HuMpThAnG said:

Ray J.

yup

Ray J.

Snap, I forgot Ray J!!!!!!!! What was I thinking?!?!?! I officially would like to withdraw my previous posts and say that Ray J is the next King of Pop!

[Edited 7/19/14 16:50pm]

SeventeenDayze said:

HuMpThAnG said:

Ray J.

yup

Ray J.

Snap, I forgot Ray J!!!!!!!! What was I thinking?!?!?! I officially would like to withdraw my previous posts and say that Ray J is the next King of Pop!

[Edited 7/19/14 16:50pm]

yup

Willie Ray Norwood Jr.

HuMpThAnG said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Snap, I forgot Ray J!!!!!!!! What was I thinking?!?!?! I officially would like to withdraw my previous posts and say that Ray J is the next King of Pop!

[Edited 7/19/14 16:50pm]

yup

Willie Ray Norwood Jr.

That skit with Joan Rivers is hilarious. She had a huge smile on her face, botox notwithstanding

Johann Sebastian Bach

TD3 said:

Johann Sebastian Bach

.

I love his work with Skid Row.

.

I don't think any one artist is the most essential. I think it takes various artists to bring different approaches and styles of music/lyrics to the table and that makes music, itself, essential. However, if I have to pick one, you know I'm gonna' pick 'The Voice', The Queen Of Music in my book, my girl, Donna Summer, for her versatility in vocal delivery and continuous effort to not be pigeonholed into just one genre. She covered more genres than some of today's biggest female singers. That's my serious vote.

[img:$uid]http://i58.tinypic.com/hueuex.jpg[/img:$uid]

[Edited 7/20/14 16:45pm]

leecappella said:

I don't think any one artist is the most essential. I think it takes various artists to bring different approaches and styles of music/lyrics to the table and that makes music, itself, essential. However, if I have to pick one, you know I'm gonna' pick 'The Voice', The Queen Of Music in my book, my girl, Donna Summer, for her versatility in vocal delivery and continuous effort to not be pigeonholed into just one genre. She covered more genres than some of today's biggest female singers. That's my serious vote:)

[img:$uid]http://i58.tinypic.com/hueuex.jpg[/img:$uid]

She did it all without autotune!

Most important in history:

I'll go with the obvious, Lennon / McCartney.

thedance said:

Most important in history:

I'll go with the obvious, Lennon / McCartney.

chriss said:

you should know by now, everyone here on the org

is a comedian in training NOT!!!

So funny and so true.

TD3 said:

whats so important about them, they make music not cure diseases or make any decisions that affect my life.

[img:$uid]http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1340283/calhoun-tubbs-o.gif[/img:$uid]

Wrote a song about it ...

Like to hear it, hear it go

I can't name just one, it's simply too broad . So I offer these :

Elvis Presley

James Brown

Bob Dylan

The Beatles

Led Zeppelin

Aretha Franklin

Chuck Berry

The Rolling Stones

Ray Charles

Jimi Hendrix

Muddy Waters

MattyJam said:

Any list that doesn't include Michael Jackson is biased and incomplete.

Michael Jackson is (was) brilliant, I love that guy too...

But he is still not in league with Lennon & McCartney when it come to song writing.

Michael was a great performer, dancer and singer. But........ I guess we can't agree:


No one beats the Beatles about musicianship and song writing, and never will,

so many classics from those guys, it's incredible... that's "un-beatable"... imho....

only one name?
crazy thread ...
Mozart! Beatles for the last 100 years.

thedance said:

MattyJam said:

Any list that doesn't include Michael Jackson is biased and incomplete.

Michael Jackson is (was) brilliant, I love that guy too...

But he is still not in league with Lennon & McCartney when it come to song writing.

Michael was a great performer, dancer and singer. But........ I guess we can't agree:


No one beats the Beatles about musicianship and song writing, and never will,

so many classics from those guys, it's incredible... that's "un-beatable"... imho....

With the exception of the Sgt. Pepper's album, what was so groundbreaking about the Beatles?

Hildegard von Bingen

SeventeenDayze said:

thedance said:

Michael Jackson is (was) brilliant, I love that guy too...

But he is still not in league with Lennon & McCartney when it come to song writing.

Michael was a great performer, dancer and singer. But........ I guess we can't agree:


No one beats the Beatles about musicianship and song writing, and never will,

so many classics from those guys, it's incredible... that's "un-beatable"... imho....

With the exception of the Sgt. Pepper's album, what was so groundbreaking about the Beatles?

Even Sgt. Pepper was more of a "classical/music hall" version of Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys. The technics, the engineering tricks, the world thought of that as very advanced and sophisticated. You listen to Pet Sounds, it's the same.

The USA & UK are not the world. It's not likely that anyone listed in this thread is that relevant to music originating from China, Saudi Arabia, India, South America, Mexico, Africa, etc. There are places with instruments that are not used in most western music. Some western acts have used music from other countries and get praised for it (Peter Gabriel, Stan Getz, Paul Simon, George Harrison), but the acts from those places are not given the same attention in the US media or called "world music", when all music is made in the world. I guess the USA is on another planet. I think Antonio Jobim is more important to Brazil music than The Beatles, Bach, or Michael Jackson.

MickyDolenz said:

The USA & UK are not the world. It's not likely that anyone listed in this thread is that relevant to music originating from China, Saudi Arabia, India, South America, Mexico, Africa, etc. There are places with instruments that are not used in most western music. Some western acts have used music from other countries and get praised for it (Peter Gabriel, Stan Getz, Paul Simon, George Harrison), but the acts from those places are not given the same attention in the US media or called "world music", when all music is made in the world. I guess the USA is on another planet. I think Antonio Jobim is more important to Brazil music than The Beatles, Bach, or Michael Jackson.

I'm American and I listen to Juanes, Mana and Julieta Venegas who each have HUGE fanbases in the US and throughout Latin America, Europe, etc. The problem is that too many people look to mainstream US media to decide who is the best. But, I think to deny that Michael Jackson is and always will be the undisputed icon of pop music just for the sake of saying he was only popular because he's American isn't fair to him.

phunkdaddy said:

TD3 said:

Johann Sebastian Bach

Whatcha know about Skid Row? Seriously I don't think there is no definitive answer because it's all subjective. I can start with Stevie Wonder and keep going.

I know Skid Row...

Not that Bach though, I was thinking of this Bach (1685 to 1750).






I picked Bach because of his contribution to music theory and harmony.

SeventeenDayze said:

I'm American and I listen to Juanes, Mana and Julieta Venegas who each have HUGE fanbases in the US and throughout Latin America, Europe, etc. The problem is that too many people look to mainstream US media to decide who is the best. But, I think to deny that Michael Jackson is and always will be the undisputed icon of pop music just for the sake of saying he was only popular because he's American isn't fair to him.

I didn't say anything about anyone's popularity has to do with their home country, but that western music is not that important to music overall. Pop is not the only music that exists, and is not that old, since this thread is titled "most important in history". Is Mike more important to salsa than Celia Cruz or blues than B.B. King or metal than Black Sabbath or electronic music than Kraftwerk? Pop music is only the most important media wise because that is what's promoted the most by businessmen like McDonald's, Walt Disney, Nike, and Coca-Cola. Is McDonald's more important because its food is better than everyone elses? Pop is not even a music itself, it's only short for "popular music" and what has been popular has been different during the decades. Does Benny Goodman, Bing Crosby, Elvis Presley, Motley Crue, Bee Gees, Run-DMC, and Rihanna make the same music since they were 'pop music' during their time? Does Don't Worry Be Happy by Bobby McFerrin have any musical relation to Keep Your Hands To Yourself by The Georgia Satellites or Beautiful Life by Ace Of Base, since they were all pop hits?

.

Are any of the the acts that made records important to the music before 1890 which is a much longer period of time? Popularity doesn't necessarily make someone more important or influential. If that's the case, then Garth Brooks is more important than most acts including all jazz performers, since he's one of the biggest sellers since the record business began. But yet the highest popularity for country music is primarily the US. Country has less influence worldwide than hip hop, which has been around less time than country. Is Garth more important to gospel than Thomas Dorsey? Since R&B/soul is an offspring of gospel and rock 'n roll came from R&B, then Thomas is more relevant than Garth overall, although Thomas was more popular for sheet music than records.

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

I'm American and I listen to Juanes, Mana and Julieta Venegas who each have HUGE fanbases in the US and throughout Latin America, Europe, etc. The problem is that too many people look to mainstream US media to decide who is the best. But, I think to deny that Michael Jackson is and always will be the undisputed icon of pop music just for the sake of saying he was only popular because he's American isn't fair to him.

I didn't say anything about anyone's popularity has to do with their home country, but that western music is not that important to music overall. Pop is not the only music that exists, and is not that old, since this thread is titled "most important in history". Is Mike more important to salsa than Celia Cruz or blues than B.B. King or metal than Black Sabbath or electronic music than Kraftwerk? Pop music is only the most important media wise because that is what's promoted the most by businessmen like McDonald's, Walt Disney, Nike, and Coca-Cola. Is McDonald's more important because its food is better than everyone elses? Pop is not even a music itself, it's only short for "popular music" and what has been popular has been different during the decades. Does Benny Goodman, Bing Crosby, Elvis Presley, Motley Crue, Bee Gees, Run-DMC, and Rihanna make the same music since they were 'pop music' during their time? Does Don't Worry Be Happy by Bobby McFerrin have any musical relation to Keep Your Hands To Yourself by The Georgia Satellites or Beautiful Life by Ace Of Base, since they were all pop hits?

.

Are any of the the acts that made records important to the music before 1890 which is a much longer period of time? Popularity doesn't necessarily make someone more important or influential. If that's the case, then Garth Brooks is more important than most acts including all jazz performers, since he's one of the biggest sellers since the record business began. But yet the highest popularity for country music is primarily the US. Country has less influence worldwide than hip hop, which has been around less time than country. Is Garth more important to gospel than Thomas Dorsey? Since R&B/soul is an offspring of gospel and rock 'n roll came from R&B, then Thomas is more relevant than Garth overall, although Thomas was more popular for sheet music than records.

Since when is Run DMC pop music?

SeventeenDayze said:

Since when is Run DMC pop music?

Because they had pop hits. Pop is not a music, just like "American" is not a race, it's everything together. Run DMC is always said to be the first rap group to really crossover, to appear on Rolling Stone, MTV, etc. "Crossover" means going from the parent genre (rap, disco, R&B, country, rock, dance, etc.) to Top 40, which is mainstream. Top 40 is "pop", so anything that gets pop airplay is pop. That's why both Barbra Striesand and Motley Crue can be considered pop, although they are in different genres (adult contemporary & hair metal). Rap is pop music now, but wasn't really until Run DMC. They paved the way for Beastie Boys, LL Cool J, Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince, Tone Loc, Eminem, etc to get pop radio airplay. If you look at this Billboard album chart from September 20, 1986, there's different genres that were popular, so they're "pop". Run DMC is #3. Queensryche does not make the same kind of music as Wham!, but they're both on the pop list.

MickyDolenz said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Since when is Run DMC pop music?

Because they had pop hits. Pop is not a music, just like "American" is not a race, it's everything together. Run DMC is always said to be the first rap group to really crossover, to appear on Rolling Stone, MTV, etc. "Crossover" means going from the parent genre (rap, disco, R&B, country, rock, dance, etc.) to Top 40, which is mainstream. Top 40 is "pop", so anything that gets pop airplay is pop. That's why both Barbra Striesand and Motley Crue can be considered pop, although they are in different genres (adult contemporary & hair metal). Rap is pop music now, but wasn't really until Run DMC. They paved the way for Beastie Boys, LL Cool J, Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince, Tone Loc, Eminem, etc to get pop radio airplay. If you look at this Billboard album chart from September 20, 1986, there's different genres that were popular, so they're "pop". Run DMC is #3. Queensryche does not make the same kind of music as Wham!, but they're both on the pop list.

Give me a break, just because they were labeled as pop acts doesn't mean they were! They never stopped being a rap group. Just because their sound hit the suburbs it doesn't mean they became suburban. Geez. Why don't some of you all call Adele a pop artist???? Go ahead, I'll wait for the convoluted justification....

SeventeenDayze said:

funkycat00 said:

Makel Jasen

Long live, MJ

Makel Jasen? I dunno...I heard he tried to make a name for himself by swagger jacking this guy...

Shawy89 said:

SeventeenDayze said:

With the exception of the Sgt. Pepper's album, what was so groundbreaking about the Beatles?

Even Sgt. Pepper was more of a "classical/music hall" version of Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys. The technics, the engineering tricks, the world thought of that as very advanced and sophisticated. You listen to Pet Sounds, it's the same.

How so?