Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post Reply
JR
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:54 pm

Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by JR »

As reference, the ranked Top 100 (these 14 newbies aren't ranked):

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists ... e-19691231

And the 14 "New Immortals":
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists ... s-20130305

Back in 2004, Rolling Stone assembled an expert panel of musicians, industry figures and critics to pick the 50 greatest artists of all time. We called these artists "The Immortals." A year later, our panelists expanded the roster to 100 all-time great artists, which you can read right here. But time stands still for no list, and when we look around us today we see a whole galaxy of other stars who belong in the Immortals conversation. Click through for 14 currently active (or relatively recently defunct) artists who we think will stand the test of time – the kind of acts whose names we wouldn't be surprised to see on a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ballot at some point down the road when they become eligible. Meet the New Immortals.

Taylor Swift
Kanye West
Arcade Fire
Pearl Jam
Lady Gaga
Beyoncé
Wilco
Rihanna
Green Day
The White Stripes
The Roots
The Strokes
LCD Soundsystem
Phish
User avatar
Live in Phoenix
Full of Fire
Posts: 1352
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 am

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Live in Phoenix »

I don't know, Davey...

I suppose about half of them are, but now they awkwardly have the Top 114 artists of all time. Whenever a top 100 list gets made, I assume that there's at least twice as many names that could have ended up in there, that there's not just 100.
salamipizza
Superunknown
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:39 pm
Location: US

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by salamipizza »

Hey you guys I'm new here. I don't know who to thank for this gem (the site) I found by accident, but thanks whoever you are.


Taylor Swift: I'm sorry, but NO, catchy songs are no reason to be put alongside the greatest artists of all time.
Kanye West: YES, MBDTF need I say more?
Arcade Fire: YES, Funeral is an indisputable classic and I love their most recent work despite being shrugged
Pearl Jam: No, One good album simply is not enough
Lady Gaga: YES, she is the Madonna of our decade and I love her for making radio not as bad as it could be
Beyoncé: No, great voice but that simply is not enough
Wilco: YES, YFH blew me away but so did Being There and Summerteeth which are both underrated
Rihanna: F*** NO!
Green Day: YES, Dookie and American Idiot are both very good and relevant plus Kerplunk is awesome
The White Stripes: YES, Elephant and White Blood Cells are enough
The Roots: No, this sucks cause I love these guys but they still didn't release a "classic" yet
The Strokes: YES, yeah about the pearl jam thing, Is This It "opened a new door" so point that gun away!
LCD Soundsystem: YES, all three of their albums are absolutely both fantastic and innovative
Phish: No, Call me an ignoramus but why put them in the list now, they didn't release anything new since!
A bargain, the best I ever had
User avatar
HRS
Let's Get It On
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:59 am
Location: Brazil

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by HRS »

Oh, my...



I don't take seriously because is a Rolling Stone's, but pretending that wasn't: Although one part of the acts have released strong albums troughout their careers - while the other part is basically mainstream pop icons and Green Day - I think is a little of a stretch to place them among all time greats. When I see the influence and consistency of someone like Neil Young or a Bob Dylan or the experimentalisms of a Beefheart, I wonder how many of contemporary acts are actually driven by hype and image over era defining or transcendent works. Are they enjoyable acts? Basically all of them depending of the audience. Does that should place them on immortal list? Well, I think that Adele is more immortal to most people than groups like Cocteau Twins or My Bloody Valentine. It depends. If we are speaking about their works as transcedent pieces of art, I guess it's too soon to basically every artist from the 00s to have their names attatched to a very select group of people who I consider to have a timeless impact on contemporary music. To affirm that Rihanna is an all time great is to place her alongside Billie Holiday or Miles Davis, for example. And if one expands to beyond popular music bounds, it's to place along a Wagner or a Schurbert. I feel like there's always the idea that the majority of the artists these days will end up as product of their times and limited rather than creators of one or many trascendent pieces of art that gain more importance, reach and influence in posterity and beyond. We can't take in consideration the effects that time might have on a record while composing lists like this; even a current classic might fall from grace in time - and it won't matter if it has strong EOD lists enough to secure an AM top 500. Not every great literary artist has a shot in become a Proust, a Joyce, a Faulkner or a Dostoievski and i think it's also true for music. And if we consider that many artists are undervalued during their generation to receive growing acclaim over time and in posterity, there are chances these last two decades' accolades might be reavalued along the years in a context of all time greatest artists/albums.
User avatar
whuntva
Full of Fire
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:46 pm

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by whuntva »

Rolling Stone is a music magazine in the way potato salad is a salad. A type of magazine, yes, but bland and disgusting. I am rating these from an unbiased eye, though I do like some artists more.

Taylor Swift: No. She's already starting to fade.
Kanye: I think so. He's legitimately talented and makes good music.
Arcade Fire: Definitely. One of the most original artists of the past decade or so.
Pearl Jam: Borderline classic already. RS has a HUGE bias against them, but I feel they've already held up for twenty years no trouble.
Lady Gaga: No. What has she put out recently?
Beyonce: No. A bit too one-track for this list.
Wilco: Yes. They have a subtle influence.
Rihanna: On my personal hate list, but even unbiased, still not a major influence. "Umbrella" defined a generation, but that is it for Rihanna.
Green Day: Yes. See Pearl Jam.
White Stripes: Yes. They influenced an entire rock sound for the past decade.
The Roots: No. They would be, but they are too obscure right now to hold that status.
The Strokes: Yes. They are peers of the White Stripes but unique enough to hold their own.
LCD Soundsystem: Yes. They are certainly eclectic and fun to listen too. The entire electropop movement would suffer without him.
Phish: Iffy. On the one hand, they are original and popular (and borderline classic), but on the other hand, their discography is insubstantial.
Last edited by whuntva on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
" Ah, yes! Our meager restitution"
User avatar
Live in Phoenix
Full of Fire
Posts: 1352
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 am

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Live in Phoenix »

Rolling Stone is kind of The Establishment, in good ways and bad. I got to involuntarily listen to Rihanna's new album at work for a long time, and I wouldn't exactly call that stuff immortal. It's like if this add-on had happened in the '90s, besides Phish and Pearl Jam you would see Garth Brooks, Whitney Houston, TLC, and Alanis Morrissette, who far outsold the current crop of musicians, yet aren't really "in the discussion" anymore now that the smoke has cleared.
Jirin
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2767
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:12 am

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Jirin »

The only ones of those I have a particular problem with (Taking into account, my known expectations of Rolling Stone) is Taylor Swift. She might have won a game and had a few hits but none are that memorable.

Rihanna, I actually don't have a problem with her, because she's a great singles artist. Beyonce and Lady Gaga, I'm not a fan of either, but I think they have released a few singles that people are going to remember for a long time. Lady Gaga has released both songs I love and songs I hate.
User avatar
Live in Phoenix
Full of Fire
Posts: 1352
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 am

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Live in Phoenix »

I don't really hate anyone listed (well, not who you think...I don't want to start any arguments, anyway). There's good pop and bad pop, and I've had to hear plenty of both like it was freakin' Christmas music while being stuck near the work radio; I wouldn't call anyone here bad pop, but some people here are going to have be around a bit longer or prove themselves a bit more. (I might mention the Rihanna album had a couple good songs, but then Eminem appears for a minute and blows her away.)
Nick
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2621
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Nick »

Should Be in There:

Kanye West
Arcade Fire
Wilco
The White Stripes
The Strokes
LCD Soundsystem

Good or Decent but Probably Shouldn't Be in There:

Taylor Swift
Pearl Jam
Lady Gaga
Beyoncé
Rihanna
Green Day
The Roots

What?:

Phish
Jackson
Full of Fire
Posts: 1337
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:05 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Jackson »

Ranking these (purely personal opinion)

LCD Soundsystem
The Roots (most inspired pick of the list for sure)
Arcade Fire
The Strokes
Kanye West
Wilco
The White Stripes
Green Day
Pearl Jam
Lady Gaga
Beyoncé
Taylor Swift
Rihanna
Phish (never knowingly heard a song by them)
User avatar
Stephan
Site Admin
Posts: 913
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Stephan »

I think you'd enjoy Phish, Jackson! I would definitely recommend A Live One.
User avatar
Romain
Leader of the Pack
Posts: 4656
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:25 pm
Location: Lyon, France

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Romain »

Hello, my choices :

Taylor Swift : I don't even know who is he
Kanye West : No
Arcade Fire : maybe
Pearl Jam : No
Lady Gaga : No
Beyoncé : No
Wilco : No
Rihanna : No
Green Day : No
The White Stripes : YES
The Roots : No
The Strokes : No
LCD Soundsystem : No
Phish : I don't even know who is he
User avatar
Chambord
Wannabe
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:08 pm
Location: RO
Contact:

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Chambord »

This list is shit. Where's Pitbull ?!?! He's the greatest musician of all time !!

Bah. Looks like Rolling Stone knows no boundary for embarrassing themselves.
Spread on categories, if that's the way to play:

WTF ??? aka zero or little substance
Taylor Swift
Lady Gaga
Beyoncé
Rihanna

Had their moments but they're not greats
Kanye West
Pearl Jam
Green Day
The Roots
LCD Soundsystem

Never heard of
Phish

They're gold but it's too damn damn early to build them statues
The White Stripes
Arcade Fire
Wilco
The Strokes
Jackson
Full of Fire
Posts: 1337
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:05 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Jackson »

Romain wrote: Taylor Swift : I don't even know who is he
Wait, really? It's hard for me to picture a world in which I had not heard of Taylor Swift (maybe being an American college student--a demographic in which Swift is probably the most popular artist--has something to do with it).
User avatar
Romain
Leader of the Pack
Posts: 4656
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:25 pm
Location: Lyon, France

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Romain »

Jackson wrote:
Romain wrote: Taylor Swift : I don't even know who is he
Wait, really? It's hard for me to picture a world in which I had not heard of Taylor Swift (maybe being an American college student--a demographic in which Swift is probably the most popular artist--has something to do with it).

Yes, like Phish, I just make a search on internet to see they are a girl and a band. Rolling Stone make us a good joke with all these name.
JR
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:54 pm

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by JR »

To me, an act should have some decent-sized critical success with albums. Rihanna, Beyonce and Stefani Gaga haven't released an album that's enjoyed big acclaim on all-time/year-end lists. Their singles have fared notably better.

Some of the rocks acts Rolling Stone added, at least, have enjoyed major critical success with their albums.

RS always was the U.S. equivalent of Q, so while some may not love it, in terms of music criticism/a publication, it's THE one. It is what it is.
Jirin
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2767
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:12 am

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Jirin »

JR wrote:To me, an act should have some decent-sized critical success with albums. Rihanna, Beyonce and Stefani Gaga haven't released an album that's enjoyed big acclaim on all-time/year-end lists. Their singles have fared notably better.

Some of the rocks acts Rolling Stone added, at least, have enjoyed major critical success with their albums.

RS always was the U.S. equivalent of Q, so while some may not love it, in terms of music criticism/a publication, it's THE one. It is what it is.
In the 60s and 70s Rolling Stone was THE one, now they're the archaeologists of rock.

I don't think having good albums is a necessary condition to be considered a great artist. Back in the 90s, maybe, because people were buying albums and not the overpriced singles, so all the promotion was focused on albums. Now everybody is downloading singles. The only artists who put out great albums are the ones who write their own music. Otherwise, the record company would be crazy to give a full album of A material to the same artist. Instead they give each artist a handful of A songs and fill out the album with B songs, so the A songs can be gradually rolled out.
User avatar
Live in Phoenix
Full of Fire
Posts: 1352
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 am

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Live in Phoenix »

I'm just glad Pink or Chris Brown didn't find their way on there. Several names listed above do mirror the AM's Top Artists of the 00s (with Animal Collective and OutKast missing out and M.I.A. being, um, uh...) There are dozens of names that don't line up with AM's top 100 artists, which is going to happen between any 2 lists, but it seems bizarre that RS had to rush out 14 new names, some of whom are barely past flavor of the month status.

God, it’d be weird if mp3s shifted the pendulum a little toward the 50s and early 60s, when singles giants walked the earth. Some musicians then had little or nothing in the way of albums of note, except a greatest hits album (so maybe Whitney Houston would be up for discussion, who knows). There's always been single-oriented pop musicians, but album artists might see a dropoff. Whatever the case, the songs better be freakin’ good.
User avatar
Stephan
Site Admin
Posts: 913
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:34 am
Contact:

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Stephan »

Jirin wrote:The only artists who put out great albums are the ones who write their own music. Otherwise, the record company would be crazy to give a full album of A material to the same artist. Instead they give each artist a handful of A songs and fill out the album with B songs, so the A songs can be gradually rolled out.
They're not so much artists as performers then.
User avatar
Mattceinicram
Different Class
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:26 am
Location: Indiana when home. Minneapolis, Minnesota during college

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Mattceinicram »

Taylor Swift- No
Kanye West- Definitely deserve to be on this list
Arcade Fire- Yes
Pearl Jam-maybe....I feel like there are better artists that can be included
Lady Gaga- no
Beyoncé-possibly
Wilco-yes
Rihanna-no
Green Day- yes
The White Stripes-yes
The Roots- no
The Strokes- maybe
LCD Soundsystem-yes
Phish-no
Check out my music review blog! Matt and Music! mattandmusic.blogspot.com
User avatar
Chambord
Wannabe
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:08 pm
Location: RO
Contact:

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Chambord »

JR wrote:RS always was the U.S. equivalent of Q, so while some may not love it, in terms of music criticism/a publication, it's THE one. It is what it is.
Both RS & Q magazines lean heavily to the commercial / popular ("for dummies" to be more specific) side of music criticism. If I saw Mojo or Uncut championing the likes of Gaga / Swift / Beyonce / Rihanna (funny, they're all women, that's freakin unfair to the male lousiness in music, so AGAIN: where bloody Pitbull ??) something would crash in my heart. But when I see RS / Q doing this, I'm like: Yeah, ok, like WTF did u expect from them ?

I have a hunch, the next update of the Rolling Stone legends list will contain: Justin Bieber, LMFAO, Chris Brown, Ke$ha, Maroon 5, Good Charlotte and of course (justice finally made): PITBULL !!!
Nassim
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2048
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:35 pm
Location: Lille (France)

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Nassim »

Jackson wrote:
Romain wrote: Taylor Swift : I don't even know who is he
Wait, really? It's hard for me to picture a world in which I had not heard of Taylor Swift (maybe being an American college student--a demographic in which Swift is probably the most popular artist--has something to do with it).
In France she probably helped sold more teen magazines than she ever sold albums or singles. None of her songs or albums were big here (seems like her last album didn't do better than #85 on the charts)... I guess We Are Never Ever something probably had some good rotation on teen radios but that's pretty much all, I'm pretty sure One Direction are much more famous than she is ><
Nassim
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2048
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:35 pm
Location: Lille (France)

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Nassim »

HRS wrote:Oh, my...



I don't take seriously because is a Rolling Stone's, but pretending that wasn't: Although one part of the acts have released strong albums troughout their careers - while the other part is basically mainstream pop icons and Green Day - I think is a little of a stretch to place them among all time greats. When I see the influence and consistency of someone like Neil Young or a Bob Dylan or the experimentalisms of a Beefheart, I wonder how many of contemporary acts are actually driven by hype and image over era defining or transcendent works. Are they enjoyable acts? Basically all of them depending of the audience. Does that should place them on immortal list? Well, I think that Adele is more immortal to most people than groups like Cocteau Twins or My Bloody Valentine. It depends. If we are speaking about their works as transcedent pieces of art, I guess it's too soon to basically every artist from the 00s to have their names attatched to a very select group of people who I consider to have a timeless impact on contemporary music. To affirm that Rihanna is an all time great is to place her alongside Billie Holiday or Miles Davis, for example. And if one expands to beyond popular music bounds, it's to place along a Wagner or a Schurbert. I feel like there's always the idea that the majority of the artists these days will end up as product of their times and limited rather than creators of one or many trascendent pieces of art that gain more importance, reach and influence in posterity and beyond. We can't take in consideration the effects that time might have on a record while composing lists like this; even a current classic might fall from grace in time - and it won't matter if it has strong EOD lists enough to secure an AM top 500. Not every great literary artist has a shot in become a Proust, a Joyce, a Faulkner or a Dostoievski and i think it's also true for music. And if we consider that many artists are undervalued during their generation to receive growing acclaim over time and in posterity, there are chances these last two decades' accolades might be reavalued along the years in a context of all time greatest artists/albums.
Well I can understand how the passing of time might be needed to really value what an artist or a band was worth, but whether you talk about influence, consistency or quality, I really don't see how putting Arcade Fire, The Roots, Kanye West or LCD Soundsystem in a list that includes CCR, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Nine Inch Nails, NWA, Eminem, Santana or the Stooges is even remotely an issue. I love of those bands, but I don't think they were more influential or had a longer great albums streak than half of the "new immortals".
Jirin
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2767
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:12 am

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Jirin »

Stephan wrote:
Jirin wrote:The only artists who put out great albums are the ones who write their own music. Otherwise, the record company would be crazy to give a full album of A material to the same artist. Instead they give each artist a handful of A songs and fill out the album with B songs, so the A songs can be gradually rolled out.
They're not so much artists as performers then.
Moonbeam, ATTACK!
Henry
Full of Fire
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:39 pm

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Henry »

RS should have come up with a list that rounded off to a reasonable number, probably 10, 15, 20 or 25, since we live in a base 10 world.

In my wheelhouse and likely deserving inclusion:
Arcade Fire
Pearl Jam
Green Day


Not in my wheelhouse and likely deserving inclusion:
Kanye West

In my wheelhouse and possibly deserving:
Wilco
LCD Soundsystem
Phish

Not in my wheelhouse and possibly deserving:
Lady Gaga
Beyoncé
The Roots
The Strokes
The White Stripes

While arguments can be made for why one or more of these acts is deserving, I doubt that I would concur with any such arguments:
Taylor Swift
Rihanna
Henry
Full of Fire
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:39 pm

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Henry »

Chambord wrote:This list is shit. Where's Pitbull ?!?! He's the greatest musician of all time !!
Pitbull??

I believe we are being pranked :greetings-waveyellow:
User avatar
HRS
Let's Get It On
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:59 am
Location: Brazil

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by HRS »

Nassim wrote:
Well I can understand how the passing of time might be needed to really value what an artist or a band was worth, but whether you talk about influence, consistency or quality, I really don't see how putting Arcade Fire, The Roots, Kanye West or LCD Soundsystem in a list that includes CCR, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Nine Inch Nails, NWA, Eminem, Santana or the Stooges is even remotely an issue. I love of those bands, but I don't think they were more influential or had a longer great albums streak than half of the "new immortals".
That's why I asked to ignore the fact that it was a rolling stone list! I'm speaking about applying the term immortal - I guess it is as misused as the often-used genius-word. The original list has a good portion of acts who haven't stood the test of time at all. And I don't think a great album streak is necessary to be influential - like The Shangri-Las
.
Speaking of them: they are the idea of a singles artist to me. I agree with Stephan, Rihanna is a performer and not even a singles artist to me. The only thing the girl has control of is her image and she sure uses it to her greatest gains. This mainstream generation is particular interesting to watch because we have the popularization of the internet and the use of social networks in music; Madonna sure was the master in using MTV and celebrity media in general to increase her fame, but the 00s brought a plataform that is much more dynamic and closer to the performer than ever before. Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, Rihanna, they are all masters in attracting followers and keeping their full-attention in a 'newsfeed', they have more followers and likes in social media than any other public figure of whichever professional area and they use their pages to gain widespread attention on television and print media. More than ever before a 'hiatus' mean anything at all. Lady Gaga has been over a year without releasing anything but she is constantly present in social media; Justin Bieber is always playing sexy (ugh!) and Rihanna is keeps tweeting about her badgirl lifestyle while not in a recording studio. Piracy and the internet might have changed the market, but not the fan-pop star relation - actually, it might have even increased it.

Rihanna and her team work hard to keep the masses interested and the girl is a constant presence on the radio. She has released one album per year since 2009 and chances are that she's already with another on its way. This omnipresence worked to keep people's attention in previous music eras, from the Beatles to Madonna and Michael/Janet Jackson. That's why I admire someone like Joni Mitchell who took 2 years off during the height of her career with For the Roses in an era that such an amount of time off was seen as a career killer. Kate Bush went on to do the same after The Dreaming. Kate was a sucessful album artist but she might have had the most stellar single streaks during the 78-89 era by any popular artist in Britain; putting to rest any idea that an album artist can't break into the singles ground and scare away the so-called single artists giving a run for their money when it comes to the subject.

For every well received single Rihanna releases, she has 4 that are more than dispensable.


- Music of the Sun: Pon de Replay, If it's lovin that you want
- A Girl Like Me: SOS, Unfaithful, We Ride, Break it Off
- Good Girl Gone Bad: Umbrella, Shut Up and Drive, Don't Stop the Music, Hate that I Love You, Take a Bow, Disturbia, Rehab
- Rated R: Russian Roulette, Hard, Rockstar 101, Rude Boy, Wait Your Turn
- Loud: Only Girl, What's Your Name, S&M, California King Bed, Man Down, Cheers
- Talk that Talk: We Found Love, You Da One, Where Have You Been, Birthday Cake, Talk that Talk
- Unapolegetic: Diamonds, Stay

And I ain't counting the features!

Most of them hits, but the overwhelming majority also being more than forgettable pop that played its role during their respectives releases of keeping her on rotation. I think that as a single artist, Rihanna is a fail. This is also applyable to Gaga, Swift, Pitbul, Maroon 5 and 'JLo' - all sucessful on their own ways, but nothing oustanding or even remotely transcendental. Gaga had Poker Face that is basically a guilty pleasure and was followed by Paparazzi, Bad Romance and more forgettable synth pop; Swift's international fame almost came down after Speak Now singles failed to buid upon You Belong With Me and Love Story - that's why I am not surprised by Romain having no idea who he is. Her more recent pop effort restore that and they will be the signature songs by 'T-Swizzle' until the next ones are released. Singles are basically a vehichle of promotion, though these days are more an end in itself rather than a paving road to acquire a full-lenght. We have had far more vital and sucessful artists than these ones in the business on previous decades - especially during the 60s.

Sorry for any typos or of I sounded rushed and reductive, I'm on the phone and sure is a pain in the ass to write in those small sensitive keyboards!
Last edited by HRS on Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Live in Phoenix
Full of Fire
Posts: 1352
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 am

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Live in Phoenix »

Nassim wrote:Well I can understand how the passing of time might be needed to really value what an artist or a band was worth, but whether you talk about influence, consistency or quality, I really don't see how putting Arcade Fire, The Roots, Kanye West or LCD Soundsystem in a list that includes CCR, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Nine Inch Nails, NWA, Eminem, Santana or the Stooges is even remotely an issue. I love of those bands, but I don't think they were more influential or had a longer great albums streak than half of the "new immortals".
It’s incredible how brief the lifespan was of some musical acts -- while waiting for some band to record its follow-up, the Smiths could have maybe recorded its entire musical output and broken up, or Jimi Hendrix could have come and gone. I’d say a long lifespan has helped Green Day’s reputation, but Pearl Jam might still be worth the nod based on them being the biggest American band of the '90s, even if I've stopped caring much about them since 1996. Some musicians might be respectable and consistent, but might never touch greatness – that’s how I’d characterize Taylor Swift and Rihanna in their current state, whereas Adele has greater stature than either of them might ever have based on her 21 album.

To pick two names from the quote above, in terms of influence, I’d say every gangsta rap album that ever came out followed in N.W.A.’s direction, and that the Stooges were no small influence for punk rock in the 70s. I don’t listen to much new music, but I wonder who would even be considered influential nowadays (well, Radiohead).
Last edited by Live in Phoenix on Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nick
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2621
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Nick »

HRS wrote: Rihanna and her team work hard to keep the masses interested and the girl is a constant presence on the radio. She has released one album per year since 2009 and chances are that she's already with another on its way. This omnipresence worked to keep people's attention in previous music eras, from the Beatles to Madonna and Michael/Janet Jackson. That's why I admire someone like Joni Mitchell who took 2 years off during the height of her career with For the Roses in an era that such an amount of time off was seen as a career killer. Kate Bush went on to do the same after The Dreaming. Kate was a sucessful album artist but she might have had the most stellar single streaks during the 78-89 era by any popular artist in Britain; putting to rest any idea that an album artist can't break into the singles ground and scare away the so-called single artists giving a run for their money when it comes to the subject.
I find it interesting that you claim Michael Jackson had a sort of musical omnipresence when it came to putting out new music. Remember, it took him 3 years to release "Thriller" after "Off the Wall", and it took him another 5 years after "Thriller" to release "Bad", and then 4 years to go from "Bad" to "Dangerous". He may have been one of the biggest music stars in the 1980's, probably even THE biggest, but the guy only put out 2 albums in the 1980's.
User avatar
HRS
Let's Get It On
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:59 am
Location: Brazil

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by HRS »

Nick wrote: I find it interesting that you claim Michael Jackson had a sort of musical omnipresence when it came to putting out new music. Remember, it took him 3 years to release "Thriller" after "Off the Wall", and it took him another 5 years after "Thriller" to release "Bad", and then 4 years to go from "Bad" to "Dangerous". He may have been one of the biggest music stars in the 1980's, probably even THE biggest, but the guy only put out 2 albums in the 1980's.
I was actually going to cite only Janet in the case of releasing new music - Mariah being famous for that during the 90s, too. My bad on Michael, though. I was citing things from my head and I had a small confusion with the years between Thriller and Bad; he sure was more present during the Off the Wall-Thriller era and though he must have received a lot of press during his hiatus, it ain't comparable to the attention received after the infamous accusations of 93. My bad! He sure received rotation, but not constantly releasing songs like Rihanna from the middle 80s onwards. :)

Edit: typos.. Damn you cellphones!
JR
Unquestionable Presence
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:54 pm

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by JR »

Whether via her own releases or collaborations/featurings, Rihanna has been ubiquitous since her debut- she hasn't let up. Even those who were prolific in the past took some time off.

Jirin- an album is a body of work that showcases an act's goods. For me, just having catchy singles doesn't cut it in terms of being a GREAT artist. Don't get me wrong a great hits album of catchy, enjoyable songs is just fine, and I have a number of those. But I wouldn't classify some of those acts as great artists. But, some will have different views. :)
Last edited by JR on Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bruno
Full of Fire
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:33 pm
Location: São Paulo, Brasil
Contact:

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Bruno »

In my rank of greatest artists of all time:

Top 100 artists: Pearl Jam, Kanye West and Green Day
Top 200: Beyonce and Rihanna
Top 250: Lady Gaga and The Arcade Fire
Top 300: The White Stripes and LCD Soundsystem
Top 350: The Strokes and The Roots

No rank yet: Taylor Swift, Wilco and Phish.
User avatar
Listyguy
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2456
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:34 pm

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Listyguy »

This list makes Rolling Stone even more of a joke than they already were, which I didn't think was possible.
User avatar
whuntva
Full of Fire
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:46 pm

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by whuntva »

Ever notice these artists are all American (with the possible exception of Rihanna). Not a single British Artist in sight. Bias, much?
" Ah, yes! Our meager restitution"
Nick
Die Mensch Maschine
Posts: 2621
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by Nick »

whuntva wrote:Ever notice these artists are all American (with the possible exception of Rihanna). Not a single British Artist in sight. Bias, much?
Arcade Fire are actually Canadian, not that it matters too much.
Soz
The Only Way Is Up
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:38 am

Post by Soz »

x
Last edited by Soz on Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
whuntva
Full of Fire
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:46 pm

Re: Rolling Stone Adds 14 New Immortals

Post by whuntva »

Didn't LCD Soundsystem disband a couple years ago? What have they put out recently?
I am aware of this. The difference is LCD Soundsystem was around for longer.
LCD albums: 3 (2002-2010)
Lady Gaga: 2 1/2 (Fame Monster was just a slightly expanded version of The Fame; 2008-present, or 5 years)
Her latest album was the second best-selling album of 2012 in the US despite only being released in October and sold over a million copies in its first week. "I Knew You Were Trouble" is currently the best-selling single of 2013. Unfortunately, I don't think she's going anywhere anytime soon. And even then, she's still pretty bland and obnoxious
I know this too, but her style took a shift. It is clear she is copying the pop movement. Plus ALL HER SONGS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!
She already has 12 Billboard Hot 100 number ones, which ties her for fifth place among all artists. I'd say "We Found Love" and even "Only Girl (In the World)" have had similar influence. I still don't think she's really earned a place there. At least, not yet.
Okay, that's a valid point. Still not enough to warrant a spot, you're right. But you did explain that part well.

I do still stand by my original opinions. Looking back, though, I do feel like I could have explained myself a bit better. :angry-banghead: Let's just group them into categories.

SLAM DUNKS
White Stripes
Pearl Jam
Green Day
Kanye West
Arcade Fire

ALRIGHT ENOUGH FOR THE LIST
Wilco
The Strokes
LCD Soundsystem

GOOD BUT PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT PLACEMENT
Beyonce
Phish
The Roots

NO
Taylor Swift
Lady Gaga
Rihanna
" Ah, yes! Our meager restitution"
Post Reply