Defenestrated:

26. Nirvana (34)
25. Pixies (30)
24. Elvis Presley (25)

(You get the feeling Elvis is looking at his fellow evictees and feeling very confused?)

Still around here somewhere: Miles Davis (24), Sly and the Family Stone (20), Otis Redding (18), Talking Heads (17), The Clash (16).

78 down, 23 to go:

The Beach Boys, The Beatles, David Bowie, Johnny Cash, The Clash, Elvis Costello, Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, Marvin Gaye, Jimi Hendrix, The Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Prince, Radiohead, Otis Redding, R.E.M., The Rolling Stones, Sly and the Family Stone, Talking Heads, The Velvet Underground, The Who, Stevie Wonder, Neil Young.

And now…Week 21.

1. (5p) Sly and the Family Stone - I don't (ever thought the apostrophe in "don't" represent is the letter U?) know this band that good, and honestly I don't really want to know them either.

2. (4p) Marvin Gaye - Sigh..

3. (3p) The Clash - Little killer, too much filler.

4. (2p) Neil Young - He's never done anything for me. Never cleaned my bathroom, never served me dinner, and never entertained me with a magic show. His music ain't all that either.

5. (1p) Otis Redding - I've got limited knowledge, and that doesn't do him any good at this stage in the game.

Also, I'm a bit sad I never got to vote for Elvis. I've had the comment ready for months.

Finally! The last on my list I've been voting for since the start of this whole thing is off.

1) Jimi Hendrix
2) Radiohead
3) Miles Davis
4) Otis Redding
5) Sly And The Family Stone - There's A Riot Goin' On is great, and I certainly wouldn't mind listening to a decent greatest hits album.. but fact remains that this crazy family are way out of their league in this league of extraordinary gentlemen (and a few women).

1. Talking Heads 5 pts
2. Elvis Costello 4 pts (you know that David Lee Roth quote...)
3. Radiohead
4. Sly & The Family Stone
5. (NEW)R.E.M. : Rarely Excellent Music (naw I'm kidding schleuse)

5 Marvin Gaye (New)
Great single, even his best album is not really that consistent, I'm never really in the mood to hera the gospel parts on What's Going On and Let's Get It On is a little creepy for my liking in places.

4 Johnny Cash
3 Otis Redding
2 Talking Heads
1 Jimi Hendrix (New)
A brilliant guitarist. That's about it though when you compare him to the other talents typiifed by others on the island.

5 pts - Radiohead
4 pts - Sly Stone & Family
3 pts - Otis Redding
2 pts – Prince
1. pt. – Talking Heads – This is a strategic vote, just like the “real” survivor. I like them, but they seem a bit dated now. Still, they have some great tunes. I'll get to Led Zep (the other contender for this vote) later.

I take no pleasure in my first clean sweep (all evictees were on my ballot). They are all great artists. I'd like to think Kim Deal, Elvis, and Dave Grohl are having a fine time together on the boat as we speak.

Returners to the ballot:

1. Miles Davis
2. R.E.M.

New votes:

3. Elvis Costello -- Creator of a wonderful, punchy vibe and sound. Always good for a jolt of energy. Loses points because of a slight lack of subtlety and nuance in his voice (on both rockers and ballads) and mainly because I don't think his songbook is as great as many others feel it is. He has some good songs (although no really, really great ones), and a few acclaimed ones that I don't think are as good (Oliver's Army, Every Day I Write the Book).

4. The Beach Boys -- It took me longer to get to them than I would have anticipated going into the game. I have written about how I feel they are overrated a number of times here. They have delivered three certifiable masterpieces -- "Wouldn't It Be Nice," "Don't Worry Baby," and the flawed (but it's virtues mostly make up for its flaws) "God Only Knows." And their clear influence on bands and music that I adore earn them respect in my heart forever... but not love.

Frankly, as beautiful as the vocals can be (although the nasality can only be taken in small doses) the instrumental arrangements are way too frequently a mess (particularly on their most acclaimed songs "Good Vibrations" and "God Only Knows"). And I hate to make this comparison again (but this is a ranking game after all), but I find it instructive to compare them with the Kinks. They both had early monster hits that may sem frivolous compared with their evolutionary output of a few years later. But definitely give me "You Really Got Me" and "All Day and All of the Night" and "Tired of Waiting for You" above "California Girls," "Fun Fun Fun," and "Surfin' Safari." And as Ray Davies and Brian Wilson each came into their own as songwriters, there is no competition. Ray Davies is, to my mind, much better and more consistent.

That comparison only goes so far, though. The Kinks are a top-10 artist for me, whereas the Beach Boys barely crack my top-50. So why so low? In the end, musically, their complexity never convinces me. I am left with shimmering harmonies, a few (very) well-written songs, and less emotional pull than I would like.

5. Talking Heads -- My vote for Talking Heads is kind of the opposite of the Beach Boys. No real astonishing highs. Consistency with only a mild downward projectory. Certainly there are highlights (_Remain In Light_, "Life During Wartime") whose impact would have vaulted them higher on my list had such excellence been maintained. But overall in their career, they maintained a bouncy marriage of lively but intellectual pop.

Wow…Elvis, Nirvana, and Pixies gone in one shot. None of those guys was even bubbling under my ballot yet.

So, same again for me this week.

1. LED ZEPPELIN
2. MARVIN GAYE
3. THE KINKS
4. MILES DAVIS
5. RADIOHEAD

By the way, no worries, nicolas…I know you find postpunk and indie a little cold, so I’m not surprised (I do give you credit for at least trying T-Heads and Costello). If we all collaborated on a history of pop music, I know which chapter you’d write and which one I’d write. (Which, by the way, is why I’ve been ducking Henrik’s yearly DJ project…I would have been happy to take 1956 or ’57, but I’ll wait till we get to 1980-83 to take my turn).

1. The Beatles
2. Radiohead
3. Talking Heads

New

4. Otis Redding - I think Otis Blue was his greatest moment. Was he a better singer than Cooke? I don't know, but when I listen to Otis Blue I think so.

5. Miles Davis - By far my favorite jazz artist, but, like others here, I obviously don't hold jazz in high a regard as I hold rock. And believe me, it's not for lack of trying. Much of the technique flies over my head - I don't know much about modes, augmented this or diminished that - in other words, not very familiar with music theory. Like classical music, I can be somewhat emotionally involved, but it's hard for me to listen w/out being aware that I'm missing much of what's there to be appreciated. Hmph, technique. Not to mention jazz has gone all Ivory Tower now - no fault of it's own, of course, but still...

On a completely unrelated note, has anyone noticed how frequently Miles is mentioned (in conversation or in writing) when someone wants to make an argument for the virtue of restraint in virtuosity, e.g. "Sure Eddie Van Halen plays a lot of notes really fast, but David Gilmour's more like Miles Davis - he only plays a few notes, but they're all the right notes and they're always perfectly placed, etc...?

Greg,

I think you raise an interesting point about knowledge of theory and jazz. I've always lumped jazz into the "popular music" category rather than the "high art" category, by which I mean it should be capable of being judged based on how it makes you feel without any book learning. If it doesn't move you based on sound alone, then it's not doing its job.

That's why you hear jazz in bars instead of concert halls (for the most part).

I've studied musical theory and jazz "theory" if you can call it that, and I honestly don't think that knowledge has increased or diminished my appreciation, but I'm probably in the minority on that point.

Also, I think "Almost Blue" from "Imperial Bedroom" is a truly great song written by Elvis Costello. Sounds like Cole Porter.

"If it doesn't move you based on sound alone, then it's not doing its job."

Well, agreed, although plenty of art music is compelling without any book-learnin'.

Thanks for reminding us of the distinction between pop music and "art music," Paul. It's important to keep in mind. I notice that there's very little jazz on this site from the last 40 years or so (Bitches Brew, Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra...anything else?), not counting jazz-rock. Two possible reasons for that:

-Jazz is more of a niche market than it was in the 50s and 60s. Even if it's played in clubs rather than concert halls, it's moved so far away from what it started as--"a band in front of a dancing crowd" (to quote myself)--that it seems closer to art music than pop.

-Starting in about 1966, you see a lot more rock music with pretensions to the status of high art. 1966 is also about the point where jazz ceases to be a major genre on critics' lists. That looks to me like Zappa and Beefheart and Sgt. Pepper took over the "art-pop" niche in popular music.

Repeats:
5 Points - Sly & The Family Stone
4 Points - Talking Heads
3 Points - Radiohead
2 Points - Otis Redding
New: (at this point it's just getting rid of the worst of the best)
1 Points - The Kinks

I guess I'm stuck with the same five.

5 points. Johnny Cash
4 points. Elvis Costello
3 points. Miles Davis
2 points. Marvin Gaye
1 point. Stevie Wonder

schleuse,

I'll offer a controversial third option. Jazz is played out. It had a great run of almost 100 years, but then it became innovated to the point where it was no longer recognizable as "jazz" but something broader.

The sound elements that define "jazz" as a genre won't let it go any farther and still be "jazz."

These days, most of the jazz you hear in clubs is derivative. It's guys/gals playing/singing the same standards that they played 50 years ago.

The same thing happens with other styles too. This is an unavoidable by-product of categorization. To categorize you must define boundaries. To innovate you must explode boundaries.

I think country music is also played out. 50's-style "rock'n'roll" has been played out for years, but the animal that is "rock" continues to develop because its boundaries are so wide and undefined.

Sorry for my rambing. Bottom line: We don't talk about modern jazz, because there really is no such thing.

For the fifth week in a row...

1. The Who
2. The Clash
3. Otis Redding
4. The Kinks
5. Led Zeppelin

What are you guys thinking?

Jazz is played out because nobody listens to the standards anymore. There's still decent jazz being made but it's not the same. It's the same reason rock fans aren't into jazz for the most part, rock fans don't know and love the standards and it doesn't connect with us. When you listen to most of the acclaimed jazz records they're just standards being improvised. Those are the jazz records I stay away from.

There are bands that try to recreate that sentiment with todays music like the Bad Plus and that's caught on a little bit.

I want to try to clarify my point a bit. I think innovation happens across all styles of music. It's natural. There are also derivative performers doing every style. When I say something is played out, I mean that the innovations have exceeded the definitions of what defines the style. Its more about the limitations inherent in the definition than any lack of innovation by the performers.

Of course, I'm full of hot air.

for genres that had their origin in transgression - certainly jazz, certainly rock, not sure about country - it's all part of the cycle. it can only remain transgressive so long before it's co-opted.

so it's part of my experience. i've never been to a jazz show where the musicians were sweating profusely, playing furiously, the crowd dancing wildly and knocking over tables, etc. - it's always been a polite, sit-down affair.

same thing with rock concerts, really. i've never been to one and felt like i was participating in something truly subversive.

i grew up in the '90s, so what were my options? raves? no thanks. is it possible for music to serve as social protest anymore? i don't know.

Greg - Interesting. For many years, each generation has found music that was annoying to the ears of the previous generation. To wild, too dissonant, too umelodic. One generation its Elvis. The next its the Sex Pistols. The next its Dr. Dre and Eminem.

I wonder if that cycle can keep up? Or will there be a generation that reverts back to refined, melodic music?

"i grew up in the '90s, so what were my options? raves? no thanks. is it possible for music to serve as social protest anymore? i don't know."

90's:



I guess that was a at the start of the 90's.

Paul, you're braver than me. Actually, I suspect that jazz is played out, but was too timid to say it. That's not to say I don't enjoy going to my neighborhood jazz club to while away a mellow evening.

Greg, you've raised the elephant in the room that hasn't been mentioned much around here--does rock have to remain transgressive to be vital? I don't know.

Let's face it: when was the last time a rock band really pissed anyone off? For that matter, how many new and interesting bands are listened to by teenagers, rather than old farts like us who enjoy seeing new talent ring the changes on our favorite genre of music?

But then, transgressive music is about twice as old as rock and roll (click on the "Top 100 Artists of 1900-1949" button), and I suspect that as long as we live in a media-fueled consumerist culture, it'll be around in one form or another.

I sense I'm headed toward a long dissertation about where transgressive music comes from, so I'll stop there. For now...

The underground hip-hop scene is enjoyed mostly by college age kids and doesn't get much critical love at least in the mainstream media. It's very reminiscent of the 80's underground rock scene. Tons of rabid fans and plenty of political thought. Everyone looks to rock for their protest singers while the underground hip-hop scene have been speaking up for years.

That said, I'm not a huge fan of the genre. But, vital music is still being produced.

Schleuse, to answer your question whether rock has to remain transgressive to be vital, I say this:

"Now every gimmick-hungry boy digging gold from rock-n-roll, grabs the mike to tell us he'll die before he's sold, but I believe in this and it's been tested by research...."

Well, my first time voting here.

5 points The Clash. I couldn’t really get the fuss about them aside from a couple of songs. In fact I have never been fan of “raw” punk (Sex Pistols, Clash, Ramones, etc..), although post-punk is another history….

4 points Johnny Cash I’m not so keen on country rock. I don’t see it as "universal" as others genres. And his work seems a bit outdated compared to the others artists left, at least to me.

3 points Otis Redding I'm not a huge fan of soul, even though I like some Stevie stuff. Maybe it has to do that I wasn’t exposed to it so much as rock in my early years...I don't know, just It's not really my thing.

2 points Sly and the Family Stone Same as above.

1 point Marvin Gaye. Same, but I like some of his songs.

Elvis has left the building. That means one new entry on the 'Beam ballot.

1. The Who
2. The Beatles
3. Bob Dylan
4. Johnny Cash
5. *new* Led Zeppelin- Bloated and pompous classic rock makes Ian a dull boy. Bloated and pompous classic rock makes Ian a dull boy. Bloated and...

1. Bob Dylan
2. The Velvet Underground
3. The Beach Boys
4. Miles Davis
5. Led Zeppelin

Since Elvis is gone I now add Led Zeppelin.

By the way the ones who are voting to get the Beatles out are you serious. I can't name one artist who has contributed to more styles and to songwriting than the Beatles. At least be credible.

Bob Dylan

Newbie interesting that you guys have Elvis gone already is this a new trend in music. I know the guy did not write his songs he deserves to be in the top ten. Anyone voting for the Beatles or Led Zeppelin at this point is out of there minds.

Gone are

1. Velvet Underground- Atonal music what can I say I am not a avant garde elitist.
2. Neil Young- Ok but I think he belong outside this list
3. Bob Dylan- I just think his main contribution was was his lyrics
4. Radiohead- Not around long enough to be this high.
5. The Beach Boys- they seemed to be lost after Pet Sounds and Pet Sounds was more of a Brian Wilson creation

Paul that is your opinion on Dylan and it's not even factual. Dylan is not even played on the radio these days. The two biggest bands U2 and Nirvana in the past twenty years were more influenced by Led Zeppelin or the Beatles than Bob Dylan. The bands of today are more influenced by Led Zeppelin or the Beatles. There is more to songwriting than writing lyrics and the Beatles are covered a hell of lot more than Dylan No one is clamoring for Dylan songbook.

Rank1 - I just found it amusing that the person lambasting Beatles voters for not recognizing good songwriters had Bob Dylan listed number one on his/her own list.

Also, everything on this entire website is opinion. There is no "factual" way to prove that the Beatles had more influence on current "radio" music than Bob Dylan.

Actually, one of your statements might be capable of factual verification, but I don't have the database to find the answer.

How confident are you that the Beatles have been covered more than Bob Dylan?

Does anybody here think its possible that Dylan has been covered as much. I'm not sure, but I would not dismiss Dylan so quickly.

In the last ten years, can you name the top Beatles covers? I would be kind of surprised if the Bealtes have been covered more than Dylan this century.

Nobody needs to hear another version of Maxwell's Silver Hammer. You've heard five covers of that, you've heard them all...

No, Dylan doesn't have any influence. In the past two years he's only had a documentary by Scorsese made and a popular movie about his life which won multiple awards. Nobody really cares about Bob Dylan anymore. You don't have to have a direct influence on music or cover a broad horizon of genres to be influential. Plus, the dude's still making acclaimed music. I don't see any Beatle (or anybody else who made music in the 60's) still doing that with any consistency. His legacy and influence isn't even over yet. So, yeah. Bob Dylan doesn't matter.

Rank 1 I voted for Led Zeppelin so I guess I am out of my mind. Though I am with you on the Beatles you have to remember their people in this forum who are brainwashed by Pierro Scaruffi. If you want to go on radio airplay The Beatles are played on more radio formats than Dylan and Led Zeppelin. Led Zeppelin get played to their credit gets more radio airplay on Modern Rock stations than the Beatles. My problem is not his songwriting it's his vocals.

Well Yesterday has over 3,000 covers and go to wwwansers.com and the Beatles are by far the most cited recording artist as influence on music.

I don't want to knock Dylan there is this blind for him here. www.answers.com/topic/the-beatles

Just check out the amount of artists who cite the Beatles as a influence. Compare it to Dylan or Elvis it's not very close.

The Beatles music just went for 400 million dollars on I Tunes. It was called one of the most lucrative music deals ever.

Oh I forgot to add that Bob Dylan has a Pulitzer Prize. But, Dylan isn't important anymore. Nobody cares about poor Bob.

More ignorant rants about people being "out of their minds" for voting out the untouchables. FYI, I've been voting off The Beatles for a LOOOOONG time, and would have from the beginning if I felt it would have helped them exit the island. But I feel we all deserve to have an equal voice here, and so long as a statement is not incendiary, the poster's integrity or, in this case, sanity, should not be brought to question.

Oy. Could there be anything more arid than another Beatles/Dylan debate?

We've been over this many times. First we beat it to death, and then we beat it into a sticky paste.

fwiw, I know who my last artist to be voted out will be (assuming said artist survives), and it's neither Dylan nor the Beatles.

And no, it's not who you're thinking.

PS - Paul, I'm sure nuns the world over thank you for not finishing that quote...

Schleuse, I knew you'd back Prince 'til the end!

Schleuse,

I anticipated your reaction to the Dylan/Beatles debate. That's why I moved it over to another location. But sorry for stoking those fires. I'm very combative today for some reason. Probably some kind of imbalance.

I will say my last opinion on this. I never hear anyone saying pre or post Dylan. What I hear is pre-Beatles or post Beatles era. Or Classic rock is rock music after the Beatles appearance on Ed Sullivan and before 1980 with the deaths of key figurers as Bonham and Lennon. That's another point Classic Rock which is considered by many a genre rather than a radio format now starts with the Beatles. The key turning point on Dylan career might have been the British Invasion and you know started that. What is pathetic you have people who refused to acknowledge it.

OK, OK enough already. Even Bob Dylan himself has relented and agreed that the Beatles are the cats pajamas. Read about it here.

I can now see that neither The Beatles or Bob Dylan will win this competition. Maybe it should be one of them but there's just more people who dislike one of those 2 than some of the other contenders...

And yeah I do think(by the way) that Dylan has been covered just as much(if not more) than the Beatles

so. fucking. annoying.

"I can now see that neither The Beatles or Bob Dylan will win this competition."

"so. fucking. annoying."


Exactly. With every new debate on this topic, both of these artists have dropped a few places on my personal lists.

"4. Radiohead- Not around long enough to be this high."

They've been together almost twice as long The Beatles.

I'm at the point where I see a new Dylan vs. Beatles debate and I just skip the entire thing. This week's votes:

Holdovers
1) Miles Davis
2) The Kinks
3) Johnny Cash
4) Otis Redding

New
5) David Bowie - Good songwriter (check), good singer (check), diverse career (check), influential artist (check). However, my two favorite albums of his (Ziggy Stardust and Hunky Dory) are both near-classics for me without quite attaining that status. He's also released a fair amount of shit, almost as much as the good stuff.

"They've been together almost twice as long The Beatles"

yeah, but it is not a matter of arithmetics.
60's count triple (like in that Scrabble game)

"60's count triple (like in that Scrabble game)"

BWAHAHAHA

nicolas, that is the AM Forum quote of the year. Well done, sir.

Same as last week:

5 pts - Miles Davis
4 pts - Jimi Hendrix
3 pts - The Kinks
2 pts - The Who
1 pt - Sly And The Family Stone

1. Bob Dylan
2. Elvis Costello
3. The Clash.

Nirvana & Pixies both gone, so a couple of new names from me:

4. R.E.M. - Far too much average/bad material from these guys to merit staying around any longer, in my opinion.
5. Miles Davis - I admit to knowing too little about him and his works, but I really can't see him staying around for another week.

Wow, Dylan is in real danger now.

imagine
Dylan gone before Costello...

It'll be a sad day if that happens. I understand that he's not for everyone, but surely the #1 voters can appreciate genius when they see it? I've been known to argue against The Beatles, but I'm not voting for them yet, am I? I'm coming pretty close to putting them at #1 due to all this crap by the way, but I've made an agreement with myself not to make any strategic votes. Not too many artists between Sly and The Beatles on my list though.

1)Talking Heads
2)Miles Davis
3)Otis Redding
4)Led Zeppelin:I just realized I almost never listen to them on my ipod
5)Sly & The Family Stone:I just realized 'Family Affair' is about the only thing I listen to from them...

The smart money is on Bowie to win it all....

1. Marvin Gaye
2. Prince
3. Sly and The Family Stone
4. Led Zeppelin
5. The Kinks - I don't think these guys deserve such a high finish. They've recorded some good stuff that I do enjoy but not good enough to be around this long.

"imagine
Dylan gone before Costello..."

imagine
Elvis gone before Elvis


I've had Bob Dylan as a 5-pointer since I joined this game in about week 8. For a long time I was the only one voting Bob off.

I find myself at the point where I'm voting entirely for artists who I greatly respect and often love.

5 pts Talking Heads - repeat
4 pts The Clash - repeat
3 pts R.E.M. - repeat
2 pts Otis Redding - Just not enough range of style at this point to continue on, though he was obviously an unbelievably great songwriter and performer.
1 pt Led Zeppelin - I LOVE their output from '71-'75, but those first couple albums just have too many poor cod-blues workouts. They're one of those artists that could flip from transcendent to embarrassing on a dime.

5 - Elvis Costello
4 - Otis Redding
3 - Talking Heads
2 - Sly and the Family Stone
1 - Marvin Gaye

1. Elvis Costello
2. Otis Redding
3. The Kinks
4. The Clash (new)
5. Sly and the Family Stone (new)

Stevie Wonder fans will rejoice knowing that I took him off the list. I got my hands on Innervisions and really appreciated it. It's cool to discover masterpieces, even when I'm a little late to the party.

Fortunately, The Clash's London Calling has enough versatility to have a song to fit every mood, but that doesn't make the album any less lengthy. I also never connected with the particular attitude and posturing of the band, and maybe that's just the British punk attitude in general.

Sly and the Family Stone have some wonderful uplifting songs, but I was let down by the lack of depth I had expected on their most acclaimed album There's a Riot Goin' On. Funk and R&B couldn't have evolved without them, but their successors had some more to offer.

Still need explanations of your first-time choices, Daniel.

I am not voting on the poll yet because my top two would be unfairly evicted at this point. I am a credible Beatles fan.

1 band above the Beatles (The Pixies) and two bands below (Nirvana & the King) the Beatles on my list are now gone. I'm just a wee bit closer to voting for the Beatles now which makes me do this:

Oh, and don't get the impression I want to vote for the Beatles because I hate them, they're about a top 25-30 artist for me. I just hope like hell that for once, some game like this doesn't give the Beatles the top spot. I just think The Beatles are a boring choice because they've had so much acclaim for 40 years; it's time for them to open the dictatorship of musical acclaim into an oligarchy (which should invite members created after 1975).

My votes:

5 points: Led Zeppelin

4 points: Jimi Hendrix

3 points: Prince

2 points: Otis Redding

1 points: Neil Young - I could see Neil falling off my list next week because I had previously only been familiar with Everyone Knows This is Nowhere and Harvest. Both good albums that have failed to capture me as great albums. I love the title track off EKTIN and "Down By the River," but that album has some filler. Harvest also has its fair share of good tunes split with filler.

However, I recently acquired After the Gold Rush which is his most interesting album for a continuous listen, so that may boost him in the coming weeks.

5 points :Sly and the family stone - a couple good albums then BLAH

4 Points Marvin Gaye - Couple good things, one great thing, and the rest...MEH

3 THE KINKS - Just dont deserve to be in the company of the others

2 THE WHO - Tommy and Who's Next were there only greats in my opinion

1 ELVIS COSTELLO like em dont love em

the 5 I'd like to see fill out the top 5 are
1)Radiohead
2)Bob Dylan
3)The Velvet Undergournd
4)The Beatles
5)The Rolling Stones

I'd like to see Neil, but not in dylans place.
I also Miss Tom Waits - Thanks ya bunch of assholes...lol

But not in that order surely Kevin?
Because how influential have Radiohead been compared to say,David Bowie?

Is David Bowie influential (relatively speaking)? I'd say he's one of the least influential of the remaining artists. Nothing against the quality of his music, I just don't see as much influence flowing from him as compared to other elite performers.

In terms of the Bowie influence.

Bowie Voted Most Influential Artist by Today's Pop Stars

November 29, 2000 – In a year-long survey carried out for the newly published "Under the Influence" issue of NME (England's New Music Express), artists have talked for the first time about their major artistic influences, the band or artist that made them pick up the guitar or write their first lyrics, etc.

Legendary rock star David Bowie has come out top of the pops, being voted the most influential artist in the survey published in the NME.

On David Bowie, Radiohead's Ed O'Brien said: "I just admire David Bowie in the '70s. Sometimes he brought out two albums a year. He was on a mission. His albums were hit and miss sometimes, but he was brilliant because of that."

Marilyn Manson said of Bowie: "Today there seems to be a lack of icons and rock stars in general. When I grew up, there was David Bowie and Iggy Pop – people who had something to say and had quite an impact on music and society. I thought that's what rock 'n' roll should be all about – too much make-up, setting things on fire and pissing off parents."

In other areas of pop, Spice Girl Victoria Beckham chose her hero as Stevie Wonder, saying: "I was brought up with a lot of Stevie Wonder. I think he's brilliant. I've always listened to him and I always will."

Nominated in second place were Radiohead, of whom U2's front man Bono said: "I saw the new Radiohead show and it was beautiful, so beautiful, perfect sound, beautiful songs, and when he sings it breaks my heart. I just wanna see Radiohead at the top of the pop charts. Cos that makes your day, and driving into work, better. That's all. Which is selfish. They've made some extraordinary music and they can do what they like."

"UNDER THE INFLUENCE" TOP 20

1. DAVID BOWIE - Nominated by Suede (Brett Anderson), Placebo (Brian Molko), Marilyn Manson, Radiohead (Ed O'Brien), Mansun (Paul Draper)
2. RADIOHEAD - Nominated by Bono
3. THE BEATLES - Nominated by Marilyn Manson
4. PUBLIC ENEMY - Nominated by Nicky Wire (The Manic Street Preachers)
5. MILES DAVIS - Nominated by: Mick Head (Shack)
6. KRAFTWERK - Nominated by Rob Mitchell (Boss of Warp Records)
7. SEX PISTOLS - Nominated by Bobby Gillespie (Primal Scream)
8. EMINEM - Nominated by Shaun Ryder
9. NICK DRAKE - Nominated by Stuart Braithwaite, Mogwai
10. THE SMITHS - Nominated by Rick Witter (Shed 7)
11. STEVIE WONDER - Nominated by Victoria Beckham
12. APHEX TWIN - Nominated by Laurence Bell (Head of Domino Records)
13. SCOTT WALKER - Nominated by Jarvis Cocker
14. CHEMICAL BROTHERS - Nominated by Richard Ashcroft
15. FLAMING LIPS - Nominated by Danny McNamara (Embrace):
16. BOB DYLAN - Nominated by Tim Burgess (Charlatans):
17. MOS DEF - Nominated by Chris Martin (Coldplay)
18. THE VELVET UNDERGROUND - Nominated by Gruff Rhys (Super Furry Animals)
19. BECK - Nominated by Jimi Goodwin (Doves)
20. JOY DIVISION - Nominated by Finley Quaye

I stand corrected. The problem is I don't listen to enough Suede, Placebo, Marilyn Manson, Radiohead, or Mansun.

Who are the top 5 most influential artists left on the island?

1. Beatles
2. Bob Dylan
3. Led Zeppelin
4. R.E.M.
5. The Velvet Underground

Bubbling Under: The Rolling Stones.

Just one man's opinion (based on my impression of which artists have influenced the most followers).

Interesting article, Mitchell, although it leaves the concept of “influential” a bit fuzzy (intentionally?).

However, all else being equal, asking musicians to be critics tends to be incredibly unilluminating. There are some whose opinions are sound—Pete Townshend, Graham Coxon, Peter Buck, Elvis Costello—but if I could, I’d like to destroy the notion that the opinions of artists must trump the opinions of critics.

****

As for the question raised by Midaso and Paul, I think Bowie’s influence is real, but subtle. There haven’t been very many obvious Bowie pastiches (Blur’s “M.O.R.” is the best example I can think of).

But Bowie’s career pattern was very influential. In about six years, he went from a glam period to a soul period to an experimental period—largely indifferent to whatever the alleged music trends were at the time (no, he wasn’t the first artist whose musical style could be divided into distinct periods…but, as he himself said, if you want to be successful, be the SECOND person to do something).

That, I think, is where his influence lies. When James Murphy says:

I hear that you and your band have sold your guitars and bought turntables.
I hear that you and your band have sold your turntables and bought guitars.

We laugh because we recognize the pattern. Bowie established that pattern.