✅ Rolling Stone: The 100 Greatest Debut Albums of All Time

[Harold]

Henrik!

[Henrik]

Henrik!

Yes, how about an "agree to disagree" and a group hug, instead of this wrangling?

[SavoyBG]

Savoy, you must be living in a parallel universe to every one else ! If hit single commercial success were the sole arbiter of 'greatness'

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never said that hit singles were the "sole" arbiter of greatness. I have said that hit singles are one component of greatness.

then why aren't the likes of The Bay City Rollers, Mud, Sweet, Gary Glitter, Slade, Hall and Oates,Take That ( one of the best selling artists of all time ),etc, etc anywhere near the top 100 popular music artists list that Henrik has so brilliantly compiled ?

Not just Henrik by the way, take virtually any list of the top 100 popuar music acts of all time and Steely Dan would be higher in virtually all of them, which is why they are positioned much higher ( though not high enough in my opinion ) than ABBA!! By the way, I personally love ABBAs music.

First off, you are listing acts that were mainly big only in the UK and not in the USA. Given that the USA market is like 6 times as big as the UK market, it's no surprise that acts like Mud, Slade and Gary Glitter, who had limited or no success in the USA, are not on lists of all time great artists. Abba on the other hand IS.

Here is a list of the 300 greatest Popular music artists of all time. Abba is #47. Hall & Oates is #300. Steely Dan did not make the list.

http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistspop.html

1. Beatles
2. Elvis Presley
3. Frank Sinatra
4. Bing Crosby
5. Michael Jackson / Jackson 5
6. Louis Armstrong
7. James Brown
8. Billie Holiday
9. Bob Dylan
10. Johnny Cash
11. Duke Ellington
12. Ray Charles
13. Chuck Berry
14. Hank Williams
15. Aretha Franklin
16. Al Jolson
17. Glenn Miller
18. B.B. King
19. Nat King Cole
20. Rolling Stones
21. Ella Fitzgerald
22. Muddy Waters
23. Stevie Wonder
24. Beach Boys
25. Benny Goodman
26. Charlie Parker
27. Miles Davis
28. Little Richard
29. Louis Jordan
30. John Coltrane
31. Bessie Smith
32. Bob Marley and the Wailers
33. Mahalia Jackson
34. Tommy Dorsey
35. Mills Brothers
36. Led Zeppelin
37. Marvin Gaye
38. Woody Guthrie
39. Jimi Hendrix
40. The Who
41. Madonna
42. Jimmie Rodgers
43. Robert Johnson
44. Sam Cooke
45. Bruce Springsteen
46. Queen
47. Abba
48. Pink Floyd
49. Buddy Holly and the Crickets
50. Elton John

Your comment about Steely Dan is an absolute joke. If you took any random sample of 1000 music critics and musicians and asked them which was the greater act, made better records, were better songwriters,better musicians and had far more influence on popular music there would only be one winner. Critical approval is of course a crucial aspect of greatness overall.

I know plenty of musicians who would choose Abba over Steely Dan, and as far as I'm concerned critical approval is far less important than initial and lasting popularity.

[SavoyBG]

Same with music, critics and musicians know far more about the subject than the general public, although we form our own tastes. So i would value their opinion more than anyone elses.

You won't find one critic in the world who knows more about the entire history of popular music than I do. The music critic in my local paper (Newark Star-Ledger), who is also a musician, is a correspondant of mine and he readily admits to not knowing much about any music from before the 1980s.

[JR]

There are a number of acts who aren't critical smashes, that i enjoy more than some who are- but, I fully acknowledge that the acts who are critical smashes are *perceived* to be stronger artists by those who know a lot about music and/or are music historians. Sure, music is a subjective area- just as is any art form (movies, TV shows, etc.). But I enjoy looking at critical consensus, because it at times introduces me to music/acts I may not have known about, otherwise, since they're not big commercial successes. And, if one makes music with the sole purpose of having hits, then, no, it's probably not going to be some incredible, artistic work. Merging art and commerce is the best way to go, and not many can achieve it as well as others (nor even want or try to).

I agree with Henrik, though- people are going to disagree, no matter how much back and forth there is, so it's gotta stop somewhere.

[Henrik]

Who gives a shit what a few dozen critics think? These Guys are mainly jounalism majors who don;t know shit about music. That's why they mainly just analyze and write about lyrics.

Critics shit out of their asshole just like everybody else, and most are trained in journalism, very few of them actually know anything about music. Could they tell us what key a song is done in, or what time it is played in?

You won't find one critic in the world who knows more about the entire history of popular music than I do. The music critic in my local paper (Newark Star-Ledger), who is also a musician, is a correspondant of mine and he readily admits to not knowing much about any music from before the 1980s.

I run Acclaimed Music to provide a different angle than sales charts for people who are searching for more music to listen to. I don't claim that the AM lists would contain the best or the greatest albums and songs. The lists are summaries of critics' lists, no more no less. The thing though is that quite a lot of people find the lists useful. I'm proud to have created a website that means something to others. Then you come here and spoil our party by basically saying it's not useful. That's not very nice.

Consider this as a warning. One more post in a similar vein and I have to ban you from this forum.

[SavoyBG]

I run Acclaimed Music to provide a different angle than sales charts for people who are searching for more music to listen to. I don't claim that the AM lists would contain the best or the greatest albums and songs. The lists are summaries of critics' lists, no more no less. The thing though is that quite a lot of people find the lists useful. I'm proud to have created a website that means something to others. Then you come here and spoil our party by basically saying it's not useful. That's not very nice.

Consider this as a warning. One more post in a similar vein and I have to ban you from this forum.

I find the lists very useful myself. Unfortunately some of the people on this forum don't seem to see it the same way you do when you say...."I don't claim that the AM lists would contain the best or the greatest albums and songs. The lists are summaries of critics' lists, no more no less."

The way I see it, critical acclaim is just one portion of what can make an artist of a song great. Your site was very helpful when I put together many of the DDD lists, especially the best songs of each year lists for the 1990s and the 2000s.

[Poliuks]

OK, I didn't want to participate in this quarrels, but... Did you just claim that you are more knowledgeable about music than every single critic in the world? After admitting that you don't know anything by Arcade Fire? If yes, I have no more questions. Don't consider this as an attack on you, I'm just curious.

[Harold]

OK, I didn't want to participate in this quarrels, but... Did you just claim that you are more knowledgeable about music than every single critic in the world? After admitting that you don't know anything by Arcade Fire? If yes, I have no more questions. Don't consider this as an attack on you, I'm just curious.

Or by Nickelback, one of the most popular acts of the last 10 years. It's statements like that which, unfortunately, have the effect of negating the valuable contributions he's made and could continue to make to the discussions in this forum.

Now, it's self-evident that SavoyBG does have a deep pool of knowledge about -some- music - I'm sure that no one else knows as much about the 691 best songs of 1956 than he does (all that I know about his #691, "In the Evening," is that Jimmy Page's guitar solo is one of his all-time greatest) - but to say that he knows more about music history in general than all critics, given his gaps and blind spots, is questionable to say the least. UNLESS, that is, his contempt for critics is so bottomless that he's convinced he knows more than they do EVEN GIVEN said gaps and blind spots.

In any case, Henrik, it looks like you'll need to lock another thread here.

And by the way, what the hell IS that on Joey's head?

[Henrik]

In any case, Henrik, it looks like you'll need to lock another thread here.

OK, everybody have had their say.