Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rolling Stone's "100 Greatest Singers of All Time"

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Rolling Stone's "100 Greatest Singers of All Time&a

    Originally posted by Vince
    Originally posted by BillVol
    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/24161972/page/103

    Neat to see the handwritten picks by some of the members of the panel that selected the list:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gall ... s_inside_t
    Any list that has Bob Dylan as a good singer is crap. His voice is about as good as Sonny Bono.

    Now as a song writer, he might have a shot.
    Dylan wrote his songs with his unique singing voice in mind. The Byrds understood this and that is why their versions of Dylan are really wonderful and has not been surpassed. Listen to Judy Collins rather drab version of Mr. Tamborine Man compared to the Byrds. There is no comparison.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by paulthefan
      Is there not one track and field olympic gold medalist that someone can nominate for this list?... of course there is
      you know, when I wrote that I actually knew who it was, now I have forgotten...ugh.
      ... nothing really ever changes my friend, new lines for old, new lines for old.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Marlow
        Originally posted by tandfman
        He's in good company. Ella Fitzgerald didn't make it either. The list is absurd--it cannot be taken seriously.
        Fame is fleeting. In another 20 years, they'll both just be trivia answers.
        To many young people, they already are. It doesn't matter. Bach endures. Joseph Conrad endures. Sinatra and Fitzgerald will endure.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by tandfman
          Sinatra and Fitzgerald will endure.
          Ella will, but I really think Frankie won't. His style of crooning was too 40s/50s. He'll go the way of Rudy Vallee. On the other hand, Elvis (and I'm not even a fan of his) will survive.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by tandfman
            Bach endures.
            But it took a revival in Bach's music nearly 80 years after his death to turn him into the revered composer he remains today.

            For several generations after his death he was principally known as the best organist and harpsichord player of his day, with little concern for his compositions.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by dj
              Originally posted by tandfman
              Bach endures.
              But it took a revival in Bach's music nearly 80 years after his death to turn him into the revered composer he remains today.

              For several generations after his death he was principally known as the best organist and harpsichord player of his day, with little concern for his compositions.
              But Bach's music was not unknown during that period. His compositions clearly influenced those of Mozart and Beethoven, both of whom died less than 80 years after Bach's death.

              Moreover, it is not unusual for outstanding performing artists to have been known primarily as such during their lifetimes. I believe Liszt and Paganini were in the same category. Their music endures, too, although as composers, neither should be mentioned in the same breath as Bach.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by tandfman
                But Bach's music was not unknown during that period. His compositions clearly influenced those of Mozart and Beethoven, both of whom died less than 80 years after Bach's death.
                Very true, and both Mozart and Beethoven thought very highly of Bach's work. But in the general public he'd fallen into disfavor as being too old-fashioned. In fact, his music was criticized while he was alive as not being contemporary enough.

                Comment


                • #53
                  We can contiinue this off line, lest we be censured for the worst kind of hijacking imaginable--turning a thread about a Rolling Stone list into a discussion of J.S. Bach! :roll:

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by tandfman
                    We can contiinue this off line, lest we be censured for the worst kind of hijacking imaginable--turning a thread about a Rolling Stone list into a discussion of J.S. Bach! :roll:
                    tandfman is right, I'm sorry.

                    Bach to basics, pdq!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      yma sumac?
                      Tom Hyland:
                      "squack and wineturtle get it"

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Marlow
                        Originally posted by tandfman
                        Sinatra and Fitzgerald will endure.
                        Ella will, but I really think Frankie won't. His style of crooning was too 40s/50s. He'll go the way of Rudy Vallee. On the other hand, Elvis (and I'm not even a fan of his) will survive.
                        I don't want to come across as the world's biggest Sinatra fan, but I totally disagree. There's some possibility that he'll be one of the very few from this era that will be remembered in 100 years. The stuff he did in the late 50s, in particular, is just amazing...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by kuha
                          Originally posted by Marlow
                          Originally posted by tandfman
                          Sinatra and Fitzgerald will endure.
                          Ella will, but I really think Frankie won't. His style of crooning was too 40s/50s. He'll go the way of Rudy Vallee. On the other hand, Elvis (and I'm not even a fan of his) will survive.
                          I don't want to come across as the world's biggest Sinatra fan, but I totally disagree. There's some possibility that he'll be one of the very few from this era that will be remembered in 100 years. The stuff he did in the late 50s, in particular, is just amazing...
                          Sinatra is for the ages. Not a chance the greatest pop singer of his generation will be forgotten. He is "the voice".
                          phsstt!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                            Originally posted by kuha
                            I don't want to come across as the world's biggest Sinatra fan, but I totally disagree. There's some possibility that he'll be one of the very few from this era that will be remembered in 100 years. The stuff he did in the late 50s, in particular, is just amazing...
                            Sinatra is for the ages. Not a chance the greatest pop singer of his generation will be forgotten. He is "the voice".
                            I'll be the contrarian here and say that he was merely a 'stylist'. He put his little 'I'm-too-cool' stamp on a song and everyone swooned. I can honestly say that I can't name 3 of his songs that I really like. Elvis almost fits into that category, but his co-opting of 'black music' and keeping it authentic was a paradigm-shifter. Sinatra was just the best crooner of an era, whose time came and went. :twisted:

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Marlow
                              Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                              Originally posted by kuha
                              I don't want to come across as the world's biggest Sinatra fan, but I totally disagree. There's some possibility that he'll be one of the very few from this era that will be remembered in 100 years. The stuff he did in the late 50s, in particular, is just amazing...
                              Sinatra is for the ages. Not a chance the greatest pop singer of his generation will be forgotten. He is "the voice".
                              I'll be the contrarian here and say that he was merely a 'stylist'. He put his little 'I'm-too-cool' stamp on a song and everyone swooned. I can honestly say that I can't name 3 of his songs that I really like. Elvis almost fits into that category, but his co-opting of 'black music' and keeping it authentic was a paradigm-shifter. Sinatra was just the best crooner of an era, whose time came and went. :twisted:
                              Everyone has the right to their own wrong opinion, including you, poor utterly wrongheaded sir!

                              When I was a teenager, I thought Sinatra was a complete joke. I had to get older (and, I trust, a tiny bit wiser) to realize how wrong that view was...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by kuha
                                Everyone has the right to their own wrong opinion, including you, poor utterly wrongheaded sir!
                                When I was a teenager, I thought Sinatra was a complete joke. I had to get older (and, I trust, a tiny bit wiser) to realize how wrong that view was...
                                Well, thank you, bad ham... I mean Mar... I mean kuha. I find it interesting that my affinity for Sinatra was the reverse. My dad liked him, so I liked him, but when the Beatles hit, he sounded so . . . old . . . that I grew tired of him very quickly. When I hear a song by him now, he just sounds . . . dated. Sorry!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X