WXPN (Philly) 885 Greatest Artists of All-Time Poll

John Mayer over Sam Cooke? Fiona Apple over Smokey and the Miracles? Counting Crows over Marvin Gaye and Ella? Wow.

 

Oh for crying out loud, I don't know why people even do these ginormous lists. 885 artists? Billy Idol must feel GREAT about just making the list, with such distinguished artists as the Animal Liberation Orchestra. Put that on a scroll and frame it. They would have avoided a lot of this silly "___ ahead of ___? Preposterous!" reaction you see had they just called it 885 Favorite Artists of All-Time. Best is way too vague an adjective unless you reign it in a little with certain criteria or quantitative measures (like, for instance, a timed XC race. There isn't much doubt the kid who finishes a 5K course in 17:16 with no one faster is, in that race, the best). Of course, I didn't even have to read this thread, so hats off to me.

 

Kind of admirable to even try and put together a list of this magnitude. It does tend to generate comments one way or another as evidenced by on this thread.

And I'll add mine:

Mitchell at 10 and Radiohead at 21--no effin' way.

Travesties

Queen (68), Eagles (70), Fleetwood (84)

Traveshamockeries

Aerosmith (135) AC/DC (180), Van Halen (251??)


Cars at 305--that is a band that never gets quite the credit I think they deserve--they had a solid, solid run in the 70s/early 80s and are almost an aftethought in rock history

I'm sure Johann Bach is pleased to see himself come in at 125.

And the Who should be top 10, dammit, if not top 5.

 

Johann Sebastian Bach -- Nearly As Good As Todd Rundgren!
Buy him today.

 

The shame there is ONLY in Bach being rated low ... NOT in Rundgren being rated that high.

 

If you listened to Steely Dan, ever, you'd be arguing for them higher.

 

I enjoy these lists, even when I disagree with most of the list, which is almost invariably the case.
All such rankings are subjective. Such lists are in no way authoritative or binding.
Why do people get so worked up over them?
They simply a conversation topic, and a way to compare your taste against others'.

 

I don't mind Steely Dan, I just don't see them ahead of CSNY, Coltrane, or a few other bands they are in front of.

I have no problem with them ahead of DMB, but that ain't saying much, either.

 

Are the Dead Milkmen on the list, by the way?

 

Jackson Browne and James Taylor ahead of Prince?
Bonnie Raitt ahead of John Lennon's solo stuff?
The Dead ahead of Hendrix?
Yes ahead of Nirvana? Yes ahead of Ray Charles?
Billy Fuckin' Joel ahead of John Coltrane?
Ani DiFranco ahead of the Velvet Underground, Willie Nelson and the Ramones?
Jethro Tull at 100? Shit, they're the worst group in history

Horseshit list

 

the idiots around here never cease to amaze me

 

why, because they don't share your music tastes?