I hate to beat a dead horse, but I go back to my previous question: Anthony, would you like a song less if the words and music were written by one of the instrumentalists instead of the vocalist?

I'm not sure how you feel about The Who, but I will use them as an example. Would you like them better if Roger Daltrey not only sang but also wrote the songs? If he is just singing Pete Townshend's tunes, how is he any different ("artistically") than you singing Yorke's tunes?

Do we mark bands down for failure to have a unified singer and writer? If not, then why punish solo artists for the same sin?

Here's another question: are actors artists?

Only if they wrote the script.

Well according to jonmarck and Anthony anybody involved with a movie would not be considered artists because they are all hired hands pulled in to put a finished product together.

I don't think collaborative efforts make for less of a "story" behind the music, nor does it make for a lesser song. I can give you that Madonna and Elvis are credited too much for their music. It's a shame that other people involved don't have the fame of them. But, that shouldn't detract anyone from enjoying the music.

Crikey this is going to get complicated.

Schleuse, you're right in saying a Harlequin romance is easier to read, more instantly gratifying, hits its demographic more directly, etc. but then we have to look at which "qualities" are more valuable. This is going to be really slippery territory, but I think we can agree that it's much more difficult to write something of literary quality then to write harlequin romance. If it's more difficult it's more valuable (so long as there's SOME demand for literary quality). This is why no one pays top dollar for fifth grade creative writing exercises (usually).

There's another point I'd like to make. Art has a function. It is self-expression, it is human, it is necessary to living a balanced life. Someone who lacks an artistic side is lacking a significant portion of the human condition (which is why EVERYONE has an artistic side, regardless of how neglected it may be) and cannot be considered fully formed or balanced. We may even disagree on what the function of art may be, but it would be hard to deny that it has a function. It is not pointless. Even a cursory study in cultural and social history will show the undeniable benefits of a society that values its art. Also, like all things with a function, some achieve that goal more effectively than others. This is why we even bother to differentiate between good and bad music. We don't consider random bursts of white noise to have the same musical value as Revolver (unless you're Moonbeam (I'm exaggerating))! This is why the McDonald's/fine dining analogy is appropriate. We can call gravel food but that doesn't make it edible.

Orchestra musicians and conductors are not artists in the way that composers are. This is why the composers have stuck with us while we have quickly forgotten the performers. We know who was ACTUALLY valuable. The musicians and composers may complain but that's cause they've got a bug up their butt. I know a few classical musicians, and as anal as they are about my poor violin technique, they would never be able to do the types of things I do on violin because they do not have that creative side. Their role is mechanical, it is not artistic, especially compared to that of the composer.

As for cupcakes...I may enjoy the cupcake, but I will never learn anything from it. If I wanted to be a better chef I would have to know how it was made, or at least be able to guess! I know I'm one of the few people on this forum who does music/audio full time, so I can't expect any of you to be interested in becoming better musicians/critics/whatever, but this is why we differentiate between expert and common opinions. This is why Henrik only includes lists from established critics rather than reader polls, blogs, etc. This site has already drawn a line between those with the knowledge and resources to determine the best music and those who are simply unequipped.

Loophole, I wouldn't like the song less but I wouldn't respect the singer as a lyricist. How could I? They don't write lyrics! Of course I don't disrespect them either. I don't feel as if they are obligated to write lyrics. However the job of a band is to win fans. That's why they're performing in public rather than staying at home. They think what they are doing will be meaningful, even if just for shits and giggles. If the singer doesn't write lyrics then he/she has just lost a fundamental method to accomplish the task in winning fans. Now the lyricist has all the fans and the singer is just some donkey with a microphone. That's ok, so long as the singer and lyricist are on the same side. After all, Rush made it work. However, all the credit that would have gone to the singer now goes to the drummer. Someone would have to be in serious denial to consider Geddy Lee as accomplished a lyricist as Neil Peart. It is factually incorrect. And if Geddy ever wanted to be taken seriously as a lyricist he would have to write some lyrics.

I respect Roger Daltry's lesser role in the Who (and he's good at it too) but the reason why most people would put Pete Townsend before him is because they know who the real creative force behind The Who really was. That's why interviews with Townsend are prized more highly than those with Daltry. If Daltry had been the creative (the artistic) force it would have been a completely different story.

Actors are artists when they are creative, when they are expressing themselves (or someone who they have created - basically when they express the human condition). When they do as they're told they are not artists. Of course NO actor simply does what they're told. There's so much left to their own discretion that they are forced to become artistic. The reason why they are considered artists while someone like a doctor is not an artist is because the doctor is not being creative; they are not expressing themselves through their work. In fact, it's when doctors ARE getting creative that we start getting worried!

I do believe the real artists behind the Madonna tracks were the producers, A&R reps, managers, etc. which is why they are in so much more demand than Madonna is! At music conventions no one wants a keynote speech from Madonna (not REALLY, anyways, and even if they did it would be for her business accomplishments rather than her musical ones) but they'll give her producer top billing! If I've got a band in the studio and I give them the option to have Madonna in the room or Madonna's manager only the most foolish would choose her! But we're not talking about the artistic integrity and ability of Madonna's team. We're talking about hers.

jonmarck, just out of curiosity, how old are you?

Actors are artists when they are creative, when they are expressing themselves (or someone who they have created - basically when they express the human condition). When they do as they're told they are not artists. Of course NO actor simply does what they're told. There's so much left to their own discretion that they are forced to become artistic. The reason why they are considered artists while someone like a doctor is not an artist is because the doctor is not being creative; they are not expressing themselves through their work. In fact, it's when doctors ARE getting creative that we start getting worried!

I do believe the real artists behind the Madonna tracks were the producers, A&R reps, managers, etc. which is why they are in so much more demand (from an industry standpoint) than Madonna is! But this discussion did not start because I attacked the artistic integrity and ability of Madonna's team. I attacked hers.

Stupid double post. I've got the worst connection right now.

Greg if I actually believed it was out of curiosity I would tell you. If you're really interested stick around the forum a few more months and it will come up sooner or later.

ouch

Sorry, no offense intended. It just seems like at this point my age would be used to judge my views.

...just reread the last few posts. It came out much more abrasively than I intended. Sorry, I want to keep this as friendly as possible!

Me too. We're just having a discussion. If you can't stand the heat... etc, etc...

What a load of bullshit elitist snobs you all are

It's okay man, we're not talking about Nickleback.

So anyway, I feel bad for Schleuse having to go through this long thread and calculate the votes. Hopefully you've been doing it on the fly!

If an actor is an artist, then so is a musical performer who interprets a song. Madonna knows how to inhabit characters and to deliver her message in a way that has a widespread impact on her audience- and I would qualify that as an artistic talent. She is not the same kind of puppet that Britney Spears may be- anybody envisioning Madonna as a hamster in the wheel is misled. I will grant that her artistry may not extend to lyricism and more traditional elements of musical expression as readily as many of the artists in this list, but I don't think that makes her any less of an artist.

Yes, she is an excellent actor. Not much of a musician, great actor (except in her movies).

I missed Presley's post earlier. He said that Elvis sold over a billion records compared to MJ's 750 million. This is true (at least according to RCA, the RIAA has a much different figure), but Elvis sold mainly singles, MJ sold albums. MJ's made much more $$ on record sales. Also, the fact that Elvis' best-selling releases, such as the 1970 Christmas Album, were "budget-priced" doesn't help. Some of his seventies releases were listed brand-new at $2.98! Besides, most of Elvis' sales were made after his death. RCA was pressing something like 1 million a day to satisfy the demand. Don't forget, one of Elvis' top-selling releases was the recent 30 #1 Hits. During his lifetime, Elvis' sales (in terms of $$), though still remarkable, would pale in comparison to the heyday of the Beatles, and, heck, even the Eagles. His total album sales on March 9, 1957 was 2.75 million. In 1966 his total worldwide record sales (including singles, EPs, etc.) was 66 million. It's a large figure, but considering this was well past the peak of his career and most of those were singles, he was a low seller compared to the later heavyweights. Heck, Hootie and the Blowfish have sold about 25 million, and those are full-priced ALBUMS! Elvis was more a big deal because he was the FIRST rock 'n' roll superstar (not counting the lesser Bill Haley, who, though first, didn't sell as well). This is all a sidepoint to a sidepoint, though. I don't want to spend too much time talking about album sales.

two notes:
- rather than 66 million Elvis sales in '66, according to RCA, were 78 million. Had 66 on the brain.
- Those Hootie sales are in the US alone. I don't know how much they've sold worldwide. It's still an apt comparison though. They sold somewhere between a third and half of what Elvis had at the same point in their careers and no one's calling them industry heavyweights. In fact I think most of us have forgotten about them by now.

My god, it is not over...
wake up in the morning and what do I see ?
Dozens of posts, the discussion is still raging

jonmarck
I'm sorry to say that, and I don't mean no harm or no patronalizing, but I can sense in what you say hints of arrogance, pretention and despise; in the way you hold up your musicianship as a policeman shows his badge, in the way you talk about the "common public", in the way you put yourself in a superior position
just re-read what you've written
I'm working in the cultural business too and I've been a critic too, and I meet more than often this kind of people : so self-sufficent that they even forgot who they are working for (the "common public")
The only thing that they wish is to get rid of this annoying crowd of public and be in a perfect world between themselves choosing what is and what isn't music. they don't write for their readers but for their colleagues.
I'm really sorry, i appreciate your commitment as an artist, this is a risk nowadays, but I do hope time will teach you a little humility
That is said

What I think this thread needs is a good healthy chunk of this. We can debate about its artistic merit if you prefer:

Errr... this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EICPD49Kgfs

Madonna is FAR more involved in the creative/collaboration process than you want to see jonny boy, but it's all good. Her accomplishments have been and continue to be acknowledged, so carry on. :)

Holdovers:
1. (5 pts) - T. Rex
2. (4 pts) - Massive Attack
3. (3 pts) - Blur
New:
4. (2 pts) - Simon and Garfunkel: At this point in the game, John Lennon still deserves to be here as both band member and solo artist, but Simon does not. I'm probably going against the grain by preferring his frequently adventurous solo work to the frequently dated folk-pop he did with the choirboy, but there you go. (Although "America" would be on my top 50 songs list.)
5. (1 pt) - New Order: Same reasoning. 75% of them were also in Joy Division, which had far less output but deserves to stay in the game on influence alone.

Begone:
1 (f**k) The Police
2 The Doors
3 The Clash
4 John Lennon
5 Fleetwood Mac

Back to an earlier point, Maroon 5 up against the wall sounds reasonable to me. And no last requests either. Tossers.

Then join the Red Khmers of rock

I’m with you on Maroon 5, EdAmes. Watered-down white-boy soul music just isn’t my thing. (Although, on a completely non-musical tangent, you have to give props to the lead singer – the guy dumped Jessica Simpson via text message. Nice.)

JR, sorry, but anyone who lip-synchs their shows is not a musician. If you ask me, that seems 100% self-explanatory. Musicians don't need to rely on choreography and costume changes to fill seats.

Nicolas, the only reason I brought up full-time jobs outside of AM was to explain why I find it important to "peek behind the curtains". For someone who isn't interested in using music as a craft there isn't much reason for them to learn how it is made, and they appreciate it purely for its aesthetics. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as they want to remain solely music listeners. The point is that even in AM the common opinion is not accepted. Only the educated one is. I'm not sure exactly what the qualifications are for Henrik to include a critic, but most have spent their life in the industry. Schleuse said that he doesn't have to know how a cupcake was baked to know if it's delicious, and he's right. But he'll never be able to bake an equally delicious cupcake or even objectively compare one cupcake to another unless he understands how they are constructed. If he does understand all this, and understands it thoroughly, his opinion cupcakes will become quite valued and he will be a definite inclusion in AC (Acclaimed Cupcakes).

What this boils down to is a no-brainer for me: those who know more about something understand it better and get more out of it. I'm not much of a developer, so if I go to evaluate a piece of real estate I have to take an agent along because my own opinion will be quite useless. It's the same with music. Anyone may enjoy music as freely as they choose to, whether it be Good Charlotte or Neil Young or even Elvis. However the more they know about music (culture, history, production, business, etc.) the more they will get out of the experience. Those who know more appreciate it more and vice versa. Now before you trump me up on snobbery charges let me say that I see this carried out in real life so often it's become undeniable. Whenever I meet a huge music fan (someone who listens eight hours a day, knows everyone from Tom Waits to Prince to Sonny Rollins, talks about it non-stop) they tend to know a heck of a lot about it too. They know all the backstories, they can pick apart an arrangement, etc. Whenever I meet someone who isn't a huge music fan they tend to know very little about the craft in general. They maybe own a dozen CD's (most of which were gifts), don't know who's on them besides the lead singer and, heck, doesn't even know what that darn bassist even does anyways. I have never met neither someone who knows a huge amount about music and isn't interested nor someone who knows nothing but has sustained a remarkable interest for most of their life. Heck, when I started getting interested in music I knew absolutely nothing (as in, didn't even know the names of Beatles nothing), and it only took a few years of fandom to get the basics down. And the more I learned about it the more I wanted to get into it even more. It's part of what makes the whole experience so exciting to me. This is not to say that people who know little about music don't enjoy it as genuinely as people who do, it's that they don't appreciate it as thoroughly. This explains why groups like the Velvet Underground were almost completely ignored when they came out but were later revered as one of the best. The people didn't know what they needed to in order to appreciate them. They just didn't get it.

Nicolas it would be nice if the whole "common crowd" was better educated about music, but I also recognize how much the average person does know and I don't take it for granted. What scares me is the thought that a group like Radiohead may one day not be able to find an audience at all. Have you ever looked at the Chinese or Indian music scenes? It's downright terrifying! I'm thrilled that our culture has enough taste to support the groups listed on AM because that may not always be the case.

Actually, I’m quite a good cook, but I don’t bake much—I’m more likely to make my mark on Acclaimed Risotto than Acclaimed Cupcakes.

It looks like the argument has crystallized into a fairly obvious distinction between music nerds (like us) and casual listeners. Fine; I don’t think it’s particularly controversial to distinguish between the well-informed and the novice…as long as we’re not claiming the moral high ground for music nerdery or asserting that we have more objective opinions (an oxymoron, that) or treating knowledge of John Cale’s biography as a secret handshake for an inner circle of people uniquely qualified to prescribe good musical taste.

In a mass, for-profit (in theory) medium, it’s kind of pointless (if tempting) to argue that we should burn down the Black Eyed Peas and raise Randy Newman in their place.

If only........

I don't want this to seem like a moral high ground thing. I don't look down on a person with (what I consider) less-developed musical taste, unless what I am evaluating IS their musical taste, in which case I inwardly look down on it. I think politeness is more important. A strong musical background does make a person more well-rounded, but it's not like it's the only way for someone to become cultured. There are plenty of great people who like terrible music, and vice versa. After all, Charles Manson was a music nerd.

I think the only way for someone to have a more objective opinion would be to see things from a broader perspective. Generally this is accomplished by studying the experiences of others and by trying new things. If this is what we do then our views are certainly more objective. I have no problem saying that I am much more objective in my views today than ten years ago, when my musical experience was much more limited. I also think I'm more objective than someone who says things like "Screaming isn't real music", "Christian music is too preachy" or "Rock 'n' roll is the devil's music".

As for whether we have our own little buzzwords to tell who's in the know and who isn't...I definitely use those types of things to evaluate how much someone knows about music or what direction they're coming from or where their knowledge gaps lie. For example, if I meet a hip hop fan I ask them if they like the Roots to see how much they know about conscious. Of course, they will always get the benefit of the doubt, but this is the best way I know of to find out what type of listener they are. It won't have any effect on how I view them as a person, just how I categorize them as a fan.

And you need to categorize them because.....?

Excessive knowledge of musical backstories is not a good way to pick up girls.

Just playing the damn guitar is.

I'll second that, Loophole.

Yeah, but you got to put that guitar down at the right moment

I actually wrote that part out but thought the post was too long so I got rid of it.

Purely for practical reasons. Sometimes I need to fill a band for a show, sometimes I need to recommend a type of music to someone else. Sometimes they're recommending something to me and I want to know more about where this recommendation is coming from. For example, when I finished my demo I showed it to a few label reps to get some feedback. They each said different things because they each have a different perspective. One guy was very song-oriented. He was the one who signed Blue Rodeo, Glass Tiger, Honeymoon Suite, etc. back in the 80's. Another guy was more vocal-oriented. He had a background as an opera singer, and lord knows my vocals can't match up to that. But if I didn't know that I wouldn't know how to take those comments and might misinterpret them. This is true with everyone. I couldn't care less if a Rihanna fan says my stuff sucks, but a Pedro the Lion fan? Then it might hit a little harder.

"Excessive knowledge of musical backstories is not a good way to pick up girls."

I'm a bassist. We're doomed before we start.

I think everyone's missing he most important question: "What That Thing Smell Like?"

I just liked that one of the videos it then recommends to you is Black P, who is a local Denver rapper (who's terrible by the way) that opens every hip-hop show. I hate him just a wee bit more now...thanks Moonbeam!

No problem, Slush!

What is ironic is the way my little interjection must have subconsciously influenced the discussion to weave its way to picking up chicks. I'm tryin' to kick it toniiiiight...

I am most likely the least musical person on these forums. I can't read notes, I can't play any instruments, I cannot keep a tone.
However, I have been listening to a LOT of music ever since I was young, and the last years in particular. There are days not a minute goes by that I don't listen to music. When I wake up I press the on/off-button on my remote and music starts playing, when I go out I take my mp3player, and when I go to bed I press that same button again.

So anyway, all I have to judge music on is what I hear. Does this render me unable to do so because I have no idea how to make a guitar produce sound (just kidding) or how to dissect a song? No. I may not be a critic (nor is any of us, probably), but I can judge music on its sound, even though I have no idea what kind of work went into it. Sure, musicians will have a better idea of how a song is built, but I'm just as able to judge a song as they are. Even if I didn't have a clue what kind of history the music has or where an artist is coming from, which fortunately I do, I think I would still be able to judge the music.

I forgot somewhere in the second sentence what the point was I was trying to make.. anyway, I think this is an interesting discussion, by all means don't stop.

Neoptolemos, I think you might surprise yourself by how much you know about music if you actually decided to take it up. One of the hardest parts is composition because it requires a large understanding of many styles of music, a job that music nerds are made for. But I know what you're saying. In fact one of the people whose tastes I respect the most couldn't tell me the difference between a major and minor key or a phaser and flange.

However I don't think that makes you unequipped to analyze popular music (meaning basically everything north of jazz and classical) because popular music is only partly about music. It's also about image, culture, showmanship, etc. and I think those are things that someone like yourself could understand pretty well.

It could be argued that knowing too much about how music has been made in the past and about the rules for different styles of music can be a limiting factor when it comes to creating truly innovative compositions.

A lot of great "artists" (i.e., composers) did not have the first clue how to write or read musical notes or about music theory. They just knew what sound they wanted to make.

It's true that some musicians obsess about the rules too much and some have done quite fine without having the slightest bit of formal training. But think about how many musicians without formal training HAVEN'T created anything remarkable!

Here's a good way to think of it: Let's say you've got a pile of lumber and you want a carpenter to come turn it into a house. You've got two choices. On one hand there is the experienced professional who apprenticed with some reputable companies where they taught him to use the tools of the trade. He's a bit "by the books" and generally relies on formulas, though he explains he plans to do away with them once he has gone further in mastering the craft. Though he's young he's shown himself to be a reliable and promising contractor. On the other hand there is the free-thinking carpenter who never learned to use things like hammers and screwdrivers. Instead he uses "found" tools such as empty beer bottles and coat hangers. He describes himself as a "post-modern" carpenter who isn't limited by any set of rules. His results, though interesting and unique, are rarely as consistent or functional. Which carpenter would you trust with your investment?

The way I see it any beginner should first learn what's already known and once they have that down then they can forge their own path. Why stumble through a maze blindly if there's a map in your pocket?

By the way I'm mainly a self-taught musician. I took music in high school but stopped before I really committed myself to learning to play. All I knew was how to read sheet music, what the major and minor scales are and how to look up tabs on the internet. I learned the rest of what I know on my own. There are benefits to doing it this way but it probably would've been much more efficient and thorough if I had just taken lessons.

If I only had one chance to pay for a house I would take the guy with the know-how.

But if I wanted a truly one-of-a-kind creation, and I did not care about how many free-thinkers came and failed (no skin off my nose), but could afford to wait until that one-in-a-million diamond in the rough came along, I'd go with the guys from the free-thinker line.

One of them is bound to be a genius. That's the guy I want making my house.

Let me bring it back to music.

The Beatles didn't always follow the "rules" of music. They've got chords in there songs that you would never expect under classic music theory.

(I guess I know this because I know music theory. But that only qualifies me to talk about the Beatles. It won't make me a better songwriter. I'm more likely to stick with the tonic and the dominant rather than to find an off-key chord that works. Damn rules!)

Yeah, music theory is still very important and less and less people learn the basics of it each year here in the States because of school budget cuts. I will never claim that music theory is obsolete. A lot of people put it down because it is robotic and structured, but, I think that's only because it's being taught poorly. Sure, there is a formula to it, but good teachers would show students how to experiment with it rather than just going through the motions.

Just imagine if those artists and bands who "knew what sound they wanted to make" were trained by a teacher who didn't limit their natural gifts.

their

It's an interesting question. I think all professional music critics should learn music theory and history, etc.

But I think the truly gifted artists will surface notwithstanding their training or lack thereof.

Well I think the truly gifted artists train themselves, mainly through their motivation, values and lifestyle. Of course being in an artistic environment and part of an artistic community always helps.

Let me rephrase the whole contractor thing. If you're hiring people for your building company would you prefer hiring the guy who is capable of working with both electrical AND plumbing, or the guy who is only capable of working with one? Really the musician who knows how to work with the rules and when to put they away is the most valuable. I know people make a big deal about the Beatles' lack of musical training, but that was really only at the beginning of their career. The more they got into it the more they learned the regular ways of composing.

Really I don't think you can say that any kind of knowledge is a limitation. It's a limitation if too much emphasis is placed on it and it is overused or misused but, like any tool, when used properly knowledge gives more capability than it removes.

Ignorance is bliss.

Hey, schleuse, what do you put in your risotto ?
I'm interested. Always wanted to make one but never knew whet with

5 points: Kraftwerk - Bleep blop blip. Trans-Europe Express came on about 5 times this week and I really tried to get through it, but I just couldn't.

4 points: John Lennon - I listened to a couple of more songs by him this week off Plastic Ono and I just think he really wanted to whine about how hard it was to be John Lennon.

3 points: Joni Mitchel - I hate voting for women since there are so few on the Top 100 (at least I know Aretha and PJ Harvey should make it awhile), but I just don't care for Joni Mitchell. I actually find her vocal inflection very irritating when trying to listen to her. She wrote some good songs, but actually listening to her is a chore for me. Interestingly, I think this is the point where I actually respect all the artists that I have to start voting for. I just respect them to incredibly varying degrees.

2 points: Chuck Berry - To me, he wrote Johnny B Goode and a bunch of other songs that sound like Johnny B Goode but weren't as good. His personality in later years (greedy SOB, total misogynist) don't really make me like him any more. Johnny B Goode still rocks though.

1 point: Patti Smith - I never was able to aquire a taste for her music. The whole poet persona thing has always just struck me as pretentious and annoying. "Gloria" still rocks though.

Same votes as last week :
5 points)The Flaming Lips
4)Bjork
3) Pulp
2)Kraftwerk
1 point) The Smiths

nicolas, you can put almost anything in risotto. The classics, in my house anyway, are:

1. A simple mushroom risotto (cremini, shitake--basically a mixture of anything that looks fresh at the store) made with beef broth (or beef stock if you want it really hearty). MUST include truffle oil.

2. A fairly complex paella made with fish stock, to which I add andouille (Cajun sausage) and 3 or 4 kinds of seafood, plus a lot of cumin and cinnamon. When you throw in the saffron, the ingredients are pretty expensive, though, so I don't make this one too often.

But the beauty of risotto is that you can add anything--I've tried ground beef, mangos, chicken tikka masala, you name it--NOT, I hasten to add, all in the same dish! The two keys to risotto are what kind of broth or stock you cook it in, and the necessity to pay close attention to how it's cooking...with practice, you can get it perfectly al dente most of the time.

(This seems like a good way to wrap up this thread--any topics we HAVEN'T covered?)

i know what is andouille
Where do you think Cajuns got that from ?

Boy, is my face red.

no offense
thanks for the advice
I'll work on my risotto

1. Bruce Springsteen
2. Elton John
3. Fleetwood Mac
4. Massive Attack
5. Curtis Mayfield