Boy, best of lists make people mad. People argue over best of lists all the time, it's freaky. I was thinking the first real bust-up about a best of list is when that Moses guy showed all of his friends his "Best Laws From The Mountaintop" list & they were like, "We only have one law, & it's that the Golden Calf - it rules!" & he was like, "Fuck you, you die!" I guess I shouldn't be so mad, then, when a pal & I disagree on what Dylan's best songs are - at least he's not killing every third male I know.
I love best of lists, not because I care whether someone agrees with me or not - I do like it, like everyone else, when people like what I play on my show - but because I like to read people explain why they like stuff. Since taste is the science of opinion, the supporting "evidence" is more important. You might not think much of Brian Wilson - & I don't, he does next to nothing for me - but the evidence suggest that he's important, since a vast majority of people who really listen to music (contrasted with those for whom music may be something they like & use to pass the time, but they don't go any deeper than that) think he's very important in the history of recording. You're allowed to have your opinion, & there's no right or wrong - but you'll be (with me) in the minority.
Unfortunately, the world's a lot more complicated since Pet Sounds, & there's much, much more music out there, with as many songs written per day as there are myspace pages going up. The best of lists that'll soon be popping up, if they haven't already, will be filled with what you'd expect: Dylan's new record, either Neil Young's new one or the Fillmore East rerelease, Tom Waits' new collection, the new project by the White Stripes dude, & if there's a noteworthy comeback or if there's a flavor of the year (this year's Bloc Party or Franz Ferdinand), they'll be on it, too.
They won't be on any 2006 best of lists because they are good, although some (a small fraction) might have their merits. No, nothing Neil Young, Bob Dylan or Tom Waits can do at this point in their careers will ever match the greatness of their earlier stuff. They are rasping, gasping shadows of their former selves & it's our devoted dog love that makes us see them live & buy their records & force them down our throats. I love that humans are sentimental - I can be the same way, too, so I'm not trying to say it's in & of itself a bad thing - but every spin of a dinosaur's attempt to make himself richer drowns out all those bands that deserve their moment in your field of vision (or hearing). Not because they're better than the best of these old farts - some of them are trying to sound exactly like the best of those old farts - but because what they're doing now has more vibrancy, more vitality, more soul than the retreads those old bastards are selling you.
I'm not pretending I'm telling you anything new, of course. As for the flavors du jour - your White Stripes, for example - they might be worth paying attention to, but the truth is, they got lucky & were squeezed past the exclusive front rope at the Corporate Radio Bullshit Club & as long as they pay their dues, they'll get to be on the charts with the small community of People Who Get Rich Being Musicians. Usually that means whatever got them there in the first place will quickly be stamped out. I sometimes pay attention - I mentioned last week, I did listen to the new Flaming Lips - but while I feel some bands deserve to have a certain notoriety, what their doing is usually no longer terribly interesting. Maybe it's the direction they've taken, or maybe it's the sameness of their "innovation." Either way, it leaves me bored. But I was talking about lists.
Most of the critics who make these best of lists don't actually go out & buy records, you know. Maybe - maybe - some of them are actually fans & maybe they spend their big bucks on older records - but the vast majority of them get their records for free, from record companies that can afford to print thousands of comps. (I shouldn't complain - a lot of the employees of the places that hire these critics get copies, too, & put them out there for downloaders to sample a long time before they're commercially available, & that's awesome!) So they're not listening to anything more than a small fraction of what's released that year, & they are paying attention to the Grammy Mentality - "it has made money, therefore it's important." Hooray! Justin Timberlake is a Artist!
Think about this when you see the "Best Of 2006" lists. Even from cool folks like the your local alternative weekly. They get tons of shit for free you bet. We're human - that influences us like campaign donations influence politicians. & when you have nothing to listen to but the free shit you get from Big Corporations, you'll find something you like in it. But there's so much more.
I'll have some of that so much more Friday. But why is my "best of" better than anyone else's? I'll defend myself tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment