How can you absolutely adore a song and not have in top 50?

By adoring more than 50 songs.

Or, you know, by making the top 50 based on the criteria and not by personal preference.

If it's by personal preference, then "Sultans Of Swing" wouldn't make my top 100...for 1979. Sorry, but Dire Straits has always been a "they're OK, but nothing special" band for me. (And the one time I saw them live--my Dad really wanted to go--I found them really bland. And do did he.)

On the criteria, I don't see much to put it in the top 50. (Of all time, I mean, of course.) I know it's *hugely* popular in the UK, which is certainly significant. It's pretty popular in the US, but nothing like that. And on the other critiera, it does well, but nothing that special. Why do you see it in the top 50?

And, yeah, I absolutely adore more than 50 songs. B^)

Here we go again.....God help us all....

God can't do shit here. There's only lew.

In rock, I believe wanted meant how a band composes and consolidates musical parts as a whole into pieces, not just the lead guy, guitarist or pianist. Anything from Chuck Berry to Little Richard, the Isley Brothers to motown artists, a strong rhythm section or one lead performer doesn't make the music I believe we're talking about. Before 1962, you'd be hard pressed to find music with consolidated instrumental parts to the degree the beatles outside of jazz and the like, and every band there after, took it. Where each member (or the majority) in the band contributed such a significant amount of musical prowess to the pieces, in comparison to the 50's rock where it was either pop vocals style (where most members contributed more to the piece vocally than instrumentally) or purely off a lead powerhouse (Berry and so many other names). I think that is what wanted was saying. That doesn't make the pieces musically inferior, but it makes them less symphonic, and wholesomely contributed and produced, which resulted in less full blown musicality and technical display. Jazz at the time and earlier however I'd argue, was far more musically mature than most post-beatles material. Kind of Blue and Love Supreme were both musically superior IMO to any rock creation for a long time (though some Beatles works come close).

Chuck Berry had very talented musicians backing him up. So, certainly, did Elvis. And I don't see anything "inferior" about records where the members contributed more with vocals than instrumentally.

What's so "symphonic" or "wholesomely contributed and produced" about "All Right Now"?

.. sometimes inferior only relates to the recording techniques/equipment that existed at a particular time .... besides various artists, many times the biggest changes or revolutions in music come from technology ... imagine if you will all those pre 60`s guitarists had the equipment and recording techniques available to them that present day artists have ... or Marshall amps arrived in 50`s rather than the 60`s etc etc ...Take care

I never said the artists backing them up weren't talented, but as you said, they were 'backing them up'. I also never said it was inferior, if you read, I specifically say 'That doesn't make the pieces musically inferior'. Also, I never said every post Beatles song was more symphonic, I just said there were more. Pet Sounds, Bo Rhap, Kashmir, Won't Get Fooled Again, Day in the Life, any Yes song, Light My Fire, White Room, Dancing with the Moonlit Knight, Moody Blues stuff, etc. are all examples of what I'm trying to describe, but probably describing it incorrectly. Not all of it is 'symphonic' per say, but it's definitely more musically complex (that doesn't mean technically complex mind you, it means theory wise and composition wise) that the majority of 50's music, if not 90% of it. Now this is nothing against the 50's, it's my 3rd favorite decade, possibly 2nd, but it's just like this, music evolves, and despite Wanted, what I'm saying is after the Beatles rock went through a heavy evolution, and that evolution in style and compositional, recording, and playing techniques are all more 'evolved' or 'mature' than the 50's. Do you guys get what I'm trying to say? Maybe I'm saying it wrong

Easy, when you absolutely adore hundreds of songs.

You're right; it was Wanted who said that, not you. Sorry if I conflated your post with his.

And don't read too much into "backing them up". Johnnie Johnson was very much a collaborator with Chuck, and Elvis Scotty & Bill (and later DJ Fontana) were very much a band.



No, I understand what you're saying. My point was really in response to Wanted's post. He said that the 50s stuff was inferior, and then he included later songs on his list of songs that should be moved up that have none of that complexity.

I don't think that that complexity is important to the criteria of this list, nor do I think it's important to the quality of the record. (Some of those complex records you mention are fabulous, but there are very complex records that I think are pretentious claptrap.) And, again, I'm really aiming that comment at Wanted's original post; I realize you're not particularly disagreeing with that.

Here's my take on the list so far. I think "Dock of the Bay" can take that last slot, but I want opinions. Also, "Stairway" > "Teen Spirit" has been discussed. The verdict?

I think the majority of us thought SLtS was greater than Stairway.

I'm not part of that majority:

Popularity: Stairway
Acclaim: Stairway (this is inarguable)
Influence: Teen Spirit
Cultural Impact: Tie/Stairway

Not everyone thought it was worth chiming in. I think Stairway is greater.