the 5 greatest artists in the history of comics
Lonnieanixt
this being Thanksgiving, my mind turns to favorite things.
1. Alex Ross. there is Ross than there is everybody else. One day the works of
Alex Ross will be hanginin museums all over the world. He is the closest thing
to Rembrant that the comic book world will ever see.
His brush brings superheroes to life.
Key works:
Marvels: 4 part mini series from Marvel. in which he first caught the
astonishment of the comic world.
Kingdom Come: the story is typical apocalpse now fantasy but his work in this
mini series from DC shows a progression to a finer detail then in Marvels.
After leaving comic fandom in awe with these two miniseries runs, Ross has
stuck to covers and treasury size editions of DC characters which are must
haves, Superman, Batman, Captain Marvel, Wonder Women and the Justice League
have all gotten the Ross treatment, The Batman edition is particlarly strong.
Told without word balloons messing up the art, you have to suffer through
preachy stories but the art amazes you, the detail and work that goes into each
work is dizzying.
shame he is on the out with Marvel, Spiderman is a natural lure for Ross,
what with all those crazy angles that spidey gets himself into.
I think a spidey treasury would be right up Alexs street. a good idea would
be Spiderman on Sept 11.
I just hope Alex stays with comics for another 5 years at least, but i feel
he will soon tire and move onto other things, the petty politics doesn't help
either.
Neal Adams:
Before Neal comics were 2 dimensional, Mr Adams changed all that. A face
became a face, with angles and shadows, and curvature, it had mass.
there was a steel like shine to his work, strong lines, with a amazing
attention to the smallest detail.
Comics had never seen an artist like him, comic strips had, but not comics,
in which artists were paid not so much by quality as speed. Artists who could
knock out 30 pages in a couple of days was what the medium wanted, i mean who
ever thought people would collect comics any way.
Adams made comics worth collecting.
Key works: Avenger Kree-Skull war.
Batman
X-Men battle with the Sentinel, Magneto in the savage world.
Green Arrow/Green Lantern, speedy drug story.
Adams did not last too long in the world of corporate comics, he did some
work with both major studios, did a lot of covers and then moved on too his own
company which never seemed to be able to get it together, Adams has also worked
for movie studios blocking out scenes.
I fear Ross will mirror his idol and have a similar carreer. He has already
lasted longer then Adams but there is more money theses days, because of older
more cash affluent fan.
Adams hey day was late 60s early 70s.
Jack Kirby:
more of aquired taste then the first two, who could succeed in any area that
art finds a home form portrait painting to works of art that could hang in
Museum. Kirby though has a raw energy in his work that is as big as the
subjects he rendered.
A quick worker he teamed with Stan Lee to Make Marvel the greatest comic book
studio the world had ever seen.
within the space of a couple of years he and Lee introduced The Fantastic
Four, The Hulk, The Avengers, Thor and others, most amazing was the fact that
Jack was drawing about 5 comics a month.
Jacks early works in this period are cartoonish but around Fantastic Four 38
you see a more defined work, with shadow and light. more care is given to the
art as though Stan and Jack figured out that they had really struck gold.
one of Jacks greatest gifts was his imagination, it was up to him to figure
out what all those Gadgets Reed was always inventing would actually look like,
as well as Asgard, the Negative Zone, Galactus, well, you get the picture.
Wally Wood
he began working with EC Gaines in the 50s and his highly refined Pen and Ink
style has yet to be duplicated, it is said that Wood was one of the quickest
workers Gaines had, but the work shows no signs of it, a clean crisp style,
Woods Forte was sci-fi and his aliens and space craft.
Wood also did work for Mad. His superman parody Stuperman is lengendary and
gave the mag its unique look.
Wood battled depression, and never caught on with Marvel except for a brief
run in the early 60s
Wood is not forgotten. His work will live forever, if the man was flawed his
output was flawless.
Frank Frazzetta:
best known for his paintings. he gained a new source of fans in the mid 70s
when his work adorned the covers of the original Conan Paperbacks .
His fleshy paintings of muscular he-men and scantily clad full figured
beauties are legend.
Though never big with the comic book world , he worked in comic strips,
ghosting Lil Abner in the late 50s, he also did some true romance comics, he
enjoys painting women among other things.
Frazzetta is a true master of illustration.
Mort Drucker:
for over 30 years Drucker has been Mads master illustrater of Movie parodies.
studying his work you see an increasing progression of ability, hitting his
stride at a time when great movies seemed to be coming out every week, he is
particurly strong in the 1970-1980 period. check out his parodies of The
Godfather, Hanna and her Sisters, True Grit, Kramer vs Kramer and just about
any thing else he did in this period to witness truly excellent art.
next 5
John Byrne
Jim Lee
Marshall Rogers
Bernie Wrightson
Richard Corben
next 3
George Perez
Jack Davis
Steranko
Bob Hughes
2 Will Eisner
3 Lou Fine
4 Reed Crandall
5 Jack Cole
(We're assuming you mean comic books here. If you meant including
newspaper strips:
1 Alex Raymond
2 Harold Foster
3 Milton Caniff
4 Roy Crane
5 Windsor McCay)
((Of course if you include humor comics, then all bets are off.))
Victor Wong
"Lonnieanixt" <lonni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031126213953...@mb-m24.aol.com...
>
> this being Thanksgiving, my mind turns to favorite things.
>
> 1. Alex Ross. there is Ross than there is everybody else. One day the
works of
> Alex Ross will be hanginin museums all over the world. He is the closest
thing
> to Rembrant that the comic book world will ever see.
Sorry, but I don't think AR should be ranked at No. 1. Certainly, he has
talent,
he's hardly an innovator; photo references have been done for art ever since
the invention of photography, and his gouache technique is merely an
adaptation
of medieval/Renaissance oil-paint technique. The only distinction about
Ross
is his doing fine-art quality works with superhero/pop culture icons as
subject
matter.
Michael Alan Chary
comics artist has ever been. His panel flow and anatomical sense were
better than Kirby. He was more creative than Barks. It only lasted a
couple years, but those were a tremendous couple years.
2. Carl Barks of course was as tremendous a storyteller as has ever
lived.
2. Jack Kirby, enough said. Excuse me, I meant "'Nuff said.".
2. Osamu Tezuka was sort of the Japanese Kirby or Barks.
2. George Herriman. Perhaps the greatest strips guy ever.
2. Charles Schulz.
2. Walt Kelly.
8. Moebius
9. Jack Cole
10. Will Eisner
Then we have peoplelike Alex Raymond, Lee Falk, Curt Swan, Dick Giordano
etc.
--
Do they still play the blues in Chicago when baseball season rolls around/When
the snow melts away do the Cubbies still play in their ivy covered burial mound
When I was a boy they were my pride and joy, but now they only bring fatigue to
the land of the free the home of the brave and the doormat of the Nat'l League.
Rick Carter
> 1. Keith Giffen at the time of the Great Darkness Saga was the best any
> comics artist has ever been. His panel flow and anatomical sense were
> better than Kirby. He was more creative than Barks. It only lasted a
> couple years, but those were a tremendous couple years.
Keith Giffen can be quite good when he's at his best. But I think I missed this
"Great Darkness Saga." What was that?
Relic
"Rick Carter" <cart...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:ad2aabdb.03112...@posting.google.com...
Legion of Superheroes, issues 290 (I recall) to 294 or 95 (been years since
I read it),
written by Paul Levitz. Pretty good stuff....(As for the story, one word:
Darkseid).
Tom Galloway
>>this "Great Darkness Saga." What was that?
>Legion of Superheroes, issues 290 (I recall) to 294 or 95 (been years since
It's collected in trade paperback form, which may be easier to find.
tyg t...@panix.com
--
--Yes, the .sig has changed
Michael Alan Chary
Widely considered the greatest Legion of Super-Heroes story ever (it was
written by Paul Levitz at the peak ofhispowers. Either Levitz or Stan Lee
would be my choice for greatest team book writer ever. I'd pay real money
to see what he would have done with JLA/Avengers.) It's available in TPB>
Michael Lehmeier
Osamu Tezuka
Uderzo
Jack Kirby
...
SDunbier
Kirby
Eisner
Toth
Kurtzman
Wood
Of course I could add another 10 or so pretty quickly.
Might as well do strips:
Foster
Schulz
Caniff
Watterson
King (Moores would be in my top 10, BTW)
Oh, what the Hell, top 5 cover artists:
Raboy
Frazetta
Wood
Steranko
Crandall
And, while no one is asking, the 5 best Westerns are:
The Searchers
For a Few Dollars More
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon
Once upon a Time in the West
Winchester 73
Jeremy Henderson
>My faves from putting 60 seconds of thought into it...
>
>Kirby
>Eisner
>Toth
>Kurtzman
>Wood
Trade out Wood for Kubert (Joe, not one of his sons) and your list is
exactly the same as my off the top of my head Top 5.
_____________________________
Life's a lot like a freakshow...
nobody laughs when they leave
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>1 Jack Kirby
>2 Will Eisner
>3 Lou Fine
>4 Reed Crandall
>5 Jack Cole
1. Jack Kirby
1. Herge
1. Osamu Tezuka
The rest is commentary.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com Š 2003 by Kevin J. Maroney
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
If you are reading this message on the "Comics-N-Such" message boards,
know that it has been copied onto that forum without my permission.
Michael Alan Chary
Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:49:08 -0500, Bob Hughes <BOBH...@TTLC.NET>
>wrote:
>
>>1 Jack Kirby
>>2 Will Eisner
>>3 Lou Fine
>>4 Reed Crandall
>>5 Jack Cole
>
>1. Jack Kirby
>1. Herge
>1. Osamu Tezuka
>
>The rest is commentary.
Ahem. Jack Cole is not commentary. Neither are George Herriman, Charles
Schulz or Walt Kelly.
Carl Fink
grateful (honestly) for someone telling me why they're better than,
say, Phil Foglio.
Or does "greatest" include "original and pioneering"?
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
Jabootu's Minister of Proofreading
http://www.jabootu.com
Victor Wong
"Carl Fink" <ca...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbsle85...@panix2.panix.com...
> I have nothing against any of the fine artists mentioned, but I'd be
> grateful (honestly) for someone telling me why they're better than,
> say, Phil Foglio.
Yes, Foglio is talented. But his designs are very derivative of Tex
Avery (especially in illustrating action) and he does have trouble,
expecially in his early work, organizing his art to tell the story.
Bob Hughes
wrote:
>I have nothing against any of the fine artists mentioned, but I'd be
>grateful (honestly) for someone telling me why they're better than,
>say, Phil Foglio.
>
>Or does "greatest" include "original and pioneering"?
Well what the hell do you THINK it means??!!!!
Carl Fink
"Produces really, really excellent art."
Dale Hicks
says...
> In article <crpmsv8qscp87jg27...@4ax.com>, Bob Hughes wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:44:05 +0000 (UTC), Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Or does "greatest" include "original and pioneering"?
> >
> > Well what the hell do you THINK it means??!!!!
>
> "Produces really, really excellent art."
"Having the largest mass."
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
Carl Fink
> In article <slrnbsnrko...@panix2.panix.com>, ca...@panix.com
> says...
>> In article <crpmsv8qscp87jg27...@4ax.com>, Bob Hughes wrote:
>> > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 03:44:05 +0000 (UTC), Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>Or does "greatest" include "original and pioneering"?
>> >
>> > Well what the hell do you THINK it means??!!!!
>>
>> "Produces really, really excellent art."
>
> "Having the largest mass."
Well, in that vein, "Most like Audrey Meadows." (I figure at least
Mike and Tom will understand that.)
Michael Alan Chary
Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
>I have nothing against any of the fine artists mentioned, but I'd be
>grateful (honestly) for someone telling me why they're better than,
>say, Phil Foglio.
When you discuss the superalatives of any field, you have to get into
individual attributes. If it's the top ten greatest point guards, you ask
"How does Cousy compared to Magic?" Top ten chess players? You have to
compare Lasker and Euwe. Etc. So your question cannot be answered
generally.
As for your specific example.
Foglio is a wonderful artist, but compared to the people in the top ten:
Foglio is not engaged in the correct marriage of style and subject. When
he does strips, he's got odd touches of something engaged in a longer
project. His panel flow and pacing aren't snappy enough, or his characters
don't look at one another quite right. If he's engaged in a longer
project, say, Myth Adventures, he's just a bit too cartoony to sustain the
gravitas of a longer work in such a way as to make the story quite as
satisfying as a Carl Barks or a Kirby.
>Or does "greatest" include "original and pioneering"?
Yes. But you can overcome that if you're good enough. Giffen.
Carl Fink
> When you discuss the superalatives of any field ...
Thanks, Mike.
Michael Alan Chary
Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
>In article <bqjl2l$1bp$1...@panix3.panix.com>, Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>
>> When you discuss the superalatives of any field ...
>
>Thanks, Mike.
Well, I *thought* I was being helpful...
Ralf Haring
wrote:
>In article <slrnbst71m...@panix2.panix.com>,
>Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
>>In article <bqjl2l$1bp$1...@panix3.panix.com>, Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>>
>>> When you discuss the superalatives of any field ...
>>
>>Thanks, Mike.
>
>Well, I *thought* I was being helpful...
And I thought he was thanking you...
-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon
Michael Alan Chary
Ralf Haring <ra...@duke.edu> wrote:
>On 3 Dec 2003 23:30:12 -0500, mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary)
>wrote:
>>In article <slrnbst71m...@panix2.panix.com>,
>>Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
>>>In article <bqjl2l$1bp$1...@panix3.panix.com>, Michael Alan Chary wrote:
>>>
>>>> When you discuss the superalatives of any field ...
>>>
>>>Thanks, Mike.
>>
>>Well, I *thought* I was being helpful...
>
>And I thought he was thanking you...
Carl usually says nothing when he agrees, so my immediate read of his
response was irony. Besides, he rolled overon Foglio too easily.
Carl Fink
> Carl usually says nothing when he agrees, so my immediate read of his
> response was irony. Besides, he rolled overon Foglio too easily.
Then I'm glad Ralf spoke up. I was not being ironic.
I'm aware of my lack of knowledge about art, and for that matter the
history of comic art. It was a real question.
I like Foglio's stuff a lot (I think I own most of his comics work,
barring a few issues of _Dynamo Joe_) but I wasn't seriously holding
him out as an equal of Barks or something. It was a real question.
palmer.william
"Michael Alan Chary" <mch...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bqjl2l$1bp$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> In article <slrnbsle85...@panix2.panix.com>,
I have to give a "ten best" since I cannot come up
with anything like a fair list that only gives five.
Will Eisner
Graham Ingels
Carl Barks
Alex Raymond
Reed Crandall
Jack Cole
Wally Wood
Jack Kirby
Milt Caniff
Bernie Krigstein
Greg Zywicki
>>
> Widely considered the greatest Legion of Super-Heroes story ever (it was
> written by Paul Levitz at the peak ofhispowers. Either Levitz or Stan Lee
> would be my choice for greatest team book writer ever. I'd pay real money
> to see what he would have done with JLA/Avengers.) It's available in TPB>
I would put (Walt) Simonson, Buseik, Stern, or Wolfman ahead of Lee.
Yes, really.
His dialogue stunk and you can tell, when you compare Lee's work
without Kirby vs. Kirby's without Lee, Who contributed more to plot.
Stan was definitely the driving foce at Marvel, but I don't see him as
the driving _creative_ force at all.
Simonson's F4, Stern's cosmic work, and especially Wolfman's Titans
(which owes something to Claremont, I suppose) are all great examples
of team writing.
Barring Dialogue, Claremont gets lots of points. Buseik loses a few
points for constant use of "team has collective painful bowel movement
to defeat foe" gimick (see recent example.)
Greg Zywicki
Michael Alan Chary
Greg Zywicki <gregz...@cs.com> wrote:
>mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote in message news:<bq7oo0$8pb$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
>>>
>> Widely considered the greatest Legion of Super-Heroes story ever (it was
>> written by Paul Levitz at the peak ofhispowers. Either Levitz or Stan Lee
>> would be my choice for greatest team book writer ever. I'd pay real money
>> to see what he would have done with JLA/Avengers.) It's available in TPB>
>
>I would put (Walt) Simonson, Buseik, Stern, or Wolfman ahead of Lee.
>
>Yes, really.
>
>His dialogue stunk and you can tell, when you compare Lee's work
>without Kirby vs. Kirby's without Lee, Who contributed more to plot.
>Stan was definitely the driving foce at Marvel, but I don't see him as
>the driving _creative_ force at all.
Which is why Spider-man, and Dr. Strange were such dismal failures...
palmer.william
> In article <22729440.03120...@posting.google.com>,
> Greg Zywicki <gregz...@cs.com> wrote:
> >mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote in message
news:<bq7oo0$8pb$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
> >>>
> >> Widely considered the greatest Legion of Super-Heroes story ever (it
was
> >> written by Paul Levitz at the peak ofhispowers. Either Levitz or Stan
Lee
> >> would be my choice for greatest team book writer ever. I'd pay real
money
> >> to see what he would have done with JLA/Avengers.) It's available in
TPB>
> >
> >I would put (Walt) Simonson, Buseik, Stern, or Wolfman ahead of Lee.
> >
> >Yes, really.
> >
> >His dialogue stunk and you can tell, when you compare Lee's work
> >without Kirby vs. Kirby's without Lee, Who contributed more to plot.
> >Stan was definitely the driving foce at Marvel, but I don't see him as
> >the driving _creative_ force at all.
In a way, this sort of reminds of the situation with Carl
Barks. In recent years, it has become more and more
clear that Barks could be called the leading genius
behind Disney comics. I say "leading genius" because
it would be foolish to deny that Disney has employed
many geniuses at one time or another. Even so,
it seems that the business genius, Walt, paid
the comic genius, Carl Barks, something akin to a
bag of peanuts a week for years, at least until Barks
was quite old and the company--perhaps with
somebody high up starting to feel guilty--gave him a
bit more in the way of remuneration. Yet, for decades,
most children growing up loving those wonderful Disney
comics thought that Walt drew them, and they never
even heard the name Carl Barks.
Mark Evanier
<palmer....@sbcglobal.net> posted:
>In a way, this sort of reminds of the situation with Carl
>Barks. In recent years, it has become more and more
>clear that Barks could be called the leading genius
>behind Disney comics. I say "leading genius" because
>it would be foolish to deny that Disney has employed
>many geniuses at one time or another. Even so,
>it seems that the business genius, Walt, paid
>the comic genius, Carl Barks, something akin to a
>bag of peanuts a week for years, at least until Barks
>was quite old and the company--perhaps with
>somebody high up starting to feel guilty--gave him a
>bit more in the way of remuneration. Yet, for decades,
>most children growing up loving those wonderful Disney
>comics thought that Walt drew them, and they never
>even heard the name Carl Barks.
ME: Actually, on the work for which Carl Barks is best known, he
didn't work for Disney at all and Walt had nothing to do with how much
he was paid. Barks was employed by a wholly separate company named
Western Printing and Lithography which produced the contents of and
printed Dell Comics, and later Gold Key Comics. Barks did work for
the Disney Studio for a time writing gags for Donald Duck cartoons but
he left that job when Western hired him to draw comic books.
I would agree that he was paid "peanuts" but only in the same way that
everyone who wrote and drew comic books in those decades was paid
poorly. Barks had a contract with Western that actually paid him
somewhat better than most others in comics and gave him things like a
pension and health insurance that were denied to other geniuses. I
still don't think he received what he was worth, but it wasn't because
of Walt and it wasn't unique to Barks. (And by the way, his
remuneration did not change as you describe, either.)
----------------------------------------------------
www.newsfromme.com (Mark Evanier's daily weblog)
www.POVonline.com (Mark Evanier's not-daily website)
Bob Hughes
>mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote in message news:<bq7oo0$8pb$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
>>>
>> Widely considered the greatest Legion of Super-Heroes story ever (it was
>> written by Paul Levitz at the peak ofhispowers. Either Levitz or Stan Lee
>> would be my choice for greatest team book writer ever. I'd pay real money
>> to see what he would have done with JLA/Avengers.) It's available in TPB>
>
>I would put (Walt) Simonson, Buseik, Stern, or Wolfman ahead of Lee.
>
>Yes, really.
>
>His dialogue stunk and you can tell, when you compare Lee's work
>without Kirby vs. Kirby's without Lee, Who contributed more to plot.
>Stan was definitely the driving foce at Marvel, but I don't see him as
>the driving _creative_ force at all.
Depends on what you mean by driving creative force. And where you
chronal vantage point is. In his time, 1960-68 or so, Stan was hands
down the best dialogue writer in comics. Just compare his stuff with
the guys at the other companies who tried to imitate him.
A look at what was going on at Marvel in 1961 shows that Stan was the
driving creative force. It was Stan who decided he'd had enough
writing crap and wanted to do comics for adults. It was Stan who
decided that Marvel would dare publish Amazing ADULT Fantasy and who
squirrled Spider-Man into the book despite the opposition of his
publisher. It was Stan who wrote the first story about misunderstood,
hated and feared MUTANTS with super-powers (in AAF). It was Stan who
decided you could be a super-hero and still have an attitude problem,
as evidenced by the earliest issues of FF and Spider-Man, which have
very strong thematic resemblances despite the extremely different
artistic temperments of Steve and Jack.
Later, Stan sort of sat back and let Steve, Jack and Johnny Romita do
the heavy lifting while he did the saleman routine, but I think the
evidence is pretty convincing that Stan created Marvel.
>
>Simonson's F4, Stern's cosmic work, and especially Wolfman's Titans
>(which owes something to Claremont, I suppose) are all great examples
>of team writing.
>
>Barring Dialogue, Claremont gets lots of points. Buseik loses a few
>points for constant use of "team has collective painful bowel movement
>to defeat foe" gimick (see recent example.)
>
>Greg Zywicki
Bob Hughes
Who's Whose at DC Comics? Creator Credits and art samples from DC's Golden and Silver Age Comics, especially Superman and Batman profiled at:
http://www.supermanartists.comics.org/superart/superart.html
"Information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom; wisdom is not truth; truth is not beauty; beauty is not love; love is not music. Music is best."
Frank Zappa
palmer.william
"Mark Evanier" <ma...@povonline.com> wrote in message
news:fp62tv4mr06m3ttf8...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 22:36:20 GMT, "palmer.william"
> <palmer....@sbcglobal.net> posted:
>
> >In a way, this sort of reminds of the situation with Carl
> >Barks. In recent years, it has become more and more
> >clear that Barks could be called the leading genius
> >behind Disney comics. I say "leading genius" because
> >it would be foolish to deny that Disney has employed
> >many geniuses at one time or another. Even so,
> >it seems that the business genius, Walt, paid
> >the comic genius, Carl Barks, something akin to a
> >bag of peanuts a week for years, at least until Barks
> >was quite old and the company--perhaps with
> >somebody high up starting to feel guilty--gave him a
> >bit more in the way of remuneration. Yet, for decades,
> >most children growing up loving those wonderful Disney
> >comics thought that Walt drew them, and they never
> >even heard the name Carl Barks.
>
> ME: Actually, on the work for which Carl Barks is best known, he
> didn't work for Disney at all and Walt had nothing to do with how much
> he was paid. Barks was employed by a wholly separate company named
> Western Printing and Lithography which produced the contents of and
> printed Dell Comics, and later Gold Key Comics. Barks did work for
> the Disney Studio for a time writing gags for Donald Duck cartoons but
> he left that job when Western hired him to draw comic books.
While I hope you won't think me impertinent for citing a
reference work which has an entry for you, according to
Duin and Richardson's COMICS BETWEEN THE
PANELS, Barks worked for Disney from 1935 to 1942,
when he moved over to Western. In my view, the
PANELS entry suggests he had a great deal to do
with developing Donald Duck into the popular figure
that gained such a powerful place in the movie goer's
consciousness. So, while I agree that today Barks
is famous for his comic book work at Western, perhaps
he SHOULD also be famous for (quoting PANELS)
helping "turn Donald Duck into the company's premiere
attraction," so maybe I was so far off in suggesting that
Barks is the premiere genius of Disney art. Did the
fact that he worked "in the story department" mean that
he did no art for Disney during the '35 to '42 period?
I am sure you are correct in your facts, Mr. Evanier, though
it seems to me you may underemphasize the importance
of Bark's work during those early Disney years. It
still strikes me as a bit sad that so many children grew
up thinking that Walt Disney drew all those wonderful Carl
Barks' comics. I suppose it would have been a bit much
to expect Disney to put a disclaimer on Barks'
illustrated comics, admitting that Barks did the artwork.
It was certainly to Disney's financial advantage to foster
the impression in the mind of the general public that he
was the sole creator of all the entities known as "Disney
characters." My view is that while legally, Donald Duck
is of course a "Disney character," artistically, he is a
Carl Barks character, because Barks successfully
depicted and developed so many of the traits that
people generally associate with Donald Duck.
Mark Evanier
<palmer....@sbcglobal.net> posted:
>While I hope you won't think me impertinent for citing a
>reference work which has an entry for you, according to
>Duin and Richardson's COMICS BETWEEN THE
>PANELS, Barks worked for Disney from 1935 to 1942,
>when he moved over to Western. In my view, the
>PANELS entry suggests he had a great deal to do
>with developing Donald Duck into the popular figure
>that gained such a powerful place in the movie goer's
>consciousness. So, while I agree that today Barks
>is famous for his comic book work at Western, perhaps
>he SHOULD also be famous for (quoting PANELS)
>helping "turn Donald Duck into the company's premiere
>attraction," so maybe I was so far off in suggesting that
>Barks is the premiere genius of Disney art. Did the
>fact that he worked "in the story department" mean that
>he did no art for Disney during the '35 to '42 period?
ME: Barks was a storyman, meaning that he came up with gags and did
rough sketches to illustrate them. I've never heard anyone single him
out as being especially important in the success of Donald in
cartoons. There were certainly quite a few others who contributed as
much if not more.
>I am sure you are correct in your facts, Mr. Evanier, though
>it seems to me you may underemphasize the importance
>of Bark's work during those early Disney years. It
>still strikes me as a bit sad that so many children grew
>up thinking that Walt Disney drew all those wonderful Carl
>Barks' comics. I suppose it would have been a bit much
>to expect Disney to put a disclaimer on Barks'
>illustrated comics, admitting that Barks did the artwork.
>It was certainly to Disney's financial advantage to foster
>the impression in the mind of the general public that he
>was the sole creator of all the entities known as "Disney
>characters." My view is that while legally, Donald Duck
>is of course a "Disney character," artistically, he is a
>Carl Barks character, because Barks successfully
>depicted and developed so many of the traits that
>people generally associate with Donald Duck.
ME: I think Donald Duck is a Carl Barks character in the Carl Barks
comics. He was a non-Barks character in his appearances in most other
venues, some of which were pretty successful. Actually, I never felt
the Donald Duck who was so popular in the cartoons was the same Donald
Duck that Carl was drawing in the comics. At least, I never imagined
that Clarence Nash duck voice when I read dialogue Barks wrote.
The issue of credits on Disney comics is a little murky in that a lot
of the folks who wrote and drew the stories didn't want credits and
were just as happy to labor in anonymity. It wasn't that they weren't
proud of the work; they just didn't want the attention. They should
certainly have had the opportunity to get credit if they'd wanted it,
however.
I agree that it was a bit dishonest to state or imply that Walt drew
the newspaper strips, but the comic books rarely said that. They
didn't tell you who did them. Even as a very young kid, I never
though Walt was sitting there all day drawing issues of CHIP 'N' DALE.
I thought he was out in Anaheim with a hammer, fixing the rides at
Disneyland.
Greg Zywicki
> On 5 Dec 2003 07:40:16 -0800, gregz...@cs.com (Greg Zywicki) wrote:
>
> >mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote in message news:<bq7oo0$8pb$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
> >>>
> >> Widely considered the greatest Legion of Super-Heroes story ever (it was
> >> written by Paul Levitz at the peak ofhispowers. Either Levitz or Stan Lee
> >> would be my choice for greatest team book writer ever. I'd pay real money
> >> to see what he would have done with JLA/Avengers.) It's available in TPB>
> >
> >I would put (Walt) Simonson, Buseik, Stern, or Wolfman ahead of Lee.
> >
> >Yes, really.
> >
> >His dialogue stunk and you can tell, when you compare Lee's work
> >without Kirby vs. Kirby's without Lee, Who contributed more to plot.
> >Stan was definitely the driving foce at Marvel, but I don't see him as
> >the driving _creative_ force at all.
>
> Depends on what you mean by driving creative force. And where you
> chronal vantage point is. In his time, 1960-68 or so, Stan was hands
> down the best dialogue writer in comics.
And Bobby Vinton was hands down the best polka singer of his
generation.
The problem I have with Stan's dialogue isn't that it's corny - of
course it seems corny to us now. The problem I have is that it was
clearly auto-generated. I got Essential Avengers from the library
recently. I couldn't finish it, it was so horrible. I recognized
most of the dialogue from things Ben Grimm or Johny Storm had said.
No examples spring to mind, but I've found that in reading the
essentials, all the patter is interchangeable across all the books. I
can't vote for him as "greatest writer" because of this.
> A look at what was going on at Marvel in 1961 shows that Stan was the
> driving creative force. It was Stan who decided he'd had enough
> writing crap and wanted to do comics for adults. It was Stan who
> decided that Marvel would dare publish Amazing ADULT Fantasy and who
> squirrled Spider-Man into the book despite the opposition of his
> publisher. It was Stan who wrote the first story about misunderstood,
> hated and feared MUTANTS with super-powers (in AAF). It was Stan who
> decided you could be a super-hero and still have an attitude problem,
> as evidenced by the earliest issues of FF and Spider-Man, which have
> very strong thematic resemblances despite the extremely different
> artistic temperments of Steve and Jack.
Absolutely, and I'm forced to modify my assesment. He was certainly
the vision man.
>
> Later, Stan sort of sat back and let Steve, Jack and Johnny Romita do
> the heavy lifting while he did the saleman routine, but I think the
> evidence is pretty convincing that Stan created Marvel.
> >
Greg Zywicki
Greg Zywicki
> In article <22729440.03120...@posting.google.com>,
> Greg Zywicki <gregz...@cs.com> wrote:
> >mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote in message news:<bq7oo0$8pb$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
> >>>
> >> Widely considered the greatest Legion of Super-Heroes story ever (it was
> >> written by Paul Levitz at the peak ofhispowers. Either Levitz or Stan Lee
> >> would be my choice for greatest team book writer ever. I'd pay real money
> >> to see what he would have done with JLA/Avengers.) It's available in TPB>
> >
> >I would put (Walt) Simonson, Buseik, Stern, or Wolfman ahead of Lee.
> >
> >Yes, really.
> >
> >His dialogue stunk and you can tell, when you compare Lee's work
> >without Kirby vs. Kirby's without Lee, Who contributed more to plot.
> >Stan was definitely the driving foce at Marvel, but I don't see him as
> >the driving _creative_ force at all.
>
> Which is why Spider-man, and Dr. Strange were such dismal failures...
Dr. Strange was a soaring sucess?
More to point, we were talking about Team books. The only good team
book connected with Stan is Fantastic 4. Early Avengers and X-men
were both pretty bad.
Greg Zywicki
Greatest _individual_ in comics? Yeah, I'd vote for Stan for that
title.
Michael Alan Chary
Greg Zywicki <gregz...@cs.com> wrote:
>mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote in message news:<bqqfsh$66f$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
>> In article <22729440.03120...@posting.google.com>,
>> Greg Zywicki <gregz...@cs.com> wrote:
>> >mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote in message news:<bq7oo0$8pb$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
>> >>>
>> >> Widely considered the greatest Legion of Super-Heroes story ever (it was
>> >> written by Paul Levitz at the peak ofhispowers. Either Levitz or Stan Lee
>> >> would be my choice for greatest team book writer ever. I'd pay real money
>> >> to see what he would have done with JLA/Avengers.) It's available in TPB>
>> >
>> >I would put (Walt) Simonson, Buseik, Stern, or Wolfman ahead of Lee.
>> >
>> >Yes, really.
>> >
>> >His dialogue stunk and you can tell, when you compare Lee's work
>> >without Kirby vs. Kirby's without Lee, Who contributed more to plot.
>> >Stan was definitely the driving foce at Marvel, but I don't see him as
>> >the driving _creative_ force at all.
>>
>> Which is why Spider-man, and Dr. Strange were such dismal failures...
>
>Dr. Strange was a soaring sucess?
It lasted a good long while.
>More to point, we were talking about Team books. The only good team
>book connected with Stan is Fantastic 4. Early Avengers and X-men
>were both pretty bad.
Early Avengers was classic. And also had Mr.Kirby, as did X-men. Anyway, I
don't see much pointindefending Stan Lee. Sort of like defending Spencer
Tracy as an actor or Michael Jordan as a basketball player. If you want to
disagree, go right ahead.
Greg Zywicki
> In article <22729440.03120...@posting.google.com>,
> Greg Zywicki <gregz...@cs.com> wrote:
> >mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote in message news:<bqqfsh$66f$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
> >> In article <22729440.03120...@posting.google.com>,
> >> Greg Zywicki <gregz...@cs.com> wrote:
> >> >mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote in message news:<bq7oo0$8pb$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
> >> >>>
> >> >> Widely considered the greatest Legion of Super-Heroes story ever (it was
> >> >> written by Paul Levitz at the peak ofhispowers. Either Levitz or Stan Lee
> >> >> would be my choice for greatest team book writer ever. I'd pay real money
> >> >> to see what he would have done with JLA/Avengers.) It's available in TPB>
> >> >
> >> >I would put (Walt) Simonson, Buseik, Stern, or Wolfman ahead of Lee.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, really.
> >> >
> >> >His dialogue stunk and you can tell, when you compare Lee's work
> >> >without Kirby vs. Kirby's without Lee, Who contributed more to plot.
> >> >Stan was definitely the driving foce at Marvel, but I don't see him as
> >> >the driving _creative_ force at all.
> >>
> >> Which is why Spider-man, and Dr. Strange were such dismal failures...
> >
> >Dr. Strange was a soaring sucess?
>
> It lasted a good long while.
>
an Ant Man who made it story than a Green Lantern story.
> >More to point, we were talking about Team books. The only good team
> >book connected with Stan is Fantastic 4. Early Avengers and X-men
> >were both pretty bad.
>
> Early Avengers was classic.
I just read it a few weeks ago. It was interesting for a few issues.
Then Kirby left and it was pretty lame.
I read essential FF's and time stops. I read essential Spidey and the
world is young. I read essential Avengers or essential X-men and the
only thing that happens temporally is I become aware of time being
wasted.
>Anyway, I don't see much pointindefending Stan Lee. Sort of like
defending >Spencer
> Tracy as an actor or Michael Jordan as a basketball player. If you want to
> disagree, go right ahead.
Jordan wasn't much of a team player, and should have quite while he
was on top. Apt comparison.
Greg Zywicki
Michael Alan Chary
>> >> Which is why Spider-man, and Dr. Strange were such dismal failures...
>> >
>> >Dr. Strange was a soaring sucess?
>>
>> It lasted a good long while.
>>
>It's way off the radar screen of the non-comics public. He's more of
>an Ant Man who made it story than a Green Lantern story.
Um, there was a movie and everything.
>
>> >More to point, we were talking about Team books. The only good team
>> >book connected with Stan is Fantastic 4. Early Avengers and X-men
>> >were both pretty bad.
>>
>> Early Avengers was classic.
>
>I just read it a few weeks ago. It was interesting for a few issues.
>Then Kirby left and it was pretty lame.
So, basically we are left with your taste as the arbiter, except that you
have none apparently. Avengers has been a going concern for decades.
Dismissing that because you, personally, didn't like it after Kirby left
is stupid.
>I read essential FF's and time stops. I read essential Spidey and the
>world is young. I read essential Avengers or essential X-men and the
>only thing that happens temporally is I become aware of time being
>wasted.
See, this is your taste. That has nothing to do with
objective,demonstrable reality. Stan Lee wrote issue after issue of
classic comics with many different artists.
>
>>Anyway, I don't see much pointindefending Stan Lee. Sort of like
>defending >Spencer
>> Tracy as an actor or Michael Jordan as a basketball player. If you want to
>> disagree, go right ahead.
>
>Jordan wasn't much of a team player, and should have quite while he
>was on top. Apt comparison.
Six championships, mofo.
Mark Modrall
mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
> Early Avengers was classic. And also had Mr.Kirby, as did X-men.
And you have to respect the creative guts to take a team book around
issue #10 and say "We're taking out all of the big guns and replacing
them with 2nd stringers. Enjoy.". They didn't try that with JLA for
years, and Stan made it work.
-mark
--
Put the .net on the .cod to send email
Greg Zywicki
> In article <22729440.03120...@posting.google.com>,
> Greg Zywicki <gregz...@cs.com> wrote:
> >mch...@panix.com (Michael Alan Chary) wrote in message news:<br21pq$qki$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
> >> >> Which is why Spider-man, and Dr. Strange were such dismal failures...
> >> >
> >> >Dr. Strange was a soaring sucess?
> >>
> >> It lasted a good long while.
> >>
> >It's way off the radar screen of the non-comics public. He's more of
> >an Ant Man who made it story than a Green Lantern story.
>
>
> Um, there was a movie and everything.
Yeah, they make lots of movies. The Phantom movie did better.
I like Dr. Strange, but he isn't Brad Pit or Johny Depp. He's closer
to Wm. H Macy: Great and somewhat recognizable, with a long history,
but ultimately unrecognized by the greater public.
>
> >
> >> >More to point, we were talking about Team books. The only good team
> >> >book connected with Stan is Fantastic 4. Early Avengers and X-men
> >> >were both pretty bad.
> >>
> >> Early Avengers was classic.
> >
> >I just read it a few weeks ago. It was interesting for a few issues.
> >Then Kirby left and it was pretty lame.
>
> So, basically we are left with your taste as the arbiter, except that you
> have none apparently. Avengers has been a going concern for decades.
> Dismissing that because you, personally, didn't like it after Kirby left
> is stupid.
>
Avengers is a great and storied franchise. I don't deny that. Much
of the groundwork that made it great (Zemo and Kang and Immortus and
the Masters of Evil) was laid in these early issues. The stories
themselves? Let's look at the Masters of Evil matchup:
Masters of Evil: "We can beat the Avengers because we have cool
high-tech gadgets."
Avengers: "We can stop these guys."
Much fightings. Many "I will use my power on you!" "I counter your
power with this ability" exchanges. Then the avengers prevail and
Zemo bugs out.
It was a lame story with flat dialogue. The basic ideas were great in
their silver-age way.
Stan's stories were best when he stayed true to his themes: things
like family squables and worlds turned on their heads and unapreciated
heroes. These were great innovations. His worst stories were the
highly conventional "Let's put X vs. Y in the arena" stories. After
slogging through about three of these in a row, I gave up on Essential
Avengers.
Sometimes Stan wrote great team stories. Sometimes he wrote lousy
team stories. So, in a vote for Greatest Team Writer, I would vote
for someone besides Stan. He would make the top ten, and perhaps the
top five. But I wouldn't call him the greatest.
And yes, this does hinge primarily on my taste. Is that so strange in
a thread that was started by someone putting Alex Ross at the top of
Olympus?
>
> >I read essential FF's and time stops. I read essential Spidey and the
> >world is young. I read essential Avengers or essential X-men and the
> >only thing that happens temporally is I become aware of time being
> >wasted.
>
> See, this is your taste. That has nothing to do with
> objective,demonstrable reality. Stan Lee wrote issue after issue of
> classic comics with many different artists.
>
Maybe he simply had a problem changing gears when he changed artists.
In every Essentials compilation I've read, a change in artist is a
speedbump. Well, perhaps the change from Ditko to Romita wasn't (if
that's the exact shift. Spidey isn't my Bailiwick) but that's not a
teambook and not Germaine to the discussion.
Could you do me a favor and lighten up on me? I think I've gotten in
over my head a bit. We've wandered into what probably should be an
academic discussion, with some serious research required. You're
probably better equipped for that than I.
But I still don't think Stan is the Greatest Team Writer Ever.
>
>
> >
> >>Anyway, I don't see much pointindefending Stan Lee. Sort of like
> defending >Spencer
> >> Tracy as an actor or Michael Jordan as a basketball player. If you want to
> >> disagree, go right ahead.
> >
> >Jordan wasn't much of a team player, and should have quite while he
> >was on top. Apt comparison.
>
>
> Six championships, mofo.
Washington Wizards. But he was great, wasn't he?
Greg Zywicki
Greg Zywicki
> >>Anyway, I don't see much pointindefending Stan Lee. Sort of like
> defending >Spencer
> >> Tracy as an actor or Michael Jordan as a basketball player. If you want to
> >> disagree, go right ahead.
> >
> >Jordan wasn't much of a team player, and should have quite while he
> >was on top. Apt comparison.
>
>
> Six championships, mofo.
PS - plus, I'm not a basketball guy, and I'm in the Detroit area. I
probably have a distorted view of Jordan.
Greg Zywicki
palmer.william
"Greg Zywicki" <gregz...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:22729440.03120...@posting.google.com...
> Bob Hughes <BOBH...@TTLC.NET> wrote in message
news:<hq72tvsohs4qn1o1v...@4ax.com>...
> > On 5 Dec 2003 07:40:16 -0800, gregz...@cs.com (Greg Zywicki) wrote:
One thing that becomes clear in looking at a typical
list of comic book readers "5 best" is that being called
a "great," has, in the minds of many, at least, much to
do with being identified with a certain character, which
gets into luck as much as talent. Considering those
frequently picked, in some cases the artist created
the character from scratch, while in other cases--such
as with Carl Bark's Donald Duck--the artist took a
figure created by someone else and developed it
into a great comic book character. It seems to me,
however, there are a a number of comic book artists
who deserve to called great, but generally are not,
because they never were strongly identified with any
specific character, be it a superhero, a funny animal
figure, or a sf character like Alex Raymond's Flash
Gordon, or with any specific comic book, such
as MAD.
William Gaines, by crediting his artists, insured
that a number of greats who are not strongly
identified with any one character would achieve
fame despite that "handicap." On the other
hand, Gaines' could not hire everyone, and there
are a number of great illustrators who--at least
in my view--could be called "great" even though
they have not been identified with any one
character.
Of course, some artists became famous for
being identified with one type of comic, such
as L. B. Cole with his almost psychedelically
colorful comic covers for Star Publishing in
the early Fifties, or Matt Baker, with his
awesome good girl art for Fox.
Yet, some artists of immense talent never
became strongly identified with any character
or any comic. One of the most deserving of
them is Everett Raymond Kinstler. I have
seen samples of his work here and there,
and his talent was absolutely stunning. Yet
you rarely see his name mentioned in this group,
because he seemed to have done a lot of
freelancing and was never strongly identified
with any one character or comic.
A couple of other greats in my view are Lou
Cameron and Rudy Palais. Their best
known work was for Classics Illustrated.
Palais is not even given an entry in
COMICS BETWEEN THE PANELS, yet
I still maintain that he did a very powerful
job with CRIME AND PUNISHMENT.
While it wasn't really Dostoyevski, the
result was a fairly powerful, almost
surreal nightmare that indeed captured
some of the atmosphere of the author's
work. Trying to do a creditable job with
one of the world's great novels would be
a daunting task for most comic book
illustrators, and it is hard for me to imagine
anyone doing a better job with this novel
than Palais. I would call his effort
expressionistic, and--though I have found
nobody who will agree with me on this so far--
it seems to me that Palais' effort here was
fully as praiseworthy, for a comic, as Wiene's
"The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" was to film.
Maybe I am the only one on the planet who
thinks Palais did a suberb job with CRIME
AND PUNISHMENT...Lou Cameron did
powerful work in translating classics such
as DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, THE
TIME MACHINE, and WAR OF THE
WORLDS to the comic medium.
Do other readers have any candidates for
a list of great comic book artists who have
remained undeservedly obscure because they
were never stongly identified with any one
character or comic book?
Greg Zywicki
> "Greg Zywicki" <gregz...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:22729440.03120...@posting.google.com...
> > Bob Hughes <BOBH...@TTLC.NET> wrote in message
> news:<hq72tvsohs4qn1o1v...@4ax.com>...
> > > On 5 Dec 2003 07:40:16 -0800, gregz...@cs.com (Greg Zywicki) wrote:
I'd like to make it clear that Palmer (or William), and not I, wrote
this wonderful post. I am nowhere near this erudite on the matter.
Michael Lehmeier
>
> "Greg Zywicki" <gregz...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:22729440.03120...@posting.google.com...
>> Bob Hughes <BOBH...@TTLC.NET> wrote in message
> news:<hq72tvsohs4qn1o1v...@4ax.com>...
>> > On 5 Dec 2003 07:40:16 -0800, gregz...@cs.com (Greg Zywicki) wrote:
>
> One thing that becomes clear in looking at a typical
> list of comic book readers "5 best" is that being called
> a "great," has, in the minds of many, at least, much to
> do with being identified with a certain character, which
> gets into luck as much as talent. Considering those
> frequently picked, in some cases the artist created
> the character from scratch, while in other cases--such
> as with Carl Bark's Donald Duck--the artist took a
> figure created by someone else and developed it
> into a great comic book character. It seems to me,
> however, there are a a number of comic book artists
> who deserve to called great, but generally are not,
> because they never were strongly identified with any
> specific character, be it a superhero, a funny animal
> figure, or a sf character like Alex Raymond's Flash
> Gordon, or with any specific comic book, such
> as MAD.
You know, this reminds me of a discussion I had with my father
concerning the value of art, be it movies, written or painted.
My opinion:
If the artist can't be identified with a series, brand, character or
such, he indeed does not deserve the credit "greatest artist".
He can still be a great artist, but most likely not influential, and
this is IMO what sets apart "great artist" from "greatest artist".
There is only one example to the contrary I have found so far:
Milo Manara
He has been highly influential for a lot of artist and so far didn't
have any series, brand or character that he can be easily identified
with.
But an uncanny style.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<m_leh...@gmx.de> wrote:
>There is only one example to the contrary I have found so far:
>Milo Manara
>
>He has been highly influential for a lot of artist and so far didn't
>have any series, brand or character that he can be easily identified
>with.
Butterscotch.
I mean, yeah, he's done a zillion different things, but that's the
series I instantly think of when you mention Manara.
Michael Lehmeier
Indeed, and that's the point.
I don't even know Butterscotch.
Everybody seems to be mention another of Manara's works as the one they
instantly think of.
Mine is the the Giuseppe Bergmann series.
A friend of mine mentioned Click!
It's not Foster's Prince Valiant or Uderzo's Asterix or Herge's Tintin.
Greg Zywicki
> You know, this reminds me of a discussion I had with my father
> concerning the value of art, be it movies, written or painted.
>
> My opinion:
> If the artist can't be identified with a series, brand, character or
> such, he indeed does not deserve the credit "greatest artist".
>
> He can still be a great artist, but most likely not influential, and
> this is IMO what sets apart "great artist" from "greatest artist".
>
Surely you're talking about current Pop culture. Otherwise:
Until the toothpaste came out, Rembrandt was an unknown hack.
You wouldn't think Citroen would be the corporation to gain an artist
recognition in the US, but without it, who would know about Picasso?
I have to constantly champion underecognized greats like Armstrong,
Debussy, and Mozart (there's a Mozart Chocolate, but that's only big
in Europe. The movie only muddled people's understanding.)
And thank goodness for Shania Twain. How else would people be aware
of that underground novel about a boy named Huckleberry. (Ok, that
one actually conforms to your theory.)
Even then, your theory doesn't hold for pop music (Leonard Cohen,
Robbie Robertson(?), Wayne Shorter, Orbital, Lucinda Williams, MC5)
Greg Zywicki