I hope my defense of FZ keeps him alive for at least another round.

Anyway the Zappadan festival is nigh:

http://ristocrats.blogspot.com/2007/11/yes-were-calling-out-to-you-you-over.html

We have to keep him around!

He was so prolific too. I could probably give everyone here a weekly Zappa 101 album 'assignment' for a whole year and not have to repeat myself.

Time to get ready for the more mainstream Thanksgiving holiday. Happy Turkey Day everyone!

I nearly snipped the "Somebody" comment, and now I wish I had. However, I can't honestly take it back.

When I was 19, I broke up with a girl because she loved that song. Very shallow and stupid, yes, but hey, I was young.

Sorry, Henrik; sorry, Moonbeam. No offense intended. As I said, I can get behind a few DM songs--"People Are People" and some of the stuff on Violator--and anyone who covers "Route 66" can't be all bad.

As long as you don't break up with us...

Good catch, Honorio. I'm mortified that I missed Gillian--especially because I think I saw New Order live when she was in the band.

As for Maureen Tucker, I always forget everybody in VU except Reed & Cale (I don't really consider Nico a member).

I’ve seen New Order too playing live in my city (back in… 1983!! the year of “Blue Monday” and “Power, Corruption and Lies”) with a completely drunk Bernard Sumner.

I am trying to get over my shock at Pavement's way-too-early jeopardy. I fear they are tarnished by their label as the standardbearers for "lo-fi indie rock" -- a simplistic description which, even if apt, they transcended by the time of their 2nd album. As my comments in the 90's poll will indicate (yes, I know I still need to get them in, Henrik), I believe Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain to be their masterpiece, and by at least one length the greatest album of the 90's. I appreciated Ed Ames' comments from last round: "My thing with Pavement was that I always found the music immediate,organic,soulful and effotlessly catchy-the complete opposite of a commonly held notion of them as being cold,ironic and atonal," but I'd amend that to state they exist in both extremes... very often in the same line. That's what makes them great.

Okay enough of that. I'll state more on the sad day when they are voted off the island. It's time to put in my votes:

Repeats from last week:

1) Black Sabbath

2) Primal Scream

3) The Cure

And two new entries:

4) Kraftwerk -- I recognize their import as early electronic pioneers. But boy does their music sound antiseptic to me. I want my electronic music to have some soul or hip hop to it. If I am going to listen to robot music, then I want it to be funky robots like Daft Punk.

5) The Doors -- Boy do I expect to get some sh*t for this. That's all right, i can take it. Or will I? It seems to me that the Doors are generally a band that is tolerated more than loved, at most respected for evoking the dark side of the 60's culture. Well, sorry. No such respect or even toleration from me. Morrison was a bloated jerk/fool with a yen for bad poetry and a cheesy baritone croon. The whole band had knack for writing a catchy single, and then turning it into a long-winded muddle. The musicianship of this band is overrated, but they concededly had some fine moments. However, they lose major points for their ugly esthetics.

You'll get no argument from me about the Doors, Schwah. The only reason they haven't appeared on my ballot yet is because I do have some respect for Manzarek.

1. (5 pts) - Primal Scream
2. (4 pts) - The Jam
3. (3 pts) - T. Rex
4. (2 pts) - Guns N' Roses
5. (1 pt) - Massive Attack - The one new addition to my "bottom five" this week. I just don't see them as being significant enough to be Top 100 artists.

schleuse - just a technical question:

Since we’re starting with 101 artists and if we’re voting out four acts per week, when will each round end/begin? (in other words, when is the switch from four acts per week to three, etc.?) You previously mentioned the first switch will take place at 40, but with 101 artists, 15 weeks will take us to 41. A suggestion: should five acts be eliminated this week, and then a switch to four until we arrive at 40?

Sigh... it seems my favorite band is under attack. Keep in The Cure! Others that I'm not too keen about garnering some votes: Kraftwerk, Björk and The Doors. We'll have to see how it all pans out!

Good question, Anthony.

I'll be honest--I'm improvising. We've got 15 or so weeks until we're down to a top 40 (or 41); I'll wait until we get a week (possibly this one) when there's a tie for the last spot, and boot out an extra artist then.

But, looking at voting patterns, ties might be fairly common, in which case we might be getting rid of artists a little faster than I anticipated. For that reason, I'm not too hung up about specific numbers at this point. Survivor's going to be a little looser and more informal than bracketology in that respect. Best I can do is to promise to keep the process transparent...if anyone thinks I'm ever unfair, please please please call me on it.

OUT(please):
1 Guns'n'Roses:didn't notice they were here in week one,or maybe put it down as a bad dream or acid flashback.Just humourless, utterly banal metal pap.No wonder Cobain used to wince at the prospect of sharing a fan base with these clowns.I still recall seeing Axl Rose turn up at the Freddie Mercury tribute concert, and thinking 'this guy's got some balls'-and it wasn't on account of his cycling shorts.My only fond memory of the band is the guy jumping through a wedding cake, for no discernable reason, in the November Rain video.

2 The Police:911 is a joke

3 The Doors:Probably the most overrated American band of all time, certainly of the 60s.

4 Eminem:White men can be pushed before they jump.

5 Fleetwood Mac:Rumours spent nine years+ on the album charts in Britain-that's almost as long as the two world wars put together,and about as much fun.

Ed, I think that line about Fleetwood Mac caused me to laugh more than I have in about a week. Cheers!

Moonbeam -

I love that we can be in such concordance over Bjork, Missy, Prince (we love), Oasis, and Pink Floyd (we dislike); and yet be so diametrically opposed about the Beatles, Bob Marley (you dislike, I love), the Cure, Kraftwerk, and the Doors (you love, I dislike).

I enjoy trying to figure out patterns from the way different people feel about different artists/songs/albums on these boards. But time and again I find there are no such patterns to be found.

Amen, Schwah! There is no definitive blueprint, which is what makes this place so great. Each artist here clearly grants consideration and respect, and collectively, this would make for one hell of an island! Every one of us has our own little corner of that island, but it's great to see how they merge and divide.

Of the top 100 artists,probably less than half a dozen I would dislike - I just like just about everything acclaimed,but something has to go...

I guess there are no patterns because we are all music lovers and connoisseurs.
Of course there are trends : Moonbeam doesn't love the 60's-70's, I don't love indie rock and prefer roots rock, blues and country.
But that's as far as you can go. We've been listening to every kind of music and we know ther's good and bad in every genre, even if we have affinities (is it an English world ? yes, I've just checked)with one era, one style, etc..

Nicolas- I do like the 70s quite a bit! With the 60s, you're spot on, though.

proof....of what we were talking avout

To help make Schwah's point yet again:

Moonbeam, even if you "don't like the 60s," I notice that you're championing the Doors, which, given what I've been able to glean about your tastes, surprises me (they're one of the acts which, in my opinion, embodies the worst of the 60s).

nicolas, you're absolutely correct that although we all have small-c catholic musical tastes, we all have our particular affinities (great term)--mine is punk/indie, yours seems to be the roots of pop, jonmarck's seems to be singer-songwriter (perhaps others would like to chime in with theirs). Moonbeam's core affinities seem to be funk and synth-pop.

Moonbeam, is that a fair assessment? And, if so, care to explain your (seemingly anomalous) fondness for the Lizard King? Just curious.

I'm definitely big on singer/songwriter and folk and I generally slag songs that get by on high production values (which is why I don't care about Prince and Pink Floyd). That's because the art is in the songwriting and the production is more science.

I really agree with Jonmarck. neil Young said once that a good song is one that you can play with just an acoustic guitar.
Most of the time, it's true
That doesn't mean production isn't important though

Sometimes art can extend to production. "On the Run" from Dark Side of the Moon was created by all four band members operating the faders simultaneously to create the perfect mix. And I'm sure that Spector, Wilson, Jones, etc. would say there's an art to production.

But by and large though, I would agree that the art is in the creation, not so much the "modifying". (except, I know people who'd disagree; they're the same ones who think "photoshopping" is an artform.)

Schleuse is spot-on in his assessment of my bread and butter being funk and synth pop. I'd throw new wave and post-punk in there as well. As for the Doors, they simply have a lot of songs that I absolutely adore. Their dirty, brand of rock is infectious to me, especially in the summer. Playing "L.A. Woman" with the windows down as the oppressive heat rolls in is just a blast. I also tend to like their prettier side, as my favorite songs of theirs are the movingly ominous "Riders on the Storm" and the unabashedly gorgeous "The Crystal Ship". I'm not really into the whole mythology of Jim Morrison, although I do think he is a fantastic frontman.

The other acts who have released music in the 60s that I enjoy include The Velvet Underground, Nico, David Bowie, The Stooges, Jimi Hendrix and Can. Say of that what you will.

jonmarck -

I think you have set up something of a false dichotomy. Somewhere between songwriting and production lies other important elements... arrangement; instrumentation; (sometimes) orchestration; musicianship; the singer's tone, phrasing, emotion, flow. Each of these is art, not science. And there is also art in how all of those elements are captured -- and which elements are emphasized in what way. Wouldn't all of you who voted "Like a Rolling Stone" first agree that Dylan was making an important artistic decision when he told Tom Wilson to raise the level on Al Kooper's organ? If he hadn't... it's still a great single, but it's not the same single that we have all come to know and love.

I can understand being turned off by too many bells and whistles when they detract from a good song or try to distract the listener from the fact that there is no good song (and will grant you that Pink Floyd is guilty of both of these sins far too often). I love the artistry of just Dylan and his fingerpicking on "Don't Think Twice." But, putting aside your assessment of Prince's songwriting, I also love the artistry -- yes, artistry -- of the famously bassless "When Doves Cry," complete with crazy overdubbed vocals, machine programed drums and synths galore. These elements don't distract from a great song, they complement the build of his lyrics, and enhance what is - let's be honest - a somewhat repetitive melody.

You tell 'em, Schwah! Prince is a brilliant songwriter and instrumentalist above all else.

I wasn't thinking of those two elements as a dichotomy. You're right that there's a lot more to music than songwriting and production. I'm a big old school punk fan, and most of those songs have completely substandard writing and sound awful. In those cases it's usually the innovation of the artist and the style that I admire. Sometimes I enjoy just the plain old solid musicianship. That's why I listen to jazz.

About When Doves Cry: It's one of my favourite Prince songs and it does have a great arrangement. When I talk about production I mean the cleanness of the recording and the quality of the mix. I find that most people pass good songs by because of bad recordings and vice versa.

Speaking of which, Anthony, before digital technology most mixes were performed by 4 or 5 people. If the band wasn't there the engineer would get the producer, assistant engineers, receptionist, and whoever else was available. They'd each get a list of "moves" that they would have to make throughout the song, and many times they'd mess it up and not have the time and money to redo it! The other day I was listening to an old James Brown track where they had to fade the voice in for one line in each progression and fade it out again, and do to the inaccuracy of the engineer the voice would fade out at a slightly different rate each time. Before digital technology mixes were as much a performance as the recording.