treehouse said:

njin said:

People with bakground in classical music are often ignorant to the art of repetitive music.

Uh. No. That's so wrong.

You can't be classically trained and not have some grasp of repetition.

Also your characterization of repetitive music as Black music isn't entirely accurate either. I'd hate to get into a debate between African tribal music and say, Gregorian chants.... but let's just agree there are age old traditions that used repetition in every culture's music. If you think repetition only exists in soul, funk, hip hop.... and not in working class garage rock, or electro-accoustic, or disco, wellllll......

Then there's a tradition of marrying the two...and that's where Prince thrived. It wasn't "race music" to use an antiquated term.

music has been "marrying the two" for more than 100 years now. It's been a slow process, but garage rock is rooted in rock, which is not entirely based on "white music", it's rooted in such as blues, rock n roll, folk and country. And disco is rooted in funk, soul and other more or less "black music". I know not much about electroaccoustic, but modern music is a merge of alot. It's impossible to hear things on the radio, and not get inspired by it in some degree.

There's no doubt that western european music was more based on melody, while western african music was more based on rythm, percussion, "shouting" and some syncopation. No matter how much the music has developed through time, we still se to some degree that the trend hasn't died yet.

And no matter how repetetive a rock song is, it usually has more different parts than lets say a funk song. A funk song can work with just one chord and a driving rythm that will repeat it self througout the whole song. The variation is in it's impulsive small changes in syncopated details. The dynamics is more based on how many instruments playing at once and such than the very often chord changes in a rock song.

If you want to prove your point, you have to mention a genre that is just rooted in european or african music. Still what I said is mostly correct. I was just saying what is more often represented in each, rather than saying it's always like that. There will always be an exception or two. But as a whole. And because of that, people from families listening mostly to one of these music types will often not understand the art of the other. I live in Norway, and this I have experienced for many years. In Norway it's mainly heavy metal, rock, country, singer songwriter, and such. Blues and funk is repetetive and boring they'd say. And they will probably not understand how to dance to such genres, as I have been djaying playing michael jackson, then somebody asks me if I can play something that one can dance to. What? I'm playing MJ for gods sake, this is for dancing! People really have a hard time dancing to syncopated music. It doesn't flow natural to them. It's like their feet are tied together with a rope.

This is one of many reasons I know many don't appreciate that part of Prince music. After Purple Rain, he gained so many fans that didn't know nothing about syncopated music. Then when he started going back to his roots, alot of people fell off. Same happened when old fans thought he was getting "too white". His concept of marrying the two has both been a success formula, and sometimes the opposite. It's either hit or miss, cause you're pissing of the purists.

njin said:

treehouse said:

Uh. No. That's so wrong.

You can't be classically trained and not have some grasp of repetition.

Also your characterization of repetitive music as Black music isn't entirely accurate either. I'd hate to get into a debate between African tribal music and say, Gregorian chants.... but let's just agree there are age old traditions that used repetition in every culture's music. If you think repetition only exists in soul, funk, hip hop.... and not in working class garage rock, or electro-accoustic, or disco, wellllll......

Then there's a tradition of marrying the two...and that's where Prince thrived. It wasn't "race music" to use an antiquated term.

music has been "marrying the two" for more than 100 years now. It's been a slow process, but garage rock is rooted in rock, which is not entirely based on "white music", it's rooted in such as blues, rock n roll, folk and country. And disco is rooted in funk, soul and other more or less "black music". I know not much about electroaccoustic, but modern music is a merge of alot. It's impossible to hear things on the radio, and not get inspired by it in some degree.

There's no doubt that western european music was more based on melody, while western african music was more based on rythm, percussion, "shouting" and some syncopation. No matter how much the music has developed through time, we still se to some degree that the trend hasn't died yet.

And no matter how repetetive a rock song is, it usually has more different parts than lets say a funk song. A funk song can work with just one chord and a driving rythm that will repeat it self througout the whole song. The variation is in it's impulsive small changes in syncopated details. The dynamics is more based on how many instruments playing at once and such than the very often chord changes in a rock song.

If you want to prove your point, you have to mention a genre that is just rooted in european or african music. Still what I said is mostly correct. I was just saying what is more often represented in each, rather than saying it's always like that. There will always be an exception or two. But as a whole. And because of that, people from families listening mostly to one of these music types will often not understand the art of the other. I live in Norway, and this I have experienced for many years. In Norway it's mainly heavy metal, rock, country, singer songwriter, and such. Blues and funk is repetetive and boring they'd say. And they will probably not understand how to dance to such genres, as I have been djaying playing michael jackson, then somebody asks me if I can play something that one can dance to. What? I'm playing MJ for gods sake, this is for dancing! People really have a hard time dancing to syncopated music. It doesn't flow natural to them. It's like their feet are tied together with a rope.

This is one of many reasons I know many don't appreciate that part of Prince music. After Purple Rain, he gained so many fans that didn't know nothing about syncopated music. Then when he started going back to his roots, alot of people fell off. Same happened when old fans thought he was getting "too white". His concept of marrying the two has both been a success formula, and sometimes the opposite. It's either hit or miss, cause you're pissing of the purists.

Ethno-Musicology isn't your thing, to be blunt.

I don't mean to be rude, but Norway isn't really indicative of anything but Norway. The idea of a segregated influence in music is built out of prejudice. I can certainly mention genres which were rejections of all that was perceived as "white", such as Krautrock, but that genre doesn't exist without Satie or Terry Riley....

...and neither does Prince.

Also, where in your worldview does Latin music fit?

Speaking of Prince as being either White or Black in style totally discards a whole host of styles from the equation.... You can't talk about Disco (which you did) and discount Latin music.

treehouse said:

Also, where in your worldview does Latin music fit?

Speaking of Prince as being either White or Black in style totally discards a whole host of styles from the equation.... You can't talk about Disco (which you did) and discount Latin music.

Latin music would fit in western european more than western african atleast. But of course southern american latin is different from spanish music, brazil etc is very much mixed. And yes, it has repetition, but you gotta se the bigger picture. All music has some kind of repetition. Yes, I know disco has it's roots in latin music too. My point was not that it's always like that, but historically it's no doubt about that it's more often based on rhytmical repetetive shouting and syncopation in western african music, in contrast to the western european which has more focus on melody. Northern american music has roots in mainly western european and western african music, and each style has more or less of each of these roots. But still theres traces of some genres being more the one than the other. It's really not hard to see that. Sorry for my terrible english. Gotta improve so that I can explain better, hehe.

No matter what, the point was not about exceptions, but the average. It's quite normal to devide things to make it easier to explain different genres. The purist form of a genre.

When I was speaking on Prince, it was on the fact that often people are complaining about what they're not actually that familiar with, because he has fans with very different backgrounds, people will complain about very different things. People love him for different things. Some people might complaing about his lyrics, others about his lack of progressive musc etc... he is either hit or miss with people. Instead of getting inspiration from something just to make the music a little more excotic, he'll change the whole sound and sometimes scare the hell out of listeners.

The influence of The Beatles... while undoubtedly large... is VERY overexaggerated by the media and people in general.

And If you want to go by sheer numbers... Michael has them beat. You can go to the remotest parts of Africa and Asia and they don't know The Beatles at all... but they sure know MJ. (for the record MJ's cover of Come Together smokes the original too )

Also, Imaginative - you didn't comment on the fact that Prince has more songs in RS's Top 500 than any other singular songwriter. Certainly more than Paul, or Dylan. He also played everything on them on his own and produced them as well.

You would have to live in Norway, or work for a close minded major label's marketing department to think that households segregated their music tastes, after 1964 and that music history is equally as compartmentalized.

Musically speaking, Prince's early use of repetition is color blind. I'm not talking about songs like "I feel for you", or "For you", I'm talking "Head", and "Soft and Wet" ...for every important Black music influence, I can also point to one non-Black one. By the 50's audiences couldn't tell the race of the artist who wrote their favorite tunes, and by the 70's it really didn't matter.

Sly Stone's drummer was white. Most of the early breaks in Hip Hop were on rock, and latin records. There are Black artists who sell to predominantly White audiences, and White artists who sell to predominantly Black audiences.

[Edited 6/16/11 20:07pm]

Militant said:

Also, Imaginative - you didn't comment on the fact that Prince has more songs in RS's Top 500 than any other singular songwriter. Certainly more than Paul, or Dylan. He also played everything on them on his own and produced them as well.

Not sure what list you're citing...

http://www.metrolyrics.com/rs/5

Prince has one song in the top 100, and a mere 3 songs in the top 200, and a total of five songs all together.

Dylan clocks in with 12 in the top 500. (four in the top 100).

Beatles have 23 in the top 500, and 10 of them in the top 100! Two of those are Harrison, and the rest are composed by Lennon/McCartney, which if you divide down the middle still beats the hell out of Prince, and that's without even adding the solo song each that McCartney and Lennon have on the list.

[Edited 6/16/11 20:46pm]

Militant said:

And If you want to go by sheer numbers... Michael has them beat. You can go to the remotest parts of Africa and Asia and they don't know The Beatles at all... but they sure know MJ. (for the record MJ's cover of Come Together smokes the original too )

This is a made up fact, unless of course, you have gone to the most remote parts of Africa and Asia and conducted interviews?

Oh yeah, and The Beatles are credited with helping to bring an end to communism in the former Soviet Union.

http://www.thirteen.org/b...remlin/36/

[Edited 6/17/11 0:12am]

Wow - this thread really has descended in to the most banal and pointless debate! Are you really arguing over who is "best" based on what one publication deems to be the best 500 songs ever?! How ridiculous!

Just what are you trying to achieve? Can't it just be accepted that the Beatles and Prince have both had a massive influence on popular music and both brought their own things to the table? We're dealing with two of the greatest artists to have ever graced popular music and neithers achievements detract from the other.

Imaginative said:

Militant said:

Also, Imaginative - you didn't comment on the fact that Prince has more songs in RS's Top 500 than any other singular songwriter. Certainly more than Paul, or Dylan. He also played everything on them on his own and produced them as well.

Not sure what list you're citing...

http://www.metrolyrics.com/rs/5

I said which list. ROLLING STONE. Actual paid music journalists. Not some random internet lyric site.

And the MJ thing is absolutely true. I have a friend who HAS been to those remote places (he studies radio development in third world countries)... besides which, the statistics back it up. MJ's star shines brighter than The Beatles in countries where their music is unheard of. That's part of why he's the biggest selling artist of all time. Do you see inmates in far eastern jails dancing to Beatles songs? lol

I'm bringing this up purely to show the fallacy of your argument. If you want to bring up amounts of over songs, then you have to bring up record sales, at which point MJ wins, every time.

Militant said:

Imaginative said:

Not sure what list you're citing...

http://www.metrolyrics.com/rs/5

I said which list. ROLLING STONE. Actual paid music journalists. Not some random internet lyric site.

And the MJ thing is absolutely true. I have a friend who HAS been to those remote places (he studies radio development in third world countries)... besides which, the statistics back it up. MJ's star shines brighter than The Beatles in countries where their music is unheard of. That's part of why he's the biggest selling artist of all time. Do you see inmates in far eastern jails dancing to Beatles songs? lol

I'm bringing this up purely to show the fallacy of your argument. If you want to bring up amounts of over songs, then you have to bring up record sales, at which point MJ wins, every time.

I don't know why you're arguing with this person... just go read his thread about 'greatest living songwriters' and you'll see he just trashes artists with no knowledge of their work, then when he's proven wrong, he starts taking shots at people's personal lives. He's just trying to start fights.

--

By the way, on topic, Prince being a multi-instrumentalist is not a myth. He plays minimum four instruments - that's a multi instrumentalist; and those who've worked with him say he can play horns too. Though I'm sure this has already been said, I didn't have time to go through ten pages. Whether he plays well or not is all personal opinion.

[Edited 6/17/11 23:04pm]

treehouse said:

You would have to live in Norway, or work for a close minded major label's marketing department to think that households segregated their music tastes, after 1964 and that music history is equally as compartmentalized.

Musically speaking, Prince's early use of repetition is color blind. I'm not talking about songs like "I feel for you", or "For you", I'm talking "Head", and "Soft and Wet" ...for every important Black music influence, I can also point to one non-Black one. By the 50's audiences couldn't tell the race of the artist who wrote their favorite tunes, and by the 70's it really didn't matter.

Sly Stone's drummer was white. Most of the early breaks in Hip Hop were on rock, and latin records. There are Black artists who sell to predominantly White audiences, and White artists who sell to predominantly Black audiences.

[Edited 6/16/11 20:07pm]

I'm glad it's different in the states. Norway get's too much props for being the "best country" to live in. We have a welfare system and politics that's suppose to "protect" everyone, but the people is very segregated imo. Both socially and culture wise. Mostly muslims and non muslims though.

When talking about Prince, yeah he was kinda both and none of it at the same time. His originality seemed sort of alien to me sometimes. Merging it to something completely new. But I was talking about the close minded people of course. He has focused on both, but when you focus on both, it's often hit or miss no matter how good it actually is, and the music cannot be super progressive psychedelic barokk rock all the time. So for those who wants that, Prince maybe sounds a bit to strict on the 4/4 drum pattern and funk grooves that he is always using. Some narrow minded people would think that 4/4 drum pattern is too basic, no matter how complex and innovative it can be inside of those "walls". I'm glad that every american houshold is listening to funk, soul and hip hop. What a change it would be if it was like that over here. Jimi Hendricks, blues, ike and tina, early rnb and rocknroll is not uncommon knowledge for people over here. But that's the more curious city people, and a person here and there elsewhere.

It's funny, cause we're arguing different things it seems. History wise we've been marrying the two, three, four... whatever for hundreds of years. But at the same time, we can witness something being more one than the other. If we don't want to aknowledge this, we might as well stop labeling with genres and say that every sound and quiet parts put together is music, and be happy with that.

Prince is one of few merging genres very well, atleast in albums such as Dirty Mind, Controversy and 1999. Personally I think it failed somehow in the production in some of the songs in Purple Rain, even though the songs in themselves are genuis. He sometimes seemed to do the drum parts a bit on auto pilot, trying to make it sound a bit more live, but ending up making it sound like an almost 1999 sound, with a live band on top. That's why I think it's production wise one of his most dated albums of the 80s. Parade was a perfect blend though. Creative on all parts of the process.

My overall point was that Prince is not always satisfying those who wants more progressive rock oriented music, and other times he's not satyisfying those who wants him to do more funk oriented. And even though I am Norwegian, can you say honestly that every household in the US cares 50/50 about these different styles? Nobody thinks pure funk is a bit boring? Or prog rock to be a bit all over the place. No matter how blended the music is in each house hold, it often represent more of one than the other, with the exception of extreme music lovers with alot of both money and wide curiosity.

Militant said:

Imaginative said:

Not sure what list you're citing...

http://www.metrolyrics.com/rs/5

I said which list. ROLLING STONE. Actual paid music journalists. Not some random internet lyric site.

And the MJ thing is absolutely true. I have a friend who HAS been to those remote places (he studies radio development in third world countries)... besides which, the statistics back it up. MJ's star shines brighter than The Beatles in countries where their music is unheard of. That's part of why he's the biggest selling artist of all time. Do you see inmates in far eastern jails dancing to Beatles songs? lol

I'm bringing this up purely to show the fallacy of your argument. If you want to bring up amounts of over songs, then you have to bring up record sales, at which point MJ wins, every time.

That IS the ROLLING STONE top 500 Songs list! If you Google it, you will come up with the same list over and over.

I'm already said that I'm fine letting this thing drop, however Militant and Greycap can't seem to let it go. I didn't even want this thread to turn into a Prince/Beatles/Dylan thing, and now you want to bring MJ into it? Militant began by saying "Prince has written more great songs than anyone," and I simply pointed out that it was a silly statement and that it's is and cannot be based in fact.

Ah, the old "I have a friend," argument! I'm not even going to discuss MJ (although I did slip and begin to in another thread, it was a mistake) because this is a music discussion. He was already a broken has-been when he died. Dying was the best career move he could make.

Militant/Greycap: If you really insist on continuing the pointless debate, please do so in the "Prince: Songwriters" thread where it is more pertinent. or start your own "Prince is Better and More Important than The Beatles and Dylan" thread. That should be interesting. Or better yet, go to a GENERAL music forum like stevehoffman.tv and start that thread!

[Edited 6/17/11 8:30am]

Imaginative said:

Militant said:

I said which list. ROLLING STONE. Actual paid music journalists. Not some random internet lyric site.

And the MJ thing is absolutely true. I have a friend who HAS been to those remote places (he studies radio development in third world countries)... besides which, the statistics back it up. MJ's star shines brighter than The Beatles in countries where their music is unheard of. That's part of why he's the biggest selling artist of all time. Do you see inmates in far eastern jails dancing to Beatles songs? lol

I'm bringing this up purely to show the fallacy of your argument. If you want to bring up amounts of over songs, then you have to bring up record sales, at which point MJ wins, every time.

That IS the ROLLING STONE top 500 Songs list! If you Google it, you will come up with the same list over and over.

I'm already said that I'm fine letting this thing drop, however Militant and Greycap can't seem to let it go. I didn't even want this thread to turn into a Prince/Beatles/Dylan thing, and now you want to bring MJ into it? Militant began by saying "Prince has written more great songs than anyone," and I simply pointed out that it was a silly statement and that it's is and cannot be based in fact.

Ah, the old "I have a friend," argument! I'm not even going to discuss MJ (although I did slip and begin to in another thread, it was a mistake) because this is a music discussion. He was already a broken has-been when he died. Dying was the best career move he could make.

Militant/Greycap: If you really insist on continuing the pointless debate, please do so in the "Prince: Songwriters" thread where it is more pertinent. or start your own "Prince is Better and More Important than The Beatles and Dylan" thread. That should be interesting. Or better yet, go to a GENERAL music forum like stevehoffman.tv and start that thread!

[Edited 6/17/11 8:30am]

Have fun trolling...........I'm out.

Imaginative said:

Militant said:

I said which list. ROLLING STONE. Actual paid music journalists. Not some random internet lyric site.

And the MJ thing is absolutely true. I have a friend who HAS been to those remote places (he studies radio development in third world countries)... besides which, the statistics back it up. MJ's star shines brighter than The Beatles in countries where their music is unheard of. That's part of why he's the biggest selling artist of all time. Do you see inmates in far eastern jails dancing to Beatles songs? lol

I'm bringing this up purely to show the fallacy of your argument. If you want to bring up amounts of over songs, then you have to bring up record sales, at which point MJ wins, every time.

That IS the ROLLING STONE top 500 Songs list! If you Google it, you will come up with the same list over and over.

I'm already said that I'm fine letting this thing drop, however Militant and Greycap can't seem to let it go. I didn't even want this thread to turn into a Prince/Beatles/Dylan thing, and now you want to bring MJ into it? Militant began by saying "Prince has written more great songs than anyone," and I simply pointed out that it was a silly statement and that it's is and cannot be based in fact.

Ah, the old "I have a friend," argument! I'm not even going to discuss MJ (although I did slip and begin to in another thread, it was a mistake) because this is a music discussion. He was already a broken has-been when he died. Dying was the best career move he could make.

Militant/Greycap: If you really insist on continuing the pointless debate, please do so in the "Prince: Songwriters" thread where it is more pertinent. or start your own "Prince is Better and More Important than The Beatles and Dylan" thread. That should be interesting. Or better yet, go to a GENERAL music forum like stevehoffman.tv and start that thread!

[Edited 6/17/11 8:30am]

What is your issue?

Imaginative said:

Militant said:

I said which list. ROLLING STONE. Actual paid music journalists. Not some random internet lyric site.

And the MJ thing is absolutely true. I have a friend who HAS been to those remote places (he studies radio development in third world countries)... besides which, the statistics back it up. MJ's star shines brighter than The Beatles in countries where their music is unheard of. That's part of why he's the biggest selling artist of all time. Do you see inmates in far eastern jails dancing to Beatles songs? lol

I'm bringing this up purely to show the fallacy of your argument. If you want to bring up amounts of over songs, then you have to bring up record sales, at which point MJ wins, every time.

That IS the ROLLING STONE top 500 Songs list! If you Google it, you will come up with the same list over and over.

I'm already said that I'm fine letting this thing drop, however Militant and Greycap can't seem to let it go. I didn't even want this thread to turn into a Prince/Beatles/Dylan thing, and now you want to bring MJ into it? Militant began by saying "Prince has written more great songs than anyone," and I simply pointed out that it was a silly statement and that it's is and cannot be based in fact.

Ah, the old "I have a friend," argument! I'm not even going to discuss MJ (although I did slip and begin to in another thread, it was a mistake) because this is a music discussion. He was already a broken has-been when he died. Dying was the best career move he could make.

Militant/Greycap: If you really insist on continuing the pointless debate, please do so in the "Prince: Songwriters" thread where it is more pertinent. or start your own "Prince is Better and More Important than The Beatles and Dylan" thread. That should be interesting. Or better yet, go to a GENERAL music forum like stevehoffman.tv and start that thread!

[Edited 6/17/11 8:30am]

thats a pretty horrible comment to make, he had kids, he had a family. I am not the biggest MJ fan on this site or anything but this comment is very rude.

We need a forum manual on where to spot attention-seekers... because... well... you figure it out. This thread ran its course ten pages back. Time to dead it now. Seriously.

Timmy84 said:

We need a forum manual on where to spot attention-seekers... because... well... you figure it out. This thread ran its course ten pages back. Time to dead it now. Seriously.

I tried to get this back on topic pages ago myself, and some wouldn't let the issue die. I tried ignoring Militant's ROLLING STONE comment even though I knew he was wrong, and that I could prove it. (These ROLLING STONE lists--as entertaining as they are--are only good for exposing yourself to new music, and shouldn't be quoted as any sort of factual evidence, but whatever.)

Re: The last comment I'll ever make here, re: MJ. I don't apologize for the truth, no matter how painful that truth might be to some here.

Timmy84 said:

We need a forum manual on where to spot attention-seekers... because... well... you figure it out. This thread ran its course ten pages back. Time to dead it now. Seriously.

Imaginative said:

Graycap23 said:

Lol............please.

They shaped Funk? House muisc? Dance music? Rap? Hiphop? R&B? Blues?

Yes, all pop music. No one has escaped their influence. The Blues was around before pop music, or even recorded music for that matter. You need a history lesson.

"...The roots of funk lay in James Brown's post-1965 soul hits, particularly "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" (1965) and "Cold Sweat" (1967)..."

http://www.allmusic.com/e...e/funk-d13

History lesson closed.

^ Even more of a reason to end this thread. I like to see someone deny James' influence... just because they prefer someone else...

Imaginative said:

That IS the ROLLING STONE top 500 Songs list! If you Google it, you will come up with the same list over and over.

From your link:

Rolling Stone Magazine released a list of "500 Greatest Songs of All Time" in November 2004.

The list I am referring to is a new list, released last year. I know, because I was on tour with my band in Canada when it came out. We had a ferry ride from Vancouver over to Vancouver Island for a gig, and they had a newsagent onboard which had that magazine for sale. I spent the whole ferry ride reading it. There was at least 8 of Prince's own released songs in there and then there was 3 or 4 others songs that he had written but were released by others. I stood there in the newsagent counting, and Prince had more songs than anyone except The Beatles, and when it came to songs written by John or Paul, Prince had more than either of them as individuals.

Rolling Crap magazine posts shit like Justin Bieber and Adam WhatsHisName on their covers so their opinions don't count anymore.

Militant said:

The list I am referring to is a new list, released last year. I know, because I was on tour with my band in Canada when it came out. We had a ferry ride from Vancouver over to Vancouver Island for a gig, and they had a newsagent onboard which had that magazine for sale. I spent the whole ferry ride reading it. There was at least 8 of Prince's own released songs in there and then there was 3 or 4 others songs that he had written but were released by others. I stood there in the newsagent counting, and Prince had more songs than anyone except The Beatles, and when it came to songs written by John or Paul, Prince had more than either of them as individuals.

A mythical list and a mythical friend! At least we're back on topic! Maybe the magazine you were reading was Rulling Stun. You obviously are unable to produce any such list, even though the actual Rolling Stone Top 500 Songs, is reprinted all over the net.

Actually, Rolling Stone did publish an ammended list in 2010, online only, I believe. However, it doesn't relate to our discussion at all, except it gave Dylan one more entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...f_All_Time

The songs added in the update are as follows. U2 and Jay-Z both have two songs added to the list, however Jay-Z is also featured in an additional two other new songs on the list, "Crazy in Love" by Beyoncé, and "Umbrella" by Rihanna:

• "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley (#100)
• "Crazy in Love" by Beyonce featuring Jay-Z (#118)
• "Moment of Surrender" by U2 (#160)
• "99 Problems" by Jay-Z (#172)
• "Rehab" by Amy Winehouse (#194)
• "Paper Planes" by M.I.A. (#236)
• "Mississippi" by Bob Dylan (#260)
• "Jesus Walks" by Kanye West (#273)
• "Seven Nation Army" by The White Stripes (#286)
• "One More Time" by Daft Punk (#307)
• "Take Me Out" by Franz Ferdinand (#327)
• "Beautiful Day" by U2 (#345)
• "Maps" by Yeah Yeah Yeahs (#386)
• "Umbrella" by Rihanna featuring Jay-Z (#412)
• "Juicy" by The Notorious B.I.G. (#424)
• "American Idiot" by Green Day (#432)
• "In da Club" by 50 Cent (#448)
• "Get Ur Freak On" by Missy Elliott (#466)
• "Big Pimpin'" by Jay-Z featuring UGK (#467)
• "Last Nite" by The Strokes (#478)
• "Since U Been Gone" by Kelly Clarkson (#482)
• "Cry Me a River" by Justin Timberlake (#484)
• "Clocks" by Coldplay (#490)
• "Time to Pretend" by MGMT (#493)
• "Ignition (Remix)" by R. Kelly (#494)
• "The Rising" by Bruce Springsteen (#497)

The songs dropped from the list in the update are as follows. The Crystals are the only artist to have had two songs dropped from the list:

• "Da Doo Ron Ron" by The Crystals (#114)
• "Lose Yourself" by Eminem (#166)
• "Sh-Boom" by The Chords (#215)
• "Band of Gold" by Freda Payne (#391)
• "Kicks" by Paul Revere & the Raiders (#400)
• "I Believe I Can Fly" by R. Kelly (#406)
• "Crossroads" by Cream (#409)
• "Lola" by The Kinks (#422)
• "Devil With A Blue Dress On/Good Golly Miss Molly" by Mitch Ryder & The Detroit Wheels (#428)
• "Keep A-Knockin'" by Little Richard (#442)
• "By the Time I Get to Phoenix" by Glen Campbell (#450)
• "Stagger Lee" by Lloyd Price (#456)
• "One Fine Day" by The Chiffons (#460)
• "Search and Destroy" by The Stooges (#468)
• "It's Too Late" by Carole King (#469)
• "Free Man in Paris" by Joni Mitchell (#470)
• "On the Road Again" by Willie Nelson (#471)
• "One Nation Under a Groove" by Funkadelic (#474)
• "Graceland" by Paul Simon (#485)
• "Rhiannon" by Fleetwood Mac (#488)
• "You Don't Have to Say You Love Me" by Dusty Springfield (#491)
• "Then He Kissed Me" by The Crystals (#493)
• "Desperado" by Eagles (#494)
• "Rainy Night in Georgia" by Brook Benton (#498)
• "The Boys Are Back in Town" by Thin Lizzy (#499)
• "More Than a Feeling" by Boston (#500)

[Edited 6/17/11 15:59pm]

Shango said:

Imaginative said:

Graycap23 said: Yes, all pop music. No one has escaped their influence. The Blues was around before pop music, or even recorded music for that matter. You need a history lesson.

"...The roots of funk lay in James Brown's post-1965 soul hits, particularly "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" (1965) and "Cold Sweat" (1967)..."

http://www.allmusic.com/e...e/funk-d13

History lesson closed.

I agree 100% with your comment. JB was musically just as revolutionary and important as Dylan and The Beatles.

However, it does nothing to negate my comment, that The Beatles changed the game. I never claimed that they had a direct influence on Funk; my comment was that they changed music popular music forever.

The Beatles were actually unique in that their influence actually went far beyond even music.

[Edited 6/17/11 11:38am]

okay, i see

people like what they like based on personal tastes, not their allegiance to marketing terms.

prince rarely records the same eclectic music he gained a fanbase for, but if he's not connecting with audiences, it's because the concept and music is lacking, it's not a fault of the audience, or a demographic problem.

There is no comparison between Dylan, Beatles and Prince. Like Eric Leeds said, popular music was already defined by 78. Prince did lots of great things and has a big influence on popular music history, but it´s hard to beat the Beatles, a great band (I admit, although I dont like much) with accessible songs and still hyped today.