Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


VORM

sharpie
Jun 23 2011 03:04 PM

From Chuck Klosterman. This coulda gone in the baseball forum.


Rock VORP
How important is Albert Hammond Jr. to the Strokes? Grantland does the math.

By Chuck Klosterman


If all art aspires to the condition of music, all the sciences aspire to the condition of mathematics.
— George Santanaya

We are the robots.
— Kraftwerk

It's easy to be cynical, but I'm not like that. Nope. No way. I prefer to focus on the ultra-super positive, which is less depressing and more financially rewarding. I give props to my ninjas and kudos to my serfs. I attack reality with well-placed, nonironic, nonrefundable LOLs. I'm not afraid to tell people how great they truly are, even if they're average or less-than-average or openly evil. So let's all put aside our petty complaints and be real, if only for a moment: As a society, we're pretty awesome.

Now, I'm not referring to American society, per se; I'm referring to human society, starting with the Mesopotamians and ending with the first wave of solo projects from Odd Future. As a species, we're totally killing it. We've already accomplished way more than we deserve: The Great Wall of China (not to mention the numerous Chinese restaurants that share its name), the Renaissance (I wasn't directly involved with this, but whatever), the moon landing ("maybe"), and countless other triumphs that can't be counted (as they are unaccountable). We've almost totally conquered polio, racial intolerance, and werewolves. Assuming we exclude most of Europe during the 12th century, it's been a quasi-terrific, can't-miss, semidelicious 9,000 years — and we humanoids have been the catalyst for everything. Dark-hearted humanity critics always want to rave about how "brilliant" dolphins are, but do dolphins have Twitter? No. They don't even have Tumblrs.

WE ARE THE PEOPLE, AND WE ARE OUTSTANDING.

And yet … not perfect.

Not quite. There's still a lot of greatness to be achieved. We're still struggling with cold fusion and time travel. It seems like our ACLs are constantly tearing. Cats remain undomesticated. Many of the existential paradoxes originally raised by Gallagher continue to haunt us (parking on driveways, driving on parkways, etc.). To truly live, man must forever joust against himself. He must wage war against his own sexy demons. And I think we'd all agree that one of these demons looms larger than all others combined — we still haven't figured out a way to arbitrarily turn art into math.

Well, that is about to change.

That is about to VORM.

Several weeks ago, key members of the Bill Simmons Institute for Randomly Idealized Utopian Statistics (B-SIRIUS) asked me to create a formula that mirrored the popular baseball statistic VORP, an acronym for "Value Over Replacement Player." The VORP metric (popularized by MIT-schooled Baseball Prospectus writer Keith Woolner) attempts to isolate the merits of a particular hitter or pitcher in comparison to a fictional "replacement player" — a hypothetical strawman who's an average fielder and a mediocre hitter. "Would it be possible," pondered the ever-pondering Simmons, "to create an identical statistic for music in the popular genre of rock 'n' roll?" In other words, is there a mathematical way to calculate how essential a given musician is to his or her band, and would it then be possible to extrapolate that artist's value in comparison to other artists in competing groups?

My initial answer to this query was, "Of course not, that's stupid, it will never work, it's antithetical to the very concept of creative endeavor, art is by nature ephemeral and impossible to quantify, and there isn't even anyone who wants this to statistic to exist."

But then we did it anyway.


ROCK VORM! (Part I):
Inside the Numbers

So how could this be done? How can one quantify how valuable someone like Mick Taylor was (or wasn't) to the Rolling Stones, relative to the drug addict who came before him (Brian Jones) or the alcoholic who came after (Ron Wood)? And is there any mathematical means for comparing Taylor's specific worth to a similar guitarist from a different era (say, Izzy Stradlin of Guns N' Roses), or to someone who plays a totally different instrument in a totally different scenario (such as Human League keyboard player Ian Burden)?

The short answer is, "probably not." But the long answer is the only one we care about, so let's keep going: Start with the premise that every band1 is comprised of 100 points.

These 100 points encompass the totality of every group in every context, regardless of the band's popularity or the quality of their work — the Kinks, Los Lobos, Geggy Tah, Broken Social Scene, and your high school ska band are all built on the same 100-point scale. If you were to start a band today with the first four people you encounter in the company bathroom, that band would have an immediate composite value of 100 points. These 100 points are broken into six weighted categories, and the points are distributed among every individual who's ever been an official, full-time member of the collective. The six categories are as follows:

1. Songwriting (40 points): Since the most important aspect of any band is the music they create and perform, this is the heaviest category. Points are awarded for both the amount of songs a specific individual wrote and the quality of those songs over time (hit singles count more than album tracks, but timeless, iconic anthems count more than ephemeral hits). If we use the Beatles as an easy example, Lennon and McCartney would get 17 points apiece, George Harrison would get 6, and Ringo would get 0. In a band like Creedence Clearwater Revival, John Fogerty would get 37 points, and the other three members would each get 1. If a band doesn't write any of its own material, no points are awarded to anyone.

2. Sonic contribution (20 points): This relates to how much an individual contributes to the "sound" of a band — essentially, how much they are personally responsible for what the group sounds like as a unit. Since the main thing most people notice about pop music is the vocal track, lead singers have a clear advantage (in the case of Blondie, Debbie Harry would get 18 of the possible 20 points). Lead guitarists also tend to score higher, especially in metal bands. Both of these disparities stand to reason, since singers and guitarists are traditionally the hardest aspects of any lineup to replace. However, highly distinctive backing vocals can also play a role — someone like Van Halen bassist Michael Anthony would be awarded as many points (3) as former lead singer Sammy Hagar (and only one point fewer than David Lee Roth), since his soaring background vocals were essential to all VH studio recordings for almost 30 years.2 Musicians who produce their own records themselves (Jimmy Page, Jeff Lynne, Tom Scholz) also score higher in this category.

3. Visual impact (10 points): Mostly an aesthetic taxonomy, visual impact pertains to how much someone contributes to the look and memory of the band. When you envision a group like Culture Club within your own mind, whom are you imagining? In all likelihood, you're almost exclusively imagining Boy George, so he scores a 9 (Mikey Craig, better known as "the black guy in Culture Club," gets the remaining 1 point). In Cheap Trick, Robin Zander, Rick Nielsen and Bun E. Carlos all get 3 points apiece, but Tom Peterson gets only 1. In Interpol, ex-bassist Carlos D would get 5 points, Paul Banks would get 2, and everyone else gets 1. This is a hard category to describe, but it's easy to calculate once you grasp the concept.

4. Live performance (10 points): This is a two-pronged qualifier. The first part of the equation is self-explanatory — it measures how captivating the musician comes across during a live concert or in a recorded video. Is the person watchable on stage? Do they try? If they don't try, how cool do they look while not trying? The second part of the equation involves how they conduct themselves "in reality" — basically, the degree to which they treat their entire life as a performance. What do they say during interviews? How do they behave in public? Do they ever appear on TMZ? This is an exceptionally strong metric for Courtney Love.

5. Attitude (5 points): This connotes how much value someone offers as a human idea (regardless of how that idea manifests itself musically). It rewards people who represent who or what a band supposedly "is." In Duran Duran, Nick Rhodes gets 3 of the potential 5 points; in the Sex Pistols, Sid Vicious would have gotten 4; in Motorhead, Lemmy gets all 5. These points specify how accurately a person embodies the perceived spirit of the entire group, and it typically contradicts the scoring pattern from the first two categories (for example, Jack White gets only 1 point here, but Meg White gets 4). People who smoke a lot of cigarettes or are often photographed while drinking in airports tend to do well within this classification.

6. Intangibles (15 points): This is everything else about the candidate — a swirling jambalaya of all that makes a musician essential: smarts, chemistry, sexuality, drug use, infidelity, insanity, a bizarre origin story, a propensity for crime, memorable dance moves, inappropriate joking about fatal diseases, their personal taste in guitar strings, a strident unwillingness to sell out, a charming willingness to sell-out immediately, high-profile ownership of dragon pants, involvement with the H.O.R.D.E festival, involvement with Farm Aid, involvement with Hear 'n Aid, boating accidents, cult membership, nonmembership in the Cult, emaciation, obesity, a willingness to wear neckties for promotional photographs, a willingness to compose the theme song to That Thing You Do!, a willingness to collaborate with Bob Ezrin, a checkered history of collaborating with Lenny Kravitz, anachronistic facial hair, and/or the inability to be the person in the band who is not Joe Walsh.

The calculation of these six categories is how the so-called "Gross VORM" is generated — you take one member of any random band and figure out how many points he or she warrants. So let's do that right now; as our stylish guinea pig, we'll use Strokes guitarist Albert Hammond Jr.


Gross Rock VORM & Adjusted Rock VORM (Part II):
[Subject: Albert Hammond Jr.]

Here's how Hammond scores within the five categories we just outlined:

1. Songwriting (6 out of 40): On the early Strokes albums, vocalist Julian Casablancas wrote almost everything (J.C. would probably get a career score of 25 in this category). But the most recent Strokes album (Angles) gives songwriting credits to all five members equally, and Casablancas wasn't even in the studio (he mailed in his vocal tracks electronically). Hammond is now a registered factor. He also made two solo records that sound like decent Strokes facsimiles, so one assumes he must play a role in the creation of actual Strokes songs. As such, he gets 6 of the remaining 15 points that didn't go to Julian.

2. Visual impact (4 out of 10): In the past, I would have given Hammond 6 points here, as he's traditionally been "the most Stroke-like" Stroke. That will remain true over time, since the image of the Strokes we'll all inevitably remember is how they looked in 2001. However, Hammond recently went to rehab, lost a bunch of weight, and cut his hair; this costs him two points of visual impact. He gets a 4.

3. Sonic contribution (3 out of 20): The two most distinctive aspects of most Strokes tracks are Casablanca's woozy-sloth vocals and Fab Moretti's precision drumming. Moreover, one could argue that Hammond is the second-most important guitar player in a band with only two guitars. He only gets 3 points here, which hurts.

4. Live performance (6 out of 10): When you watch the Strokes perform live, Hammond is usually the only person who seems excited to be there. He supposedly selects clothing that makes dancing easier, and he sometimes makes jokes during interviews that are authentically funny. He gets the lion's share of these points.

5. Attitude: (1 out of 5): All the Strokes get 1 point apiece. In this regard, they are equal.

6. Intangibles (7 out of 15): Hammond's father recorded at least one song ("It Never Rains in Southern California") that's probably better than any song the Strokes have ever made. Al Jr. wears three-piece suits on warm days, holds his guitar like Buddy Holly, is pictured smoking (!) in the liner notes for Is This It, and has not dated Drew Barrymore. In a broad sense, Hammond's role in the Strokes is inherently intangible; as a result, he dominates this category.

We now have Albert Hammond Jr.'s Gross Rock VORM: 27 (this is slightly higher than two of the other three Strokes, but lower than the irreplaceable Julian, who pulls down a 41). But this is only his gross score; since there are five members of the band, we need to divide by five.3 This is how we establish the Adjusted Rock VORM (ARV). Hammond's ARV is 5.4, which denotes how much more valuable he is compared to any random rhythm guitarist the Strokes could pull off the streets of lower Manhattan. We work from the premise that our hypothetical replacement musician would earn an ARV of 1.0, which means Hammonds is 5.4 times better.

However, this statistic tells us only how Hammonds performs in comparison with his own group. How does he compare to the world at large? That's more complicated, and it brings us to Part III …


Calculating the "Real" Rock VORM
(Part III)

Since every band starts on the same 100-point scale, the GRM and the ARV allow us only to measure a group against itself, which generates a logic gap (certainly, the 19 points Morrissey gets for being the principle lyricist in the Smiths doesn't accurately compare with the 19 points Pete Wentz gets for being the principle lyricist in Fall Out Boy). In order to calculate someone's "Real" Rock VORM (RRV), we need to multiply his or her personal ARV by the "established value" of the group itself. A group's established value encompasses all aspects of its existence (musical and otherwise). All bands are ranked on a scale of 1.0 to .01, with the Beatles representing the 1.0 designation. Due to space limitations, I can't list the established value of every single band that has ever existed — but here's a partial list:4

1.0: The Beatles
.989: The Rolling Stones
.98: Led Zeppelin
.97: The Jimi Hendrix Experience, the Beach Boys, the Velvet Underground, Pizzicato Five
.929: Black Sabbath, CCR
.914: Steely Dan, Bad Brains
.91: The Replacements, the Smiths
.909: The Clash
.88: Thin Lizzy, The Carpenters
.84: The Stooges
.825: Pavement, Radiohead, the Grateful Dead, The Police
.81: R.E.M.
.78: Nirvana, Parliament-Funkadelic
.71: ZZ Top
.7099: The Pixies
.685: Queen, Cheap Trick
.64: The Faces, Fleetwood Mac
.635: Oasis, Sleater-Kinney, Rush
.6: The Drive-By Truckers, Sleep
.59: Sonic Youth, Motley Crue, the Go-Gos
.55: My Morning Jacket, Rancid, Thomas Jefferson Slave Apartments
.543: The Fall, Journey
.53: The Chills, The Eagles, The Stone Roses, Cinderella
.47: Metallica, U2, Soundgarden, the Japandroids
.469: REO Speedwagon, Husker Du, Wings, Best Coast, Slade
.444: Sweet, Poison, Crosby Stills & Nash, Depeche Mode, Supergrass
.39: Ra Ra Riot, Cornershop, Dokken, Roxy Music
.345: Aerosmith, Styx, Paramour5, Black Oak Arkansas
.32: Uriah Heep, Grizzly Bear
.3: Spacehog.6
.28: Rage Against the Machine, Rilo Kiley, The Doors
.24: Primus, Black Flag, Yngwie Malmsteen's Rising Force
.2: The Dave Matthews Band, Wavves, Foo Fighters
.18: April Wine, Black Eyed Peas, Joy Division
.15: Incubus, Spoon, Gaslight Anthem, Iron and Wine
.1: Porno for Pyros, Kaiser Chiefs, Bat for Lashes, Asia
.05: Crash Test Dummies
.025: Green Day, Alabama
.01: The Fabulous Thunderbirds

I will concede that some of these rankings are debatable. The scores themselves are also fungible and constantly evolving: In 1995, Elastica would have received a .61 (on par with the likes of My Bloody Valentine); today, Elastica would get a .35 (somewhere just below the Moody Blues). Regardless, these scores are what we use to establish any specific individual's "Real" Rock VORM — we multiply his or her ARV with the preexisting established value of his or her band.

So let's conclude our look at Albert Hammond Jr.: His "Adjusted Rock VORM" was 5.4. As a band, the Strokes' overall value is .51 (roughly in the same neighborhood as Fugazi and Britny Fox). When these two factors are multiplied, the final product is 2.754. And that, my mathematical adversaries is the worth of Albert Hammond Jr.: His "Real" Rock VORM is 2.754, which means he is better than any rock musician with a lower RRV (and worse than anyone whose RRV score is higher).

Problem solved. Next problem.

Chuck Klosterman is the author of six books. His novel The Visible Man will be released in October.



It's important to note that this formula works only with full bands, not solo artists. It also doesn't work if the band is fundamentally one person who gets credit for everything, such as the Steve Miller Band, Ben Folds Five, LCD Sound System, NIN, or Aldo Nova.
And just in case you're curious — Eddie Van Halen would get 8 points in this rubric. Alex Van Halen would get 2. Wolfgang Van Halen and Gary Cherone both receive 0. I would love to squeeze one more point onto AVH's ledger (his snare drum sound on OU812 is so tight it sounds synthetic, and side two of 1984 remains unassailable), but 20 is the max number for this category. There were just no extra points to go around, and I always feel a moral obligation to stick to my own fake rules.
Since we're trying to figure out how irreplaceable a musician is, the size of the group matters quite a bit. If a band is a duo (or even a trio), losing one member constitutes breaking up entirely. Conversely, this is also why every member of the Wu-Tang Clan and the Polyphonic Spree has an astoundingly low ARV.
The research for this portion of the abstract was modeled after the work of mid-'90s musicologist Ronald Thomas Clontle and surveys the same core demographics (Lawrence, Kans.; Gainesville, Fla.).
This band loses .024 points for spelling its name as "Paramore."
Just in case you're keeping score at home: ".3" is also the score typically applied to semisuccessful (but still unsigned) bar bands that are known on a local level or via MySpace. If you're currently in an unsigned bar band and you suck, use ".22" instead. Use ".11" if you're in an unsigned band that plays noise rock.
HomeColumnistsFeaturesSimmonsKlostermanThe Tria

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jun 23 2011 03:13 PM
Re: VORM

Read this the other day. Not bad.... It's something we sorta did here a long time ago (music similarity scores) and kinda stops being funny after awhile.

He and I share an appreciation for Van Halen's underappreciated backing vocals, though.

A Boy Named Seo
Jun 23 2011 03:20 PM
Re: VORM

Been digging that Grantland blog a lot. Started by Bill Simmons, but Klosterman's contributed a couple of really good ones (theHS basketball game in North Dakota was great) and now Carles is becoming some kind of NBA/pop culture blogger, and has done a couple things for them, too. They're all up in my feed now.

Frayed Knot
Jun 23 2011 04:00 PM
Re: VORM

Joe Morgan thinks this is stupid.
"People play music, not computers"!

Gwreck
Jun 23 2011 05:53 PM
Re: VORM

The first part is smart, funny and well thought out. I like it.

The second part, where he tries to rank bands relative to one another? Stupid. Really stupid. As in, you're totally losing any credibility re: the first part of your article.

Seriously, the man ranked Journey as a better band than U2. No, DON'T think about that too long, your head might explode. Bono might be annoying and preachy but seriously, let's put down the crack pipe here, Chuck.

Edgy DC
Jun 23 2011 06:31 PM
Re: VORM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
Read this the other day. Not bad.... It's something we sorta did here a long time ago (music similarity scores) and kinda stops being funny after awhile.

He and I share an appreciation for Van Halen's underappreciated backing vocals, though.

Absolutely.

Fills me with rock 'n' roll pity* to see the poor Thunderbirds hauling up the rear there. Did we ever Desert Island Poll them?

*I don't know if it equals "replacement level," but I've long considered Cowboy Mouth to be the most perfectly medicre band. So much for my pity.

RealityChuck
Jun 23 2011 08:35 PM
Re: VORM

Incredibly silly and not even consistent. He give the Beatles a 1.0 (which is reasonable), but he neglects the fact that the Beatles were not really a good live act once they hit it big. Heck, they stopped being a live act at all. So that subtracts points that makes it impossible for them to be a 1.0.

The stupidest thing is that giving numbers is purely subjective, yet this is supposed to be some sort of objective ranking. This makes Sabrmetrics look almost sensible by comparison.

TransMonk
Jun 24 2011 07:41 AM
Re: VORM

I have a VORM of 2.80.

Suck it, Albert Hammond Jr.

Edgy DC
Jun 24 2011 07:45 AM
Re: VORM

Good show, monk.

Folks, I think we might want to take it a little less seriously.

Vince Coleman Firecracker
Jun 24 2011 08:01 AM
Re: VORM

Yeah, it's a joke, guys. "I will concede that some of these rankings are debatable." is the punchline. He gives REO Speedwagon and Husker Du the exact same ranking to the thousandth decimal place. Now, Klosterman is a bit of a contrarian, but there's no reason to equate those two acts other than to make with the funny.

Here's one of my favorites by Klosterman:

Give Me Centrism or Give Me Death! By Chuck Klosterman
This is an article that was published in Spin Magazine. It is from 2004.
---

In a world where music is either overrated or underrated, these ten artists got exactly what they deserved.
By Chuck Klosterman



If you are the kind of person who talks about music too much, there are two words that undoubtedly play an integral role in your workaday lexicon: “overrated” and “underrated.” This is because those two sentiments pop up in 90 percent of all musical discussions.

What’s interesting about this phenomenon is that no one uses the same criteria when applying either of those terms. For example, bands can be overrated because certain rock critics like them too much (Sonic Youth, Wilco, Yo La Tengo), or underrated if they sell a lot of records but aren’t widely regarded as brilliant (Thin Lizzy, Duran Duran), or underrated because barely anyone seems to know who they are (Tortoise, Sloan, Lifter Puller). Bands can be overrated because they’re good-looking (the Lemonheads in 1992), or they can be underrated because they’re good-looking (the Lemonheads in 1994). Some groups can be overrated and underrated at the same time (Radiohead). Some groups seem overrated on purpose (Oasis). Some groups seem eternally underrated because—no matter how hard they try—they’re just not as interesting as groups who are overrated on purpose (Blur). It is very easy to be underrated, because all you need to do is nothing. Everyone wants to be underrated. It’s harder to become overrated, because that means people had to think you were awesome before they thought you sucked. Nobody wants to be overrated, except for people who like to live in big houses.

However, I am not interested in overrated and underrated bands.

It’s too easy, and all it means is that somebody else was wrong. I’m obsessed with bands that are rated as accurately as possible—in other words, nobody thinks they’re better than they are, and nobody thinks they’re worse. They have the acceptable level of popularity, they have attained the critical acclaim their artistry merits, and no one is confused about their cultural significance. They are, in fact...

THE TEN MOST ACCURATELY RATED ARTISTS IN ROCK HISTORY!

10. The Black Crowes: Their first album sold more than five million copies, which is precisely the right number. Stoned people like this band, drunk people think they’re okay, and sober people hate the overwhelming majority of their catalog. This all makes perfect sense.

9. Madness: This is one of only two ska bands admired by people who hate ska (the other being the Specials, who are somewhat overrated). No one disputes this admiration. “Our House” was a pretty great single, but it’s nobody’s favorite song. Nobody seems to dispute that assertion, either.

8. Triumph: Always associated with Rush and/or the nation of Canada, but not as good as either.

7. Tone Loc: Nobody really takes Tone Loc seriously, except for frivolous pop historians who like to credit him for making suburban white kids listen to rap music that was made by black people (as opposed to the Beastie Boys, who made white suburban kids listen to rap music that was made by other white people). This lukewarm historical significance strikes me as sensible. Neither of Mr. Loc’s hits are timeless, although “Wild Thing” samples Van Halen’s “Jamie’s Cryin’” (which I like to imagine is about M*A*S*H star Jamie Farr, had Corporal Klinger pursued sexual--reassignment surgery in an attempt to get a Section 8) and “Funky Cold Medina” samples “Christine Sixteen” (at a time when Kiss were making records like Hot in the Shade and nobody in America thought they were cool except for me and Rivers Cuomo). Those two songs were actually cowritten with Young MC, whose single “Bust a Move” is con-fusing for the following reason: Its last verse states, “Your best friend Harry / Has a brother Larry / In five days from now he’s gonna marry / He’s hopin’ you can make it there if you can / Cuz in the ceremony you’ll be the best man.” Now, why would anybody possibly be the best man in a wedding where the groom is their best friend’s brother? Why isn’t your best friend the best man in this ceremony? And who asks someone to be their best man a scant five days before they get married? This song is flawed. And while I realize the incongruities of “Bust a Move” have absolutely nothing to do with Tone Loc, the song somehow seems more central to Tone Loc’s iconography than his role in the movie Posse, which was the best movie about black cowboys I saw during the grunge era.

6. My Bloody Valentine: On the surface, My Bloody Valentine should be underrated, but they’re not; everyone who aggressively cares about alt guitar music considers Loveless to be a modern classic, and everyone who is wont to mention “swirling guitars” during casual conversation always references this specific album. Loveless sold about 200,000 copies. This is the correct number of people on earth who should be invested in the concept of swirling guitars.

5. Matthew Sweet: Every Matthew Sweet album has only one good song, and this good song is inevitably the first single, and this single is always utterly perfect (“Sick of Myself” off 100% Fun, “Where You Get Love” off Blue Sky on Mars, “Girlfriend” off Girlfriend, etc.). He sells enough albums to live comfortably, and that seems reasonable.

4. The Beatles: The Beatles are generally seen as the single most important rock band of all time, because they wrote all the best songs. Since both of these facts are true, the Beatles are rated properly.

3. Blue Öyster Cult:The BÖC song everyone pays attention to is the suicide anthem “Don’t Fear the Reaper.” However, that song is stupid and doesn’t use enough cowbell. The BÖC song almost no one pays attention to is the pro-monster plod-athon “Godzilla,” and that song is spine- crushingly great. So, in the final analysis, Blue Öyster Cult is accurately rated—by accident. This happens on occasion; look at Scottie Pippen.

2. New Radicals: There are only five facts publicly known about this entity. The first is that 1998’s “You Get What You Give” is an almost flawless Todd Rundgren–like masterwork that makes any right-thinking American want to run through a Wal-Mart semi-naked. The second is that nobody can remember the singer’s name. The third is that the singer often wore a profoundly idiotic hat. The fourth is that if this anonymous, poorly hatted singer had made a follow-up album, it would have somehow made his first record seem worse. The fifth is that his album didn’t quite deserve to go gold, and it didn’t.

1. Van Halen: This band should have been the biggest arena act of the early 1980s, and they were. They had the greatest guitar player of the 1980s, and everyone (except possibly Yngwie Malmsteen) seems to agree. They switched singers and became semi-crappy, and nobody aggressively disputes that fact. They also recorded the most average song in rock history: “And the Cradle Will Rock.” What this means is that any song better than “And the Cradle Will Rock” is good, and any song worse than “And the Cradle Will Rock” is bad. If we were to rank every rock song (in sequential order) from best to worst, “And the Cradle Will Rock” would be right in the fucking middle.

And that is exactly what I want.

HahnSolo
Jun 24 2011 08:36 AM
Re: VORM

A Boy Named Seo wrote:
Been digging that Grantland blog a lot. Started by Bill Simmons, but Klosterman's contributed a couple of really good ones (theHS basketball game in North Dakota was great) and now Carles is becoming some kind of NBA/pop culture blogger, and has done a couple things for them, too. They're all up in my feed now.


Klosterman is the best thing on Grantland. I loved his column on the NBA half-court, time-out rule. One of those things I always wondered about.
But I do check out Grantland every day. It's kinda like going to a restaurant you really like. You don't try everything on the menu, but what you really like, you come back for.

HahnSolo
Jun 24 2011 08:41 AM
Re: VORM

I meant to add that Grantland has also seemed to inspire Bill Simmons to write more, which I think is a good thing.

I think his podcasts, which make up about 65% of his output the last couple of years, suck.

Willets Point
Jun 24 2011 09:19 AM
Re: VORM

Edgy DC wrote:
Folks, I think we might want to take it a little less seriously.


Coming from the man who takes a lot of things very seriously, this carries a lot of weight.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Jun 24 2011 05:45 PM
Re: VORM

HahnSolo wrote:
I meant to add that Grantland has also seemed to inspire Bill Simmons to write more, which I think is a good thing.

I think his podcasts, which make up about 65% of his output the last couple of years, suck.


Unfortunately, in the interim, his writing has gotten much, much worse. (Or maybe I've just noticed exactly how shticky it had gotten.)

TheOldMole
Jun 27 2011 10:46 AM
Re: VORM

How would you rate Art Garfunkel? Paul Simon wrote all the songs, was the only one to play an instrument, sang lead, produced all the records, and they would have been nothing without Art.

Gwreck
Jun 27 2011 03:00 PM
Re: VORM

TheOldMole wrote:
How would you rate Art Garfunkel? Paul Simon wrote all the songs, was the only one to play an instrument, sang lead, produced all the records, and they would have been nothing without Art.


You wouldn't award him any points for "Sonic Contribution," "Visual Impact," "Attitude," or "Intangibles?"

sharpie
Jun 27 2011 03:27 PM
Re: VORM

Art did sing lead on some S&G songs, most notably "Bridge Over Troubled Water."