Not too long ago Rolling Stone did one of their lists of the 100 Greatest Songwriters, and those lists they love so much are enough to drive just about anyone crazy. I was apoplectic by the time I read through the list, but I think they do it on purpose just to yank your chain. I was reminded of many great songwriters, and just aghast at some of the choices.
So what is the criteria to be one of the greatest songwriters. Is it how many you write? Is it consistency of quality? Is it chart position or sales? Are a few absolutely amazing songs enough to qualify? Is it the variety of songs in different styles that sets a writer apart?
I have my own biases of course, but I've always said that bands are generally better with more than one songwriter, either when two work as a team or when two writers each contribute to a band's material. Things are just more varied this way, because any one songwriter only has so many song ideas and/or styles to contribute. Of course there are exceptions.
Rolling Stone listed Bob Dylan as #1, and then McCartney as #2, and Lennon as #3. I really think they should have listed Lennon/McCartney as a team at #1 or #2, rather than list them separately. Neither of them wrote as many consistently great songs after the Beatles than they produced together. So I guess the consistency thing is big for me. I can see going with Dylan as #1, but frankly, his work for almost twenty years between 1978 and 1997 includes many weak songs.
The list reminded me of Smokey Robinson, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, and Holland/Dozier/Holland for their work at Motown and beyond. In rock/pop, the Jagger/Richards team, Bruce Springsteen, Brian Wilson, Prince, Elvis Costello, John/Taupin and Ray Davies all deserve accolades. Singer/songwriters Jackson Browne, Joni Mitchell, and Lucinda Williams wrote plenty of great ones. But some of the choices Rolling Stone made seem designed to push my buttons. Stevie Nicks, Neil Diamond, Max Martin, Bono and The Edge? Oh, please.
The Beatles made something like 13 studio records. Not too many bands or artists have made as many, and as many solid ones, as Lennon /McCartney produced. There are a few artists that have come close over a longer period of time of course, but to me it seems they all put out a few stinkers along the way. Van Morrison, Elvis Costello, Neil Young, Willie Nelson- they all seem to lose out in the consistency category at least.
Some people are naturally gifted. But even naturally gifted songwriters have to really work for it most of the time. I think it is reasonable to say that the song is more important than any other element. There's just not much you can do with a lousy song.
