Two to Tango

It takes two, so says Rolling Stone’s 20 Greatest Duos of All Time.  “Less narcissistic than a solo performer, more intimate than a band.”  Not sure that quite holds up, but when the chemistry works, a duo can indeed be magical.

I’m a tad confused about what holds this list together, though.  We’ve got bona fide duos, such as Richard and Linda Thompson, Simon & Garfunkel, and The Everly Brothers.

But then we’ve got duos that may be duos but they sound like bands, even though they are definitely driven by a partnership of two, e.g. Black Keys or Steely Dan.  I mean, is Ronnie Wood any less of a hired gun than Larry Carlton?

Debatable, maybe, if you apply that logic to Sam & Dave, but then the list gets weird.  Ashford & Simpson were really known for songwriting, not performing, so why not King & Goffin?  Fripp & Eno were a one-off.  Ike Tuner was big before Tina, Tina was big after Ike, and no one wants to remember the period in between.

Maybe 20 is a stretch and this should have been a Top 10 list.

ps - Lee Hazelwood and Nancy Sinatra have “stood the test of time?”  Really?

I’ll Cry Instead

A rock band can be like a romantic relationship.  So says Rolling Stone Magazine in The 10 Messiest Band Breakups.  Here’s the list:

Guns N’ Roses

The Everly Brothers

Oasis

The Police

The Eagles

The Clash

Smashing Pumpkins

Rage Against the Machine

The Pixies

Queensryche

So, we’ve got all the ingredients.  Out of control egos, drugs, betrayal, rivalry, verbal and physical abuse, smashed guitars, lawyers.

What we don’t have, however, is the biggest, messiest breakup of all: The Beatles.  It was all captured in a butt-ugly, downer of a film!  The lawsuits went on for years!  They wrote nasty songs about one another!  People are still mad at Yoko!

Hell froze over for The Eagles, and the re-union tour has now lasted longer than the original band.  The Everlys and The Police also patched up and cashed in.  Shouldn’t one of these bands be pushed aside?

I mean, this is not a list about honour and glory, but The Beatles gave us more than enough drama - and stupidity - to “earn” a place on this particular list.  It’s all too much.

Disappearing Acts

Sometimes ideas for lists must seem good until you try to populate them.  Take Rolling Stone’s 13 Rock Stars Who Disappeared list, for example.

Not all rock stars burn out.  Some fade away.  Some gracefully withdraw.  And when they command our attention for so long, we do want to know what happened.  So cool idea.

Then Rolling Stone tries to add an additional twist by measuring people against the (Syd) “Barret Scale”, using him as the benchmark for rock star dropout reclusive weirdness.

Cool idea, but it weakens the argument for including many names on the list.  The article admits that Fats Domino is “more retired than reclusive.”  After making a big deal of what sounds like the mysterious departure of David Bowie, it then admits “it's hard to be a true recluse while you're posing for red carpet photos with your supermodel spouse.”  OK then.

Billy Joel, Grace Slick, The Everly Brothers  -  these people are retired.  John Deacon knew that Queen died with Freddie, so he is smart.  John Frusciante definitely registers on the “Barrett Scale,” but not many of the other names do.  If they really wanted to use this “Barrett Scale,” why didn’t they include Peter Green?  He’s been lurking in the shadows so long the scale could be named after him!

But Joni Mitchell?  She’s always done her own thing.   Sly Stone?  Maybe he sensed he had overstayed his welcome, or used up more than his fair share of public consciousness.

An interesting variation on the list might have been rock stars that walked away while on top:  Little Richard, Conway Twitty, Dave Clark, Linda Ronstadt.  Barrett, Green and Frusciante definitely belong on that list.

Postscript: since the list came out, Bowie actually released a new single and announced a new album.  Not terribly reclusive, then, is it?