Agree? I have all the music I want for the rest of my life. No need to hear anything new.

At least you arn't serious

For those who might care ICP is Instant Composer's Pool, an ensemble formed maybe 46-47 years ago by Misha Mengelberg & Han Bennink. Still active despite Misha now unable to perform due to Ahlzeimer's disease. I was blessed to see his last performance with the band in the States - maybe 2011 @ Le Poisson Rouge. Stunning set with the best version of Monk's Jackie-Ing I've ever heard. As they believe, they be better at Monk than the dudes that played with Monk - and that's why I posted this!

Certainly Han Bennink plays Monk better than any of Monk's fine or even excellent drummers / but none of them, even Roy Haynes, NONE of them swing like the *great* Han Bennink

If you doubt me and most do, go see him - he's 73 or 74 and he might have lost a tiny bit, but he's still in his prime.

 

Of course general consensus means very little. Most of those involved in that consensus believe the lies that the dogmatic hierarchy has been telling them. In the jazz world, they refuse to believe some Portaguese 50 year old named Rodrigo Amado could be what a few of us know he is - so they do NOT as it might well shatter the lie.

For jazz guys who think all that was is the end all or better than now, listen to DKV trio Live in Wels/Chicago from 1998.

 

While I disagree with the OP, what makes you say hip hop is the most vital right now? If it is for you, fine. But it's not for me, as it's one of the genres that appeals to me the least. And it's not the best selling genre either, at least not in the U.S, and I very much doubt it'd be in the U.K either, or any other places, come to that. Music sales by genre in the U.S. 2014 | Statistic »

 

IMO, at least of that list pales in comparison to the others

 

Phew. An extra 300 years of music to sift through. Maybe it'll all be downloaded into the cerebral cortex. In Pono.

 

Go ahead.

Why not?

 

I just did a quick list of sax players born post 1970. I had Malaby, Berne and Coleman in the list but dropped them because they are older. I missed Rempis. I'll have to check out the others.

 

Why do the others belong then?

 

I don't cherry pick critics and Best of lists. I cherry pick the music through reading and listening (and that for the last 45 years). If I'm interested in an artist or genre, I'll read up on them, find out which ones are renowned to be their best albums or the best exponents of the genre, then check them out. I usually agree with those writings. I'll even wing it and try other stuff not described, or recommendations from forum members. It's not rocket science.

 

I actually believe that Rap and Hip-Hop are culturally important genres. There's even a deeply exploratory/experimental flavor to it. These are attributes I often embrace.

However, socially it just doesn't at all relate. As far as a connection with the music goes, I feel about as far away from it as I can. I found the lyrics just pitiful. In fact, my reaction to the whole was akin to my parents when they first heard Punk Rock. I guess that marks me as old.

 

Well, they do belong on your list. Just not mine.

I simply don't understand why The Rolling Stones are as popular as they are; then - but more so now. Same with The Beatles. I simply don't get it at all, and as a child of the 60's, I probably ought to. The Allman Brothers and Earth Wind and Fire? Yikes. The Sex Pistols are, in many ways, precisely what can happen when critics and commentators get to dictate the history. The Sex Pistols were largely a marketing exercise, they even sprouted out of a fashion shop. Yet there was a whole host of other punk music being made at the time that was far better, but is now mostly ignored. Punks at the time weren't constantly talking about the Sex Pistols - though the media liked to, and it's the media references that have stood the test of time. Chuck Berry? Meh.

The others belong because I can appreciate why they're special.

 

I wouldn't suggest they're not culturally important genres. But they're not the "most vital". If a genre isn't someone's thing, it's not the most vital... which was my only point there really. I can hear when it's done well, like Kendrick Lamar's output... but overall, it's a genre that's not appealing to me, much for the same reasons you stated. We're on the same page with this one.

 

For a relatively short period of time, while Duane was alive, The Allman Brothers were among the greatest rock bands of all-time.

 

Ummm, this explains a lot. Call it Classic Rock Guy Syndrome.
Love how you throw the Sex Pistols in there to appease the "young crowd". And if there is a rock pantheon, they are surely not worthy of it.

 

Speaking of critics... one thing that is bonkers to me, is how some critics rate Bob Dylan as the greatest singer ever. He's been influential, sure. But greatest singer? No. Voice-wise, he's no Mike Patton or Freddie Mercury. In fact, I'd place a lot of singers in front of Dylan. That's not to knock Dylan's songwriting. That's a separate thing. But his voice just isn't that great.

 

In all my years I've never heard Dylan called a great singer. He is a fine singer, though not blessed with a good voice. Maybe the critics are referring to his overall artistic ability, rather than simply his singing.

 

I could have thrown in Art Tatum, Bob Marley or whatever. It's just a list of recognised greats.

They were an excellent band and they transformed the musical landscape at the time. A very important band in the history of modern music as it happens. Don't let your personal feelings get it in the way of facts.

 

I can't fault your methods at all - I just don't see how it's any way objective.

You read up on a genre, for example...and then you find out which artists are renowned. By who's authority are those particular artists renowned? How are the ratings assigned? What if you happened to read a different critics opinion that pointed you in another direction? Which list is the correct one?

And as far as winging it or going on forum member evals, that's about as subjective as you're going to get. Show me how what you do is objective please, maybe I'm missing something.

 

They were the Monkees of the Punk era - and that's not a compliment. Owing more to fashion and fabrication than anything approaching high art, and the music on their one album owing more to Metal and Hard Rock than the trailblazing sounds of the Stooges and Ramones.

 

Well the Stones, initially excelled in their interpretation of blues and R&B. They set a standard for many garage bands that would follow. In no time they were penning their own material which were highly original at the time. They were considered to be one of the most important bands of their day. They maintained a very high standard of composition right into the 70s and beyond. Universally recognised as one of the most important bands of the end of the 20th century. What you think of them is of no importance.

That is creepy.

A supremely talented pair of acts. Again, recognised for their ground breaking work in their respective genres.

Utter tosh. Bands can sprout from a multitude of situations. The guys who worked in McLaren and Westwood's shop rehearsed for months without getting anywhere until they met John Lydon and they clicked (musically at least). Once they started finding their feet gigging, their sound came together with a terrific rhythm section, fantastic guitar playing and those ferocious vocals from Johnny Rotten. They single handedly changed the face of music in the UK and Europe with their music and image. Fact. Other punk bands, perhaps apart from The Clash, Ramones and Buzzcocks paled in comparison. They were the recognised leaders of the genre. Even Jimmy Page said that they were "the most important thing to happen since Jimi Hendrix". Oh, but Vaughan doesn't think so.

It gets better!

Today I bought a CD of Television's Marquee Moon (I've had it on vinyl since it came out but I wanted it for the car). I remember the press at the time going bananas about it.
A brilliant album. An instant classic. How dare they! you (and other fools here) would say. It's only the opinion of critics. It's not necessarily good at all!
Marquee Moon has since gone down as being one of the greatest rock albums of all time. Bollocks you say.
On the cover of the CD, there is a sticker - "The critically acclaimed 1977 classic" - bollocks you say! One can't say that an album or an artist is better than another!
I don't even want to agree to disagree because you simply need an education.

 

By checking various sources of course. If there appears to be a consensus, it's a clue that the album might be one of the best by that artist. Checking out the artist and then the other albums, I nearly always agree with the opinions.

You are. One listens to multiple opinions, reviews. This can guide you in your purchases without just picking an album because you like the cover or whatever. I started that way with Neil Young and hey, the writers and critics were right about which ones are his better albums. I agree with their assessments.
Do you just buy any old album that comes along? If so, you must be rich and enjoy the risk.

 

That compare artistically IMO? Of course. But what constitutes modern? What year is the cut-off?

 

It wasn't just good pop music, it redefined the genre. What about somethin like "Eleanor Rigby"? A pop song which didn't really have a precedent in pop music. The same goes for "Tomorrow Never Knows" (to give John some ). Surely, beyond your personal opinion, you can see how ground-breaking and important those songs were. It wasn't The Hollies or even The Kinks or Stones that were recording such works.

 

So now we're getting into an argument about who specifically belongs in the great pop/rock canon of the late 20th century. Naturally, there are always going to be differences of opinion from listener to listener, but over time, I think that it's possible to arrive at a broad consensus. Honestly, I don't think we've gotten enough distance yet from the 60s and 70s to reach many definitive conclusions about the "classic rock era"--maybe once the Baby Boomers die out, things will start to get a little clearer, but even then, it will take time and often seemingly well established viewpoints can get overturned down the road. I think that most people would agree that if rock music is remembered at all in a few centuries (and I do not automatically take this to be a given, despite the fact that I'm an unapologetic fan--none of us can see into the future), the Beatles and Dylan are likely to be remembered as being among the best at what they did, whether you personally like them or not. In fact, I find most of the names on PJ's list to be fairly uncontroversial, though of course, individual listeners will quibble over this name or that exclusion (I like the Allman Brothers well enough, though I don't know if I'd personally rank them among the cream of the crop, but that's just me.). Of course, it shouldn't make any difference to our own personal preferences--just because an artist is deemed "important", it doesn't mean that everyone has to love them and the reverse it true as well. As we get up into the 21st Century, however, it gets much harder to predict any kind of future canon with accuracy at this point, particularly for listeners who are steeped in an older tradition.

 

As you like. Try, since 1990 (well I'd vote for Prince).