Best Artist with Multiple Number 1s

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic

Poll: Which Artist do you think is better?
Kendrick Lamar
1%
 1%  [1]
Radiohead
32%
 32%  [18]
Arcade Fire
0%
 0%  [0]
Nirvana
0%
 0%  [0]
R.E.M.
1%
 1%  [1]
Pink Floyd
18%
 18%  [10]
The Beatles
21%
 21%  [12]
Miles Davis
23%
 23%  [13]
Total Votes : 55

Author Message
LedZep




Croatia (Hrvatska)

  • #21
  • Posted: 03/11/2018 19:16
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
This has turned into Radiohead vs Beatles, as expected... Pretty boring yes, but it's great to see Miles Davis getting so many votes!
_________________
Finally updated the overall chart

2020s
90s
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
hereforashortime



Gender: Male
United States

  • #22
  • Posted: 03/11/2018 19:29
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
LedZep wrote:
This has turned into Radiohead vs Beatles, as expected... Pretty boring yes, but it's great to see Miles Davis getting so many votes!


It's kinda been Beatles vs Radiohead vs Miles Davis vs Pink Floyd
All 4 of them have had really good showings in this poll. At one point Floyd was beating Radiohead.
_________________
Nothing really matters, anyone can see, nothing really matters, nothing really matters to me.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
theblueboy





  • #23
  • Posted: 03/11/2018 20:24
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
sethmadsen wrote:
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.


Good point about longevity. A lot of artists considered great have that in their favour.

Ok. So REM a band I really like. But better than the Go-Betweens, Felt, Orange Juice, Camper Van Beethoven, House of Love or the Feelies? I'm really not sure and it depends on my mood. And how many more bands on this level would I find the deeper I delve?

Radiohead. Very good but similar level to Belle and Sebastian, Yo la Tengo, Wilco, Flaming Lips, Teenage Fanclub, Super furry animals, the Beta Band. Again i could easily go with one of these others on any given day.

Compare the rankings of Elliot Smith (90ish) and Kevin Tihistah's Red Terror (in the many 10000s) But you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between these guys in a line up.
Back to top
RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad



Location: Ground Control
United States

  • #24
  • Posted: 03/12/2018 00:17
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Michael1981 wrote:
sethmadsen wrote:
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.


Good point about longevity. A lot of artists considered great have that in their favour.

Ok. So REM a band I really like. But better than the Go-Betweens, Felt, Orange Juice, Camper Van Beethoven, House of Love or the Feelies? I'm really not sure and it depends on my mood. And how many more bands on this level would I find the deeper I delve?

Radiohead. Very good but similar level to Belle and Sebastian, Yo la Tengo, Wilco, Flaming Lips, Teenage Fanclub, Super furry animals, the Beta Band. Again i could easily go with one of these others on any given day.

Compare the rankings of Elliot Smith (90ish) and Kevin Tihistah's Red Terror (in the many 10000s) But you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between these guys in a line up.


RE: R.E.M.
You are probably right.
From what I've listened to from those bands, I feel they can compete with R.E.M. on a single song or maybe even a single album as that's the extent I've listened to them with (also album wise, it likely would be R.E.M.'s bottom 5 or so albums). I don't think any of their careers can compete (meaning how they've matured as artists and the maturity of their output), but I probably don't know as much as you do about those bands as I haven't listened to their entire discography's. So again you are probably right.

RE: Radiohead
Flaming Lips and Wilco on the other hand I have listened to a bunch and they haven't aged nearly as well as Radiohead (Flaming Lips' 2017 effort I don't think even made my chart), and while great bands writing good music (even their best works I don't feel compare to any of the great works by the artists listed) and I've never really felt like they've had amazing careers.

RE: Elliot Smith
As much as I love a lot of his music, I've never really considered him to be a "great" artist. Really heartfelt and very good music - basement tapes and all... but idk - it never really exploded artistically for me. There's probably hundreds to thousands of examples of that comparison.

I suppose all I'm saying is you have Michael Jordan (sorry I don't know Football or Cricket well enough, but I'm assuming you've heard of Michael Jordan?) and then you have Scotty Pippen or John Stockton. Those latter basketball players are pretty good, but they are no Michael Jordan. In sports you have some kind of leader boards to "mathematically" prove as such. In music less so (even if this site tries to do so). I think the artists listed in the OP are more like Michael Jordan (who not only played with unbelievable style, but also has the "scoreboard" to prove it). The artists you listed are more like the members of the NBA who make it, and play on a decent team, who never really achieves any greatness, but are still worth paying an exorbitant amount of money.

In the end though, I think what you are saying is, isn't basketball fun? Who cares really about Michael Jordan - there's plenty of really good players. Or am I totally off base? Then there's taste/subjectivity, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jordan

But I do agree that sometimes people get carried away into "the greats" and pedestal them beyond what they really are. I do think history does have a way of oversimplifying to make it easier for us to understand. But I also agree there really are great artists who go above and beyond what their peers do and achieve greatness on many levels and for longer periods of time (not beginners luck or whatever).

EDIT: exorbitant totally is the same thing as absorbant... ahahaha


Last edited by RoundTheBend on 03/12/2018 03:44; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
travelful
BEA's Official Florida Man



Age: 27
Location: Davenport, Florida
United States

  • #25
  • Posted: 03/12/2018 01:18
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Although I kind of understand the discussion here, I do believe there is a definite difference in quality and talent between most of these artists and their contemporaries. However I do agree with the difference in quality between some of these artists and their contemporaries being very little on a couple, mainly R.E.M and Arcade Fire. I'm sure that is just based purely on musical tastes though.

Personally I find R.E.M underwhelming and overrated, and I do agree with Michael's comparison in quality with R.E.M and some of the contemporaries he listed. I just think R.E.M plays it very safe with their music, and therefore I get bored quickly listening to them.

Arcade Fire, again I never saw the appeal in. I honestly don't see much difference in quality from them and Of Monsters and Men, who are compared to AF a lot. I actually prefer Of Monsters and Men to all AF albums...except maybe Funeral.

The other artists listed here, I definitely think there is a gap between them and their contemporaries. I know its basic as hell to hype up Radiohead, but personally I don't see many artists of any genre on the same level of artistic ability as them, period. I like Wilco, Flaming Lips, Belle and Sebastian, and others you compared to them, and I still think Radiohead is just better all around. They are much more creative, consistent, and the highs are just higher with Radiohead.

I feel the same way about Miles Davis, The Beatles, Pink Floyd (who I voted for), Nirvana, and Kendrick Lamar.

I mean who are Kendrick's biggest threats right now in Hip-hop? I'd say the only other hip-hop artist coming close to him in terms of artistic ability and talent as of right now is Kanye West (who probably should be on this poll, but gets a lot of shit for his egotistic personality). Other top tier rappers out there right now like Danny Brown, Earl Sweatshirt, Killer Mike, etc, just aren't playing in the same ball park as Kendrick right now. I don't foresee us getting another GKMC/TPAB level hip-hop album soon, unless it's from Kendrick again. Or a new face.

I guess what i'm trying to say is I do think there is some levels of higher quality and artistic ability coming from these artists. Like sethmadesen said, you have Michael Jordan and then you have the rest of the great NBA players. Even artists I personally find overrated on here like Arcade fire or R.E.M are probably better than their contemporaries and deserve the praise they get. It is likely my personal taste coming into play when I just don't get the hype.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
YoungPunk





  • #26
  • Posted: 03/12/2018 02:23
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Each artist besides Miles Davis ranked:

1 Pink Floyd
2 Radiohead
3 Arcade Fire
4 The Beatles (for historical relevance mainly)
5 KDot
6 R.E.M.
7 Nirvana
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
theblueboy





  • #27
  • Posted: 03/12/2018 12:56
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Michael Jordan? I haven't studied his career stats lately Laughing I think I know what you mean: he's like the Beefy Botham of Basketball or something!

Ok. I hear you guys (Sethmasden and Travelful) though you've tried to dazzle me with all these metaphors hehe. I guess the guys on this list all got to the top for some reason. Personally I prefer not to see them as great (except for Miles Davis) as I find that creates an expectation they don't quite fulfill. And I basically like a lot of similar enough stuff just as much. Don't ask me about hip-hop though!

I think I just don't like seeing pop/ rock/ soul artists being seen as great anymore. There was a time when I did but now it doesn't mean so much to me. I'm often surprised at how good things sound to me by less storied and celebrated bands: Inspiral Carpets; House of Love and the Cardigans being recent examples.

The artists listed seem to combine: longevity; accesability; influence (in most cases) and their albums are popular with new generations (ok we don't know yet with Kendrick but it's a good bet). I think they are probably as good candidates as any for greatness in their fields but for me it's not such a helpful distinction any more. Someone has to be on the pedestal I suppose but it's not a story I buy into so much these days.

People like to have heroes though so I can't knock it!
Back to top
911Turbo



Gender: Male
Location: Toronto
Canada

  • #28
  • Posted: 03/12/2018 14:09
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Many interesting comments.
For me, its great to read why individuals enjoy their favorite band or musician.

I am very surprised that Led Zepplin or Rolling Stones or Queen are ignored by these "poll threads". If they were, I would struggle with "the best artist with multiple #1's" decision.

I love a lot of the many Beatle albums- I don't think too many music lovers hate them.
The more I listen to REM, the more I discover how talented and original they are.
I'm in my 50's, and I love listening to Nirvana. I find the music very aggressive. I wish I would have had the chance to see these guys live. I'm sure they would have made me a disciple.
I love putting on Miles Davis when I have company over. His music is so easy listening and a joy to listen to on low volume.
Radiohead has a huge following on this site. I love the Bends. They are amazing, no question about this. I think in todays world of mediocre bands, Radiohead is a shining star. Would they have been a shining star when the stones or who or zeppelin were around? not sure. Hopefully I get to see them LIVE this summer. I'm sure I will have a different opinion after a concert.

Pink Floyd is my #1 band versus the bands mentioned in the poll.
This was an easy decision for many reasons.
Dark side of the moon- how many weeks on the top 100 list? I think around 2 years. Every song is a 10/10. Every corner of the world is familiar with that prism and the shining light.
Animals- they rock it out! incredible guitar by Gilmour, short length album which keeps you wanting more, one of the best album covers every with the floating pig over the power station. are you kidding me!
Wish you were here- it is the most relaxing album I own. the guitar work, sax, and singing allows me to concentrate on my work and drive my car without speeding.
The wall- when the wall that divided east and west Germany went down, a concert celebrating "the wall" was performed, with many different artists. The show was unbelievable and there was over 1 million concert goers. Is there anyone who hates this masterpiece? Its a tour de force.

as a footnote, I am bias towards this band becomes I have followed them during my youth and have had many interesting and fun times with people while listening to pink floyd .
if, I was a young man in todays world, I think I would be bias towards radiohead.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
paladisiac
= music


Gender: Male
Location: Denver
United States

  • #29
  • Posted: 03/12/2018 14:24
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
i voted radiohead despite radiohead's last album. which begs a question: if a favorite artist releases 1-or-more albums you don't like, how does that (negatively) impact said favorite artist?
_________________
fav artists NOW | ALL-TIME favs | i listen 2 more music than u so u don't have 2!
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
  • Visit poster's website
Fischman
RockMonster, JazzMeister, Bluesboy,ClassicalMaster


Gender: Male
Location: Land of Enchantment
United States

  • #30
  • Posted: 03/12/2018 14:30
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
sethmadsen wrote:
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.


When I said nobody else is in the running, I meant for me personally. I knew the Fabs would surge and, especially on this site, that Radiohead would also do the same.

I agree completely that it's good to look for greatness in different forms. Personally, I didn't find it in this list, but I do find it in these forms, and many others, by artists not on the list.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6


 

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum
Sticky: Artist not listed kufuhder New Members
What is the most number of music from... Huck50 Music
Which Artist Has The Largest Number O... baystateoftheart Music
Number of ratings shown in stats is n... Radioscope Suggestions
Multiple charts smithc4jc New Members

 
Back to Top