| Queenzone Ghost 26.08.2010 16:22 |
Queen have been named in the Top 20 of VH1’s 100 Greatest Artists Of All Time. The band rub shoulders with fellow rocker Nirvana, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones and The Who. Source: link |
| qrock 28.08.2010 13:59 |
QUEEN 17th. HERE'S THE LIST!!!!!!? 20. MARVIN GAYE 19. U2 18. PINK FLOYD 17. QUEEN (ERROR - NO.1!!) 16. MADONNA 15. THE BEACH BOYS 14. NIRVANA 13. THE WHO 12. DAVID BOWIE 11. BOB MARLEY 10. STEVIE WOUNDER 9. JAMES BROWN 8. ELVIS PRESLEY 7. PRINCE??? 6. JIMI HENDRIX 5. THE BEATLES 4. BOB DYLAN 3. MICHAEL JACKSON 2. LED ZEPPELIN 1. THE BEATLES VH1 APOLOGISE FOR THE ERRORS ON THE LIST. THEREFORE, VH1 HAVE REDONE THE LIST. AS FOLLOWS: 21. NIRVANA - WHO? 20. PRINCE 19. MADONNA NEW ENTRY - 18. DIRE STRAITS (BUT VH1 COULD'NT PUT THEM HIGHER UP IN THE LIST) NEW ENTRY - 17. RUSH (BUT VH1 COULD'NT PUT THEM HIGHER UP THE LIST) 16. MARVIN GAYE 15. DAVID BOWIE 14. U2 13. THE BEACH BOYS 12. JAMES BROWN 11. PINK FLOYD 10. BOB DYLAN 9. THE WHO 8. BOB MARLEY 7. JIMI HENDRIX 6. STEVIE WOUNDER 5. ELVIS 4. MICHAEL JACKSON 3. LED ZEPPELIN 2. THE BEATLES 1. QUEEN THAT'S A BETTER LIST! |
| morris ca 01.09.2010 17:55 |
???? madonna ranked greater than Queen???? Gag me with a spoon. |
| Amazon 02.09.2010 14:51 |
morris ca wrote: "???? madonna ranked greater than Queen???? Gag me with a spoon." I know. :D I do like Madonna, but in no way is she in Queen's league! |
| The Real Wizard 02.09.2010 15:57 |
Let's not forget that this was done from an American perspective. With that in mind, the list is right on the money. It's not about personal taste - it's about the artists' effect on US popular culture. I'm surprised Queen even cracked the top 20 in that regard. Prince is an absolutely brilliant musician and has every right to be in the top 20. Madonna has been consistently in the limelight for the last 25 years and has made her mark, so she surely belongs on the list too. Plenty of people west of the Atlantic would agree that Madonna is a bigger name than Queen. As for Nirvana, their effect on popular music and culture is undeniable. Smells Like Teen Spirit was for 90s kids as I Want To Hold Your Hand was for 60s kids. In Europe and in much of the civilized world, Queen are second to the Beatles - but not in North America. In the US and Canada, Queen were popular for less than a decade. Only recently have they begun to be seen as something important again. They are grossly under-appreciated here. But for anyone who would put Queen at #1 on any popularity list, there is not a chance they are more important in the grand scheme of things than Elvis, The Beatles, Hendrix, or Michael Jackson. They all changed the world irreversibly. Queen are in second place to them, and the members of Queen would probably be the first to say so. And that's certainly nothing to be ashamed of. |
| Dan C. 02.09.2010 17:52 |
You are always a voice of reason. |
| plumrach 03.09.2010 03:34 |
You only have to look at the list of best selling music artists to see how popular Queen really are link |
| Holly2003 03.09.2010 03:48 |
plumrach wrote: You only have to look at the list of best selling music artists to see how popular Queen really are link ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I see Queen shit all over the Beatles in UK sales. Yaaaay! Fuck you beatles! link |
| pittrek 03.09.2010 03:58 |
Wow, who is Marvin Gaye ? |
| plumrach 03.09.2010 04:15 |
he was a soul singer who was killed by his father link |
| pittrek 03.09.2010 04:47 |
Thanks. Maybe I will check him on YouTube |
| Dan C. 03.09.2010 05:00 |
You should. He was awesome. |
| maxpower 03.09.2010 05:32 |
Those lists are always rubbish is Wacko Jacko hadn't have died last year there is no way he would have been at number 3 |
| The Real Wizard 03.09.2010 11:19 |
Anyone who thinks MJ shouldn't be near the top must have lived under a rock in the 80s and the 90s. He was the biggest thing since The Beatles. Thriller changed the world more than any record in the 70s did, and with the way the music business is going, more than any record ever will. |
| mike hunt 03.09.2010 11:47 |
Sir GH wrote: Anyone who thinks MJ shouldn't be near the top must have lived under a rock in the 80s and the 90s. He was the biggest thing since The Beatles. Thriller changed the world more than any record in the 70s did, and with the way the music business is going, more than any record ever will. How big Jacko was doesn't mean jack shit!....justin timberlake and brittany spears are huge does that mean they're better than Zeppelin and queen and the who?....you should know better my friend. now, i do agree he belongs in the top 25 or so. contradiction aside......He wasn't as great as people make him out to be. If queen wrote some of that crap he did they would get flamed. The music wasn't all that great, not all that inspired. his video's were what made him top notch IMO. also the best Dancer in pop history. Yes, he has freddie licked once it comes to dancing, lol. Nirvana was and is huge, but again doesn't mean shit. No way is nirvana on the same level as Queen or the Who. I don't care what anyone say's. They shouldn't even be in the top 50. Iron maiden blows Nirvana out of the water. Priest blow that crappy band out the water too. |
| mike hunt 03.09.2010 12:05 |
Michael jackson had a huge Impact on pop music, no denying that. The range of styles he influence however was and is very limited. Queen influenced everyone from pop stars like katy perry, timberlake, lady ga ga, ect ect. To rock like motley crew, Def Lepperd, Extreme, Guns and roses, and even metal bands like priest, maiden, metallica. A much wider range music. Of course that continues today with Muse and Dream theater. Queen should be the top ten, along with Zep, the who, ect. |
| Amazon 03.09.2010 12:19 |
plumrach wrote: "he was a soul singer who was killed by his father" That's not the first thing that comes to mind when I describe him to someone. Yes, his death was tragic, but surely it's not the most important thing about him? :D I would instead say that he was one of the greatest soul singers of all time, whose songs included the extraordinary 'I Heard It Through the Grapevine,' and who collaborated with such wonderful artists as the glorious Tammi Terrell (best song being 'Ain't No Mountain High Enough'). :D :D :D |
| Amazon 03.09.2010 12:32 |
mike hunt wrote: "He wasn't as great as people make him out to be. If queen wrote some of that crap he did they would get flamed. The music wasn't all that great, not all that inspired." I think he was a genius. While he wasn't as consistent as Queen, his best songs (Billie Jean, Dangerous, Heal the World, Beat It) were arguably among the best songs of all time; not just from a vocal point of view but also from a musical and lyrical perspective. "Nirvana was and is huge, but again doesn't mean shit. No way is nirvana on the same level as Queen or the Who. I don't care what anyone say's. They shouldn't even be in the top 50. Iron maiden blows Nirvana out of the water. Priest blow that crappy band out the water too." I love Nirvana. They perhaps aren't as great as many people believe that they were (Kurt's death probably led to them being mythologised more than they deserved) but IMO they were absolutely among the greatest groups of all time, and I think they were very much superior to both Maiden and Priest. |
| The Real Wizard 03.09.2010 12:49 |
mike hunt wrote: "justin timberlake and brittany spears are huge does that mean they're better than Zeppelin and queen and the who?" Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears are just pop stars that bring in a lot of money. They are not even remotely comparable to MJ. And let's not confuse "bigger" with "better," as they are two completely different things. "Better" relates to personal taste, but "bigger" relates to influence on popular culture, which cannot be misconstrued by personal taste. "No way is nirvana on the same level as Queen or the Who." Ask people in their 20s who they think is bigger. Nirvana's impact on our popular culture was far greater. Queen and The Who were great bands, but Nirvana was at the front of a movement that spoke for a generation. In the UK, The Who were initially part of the mod movement, but here they were just a band with a few big records. Your mainstream musical tastes seem to cut off at some point in the 80s, which is your choice and perfectly fine. But many big things happened after that, and in the last 20 years, Nirvana is the biggest next to Michael Jackson. Whether or not you like them is irrelevant to their legacy and influence. |
| mike hunt 03.09.2010 13:21 |
"sir" In america you're correct nirvana had a much bigger Impact than Queen, But worldwide it's really not that close. Queen are the 5th biggest selling artist of all time. Over 300 million records sold, that's more than the stones for gods sake. you're looking at it from an only america point of view. Queen are only behind Elvis, you're beloved michael, Of course the beatles. nirvana's not even close to that level worldwide. |
| mike hunt 03.09.2010 13:30 |
a lot of these cats in their 20's are saying nirvana was one of the most overated bands of all time......Though as far as the movement part i can't argue. wasn't ossis a huge movement in england?.....does that mean they were better than Zeppelin?.....of course not!......The real question is if people in their 40's and 50's still think the music is great. most people over 30 think nirvana was overated, while Queen gets more props than they did in their heyday. |
| The Real Wizard 03.09.2010 15:24 |
mike hunt wrote: "you're looking at it from an only america point of view." In this particular case, yes, because this was a US poll. Of course Nirvana didn't cause much of a stir in Europe or anywhere else really. So then we basically agree on this point. "The real question is if people in their 40's and 50's still think the music is great." No, the real question is if people of all ages think music is great. Anyone over the age of 15 can tell if music has stood the test of time. Whether or not they choose that style of thinking is another story. |
| mike hunt 03.09.2010 16:14 |
as far as my musical interest ending somewhere in the 80's......mostly is true. classic rock of the 70's and the 80's metal scene that i grew up with will alway's be my favorite, but the early 90's had some moments that peaked my interest. Pantera and Clutch, and some of alice and chains. Though not really big on the top 40 in the 90's till the present i still love music as a whole. Dr. john just released a great new album at the ripe age of 70. Clutch still rock out and release new albums 20 years on. Muse has some stuff I like. |
| freddiefan91 06.09.2010 02:45 |
On the list of best selling music artists What does the claimed sales mean and if they have claimed sales why is it not in the certified sales and how do they work these things out anyway? Also good to see Queen have sold more than the beatles in the UK and Led Zeppellin |
| The Real Wizard 06.09.2010 10:35 |
freddiefan91 wrote:
What does the claimed sales mean and if they have claimed sales why is it not in the certified sales and how do they work these things out anyway?A lot of countries didn't measure their record sales back in the 60s and 70s, so all you can do is estimate. It's often said that Madonna or Mariah Carey are the best-selling female artists of all time, but neither of them come remotely close to a Greek singer named Nana Mouskouri. She has recorded over 100 albums, and sold well over 300 million of them. That number is grossly underestimated because she has sold millions of records in countries that still don't keep track of record sales to this day. |