The City Veins

1. New Kids on the Block are not generally considered the first “Boy Band”. It is argued by many that The Beatles were the first Boy Band. And if it’s not them, it’s the Monkees, or the Temptations, the Sex Pistols, or countless others.

I knew the Beatles would be brought up when I said this. I meant the modern incarnation of what is generally accepted as the term “boy band”. Put together for the sole purpose of attracting young females and not generally concerned with songwriting or music. Image rather than substance. The Monkees had some solid songs, even if they were written by Neil Diamond. NEIL!!!

5. Bayes’ view means that the innovator will always be valued less than the modern incarnation. The nature of progress is that every artist must either imitate or build upon what occurred beforehand.

This is not true. A metaphor could be used with the Beatles and toilet paper. For all of the scientific and technological progress made by humankind, society has yet to improve upon the simple piece of toilet paper to wipe our asses. The Beatles are society’s toilet paper. Sure, French people may shoot water on their asses, but not everyone has caught on and many still prefer the soft texture of double ply sharmen ultra. The newer model is not always better, sometimes you cannot improve on the first model. When you can’t, you are left with the first model. Hence, the Beatles, Elvis, Buddy Holly, etc. Which, as a side note, The Clash owe more to Buddy Holly than anyone owes to The Clash. The simple catchy songs of the 1950s could be seen as the impetus for the punk movement, even if the lyrical content was politicized and attracted a pissed off youth in the process.

Furthermore, the fact that he categorically denies the value of Rap, Hip-Hop, and R & B demonstrates that this objective process is not occurring.

I stand by my statement that these genres have no musical value other than to influence further “artists” in creating more useless music to be placed in this genre. Hip hop and rap will soon go the way of disco because there is nowhere else to go with it because it is not good or innovative. Basic rock music will always be the basis of popular music because sometimes that is just the way it is.

I also didn’t cite the Beatles so as to not alienate the readership and for Tarr to say so is denouncing my beliefs as merely part of a generally accepted bandwagon. I actually do have some sense of what is worthwhile without having to rely on others for this line of thought.

In response to the text-heavy, pseudo-intellectual debate occupying this blog for the last few days, I offer this comedic relief for your Friday viewing pleasure. Upright Citizens Brigade is an improv group based in NYC and the four founding members (including SNL’s Amy Poehler) had a show on Comedy Central for 3 glorious seasons in the late 1990s. It is, in my humble estimation, the greatest show ever. Last Tuesday, Season 2 was released on DVD (a mere 4 years after the release of Season 1). I urge everyone with a sense of humor and half a brain to go buy these DVDs immediately so that Comedy Central doesn’t take another 4 years to release Season 3. Whether you remember the show or not, you will thank me. Also, the UCB touring company is coming to Arlington Cinema and Drafthouse on November 9. I strongly recommend anyone in the DC area to go; you could very well be watching the next generation of comedy stars.

Here’s some clips from Season 1:

Before I start back in on Bayes, I’d like to make an allusion to an issue now existing outside of these pages that currently only band members will understand, but will be explicated later: that this argument has now become the manifestation of differences of opinion not limited to music, primarily relating to how each of us as individuals relates to the world and deals with confrontation. I understand this is vague, but that is intentional.

Bayes has good points. If he didn’t, there wouldn’t be any debate: I would just throw up an Omicron and yell “In your face”, assuming that would speak for itself. But that’s not the case, and the fight must rage on.

So, a few matters of historical accuracy:

(I don’t feel like citing, so ask if you want the reference. I am not being coy, I actually value evidence)

1. New Kids on the Block are not generally considered the first “Boy Band”. It is argued by many that The Beatles were the first Boy Band. And if it’s not them, it’s the Monkees, or the Temptations, the Sex Pistols, or countless others.

2. When I say value, I mean value that can be created objectively and agreed upon using criteria that cuts across genres. Thus, when Bayes says “there are bands that I value” this is not what I am referring to. Furthermore, the fact that he categorically denies the value of Rap, Hip-Hop, and R & B demonstrates that this objective process is not occurring.

3. Bayes still struggles with the difference between value and preference.

“I then asked myself the question, why should I like something just because it was the first even if it’s not really better? I am gonna get a lot of slack for this, but I think Ryan Adams is better than Neil Young.”

Bayes is correct; one should not like something more because it came first. However, if it also meets an additional set of criteria, you should think it’s better.

4. I reject Bayes’ reference to Cultured Capital because it represents his interpretation of my lyrics and not their intended meaning. I was mad that a bunch of carpet-baggers were grouping me in the “Bridge and Tunnel Crowd” when I had lived in this area my whole life (with 2 years exception). I was not saying they were wrong for applying value (capital) to cultural processes, just that their application was misguided and that basing value on the proximity to which one lives to black people to be racist, not a celebration of diversity. I cannot figure out how this is equitable to our debate or how I should take my own advice.

5. Bayes’ view means that the innovator will always be valued less than the modern incarnation. The nature of progress is that every artist must either imitate or build upon what occurred beforehand. Again, as I’ve stated before, you cannot isolate a work from it’s historical context. Yes, modern Cooperstone Tires are better than those little play-wheels from colonial Williamsburg, as they were also better than the Firestone tires my grandfather made in the 1950’s. But the advances in tire technology over the last 50 years haven’t changed the technological landscape in the way that the first wheel did. And it’s not always simply the first that is greatest, there are innovators past and present. Music is even more subjected to innovations across the landscape of time because it does not exist on one linear plane. There are many paradigms and shifts of convention. Bayes will grant that the Beatles are of primary import, but that’s because that opinion is so pervasive throughout society he cannot afford to reject it (Charles and I actually wonder whether the modern decomposition of the Album format will change how we think about the Beatles) less he alienate the reader. After that, value simply becomes a question of who is most recent.

I guess, actually, very few of those points are historical in nature.

As a final note, I am loving this debate. Part of that is because I think I am unquestionably in the right (which of course may not be true), and part of it is because this continues as an extension of a debate I had in my aesthetics class in undergraduate school. Coincidentally, I also assumed I was unquestionably right in that debate as well, though in hindsight I think I blew it. This gives me the opportunity to make amends. Regardless of what others think, I’m sure I will eventually assume success on this point as well; it seems to be a pattern.

While Aaron might be right that there is probably more value in the music of some, what I was trying to say is that although I might value something more than something else, that doesn’t mean I have to like or listen to it. Yeah, The Clash were (one of) the first of their kind. I value their contribution because there have been some good bands influenced by them. The Beatles, obviously, contributed more to modern music than anyone else ever will. Dylan pretty much began the singer/songwriter genre (or at least made it known to the masses). The difference here is that the Beatles also were good singers, pretty solid musicians, and created an enjoyable experience with their songs. I would much rather hear The Byrds play songs written by Dylan than hear Dylan ruin his own songs with his unintelligible rambling and stripped down production. (Duck, flying objects towards my head are on their way). Zepplin were influential and good musicians, good at what they do, but that doesn’t mean I like them. I respect them though. Anyone who can make that many songs out of a blues riff and extended jamming at least has the patience to think about their songs.

On the other hand, I have this desire to not like these bands. I was thinking about the first bands to do this and that, and if I should merely acknowledge this fact or if I should appreciate and celebrate it. I thought of the first Rap pioneers. I thought of The Clash and the punk scene it helped create. I then thought of the New Kids on the Block. Should I feel the need to like or even appreciate a band that is responsible for three genres of music that I don’t like or appreciate? Rap, punk and boy band. The answer is not really. I can, as a reasonably intelligent person, trace the roots of bands to their influences, but that doesn’t mean just because someone did something first I have to listen to it.

When I started writing my original response to Tarr’s first post about this, I thought we were merely writing about what we liked to listen to. Obviously there is more value artistically in some music than others as an artform. Judged by critics and society of course, all relative to the listener and its judges. When I mentioned Tom Langford I thought I’d get a comment on that one, but my point was that there are obscure artists out there that don’t fit the mold of “hip” or “indie” that indie elitists seem to ignore because their music isn’t weird enough.

I then asked myself the question, why should I like something just because it was the first even if it’s not really better? I am gonna get a lot of slack for this, but I think Ryan Adams is better than Neil Young. I honestly do. I think the Counting Crows are better than the Grateful Dead. Do I think the stone wheel is better than a rubber tire? No. Do I think an inferior first model should be valued more than its improved counterpart? No I don’t. I think the original should be revered for starting an unfinished and unperfected genre and have a spot in history reserved for innovators.

I have no idea who that other painter guy was, but I do like Rembrandt. Basically, my problem with music critics and the intelligencia is that they try to make you feel inferior if you don’t like what you’re supposed to like. If I don’t like the Clash, I am a caveman. (Sorry Cavemen). If I don’t like Bob Dylan, I’m an idiot. If I don’t like Q and Not U, there is something wrong with me. While they say each is entitled to their own opinion, they don’t really mean it. While Aaron says he doesn’t believe me or Spencer about what we like, I don’t believe him when he says that he thinks it’s ok that I like Richard Marx. I think Aaron should look to his own lyrics in Cultured Capital and apply them to the world of musical criticism and take a bit of his own advice.

What has gotten lost in this discussion, for those still with us, is the fact that I do like intelligent complex music. I like some crap that I don’t even understand. I don’t like complication just for complication’s sake though. I think there is a balance that needs to be found. Jeff Buckley combined melody and complexity brilliantly. Radiohead sometimes does it, other times they are just asses. Wilco does it on occasion but mostly just likes to hear itself make weird noises for 7 minutes of self indulgence. Whatever the case, I don’t have anything against the bands. I get annoyed with their fans. I don’t like the Grateful Dead primarily because of their fans and how great they think the Dead is. Phish fans are the same. Anyways, I could go on forever about this but I have better things to do. At least there is some healthy debate going on and I’ve found something to agree upon with Spencer. Aaron is an ass sometimes.

The next time Aaron posts I think he should cite his sources and have footnotes since the last one read like a Master’s thesis. I don’t know what half of those words mean. Do you have any visuals? I learn better visually. Graphs maybe?