Mike, you know it ain't easy...

I'll start with this one with one thing. Then I'll move to another. From there, I have no idea.

I never pay much mind to mainstream music/pop/culture, American Idol, Reality Stars, I just sort of skip it. Obviously, Rascal Flats is not worth the price of the ticket, and the success of most commercial artists baffles me. "All Summer Long" by Kid Rock? I could not believe that it was:A. Real. B. a Song that people actually wanted to hear/bought into/etc. But I know they did, because I got requests for it when it was on the radio. But bands like the Jonas Brothers don't bother me, I just don't listen to them. What does bother me is when I hear a band that "sucks," most likely because they are derivative, and people that should know better, people I know to be discerning, buy into it. I'm not going to name drop here, but there are a bunch of bands out there that I just can't believe people are falling for. It is usually because they have "The Look." As in, these guys look like they'd be cool, discerning, they have long hair and beards and wear a lot of denim, and scarves and hats-but the music is derivative and always about break ups and booze and people that should know better eat it up like goddamn pixie sticks. It makes me a pull a McEnroe, as in "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!"

Yeah, that is what bothers me. It shouldn't, though. Because, honestly, who cares? I guess I feel like it affects me because I try to make music without a whole lot of flare and hipster additives, and I don't want people to get the idea that a newsboy hat, a beard, tapered jeans, pointy shoes and a well placed tattoo makes for a good night of songs.( always about me, isn't it? Indulgence of the self.")

But, on a larger scale, I've heard some rumblings about people being upset that folks like Taylor Swift, the Jonas Brothers, Kelly Clarkson, Justin Timberlake...(the list goes on, I'll stop there) are getting decent to good reviews in Rolling Stone. I'm fairly sure that Taylor Swift got 4 out of 5 stars. No Bullshit. Maybe those critics are just being objective-you know, saying that it is good in its genre. But to me, that doesn't make any sense. I guess its like saying "Its really good in terms of junk music made for middle school kids." A lot of those reviews are paid for. Not all of them, but this is a fact. Jann Wenner sells reviews as much as he peddles left wing, pinko bullshit. Just ask Jim Derogatis. And there is no way that Pete Travers really thought "Dan in Real Life" deserved 3 and 1/2 out of 4 stars. Digression. Again.
Point is, that I don't think it matters. Anybody that cares and truly appreciates music knows that the Jonas Brothers and Taylor Swift are not a part of the great song, the group of singers and story tellers that make people really feel-make music more than something you simply listen to...
The thing is, bands like the Jonas Brothers, they are finsished as soon as they get started. Their fans will get old and start listening to the Smiths and laughing at how they used to have Jonas Brothers posters on their wall. One of them will land a great producer and try to embark on a solo career that will have limited success and 20 years later they will reunite and the same girls who went through their Smiths phase will have a girls weekend in Atlanta and catch the Jonas Brothers Reuinion tour.
Let's pin point Justin Timberlake here. Talented? Yes. One of a kind? Hardly. That's the thing. Justin Timberlake is obviously someone who grew up wanting to be a superstar-and he worked his ass off to get where he is, no doubt. But, I think there are probably Justin Timberlakes all over the place. And if Justin Timberlake hadn't ever made it beyond the Mickey Mouse Club, he could probably be selling commercial real estate in Memphis and the world would have never missed him.


Which brings us to what everyone is talking about now. Michael Jackson. I remember it. I remember getting the "Thriller" cassette at Kmart. I lived through it. The man was huge. The biggest star the world has ever seen. The thing is, he was the chosen one. I don't mean that like he was a mesiah or something-or, that he was put on this earth to change pop music and our culture. But, he did, never the less. So, it really doesn't matter whether or not he was destined to become what he became, that is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that he was what he was and he did what he did. Pop music went from being mostly rock and roll based to becoming more R&B influenced, well hell, I can't categorize, but obviously hip hop owes more to Thriller than it does to Revolver. And, I don't think Michael Jackson was capable of doing anything but what he did. I mean, I don't think that Mike could sell real estate in Gary Indiana. The man had too much vision. And he was obviously in his own world, so to speak. The point is, that if Justin Timberlake didn't exist, someone else could fill his shoes. Someone else would basically rip off Michael Jackson and attempt to be the next "King Of Pop." But, if Michael Jackson didn't exist, everything(in terms of pop music since 1982) would be different. Someone always fills a void, or really makes people realize that there was a void after the fact-almost like they create a void and then fill it? Okay-after the appearance of such an artist, their existence/impact creates a void that needs to be filled as the public searches for the next artist that is like the first guy. Or something like that... From Elvis, to Dylan, to the Beatles-someone always shows up and changes everything. Kurt Cobain got close, but obviously, he was not comfortable with his place on the throne. Some artists, like Gram Parsons, I don't think really knew what kind of impact they would have. I mean, I think Gram Parsons wanted to be a rock star, and knew that he would find a niche in showing people that country music was actually artistic and sophisticated, but I also think that Gram was a rich kid that thought it was cool to hang with the Stones, and probably thought he might steal that show the way he did with Byrds. But Gram died when he was 26, and in truth his legacy inspired the Eagles and the whole country/rock thing-which, ironically kind of put pure country music to rest. But Gram's music wasn't a country/rock hybrid-it was simply real country music made by guys that looked like hippies. Like I said, I don't think Gram wanted to much more than be a rock star.


Where am I going with this? Its getting long...
I think Michael Jackson knew that he was changing things-as did Dylan, and John Lennon-and maybe it just becomes to much. Maybe you start seeing a halo in the mirror. I think one would almost have to. So, who will be the next person to not just fill someone else's shoes, but actually make the shoes to be filled? It happens every 10 to 20 years. It will be interesting to see. Whoever it is, I feel sorry for the guy-(maybe it will be a girl this time?) There is hardly ever a happy ending.