Giants of popular music! Just for fun.....

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

So imagine it's 2020 and schools are teaching 20th century poular music as part of the national curriculum. A list has been drawn up of the "20 most impotrant and influential artists in 20th century popular music". Pupils then have to go away and listen to every artist on the list and research them, etc.

Who is on the list? This is really mean't to be an objective excercise, ie no Anal Cunt. These are not my favourite artists, infact there's one or two i detest. However i imagine the list might look like this (in no order):

1 Louis Armstrong
2 Elvis Presley
3 Duke Ellington
4 David Bowie
5 James Brown
6 Hank Williams
7 Chuck Berry
8 Billie Holiday
9 Frank Sinatra
10 The Sex Pistols
11 Miles Davis
12 The Beatles
13 Muddy Waters
14 Aretha Franklin
15 Sam Cooke
16 The Rolling Stones
17 Ray Charles
18 Robert Johnson
19 Jimi Hendrix
20 Bob Dylan

Obviously this leaves out, amongst many others:

John Coltrane, Joni Mitchell, Marvin Gaye, Nirvana, Patsy Cline, Stevie Wonder, Jelly Roll Morton, The Clash, Bob Marley, Velvet Underground, Otis Redding, Count Basie, Johnny Cash, The Beach Boys, Ella Fitzggerald, BB King, The Band, Mahalia Jackson, Pink Floyd and Willie Nelson.

Part of this is imagining what and who ppl in the future will value, and see as lasting, but you can choose to see it from the 2003 perspective if that's easier.
Who would you put on /take off the list?
Our children need educating!

― Ronjeremy, Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I would sooner have a child of mine taught creationism than taught this joy-killing monstrosity!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:29 (twenty-two years ago)

It's going to happen in some form in the future, Tico, when there's enough perspective from the last century. Ppl are going to want to preserve, and will probably do something like this. Agreed, for us, at this stage, it looks a bit horrifiying.

― Ronjeremy, Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Obviously, Louis Armstrong does indeed belong at the top of the list. For all practical purposes, he invented pop music as we now know it.
It's a pretty good list, except I'd put Dylan at No. 2 and -- although I admire his music -- nix Bowie altogether. I think the Velvets should be in there somewhere, too, for no band has represented the spirit of DIY better.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:38 (twenty-two years ago)

My kids just pick up things along the way that they like the sound/look of. Amber is 5, Alice is 3.

So far, in approximate order, it runs to:

Kate Bush "Wuthering Heights"
"Prime Mover" by Zodiac Mindwarp
"Venus as a boy" Bjork
"I don't like mondays" Boomtown rats

My point being: It just depends on what appeals to you at the time.

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:38 (twenty-two years ago)

you seem to feel the last 25 years would be considered to have had no significant influence or importance

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:38 (twenty-two years ago)

x-post The list is in no order, Jazzbo, i couldn't bring myself to do that.
Unless you want to give it an order?

― Ronjeremy, Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Kraftwerk, George Clinton, Prince, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Chic, Malcolm Mclaren, Afrika Bambaataa, Derrick May...

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Madonna would probably make the list, like it or not. And Kraftwerk. Also, if we're talking about influential artists, not necessarily popular, I'd say Grandmaster Flash, Juan Atkins, King Tubby, Marshall Jefferson.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:42 (twenty-two years ago)

anyone who would get no joy out of those 20 is trying too fucking hard to be a contrarian

― M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:43 (twenty-two years ago)

My feeling is that the impact of artists before about 1980 has -as yet- been greater, but please correct me, stevem.
You're right, Prince and Micheal Jackson should figure. But who would you remove?

― Ronjeremy, Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:44 (twenty-two years ago)

everyone who just crossposted since stevem OTM - I was just wondering why no Public Enemy / George Clinton / Motown for a start. It's a bit of a rockist list. I would have thought Bob Marley was also worthy of a bump up to the top team rather than a place on the sub's bench

― ailsa (ailsa), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Matos its the idea of a course that's joy-killing - obviously there's a bundle of joy there in the music, just waiting to be killed!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:44 (twenty-two years ago)

haha! ok, sorry to snap like that, I get you completely now.

― M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm much too lazy to put it in order, other than the No. 1 and 2 spot. Maybe Muddy, James Brown, Chuck Berry and Hank Williams in 3-6?
Yes, Madonna probably does belong on the list.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, where's Charlie Parker? I think it'd be fair to say that, alongside Louis Armstrong, he's the most influential jazz musician of them all.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I love Charlie Parker, but not sure whether he should make a list of only 20 artists. I'd put Ellington and Miles on the list before him, even though I like Bird's recordings much better. Bird wasn't around long enough so his music -- while revolutionary -- didn't progress as much as the other two.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:51 (twenty-two years ago)

About Motown - obviously if that could go in as a whole, but otherwise its most successful artists, The Supremes, just don't sit right in the list, do they?

― Ronjeremy, Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Of course, Elvis didn't progress much, either.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Bird wasn't around long enough so his music -- while revolutionary -- didn't progress as much as the other two.

Yeah, but the list was about "important or influential" artists. Who on jazz - except Louis Armstrong - has been more influential than Bird?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Can't we include Berry Gordy? Can not it be a person's input and influence rather than their musical contribution? Wouldn't Phil Spector have to go in as well?

― ailsa (ailsa), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Phil Spector wouldn't be anywhere near this list if that were the case.

― M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 4 December 2003 13:57 (twenty-two years ago)

x-post Yeah the list focuses on performers, so i didn't include writers, eg Lieber & Stoller, Cole Porter. Otherwise those two would be good shouts.
Also i'm surprised no-one's mentioned George Gershwin, who i forgot.
He did perform his music, at least some of it, so he qualifies.

― Ronjeremy, Thursday, 4 December 2003 14:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Giants of Popular Music: you mean like Meatloaf, Mick Fleetwood or Krist Novoselic?

― NickB (NickB), Thursday, 4 December 2003 14:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Who on jazz - except Louis Armstrong - has been more influential than Bird?

Miles Davis, I'd say, for changing the music 6-7 times in his career, for acting as a teacher and mentor to many young jazz artists and for exposing the music to so many fans of rock and other genres.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Thursday, 4 December 2003 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Miles Davis, I'd say, for changing the music 6-7 times in his career, for acting as a teacher and mentor to many young jazz artists and for exposing the music to so many fans of rock and other genres.

The mentor thing is the most important, I think. It's true that Miles often ventured into the unknown, but not everyone followed, so he didn't actually "change the music". His importance is still debated, whereas Bird has been cited as an influence by every single jazz player that came after him.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 4 December 2003 14:12 (twenty-two years ago)

You forgot Thurston Moore and Notorious BIG.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 4 December 2003 14:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Is anyone unhappy with the UK representatives (4,10,12+16)? If so, who would you ditch/bump up.
Also only two women on the list. Am i wrong there?

― Ronjeremy, Thursday, 4 December 2003 14:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Electrasy, Bis, and Northern Uproar

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Thursday, 4 December 2003 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

There are many parallel universes, as we all know....

― Ronjeremy, Thursday, 4 December 2003 14:31 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm surprised no one has mentioned led zeppelin, who i'm not sure if they'd belong in a top 20 or not, but i'd seriously consider them at least over jimi hendrix. i'd dump bowie, too. i might even be losing the rolling stones. it ain't easy to narrow it down to 20! (though 100 years from now it might turn out to be easy as pie!)

others to consider adding:

the carter family
jimmie rodgers
bing crosby
woody guthrie
les paul (more for his two humongous technological innovations than for his performing career. but if the history of 20th century popular music is largely the history of *recorded* music, which i think it is, it's hard to ignore his place in it.)

and surely someone smarter than me can propose someone who's from outside the US and the UK.

― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 4 December 2003 14:42 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought about Bing Crosby, but then thought ppl are ever going to listen to him for more than historical value, are they?

The Carter family's a good shout, however.

― Ronjeremy, Thursday, 4 December 2003 14:49 (twenty-two years ago)

"White Christmas" is listened to for non-historical reasons more than anything by about half the above!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 4 December 2003 14:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Isn't historical value the point of your whole list?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 4 December 2003 14:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Tuomas listening pleasure + historical "importance" is what i based it on - do you really think ppl are going to be hailing Bing's musical genius in 17 yrs time? And Tico, this is a bit like Classical 'pops' vs Beethoven/Bach - ppl are probably always going to listen to Pachelbel's Canon or Bruch's violin concerto more than Bach's St Matthew Passion, but if you're assessing musical importance surely some critical judgement should be involved?
Also wouldn't the Kingsmen be in there then on the basis of one song being played to undeath on US radio?

― Ronjeremy, Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:12 (twenty-two years ago)

i think a course in pop music could be good but it needn't devote itself to canon-building and -perpetuating.

a course in pop form would be interesting. but i'd worry perhaps that it wouldn't be sufficiently catholic, people who tend to pay attention to the formal qualities of popular music often seem to be those who have the most conventional and narrow tastes i.e. lennon/mccartney and brian wilson 24/7.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I spent the first half of this year listening to Bing Crosby and not for historical value.

― Burr (Burr), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:22 (twenty-two years ago)

bing crosby was a hugely influential singer/crooner, arguably the first major star to taylor his singing specifically to a microphone, which has a whole lot to do with how the human voice has been heard by pop fans ever since.

― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:32 (twenty-two years ago)

arguably in this case means "he was among the first"

the search for "firsts" is the first thing i'd do away with in a new pop discipline.

although perhaps like many things it is a question with eventually makes itself irrelevant and is thus useful.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:35 (twenty-two years ago)

WHICH eventually

sorry

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:35 (twenty-two years ago)

*arguably* in this particular case means that yes indeed he was among the first but because he was *inarguably* the most popular, he was the one had the power of influence.

i totally agree with you about the fuzziness of firsts in almost any endeavor ... most innovations in any field happen over a period of time in steady, tiny increments ... but i'm just making the argument for crosby and it's hard to do a list like this without making arguments.

― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:43 (twenty-two years ago)

arguments?! what tomfoolery

i guess i just meant to suggest that a case can be made for crosby's importance without restoring to hyperbole, however slight

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:49 (twenty-two years ago)

fair enough

― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Arguments is the 'just for fun' part.....

― Ronjeremy, Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

as long as we're all arguing, if there's a feeling that motown needs to be represented, i might argue that smokey robinson would be the man to do that.

― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 4 December 2003 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

if we have to make a canon better a mix of SCHOOLS/GENRES of music than of GREAT (WO)MEN

methinks

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 4 December 2003 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)

The list is flawless from a transatlantic point of view, but there's many European/Aisan countries whose own popular music is not recognized.
Perhaps Fela Kuti could be there instead of Ray Charles, that's assuming James Brown's got soul covered (and Sam Cooke and Aretha too).

― Pete S, Thursday, 4 December 2003 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd put the Velvet Underground, the Ramones and some Hip Hop on there, personally.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 4 December 2003 18:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Jacques Brel for a non UK/US list.

― Pete S, Thursday, 4 December 2003 18:57 (twenty-two years ago)

there's too much! too much, i say!

― Trollius J. King III, Esq., Thursday, 4 December 2003 20:10 (twenty-two years ago)

four months pass...

Interesting. A list of schools and genres, perhaps with the emphasis on creators and followers would be more fair and correct. But it's individual talents which bring music genres alive. I don't like jazz vocalising but I make a major exception for Billie Holliday.

Charlie Parker should be there instead of..... Muddy Waters.
Thelonius Monk seems to have been forgotten by everyone.

― Davidw, Saturday, 10 April 2004 03:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Richard Rodgers & Oscar Hammerstein have got to be to this list.
Sorry David Bowie.

― jim wentworth (wench), Saturday, 10 April 2004 05:03 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.