VH-1 Is Stupid

That's right, I said "stupid." I realize that this isn't the most groundbreaking accusation you're likely to read in your life, or even in your next thirty minutes of websurfing. But I've got all this anger in me, and I've just got to get it out.

Now, you know those "Hundred Greatest" shows they sometimes have, right? Like the "Hundred Greatest Rock and Roll Moments on TV", which claims that the 99th-greatest moment was the debut of "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air." And the 98th is "Divas Live". And so on. They're pretty dumb, and it's really hard to know in advance when they'll be on, but it's fun to occasionally tune in and roll your eyes at the taste of VH-1.

My point is that the thing that's currently triggering my outrage is The 100 Greatest Albums of Rock 'N' Roll". You can go to the VH-1 site and see a list, which tops out with "Revolver". Um, by the Beatles. You knew that, right?

But I recommend not going to the VH1 site, if for no other reason than that it's saturated with pop-up ads. Instead, it's probably more informative to go to my own Chart by Year, which I'll be using to point out things I want to complain about.

Now, first of all, do you notice anything about the albums they've picked? They range from 1959 to 1998, but they seem sort of clumped in one area.

That's an understatement. In fact, 52 of the albums, over half the selections, were released between 1965 and 1973. There are more albums released in 1970 (eight) than have been released in the past eleven years. Apparently, the people who picked this list believes that more great albums were released in the three years from 1969 through 1971 that have been released in the twenty years from 1981 to 2000.

This list was picked by what VH-1's website describes as "our expert pack of musicians and rock journalists." And I have to say, anyone who really believes that 1970 (by itself) outshone an entire decade has no business writing about music. The "journalists" responsible should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm absolutely serious about this. There are three rap albums: NWA's "Straight Outta Compton", Public Enemy's "It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back", and the Beastie Boys' "Paul's Boutique". Now, those are fine, fine albums, and I'm even pleasantly surprised by their pick of "Paul's Boutique". Personally, if I were restricted to just three rap albums, I'd find a way to fit something by Run-DMC. Either "Tougher Than Leather" or "King of Rock". But why should I be restricted to just three rap albums? There are four Bob Dylan albums on the list. Seriously, anyone so dismissive of an entire musical genre has no business claiming to make a list called "the Hundred Greatest Albums of Rock 'n' Roll". If they wanted to make a "Best Classic Rock Allbums" list, that's fine. But the statement that "Classic Rock is the greatest kind of Rock" is just ignorant.

Look. There are seven albums on the list that were released in the last ten years. Let's take a quick look at them.

"Nevermind", "Ten" (both 1991): I expect that these were thrown in as a sop to the Alternative crowd. There were better albums by both Nirvana and Pearl Jam, to say nothing of the other bands. Here in Seattle, you'd be hooted out of the Starbucks for suggesting that Nirvana was better than, say, Soundgarden.

The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill, O.K. Computer (1998 and 1997): If these weren't on the list, there would be no albums from after 1994. And far be it from me to suggest that they're on the list because someone in the VH-1 offices heard they were universally praised and decided to throw them in for some street cred.

Grace (Jeff Buckley), Exile in Guyville (Liz Phair) (1994 and 1993): see how I had to list the artist? That's a bad sign. Somehow, I have a hard time believing that the same committee that picked four Dylan albums, three Hendrix albums, four Rolling Stones albums, and five Beatles albums really believes that Liz Phair made one of the hundred greatest albums of all time. And anyway, that album was good, but it wasn't as good as PJ Harvey's "Rid of Me", from the same year and practically the same genre.

Achtung Baby: (1991) In fact, I agree with this pick. But I take it to be a coincidence.

The problem is that the more recent albums are good, but there's so little room for them because, in the opinion of the dinosaurs in charge of picking the songs, you just can't get by with only three Rolling Stones albums.

Here, watch while I improve the list: Take off two of the three Led Zeppelin albums. Add, say, Van Halen's "1984" and Metallica's "Master of Puppets".

And so on like that. Not only do I think "Jagged Little Pill" is better than some of these albums, I think "She's So Unusual", "A Pocket Full of Kryptonite", and "Dookie" all belong on this list. My list centers more on the '80s and early '90s than it ought to, but that's because I haven't been paying much attention in the last couple of years. But I've been paying enough attention to know that Weezer is worthy of some attention. And I wouldn't go around making this list until I'd given some damn attention to the music of recent years.

Now don't get me wrong. I like the Beatles as much as the next guy. In fact, probably much, much more, considering that there was a time when the only music I ever listened to was Beatles music. But five Beatles albums versus four albums released in the last ten years paints a pretty clear picture of an "expert" panel that stopped listening to music fifteen or twenty years ago.