>I have a feeling some of you will say it wouldve been cool for BM
>to take a crack at soft rock.
>Chris Orlet
OK, in an attempt to tie up some of the loose synapses in my head (and on
this list), let me begin by undressing this statement. First of all, there
is no such thing as "soft rock." If the creature at hand is "rock," by
definition it is not "soft." "Soft Rock" and "Lite Rock" were ways for the
industry to categorize more easily the pop, ballad-oriented stuff guys like
Paul McCartney--who had been typically associated with "Rock" and provides
an easy example--were doing. And I think this is some of the problem with
this infernal, good-for-something-we're-just-not-sure-what-it-is ND tag.
Whether Uncle Tupelo invented "alternative country" or not is very
debatable, but that they've been categorically represented as such isn't.
They have become the point guards for this movement-that-may-or-may-not-be,
and it's forced all concerned to react accordingly. That is, the media
players, label players, and most importantly, the musical players themselves
have to reckon with this "alt.country/ND" tag. For some it's restrictive,
while for others it's liberating, and a way to sell more records to a
relatively-defined consumer base. For some of the media folks it's a
convenient way to identify, for an otherwise uninformed public, who these
young cats are. Unfortunately, these press clippings are then read by the
artists themselves who don't wish to be represented as such. The labels (in
general, I'd say) don't really care how their artists are represented as
long as they can recoup their investment. If it helps to be "alt.country,"
fine. If "ND" is the tag-du-jour, that's OK, too. Hell, if "rock 'n' roll"
meant anything--and, as far as I'm concerned that's what most of these folks
are doing--than that now-meaningless label would be dripping off of every
A&R guy's tongue by the end of the day.
The problem seems to be that many of these artists have grown up (as artists
and fans both) with a defined antagonism toward the music industry. Many of
them started as punks, and they've seen their friends get signed by labels
looking to cash in on the latest trend ("Grunge," anybody?), pigeonhole
these artists into whatever market they thought they might fit, market these
bands for maybe 15 minutes, and then, subsequently drop them when the
band--surprise, surprise--didn't "make it." (Does anyone else recall the
debt that the Jayhawks accrued with American Records??) So, while guys like
Tweedy seem to be protesting the boxes with which they've been assigned (by
a largely indifferent media industry, and a single-minded music industry,
upon which the former is dependent for promos and other perqs), I think it's
nothing more than a savvy--which is not to say, altogether mature--reaction
to their paradoxical situation. On the one hand they want to be seen as
artists with an individual vision (and represented as such), but on the
other hand, they're contractually obligated to an animal that doesn't care
about art as much as it does profit. So, while these artists would be wise
to start their own record labels (see: Bad Religion, Black Flag, Fugazi, Ani
Defranco), and thereby control (better) their place in the market, they
would probably then lose access to the powerful machinery which allowed them
to have even the tiniest of voices in the first place--distribution, major
radio markets, Rolling Stone, that ever-elusive possibility of appearing on
SNL, etc.
And now you wonder why there are so many band guys who are either junkies,
drunks, or members of AA?? This shit is depressing. But we are here for the
music, and whatever we choose to call it, I think we've done a good job of
keeping the music primary. Even if the music sucks, as in the case of the
Goo Goo Dolls. Kidding!!
Lance . . .
"Kids, you tried and failed miserably. The lesson here: Never try."
--Sage advice from one Homer Simpson
