This is the worst trip I’ve ever been on:

8. The Beach Boys (57)

After a few weeks of razor-thin margins, this one was almost a blowout. The distant runners-up: Neil Young (48), Radiohead (40), The Velvet Underground (38), David Bowie (33), The Rolling Stones (28).

The remaining lucky seven:

The Beatles, David Bowie, Bob Dylan, Radiohead, The Rolling Stones, The Velvet Underground, Neil Young.

Week 30 starts nowish.

Now not even God knows anymore.

Butterfly piss!

5 points - Bob Dylan
4 - Neil Young
3 - The Rolling Stones
2 - The Velvet Underground

New entry :

1 point : the Beatles

3 great artists/bands, very various, lot of great songs, very influent...
You can argue that the whole Beatles discography is better than David and Radiohead's. But to me, none of their album is as flawless as OK Computer and Ziggy Stardust.

Same as last week

1. Radiohead 5 pts
2. The Velvet Underground 4 pts
There were echoes of Chuck Berry in the way Lou Reed strung evocative visual images together to comment on his friends and foes, but the deliberately primitive musical accompaniment seemed to have filtered all the black influences out of rock’n’ roll, leaving an amateurish, clumsy, but undeniably athmospheric background to Reed’s acidic commentary (… their status as a cult group hed some meaning : despite the low sales of their records, they were exceptionnally influential, particularly in Britain where David Bowie and Roxy Music both drew heavily from the self-consciously decadent image end musical approach of the Velvet Underground.(Charlie Gillett, Sound of the City)
3. Beach Boys, 3 pts
4. Rolling Stones, 2 pts
5. David Bowie, 1

1. (5p) Neil Young - Not interesting enough. He has never really pushed my button.

2. (4p) Radiohead - Good, but not great. Not the best band of their (and my) generation.

3. (3p) David Bowie - He gets these three points for that stupid duet with Mick Jagger.

4. (2p) Bob Dylan - Amazing songs almost all the way. I don't know why I'm voting for him, but someone's gotta go.

5. (1p) The Rolling Stones - Fantastic rock band. The devil's own Beatles.

Oldies:
1) Radiohead
2) The Beatles
3) David Bowie
4) Neil Young

New: (finally a new artist after two weeks of no comments)

5) The Velvet Underground - If music were Star Wars, Lou Reed would be the Emperor, Cale would be Vader, Lennon would be Obi-Wan and McCartney Luke Skywalker. The Velvet Underground would represent the dark-side, The Beatles the light side. Obi-Wan obviously dies, Luke is an undeniably lame winner and Vader started out as Jedi (Cale's classical training) but eventually turned to the dark-side. In the end the light side won, but who in his right mind didn't want Vader to win? Ok, so Reed is still alive and didn't get throw down a chimney by Cale, McCartney's sister didn't end up with Ringo and Cale didn't give birth to McCartney.. but The Velvet Underground is so much cooler than the Beatles.

I think schleuse does these analogy things a lot better.

With my number two artist being voted off in a landslide, I can let it roll with the same picks as before.

5 pts - Radiohead
4 pts – David Bowie
3 pts - The Velvet Underground
2 pts - The Rolling Stones
1 pt. - Neil Young

Bubbling under: The Beatles

*Applauds Stephan*

What does that make Nico? Boba Fett?

5 pts – Neil Young
4 pts – Rolling Stones
3 pts – Velvet Underground
2 pts – The Beatles


New:

1 pts – David Bowie. One of my favorites artists. Like the Beatles, I think he was one of the best in the singles department. But as Lonesome said, The Beatles didn’t make an albums as flawless as Ziggy Stardust.


PS:
Nicolas: The Beach Boys have just departed to the main coast.

While Paul's silly songs on Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper's might be considered "flaws" I think they add to the charm of the group and to those LPs.

1. RADIOHEAD
2. NEIL YOUNG
3. THE VELVET UNDERGROUND
4. THE ROLLING STONES
5. DAVID BOWIE. A titan. As the first artist to thoroughly blend avant-garde and mainstream, everyone from Beck to Björk to Trent Reznor to Thom Yorke is in his debt.

He's one of those artists whose music reveals something new on every (attentive) listen, even though a lot of it works well just as ear candy. I understand every voter who notes that DB’s songs don’t show a lot of listens in their iTunes folder. With a few exceptions, they don’t in mine either—but that’s because I wore out the Sound + Vision box set years before there was an internet.

And of course, Stephan, Bowie did sci-fi before George Lucas, and arguably more interestingly (I confess to a deep-seated, irrational dislike of the Star Wars movies).

1. Bob Dylan
2. Radiohead
3. The Rolling Stones
4. Neil Young
5. David Bowie - again, there's little wrong with Bowie. Tin Machine and some of the 80s material, that's all.

Bubbling under:
The Beatles, The Velvet Underground

Nothing but Schwah's top-25 (at least out of the 101 we started with) left, so I'd be happy with pretty much any order from here on out. And while I have no issues with the remaining artists, I am feeling like this island has been missing some soul for a while. There are other departees who rank ahead of him on my list, but if I could ship one artist back onto the island to liven things up, it would be Sly Stone....

Old votes:

1. Neil Young
2. Velvet Underground
3. Radiohead
4. The Rolling Stones

New vote:

5. David Bowie - As I said last week, it is very tight for me between the Stones and Bowie.

What I think has been overstated about Bowie (by me as well as others) is his "chameleon" qualities. In part that is a result of being distracted by the (conceptually important) trappings. Musically, he ventures wider than most artists, but not as much as has been suggested. There is a line that runs through "Space Oddity," "Suffragette City," "Young Americans," "Be My Wife," "Heroes," "Ashes to Ashes," "China Girl," "Heart's Filthy Lesson," and "I'm Afraid of Americans." As diverse as these songs (and the albums from which they come) are, at heart they are all immediately recognizable (even to someone who may not have heard it before) as a Bowie song. Certainly that devastatingly peculiar, yet versatile voice is a big part of it. But the strangeness subverting while paying homage to the simple rock and roll. Of course, he learned that trick from Lou Reed, but Lou is always about bringing the cool (even on the Bowie produced Transformer). Bowie's vanity, while no less than Reed's, is aesthetically more broad-minded.

Usually, I feel the need to pick out some flaw to justify voting for an artist at this stage. And while Bowie has his share of flawed output, I feel no need to justify when there are only two more left above him. Bowie is my #9 overall, though.

5points - David Bowie
4points - Neil Young
3Points - The Rolling Stones
2POints - The Beatles
1Point - The Velvet Underground

Long live RADIOHEAD

1. The Beatles
2. Radiohead
3. Velvet Underground
4. Bob Dylan

New

5. David Bowie - as nicolas would say, he can be a little too cold and arty. of course, that's what i love about him, because he did "cold & arty" better than anyone, but that's also why he's behind neil and the stones for me.

5 points- Neil Young
4 points- Rolling Stones
3 points- David Bowie
2 points- Bob Dylan
1 point- Radiohead: They haven't had along enough career to even compete with the limited catalog of the VU. Pablo Honey and the Bends kind of stink minus a few songs, and to me In Rainbows wasn't really a progression. But OK Computer to the present has been quite a ride. It's close to the VU's short trip and another great album would definitely push them above, but In Rainbows wasn't that great album.

A bit of a change this time in my list (only in the order).

Repeats:

1. Bob Dylan
2. David Bowie
3. Neil Young
4. The Velvet Underground
5. The Rolling Stones - Amazing band. Many of their songs rank as my favorites, from "Gimme Shelter" to "Paint It Black" to "Sympathy for the Devil". But their albums have never been masterpieces like what I feel about "Abbey Road" and "OK Computer". Even if "Sticky Fingers" probably gets more listens than "OK Computer", the Radiohead album has that epic feel to it. Thus, it's the Stones on this list and not Radiohead. Either way, it seems like it won't matter for now (and probably never, since Dylan seems like the victor).

The Rest:

The Beatles, Radiohead

1)The Beatles:I'm 50-50 on them. I like alot of their stuff,but on the other hand I don't like alot of it either. Probably more of the latter
2)The Velvet Underground
3)Neil Young
4)David Bowie
5)The Rolling Stones

5 points: Neil Young (still #113)

4 points: David Bowie (down 1 to #49)

3 points: The Beatles (still #25)

2 points: Radiohead (still #22)

1 point: The Velvet Underground (#19) If we were playing a word association games and you said Velvet Underground I would say "Heroin." This single song is one of the greatest creations ever because it completely takes you on the trip without ever making you experience the horrible, horrible, horrible side effects of putting a spike into your vein. The drug in question also infuses songs like "I'm Waiting for the Main" and "Sister Ray."

And then, they just completely play with your head and make a pop masterpiece like "Loaded," one of the most simple and beautiful albums of all time. The VU are a perfect case of a band that suffers because of their limited catalog. Cale's and Reed's solo careers show us that they both had some bite left in themselves and if they'd continued, they could have been better than the Beatles (while selling a cumulative total of albums less than any Beatles album).

Sorry I had kept the Beach Boys on my previous list

1. Radiohead 5
2. VU 4
3. Rolling Stones 3
4. Bowie 2
5. Bob Dylan 1 : What a great artist, and a grower to me especially since I came to this site.

As the first artist to thoroughly blend avant-garde and mainstream, everyone from Beck to Björk to Trent Reznor to Thom Yorke is in his debt.


You do realize that just about everyone has been doing that since the dawn of history, right?

Repeats:
5 Points - The Beatles
4 Points - The Rolling Stones
3 Points - Bob Dylan
2 Points - Radiohead
New:
1 Point - Neil Young
Again it's so hard to decide, but Bowie and the Velvet Underground are my two favourites.

5p Radiohead
4p The Velvet Underground
3p The Beatles
2P Neil Young
1p Rolling Stones

"Radiohead are just a bunch of cunts that have been doing the same crap over and over!"

"Well... yes... maybe. Just maybe. But that applies to everyone on the list, and applies even to you."

Voting is become hard. Need to revise vote-casting algorithms.

"You do realize that just about everyone has been doing that since the dawn of history, right?"

Well, yeah, mismaiome--I was kind of in a hurry, and I was trying to distill a complicated argument about mass media and avant-gardism into a short sentence.

Of course earlier artists had also transcended category (I'm forcing myself not to say genre) by the forceful way they played their roles at the mike: Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Jimi Hendrix, the ridiculous Jim Morrison...hell, even Bob Dylan. But with all those guys (except maybe Hawkins), you still sensed the actor inside the role. But Bowie was all about the masks, in a way that I do think was unprecedented (at least in rock and roll). I really admire him for that.

If I were the kind of guy who said such things, I might have called him the first postmodern rock star.

Isn't mask-wearing the standard, really? You'd have torch singers be all lovelorn, and then one song later they'd be singing about leaving someone.

Yes, of course. Art is artifice, and the Carter Family singing about the circle of life, or Billie Holiday blessing the child that's got his own, were playing roles, just as much as Bowie was when he wore a silly hat and warbled to his mother about being a junkie.

Most artists wear their masks and don't make a big deal out of it. Some (Dylan, f'rinstance) call attention to the artifice of what they're doing. But Bowie seemed to be ALL masks, more than any rock star before him. That was useful at a time when (imo) rock had some unfortunate myths about authenticity and sincerity that needed to be exploded.

I appreciate you keeping me on my toes, mismaiome. By the way, I'm not just using DB as a token marker in my crazy little game of artistic criticism--he was a hell of a musician, and one of the most charismatic performers ever...which is really the point, after all.

Wasn't authenticity/sincerity a punk era contrive myth, though? I don't know who was really looking for sincerity in a Yellow Submarine world. And Bowie was great, yeah - but he sort of went from rockin' embryonic glam, to light glam (1971), then more definitively down the T. Rex road for three Ziggay albums, up into MOR territory, and afterwards stuck to pre-post-punk until he went disco - and that metastasized, and and, he's rather never really pulled through since (although I love a few cute bitties of 2002-2003). That pretty much mirrors every move that bands like, say, Roxy Music made - except they at least split up.

I don't agree with you
Sincerity exists in music
That's why I don't get that contemporary rock scene where every new band 's gotta have an angle
It's tiring

I must disagree with myself as well, then, even though I don't agree with you disagreeing with me - mostly because I don't agree that I was disagreeing with you about that in the first place.

Nilsson didn't write this song (#827 on AM).



I'll be damned if I can think of something more sincere than it.

What I disagree with, you know, is the existence of authenticity myths. Desire for authentic authenticity is restricted to the few, and tends to be constant in time and space.

Ok, getting muddled. Clarifications:

- Sincerity exists in music, but few actively seek it, and most go for the easy stuff. In 1970lala land, sincerity wasn't that big a deal, and was convincing when faked too. At least until punk - and then everyone had their own ideas about what authenticity meant anyway.

- The Nilsson song sounds better when not associated with a stupid pic, and when you associate it with a real person. Or something.

Punk made sincerity mainstream. For a while.

(Oh, and Roxy Music - they made the same moves, but in a slightly warbled sense. Their first two albums were glam + pre-post-punk at once, and so forth. But still.)

Socratean dialogues.

I which I was here from the start. Because musically I don't get why some are still here.

The Beatles and Bob Dylan deserve their rankings. The Rolling Stones are behind them but they were a copycat blues band until the Beatles influenced them to write their songs it was their original songs that made the Rolling Stones what they are.

The Velvet Underground why there here is beyond me. The Velvet Underground might have been original but did they advance music? I say no, music that is minimalism, monotone vocals with no sense of melody, and drones for long lengths is not innovative music. Its different but did it advance music. I think some people don't know the difference. Thats why the following artists below are my influences. If I wanted to be in some punk rock band I might say the Velvet Underground.

Songs or bands that advanced music are songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" using classic principles of Stockhausen and Shankar one chord song with real innovation, "Good Vibration", "Strawberry Fields Forever" the guitar playing of Hendrix, the blues rock of Cream. The studio techniques of Pet Sounds and Revolver. The album as a musical statement pioneered in rock by Dylan, The Beatles and the Beach Boys. Those are the true pioneers of todays pop and rock music. I forgot to put the Stones and Led Zeppelin also in there but in a sense they were very retro in many ways.

mismaiome, how am I gonna debate with you if you keep debating yourself?

(I kid.)

I wouldn't deny that sincerity exists in music, although I think it's hard to identify and never occurs in a 100% pure form--and I'm not at all sure that it's usually a desirable goal. The sincerity of punk? Well, I know what you mean by that, but punk was also very obviously a pose (and my favorite one) (sorry nicolas).

I'm sorry, I know I've got a bug in my ear about sincerity-vs.-performance. It's my own personal syndrome to struggle with...

As the first artist to thoroughly blend avant-garde and mainstream, everyone from Beck to Björk to Trent Reznor to Thom Yorke is in his debt.


You do realize that just about everyone has been doing that since the dawn of history, right

If you talking about avant rock with mainstream. Well the heck are songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Strawberry Fields Forever". Those songs have avant structes with pop hooks. Really now I wish I was here when this started.

Oh, wasn't debating with myself - just clearing up.


The Rolling Stones are behind them but they were a copycat blues band until the Beatles influenced them to write their songs it was their original songs that made the Rolling Stones what they are.


Maybe - however, their early work is arguably better or at least on par with The Beatles' all the same. They had a certain vitality then that The Beatles lacked.


The Velvet Underground might have been original but did they advance music? I say no, music that is minimalism, monotone vocals with no sense of melody, and drones for long lengths is not innovative music.


No sense of melody? Maybe that's why the debut starts with Sunday Morning - the sweetest song you'll ever hear - and then proceeds to go through fifty traces of possible musical directions until finally settling down into one single drone song.

Sister Ray might be one big drone, maybe, but it scrubs the floor with The Stooges in sheer raw abandon. The rest of the second album is awesome boogie candy.

And then the third. Except for the magical mystery tour at the end, shoot me if there's a SINGLE song that could ever be regarded as a drone from any possible human point of view.

And Loaded? No drone. Not one. Not even the step-father's momma's niece by adopted elephant's baby sister equivalent of a drone.

And piling the great outtakes - no, hardly a drone.

Or maybe Sgt. Pepper needs to be looked at again and qualified as a tuneless drone by the same criteria, don't you think?

If you talking about avant rock with mainstream. Well the heck are songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Strawberry Fields Forever". Those songs have avant structes with pop hooks. Really now I wish I was here when this started.


I really wish you weren't. Next thing you know, The Beach Boys will be avant-garde because The Beatles ripped them off.

This is why musicians should not speak. The Beatles had many songs that had drone ranging from "Baby's In Black" to "I Want You She So Heavy".

Musically the Stones based their music on others the chords, the melodies and form was others. Using the term certain vitality is just an adjective its not musical. I could say that their cover of "Money" is agnst or more proto-punk than the Stones covers.

"Sunday Morning" nice melody but terrible vocals. Please don't compare the Velvet Underground melodies to the Beatles sort of a joke.

Sgt Pepper was a big influence on Robert Fripp and the Stones tried to better it.

The Beach Boys I respect and I like thme a lot. Well the Brian Wilson did call Rubber Soul the greatest album. The Beach Boys did say when the Beatles came out that they had a more original sound or did you miss that part of you musical history. I know the Beach Boys influenced the Beatles but he did say after hearing "trawberry Fields Forever" Boys lets packed it in. Hey man if you don't like the Beatles cool but hey you have no objectivity.

Anyone will automatically lose any contest with The Beatles because everyone is judged according to The Beatles. I know this well, as I've noticed it time and time again in myself; The Beatles are, by all accounts, supposed to be my favorite band - although Prince has likely overtaken them, supposing you take him, inflate him a bit, and call him a band.

Anyhow. The Beach Boys had better melodies than The Beatles. Therefore, because melodies are the be-all end-all matter-of-fact-everything-that-matters, The Beatles lose. Ha! Counter this!

(Not to mention that The Beatles were trying to top off Pet Sounds with Sgt. Pepper - and McCartney says Pet Sounds was the greatest album ever.)

I know the Beach Boys influenced the Beatles but he did say after hearing "Strawberry Fields Forever" Boys lets packed it in. Hey its your opinion who had better melodies. You would say anything against the Beatles so have no street cred or musical cred.

More than sincerity, I would say simplicity or straightforwardness is something very refreshing sometimes, even if is (and it is always) a choice.

Taking one act per decade,

40's : Leadbelly
50's : Buddy Holly
60's : Creedence Clearwater Revival
70's : Tony Joe White
80's : THe Pogues
90's : Belle & Sebastian
00' : Moussu T E Lei Jovents (sorry it's French, Occitan to be precise)or Richard Hawley

Right, I wrote my last post before I saw you'd written yours. So.


Well the Brian Wilson did call Rubber Soul the greatest album. The Beach Boys did say when the Beatles came out that they had a more original sound or did you miss that part of you musical history.


Did you miss the musical history that contained The Crickets (who The Early Beatles sounded like a bland rehash of with two guys instead of one) and early Motown? There's not a single cover that The Beatles ever did that was better than the original.

As for The Beach Boys, they had "In My Room" in 1963. That's basically Sgt. Pepper level, 4 years earlier.


I know the Beach Boys influenced the Beatles but he did say after hearing "trawberry Fields Forever" Boys lets packed it in.


Because he had no sense of self-worth. Hardly proof that Strawberry was better. Proof of The Beatles' negative influence though.


Hey man if you don't like the Beatles cool but hey you have no objectivity.


You assume I don't. Wrong on both counts.

The Beatles were influenced by Buddy Holly we all know that. The Beatles were influenced by skiffle. The Beatles also knew folk music, and there's a lot of that neo-modal stuff there that is, in some ways, closer to baroque harmonies than a lot of rock. It's a language without the blues chords, without the added sixths and all of that, that makes it something that could swing so easily into the baroque style. Clearly they had tapped into something that had enough common elements to make them produce music that could be turned around in this other rather weird direction."

I guess you know better than Dylan, McGuinn and Garcia. Give it a rest man

"In My Room" its not Pet Sounds or Sgt Pepper you grasping my friend. Interesting "There's A Place" share the same opening lyrics which the Beatles song was written more than 6 months before the Beach Boys song.


Because he had no sense of self-worth. Hardly proof that Strawberry was better. Proof of The Beatles' negative influence though.

Well maybe Brian Wilson just thought it was better did you ever think of that.

I could care less if you think the Beatles covers were not better. We are talking your opinion. Please you don't like the Beatles and really who cares.

Are you daft? Which part of "they're probably my favorite band" didn't you understand? I just don't enjoy every foo who comes around and rants about them like a rabid kindergarten kid extolling Pokemon.

Why don't you go and find someone like Zappa and rant about them instead? We have enough Beatles freaks and not enough Zappa ones. Surely you'll find even more reasons for Zappa to be the best.

There's a lot more reasons to like Radiohead and the Velvet Underground than the Beatles - for one thing,they actually wrote deep lyrics that mattered. Not just some glib bullshit to be merely catchy

Midaso you would be in the minority there but you have your reasons. I could name 210 reasons why I would put the Beatles over VU but that does not make me right. If we are talking the bands music go ahead because much of VU music borders on Atonal Music.

Much of VU? Yeah, like 4 songs.

Guess what. The Beatles have just about as many atonal songs! And one of them (Revolution 9) is more atonal than even the most atonal VU! (unless you count "Loop", the first thing they put out on that flexidisc in 1966 - and then, they are merely equal!).

And since when do minorities matter anyway?

"HAHAHA! YOU GUYS ARE BLACK! YOU'RE IN THE MINORITY!"

Minority/majority realizations never lead to anything good.

You mean the Beatles used dissonance and atonal music well your right "She Loves You" has fair amount of dissonance. So maybe the Beatles pioneered dissonance in pop music.

I'm much too tired to repeat myself, midaso, but still this is Diamond town. so forget it. Lucy's brain looks like putty on the klaxon though..

No, netjade. The revolution LIVES!

not for me... not for the fading ones...
.. you're right. you're right about it. tell your sister... you were right...

mis... there is another mai.. mai..maiome... ...

Is... John... my... sister?

"I just don't enjoy every foo who comes around and rants about them like a rabid kindergarten kid extolling Pokemon."

Great line!

Your insight serves you well. Bury your feelings deep down, Mismaio. They do you credit, but they could be made to serve those... well, goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joobs and so on, y'know...

Midaso, I'll join your minority.

Anyway, why are so many Beatles fans so rabid? It's like if I don't think they're the greatest thing ever I should put a load of rocks in my pants and try to swim the English Channel (okay, I guess only our new friend probably believes that).

The Beatles are likely the concensus #1 band because most people like them. That doesn't mean everybody loves them. However, if everyone on this forum said the Beatles are their #10 band, that eventually would add up to a concensus #1 band while weirdos like me chose Blur for #1 and weirdos like schleuse choose R.E.M..

Looking at our albums polls, only John, Daniel, Mike, Rocky Raccoon, Toni & Mitchell Sterling had a Beatles album #1 out of 53 lists for our forum poll. 47 out of 53 lists had a different artist at #1, but most people had a Beatles album (or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5) on their album list lower down. I think they benefit from not neccessary being everyone's favorite group, but most people's near favorite group. Obviously there are people who put the Beatles at #1, but I don't want to recognize that cause it shoots a hole in my hypothesis :)

Anyway, can we honestly just STFU about how great the Beatles are since that's pretty much an axiomatic truth by now? Liking the VU more than the Beatles doesn't make the Beatles shite, it just means you have different tastes.

Sorry, I think that's the first troll I've responded to since joining this forum. I'm done.

"weirdos like me chose Blur for #1 and weirdos like schleuse choose R.E.M."

Hey!

Slush, I can't remember my top ten right now, but I know the top three are R.E.M., the Beatles and the Clash. Exact order depends on how I feel that day. And I know Blur is somewhere around 6 or 7...

****

I really, really hoped we'd had the last of the Pokemonesque Beatles defenders (tip o' the cap to mismaiome, and I second Paul: that was inspired). I don't know what it is about the Liverpudlians that gets some folks' backs up when any criticism at all is levelled against them. It reminds me of what's called Bardolatry in literature; translated into the lingo on display here, it might look something like this:

"I can't belive anyone would seriously say Faulkner is better than Shakespeare. Faulker STOLE the title of his best book from Macbeth! Shakespeare did everything Faulkner did--he wrote great prose, but he also wrote blank verse and wrote potery, and created classic characters like Falstaff and Hamlet. Does anybody care about any of Faulkner's characters? Oh, and he did it 300 years before Faulker! All Faulker did was steal Shakespeare's ideas and try to make it sound "deep" with some gobbledygook he called stream of consciousness. I'm sorry but if you don't appreciate Shakespeare then thats your problem. But don't pretend you know anything about literature."

****

Now, does anybody want to vote? We're wrapping up a pseudo-reality show here!

Genius is not so much what it is as it is what one adheres to it. What qualities one ascribes to it. And then one adheres to the genius of these ascribed qualities.

Art, intelligence, genius - all depends on population. The more people there are, the greater the work. The number of geniuses increases - but who is a genius when one is not recognized as one? As such, the ratio of genius remains the same - but movements of adherence focus always on the past, for the reasons of the past.

These disco songs are better than anything The Beatles put out:









The Beatles were a one-hit wonder with a bunch of wonders.

And I guess voting turns to be a moot point in the end.

That, of course, has little to do with my votes.

5 points: The Rolling Stones

How to: spend 30 years makin' rubbish albums and still pick on Bloc Party.

4 points: Neil Young

Radiodylan, sort of, but too many antenna issues.

3 points: The Beatles

Smug bastards! Making wait so long for their new single.

2 points: David Bowie

Because... because... Brian Eno was cooler!

1 point: Radiohead

Kevin.

Whoops, I guess I put words in your mouth schleuse. That's why I can't wait for the AM Forum artist list, so I can have stats to back up my crazy inferences!!!

I'se just joshin' with you, Slush. Goodness knows that was a reasonable inference (hell, I've listened to all of Accelerate and half of Green--and that's just today).

Mismaiome why are so bent out of shape? I am just reacting to your comments. I have read Pierro S. rants on the Beatles what a bunch of B.S. Rank1 cites musicians and its the musicians opinions that matters most. Hey even your John Cale said recently he was influenced by the Beatles distortion sound on Revolver and "She Said She Said" is one of his favorite songs.

John Cale on "She Said She Said" "The Beatles were zeroeing on something in what I wanted to do be part of. The lyrics and the beat influenced me"
My debunking on ole Pierro.

The Beatles main songwriting form is AABA- not really common in pop music and it neither has nor refrains. One myth gone
There is no feedback on "A Hard Days Night" just a dissonant chord. Another myth gone
"Fixing a Hole" is just a Psych-Pop song nothing avant about it. Another one gone
The Concept/Rock Albums of 1968 the majority was influenced by the Beatles Sgt Pepper 1967 and there others before too. Sgt Pepper was conceived as one long free form song with no breaks all the songs linked together. Abbey Road was just a continuation of Sgt Pepper. Another one gone.
Love You To- Vaguely Oriental, I guess genuine Indian instrumentation, concepts with rock instruments is vague compared to others who were imitating it in rock music even Including the Beatles earlier efforts. Is this the guy you follow?
Sgt Pepper musically uses many of the same things on Revolver that went onto influence The Birds Younger Than Yesterday and it even influenced Syd Barrett. Another myth gone
We know the Beatles went on to influence the Birds folk rock and jangle pop. So that’s clear cut.
A criteria for a good song is not the length of a song or if it has dissonance, cacophony or its free from. Even there the Beatles did a lot in terms of dissonance, Cacophony some like Tomorrow Never Knows, A Day in the Life, I Am the Walrus.
Hey Jude- this had me cracking up. This not a psychedelic blues jam. Its one of the greatest pop songs and it does not have a chorus or refrain.
Buddy Holly wrote his songs but he was a focal point in a band. The Beatles were a leaderless band that had to break the industry stranglehold on solo acts or acts that were not self-contained. Much of the Beach Boys songs were recorded by studio musicians.
He called "Nowhere Man" Psychedelic Pop which is the one I agree with but this was recorded before the Birds "Eight Miles High". So I guess the Beatles invented Psychedelic Pop.
The Beatles used drone in a rock context before "See My Friends". Its even was done earlier on "Baby’s In Black" 1964
Jeff Beck of the Yardbirds never played the sitar and the Yardbirds hired a studio musician to play the sitar which they never used on the record. At least Harrison played the instrument released it and put it on the forefront in rock music.
The Beatles were known for dissecting harmony they were known for their quirky harmonies and their harmonic diversity example Blue Jay Way using the Lydian Mode in a rock context which is hardly ever used. Please.
If you want to talk about their early lyrics that’s where Dylan gets credit for influencing them. Is actually saying something lyrically musical not really. I give credit for Dylan for influencing them.

But IMHO songs and melody started going downhill generally when most bands decided to write their own material regardless of whether they had the skill or not. After Lennon & McCartney came along, many bands wanted to write their own stuff. Some were good and some were not as good.

I said my peace its just music. Where dealing with the Beatles and many musicians were and are still influenced by them. This forum should not be about revisionist history it should be about the quality of music. So I will leave this topic so the forum will move on.

"Shame Shame Shame...shame shame on you...if you can't dance too"

1. The Beatles
2. Bob Dylan
3. Radiohead
4. Neil Young
5. (NEW) The Rolling Stones- I have a lot of respect for the Stones, even though I don't have a big interest in exploring their discography. Still, they have released several songs that I genuinely enjoy. That said, I love VU and Bowie, so the choice was an easy one for me.

I stayed away from this conversation to the extent that I almost forgot to vote.

1. The Velvet Underground (my #38)
2. Bob Dylan (#23)
3. The Rolling Stones (#21)
4. Radiohead (#14)
5. Neil Young (#10) - Probably Neil is neither the best singer or the best songwriter in the world, but nevertheless he holds a position as my favorite singer/songwriter.

5 – The Velvet Underground
4 – David Bowie
3 – Neil Young
2 – Bob Dylan
1 – The Rolling Stones – Only good memories of the Stones for me. I went to see them in concert with my dad 3 years ago, and remember being pleasantly surprised that they played “Ruby Tuesday.” They really do put up a fight for the title of the Greatest Band Ever. Some of my favourite songs of theirs: “Shine a Light,” “You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” “Paint It, Black,” “Ruby Tuesday,” “Gimme Shelter,” “She’s a Rainbow,” “Street Fighting Man,” “Sympathy for the Devil,” “Under My Thumb,” “Wild Horses,” “Mother’s Little Helper.”

1. Neil Young (5pts.)
2. David Bowie (4pts.)
3. The Velvet Underground (3pts.)
4. Bob Dylan (2pts.)
5. The Rolling Stones (1pt.)

so hard...

5-POINTS- RADIOHEAD
4-POINTS- BOB DYLAN
3-POINTS- THE VELVET UNDERGROUND
2-POINTS- NEIL YOUNG
1-POINT- THE ROLLING STONES

"I stayed away from this conversation to the extent that I almost forgot to vote."

You aren't the only one.

5 Velvet Underground
4 Neil Young
3 The Rolling Stones

New

2 David Bowie - One of my favourite artists of all time, but now most of us are down to voting off the majority of our all time favourites.

1 Bob Dylan - See above but more so.

5p Radiohead
4p The Velvet Underground
3p The Beatles
2p Neil Young
1p The Rolling Stones

"I stayed away from this conversation to the extent that I almost forgot to vote."

"You aren't the only one."

That's why I like to vote early in the week, and then duck.

If this thread were only votes and no side discussions, I think it would be pretty boring.

Whenever the discussions get too Beatles-centric, I just click to another page of the world wide web. But I hope all of the complaints don't discourage people from voicing their opinions.

Discussion in one thing, but constant bickering is another. One or two posts gets a point across quite nicely.

Hand raise: How many of us haven't read more than one post in the Logical Principles thread?

Hah! I was going to start a thread "Logical Principles, Pt. 2" and then write something to the effect of what you wrote John.

Discussion in one thing, but constant bickering is another.


My topic got derailed into an unwanted continuation of the locked one.

Me: "Is it true that, well, maybe we give too much weight to our perception of influence?"
They: "Wait... how can you possibly say The Beatles weren't influential?"

A non-sequitur of theirs I had to follow up.

But other than that, I see the point of going on in a conversation if it appears to be the one way to get somewhere, and so long as it's tongue-in-cheek. (for me it was)

I guess there's a certain lack of grace in talking about The Beatles in the first place. "Oh yeah... we know them... heard all about them... ooold story."

But they weren't even really the point.

Well, I tried to stick to the actual topic and I found it to be an interesting discussion. And the Beatles are a useful tool for these sorts of discussions too because of their extreme popularity.

People who don't like it should just move on instead of trying to stifle discussion with snarky comments--especially when the disussion is occurring in a DIFFERENT thread.

Thanks, Paul.