Blue Moon Top 100 Bands Artists - Full List of Artists (pg 287)

I got five, have five with no prayer, and have five left on my list I felt sure would make it, but now just ticking through the giants who haven't been mentioned yet plus the Mancunian contingent, it's looking like two and maybe three of those won't, and I'm positively flabbergasted. Huge names.
 
RobMCFC said:
Arguments about The Smiths, Prog Rock and other quibbles aside, between us, we seem to have done a fairly reasonable job of getting all the major artists one or more votes (I'm including everybody nominated here, not necessarily the top 100).

So ahead of the start of the top 21 tomorrow, here is a list of major artists from the rock and pop era who received zero nominations:-

Beastie Boys

Grateful Dead

Roy Orbison

Madonna

Smokey Robinson and the Miracles

Fats Domino​

Jerry Lee Lewis

Muddy Waters

Buddy Holly

Ray Charles

Little Richard

Chuck Berry
Click to expand...
That's a very interesting list that @RobMCFC .

I think - sadly - the generation who invented rock'n'roll are just dying out. The people who were in their teens in the 1950s are too. Essentially, that era of music is not being remembered and not being listened to as much.

However, anyone who likes rock and pop music is in debt to these legends. The likes of Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Ray Charles, Muddy Waters and Jerry Lee Lewis massively influenced those who came next - The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Small Faces, Kinks, The Who etc. I remember hearing Little Richard talk about doing a tour and these young kids were in awe of him and kept wanting to talk to him and he wasn't too bothered about it. They kind of got on his nerves a bit as groupies...it was The Beatles and McCartney was a massive fan. You only have to watch "Get Back" to see how Lennon and McCartney loved playing the songs they grew up with - made in the 1950s.

I am a big fan of the 50s rock n rollers. Just listen to the energy that blasts from Little Richard doing Good Golly Miss Molly for example. It's like punk rock on a piano! I like "The Big O" and what a singer he was, but I'm not surprised he didn't make it. The other rock'n'rollers all contributed enormously to modern music and there's plenty of superb music they made.

I've said it before, but essentially The Beatles changed music in a few short years. Music before them sounds maybe too simple, with not too much to it. Nice words, nice melodies but nothing much more than that. It was definitely music for teenagers and wasn't expected to last the test of time. Maybe this chart proves that! :)

However, The Beatles moved it on so quickly that the music of the 50s - and especially 40s - just sounds really old fashioned. Music after The Beatles is much more complicated and 'modern'. Good Molly Miss Molly was released in 1956 and 10 years later "Revolver" is released and a year later Sgt Pepper. I think shows how much they moved music on. Imagine hearing Strawberry Fields as a teenager - you're not going to bother with Roy Orbison are you?

I'm not surprised Madonna isn't on it, she's done some nice pop songs but is over stated as a musician in my opinion. The Beastie Boys are good, but honestly I'd be surprised if anyone would have them in their top 15 artists.

Anyway, the Top 100 and "Not the Top 100" make fascinating lists!
 
GoatersLeftShin said:
That's a very interesting list that @RobMCFC .

I think - sadly - the generation who invented rock'n'roll are just dying out. The people who were in their teens in the 1950s are too. Essentially, that era of music is not being remembered and not being listened to as much.

However, anyone who likes rock and pop music is in debt to these legends. The likes of Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Ray Charles, Muddy Waters and Jerry Lee Lewis massively influenced those who came next - The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Small Faces, Kinks, The Who etc. I remember hearing Little Richard talk about doing a tour and these young kids were in awe of him and kept wanting to talk to him and he wasn't too bothered about it. They kind of got on his nerves a bit as groupies...it was The Beatles and McCartney was a massive fan. You only have to watch "Get Back" to see how Lennon and McCartney loved playing the songs they grew up with - made in the 1950s.

I am a big fan of the 50s rock n rollers. Just listen to the energy that blasts from Little Richard doing Good Golly Miss Molly for example. It's like punk rock on a piano! I like "The Big O" and what a singer he was, but I'm not surprised he didn't make it. The other rock'n'rollers all contributed enormously to modern music and there's plenty of superb music they made.

I've said it before, but essentially The Beatles changed music in a few short years. Music before them sounds maybe too simple, with not too much to it. Nice words, nice melodies but nothing much more than that. It was definitely music for teenagers and wasn't expected to last the test of time. Maybe this chart proves that! :)

However, The Beatles moved it on so quickly that the music of the 50s - and especially 40s - just sounds really old fashioned. Music after The Beatles is much more complicated and 'modern'. Good Molly Miss Molly was released in 1956 and 10 years later "Revolver" is released and a year later Sgt Pepper. I think shows how much they moved music on. Imagine hearing Strawberry Fields as a teenager - you're not going to bother with Roy Orbison are you?

I'm not surprised Madonna isn't on it, she's done some nice pop songs but is over stated as a musician in my opinion. The Beastie Boys are good, but honestly I'd be surprised if anyone would have them in their top 15 artists.

Anyway, the Top 100 and "Not the Top 100" make fascinating lists!
Click to expand...
Terrific perspective. I’m guessing the Beatles will be remembered as the Shakespeares of Western (white) popular music for a very long time. Some who have posted in these threads may consider them boring or conventional now, which I totally get (it’s been 50 years after all) but in historical context they might never be supplanted as the most important and influential popular musicians of all time.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Terrific perspective. I’m guessing the Beatles will be remembered as the Shakespeares of Western (white) popular music for a very long time. Some who have posted in these threads may consider them boring or conventional now, which I totally get (it’s been 50 years after all) but in historical context they might never be supplanted as the most important and influential popular musicians of all time.
Click to expand...
It's a good question that!

Personally, I think when any historian looks back at music from the 20th Century they will land on a few musicians. Of course, we will only look at it from a "western" perspective but I think that the most important musicians will be Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra and The Beatles. There's some names I've left off, I'd not argue if anyone insisted on Gershwin, Stockhausen, Dylan etc but this is arguably THE list of the most important.

It's impossible to single any of them out, without any of them, music would sound incredibly different. No sensible conversation about the greats of that century would exclude these names for a start.

Will they be remembered as the Shakespeare of modern music? It's a great question. Will they be remembered in the same vein as Beethoven, Mozart etc? In my opinion they will be remembered as the best of the 20th Century popular musicians and I think that will last for decades. Will their music be played 300 years from now? I couldn't possibly say. I'm sure there was plenty of other musicians who've been lost in the sands of time.

The only real way to tell is to see what happens when those who were teenagers in the 60s die off, and their children. Only when they are left to stand alone with no 'living memory', similar to Little Richard etc, will we be able to tell.

However, I do think humans like melodic tunes and love songs are timeless. Many of their songs are incredibly complicated yet can be played on a guitar or keyboard. With a modicum of effort you could probably play the Beatles songs in some form within a year of picking up a guitar. You couldn't do that with many classical musicians.

My feeling is that they will still be played in 100 years time. They may be supplanted by someone else, but if you like superb melodies, harmonies and great stories then The Beatles are masters of that. And Human Beings love melodies, harmonies and stories!

Will they be regarded as "the" masters of music like Shakespeare? Probably not, but I suspect that they will be added to the list of musicians who's work lasts beyond their years. It won't be surprising to see lists like Beethoven, Ellington, Mozart, Haydn, The Beatles, Stravinsky and Chopin for example.
 
GoatersLeftShin said:
It's a good question that!

Personally, I think when any historian looks back at music from the 20th Century they will land on a few musicians. Of course, we will only look at it from a "western" perspective but I think that the most important musicians will be Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra and The Beatles. There's some names I've left off, I'd not argue if anyone insisted on Gershwin, Stockhausen, Dylan etc but this is arguably THE list of the most important.

It's impossible to single any of them out, without any of them, music would sound incredibly different. No sensible conversation about the greats of that century would exclude these names for a start.

Will they be remembered as the Shakespeare of modern music? It's a great question. Will they be remembered in the same vein as Beethoven, Mozart etc? In my opinion they will be remembered as the best of the 20th Century popular musicians and I think that will last for decades. Will their music be played 300 years from now? I couldn't possibly say. I'm sure there was plenty of other musicians who've been lost in the sands of time.

The only real way to tell is to see what happens when those who were teenagers in the 60s die off, and their children. Only when they are left to stand alone with no 'living memory', similar to Little Richard etc, will we be able to tell.

However, I do think humans like melodic tunes and love songs are timeless. Many of their songs are incredibly complicated yet can be played on a guitar or keyboard. With a modicum of effort you could probably play the Beatles songs in some form within a year of picking up a guitar. You couldn't do that with many classical musicians.

My feeling is that they will still be played in 100 years time. They may be supplanted by someone else, but if you like superb melodies, harmonies and great stories then The Beatles are masters of that. And Human Beings love melodies, harmonies and stories!

Will they be regarded as "the" masters of music like Shakespeare? Probably not, but I suspect that they will be added to the list of musicians who's work lasts beyond their years. It won't be surprising to see lists like Beethoven, Ellington, Mozart, Haydn, The Beatles, Stravinsky and Chopin for example.
Click to expand...
I'm really thinking of the pop aspect, so both narrower than the other influential artists you note, but also broader too.

Classical music (or jazz too as we know it) is different from pop the same way Elizabethan drama was different than the types that preceded it. The stage became the realm of the people in a different way than it had been prior. Elizabethan drama was "pop" compared to morality plays, or masques or the Italian traveling troupes -- there was "high" and there was "low", and little in between, and little political, unless it was fawning. Obviously, there were plenty of exceptions, and outside influences, but I think Shakespeare (in retrospect) changed all that. And his arc -- from comedy to tragedy -- matches the Beatles arc from love songs to more expansive topical songs.

While Sinatra and Elvis were critical (and James Brown), music was never central to (white) cultural change with the artists of the 50s the way Dylan and The Beatles made it -- it was a pleasurable post-war (in the Western world) adjunct but not a force for change or popular experimentation. Even more important, the Beatles were a BAND and not an "artist", I think -- they were a collective, a social construct -- which I think changed the direction of generations of musicians after in terms of how to present the art itself, and how the resulting art could be more than the sum of its parts (or one part). On a personal note, I suspect this is why I very much prefer "band" music to "solo artists".

Of course it's lovely that we have the recordings we have so that they can/will/could last in the ears of everyone in the future as opposed to just the lyrics and notes.

Anyhow, I really liked the points you made about The Beatles changing the game for everyone, and I guess we won't be around long enough to see if we're right. But, hey how long have basic rock drum patterns been around? Decades already! I think The Beatles are gonna last personally.
 
RobMCFC said:
Arguments about The Smiths, Prog Rock and other quibbles aside, between us, we seem to have done a fairly reasonable job of getting all the major artists one or more votes (I'm including everybody nominated here, not necessarily the top 100).

So ahead of the start of the top 21 tomorrow, here is a list of major artists from the rock and pop era who received zero nominations:-

Beastie Boys

Grateful Dead

Roy Orbison

Madonna

Smokey Robinson and the Miracles

Fats Domino​

Jerry Lee Lewis

Muddy Waters

Buddy Holly

Ray Charles

Little Richard

Chuck Berry
Click to expand...
I've literally missed the entire thread (because I'm an idiot who never checks the off-topic section, as this thread is right up my street) so can't complain but even as a relatively young guy I feel like any list of the 100 best artists is incomplete without Messrs Berry and Holly. Very surprised they didn't receive any nominations at all.

The others on that list are all iconic artists and for good reason, of course- Orbison both wrote and has been namedropped in some of the greatest songs of all time, Little Richard was a trendsetter and Fats Domino even got called the King by Elvis.

But Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly... those are the two that really surprised me with their absence.
 
GoatersLeftShin said:
That's a very interesting list that @RobMCFC .

I think - sadly - the generation who invented rock'n'roll are just dying out. The people who were in their teens in the 1950s are too. Essentially, that era of music is not being remembered and not being listened to as much.

However, anyone who likes rock and pop music is in debt to these legends. The likes of Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Ray Charles, Muddy Waters and Jerry Lee Lewis massively influenced those who came next - The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Small Faces, Kinks, The Who etc. I remember hearing Little Richard talk about doing a tour and these young kids were in awe of him and kept wanting to talk to him and he wasn't too bothered about it. They kind of got on his nerves a bit as groupies...it was The Beatles and McCartney was a massive fan. You only have to watch "Get Back" to see how Lennon and McCartney loved playing the songs they grew up with - made in the 1950s.

I am a big fan of the 50s rock n rollers. Just listen to the energy that blasts from Little Richard doing Good Golly Miss Molly for example. It's like punk rock on a piano! I like "The Big O" and what a singer he was, but I'm not surprised he didn't make it. The other rock'n'rollers all contributed enormously to modern music and there's plenty of superb music they made.

I've said it before, but essentially The Beatles changed music in a few short years. Music before them sounds maybe too simple, with not too much to it. Nice words, nice melodies but nothing much more than that. It was definitely music for teenagers and wasn't expected to last the test of time. Maybe this chart proves that! :)

However, The Beatles moved it on so quickly that the music of the 50s - and especially 40s - just sounds really old fashioned. Music after The Beatles is much more complicated and 'modern'. Good Molly Miss Molly was released in 1956 and 10 years later "Revolver" is released and a year later Sgt Pepper. I think shows how much they moved music on. Imagine hearing Strawberry Fields as a teenager - you're not going to bother with Roy Orbison are you?

I'm not surprised Madonna isn't on it, she's done some nice pop songs but is over stated as a musician in my opinion. The Beastie Boys are good, but honestly I'd be surprised if anyone would have them in their top 15 artists.

Anyway, the Top 100 and "Not the Top 100" make fascinating lists!
Click to expand...
Great post mate. I love Little Richard and Chuck Berry. And your bang on with the Beatles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.