BY MIKEY MIGO
I think I'm getting old. Even though I just turned twenty-three about three weeks ago, I am old. I say this because I caught Headbanger's Ball on MTV2 over the weekend and I hated it. Growing up, this show was a staple for my musical tastes and cassette or CD buying endeavors. Many of my all time favorite artists were first seen by me on the show where I'd sit in my room in complete awe at the awesomeness that was the likes of Alice in Chains. But now things are different.
How many screamer bands does one need? Metal music has taken a creative nosedive. Musically there's a lot of potential and talent, but why the growling and screaming? I get it, bands like Pantera and even more recently Slipknot screamed and growled. The main difference is the distinction of these bands. Drugs, Alcohol, and costumes aside, if you heard one of these bands you'd know who you were listening to. The biggest annoyance I have is that a band will attempt to "have range" as they'll growl, growl, growl, and then try to harmonize their vocals with so-called "singing." I'm hearing this a lot more these days and it sucked the first time I heard and it and it sucked the last time I heard it. It could just be me, but for me to connect to a track I must hear the lyrics to the song I'm headbanging to. Loud doesn't automatically mean it's good music. Loud, thought out, and with a reason will get you on a good track though. But these current metal bands are all the same and will be left behind once the next serious metal wave comes through. Then again, I must ask, are these bands the next step forward in Metal? If so, I'm going to take a step back.
Most of mainstream hip hop is the same way. You all know the stereotypes of hip hop music. But that's the thing, these stereotypes aren't "hip hop" it's the commercial "rap" and "gangsta rap" that dominates the radio and video stations. It worked for Biggie, TuPac, Diddy, Jay Z, etc., so it's gotta work now? Not in the least bit. Again, these artists were unique and wrote about their life experience in a unique fashion. Even if the current genre's of rap think they've lived similar lives, it doesn't mean they can't put their own unique twists on it.
It's easy to think that "everything has been done" or "everything is a copy of something already done," but it hasn't and doesn't have to be. There is unique musicians out there. They're not on your radio and if they are they're buried within mounds of recycled garbage. In hip hop, for every Young Joc or Chingy out there, there is a Saul Williams waiting to be in your CD collection. Same goes for metal, rock, pop, and all genres of music. It's up to you to either be a mindless follower to whatever is put in front of you or to be your own hunter and hunt down the prey that is good, unique music.
There's a reason for this rant. I tried my hardest to stay away from witty and sarcastic one-liners. At times there's a place for it, like if you're a nerdy guy responding to a "Talk Back" on AintItCool or if you're channeling the F-List Celebrities on VH1. The internet has way too much of that already.
I didn't say anything about rambling. I'm doing that for sure. I ramble because I AM passionate about entertainment, especially music. I can gripe and complain about it all day, but when it comes down to it, it's because I take in as much as I can. I'm finally on Myspace, and while I hate the concert, I appreciate the fact that I can find new music on it. I hate emo, but I'll watch the videos because even though the music might be sauteed in wrong sauce, the director might have a new idea that I haven't seen. And of course, there's the radio.
TURN THAT SHIT OFF!
 I can't even count how many people have told me "I don't listen to the radio" and then complain about being bored with their CD collection. In the middle of all the garbage on the radio, there's always that chance you'll find a hidden gem that'll spark interest in a new band. That in itself is worth it to me. However, one major gripe people have with mainstream radio stations is that they play the same songs over and over. I can't really argue with that. I can live without hearing Fall Out Boy completely that alone on rotation. On the flip side, I love hearing certain songs over and over again. TO A POINT. Even the coolest of songs get annoying and possibly ruined for a period of time by the radio, but that's just the way it works. You can't deny that Outkast's "Hey Ya!" is a great track and ruled the summer of 2003. But it was so great that every radio station decided to play it in excess. To the point, where by the end of the summer the second you heard it you'd turn it off to something else. I can listen to it now, but that's not the case for every song.
 It's the summer of 2004 and what song is on the radio? It's "Float On" by Modest Mouse. At first I really enjoyed this song. It was poppy, but it also had enough artistic integrity. I enjoyed it to the point where I went out and bought the album based on one song. The album was good enough to me not being upset with my purchase, but that would change. As the summer went on I would hear this song over and over to the point that I HATED it. I still do to this day. When you're at a party and a drunken rich preppy kid keeping playing the song on a loop and singing along, you have even that much more reason to hate it. This is a case of the radio ruining a song and band completely for me.
 While the summer of 2005 is a blur, I think it was the start of emo getting mainstream. That didn't ruin any song in particular, but it did ruin music as we know it. Jumping to this past summer of 2006, there was actually two songs that stand out to me as overplayed. Despite it being unique and fresh, how many times can one hear "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley? For an album with so many other possible singles, I think they should have pulled the trigger on single number two in July. Then again, how many times can we hear "Dani California" by The Red Hot Chili Peppers? To be honest, this song was sorta ruined for me once the whole Tom Petty conspiracy came to surface, but it was still a great song. But it was a great song off a DOUBLE ALBUM. I don't have the exact number in front of me, but for the album Californication they released at least four singles that I can recall off the top of my head. Granted the new single has been starting to get airplay, I think it's possibly two months later than it should have.
Who do we blame for the overexposure? The radio stations? The artists? Or the fans who keep wanting to hear the same songs? I think it's safe to say that it's all involved. In a day and age where people can just jump on their favorite illegal downloading program and get the tracks of their choice, it's being made easy to decide. The more variety of tracks put out to the radio stations would prove the worth of these new albums. Lets face it, our American economy is fucked right now. Minimum wage is a joke and the gas prices are appalling. Shelling out around $15 every time you want to hear an album is very risky for most casual fans. One great track won't force many people to go out and buy a CD, but a proven collection definitely would. I know it's customary to spread out the singles every few months, but that trend was started in the days before everyone had access to illegally downloading someone's entire body of work with just one click.
I want to make the point that I DO understand, accept, and respect the fact that the music is property of the artist. If someone likes what they've heard via radio, myspace, or through illegal download they're gonna buy the album, they're gonna go to the shows, buy the merchandise, and support the band as much as possible. This and word of mouth will get a band a lot farther than one song being hammered into our heads over and over.
|
