Something I’ve been mulling over: Which musical artist would have the highest ‘score’ based on these three factors:
Popularity
Musical ability/talent
Lowest percentage of people who hate their work
Allow me to attempt to explain.
**Popularity **– The number of fans, the depth of devotion of the fans, album sales, place in pop culture
Musical ability/talent – Level of respect for the artist’s skill as measured by critical appreciation, respect of other musicians, general public opinion of their talent
People who hate – Lowest number of folks who immediately turn the radio dial, badmouth the artist and their work, generally loathe their musical output
If we could assign a number for each of these criteria, say from 1-10, we would arrive at a single number between 3 and 30 (duh). What I have been mulling over is which artist would have the highest composite score.
A rating of 30 is very likely impossible. But which artists might approach such perfection?
My first thought was** The Beatles**. Few doubt their talent, I don’t think anyone can belittle their popularity, but I know they have some very vocal haters. They are the band many love to hate.
I had a few other contenders. Prince, perhaps. Or Queen.
And then I came up with my strongest entry yet: Michael Jackson. Popular? Damn straight. Talent in the stratosphere. And I don’t recall ever encountering anyone hating his work.
So I am going with Michael until someone comes along and convinces me otherwise.
A lot of critics absolutely hated Queen, so I think they fall short on #2. Plus they were considered really uncool in the States for most of the '80s, so you might count that against #3 even though it’s more OK to like them now.
I think with Prince you have to remember that he was very controversial for a while and a lot of people found the sexual content in his lyrics offensive.
I remember growing up, EVERYONE liked Floyd. Stoners were into metal, punks were into punk, teeny boppers were into new wave… but Pink Floyd was the common ground that everyone could get into.
And I don’t recall hearing about anything but respect in the music world. I’m not saying they don’t have their haters, but I think there are less for Floyd than other bands.
I disagree. I was never a fan of Jackson’s work. His music was well-made but bland pop. And his personal life was a train wreck, which calls his popularity into question.
The person who scores highest across these factors is (IMO) Frank Sinatra. I was born in 58 so his heyday was a bit before my time but in listening to his range and pure talent and looking at the body of work, and how he’s regarded as an artist (not as a person he was a bit of an asshole in some scenarios) and his popularity across his career he’s all top marks. If we’re going to make it just current popularity a lot of the top contenders will fall by the wayside.
More relevant to a wider audience than oldies like The Beatles/Stones/Who.
Countless classic hit songs which everybody knows - 80 million+ records sold.
A widely respected musical/songwriting talent, who worked with greats like Bob Dylan/ George Harrison/ Roy Orbison/Jeff Lynne/ Stevie Nicks/ Dave Stewart/ etc.
I despise Tori Amos. Her music is sophomoric and reminds me of Dana Carvey’s “Chopping Broccoli”. and her cover album missed the fucking point on half the songs she covered.
How has St. Bowie not been mentioned?? Or did I miss it.
Tom Petty is a classic rocker just like the other acts you mentioned. He’s no more relevant to younger audiences than similar acts that started in the 1970s, (and less so than, say, Aerosmith). ALL of my younger relatives like the Beatles. No way is Tom more relevant than they are.
Classic rock and pop is full of acts that have a whole bunch of songs that everybody knows. Elton John. Paul Simon. ABBA. The Eagles. Journey. R.E.M. Foreigner. Fleetwood Mac. Etc, etc. Tom isn’t any sort of standout in that regard.
80 million records isn’t a huge total, either. It puts Petty behind acts like Flo Rida, Justin Bieber, and the Backstreet Boys.
I’ve been an R.E.M. fan since 1983, and here’s my take on it.
Popularity: 9. It waxed and waned over the course of their career, but there was always that core audience, like me for instance.
Musical ability/talent: While they may not be the most technically proficient band out there, I still rate them 9 in large part because their music has a definite and identifiable sound, which a person who didn’t like them (see next paragraph) said, “This may be a factor in why they are one of the ‘great ones’.”
People who hate: Very few. Sure, lots of people out there are not necessarily big fans of the band, but outright loathing their music? From what I’ve heard, very few. Rate this a 9 as well.
One objection: how much of his talent was musical talent? He was a pop star, a dancer, a performer, a video star, a tabloid sensation, but how does he rate as a musician?
If you’re looking at Motown, I think Stevie Wonder is a better candidate.
Are you measuring popularity by number of fans at any given time, or by number of fans throughout history? If the latter, then Mozart is a strong candidate (as are Beethoven and Bach).
Are we really going to pretend I didn’t win with Bowie???
Popularity: TEN. You say something bad about Bowie, in fact, and you can kiss all your friends good-bye! (Tin Machine doesn’t count)
Talent: 9.99
Lowest pct. of haters: (See popularity) 0.1…and those are posers who won’t admit that even Bowie
is wrong for hating “Let’s Dance”. That’s a great album!! Fuck you Bowie for hating it!
And to prove it who would win if you asked 100 people who they would choose if they could bring back one of Bowie, Prince or MJ??
Okay, maybe Prince wins that. But Bowie (though no Olivier) still is a better actor than Prince. So…there…
Musical talent can be subjective. Estimating haters is just that – approximate. Popularity is related but some popular bands are widely disliked (Nickleback)…
I’m going with Eric Clapton or The Eagles. A classical musician like Mozart too – popularity means number of plays or fans, not whether you can identify a snippet of classical music.
I don’t know that many people that hate the Beatles. Granted their second half of their work is often better.
