Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Artists - A Joke

Rolling Stone just released its "100 Greatest Artists of All Time," and artists listed will no doubt surprise many of you. The list is ridiculous and clearly intended to provoke discussion. There are so many issues I don't know where to begin: The Doors at 41 (they should be Top 15)?, Bruce at 23?, Led Zep not in the Top 10?, 2Pac at 86 (behind Eminem)? That said, I wholeheartedly agree with Chuck Berry, Little Richard and The Stones and The Beatles in the Top 10.

I was so appalled at Elvis Presley being listed as No. 3, that I wrote the following comment:

Listen Rolling Stone, I love your magazine and I'm willing to live with most of your reviews in which you pretend to apply an artisitic bent in an attempt to turn garbage into gold (case in point 4 stars for Radiohead's "Kid A"), but the Top 3 in this list, and even the Top 10, are ridiculous. Maybe you are just trying to stir discussion, but putting Elvis Presley as anything less than No. 1 is shameful. The Beatles have admitted on multiple occaisions that they would not exist but for Elvis, and that he was, and is, the beginning and the end of rock and roll. Its not even worth mentioning why Dylan is misplaced here, but I'll just say he didn't invent folk music. Yes, Elvis didn't write more than one or two of the songs that made him famous, but his understanding of music from a producer's perspective was beyond many (if not all) the other artists of his time. He rarely used producers in the early days, and even when he did, it was Elvis that made the final decisions. Elvis' other greatest asset was his abiity to make you believe he lived every word of every song he sang, which is even better than writing the songs. Few artists relay that level of emotion, including the Beatles and Dylan. You should be ashamed RS - The King is readying a karate kick for you right now.

On Elvis, Dylan described the sensation of first hearing Presley as "like busting out of jail."

John Lennon famously said: "Before Elvis, there was nothing."

"Elvis Presley is the greatest cultural force in the twentieth century", said composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein. "He introduced the beat to everything and he changed everything—music, language, clothes. It's a whole new social revolution—the sixties came from it."

My father (who grew up listening to Elvis) had the following to say to Rolling Stone:

The Beatles and Bob Dylan ahead of Elvis? Really? You must have had a very narrow focus. The Beatles and Dylan had five great years, and then what? Individually, after 1969, the Beatles may have had one song each of any merit. Elvis, on the other hand continued with rock hits (when he could find them), Country hits, Rhythm and Blues songs, Gospel, and Christmas songs (now standards all over the world). Even Dylan admits he can't sing his songs as well as Elvis. I hope you didn't have the "wrote my own songs bias". Song writing and song performance are two distinct talents. Song writer/performers only write songs they can perform. Elvis has no equal when it comes to song performance. He has had his own hits, as well hits originally performed by everyone from Al Jolson (Are You Lonesome Tonight) to Frank Sinatra (My Way), the Beatles (Yesterday/Something/Hey Jude/Get Back), and Bob Dylan (Don't Think Twice, It's All Right/Tomorrow is a Long Time). Ask the worldwide public. Over one billion recordings sold, Aloha TV audience of 1.5 billion (double the first Moon landing), nearly 1200 sold out performances from 1969 to 1977 alone, and many prime time network shows featuring Elvis. Do you really think 90 minutes of Bob Dylan on network prime time would go over well? I have to believe that Rolling Stone is either bias or out of touch with reality.

You can submit your own comments and complaints at:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231