1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by EStreetJoe, Oct 23, 2006.

  1. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    John Mayer over Sam Cooke? Fiona Apple over Smokey and the Miracles? Counting Crows over Marvin Gaye and Ella? Wow.
  2. 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.
  3. Captain_Kirk

    Captain_Kirk Well-Known Member

    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.


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


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

    shotglass Guest

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

    Twoback Active Member

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

    Buck Well-Known Member

    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'.
  8. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    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.
  9. Buck

    Buck Well-Known Member

    Are the Dead Milkmen on the list, by the way?
  10. tyler durden 71351

    tyler durden 71351 Active Member

    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
  11. HoopsMcCann

    HoopsMcCann Active Member

    the idiots around here never cease to amaze me
  12. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

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

Share This Page