Friday, April 09, 2010

the truth of rock and roll


This week on SNL the new teen sensation Justin Bieber is set to take stage.   He's been prepping all week by doing Jimmy Fallon on Thursday, the Today show, et.  Al.,  in promotion of his new album “2.0”.   
Although, I can hardly imagine what 2.0 might be referring to, I’m trying hard to take this kid seriously.    He’s only 16 years old and to be working on the 2nd version of something at his young age is hardly imaginable, unless you’re talking about a 2nd ‘stand’ of facial hair.   I love rock music of most varieties.    I like hip hop, rap, pop, indie, dance and even pop bubble gum – so my geriatric mind is trying to make sense of this for some reason. 
I recall when the preteen band from OK, Hanson, premiered in 1996, there was an insightful interview about the state of rock & roll.   The thesis was that, while it was clear that this album was pop bubble gum, it was clearly marketed, designed and CREATED by 16 year olds for the consumption by other 16 year olds.   Therefore any discussion about being derived or handed down were hardly news.
Rock and Roll was never really been PROG-ROCK or Alt. Country or any other distilled variant.   It’s hardly ever been some High Art creation by 35 y. o. audio engineers to impress the other engineer that didn’t get the good job at the local AMI studio or get there “one hit”.    At its core, Rock has always been essentially made for/to/by 15 year olds about getting into the pants of other 15 year olds.     I’m ok with that.   That’s how it should be.
“I wanna hold your hand” was never supposed to be the “Dark Side of the Moon” .     Justin Bieber’s music has a lot more in common with pre-Tommy, WHO than it does with the last 5 Wilco Albums.   I get it.   This music isn’t created as an evolution. 
Each teen generation is not supposed to arrive with the ‘knowledge of the father ‘ prior to creating their next big thing.   The 16 y.o. Debbie Gibson that I watched in 1986 was not signed by her  label to produce a subsequent “PET SOUNDS”.   Instead, she was signed to sell as many units as she could; which was only supposed to be more than her competitor: “Tiffany”.  
So, with the understanding that this music is not meant for me, all I can say is that this little “beetle” really needs on work writing/buying more catchy tunes.   Because, quite frankly – he’s putting me to sleep, but then again at 38 and married, maybe it’s suppose to.
Just for giggles, try reading the lyrics to one of his latest hits. The similarity between his stuff and the 50's drippy stuff is uncanny.  

I suppose my point is - get over it or maybe, when do I get to have my turn hosting SNL?

No comments: