Re: OT Dylan's Modern Times
Date: September 1, 2006 22:24
FrankM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go to the Rolling Stone immortals list my
> uninformed friend. They list the greatest artists
> of all time. Where is Prince? Where are the
> Stones. This was voted on by top musicians in the
> industry which have a lot more creditibility than
> some misguided soul who thinks Prince is better
> than the Stones. Thanks for the laugh man.
Well, I decided to look at the Rolling Stones "Immortals" list that you are so impressed by. It is subtitled "The 100 Greatest Artists of All Time." Because, by golly, if Frankie thinks this survey is something special, then I owe it to myself to check it out, to be educated by a smart guy like Frankie, who really knows it all.
As I suspected, the list is highly subjective, and sometimes it looks pretty foolish. The Stones are ranked #4, which I'm okay with, because I've never once argued that I think their 60s and 70s work is over-rated. Quite the contrary, it is great great music.
But the Stones are only #4, behind Elvis, Dylan and the Beatles.
The Beatles? Okay, I guess, though I think the Stones are better.
Dylan? Yeah, I buy that, Dylan put out more great albums over 40+ years than the Stones did.
But Elvis?!? That makes me question the basic criteria of the Immortals poll. Elvis was a fine singer and a superstar, a cultural icon, but was he really a _great_ singer? Maybe. But he never wrote any of his hit songs. He couldn't play a guitar worth a damn. And _he's_ number 3?
And why is Elvis number 3, and a universally acknowledged genius like Miles Davis is #88? What the hell kind of poll is this?!?
You could get a decent argument from some that The Who were a better band than the Rolling Stones. I wouldn't agree with that Who fan since I like the Stones more than the Who, but I'd at least agree that a hardcore fan of The Who has a reasonable basis to prefer them over the Stones. Yet the Who ranks #29.
Now where is Prince on this list?
Judging from your idiotic disparaging comments about the worth of Prince's music, I figured he was nowhere to be found on your beloved list.
And lo and behold, there was Prince at #28. Ahead of the Who, Neil Young, John Lennon as a solo artist, David Bowie, Van Morrison, The Byrds, The Clash, Howlin' Wolf, Eric Clapton as a solo artist, Cream, The Everly Brothers, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, Allman Brothers, Aerosmith, Sex Pistols, The Police, Frank Zappa, and on and on and on. All of _them_ are great artists, immortals, and Frankie, I'd bet you wouldn't dismiss the musical genius of most of those artists, as you so casually dismissed Prince and his music.
But the Rolling Stone "Immortals" list, voted by the greats of rock and roll, validates Prince as one of the Immortals. Why not you, Frankie?
Still care to make the argument that Prince is not an acknowledged musical immortal, respected by his peers? If so, you will be refuting your own goddam survey, Frankie boy.