Things to watch out for in creating lists
The unearthing of Rolling Stone's Greatest Guitarists list got me thinking of touchstones that are always present in these sorts of lists:
1. Obvious choices
2. Absurd choices
3. Controvertial numbering
4. Glaring ommisions
5. Revisionist history
6. Entrants to appease the obscurants
7. Entrants to spark sales
8. Entrants to make the list-makers seem "with it"
9. Laughable P.C. race-influenced choice
10. Laughable P.C. gender-influenced choice
11. Laughable mis-interpretations of the title of said list (for instance, including Charles Mingus in "The Greatest Rock Bass Players of All-Time" list)
There are probably others... can't think of any more now.
12. Narrow in world-wide scope/too American-centric.
12. Laughable P.C. non-American-centric choice.
Number One: ... erm ...
---
I agree with the sentiment RE: lists are less about defining a 'canon' and more about a reflection of the list-maker.
Damn fun to haggle over, though.
Are lists pretentious, inaccurate, subjective, trite, and obnoxious?
Absolutely.
are they fun?
Lets put it this way: didn't you spend hours on the schoolyard compiling which superheros would be deadly matches against each other?
We do them because they are fun.
Rolling Stone is certainly not a be all end all music text (or even an anything text for that matter- Im sure at this point they are aiming to sell you deodarant and a 'lifestyle' more than anything else).
But what about the kid in 7th grade who is at the public library reading about Greg Ginn for the first time?
We all have our musical gateway drugs, and one of mine was definitely Rolling Stone. Some of their columnists CAN put complete sentences together and they feature great guest columnists whose names have frequently been dropped on RS.N: Tom Wolfe, Hunter S. Thompson, PJ O. Rourke....
Unfortunately, like everything else in this world, you have to take the good with the bad with Rolling Stone.
It DID start a couple a threads here @ RSN, so some of us have had some enjoyment out of these lists. Who gives a fuck if they're true or not?
_______________________________
These day's I get my O'Rourke fix in the Atlantic Monthly.
I know Chuck Klosterman writes some cool stuff in SPIN (yes, I know I actually used the phrase 'cool stuff in SPIN' - I'm sure Ill regret it later)
_______________________________
The point I was trying to make is that when I was reading RS religiously in the late 80's early 90's, you could could almost guarantee writing from one of the previously mentioned cats in almost every issue, and there just doesn't seem to be the same level of quality in the issues I've seen (admittedly few and far between, but then, the reason I stopped reading RS in the first place was because the writing seemed to be getting weaker). I suppose the argument could be made that my critical thinking skills improved, not the overall quality.
_______________________________