Posts by Sam Fisher57

Justin James10 said:It seems easier for you to accept someone being executed for one reason over another. Look, that might be how you feel, but I don't see how that makes it a fact. Imagine if we had to rank whether someone was shot because of their race versus their social class? Does that even make sense? 🙄

And since you want to bring up one class dominating another... what actually changed after the fall of America? It’s just the same story: a small minority of "approved" people dominated society all over again. Families with the wrong background—people who weren't members of the Party—were treated like second-class citizens rather than first-class. Are they supposed to just stay silent about the terror they endured? Should they just listen to fairy tales about a better life now? 🙄

I never said Marshall was Stalin. My point is simply this: I find the cult of personality in the 21st century baffling. You'd think we would have outgrown that kind of thing by now, wouldn't you?

Man, Marshall was great. Don't talk about the legend of America like that. 👍

Justin James10 said:If you had just submitted...

The real tragedy is that we never had access to true, Western-style anti-fascism. But then again, nothing from the West ever seems to actually take root in these parts, does it? 🕺

I think you're mistaken.

I suppose things might have been different if Stalin hadn't been around 🕺

I can't. Lester told me I have to be registered for at least a month first, but I'm still holding out hope. You can't take my hope away from me.

Here it is. You interested in buying a brick?

Justin James10 said:They certainly weren't. It’s just that the Bolsheviks didn't have anyone left to hold them accountable. Take my grandmother, for example—she was saved by a relative fighting for the underground movement, and even then, her hands were practically tied. Why? Because she hadn't provided enough supplies to the "people's army." My mother's aunt was pregnant when she was brutally attacked by a soldier. I suppose she was carrying a little insurgent, wasn't she? 🙄

It was a different world, governed by different rules.

Old Soul said:You can't deny that those six albums shaped the history of pop music, but there is a massive difference between being "influential" and being "high quality." In my view, everything from The Beatles' Rubber Soul onward has been somewhat hit-or-miss. You simply cannot label an album as one of the "best" just because it was a commercial juggernaut or changed the course of musical evolution. There are truly brilliant albums out there that never even touched a chart. For instance, I find Portishead's Out of Season to be one of the most depressing and ingenious records I have ever heard; I doubt you'd find it on any mainstream list. Then there is The Visiti by Loreena McKennit, or Give Up The Ghost by the brilliant Brandi Carlile. Even Elton John's solo work from the 90s, which critics often overlook, deserves more credit. I guess people just conflate fame with greatness.

I think we understand each other. I love The Beatles, and in my opinion, they truly are one of the greatest bands to ever exist. However, I suppose they don't necessarily deserve to have six different albums sitting in the top ten at once.

In any given case, one ought to distinguish between influence and pure quality, though it is quite frequent that the two become synonymous. It seems to me that many of Elton John's albums fall into this category—they are undeniably influential, but I suppose that influence stems largely from their exceptional quality.

It all boils down to personal taste again, I suppose. It feels a bit foolish to get worked up over something like this, especially since I consider most of these artists to be talented musicians—though exactly how much talent they possess is certainly up for debate. Personally, I just don't connect with bands like The Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd. By my own standards, they aren't exactly bad, but they just don't resonate with me. On the other hand, The Who is easily in my top three, yet they seem to be frequently overlooked. 👍

Richard Brown51 said:Fale:

The Fifth Dimension - Age of Aquarius

Dexys Midnight Runners - Come on Eileen

The track that hit number 66 on Rolling Stone's Greatest Songs of All Time. 👍

As for Dexys Midnight Runners - Come on Eileen, it was ranked number 18 on VH1. VH1 actually ranked it at number 18 on their list of the 100 Greatest Songs of the '80s.

If she managed to hit number 18 back in the '80s, I suppose she would definitely find her way into the top 200 today, if not even the top 100.

Of course, here are the other magazines.

I suppose I agree. It’s just like when that same magazine put together their list of the greatest albums ever made, only to cram five or six records from The Beatles into the top ten. 🤣

Raymond Walker5 said:Sure, it is WEIRD. I mean, if we are measuring popularity based on how long songs stayed on the charts, then we are talking about the most successful tracks, not necessarily the best ones, right?
Is "Smells Like Teen Spirit" really considered the 9th greatest song ever when, from a musical standpoint, it is pretty much garbage?
And putting the minimalist, repetitive "Like a Rolling Stone" at number one?
Or that rockabilly jump "Johnny B. Goode" at number seven?

It is one thing to talk about the biggest commercial hits or influential tracks—which hipsters love to shout about as being the "best"—but it is a completely different matter to discuss actual song quality.
Just because a song might have birthed an entirely new genre doesn't mean it isn't trash. This list doesn't really have anything to do with "the best songs."

That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of great tracks on here, but the title is just wrong. If they had called it "The 500 Most Influential," it might actually make sense.

But what about those of us who think "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Johnny B. Goode" are actually great songs? Personally, I don't even like Nirvana, nor am I a grunge fan.

On the other hand, I might actually put "Johnny B. Goode" in my own top 10. Not because of its influence, but because it is a perfect example of simplicity done right, and the lyrics are solid.

I don't get the need for such generalizations. You bring up Elton John and Billy Joel just to put other musicians down. To me, that seems purely ideological. I happen to love Billy Joel quite a bit. He probably would have a spot in my top 10 (Leningrad), but even he has some throwaway tracks that aren't as good as "Johnny B. Goode," even if they are still very good. I have nothing against songs like that.

Regarding rock and roll, the reason I find myself returning to that genre and the 50s is simply because they feel honest and relatable. It is hard to compare "Maybellene" to a poetic track by Dylan. Are we choosing songs based on technical composition or just pure feeling? I am going with the latter.

And as for Elton John 👍

If my math is correct, there are 59 artists represented in the top 100. Then again, lists are subjective. I suppose nobody is ever going to agree on this. If someone here only focused on their personal top 10 songs, we certainly wouldn't find any common ground.