World's Greatest Draft (3 Viewers)

[Mario Kart]

Novelists that should not have been taken in this draft, and will probably be ranked below all the others, sorry.

Tolkein

I disagree. I only did a quick research on The Lord of the Rings but:

The novel has been translated, with various degrees of success, into at least 38 other languages.[23] Tolkien, an expert in philology, examined many of these translations, and had comments on each that reflect both the translation process and his work. Because he was unhappy with some choices made by early translators such as the Swedish translation by Åke Ohlmarks,[24] Tolkien wrote a "Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings" (1967). Because The Lord of the Rings purports to be a translation of the Red Book of Westmarch, with the English language representing the Westron of the original, Tolkien suggests translators attempt to capture the interplay between English and invented nomenclature in the translated version, and gives several examples along with general guidance.

No, this is not about how many books someone sells but what this does show is that the world has read Tolkien's work and have read it with great success. His work is popular enough to influence the world and not just England and/or America. The tales he tells are worldly and many around the world can relate to them. Is Tolkien a top 3 writer, depends who you ask, but worthy of top 10-15 overall, sure.

 

[the moops]

Asimov. Greatest sf writer without a doubt; huge intellectual, but it is a niche. Are we going to have a romance section? westerns?

If there were/are romance and/or western writers with the skill of Asimov, then sure, why not?

 

[flysack]

I'm leaving for the Internet Meme Draft, which is more amusing than this (sad, but true).

Someone send me a pm when I have to do the judging.

Have fun with your Jesuscakes.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument.

Would anyone argue that she has incredible musical ability? Not many.

2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.

Would anyone argue that she has an amazing voice? Probably not.

3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history

One could argue I suppose, that she paved the way for the female pop divas of the 80's and 90's, but did she really break any ground musically? No.

4) Popularity.

This is the one area where she can at least be in the conversation.

1) I would think that there is quite an argument to be made that she has incredible music ability. She plays guitar, drums, keyboards, and sings (this can obviously be said of many musicians). Her dancing, while in of itself, is not a musical talent, coupled with her singing makes for a very, very talented artist.2) She doesn't have one of the most beautiful voices, but it isn't Roseanne Barr either.

3) She is one the greatest female innovators in pop music history. You may not like her music, or even think she is good at anything, but she was one of the true pop innovators of the 80s.

4) She is more than in the conversation in regards to popularity. She has a couple of albums that have sold over 10 million copies. She is easily one of the most recognizable artists in the world. Probably outdone by very few on the worldwide stage.

All that being said, she doesn't deserve that high of a ranking. Maybe a 10 or so.

I think these are valid points when considering only pop and/or rock.This is proving to be where the big discrepency in the interpretation of the category lies.

I think many are only considering rock/pop.

I am taking into consideration all genres of music, across all eras, with a heavy emphasis on 1 & 2 above.

Madonna is not top-50 in that light.

As picks continue to be made, my perspective will become much more evident.

(e.g. If he had not been taken as a composer, Beethoven would have been very high on the list - he was as renowned for his vituosity on the piano, as he was for his compositions.)

The problem I have with going too far back is that it's very hard if not impossible to compare without recordings. How could you possibly judge ability and mastery unless by hearsay. I have my pick in mind, and it's not pop/rock or even close, but it's hard to compare this pick to others in the genre because, well no one's heard the others before.

Very interesting point.At least with almost all of the other categories, you have some result of the draftees actions which can be measured or judged in one way or another (military conquests, compositions, pieces of art, scientific discoveries, etc.).

The only way to measure or judge musical virtuosity or musicianship is to hear it first hand.

Otherwise, you're just relying on what has been written about the individual's performance,

and how do we know that those accounts are accurate.

For that matter, how do we know that the draftee even existed?

eta -> even only considering musicians/artists that have been recorded, Madonna would still not be top-50 on my list . . .

Upon further review, for unrecorded artists, there is evidence to indirectly judge technical ability - by looking at the pieces that the performer was known to perform and knowing the difficulty of those pieces. Unfortunately, we are still left to someone else's account for judging the most important element (by my criteria) of great musicianship - the ability to express great emotion through their instrument. I can only hope the observers were not on the take . . .

 

[Thorn]

Getting back to the draft, let's discuss novelists. I have divided them in several categories:

Classic great writers who have written epic works and deserve every praise

Cervantes * (By reputation; I've never read him)

Hugo

Dickens

Tolstoy

Weird, pretentious authors nobody reads, nobody understands, but I suppose they have to be here because they are well respected

Joyce

Proust

Borges

Authors that probably deserve to be on the pretentious list but I won't put them there because I kinda enjoy them

Dosteyevsky

Kafka

Conrad

Novelists that should not have been taken in this draft, and will probably be ranked below all the others, sorry.

Tolkein

Twain

Poe

Asimov

Thoughts?

I don't know much about this category but from researching it I would think Poe would have to be in the elite (ie top 20) of writers. Or am I way off on that?

Poe's problem is the categories. His success is in poetry and short stories, not novels. His work is split. He'd make a great WC.

 

[thatguy]

Dostoevsky belongs in the first tier.

 

[Ozymandias]

Asimov. Greatest sf writer without a doubt; huge intellectual, but it is a niche. Are we going to have a romance section? westerns?

If there were/are romance and/or western writers with the skill of Asimov, then sure, why not?

So what about murder mysteries? Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie, Raymond Chandler? What about horror? Bram Stoker? Mary Shelley? Stephen King? What about thrillers? What about travelogues? What about cookbooks?

 

[dparker713]

Getting back to the draft, let's discuss novelists. I have divided them in several categories:

Classic great writers who have written epic works and deserve every praise

Cervantes * (By reputation; I've never read him)

Hugo

Dickens

Tolstoy

Weird, pretentious authors nobody reads, nobody understands, but I suppose they have to be here because they are well respected

Joyce

Proust

Borges

Authors that probably deserve to be on the pretentious list but I won't put them there because I kinda enjoy them

Dosteyevsky

Kafka

Conrad

Novelists that should not have been taken in this draft, and will probably be ranked below all the others, sorry.

Tolkein

Twain

Poe

Asimov

Thoughts?

So, because people are upset with the rehashing of the biblical arguments, you're resurrecting the snob and genre arguments. Solid work.

 

[the moops]

Asimov. Greatest sf writer without a doubt; huge intellectual, but it is a niche. Are we going to have a romance section? westerns?

If there were/are romance and/or western writers with the skill of Asimov, then sure, why not?

So what about murder mysteries? Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie, Raymond Chandler? What about horror? Bram Stoker? Mary Shelley? Stephen King? What about thrillers? What about travelogues? What about cookbooks?

Yes, yes, yes , yes.They should all be eligible, IMO.It is up to the judges and the vote to decide whether they stack up against the great authors of all time.

 

[dparker713]

Asimov. Greatest sf writer without a doubt; huge intellectual, but it is a niche. Are we going to have a romance section? westerns?

If there were/are romance and/or western writers with the skill of Asimov, then sure, why not?

So what about murder mysteries? XXXXXXXXXXXXXX? What about horror? XXXXXX? What about thrillers? What about travelogues? What about cookbooks?

Wow, talk about spotlighting.

 

[flysack]

Bram Stoker was an abominable hack who wrote one *decent* novel, which wouldn't be remembered if it weren't for Hollywood. He also sold out his childhood best friend upon hearing that he was charged with sodomy (homosexual conduct) without talking to him once --- a writer infinitely more talented than himself. Even though he had nothing to do with the trial, Stoker took it upon himself to make public statements condemning the poor man. He also had massive issues with female sexuality. It's all over Dracula.

Dracula is an ok novel. It is not great. It's barely "good."

The rest of Stoker's work (what little I read of it) was terrible.

EDIT: I don't feel like I'm spotlighting, because only a couple people in this draft would be stupid enough to draft him, and they've screwed their teams up enough already that it wouldn't make a difference.

/snob!

 

[larry_boy_44]

Bram Stoker was an abominable hack who wrote one *decent* novel, which wouldn't be remembered if it weren't for Hollywood. He also sold out his childhood best friend upon hearing that he was charged with sodomy (homosexual conduct) without talking to him once --- a man infinitely more talented than him.Dracula is an ok novel. It is not great. It's barely "good." The rest of Stoker's work (what little I read of it) was terrible.

I thought you weren't gonna post here anymore until you had to judge the categories at the end of the draft...I was really looking forward to the thread until then after I read that...now I'm sad again...

 

[Ozymandias]

Asimov. Greatest sf writer without a doubt; huge intellectual, but it is a niche. Are we going to have a romance section? westerns?

If there were/are romance and/or western writers with the skill of Asimov, then sure, why not?

So what about murder mysteries? XXXXXXXXXXXXXX? What about horror? XXXXXX? What about thrillers? What about travelogues? What about cookbooks?

Wow, talk about spotlighting.

Sorry, I shouldn't have brought up cookbooks. Somebody is going to hit their forehead, and say: Dang it! I almost forgot Julia Child!

 

[timschochet]

I am not a snob by suggesting Tolkien does not deserve to be in a top 20 list. If I said he doesn't deserve to be in a top 100 list, then I am a snob.

 

[dparker713]

Asimov. Greatest sf writer without a doubt; huge intellectual, but it is a niche. Are we going to have a romance section? westerns?

If there were/are romance and/or western writers with the skill of Asimov, then sure, why not?

So what about murder mysteries? XXXXXXXXXXXXXX? What about horror? XXXXXX? What about thrillers? What about travelogues? What about cookbooks?

Wow, talk about spotlighting.

Sorry, I shouldn't have brought up cookbooks. Somebody is going to hit their forehead, and say: Dang it! I almost forgot XXXXXXXXX!

Well, she could be a pick in another category. It would be helpful too if you even realized what category we're talking about. Though there is a writer that might get selected that wrote several travelogues, neither travelogues nor cookbooks are novels or short stories.

 

[flysack]

Bram Stoker was an abominable hack who wrote one *decent* novel, which wouldn't be remembered if it weren't for Hollywood. He also sold out his childhood best friend upon hearing that he was charged with sodomy (homosexual conduct) without talking to him once --- a man infinitely more talented than him.Dracula is an ok novel. It is not great. It's barely "good." The rest of Stoker's work (what little I read of it) was terrible.

I thought you weren't gonna post here anymore until you had to judge the categories at the end of the draft...I was really looking forward to the thread until then after I read that...now I'm sad again...

Sorry to disappoint. I got roped in by what I love best: denouncing crappy literature. :(

 

[flysack]

Asimov. Greatest sf writer without a doubt; huge intellectual, but it is a niche. Are we going to have a romance section? westerns?

If there were/are romance and/or western writers with the skill of Asimov, then sure, why not?

So what about murder mysteries? XXXXXXXXXXXXXX? What about horror? XXXXXX? What about thrillers? What about travelogues? What about cookbooks?

Wow, talk about spotlighting.

Sorry, I shouldn't have brought up cookbooks. Somebody is going to hit their forehead, and say: Dang it! I almost forgot Julia Child!

I'm sure you know this Ozy, but I doubt everyone does:FACT: The entire publishing industry is supported by cookbooks. They make roughly 90% of the profits that keep publishing houses in the green.I'm dead serious. We used to joke about this all the time in grad school.

 

[krista4]

Getting back to the draft, let's discuss novelists. I have divided them in several categories:

Classic great writers who have written epic works and deserve every praise

Cervantes * (By reputation; I've never read him)

Hugo

Dickens

Tolstoy

Weird, pretentious authors nobody reads, nobody understands, but I suppose they have to be here because they are well respected

Joyce

Proust

Borges

Authors that probably deserve to be on the pretentious list but I won't put them there because I kinda enjoy them

Dosteyevsky

Kafka

Conrad

Novelists that should not have been taken in this draft, and will probably be ranked below all the others, sorry.

Tolkein

Twain

Poe

Asimov

Thoughts?

I don't know much about this category but from researching it I would think Poe would have to be in the elite (ie top 20) of writers. Or am I way off on that?

Poe's problem is the categories. His success is in poetry and short stories, not novels. His work is split. He'd make a great WC.

:honda:

 

[dparker713]

I am not a snob by suggesting Tolkien does not deserve to be in a top 20 list. If I said he doesn't deserve to be in a top 100 list, then I am a snob.

You're a snob because you've stated that he cant be in the top 20 because he's a fantasy writer. The ceiling that a genre writer can obtain is no lower than the ceiling of any other writer. Its snobbery like this that prevented BSG from any shot at major Emmy awards, regardless of the level of the show and acting.

 

[Ozymandias]

From Flysack (I ran into the "you've posted too many...") Gestapo.

"I'm sure you know this Ozy, but I doubt everyone does:

FACT: The entire publishing industry is supported by cookbooks. They make roughly 90% of the profits that keep publishing houses in the green.

I'm dead serious. We used to joke about this all the time in grad school."

Well Madonna has sold a lot of CD's. so it should count for something.

 

[timschochet]

Now I'm going to do the same thing with painters, except a little more seriously. I have divided them into three categories: before Impressionism, during Impressionism (which includes the genre known as "post-impressionism") and after Impressionism:

Before Impressionism

Raphael

Da Vinci

Rembrandt

Masaccio

Caravaggio

Goya

Velazquez

Durer

During Impressionism

Monet

Van Gogh

Renoir

Cezanne

After Impressionism

Warhol

Hosukai

Dali

Picasso

Now there are several masters here, but for me, the ones in italics stand out. At the present time, these are my top 5, and I rank them like this:

1. Rembrandt

2. Picasso

3. Da Vinci

4. Van Gogh

5. Monet

Thoughts?

 

[timschochet]

I am not a snob by suggesting Tolkien does not deserve to be in a top 20 list. If I said he doesn't deserve to be in a top 100 list, then I am a snob.

You're a snob because you've stated that he cant be in the top 20 because he's a fantasy writer. The ceiling that a genre writer can obtain is no lower than the ceiling of any other writer. Its snobbery like this that prevented BSG from any shot at major Emmy awards, regardless of the level of the show and acting.

BSG? Sorry, I don't know what this stands for.

 

[the moops]

Thoughts?

You seem to think too much along the lines of older equals better, IMO. It shows in nearly every category you speak of (authors, composers, artists, etc). I concede that it is difficult to rate modern artists of all kinds. But a true judge will try and gauge impact and notoriety well into the future.

 

[Ozymandias]

Now I'm going to do the same thing with painters, except a little more seriously. I have divided them into three categories: before Impressionism, during Impressionism (which includes the genre known as "post-impressionism") and after Impressionism:

Before Impressionism

Raphael

Da Vinci

Rembrandt

Masaccio

Caravaggio

Goya

Velazquez

Durer

During Impressionism

Monet

Van Gogh

Renoir

Cezanne

After Impressionism

Warhol

Hosukai

Dali

Picasso

Now there are several masters here, but for me, the ones in italics stand out. At the present time, these are my top 5, and I rank them like this:

1. Rembrandt

2. Picasso

3. Da Vinci

4. Van Gogh

5. Monet

Thoughts?

In my view, your list is missing one prior to impressionism, and one during impressionism. Of course, you didn't ask that, but both of those are ranked higher than some you have.

 

[dparker713]

I am not a snob by suggesting Tolkien does not deserve to be in a top 20 list. If I said he doesn't deserve to be in a top 100 list, then I am a snob.

You're a snob because you've stated that he cant be in the top 20 because he's a fantasy writer. The ceiling that a genre writer can obtain is no lower than the ceiling of any other writer. Its snobbery like this that prevented BSG from any shot at major Emmy awards, regardless of the level of the show and acting.

BSG? Sorry, I don't know what this stands for.

Battlestar Galactica

 

[Abrantes]

I am not a snob by suggesting Tolkien does not deserve to be in a top 20 list. If I said he doesn't deserve to be in a top 100 list, then I am a snob.

You're a snob because you've stated that he cant be in the top 20 because he's a fantasy writer. The ceiling that a genre writer can obtain is no lower than the ceiling of any other writer. Its snobbery like this that prevented BSG from any shot at major Emmy awards, regardless of the level of the show and acting.

Although that might have played a part, BSG was probably hamstrung by the fact that it hasn't been consistently great since season one. HTH.Sorry for the digression.

 

[timschochet]

Thoughts?

You seem to think too much along the lines of older equals better, IMO. It shows in nearly every category you speak of (authors, composers, artists, etc). I concede that it is difficult to rate modern artists of all kinds. But a true judge will try and gauge impact and notoriety well into the future.

I ranked Picasso 2nd best all time.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

I'm on my phone so I can't do a write up, not much introduction should be needed though.

The Rolling Stones- Musical Performers

Judging this category by my own chosen criteria kinda sucks.I should just go with who my favorites are.

I love The Stones.

They are the epitome of rock 'n roll stripped down to it's bare essentials.

Their sound is the true natural evolution of the blues and early rock.

Live, they had an amazing chemistry and incredible sound.

Now, back to my criteria:

1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument.

Actually give The Stones a pretty good mark here. Not as individuals, but as a group.

Their sound is pretty awesome and grooves a go go.

2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history

While not as ground breaking as certain other pop/rock groups :coughcoughBeatlescoughcough: they were the leaders in taking the roots sound of the blues and early rock to it's next natural step.

4) Popularity.

Obviously hugely popular.

Definitely a top 5 in the rock world.

Taking into account all genres and using my criteria, they may have a slight chance to scratch the top-20.

The emphasis on #2 hurts their chances though.

 

[dparker713]

I am not a snob by suggesting Tolkien does not deserve to be in a top 20 list. If I said he doesn't deserve to be in a top 100 list, then I am a snob.

You're a snob because you've stated that he cant be in the top 20 because he's a fantasy writer. The ceiling that a genre writer can obtain is no lower than the ceiling of any other writer. Its snobbery like this that prevented BSG from any shot at major Emmy awards, regardless of the level of the show and acting.

Although that might have played a part, BSG was probably hamstrung by the fact that it hasn't been consistently great since season one. HTH.Sorry for the digression.

Two words: Boston Legal

 

[Abrantes]

Tim, I'm not willing to sift through the discussions in the last few pages, so I'm not sure if you've noticed that I picked Dürer as my non-painter.

 

[timschochet]

I am not a snob by suggesting Tolkien does not deserve to be in a top 20 list. If I said he doesn't deserve to be in a top 100 list, then I am a snob.

You're a snob because you've stated that he cant be in the top 20 because he's a fantasy writer. The ceiling that a genre writer can obtain is no lower than the ceiling of any other writer. Its snobbery like this that prevented BSG from any shot at major Emmy awards, regardless of the level of the show and acting.

BSG? Sorry, I don't know what this stands for.

Battlestar Galactica

OK, I've never seen that show. I used to watch the original as a kid, and THAT show wasn't winning any emmys. But to your overall point, the answer is that you're correct. When we're talking top 20 novelists of all time, I just don't think any genre authors make it. There's simply too many great classic and literary authors.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I'm not willing to sift through the discussions in the last few pages, so I'm not sure if you've noticed that I picked Dürer as my non-painter.

Oops. Sorry. I will correct that.

 

[the moops]

Thoughts?

You seem to think too much along the lines of older equals better, IMO. It shows in nearly every category you speak of (authors, composers, artists, etc). I concede that it is difficult to rate modern artists of all kinds. But a true judge will try and gauge impact and notoriety well into the future.

I ranked Picasso 2nd best all time.

Well that is just wrong.

 

[dparker713]

I am not a snob by suggesting Tolkien does not deserve to be in a top 20 list. If I said he doesn't deserve to be in a top 100 list, then I am a snob.

You're a snob because you've stated that he cant be in the top 20 because he's a fantasy writer. The ceiling that a genre writer can obtain is no lower than the ceiling of any other writer. Its snobbery like this that prevented BSG from any shot at major Emmy awards, regardless of the level of the show and acting.

BSG? Sorry, I don't know what this stands for.

Battlestar Galactica

OK, I've never seen that show. I used to watch the original as a kid, and THAT show wasn't winning any emmys. But to your overall point, the answer is that you're correct. When we're talking top 20 novelists of all time, I just don't think any genre authors make it. There's simply too many great classic and literary authors.

There is a distinct difference between saying none DO make the cut versus none CAN make the cut - which when you've said there is no way that they can be considered in the top 20 because they're genre writers is what you've been saying.

 

[Thorn]

Getting back to the draft, let's discuss novelists. I have divided them in several categories:

Classic great writers who have written epic works and deserve every praise

Cervantes * (By reputation; I've never read him)

Hugo

Dickens

Tolstoy

Weird, pretentious authors nobody reads, nobody understands, but I suppose they have to be here because they are well respected

Joyce

Proust

Borges

Authors that probably deserve to be on the pretentious list but I won't put them there because I kinda enjoy them

Dosteyevsky

Kafka

Conrad

Novelists that should not have been taken in this draft, and will probably be ranked below all the others, sorry.

Tolkein

Twain

Poe

Asimov

Thoughts?

I don't know much about this category but from researching it I would think Poe would have to be in the elite (ie top 20) of writers. Or am I way off on that?

Poe's problem is the categories. His success is in poetry and short stories, not novels. His work is split. He'd make a great WC.

:honda:

I like my economy of words.

 

[timschochet]

I want to warn everyone right now: tommorow, I will be gone from the early morning until very late at night. Wednesday will be a little better, but not much, and Thursday in and out all day. For the next three days, pretty much the only time I will have here is to update the OP's and even that will only be now and then. Do not PM me any picks, and if you need questions answered, be warned: it may take a whole lot of time to respond.

 

[krista4]

Getting back to the draft, let's discuss novelists. I have divided them in several categories:

Classic great writers who have written epic works and deserve every praise

Cervantes * (By reputation; I've never read him)

Hugo

Dickens

Tolstoy

Weird, pretentious authors nobody reads, nobody understands, but I suppose they have to be here because they are well respected

Joyce

Proust

Borges

Authors that probably deserve to be on the pretentious list but I won't put them there because I kinda enjoy them

Dosteyevsky

Kafka

Conrad

Novelists that should not have been taken in this draft, and will probably be ranked below all the others, sorry.

Tolkein

Twain

Poe

Asimov

Thoughts?

I don't know much about this category but from researching it I would think Poe would have to be in the elite (ie top 20) of writers. Or am I way off on that?

Poe's problem is the categories. His success is in poetry and short stories, not novels. His work is split. He'd make a great WC.

:honda:

I like my economy of words.

Actually, I do, too.

 

[Abrantes]

So what exactly don't you like about Borges, Tim? I really can't quite grasp where you're coming from at all.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

11.07 Frank Sinatra, Musician/Performer/The Man

"It's Frank's world, we just live in it."

Very pleased to get one of my personal idols. May move him to celebrity later depending on how things go; I think he would be a monster there, too. This guy had great friends, dressed well, dated bombshells, was never afraid to express emotion, won an Oscar, had a period of being thought of as washed up which he came back from, and happened to be one hell of a singer. Women wanted him, men wanted to be him.

Frank quotes:

(a toast) "Here's to absentee friends - #### em!"

"Don't drink water. It rusts you out."

"I'm for anything that gets you through the night, be it prayer, tranquilizers, or a bottle of Jack Daniels."

"I'm not one of those complicated, mixed up cats. I'm not looking for the secret to life or the answer to life. I just go on from day to day, taking what comes."

"A friend is never an imposition."

"For me, a tuxedo is a way of life."

A Frank story, told by (redacted):

"(A famous broad) was in trouble at the end of her life. And at that time, I was about to open at the Waldorf-Astoria Empire Room. It was my first night and everything. Then, as I was about to go on, I got this frantic call from (the famous broad) at the St. Regis Hotel. She was hysterical - 'XXXX, I'm being beaten up in my hotel room. If you don't believe me, here's my son Joey.' he was really upset and said, 'It's true, my mom's being beaten up.' I didn't know what to do. I was about to walk on stage and I was trapped.

"My ex-wife said to call Frank, who was in Florida. I managed to get him on the line and told him, 'XXX's being beaten up at the St. Regis Hotel.' He said, 'I'll call you back in fifteen minutes. So I hung up. Twelve minutes later, she called me again and said 'I ask for help and now I have five Jewish lawyers in my room and four hundred police out on the street! What's going on?' Then Sinatra called me back two minutes after taht and said, 'Is that all right, kid?'"

Same deal here.Hate having to judge Frank on my own self-inflicted criteria.

But where does he stand in the list of all-time great musicians/perfomers?

1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument.

Truly exceptional here. Amazing phrasing, feeling and incredibile ability to sense what to do when.

2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.

Loses some marks here.

Some of you might argue that I'm nuts, but I'm keeping this in the context of true masters of their instruments.

Technically, Frank was not an elite singer. He's in the converation if just discussing popular music, but we're not doing that.

3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history

May not have invented any new genres, but took popular music to new heights

and blazed the trail for all pop singers that followed.

4) Popularity.

Gotta be near the top of this criteria.

As with many of the popular choices, #2 will be a set-back.

Even though Frank is a legend and one of my favorites, he's not near the top of greatest musicians the world has known.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I am not a snob by suggesting Tolkien does not deserve to be in a top 20 list. If I said he doesn't deserve to be in a top 100 list, then I am a snob.

You're a snob because you've stated that he cant be in the top 20 because he's a fantasy writer. The ceiling that a genre writer can obtain is no lower than the ceiling of any other writer. Its snobbery like this that prevented BSG from any shot at major Emmy awards, regardless of the level of the show and acting.

BSG? Sorry, I don't know what this stands for.

BattleStar Galacticatv show... it was sci fi and thus got snubbed hardcore regularly...

 

[timschochet]

So what exactly don't you like about Borges, Tim? I really can't quite grasp where you're coming from at all.

I have nothing against him. I've never read him. But Flysack compared him to Joyce, so...

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I'm on my phone so I can't do a write up, not much introduction should be needed though.

The Rolling Stones- Musical Performers

Judging this category by my own chosen criteria kinda sucks.I should just go with who my favorites are.

I love The Stones.

They are the epitome of rock 'n roll stripped down to it's bare essentials.

Their sound is the true natural evolution of the blues and early rock.

Live, they had an amazing chemistry and incredible sound.

Now, back to my criteria:

1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument.

Actually give The Stones a pretty good mark here. Not as individuals, but as a group.

Their sound is pretty awesome and grooves a go go.

2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history

While not as ground breaking as certain other pop/rock groups :coughcoughBeatlescoughcough: they were the leaders in taking the roots sound of the blues and early rock to it's next natural step.

4) Popularity.

Obviously hugely popular.

Definitely a top 5 in the rock world.

Taking into account all genres and using my criteria, they may have a slight chance to scratch the top-20.

The emphasis on #2 hurts their chances though.

I pretty much just went with who I like out of the group that I know are important to music history, and secondarily who I know will be getting votes in the final round. I do have to say that I think the last two categories you are scoring on are a far better criteria for purposes of this draft than the first two. Partially for reasons already discussed that there have probably been thousands of virtuosos thoughout history that no one has ever heard play with no reasonable means of comparision, and also because even today the people who are probably truly the best artistically are rarely heard individually.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I am not a snob by suggesting Tolkien does not deserve to be in a top 20 list. If I said he doesn't deserve to be in a top 100 list, then I am a snob.

You're a snob because you've stated that he cant be in the top 20 because he's a fantasy writer. The ceiling that a genre writer can obtain is no lower than the ceiling of any other writer. Its snobbery like this that prevented BSG from any shot at major Emmy awards, regardless of the level of the show and acting.

BSG? Sorry, I don't know what this stands for.

Battlestar Galactica

OK, I've never seen that show. I used to watch the original as a kid, and THAT show wasn't winning any emmys. But to your overall point, the answer is that you're correct. When we're talking top 20 novelists of all time, I just don't think any genre authors make it. There's simply too many great classic and literary authors.

exactly what author is not in a "genre"?I guess my question is why you single out fantasy, sci-fi, horror, etc. as somehow beneath other literature when, at their core, the books are essentially the same...

 

[BobbyLayne]

Now I'm going to do the same thing with painters, except a little more seriously. I have divided them into three categories: before Impressionism, during Impressionism (which includes the genre known as "post-impressionism") and after Impressionism:

Before Impressionism

Raphael

Da Vinci

Rembrandt

Masaccio

Caravaggio

Goya

Velazquez

Durer

During Impressionism

Monet

Van Gogh

Renoir

Cezanne

After Impressionism

Warhol

Hosukai

Dali

Picasso

Now there are several masters here, but for me, the ones in italics stand out. At the present time, these are my top 5, and I rank them like this:

1. Rembrandt

2. Picasso

3. Da Vinci

4. Van Gogh

5. Monet

Thoughts?

Good morning,If I may interject a bit more precision into your...unique...classification system:

(chronological order - though dates are somewhat interpretive, hard to find consensus)

Italian renaissance (1400-1600) - Masaccio

northern renaissance (1400s-1500s) - Dürer

high renaissance (1450-1527) - Da Vinci, Raphael

baroque (1600-1750) - Caravaggio, Rembrandt, Velázquez

Spanish rococo (1700-1825) - Goya

Edo - Hosukai (died 1849 - before impressionism)

impressionism (1870s-1890s) - Monet, Renoir

post-impressionism (1880-1900) - Cezanne, Van Gogh

cubist (1907-1914) - Picasso

surrealist (1920s-1940s) - Dali

pop art (1960s) - Warhol

Obviously, some artists (Cezanne and Picasso) were involved in multiple movements or periods. Goya is hard to pin down - in some ways he is the father to modern art.

As for rankings, my criteria is out of step with populism or what Arsenal (art judge) values; I look primarily to importance in development or furtherance of an art movement, and influence on both peers and future artists. Viewed through that prism, I bolded the five most important or influential artists taken in the draft thus far. My ratings do not take into account popularity.

The art boom, beginning in the mid-1980s, saw record prices paid for painting masters. The amount overpaid by (tongue-in-cheek stereotype forthcoming) Japanese businessmen has had an extraordinary influence on public opinion about what should be considered great art.

There are some really fantastic artists still out there from several unrepresented periods, major movements that should be account for in a World's Greatest Draft. Will be interesting to see if any of them get snapped up.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Question - has Larry used up his 3 response limit in the current discussion? I wanted to bump my edited Niels Bohr writeup; would hate to see it get buried again like my humanitarian pick was in the avalanche of redundancy.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Shameless bump for the completed writeup:

I should apologize for the length; however, this article was so enjoyable to read and later transcribe, I am including it in its entirety. I am a layman who simply cannot grasp quantum physics, but this helped me understand it on a basic level, and in doing so, made clear how important Mr. Bohr’s career was.

If you preferred something more succinct:

Niels Henrik David Bohr bio at the Virtual Jewish Library

Wiki entry

12.03 (223rd pick) - Niels Bohr - Scientist

Niels Bohr and the atom

Quantum mechanics constitutes the essential framework for twentieth-century physics. Providing a means for understanding the microworld, it has led to a host of major new technologies, including the transistor, the silicon chip, and nuclear energy. It has provided a far more comprehensive explanation of the chemical bond and brought about new ways of understanding biological phenomena and so lies at the root of a multitude of new methods of manipulating nature. Today, even cosmology depends upon quantum ideas, and apart from changing the mechanics of everyday life, quantum theory also lies behind broad shifts in philosophical thought. Of all those who developed quantum theory, the most eminent was the Danish physicist Niels Bohr.

Bohr's importance is doubly manifest, through his own work and through his overarching influence upon theoretical physics in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Beginning in 1913, his proposal of a highly influential model of the atom laid the basis for quantum mechanics as it finally emerged at the end of the 1920s. Bohr also examined the larger implications of the theory, which entails a radical break with determinism and common-sense notions of cause and effect; and his "Copenhagen interpretation" of the quantum world remains dominant today. With Niels Bohr there comes an end to mainstream efforts to discover some "ultimate" reality. "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is", according to Bohr. "Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

In 1911 when Bohr received his doctorate from the University of Copenhagen, the revolution in understanding the structure of the atom was already under way. Indeed, his doctoral thesis concerned the theory of electrons, which had been discovered about a decade earlier and were known to be the universal constituents of all matter. It had been suggested that the number of electrons in an atom corresponded to its weight, accounting for a variety of different stable atoms. Bohr moved to England to work with the scientist who made the crucial discovery that atoms possessed a compact, massive nucleus. This led physicists to abandon previous theories about atoms in favor of a new model of electrons orbiting a tiny nucleus.

In 1913, Bohr published three papers that concern atomic structure. They effectively changed the course of physics. Although the new model of the atom solved certain important problems, the crucial question remained why the orbiting electrons - evidently attracted to the nucleus - were not destined to be absorbed into it. In brief, the model did not account for the stability of the atom, which is one of its central features.

Bohr perceived that classical Newtonian mechanics could not explain the behavior of matter at atomic scale. He was inspired to turn to quantum physics. During a relatively brief period of intense work in 1912, Bohr examined ho a hydrogen atom radiated light and developed a theory which had an exceptionally close fit with observable facts. He assumed the electron radiated light only when it changed orbits, and so identified the emission of a “quantum” with the “jump” of an electron from one orbit to another. Einstein, upon learning of Bohr's results, commented with characteristic laconic certitude: "This is an enormous achievement"

The new Bohr model of the atom was a fundamental advance, and soon was used to gain a new understanding of the atomic structure of all the known elements. One of Bohr’s accomplishments in 1913 was to identify the quantum jumps of electrons with the X-ray spectra. The next year brought a new, definitive order to the periodic table, subjecting each of the chemical elements to X-ray spectral analysis and assigning to each an atomic number. Over the next several years Bohr managed a number of technical achievements which, a historian wrote, “In retrospect…are all the more fabulous and astounding because they are based on analogies – atomic orbits similar to the motion of the planets around the sun, and spin similar to the rotation of the planets while orbiting – which are in fact false.” Bohr was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1922.

Indeed Bohr’s model of the atom had several significant flaws. What sometimes is called the “first quantum revolution” did not resolve certain problems with the behavior of more complex atoms. Although the theory was developed in various ways between 1913 and 1925, it accumulated serious problems, which would ultimately lead to what is known as the “second quantum revolution”.

During the 1920s Bohr was a key figure in helping to resolve the crisis in physics generated in the atomic structure he himself had proposed. Returning to the University of Copenhagen in 1916, he became professor of theoretical physics and participating in the opening, five years later, of the Institute of Theoretical Physics. In this way Copenhagen became a magnet for physics, with Bohr the central figure. The “second quantum revolution” gave birth to a purely mathematical model of the atom, which effectively acknowledged the limitations of human perception in subatomic events. Advances in wave mechanics, matrix mechanics, and the famous Uncertainty Principle - which acknowledged restrictions upon direct knowledge of physical systems - epitomized it.

In the late 1920s Bohr evolved two principles to help guide the quantum revolution to a successful rebirth. In a famous lecture in 1927, “The Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Theory”, he first discussed the concept of “complementarity”. This is the idea that, although subatomic systems may be measured by contrasting, exclusive models – as waves or as particles – both are needed for a full description of the phenomena. Intrigued by the philosophical implications of the idea, Bohr eventually argued that the complementarity principle might be applied to the problem of free will and basic life processes. Perhaps the most important yield of this idea was that quantum theory was subsequently taken to offer a basically complete description of nature that would not be altered by future discoveries: There is no “deeper” reality lying beyond quantum measurements. Although this notion has been challenged in various ways, it remains the bedrock of the “Copenhagen spirit” – various thought experiments, the “mind of God,” and theories of multiple universes notwithstanding. This doctrine was never fully accepted by Albert Einstein, or a number of physicists, but it endures, basically unchanged, to the present.

During the 1930s Bohr began investigating the expanding field of nuclear physics and in 1934 suggested the “liquid drop” model for the nucleus of the atom; it proved important for understanding nuclear fission. In 1936 he provided a summary theory of the atomic nucleus that became a general guide for physicists over the next decade. In Bohr’s theory, neutrons and protons were tightly knit together in the nucleus by the “strong force”. Although the energy would clearly be released if this compound nucleus were disturbed, at this time the effects of splitting the atom were by no means clear.

After the onset of WWII, Bohr initially remained in Denmark, which was invaded by the Nazis in 1940. Because of his stature, he was able to help some of his colleagues escape persecution, and he refused to cooperate with the Nazi war aims. But in 1943, after rumors convinced him that he was soon to be imprisoned, he and his family escaped to Sweden, then to England and the United States. He soon joined the Manhattan Project, where, he was known by the assumed name of Nicholas Baker for security reasons (everyone called him “Uncle Nick” while he was there). His role in the project was important as a knowledgeable consultant or "father confessor" on the project. He was concerned about a nuclear arms race, and is quoted as saying, "That is why I went to America. They didn't need my help in making the atom bomb."

Bohr believed that atomic secrets should be shared by the international scientific community. After meeting with Bohr, the laboratory director suggested Bohr visit President Franklin D. Roosevelt to convince him that the Manhattan Project should be shared with the Russians in the hope of speeding up its results. Roosevelt suggested Bohr return to the United Kingdom to try to win British approval. Winston Churchill disagreed with the idea of openness towards the Russians.

Returning to Denmark after the war, Bohr was active until the end of his life, retiring from the University of Copenhagen in 1955. A committed scientist who remained opposed to the production of atomic weapons, Bohr wrote a famous public letter to the United Nations in 1950 arguing for rational, peaceful atomic policies:

“Humanity will be confronted with dangers of unprecedented character unless, in due time, measures can be taken to forestall a disastrous competition in such formidable armaments and to establish an international control of the manufacture and use of powerful materials.”

Bohr received the first U.S. Atoms for Peace Award in 1957. He died from a heart attack in his home in 1962 and following this scientists and leading figures worldwide joined in paying tributes to him. President Kennedy wrote, “American scientists, indeed all American citizens who knew doctor Bohr's name and his great contributions, have respected and venerated him for more than two generations.”

Highly collaborative in his approach to physics – rather unlike Einstein in this respect – Bohr was often the subject of lavish praise by colleagues, just as his family and friends adored him. Bohr created the ‘Copenhagen Style’: “We see him, the greatest among his colleagues, acting, taking, living as an equal in a group of young, optimistic, jocular, enthusiastic people, approaching the deepest riddles of nature with a spirit of attack, a spirit of freedom from conventional bonds, and a spirit of joy that can hardly be described.” This is truly the embodiment of academic freedom.

His happy marriage to Margrethe produced six sons, one of who, Aage Bohr, also became a theoretical physicists, and in 1975, he joined his father as a Nobel laureate.

How important were Bohr’s contribution to science? Historian Richard Rhodes (The Making of the Atom Bomb and Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race) puts it simply: “Bohr’s contributions to twentieth-century physics would rank second only to Einstein’s.” Author John Simmons (The Scientific 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present) placed him third, behind only his friendly rival Albert, and Sir Isaac Newton.

 

[timschochet]

Question - has Larry used up his 3 response limit in the current discussion? I wanted to bump my edited Niels Bohr writeup; would hate to see it get buried again like my humanitarian pick was in the avalanche of redundancy.

I tried to throw out tremendous praise for your Bohr pick already; several other people agreed, but it was in the middle of the whole religious thing. Did you see my post on the Einstein-Bohr debate?

 

[Uncle Humuna]

11.17 - Art Tatum - musician/performer

Art Tatum was born Oct. 13, 1909 in Toledo, Ohio and despite being blind in one eye and only partially sighted in the other he became arguably the greatest jazz piano player who ever lived. He came from a musical family and when younger had some formal training at the Toledo School of Music, however he was largely self-taught. His teacher there recognized his talents and tried to steer him towards as a career as a classical concert pianist. Tatum was more interested in the music of XXXXX, which would be a strong influence on his music. At 18 he was playing interludes at a local radio station and within a short period of time he had his own show. In 1932 he was heard by the singer XXXXX who brought him to New York as her accompanist. One year later he made his first recordings, among which was "Tiger Rag". This song which features breakneck tempo and rippling left- andright-hand cascades and crashing bass notes had every pianist in the country amazed by his astonishing dexterity. While in New York he established his reputation in "cutting contests" with other top pianists, which he never lost. He spent the next few years playing in Cleveland, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles and even England in 1938. During this time he established himself as a major figure in jazz circles. In the early 1940s Tatum formed an extremely popular trio with bassist XXXXX and guitarist XXXXX. He spent much of the next decade touring North America. In 1953 Tatum signed by producer XXXXX and recorded extensively both as a soloist and in small groups with XXXXX, soloist and in small groups with XXXXXX and others. His incredible talent allowed him to be extremely productive during this time. xxxxx in his biography, noted that Tatum was constantly "refining and honing down after each performance until an ideal version remained needing no further adjustments". This allowed him to achieve a remarkable work rate. For example, his solo sessions for Granz were mostly completed in two days. That is a total of 69 tracks and all but three of them needed only one take. Sadly, on Nov. 4, 1956 his prodigious output was cut short when he died of uremia, however his artistic influence has been strong and long-lasting.

The starting point of Art Tatum's style was XXXXX stride. As XXXXX once said, "Fats, that's where I come out of and, man, that's quite a place to come from". From this beginning he went on to create and superbly original and creative style of playing piano. His left-handed figures where similar to stride but he was really known for the way that he explored harmonic complexities and unusual chord progressions. When improvising, Tatum would often insert totally new chord sequences (occasionally with a chord on each beat) into one or two measures. He also developed the habit of quoting from other melodies, something that became a standard practice among modern jazz musicians. What really set Tatum apart was his amazing technical abilities which combined with his willingness to explore the imagined limitations of the orthodox keyboard which produced astonishing rhythmic and harmonic complexities. It is claimed that he could identify the dominant note in a flushing toilet. Perhaps the greatest tribute to the excellence of Art Tatum lies in the opinions of his peers. His influenced many musicians including XXXXX, and even non-pianists such as XXXXXand XXXXX. Many would say that he inspired the bebop revolution in jazz. When Oscar Peterson first heard him play he thought it was two people and he considered Tatum the best jazz instrumentalist of all time. Legend has it that classical pianist XXXXX was so awed by Tatum's wizardry that it brought him to tears. Fittingly, his strongest support comes from one of his early influences, XXXXX. One time in 1938 Tatum dropped in to hear Waller play at a club. By way of introduction XXXXX told the audience, "I just play the piano, but God is in the house tonight."

THAT'S what I'm talkin' about.Tatum was a god.

An incredible virtuoso who was hugely influential and highly revered.

1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument.

Oddly, this might be the one area where Tatum could be considered slightly weak.

This is probably mostly due though, to the complete overshadowing of this by his unmatched:

2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.

On par with the classical elite. A true virtuoso. The accolades from piers are unmatched.

Don't want to spotlight, so will wait until draft is over to post more quotes.

3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history

Not quite to the level of Pops, but huge none the less.

Laid the ground work for much of what was to follow in jazz.

Greatly influenced some of the other yet unnamed giants.

4) Popularity.

Can't compare to the, uh, Madonnas of the world, but this is why popularity is 4th on my list.

A great pick.

Nice job Herb.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Looks around...seems quiet in here...think it's safe...



Another shameless bump; this one got brief kudos, then 150+ posts of "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

part 1 of 3

(for the bump did not bump part 2, shortened part 3 considerably)

In a World’s Greatest Draft with a category villain, we all knew Adolf Hitler would be the first one taken. Who could top him? Well, OK, Josef Stalin was probably responsible for a higher number of deaths, so naturally he went number two. As the 20th century is deemed somewhat unique for several state-sponsored genocide attempts - apparently we have collectively forgotten about thirteen Holy Land Crusades, nine of which were authorized by the blessing of seven different papal regimes – we knew Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Slobodon Milosevic would follow at some point. Back to Hitler; he wasn’t the only one responsible for the Holocaust. Three more Nazis would have to be drafted, with timschochet lobbying for a fifth he considers second only to the Fuhrer in responsibility.

Anybody else have Nazi fatigue yet? I’ve always hated them – especially Illinois Nazis...but seriously, we think one third of the world’s worst villains in the last 5,000 years resided in the Third Reich over a twelve-year span?

Well, I am going to take a Nazi – for Humanitarian.

If the attempted systematic elimination of an entire race by a nations government is enough to hold several villains accountable, then there ought to be an equal number of Humanitarians selected from the Righteous Among the Nations.

Righteous Among the Nations is a term used in Judaism to refer to non-Jews who abide by the Seven Laws of Noah and thus are assured of meriting paradise. In secular usage, the term is used by the State of Israel to describe non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust in order to save Jews from extermination by the Nazis.

There have been over 22,000 people named Righteous Among the Nations; over 6,600 from Poland, more than 450 from Germany, and 3 from the U.S.A. In the villain category, we seem to be placing an emphasis on body count (not sure the judging will – but the picks reflect that). With minimal research, you can find at least four foreign service officials – one from the Americas, one from Asia, and two from Europe – who through their diplomatic powers harbored or assured safe passage of thousands or tens of thousands, more Jews than the one I am selecting. All were named among the Righteous Among the Nations.

The man I am selecting next, however, was the first member of the Nazi Party who received this award - which literally translated means “Righteous Gentile” - from the government of Israel. Although he was a German from the Sudetenland, he is buried in Jerusalem. For decades ‘his children’, the 1,200 he saved from almost certain extinction, have visited his grave to pay homage, to lay a small traditional stone on his sarcophagus. Their living descendents now number over 7,000.

His list was life.

part 3 of 3

My choice for humanitarian has been described as a cynical, greedy exploiter of slave workers during the Second World War, a black-marketeer, gambler, member of the Nazi party eternally on the lookout for profit, an alcoholic playboy and shameless womanizer of the worst sort.

In the beginning of the 1960s, this same man was honored in Israel and declared "Righteous" and invited to plant a tree in The Avenue of the Righteous, which leads to the Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem. A memorial in the Park of Heroes praises him as the Savior of more than 1,200 Jews.

He started by earning millions of German marks through exploitation of slave workers and ended by spending his last pfennig and risking his life to save "his" Jews.

11.18 (218th pick) - Oskar Schindler – Humanitarian

This is the true story of one remarkable man who outwitted Hitler and the Nazis to save Jews from the gas chambers than any other during World War II. The story is familiar because of the award winning film, Schindler’s List.

It is the story of someone who surfaced from the chaos of madness, spent millions bribing and paying off the SS and eventually risked his life to rescue the Schindler-Jews. In those years, millions of Jews died in the Nazi death camps like Auschwitz, but Schindler's Jews miraculously survived.

To more than 1200 Jews Oscar Schindler was all that stood between them and death at the hands of the Nazis. A man full of flaws like the rest of us - the unlikeliest of all role models who started by earning millions as a war profiteer and ended by spending his last pfennig and risking his life to save his Jews. An ordinary man, who even in the worst of circumstances, did extraordinary things, matched by no one. He remained true to his Jews, the workers he referred to as my children. In the shadow of Auschwitz he kept the SS out and everyone alive.

"I am the conscience of all those who knew something - but did nothing."

- Oskar Schindler

At least I truncated it...

 

[Uncle Humuna]

I'm on my phone so I can't do a write up, not much introduction should be needed though.

The Rolling Stones- Musical Performers

Judging this category by my own chosen criteria kinda sucks.I should just go with who my favorites are.

I love The Stones.

They are the epitome of rock 'n roll stripped down to it's bare essentials.

Their sound is the true natural evolution of the blues and early rock.

Live, they had an amazing chemistry and incredible sound.

Now, back to my criteria:

1) Artistic expertice - the ability to emote with an instrument.

Actually give The Stones a pretty good mark here. Not as individuals, but as a group.

Their sound is pretty awesome and grooves a go go.

2) Technical mastery of one's instrument.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

3) Innovativeness/importance in musical history

While not as ground breaking as certain other pop/rock groups :coughcoughBeatlescoughcough: they were the leaders in taking the roots sound of the blues and early rock to it's next natural step.

4) Popularity.

Obviously hugely popular.

Definitely a top 5 in the rock world.

Taking into account all genres and using my criteria, they may have a slight chance to scratch the top-20.

The emphasis on #2 hurts their chances though.

I pretty much just went with who I like out of the group that I know are important to music history, and secondarily who I know will be getting votes in the final round. I do have to say that I think the last two categories you are scoring on are a far better criteria for purposes of this draft than the first two. Partially for reasons already discussed that there have probably been thousands of virtuosos thoughout history that no one has ever heard play with no reasonable means of comparision, and also because even today the people who are probably truly the best artistically are rarely heard individually.

I included popularity as a criteria because, I agree, musicianship has to be to be heard to be known.I made it 4th in importance because while it is a prerequisite to being on the list, popularity on its own is not a consistently accurate measure of musicianship, talent or virtuosity.