# 294: What'll Remain 'Great' Once We're Long Gone?
.........................
I've recently blogged about which years on the Rolling Stone 'Greatest' list saw the most albums released (here), and which albums fell out of Rock 'N' Roll heaven (here). This time I'm proposing a way to make the list better.
First a few observations:
* A 'greatest' list is an attempt to answer the question: What is best. That, of course, is a bit ridiculous, since music appeals to us depending on our mood. But once you're on a path to 'greatness', there remain only a handful of ways to measure 'the best': face-to-face fandom (ticket sales), indirect fandom (recordings sold), popular acclaim (everyone votes), or critical acclaim (professionals vote).
* The Rolling Stone list is a "professionals vote" vehicle. The magazine selected several hundred industry insiders, and asked for a 'top 50' studio albums list from each.
* Why is this the best way forward? Because the desire to see a performance face-to-face, or to purchase a recent recording, or to vote in a fan poll, can be driven by simple, in-the-moment impulse: "Does she really shake it?", "That light show roooccckkked", even "He knows what it's like to be me". These reasons to listen may or may not have anything to do with whether the music itself will be admired in 100 years. Often, musical impulse has a lot to do with the art of the con job (song titles, for example, become "Wild Sexy Dollah", with the song itself otherwise derivative).
* And, of course, professionals are only partly removed from this same subjectivity. Googling for a discussion of the Rolling Stone list, I read of one insider who admitted to tossing out the usual suspects (Beatles, Dylan, Stones) to showcase lesser knowns (The Beastie Boys, I believe, were at #1 on his list). This is certainly celebrating one's own aural journey, but isn't there a throwing-up-one's-hands element involved ("At least I know what I like"), and isn't this but a step above the con?
* Professionals have their sympathies as well ("Let's be inclusive, you guys"), which is yet another step above the con, and just one step below our question: What's best? What'll still be played in 100 years?
* To answer that, I would submit, requires something a bit more than top 50s from an inclusive list of industry insiders. And there is a way to get that done, believe it or not. So, here's my proposal:
Make It A Contest
1. First, plan on a recurring update (maybe every five years).
2. Second, ask for two separate top 50 lists. One for what speaks to the present, and the second, for what'll be considered best in 50 years.
3. The insiders polled would also be asked to list ten of their peers who they feel have the best judgement for IDing future 'greats'.
4. Among those top ten lists, the 100 whose names appear on the most lists (out of 300-400 insiders) become the core-100, and have their All-Time lists used to generate a second top-500 list: 'All-Time Greatest'. They would also be taking part in an on-going contest to see whose judgement proves the most accurate.
5. Voting on these two tracks would thus give us a 'What speaks to Now' list (perhaps updated every year), as well as an 'All-time greatest' list (perhaps every five years).
6. With each five year update, the core-100 would ID their most accurate predictor (defined as most albums still among the top 50, compared to five years ago), and she/he would receive commensurate recognition (as well as automatic inclusion in the next 5-year core-100.
Two lists not only allow voters an outlet for their sympathies ("What about Hawaiian music?" or "I'm so tired of hearing those songs; I'm picking something fresh."), but focus on the partially ignored question: What does speak to our times?" This will mean a good many albums that deserve greater recognition (so maybe: Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums To Hear Right Now).
Meanwhile, the core-100, the most discerning music professionals as voted by their peers--and who else would know--have a chance to be heard, minus the less experienced, and less serious hangers-on.
Would this give us the definitive All-Time Greatest? It might come a little bit closer.
No comments:
Post a Comment