PDA

View Full Version : Greatest Musical Artist of All-Time


AM28143
01-23-2008, 08:53 PM
Take a stab at it! Based on my avatar, you should be able to determine my pick.

CAM178
01-23-2008, 08:54 PM
Deleted. Carry on. . .

rommil
01-23-2008, 09:03 PM
Bjork and Tom Yorke. Unorthodox delivery but very artistic.

AM28143
01-23-2008, 09:05 PM
Not familar with Bjork, but Tom Yorke is a great pick.

caesar66
01-23-2008, 09:10 PM
maybe mozart or vivaldi...if you're talking about fairly contemporary people, maybe coltrane or miles davis

rommil
01-23-2008, 09:13 PM
Not familar with Bjork, but Tom Yorke is a great pick.

Well if you were in an airport and you see this elfin looking woman and you try to take her picture and then you get attacked, that's her lol.

dave333
01-24-2008, 07:43 AM
Mozart and vivaldi are composer's. They played well, but that wasn't how they made their legacies.

Based on stories and not recordings, I'd have to say Niccolo Paganini.

I'd say Jimi Hendrix is up there too.

Andres
01-24-2008, 10:56 AM
Leaving academic musicians behind, and focusing on contempo artist, I have to say:

* Prince (he's GOD)
* Michael Jackson
* Jeff Buckley (amazing singer, guitar player and composer)
* Freddie Mercury (incredible singer, composer, arranger, piano player and frontman)

Morrissey
01-24-2008, 07:36 PM
Take a stab at it! Based on my avatar, you should be able to determine my pick.

Not bad but take a guess who's the best?

<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<

yodudedudeyo
01-24-2008, 07:43 PM
michael jackson

TENNIS_IS_FUN
01-25-2008, 06:38 AM
Matthew Bellamy
Tom Yorke
Dustin Kensrue
Tennis_is_fun

tennis-n-sc
01-25-2008, 07:08 AM
I would have to say Bob Dylan was the most prolific writer of all time, but as a performer, jeez, half the time you don't know what song he is singing.

Live performers in the pop field would have to include Bruce Springsteen, The Stones and Elton John. Their library of music is so vast, everone gets to hum along to something.

Sentinel
01-25-2008, 07:32 AM
slice_bh_compliment
dedan's penthouse (he's GOD)
roger waters
beethoven
tchaikovsky
mozart

McLovin
01-25-2008, 07:51 AM
Eric Clapton

Dedans Penthouse
01-25-2008, 07:58 AM
slice_bh_compliment
dedan's Penthouse (he's GOD)

Who you calling GOD?!!.....I'm not God Sentinel....YOU'RE GOD!!!! :-)


(speaking of God: a little self-deprecating humor)

Q: What's the difference between Dedans Penthouse and God?
A: God doesn't think he's Dedans Penthouse

on-topic: Wolfgang Amadeus would be my all-timer...with slicebhcompliment a close 2nd..


btw, here's a website that you music lovers might want to check out--it's a "vault" of concerts by your favorite artists (none of Mozart himself, unfortunately--think about it: wouldn't that have been cool to be able to see the real "Grand Masters--Bach, Beethoven, Mozart et al--"LIVE" LOL on DVD?). Anyway, check this out:
www.wolfgangsvault.com (click on the "Concert Vault" hotlink on the top toolbar--enjoy!)

Klippy
01-26-2008, 05:49 AM
Axl Rose :D

ewcrider
01-26-2008, 02:21 PM
Boston, so tom scholz and brad delp

maneater
01-26-2008, 06:23 PM
OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE NOBODY HAS MENTION THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME!
http://stef91.hautetfort.com/images/medium_069_3726_Elvis-Presley-Posters.jpg

AM28143
01-26-2008, 06:35 PM
Not bad but take a guess who's the best?

<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<

Is Nadal now a musician? Did his loss against Tsonga force him into an early retirement? :)

jk

Andres
01-26-2008, 06:58 PM
OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE NOBODY HAS MENTION THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME!
http://stef91.hautetfort.com/images/medium_069_3726_Elvis-Presley-Posters.jpg
Greatest what? He didn't even write his own songs... :?
He was a great entertainer, and an above-average singer, but no way he was the GMAOAT.

maneater
01-26-2008, 07:04 PM
Andres!!!!!!!! Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Andres
01-26-2008, 07:05 PM
You know I'm right. I know you love Elvis, but credit to where its due. Elvis was an amazing frontman, a great entertainer, and good singer, and a poor musician.

Peter Gabriel, Freddie Mercury, Prince or MJ owns him everytime.

Gmedlo
01-26-2008, 07:09 PM
Bob Marley.

35ft6
01-26-2008, 07:29 PM
The Beatles, Prince, Kurt Cobain. Also, Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder. Heck yeah Elvis is up there. I'm assuming this thread is about musical artists and not singer-songwriters.

AM28143
01-26-2008, 07:36 PM
The Beatles, Prince, Kurt Cobain. Also, Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder. Heck yeah Elvis is up there. I'm assuming this thread is about musical artists and not singer-songwriters.

As long as they accompany their lyrics with at least one musical instrument, singer-songwriters can be included. So names like Dylan, Guthrie, Ochs, Cash and Taylor are fine.

Dedans Penthouse
01-27-2008, 07:28 AM
The Beatles, Prince, Kurt Cobain. Also, Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder. Heck yeah Elvis is up there. I'm assuming this thread is about musical artists and not singer-songwriters.
Spot on.

Partly what makes a great singer are those 'voices' who also know how to "phrase" a song and in doing so, take a musical piece to another level altogether--sometimes turning a "nice song" into an all-time classic. THOSE 'voices' (imho) are musicians of the first order. For example, Marah Carey? Technically, that crusty bed-bug has "the pipes" ..... yet at the same time, her over-the-top Mimi Ripperton-esque show off warbling especially at the end of many of her songs doesn't strike me as very "musician-ish" (imho). Put it this way: as 'voices' go, Mariah ain't no Joe "60 Minute Man" Williams; then again, few--imo--are in that "classy" class. (your "mileage" may vary regarding that opinion and I admit that there's no accounting for personal taste, etc..

Hey!....I can't believe nobody mentioned Joey Ramone! Now, THERE'S a singer~! Yes, like Elvis, he got by partly because of his *cough* GOOD LOOKS, but the guy -- give him credit -- could "phrase." :cool:

"Hey daddy-o!.....I dunwanna go....down to the base!"(ment)

"Now I wanna sniff some glue....now I wanna have somethin' to do!"

I love listening to (and playing) J.S. Bach's Tocatta & Fugue in D Minor, but I also love listening to "Mr. Smooth" himself; Joey Ramone as well. :cool:

Sometimes, we take things for granted. Take ears for example....think of all the beautiful 'gifts' they've exposed you to. So the next time you see an ear, say something nice to it... :-)

max
01-27-2008, 11:14 AM
Joe Cocker.

SFrazeur
01-27-2008, 11:24 AM
Roy Orbison.


-SF

Shashwat
01-27-2008, 11:31 AM
Soulja Boy *
Bob Marley
Michael Jackson
Elvis Presley
Pink Floyd
The Beatles
Johnny Cash?



*Note sarcasm.

35ft6
01-27-2008, 11:53 AM
Partly what makes a great singer are those 'voices' who also know how to "phrase" a song and in doing so, take a musical piece to another level altogether--sometimes turning a "nice song" into an all-time classic. THOSE 'voices' (imho) are musicians of the first order. True. Like Sinatra, to me not a great voice, but a great singer because of his impeccable phrasing. And then there are people with great tonal quality, like Randy Newman or Ray Charles.For example, Marah Carey? Technically, that crusty bed-bug has "the pipes" ..... yet at the same time, her over-the-top Mimi Ripperton-esque show off warbling especially at the end of many of her songs doesn't strike me as very "musician-ish" (imho). Put it this way: as 'voices' go, Mariah ain't no Joe "60 Minute Man" Williams; then again, few--imo--are in that "classy" class. (your "mileage" may vary regarding that opinion and I admit that there's no accounting for personal taste, etc.. I don't mind Mariah that much. I actually think her singing has improved over the years. Anyway, incredible mic technique, and I think she's underrated because of her technique, there's something about that level of proficiency that makes the music seem insincere. Maybe Celine Dion and Steven Speilberg get hammered for the same reasons. Beyonce might be underrated, too. We all know she's gorgeous, but that girl does some interesting things with tone in her singing, very subtle, she goes off key and then reconciles within two measures perfectly. Another underrated singer, Natalie Maines of The Dixie Chicks. And so on.

SFrazeur
01-27-2008, 12:12 PM
Roy Orbison.

Other Honorable mentions in the voice department include in no particular order: Freddie Mercury, Jay Black, P.J. Proby.

-SF

AM28143
01-27-2008, 01:04 PM
True. Like Sinatra, to me not a great voice, but a great singer because of his impeccable phrasing. And then there are people with great tonal quality, like Randy Newman or Ray Charles.I don't mind Mariah that much. I actually think her singing has improved over the years. Anyway, incredible mic technique, and I think she's underrated because of her technique, there's something about that level of proficiency that makes the music seem insincere. Maybe Celine Dion and Steven Speilberg get hammered for the same reasons. Beyonce might be underrated, too. We all know she's gorgeous, but that girl does some interesting things with tone in her singing, very subtle, she goes off key and then reconciles within two measures perfectly. Another underrated singer, Natalie Maines of The Dixie Chicks. And so on.

The problem I have with Celine Dion, Beyonce and others like them is that they don't write their own songs. In order to be considered a great musical artist, one should, IMHO, peform material they wrote. There are so many people who sing well, but so few great songwriters. There are hundreds of girls who, if given the chance, could sing just as well as Celine Dion or Beyonce. However, there are few individuals able to write songs as well as Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young, James Taylor, John Lennon or Paul McCartney.

And, BTW, what's up with the new Avatar? Some fat and strange looking guy over Hemingway. What's up with that.

Vision84
01-27-2008, 04:19 PM
Johnny Cash is probably my vote off the top of my head.

tricky
01-27-2008, 04:59 PM
The problem I have with Celine Dion, Beyonce and others like them is that they don't write their own songs. In order to be considered a great musical artist, one should, IMHO, peform material they wrote

But then you disqualify most classical artists. The "I write my own stuff therefore I am credible" ethos is really particular to rock culture, not pop music as a whole.

I actually think her singing has improved over the years. Anyway, incredible mic technique, and I think she's underrated because of her technique, there's something about that level of proficiency that makes the music seem insincere.

Both Whitney and Mariah's really damaged her voice through the years. Which is a shame because Mariah could do pretty clean runs and had perfect access to her whistle register. Mariah's lost a lot of range in her chest voice, so now she does that cooing/whispering stuff using more of her head voice. She used to have such a beautiful, warm tone too.

Among male rock singers and just raw singing ability, I like Jimmy Gnecco best, above say Thom Yorke and Matt Bellamy. I think he tops out at 4 octaves, whereas his friend Jeff Buckley was about 4.5 octaves, and his singing influences include Mercury, Bono, Morrissey, and even Sarah McLachlan. Gnecco loves to do Roy Orbison and Queen covers live.

For example,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwVzCrVsfHc&feature=related

Phil
01-27-2008, 05:11 PM
But then you disqualify most classical artists. The "I write my own stuff therefore I am credible" ethos is really particular to rock culture, not pop music as a whole.



Both Whitney and Mariah's really damaged her voice through the years. Which is a shame because Mariah could do pretty clean runs and had perfect access to her whistle register. Mariah's lost a lot of range in her chest voice, so now she does that cooing/whispering stuff using more of her head voice. She used to have such a beautiful, warm tone too.

Among male rock singers and just raw singing ability, I like Jimmy Gnecco best, above say Thom Yorke and Matt Bellamy. I think he tops out at 4 octaves, whereas his friend Jeff Buckley was about 4.5 octaves, and his singing influences include Mercury, Bono, Morrissey, and even Sarah McLachlan. Gnecco loves to do Roy Orbison and Queen covers live.

For example,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwVzCrVsfHc&feature=related
If you're talking about greatest vocalists, I'm not sure Thom Yorke or Matt Bellamy would really be in the mix. I'm a rock/pop fan-other than instrumental jazz, it's my favorite form of music. But as a contemporary rock/pop fan, I have to give credit to an artist outside of the genre just for sheer talent and ability to find his way around a song: Frank Sinatra. If you're a fan of great singing and can appreciate a voice from another era, then listen to this guy. The phrasing, the arrangements, the timbre of his voice. He's absolutely sublime; the best vocalist ever.

AM28143
01-27-2008, 05:20 PM
But then you disqualify most classical artists. The "I write my own stuff therefore I am credible" ethos is really particular to rock culture, not pop music as a whole.


It should be. Writing songs is the most difficult aspect of the musical process.

How can someone say Beyonce is more talented than say, Neil Young? There are 1,000s of girls who could do the same thing as Beyonce, but most probably aren't good looking enough. Neil Young, on the other hand, is unique and orginal because the words he sings are actually coming from HIS heart.

tricky
01-27-2008, 05:20 PM
Yeah, I was just speaking from personal preferences.

if we're talking about all-time great vocalist, then you have to throw in Sinatra, Ella, Sarah, and especially Billie. If we're talking about great soul/non-gospel interpreters, Al Green is probably my favorite, over Arethra, Otis, Marvin, and Sam.

Phil
01-27-2008, 05:25 PM
Yeah, I was just speaking from personal preferences.

if we're talking about all-time great vocalist, then you have to throw in Sinatra, Ella, Sarah, and especially Billie. If we're talking about great soul/non-gospel interpreters, Al Green is probably my favorite, over Arethra, Otis, Marvin, and Sam.
I also like Al Green a lot-would probably give him a slight edge over Marvin Gaye. Aretha is, IMO, the best female vocalist ever.

jcstennis
01-27-2008, 05:27 PM
Paul McCartney...
Michael Hedges (guitar)

tricky
01-27-2008, 05:28 PM
It should be. Writing songs is the most difficult aspect of being a muscian.I know a lot of rock fans feel that way, but I find that sentiment is myopic and in line with "rockist" (yeah, that's a word now) musos. By that token, that would make the songwriters from Steely Dan by far the best artists because they wrote complex melodies worthy of Bacharach and acidic lyrics worthy of Sondheim.

Even when citing Dylan, there are literally 1000s of English majors across the country who went through their TS Eliott/Plath phase can and have write Ginsberg and Rimbaud into their poems and tunes. For example, Lou Reed. Songwriting is only one facet of that artistry.

Also, if you figure in the effect of punk culture onto rock, there was a marked move away from complex song structure and melodics and stuff. Which I think contradicts the notion that artistry must be qualified against "how difficult it is to make it."

Neil Young, on the other hand, is unique and orginal because the words he sings are actually coming from HIS heart.Not a big fan of Neil Young as a songwriter. (LOVE him as a guitarist) His lyrics sometimes too self consciously pandering to that which would be popular with critics or prevailing rock culture.

Similar thing with Springsteen, who wrote terrific narratives but when writing in his current coffessionary style, falls onto cliches and same Springsteen-ian images.

AM28143
01-27-2008, 05:37 PM
I know a lot of rock fans feel that way, but I find that sentiment is myopic and in line with "rockist" (yeah, that's a word now) musos. By that token, that would make the songwriters from Steely Dan by far the best artists because they wrote complex melodies worthy of Bacharach and acidic lyrics worthy of Sondheim.

Even when citing Dylan, there are literally 1000s of English majors across the country who went through their TS Eliott/Plath phase can and have write Ginsberg and Rimbaud into their poems and tunes. For example, Lou Reed. Songwriting is only one facet of that artistry.

Also, if you figure in the effect of punk culture onto rock, there was a marked move away from complex song structure and melodics and stuff. Which I think contradicts the notion that artistry must be qualified against "how difficult it is to make it."


I respect your approach, and I understand where you're coming from. However, I don't understand your "complex song structure" argument. Just becasue something is more complex, doesn't make it better. Cormac McCarthy, IMO, is a much better writer than Dan Brown, even though Dan Brown constructs more complex storylines. Complexity doesn't always mean quality.

Not a big fan of Neil Young as a songwriter. (LOVE him as a guitarist) His lyrics sometimes too self consciously pandering to that which would be popular with critics or prevailing rock culture.

Similar thing with Springsteen, who wrote terrific narratives but when writing in his current coffessionary style, falls onto cliches and same Springsteen-ian images.

Agree with you about Springsteen, but disagree with you about Young. Just my opinion, though.

tricky
01-27-2008, 06:04 PM
However, I don't understand your "complex song structure" argument. Just becasue something is more complex, doesn't make it betterRight, and because some aspect of artistry is "harder" (i.e. more complex"), also doesn't make it better than other aspects. This is what I disagree with rock musos, who make a big stink about how other "lower" pop musics (like hip-hop or straight pop artists) don't make their own music, but then they get defensive from jazz and classical musos who complain about how everything is so "simple" and "uneducated" (i.e. lack of formal training) in rock music. They want it both ways because they want to assert the unique circumstances of rock music culture as more "important."

Agree with you about Springsteen, but disagree with you about Young. Just my opinion, though.

I'm actually a big Springteen fan, but I just feel he gets a EZ pass because he was so big and important for so long. Well, at least, in American circles. In British muso circles, they're much harder on him.

katastrof
01-27-2008, 06:59 PM
The ultimate artist, in my opinion, is Bob Dylan.

Other than that: Hendrix, Love (& Arthur Lee), Lou Reed (& the Velvet Underground), John Coltrane, Sonny Rollins.

I also give an honorary position to David Bowie.

Among some heavier & contemporary stuff: Opeth, Iron Maiden.

AM28143
01-27-2008, 07:24 PM
The ultimate artist, in my opinion, is Bob Dylan.


Couldn't argree with you more.

tricky
01-27-2008, 07:53 PM
I think a case can be made for James Brown.

Even looking at pop stars today like Usher and Justin Timberlake, the way they turn out song and dance almost like a one man show, goes back to Brown. And of course, the moonwalk was HIS.

The truly radical notion that political and socially conscious music could/should also be sexy, party music was what the folkies at Newport Convention hated on Dylan, and continues on with MIA today.

His grooves have been appropriated for 40+ years by rock musicians, dance artists, and hip-hop artists. His emphasis on repetition, rhythm, and call+response catchphrases (i.e. funk) dominated popular music since WW2.

35ft6
01-27-2008, 10:31 PM
The problem I have with Celine Dion, Beyonce and others like them is that they don't write their own songs. In order to be considered a great musical artist, one should, IMHO, peform material they wrote. I don't agree with this. And I think you can be a great musical artist by composing alone without ever performing your own material. Likewise, I think you can be a great filmmaker simply by being a director, not even writing your own movies.There are so many people who sing well, but so few great songwriters. There are hundreds of girls who, if given the chance, could sing just as well as Celine Dion or Beyonce.But it's not just about singing technique. To be a star you need star quality. Without it, nobody will even know about you enough to put you down. Even Robert Allen Zimmerman knew that image was important.However, there are few individuals able to write songs as well as Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young, James Taylor, John Lennon or Paul McCartney. See, I really wouldn't know. I don't even like a few of these guys. So much about experiencing and evaluating music is intellectualizing a gut reaction.

tricky
01-27-2008, 11:01 PM
Dylan's really special in that he was bigger than the genre itself. Meaning, he could have gone into soul, country, blues, or stayed as folk (by 65, he was already seen as Woodie Guthrie's heir), and in any of those genres elevated them within the popular imagination. He happened to choose rock music -- which was not looked well upon by the beatnik counterculture or folk bohemia -- and in return spurned the maturation of pop music as a whole.

Within rock music itself, in terms of influence and legacy, the only other rock songwriter that I put close to that level of Dylan and Macca/Lennon, is Morrissey. Over Pete Townsend's adolescent epics, Bowie's sci-fi lullabies, Weller's class warfare, Davies's empire elegies, and Roger Walters' metaphysical self-loathing. The reason is Morrissey did all that, and he deflated all that. He snarked at that; he preened at that; he developed a rock lyricism derived from distinctivly Brit traditions like Noel Coward and Oscar Wilde, blending the ironic connection between outrage and humor like few aside from Elvis Costello. He could be effeminate and narcissistic and a celibate glam ****, charming and very insufferable, but at the end of the day, write for the masses against the classes. Above all, he got more than 20 years of British artists to want to do the exact same thing, and in doing so, help force a cultural split between American rock and British rock. After 1985, America started looking away from the UK, and the UK started to assert its own rock tradition.

Nuke
01-28-2008, 05:08 AM
Paul McCartney: One of the all-time best songwriters ever, great singer, advanced the state of the art for electric bass, competent on guitar, piano and drums, and a decent record producer. And some females thought he was the cute one.

AM28143
01-28-2008, 06:28 AM
I don't agree with this. And I think you can be a great musical artist by composing alone without ever performing your own material. Likewise, I think you can be a great filmmaker simply by being a director, not even writing your own movies.

Good point. However, you must agree that writing and performing, or writing and directing is a greater accomplishment than just doing one of the two. Therefore, I think the "greatest" musical artist should be able to do both.
But it's not just about singing technique. To be a star you need star quality. Without it, nobody will even know about you enough to put you down. Even Robert Allen Zimmerman knew that image was important.
Dylan knew image was important, but evidently, he never cared. After gaining international fame as a topical folk singer, Dylan told everyone to "f**k off" and bought an electric guitar. Eventually, in some respects, the move allowed Dylan to become more popular, however, nobody including Dylan believed that would happen at the time. Dylan did that because he was sick of “himself and all of his creation” and wanted to do something different, to change his already popular image, despite the fact he knew he would lose some fans. Dylan was one the few artists to not sell out to popular demand. Unlike Beyonce or Mariah Carey, Dylan didn’t care what people thought about him and there is something to be said about that. Unlike so many today, he dared to be different.

See, I really wouldn't know. I don't even like a few of these guys. So much about experiencing and evaluating music is intellectualizing a gut reaction.
And that’s what our argument stems from, different taste in music. Music tastes are as subjective, more so than taste in literature or movies, and everyone has a different approach to what makes great music. I guess we “feel the same, but we see it from a different point of view.” :)

lonestar
01-28-2008, 06:29 AM
Stevie Wonder (Genius)
James Brown
Prince
Miles Davis
John Coltrane
Jimmy Hendrix
Sly Stone

bluegrasser
01-28-2008, 06:58 AM
Man, where do you start - when I think great, the word *impact* comes into the equation, thus : Mozart, Sinatra, Elvis, Beatles, Stones, SRV, Tony Rice, & others.

35ft6
01-28-2008, 11:18 AM
Good point. However, you must agree that writing and performing, or writing and directing is a greater accomplishment than just doing one of the two. Therefore, I think the "greatest" musical artist should be able to do both.I see your point, but in regards to filmmaking, probably disagree a bit. Prime example is Speilberg, who I think is one of the all time greats, but didn't write any of his most heralded films. Is Kevin Smith better simply for writing AND directing? Ed Burns? Woody Allen is up there but in terms of sheer film craft, is he even really in the same league as Speilberg?

I feel like musician is a pretty broad term. It could mean songwriter, singer, producer, guitarist, etc. Is Pavarotti or Maria Callas less than James Blunt because they didn't write their operas?

Again, I see your point? I'm being rhetorical. I'm not dogmatic about any of this, I find this very interesting.

Gmedlo
01-28-2008, 11:34 AM
I've never heard any of the artists mentioned here do any improv, which, in terms of doing well, I believe is far more difficult than composing.



Anyone have any links? Otherwise, I think i'll hold to the belief that a lot of rappers are more musically talented than most of the people mentioned.

tricky
01-28-2008, 01:59 PM
Dylan did that because he was sick of “himself and all of his creation” and wanted to do something different, to change his already popular image, despite the fact he knew he would lose some fans.

Actually, the current thought on Dylan was that he was very conscious of his image, and that he deliberately manipulated that image to his own ends. At one point (esp, in high school), he actually could sing in a normal voice, but he took on the nasal, drawlly style in order to more mimic his hero Woodie Guthrie. Some people within the folk community felt that he used that community in order to distinguish himself and then to make the crossover attempt. He himself had played good ol' boogie in high school; he always loved rock and roll (he probably preferred rock and roll too), but his muse was Woodie and he followed that and the trail of Woodie's songbook (i.e. the old country-blues, country-folk, and gospel spirituals that go along with that) instead.

It's a matter of perspective too. From the folkie point of view, Dylan DID sell out, regardless of his intention. From the rock point of view, Dylan transformed rock music; in fact, he possibly saved rock music from becoming merely teenage make-out music. It's hard to appreciate the context now, but it would have been the equivalent of The Clash switching over to doing full-on cokehead disco after London Calling. Folkies felt betrayed, because he was no longer theirs anymore than, whereas Dylan hated the myopia (or identification throguh exclusion, which is BTW fundamental to how punk and other cultural/musical circles function) with that group.

I've never heard any of the artists mentioned here do any improv, which, in terms of doing well, I believe is far more difficult than composing.

You mean, in doing freestyle raps / battling, or musical improvisation (i.e. jazz and soloing?)

drakulie
01-28-2008, 02:19 PM
Beethoven & Mozart.

UW_Husky88
01-28-2008, 02:21 PM
Hurricane Chris (the guy who made Ay Bay Bay) and Soulja Boy.

Theyz hella Thuggin.

AM28143
01-28-2008, 02:36 PM
Actually, the current thought on Dylan was that he was very conscious of his image, and that he deliberately manipulated that image to his own ends.

"The current thought on Dylan......"? He's not a historic figure, he still is alive and willing to answer questions about himself and his past.

At one point (esp, in high school), he actually could sing in a normal voice, but he took on the nasal, drawlly style in order to more mimic his hero Woodie Guthrie. Some people within the folk community felt that he used that community in order to distinguish himself and then to make the crossover attempt. He himself had played good ol' boogie in high school; he always loved rock and roll (he probably preferred rock and roll too), but his muse was Woodie and he followed that and the trail of Woodie's songbook (i.e. the old country-blues, country-folk, and gospel spirituals that go along with that) instead.

Some good points. However, it is high school, and Dylan (or Zimmerman then) didn't know who he was. Dylan didn't discover himself until Greenwhich Village, he wasn't even a good musician until Greenwhich Village.

Also, I doubt he ever had a "normal" singing voice based on the fact he doesn't have a "normal" talking voice.

It's a matter of perspective too. From the folkie point of view, Dylan DID sell out, regardless of his intention. From the rock point of view, Dylan transformed rock music; in fact, he possibly saved rock music from becoming merely teenage make-out music. It's hard to appreciate the context now, but it would have been the equivalent of The Clash switching over to doing full-on cokehead disco after London Calling. Folkies felt betrayed, because he was no longer theirs anymore than, whereas Dylan hated the myopia (or identification throguh exclusion, which is BTW fundamental to how punk and other cultural/musical circles function) with that group.

The folkies were making Dylan into someone he was not. So he betrayed them. I guess you're right in a way, but it wasn't like all "folkies" hated Dylan after the switch, most continued to buy his albums and see his concert and are still fans today.

drakulie
01-28-2008, 02:42 PM
^^^Uhmm, Dylan was and is still not a "good" musician. What he **WAS**, was a great lyricist. He came around at a time that was perfect for him. Nothing more.

AM28143
01-28-2008, 03:03 PM
^^^Uhmm, Dylan was and is still not a "good" musician. What he **WAS**, was a great lyricist. He came around at a time that was perfect for him. Nothing more.

Dylan received attention BEFORE he started writing his own songs……..Johnny Cash thought Dylan was a genius BEFORE he started writing his own songs………His critically acclaimed first album only contained TWO originals. So, obviously there are many people who disagree with you. :) Me being one.

Also, he "was" a good lyricist? You are saying that he is not anymore, right? Well, if so, why was his last album, Modern Times, named best album of the year by Rolling Stone and many others.

tricky
01-28-2008, 03:14 PM
"The current thought on Dylan......"? He's not a historic figure, he still is alive and willing to answer questions about himself and his past.Right, but "Dylanology" is its own cottage industry in muso circles. I'm sure he finds it amusing. :D

Also, I doubt he ever had a "normal" singing voice based on the fact he doesn't have a "normal" talking voice. Nah, that was straight from Scorsese's last documentary. Dylan originally didn't drawl and didn't play up his nasal tone like that in his singing. It's the same thing with Tom Waits -- his bourbon baritone was something he developed to go with the image he wanted to project in his music.

The folkies were making Dylan into someone he was not. So he betrayed them. Dylan himself was consciously challenging the notion of "sell out" against ANY artist, not just himself. So if you say Dylan was not a sell out because he stayed true to himself, one cannot say that Rod Stewart was a sell out or the Stones sold out or local indie act sold out, because their original audience didn't like what they made. He would have challenged the precious and possessive nature -by which his own generation held their artists, since he himself bemoaned the lack of tradition within rock music. He didn't care that much for the counterculture, but he did a wonderful job marketing himself to it. It makes him no less a great artist for the fact that he did exploit his generation's self-important desire for pop icons.

drakulie
01-28-2008, 03:16 PM
Dylan received attention BEFORE he started writing his own songs……..

What is so big about him receiving attention before he did anything musically??

Do you mean attention from parents, friends etc?? Casue everyone has had this type of attention.

Johnny Cash thought Dylan was a genius BEFORE he started writing his own songs………

Cash?? LOL. This guy knew how to play 3 chords, and had a horrible voice. In fact, he didn't sing>>> he talked during his songs. So, the fact dylan "tried" to sing and knew 4 chords doesn't surprise me that falling down Johnny would think he was a genius.

His critically acclaimed first album only contained TWO originals.

Two originals? How "original". :roll:


Also, he "was" a good lyricist? You are saying that he is not anymore, right? Well, if so, why was his last album, Modern Times, named best album of the year by Rolling Stone and many others.

Rolling Stone? Oh, you mean that magazine that hangs on helplessly to old folk-heros who can't sing?

Gmedlo
01-28-2008, 03:21 PM
You mean, in doing freestyle raps / battling, or musical improvisation (i.e. jazz and soloing?)

Either, as they are one in the same.

AM28143
01-28-2008, 03:35 PM
What is so big about him receiving attention before he did anything musically??

Do you mean attention from parents, friends etc?? Casue everyone has had this type of attention.

He received critical attention to clarify.

Cash?? LOL. This guy knew how to play 3 chords, and had a horrible voice. In fact, he didn't sing>>> he talked during his songs. So, the fact dylan "tried" to sing and knew 4 chords doesn't surprise me that falling down Johnny would think he was a genius.

Anyone who says Cash had a "horrible voice," knows nothing about music and should not be taken seriously. Sorry, but it's the truth.

Two originals? How "original". :roll:
Well, then, after that album, he wrote over 100 orginals in 3 years.

I hate to attack people, but I'll always fight for Dylan, especially against people who obviously have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

drakulie
01-28-2008, 03:44 PM
He received critical attention to clarify.

OK. Please "clarify", what type of "critical attention" he received before he ever did anything? Are you suggesting people **KNEW** he was going to be a big star in the future?? I hope you could see how silly you sound.


Anyone who says Cash had a "horrible voice," knows nothing about music and should not be taken seriously. Sorry, but it's the truth.

One doesn't need to know anything about music to know that for the most part>>> he didn't sing during songs>>> he spoke. And to add, many times was out of key and rythm with his band.

Well, then, after that album, he wrote over 100 orginals in 3 years.

I know people who have written hundreds of original songs, and have yet to even make one album. This doesn't make them great.

FYI>>> typically new bands already have hundreds of songs written, and simply put their best songs on the first album. Then use the best of the rest on their second. and so on.

AM28143
01-28-2008, 03:56 PM
OK. Please "clarify", what type of "critical attention" he received before he ever did anything? Are you suggesting people **KNEW** he was going to be a big star in the future?? I hope you could see how silly you sound.


It's not worth the effort to collect names of music critics in New York back in 1962, but I can tell you that based on what I've read, and I've read 8 or so books on Dylan, almost everyone who heard him perform in 1962 was blown away with his talent. I mean within two years he would be playing in Washington infront of 100,000 blacks marching for freedom. Someone must've appreciated his music, don't you think?

One doesn't need to know anything about music to know that for the most part>>> he didn't sing during songs>>> he spoke. And to add, many times was out of key and rythm with his band.

Cash didn't sing? Have you been drinking the crazy-aid? Right after you said he didn't sing, he spoke, you write "he was out of key and r(h)ythm." If you are trying to stay in key and rhythm, you are singing not speaking. Duh!

FYI>>> typically new bands already have hundreds of songs written, and simply put their best songs on the first album. Then use the best of the rest on their second. and so on.

Why is that relevent?

drakulie
01-28-2008, 04:13 PM
Someone must've appreciated his music, don't you think?

Appreciating someones music (in his case lyrics), and being a great musician are two very different things.


Cash didn't sing? Have you been drinking the crazy-aid? Right after you said he didn't sing, he spoke, you write "he was out of key and r(h)ythm." If you are trying to stay in key and rhythm, you are singing not speaking. Duh!

Only one drinking "crazy aid" is you. Rappers, don't sing>>> they rap (speak). And they stay within a rythm, or beat, and key.

Again, for the most part>> cash didn't sing, he spoke during his songs. Many times>>> out of rythm.

Why is that relevent?

It's "relevant" because you suggest just because Dylan wrote 100 songs after his first album>>> that makes him great.

Again, Dylan's greatness comes from the politically charged "messages" his songs had. He came out at the right time. Nothing more.

Dylan was never a great musician. He was a great lyricist. (A LONG TIME AGO)

AM28143
01-28-2008, 04:20 PM
Have you ever heard a Bob Dylan song? Or a Johnny Cash song for that matter? How old are you?

Anyway, Drakulie, I don't want to argue anymore, so I guess we have to agree to disagree.

drakulie
01-28-2008, 04:24 PM
^^^ Just to correct you>>> THERE NEVER WAS AN ARGUMENT. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION, IN WHICH YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG.

AM28143
01-28-2008, 04:27 PM
^^^ Just to correct you>>> THERE NEVER WAS AN ARGUMENT. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION, IN WHICH YOU WERE PROVEN WRONG.

I think most reasonable people would agree with me, but whatever.

my_forehand
01-30-2008, 02:52 AM
You know I'm right. I know you love Elvis, but credit to where its due. Elvis was an amazing frontman, a great entertainer, and good singer, and a poor musician.

Peter Gabriel, Freddie Mercury, Prince or MJ owns him everytime.

Soulja Boy *
Bob Marley
Michael Jackson
Elvis Presley
Pink Floyd
The Beatles
Johnny Cash?



*Note sarcasm.

THRILLLLER!!

Buuurnz
01-30-2008, 03:09 AM
Beethoven, Bob Marley, Beatles,

Rui
01-30-2008, 08:45 PM
'Musical artist' should be strongly weighted toward the performance side. It's nice if songwriters can perform their own material. But, give me Andreas Bocelli over Neil Young any day...even in Italian.

superman1
01-30-2008, 09:33 PM
John Lennon. Add his Beatles work to his solo work and it's impossible to compete with.

Tempest344
01-30-2008, 09:39 PM
depeche mode?

for heavy Metal
either Metallica or Iron Maiden


also
how about
Alice cooper?

daszer
01-30-2008, 09:52 PM
Blink 182 Atw Xd

tzinc
01-30-2008, 10:04 PM
Bach of course

Serve em Up
01-31-2008, 03:56 AM
My GOAT:
AMADEUS MOZART!

Music is too varied and rich to seriously name one individual as the GOAT.

Other Notables:
Beethoven
Bach
Handel
Wynton Marsalis (trumpet)
Dennis Brain (Horn)
Segovia (guitar)
Pavarotti, Berverly Sills, Kathleen Battle (Voice)
Isaac Stern (Violin)
Jean-Pierre Rampal (Flute)


From the Popular Side:

Eric Johnson, Jimmy Page, Clapton, Eddie Van Halen (guitar)
Neil Peart, Jon Bonham (drums)
John Williams (Composition, Movie Scores)
Keith Emerson (Piano)
Bobby McFerrin, Ella Fitgerald (Voice)

Dedans Penthouse
01-31-2008, 06:51 AM
Serve em up: nice list.
(...like Telemann=Baroque category; Grieg/"semi-modern" category as well)

Like you, I'm not getting bogged-down with the question of whether or not a "musical artist" WRITES their own material; I view the term "artist" as not to be limited to "composers only." So, to that end, I'm adding Vladimir Horowitz to the list. At age 90, weezing "Vlad-the-inhaler" returned to Russia to play a concert in Moscow.

What a show! Bon Jovi opened up for him and since the Russian ushers handed out "EARS" to the ticketholders before the show, the Jersey 'poseurs' (not surprisingly) got booed off the stage. Then Vlad took over, the house lights when up, and from there it was "lights out!" Ok, so I made up the Bon Guido part, but Vlad at 90, still had the chops; his virtuosity remained stunning; truly one of the preeminient pianists of all-time.

And this from a guy who is also very familiar with the other end of the musical spectrum, e.g. GWAR's "Rock and Roll Never Felt So Good." :-)

9000tennis
01-31-2008, 01:59 PM
The Joes

Joe Strummer:
http://www.filmfestivaltoday.com/uploadedimages/sundance07_joe_strummer.jpg

And Joe Que er:
http://www.officialramones.com/site/images/avindep1.jpg

Applesauceman
01-31-2008, 02:13 PM
Yeah, gotta agree with...

Freddie Mercury

Absolutely incredible singer!

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-31-2008, 02:17 PM
Michael Jackson is the GOAT. Moonwalking on stage- game over..

drakulie
01-31-2008, 02:59 PM
^^^ I wonder if he ever had any pet goats??

SFrazeur
01-31-2008, 03:03 PM
^^^ I wonder if he ever had any pet goats??

If so, not lonely ones. Yeah I said it.

-SF

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-31-2008, 03:10 PM
^^^ I wonder if he ever had any pet goats??


LOL. And to think he could of got any women he wanted. Brook shields or goats?

DrewRafter8
01-31-2008, 05:35 PM
My vote goes to Jake and Elwood Blues!