high up there considering the goal of such a list. Then again, maybe Captain Beefheart would be the PERFECT thing to give to a caveperson who had no prior knowledge of rock and roll!
I'd like to see your list. Even if it's unfinished.
I don't see Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch anywhere on this list, what a bunch of crap. Back to the drawing board!
Post a Comment