greetings all, so sorry that i have neglected you all in recent months. there is not time enough, and until my bill for 28-hour days goes through, i fear so it shall remain. however, i am indeed incensed and wish for you all to feel my uncontrollable rage. as most of you do not know, i am in a blood feud with rolling stone magazine (and the rolling stones as well, but that is a topic for another time). my reasons are many and they only grow with even the slightest glance that i accidentally give to this cursed periodical. however, for reasons unbeknownst to me, presumably some cruel trick of one of my alleged "friends," i have begun to receive current issues which defile and befoul my poor, unsuspecting mailbox every few weeks or so. i have not paid for this punishment to my knowledge, and as they are addressed to me, i assume that i have fallen victim to a most cruel and dastardly hoax.
yet month after month they come, and they are banished to the coffee table, where they pile an ever-mounting graveyard of unwanted refuse, like an island of misfit toys, but without any endearing qualities whatsoever. and there they fester, manifestation of my contempt and loathe for all that has become "pop culture." for whatever reason, rs (as they affectionately refer to themselves) have crowned themselves voice and torchbearer of all that is music. their reach touches all and leaves no stone (...resist the temptation!) unturned (yes!) in their constant striving for discovery and exploration of all forms of musical creation. they speak the truth, and one can most certainly take theirs for the final word. and even better, they are not squeamish when it comes to social issues, such as shamelessly plugging a particular candidate while irresponsibly neglecting a fair and critical-minded argument of both sides, given that they have proclaimed themselves such influential voices of their readership. wouldn't want the readers to have to decide for themselves, would we? too much responsibility, so much uncertainty, they might hurt their think-bones...
anyway, it is not difficult to overlook this music magazine's unasked-for opinions and proselytizing as the wasted lives of trees continue to roll in. but what truly gets my dander up is when they alight from their soap-boxes and actually discuss music, and their all-encompassing knowledge of it. which is all of it, of course. i only wait to cancel my subscription until i can devise an appropriate method of doing so in such a way that truly expresses the disdain and hatred that i hold deep in my heart for this infernal publication. it looks as though i must also await some laws to fortunately change...
this month, the stone promises us a list of "THE 100 GREATEST SINGERS OF ALL TIME!!!!!!!!!!" pretty bold statement, but as i have a particular love of singing and singers, i bite. needless to say, i am not proud of all of my decisions in life. and so my short trip to enragement begins...
the opening of this list is a short article written on the prompt, "what makes a great singer?" thank bog that finally we have someone to tell us what we can and cannot like about a singer. and certainly, the author is some sort of expert on singers or singing, and will give us invaluable insights into this world of which the rest of us know nothing about. sadly, to quote him the "...only measure [he] could care about..." in a singer is "expressivity, surprise, soul, grain, interpretive wit, angle of vision."
i'm sorry, come again? what about tone? what of technical ability? are you saying that someone can be one of the greatest singers of all time, and not even sing at all?
this is why i hate rolling stone and the pretentious writers that lurk about its pages. they take music and deprive it of all of its actual musical qualities, and the masses eat it right up like its some royal feast. i understand what you're saying, man, and its all really groovy and stuff, but like, do you actually know anything at all, or do you just like to speak in undefinable terms and hope to fool people into thinking you're really smart? i mean, really, "interpretive wit, angle of vision," what the hell is that?! anyone who knows anything about arguing knows that one must first define the terms he is going to use to measure something, or else it becomes nothing but pointless pilpul. well, perhaps this is one man's interpretation, and perhaps it is just as valid as anyone else's, so let's move to the list...
it seems it is my unfortunate lot to listen to a genre of music that is much maligned and marginalized. and ironically, it harbors some of the greatest musicians and experimentations of any, and its breadth is as wide as the general concept of rock itself. in other areas of the world, metal is beloved and appreciated for its true merits, which are enormous. and yet here, referring to one's band as "metal" is musically tantamount to being labeled a communist or terrorist. metalheads become personae non gratae in a community of music listeners who almost certainly have far-less knowledge of and willingness to accept any styles of music which fall outside the safe and inflatable world of the billboard charts. and so, rolling stone, as do so many other "music experts" simply glide over and ignore this world, as they similarly do for the worlds of jazz, classical, etc. instead they opt for old and comfortable, that which might make the editors feel young and in touch again, or the sad trendiness of the put-on and deliberately counter-culture dilettantes who have infiltrated the "indie scene." and so, it should go without saying that this list will ignore metal and their incredibly talented vocalists as they did when they highlighted the greatest guitarists of all time, a list in which metal could do nothing but dominate.
let us please move right to the most inflammatory placeholders on this list of greatest singers ever. there were names i agree with, freddie mercury, marvin gaye, bb king. but as always, so many more nonsensical yet predictable "old-boys" if you will. when will people give up the notion that robert plant was some great vocalist? and for that matter, how long must we operate under this insane delusion that led zeppelin was the greatest band ever? i mean, if we consider a guy who can just sing fairly high notes all the time over a bunch of blatantly-stolen riffs played by an at-best-average blues guitarist that once or twice coalesced into a song that seemed somewhat meaningful while really just blathered on about some obscure fantasy reference as being monumental and true musicianship, then i am right with the rest of the world. they are the best. but as usual, metal does it better. listen to blind guardian if you want all that but with talent. and hansi kursch blows away most of the singers on this quaint little list.
bono is on there, (of course). and his eulogizer is simply another rock-star who has begun to take himself too seriously and realized that the world really cares about his opinions on things other than rocking and rolling, billie joe armstrong. i can't even talk about how much i hate bono, and instead reference you all to maddox's website (the best page in the universe).
as i neared the front, i knew what was coming. but like passing a horrific car-wreck or those idiots in horror movies, i had to look...
and there it was, number 7, ahead of stevie wonder, ahead of otis redding, bob freaking dylan!!! are you serious!!! i always thought that was the joke. dylan, through his drugged mumblings and clutching madly at the very precipice of tonality, this guy is one of the greatest? ever?!!! most would sound better with their jaws wired shut. let's forget about his social impact for just a second (and of course thats why he was voted so high), this is supposed to be a list of the "GREATEST SINGERS OF ALL TIME!!!" and vocally, bob dylan is a joke. true, he may have inspired all that has become rock and roll and whatever else brown nose sycophant scripted nonsense that everyone is required by law to say about him, but lets not forget, he could not hold a tune. when i hear him, i truly understand what GWAR meant by their name.
if you want true feeling, what about bb king? why is he so far down on the list? bb inspired just as many within the music scene as dylan im sure, not to mention he did it as a black man in the 50s, a feat the likes of which dylan could only dream of. and what of freddie mercury? as his blurb mentions, the man could barely walk when he recorded the final Queen songs. how's "who wants to live forever?" or "show must go on" for expressivity? he was freaking dying!!!! that is emotion that most of these untouchable "giants" can speak nothing of. and not to mention that both of these guys actually not only knew how to sing, but how to wail. they made me believe.
...but, i see that i have aroused my ire sufficiently, and shall abruptly stop before my angry twitchings become the death of me, and a bore to you, my beloved reader. but i hope that you can understand my outrage at this sort of thing. if nothing else, i urge you all to open your minds and free your playlists from top 10 lists and anything related to mtv. seek out music as it really is, discover and try new things and leave no door unopened. and for bog's sake, don't believe everything you've heard...
