just like every list of this type is,,,
Every once in a while, someone goes and makes a list of the top 10 this or that, or the top 100 of all time something or other. And every time they do, someone else shows cause as to why the list should be different. Most recently, Rolling Stone Magazine published it's "50 Greatest Artists of All Time." And of course, there are some serious holes.
Before we go on, let's look at the choices Rolling Stone made in it's latest attempt to rank 50 years of music. An attempt that may be equally as futile as a male porn star trying to rank all the "girls he loved before."
1) The Beatles
2) Bob Dylan
3) Elvis Presley
4) The Rolling Stones
5) Chuck Berry
6) Jimi Hendrix
7) James Brown
8) Little Richard
9) Aretha Franklin
10) Ray Charles
11) Bob Marley
12) The Beach Boys
13) Buddy Holly
14) Led Zeppelin
15) Stevie Wonder
16) Sam Cooke
17) Muddy Watters
18) Marvin Gaye
19) The Velvet Underground
20) Bo Diddley
21) Otis Redding
22) U2
23) Bruce Springsteen
24) Jerry Lee Lewis
25) Fats Domino
26) The Ramones
27) Nirvana
28) Prince
29) The Who
30) The Clash
31) Johnny Cash
32) Smokey Robinson & The Miracles
33) The Everly Brothers
34) Neil Young
35) Michael Jackson
36) Madonna
37) Roy Orbison
38) John Lennon
39) David Bowie
40) Simon & Garfunkel
41) The Doors
42) Van Morrison
43) Sly & The Family Stone
44) Public Enemy
45) The Byrds
46) Janis Joplin
47) Patti Smith
48) Run DMC
49) Elton John
50) The Band
whew...
1st off, let me state that I don't have anything against any of these artists. But, when looking over the list of "judges" which consisted of people mostly well over 50, some over 60 and some beyond, It is obvious that this is more of old people trying to keep alive the names of their boy and girl hood heros more than a legitimate list of greatness. In fact, the youngest panelist I found was Moby, who is somewhere in his 30's. And outside of him, I struggled to find anyone else who wasn't eligible for AARP.
As far as the "top 10" go, it's hard to argue with most of the list. Every one of them is pretty much a "genre-starting" type artist or a "king " or "queen" of their chosen genre. I may argue with their particular placement on the list, even their "top 10" status, but I won't argue their legitimacy to be on the list.
When I move to 11-20, Again, it's hard to argue their actual placement on the list, but their ranking could be questioned. One interesting note however, about ranks 1-21. In those top 21 spots, only 1 artist, regaee great Bob Marley, was the only one to have their first release after 1970. So basically the underlying theme is that excedpt for Bob Marley, nothing great was made after 1970, unless it was made by one of these old geezers.And absolutely nothing has been made to rival them since around the early and mid 70's. Some one needs to remind these geezers that rock and roll is a young man's game. Someone also has to remind them that disco did not, in fact, "kill rock and roll" nor did video.
Finally, in ranks 21-30, we get a couple of entries of artists of the "semi-modern" era at least. With U2 checking in @ #22. Bruce Springsteen @ 23. punk poineers The Ramones and the Clash @ 26 and 30 respectively. And Nirvana and Prince filling in the # 27 and 28 spots. Itis nice to see some of these more "post vietnam" era artists make the list, and some should be a little higher in my view.
The bottom 20 of the list consists of a hodge podge of artists who are all great artists, but I do question some of their inclusions and can think of very qualified replacements. Let's look at some of the artists I feel got snubbed here, without cause.
The first to go for me would be Sly and the Family Stone. Don't get me wrong, I like Sly. But in this case, I feel he has already dropped off the "immortals" list. As would Patti Smith in my view. Patti was a genuine rocker, and had a great song in "because the Night" and her "Gloria" might be my favorite. But the fact is that neither artist would be recognized by name by most under 30, maybe even under 40, especially in Smith's case. Fact is, where a lot of artists and critics liked her, to the fan base, she was minor. Sly's band could rock down the house, but unfortunately had an equally as big of a reputation for not showing up to gigs and ripping fans off.
The 1st band that comes to mind when replacing these 2 is the Grateful Dead. I cannot for the life of me figure this one out. No band has the history of live performances to their credit. They have a fan base that still does not give any other band much credit or listening time. Even 7 years after Garcia's death, the remaining members toured last summer and brought out huge crods in big venues, just like the old days. If that ain't "immortal," then I don't know what is.
The next band that comes to mind is Fleetwood Mac. If nothing else, they have the album in "Rumors" that is the 1st album that comes to mind when someone says "what's your greatest album of all time?" I won't say it's the best without equal, but it's the 1st that comes to mind. And considering the fact that virtually every track is still played on the radio, and Clinton used it when campaigning, it's a shme they were left off the list.
Also questionable in my mind were the inclusion of the Everly Brothers. ANd again, I like the Everly Brothers and can remember their hits in my mind as I write this. But with Simon & Garfunkel's inclusion, which I feel is a stronger duet. Also, Chuck Berry and Elvis, Buddy Holly and Little Richard cover the 50's pretty well for me. When I think of 50's artists, I can think of people like Dion, Patsy Cline and Woody Guthrie before I consider the Everlys.
Also left off were some more modern influences. Like Pearl Jam, who's debut album of demos might be one of the greatest debuts of all time. What aboutthe Beastie Boys who legitimized white rappers? What about the Police? How about some bands that have been staples in the arena level tour circuit for 15 or over 20 years? Bands like Rush and the Allman Brothers come to mind. When was the last time Metallica didn't sell out an arena?
Of course, it would be hard to put anyone on there who has come out in the last 10 years. That's understandable. I don't expect this list to be made up of artists who haven't proven staying power. But I also don't expect the list to be weighted so hard towards pre 1970 bands. ANd amongst the older bands, I do question the inclusions of some of the artists.
If I were to do my own list, it would look something like this....
1) the Beatles
2) Bob Dylan
3) Elvis Presley
4) The Rolling Stones
5) Led Zeppelin
6) James Brown
7) Jimi Hendrix
8) U2
9) Bob Marley
10) Aretha Franklin
11) Buddy Holly
12) The Ramones
13) The Grateful Dead
14) The Beach Boys
15) Chuck Berry
16) The Velvet Underground
17) Ray Charles
18) The Clash
19) Michael Jackson
20) Stevie Wonder
21) Prince
22) Fleetwood Mac
23) Metallica
24) Nirvana
25) Crosby Still Nash & Young
26) Run DMC
27) The Byrds
28) Muddy Waters
29) Eric Clapton
30) Janis Joplin
31) Simon & Garfunkel
32) Paul McCartney
33) Marvin Gaye
34) The Doors
35) James Taylor
36) Elton John
37) Public Enemy
38) Bo Diddley
39) Willie Nelson
40) Patsy Cline
41) David Bowie
42) The Band
43) Pearl Jam
44) Roy Orbison
45) The Police
46) The Beastie Boys
47) John Lennon
48) The Eagles
49) Van Morrison
50) REM
Now of course, some may take issue with my list (and feel free to comment) and / or the order. Please don't get caught up in 'why is Public Enemy 1 better than Bo Diddley?" scenarios....I wasn't as concerned with the order as much as who was on the list. I tried to be more fair in representing differenct eras and genres keeping in mind that an "immortal" list is going to be a little weighted towards the past.
What would your list look like?