Newsgroups: alt.music.alternative,rec.music.misc 
X-UserAgent: none
Distribution: world
Organization: unr.edu
From: Mr. Q <bobc@FUTIQUE.SCS.unr.edu> 
Subject: Major Label Music is EVIL!

     My thesis: major labels are the antithesis of underground,
cutting-edge, or alternative music.  No matter what you call it, this
type of music is essentially non-compatible with the ethos of a major
recording label.  Obviously, there are plenty of bands that are
exceptions; I'll probably mention some of them later in this note.  But
why sign to a major and be an exception if you can be the rule on an
"independent" label?  Majors promise more money and more exposure: are
these what true artists are looking for?
     The worst part of the majors and of much of mainstream culture is
that which claims to be against the mainstream.  For example, Dirt
Magazine ("Fuel for Young Men", brought to you by those hipper-than-thou
folks at Sassy), brags that the premiere issue was produced exclusively
under the influence of music by the Beastie Boys, Sonic Youth,
Superchunk, Dinosaur Jr., Basehead, the Pixies (bootleg), Helmet, the
Lemonheads, etc.  So what is their little list supposed to mean?  That
they're really hip and sensitive to underground or non-mainstream
viewpoints?  Or that their magazine represents the same type of
viewpoints as the corporate sponsors of those bands -- namely, profits at
the expense of art?  They may try to affect an attitude similar to my
first answer, but my second suggestion is probably closer to the mark. 
Beastie Boys (Capitol), Sonic Youth (DGC), Superchunk (Merge/Matador (not
a major label! yea!)), Dinosaur, Jr. (Sire/Warner), Basehead (Imago/BMG),
Pixies (Electra/Warner), Helmet (Amphetamine Reptile, I think, but soon
to be on a major), Lemonheads (Atlantic/Time-Warner).  Gee, with all
those corporate rock labels, hipness must be guaranteed.
     And consider the bands involved with Lollapaloozer II: Red Hot Chili
Peppers (WEA), Jesus & Mary Chain (Blanco y Negro/WEA), Ministry
(Sire/WEA), Lush (Reprise/Time-Warner), Pearl Jam (Epic/Sony), Ice Cube
(Priority), Soundgarden (A&M).  Once again, only one non-major.  Also
notice how well Time-Warner is making out in all this.  I'm sure
Time-Warner (home of the greedmeisters who succumbed to Charlton "I'm the
N.R.A." Heston and helped force Ice-T to remove "Cop Killer" from his
album) represents the kind of values and attitudes that Lollapaloozer
claims to be promoting.  Geez, I sound like the anti-Quayle.  Speaking of
Lollapaloozer, here's...

 
  Excerpts from the article about Lollapaloozer in Newsweek (Aug. 17,
1992), by John Leland with Paul Kandell and Vanessa Jones:

  (describing the scene after a rain storm at the New York concert):
     "The soaked women fans were glad that punk sartorial codes mandated
black underwear.  And for the men, there was mud wrestling. 
Lollapalooza, an experiment in controlled anarchy, inched just a notch
closer to the real thing."
  [Oooh, that's deep.]

  (a mixed blather of the profitable aspects of Lollapaloozer and a
brain-damaged analysis of the "alternative" scene, combined with some
half-truths and misconceptions):
     "In a mixed concert season, the 30-city tour has been a startling
success.  Conceived by Perry Farrell, the singer in the late psychedelic
band Jane's Addiction, to unite the microcults that make up the
alternative-music audience, the show features no superstar headline
acts." 
  [Goes on to "prove" how united Lollapaloozer is by listing the bands:
six noisy, mostly guitar-oriented bands that mostly appeal to young,
white males; and a token black rapper.]
  [Jane's Addiction: psychedelic?  What have _they_ been listening to?]
  [No superstar headline acts?  The RHCP, for one, have been all over MTV
for months.]

  (ahhh, here we go: begin pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-sociological, and
pseudo-psychological babble about "our" generation, our fears, desires,
blah, blah, blah.  This type of drivel is all the rage today, especially
by those infernal yuppie writers.  Uses the word "generation" four times,
six if you count the two I didn't bother to include.):
     "But as an event, Lollapalooza is eye opening,  A mixture of fantasy
and pragmatism, arch irony and new sincerity, it documents the arrival of
the generation born after Woodstock. The concert reflects, as colorfully
as Woodstock, the demands of a new generation of young Americans: what
they want in sex, music, drugs, food, recreation, rhetoric, and politics.
     "But where Woodstock celebrated personal liberation as a tonic
against the anxieties of a generation being sent to Vietnam, Lollapalooza
charts the caution and abstinence of a generation that has been
chronically disengaged."
  [Followed by stale examples of AIDS, "legal" drugs and alcohol, etc. 
This article has been done so many times before that it could have been
written by a computer.]
  
  (an interesting observation, a few stupid observations, and a bad,
wrap-everything-up-in-a-neat-package-with-a-pretending-to-be-unique-twist
ending so often found in Newsweek):
     "The alternative-music audience has long cherished its small
numbers.  It affects a benign elitism -- the more obscure or farther from
the mainstream, the better.  Lollapalooza turns that around, celebrating
newfound mass appeal.  Surrounding by Mr. Lifto and the rest, a
generation is letting its freak flag down and declaring itself the new
mainstream.  There's power in these numbers.  For the children of the
baby bust, this marks an unqualified victory."
  [The authors obviously agreed with so many wise pundits that the
adjective "alternative" is overused and was basically meaningless even
when under-used.  So what do they do?  Turn it into a phrase,
"alternative-music."  Gee, sounds just as dumb.
  The first couple of sentences trouble me.  I almost would come out and
say that the "benign elitism" they describe is outright bad -- there's no
reason to be a pretentious close-minded fool. Yet, after considering
Bruce Springsteen, U2, Paula Abdul and [M.C.] Hammer (all mentioned
earlier in the article as indirect examples of "the mainstream"), it's
hard to argue with the statement, "The more obscure or farther from the
mainstream, the better," if those are the choices the mainstream has to
offer.  
  But wait!  Luckily, those aren't the only mainstream artists  a fact
too often overlooked here.  What's the difference between someone who
exclusively listens to Lollapaloozer artists and one who listens to the
others mentioned?  Nothing.  Both have conservative (i.e., bordering on
closeminded)  musical tastes, dictated by others for the most part 
and increasingly, both sides' tastes top the Billboard Charts.]


  The title of a recent MTV "120 Minutes" compilation is symptomatic
(uh-oh, I'm starting to psycho-babble like the Yuppies!) of everything
that bothers me with "alternative" music, Lollapaloozer, College Music
Journal, etc, etc.:
                     NEVER MIND THE MAINSTREAM 
This title is so frighteningly Orwellian that it makes me want to be some
sort of Luddite every time I think of it.  It reminds of the disgusting
self-denial, hypocrisy, and utter lack of humanity that the Nazis
possessed when they wrote "Work Will Set You Free" above the gates of
Auschwitz.  (I'm sorry to use this example, because in general, these
ramblings don't touch upon anything as serious as the Holocaust and the
utter amorality behind it.) Just who the hell does MTV think they're
fooling???  A program accessible to BILLIONS of people cannot possibly be
counter to the mainstream.  With the kind of enormous clout MTV has with
advertisers and the other usual culprits guilty of capitalism, animal
pornography, etc., they only paint themselves as liars and hypocrites
when they claim to be "fighting" against the mainstream.  It's like the
kind of thing that always seems to happen in spy novel tortures: one
interrogator pretends to be the nice guy, the other brutal, in an attempt
to trick our hero into confessing.  Very convenient for MTV to play
against itself --increases profits.
  Same with the Lollapaloozers -- some smart bloke, in all likelihood
Greg Ginn, decided that it'd be much better for profits if you got rid of
tiny, exclusive audiences and only kept the pretense of tiny, exclusive
audiences.  The Newsweek article even says that most of the bands at
Lollapaloozer weren't as good playing to larger audiences.  Who cares,
the promoters are laughing to the bank.

  Another thing that bothers me about Lollapaloozer and the larger
"alternative" scene in general is how it is, in fact, so acceptable to
the "mainstream."  Look at the bands.  Look at the various political
organizations that were there -- mostly left-wing, but the left-wing
groups that are acceptable to talk about on the evening news.  And of
course, Right-to-Life as the token right-wingers.  All the old white
codgers that these groups claim dominate the world (OK, they do -- Oliver
Stone non-withstanding) can nod appreciatively and say to their prune
wives, "Look Abigail, those young freaks have metal rings in their
noses." And then they sit back and wait for the young freaks to discover
there's more to life than frantically trying to stay as hip and
pretentious as possible.  And then the young freaks realize it's easier
to slide into true mainstream dullness and mindless following than to
actually make any sort of unique contribution to the world, society, etc
-- so they become Yuppies.

respectfully yours,

   Mr. Q


(by the way, according to CorrectGrammar, only 54% of U.S. adults will
understand this message.  One needs to be at grade level 13.4 to make
heads or tail out of what I'm saying.  I guess that means all the
alternateens won't be getting my message, after all.)
Newsgroups: alt.music.alternative