New rules

After a preliminary look of three bands, I realized that I might be being a little too generous on what songs are considered to be incredible songs. I mean, all three bands qualified as great bands. The three were Guster, Radiohead and the Stone Roses. And while I am not surprised by the former two, the latter one made me rethink my methodology. Much like George Bush, I was going with my gut and while it is important to trust this gut of mine in determining if a song is incredible ( I need a better adjective for these songs so if any one has any ideas on what to call them let me know), I realize I should apply a little objectivity. For example, has this song been repeated numerous times back to back to back? When listening to the album, did this song stand out on first play? Did this song later unfold its glorious self to merit a further review which led to repeat listens? One of the more difficult questions is if time should play a part in deciding if a band achieves greatness. For example, the Stone Roses have (on my last count) ten great songs, but those ten great songs fill up an entire CD. Does this mean the Stone Roses are a great band, or a good band that had really long spectacular moments? Should it be based on the number of songs, or should it be based on time? Some bands have less songs on their CDs because they have such long songs, while others have just generally long CDs. It's hard to argue that a great 8:00 minute sng shouldn't count for the equivalent of two 4:00 songs because it's quite difficult to create a masterful 8:00 song, and the time of auditory rapture is equivalent. It seems unfair to punish the band with the longer song. On the other hand, it seems unfair to award such a band when they might have a lot of dross on an album, that is made up for by a couple magnificent epics versus a band that releases consistent 3:00 gems. A couple rule sshould come into effect: 1) If a song is great, but you have to wade through 3:00 of silence or buzzing to get to the actual beginning of the song, then the time is reduced to that point. For example, the jungle noises at the beginning of Breaking into Heaven by the Stone Roses are pointless and don't add to the overall feel of the song. When I repreat the song, I skip the first 3 or so minutes. Thus, it's cut down to around 6:00. However, this rule creates some problems as some songs might move from good song to master song because of editing, such as King of New Orleans or Just Watch the Fireworks. I argue that any cutting in the middle of a song (outside of editing out a curse word or two thereby allowing Take Your Cuckoo Clock and Shove It to qualify) discounts a song, but any pruning at the beginning or the ending of a song is justifiable. You are not manipulating the actual structure. Some may argue with this and I would be welcome to amendments to this rule. 2) If a band has released an enormous number of songs, but only has released say ten decent ones that all run eight minutes, it might call for a proportion to be used like the Mendoza line. If you have below .X number of songs that are masterful, you cannot qualify. I fear that this might exclude some bands that have released a lot of material and finally cobbled together enough master songs to reach the upper echelons. I think (for now) if a band has 15 master songs, the proportion rule should not apply. Lower than 15 (but still hitting 80 minutes) we introduce the proportion rule. Unfortunately, the proportion is unknowable (like True Population Mu), so we will have to go through all the bands and then see what seems appropriate. In the end, it might be called the Stone Roses proportion.
I hesitate to just throw out a number such as twenty as the initial barrier, without allowing for time to play a consideration. We'll see how these rules hold up.
Using these latest rules, I have confirmed a suspicion of mine regarding Guster. Keep it Together is a very very good album, but not a great album. Come Downstairs and Say Hello is the only one that consistenly calls for a repeat. I think Keep it Together should, and I believe I have done so in the past, but the other songs are just very very good. I like the album as a whole, but the individual songs would never be put on a mix. That being said, Diane is growing on me like a mold and might qualify as a great song after a few more listens. Oh, my other suspicion was that Lost and Gone Forever was a great album, and I would like to say that is also confirmed. Lost and Gone Forever....welcome to the Top 5 of 1999. And Goldfly...Top 5 of 1997. That's right, I'm throwing out top5 rankings like no one's business. So, I'll get on with my rankings,. You stay on the edge of your seat.