From: ray@unisql.UUCP (Ray Shea)
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc
Subject: Re: Ray Shea Goes Ballistic (was Re: Top 10 bands of all time)
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:49:34 GMT
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1eej5dINNt01@life.ai.mit.edu> dmb@xbar.ai.mit.edu (David Baggett) writes:
>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?

*Because* I have a problem with the basic concept.  I don't think *anyone*
is qualified to choose 10 bands as "the best", and when a person who 
claims to be will also willingly admit that he is almost completely ignorant
of the large majority of artists who have created and shaped American
popular music, well then I feel I should comment.

This is all getting away from my main point, which is that any list of
top ten bands that does not *any* black artists at all demonstrates a 
profound ignorance of the subject at hand.  Silverman *admitted* that
he was for the most part unfamiliar with "black" music.  I really would
like for Silverman to go out and listen to some of this stuff; he's missing
out.  Instead he dismisses it with "I have Bob Marley's greatest hits...it's
pretty good".

>Point two (for the sake of argument):  Who ever said you should rank
>bands in order of their contribution?  

Not me.  However, if you're going to rank bands, you might want rank them
according to some scale.  It also helps if you've heard some of them.

>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.

Well, sure, and there are artists that came before the Wailers.  But 
Silverman isn't arguing that the Police improved on the form, he's saying
that he is unfamiliar with the originators of the form and that *it*
*doesn't* *matter*.  The whole history of Jamaican music dismissed out
of hand in favor of a band who figured out how to write catchy pop ditties
which happen to have the upbeat in the wrong place.

>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.

Sure, but you've read *both*.  Saying, for example, that George Thorogood's
"Bad to the Bone" is the greatest blues-rock ever recorded, when you've
never even heard Muddy Waters' "Mannish Boy" and when you don't consider
Muddy Waters even relevant to the discussion is just plain ignorant.

I would probably get the same reaction from Silverman et al if I proclaimed
the Black Crowes and Pearl Jam to be the greatest bands in the world, and
then admitted that I didn't think Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones were
that important because I'd never heard them.

>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".  

That wasn't fury, son; and I seek out flame-bait in this here newsgroup.

>It could equally be argued that no one knows who you are, nor
>..., just because *you're* a faceless Usenet poster.  

Not any more.  I got my name in the Subject line of a flame-war; can I
bet a netgod, now, Greggy, puh-LEAZE?!

>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).

In this thread?  Oh sorry.  I should've saved all my other articles from
the past 6 years.  Maybe I should list my record/CD collection in my .sig?

>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.  

They are indeed excellent on their instruments.  That to me is only a 
small part of what makes a good musician.  Performance, feeling, composition,
vision, something to *say*, damnit.  Sorry, I'll put Coltrane up there over
Rush any day.

>Your claim that Rush can't hold a candle to jazz musicians in terms of
>playing skill is dubious at best.  

I don't remember saying "in terms of playing skill" and if I did it was
a slip.  And I definitely didn't say anything like "all jazz musicians";
I referreed specifically to Monk and Coltrane.  Yes, I do believe that
either one of them could whip the pee out of anybody in Rush without
trying, but it's not something I have the inclination to set about trying
to prove mathematically.  Like I said, playing skill is a small part of
the picture.  If I want tricky scales, I'll go watch the symphony warm
up someday.

>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.  

Really?  Across which genres?  By whom?  I'm not flaming, I'm really
asking.  I'd like to know which non-rock musicians have publically 
professed a respect for his playing.

-- 
Ray Shea                               I woke up this morning,
UniSQL, Inc.                           all my shrimps was dead and gone...
unisql!ray@cs.utexas.edu       
DoD #0372 -- Team Twinkie -- '88 Hawk NT650
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc