Hate to vote against the Stones — or the Sex Pistols — but had to go with my heart and Marley.

Oh, and I think he meant the Tournament of Rock polls close tomorrow. Not the Election Day polls. So vote today.

If the Stones win this one, I’ll definitely agree with Dr. Slammy that we have a Boomer bias going on. I think the number of Stones fans under the age of 50 can be counted on two hands. The Stones did nothing that the Beatles or the Who hadn’t already done (with the possible exception of a Country & Western detour). Both Marley and the Pistols reshaped rock in a way the Stones never could.

Okay, that makes one. I’ve still got 9 free digits left.

Actually, based on the last Stones concert I went to about six years ago, it’s a pretty broad age range. But that was here in London–maybe in the US it’s just the geriatric set. And so what if there’s a boomer bias? This is a legends TOR. Who do you think invented most of this stuff, anyway? And in the overall methodological critique I’m preparing on this TOR that Sam and Jim know nothing about until now, I did a count–there are more 1970s bands (about 70–starting from when the band released its first album, which is as good a way as any to count this) in this tourney than there are 60s bands (about 50) out of the 180 or so bands.–and another 40 or so from the 80s. I have time on my hands, apparently. So two thirds of the bands in the tourney are from the 60s and 70s. That sounds about right. If you think about it, if you’re talking about legends and influence (as opposed to My Favorite Band Of All Time), that’s probably not enough. I can think of another 8-10 60s bands alone that deserved to be here and weren’t–possibly over a concern about loading it up with 60s bands. About 20 are from the 90s and 00s, which is probably too many. Of course, if people are voting on the basis of MFBOAT, then mileage may vary.

Hey, don’t drag me into this. I’m still pissed about Green Day. And Queen.

Note that I said critique, not criticism. And you did have The Animals, as I recall. Anyway, a couple of points. I like the ecological analogy–suddenly, there was this explosiion of genres in the mid-late 60s to the early 70s, and within a couple of years the available niches were filled. And there just haven’t been many new niches developed since then. I know everyone likes to think their decade is new and different, but really, the musical landscape hasn’t actually changed all that much the past four decades–and what changes there have been have been largely driven by changes in technology. I’d be happy to be proved otherwise, but there’s not much going on now that people weren’t at least trying back then. I imagine there’s some power law that captures this.

Second, “better” is a relative (and awfully imprecise) term. And before getting into THAT argument, you would first need to disentangle the impact that technology has had–specifically, the fact that the techology of making (and hearing) music is considerably more sophisitcated than it was 30 or 40 years ago. This is to be expected, given the world we live in. But it’s an important point anyway–bands the past decade or two SOUND much better than 60s bands in many respects–but a lot of that is just the simple application of available technology. If you put on Moby Grape’s first album these days, it’s clear immediately that while this was a great band (that shortly self-destructed) with exceptional musical and songwriting skills and extraordinary energy, the album still sounds as if it was recorded in someone’s basement. Scissor Sisters (or pick your own here) may or may not be a great band–time will tell. But they sure SOUND like a great band.

Finally, the “inventing” versus “perfecting” thing–I’m not with you there. I can see why it would make for a lively discussion, but I suspect “improving” is probably a better concept–what ever gets perfected in music? Nothing–but there are improvements (and tangents) all the time. Is Dave Navarro, or Slash, a better guitarist than Hendrix? Possibly, in terms of proficiency, and close in terms of imagination. But in terms of importance, there’s no contest. I take your point on Clear Channel, by the way, but I think it’s less relevant than you think–radio already sucked by the 1970s. This could go on for years. But it’s only rock and roll.

The music always finds a way to go on.