RB: The Next Greatest

Scott Hardie | September 11, 2009
We talk sometimes about certain bands that deserve promotions up the ranks, but we don't really open the floor about a specific promotion. I think it's time to try that.

There are currently nine cards at R10, the highest rank in the game, representing the all-time greatest stars of rock & roll. There are different metrics by which you can measure this: Influence, critical acclaim, album sales, reputation, longevity, innovation, talent. I consider it to be a measure of "most important" or "greatest stature," to be more precise.

It's almost time to promote an R9 to join these illustrious nine, and we have a seven-way tie in the poll as to which should be next:

Bruce Springsteen
Chuck Berry
Eric Clapton
Grateful Dead
Pink Floyd
The Doors
U2

Here's your chance to argue for your choice: What makes it more deserving than the others to be ranked with the pantheon of all-time greatest? These are seven pretty distinguished names, after all. Feel free to argue in favor of another R9 if you'd prefer. (Personally, I still think it's crazy to promote any of these seven over the legendary Ray Charles, but I've said enough about that.)

R10 promotions don't come around very often, so let's make this one count.

Tony Peters | September 12, 2009
I think Chuck is over where he belongs, the Doors, Springsteen and Clapton are as high as they should be Pink Floyd maybe but my opinion is that either The Dead for how long they entertained people or U2 for how long they have produced good music. I sometimes question if U2 is past their prime but there always seems to be a good tune or two on each new album....which isn't to say that I think their modern music is as solid as their early stuff for me War is their best album but I continually enjoy their their nearly 30 years of music

Chris Lemler | September 12, 2009
I think Bruce Springsteen should be promoted

Steve West | September 12, 2009
An argument can be made for all of them. My personal favorite from this list would be Clapton because he not only shaped whatever band he played with (and there were quite a few) but he cast his own shadow on the semi-neglected genre of the blues. He made the blues a rock and roll staple. His modern influence on that particular brand of music cannot be minimized. And a Grammy or two can't hurt his chances.

Samir Mehta | September 12, 2009
[hidden by request]

Ryan Dunn | September 12, 2009
I say Clapton.

The guy has been rockin' strong for 5 decades, made memorable music with multiple bands(including the Beatles!), and is universally considered one of the greatest guitarists of all time.

I won't sweat it if Floyd, Springsteen, Berry, The Dead,or U2 get the nod...but feel compelled to make a case against the Doors:

- Look, they're a great band,okay. Robby Kreiger and Ray Manzerek are underrated, okay...but Jim Morrison is OVERRATED(clap clap, clap clap clap), OVERRATED! Come on, look at the other R10's. Does Krieger belong next to Hendrix or Paige? Morrison next to Plant? Did they have the song writing ability of Zimmerman? Was their music as timeless as The Beatles? I don't see how the answer could be yes to any of those questions. I think The Doors will be more remembered for Morrison's "incidents" than for their music.

Just sayin.

Scott Hardie | September 12, 2009
I see the importance of the Doors being their prominence at the forefront of a countercultural shift more than their talent as musicians. They broke down a huge number of doors (no pun intended) for people in the sixties, and not just fellow musicians. They made the darker side of our culture sexy and cool and vital, and opened a channel to express things that couldn't be said. The Stones started the ball rolling in this direction away from the Beatles, but the Doors and especially Morrison embraced darkness in a way the Stones never would. The fact that Morrison's career was so short has helped his legend rather than hurting it, because he never had the chance to diminish by fading away. The Doors were an important voice that mattered in an important time. As Kelly likes to say about the movies, we can't invade Vietnam without the Doors blaring on the soundtrack.

Ryan Dunn | September 12, 2009
Scott, I don't disagree with anything you've said. Still think R9 is just the right spot for The Doors.

Aaron Shurtleff | September 12, 2009
I would say too soon for U2. Yes, I am basing it entirely on how long they have been around. I think that in a few more years, if they continue as they are now, it would be more appropriate.
I would argue (and get shot down I am sure!) that, since some of the other bands he was in have their own cards, Eric Clapton should only be considered for his work as a solo artist, and that he is right where he should be. I do not argue that he is a great artist, because he is, but I think you have to dilute that by removing what he has done within other bands, if those bands have their own card to be considered. Just my opinion.
My vote and support is behind Pink Floyd. Maybe I'm biased by having been born and raised in the 1970's, but, of the ones listed, that is the first one that would come to my mind when I think of bands with great stature. The Grateful Dead are up there, too, and I wouldn't be hurt if they made it, but the nod should go to Pink Floyd.

Aaron Shurtleff | September 12, 2009
And I still don't know how The Beach Boys got up there! :P

Ryan Dunn | September 12, 2009
Aaron makes an interesting point about only judging Clapton on his solo work. No way Cream, Yardbirds, or Derek and the Dominoes get anywhere close to R10. I still think Clapton as solo is worthy, but prefer Pink Floyds body of work personally...if someone gave me the choice of listening to Clapton or Floyd, Floyd all the way. Still though, Clapton as a guitarist is on a Hendrix level, as a songwriter on a Harrison/Zimmerman level, and nobody can argue longevity.

Steve Dunn | September 12, 2009
I think U2 is, right now, one of the top 5 bands of all time. I don't see why the Grateful Dead and The Doors are in the conversation at all.

Longevity is an interesting thing. The Rolling Stones have been around forever, but it's been a looooooong time since they released a culturally relevant new album. People go to their shows to hear the old stuff. Lots of bands are like this. The last new thing I remember from Clapton was the single "Tears in Heaven." What was his last significant album? I'm not dogging on Clapton - I like Clapton. I just think he made his mark a long time ago and he's been doing the same thing ever since.

In my opinion, RB already overrates longevity so I'll lobby against it as a factor in promotion.

U2 is deserving because their new stuff actually matters. They've been consistently relevant since the early 1980s with radically different styles of music. I'm not sure any other band on the list - or any other band at all - can match that.

Steve West | September 12, 2009
Aaaah relevance schmelevance. We're talking rock history here. True cultural significance. When was the last time Chuck Berry did anything significant? But I'm not saying he shouldn't be in the discussion. Clapton didn't revolutionize rock 'n' roll but he definitely shaped it. Those bands he formed (except for the Yardbirds), he was. U2 bores me to tears and Pink Floyd is like abstract art - I don't get it. The shapers of rock are the ones that get an R10 from me. Clapton and Berry fit that definition. Springsteen and the Dead come very close. The Doors need demoting.

Steve Dunn | September 12, 2009
But that's what I'm saying - I think U2 is going to go down as one of the greatest, most influential bands in rock history. The only reason they're not already universally regarded as such is because they're still making commercially successful records. We can't know for certain what their long-term impact on rock history will be because that's a long term from NOW. All the others on the list made their last significant mark decades ago.

I think the only way you can think U2 is less of a "shaper" of rock than the others listed is if you ignore the entire genre of modern/alternative music. I'm not a huge fan of Coldplay, but they're very popular and highly acclaimed - to me they sound almost exactly like 1980s-era U2. That's just one example of literally thousands of bands that would list U2 as an inspiration.

Let's talk musical innovation. The Unforgettable Fire album doesn't sound like anything that came before it. The Joshua Tree album doesn't either, and it doesn't even sound like Unforgettable Fire. Achtung Baby and Zooropa were early experiments in industrial/electronica and neither sounds the slightest bit like anything U2 had released before. Interspersed among these groundbreaking albums are a bunch of plain-old whoop-ass rock records bringing an alternative pop sensibility to blues and country traditions.

Let's talk about The Edge. I'll grant that Eric Clapton is one of the greatest blues guitarists of all time. But he's a blues guitarist and there are a lot of great blues guitarists. I don't think Clapton holds a candle to Jimi Hendrix or Stevie Ray Vaughn - which is not to say he's not great - but is IS to say he's not the greatest in his own genre.

No one else sounds like The Edge. He IS his genre.

And all this suddenly prompts me to ask: does Jack White have an individual card?

Russ Wilhelm | September 12, 2009
I would go with Chuck Berry. His name is synonymous with Rock & Roll. The first true rock guitarist. And he still sells out his shows. While we're not talking stadiums, we are talking an instantly recognized name attached to a distinctive sound, copied by all the others mentioned in part if not in whole.

Ryan Dunn | September 12, 2009
Steve, I'm with you on U2, but at this juncture there can be only one(why am i stuck on Highlander?), and I just can't justify U2 ahead of Clapton.

You say," I don't think Clapton holds a candle to Jimi Hendrix or Stevie Ray Vaughn." Okay, that's your opinion.
Rolling Stone ranks him #4 in the top 100, behind Hendrix(#1), but ahead of Chuck Berry and SRV. I'm not saying you're not entitled to an opinion...I'm just saying that saying he "doesn't hold a candle" to Hendrix or SJV is pure poppycock.

Look. I love The Edge, but Clapton has a frickin Fender Strat signature series dedicated to his name. And guess who's guitar of choice it was during the Love Town tour?

Just sayin, bra, U2 will have their day, but Clapton should get there first.

Steve Dunn | September 13, 2009
Those Rolling Stone rankings are ludicrous. Robert Johnson is #5? Right. Haha, Kurt Cobain is #11. I'm not even reading anymore. Rolling Stone's list is at least as much about who is "influential" as it is about who can "play" the guitar. I acknowledge this is relevant in any discussion of greatness, but the point remains (in my opinion) Clapton is not absolute top tier as a player. I don't think he's as good as Trey Anastasio, Dimebag Darryl, or Kirk Hammett. He's a blues guy and among the pantheon of blues guys, but he's not at the top.

Do not be hating on Stevie Ray. Let's just get down to business, OK? I'll show you Stevie Ray and you show me Clapton playing better.

Here is Stevie Ray Vaughn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixlj6l7wWsg

Scott Hardie | September 13, 2009
So U2 is good because everybody sounds like them... but the Edge is good because nobody sounds like him?

Scott Hardie | September 13, 2009
Whatever else comes out of this discussion, that is one great Stevie Ray Vaughan video. I have added it to his page. Thanks, Steve.

Clapton is a musician's musician. Everybody wants to play with him. He has tirelessly spread the word about great overlooked blues players. He commands a great deal of respect from other musicians, more than he gets from music fans. And yet, I think if you asked real rock stars which of these seven names most deserved promotion, they'd say Chuck Berry overwhelmingly.

Scott Hardie | September 13, 2009
Does Bono's considerable humanitarian work matter in this poll?

Aaron Shurtleff | September 13, 2009
Does Bono's humanitarian work matter in this poll? I don't know. I don't know what other people are thinking.

Should it? Absolutely not, in my opinion.

And that, to me, is part of the problem with U2. I think at his band's concerts, Bono spends more time than he should promoting his agenda. I think that most (if not all) people there agree with his opinion, but I still don't think that's appropriate, though. I wouldn't go to a concert knowing I would have to hear that, even if I agreed with the opinions being spoken. I go to a concert to hear the band play their music. I don't really even like hearing the stupid stories between songs that a lot of bands tell!

Aaron Shurtleff | September 13, 2009
Also, I would liken Coldplay more towards Radiohead, but that's probably just me. It's the whiney lead singer connection.

And let's be honest, I dislike U2, but I wouldn't call Bono's singing whiney. Maybe Coldplay's non-single releases are better than the ones on the radio...

But, to me, trying to link a band to Coldplay isn't a positive. Just me, though. :)

Tony Peters | September 13, 2009
for the record, there is a difference between whiney Coldplay and the falsetto of RadioHead...Bono isn't whiney though maybe preachy.

Steve Dunn | September 13, 2009
To whatever extent Bono's humanitarian work is considered, I think it should be considered a net negative.

Scott Hardie | September 14, 2009
Voting has shifted. We're down to a three-way tie for the lead:

Bruce Springsteen
Chuck Berry
Eric Clapton

Anybody want to make a new case for or against one of these? No, Beyoncé is not eligible because she had one of the best videos of all time.

Justin Woods | September 14, 2009
I say give to Chuck.

Lori Lancaster | September 14, 2009
[hidden by request]

Steve Dunn | September 14, 2009
Chuck Berry

Erik Bates | September 14, 2009
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | September 14, 2009
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | September 14, 2009
[hidden by request]

Aaron Shurtleff | September 14, 2009
Fine! Chuck Berry! :) But only because Buck Cherry based their band's name on him. :P

I joke, of course. Mr. Berry is well qualified.

Tony Peters | September 14, 2009
I still vote none of the above....I think they are as high as they need to go.......I would rather see an artist/band who is still making music get the nod........and while we are at it can we drop the Pedophile down a few rungs...

Steve West | September 14, 2009
Had to flip a coin between Chuck Berry and Eric Clapton they were that close in my view. Berry won.

Amy Austin | September 14, 2009
I only just heard about the tidbit of information required to get the Beyoncé joke. Fucking Kanye... that dude needs to unload before his shoulder gets seriously hurt.

Ryan Dunn | September 15, 2009
I'm not gonna try to crash the Berry train. He deserves it.

If you haven't seen Hail Hail Rock & Roll it's worth it...includes Clapton!

Scott Hardie | October 4, 2009
Now that the time for the final challenge has come, we have our tenth R10 at last: Chuck Berry, recipient of more votes than any other contender in R9. Does he deserve it? Allmusicguide thinks so:

Of all the early breakthrough rock & roll artists, none is more important to the development of the music than Chuck Berry. He is its greatest songwriter, the main shaper of its instrumental voice, one of its greatest guitarists, and one of its greatest performers. Quite simply, without him there would be no Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, Bob Dylan, nor a myriad others. There would be no standard "Chuck Berry guitar intro," the instrument's clarion call to get the joint rockin' in any setting. The clippety-clop rhythms of rockabilly would not have been mainstreamed into the now standard 4/4 rock & roll beat. There would be no obsessive wordplay by modern-day tunesmiths; in fact, the whole history (and artistic level) of rock & roll songwriting would have been much poorer without him. Like Brian Wilson said, he wrote "all of the great songs and came up with all the rock & roll beats." Those who do not claim him as a seminal influence or profess a liking for his music and showmanship show their ignorance of rock's development as well as his place as the music's first great creator. Elvis may have fueled rock & roll's imagery, but Chuck Berry was its heartbeat and original mindset.

Steve Dunn | October 5, 2009
Conspiracy theory!!

For the past week I've been dying for concerts to play, in the hope of catching up to Steve West. It just seemed like all my competition just dried up. No Stairway concerts to play.

Tonight I log in and find: 1) the final challenge is under way; and 2) it's my turn in 14 concerts. Aaaaaarrrgggghhhhh!!!!!

Congratulations Scott. Whoever wins is certainly deserving. I fear the final challenge is a recipe for endless draws, but I guess we shall see!

Steve West | October 5, 2009
Get up here and find out for yourself already! I can easily see the same thing, though.

Scott Hardie | October 5, 2009
How did you miss it being your turn in 14 concerts? I hope nothing was malfunctioning that should have told you, like Dashboard.

Thanks. The final challenge is designed to be a long, exhausting tug-of-war, where you have to make tiny incremental progress against your opponent by controlling which cards you get in subsequent rounds, so that you can eventually force your opponent into a narrow defeat. That, or somebody blinks first and makes a mistake. That said, I'm far more capable of a careless error than Steve, so I'm going to play this one very slowly. It's more likely than not that we'll be joined by other finalists before it ends, I think.

The "Great Gods of Rock & Roll" theme is actually one of the earliest themes in the game. I created it knowing that it would be a long time before there were ten R10s to populate it, but figuring that it would be fun to play when the day came. When I was planning the Stairway tournament this past spring, that theme seemed like the perfect conclusion to the tournament, from the religious motif to the rank of the cards (two players at 55 in the tournament would play with R10s) to the timing of the tenth R10 being promoted. I stripped out a couple of play rules to make it more of a strategic endurance challenge, and here it is. When the tournament is over, it will become available to play in the Themed Concerts, if anybody dares to try it.

Matthew Preston | October 5, 2009
Just out of curiosity, how did you decide on 55 being the final level? Is this a reference to a song that I'm missing?

Steve Dunn | October 5, 2009
How did you miss it being your turn in 14 concerts? I hope nothing was malfunctioning that should have told you, like Dashboard.

I don't think I missed anything. I think my opponents were away from the game for several days and came back all at once.

Aaron Shurtleff | October 5, 2009
Ha ha! Once again my subtle plan has worked!! It was so subtle even I didn't know how subtle it was!!

*ahem* Seriously, that's probably mostly my fault. Sorry!

Scott Hardie | October 5, 2009
The 55 steps were based on a proportionate balance of the ranks. The bottom ten steps represented R1, then the next nine represented R2, then the next eight represented R3, and so on. The idea was that whatever concert you entered would have the median of the two as its level; so if you were on step 14 and you entered a concert with someone on step 10, the median was step 12, which mean an all-R2 concert. That's why two players on step 55 would have an all-R10 concert. Originally, I wanted to shake up the card distribution more and have a variety of ranks in your hand that added up to the same total, but the algorithm had too much data to crunch, so I simplified it to be one rank per concert.