Scratch

[removed by moderator - please make sure your links lead to material that is appropriate for all ages] Have you guys read this? I don't take it word-by-word, but it's definitely an interesting read.

Last edited by Paddle2See (2013-04-30 10:27:42)

DIY wrote:

I wouldn't take "Rolling Stone"'s accounts myself. They are noted for having had biased or untrue articles in the past, and besides their rankings are compiled horrendously. btw, you may want to take down that link as it contains verbal obscenities.

Wait, wait... before you go and badmouth publications, can you provide some sources for your pretty harsh accusations, as well as not bash them on matters of opinion??

jji7skyline wrote:

veggieman wrote:

DIY wrote:

I wouldn't take "Rolling Stone"'s accounts myself. They are noted for having had biased or untrue articles in the past, and besides their rankings are compiled horrendously. btw, you may want to take down that link as it contains verbal obscenities.

Wait, wait... before you go and badmouth publications, can you provide some sources for your pretty harsh accusations, as well as not bash them on matters of opinion??

Well we've (DIY and I) agreed that some of their 'top 100' lists were less than honest.

I can vouch for that.

And I'm entitled to my opinion; I certainly don't think "Like A Rolling Stone" by Bob Dylan and "Satisfaction" by Rolling Stones were placed #1 and #2 respectively on their 500 Greatest Songs list for their true merit. It's rather unequivocal, the reason for placing those there, wouldn't one say? Think for yourself...

Last edited by DIY (2013-04-30 11:23:14)

possibly wrote:

Isn't that discounting the quality of those songs just because of the resemblance of names? Sure, they definitely wouldn't be on my top 500 list, but they are the ones making the list.
I could make a list and you could say it was unequivocal or unambiguous, but it's still my opinion and you don't necessarily have to read it

You can have an opinion on something, and i could have an opinion on your opinion and another person could have an opinion on mine. As long as it stays that way.

soupoftomato wrote:

Suparing01 wrote:

And I feel he was the best song writer, too. John may have written the best lyrics, but I feel Paul wrote the best melodies, overall.

There was a Cracked article on Paul's apparently terrible solo career being a bunch of cheesy pop, and a commenter talked about how The Beatles were perfect because Paul's catchy pop was counterbalanced by John's experimentation and it made a new but safe style, and then in the solo careers, John was good because he was different and new, but Paul just kept making cheesy catchy stuff.

What are the mains??

I feel that's a bit harsh of whoever made that article, saying that.

Sure, maybe his solo career was very cheesy, but so what? He had made amazing songs for The Beatles, he deserves to kick back and just make cheesy songs with his wife, after his career.

Although, I don't find 'Live and Let Die' to be cheesy, I think that's a very Beatly Paul song. :p

DIY wrote:

There obviously some monumental statement staring right at your face when the top two slots - top two slots - have something in common with the magazine name.  How am I even discounting the quality of the songs? They would be on my top 500 list, but not on those two slots for certain; I never said I wouldn't regard them on such a list, nor did I degrade them. The pure fact that those two songs are the list's top holders is more than just a coincidence.

They are pretty famous songs.
What reason would they put them at the top anyway..?

My favorite Beatles songs are "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," "Happiness is a Warm Gun," "She Loves You," "Ticket To Ride" and "Nowhere Man."

Also "Think For Yourself" and the 5-minute bootleg versions of "Dig It."

Last edited by nama (2013-05-04 11:59:19)

DIY wrote:

mythbusteranimator wrote:

DIY wrote:

There obviously some monumental statement staring right at your face when the top two slots - top two slots - have something in common with the magazine name.  How am I even discounting the quality of the songs? They would be on my top 500 list, but not on those two slots for certain; I never said I wouldn't regard them on such a list, nor did I degrade them. The pure fact that those two songs are the list's top holders is more than just a coincidence.

They are pretty famous songs.
What reason would they put them at the top anyway..?

I dunno if you're agreed on the point here or not?

What I'm saying is that, yes, they're famous, great melodies and thus would qualify under my top 500, but deffo not on the top two slots, for namesake.

Why are we making a deal of this anyway?
Even if it was on purpose, so? 
This is a poll by the people, but can still be biased I guess

Everything is just opinionated

mythbusteranimator wrote:

DIY wrote:

mythbusteranimator wrote:

They are pretty famous songs.
What reason would they put them at the top anyway..?

I dunno if you're agreed on the point here or not?

What I'm saying is that, yes, they're famous, great melodies and thus would qualify under my top 500, but deffo not on the top two slots, for namesake.

Why are we making a deal of this anyway?
Even if it was on purpose, so? 
This is a poll by the people, but can still be biased I guess

That'll be biased due to the people who are accessing it, who have stronger opinions than other voters (or non-voters that didn't see it worth their time), etc.

Anyway, I think the top 2 on that 500 list make enough sense, even if I might not put them there specifically.

What do they stand to gain by putting songs with a similar title to their publication in the lead? You're already reading their site if you see that.

Last edited by soupoftomato (2013-04-30 21:15:26)

Sellout wrote:

So how are they supposed to go about making these kinds of lists then?

I never said the 500 list wouldn't be biased also. The majority of the list being classic rock and such shows that the editors contribution are primarily fans of that area of music.

So, if you see a top list, it's an interesting opinion on something, possibly (hopefully) with some at least decent reasoning behind it!

Last edited by soupoftomato (2013-04-30 21:17:58)

Ranking songs by how good they are seems silly to me anyway, especially if you base so much of your list on that time period.

jji7skyline wrote:

Why especially that time period?

I see nothing wrong with that either. That time period contained great music. I don't just say this, but most mainstream music nowadays don't showcase the talent and message of pop music back then. A lot of pop and rap songs today increasingly have profanity in all sorts of forms, and meaningless lyrics like going for a kill and the such. Plus with the implementation of pitch correct which many singers use, talentless people relentlessly call themselves 'musicians'. This makes painful listening with regard to particular singers, like I remember both of us agreed on a while back. That's not saying I hate all modern music. I am an avid Coldplay and maybe even a Take That fan, plus I'm enthusiastic about other existing contemporary artists.

jji7skyline wrote:

DIY wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

Why especially that time period?

I see nothing wrong with that either. That time period contained great music. I don't just say this, but most mainstream music nowadays don't showcase the talent and message of pop music back then. A lot of pop and rap songs today increasingly have profanity in all sorts of forms, and meaningless lyrics like going for a kill and the such. Plus with the implementation of pitch correct which many singers use, talentless people relentlessly call themselves 'musicians'. This makes painful listening with regard to particular singers, like I remember both of us agreed on a while back. That's not saying I hate all modern music. I am an avid Coldplay and maybe even a Take That fan, plus I'm enthusiastic about other existing contemporary artists.

I agree and though some modern music can be tasteful, a lot isn't. I'm find it off putting that a lot of artists don't write their own songs.

+1 That as well, not writing their own songs.