The Greatest Band of All Time (pt 2) - Criteria for Judgment

I had enough fun walking down memory lane with the Motleys the other day that I've decided to take this whole thing a little more seriously than I had before. Following this entry, there will be three more posts in this series, each representing one of the top three greatest bands of all time. In the interests of transparency, I am now - for the first time ever - sharing my criteria for what makes a good band great.

The following are the categories against which the bands mentioned in the Greatest Band of All Time series of posts will be judged:

1. Energy - This is pretty self-explanatory. The artist's catalogue must be energetic. You (the listener) must experience some sort of a transference of energy while listening to the material. Doesn't have to be every track, but it must be more than half of the tracks in the catalogue. Now, by "transference of energy," I am simply describing that feeling you get when you hear something that gets you jacked up - it can be anything from a track that forces you to tap your feet to a track that gives you that sudden nauseous, "I'm containing more energy than I am burning," feeling in your stomach. More on that feeling when we get to the number three band on the list.

I hope that description is sufficient and you now understand what I am talking about, because if not, you will never get it.

Ninja's note - be aware that this must be a positive transference of energy; you (the listener) must end up with a positive energy balance and not that dirty, tired feeling you have after you hear Coldplay on the radio.

2. Quality of Material - This second category is - I hope - the last of the obvious, self-explanatory ones: the artist's material must be of high quality. Not production-wise (that's a given), but content-wise. This is, unfortunately, an instance where my personal tastes are going to invariably kick in and make decisions that are inexplicable and immeasurable. It's going to happen. So in an attempt to give the people of the world a voice as close to equal to mine as I can muster, how about this: in order to be completely successful in this category, the band must have had at least one number one single and at least one album in the number one Billboard spot. Fair? I think so.

3. Creativity in Content and Structure - In this category, the successful artist must strive to innovate in order to develop and maintain a "sound" that can only be described as belonging to that artist. Additionally, to be successful in this category, the artist must contribute something new to the genre in terms of song or track structure. The artist must push past the "verse/chorus/verse/chorus" structure and present something unique.

4. Attitude - This is a category dear to my heart that is unfortunately a) overlooked, and b) almost entirely nonexistant in today's music. In order to succeed in this category, the artist must a) have a lyric warning sticker on the front of their album, b) make references to any or all of the following: sex, fighting, murder, drinking, drug use that is more than simply recreational, or assault in general, and c) routinely curse and direct it at a tangible person or thing.

5. Cohesive Image That Isn't Retarded - This one is kinda self-explanatory - a cohesive image. For more on what that is, I present the following - Photo A:

For more on what that isn't - Photo B:

Let's examine these photos together.  Photo A (top) depicts four people.  Their assorted articles of clothing range from eclectic to borderline unidentifiable.  By and large they appear unconcerned with the presence of a camera...which is unusual for a normal mortal human, isn't it?  What can you tell about them based on their clothing?  Not much, save that one of them may be an astronaut.  Ahh, that's the jackpot, isn't it?  You can't tell...and thus you become curious.

Photo B (bottom) depicts five people.  I am instantly familiar with every article of clothing shown.  These five appear very interested in the presence of the camera; you can almost read a "Hey, everyone, look!  It's the camera!  Right there!  The very reason we all drove out into the woods together is right here, it's pointed at us!"  Nothing unusual or noteworthy about that at all, this could be a photo from the local paper based on their attitude toward the camera.  Now, what can we tell about them based on their clothing?

The guy out in front I would associate with being a rock-n-roller, but his choice of shirt is so poor I would actually begin to doubt myself and maybe I'd end up guessing he's a farmer of California crop.  Moving back to the other four folks, I'd say...left to right...ski lodge bartender on his day off, lesbian on her way to a breast cancer walkathon, stand-up comedian, and failed-graphic-designer-turned-retail-manager.  There is absolutely nothing cohesive about these people.  The only thing they appear to have in common is that they were all inside the frame when the picture was taken.  We getting it?  Motleys = cohesive.  Pearl Jam = not cohesive.

Now, for the sticking point - the image must be cohesive, but it cannot be retarded.  What makes an image retarded, you ask? I present the following photodocumentation of an image that is retarded while at the same time being cohesive:

"We figured out a way to cut in on the massive worldwide market for U2.  Bono doesn't need any 

more money, he would just give it to the starving African babies anyway.  So you wanna know 

why we're smiling?  Because we got rich stealing money from starving African babies."

I'm pretty lenient on this sticking point, really. Just don't be Coldplay and you won't be docked for being retarded.

6. Singer Doesn't Sound Like a Pussy - yet another category that - judging by today's standards - must be near & dear solely to me. I can turn on a local radio station and...you know what? I will. Here I go...turning on the radio...now I'm going to write down every time this station plays a song where the singer is singing like a pussy. I'll continue to do this as I sit here and work for the next six hours or so.

• Not Your Fault/AWOLNATION - This idiot's voice cracks on every chorus. Aside from Nirvana, since when does a cracking or breaking voice in a recording session not result in an immediate do-over (and possibly an apology to anyone who may have been within earshot)? It makes you sound like a pussy, guys. Seriously. 

• Yellow (I think that's what this garbage is called??)/COLDPLAY  - By itself, this clown's voice probably doesn't qualify as sounding like a pussy. But - when you hold his voice up next to Bono's - you realize that he's not really singing in his own voice, is he? No, he's simply emulating the singer of U2 - everything from pronunciation of Ds and Ts to recurring falsettos to his sibilants - this guy is hoping to cash in on Bono's market share by trying to sound exactly like Bono. And THAT is a pussy maneuver. (FYI - Bono is one of the manliest singers alive. Deal.)

• We Are Young/FUN  - Jesus Holy Shit Christ, I had to check and make sure this was even a dude before including it here (it is now completely permissible for a man to refer to his female date as his "lover" now, evidently). Good God. This is just the worst thing I've heard in a long, long time, and for a lot more reasons than just having a singer sounding like a pussy.  Wow.  I'm actually a little impressed with how bad that was. OK, bringing it all back into focus - 

          Lead singer of FUN?  You sound like an absolute neuterroid and you hurt my ears. 

• Animal/NEON TREES - This one actually made me laugh a little bit. I can't even tell who or what this clown is trying to be...all I can tell is that he's trying way too hard. He's singing his poppy little song like it's a show tune. Does he sing all his songs like this?? ...doesn't he know that would get extremely old extremely quickly? Pussy. 

• Kids/MGMT - I don't even know WTF this is.  Don't get me wrong...it's well-structured, very unique, melodically advanced, good production...but I don't get the point.  Was this written by the, uh, ESL crowd?  Because I can't imagine anyone with a good grasp of the English language setting out to write a groove-based song that focuses on...childhood and growing up.  Childhood?  Seriously?  How is this song even a real thing?  Why would you even put pen to paper?  WHY would you think the world needs a song - by you - about childhood?

          Oh, and you sound like a pussy while you're doing it, too.

7. Surviving Drug Overdoses and Alcohol Poisoning - this is easy: if there has been substance abuse, there better not be any death associated with it. Here's who would not score well in this category: Whitney fuckin Houston. Too soon? OK, sorry, how about Sublime, Alice in Chains, Avenged Sevenfold, or Amy Winehouse instead. Better?

Now, a curveball - the ultimate scorer in this category will be the artist who has taken the Party Train all the way to the final stop at Death Station and come back to tell the tale. That's not only the ultimate way to score in this category, it's also the ultimate way to score with me...I guarantee you I at least want to get a little bit naked with someone who has jabbed his finger in the grim reaper's chest and said "You know what? You ought to back down before you get hurt, bro.  I'm about to knock the shine off that Skeletor head of yours."

8. Not Changing Your Sound So Dramatically That It Negates Your Earlier Work (ie "Selling Out") - simple, again. This category is intended to keep bands that started strong and then proved to the world that they're absolute failures - such as Metallica - off the list. I can guarantee you that without this category I would be forced to include Metallica (in fact, looking at the other categories...Metallica might have won the top spot). I can also guarantee you that I would rather stick a gun barrel in my mouth than include Metallica.

FUCK METALLICA.