jamesg1213

clintmartin
I don't look at classical music as being better or more important than Rock & Roll, Jazz or Blues.

Nor me. Songs loosely in the rock idiom are what 'speak' to me, and chime with my life. However, I could take my absolute favourite song or piece of music written by anyone since I started listening to music 50 years ago and it wouldn't even come close in terms of compositional quality to 'Lark Ascending' by Vaughan Williams.

I can't even imagine a more beautiful piece of music than The Lark Ascending. I've asked around for suggestions but nothing even comes close in terms of pulling at the heart strings. Having said that, being British might well have a lot to do with it. There's something distinctly English about it's melody and harmony, even though it could be argued that it sounds kind of Chinese in places. But that's the pentatonic scale for ya.

Paul Simon gets my vote. 

Riddle me this.  All four Beatles are listed in Wikipedia as being MBEs.  Why, then, is MacCartney the only one who is referred to as "Sir Paul".  Is "Sir" different from MBE?  I understand that "Sir Ringo" doesn't necessarily fit his basic demeanor and image.  But John and George could easily referred to as Sirs.  

Guinness' criteria for such a record illustrates why it is absurd to compare him to classical music composers.  The criteria is so completely weighted towards the modern era.  Record sales and a lot of other measurables used have only been around a short time compared to the history of music. Even if we tossed that sort of thing aside, can we really refer to pop music writers as composers in the same sense?  Do we simply let sales dictate this? If so does that mean the "composer" of the average Justin Bieber or Drake song get billing as being a greater composer than the best living classical composers?

Old55
Riddle me this.  All four Beatles are listed in Wikipedia as being MBEs.  Why, then, is MacCartney the only one who is referred to as "Sir Paul".  Is "Sir" different from MBE?  I understand that "Sir Ringo" doesn't necessarily fit his basic demeanor and image.  But John and George could easily referred to as Sirs.  

In Great Britain, yes, "Sir" is different from having an MBE. In addition to his MBE, McCartney was knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1997 - and that's what makes him a "Sir".

Rain
It's pop culture at its best. No sense of nuance or perspective in people's appreciation.
 
I remember not that long ago, many thought of George Harrison as a rather mediocre guitar player. Now he and Lennon BOTH make it on Rolling Stones' Best 100 Guitarists of All Time. I love his work, I've always enjoyed hearing him on the slide guitar for some reason. But, come on...
 
 
You check those lists and guitar heroes these days, and you can't help but notice how conveniently people managed to completely forget the sheer virtuosity of the 80s shredders, as if it never really happened. How tasteful it all was is a different story, but you cannot possibly tell me that John Lennon is a better guitar player than Yngwie or MacAlpine... He was average back then, and turning into a legend didn't magically blow away all competition. He just strummed the darn thing.
 
And there's no wrong in that. Most of my favorite guitarists have relatively rudimentary skills. Jimmy Page is sloppy. Hendrix was completely and painfully off a lot of the time. Ace Frehley never was that good. Tony Iommi is a pretty weak and repetitive lead guitarist. 
 
We got to be objective. No matter if I'm much more likely to listen to Zeppelin or the Beatles than I am likely to put on St. Matthews Passion... It doesn't make the Beatles better than Bach. They're just a whole lot easier to assimilate and require nowhere near the attention and the listening skills.
 

 
Yeah but those 80's shredders - it was all about technique and little else. I had great fun watching Paul Gilbert's Hot Licks video from the 80's on YouTube recently. The stuff he's playing sounds just horrible. It's incredible technique, and I'll always be in awe of his speed picking technique, but man...that's not very musical to me and hence I didn't rate him as a guitar player. However, I've seen him play lately and he really is an awesome guitarist these days. He's still got the breathtaking technique but he's using it to a far more musical end and he's got great quirk and style. 
 

sharke
 
Yeah but those 80's shredders - it was all about technique and little else. I had great fun watching Paul Gilbert's Hot Licks video from the 80's on YouTube recently. The stuff he's playing sounds just horrible. It's incredible technique, and I'll always be in awe of his speed picking technique, but man...that's not very musical to me and hence I didn't rate him as a guitar player. However, I've seen him play lately and he really is an awesome guitarist these days. He's still got the breathtaking technique but he's using it to a far more musical end and he's got great quirk and style. 
 

Yup - that's what I meant that it wasn't necessarily all tasteful.
 
 
OTOH, inadequate technique, while it may result in something that's more pleasant and/or easier to digest is equally compromised. Though people will most commonly pick what they feel is "heartfelt" - and that is also highly subjective, especially when you ask someone with little or no musical skills.
 
For exemple, lots of people seem to equate a raspy voice with "feeling" but will completely miss the beauty of something that's 100 times as heartfelt because it's more subtle.
 
I think it shouldn't be a case of either or. It's not because this or that shredder didn't play tastefully that John Lennon suddenly becomes a great guitar player. A great guitarist should be both technically brilliant and tasteful in his playing. I don't see why we need make lists so badly that we're ready to overlook an essential aspect of the equation or to factor in how legendary the guy was.

ampfixer
I thought the question would get some response. It's always fun to read your responses and give Jeff Evans a platform to insult people. Most responses touch on the issue that had me going; how do we measure success? Will the Beatles be played in 100 years? I think so.
 
It's impossible to compare anything over a long period of time. It seems like most of the great composers died poor, or at least living a modest life. So money can't be a criteria. Maybe it's longevity. Who knows, and as Jeff pointed out I am musically ignorant.

In terms of relevance, it's a safe bet to say that the Beatles will be remembered for a long long long time. No matter what we think of popular music vs classical music - they are representative of the culture of their time, a time when pop culture became absolutely prevalent. They do represent that. 

 
"Twat it up into C# major"
   ~ Pull McCarthorse 1962

Ruben
In Great Britain, yes, "Sir" is different from having an MBE. In addition to his MBE, McCartney was knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1997 - and that's what makes him a "Sir".

At least, that's what the world has been led to believe, anyway. In reality she was simply telling him to "give it a rest" by saying "Good night, sir!"  How things get blown out of proportion.
 
BTW, I'm sure there are miriads of blokes who've conducted an MBE (Multistate Bar Examination). They go by the term "bar hoppers".

dubdisciple
Speaking of People...why does the 50 most beautiful people list change every year?  Shouldn't it mostly stay the same unless someone dies or gets uglier or someone somehow makes a massive jump in beauty?

On a similar note, why don't the NYT, WSJ and USA Today best-seller lists agree with one another?

Its been a long while since posting...
 
Greatest composer? In a word: no.  Fabulous songwriter though.
 
In terms of the sweep of music history probably the person who had the greatest "change" influence was Beethoven, as he is generally regarded as the turning point between the Classical period (roughly 1750-1825) and the Romantic period that followed.
 
Telemann's output continues to amaze me.  In comparison, I am doing well to write a couple lengthy compositions a year (and it is usually less).  OTOH, Telemann stayed within the conventions of his day.
 
The composer who really astounds me in terms of output remains J.S. Bach.  For a number of years, he was required to write a 20 minute or so cantata every week for church use.  IIRC something like 100+ survive.  Imagine having to write a full length piece every week for choir, small orchestra, and keyboard - not to mention having someone to get all the parts copied, rehearse it, conduct it, etc.
 
But, what really amazes me was his ability to improvise fugues.  To do that, one really has to have a firm grasp of counterpoint, harmony, and melody, in order to interweave all the different voices, have the needed interplay between the voices with the main theme, and keep the piece interesting.
 
As has already been said, one of the differences is that it requires much different listening skills from pop music (please note: I am not saying pop music is "bad").
 
I will also admit a deep fondness for the music of Ralph Vaughn Williams, and he is one of my absolute favorite composers, particularly the Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis.  One of the things that so appeals to me is his use of traditional modes, rather than having everything in strict major/minor.  Another interesting work of his, though a "program" work, and also quite "chilling" is his Symphonia Antarctica (and yes, The Lark Ascending).
 
 
 

I think this is the kind of question that can only be answered: it depends...
...on:
- which style of music you're looking at,
- which era you're talking about, and
- what level(s) of artistry you're including.
 
The best composer of all time (any style, any era, any level of artistry) is Mozart. Hands down, end of discussion. You only have to listen (really listen, not just wait for it to finish) to one or two of his pieces to come to this conclusion.
 
But, if we're talking about the 1960's (McCartney's era) and pop music (his style) and AM-radio, grab-the-masses level of artistry, then yes. McCartney's the one... Sort of.
 
Even he was closely rivaled by Jaggar, Richards and Lennon, all of whom wrote about deeper subjects most of the time. So, if you include all songs of the era and not just AM hits, the answer is: maybe.
 
If you're talking about pie-in-the-sky, rose-coloured-glasses, love is everywhere and it's a beautiful day, and you've got your blinders on so all you can see (or All You Need) is love, you just can't beat McCartney, especially if you're talking volume (number, not loudness). Although, it's commonly believed Lennon wrote that song.
 
And if you're talking about generosity, again it's McCartney. He wrote songs to cheer people up or sympathize with whatever they were going through such as Hey Jude (Julian Lennon was depressed by his parents' divorce), For No One (George was upset about breaking up with Patty), Give Ireland Back to the Irish (during the height of pro-Irish sympathy in England) just to name a few.
 
And let's not forget that every love song he wrote after Lovely Linda was to make the love of his life feel special.
 
So, which of those are you talking about?
 

Carole King rarely gets mentioned in this kind of thread, but she has written a ton of good songs.