Oh, why did I have to look?
First:
Then:
Thanks for the explanation. It looks like revisionism to me, but, well, whatever.
No, I wanted to know what the criteria ARE.
Whoa! What are you saying? R&B musicians can't play well? R&B has low standards for musicianship?
What???
I don't even want to discuss that. I hope you just misspoke. But I will say that, though rock is a musical form that ALLOWS for a certain amount of egalitarianism when it comes to proficiency (eg, Louie Louie by The Kingsmen, an emblematic rock performance, is SO bad for so many reasons, yet also great, for the same reasons), most of the best musicians and bands can and could really play, and very well, too. Maybe this doesn't matter as much to others as it does to me, but it seems an important consideration. Especially when compiling a list such as this.
Now, I can see how some consideration can be given to bands whose members may not be that accomplished on their instruments but still produce a distinctive and thrilling sound. And they can also be a lot of fun, and as Dick Clark used to say, easy to dance to. But I want the top bands to be the best of the best, and to me, that does mean being able to play better than just about anyone else. Songwriting, talent, performance, production, concept, persona - these are my criteria. The last two are less significant to me than the rest, but a lot of people seem to care a lot about them. I may think of a couple more criteria, but I think that if you are able to do well in those, you are going to get a lot of people to listen to and like what you are doing.
Bookmarks