Originally Posted by
The Dark Elf
There are many musicians on this site, myself included. I said in a previous post that progressive rock didn't even come into the equation for me when discussing this list, because even when prog had a huge following back in the 70s, RS was more interested in following a punk agenda. And again, you keep mentioning "hit songs" or "popularity", but there are many songs on this list that indicate clearly Did not chart or weren't even singles (reading comprehension is a marvelous tool) --and nothing in the description of the songs on the list describes what is so earth shattering about the particular song that didn't chart. It looks like A) a favorite song of one of the voters, or B) a chance by the record industry insiders to shill their putrid product.
And what exactly is your definition of "great music"? This is one of several times you refer to prog or rock in general as "not great". If nothing you hear that is discussed on this site is not "great", then why are you here? It's odd, really, you seem to be wasting your time. Perhaps take up fishing or crocheting. It's even stranger that you'd be defending a list that contains so much dismal music while denigrating the actual genre people come here to talk about.
Seeing as you missed the fact that there were songs on this banal list that did not chart, the need for a "hit" evidently was not required. So, look at albums. Neil Young's Prairie Wind went Gold in the U.S. in 2005, and received good reviews. Their are other older performers on the list (Dylan, Johnny Cash, Leonard Cohen, etc.), so it isn't necessarily about the bestest and shiniest and newest thing to cloud your nearsighted vision.
Well, your judgement regarding music is already in question, so I am not surprised. But we're only talking about "hits", dear, and innovation, right? Well, The Decemberists have several albums in the top ten in the U.S. and UK. And I would suggest that an album like Hazards of Love or a #1 album like The King is Dead are, by using your flawed reasoning, more popular and innovative than literally half the list, so a song from those albums should certainly be on there. Or are you now going to say something different to confound your original proposition? Circular reasoning is not a debate tool.
No, Madame Ouspenskaya, your tea leaves are incorrect. I just happened to come across this RS list while looking up something else. It could well have been a list by Pitchfork, NME or any other music media outlet. And again, your reference to "awesome songs" is laughable, as I've already pointed out elsewhere. Your only defense is that they are Popular, but you can't quite define why they should be on any "Great" list. You claim they are "awesome", but according to you, they are not "great". It seems you suffer some sort of adjective comprehension disorder. Maybe you can start a Go-Fund-Me page to see if there is a cure.
Bookmarks