Two-dimensional Article.


Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 05:55:20 0400
From: croix clayton 
To: journal@trincoll.edu
X-Url: http://www.trincoll.edu/tj/tj10.19.95/articles/altrock.html

To whom it may concern,

I find myself as nonplussed by Eric Levigne's two-dimensional article on modern rock as I frequently am by the literary pap that so poorly endorses so called "Alternative rock". Upon seeing that 'Alternative Music' was the feature story in this month's edition of the Trincoll journal, I decided to read the article, in hopes that I would find an informed author providing insight and musical knowledge into the thorny phenomenon that 'alternative rock' has become. Not surprisingly, I found no such thing.

Regarding the people Levigne complains about who all look the same, in their flannel, corduroy pants and suede shoes, I am astonished that the author would stoop to such a puerile level. Does Levigne understand that every subculture which is brought into the light of the media will be eventually destroyed by it, and that this is precisely what has happened to indie rock? Does he see the difference between the innovators and the MTV brats? I would suggest a healthy dose of of research before Levigne ever again has the hubris to overlook such a thing.

Media attention killed the Beat movement, all of a sudden, every mindless college snot bought himself a black turtleneck and tried to be Jack Kerouac. After that, media attention and wannabe's killed the Hippie subculture, (there was a period when the subculture escaped media attention: the Stooges, the Velvet Underground...they never got popular enough to have to worry about upper-middle class thirteen year olds going around trying to be Iggy Pop or Lou Reed.) The same formula crippled the Punks in the late 70's and the Goths in the early 80's, and then Metal in the late 80's. In the early 90's media attention made a joke out of Hip-Hop and Rap. Every white kid in the country wore his pants backwards and helped to make Dr.Dre and Onyx millionares. The program has continued into modern rock. How can Levigne have the gall and the lack of insight to not make the distinction between the people who helped create this culture when it was still underground, and those who jumped on the MTV bandwagon?

With regard to the bands the article supports, yes the Beatles were a brilliant band, and there may never be another band like them, but they were derided in their own time for being noisy and talentless, much as Levigne obtusely and unspecifically derides an entire genre of music which includes hundreds of bands who widely vary stylistically and talent-wise.

U2 and R.E.M. are also incredible bands, but as far as talent goes, there are plenty of bands in the same ballpark as these two. (the Cranberries definitely not one of them. Yes, O'Riordan's voice is distinctive. So is Axl Rose's. That doesn't mean it sounds good. And their entire musical library consists of two albums? There isn't a musical signature on either of those albums that couldn't have a direct line traced to U2, Van Morrison or the Pogues. It's completely derivative.) Bands like Morphine, Sonic Youth, the Pixies, Operation Ivy and Smashing Pumpkins posess massive amounts of talent, and above that originality, but apparently belong "in the wastebasket" according to the personal tastes of Mr. Levigne. I would suggest a more in-depth knowlegde of the subject before the author attempts another such article.

And of course, no watered-down, reactionary, half-witted tirade against what the author considers 'alternative' music would be complete without a little ranting about Green Day. Yes, Green Day is not a band that can be defended all too well. (If Levigne's litmus test of good music is how it would sound unplugged, then I wonder if he knows anything about the basic tenets of Punk rock.) However, if simple chord progressions, catchy choruses and slightly sophomoric lyrics add up to tripe in the author's opinion, then perhaps he should look to the first three or four of his beloved Beatles' albums and listen to them very carefully before he casts the first stone.

But Weezer? I can almost understand disliking Green Day, but first calling Weezer untalented, and then saying that without distortion they'd be nothing? This statement is so far from the truth, so patently false, that I wonder how much the author know about music theory, or if he merely labels the bands he dislikes as "untalented"? I can't even comprehend how such an entirely moronic and musically inaccurate statement could be made in a real publication. (Wait, I rescind that statement, this is a Trinity college publication. I doubt anyone at this newspaper has ever even heard of Sebadoh or NOFX, much less posess the ability to make an informed statement on underground music.) Weezer's guitar parts are complex and quite original, most are quite difficult to play and sound wonderful on an acoustic guitar. By the way, this is their first album. Compare it to U2's 'Boy' or R.E.M's 'Chronic Town'. It blows them out of the water. Those albums are of average quality at best.

The icing on the cake was Levigne's little barb about this year's Lollpalooza. His main complaints seemed to be how messy it made the meadows(?) and the lack of talent. I guessed that a lineup with such a lack of maistream appeal would recieve such laughable criticism. Sonic Youth has been quite possibly the most musically influential band of this decade. Nearly every band making indie or punk rock today owes a great chunk of their sound to Sonic Youth. Pavement is another brilliant but underrated band, and with Elastica, the Bosstones and Beck, and an amazing second stage, (Superchunk, Mike Watt, Yo La Tengo, etc.) Lollapallooza was an aural feast for those who know genuine musical craftsmanship when they hear it.

What does Alternative mean, you ask? Of course it's just a stupid, meaningless media-generated word used to encapsulate the wide variety of musical styles which are popular today.

But does it just mean, as you so eloquently phrased it "music that...sucks", Mr. Levigne?

That's debatable, I suppose, but I think it would portray the Trincoll Journal in a more journalistically valid light if it were to, in the future refrain from the publication of 'articles' which read like Beavis' music theory midterm.

"Music that sucks", indeed. Croix C. Clayton