Who is the all-time greatest rock 'n' roll band? That question always spurs debate, if not out and out bloodshed. One thing is for certain: your favourite band sucks...at least according to some nimrod with some half-baked opinion.

But maybe, just maybe, there is a way to objectively narrow down the field somewhat. I started thinking about this when I heard about "The Keltner List," which is a way to measure a baseball player's level of "greatness."

Ken Keltner was an above average baseball player, but not a "great" one. The list assumes that if we can come up with 10 qualitative questions that reward one point each (which Ken Keltner would only score a, say, 3/10), then we can apply the same questions to other players.

It got me thinking about a list for bands:

1. Have they widely been acclaimed as being great? This narrows the field a bit; I mean, should Huey Lewis and The News even be in this discussion?

2. Did they sell a lot of records? Before anyone gets all uppity about quality and quantity, this isn't a make or break question, but it does stand to reason that a great rock 'n' roll band did actually enjoy some success. Other questions will eliminate N' Sync and their ilk.

3. Did they rock? This is pretty basic. A great rock n' roll band should inspire people to shake their booty and/or fist and/or hair. They should also at some point have been described as "rock." Otherwise something like Johnny Cash or NWA might end up scoring high on this test, which would be wrong.

4. Were they innovators? Real greatness changes the world, even if it is only the rock world. Did you invent setting your guitar on fire? Then step to the head of your class, Jimi Hendrix.

5. Did they overstay their welcome? Once again, this is not necessarily a deal breaker, but decades of mediocrity will eventually start reflecting badly on the few years of greatness.

6. Were any of the individual members of the band ever considered to be amongst the best at playing their instruments? You'd think that a great rock band might, perhaps, contain some great musicians. Seems possible to me.

7. Are any of their albums mentioned during discussions of "all-time great albums"? Okay, not getting a "yes" on this question is probably a deal breaker.

8. Were they considered to be a great live act? Let's face it: live performance is what separates the men from the boys, the women from the girls, the trannys from the kids playing "dress-up."

9. Could a significant segment of the public name, or even sing some part of any of their songs? If nobody knows any of their music, well, you know.

10. Are they in the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame? If "yes," that counts against them. Joking, sorta. But come on, that is kinda "establishment," isn't it?

So, even though the framework may be somewhat subjective, it is a framework. The Stones come out at 7/10 and The Clash at 8/10. Now, maybe The Stones should get extra credit for being "bigger," but then again maybe they should also get extra demerits for waaay overstaying their welcome. Meh, I never said this would end all the music wars... it's just another tool you can use to chisel away at your opponent.

All this talk of greatness has made me think of a great band that would probably score (generously) a 1/10:

The Shaggs: My Pal Foot Foot

At least Lester Bangs liked them.

Related Tyee stories:

• New indie, roots-down Pawnshop Diamond
• Local future stars, Organ Trail
• U2's non-U2 "Window in the Skies" video