Best Artist with Multiple Number 1s - Music

YoungPunk

manurock wrote:

I agree but Roger Waters rocks more Wink

Anyway, more than the poll, I find the fact, the 8 with more than one #1, interesting. Great bands/artists all of them.

Roger Waters rocks too! Also Richard Wright... Just an amazing band

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

I know a lot of the elitists will say it's strictly due to popularity, and only plebeians like these artists and only artists who play recorded vacuums for 8 hours showing how sterile and fake our society has become are the only true artists, but I really do think it says something about the greatness of these artists.

All of them have great musical, mental, and emotional depth.

My dad can beat up your dad.

CharlieBarley

Gender: Male
Age: 48
Location: Mount Olympus

You missed an artist

If you go back to the 1940s Frank Sinatra had the year's best album in 1946 and again in 1956.

Technically he should be included in the poll. Unless you put a date limit on it.

Fischman
RockMonster, JazzMeister, Bluesboy,ClassicalMaster

Gender: Male
Location: Land of Enchantment

I had to go with Floyd, although I seriously considered Miles Davis before choosing. Maybe I should have voted Miles. Maybe I should have abstained. Tough choice.

Nobody else was even in the running with those two.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Fischman wrote:

I had to go with Floyd, although I seriously considered Miles Davis before choosing. Maybe I should have voted Miles. Maybe I should have abstained. Tough choice.

Nobody else was even in the running with those two.

Until the Radiohead and Beatle fanbois showed up.

I'm bored so I'm saying the same thing twice. I think all of these artists are stellar in different ways. Being able to see the greatness in different forms is key, instead of fitting a preconceived mold.

theblueboy

Here's a question then. If these artists are indeed amongst the greatest (and I'm sure many would disagree)- but if yes do you think the quality differs greatly from similar artists at the same time?

I say this because whilst I really like a number of those bands, when I get into an era in depth I often find the difference in quality between the "classic albums" and those that are much lesser known is very minimal, if at all.

Is there a need to elevate the status of some artists, including the ones mentioned, as "truly great" because people need these narratives of greatness for some reason or are they genuinely great compared to other artists?

YoungPunk

@ Michael

I think you hit it spot on

theblueboy

YoungPunk wrote:

@ Michael

I think you hit it spot on

Thanks!

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Michael1981 wrote:

Here's a question then. If these artists are indeed amongst the greatest (and I'm sure many would disagree)- but if yes do you think the quality differs greatly from similar artists at the same time?

I say this because whilst I really like a number of those bands, when I get into an era in depth I often find the difference in quality between the "classic albums" and those that are much lesser known is very minimal, if at all.

Is there a need to elevate the status of some artists, including the ones mentioned, as "truly great" because people need these narratives of greatness for some reason or are they genuinely great compared to other artists?

Part of the reason why these artists are great is because they were able to create amazing works repeatedly, and often in a totally different direction than before (not always).

Hard to say without examples of what you mean, but I often find massive quality differences between albums and artists within the same genre/era. It does not just blend together for me as more or less the same work. But sometimes it indeed does. Like if you were to compare U2 and INXS, which some do, I think they are massively not comparable artists, and it's not just because of the "popularity' of The Joshua Tree. U2 musically, emotionally, and artistically was able to do way more. Same with Depeche Mode. Nirvana and their genre contemporaries have the same thing.

But I do agree, some artists get put on a pedestal for no real logical reason, while other artists achieve similar great heights and are completely ignored.

Arcade Fire vs groups like Gang of Youths or other artists with similar musical palates, again, just don't compare to Arcade Fire's work (even if their quality is diminishing to a point where it would). As good as they are.

Perhaps you can give me an artist who is in the same genre/decade as those listed above who have for their career accomplished the same musically who aren't also in the top 100 ranked artists as an example of what you mean?

I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but I'd like to see it play out.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

And to clarify I don't mean, hey this one song sounds just as good as Kendrick... I mean their career/album paths are just as amazing/musical and artistic accomplishments are just as good.