From: dmb@xbar.ai.mit.edu (David Baggett)
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc
Subject: Ray Shea Goes Ballistic (was Re: Top 10 bands of all time)
Date: 18 Nov 1992 23:21:17 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: xbar.ai.mit.edu

In article <4189@unisql.UUCP> ray@unisql.UUCP (Ray Shea) writes:
>In article <cubsfan.721884499@camelot> cubsfan@camelot.bradley.edu (Michael Silverman) writes:
>>Bob Marley & the Wailers were excellent...I own Legend (greatest
>>hits) and enjoy it immensly, but I do not think they are one of
>>the top 10 bands of all time.  
>
>You are hardly qualified to be the judge of that if all you own is _Legend_.
>You still haven't explained to me why the band who merely "introduced"
>reggae to pop audiences is more deserving of Top 10 status than any of
>the bands who actually *created* reggae.

Just for the sake of argument, who, exactly, do *you* think is
qualified to choose 10 bands as "the best?"  I hope you're not going to
suggest that *your* musical knowldege is broad enough to do that.  And
if you have a problem with the basic concept, why involve yourself in
the discussion at all?

Point two (for the sake of argument):  Who ever said you should rank
bands in order of their contribution?  And, for that matter, their
contribution to *what*?  It certainly is possible (and common) that the
people who invent a form do not exploit the form to its greatest
potential.  Being first isn't the same as being best.  So I don't find
it inherently unreasonable that someone would rate The Police higher
than Bob Marley et al, even though there is an admitted chain of
influence between them that puts The Wailers earlier.

>Next you'll be telling me that Elvis was greater than Muddy Waters and
>Little Richard and Chuck Berry and Big Mama Thornton...and...and...and...

So what would be wrong with that?  Do you have a problem with someone
saying "Shakespeare is in my list of top 10 writers" without putting
Chaucer on the list, even though he laid the foundation for
Shakespeare's later work?  Personally, I'd have no problem putting
Shakespeare above Chaucer.  Quality of art is not the same as
contribution to the genre.

>Oh, excuse me.  I read the subject "Top 10 Bands of All Time" and figured
>you were going to try to defend your reasons *why* these are the top 10
>bands of all time.  Instead, I find out you meant to type "Michael
>Silverman's Favorite 10 Bands", an article I probably wouldn't have
>even read, since I don't know who you are and could give two shits about
>your taste in music.

If it's going to make you furious to read such posts you probably
shouldn't take such obvious flame-bait as "Subject: Top 10 Bands
EVER".  It could equally be argued that no one knows who you are, nor
..., just because *you're* a faceless Usenet poster.  Hopefully we can
all get away from reacting to people as though they were disembodied
opinions, waiting to be mercilessly torn to shreds.

>>becaus if you did, you would know that for the
>>*rock* genre, they are as good as it gets. 
>
>Sorry, that's a matter of opinion; further, it's an opinion which I have not
>yet found to be held by anybody with sufficiently broad musical interests
>to make their opinions worthwhile (to me, anyway).

First of all, given the fact that you've said little about your own
musical exposure in this thread, you shouldn't expect any one else to
view *your* opinions as worthwhile either (to us, anyway).

Second, how do you define "sufficiently broad?"  I'm quite sure that
I'd fit into your little category and I don't find the original
poster's statement to be patently ludicrous.  The guys are good
musicians.  This is obvious when you watch Neil Peart play one of his
ridiculous solos, or see Geddy Lee play a synth line with foot pedals
while simultanesouly singing and fingering a complex baseline.  Alex
Lifeson's solo on "Limelight" still strikes me as one of the most
beautiful in rock music -- his *control* of the instrument is exquisite.

They're pretentious and showy, yes, but that doesn't make them any less
competent musicians.  The same applies to Yes, Pink Floyd, and all
those other Masters of Pretention.

>How would you compare
>Rush to, say, the Velvet Underground, or James Brown, or Pere Ubu, or 
>Big Star, or the Thirteenth Floor Elevators, or ZZ Top, or Can, or
>Sly & the Family Stone, or Parliament Funkadelic?  And what criteria are
>you using in your comparisons?  

I'd say their playing ability is certainly more obvious than Lou
Reed's, who tends to restrict his own playing to trivial strummed folk
guitar chords, but look, what are you really asking?  They're a good
band, and so are all the other bands you mentioned.  They've all
contributed to the world of music in significant ways.  Is that a
favorable comparison for Rush?  What criteria are *you* using for
*your* comparisons, and upon which base your vitriolic attack on
anything that moves in this stupid thread?

Your claim that Rush can't hold a candle to jazz musicians in terms of
playing skill is dubious at best.  In terms of compositional ability,
fine, you can argue for the rest of your life about whether rock music
in general has any compositional validity.  But Peart's work on
percussion is respected across genres.  Whether or not you like their
music (which I do, though I am hardly a disciple, and yes, I know that
Neil Peart doesn't have a bloody Ph.D.), you'll have a hard time
convincing people that they can't play their instruments as well as any
other musicians.  (And don't put your foot in your mouth and ask if
I've ever listened to any jazz.)

Dave Baggett
--
dmb@ai.mit.edu           MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory                  
ADVENTIONS: interactive fiction (text adventures) for the 90's!
dmb@ai.mit.edu *** Compu$erve: 76440,2671 *** GEnie: ADVENTIONS
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc