The 80's and the 90's

[QE Harold Flair]

When music spawned endless classics and music awards was actually something to be bothered about. Why is music generally so shit now? Even the cheesy shit from the 80's sounds great in comparison. I know every generation thinks theirs was better than the current one but mine really was and is. Is it down to the collapse of the charts as they once were? And what's with the rise of the male vocalist singing in over-exaggerated high tones these days? I'm looking at that big poof, Sam Smith, but he's certainly not alone. It really gets on your raving titties after a while.

I will allow you to discuss this further - meanwhile, the :nod: when you find out the classics were great live as well. I could post a million classics from the 80's or 90's era but where's the classics of today? I fear there aren't many.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe43ZtIorG0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-yis9av6xc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHe1XPTioIk


It seems to me that the so-called 'stars' of today are either manufactured crap or cheap rip-offs.

[TG09]

The big hair of the 80's said it all really. Bon Jovi's band members all had massive hair!

[Disco]

Because nostalgia. Everyone identifies with a particular formative period and to some degree derides new things that don't conform to that period.

Pretty standard stuff really Haz.

[Lewis]

I like that Harold has the music taste of a forty year old woman who thinks she's cool.

[QE Harold Flair]

Because nostalgia. Everyone identifies with a particular formative period and to some degree derides new things that don't conform to that period.

Pretty standard stuff really Haz.

I don't think it is just nostalgia, though. I dare say in 20 years the kind of classics I posted will be remembered above and beyond the vast swathes of crap around now. I think the collapse of the way people buy music has led to a real death or originality and of star quality. Who are the modern versions of Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Springsteen etc. There just doesn't seem to be anyone now who will be remembered in such a way.

And Lewis, I don't define 'coolness' in musical taste or define myself in any way by it. You, on the other hand, come across as someone who does. I don't know any 40 year old women who like Guns N Roses as a status symbol. Let me guess, big Stone Roses fan? Yawn.

[Mike]

Why is music generally so shit now?

Because you're getting old.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, it's a very real thing. I like the 60's and 70's stuff much more than the modern wailing as well, so it's not nostalgia at all. Conversely I find anything pre-60's as vastly dross.

Who are the biggest stars today? Bieber? 'One D'? Kanye West and his of so insistent massive ego - compare that to Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Guns N Roses, Prince.

[Giggles]

There was talent in most of the 60's to 90's. There's fuck all now.

[QE Harold Flair]

There was talent in most of the 60's to 90's. There's fuck all now.


I believe this to be the correct answer. I mean don't get me wrong, the first time I heard Sam Smith I thought he sounded great. But he insists on singing every song as if he's an emotional wreck and it soon becomes tiresome.

[Lewis]

And Lewis, I don't define 'coolness' in musical taste or define myself in any way by it. You, on the other hand, come across as someone who does. I don't know any 40 year old women who like Guns N Roses as a status symbol. Let me guess, big Stone Roses fan? Yawn.

Late-sixties/seventies rock music is my favourite stuff. I think Guns N' Roses liked it as well, since they just recycled most of it. Also, I don't really like Bruce Springsteen, but weren't his best albums produced in the seventies (even if he only became massive later)?

[Disco]

I don't think it is just nostalgia, though. I dare say in 20 years the kind of classics I posted will be remembered above and beyond the vast swathes of crap around now. I think the collapse of the way people buy music has led to a real death or originality and of star quality. Who are the modern versions of Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Springsteen etc. There just doesn't seem to be anyone now who will be remembered in such a way.

And Lewis, I don't define 'coolness' in musical taste or define myself in any way by it. You, on the other hand, come across as someone who does. I don't know any 40 year old women who like Guns N Roses as a status symbol. Let me guess, big Stone Roses fan? Yawn.

Well, firstly you aren't interested in modern 'acts' so naturally you don't think they compare with your idea of classic artists. The proliferation thing is interesting but you could argue that the openness of the music industry in particular allows greater innovation and lets people gain exposure who otherwise would never have been picked up by major labels. People no longer have to conform to the current trends to get noticed. Also, lol at modern acts being more manufactured, as with everything the process is now more visible and in some cases monetised.

Proclamations that 'X is dead!' are always proved wrong in time.

[igor_balis]

I dare say in 20 years the kind of classics I posted will be remembered above and beyond the vast swathes of crap around now.

Yeah, because they're classics. It isn't like the 70s and 80s were wall-to-wall brilliance, it is just the good stuff is remembered and the shite isn't.

There's been plenty of great pop tracks in the last decade or so which I think will be remembered - Biology by Girls Aloud and Call Me Maybe by Carly Rae Jepsen to pick a couple of my favourites.

[QE Harold Flair]

Late-sixties/seventies rock music is my favourite stuff. I think Guns N' Roses liked it as well, since they just recycled most of it. Also, I don't really like Bruce Springsteen, but weren't his best albums produced in the seventies (even if he only became massive later)?

Guns N Roses stuff was completely unique, bar the odd cover. Rose was a massive Queen fan but other than taking obvious influences you're barking up the wrong tree completely.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yeah, because they're classics. It isn't like the 70s and 80s were wall-to-wall brilliance, it is just the good stuff is remembered and the shite isn't.

There's been plenty of great pop tracks in the last decade or so which I think will be remembered - Biology by Girls Aloud and Call Me Maybe by Carly Rae Jepsen to pick a couple of my favourites.

Girls Aloud :D

Yea, real classic.

[QE Harold Flair]

Well, firstly you aren't interested in modern 'acts' so naturally you don't think they compare with your idea of classic artists. The proliferation thing is interesting but you could argue that the openness of the music industry in particular allows greater innovation and lets people gain exposure who otherwise would never have been picked up by major labels. People no longer have to conform to the current trends to get noticed. Also, lol at modern acts being more manufactured, as with everything the process is now more visible and in some cases monetised.

Proclamations that 'X is dead!' are always proved wrong in time.

I would be interested if there were a few who were any good, and maybe had a bit more about them. I haven't seen much evidence of this originality you speak of.

[igor_balis]

Girls Aloud :D

Yea, real classic.

They've got an excellent back catalogue, due in large part to their songwriters and producers. They might not be the most talented singers of all time, but that's the same for most great pop groups of any era.

I'm sure if you were around in the late 1960s you'd be sneering at the Monkees because they didn't write their own music.

[The Merse]

I'd say that post internet, there's so much variety in our musical landscape that a lot of the better stuff fails to chart and the charts themselves mean fuck all. Radio and TV is less influential too, so only the most ubiquitous acts are widely known. From my perspective, Indie, Punk, Post-Punk, Hardcore, Urban, et al is healthier than ever.


People no longer have to conform to the current trends to get noticed.

This completely correct in my opinion, though admittedly it's less lucrative all around and DIY is often the way to get started - indeed it's an expectation these days. When I was in a band, the idea was that you'd spend a year or two looking to get an EP together then hope for immediate distribution or to do so with a subsequent release and label attention (we'd never have gotten that far - we were shit, but in those circles, that was the kind of attitude), now people go out an make full albums and release them via Bandcamp.

[The Merse]

Late-sixties/seventies rock music is my favourite stuff. I think Guns N' Roses liked it as well, since they just recycled most of it. Also, I don't really like Bruce Springsteen, but weren't his best albums produced in the seventies (even if he only became massive later)?

Yep, Born To Run ('74?) is the defining moment, an album of incredible quality and Greetings From Asbury Park, NJ was a great album.

[QE Harold Flair]

They've got an excellent back catalogue, due in large part to their songwriters and producers. They might not be the most talented singers of all time, but that's the same for most great pop groups of any era.

I'm sure if you were around in the late 1960s you'd be sneering at the Monkees because they didn't write their own music.

Pop groups are generally shit, and I certainly do not agree that they have a 'great back catalogue'. Abba are the acceptable face of cheesy pop, since they at least wrote their own material and could sing live. They're a good example actually, the nature of their music means many sneer at them, but if those hooks were easy to come up with then everyone would be doing it. I don't really have time for anyone who can't write their own stuff/play an instrument or failing that, have a voice that makes up for it.

And yes, I would sneer at the Monkees, as many did and still do.

[Lewis]

Guns N Roses stuff was completely unique, bar the odd cover. Rose was a massive Queen fan but other than taking obvious influences you're barking up the wrong tree completely.

You haven't actually listened to much music have you?

[QE Harold Flair]

Because I don't agree with you, yes, obviously. Apart from my own opinions, there are many other write-ups about GNR which echo what I say. They became so big because they were an alternative to the hair music that was around at the time and had a chemistry which was amazing.

[Boydy]

Pop groups are generally shit, and I certainly do not agree that they have a 'great back catalogue'. Abba are the acceptable face of cheesy pop, since they at least wrote their own material and could sing live. They're a good example actually, the nature of their music means many sneer at them, but if those hooks were easy to come up with then everyone would be doing it. I don't really have time for anyone who can't write their own stuff/play an instrument or failing that, have a voice that makes up for it.

And yes, I would sneer at the Monkees, as many did and still do.

Two of the four songs in your first post weren't written by those who sang them.

[Giggles]

Because I don't agree with you, yes, obviously. Apart from my own opinions, there are many other write-ups about GNR which echo what I say. They became so big because they were an alternative to the hair music that was around at the time and had a chemistry which was amazing.

The latter part of this is completely correct for me too. In both image and music they were so different to what was the norm at the time. It's not to say they weren't influenced by some great bands that went before them but they had as much influence going forward as they took.

[The Merse]

Guns N Roses stuff was completely unique, bar the odd cover. Rose was a massive Queen fan but other than taking obvious influences you're barking up the wrong tree completely.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. LA Guns and Skid Row were very similar for a start, and really all GnR did was take the musicality of late 70s Hard Rock and play it faster and looser in the vein of punk. Appetite is a very, very good album and brought a sense of danger back to a genre that had become lost in the glam, but to say they're unique speaks of being underexposed to those that came before and after.

[QE Harold Flair]

Two of the four songs in your first post weren't written by those who sang them.

Try reading my whole post.

[Boydy]

Try reading my whole post.

I did. You'd think for your opening post you'd have been able to pick such good examples that you'd not have had any coming under the 'failing that' caveat of your own conditions though.

[QE Harold Flair]

I wouldn't be so sure of that. LA Guns and Skid Row were very similar for a start, and really all GnR did was take the musicality of late 70s Hard Rock and play it faster and looser in the vein of punk. Appetite is a very, very good album and brought a sense of danger back to a genre that had become lost in the glam, but to say they're unique speaks of being underexposed to those that came before and after.

The uniqueness was the chemistry between them, and Rose's voice, which has been cited as the most dexterous in all of music.

[QE Harold Flair]

I did. You'd think for your opening post you'd have been able to pick such good examples that you'd not have had any coming under the 'failing that' caveat of your own conditions though.

Or not.


I don't really have time for anyone who can't write their own stuff/play an instrument or failing that, have a voice that makes up for it

The reason I chose those first 2 songs was to illustrate that even the cheesier classics were sung by people with actual talent.

[The Merse]

The latter part of this is completely correct for me too. In both image and music they were so different to what was the norm at the time. It's not to say they weren't influenced by some great bands that went before them but they had as much influence going forward as they took.

But they were very much a part of the LA-centric Californian scene that acted as the antithesis to the more glam focused rock that was becoming dominant in the Hard Rock / Metal spheres. The other ways that manifested were in the likes of Slayer and Metallica - Thrash. Again, it took more musical queues than punk but was inspired by it's energy, aesthetic and values and the tempo.

It's only because GnR became the most successful (the only ones that found crossover success) that means they're remembered by many and indeed were thought by those that weren't rock 'aficionados' as such at the time, as being unique.

It's like saying the Jimmy Hendrix Experience was sonically unique, it's bollocks.

Also, QE Harold Flair they made a shitload of power ballads, especially on Use Your Illusion which is fucking awful, and referring to an 'odd cover' is a bit trite when they released an entire album of covers and two more on other releases.

[The Merse]

The uniqueness was the chemistry between them, and Rose's voice, which has been cited as the most dexterous in all of music.

The voice is pretty unique, it's fucking awful most of the time. But I don't care for voices really, I like many a vocalist that sounds unconventional as its the lyrical content I gravitate towards. But a voice being unique doesn't make a band unique.

As for the chemistry, many bands have had interesting chemistry and an impending sense of danger of implosion. They were basically punks, and with that, their sneering 'don't give a fuck, us against the world 'til we fuck up and kill each other' attitude is common as fuck.

[Boydy]

Also, QE Harold Flair they made a shitload of power ballads, especially on Use Your Illusion which is fucking awful, and referring to an 'odd cover' is a bit trite when they released an entire album of covers and two more on other releases.

Yeah, didn't the rest of the band not like November Rain very much? And all that dicking about Axl did on stage with grand pianos and shit.

[QE Harold Flair]

But they were very much a part of the LA-centric Californian scene that acted as the antithesis to the more glam focused rock that was becoming dominant in the Hard Rock / Metal spheres. The other ways that manifested were in the likes of Slayer and Metallica - Thrash. Again, it took more musical queues than punk but was inspired by it's energy, aesthetic and values and the tempo.

It's only because GnR became the most successful (the only ones that found crossover success) that means they're remembered by many and indeed were thought by those that weren't rock 'aficionados' as such at the time, as being unique.

It's like saying the Jimmy Hendrix Experience was sonically unique, it's bollocks.

Also, @QE Harold Flair (http://www.thethirdhalf.co.uk/member.php?u=71) they made a shitload of power ballads, especially on Use Your Illusion which is fucking awful, and referring to an 'odd cover' is a bit trite when they released an entire album of covers and two more on other releases.

'Country musician Steve Earle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Earle) stated in 1989 that "Guns n' Roses are what every L.A. band pretends to be" - that sums it up for me. Of course they came out of a particular scene but nobody did it better, so they popularised that scene. Just as Nirvana were not the only grunge band going at the time but popularised it for the same reason.

I loved the Use Your Illusion albums but most GNR fans do indeed prefer Apetite For Destruction. I'm a sucker for the long riffs in those ballads, though.

November Rain took years to write - and Slash and Axl had massively different tastes in music, which is why it was never going to last. They broke up just as they were at their biggest.

[Giggles]

Steve Earle :drool:

Harold this thread is like musical porn to me.


There was some great stuff on the Illusion albums, though it could have been just the one album and it can't touch Appetite.

[ScousePig]

70s >>> 80s >>>>> all the other shite.

[The Merse]

Yeah, didn't the rest of the band not like November Rain very much? And all that dicking about Axl did on stage with grand pianos and shit.

Pretty much. Axl was despised all round and owned the band after Appetite by taking advantage of the basket cases he shared it with. His love of a lot of the bands GnR were seen to be the antidote to meant that Use Your Illusion was a bloated, pompous vanity project only enjoyed by the hideously one-eyed.

[QE Harold Flair]

The voice is pretty unique, it's fucking awful most of the time. But I don't care for voices really, I like many a vocalist that sounds unconventional as its the lyrical content I gravitate towards. But a voice being unique doesn't make a band unique.

As for the chemistry, many bands have had interesting chemistry and an impending sense of danger of implosion. They were basically punks, and with that, their sneering 'don't give a fuck, us against the world 'til we fuck up and kill each other' attitude is common as fuck.

The voice is awful now but up until about 93 it was amazing, even more so in the late 80's. He also used to charge around the stage at a million mile an hour in the 90's, which didn't help.

[The Merse]

'Country musician Steve Earle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Earle) stated in 1989 that "Guns n' Roses are what every L.A. band pretends to be" - that sums it up for me. Of course they came out of a particular scene but nobody did it better, so they popularised that scene. Just as Nirvana were not the only grunge band going at the time but popularised it for the same reason.

I loved the Use Your Illusion albums but most GNR fans do indeed prefer Apetite For Destruction. I'm a sucker for the long riffs in those ballads, though.

November Rain took years to write - and Slash and Axl had massively different tastes in music, which is why it was never going to last. They broke up just as they were at their biggest.

He's right - they were the pinnacle of that scene, but that doesn't make them unique.

They also never broke up - Axl sacked everyone. When I saw them in 2002, they were the same entity with different personnel, because Al owned the band as a commercial entity.

[Lewis]

Because I don't agree with you, yes, obviously. Apart from my own opinions, there are many other write-ups about GNR which echo what I say. They became so big because they were an alternative to the hair music that was around at the time and had a chemistry which was amazing.

I bet there are more 'write-ups' that actually situate them in the real world and acknowledge their obvious influences (who in turn ripped-off those before them). Steve Earle doesn't suggest otherwise, so I'm not sure what that quote was meant to achieve.

lol also at the 'uniqueness' of the 'chemistry'. Every good band has that.

[QE Harold Flair]

Axl didn't sack everyone, he basically made it unbearable by taking control of the band, mainly because he says the rest were all too fucked up on heroin e and other substances, and they left 1 by 1. He's no doubt an ego-maniac but geniuses often are.

I'd still say they were unique and by the way LA Guns is partly where Guns N Roses come from, you do know that right?

[QE Harold Flair]

I bet there are more 'write-ups' that actually situate them in the real world and acknowledge their obvious influences (who in turn ripped-off those before them). Steve Earle doesn't suggest otherwise, so I'm not sure what that quote was meant to achieve.

lol also at the 'uniqueness' of the 'chemistry'. Every good band has that.

Who doesn't have influences?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Someone Like You by Adele is a definite modern pop classic to name one. There will be plenty of others but I don't take a great deal of interest.

[QE Harold Flair]

Oh and something very rare - a performance without Axl running around. This is how good his voice was and sadly isn't any more:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pejIkgyoSrA

[The Merse]

Axl didn't sack everyone, he basically made it unbearable by taking control of the band, mainly because he says the rest were all too fucked up on heroin e and other substances, and they left 1 by 1. He's no doubt an ego-maniac but geniuses often are.

I'd still say they were unique and by the way LA Guns is partly where Guns N Roses come from, you do know that right?

Yes, the other part being Hollywood Rose, hence the name, but LA Guns continued after the member which became a part of GnR defected, this is quite common in music - whether it Symposium / Idlewild / Gallows / Joan of Arc / The Germs / QOTSA whatever...

Yeah, they were all high as bollocks and he was a cunt, nonetheless they were really dead as a band post-Appetite. Use... is 95% Axl and Spaghetti was a way to get one last cash cow out of the door when all of them were too fucked up to write and didn't want to be in the same room as Axl.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, the other part being Hollywood Rose, hence the name, but LA Guns continued after the member which became a part of GnR defected, this is quite common in music - whether it Symposium / Idlewild / Gallows / Joan of Arc / The Germs / QOTSA whatever...

Right, but it's a bit weird saying they were copying half of themselves, isn't it? Anyway, I doubt there's a group in history who didn't come out of some kind of contemporary scene.

[Lewis]

Who doesn't have influences?

Somebody whose 'stuff is completely unique' (I fear this is another case of you using words wrongly). To simplify it massively, you can't hear Guns N' Roses without hearing AC/DC in it. Musical development is inherently derivative.

[The Merse]

Right, but it's a bit weird saying they were copying half of themselves, isn't it? Anyway, I doubt there's a group in history who didn't come out of some kind of contemporary scene.

Not copying.

Dude.

Just not unique.

It's possible to conform to a scene without trying to copy other purveyors...!

[Giggles]

The peak.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj7_A-3rar4

[QE Harold Flair]

Somebody whose 'stuff is completely unique' (I fear this is another case of you using words wrongly). To simplify it massively, you can't hear Guns N' Roses without hearing AC/DC in it. Musical development is inherently derivative.

I think you're getting a bit precious over the wording. Personally I found the combination of Rose's voice with Slash guitar very unique. Can you name me one band or musician ever who didn't have someone who influenced them?

[Jimmy Floyd]

Guns n Roses always seemed very meh to me. Not bad, just uninspiring. I properly hate their cover of Knockin on Heaven's Door.

I've been into The Who for a bit now. Think they're probably superior to the Beatles and Stones at least in a non-academic sense.

[QE Harold Flair]

Not copying.

Dude.

Just not unique.

It's possible to conform to a scene without trying to copy other purveyors...!

Well I found them unique, and so did many others. Which is why they made it big. Their whole success came from one single playing of Welcome To The Jungle at 4am on MTV. MTV were inundated with requests to hear it more and that's how they got big. It's what is often said - nobody knows what 'it' is, but you know hear you hear 'it'

[The Merse]

I think you're getting a bit precious over the wording. Personally I found the combination of Rose's voice with Slash guitar very unique. Can you name me one band or musician ever who didn't have someone who influenced them?

If that's all it takes to be unique then there are a hell of a lot of unique bands. Jones n Strummer, Hetfield and Hammet, Matlock and Lydon (I can't stand the latter 2 duos b.t.w so this isn't a taste thing) - they're all very defined, it's easy to identify immediately, unique to some extent, but to extrapolate that to the extent to which you have is just misguided.

It's not that their influences being tangible means that they're not unique, but rather that they weren't the single purveyors of something that stretched so far from the template, like late At The Drive-In, mid era RATM, early Beasties, SBS-era Sabbath, etc, etc.

[QE Harold Flair]

If that's all it takes to be unique then there are a hell of a lot of unique bands. Jones n Strummer, Hetfield and Hammet, Matlock and Lydon (I can't stand the latter 2 duos b.t.w so this isn't a taste thing) - they're all very defined, it's easy to identify immediately, unique to some extent, but to extrapolate that to the extent to which you have is just misguided.

It's not that their influences being tangible means that they're not unique, but rather that they weren't the single purveyors of something that stretched so far from the template, like late At The Drive-In, mid era RATM, early Beasties, SBS-era Sabbath, etc, etc.

I don't believe they have a unique voice like Rose. I suppose the whole Slash image is a bit unique in itself as well. But there's little point arguing about it, they were unique for me and you will, I'm afraid, have to swallow that.

[The Merse]

Well I found them unique, and so did many others. Which is why they made it big. Their whole success came from one single playing of Welcome To The Jungle at 4am on MTV. MTV were inundated with requests to hear it more and that's how they got big. It's what is often said - nobody knows what 'it' is, but you know hear you hear 'it'

The video played a big part - it's iconic.

Additionally, that was a common tale from the MTV era, where kids used to phone requests songs all the time (MTV encouraged it as it was their best form of feedback). It was a phenomenal success given expectations and that song is a perfect crossover rock single with everything that was cool about GnR wrapped up in it, I love it, but c'mon... Don't spout the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame speech and expect people who invest hours and hours a day in music and expect them to receive that speech as a) an authority on the subject matter and b) of remote importance when discussing the merits of the band whether artistically or musically.

[The Merse]

I don't believe they have a unique voice like Rose. I suppose the whole Slash image is a bit unique in itself as well. But there's little point arguing about it, they were unique for me and you will, I'm afraid, have to swallow that.

Yeah, those small elements were but... Jesus man... This is pretty difficult.

Expose yourself to more stuff that doesn't touch the top 40 and you might understand...

[phonics]

You're trapped in the past.

[Spoonsky]

I've gotten back into the Beatles lately and they really are the peak, I'd say. And probably come closest to "completely unique", not in all of their music but a lot of it. There are other bands with individual songs or albums that I prefer, but I think you can put the Beatles' entire catalog against virtually anyone else's and it will be better.

There are plenty of modern classics, though. Get Lucky, Blurred Lines (though the lyrics might spoil that a bit), Happy... Pharell Williams is basically the man. Also Uptown Funk, Royals, Somebody That I Used To Know, Ignition (Remix), those Lady Gaga songs, Single Ladies, etc. How much staying power those will ultimately have is hard to say (it's probably been a year since I heard Gangnam Style), but I reckon there's at least a few songs from the last decade that will stick around.

And this isn't even to mention rap. I heard someone say that rappers are the new rock stars, which I think is pretty accurate.

[Jimmy Floyd]

It's been a year since you heard Gangnam Style? You are a lucky, lucky man.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yeah, those small elements were but... Jesus man... This is pretty difficult.

Expose yourself to more stuff that doesn't touch the top 40 and you might understand...


Why do ytou think I haven't. I don't get involved in competitions of who knows the most obscure bands as some badge of honour. You'll do well to take your condescension and shove it up your candy ass.

[QE Harold Flair]

And this isn't even to mention rap. I heard someone say that rappers are the new rock stars, which I think is pretty accurate.

Stop that.

[QE Harold Flair]

The video played a big part - it's iconic.

Additionally, that was a common tale from the MTV era, where kids used to phone requests songs all the time (MTV encouraged it as it was their best form of feedback). It was a phenomenal success given expectations and that song is a perfect crossover rock single with everything that was cool about GnR wrapped up in it, I love it, but c'mon... Don't spout the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame speech and expect people who invest hours and hours a day in music and expect them to receive that speech as a) an authority on the subject matter and b) of remote importance when discussing the merits of the band whether artistically or musically.

Not really. It was just them playing to a crowd. If it was iconic it was iconic because of their performance. I didn't even see the Hall of Fame speech - I got this information from a documentary which had the guy at MTV at the time talking about it. I also don't care how many hours a day you spend listening to music.

[The Merse]

Why do ytou think I haven't. I don't get involved in competitions of who knows the most obscure bands as some badge of honour. You'll do well to take your condescension and shove it up your candy ass.

That's not me showing off, or a badge of honour. Many obscure bands (most) are such because they offer very little, but in particular when discussing the sub genre's of rock music, within which GnR are placed, it's impossible to have a rounded view whilst only listening to that which would get into the top 40, as 95% of it gets nowhere near that level of exposure.

I have little time for snobbery - look at my album choices in the other thread, there's Elvis Costello, Iggy and the Stooges and Biffy Clyro and At The Drive-In, all big bands. There's The Streets and Kano, both high charting acts, and my choice of Dillinger Escape Plan albums are those which brought them more mainstream success.

As I say, it's about exposure. Essentially it's like you trotting out a few lines you read in a magazine article about William Wallace in response to revising the entire of the 1286-1328 period of Scottish history.

[Chop Suey Kid]

Blurred Lines (though the lyrics might spoil that a bit).

The real spoiler for "Blurred Lines" is that Marvin Gaye's estate sued them for basically lifting the entire song from "Got to Give It Up" so much so that the jury has awarded the estate a percentage of all past sales and indicated Marvin Gaye should get a writing credit on the song.

That's not even mentioning that "Got to Give It Up" is a better song.

[The Merse]

Not really. It was just them playing to a crowd. If it was iconic it was iconic because of their performance. I didn't even see the Hall of Fame speech - I got this information from a documentary which had the guy at MTV at the time talking about it. I also don't care how many hours a day you spend listening to music.

I have no idea of that speach either, but rather was intimating it's one of those 'Annals of Rock History' stories that everyone refers to when talking up the band. Every one of the MOR's have one or two in their locker. You've illustrated my point as parroting something you've seen elsewhere without being aware of the broader scene/genres that GnR inhabit.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's not me showing off, or a badge of honour. Many obscure bands (most) are such because they offer very little, but in particular when discussing the sub genre's of rock music, within which GnR are placed, it's impossible to have a rounded view whilst only listening to that which would get into the top 40, as 95% of it gets nowhere near that level of exposure.

I think you're going into it a lot further and more deeply than you need to. I'm sure you don't mean to but you do come across as a bit of a know it all arse on account of you 'listening to a lot of music' (and assuming I don't).



As I say, it's about exposure. Essentially it's like you trotting out a few lines you read in a magazine article about William Wallace in response to revising the entire of the 1286-1328 period of Scottish history.

It's a good thing you know what I've listened to, then.

[The Merse]

I think you're going into it a lot further and more deeply than you need to. I'm sure you don't mean to but you do come across as a bit of a know it all arse on account of you 'listening to a lot of music' (and assuming I don't).

Yeah, that wasn't the intention per se... Rather it seemed clear you don't expose yourself to lots of music in that genre if you state you only listen to the more mainstream stuff, before you explicitly stated it, it was clearly implicit in the posts you've made in this thread and others. Nor does it lessen your opinion of the quality - music is subjective and wonderful in that regard, but it does taint your assessment of their place in the broader pantheon of rock music.




It's a good thing you know what I've listened to, then.

I don't presume to know everything you've listened to but you've rather narrowed the parameters.

[Lewis]

Other things that are unique in music: John Lennon wearing glasses; Jimmy Page taking drugs; Little Richard being black...

[Lewis]

The real spoiler for "Blurred Lines" is that Marvin Gaye's estate sued them for basically lifting the entire song from "Got to Give It Up" so much so that the jury has awarded the estate a percentage of all past sales and indicated Marvin Gaye should get a writing credit on the song.

That's not even mentioning that "Got to Give It Up" is a better song.

That was a ridiculous decision. The shithead Gaye family showed themselves right up as well.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yeah, that wasn't the intention per se... Rather it seemed clear you don't expose yourself to lots of music in that genre if you state you only listen to the more mainstream stuff, before you explicitly stated it I never stated that at all.


Nor does it lessen your opinion of the quality - music is subjective and wonderful in that regard, but it does taint your assessment of their place in the broader pantheon of rock music.

Everyone has their favourites and, therfor, nobody really should have a say.






I don't presume to know everything you've listened to but you've rather narrowed the parameters.

The only 3 examples I posted here are about as different as can be. The best GNR song for me, and it's very rarely known by many, is Estranged. Absolute masterpiece.

[Giggles]

Estranged has the greatest guitar solo of all time for me.

[Spoonsky]

It's been a year since you heard Gangnam Style? You are a lucky, lucky man.

What do your Koreans think of it? I bet they love it.

[QE Harold Flair]

MusicRadar's 30 greatest lead singers of all time:

01. Axl Rose
02. Freddie Mercury
03. Robert Plant
04. Ronnie James Dio
05. John Lennon
06. Bruce Dickinson
07. Thom Yorke
08. Kurt Cobain
09. Matt Bellamy
10. Paul McCartney
11. Jim Morrison
12. James Hetfield
13. Maynard James Keenan
14. Mick Jagger
15. James LaBrie
16. Bon Scott
17. Steven Tyler
18. Roger Daltrey
19. Geddy Lee
20. Morrissey
21. Liam Gallagher
22. Jack White
23. Joe Strummer
24. Stevie Nicks
25. Iggy Pop
26. Smokey Robinson
27. Black Francis / Frank Black
28. Diana Ross
29. Debbie Harry
30. Martha Reeves


Quite surprising when you think how many people dislike him.

[Spoonsky]

Kurt Cobain over Paul McCartney is a bit of a joke.

[QE Harold Flair]

McCartney was more of a double team than a frontman.

[Spoonsky]

I guess it depends on how you interpret the question. McCartney is better at actually singing, Cobain is probably the better frontman.

[QE Harold Flair]

McCartney wasn't even the best singer is his own band.

[The Merse]

For me, my top 5 would be (n.b. this is not about vocal 'ability', but rather their overall qualities as frontmen/women and their style of singing and their quality as lyricists and only involves singers as opposed to rappers):

1. Joe Strummer (The Clash / Joe Strummer)
2. Bob Dylan
3. Frank Turner (Million Dead / Frank Turner)
4. Frank Carter (Gallows)
5. Tom Yorke (Radiohead)

[QE Harold Flair]

I believe that was pretty much the same criteria used in the above poll, although it was from 2010 and some of the lower orders clearly didn't write anything. Showmanship was another category, I think.

[Byron]

The real shame is that Mercury isn't top.

[Giggles]

As frontmen go, Plant is robbed at 3 there.

[Toby]

I think I find the 1980s the least interesting generation of modern music.

Early '60s - very good
Late 60s/early 70s - excellent
late 70s - good

Then the 90s are pretty good, early 2000s okay, and most of the stuff I listen to regularly is from 2005 onwards.

I'm no big fan of pop music but it doesn't seem to be any worse or better off than it was. With the exception of the likes of the Jackson 5 and the lighter Beatles stuff, Shake it Off by Taylor Swift is up there with the very best of that genre.

I think the internet has completely changed music consumption and those who take a real interest in it aren't really getting it through traditional channels any more. Radio and music channels certainly aren't the place to listen to the best music of this generation, which wasn't the case when MTV was first starting out. Those sorts of people always bought albums over singles anyway so it always seem strange to me that people point to those in the Top 40 when griping that music ain't what it was. Guns 'N' Roses never had a UK Number 1, for example.

[Magic]

I think current music is great, thanks to Radio 6. Before that I couldn't stomach modern music mainly because I didn't even know it existed in any other format apart from fucking pop or Coldplay.

I watched X Factor last night and I'm still utterly bemused at it's pull. Bemused.

[Lewis]

As frontmen go, Plant is robbed at 3 there.

Each member of Led Zeppelin is the best in their field. Even if Jimmy Page wasn't technically the best guitarist, each Zeppelin album has more classic riffs and guitar work than Jimi Hendrix ever came up with, so he's the greatest rock guitarist by far.

[Magic]

Bonzo. :cool:

[Lewis]

It was the anniversary of his death the other day. I like to think he sacrificed himself to save Led Zeppelin from the eighties.

[Magic]

Moon tried to do the same but Paedo Pete dragged a couple of shit albums out of the ground anyway.

[Lewis]

He still hasn't written that book.

[SvN]

McCartney was easily the best singer in The Beatles, even though his voice peaked in the mid-seventies. His range was so much larger than Lennon or Harrison.

He was most certainly the frontman during the late 60s, where they produced their best stuff.

[Weaver]

Also Uptown Funk, Royals, Somebody That I Used To Know, Ignition (Remix), those Lady Gaga songs, Single Ladies, etc. How much staying power those will ultimately have is hard to say (it's probably been a year since I heard Gangnam Style).

Uptown Funk, just purely by how the UK 'Chart' is corroborated (streams are now included), is actually the fifth biggest single of all time: http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/uptown-funk-becomes-uks-fifth-biggest-selling-track-time/

Not sure what this adds to the conversation exactly, but I saw that the other day and was pretty surprised. Happy by Pharrell is #4.

[Lewis]

Paul McCartney must exist in a permanent state of seethe over John Lennon going down as having been the main one. He was easily the best at everything.

[Magic]

That's what he gets for becoming a corporate whore and a shameless sell out rather than getting shot by a nutter.

[Lewis]

That and not playing Hey Jude at the Diamond Jubilee. What do you think you're here for, Paul, mate?

[phonics]

Uptown Funk, just purely by how the UK 'Chart' is corroborated (streams are now included), is actually the fifth biggest single of all time: http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/uptown-funk-becomes-uks-fifth-biggest-selling-track-time/

Not sure what this adds to the conversation exactly, but I saw that the other day and was pretty surprised. Happy by Pharrell is #4.

The interesting thing about that Pharrell song is he didn't make it for him. He gave it to another artist (hook and all), it was implied it was a rapper, who refused to do it because 'You can't tell me to do shit man, what do you know?' so Pharrell said fuck it and made it one of the biggest singles of all time. Would be interesting to know what that guy thinks now.

[Toby]

It does get annoying after a while, but Uptown Funk has that "talented musicians enjoying themselves" sort of feel to it that you just can't criticise all that harshly. Must be brilliant live.

[phonics]

Uptown Funk seems proper rubbish to me but I'm not sure if I'm effected by the fact that I've spent the last 15 years or so listening to Funkadelic samples and the like.

[Magic]

I really don't like Bruno Mars therefore it is a track made by cunts for cunts.

[The Merse]

I think I find the 1980s the least interesting generation of modern music.

Early '60s - very good
Late 60s/early 70s - excellent
late 70s - good

Then the 90s are pretty good, early 2000s okay, and most of the stuff I listen to regularly is from 2005 onwards.

I'm no big fan of pop music but it doesn't seem to be any worse or better off than it was. With the exception of the likes of the Jackson 5 and the lighter Beatles stuff, Shake it Off by Taylor Swift is up there with the very best of that genre.

I think the internet has completely changed music consumption and those who take a real interest in it aren't really getting it through traditional channels any more. Radio and music channels certainly aren't the place to listen to the best music of this generation, which wasn't the case when MTV was first starting out. Those sorts of people always bought albums over singles anyway so it always seem strange to me that people point to those in the Top 40 when griping that music ain't what it was. Guns 'N' Roses never had a UK Number 1, for example.

Quite a fan of the eighties - probably punk and post-punk's most interesting decade. Gang of Four, XTC, the best Costello years, California pushing the boundaries of punk in one direction whilst Northern states push in a completely opposite direction and the Brits move on from it and into a myriad of directions, all with similar intentions. Probably the decade that really introduced conceptual and performance art to music and established a more intellectually challenging base for alternative music. Plus - Urban music got all :drool:

Completely agree re: modern consumption of music. The ease of exposure means that traditional channels have adapted to being little more than just a hits compilation with good reason to do so and smaller radio stations even act more as aggregators than as introducers.

[The Merse]

Paul McCartney must exist in a permanent state of seethe over John Lennon going down as having been the main one. He was easily the best at everything.

Even the trendy, revisionist types go for Harrison after his death. Proper seethe.

[wullie]

Marvin Gaye's family ought to be suing Charlie Puth.

[Disco]

Uptown Funk, just purely by how the UK 'Chart' is corroborated (streams are now included), is actually the fifth biggest single of all time: http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/uptown-funk-becomes-uks-fifth-biggest-selling-track-time/

Not sure what this adds to the conversation exactly, but I saw that the other day and was pretty surprised. Happy by Pharrell is #4.

One of my friends expressed surprise, almost shock, when I said I had no idea what this was.

[Davgooner]

Harold, do you have any time for Myles Kennedy's work with Slash?

In general this thread seems to be people arguing about which of the shittest music from each decade is better. Listen to better music.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think I find the 1980s the least interesting generation of modern music.

Early '60s - very good
Late 60s/early 70s - excellent
late 70s - good

Then the 90s are pretty good, early 2000s okay, and most of the stuff I listen to regularly is from 2005 onwards.

I'm no big fan of pop music but it doesn't seem to be any worse or better off than it was. With the exception of the likes of the Jackson 5 and the lighter Beatles stuff, Shake it Off by Taylor Swift is up there with the very best of that genre.

I think the internet has completely changed music consumption and those who take a real interest in it aren't really getting it through traditional channels any more. Radio and music channels certainly aren't the place to listen to the best music of this generation, which wasn't the case when MTV was first starting out. Those sorts of people always bought albums over singles anyway so it always seem strange to me that people point to those in the Top 40 when griping that music ain't what it was. Guns 'N' Roses never had a UK Number 1, for example.

Guns N Roses were an album/stadium band, which is where real quality is distinguished. Appetite for Destruction is still the fastest selling debut album of all time.

[QE Harold Flair]

Harold, do you have any time for Myles Kennedy's work with Slash?

In general this thread seems to be people arguing about which of the shittest music from each decade is better. Listen to better music.

Not really. I don't have anything against him but anyone trying to do the Rose parts is going to have an impossible task. He's a good vocalist but it's not the same. I still love Slash, though.

[Toby]

Guns N Roses were an album/stadium band, which is where real quality is distinguished.

Well yeah, that's my point.

[QE Harold Flair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wX0A0IeQuM

:wank:

[Jimmy Floyd]

What do your Koreans think of it? I bet they love it.

It's perhaps the nation's first mass encounter with self-awareness. They're more proud of it than love it I think.

[Pen]

Whatever the subject, Harold seems to have a really hard time if someones opinion doesn't match his.

The bands I listen to are from various decades and my favourite ones are a bit older as I've listened to them for a longer time and they've grown on me even more. That said, I think the 'music scene' (urgh) is as good as its ever been at the moment as it is so easy to find new stuff from the dozens of available outlets for music. Even though it was very cool hanging in an indie/underground record store as a young teen and getting your hands on the new EP's ad then talking about them with your mates was all fun and exciting, it really doesn't compare to the volume and quality of the stuff you can now find online. I still buy albums but it is nice to be able to listen to them a few times before you buy them.

[Reg]

Whatever the subject, Harold seems to have a really hard time if someones opinion doesn't match his.
I've certainly never noticed this before.

:henn0rz:

[Pen]

Well yeah, it's a given in most subjects, but I can't understand how people can get this invested if other people don't like the same kind of music.

edit: I mean invested as in wanting to argue as opposed getting excited and carried away.

[QE Harold Flair]

I wasn't the one being a pompous arse and making assumptions.

[Lewis]

You've started and sustained a three page thread based on the statement 'I know every generation thinks theirs was better than the current one but mine really was and is'. But no. Baseless pomposity isn't your thing.

[QE Harold Flair]

You've started and sustained a three page thread based on the statement 'I know every generation thinks theirs was better than the current one but mine really was and is'. But no. Baseless pomposity isn't your thing.

There's nothing pompous about that, it's my opinion. If I'd made the claim that it's true because I listen to more music and know more then you'd have a case. So all in all, I fear it's back to your cage for now.

[Lewis]

You've described contemporary music as 'generally so shit', consisting of 'vast swathes of crap', and typified by a lack of 'originality and star quality' (and said pre-sixties music was 'vastly dross' for good measure). If that is your opinion, based as it appears to be on not really having listened to much music at all, or knowing anything about how it develops, then this entire thread is a monument to pomposity.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, 'generally'. As in not always. That's far from pompous. 'Vast swathes of crap', yep. I'm sure most people would have to agree with that. 'Lack of originality and star quality'. Yep. This is all stuff which ought not to be very controversial. Contrast and compare the biggest stars of today - Bieber, One D, Kanye West, whoever else you care to mention, with the top names of the 60's-90's. Different planets.

[wullie]

For One Direction, see the Bay City Rollers, New Kids on the Block, Backstreet Boys. Same planet, different haircuts.

[QE Harold Flair]

The Bay City Rollers were never a worldwide phenomenon of the same scale as 'One D'. You might have a point regarding manufactured boybands generally, but I don't see you disputing my other examples. I really can't see anyone of this era being rememberd as a Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, Stones, Bealtes, Prince, Stevie Wonder. The talent just isn't what it once was.

[The Merse]

It was just prior to Globalisation ramping up.

[Toby]

It's not my cup of tea, and he's obviously an arsehole, but Kanye West is clearly pretty talented at what he does. Can't sing of course, but that's not really what his act is about.

For the others, rubbish music having chart success isn't evidence that good music is no longer out there, as has been said many times already.

[wullie]

For Bieber, see Donny Osmond, Debbie Gibson, Tiffany, Britney Spears. Kanye doesn't have a direct equivalent because hip-hop wasn't mainstream until arguably this century, late 90s at a push. Music doesn't change that much, just the way people choose to remember it. Anyone telling you it's all shit now is just repeating what people were similarly being told whenever you consider the golden age to be.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, I said the biggest stars, Not mildly successful ones. I'll put it another way - who, of today or this era, will be remembered in any way like the names I mentioned? It's one thing to be a star, it's another to be worthy of that tag.

[Lewis]

Speaking of talent, Bonnie Tyler never wrote Total Eclipse of the Heart, and most of Cyndi Lauper's songs were written by other people as well. So they were good examples to open the thread with.

[Toby]

Well, you edited to say that, yeah. I'm sorry I didn't predict that while responding to the original post.

Do you want to discuss talent or success? You should probably make your mind up before we continue.

[The Merse]

Is being a star something worth pursuing in and of itself?

Wouldn't have you down as a cult of celebrity type, Harold.

[wullie]

If you want to be that fiddly, Britney Spears was easily the biggest popstar on the planet.

[QE Harold Flair]

If you want to be that fiddly, Britney Spears was easily the biggest popstar on the planet.

I'm not being fiddly - it's my whole point. I think you're missing what I'm saying - Spears may have been the biggest pop star on the planet but nobody really took her seriously as an artist. And yes she just about fits into the 90's but not by much - the likes of those I mentioned were stars and well worthy of being labeled as such on the merits of their talent. The 'stars' now may sell a lot, but they clearly do not have the same level of talent as far as I'm concerned. And if you think I'm wrong then give me any name from the last 10 years who will be remembered in the same breath.

[wullie]

'Top names' not being taken seriously as artists also isn't exclusive to this century, nothing really is. You won't find a discussion about Elvis without someone calling him little more than a pretty singer getting rich off other people's work.

[Bob Sacamano]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgid1me8POs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI_MBT0GQrQ
:drool:

[QE Harold Flair]

'Top names' not being taken seriously as artists also isn't exclusive to this century, nothing really is. You won't find a discussion about Elvis without someone calling him little more than a pretty singer getting rich off other people's work.

And you won't find any serious person who can name someone who will be remembered in the same breath from this era.

[QE Harold Flair]

Is being a star something worth pursuing in and of itself?

Wouldn't have you down as a cult of celebrity type, Harold.

No, and that's the point. The stars I mentioned were stars because of their talent, first and foremost. I'm not sure in how many ways I must point this out.

[wullie]

Not while you're living through the era, no. People weren't listening to the Sun Recordings and immediately putting bets on how many impersonators he'd have in 50 years time.

[Lewis]

Seemingly half the rock music ever produced was called shit at the time.

[QE Harold Flair]

Not while you're living through the era, no. People weren't listening to the Sun Recordings and immediately putting bets on how many impersonators he'd have in 50 years time.

I'm sure it was pretty obvious Presley was always going to be remembered. I know for sure that Jackson is going to and would be. I think you're just avoiding the question, really.

[Lewis]

We'll have forgotten Beyonce by Christmas.

[QE Harold Flair]

Beyonce? :D

[phonics]

I'll go to war with anyone slagging off Beyonce.

[QE Harold Flair]

Don't get me wrong, she does have a pretty good voice. But the :D was in the conext of this conversation. She's hardly Aretha Franklin or Whitney Houston.

[Toby]

I'd agree she's no Aretha Franklin but have a :D right back for chucking Whitney Houston's name into it.

[wullie]

I'm sure it was pretty obvious Presley was always going to be remembered. I know for sure that Jackson is going to and would be. I think you're just avoiding the question, really.

While you're predicting things that have already happened, if it was pretty obvious he was always going to be remembered he shouldn't have gone through the bother of that comeback special, even though he was considered washed up before he hit 30 having spent nearly a decade making films and being considered a parody of himself.

[Reg]

I agree with Harold (heh, wah?) that it would have been obvious that Elvis would be remembered, but equally I think it's obvious that Beyonce, Eminem and Kanye West will be remembered.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'd agree she's no Aretha Franklin but have a :D right back for chucking Whitney Houston's name into it.

I wouldn't put her at Franklin's level but she's several times better than Beyonce. I can't imagine the future Simon Cowell instructing anyone never to try and out-Beyonce, Beyonce. Different levels, you see.

[QE Harold Flair]

While you're predicting things that have already happened, if it was pretty obvious he was always going to be remembered he shouldn't have gone through the bother of that comeback special, even though he was considered washed up before he hit 30 having spent nearly a decade making films and being considered a parody of himself.

About Jackson? No, you obviously can't read. I said I knew at the time he was going to be a legend. It was obvious. The rest of what you say is irrelevant to what I'm saying.

To 'Reg' - Beyonce, Eminem, Kanye West will not be remembered in the same league as the names I mentioned.

[Toby]

I wouldn't put her at Franklin's level but she's several times better than Beyonce. I can't imagine the future Simon Cowell instructing anyone never to try and out-Beyonce, Beyonce. Different levels, you see.

She's not markedly better than Beyonce. It's debatable she's even better than Beyonce.

I can imagine the current Simon Cowell saying exactly that, nevermind a future equivalent.

[Spoonsky]

There's a lack of Talking Heads in this thread. They were pretty big in their own way, weren't they?

[wullie]

'I'm sure it was pretty obvious Presley was always going to be remembered.'

I didn't mention Michael Jackson. You obviously can't read.

[QE Harold Flair]

She's not markedly better than Beyonce. It's debatable she's even better than Beyonce.

I can imagine the current Simon Cowell saying exactly that, nevermind a future equivalent.


I think you'll find yourself in a massive minority in that view. Cowell was always telling people not to cover Houston because you never sound good in comparison.

[QE Harold Flair]

'I'm sure it was pretty obvious Presley was always going to be remembered.'

I didn't mention Michael Jackson. You obviously can't read.

'While you're predicting things that have already happened' means what, then?

[wullie]

I'm sure it was pretty obvious Presley was going to be found dead in the toilet.

[Toby]

I think you'll find yourself in a massive minority in that view. Cowell was always telling people not to cover Houston because you never sound good in comparison.

I'm not a regular watcher of the X-Factor but I've seen enough snippets to know I Will Always Love You is an incredibly popular song selection and often comes in for great praise. I'm sure he encouraged Alexandra Burke specifically to sing it as well.

Whatever the case, that song and maybe I Wanna Dance With Somebody aside, Whitney Houston's back catalogue is good but not particularly memorable. I suspect most people would rank Beyonce above her even now, nevermind in ten years once the nostalgia kicks in.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm sure it was pretty obvious Presley was going to be found dead in the toilet.

Oh dear. Either you're being an arse or you realised your mistake.

[QE Harold Flair]

I'm not a regular watcher of the X-Factor but I've seen enough snippets to know I Will Always Love You is an incredibly popular song selection and often comes in for great praise. I'm sure he encouraged Alexandra Burke specifically to sing it as well.

But you don't watch it, honest.


Whatever the case, that song and maybe I Wanna Dance With Somebody aside, Whitney Houston's back catalogue is good but not particularly memorable. I suspect most people would rank Beyonce above her even now, nevermind in ten years once the nostalgia kicks in.

http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/best-female-voice-ever
http://www.soultracks.com/greatest-female-singers


There's also a lot of other songs but I guess she's before your time, really. The post 90's stuff was largely when her voice was fucked, similar to Carey in the 00's.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[Toby]

Oh great, an internet list. People base that almost entirely on the Bodyguard soundtrack. Yeah, she's talented. Yeah, she had a good career. But held up alongside other names mentioned in this thread, her career isn't particularly remarkable and the only part of it that will really be remembered is that one song.

EDIT: Saying it's "before my time" sort of proves the point. You don't get that with the true classics.

[The Merse]

:drool:

The second one :drool:

I remember that being massive. It's actually got some intangible quality about that makes me like it, like Taylor Swift's Shake It Off or multiple Billy Joel toss offs.

The former was always shit.

[The Merse]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wX0A0IeQuM

:wank:

That's horrific.

Axl really does struggle to sing alongside other people. As does Jagger (that abomination with Bowie... Jesus) it's not until they can get into the more comfortable tempo later on that they're bearable.

[QE Harold Flair]

Oh great, an internet list. People base that almost entirely on the Bodyguard soundtrack. Yeah, she's talented. Yeah, she had a good career. But held up alongside other names mentioned in this thread, her career isn't particularly remarkable and the only part of it that will really be remembered is that one song.

EDIT: Saying it's "before my time" sort of proves the point. You don't get that with the true classics.

Nobody is stupid enough to base such a list on one song, you clown. She was the biggest female vocalist around in the 80's, which was before your time, and she had a lot of massive hits which you probably don't even know about. But by all means, if you can find a single list/poll anywhere which has Beyonce above her (or anywhere even near her) then be my guest. We're talking vocal ability here anyway, not what songs she sang.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's horrific.

Axl really does struggle to sing alongside other people. As does Jagger (that abomination with Bowie... Jesus) it's not until they can get into the more comfortable tempo later on that they're bearable.

TRhe comment ssection seems to be full of praise, even from thr Stones lot. He didn't even put his full rasp into this one, but his best one was the one with Tom Petty where he blew him out of the water on his own song.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd47efJUE60

[wullie]

Oh dear. Either you're being an arse or you realised your mistake.

A little of both really, but then if you avoid my point about Elvis not always being the obvious all-time great we can just shake anything off.

[Toby]

Nobody is stupid enough to base such a list on one song, you clown. She was the biggest female vocalist around in the 80's, which was before your time, and she had a lot of massive hits which you probably don't even know about. But by all means, if you can find a single list/poll anywhere which has Beyonce above her (or anywhere even near her) then be my guest. We're talking vocal ability here anyway, not what songs she sang.

No, you've shifted the goalposts to vocal ability. I've never claimed Beyonce to have a better voice than Whitney Houston.

Beyonce has also had "a lot of massive hits", more than Whitney Houston even without her Destiny's Child stuff. In terms of being remembered after their time - which is what was being discussed, not vocal ability - there definitely isn't a gulf in class in Houston's favour.


and she had a lot of massive hits which you probably don't even know about.

lol

Remember last page when you were whinging about others making assumptions?

But again, she's not doing too well at this being remembered business if somebody alive during the peak of her career doesn't even know about her massive hits.

[QE Harold Flair]

A little of both really, but then if you avoid my point about Elvis not always being the obvious all-time great we can just shake anything off.

It's irrelevant. I was alive and kicking throughout the =Jackson rise and so I was not talking about something which 'had already happened' when I said it was obvious at the time he would be a legend.

[Spoonsky]

Except you were talking about Elvis Presley...

[wullie]

I don't think Cowell would advise anyone to compete with Beyonce after the time he booked her to duet with the X Factor winner in the final and she blew her out of the water and almost ruined the competition.

There's not much competing with Whitney Houston singing the national anthem at the super bowl though, I don't think anyone has her beat vocally.

[QE Harold Flair]

No, you've shifted the goalposts to vocal ability. I've never claimed Beyonce to have a better voice than Whitney Houston.

So what are you saying, then? What else is she better at?


Beyonce has also had "a lot of massive hits", more than Whitney Houston even without her Destiny's Child stuff. In terms of being remembered after their time - which is what was being discussed, not vocal ability - there definitely isn't a gulf in class in Houston's favour.

If we're talking about them and not their songs, yes there is a difference and will be a difference. Houston was noted as the best vocalist of her generation and of all time by many people. That's not something Beyonce will ever be recognised as and, as a female powerhouse singer, that's mostly what you get judged on.




lol

Remember last page when you were whinging about others making assumptions?

Well I suppose it's possible you forgot about Saving All My Love For You, One Moment in Time, Greatest Love Of All, Didn't We Almost Have It All etc.

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't think Cowell would advise anyone to compete with Beyonce after the time he booked her to duet with the X Factor winner in the final and she blew her out of the water and almost ruined the competition.

I actually watched that one - and I do thinkl Beyonce is an excellent singer. Not in the same league, though. She'd probably say so herself.


There's not much competing with Whitney Houston singing the national anthem at the super bowl though, I don't think anyone has her beat vocally.

And conversely I hated it. And I hated a lot of her later stuff where she would really slow songs down and play around with her voice simply because she could. I prefer them as they are supposed to be.

[Lewis]

Michael Jackson released his last decent album when you were seven, Harold. When exactly did you become aware of his legendary status?

[QE Harold Flair]

Except you were talking about Elvis Presley...

No, I mentioned Jackson as well for the very obvious reason that I have already stated 3 times. -
I know for sure that Jackson is going to and would be.

[Toby]

So what are you saying, then? What else is she better at?

If we're talking about them and not their songs, yes there is a difference and will be a difference. Houston was noted as the best vocalist of her generation and of all time by many people. That's not something Beyonce will ever be recognised as and, as a female powerhouse singer, that's mostly what you get judged on.

You can't just separate them from their songs. There have been more talented musicians than Elvis Presley or John Lennon or Stevie Wonder. They aren't remembered on talent alone, just as plenty of extremely talented singers never go anywhere professionally or are never remembered once they are. That's not all there is to being a successful or well-regarded musician.

Beyonce isn't a "female powerhouse singer", but I'd expect her to be remembered after she retires. Not on the level of other names mentioned, but certainly up there at the sort of level Whitney Houston is remembered.


Well I suppose it's possible you forgot about Saving All My Love For You, One Moment in Time, Greatest Love Of All, Didn't We Almost Have It All etc.

I know of them, and they're good songs, but they haven't gone down in collective public memory as classics in the sense of others being discussed.

[QE Harold Flair]

Michael Jackson released his last decent album when you were seven, Harold. When exactly did you become aware of his legendary status?

I remember waiting up for Thriller, which was one of the biggest televised events going at the time - they had a whole thing dedicated to showing one song. I must have been about 8 without checking, but let's be clear. It was obvious from the first time you saw him that he was special.

[QE Harold Flair]

You can't just separate them from their songs. There have been more talented musicians than Elvis Presley or John Lennon or Stevie Wonder. They aren't remembered on talent alone, just as plenty of extremely talented singers never go anywhere professionally or are never remembered once they are. That's not all there is to being a successful or well-regarded musician

Right, but Houston wasn't a songwriter and I don't think Franklin was, either, and like I said, these powerhouse singers are judged first and foremost on their voice. Someone like Lennon or Stevie Wonder isn't, really. It's a different criteria.


Beyonce isn't a "female powerhouse singer", but I'd expect her to be remembered after she retires. Not on the level of other names mentioned, but certainly up there at the sort of level Whitney Houston is remembered.

Not saying she won't be remembered, but she won't be topping polls as the greatest of anything on a regular basis. Or at all.



I know of them, and they're good songs, but they haven't gone down in collective public memory as classics in the sense of others being discussed.

Any classic Beyonce songs which will?

[wullie]

It's irrelevant. I was alive and kicking throughout the =Jackson rise and so I was not talking about something which 'had already happened' when I said it was obvious at the time he would be a legend.
Yes, but in the same post you spoke about Elvis so when I spoke about Elvis it was hopefully clear where the inspiration came from.

With regards Jackson though, wouldn't you have only been a toddler when he released the biggest selling album of all time and won a million Grammys? I think we missed the rise and got there just in time for the fall to be honest.

[Lewis]

Thriller the album was released when you were two, and the video when you were three. This isn't so much faulty memory as not being able to situate one of the seminal moments in what you're attempting to discuss.

[wullie]

Crazy In Love will never disappear from the radio, that's 12 years old already so that qualifies.

[Lewis]

I definitely remember Gazza crying. I must have only been about thirty, but I can remember my lesbian parents letting me stay up and watch it in the speedboat.

[QE Harold Flair]

Thriller the album was released when you were two, and the video when you were three. This isn't so much faulty memory as not being able to situate one of the seminal moments in what you're attempting to discuss.

Perhaps it wasn't the first airing, then. Either that or my memory was much better than I though. I definitely remember staying up to watch it. Regardless, we're getting away from the point which is that it was bloody obvious he was something special. This isn't a controversial statement.

[QE Harold Flair]

Crazy In Love will never disappear from the radio, that's 12 years old already so that qualifies.

God I hate that song. It never disappearing from the radio is pretty irrelevant. Lots of horrendous songs don't.

You can usually tell when talent is lacking in females - they perform in less clothes. A general rule, I find.

[Toby]

Right, but Houston wasn't a songwriter and I don't think Franklin was, either, and like I said, these powerhouse singers are judged first and foremost on their voice. Someone like Lennon or Stevie Wonder isn't, really. It's a different criteria.

You keep saying this "powerhouse singer" thing as if it means anything. Beyonce isn't a "powerhouse singer", so yes, I agree the criteria is different.


Not saying she won't be remembered, but she won't be topping polls as the greatest of anything on a regular basis. Or at all.

Great. Neither does Stevie Wonder.


Any classic Beyonce songs which will?

Crazy in Love probably ahead of anything else she's done. Maybe Irreplaceable and Halo as well.

[QE Harold Flair]

You keep saying this "powerhouse singer" thing as if it means anything. Beyonce isn't a "powerhouse singer", so yes, I agree the criteria is different.

So what is she, then? Hardly Bob Dylan, is she?




Great. Neither does Stevie Wonder.

That's great, except he was singing, writing and playing his own stuff since his teens. His talent is therefor obvious enough.




Crazy in Love probably ahead of anything else she's done. Maybe Irreplaceable and Halo as well.

Probably not. I quite like Halo, but let's face facts, nothing she does will beat I Will Always Love You in terms of legacy, will it?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSBNi8PCb7Q

You know you're on to something when the live version is better.

[wullie]

God I hate that song. It never disappearing from the radio is pretty irrelevant.
It's in the collective public memory as a modern classic.

Single Ladies gives me a migraine but that's another too, these are songs that will last decades.

[Toby]

[QUOTE=Toby;6983]

So what is she, then? Hardly Bob Dylan, is she?

No, and nor have I ever suggested she's close to that level.


That's great, except he was singing, writing and playing his own stuff since his teens. His talent is therefor obvious enough.

But not poll-topping, so does it really count? It's almost like these arbitrary rules lack consistency.


Probably not. I quite like Halo, but let's face facts, nothing she does will beat I Will Always Love You in terms of legacy, will it?

Nothing she's done matches it as a single song, no, but the entire point of this is that legacies built on larger catalogues tend to be more memorable.

We're getting dragged into a shitfest here and I don't care about Beyonce anywhere near enough to be singing her praise to this extent. Adele is better anyway.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's in the collective public memory as a modern classic.

Single Ladies gives me a migraine but that's another too, these are songs that will last decades.

Classic my arse. They might be remembered but that doesn't make them classics. There's no feeling behind them, they're just fluff.

[QE Harold Flair]

But not poll-topping, so does it really count? It's almost like these arbitrary rules lack consistency.

'Or anywhere near her', I did stipulate. There's a reason for that, and that reason seems to be that people who know what they're talking about never vote her into these list. And since she's not a great songwriter and can't play any instruments, what else is she to be judged on but her vocals?




Nothing she's done matches it as a single song, no, but the entire point of this is that legacies built on larger catalogues tend to be more memorable.

How many Aretha Franklin songs can you name without looking? Don't cheat. Since you brought her up earlier.

[Toby]

People who know what they're talking about. :D

The non-gendered list on the 'Ranker' site you linked has Christina Aguilera as the 8th greatest vocalist of all time for fuck's sake.

[Toby]

How many Aretha Franklin songs can you name without looking? Don't cheat. Since you brought her up earlier.

You brought her up, thicko.

Respect, Think, I Say a Little Prayer, Son of a Preacher Man, Walk on By, Freeway of Love

She has far more true classic hits than Whitney Houston, we can say that much for certain.

[Lewis]

Classic my arse. They might be remembered but that doesn't make them classics. There's no feeling behind them, they're just fluff.

Is Hound Dog a classic song? Bear in mind it's one of the most influential pieces of music ever created, and answering 'no' will literally make you an idiot.

[QE Harold Flair]

People who know what they're talking about. :D The non-gendered list on the 'Ranker' site you linked has Christina Aguilera as the 8th greatest vocalist of all time for fuck's sake.

So in that case it does seem that even the younger people are voting for Houston, which is odd given obviously nobody knows any of her songs. I can say with a lot of certainty that people in the business would have Houston right up there.

[QE Harold Flair]

Is Hound Dog a classic song? Bear in mind it's one of the most influential pieces of music ever created, and answering 'no' will literally make you an idiot.

Yes, of course it is in terms of its legacy. That's mostly because of who sung it rather than how good it is.

[Toby]

So in that case it does seem that even the younger people are voting for Houston

:D

Outstanding logic.

[QE Harold Flair]

You brought her up, thicko.

Respect, Think, I Say a Little Prayer, Son of a Preacher Man, Walk on By, Freeway of Love

She has far more true classic hits than Whitney Houston, we can say that much for certain.

I brought her up yes but then you brought that up with as :D when i mentioned Houston alongside her. Okay, so earn my respect and tell me her biggest hits. Bet you don't know any beyond 2 at most.

[QE Harold Flair]

:D

Outstanding logic.

I can't imagine ayyone over 40 would vote for Aguilera, can you?

[Toby]

I brought her up yes but then you brought that up with as :D when i mentioned Houston alongside her. Okay, so earn my respect and tell me her biggest hits. Bet you don't know any beyond 2 at most.

Whose biggest hits?

[QE Harold Flair]

Oh never mind, I can see you googled them.

[Toby]

I can't imagine ayyone over 40 would vote for Aguilera, can you?

Great, do you have a point to go with this observation?

[Toby]

Oh never mind, I can see you googled them.

:cab:

It's Aretha Franklin, you might as well have asked me to name all the songs I could think of by The Beatles.

[Lewis]

Yes, of course it is in terms of its legacy. That's mostly because of who sung it rather than how good it is.

But you just said something being 'remembered' (legacy) doesn't make it a classic. Especially not when it's just feelingless fluff.

[QE Harold Flair]

But you just said something being 'remembered' (legacy) doesn't make it a classic. Especially not when it's just feelingless fluff.

That's right, yes. I can name a whole lot of shit from the past which is remembered. Scatman John ring a bell? Mr Blobby?

[wullie]

Classic my arse. They might be remembered but that doesn't make them classics. There's no feeling behind them, they're just fluff.

They'll easily fall into the same bracket as Girls Just Want To Have Fun and that kind of thing. We don't really get the power of veto, or I'd have stricken Dancing Queen and Love Shack from history years ago.

[QE Harold Flair]

See, I don't think they will. Cyndi Lauper had something very different about her, as did Bonnie Tyler (the other video I posted). Beyonce might be the best of her type but she's nothing new or different. Dancing Queen is truly a classic, of course.

[QE Harold Flair]

:cab:

It's Aretha Franklin, you might as well have asked me to name all the songs I could think of by The Beatles.

Why did you choose to pick that other link over this one? I expect because you know this one seems pretty credible.

http://www.soultracks.com/greatest-female-singers

[Spoonsky]

They'll easily fall into the same bracket as Girls Just Want To Have Fun and that kind of thing. We don't really get the power of veto, or I'd have stricken Dancing Queen and Love Shack from history years ago.

It's funny, the other night a party down the street was blaring music and the two songs I heard clearly were Single Ladies and Girls Just Want To Have Fun, back to back.

Get your hands off Love Shack though.

[ItalAussie]

Because the important thing is that unquantifiable stuff that I like is objectively better than unquantifiable stuff that I don't.

[Raoul Duke]

Love Shack is ace. As is Rock Lobster. 4real dawg.

[wullie]

You'd all better vote for my rival, my first act as president of Earth would be to purge jukeboxes.

[phonics]

Love Shack is atrocious and that cover of it for that awful Dreamworks movie was worse.

#TeamWullie

I was gonna link to some Beyonce but I just ending up listening to B'Day instead.

[Toby]

Why did you choose to pick that other link over this one? I expect because you know this one seems pretty credible.

http://www.soultracks.com/greatest-female-singers

That's a pretty fair list within a narrower parameter. It's still not necessarily "people who know what they're talking about", since it's just a mass poll that anybody could vote in.

Still waiting to hear the thought process behind, "young people voted for Christina Aguilera so they must have voted for Whitney Houston too".

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, but it's scarcely likely that many teeny boppers and know-nothings are going to be subscribed to a soul-based website.

The thought process was obvious - Christina Aguilera is/was a product of the fucking Disney Club. She is not someone the older generation would vote for.

[Toby]

Yes, I understand that bit. It's from there that your logic doesn't follow.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, I understand that bit. It's from there that your logic doesn't follow.

The logic follows fine. It shows that the young as well as the old were voting for Houston. If Aguilera was number 8 then that site must have a rather large youth demographic.

[wullie]

Lisa Stansfield above Martha Reeves, Alicia Keys, Janet Jackson and Dusty Springfield is a bit of a surprise result there.

[Toby]

The logic follows fine. It shows that the young as well as the old were voting for Houston.

No, it doesn't show that at all. If you truly don't understand that there's very little hope for you.

[QE Harold Flair]

So what does it show, to you? Not that it actually matters, but just out of interest.

[wullie]

Lauryn Hill in there too, Ex-Factor is probably my favourite female vocal along with the backing singer who killed her baby on that Stones track.

[Toby]

So what does it show, to you? Not that it actually matters, but just out of interest.

It doesn't show anything. Young people probably voted for Christina Aguilera, that has zero impact on who voted for Whitney Houston.

[QE Harold Flair]

It doesn't show anything. Young people probably voted for Christina Aguilera, that has zero impact on who voted for Whitney Houston.

So you don't think Aguilera (and other newer artists being high) being at 8 shows it to be a more youth orientated site? Actually it doesn't even matter.

[Toby]

No I don't.

(If it doesn't matter, nobody is making you hit reply.)

[QE Harold Flair]

Well that goes for you saying you didn't want to get into a 'shitfest' several pages back, too.

[Toby]

:moon:

[SvN]

Another one for the archives.

[phonics]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mGBaXPlri8

Classic.

[Lewis]

That's right, yes. I can name a whole lot of shit from the past which is remembered. Scatman John ring a bell? Mr Blobby?

They aren't remembered as widely, and may well not be at all in sixty years time.

[QE Harold Flair]

They aren't remembered as widely, and may well not be at all in sixty years time.

Or maybe they will be even more? Intriguing stuff all round, really.

[Lewis]

I think it's obvious they're nothing special. :harold:

[Toby]

Adele is better anyway.

As powerhouse female vocals go, her new one is belting.