Hyden doesn't write well. At all. He's a Klosterman clone without any insight. He thinks he's very clever, but he's not. At all.SydneySox said:
Grantland
- Thread starter Leather
- Start date
edit - You know what? I got him mixed up with someone. The things I was attributing to him in my mind were actually Jason Heller's.
Fuck Steve Hyden.
Fuck Steve Hyden.
There's nothing wrong with "Honkey Chateau", and I suspect Hyden used it because he thought dropping its name would achieve the dual purpose of A) damning-by-faint-praise by comparing Coldplay to Elton John, who among jockish non-music people is kind of a stand-in for Pussy Rock ("dude, he's so gay!"); and B) signalling to music nerds (who typically do respect early Elton) that he knows his stuff when it comes to Elton John.
But, more to the point, the whole article is stupid. The premise is dumb, and his method of going about proving/disproving his thesis is nonsensical and is based on the idea that you can tally up albums' worth by comparing them to how you, personally, feel they were received to how you, personally, feel that they should have been received, and then make a judgment of a band's career as a whole. It's stupid. Even as far as music criticism goes, it's solipsistic and biased. When your piece is stylistically and tonally such that it would be at home in a middle school student newspaper, well, maybe it needs work.
It's also a direct ripoff of Klosterman's KISS album-by-album breakdown, which was at least tongue-in-cheek.
But, more to the point, the whole article is stupid. The premise is dumb, and his method of going about proving/disproving his thesis is nonsensical and is based on the idea that you can tally up albums' worth by comparing them to how you, personally, feel they were received to how you, personally, feel that they should have been received, and then make a judgment of a band's career as a whole. It's stupid. Even as far as music criticism goes, it's solipsistic and biased. When your piece is stylistically and tonally such that it would be at home in a middle school student newspaper, well, maybe it needs work.
It's also a direct ripoff of Klosterman's KISS album-by-album breakdown, which was at least tongue-in-cheek.
drleather2001 said:
I think Klosterman is sincere in his love of KISS. In any event, it is impossible for Gene Simmons to remain "tongue-in-cheek"
drleather2001 said:
I've read pieces by Klosterman where he said his love of KISS is not meant to be taken ironically, he really loves the group. Maybe not everything, but enough that he considers himself a legit fan of the group. So much so that he won't debate the merits of the band with anyone. He said something to the effect of, if you think KISS sucks, no matter what I say, I'm not going to change your mind. And the reverse is true where his mind is not going to be changed either.
I think that was the best thing about his KISS article. Even on crap albums like "Revenge" or "Crazy Nights", he found a song or two that he enjoyed. And that what was so interesting because it's easy to take "Destroyer" and say, "Here are the five best songs on that album", but it's difficult to take a crappier album and write, "I've listened to this album enough times to know that it's not very good, but there are some interesting songs on it." And not just make a sweeping generalization (that may be correct), "This album sucks. There's nothing to listen to here."
I'm with you to a certain extent. However, I take issue with Klosterman's unstated premise that a band's artistic sights don't matter; that naked commercialism is as respectable and laudable (or, perhaps more accurately, is identically irrelevant) as a band like the Kinks who, yes, may have had some dud albums, but who at least failed in a spirit of artistic exploration. I mean, Kiss repeated themselves again and again (oftentimes in a literal sense by re-releasing songs multiple times), only changing when they designed to become more commercially viable. To me (and, i think, to most KISS non-fans), that doesn't mean that KISS tapped into some undeniable "truth" of Rock and Roll, it means that KISS tapped into the most cynical and boring side of Rock and Roll, and their music is inherently less interesting as a result.
Klosterman's rankings (A, A+,A...) are, he even admits, those of a hard-core Kiss fan. And, that's great, but can't be taken seriously to anyone who isn't already a big KISS fan who is in the mood to be charitable. I could easily say "Hey, I'm a huge Rolling Stones fan, and you know what? Steel Wheels gets a lot of shit, but it had a top 10 hit, and despite slick production, really had some surprisingly tight songwriting and convincing Jagger singing and guitar work from Wood/Richards. A-". Just because I'm a big fan doesn't make my review any more "right" than the dozens of critics who disagree. If anything, it devalues my opinion, and my obvious dismissal of criticisms makes my opinion less credible.
I think that was Klosterman's deliberately, unashamedly, biased review of Kiss. And that's fine; he's entitled to that. But I also reject the idea that one's personal bias creates reality; yes, it doesn't matter what other people ("The Critics") think when it comes to what you, personally, love. But on the other hand, you loving something really, really, hard doesn't make that which you love objectively better, either.
Klosterman's rankings (A, A+,A...) are, he even admits, those of a hard-core Kiss fan. And, that's great, but can't be taken seriously to anyone who isn't already a big KISS fan who is in the mood to be charitable. I could easily say "Hey, I'm a huge Rolling Stones fan, and you know what? Steel Wheels gets a lot of shit, but it had a top 10 hit, and despite slick production, really had some surprisingly tight songwriting and convincing Jagger singing and guitar work from Wood/Richards. A-". Just because I'm a big fan doesn't make my review any more "right" than the dozens of critics who disagree. If anything, it devalues my opinion, and my obvious dismissal of criticisms makes my opinion less credible.
I think that was Klosterman's deliberately, unashamedly, biased review of Kiss. And that's fine; he's entitled to that. But I also reject the idea that one's personal bias creates reality; yes, it doesn't matter what other people ("The Critics") think when it comes to what you, personally, love. But on the other hand, you loving something really, really, hard doesn't make that which you love objectively better, either.
I agree with you on that first statement. I mean, I unironically like the Doors, which I know is a stupid thing but I know that they're not a "great" band in any true sense of the word. Morrison is not a good singer, some of his lyrics are trite and dumb and I really don't like Ray Manzarek at all. But I could probably write a 10,000 word piece why they're a really good band and why I like them so much. I think that Klosterman falls into that category in regards to KISS.
This is just Klosterman doing mental gymnastics and trying to convince himself that Gene and Paul raping his wallet every year is somehow a "good" thing or at the very least, not a constant, despicable money grab by two untalented jackweeds who know that their sheep fans will buy anything with two lightening-bolt S's slapped on it.
When all is said and done, aren't all ratings functionally worthless though? Everyone comes at an album with a bias.
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
That's reductive and not helpful, though. Just because all reviews (and newspaper articles, and classroom lectures, and anything that attempts to present information) are, on some level, biased, doesn't mean, therefore, that all reviews are worthless. There's a spectrum. Klosterman is way over on the unabashedly biased end of the spectrum.
To wit:
So, let's tally: Side 1 is "80 % perfect"; Side 2 is 75% perfect; Side 3 sucks; and Side 4 is very good and gives some insight into Paul Stanley's boozing habits (which matters...how?)
That gets an A+? A "perfect album" grade (for all intents and purposes)? Up there with "OK Computer", "Revolver", and "Exile on Main Street"?
He's having fun, and that's great and it's enjoyable to read (even to a non-KISS fan), but the bullshit level is pretty high. It's a love letter to KISS more than an actual analysis of their artistic merit.
Here's Robert Christgau's similarly off-hand take, which strikes me as far more even-handed (if similiarly slight):
I don't think it is though. Klosterman makes his biases known, so if he gives an A triple plus to Alive, you know that a. this guy is a KISS freak and b. depending on how I feel about KISS, my mileage is going to vary. And for the purposes of this article, it's a mash letter to KISS, which Klosterman makes known in the first few paragraphs. He didn't come at this as some sort of scholarly piece on the merits of KISS. This was a guy who has loved KISS since he was 10-years-old and is now celebrating their election into the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame. I'm not really sure why you would take his grades seriously, I thought that those were the only parts of the piece that were done tongue-in-cheek.
My point about biases is that at the very least, Klosterman lets the reader know that this is going to be a KISS love note, so you (as a reader) should judge his reviews subjectively. What I was trying to state is that other reviewers rarely let their readers know that, as I'm sure you're well aware. But their biases are still there, so you, as a reviewer, can not calibrate your expectations. And really, Rolling Stone gives stars, others give grades, others give out numbers, etc. Again, I'm not even sure why you need to quantify albums with a rating system anyway, I think it's meaningless. Rob Sheffield (or someone) could give Coldplay's latest five stars, A+++++++, 10.0 across the board and chances are pretty good that I'm not going to buy Coldplay's latest. Mainly because I don't particularly like Coldplay. Same thing with the members of the BBWAA and Bruce Springsteen.
Bringing it back to Room Service, I hated the manner in which Klosterman waved off Jon Wurster's critique of that song without seemingly not addressing any of its points. I wouldn't expect him to go at it point-by-point. But it's just such a dissonant, non-ear-pleasing song, and Kiss was wasn't going for some atonal-John-Cage feel. And the facthe gave some sort of half-assed defense of the song made it easier for me stop reading. Which says just as much about me, I know.
Well, sure, there are lots of shitty reviews (they really started going downhill in RS in the late 90s). And, yes, at least Klosterman makes his bias known upfront, and that's better than RS giving some piece of shit by Coldplay five stars because they want Coldplay happy for a cover story. Absolutely.
I'm just saying I don't think it has to be an either/ or. Why the false dilemma? There are reviewers who can push past their personal bias and still make informed, evenly-weighted, reviews. That's better than either of the above alternatives. Klosterman knows this. He used to write reviews for the Akron Bee. He's been writing music criticism for over a decade. I think that he put the blinders on for this one, and did so with gusto. As something to read, it's fun and enlightening. As musical criticism, it's dogshit.
The idea that making your bias known is good for the reader is a core principal of "Gonzo Journalism", and that's basically what this is. And that's fine (although, God, am I sick of the Hunter S. Thompson schtick by everyone). But one of the core principals of good criticism is overcoming your own bias. Throwing up your hands and saying "I give up" is not exactly the same thing.
I'm just saying I don't think it has to be an either/ or. Why the false dilemma? There are reviewers who can push past their personal bias and still make informed, evenly-weighted, reviews. That's better than either of the above alternatives. Klosterman knows this. He used to write reviews for the Akron Bee. He's been writing music criticism for over a decade. I think that he put the blinders on for this one, and did so with gusto. As something to read, it's fun and enlightening. As musical criticism, it's dogshit.
The idea that making your bias known is good for the reader is a core principal of "Gonzo Journalism", and that's basically what this is. And that's fine (although, God, am I sick of the Hunter S. Thompson schtick by everyone). But one of the core principals of good criticism is overcoming your own bias. Throwing up your hands and saying "I give up" is not exactly the same thing.
I think that we're on the same side of this argument here, Leather. And I'm a bit of Klosterman fan boy (more so than KISS) so I'm probably defending the article a bit more than I would if another author chose this path. However, I think that Klosterman wrote this piece like he did because he needed an angle to dump a bunch of KISS information but couldn't find a way to do it in a strict narrative. So he chose the "review"-all-the-albums-as-a-way-of-saying-a-shit-load-about-the-band way of doing so. In other words, it was schtick, because like you say, he used to do this thing for a living while in Akron.
drleather2001 said:
OT: Punk threw RS for a loop in the late 70s and the entire magazine - which ignored punk/new wave as long as possible - never really recovered. It well into the shitter by the mid 80s.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. As an aside, this is why David Fricke, a man in his Forties, wasted thousands of words in the early '90s trying to convince RS's readers that Kurt Cobain was "the spokesman for a new generation," the new Lennon/Dylan--and that Nirvana were the new Beatles/Velvets/Clash. (And I like Nirvana--quite a bit actually.)joyofsox said:
So we're treated to another piece of shit by Hyden.
Ugh. This is such Contrarian Realist bullshit. Park it alongside the "Well, if 10,000,000 people like Miley Cyrus, doesn't that make her the most interesting artist of our time?" faux intellectual crap.
No. Popularity is simply one prism through which to look at art. 45 years later, more people care about the Velvet Underground than they do the Archies. "Pet Sounds" sold like shit in the U.S. and yet is still widely hailed as a major milestone and big influence.
"Meaningful" =/= "Massively Popular". Moreover, you can't possibly tell how much any serious album will catch on until well after it has been released. Lots of good albums take time to find their audience.
Ok. Now explain to me how "the majority of pop fans" get to determine what everyone, on an individual basis, will integrate the song into his/her life?
Ugh. This is such Contrarian Realist bullshit. Park it alongside the "Well, if 10,000,000 people like Miley Cyrus, doesn't that make her the most interesting artist of our time?" faux intellectual crap.
No. Popularity is simply one prism through which to look at art. 45 years later, more people care about the Velvet Underground than they do the Archies. "Pet Sounds" sold like shit in the U.S. and yet is still widely hailed as a major milestone and big influence.
"Meaningful" =/= "Massively Popular". Moreover, you can't possibly tell how much any serious album will catch on until well after it has been released. Lots of good albums take time to find their audience.
Ok. Now explain to me how "the majority of pop fans" get to determine what everyone, on an individual basis, will integrate the song into his/her life?
It's like saying that the Sex Pistols gig at Manchester Free Trade Hall, which was attended by about 100 people, is less important than the time Oasis played the Milton Keynes Bowl in front of something like 200,000 people.
Hardly anybody even remembers the second gig. The first gig inspired - take of breath - Ian Curtis and Peter Hook to start Joy Division, Morrissey and Johnny Marr to start the Smiths, Howard DeVoto and Pete Shelley to start Buzzcocks, and Mark E. Smith to start The Fall.
Fuck right off with that populist tripe. It's nonsense.
Hardly anybody even remembers the second gig. The first gig inspired - take of breath - Ian Curtis and Peter Hook to start Joy Division, Morrissey and Johnny Marr to start the Smiths, Howard DeVoto and Pete Shelley to start Buzzcocks, and Mark E. Smith to start The Fall.
Fuck right off with that populist tripe. It's nonsense.
Man, he's fucking horrible. Classic bad reviewing:
1. Intro paragraph with a first-person pronoun included 15 times.
2. Use of "quite literally" completely incorrectly. A work does not become an opera just because there are guest vocalists/characters.
3. Interchangeable use of "rap" and "hip-hop" as though they are the same thing
4. Confusion of "not to my taste" with "not good"
Blech.
1. Intro paragraph with a first-person pronoun included 15 times.
2. Use of "quite literally" completely incorrectly. A work does not become an opera just because there are guest vocalists/characters.
3. Interchangeable use of "rap" and "hip-hop" as though they are the same thing
4. Confusion of "not to my taste" with "not good"
Blech.
I almost want to go back to the AV Club and read old Hyden pieces, because I don't remember disliking him there. Was he always not good and I just didn't notice it there, or is he really killing himself on Grantland trying to be mini-Klosterman.
This is the dumbest sentence that thinks it is incredibly clever which I have read recently.
Jimy Hendrix said:
I didn't dislike him, I thought he was ok. But he either got dumb or dumbed his shit down for Grantland.
dirtynine said:
I can't remember what site did it (it may have been Grantland) but there was a retrospective on Adam Sandler's "They're All Going to Laugh at You". That may have been the tipping point.
I don't know, Adam Sandler is an easy target these days, but that album was pretty novel at the time. Granted, I was 14 and in the target demo, but it was fresh in 1993 and I found it to be a good read. I've got no problem with the oral history/retrospective format, especially when they make them length-appropriate. TAGTLAY, if I remember correctly, was just a few pages and they're wasn't a ton of filler.
Sweet Georgia Brown, Steven Hyden is quickly becoming my favorite shitty writer. But he still has a long way to go before dethroning the King and the Emperor. You can do it, Steve!
1. Nick Cafardo
2. Peter King
3. Steven Hyden <-- with a bullet!
4. Rick Reilly
1. Nick Cafardo
2. Peter King
3. Steven Hyden <-- with a bullet!
4. Rick Reilly
Ya. He sucks.
He's more interested in sounding pithy than talking about music. It's like he studies Klosterman more than the bands he's ostensibly supposed to cover.
I also think it's rich that he's taking 20/20-hindsight potshots at Robert Christgau, who is probably one of the three most influential rock writers ever (Bangs, Marcus, Christgau), and then doesn't have the courtesy to complete the context of Christgau's statements re: metal fans, which make it clear A) he was referring to specific metal fans that post insulting comments on Christgau's blog/site; and B) he was largely joking:
He's more interested in sounding pithy than talking about music. It's like he studies Klosterman more than the bands he's ostensibly supposed to cover.
I also think it's rich that he's taking 20/20-hindsight potshots at Robert Christgau, who is probably one of the three most influential rock writers ever (Bangs, Marcus, Christgau), and then doesn't have the courtesy to complete the context of Christgau's statements re: metal fans, which make it clear A) he was referring to specific metal fans that post insulting comments on Christgau's blog/site; and B) he was largely joking:
Grantland has spent the last week getting their writers to write about romantic comedies. That seems like a rather stupid idea.
Has anyone analyzed how many articles they write on NBA basketball versus other sports? I only know about their content from this thread and my Facebook feed, and it seems like it's "slam" as edited by Peter King.
Listen to the podcast Bill does with two writers on the subject. He is starting to sound like an old man making unknowingly racist comments. He isn't saying them maliciously, and you let it go because he is old. Or in this case the writers let it go because he is their boss...John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Welcome! Post Smartly.Silverdude2167 said:
(In this case, that means coming with a much stronger citation if you're going to toss a comment like that out. Give a link and a quote or timestamp)
JayMags71 said:
In fairness, that's in large part due to the fact that their most prolific writer, Zach Lowe, writes on basketball.
JayMags71 said:
It'd take way to much time to look over, but if we sort by tags (inexact science), here are the date spans by ten articles/media for each of the big sports leagues. It's worth noting that there are a lot of multisport columns and missing tags, so it's not a great barometer, and I'll limit to the last three for my sanity
NBA:
Articles 1-10: July 22-July 25 (4 publishing days)
Articles 11-20: July 17-July 22 (4 publishing days)
Articles 21-30: July 14-16 (3 publishing days)
Span: End of Free Agency, Summer League
NFL:
Articles 1-10: July 15-25 (9 publishing days)
Articles 11-20: June 5 - July 15 (28ish publishing days)
Articles 21-30: May 20 - June 3 (10 publishing days)
Span: The time between the draft and the games that don't matter
MLB:
Articles 1-10: July 21-25 (5 publishing days)
Articles 11-20: July 16-21 (4 publishing days)
Articles 21-30: July 10-16 (5 publishing days)
Span: All-Star Games, Midseason Review, Regular Season
NHL:
Articles 1-10: June 27 - July 24 (19 publishing days)
Articles 11-20: June 12-26 (11 publishing days)
Articles 21-30: June 4 - June 11 (6 publishing days)
Span: Stanley Cup, Draft, Offseason
Soccer is hard to tell due to the World Cup and the spike in coverage from there. College Football has had 10-15 articles every couple of months in the offseason. Golf is even less.
So at least for sports, it seems fair to say that it's basketball first and then it goes seasonal from there (I suspect the NFL will increase and MLB will decline as fall approaches). I mean, the NBA was outpacing MLB in articles during the World Series last year.
Silverdude2167 said:
I listened to it and I really don't get where you are coming from. They actually pointed out that Hollywood doesn't push black women in romantic comedies. Simmons also did not know that Zeta Jones was Welsh and assumed she was a Latina. Personally, I only knew she was from Wales because I saw an interview with her and Sean Connery where it was pointed out about a decade ago. I think a lot of the confusion comes from her role in Zorro.
I could have missed something but that is all I remember.
Jonah Keri podcast with guest Pedro Martinez. http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=11293079
He just posted it, so I haven't even listened yet, but should be good.
He just posted it, so I haven't even listened yet, but should be good.
It was fantastic. Really honest and open. Glad he's still part of the organization, but damn I miss him on the mound.Big Papa Smurph said:
Widely reported -- The Men in Blazers are packing up shop at ESPN and moving over to NBC Sports, to be closer to their EPL coverage.
Their farewell podcast launched this morning -- featuring 10 questions about the EPL this year, and an interview with Mexican coach Miguel "Wet" Herrera. A solid 15 minutes at the end where Rog and Davo expressed their gratitude to ABC/Disney, and specifically to Grantland.
I find it remarkably generous of ESPN to allow Men in Blazers to make this valedictory podcast on their platform, as itincluded plenty of news about their pending move to NBC. In my media experience, when somebody's leaving you for a competitor, step one is to pretend they never existed, step two is to say they were going to get fired anyway, and step three is to have a replacement at the ready who they can claim is a major upgrade in any event.
[Come to think of it, sounds remarkably like SOP exit strategy for players leaving the Red Sox.]
Farewell MiB. Look forward to seeing you in your new home.
Their farewell podcast launched this morning -- featuring 10 questions about the EPL this year, and an interview with Mexican coach Miguel "Wet" Herrera. A solid 15 minutes at the end where Rog and Davo expressed their gratitude to ABC/Disney, and specifically to Grantland.
I find it remarkably generous of ESPN to allow Men in Blazers to make this valedictory podcast on their platform, as itincluded plenty of news about their pending move to NBC. In my media experience, when somebody's leaving you for a competitor, step one is to pretend they never existed, step two is to say they were going to get fired anyway, and step three is to have a replacement at the ready who they can claim is a major upgrade in any event.
[Come to think of it, sounds remarkably like SOP exit strategy for players leaving the Red Sox.]
Farewell MiB. Look forward to seeing you in your new home.
Rembert writes about his experience in Ferguson:
http://grantland.com/features/ferguson-missouri-protest-michael-brown-murder-police/
Reading about Rembert running in fear and choking on tear gas...man.
http://grantland.com/features/ferguson-missouri-protest-michael-brown-murder-police/
Reading about Rembert running in fear and choking on tear gas...man.
JBill said:
Was just coming here to post the same thing. Rembert writes some articles that make me bust out laughing, and then he can write something like this that gives you chills. Excellent article.
I really like Greenwald on TV. I've grown to really like Wesley Morris on movies even though I disagree with him more often than not. I love Pappademas on pretty much everything. Basically I like Grantland's pop culture content more than most.
However I cannot stand Hyden. He wrote a Tom Petty retrospective and then this championship belt. Two things that should be easy and enjoyable reads for me. But I couldn't make it through either. His articles are just him bragging about his record collection and the fact that he knows of many bands and songs. There's very little insight. I wish they had someone better for music
However I cannot stand Hyden. He wrote a Tom Petty retrospective and then this championship belt. Two things that should be easy and enjoyable reads for me. But I couldn't make it through either. His articles are just him bragging about his record collection and the fact that he knows of many bands and songs. There's very little insight. I wish they had someone better for music
The title of every one of Hyden's column should be "Poorly Quantifying Things That I Like By: Chuck Klosterman"
Ya, he really represents the worst aspects of the New Journalism (as defined by guys like Simmons and Klosterman) boiled down to their essence.
Simmons and Klosterman were at the vanguard of the post-Gonzo journalistic style whereby not only should the person be open about his/her viewpoints, but that those viewpoints are inherently valid and interesting. It's a complete 180 from the old school style of Objective [Third Person] Journalism of the days of yore.
The problem is, it only works if the author is simultaneously aware that he/she has a duty to the audience to be genuine and honest in bringing forth a new idea. Apart from the problematic fact that his ideas are kind of half-baked and dull, Hyden is smug and disingenuous. He breaks the contract between writer and reader.
Kloserman (and Simmons, when he's writing well) come at you with an interesting idea first, and then tell you what they think about the idea.
Hyden (and Simmons, when he's not writing well) come at you with the premise that what they are about to say is really interesting because they wrote it.
Simmons and Klosterman were at the vanguard of the post-Gonzo journalistic style whereby not only should the person be open about his/her viewpoints, but that those viewpoints are inherently valid and interesting. It's a complete 180 from the old school style of Objective [Third Person] Journalism of the days of yore.
The problem is, it only works if the author is simultaneously aware that he/she has a duty to the audience to be genuine and honest in bringing forth a new idea. Apart from the problematic fact that his ideas are kind of half-baked and dull, Hyden is smug and disingenuous. He breaks the contract between writer and reader.
Kloserman (and Simmons, when he's writing well) come at you with an interesting idea first, and then tell you what they think about the idea.
Hyden (and Simmons, when he's not writing well) come at you with the premise that what they are about to say is really interesting because they wrote it.
jmcc5400 said:
Couldn't agree more. The "title belt" pieces have become such a crutch for the whole site.
I don't mind them taking one pass through all their competency areas with the conceit, up until music one they were all entertaining reads. Hyden's was almost a parody of if a wrestling internet smark wrote a column titled 'who I think should have held the WWE championship belt 1970-Present'. At least the others were somewhat grounded in public objectivity, as benefits a championship belt. I agree that between this and Petty, Hyden's cemented himself as the worst.BS_SoxFan said:
JimBoSox9 said:
I like the championship belt idea. The Action Hero belt, the QB belt, the SP belt, all fun reads. That being said, this is the first Hyden article I have read, and god is it shitty. He starts off with this ridiculos rule:
What? So because Springsteen is such a legend he is disqualified? Why does this even have to be "bands." Why can't it just be American Musical acts?
It just gets worse from there. I stopped reading when I reached 1977, where he ranks Television over The Eagles. I must be misinterpeting the reasoning for the article. I assumed that it had to do not only with commerical success but with the legacy and influence that the bands had. So how exactly did Television beat out The Eagles, in the year they released Hotel California no less?
I scrolled down and once we hit the 2000s, it really started to circle the drain. No idea what he was thinking with this. He basically wanted to write "Here is a list of bands throughout the years that I really liked" but did it under the guise of the championship belt. There is no reasoning behind it, no logic, no defense other than the fact that he had a particular interest in writing about some bands he liked, but that wouldn't fly as an article on Grantland, so he came up with this contrived piece of shit. I mean, the article is really only bad BECAUSE it was presented as something to determine who the best bands were, not because it is poorly written or he doesn't know what he is talking about.
You are spot on about the wrestling thing. It would be like someone making the case for Dean Malenko being the world champion from 1995-1999 over Hogan, Austin, Rock, Sting etc.