Nice to see a Built to Spill mention earlier. For posterity, I felt like posting my list…
1. Apostle of Hustle
2. Sigur Rós
3. The Music
4. Arcade Fire
5. Led Zeppelin
6. Radiohead
7. Explosions In The Sky
8. U2
9. The Who
10. Ambulance Ltd
Now, this set of artists does not reflect my entire listening spectrum, but that is the limitation when one only considers their top ten. Some have made just one album, but does that matter? Buena Vista Social Club, Daft Punk, The Magnetic Fields, K-OS, Men Without Hats, The Beatles, Rush (not really), Mono, Of Montreal, The Fiery Furnaces, Salif Keita, Stevie Ray Vaughn, or Rachmaninoff, might make up my choices on some other Tuesday. I promise to never name drop again (after the end of this post). I am sure that I can name artists that no one has heard of, but I am sure a lot of others could too.
My hope is that the following is a civil “editorial” response to the indie/commercial posturing that plagues this forum constantly… give it a read, since it’s comforting to read things you already know.
…
Call me a musical luddite or traditionalist, but I would prefer to listen to Zeppelin, Sabbath, or early Chris Cornell over bands that make a buffet out of their stylings, like Wolf-Mother or WhiteSnake (yeah, you’re right, David Coverdale probably didn’t wean off Soundgarden). I choose to listen to the Kinks over the La’s, and Muddy Waters over Jeff Beck. Yeah, I did just recklessly namedrop in that last bit, but to prove a point, not to impress with eclectic comparisons. If you gave me the choice of seeing the Pyramids at Giza or the rip-offs in Las Vegas, of course I will go with the original (but, we can all agree that both versions are commercial sellouts
). That being said…
Call me a prog-rock, post-rock, beat-driven, anti-lyrical pop fan, but a respect for history and tradition does not preclude me from looking at new artists or new things in general. Sales, the amount of people in the clubs, the amount of monetary advantages some New York band’s fathers gave them, or the independent-looking graphic on the CD cover simply can’t be the only determining factors that dictate what people listen to- on either side of the equation. Basing your associations of tastes on a small set of genres that you feel comfortable with divulging in public can only sustain your listening patience for so long… until either you are just plain miserable, or you find a personal balance that accommodates the familiar music you heard on long road trips as a kid and the anti-establishment, room-locking music you cherished as a teen. And at the end of the day your list might look pretty bland, like mine, but is that due to a lack of taste and consideration or is it due to a developing and refining of taste? I’m willing to side with the latter. Personal experiences are probably the most important part in the molding of taste, and a lot of folks probably absorbed the oldies of rock and other genres at childhood. But should their list of favorites include those same bands their whole life? I hope not. I’m looking at you frequenters of the Alice Cooper cabaret show.
Call me a purist, but don't mean it. I’d rather be a pluralist. At least it sounds more inclusive, and the surfaces are the most important things, right? Let's embrace whatever form of anything we friggin' want to. If you think this post is meant to target you, it probably doesn’t... it's targetting all the Dirty Dianas out there.
Yeah, I just referenced the Jackson catalogue. I hope that makes me cool in someone's books?
Steve Stevens For Life!