Do you ever wonder?

Sinatra still works, and IMO always will, after thirty.

WILCO...????

Thanks, Tvad. Does that still work?

Thought of two more brilliant bands and sure hope I can get rid of the instant headache: Stryper and Mötley Crüe, different "messages" (lol) and yet so very much alike in their utter expendability

I never understood Americas fascination with Frank Sinatra. My father was a big fan, but I just never got Sinatra and I almost question why I don't when so many others do.

Any band not from the British Isles that professes to be classified as either a 'punk' or a 'rock' band.
How's that for a generalization?
Spit on your axe,man................lol

Shadorne, That was great, thanks. Ugh, I need a cigarette.

Yes they did. It was called "Bucktooth National", and was released on Atlantic in 1977.

"Tiny Tim is a misunderstood genius. However he should not actually be listened to at all in order to understand this. The music is superfluous to what he is. Given this, I think he is way way better than Eric Clapton or the Beatles."

Somehow, taken in context, this makes complete sense to me.

I wonder why Tiny Tim and Philip Glass never recorded together? That would have been interesting.

They didn't, did they?

Tiny Tim is a misunderstood genius. However he should not actually be listened to at all in order to understand this. The music is superfluous to what he is. Given this, I think he is way way better than Eric Clapton or the Beatles.

"I've never understood the attraction of Tiny Tim."

Only Victoria May "Miss Vicki" Budinger could explain probably.

I used to wonder about Mitch Miller when I was a kid and I had to fight with my Dad about whether to watch "Sing Along with Mitch" or cartoons.

I picked up a MM album recently for 25 cents used just to see if it was as bad as I remember over 40 years ago, and guess what, I liked it! The songs are pretty banal lyrically but fun and the stereo recording of the MM chorus voices singing and harmonizing is absolutely phenomenal, breathtaking, etc.! By audiphile standards, that record (on Harmony label I believe) should have cost me a pretty penny!

Shadorne, I can't check the link currently.

is it Shirley Bassey or Shirley Jones? Or some other well known Shirley?

Shirley Jones was hot when she was young and had an angelic voice, at least as I remember from "Oklahoma".

Shirley Bassey I do not get yet but then again I have been underexposed to-date.

Yes, I never used to get Louis Armstrong or Duke Ellington and much early jazz even!

Ken Burn's "Jazz" documentary turned me 180 degrees on that one. A little education CAN be dangerous....

I have many examples but I have deliberately chosen what I think is the worst.

Just listen to this and please, please, someone explain to me what is so captivating about Shirley.

Whoops, I forgot:

Little River band
Lynyrd Skynrd
England Dan and John Ford Coley
Dr. Hook

Didn't used to get them...but after closer scrutiny I do now.

Mapman - We are one about the Clash. There's an Alan Parsons song about the death of a friend (one of the few pop songs I know of about mortality) that I think you would like if you heard. Not a particular fan of that band but any one who wrote that song can't be all bad.

This issue is only interesting if you separate your subjective tastes from plain-old odd popularity. It's about stepping outside yourself and trying to observe music objectively.

I don't like Celine Dion's music but I understand her popularity. Same for Phil Collins. Etc.

PS - Did someone actually list Queen on their list of "why?" I have a suggestion for you, Cam3366 - try actually turning on the power button on your amp and listening to Sheer Heart Attack (the album, to be clear). You may not love it but to be puzzled about the high regard in which this band is held is simply obtuse.

I used to wonder about Philip Glass but haven't thought about him for awhile?

I used to wonder about these names but mostly can appreciate them now after looking more closely.

Sometimes I think people often don't get something that others do because we form early first impressions based on pre-cnception or whatever and never take the time to look more closely.

Chuck Berry
Little Richard
Carl PErkins
Foreigner
Chuck Mangione
Dick Dale + surf music in general
Herb Albert
The Beach Boys
Jim Capaldi
Fusion Jazz
Van Der Graaf Generator
The Church
The Clash
Alan Parsons Project

I still often do not get a lot of Steely Dan material that others think is just the bomb. The last concert I went to that I can say I was honestly bored at was Walter Becker.

Yes Audiofeil, I do have a list for you. However I do not listen to (or really even think about) pop music, so it is jazz and classical.

I cannot understand how Winton Marsalis or his brother ever could be considered great jazz figures. They are both second rate revisionist imitators, makers of 'parodies' and farces. In the classical world, I cannot understand the adulation given to the Kronos Quartet. They playing sucks the life out of anything that is not 'obvious', and they 'mainstream' anything they touch.
And of course, I cannot understand why people do not see through Keith Jarrett. New age fluff, nothing more.

I could list dozens but I'll stick with just one.I never could figure out why Elvis Costello is so well regarded in the music world.He has a few catchy tunes but I see nothing special about him,certainly not the musical genius that lots of people claim him to be.Of course this is just my opinion.

One more time.

It doesn't matter what anybody thinks of my list or any other list.

Criticism (or validation) is unlikely to change many opinions here. For example, IMO Norah Jones really does suck despite some of the cheerleading for her I've read in this thread.

Please give us your selections and ignore the others.

Not everyone on your list appeals to me either, especially Michael Bolton. However, in my opinion, all of the people and band on your list are talented and do appeal to others. Maybe you don't agree that they have talent?

Phaelon: Are emotion and intellect really that separate? Wouldn't you say that profound emotion has enough depth to be analyzed almost endlessly? Take Bach, Coltrane, or Schoenberg for example...there is enough there to think about AND feel until the end of time! You really can't separate them if the art is that pure..

"Does it actually puzzle you that the music buying public is composed of morons?"

"mainstream tastes almost always favor the ignorant masses who just want something mildly pleasing that won't make them think too hard"

The purpose of music is to make us think hard? Thinking is usually associated with the logical cognizant function of our brain. To me, music's beauty lies in its ability to bypass our analytical consciousness and just make us feel. I suppose that, in your eyes, what I'm about to say will only serve to solidify my position in the moron camp, but I've never been able to rationalize the emotional influence that music can have over me. It seems to me that someone who's into music for the purpose of mental stimulation, would be better served, and save a bundle, by just buying sheet music.

One thing is clear: mainstream tastes almost always favor the ignorant masses who just want something mildly pleasing that won't make them think too hard. God forbid, they might hurt themselves.

These lists are so personal and idiosyncratic that they're just about meaningless. One person loves Norah Jones while another detests her. Both are right, there's really no argument. One person likes chunky peanut butter, another likes smooth, while still another hates peanuts. It's what makes the world go around. 8^)

One man's "quirky" is another man's genius. Paul was a great Beatle, not a great solo artist. Songwriting? Way overrated. Not much of a lyricist. And kingd of girly.

It may also be important to note that many artists can be clearly segregated into early years when they cared about the music and later years when they cared about the money or ran out of material. Early success begets the later album sales because fans always hope to recapture that initial magic of an artist.

Elton John - great up to "Caribou"
Stones - great up until after "Some girls"
Chicago - great until IV
Boston - great until their second album

I think it is all a matter of timing. The events and the struggles of the times in past history and the general mood of the people motivated musicians and songwriters to create some of the best and most enduring songs. Some even becoming anthem status. Because everyone has differant tastes and reasons for liking or disliking certain bands or solo artists is subjective. Present day I personaly find that far too many of the artists get noticed for the wrong reasons and talent is not always first and foremost. That said the likes of Michael Bolton or Lady GaGa don,t make me wonder....they make me hit the search button immediately. Cheers

James Taylor posted on this thread-sacrilege!

To me he is the epitome of the singer/songwriter.

For this thread - Kris Kristofferson

Come on, you are a smart guy. Does it actually puzzle you that the music buying public is composed of morons?

Dave Matthews Band - voice like 6 cats in a sack. WTF.

The Stones last listenable album was Some Girls, and their previous stuff has been played enough to last a lifetime. Somebody bury the corpse already; it stinks.

U2 - everything post Joshua Tree is market-tested pop schlock that should never be heard outside of an elevator. The Ford Taurus of rock bands.

What, no mention of Kenny G or John Klemmer? IMHO, neither of them should have ever picked up an instrument.

However, I think that many of the artists deservedly roasted in the post have also done some great work. For example, REO Speedwagon released the excellent T.W.O. before all of their subsequent drivel. Chicago produced 6-7 great albums and another, what, two dozen of dreck? Tom Waits' last 15 years may have been an artistic waste, but The Heart of Saturday Night is unforgettable....and so on. Hell, even Miles Davis had an off decade now and then.

Neil Young or Guns 'n Roses. Makes me turn off the radio.

Phil Collins- So so badio
Sting- Pompous duschebag
Maria Carey- Pop fingernails on the chalkboard
Madona- Bad medicine for the masses

And the number one all time biggest selling artist that completely baffles me is.... Garth Brooks

And one more thing, I grew up in the 70's. How was it that the biggest radio stations would heavy rotate the likes of Journey, Styx, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner, Chicago, Foghat, Rick Deringer, Kansas, ELO when there was the Roling Stones , The Who, Led Zepelin, Allman Brothers, Stevie Wonder, Pink Floyd, Aretha Franklin (I could go on here forever with great artists)? The 70's rock format stations are still play that garbage.

It does make me wonder how a group like ELP ever became so popular in their heyday, and I like ELP a lot.

Good one, Bill. You are the provocateur el suprimo.
I don't agree with all on your list but that isn't your point. The band I don't get is "Cowboy Junkies". I have tried and tried to catch the buzz on them. Great arrangements - yes. Great recordings - yes. Good songs? Good performances? I guess, but mainly I just fall asleep.

I agree with Mapman. Well said.

Some people win the music lottery, some don't. Sometimes it's talent; sometimes it's luck; sometimes it's marketing or the people around you. I don't know. How did George W. become President?

I'm not a big Celine Dion fan but I have to say that she has a magnificent voice. That's what got her out of Quebec in the first place. It gets lost in everything that is around her presentation and shows though.

No opera singers on your list? It was Alfred E. Newman of Mad Magazine who said: "If opera is entertainment, then falling off a roof is transportation." LOL Look it up. I wouldn't make something like that up.

Norah Jones is simply "angelic." She is articulate, smooth, beautiful and simply one of the best female artists around. One can get "lost" in her music and her talent is "top tier." But, your question simply shows the "magic" of music in that we all have different perspectives.

"Every generation throws a hero up the pop charts" - Paul Simon. Mr. Simon has said that he has had the pleasure to have worked with hundreds of stellar musicians that nobody has ever heard of.
Great fame, more than anything else, is just sheer luck. The spotlight finds them, not the other way around.

That said, my short list:

Joe Cocker
Coldplay

Cheers.

My list would be virtually anyone on commercial radio - sounds negative but the current state of pop/rock music is just intolerable for me. This really became apparant when I got back into vinyl and broke out all my old artists from the 60's and 70's.

There is alot of great music that is current it is just not played on commercial radio. If I hear Pearl Jam, Live, or Boston once more...

I live near Atlanta and the following two "artist" are in concert together here this weekend. Kanye West and Lady GaGa. I don't anticipate any arguments about putting these two on the list.

The Dave Matthews Band
James Taylor
Chicago
Emerson, Lake, and Palmer
The Cure
Flaming Lips

An eclectic mix of stuff I can't stand.

Wow did you open a can of worms. All artists have their merits of course. If they are making money somethings gotta be right. BUT as long as your asking, my wife always says, "Rod Stewart sounds like Dinky Duck after taking a hit off the helium tank".
God I love her.
Thanks Audiofeil, John

Cam3366:

Running the "quircky" test on your entries:

Kiss - quircky
Queen - quircky
Spears - quircky
R. Martin - quircky
McCartney solo - past his prime at 67 now but historically as un-quircky as most any major pop star I can think of, I suppose. Go figure! LEnnon. George and Ringo were more the quircky ones.

MCCartney is one of the most measureably successful singers, songwriters musicians and all around performers of all time. What is there to wonder about there (except perhaps his last marriage and that he has never been all that flashy while doing his thing)?