1.03.2011

Life's Worst Rock and Roll Moments Pale

This is a little off-the-cuff rant about a pictorial on the Life magazine website, entitled "Rock and Roll's Worst Moments". Needless to say I was a bit disappointed with their list.

The 13 "moments" they chose were:

1. Altamont
2. Milli Vanilli lip synching fiasco
3. The death of Jimi Hendrix
4. Jerry Lee Lewis marries young cousin
5. Stampede at Who concert
6. Elvis stops making music, starts making movies
7. Payola
8. Tupac Shakur's murder
9. Nightclub fire at Great White show
10. Sid & Nancy
11. Cher introduces auto-tune
12. Woodstock III
13. Chris Brown beats Rhianna

Some legitimate, others not quite so. Anyway...here's the rant:



A decent overview, but "worst"? What about Dimebag Darrell being murdered onstage during a show by a member of the audience? Or the more blatant omission of Lennon's murder? I'd say either one of those qualifies as "worse" than Cher's embracing of auto-tune technology (which never was rock and roll in the first place and never a threat). Kurt Cobain's suicide? Now THAT had an effect on the music and culture of rock and roll.

Kiss recording and promoting a disco song ("I Was Made for Loving You"), now ain't that a harbinger of bad tidings to come?

Sid and Nancy's story, tragic as it may be, is no less harrowing and unsettling as that of GG Allin, whose performance style on it's own could be a guiding light illuminating the death of rock and roll, or it's salvation depending upon who you're talking to. It's death because it took all the conventions of rock and roll and stripped them down to little more than primal aggression. Supporters would respond that such aggression is what rock and roll is all about. I see the position of both sides, though I tend to side with the one that posits his performance (and indeed, lifestyle) as something significantly less than what rock should be about (IMO). His life, his death and the legend are a testament to the extremities to which a person can go in completely wasting their lives. All of which flies beneath the radar of most people, even rock fans. A quick viewing of the documentary "GG Allin: Hated in the Nation" will tell you all you need to know. If you can make it past the first 10-20 minutes, that is. You will definitely see how GG Allin is one of Rock 'n' Rolls Worst "Moments".

And what about Lynyrd Skynyrd's airplane crash, killing, among others, lead vocalist Ronnie Van Zant? That was pretty awful.

Personally I consider the Aerosmith/Run DMC to be a low point in the history of rock music. Oil and water don't mix, and that's why there are so many shitty bands out there trying to milk the unholy rap/rock hybrid.

Phil Spector accused and convicted of murdering his live-in girlfriend...that's pretty low. But you'd think, by viewing these photos in life, that the Milli Vanilli scandal was worse than that (or any of the above). Excuse me, Life...but what the hell did Milli Vanilli have to do with ROCK MUSIC in the first place? The photo layout singles out Jimi Hendrix's death as a "worse moment"...what about Jim Morrison? Or Janis Joplin? Is it okay to single him out and above the multitude of rock stars who kicked it too soon? Terrible moment, no doubt, but you add up all those kinds of moments and you've got hours.

The Payola scandal was...err...well, scandalous. But nothing compared to the way record companies were run, which made it possible for something like this to occur. Record labels, as early as 25 years ago, were not only in the business of selling albums. They also did whatever they had to in order to mold customers taste in music. A lot of people don't know that Sound Scan, the method Billboard uses to track chart success, is a relatively new thing. Have you noticed how the Top 200 CDs these days run the gamut from Susan Boyle to Coldplay to Tim McGraw to Radiohead to countless flash-in-the-pan "American Idol" winners (and "almost wons") to that extremely talented pre-pubescent girl who sings opera so beautifully and got her big break on "America's Got Talent". This diversity reflects the wide palette of musical taste that's common in America. But things were not so representative in the 80s. Practically every single one of the Top 200 Billboard albums was pop/rock. You would never see Garth Brooks at number 5 with a bullet (or even at number 200 with a bomb). And this was all made possible by label reps who could afford to send out P.R. men to lubricate the wheels of commerce. No, it wasn't Payola. But it may as well have been. They just didn't tender cash (at least they didn't get caught again). Lots of other things to barter with, like, say, in-studio appearances by major artists that guaranteed high ratings for the radio station, and in return the station would place said artist's songs into heavy rotation. Lots of other perks for all involved. It wasn't until the shock of Cobain's suicide that what may have been a majority of aspiring musicians decided that playing music for fun and artistic expression trumped hopes of becoming "famous" ("If Kurt couldn't handle fame, what makes me think I can?"). The seeds of the upheaval were planted 25 years ago when the Sex Pistols and The Clash spear-headed the punk movement. With the ascendancy of the Internet these D.I.Y. musicians and bands found the perfect medium for their craft. They could do thing their own way and, with the aid of music hosting sites like Garageband, Reverbnation and others, maybe even attract a few like-minded souls to listen to their stuff. Promotion being little more than exposure, they had no use for PR reps. The labels have become rendered practically obsolete, at least as concerns "rock and roll". Most of the more inventive, creative and original bands, be they indie or not, most likely don't even WANT to be on a major label. It's almost as if being signed to a label carries a social stigma that causes most(?) really good bands to stay away from even the prospect. The ones that DO sign and get fed into the promotion machine are looked upon as "lightweights". There are notable exceptions to this whole schpiel, and I should point out that having an album distributed by a major label is NOT the same as signing a recording contract with them. But for every Coldplay you've got a Nickelback. For every...uh, well, I'm sure I could think of a couple other examples, but I should save the mental effort for something a little less insignificant.

The article also lists Tupac's murder as one of "Rock's Worst Moments". It doesn't take a clairvoyant to know what I'm gonna say next. That's right. TUPAC SHAKUR IS ROCK??? Damn you, Tyler & Perry. Now everybody's all mixed up. No one knows what's what. Shakur's murder was a damn shame...but it had absolutely nothing to do with rock and roll. Come on, now. That's my whole point here. If you're gonna entitle a photo layout "Rock 'n' Roll's Worst Moments" you should at least stick to the genre, music and culture of rock and roll. Besides, everybody knows Tupac is alive.

Likewise, it's a damn shame that Chris Brown beat Rhianna. I got no sympathy for an individual who would raise a hand against a woman. Even if this story had something to do with rock and roll (it doesn't) you have to wonder how a short burst of domestic abuse compares to MURDER (see the bit about Phil Spector early on in this diatribe). Jeez, if I had a dollar for every rap artist who beat on women and didn't get caught (Brown's downfall) I could open up and run a center for battered and abused women. Not to single out the rappers...I'm sure rockers, over the decades, have done no better. But I don't think it's fair for this whole Brown/Rhianna shuffle tarnish the already stained history of rock and roll music.

What's my gripe, then? I don't suppose I have one. Rock and roll, as we have known it, is a dying breed. In fact, I'm afraid that the absolute worst moment in rock and roll is not too far over the horizon...when people will view it in much the same way they do the swing bands of the forties. If you're gonna single out "worst moments" you should at least put some thought behind your choices, and I personally don't think the editors of Life have done that.

No comments: