| |
Discussion: ATRL's 100 Greatest Women of Rock & Roll
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 11,360
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bey Admired
Well I personally could go on for days naming female artists. I have absolutely no problem in that regard.
However, this is still an unfair thing to do. The list asks everyone to name their 15 favourite female artists ever. I don't see why one opinion should matter more than the other. If that's their favourite artists ever, who are you to say that someone else's list is better? There's absolutely no such thing in music. Music is the most subjective thing in the world. Every single person has differing musical tastes. It just so happens that Ace has put himself in the positioning of determining and manipulating the list so as to ensure that his favourite artists do well.
What's the point if it's manipulated and filtered like that? The list isn't going to be a true representation of all of our opinions.
|
I agree with you, that's like cheating and make sure someone like Demi Lovato won't make it to the top 30. I feel like those special voters will ruin this, not to mention that at least one of those special voters will biasedly vote for their currently relevant faves (like Lady Gaga, Ariana Grande, etc.) and ignore the ones they hate.
This is something subjective, someone could think Becky G is the greatest woman ever and we should respect that. The only way something isn't subjective is if it involves numbers, like basing this on sales, metacritic scores, vocal range or something like that.
Also most of those special voters will probably vote for artists with long careers that some members here don't even know because obviously the pop society expects you to choose an artist with a long career over an artist that debuted this decade. I mean how dare you choose Selena Gomez over *insert an artist with a 20+ yo career here*.
I'm not against ignoring older artists, but I think everyone's opinion should be worth the same. It feels like that "quality" control is basically a way of making sure an artist those special voters don't consider worthy won't make it to the list, I mean "imagine if someone like Meghan Trainor makes it".
If a woman is really one of the greatest she'll make it without need of special voters that will vote for her.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/6/2014
Posts: 2,937
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rei
If a woman is really one of the greatest she'll make it without need of special voters that will vote for her.
|
No she won't, because a lot of people here don't care or know, or listen to music from artists that aren't mainstream pop music that didn't debut in the 00s or 10s.
There's 100 spots, all of ATRL favs will still make it on the list so why are y'all complaining.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 12,370
|
I don't really see the problem with having superdelegates. Like Brando said, some people just have greater knowledge of popular music. Why should Demi Lovato, an artist who hasn't made any significant contributions, make the top 100?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 12,760
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rei
I agree with you, that's like cheating and make sure someone like Demi Lovato won't make it to the top 30. I feel like those special voters will ruin this, not to mention that at least one of those special voters will biasedly vote for their currently relevant faves (like Lady Gaga, Ariana Grande, etc.) and ignore the ones they hate.
This is something subjective, someone could think Becky G is the greatest woman ever and we should respect that. The only way something isn't subjective is if it involves numbers, like basing this on sales, metacritic scores, vocal range or something like that.
Also most of those special voters will probably vote for artists with long careers that some members here don't even know because obviously the pop society expects you to choose an artist with a long career over an artist that debuted this decade. I mean how dare you choose Selena Gomez over *insert an artist with a 20+ yo career here*.
I'm not against ignoring older artists, but I think everyone's opinion should be worth the same. It feels like that "quality" control is basically a way of making sure an artist those special voters don't consider worthy won't make it to the list, I mean "imagine if someone like Meghan Trainor makes it".
If a woman is really one of the greatest she'll make it without need of special voters that will vote for her.
|
This is like, the goal though
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,763
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rei
I agree with you, that's like cheating and make sure someone like Demi Lovato won't make it to the top 30. I feel like those special voters will ruin this, not to mention that at least one of those special voters will biasedly vote for their currently relevant faves (like Lady Gaga, Ariana Grande, etc.) and ignore the ones they hate.
This is something subjective, someone could think Becky G is the greatest woman ever and we should respect that. The only way something isn't subjective is if it involves numbers, like basing this on sales, metacritic scores, vocal range or something like that.
Also most of those special voters will probably vote for artists with long careers that some members here don't even know because obviously the pop society expects you to choose an artist with a long career over an artist that debuted this decade. I mean how dare you choose Selena Gomez over *insert an artist with a 20+ yo career here*.
I'm not against ignoring older artists, but I think everyone's opinion should be worth the same. It feels like that "quality" control is basically a way of making sure an artist those special voters don't consider worthy won't make it to the list, I mean "imagine if someone like Meghan Trainor makes it".
If a woman is really one of the greatest she'll make it without need of special voters that will vote for her.
|
Its about quality hun, not longevity. And even when quality can be subjective to certain extent, it is often clear who is the better artist when you consider the influence, discography and other aspects of their career. I think a lot of ATRLers dont give a **** about artists that are not around anymore, no matter how great their music is. And thats just plain ignorance.
That being said, I agree, this is ATRL, screw the super delegates idea and let ATRLers to choose their own greatest women in R&R, no matter how cringey the list will be 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2012
Posts: 19,910
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rei
I agree with you, that's like cheating and make sure someone like Demi Lovato won't make it to the top 30. I feel like those special voters will ruin this, not to mention that at least one of those special voters will biasedly vote for their currently relevant faves (like Lady Gaga, Ariana Grande, etc.) and ignore the ones they hate.
This is something subjective, someone could think Becky G is the greatest woman ever and we should respect that. The only way something isn't subjective is if it involves numbers, like basing this on sales, metacritic scores, vocal range or something like that.
Also most of those special voters will probably vote for artists with long careers that some members here don't even know because obviously the pop society expects you to choose an artist with a long career over an artist that debuted this decade. I mean how dare you choose Selena Gomez over *insert an artist with a 20+ yo career here*.
I'm not against ignoring older artists, but I think everyone's opinion should be worth the same. It feels like that "quality" control is basically a way of making sure an artist those special voters don't consider worthy won't make it to the list, I mean "imagine if someone like Meghan Trainor makes it".
If a woman is really one of the greatest she'll make it without need of special voters that will vote for her.
|
I think you have your answer as to why we have the delegates.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Moderator
Member Since: 2/19/2003
Posts: 34,484
|
What I don't get is - why would you not want to LEARN about women who came before you?
Why would you be so content/obstinate as to think that the artists you know do it better than anyone else? How can you be so complicit in your own ignorance?
That's the point of a forum. We discuss, we share, we inform. If you can't handle it, then none of the (multiple) countdowns I've done are for you. I wish you well - and we'll carry on celebrating greatness.
Well, #hopefully.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 57,339
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ace Reject
What I don't get is - why would you not want to LEARN about women who came before you?
Why would you be so content/obstinate as to think that the artists you know do it better than anyone else? How can you be so complicit in your own ignorance?
That's the point of a forum. We discuss, we share, we inform. If you can't handle it, then none of the (multiple) countdowns I've done are for you. I wish you well - and we'll carry on celebrating greatness.
Well, #hopefully.
|
Tea. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 3,017
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 59,596
|
Super delegates are important (otherwise, you end up like the Republican Party where Cruz and Trump hijack the party).
|
|
|
|
ATRL Moderator
Member Since: 2/19/2003
Posts: 34,484
|
In our case Gomez, Lovato and Lavigne!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/6/2014
Posts: 2,937
|
A lot of people I've noticed aren't fans of older, "dated" production. Maybe that's why.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2012
Posts: 19,910
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Wicked
A lot of people I've noticed aren't fans of older, "dated" production. Maybe that's why.
|
Music is an acquired taste.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,763
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ace Reject
What I don't get is - why would you not want to LEARN about women who came before you?
Why would you be so content/obstinate as to think that the artists you know do it better than anyone else? How can you be so complicit in your own ignorance?
That's the point of a forum. We discuss, we share, we inform. If you can't handle it, then none of the (multiple) countdowns I've done are for you. I wish you well - and we'll carry on celebrating greatness.
Well, #hopefully.
|
With all my respect for what you are trying to do, I dont think this is the right place to give music history lessons. This is a thread where members can just vote for their favorite female artists whom they subjectively consider the greatest, and their votes shouldnt be manipulated to fit some "quality standards", just reflect what the ATRLers think.
ATRL is a place where stans of pop stars come to have some fun, so let them use their stan cards and enjoy the rate. The worst that can happen is that we will have some kiii and facepalm moments, and that happens on daily basis here, so 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/9/2008
Posts: 32,819
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rei
I agree with you, that's like cheating and make sure someone like Demi Lovato won't make it to the top 30. I feel like those special voters will ruin this, not to mention that at least one of those special voters will biasedly vote for their currently relevant faves (like Lady Gaga, Ariana Grande, etc.) and ignore the ones they hate.
This is something subjective, someone could think Becky G is the greatest woman ever and we should respect that. The only way something isn't subjective is if it involves numbers, like basing this on sales, metacritic scores, vocal range or something like that.
Also most of those special voters will probably vote for artists with long careers that some members here don't even know because obviously the pop society expects you to choose an artist with a long career over an artist that debuted this decade. I mean how dare you choose Selena Gomez over *insert an artist with a 20+ yo career here*.
I'm not against ignoring older artists, but I think everyone's opinion should be worth the same. It feels like that "quality" control is basically a way of making sure an artist those special voters don't consider worthy won't make it to the list, I mean "imagine if someone like Meghan Trainor makes it".
If a woman is really one of the greatest she'll make it without need of special voters that will vote for her.
|
Superdelegates won't prevent anyone from making the list. They just might, justly, prevent Selena Gomez and Meghan Trainor from making the top twenty.
If it bothers you so much, make your own. (Not just talking to you Rei.) Ace's thread, Ace's rules.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/9/2008
Posts: 32,819
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bríseis
With all my respect for what you are trying to do, I dont think this is the right place to give music history lessons. This is a thread where members can just vote for their favorite female artists whom they subjectively consider the greatest, and their votes shouldnt be manipulated to fit some "quality standards", just reflect what the ATRLers think.
ATRL is a place where stans of pop stars come to have some fun, so let them use their stan cards and enjoy the rate. The worst that can happen is that we will have some kiii and facepalm moments, and that happens on daily basis here, so |
Do you really have a problem with one thread where we eschew stan culture and try to have a meaningful, informative discussion about the most historic women in music? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/4/2012
Posts: 23,263
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 11,012
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ace Reject
What I don't get is - why would you not want to LEARN about women who came before you?
Why would you be so content/obstinate as to think that the artists you know do it better than anyone else? How can you be so complicit in your own ignorance?
That's the point of a forum. We discuss, we share, we inform. If you can't handle it, then none of the (multiple) countdowns I've done are for you. I wish you well - and we'll carry on celebrating greatness.
Well, #hopefully.
|
Again, you're missing the point. Like I said previously, I can go on for days naming female artists. I have absolutely no problem in that regard. But if someone thinks, let's say, that Cher is the best female artist of all time, that's entirely subjective and you nor anyone else has the right to place less weighting on their opinion just because you disagree.
Furthermore, the word 'greatest' can be interpreted differently. What does 'great' mean to you? To some it may mean to be a phenomenal songwriter. To others, it may be the ability to perform. Whilst some may say that the ability to play an array of instruments is what makes them great. Others may even say that it depends on the way the artist makes them feel, that there is no specific reason. The point is, no matter how much people attempt to insist otherwise, no opinion is better than the other.
I'd just prefer a final list that is truly representative of everyone's opinions. Look, I don't want Demi making the top 10 of the list as much as the next person, but this is ATRL. If you're going to do something like this on ATRL, you have to expect that. You can't manipulate the results so as to make sure that your favourites come out on top. What's the point in doing it, then?
You may as well name it, 'Ace's 100 Greatest Women of Rock & Roll'.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,763
|
Quote:
Originally posted by eli's_rhythm
Do you really have a problem with one thread where we eschew stan culture and try to have a meaningful, informative discussion about the most historic women in music? |
I would gladly have a meaningful, informative discussion about the most historic women in music (on ATRL... good luck with that ). You can make a thread. If you want to list the greatest women in music, just do it.
I cant see the point of making this rate when the votes will be rigged and not reflect accurately what most of the ATRLers participating truly think though.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/16/2011
Posts: 50,981
|
Is this thread just, like, ten pages of whining now?
Let's talk about someone GREAT. Dolly Parton. She's written more than 3000 songs, and there isn't a single bad one in the bunch. That's gotta make her, like, the most prolific woman that's ever lived. What a legend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
