This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
And I can only applaud him for this.on an artistic level, yes... He does...He considers playing rock music inferior to playing other styles of music and he makes it clear with his ranking...the explanation is that he has no respect for rock music and considers it inferior to all other forms of music........I think the only rational explanation here is that the good Uncle was assigning points rather than ranking them in order.Or he's stoned off his ####### ###.A reminder of the judging criteria for the Musician/Performer category.
The criteria are listed in order of weightedness in determing the rankings.
1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument.
2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.
3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history
4) Popularity.
Note that these rankings were strictly based on the listed criteria as they apply to musicianship, not to song-writing, nor to talent/innovation in the recording process.
1) Franz Liszt
2) Jascha Heifetz
3) Enrico Caruso
4) Luciano Pavarotti
5) Art Tatum
6) Louis Armstrong
7) Yo Yo Ma
8) Frank Sinatra
9) Miles Davis
10) The Beatles
11) B.B. King
12) John McLaughlin
13) Frank Zappa
14) Led Zeppelin
15) Queen
16) Pink Floyd
17) The Grateful Dead
18) The Rolling Stones
19) Elton John
20) U2
These rankings are subject to change if sufficient arguments can be made to do so . . .
UH
Wrong.
Yeah, I was counting on him being a little higher, but once you remove songwriting from the equation and judge it on more measurable performing criteria (as Unc did), I can see why he's there. I'd still have him a spot or two higher, but that's largely based on his tremendous creative power (as a composer and bandleader, spurring the creativity of the musicians around him) and the depth of his catalogue, which don't come into play by the judging standards due to suggesting a measure of subjectivity.
LET'S GO MILES, LET'S GO! 
Well, those are two different statements, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that rock bands are technically superior players than the people above them. I'll just let UH answer ya, though.on an artistic level, yes... He does...He considers playing rock music inferior to playing other styles of music and he makes it clear with his ranking...
Elvis was drafted as a celebrity.Which is another category that could be steaming away from Tim's description of it,as a lot of drafters did.
Please.
Thank you.
what exactly do you base that on, though?Just because they choose not to play technically difficult music at all times doesn't mean they can't... It means they prefer to have fun and rock out...Well, those are two different statements, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that rock bands are technically superior players than the people above them. I'll just let UH answer ya, though.
that has more to do with recording quality than music quality...Plus rock music is only just barely 50 years old, so there really isn't any evidence possible to support your statement...
You're doing the exact same thing with Leonidas and Judas.timschochet said:
What good does that do, when we're judging what they did play? That's no different than judging Bruce Lee by what we know he can do. Regardless, I'm quite aware that everyone in those bands can play. That doesn't mean they can do it better than the people above them in the ranking.what exactly do you base that on, though?Just because they choose not to play technically difficult music at all times doesn't mean they can't... It means they prefer to have fun and rock out...Well, those are two different statements, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that rock bands are technically superior players than the people above them. I'll just let UH answer ya, though.
OK, this was posted shortly after the Beatles were the first ones off the board. In the initial writeup on that pick, he did indicate his reservations about them, but stated they would be the top of their genre.You may disagree with the rankings...and it's hard for me to fathom...but he has been consistent in applying his criteria.He did several evaluations (Beatles, Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis) before timschochet requested he wait until the end.Based on that, we had a clear idea what he wanted.Now, I can somewhat defend his methodology...but head to head in matchups, the bottom 10 is cleaning the clock of most of the top 10. Especially the very bottom.
That's a fair statement. However, music genres come and go. What music do they play now, coming from the 30's and 40's and 50's (pre rock). Anybody play Benny Goodman or Bing Crosby or Pat Boone? Some rock musicians may well stand the test of time. Others, who are popular now, will sink without a trace.
Sad but true.
They let you outta jail?Welcome back.
Good for you. He played a mean clarinet.Although it's out of equal amounts of love for Krupa and Goodman.
thx, Oz. i was violated repeatedly by bored football fans in FBG lockup & got a prison tatt of the FFA Scale of Hotness - i am a changed person.
I'll add that I certainly see your point. It's not like music of that time is popular today, and a lot of today's music could be a blip on the radar in 50 years.Good for you. He played a mean clarinet.
I'm telling you there are two main reasons for those styles losing popularity:1. recording. The recording quality was atrocious, its grainy and fuzzy and sounds bad even to the most un-trained listener (especially if played side-by-side with anything recorded since about the 80s), thus its hard to play it on the radio because the difference in quality would be jarring and thus it loses popularity with the masses.2. They were stuck in a segregated world. Rock music was created when they combined black styles (Blues, R&B, Gospel) with white styles (Pop, Country) and made a new style of music. That's why rock music is so varied. I mean everything from Britney Spears to Elvis to Korn to Michael Jackson is classified as rock music... When the jump to rock music happened and the styles started blending, the quality in music took a MASSIVE leap forward...you gotta look from, say, the early 60s on... Anything before that is iffy...and most of the "big names" of the early-to-mid 60s are still respected and listened to today...
First of all: take that, Beatles!A reminder of the judging criteria for the Musician/Performer category.
The criteria are listed in order of weightedness in determing the rankings.
1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument.
2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.
3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history
4) Popularity.
Note that these rankings were strictly based on the listed criteria as they apply to musicianship, not to song-writing, nor to talent/innovation in the recording process.
1) Franz Liszt
2) Jascha Heifetz
3) Enrico Caruso
4) Luciano Pavarotti
5) Art Tatum
6) Louis Armstrong
7) Yo Yo Ma
8) Frank Sinatra
9) Miles Davis
10) The Beatles
11) B.B. King
12) John McLaughlin
13) Frank Zappa
14) Led Zeppelin
15) Queen
16) Pink Floyd
17) The Grateful Dead
18) The Rolling Stones
19) Elton John
20) U2
These rankings are subject to change if sufficient arguments can be made to do so . . .
UH
Third, I'd love to see how the list would be rearranged if UH was asked to order them by personal preference.
Whew. I thought I was the only person who thought these were pretty good rankings. I'd switch Sinatra and McLaughlin, perhaps, but pretty good overall based on the criteria you stated.
I keep thinking that Larry's said the most outrageous thing, and then he tops it.
Wow, there have been some horrible arguments made in this thread, but I'm fairly sure this is the worst.what exactly do you base that on, though?Just because they choose not to play technically difficult music at all times doesn't mean they can't... It means they prefer to have fun and rock out...Well, those are two different statements, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that rock bands are technically superior players than the people above them. I'll just let UH answer ya, though.on an artistic level, yes... He does...He considers playing rock music inferior to playing other styles of music and he makes it clear with his ranking...Wrong.
what?That it is incredibly likely that the "rockstars" are more technically proficient than they are being credited for?Wow, there have been some horrible arguments made in this thread, but I'm fairly sure this is the worst.what exactly do you base that on, though?Just because they choose not to play technically difficult music at all times doesn't mean they can't... It means they prefer to have fun and rock out...Well, those are two different statements, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that rock bands are technically superior players than the people above them. I'll just let UH answer ya, though.
In 1955, Decca issued comprehensive albums of Bing Crosby, saying (and it was true): "The voice of Bing Crosby has been heard by more people than any man who ever lived."And today?
Well, Opera Houses and Symphonies require donations from the wealthy and some of the most respected in the US have been required to close due to the recent recession. Classical music should survive for a considerable time, but I hardly think its absurd to contend that classical music would die out before rock music.
1. Although recording quality has improved by leaps and bounds, that doesn't explain why certain musical genres fade away. It can explain why certain recordings aren't listened to as often, but if the genre itself is popular, musicians will still be drawn to and inspired by it, making gradually better recordings.2. So rock music is inherently superior now? Wow.
So they consciously choose not to be the greatest musician they could possibly be but because they choose to do this they should still be high up on the list of great musicians?what?That it is incredibly likely that the "rockstars" are more technically proficient than they are being credited for?Wow, there have been some horrible arguments made in this thread, but I'm fairly sure this is the worst.what exactly do you base that on, though?Just because they choose not to play technically difficult music at all times doesn't mean they can't... It means they prefer to have fun and rock out...Well, those are two different statements, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that rock bands are technically superior players than the people above them. I'll just let UH answer ya, though.
They play popular music, they have great lives living large as rock stars...
the "harder" and more "technical" the music gets, by and large, the less popular it is...
if your music is less popular, your rock star life isn't quite as large as it used to be...
I'm not saying that Classical music will die out...I'm saying that the specific musicians won't be remembered...
1. sort of... Most of those styles are still played, only music has involved and those styles have merged with other styles...2. Kind of, yes. But only because "rock music" contains every single other style of music that has ever, or will ever, exist...
they choose to play music that they like, that they have fun playing, and that gets them what they want...So they consciously choose not to be the greatest musician they could possibly be but because they choose to do this they should still be high up on the list of great musicians?what?That it is incredibly likely that the "rockstars" are more technically proficient than they are being credited for?Wow, there have been some horrible arguments made in this thread, but I'm fairly sure this is the worst.what exactly do you base that on, though?Just because they choose not to play technically difficult music at all times doesn't mean they can't... It means they prefer to have fun and rock out...Well, those are two different statements, and you'll have a hard time convincing me that rock bands are technically superior players than the people above them. I'll just let UH answer ya, though.
They play popular music, they have great lives living large as rock stars...
the "harder" and more "technical" the music gets, by and large, the less popular it is...
if your music is less popular, your rock star life isn't quite as large as it used to be...
How does that qualify them as "greatest musicians"?
how does "they play popular music that people want to hear" make them not great musicians?What good is music if no one wants to hear it?
There's been similar enough discussion about this concept on plenty of other categories. Popularity and greatness re not the same thing.
Yeah, right. For all you know, in fifty years everyone will be listening to gamelan. It ain't rock, I can tell you.
Yet not a single person that believes that as militantly as many here have come to really explaining why. It boils down to elitist snob comments and eyerolling at that audacity of the common man here to question people like Joyce.When it comes to the artistic and cultural categories, popularity means a great deal and it means more then the judges are allowing.
So, without getting into where the rock musicians are placed relative to anyone else; at a basic level what you are saying here is that The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Pink Floyd, and the Grateful Dead are all "greater" bands than the Rolling Stones. The Beatles is easy, add me to the chorus who felt they should easily be number one in this category. I'd like to understand how you arrive at all the other bands being greater than the Stones though.A reminder of the judging criteria for the Musician/Performer category.
The criteria are listed in order of weightedness in determing the rankings.
1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument.
2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.
3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history
4) Popularity.
Note that these rankings were strictly based on the listed criteria as they apply to musicianship, not to song-writing, nor to talent/innovation in the recording process.
1) Franz Liszt
2) Jascha Heifetz
3) Enrico Caruso
4) Luciano Pavarotti
5) Art Tatum
6) Louis Armstrong
7) Yo Yo Ma
8) Frank Sinatra
9) Miles Davis
10) The Beatles
11) B.B. King
12) John McLaughlin
13) Frank Zappa
14) Led Zeppelin
15) Queen
16) Pink Floyd
17) The Grateful Dead
18) The Rolling Stones
19) Elton John
20) U2
These rankings are subject to change if sufficient arguments can be made to do so . . .
UH
Hell. Yes. I hope Unc has the time for some individual write-ups, because everyone on this list deserves them - even the chumps at the bottom.
This reflects well on The Chairman of the Board.
