Et Tu, Loverboy?

Even when I was 20-*cough*, and dead certain of my infallible taste and critical acumen, I thought some of the unending bitching about music "credibility" was silly.

Now, it just seems pathetic.

I mean, seriously, seriously pathetic. I mean, I stumble onto this website with an article by Tim McMahan, who, writing about a wholly unrelated event/artist, offers this:

Well, my plan was to go to Camera Obscura at The Slowdown tonight after the Memorial Park wankfest featuring Loverboy and Pat Benatar. Seeing as I live a few blocks from the park, I feel obligated to be there if only to protect my home from potential looters.

I won't link, I don't wanna drive traffic to him. Although, he did give a positive review to my brother-in-law's band's show, so...that's a brownie point. He makes a few more snarky comments, but who cares?

I read that paragraph over 3 times, just to try to decide if  Tim McMahan is really just that scared of mullets, or if he's just that insecure in talking about what he does like, that he has to frame it in what he doesn't. It seems (reading between the lines) he's required to see this Loverboy/Pat Benetar show, and feels gypped that he has to miss Camera Obscura. OK, fine, of course, he just can't say "I'm required to see this show for my job," which, I guess, would seem deeply uncool and non-"indie." Nope, let's turn it into a wisecrack about Loverboy and the people who would want to see them.

How pathetic.

Now, please be aware, I could give two shits about Loverboy. Really. I'm sure I love a ton, I mean a metric ton (he doesn't seem the Rush or Springsteen type) of music that McMahan reviles, but I just have no opinion on this particular group of Canucks. I do have a warm spot for Working For the Weekend, as it was huge (the high point of their career, frankly) when I was in FIFTH GRADE. Which would lead me to guess, that Mr. McMahan probably wasn't even alive (or too young) when they were a household, or as close as they ever got, name. It's a catchy, fun, non-challenging song that you can dance to, as almost every "hit" single known to man.

It's dumb, no argument. Fun? Yeah, I think so. It reminds me of riding bikes and being stupid as a 10 year old. I'm sure for folks a little older than me, it reminds them of cruising around in the Summer, being stupid and looking for someone to buy beer.

Every generation should have that, will have it, and there's nothing wrong with it. Do I own any Loverboy? No. Do I intend to buy any Loverboy? No. Do I tap my toe and hum along to Working For the Weekend when i hear it? Oh hell yes.

I bet McMahan has a similar reaction to Gin Blossom's Hey Jealousy, or Urge Overkill's Sister Havana. The point being, most of the people at that show aren't there because they are HUGE Loverboy fans, or that the band is genius, but because they're going to play songs that remind them of a simpler, easier time in their lives when they could like a song because it was, flat out, catchy.

We won't even get into Benetar, who I do own music by...because she's pretty awesome.

I guess I just find it ridiculous that this guy still feels the need to prove his "indie cred" by taking a shot a Loverboy, for God's sake. A band that hasn't charted an album since 1987 (that would be more than a quarter of a century ago), and most people wouldn't even know was still together if they didn't frequent State Fairs. Let me put it this way, the last time Loverboy had any sort of, non-nostalgic, impact on popular culture, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and Tim Burton's Batman were still 2 years away from release.

I mean, One Direction or Justin Bieber, at least they represent the middlebrow rock of RIGHT NOW, rather than of THIRTY YEARS ago.

Often, when I find myself in a discussion about music, and a band like Loverboy comes up, I get a lot of the word "credibility." Which just makes me laugh, hard. Mainly because many of the acts that I'm told are "credible," are anything but. Jack White, for instance. All anybody has to do is watch It Might Get Loud, and the fact that that dude is a ginormous poseur is obvious. Connor Oberst (drawing from McMahan's neck of the woods)? I know something about the privileged, entitled upbringing he enjoyed...now he sells himself as some sort of street poet.

Loverboy? They sell themselves as a bunch of guys who wanted to be in a rock band, so they started one, and wrote some songs you might like. Come down and have a good time.

Which seems more credible, to me, than 90% of the bands you could name.

Art is Not Black and White, and We Don't Have to Agree

I recently put up my feelings about the Lou Reed & Metallica album, Lulu.

My reaction, as I would describe it, is that it's hard to like, unlistenable in places, but worthy of more thought than, I felt, most people were giving it. I think any project this odd, and, I'll say it, brave, deserves a bit more consideration than was being afforded to it.

Immediately, I was getting reactions like "you love Lulu?!?!?"

No, I don't "love" Lulu.

I think I love Junior Dad, and I might love Iced Honey. Both of those tracks are very interesting, and got stuck in my head. So, yeah, I dug those tracks. My endorsement of the album, as a whole, would be as an interesting experiment that, as experiments often do, fails most of the time.

But, you know what? It IS art. It is an expression of an emotional state. The lyrics can be repugnant, but they're repugnant with a point. The co-mingling of the Reed and Metallica sensibilities apparently was exciting to Reed for this material.

It has to be understood that Lars Ulrich must've been the spark of Metallica's involvement. Lars has grown into a guy who's into artistic expression, with his love of modern art. It's easy to see that putting the band, that he has put so much of himself into, into a box with limited freedom is something he wants to fight against. I think the rest of the band agrees. Who wants to be doing the same thing you did at 20, when you're 40? No artist does.

But I digress....

The point is, how the fact that I find some interesting things on Lulu, that I don't HATE it, suddenly translates to "I love it." Trust me, I don't expect to be popping that CD on all the time. Listening to that kind of record is work, and frankly, most people (including myself) usually don't want music to be work. I get that, and it's a completely valid opinion.

But, well, OK...This is what I'm feeling:

I love Jackson Pollock. LOVE his paintings. If I was looking at  "Number 8," just marveling at it (because I would), and some guy came up and said, "y'know, I dig the colors, it's kind of pretty, but my 3 year old could do that," I wouldn't jump down his throat, screaming "why do you hate it!?!!?"

Because he doesn't. He may not appreciate the technique, or the intent, Pollock put into his canvases, but he does like the colors. That's not "getting it," but neither is it hating it.

Even if he did HATE it, walked up, stood next to me, and said "looks like somebody took a dump on the canvas," what's that to me? How does that impact my reaction to it, and why should I care that the beauty I see is completely lost on him? I'm the kind of person who'd be interested in why he feels that way (hence I love reading well-written reviews), but I don't consider that a referendum on if I'm "right," or not. 

Of course, I blame the internet, and our world of easy slander. What the fuck, right? They're rich and famous, and don't have a "real job," so I'm justified in saying they suck. Plus, it makes all of us feel better if there's a "right" and "wrong," and we can position ourselves as firmly, without question, on the right side.

Every, single time I think about this subject, I think about when Superman Returns came out. I saw it, I cried at John Williams' Superman Theme during the opening credits, and when I walked out of the theatre I was happy. I thought it was a well-made film, that captured the tone of the character correctly.

I, by no means, thought it was perfect. I felt like it was shackled by the connections Director Bryan Singer wanted to make to the Richard Donner's first film, as well as Superman II. I felt Brandon Routh was a decent actor, who had a good feel for the character, but was hamstrung by the clear direction to "do it like Christopher Reeve."

When I mentioned these criticisms on a couple of message boards I frequented, you would've thought I'd burned a flag. People were raving mad that I had "trashed" the film. Which I couldn't get, because I was always clear to say I liked the movie quite a bit. It just seemed like, and here's the rub, the second I said something that these folks disagreed with, they stopped reading what I was saying. From that point on, my posts were only there to find grounds to say I was "wrong," making them "right."

Now, hell, I'll still defend Superman Returns, but it's become a rather reviled film. I find some of the people who were so mad at me using the very same arguments I did, and proclaiming that the film "sucked."

Hey, everyone's entitled to change their minds.

Still, I wonder how much more communication we'd have, how many ideas might be really heard and considered, if we'd just start applying "I think." Your opinion is just what you think, period. Mine is just what I think. No more, no less, and none of us has a direct line to the universal worth of any work of art. Art is supposed to inspire discussion, but when that discussion ends up feeling like a competition, what's the point?

With that, your moment of zen...Pollock's "Full Fathom Five," from 1947.

Slow Out of the Gate This Week

Didya hear Radiohead put out a new album?

It's funny, I follow a lovely blog called Burning Wood, and Sal, it's proprietor, didn't overly enjoy the new Radiohead, and boy, the interwebs did not like that.

It always strikes me as really, really funny when someone gets SO upset because someone didn't like something that they did. Or, conversely, if someone did like something they didn't. I got a lot of that when I thought the Star Wars Prequels weren't an abomination. Weaker than the originals? Oh, sure...but I still got enjoyment from them.

So what? What does it matter to you?

I shouldn't be so dismissive. It's fun to discuss and debate and match wits, so if that's why it matters to you, great! If you just want to tell me how stupid I am for that opinion...why are you wasting your time? I mean, I wrote a review of a Frames show a few months back that wasn't glowing, but it certainly wasn't a write-off, either. I suddenly started getting a ton of hits on that entry, because people didn't like what I had to say.

Now, I understand discussing the merits of a review. Everyone does that, and, for a lot of those people, my opinion is moot because I'm not a huge fan. Fair enough. Of course, I'd also say that being a huge fan can blind you to weaknesses that are there.

But whatever.

You're a fan, you love, love, LOVE Radiohead...great. I'm happy for you that they put out a new album. I can see why you're excited, and that's cool.

I am not. Sal liked their early stuff, and they lost him after OK Computer. That opinion is just as valid as yours, and, honestly, has nothing to do with you.

Why take it as a personal affront? Why not, y'know, go listen to the album and be happy that it's in your hot little hands? Enjoy that something you're so enamored with is available for you to listen to.

See, because I don't trust people who seem too concerned with other people's reactions. I can't help feeling like you're overcompensating. Like maybe you're a little scared to not have everyone in lockstep with your opinion.

Sounds like the US as a whole, right now, actually.