[Edited 6/24/11 3:23am]

They don't much like women do they.

Cloudbuster said:

They don't much like women do they.

well...as james brown said.......you know the rest....

.

www.acclaimedmusic.net thats the website where they take all the different music reviews from around the world to make the list up..

.

its good for discovering music and some great albums you maybe missed first time around...and for discussion of course..

.

51. joni mitchell

57. pj harvey

60. bjork

78. patti smith

104.missy elliot

115.kate bush

.

kate bush should be a good bit higher imo but its a list made up of mainly men i would imagine which would explain the positions of kate and the rest...

[Edited 6/24/11 3:49am]

Cloudbuster said:

They don't much like women do they.

Thats what I thought.

Same reason why I RARELY hear a female musician gets referred to as "genius".

Time out for these bogus lists.

Well, rock is dead so there's really not that much merit to this list anymore?

Unholyalliance said:

Well, rock is dead so there's really not that much merit to this list anymore?

As far as I'm concerned PJ Harvey, Patti Smith and Kate Bush should be top 10.

Madonna too.

Yes I am serious as fuck.

Harlepolis said:

Cloudbuster said:

They don't much like women do they.

Thats what I thought.

Same reason why I RARELY hear a female musician gets referred to as "genius".

Time out for these bogus lists.

Ehh... you know, I could guess the content of these lists in my sleep.

The ever-present gender bias aside, it's always the same (mostly white rock) artists anyway.

Granted, many of those listed deserve to be there, or at least within a top 100, but Nirvana, The Clash, The Who, The Velvet Underground, R.E.M., U2, Radiohead, Bruce, Beach Boys etc above Stevie Wonder?

Are folk really not aware of how important and influential this great man was/is?

blackbob said:

Cloudbuster said:

They don't much like women do they.

well...as james brown said.......you know the rest....

.

www.acclaimedmusic.net thats the website where they take all the different music reviews from around the world to make the list up..

.

its good for discovering music and some great albums you maybe missed first time around...and for discussion of course..

.

51. joni mitchell

57. pj harvey

60. bjork

78. patti smith

104.missy elliot

115.kate bush

.

kate bush should be a good bit higher imo but its a list made up of mainly men i would imagine which would explain the positions of kate and the rest...

[Edited 6/24/11 3:49am]

Pathetic. Most of those women should be placed much higher. And certainly every one of them should be ahead of Madonna.

Maddy deserves her place among the greats of popular music but her work doesn't have the depth, imagination or groundbreaking originality of any of the other females listed.

Joni Mitchell at 51? Whaaaaa? For real?

Shit, not only has Joni made a striking amount of stunningly beautiful music but she's arguably pop's greatest lyricist too.

And Kate at 115?!! LMAO! Probably the most influential female music artist of the last 30 years, but whatever, I ain't even getting started on that one.

The fuck is wrong with this world.

So yeah, these polls are good for a laugh if nothing else.

.

[Edited 6/24/11 10:23am]

Prince should be sixth; Radiohead should be 7th.

Editing to add, that actually Stevie Wonder should be WAYYYY higher up on the list, wtf? Dude should be like number five or something.

[Edited 6/24/11 9:13am]

These lists are always compiled by publications ran by white males, and always have the same people on them (Stones, Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc). They always have the same black acts on them too (Stevie, Marvin, Otis, Mike, Public Enemy). Basically the ones that crossed over or recorded some kind of protest music.

MickyDolenz said:

These lists are always compiled by publications ran by white males, and always have the same people on them (Stones, Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc). They always have the same black acts on them too (Stevie, Marvin, Otis, Mike, Public Enemy). Basically the ones that crossed over or recorded some kind of protest music.

This X1000.

This is why I don't even bother with such lists. They are made for a certain demographic and do not even reflect anything truthful for anyone else, but them.

Whew! Glad to escape from PM&M--it's pretty turbulent in there. When P opens his mouth to speak, Chaos & Disorder ensue... Anyway, back to rhe subject--these polls nearly always have the same artists in varying degrees of subjective order. They really have no value; it's better to make your own list which satisfies you.

Unholyalliance said:

MickyDolenz said:

These lists are always compiled by publications ran by white males, and always have the same people on them (Stones, Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc). They always have the same black acts on them too (Stevie, Marvin, Otis, Mike, Public Enemy). Basically the ones that crossed over or recorded some kind of protest music.

This X1000.

This is why I don't even bother with such lists. They are made for a certain demographic and do not even reflect anything truthful for anyone else, but them.

Same thing with those Jazz lists; always run by publications ran by black males, and always have the same people on them (Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis). They always have the same white acts on them too (Benny Goodman, Chet Baker), basically the ones who crossed over and recorded some kind of blues or swing music.

[Edited 6/24/11 10:03am]

What is the source of this list? Also, what does the albums/songs columns represent? (Certainly, The Beatles had more than one album and song!)

Outside of the premise of the list being particularly vague (What does "acclaimed" really mean? Acclaimed by whom? How is "acclaim" measured?), I agree for the most part with the artists listed being the most important ones of the "rock era" (1956-?).

I don't agree 100% completely with the ranking (I would place Dylan before the Stones), and there are certain artists I would remove or certainly decrease in ranking (U2, REM, Michael Jackson), and some I would add and place way higher up on the list than MJ, U2 and REM (Joni Mitchell, The Band, P-Funk).

I find it funny that they always throw some token non-rock musicans (Miles Davis, Bob Marley) on the "Rock" lists (even though they do say "Era.") It seems sillier when you stop to think that these artists are actually both at the TOP of the lists for the genres they are more known for.

Imaginative said:

Unholyalliance said:

This X1000.

This is why I don't even bother with such lists. They are made for a certain demographic and do not even reflect anything truthful for anyone else, but them.

Same thing with those Jazz lists; always run by publications ran by black males, and always have the same people on them (Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis). They always have the same white acts on them too (Benny Goodman, Chet Baker), basically the ones who crossed over and recorded some kind of blues or swing music.

[Edited 6/24/11 10:03am]

Well supposedly this list is based on worldwide reviews, but I see few women performers, no Chinese, Brazilian, French, Indian, Japanese, Mexican, etc. acts.

Imaginative said:

Same thing with those Jazz lists; always run by publications ran by black males, and always have the same people on them (Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis). They always have the same white acts on them too (Benny Goodman, Chet Baker), basically the ones who crossed over and recorded some kind of blues or swing music.

I don't know of any of these publications. Please be a dear and enlighten me.

Thank you.

[Edited 6/24/11 10:35am]

Lists bore me. Just enjoy the music and make your own conclusions.

The thing that is most surprising to me is how Led Zeppelin went from being one of the bands most hated by the press to being one of the top ten darlings. If you limited that list of articles to ones published in the band's lifetime, Zep would not be there at all.

I despise these lists. I can accept an alphabetical list, but a 1-100 list???? c'mon what's the difference between the number 18 and the number 41??

Well, first of all, this must be based on some sort of factual information. "50 most critically acclaimed" is not an arbitrary, "this is who I like" kind of list. Since I don't understand exactly how they decided on the placement its hard for me to comment.

Personally, I would put quite a few of them in different places, but most of that is based on personal preference and I don't think this list was created that way.

Regardless, whatever. Its just another list to argue about.

I honestly don't understand how anybody can say that Bob Dylan is any better than David Bowie. Shouldn't that be entirely subjective?

RKJCNE said:

I honestly don't understand how anybody can say that Bob Dylan is any better than David Bowie. Shouldn't that be entirely subjective?

That's why your opinion should only matter. It's just a list. Lists aren't really MEANT to be taken seriously. It's just a stupid list. It don't matter.

Cerebus said:

Well, first of all, this must be based on some sort of factual information. "50 most critically acclaimed" is not an arbitrary, "this is who I like" kind of list. Since I don't understand exactly how they decided on the placement its hard for me to comment.

Personally, I would put quite a few of them in different places, but most of that is based on personal preference and I don't think this list was created that way.

Regardless, whatever. Its just another list to argue about.

And an excuse for purists and music snobs here to make another 1,000-page thread commenting about a whole bunch of bullshit.

RKJCNE said:

I honestly don't understand how anybody can say that Bob Dylan is any better than David Bowie. Shouldn't that be entirely subjective?

I think that's just with regard to level of acclaim, not actual merit. You can quantify the number of positive reviews, song/album rankings, etc. Which is what I think they did but am not sure.

As to merit, I agree.

People do these things to put their own thoughts behind an album, if they think it's good, if they think it sucks, if they think something could've been done to make it better, if they feel it's a straight out masterpiece. My problem with it is that the media makes it seem like if someone said it, it has to be true and that's a straight up lie.

[img:$uid]http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t145/theodore_3121/Emoticons/th029_.gif[/img:$uid]

The list is about critically acclaimed artists, which is fairly easy to compile. It's not about best or worst, just critically acclaimed.

I agree almost 100% with the list. Although, I have always thought the Beach Boys were highly overrated.

Whatever makes you sleep at night lol