Posted by Dameon on Friday, Posted by Joe on Friday, Posted by Liam on Friday, It does bring up an interesting point--what of the now-current music will be played hundreds of years from now, as Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Tsichiavkosky, et. Some classical music is very popular now; while some is all but forgotten. But Guns n' Roses? If anything, it is much too early to tell how their music will affect MODERN music history, much less how it will be in the year Posted by Joe on Saturday, I'm still having trouble justifying Roxy Music.
If someone knows, please explain.
Personally, I think they were a great band that could not be pigeon-holed by any specific genre. Posted by Dameon on Saturday, None of this stuff is going to be remembered in I brought it up earlier that the kids down the line might laugh at what we thought was great. The proof can be found in listening to 50's rock as compared to today. The connections are almost all gone, and in another couple years I'm willing to bet the connections to the 60's will have faded badly as well. Anybody turning sweet sixteen in will have been born the year this "immortal" list came out.
This list is RS's "state of rock as we think it is" for that moment of time. The 1st 80's act is at 22, 1st 90's is at The interesing parts are what lay outside the top There are a lot of kids out there today, and nostalgic feelings will still be the same in as they are today. Will the kids of today sweep away everything in , while the kids of that moment cry that their own bands are not heard?
The only way to stay alert is to stay aboveground in essence. If they do what you're suggesting then that would be Casey Kasemizing the list to make it like a longer term version of Billboard's Hot with newer stuff higher up and older stuff that peaked in popularity falling down and off. That would do a disservice to the intended purpose of the list which is to show the artists who've made the most impact over time-not just in perpetuating but developing rock as well.
Illustration Art Gallery: Artists' biographical notes
Didn't notice that the Floyd wasn't on the list The last thing I wish to do is "Casey Kasemize" a list in any manner. If you wish to use the classical music frame of reference, anything considered immortal would, by some implication, have to be finished. Rock is far from finished. Let me use a different example. I have an old videotape from 99 that featured the top baseball players according to the Sporting News. At the time they had Barry Bonds listed at 37, I believe, and the commentary pre-steroid accusation noted that when he was finished his career he'd probably be in the top The list in question is meant to rank him for the century, yet it acknowledges his mobility, due to his career not being over.
Later on, Bob Costas host notes that the list is fluid, and that the names could change, but that he couldn't picture anyone but Babe Ruth at the top. Think about the contradictions in listing the top players of the 20th century, yet acknowledging the list could change throughout the 21st. I'm saying the same thing is possible here.
- Kineo: Splendor and Silence.
- Crocodile man jes dead?
- Cook It French! Easy Recipes for Passover.
- All Fall Down;
Let me ask this: since you post under "classicrocker", and I do believe the list is fluid, what do you think of Dylan's chances of surpassing the Beatles? Would there ever be a time he surpassed them? After all, this list was put together before his album "Modern Times" came out.
Is Dylan's last album enough to put him over the top? How bout' the Stones? Has U2 or Springsteen ade the top 20, in your mind or anyone's out there, for that matter? It's a horrendous list; it really is the more I look at it. Bob Marley 11???!!!!! Most of what he did wasn't really rock in the traditional sense. Stevie Wonder has no business in the top Neither does Sam Cooke or Ray Charles. Velvet Underground should be up to around 12 and The Who should be at least 10 notches higher.
Cheesecrop: I don't think Dylan could surpass The Beatles unless he has some more top 10 songs like his heyday in the 60's. The college kids today aren't really into him. The only stuff from the 60's you hear on college radio today really is The Velvet Underground and Love. The Stones-no way. They are the butt of too many Jay Leno jokes. U2's got a chance of making the top 15 and Springsteen will probably stay about where he is The Kinks are way too low, and U2 are too high i.
RS has really gone and stereotyped itself with it's newer group picks. That has to be one of the worst lists I've ever seen.
I mean, Madonna? Isn't part of the criteria being able to sing? I have no more respect for Rolling Stone. I thought they knew what they were talking about!! Posted by That Guy on Saturday, And how are Prince and Nirvana ahead of Johnny Cash. And where is Pink Floyd? Posted by Slinky on Saturday, With Rolling Stone, they always seem to want to add the "band du jour" who's popular now or in the recent past to most of their lists.
I immediately thought of "All Apologies" by Nirvana. Now, Joy Division didn't have a very long career, but I think they are more influential than Nirvana, yet they aren't on the list.
Les crêpes à dentelles !
If you listen to Joy Division, they really started something, people hadn't heard anything quite like it, and it bridged the gap between punk and New Wave Nirvana was more of an exclaimation point to the whole grunge thing. Once again, just one man's observation Posted by fact check on Saturday, If you think Rolling Stone doesn't have the final say in these matters or what they print, all I have to say is "think again!!! Posted by Shit Face on Saturday, So here's a break on the whole immortals argument.
We're all music enthusiasts here, so i just have a question.
Do you think folk rock, like the eagles and bob dylan, and all those guys, will be the most poplular genre next decade, and alternative will finally die down? Cause, let's look at history, The most popular genre of the nineties: Alternative. Underground genre of the eighties: Alternative. Most popular genre of the eighties: New Wave. Underground genre of the 70's: New Wave.
- Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English (Routledge Linguistics Classics).
- Upcoming Events.
- BUY ON AMAZON'S NEVER EASY.
- The Theory of Business Enterprise (Illustrated and Bundled with The Nature of Capital and Income).
- Inside an “Anything Goes” Sex Club.
- εκκαθαριστικα σημειωματα ικα τεχνικά βιβλία στα αγγλικά!.
And so, Most popular genre of the 00's: Alternative. Underground genre of the 00's: Folk Rock. So, if history repeats itself, won't folk be the most popular next decade? Just a guess. Reply back, want to see your opinions. Posted by Calzone on Sunday, Calzone - I have to disagree with your analysis of the 80's.
I don't know that anyone kept track of those sub-genres sales totals, but it could've been pretty much of a push. You really think alternative is THE sound of today? I'd actually like to know where you're coming from here.
The old Pearl Jam sound is simply modern commercial hard rock these days. For all the derision it has received, Emo is at least different from this. I'm probably more inclined to accept 80's metal in the popularity column. I hope that image hasn't given you nightmares. Not at all Gitar - when discussing popularity, the only measuring stick is sales and concert attendance. That means nothing to me when discussing immortal bands. I am certainly not going to put Twisted Sister in the same company as Dylan and the Beatles.
I was just commenting on Calzones analysis of New Wave being the dominant genre. Understand that I actually hate the pigeonholing of bands into these little groups. Grunge was nothing more than Hard Rock. It took Liam and Shawn to clearly explain to me the post-punk scene and how it is different. I thought it was all the same. At least that is how the clubs in Manhattan treated it.