Vile wrote:
] Get out of the house more often. Stop reading the news so
] damn much.

This is what I don't get about you. One minute you are spewing insipid garbage all over the site like a 12 year old whose pissed off at his dad and needs attention. The next minute you send something reasonably well considered which I presume you expect to be taken seriously. Why should I listen to anything that you have to say? I certainly don't expect you to listen to me. I expect you to take this reply and throw it back in my face.

] Anyway, you downloaders have destroyed the ability
] of decent underground artists to rise.

You sure do make a lot of assumptions. You ought to careful about that. I'm sure you know a lot of wanna be computer weenies back home. I'm sure they download music. I'm sure you think that because the people on this site are technical that we're just like the wanna be computer weenies that you know. You're wrong. You don't know anyone like me.

No, I don't download music.

No, I don't think downloading music has anything to do with the ability of underground artists to rise. Thats the sort of attitude usually expressed by people who are accustomed to the old world of broadcast media technology and haven't spent an iota of time thinking about how things evolve.

Artists do not "rise from the underground" by their bootstraps selling CDs. They get signed. They get financed. They get promoted. They get signed because they are marketable and because they were in the right place at the right time.

Downloaders cannot and do not prevent something that never actually happens, and never did happen. Nor are they responsible for the economic situation that record companies face. Thats a gross oversimplification that the media managers have sold themselves because its a lot easier to face then the truth. The truth is that music does not play the same role in our lives that it used to, because we have a wider array of entertainment options available to us. And thats part of the reason that it has sucked so much recently.

] Terrorism as a concept for america to deal with was big in the
] late 70's and stayed that way until Sept. 11th caused most of
] the nation to feel that we should do something about it.

So you don't think the country is more partisan then it used to be? You don't think people are maybe just a little more focused on Terrorism then they were in the early 90's? I think they are. I think we tried to ignore it before. Tired to shove it out of our heads and paid attention to our own lives. Now we can't do that anymore, and that has had a huge effect on who we are.

] (You have Modest Mouse, Queens of the Stone Age, Farenheit
] 911, the Michael Jackson trial, etc. Sorry if you don't dig
] it, but it seems like you are simply going through a midlife
] crisis.)

I'm not saying there aren't some interesting things out there. I like Denali, for example. I'm saying its not adding up to a whole. I think Jaron Lanier said it better then me:

http://www.advanced.org/jaron/spooky.html

] ] 2. Marketing killed the human spirit - The new music sucks
] ] because its too marketed.
] (and Nirvana wasn't, Pearljam wasn't? Gimme a break.)
]
] Too much a product and not a
] ] statement.
]
] (and Nirvana had what message? Eh? Buy our shit?)

Man, you can always tell a wannabe punk when he can't tell the difference between music that means something and music that is the product of a committee, so he assumes that anything thats popular is the product of a committee and anything thats not popular is art. Its bullshit. Sometimes art gets signed. Sometimes your friend's band really does just suck.

Now, Nirvana certainly had a couple of songs that were written by or heavily influenced by their producers. Those songs were not particularly popular. People weren't into them because "Love Buzz." Nirvana also had a few songs that were from the gut. And thats why people listened to them.

] (and pseudo-intellectual dimestore pundits. Sorry, dude,
] George Will even has you beat on the social commentary here.)

He certainly does, but you don't get it. I'm not a pundit. I don't work for anyone. Its not about having pundits to tell you want to think. Its about having your own thoughts. You don't seem to like that. You seem to prefer a world uncluttered by all these bloggers and their stupid opinions. You want the opinion making left to the professionals. Sort of, Hamiltonian, I guess. I prefer to make up my own mind, and I prefer to discuss it with my friends.

] (Uh, so what? You either like a band or you don't. What they
] do after making the music you like has nothing to do with the
] songs themselves. and I think you should validate the point
] you are making with an example or two. I have no trouble
] believing that Dave Grohl likes writing music and entertaining
] people. I have no trouble believing that Michael Moore hates
] the president. They may endorse products for extra cash, but
] so what? )

You cross a line where its not about what you're doing anymore. Sometimes art gets signed. But institutions like the Olympics don't have the backbone to keep from getting corrupted by the money.

] (A simple old saying may enlighten you: "Nostalgia is the
] symptom of a dying culture."

Nostalgia is the symptom of being stuck in a rut. I don't want to be nostalgic. I'm just having trouble finding something new to get into.

] To quote suicidal tendencies "90 percent of life is
] what you make of it, so if life sucks, then you suck.)

You might have something there. You explained what Jeremy wouldn't. And thats why I decided to reply to this email.

RE: What is this decade all about?