Published: September 03, 2008 04:28 pm            

COLUMN: Best-of lists demean what’s great about music

Driving around town this past weekend, it was quickly clear that there was a holiday Monday.

Radio stations of many genres rolled out their “best-of” lists, the gimmick they use most three-day weekends during which some guys at the station (or station listeners) rank the top songs of that station’s format of all-time.

Of particular interest to this child of the ’90s was a modern rock countdown on a Canadian station. After the top of the list touched upon Stone Temple Pilots, Pearl Jam and Nirvana, “Under the Bridge” from the Red Hot Chili Peppers was unveiled as the top song.

Whatever you think of this selection (which is absurd, for the record), the whole concept got me thinking. How exactly can you pick one song from a genre and call it the best or most influential?

No one could say with certainty that any one modern rock song had a bigger impact than another. You could probably make a short list — which would include Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” Pearl Jam’s “Jeremy,” STP’s “Plush” and Soundgarden’s “Black Hole Sun” — but choosing amongst them is like telling one of your children he or she’s the favorite.

Each of these songs had its own influence on the genre during the time it was released, and each band had its own impact on each individual listener. Whether you’re completing a radio station list to take up the long weekend airtime or writing a thesis on the history of grunge, there’s no way to call one song more influential than another.

Ignore the top of the list for a second. How can anyone say that Silverchair’s “Tomorrow” deserves to be No. 92 ahead of Alice in Chains’ “Man in the Box?” Lists without anything to back them are as worthless as the VHS tape collection in my basement, yet we’re deluged with them.

Music, perhaps more than any other art form, is subjective. Even Milli Vanilli and Vanilla Ice had their fans back in the day, and who are we to tell these people they’re idolatry is unfounded? I have my favorite bands, but that doesn’t mean my favorite automatically were actually better or more influential than anyone else.

Lists kill the idea of individuality. Granted, it may be fun to see where your favorite song places on the list, but is my thinking faulty because some guys put my top tune at No. 15?

Hardly.

Let’s forget about modern rock for a second. Will heavy metal fans favor Black Sabbath or AC/DC? Do country fans opt for Willie Nelson or Dolly Parton? Should hip-hop lovers go with Run DMC or the Beastie Boys?

Unfortunately, we’ve become a society that lives for best-of lists (readers of my blog, pauljlane.wordpress.com, know I am sometimes guilty of this offense, as well). I can tell you from the lists I’ve written why they’re done: They’re easy. All it takes is a bit of recall and a few minutes of compilation to have a list ready to go.

But that doesn’t make it right.

If you really want to dissect the importance of modern rock’s greatest songs, there is so much you can go on, such as legacy, impact at the time of their peak, imitators, chart performance and sales. Not even a list that takes in all this information can offer concrete rankings, but it can offer enough relevant information to let people know that the proper amount of homework was done.

Instead of actually trying to answer the question, though, radio stations all too often seek merely enough tunes to fill the space while the DJs are off for the weekend. Rather than add any substance to the debate, their only objective is to get through it.

As long as that mentality lingers, lists such as this lose all meaning.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.