Well, I have to come out of the woodwork to side firmly with Todd on this
one. While I don't want to beat this food analogy to death, I think it's a
good 'un, I just disagree with most of the predictions. I really think
that most people are smart enough to recognize poor quality without
assuming it's a characteristic of the genre (punk notwithstanding -heh).
The diner with the rubbery overcooked chicken is not going to assume that
all Malyasians like their chicken overcooked. They're going to assume that
particular restaurant blows. Most people who stumble upon a bad band will
not think "Hmmm...out of tune vocals, unsteady rhythms, poor playing
skillls ... these must be the hallmarks of "alt.country." If that were the
case, rock n' roll would've died out long ago. I hate people as much as
the next guy, but c'mon, give 'em a *little* credit.
And how about the dunderheads that like the crappy stuff, investigate more
and realize that they like what we deem "the good stuff" even better? I
don't think music of any genre has to be a zero sum game. Just the
opposite. The more bands there are out playing in more clubs and getting
more people out to see them and are garnering more attention for a genre
and perpetuating the blah blah blah...well, from a working musician's
standpoint, that can only be a good thing. Right? Uh...right?
Hope this doesn't get me kicked out of the He-Man Hipster-Haters Club.
Erin
