An Extended Rant on the Music Industry

There are two things in the world I firmly believe. First, I can't stand settling for mediocrity. It angers me when that's what I see people doing in their lives, and i'm sorta scared that it's gonna happen to me. Hence the writing here, the eventual movie i'm totally gonna make you guys i swear, the eventual guitar that i'm going to learn to play as well. Complacency and mediocrity scare and anger me. The second is that I always see worth in rebelling against the darkness, the void. I really like the idea that no matter what we're fated to do, enough spirit and will can change anything; the future isn't written and what have you. The Cubs can and will come back, the Bears can still make the playoffs, I'll finish my thesis really soon (btw, totally just figured some research out so rewarding myself with this post), etc. But I want to address the first point with the following rant. As usual, I have no idea how many of you actually care about this, but as this is my blog, we'll be talking about it. The music industry today is terrible. The whole idea of it, really. From marketing to the music being produced to the singers that are famous to how it's packaged and sold to us.

The reason this rant exists is because I heard Avril Lavigne's shitty song "Girlfriend" on the radio yesterday. And yes, while this rant could be summarized as "I hate Avril Lavigne," it's not entirely her fault that she and her ilk have ruined music. I blame executives, good musicians, bad musicians, MTV (oh how I loathe MTV), Hot Topic (they're getting a good paragraph in this rant), the general recording industry, and to some extent as well, iTunes.

But where to begin with this all? Let's start with what prompted this whole rant: shitty musicians. There used to be heart in music (and I'm not saying that it's entirely gone) and there used to be caring. It used to be more about what it sounded like and not how it looked. Granted, with talent, you can overcome looks. It's just a matter of how much talent. You look like Paul Potts, you need Paul Potts levels of talent to make up for it. You look like Jim Belushi, you need....a lot more talent than Jim Belushi has. But the other half of the argument is that looks don't make up for talent. Just because Avril Lavigne looks like a "hot" representation of punk music doesn't make her singing abilities good. Just because Jessica Simpson looks pretty and blond doesn't imply that her singing is acceptable. And just because Spencer Pratt tells his stupid bitch wife that she has some talent doesn't mean that it's anywhere close to true.

Now don't get me wrong, sometimes you can get both in one package, like Taylor Swift or Tony Bennet or Frank Sinatra. Sadly, look at that list of singers. Two old guys and one young girl. Video really did kill the radio star. There are some vaguely decent looking singers today and all, but it's been mostly pushed out of the way for attractiveness, style over substance and all. Britney Spears got hired because of her body, not because of her "great" talent. When MTV started with videos and all, singers had to look good, which became more important than music. Look at Lady Gaga. She's based her career around incredibly wackjob visual stunts while ignoring the music, giving us "gems" like paparazzi or puh-puh-puh-poker face. Puh-puh-puh-please. And yes, I did just make that puh-puh-puh-pun. That one too.

And if we're going to be completely honest with ourselves here, even the good singers have some blame for the state of music. If the Ramones and the Clash hadn't expressed their anger against the establishment with punk music, we wouldn't have Fred Durst and Good Charlotte who only picked up the "anger" part and ignored the intelligent lyrics part. If NWA and LL Cool J had never begun rapping, I wouldn't be hearing Vanilla Ice or ICP thinking they could rap too. If Led Zeppelin had never made "Stairway to Heaven" I might not have been subjected to Creed. If the Beatles had never done drugs, we probably wouldn't have most of the 60s, 70s, and consequently the entire musical generation and all that.

But if you look at those statements, we need the Beatles, Floyd, NWA, Zeppelin, and the Ramones. So I can't blame the good musicians for having bad imitators. We as a culture need to better stop the bad musicians from getting popular. Yes, hating on Creed and Fred Durst is easy, but we need to hate on them more effectively. It's not enough to yell at kids for listening to Avril Lavigne, you have to provide them with real punk music like Black Flag. You take away the Lady Gaga and listen to some Stevie Wonder or Marvin Gaye instead. And you don't buy bad music. Yes, we all have our guilty pleasures, but you know what? When we reward Smash Mouth, we get more Smash Mouth.

Furthering that point, marketing. Bill Hicks has a great rant on marketing that's well worth hearing. "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." It's not just the fact that because of them we have these bad bands, it's thanks to them that these bad bands keep getting promoted. I just went to the Hot Topic website, because I clearly enjoy hurting myself. I could cut myself, but this is faster. First, let's consider the baby section. That's right, hot topic has a baby section. Because what better way is there to say, "I'm a crappy parent!" than by dressing your kid in (page 1) a marilyn manson shirt, a disturbed shirt, a Korn one, or an avenged sevenfold one. I can guarantee you that not only has the kid not heard of those bands, in 15 years when he grows up he's gonna think they're crap. Furthermore, a Clash onesie? Really? Johnny Cash? and B.I.G.? They're dead! Get used to it! Then I go to the band tees section for adults and my life gets really sad. You know what's number 3? A picture of Justin Bieber skateboarding on a tee shirt. Now I've heard this kid sing. He's a 12 year old boy with a voice I thought stopped existing when castratti went out of style. They make Lynyrd Skynyrd clothing when no one knows of more than two songs by them, one of which is only played or suggested ironically. If you're a legitimate fan of Skynyrd, then why don't you go get'r done the hell outta here. And the other, random bands I didn't mention? It looks like Ed Hardy got lazy and just started throwing words and paint at shirts and sold what sticks. Hey, let's add a penguin with a headband. whoaaaaaaaa, wacky.

And marketing is raping the corpses of good bands, too. Let's go back to Hot Topic. They sell Ramones tee-shirts to kids who not only were born after the Ramones stopped existing but within the next 2-3 years to kids who were born after Joey Ramone died! Crusing the website again, I highly doubt that anyone who listens to the Wu-Tang clan as a real band is going to want to pay hot topic for one of their shirts. The fact that hot topic is selling shirts for the Jam or ODB when 90 percent of the kids don't know who those people are is depressing as hell. For heaven's sake, bands now are going in trying to figure out the best way to sell out to hot topic. I'd bet good money that Henry Rollins wasn't figuring out the best way to sell Black Flag tee shirts when he was writing "Rise Above." And the truly depressing part is that none of the kids know who people like Clapton or Bowie are, yet hot topic is selling their shirts.

But it's not just about caring about the music and making sure you support those who do, in some way that doesn't give hot topic money. Let's look at the way music itself is marketed towards us. Pop radio is made up of the same 20 songs, cycled over and over, as we all know. But it's not just that basic level of it. It's the iTunesinization of it all. You go to iTunes, chances are you're not buying all the Led Zeppelin songs (unless you're Anna), you're there to buy "Rock and Roll" or "Stairway to Heaven." Going back to dumb ol' Avril Lavigne, you're not buying the whole awful CD, you're buying Girlfriend and maybe one or two of her other songs, if you really hate yourself. The Beatles and AC/DC actually sorta have it right, in that since they won't let people buy the individual songs on iTunes, you either experience the songs on the radio or/so that you buy the CD. You don't just get "You Shook Me All Night Long," you get "Givin' The Dog A Bone" as well. More than just buying "A Hard Day's Night" you also get "I Should Have Known Better." And then we go from the way we buy songs to what singers have come to stand for. I'm willing to bet a whole mess of money that Bob Marley and the Dead stand for more than pot and getting high. But thanks to selling posters for dorm walls, (and in the Dead's case, crappy stoner word of mouth), no one cares what their music is actually about. However, Flock of Seagulls did stand for having crappy haircuts, so I'll give marketing at least one point.

Yes, there is something to be said for singles and not getting stuck listening to Avril Lavigne's other crappy songs, or the fact that I'm not stuck paying for any more Motley Crue than the one track of Dr. Feelgood I own. But I guess I'm just hoping for a time when the music is rewarded for being good instead of just being mediocre. I want bands that freaking rock, not those that are clearly in it for the money. And yes, you could counter my arguments by saying "Band X that you like clearly sucks because of Y and Z!" But when people/bands/(whatever the hell she is) like Avril Lavigne are getting paid millions to play crappy songs that are about the same subject over and over again, something is wrong with the whole system.

That's my main beef with her and Good Charlotte and Fred Durst and all the other terrible bands, going back to point 1. It's not that they're getting paid for inferior product, which they are. It's not that they have fans of their inferior product, which for some reason they do. Hell, Creed had fans. It's that their songs are all exactly the same, and mediocre in that sameness! Good Charlotte's first CD is them bitching for 12 tracks about how their father left them and all the "haterz" at school "be hating." And I'm not exaggerating that, I once owned that CD. And what happens when they put out a new CD? It's the same damn subject! Only this time, they've included rich people in their rant, which, weirdly enough includes them! I'll buy your man of the people bull crap when you sell your freaking mansion and stop dating Ashlee Simpson, slick. This isn't me criticizing them for criticizing the powerful; it's the fact that they say specifically target the rich and famous, which, last I checked, they freaking were!

And Avril? All her songs are about how "this boy doesn't like me because I act punk" or "he likes me but not enough." And yes, while that crap, or Good Charlotte's crap, sells albums, at least Zeppelin gave me vikings or dragons occasionally. The Beatles gave me songs about things getting better or living in a submarine or (whatever Revolution #9 was about) to go along with the songs about girls. Change your tune (literally in some cases, Good Charlotte) so it's not the same thing every time I go to a new track! Oh, and in this next song, you're totally going to feel the pain the singer feels about a girl, just like the previous 4 tracks! Hell, even AC/DC, who only write songs about sex, drugs, or rock and roll, have somehow not only managed to find huge success with those three subjects, but they vary them enough so that the album isn't boring!

I guess I could sum this up as if you're gonna form a band (and what idiot isn't going to, hell, i've thought about it) make sure you're doing it for the music and that you know more than three chords and one song idea, you shmuck. And if you get lucky enough to sell out to the man, get what you can I guess, since I know if I could sell out and earn some money, I would in a heartbeat. Finally, hey, you damn kids, get off my lawn and stop ruining music.

And I still hate Avril Lavigne.