I've just finished a draft of a seven page paper on Mikhail Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita (see Sheree's blog for a picture of Behemoth the Cat wielding a machine gun, a scene from the aforementioned Russian novel). It's for my 20th Century Russian Literature class, which has been kicking my ass pretty hardcore. So, since I'm in a complainey-type mood at the moment, I'm going to bitch about a few things.
First, I hate it when new bands get pigeonholed by critics as the modern version of an older band (Rolling Stone is notorious for doing this). For example, if someone says to me, "The Silversun Pickups are like the next Smashing Pumpkins" I'd headbutt that person in the face, hopefully driving their septum directly into their brain. This phenomena irks me for two reasons: 1) The Smashing Pumpkins are still around! They are the next Smashing Pumpkins because they have always been the Smashing Pumpkins! 2) Even if the band under comparison is not around anymore, it's not cool to say, "This band sounds like the Pixies, hence they are the next Pixies," because that automatically limits the band in question to one type of sound. I call bullshit on that! Though I enjoy trying to discern a new band's influences when I listen to their stuff, I'm not about to up and insult them by saying, "They sound like a band that came before them, but haven't been able to transcend what said past band did for the world of Rock and/or Roll, so we'll just call them a modern version of said past band." And you wanna know why I wouldn't do this? Because I kick ass and take names on a regular basis, that's why!
Second, mentioning Rolling Stone magazine got me thinking of how much I'm pissed at their shenanigans. I mean, I'm down with the liberal mentality. I believe in a person's right to live his/her life however he/she wants to. I do not believe in anything that seeks to put others at a disadvantage because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. That being said, it drives me nuts that Rolling Stone magazine has positioned itself on a platform of "liberal journalism." Why? Because Rolling Stone magazine knows that right now, on college campuses around the nation, it's cool to hate Wal-Mart and President Bush. Rolling Stone magazine knows that right now, gay rights and Stephen Colbert are cool. That's it. All of the magazine's liberal posturing is spawned from a desire to be considered cool by the burgeoning hipster intellectuals of America. Oh, and to make a lot of money. This brings us to the core of my pissedness at Rolling Stone: It portrays itself as this mecca of inclusion and tolerance, but it only includes and champions that which society has deemed cool (homosexuality is cool, democrats are cool, veganism is cool, Eddie Vedder and his ugly ass beard are cool, etc.) while excluding that which society has deemed uncool (Wal-Mart is uncool, ultra-conservative Christians are uncool, censorship is uncool, etc.). For example, last month's issue ran an article about Mitt Romney titled, Mitt Romney: The Huckster. In this article, Romney's religion was brought up as a negative: "Once you've heard this kind of drivel enough times, it's not hard to see how this flag-waving conservative actually won the governorship in Ted Kennedy's home state, or propelled his Mormon magic-underwear-wearing self to near-front-runner status in a party that is overwhelmingly, intolerantly Christian" (Courtesy of Matt Taibbi, RS Oct 2007). So here's Rolling Stone, a magazine that's all about respecting the beautiful rainbow of diversity, bashing a presidential candidate because he's Mormon/Christian. And why is it okay to bash Mormons/Christians? Because society has deemed such groups as uncool, and it's okay to be intolerant of the uncool. Frakkin' ridiculous (BSG kicks ass).
Okay, I'm going to finish this rant for now because it's getting pretty long, but I will kill again.
4 comments:
I agree with you.
1. Coldplay is not the next U2.
2. Veganism is not cool (yes Ryan, this is a shot at you!)
3. It is BS when liberal groups tolerate gays, but not Mormons.
Good call, babe! Rolling Stone sucks, big time. I also really hate the way they pander their acceptance of diversity to whatever is cool at the time. Completely ridiculous. You're pretty much awesome. Unlike Coldplay. Have I ever told you that I hate Coldplay?
Home run, Alex! I've been thinking the same thing lately.
Rolling Stone does a lot of pseudo-liberal talk, but they bend over and take it up their self-righteous arse everytime you smell a Hugo Boss fragrance spread across 50 pages of advertising. They barely nibble at the hand that feeds while barking like they've got rabies.
Post a Comment