Today's post is a (hopefully inspired) response to a response to my last post offered by my good friend and reliably outspoken comerade, Sex McGinty. It goes without saying that his comments are always thought-provoking, and always appreciated, and they make me into a better intellectual by forcing me to (*gasp*) defend myself: something which fat and lazy bloggers like myself are often loathe to do. So thank you, Sir McGinty, and may your pen never dry (P.S. if any of you tire of my fairly formless, predictable rants about the idiocy of popular music trends, go read his March 11, 2003 post on what the Who means to him. THAT's what blogging can do, folks.)
[But anyway, McGinty said:]
The country star was Loretta Lynn.
I can understand your rants against new groups like The White Stripes and Outkast (because I hear it from all quarters every day), but not knowing who Loretta Lynn is puts you in the unenviable position of sounding like all the old hippies I used to argue with about music when I was a teen.
It also sounds like you're just trying to get under people's skin, in which case you need to update your targets: try digging on Interpol or Franz Ferdinand or The Yeah Yeah Yeahs. The bands you mentioned are already passe.
And I'm curious about what you think of Bono being suggested as the next World Bank director. If he accepts the job, will you destroy all of your U2 memorabilia?Firstly, let me say that I would gladly rail against Interpol, Franz Ferdinand, or the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, but (sadly) my familiarity with said groups or people's expectations of them are limited. I will look into it, and report back with another rant if and when it becomes appropriate. Also, by the time my annoyance peaked, it would be likely that they would be just as passe as "Outkast", who were all about last year (pshaw!). But requesting that I "update my targets" to reflect this minute's Hot New Thing (tm) proves my point: it is impossible to take any of these artists as seriously as they are taken by the media, even as objects of critical analysis, because they come and go too quickly. But onto Bono, because U2 remains one of my favorite bands, despite their recent disastrous musical release(s):
Back in the early 90s when grunge came out, people turned against idealism in music. I think they were tired of self-absorbed musicians doing stuff like "band aid" etc. Grunge was all about bitching and being angry about being middle-class, and people like Bono took big hits for not being cool enough to abandon idealism. Bono stuck to his guns, though. He didn't apologize for having religious faith, and he didn't stop wheedling and pleading for people to pay attention to issues like AIDS and starvation. Sometimes its annoying to have to be reminded that we still haven't saved the rainforests, or the whales, or the ozone layer, or global warming, or AIDS/SARS/West Nile Virus/Obesity, but I prefer being annoyed by a socially responsive and (more importantly) active rock musician, than have a guy with as much clout and intelligence as Bono just rest on his laurels in the Hamptons. Hell, the guy even went to Africa with representatives of George Bush to publicicze his cause: that's a bit like Jesus and Satan meeting up for a beer.
As for the world bank, call me a cynic but I don't think the continuous disorganized protests against that institution are particularly well-informed or helpful. Most of the people who bitch about large financial institutions are just middle-class kids angry that rich people aren't giving their money away. Now, I suspect that the World Bank is flawed, but I also suspect that its importance as a source of loan money for underdeveloped countries is helpfeul. Having a guy like Bono take an interest in world finances at that level doesn't bring him down a notch in my book: it just increases the liklihood that whatever bad shit the World Bank is responsible for might be placed in check. Perhaps he's a fox in the henhouse? I will be burning my U2 memorabilia, however, but that's only because their last album sucked, and it still sucks, and it will continue to suck everlastingly despite the hype.
And as for not recalling Loretta Linn's name, well, that can hardly be surprising: see I missed this year's flavor de jour token "outsider" innagural at the music awards. I wasn't one of the many millions who pretended that she had always been a childhood inspiration and that her CDs have always had a cherished place in my collection next to other have-beens or once-greats dredged up by corporate music tycoons for one last spot in the sunshine. This year we got to dawn cowboy hats and pretended we like the country, just like a few years ago we got to sing the Oh Brother Where Art Thou songs and pretend we all have the Carter Family's Greatest Hits looping endlessly on our disk changers [keep mum, Butchie!]. Mind you, that's not a reflection the quality or legacy of Loretta Linn, or of the Carter Family, or any other so-called great. They are just musicians, and therefore equally worthless (or important) in the grand scheme of things as most of us. Its just, for all the accolades they get for there 15 minutes of renewed sunshine, they spent decades forgotten by the very corporate music machine that now pulls them out of the attic, props them up, and pats them on their dusty backs (meanwhile collecting millions). Perhaps all these ancient stars would have done better in the self-respect department (or the Clay Sails respect department, a much more obscure but demanding venue) to get themselves high profile hobbies. Like running global financial institutions.