http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/Current/1890-19art.htm

list compiled from music critics from around the world...love this website for discovering music that maybe passed me by...love the spotify lists as well.

kaine said:

For me I'd say #2. He's my #1 all time, but I'm ok with The Beatles being number one, but he's atleast 2. Those other cats can't do what he does but he on the other can do all their stuff. But to each his own.

I'm with kaine.

He's probably #1, but let's just give it to The Beatles since there isn't a lot in it, and they had an infinitely larger cultural impact.

Im waiting for all the Michael Jackson fans to reply..

9th!!! Prince is Number 1 for me. Beatles burned out within 10 years and were less versatile. I know its controversial but I'd say Prince was up there with Mozart with his ability to hear all the instruments in his head and then put it down/play them.

thedance said:

Im waiting for all the Michael Jackson fans to reply..

.

Good point. MJ should be right up there. I'm not a MJ fan (own 0 of his albums) but yeah, he should be there.

.

Prince is my #1 at the moment, Beatles, yeah, incredible band but lacking in the fonk.

.

edit: just realised: except for Prince, this is a list of pale males!

[Edited 10/3/14 6:45am]

Beatles, Rolling Stones, Radiohead and REM are bands, not artists btw...

And what´s up with Michael jackson, Madonna, Queen (Freddy M.), Mozart, James Brown etc...

Prince is my personal #1 but it´s okay if there are others above him in official rankins.

Elvis? Did he write songs? No. He got writing credit, but had professional songwriters. Did he play an instrument? Well, you always saw him with a guitar. Was it really plugged in? Maybe, but the board operator confessed to always turning him down in the mix, and the real stuido musicians came forward and mentioned that after Elvis recorded his parts, they would come in and overdub them. Did he produce? No!!!!

So what did Elvis do? He sang, and acted, sort of. He was an entertainer, and that was it...he was no musician, no songwriter, no producer. He got way too much credit that Chuck Berry and Little Richard likely deserved, but I'm no big 1950's historian. Michael Jackson was a much better songwriter, and probably a better guitar player, but he was a perfectionist, and didn't let people watch him play, since he wasn't good enough in his mind...

So any list with Elvis on it...means NOTHING.

Where the fuck is Bananarama? This list sucks!

blackbob said:

1	The Beatles
2	Bob Dylan
3	The Rolling Stones
4	David Bowie
5	Bruce Springsteen
6	Radiohead
7	Elvis Presley
8	Neil Young
9	Prince
10	R.E.M.

http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/Current/1890-19art.htm

list compiled from music critics from around the world...love this website for discovering music that maybe passed me by...love the spotify lists as well.

Such lists are pretty meaningless and ridiculous, if u ask me... On their mere principle for one thing, because how do you establish such a list? Based on which criterias?

Then on the fact that it's always the same Baby Boomers'/Gen Xers' nostalgic preference for 60's and 70's stars and for rock over R&B, electronic and any other genre. Come back in 20 years when Y's and Milleniums will be the critics and everyone save Radiohead, REM and Prince will be long gone from those lists... I mean Elvis Presley??! For chrissakes who listen to Elvis nowadays apart from those 60 years-old rock critics? I don't know a single person who listens to Presley, and believe me I know LOTS of people! On the other hand -even if we decide to stay into popular music and exclude classical composers- where are jazz legends such as Coltrane or Miles, electronic pioneers such as Krafwerk or YMO, James Brown who all by himself kinda created modern dance music, 90's visionaries such as Massiva Attack, Björk or Aphex Twin, and so on and so on...

This is gross!

I would take off R.E.M. and Bruce Springsteen.

Then I would put on Michael Jackson at 10 and put on Pink Floyd at 5.

No doubt imo:

The Beatles belongs to number 1. They truly deserve it, best act in music ever - and there will never be another act like them.

The Beatles have composed so many timeless classic songs..... its insane.

Rebeljuice said:

Where the fuck is Bananarama? This list sucks!

Never mind Bananarama...what about The Reynolds Girls?!?!?!?!?!

the website just gathers music critics lists of the best music over the years and makes up the chart based on them...its a great website for discovering music...i think its a pretty good guide of the best music acts overall..

blackbob said:

1	The Beatles
2	Bob Dylan
3	The Rolling Stones
4	David Bowie
5	Bruce Springsteen
6	Radiohead
7	Elvis Presley
8	Neil Young
9	Prince
10	R.E.M.

http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/Current/1890-19art.htm

list compiled from music critics from around the world...love this website for discovering music that maybe passed me by...love the spotify lists as well.

Acclaimed music is fantastic....and lists like this are great for starting an argument!!!!!

I think the list does highlight the tendancy of it source data towards white, male, rock that has historically existed in the music press (certainly in the UK)....and whilst Dylan, Bowie, and (especially) Radiohead don't really do it for me personally you can't really argue with including acts who've been so successful for so long.

...and remember, "before Elvis, there was nothing"!

databank said:

blackbob said:

1	The Beatles
2	Bob Dylan
3	The Rolling Stones
4	David Bowie
5	Bruce Springsteen
6	Radiohead
7	Elvis Presley
8	Neil Young
9	Prince
10	R.E.M.

http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/Current/1890-19art.htm

list compiled from music critics from around the world...love this website for discovering music that maybe passed me by...love the spotify lists as well.

Such lists are pretty meaningless and ridiculous, if u ask me... On their mere principle for one thing, because how do you establish such a list? Based on which criterias?

Then on the fact that it's always the same Baby Boomers'/Gen Xers' nostalgic preference for 60's and 70's stars and for rock over R&B, electronic and any other genre. Come back in 20 years when Y's and Milleniums will be the critics and everyone save Radiohead, REM and Prince will be long gone from those lists... I mean Elvis Presley??! For chrissakes who listen to Elvis nowadays apart from those 60 years-old rock critics? I don't know a single person who listens to Presley, and believe me I know LOTS of people! On the other hand -even if we decide to stay into popular music and exclude classical composers- where are jazz legends such as Coltrane or Miles, electronic pioneers such as Krafwerk or YMO, James Brown who all by himself kinda created modern dance music, 90's visionaries such as Massiva Attack, Björk or Aphex Twin, and so on and so on...

This is gross!

If you go to the website you can see lists by decade...fascinating to see the trends over time!

And you get to see pretty much all of the artists you mention. One additional point I would make (and this is from someone who loves Kraftwerk (57), JB (31), MD (21), etc) it's not as if they sold half as many records as the acts who did make the top 10.

Anyway, it's all subjective, but good fun. Right, I'm off to listen to some Elvis (and I'm not a 60 year old rock critic!)

hw3004 said:

....also interesting to look the list when sorted by album alone - Miles Davis would be 4th, Prince 14th.

Or by songs only - Prince would be 7th, Miles 500-somethingth!

also, interesting to look at the top 3000 albums. Purple Rain is up 8 places compared to last year on the latest list(43), whilst SOTT fell to number 30.

stillwaiting said:

controversy99 said:

hw3004 said:

Acclaimed music is fantastic....and lists like this are great for starting an argument!!!!!

I think the list does highlight the tendancy of it source data towards white, male, rock that has historically existed in the music press (certainly in the UK)....and whilst Dylan, Bowie, and (especially) Radiohead don't really do it for me personally you can't really argue with including acts who've been so successful for so long.

...and remember, "before Elvis, there was nothing"!

Yep, it definitely reveals biases among the music critics they reference. Perhaps they need to broaden their pool. I like REM and Springsteen just fine, but there's no way they should be ahead of James Brown and Michael Jackson. And Madonna ahead of them as well?! Hmm, pretty questionable. As for Prince's position, I'd put him somewhere between 5 and 9. He's my favorite, but people like The Beatles, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Pink Floyd, Public Enemy, Bob Dylan, and others are formidable competition.

i think they take compile list from worldwide sources and historical lists - I don't think the acclaimed music site adds to the bias, I think the bias is (was?) inherent in music journalism.

Wow, a list compiled in a world where Black musicians didn't exist or have any influence.

Ok

Lists suck

SuperSoulFighter said:

stillwaiting said:

Elvis? Did he write songs? No. He got writing credit, but had professional songwriters. Did he play an instrument? Well, you always saw him with a guitar. Was it really plugged in? Maybe, but the board operator confessed to always turning him down in the mix, and the real stuido musicians came forward and mentioned that after Elvis recorded his parts, they would come in and overdub them. Did he produce? No!!!!

So what did Elvis do? He sang, and acted, sort of. He was an entertainer, and that was it...he was no musician, no songwriter, no producer. He got way too much credit that Chuck Berry and Little Richard likely deserved, but I'm no big 1950's historian. Michael Jackson was a much better songwriter, and probably a better guitar player, but he was a perfectionist, and didn't let people watch him play, since he wasn't good enough in his mind...

So any list with Elvis on it...means NOTHING.

You're right of course, but you forget one thing: Elvis was the image, the face of rock & roll. The good looking boy needed to make r&r famous. Like you, I prefer Chuck Berry & Bo Diddley et al, but it was Elvis who captured teenagers' hearts in a way nobody else could. Without him, r&r would have been a short-lived trend. He made music sexy.

Actually, the post that said these lists were stupid was really the right one..lol. If you examine the total package of what an artist is, Elvis barely qualified as an artist. If it was "entertainer," then I would agree he probably deserves to be ranked somewhere, even though I can't stand him. But "artist" likely would mean singing, musicianship, production ability, dancing, etc...pretty much everything. And Elvis was pretty much one dimensional.

radici27 said:

Wow, a list compiled in a world where Black musicians didn't exist or have any influence.

Ok

Lists suck

That's another thing. Stevie Wonder writes rings around most everyone on the list.