Default Re: MK Guardian review??!!!

First and foremost I didn't see the show as I am in Chicago and have no idea how it was but I hope all those who attended had a great time and it sounds like you did. I "get" the guys point but in my opinion it just doesn't belong in a review. If he wants to write an editorial on how he thinks the Foo Fighters aren't significant in the way Nirvana or Husker Du are that's one thing but it doesn't belong in a review of a show. I think a lot of reviewers don't even try to have objectivity anymore and go in knowing what their review is going to be before they see the show and that's bullshit. If he thought the show itself was mediocre he should have just said that.

I think his point is that with bands like Velvet Underground or Nirvana or Husker Du there were a lot of bands that formed as a result of them and claimed them as influences and that Foo Fighters aren't making kids want to pick up guitar and aren't causing a new movement in music. It's funny to me though how many times the "saviors of rock n roll" tag is put on bands who end up fizzing out or not living up to the hype and then when Foo Fighters put out a rock record that goes to number one and sells a shit load of copies that they aren't "significant." It seems like a lot of people just don't want to give them their due and I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that Dave isn't "tortured" and doesn't fit the cast they have set for "musical visionaries."

There is just far too much pretension in the world of music journalism and I see it when there's another article about the Beatles that says nothing new about their music (and I love the Beatles by the way) or another article on a dead rock star from a band that have already gotten their due that touts the brilliance that everyone already knows about when they could be devoting that ink and paper to a band that is just coming up or a band or artist who actually never got the attention they deserved (opining about how the Velvet Underground didn't get enough attention when they were around is useless. Who doesn't know about the Velvet Underground now?) I know they have to draw people in to sell magazines I do, but as an avid reader of British music magazines I am kind of sick of hearing how the same bands or artists deserved more than they got. Some of my favorite bands are bands that John Reis was the songwriter (Rocket From The Crypt, Drive Like Jehu, Hot Snakes, The Night Marchers) and I never hear a word about him and yet I hear about The Rolling Stones' Exile On Main Street every 8 seconds or the same newer band like Fleet Foxes or The National in every magazine. I have NEVER seen an article on The Replacements even though they are mentioned as the influence for a zillion bands or are mentioned in reference to new bands. What the fucks with that?

Anyway, sorry that turned into some large rant. I think the thing behind it all is that bands who do sell a lot and have fans are thought to be given their attention so people try to bring attention to smaller bands and in the act refuse the larger acts their credit. I think the Foo Fighters are great and deserve everything they have. Now I just hope I get to see them in Chicago soon.
Reply With Quote