That is a wonderful, thoughtful, reasonable but provocative argument, Tom. Of all the reactions I've read to the list, yours is the first to address the process rather than the result. And I will always stand by and champion any of my sistren or brethren who speak up in defense of criticism. Clickbait and listicles like this are the end product of poptimism. The incapability to judge art in the context of its totality rather than its currency is a distinguishing feature of so many writers masquerading as critics, and it has been for a while now. It is of course overdue and wonderful that the traditional canon is being reevaluated by new generations in so many fields of culture and art, but acknowledging the present has to be done in balance with the past. It's fine to reject the received wisdom of only trusting oldwhiteguys to be the leaders in any given field, but that's just the starting point. "Greatest" is a terrible blanket term when you are judging and ranking artists whose purpose, process and achievements are virtually unrelated. (Incidentally, the NYT Top 100 NY Restaurants list suffers from the same apples/oranges ridiculousness.) Songwriters should only be compared within genres, just as restaurants should. Melody, of course, is not the only element of songwriting that matters, but artists who devote their lives to crafting them should not be judged alongside artists whose prime focus is lyrics. Anyway, thank you for this piece and bravo.
Thank you! What you write here -- "The incapability to judge art in the context of its totality rather than its currency is a distinguishing feature of so many writers masquerading as critics, and it has been for a while now" -- provides the clarity this entire discussion needs. It really feels like there was no intellectual or musical rigor involved at the committee level. That is a disservice to the art and the artists and also to criticism. I am encouraged by the discussion that has come since the list's publication. It's healthy that this sloppy work is being met with outrage.
I had to stop looking at "lists" a long time ago, because I've never found one that is a reflection of reality. Such as Duane Allman (I'm a fan) being a better guitar player than Jimi Hendrix...or any other rock guitarist ever. #clickbait
so true. the "better than" issue is real -- it's possible to make a case that these lists have encouraged the listening public to think in those stark competitive terms. when what's meaningful are the individual voices.
Hi and thanks for reading. I've (hopefully) cleaned up the imprecise Springsteen mentionl as I commented to someone else, this is yet another instance where I miss editors....
No, not excluding rap as songwriting -- just was trying to make a distinction between elements of music used by pop songwriters and those used by some rappers, like Jay-Z. (others obviously incorporate melodic elements differently....).
Amen. Ironic to see that The Times has so blindly shackled itself to "the times" in which it's published. 20 years from now, historians will marvel at the suspension of good taste and common sense that resulted in this list. And tho I'm not a musicologist, I can cite at least five Billy Joel songs that no one else could have written. And five Lionel Richie songs no one should have written,
Cancelled my subscription and refused to click their links for their pathetic ongoing failures in reporting on reality well over a year ago. Working there or reading their writing are both indefensible. The fact that their critics suck is to be expected.
I also wish Pareles had been on the committee. But what you say about Jay-Z basically suggests you're excluding rap as "songwriting." And Bruce Springsteen is on the list.
That is a wonderful, thoughtful, reasonable but provocative argument, Tom. Of all the reactions I've read to the list, yours is the first to address the process rather than the result. And I will always stand by and champion any of my sistren or brethren who speak up in defense of criticism. Clickbait and listicles like this are the end product of poptimism. The incapability to judge art in the context of its totality rather than its currency is a distinguishing feature of so many writers masquerading as critics, and it has been for a while now. It is of course overdue and wonderful that the traditional canon is being reevaluated by new generations in so many fields of culture and art, but acknowledging the present has to be done in balance with the past. It's fine to reject the received wisdom of only trusting oldwhiteguys to be the leaders in any given field, but that's just the starting point. "Greatest" is a terrible blanket term when you are judging and ranking artists whose purpose, process and achievements are virtually unrelated. (Incidentally, the NYT Top 100 NY Restaurants list suffers from the same apples/oranges ridiculousness.) Songwriters should only be compared within genres, just as restaurants should. Melody, of course, is not the only element of songwriting that matters, but artists who devote their lives to crafting them should not be judged alongside artists whose prime focus is lyrics. Anyway, thank you for this piece and bravo.
Thank you! What you write here -- "The incapability to judge art in the context of its totality rather than its currency is a distinguishing feature of so many writers masquerading as critics, and it has been for a while now" -- provides the clarity this entire discussion needs. It really feels like there was no intellectual or musical rigor involved at the committee level. That is a disservice to the art and the artists and also to criticism. I am encouraged by the discussion that has come since the list's publication. It's healthy that this sloppy work is being met with outrage.
Jon Pareles wouldn’t have overlooked Randy Newman.
I had to stop looking at "lists" a long time ago, because I've never found one that is a reflection of reality. Such as Duane Allman (I'm a fan) being a better guitar player than Jimi Hendrix...or any other rock guitarist ever. #clickbait
so true. the "better than" issue is real -- it's possible to make a case that these lists have encouraged the listening public to think in those stark competitive terms. when what's meaningful are the individual voices.
Hi and thanks for reading. I've (hopefully) cleaned up the imprecise Springsteen mentionl as I commented to someone else, this is yet another instance where I miss editors....
No, not excluding rap as songwriting -- just was trying to make a distinction between elements of music used by pop songwriters and those used by some rappers, like Jay-Z. (others obviously incorporate melodic elements differently....).
Amen. Ironic to see that The Times has so blindly shackled itself to "the times" in which it's published. 20 years from now, historians will marvel at the suspension of good taste and common sense that resulted in this list. And tho I'm not a musicologist, I can cite at least five Billy Joel songs that no one else could have written. And five Lionel Richie songs no one should have written,
Sigh. I think you're right about future historians. And bravo, very clever juxtaposition between Billy/Lionel...still laughing....
Cancelled my subscription and refused to click their links for their pathetic ongoing failures in reporting on reality well over a year ago. Working there or reading their writing are both indefensible. The fact that their critics suck is to be expected.
I also wish Pareles had been on the committee. But what you say about Jay-Z basically suggests you're excluding rap as "songwriting." And Bruce Springsteen is on the list.
When did Jimmy Webb die?
Right? As far as I know he is still alive. Sigh.
Springsteen is on the list.
Thanks -- just attempted to correct. this is why I always miss editors!