I read with interest Hossein-Zodeh's article and agree with many of the points presented. But what I got most from the article was a denounciation of the idea that the wars in the middle east were only about oil. Nowhere in the article did he convince me whatsoever that access to oil and hegemony in the oil rich middle east was not a major reason for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since it has been proven that the war in Iraq is not about terrorism (and all, yes all of the reasons for going to war in Iraq provided by the Bush admin. were false) and Mr. Hossein-Zadeh does not believe it's about oil, what does he believe the war in Iraq is about? Until someone, anyone can come up with a reason for the war in Iraq that has absolutely nothing to do with oil (and nothing to do with the much more bogus claim thast it's about fighting terrorism) I remain unconvinced.
And now for something completely different. Lukeprog, in an earlier post you mentioned that you're including all religions as questionable and thus weren't going to include scientology as a stand alone. I must protest. I find that the central tenets of Buddhism are actually quite beneficial and lead to a higher understanding of human nature. Thus, by including all religions we're doing Buddhism a great disservice. Unless, of course, you would place Buddhism as more of a philosophy than a religion, and in that case my protest will remain mute. It's your list- it's up to you- I'd be just as comfortable calling Buddhism a philosophy as I would seeing each and every religion on the list.
3. Certainly, the official story falls short of proof
So certainly the Official "Story" of 9/11 should go on the list along with the conspiracy theories, as both really are more theory than science, n'est pas? Falling short of proof seems to be the one thing that automatically gets a concept or idea on the bullshit list.
4. I think the MIC is a far more likely cause of the wars than oil, but I'll keep reading about this.
To bring it together, the MIC includes the military and the industrial, which certainly includes big oil. One really doesn't exist without the other and their vested interest is one and the same. IMO if you believe it's the MIC then by default some of that blame goes to oil.
5. I'm not going to add democracy to the list.
Of course not. As a concept democracy is pretty unique. It is in the application, especially the American version, that I find questionable. By definition democracy means one person one vote. What we really have is a representative democracy, where there are truly fewer than one thousand people out of millions that has any credible democratic power. For the rest of us true democracy is a mere illusion. And there's the crux of the biscuit.
I'll stick to the current renumbering....hopefully after this we can narrow down the discussion to one or two of the more hot button issues.
1. Yes, it's the lack of effectiveness regarding capital punishment that makes it questionable (sticking to title change) As a moral issue the only question is whether it is applied 100% corectly- meaning it's only applied when the punishee is absolutely, unquestioningly guilty. Since this is certainly a criteria that has not been met, as there have been scores of innocent people executed in the US alone, it cannot be moral. To the debatable side of the issue, the evidence thast points to the lack of effectiveness seems, to me, far stronger than the evidence that capital punishment "works". What I have read, and postulated on my own, is that a state or nation that uses capital punishment as a deterrent to crime also can be seen as one that uses state sponsored murder as a solution to a problem. Or, violence as an answer. To me, this means that a state or nation condones the use violence and moreover cheapens the value of human life itself. The evidence points in that direction, as the nations with the highest murder rates among it's citizens are also nations that sanction capital punishment. It's all part of a culture of violence that tends to lead to a particular mindset among a nation's citizens and government alike. The US, for example, has typically used violence as a method of problem solving, and likewise it's citizens tend to use violence in the same way. Some data and sources: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169
"For 2006, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 4.22"
2. Seems like a topic well covered. You go on ahead and consider.
3. 9/11. I've also read quite a few 9/11 conspiracy theories and also the official one. None add up all the way, but pieces of each theory seem to hold water. Have you seen the Journal for 9/11 studies? Rather than a true conspiracy site the Journal debates many of the salient points within the official story and presents them through the use of scientific experts, rather than bloggers. What's most fishy to me is the lack of expediency in the official investigation and the fact that the largest crime scene in NYC history was treated so unlike a crime scene. Those and the fact that two buildings collapsed at free-fall speed precisely into their footprints after damage that many experts believe insufficient to do just that. IMO the official story has not proven why the buildings fell the way they did. Even if the official story is the most reasonable answer, it falls far short of scientific proof.
4. This one seems to be the most complex of the issues. I will try to address each of your points:
Why go to war (costly and unpopular) rather than drill our own vast reserves in Alaska and the Gulf?
It is certainly reasonable to expect that the powers that be would want to do both. New drilling doesn't cancel out the need for imports, especially as demand increases. So I don't believe it's a "rather than" situation. Additionally, Iraqi oil can be brought to the table far earlier than any exploration/drilling could hope. Also remember that the military-industrial complex has a firm grip on those who make policy. The MIC can benefit from war far more effectively than drilling. The Halliburtons of the world can cash in on no-bid base building and the ammunition business gets a nice shot in the arm. Vietnam was as much about the ammunition business as it was foreign policy. We may someday reach the same truthful conclusion about Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why go to war against nations that supply such a tiny percentage of our oil that we'd barely notice if we were cut off from their supplies altogether?
I believe I covered this with the respose to the 1% suggestion. It's not about how much we currently get, but how much oil is actually located in the hostile countries. Iraq has the 4th largest reserves in the world. To war for oil it would seem to make more sense to invade Iraq rather than, say Libya, a nation perhaps even more responsible for world terror than Iraq, because Iraq contains nearly three times more oil than Libya. In fact, since Iraq has the 4th largest reserves, merely attacking, invading and occupying that country would raise immediate suspicion as to motive. Especially critical in this line of reasoning is the idea that the Bush administration tried on numerous occasions to maunfacture evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Far easier would have been to find evidence that Libya was involved in 9/11, but, alas, Iraq has far more to offer.
If these wars are about getting cheaper oil, why have pump prices skyrocketed since the war?
Perhaps these wars aren't at all about getting cheaper oil, just access to Iraqi oil and regional hegemony. In WWII both the Germans and the Japanese warred for resources that had nothing to do with getting cheaper oil for their citizens, just access.
5. I included democracy simply to see what kind of response I would get. As a political system where power is vested in the people I believe nothing better has ever been suggested. But this is concept. In practice the idea of democracy has actually been used against the people as a way of deceiving them (us) into believing we have a say in the running of the government. This is what I find questionable about democracy. Well, along with the fact that a vested 2 party system is hardly a democracy. And we'll add the idea of fraudulent elections and say that American democracy is what I'd meant all along to question.
Personally I'd like to continue #'s 1, 3 and 4, but would be willing to wrangle endlessly with democracy for shits and giggles.
All righty- we have a bunch of topics to deal with, and at present, for me, little time. I'll address what I can for now....
1. T.A.P.S. The TV show about (cue up spooky music) paranormal activity. Plumbers turned ghostbusters on SciFi channel. It's almost TOO ironic. But and however, the show would be able to fit into the far more broad topic of paranormal activity as a whole, so it probably doesn't stand on it's own as a bullshit.
2. Simply because only 1% of US oil comes from hostile countries does not mean the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with oil. This is a very minor piece of evidence that can be easily countered in two ways. First, just how much of world oil reserves do these two countries have? (Iraq has a shitload of oil and you can be sure we'll be seeing some of it at our pumps in the future- read the quick Wiki about the Iraqi situation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Iraq) That, and not how much of it we currently get would be the question. Seriously, why would we wage war for oil against a country that is already supplying us with oil? If wars for oil are about who controls the production and distribution of it, wouldn't it make sense to wage war against the country with the 4th largest reserves (Iraq)?
Rall's book provides details about a long standing pipeline project (first conceived by the Soviets in the 70's) that was begun once the US booted out the Taliban. It doesn't necessarily need to be about the production of oil, but can also be about transport.
Lastly, these wars are also about military bases in a volitile oil rich region- we're building them faster than track housing in Levittown. Thus there can be two other reasons for a war for oil (transport and bases) that have nothing to do with percentages or how much oil we get from which country.
3. I think you may have opened up a big can of worms by suggesting that capital punishment is merely a moral issue. There are quite a few other moral issues on your list, but I really don't wish to steer the discussion in that direction. I'll only state that it's ineffectiveness is why I consider it bullshit and perhaps we can discuss the issue on that term and not it's morality.
4. Read up on FIXED I mean FAUX I mean FOX news. More propaganda than any other news network and clearly a tool of the right.
5. Interesting that you addressed each of the additions or subtractions I suggested except the idea that the official 9/11 story is bullshit. I read the skeptic article on 9/11 conspiracy and let's just say that any article that uses Popular Mechanics as a major source is about as bullshit as you can get. I'd be more likely to take seriously an article that uses peer reviewed scholarly journals for evidence.
6. Democracy as bullshit is a huge issue. Let's do that one last. And in doing it last we might just find some helpful evidence in the other discussions. If you'd like to start the research now just take a quick look at the 20000 election in FLA and 2004 in OHIO. Without fair elections there is no democracy.
-The "Official" story of 9/11 (while some of the claims made by the 9/11 Truth movement may be bogus, they are no more bogus than the fiction put out in the 9/11 Commisssion Report)
-Scientology
-T.A.P.S.
-Compassionate Conservatives
-Trickle Down Economics
-FOX News
-Capital Punishment
-Democracy
Things to remove:
-Oil Wars (Read Ted Rall's book Gas Wars then we can talk)
-Angels (FYI: They play home games in Anaheim)
I just finished researching the Googolian terms "Beatles" "Scaruffi" and "Greatest Rock Albums" and found some truly interesting stuff. It seems neither Scaruffists nor Beatlemaniacs are correct. The greatest albums of all times were put out by Journey, Styx, Aerosmith, The Cars and the Beastie Boys. These tremendously influential bands managed to combine the emotional complexity of the former with the creative listenability of the latter to create an art form that lasted at least twenty minutes, perahps even a half hour. So I would recommend as 9.789362 out of 10 Journey's seminal work "Arrival", the Cars classic "Door to Door" Styx masterwork "Kilroy Was Here" and just about everything ever released by Aerosmith (except for the all-too-poppy "Dream On" and "Walk This Way") and of course the entire Beastie Boys catalogue.
Finally, the most influential band ever has got to be SugarHill Gang. Not only did they invent Rap throuth the first-of-it's kind use of the word "Rapper" but also predated gang(sta) rap be an entire generation. Not only that, but the use of "Hibbie Hibbie de Hip Hip Hop You Don't Stop" created the entire Hip Hop genre as well. If you don't believe me just turn on your radio. Then cringe.....
I think the key missing ingredient for many of these is that Scaruffi (including myself and other so-called "Scaruffists") has different ideals for music than you do.
I must disagree, even though you're responding to someone else I believe the response fits my "style" as well. We don't have different ideals really, just places where our ideals diverge. It would be fair to say that many artists and musicians are among those we both value highly. Hendrix, Doors, Zappa, Dylan, Kinks, Stones, Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd to name a few.
You complain that there isn't enough pop on his list but don't seem to understand that he looks for what's emotional, not what's catchy.
See, this is the kind of thing that really makes me scratch my head. "Emotional". Such a vague, totally subjective way to assess musical value. Emotional? Try Plastic Ono Band by John Lennon. Given a paltry 6.5 by Senor Scaruffi, this would have to be seen as the ultimate hypocrisy. Most of Plastic Ono Band is stark, personal and highly emotionally charged, as well as thoughtful and poetic. Far removed from Beatles (McCartney) pop, this album should appeal to a more emotionally curious audience. In point of fact the album itself is a mixture of "affection, happiness, grief, sorrow, mystery, dream, nightmare, clarity and insanity" with a dollop of primal anger and lonliness thrown in for good measure.
Over the Beatles? No, really, you're honestly trying to pass off the illusion that Husker Du was more influential musically than the Beatles? These are exactly the kind of bruised sentiments I see around here all the time. The Beatles influenced groups from the Stones, Dylan, the Byrds, the Grateful Dead and CSN to Yes, Pink Floyd, the Ramones, Stevie Wonder and Elvis Costello- and, yes even Husker Du. And by extension every band each of these artists influenced. You do see where this ends up, no?
I honestly believe that the popularity of the Beatles hinders their appreciation. For, it's really tough to like the popular band when you're trying oh so hard to be different and rebellious (the ironic thing was that the Beatles were popular and rebellious at the same time). If all the Beatles produced was the bubblegum pop of their early career I could understand the criticism. (and FYI: the differences that Dylan spoke of centered on the actual music the Beatles were producing- their experimentation with chord structure and harmony combined with a driving beat. This is why he'd heard nothing like it before and why it was the Beatles and not some other artist who convinced Dylan that electric music was as valid as folk. The link between Dylan and the Beatles is practically unassailable-in both directions- as both have indicated many times the influence they had on each other.)
And if you don't hear anything avant-garde (even though I'm still mystified as to why this should matter more than songwriting) or subversive in the Beatles music I'd suppose you're not listening hard enough. A few examples of songs that are more avant-garde, subversive or biting social critiques include: Rain, Dr. Robert, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, Taxman, Eleanor Rigby, Fixing a Hole, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, It's All Too Much, Blue Jay Way, I Am the Walrus, Revolution, Helter Skelter, Revolution 9, Yer Blues, Piggies, Happiness is a Warm Gun, I Me Mine, I Want You (She's So Heavy), Day Tripper. And I would also suppose we could work from there to their respective solo careers- it's tough to find Lennon's work without finding some subversion in there, not to mention the avant-garde stuff he produced.
Finally, I see Scaruffi's Beatles page as simply a revisionist history of the sixties music scene with a particular emphasis on degrading everything the Beatles contributed. If taken as even limited truth I can see how someone can so easily dismiss the single most influential rock band of the era. Unless you want to count people like Chuck Berry and the early rock and rollers who influenced just about everyone who came after.
The one thing I can understand is the prevalence of the Scaruffists here on Listology. It makes sense that a listmaking critic would spawn a listmaking fan base, n'est pas? But I do agree with you when you say that many of the Scaruffite lists look like carbon copies of the original. There just HAS to be someone out there who really enjoys Trout Mask and Rock Bottom but thinks Red Crayola's really terrible.
Oh wait.
I like Trout Mask
I like Rock Bottom
I think Red Crayola sucks
"We were driving through Colorado, we had the radio station on and eight of the top 10 songs were Beatles songs. In Colorado! 'I Want to Hold Your Hand' and all those early ones. They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid. You could only do that with other musicians. It started me thinking about other people."
This was the impetus for Dylan going electric.
And also handily counters the absurd notion that the Beatles weren't original or innovative or, especially in this case, influential. And this from their earliest period- before they even began experimenting with Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper.
As for Scaruffi, I have very mixed feelings. While I can applaud his eclectic taste and have been "turned on" to quite a few interesting albums, the absolute fantasy he tries to pass off as a sort of "history" of the Beatles makes his credibility quite suspect. The antagonism he displays shows a level of opinionated amateurishness that a true historian tries desparately to avoid. And I thoroughly agree that his "Best Albums" list is nothing more than a list of personal favorites.
I will say this: If Trout Mask Replica is a 9.5, then certainly Sgt. Pepper's is at least a 9.5 as well. I won't argue the former, but I will defend with everything that my 30 years of making music has taught me the latter. It's that simple. So what I'm getting at is this: Some of the albums that Scaruffi rates highly are truly underrated and deserve to be ranked among the greatest ever. Some. Among. But to rank Husker Du far above Revolver is pure lunacy.
Free, downloadable concerts. Ahh the Archive.
Also see Steve Kimock for a G-R-E-A-T guitar master. It's either Keller or Kimock who has been the best guitarist to emerge in the past 10 years. LOTS of other free stuff at the archive- mostly jambands but some classic era stuff too. A little house/trance style as well. Bluegrass too.
Also you can grab a few freebies from Keller Williams home page.
What a terrific response on the sampling issue and I can certainly see where you are coming from. I may actually say we can agree to only partially disagree, since you did indeed highlight the type of sampling that I find most truly tasteless and plagiaristic.
One of my favorite artists, Keller Williams, uses loops all the time in his live shows. But then again he plays the part he wants to loop on the spot, captures it and plays leads and sings behind the loop. In this way he can "play" bass, guitar, drums/percussion and sing all at the same time. They call him the mad scientist. Though he's more rock and bluegrass in his leanings you should check him out.
Yes.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1888/
Now let's get back to what we think.
I read with interest Hossein-Zodeh's article and agree with many of the points presented. But what I got most from the article was a denounciation of the idea that the wars in the middle east were only about oil. Nowhere in the article did he convince me whatsoever that access to oil and hegemony in the oil rich middle east was not a major reason for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since it has been proven that the war in Iraq is not about terrorism (and all, yes all of the reasons for going to war in Iraq provided by the Bush admin. were false) and Mr. Hossein-Zadeh does not believe it's about oil, what does he believe the war in Iraq is about? Until someone, anyone can come up with a reason for the war in Iraq that has absolutely nothing to do with oil (and nothing to do with the much more bogus claim thast it's about fighting terrorism) I remain unconvinced.
And now for something completely different. Lukeprog, in an earlier post you mentioned that you're including all religions as questionable and thus weren't going to include scientology as a stand alone. I must protest. I find that the central tenets of Buddhism are actually quite beneficial and lead to a higher understanding of human nature. Thus, by including all religions we're doing Buddhism a great disservice. Unless, of course, you would place Buddhism as more of a philosophy than a religion, and in that case my protest will remain mute. It's your list- it's up to you- I'd be just as comfortable calling Buddhism a philosophy as I would seeing each and every religion on the list.
1. Sounds like a sound idea.
2.
3. Certainly, the official story falls short of proof
So certainly the Official "Story" of 9/11 should go on the list along with the conspiracy theories, as both really are more theory than science, n'est pas? Falling short of proof seems to be the one thing that automatically gets a concept or idea on the bullshit list.
4. I think the MIC is a far more likely cause of the wars than oil, but I'll keep reading about this.
To bring it together, the MIC includes the military and the industrial, which certainly includes big oil. One really doesn't exist without the other and their vested interest is one and the same. IMO if you believe it's the MIC then by default some of that blame goes to oil.
5. I'm not going to add democracy to the list.
Of course not. As a concept democracy is pretty unique. It is in the application, especially the American version, that I find questionable. By definition democracy means one person one vote. What we really have is a representative democracy, where there are truly fewer than one thousand people out of millions that has any credible democratic power. For the rest of us true democracy is a mere illusion. And there's the crux of the biscuit.
I'll stick to the current renumbering....hopefully after this we can narrow down the discussion to one or two of the more hot button issues.
1. Yes, it's the lack of effectiveness regarding capital punishment that makes it questionable (sticking to title change) As a moral issue the only question is whether it is applied 100% corectly- meaning it's only applied when the punishee is absolutely, unquestioningly guilty. Since this is certainly a criteria that has not been met, as there have been scores of innocent people executed in the US alone, it cannot be moral. To the debatable side of the issue, the evidence thast points to the lack of effectiveness seems, to me, far stronger than the evidence that capital punishment "works". What I have read, and postulated on my own, is that a state or nation that uses capital punishment as a deterrent to crime also can be seen as one that uses state sponsored murder as a solution to a problem. Or, violence as an answer. To me, this means that a state or nation condones the use violence and moreover cheapens the value of human life itself. The evidence points in that direction, as the nations with the highest murder rates among it's citizens are also nations that sanction capital punishment. It's all part of a culture of violence that tends to lead to a particular mindset among a nation's citizens and government alike. The US, for example, has typically used violence as a method of problem solving, and likewise it's citizens tend to use violence in the same way. Some data and sources: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169
"For 2006, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 4.22"
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168
2. Seems like a topic well covered. You go on ahead and consider.
3. 9/11. I've also read quite a few 9/11 conspiracy theories and also the official one. None add up all the way, but pieces of each theory seem to hold water. Have you seen the Journal for 9/11 studies? Rather than a true conspiracy site the Journal debates many of the salient points within the official story and presents them through the use of scientific experts, rather than bloggers. What's most fishy to me is the lack of expediency in the official investigation and the fact that the largest crime scene in NYC history was treated so unlike a crime scene. Those and the fact that two buildings collapsed at free-fall speed precisely into their footprints after damage that many experts believe insufficient to do just that. IMO the official story has not proven why the buildings fell the way they did. Even if the official story is the most reasonable answer, it falls far short of scientific proof.
4. This one seems to be the most complex of the issues. I will try to address each of your points:
Why go to war (costly and unpopular) rather than drill our own vast reserves in Alaska and the Gulf?
It is certainly reasonable to expect that the powers that be would want to do both. New drilling doesn't cancel out the need for imports, especially as demand increases. So I don't believe it's a "rather than" situation. Additionally, Iraqi oil can be brought to the table far earlier than any exploration/drilling could hope. Also remember that the military-industrial complex has a firm grip on those who make policy. The MIC can benefit from war far more effectively than drilling. The Halliburtons of the world can cash in on no-bid base building and the ammunition business gets a nice shot in the arm. Vietnam was as much about the ammunition business as it was foreign policy. We may someday reach the same truthful conclusion about Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why go to war against nations that supply such a tiny percentage of our oil that we'd barely notice if we were cut off from their supplies altogether?
I believe I covered this with the respose to the 1% suggestion. It's not about how much we currently get, but how much oil is actually located in the hostile countries. Iraq has the 4th largest reserves in the world. To war for oil it would seem to make more sense to invade Iraq rather than, say Libya, a nation perhaps even more responsible for world terror than Iraq, because Iraq contains nearly three times more oil than Libya. In fact, since Iraq has the 4th largest reserves, merely attacking, invading and occupying that country would raise immediate suspicion as to motive. Especially critical in this line of reasoning is the idea that the Bush administration tried on numerous occasions to maunfacture evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Far easier would have been to find evidence that Libya was involved in 9/11, but, alas, Iraq has far more to offer.
If these wars are about getting cheaper oil, why have pump prices skyrocketed since the war?
Perhaps these wars aren't at all about getting cheaper oil, just access to Iraqi oil and regional hegemony. In WWII both the Germans and the Japanese warred for resources that had nothing to do with getting cheaper oil for their citizens, just access.
5. I included democracy simply to see what kind of response I would get. As a political system where power is vested in the people I believe nothing better has ever been suggested. But this is concept. In practice the idea of democracy has actually been used against the people as a way of deceiving them (us) into believing we have a say in the running of the government. This is what I find questionable about democracy. Well, along with the fact that a vested 2 party system is hardly a democracy. And we'll add the idea of fraudulent elections and say that American democracy is what I'd meant all along to question.
Personally I'd like to continue #'s 1, 3 and 4, but would be willing to wrangle endlessly with democracy for shits and giggles.
All righty- we have a bunch of topics to deal with, and at present, for me, little time. I'll address what I can for now....
1. T.A.P.S. The TV show about (cue up spooky music) paranormal activity. Plumbers turned ghostbusters on SciFi channel. It's almost TOO ironic. But and however, the show would be able to fit into the far more broad topic of paranormal activity as a whole, so it probably doesn't stand on it's own as a bullshit.
2. Simply because only 1% of US oil comes from hostile countries does not mean the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with oil. This is a very minor piece of evidence that can be easily countered in two ways. First, just how much of world oil reserves do these two countries have? (Iraq has a shitload of oil and you can be sure we'll be seeing some of it at our pumps in the future- read the quick Wiki about the Iraqi situation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Iraq) That, and not how much of it we currently get would be the question. Seriously, why would we wage war for oil against a country that is already supplying us with oil? If wars for oil are about who controls the production and distribution of it, wouldn't it make sense to wage war against the country with the 4th largest reserves (Iraq)?
Rall's book provides details about a long standing pipeline project (first conceived by the Soviets in the 70's) that was begun once the US booted out the Taliban. It doesn't necessarily need to be about the production of oil, but can also be about transport.
Lastly, these wars are also about military bases in a volitile oil rich region- we're building them faster than track housing in Levittown. Thus there can be two other reasons for a war for oil (transport and bases) that have nothing to do with percentages or how much oil we get from which country.
3. I think you may have opened up a big can of worms by suggesting that capital punishment is merely a moral issue. There are quite a few other moral issues on your list, but I really don't wish to steer the discussion in that direction. I'll only state that it's ineffectiveness is why I consider it bullshit and perhaps we can discuss the issue on that term and not it's morality.
4. Read up on FIXED I mean FAUX I mean FOX news. More propaganda than any other news network and clearly a tool of the right.
5. Interesting that you addressed each of the additions or subtractions I suggested except the idea that the official 9/11 story is bullshit. I read the skeptic article on 9/11 conspiracy and let's just say that any article that uses Popular Mechanics as a major source is about as bullshit as you can get. I'd be more likely to take seriously an article that uses peer reviewed scholarly journals for evidence.
6. Democracy as bullshit is a huge issue. Let's do that one last. And in doing it last we might just find some helpful evidence in the other discussions. If you'd like to start the research now just take a quick look at the 20000 election in FLA and 2004 in OHIO. Without fair elections there is no democracy.
Additions:
-The "Official" story of 9/11 (while some of the claims made by the 9/11 Truth movement may be bogus, they are no more bogus than the fiction put out in the 9/11 Commisssion Report)
-Scientology
-T.A.P.S.
-Compassionate Conservatives
-Trickle Down Economics
-FOX News
-Capital Punishment
-Democracy
Things to remove:
-Oil Wars (Read Ted Rall's book Gas Wars then we can talk)
-Angels (FYI: They play home games in Anaheim)
Now this is a funny fucking thread.
I just finished researching the Googolian terms "Beatles" "Scaruffi" and "Greatest Rock Albums" and found some truly interesting stuff. It seems neither Scaruffists nor Beatlemaniacs are correct. The greatest albums of all times were put out by Journey, Styx, Aerosmith, The Cars and the Beastie Boys. These tremendously influential bands managed to combine the emotional complexity of the former with the creative listenability of the latter to create an art form that lasted at least twenty minutes, perahps even a half hour. So I would recommend as 9.789362 out of 10 Journey's seminal work "Arrival", the Cars classic "Door to Door" Styx masterwork "Kilroy Was Here" and just about everything ever released by Aerosmith (except for the all-too-poppy "Dream On" and "Walk This Way") and of course the entire Beastie Boys catalogue.
Finally, the most influential band ever has got to be SugarHill Gang. Not only did they invent Rap throuth the first-of-it's kind use of the word "Rapper" but also predated gang(sta) rap be an entire generation. Not only that, but the use of "Hibbie Hibbie de Hip Hip Hop You Don't Stop" created the entire Hip Hop genre as well. If you don't believe me just turn on your radio. Then cringe.....
I think the key missing ingredient for many of these is that Scaruffi (including myself and other so-called "Scaruffists") has different ideals for music than you do.
I must disagree, even though you're responding to someone else I believe the response fits my "style" as well. We don't have different ideals really, just places where our ideals diverge. It would be fair to say that many artists and musicians are among those we both value highly. Hendrix, Doors, Zappa, Dylan, Kinks, Stones, Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd to name a few.
You complain that there isn't enough pop on his list but don't seem to understand that he looks for what's emotional, not what's catchy.
See, this is the kind of thing that really makes me scratch my head. "Emotional". Such a vague, totally subjective way to assess musical value. Emotional? Try Plastic Ono Band by John Lennon. Given a paltry 6.5 by Senor Scaruffi, this would have to be seen as the ultimate hypocrisy. Most of Plastic Ono Band is stark, personal and highly emotionally charged, as well as thoughtful and poetic. Far removed from Beatles (McCartney) pop, this album should appeal to a more emotionally curious audience. In point of fact the album itself is a mixture of "affection, happiness, grief, sorrow, mystery, dream, nightmare, clarity and insanity" with a dollop of primal anger and lonliness thrown in for good measure.
Have you been to all of these places?
Most?
Some?
Over the Beatles? No, really, you're honestly trying to pass off the illusion that Husker Du was more influential musically than the Beatles? These are exactly the kind of bruised sentiments I see around here all the time. The Beatles influenced groups from the Stones, Dylan, the Byrds, the Grateful Dead and CSN to Yes, Pink Floyd, the Ramones, Stevie Wonder and Elvis Costello- and, yes even Husker Du. And by extension every band each of these artists influenced. You do see where this ends up, no?
I honestly believe that the popularity of the Beatles hinders their appreciation. For, it's really tough to like the popular band when you're trying oh so hard to be different and rebellious (the ironic thing was that the Beatles were popular and rebellious at the same time). If all the Beatles produced was the bubblegum pop of their early career I could understand the criticism. (and FYI: the differences that Dylan spoke of centered on the actual music the Beatles were producing- their experimentation with chord structure and harmony combined with a driving beat. This is why he'd heard nothing like it before and why it was the Beatles and not some other artist who convinced Dylan that electric music was as valid as folk. The link between Dylan and the Beatles is practically unassailable-in both directions- as both have indicated many times the influence they had on each other.)
And if you don't hear anything avant-garde (even though I'm still mystified as to why this should matter more than songwriting) or subversive in the Beatles music I'd suppose you're not listening hard enough. A few examples of songs that are more avant-garde, subversive or biting social critiques include: Rain, Dr. Robert, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, Taxman, Eleanor Rigby, Fixing a Hole, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, It's All Too Much, Blue Jay Way, I Am the Walrus, Revolution, Helter Skelter, Revolution 9, Yer Blues, Piggies, Happiness is a Warm Gun, I Me Mine, I Want You (She's So Heavy), Day Tripper. And I would also suppose we could work from there to their respective solo careers- it's tough to find Lennon's work without finding some subversion in there, not to mention the avant-garde stuff he produced.
Finally, I see Scaruffi's Beatles page as simply a revisionist history of the sixties music scene with a particular emphasis on degrading everything the Beatles contributed. If taken as even limited truth I can see how someone can so easily dismiss the single most influential rock band of the era. Unless you want to count people like Chuck Berry and the early rock and rollers who influenced just about everyone who came after.
The one thing I can understand is the prevalence of the Scaruffists here on Listology. It makes sense that a listmaking critic would spawn a listmaking fan base, n'est pas? But I do agree with you when you say that many of the Scaruffite lists look like carbon copies of the original. There just HAS to be someone out there who really enjoys Trout Mask and Rock Bottom but thinks Red Crayola's really terrible.
Oh wait.
I like Trout Mask
I like Rock Bottom
I think Red Crayola sucks
I guess I'll try # 21. Ask for it by name! Or just look for it in my content page.....
Dylan? Beatles? Quote?
Here's One:
"We were driving through Colorado, we had the radio station on and eight of the top 10 songs were Beatles songs. In Colorado! 'I Want to Hold Your Hand' and all those early ones. They were doing things nobody was doing. Their chords were outrageous, just outrageous, and their harmonies made it all valid. You could only do that with other musicians. It started me thinking about other people."
This was the impetus for Dylan going electric.
And also handily counters the absurd notion that the Beatles weren't original or innovative or, especially in this case, influential. And this from their earliest period- before they even began experimenting with Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper.
As for Scaruffi, I have very mixed feelings. While I can applaud his eclectic taste and have been "turned on" to quite a few interesting albums, the absolute fantasy he tries to pass off as a sort of "history" of the Beatles makes his credibility quite suspect. The antagonism he displays shows a level of opinionated amateurishness that a true historian tries desparately to avoid. And I thoroughly agree that his "Best Albums" list is nothing more than a list of personal favorites.
I will say this: If Trout Mask Replica is a 9.5, then certainly Sgt. Pepper's is at least a 9.5 as well. I won't argue the former, but I will defend with everything that my 30 years of making music has taught me the latter. It's that simple. So what I'm getting at is this: Some of the albums that Scaruffi rates highly are truly underrated and deserve to be ranked among the greatest ever. Some. Among. But to rank Husker Du far above Revolver is pure lunacy.
For Keller I would suggest you go here:
http://www.archive.org/details/KellerWilliams
Free, downloadable concerts. Ahh the Archive.
Also see Steve Kimock for a G-R-E-A-T guitar master. It's either Keller or Kimock who has been the best guitarist to emerge in the past 10 years. LOTS of other free stuff at the archive- mostly jambands but some classic era stuff too. A little house/trance style as well. Bluegrass too.
Also you can grab a few freebies from Keller Williams home page.
Ciao
re: The Doors are legends the Velvets are legends in a different way but who is more influential to today's musicians?
I can say this:
I hear a LOT about how influentail the VU is today and what genres the VU helped to create.
However, today's music sucks compared to the Doors, so.....you figure it out
What a terrific response on the sampling issue and I can certainly see where you are coming from. I may actually say we can agree to only partially disagree, since you did indeed highlight the type of sampling that I find most truly tasteless and plagiaristic.
One of my favorite artists, Keller Williams, uses loops all the time in his live shows. But then again he plays the part he wants to loop on the spot, captures it and plays leads and sings behind the loop. In this way he can "play" bass, guitar, drums/percussion and sing all at the same time. They call him the mad scientist. Though he's more rock and bluegrass in his leanings you should check him out.
Keep up the good shitlist work!