I still listen to the radio. I have CDs in my car, but I don't have one of those nifty devices that hooks my car stereo to my iPod. So for the most part I listen to the radio. Generally I'm too lazy to keep switching out CDs (this is where a multi-disc changer would be handy) so I rely on the four "local" radio stations for sonic entertainment on my drives out and about town.
Generally this really doesn't present a problem for me. I'm able to shuffle stations (I have them programmed) relatively easily and save for the occasional time when all four are on commercial break, I can usually find some music that I find tolerable for at least 30 seconds.
I always assumed that this methodology provided me with the most up-to-date music knowledge until I met my current roommate Nate. Once I moved in with Nate, my self-perceived music prowess went down the tube. Our conversations would often go something like this:
Me: Hey, have you heard that new Kanye album? I just heard the single off of it, "Stronger." It's pretty dece. I'll probably buy the album when it comes out.
Nate: Yeah, actually I downloaded it three weeks ago. It's pretty dope. There's no doubt that he'll beat 50 cent out.
Me: What? Oh, wow. Yeah, that's cool. Could you burn me a copy of that? I'll probably still buy it, you know, I'd feel guilty if 50 Cent won and I didn't buy the album.
Nate: Yeah, no problem. I also got [insert highly anticipated album from any critically acclaimed artist here] if you want it.
Me: Yeah, whatever. Just leave it on my desk. I'm going to be straight up jammin' on this p'zone for a while.
My point is that the radio is lame for a number of reasons, but most importantly it's lame for the introduction of new music. If you have a computer you have the ability to be "ahead of the curve" in terms of acquiring new music. It's legitimate that you have the ability to get a new album of whatever artist before critics do, which makes you a more important critic than anyone else if you're dedicated enough. And let's not kid ourselves, your dedication does not rest in your knowledge of music but merely in just how soon you can get your hands (and ears) on the new album. I'm convinced that most critics are able to hold their positions merely on the basis that they get listen to new albums before the rest of us do. Therefore by telling us what to think of an album they are able to seal their subjugation of thought upon civilization before we even get a chance to formulate an opinion, thereby completely annihilating free will.
Have I lost you? I hope not. Basically I started writing this post because of my frustration with radio. But just not any radio, it's Internet radio that I'm frustrated with. I've gotten over regular radio, I've learned to deal with the shitty DJs, the corny commercials, and the repeating playlists. But the Internets is supposed to be a place of freedom. A place free of regulation, where radio can play whatever the fuck it wants for however long it wants. Under these conditions, metal Internet radio stations should be the best thing ever. But they aren't, as I discovered tonight.
I've been listening to NetRock101 which claims to play "80s heavy metal, hair, glam, new rock." Now I'm really not going to get into the nitty gritty of these categories, for the most part it's an unsolvable argument. These categories are largely subjective. But I do have a problem with "new rock." If we consider the other categories, "80s heavy metal, hair, glam," it's safe to say that these are fairly specific categories and there is generally no confusion about which bands fall into these categories. Interestingly enough, one could argue that all of these categories fall under 80s metal. So that would mean that "new rock" encompasses anything released by any band that had one electric guitar from 1990 onwards. And that is lame.
It's almost as if the radio station is afraid to define itself by the first 3 categories and therefore includes "new rock" in order to legitimize itself. The ironic thing is that I think that most of the music that they play under the category "new rock" is completely illegitimate. It's bad poetry combined with trite guitar riffs. Which I suppose you could argue is what most of 80s metal is, but at least 80s metal put on a show. At least it was unquestionable that the people playing the music were people fans could never realistically be. They created personas that were so unattainable by their audience that they elevated themselves beyond human beings to concepts, or ideas, or dare I say ideologies.
Right now the radio station is playing a song by Three Days Grace called "Home." I'm bored. It's definitely heavy, probably pretty hard, and definitely metal, but it is not even close to what Warrant was able to create with "Cherry Pie," and that's probably the worst example I could have come up with. The best would of course be "Welcome to the Jungle" by GNR.
But do you want to know the song that I heard that influenced me to write this post? It was a Bon Jovi song. "Awesome," you say. With that clue alone, I would agree with you. Slippery When Wet is possibly the best hair metal album ever released. And as I've stated before, this is primarily based on records sold, singles released, longevity of singles (i.e. still getting regular rotation at Frat parties), and number of singles available at any given karaoke bar. Appetite for Destruction would have to be the best metal album critically wise, and probably most influential in terms of committing crimes. And lets be honest, that's what metal was all about, committing crimes and fucking as many as women as possible to music that made you want to commit crimes. But it wasn't any single from Slippery When Wet that was played on this Internet radio station. It was Bon Jovi's (fancy Ally McBeal haircut and all), "My Life." The weirdest part is that it was immediately followed by Megadeth's "Sweating Bullets."
The problem here isn't playing Bon Jovi before Megadeth, but playing the new Bon Jovi before Megadeth. The funny thing is that lyrically, and even musically, the new Bon Jovi isn't that much different from the old Bon Jovi. So I would say that the problem doesn't lie in Bon Jovi's ability to write catchy metal tunes, but it has to be the haircuts. I would be an idiot to refuse to acknowledge that one of the biggest reasons 80s metal was such a success monetarily and culturally was the image it portrayed. 80s metal peaked during the trickle down Reagonomics period, so it naturally embraced the gratuitous nature of the time. However, most of that gratuity involved sex, drugs, and alcohol, not fancy cars and golf memberships. But to get back to brass tax, the thing that separates old Bon Jovi from new Bon Jovi is exactly that. The gratuitous lifestyle: the hair, the lack of clothes, the alcohol, the drugs, the women, the sex. Since Jon got a regular spot on Ally McBeal and everyone went sober, Bon Jovi the band has become less metal. Not lyrically, or musically, but rather in terms of image. I'm no longer a 14-year-old with braces trying desperately to get Suzy to kiss me behind the bleachers. Jon Bon Jovi is no longer a young, long-haired alcohol-fueled sex freak. Therefore my attempts to get women to kiss me are seen as lame. Therefore Bon Jovi's attempts at producing metal are seen as lame and is therefore passed off as average pop/stadium rock. Nothing more, nothing less.
