| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 3:22:05 PM
http://www.rollingstone.com/features/coverstory/featuregen.asp?pid=2164
What do you all think about this list? I have to say it's better than there best guitarists list but that's not saying much. |
| 31 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| dan p. |
Posted - 12/08/2003 : 3:54:05 PM
it's a topic that means something to me. one of the only things i'd bother going in depth about. |
| j |
Posted - 12/08/2003 : 01:34:01 AM
Wow dan, you sure have a lot to say. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 10:45:01 PM
leaving mistakes on an recording is ok if it adds character to the music, i guess. it's nothing something i would do, but it's not bad. you know, fret buzz, an occasional rhythmic glitch, singing a little flat, ect. but it's very very dangerous, because the cd has nothing else to back it up. the focus is, or should be, squarely on the music. the mistakes i hear neil young make are not the mistakes that add to the music, but rather mistakes made out of lack of talent and inability to correct them. when you're recording, you have an infinite number of tries to get it right. to have mistakes like he does, consistantly and distractingly, and to leave them as they are shows that he can't play it right, and/or that he's too careless or lazy to go back and do it right. his choice to leave it like is is highly suspect.
perfection is not inattainable, it's just that no one's done it yet. |
| Jamie M |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 9:05:15 PM
Dan that's a fantastic point, except the 'no skill for the art' part, cause I assume you're talking about Neil. But it's true that in general, all musicians' ideas are overly embraced just because of people's appreciation for the music.
My argument for Neil was about the music however.
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
but i also have listened to a lot of neil young. and i have to say that many of the songs sound a lot a like. you can hear he makes a lot of mistakes, which is fine live, but on a recording it's inexcusable. the problem is, it's simple, and i can see how some may find it quaint and charming, but ultimately, he just can't hack it.
Since when is a mistake on a record inexcusable? If there's a mistake there, it's because that's the way he wants it to sound. That's his choice.
And you said it yourself, simple music can be interesting and beautiful, so how can that be the problem? You're making it seem like he's fooling us into liking his music. I find it both interesting and beautiful, and just plain fantastic. It even makes me a better guitar player.
If you don't like it, fair enough, but don't go around bitching that he has no skill in the art. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 4:36:42 PM
gah. all of this attention to the message. the message in nothing if not presented properly. look. suppose i'm a pubic speaker. and i have a lot of "important" ideas to get across. but i mumble all the time, and i studder, and sometimes i spit when i talk, and i fidget a lot when speaking. pretty much i wouldn't be taken seriously because i cannot function well enough in the medium i have chosen. no one would respect my really great ideas. why, then, is a musician with no skill for the art widely respected and his ideas embraced, and the public speaker, with no skill for his selected forum, is ignored and scorned. it doesn't make sense. music over message. always. |
| babatunji |
Posted - 12/07/2003 : 05:44:40 AM
yes, i agree. neil's guitar work is, at best, sloppy, but he has written some very important music (socially and politically) and that's what is essential to be considered 'great'(at least, in my book). i have been a huge neil fan for many, many years...and that 'earthiness' is integral to his soun.
and you're right...image is nothing. substance counts.
|
| Uncle Meat |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 11:29:53 PM
I think any comment I could make about the list would be way too obvious. Therefore, I'm just going to assume everyone knows what I would say. So, just pretend I said it. It's a lot less typing for me. Thanks.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 3:01:27 PM
or a hypocrite. |
| Jay |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 12:35:41 PM
Hahaha you're right about Neil's mistakes...Anyone with the balls to be a profectionist on one hand, but yet have mistakes on an album is worth appreciating. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 12/05/2003 : 8:39:10 PM
you're absolutely right. to analyze a piece of music based one the score alone is missing the point. music is sound, not ink. but, looking at the ink helps in the listening a great deal. and when i say "ink" i mean real notation. not tab. that really doesn't tell you much of anything besides where to put your fingers.
but i also have listened to a lot of neil young. and i have to say that many of the songs sound a lot a like. you can hear he makes a lot of mistakes, which is fine live, but on a recording it's inexcusable. the problem is, it's simple, and i can see how some may find it quaint and charming, but ultimately, he just can't hack it.
radiohead rules. |
| Jay |
Posted - 12/05/2003 : 6:48:39 PM
I guess I should clarify (if it's even possible for me to clarify my ramblings) I didn't mean that Dylan turned music itself into an image. His music is about the image, and for what little guitar and singing skills he has, he certainly pulled it off. He did do a lot of pretty inventive stuff, especially Blood on the Tracks. |
| Jamie M |
Posted - 12/05/2003 : 1:58:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Arthen
How were these ranked? Does anyone know?
I would assume it's some kind of balance between actual good music and popularity and recognition. Weighted alot more heavily on popularity and recognition. |
| babatunji |
Posted - 12/05/2003 : 07:06:53 AM
how can we take seriously a list that includes such no-talent clowns as guns n' roses and eminem?
i mean...really. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 12/05/2003 : 03:06:02 AM
How were these ranked? Does anyone know? |
| Jamie M |
Posted - 12/05/2003 : 02:26:19 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
anything done for the sake of image is a worthless endeavour.
Consider the fact that that image may have had an influence to form some of the greatest music that you know of. Now is that still worthless?
And Dan, that comment about my favourite band was directed at Arthen, not you. But it's unfortunate you don't see the brilliance in Neil Young's music. Because it's there if you look for it. Believe me, I didn't used to like Neil at all.
It's not about what you see on paper, it's about what you hear in the end.
Arthen, fair enough, I understand that's your opinion.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 9:04:22 PM
anything done for the sake of image is a worthless endeavour. |
| Jay |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 5:07:00 PM
The thing about Neil for me is just his raw power on stage. I haven't heard a musician yet that can turn three chords into a powerful song like Neil can. And is songwriting is, to me at least, wonderful. His voice is a little weird, but as Jamie(?) said you learn to love it. And as for The Immortal Zim, or, Bob Dylan, he's amazing as well. The thing that I love about him is that he took music when it was at a shit peak (early 60's) and turned it into an image. Zim's music is about the image. Listen to "Don't Think Twice, It's All Right" and tell me that man couldn't play guitar. He's a rythym player, and he used it well. His voice is messed up, yeah, I'll give you that one. But listen to Rolling Thunder Revue 1975 and you'll hear some nice vocals. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 4:30:37 PM
i've had plenty of exposure to neil young. my parents listen to him all the time. i even have a bunch of his sheet music in real notation and tab (not that i use tab.) i think they're my dad's. it's his own and with cs&n. i fail to see anything special or notable about any of neil young's work as far as music is concerned. it's not that i'm looking for wicked complex and intricate things. not everyone can do that. simple music can be interesting and beautiful. i find young to be neither. with maybe 2 exceptions. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 3:20:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by: Jamie M
I don't have any objection to your musical taste... I'm just a little disturbed that out of all the bands on that list you choose my favourite one. Considering that you did, I don't think you've had enough exposure to them.
I assume that was directed to me. I have indeed listened to Radiohead. And I like them. I think they have some great songs. But I don't think there is a single Radiohead album that is better than any Peter Gabriel album. That's just my opinion though.
And I agree with you Zach about not having any Phish on the list. Didn't they give Phish some big award about being the biggest band of the past twenty years or something? You can't give the band a huge award and not put a single album on the list.
What was the list based on? |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 2:14:48 PM
I liked Marley being on the list, maybe not in that particular spot, but just because he's one of the only musicians to ever sing about real stuff instead of love.
Anyway the ones that pissed me off were Nirvana's nevermind. I mean I don't know anyone who even listens to that shit anymore. I listen to it when I was like in 5th or 6th grade and then I quickly moved on. Then the Beatles obviously dominated the chart but they did a terrible job ranking albums. Then I'm not into Bob Dylan having 3 in the top twenty. Oh and the fact that Micheal Jackson even made the list.
The stuff that really pissed me off was not one DMB album, not one Phish album, No Bela, and yet they put 2 eminem albums on there. I think we all think the list is pretty bad but what can you expect? |
| Jamie M |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 12:37:42 PM
I don't have any objection to your musical taste... I'm just a little disturbed that out of all the bands on that list you choose my favourite one. Considering that you did, I don't think you've had enough exposure to them. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 04:06:33 AM
Lets keep in mind that the list was in no way based on musical talent. Also, neither is the freaking industry. Sad but true. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 12/04/2003 : 01:35:39 AM
I don't think there should be a single Radiohead album ahead of any Peter Gabriel album. I was really dissapointed that there was only one PG album. |
| Jamie M |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 9:57:01 PM
Neil Young is Brilliant. Lyrics, chords, songs, all fantastic. His only weak point is his voice, which you learn to love when you listen to it a few times.
And if it were up to me, I'd put at least 3 Radiohead albums on there. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 5:45:31 PM
i don't care. there's nothing musically notable about any of the bands i listed. bob marley is less guilty of sucking than the others, but again, his claim to fame was promoting the legalization of weed, not anything musical. music over message. always. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 11:28:55 AM
Yeah, I thought more than one Radiohead album was a bit excessive. Not to mention all the Beatles. |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 03:51:55 AM
I think they should have limited each band to one essential CD. Or at least one per phase. |
| JTR |
Posted - 12/03/2003 : 03:38:30 AM
Those comments will stur some controversy around here. Lots of Young, Dylan and Marley fans.
I'm biased because I think it's the lowest form of "music," but I'm surprised that any rap album is in the top 50.
I like that Innervisions was up there on the list. Board favorite Peter Gabriel's So was at 187, but no Melt anywhere.
Another list full of hits and misses. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 12/02/2003 : 4:00:26 PM
yeah, nirvana, because, you know, we all love when someone who as nothing at all to say nor the skill to say it with makes shitty music fetuses could play and create a fanbase of stupid angsty teenagers who don't shut the fuck up.
and bob dylan. because he had more going for him than his lyrics. oh wait. no.
punk rock sucks. leave the sex pistols out of anything having to do with music.
if no one smoked weed, bob marley would never have been famous.
neil young is terrible. enough said.
once again, rolling stone fails to be worth anything. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 7:36:09 PM
Again, in the fine emoticons of Xar666:
|
| PJK |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 4:34:10 PM
Well, I just looked over the top 100. I was surprised (and happy) to see Miles Davis was in the top 50.
I didn't think Sgt. Pepper was the Beatles best album but that is just my opinion. I also didn't think all the Beatles albums that were listed in the top 100 deserved to be there. I am a huge Beatles fan, but there are numerous albums I think warranted a place in the top 100 over some of the Beatles albums.
|
