Overrated

Earlier today I posted this on my Facebook wall: So, bands more overrated than The Doors. I'm trying to hard to think of one. Anyone?


Obviously this is a completely subjective opinion, but I think you can add some criteria to it. As my friend Pete asked, Does "overrated" simply mean, "Other people like them, but I don't"? Or is there an empirical imbalance between of their popularity & their musical talents?


And, to me, Overrated means the latter, especially when you call out a band like The Doors. Overrated or not, they are an incredibly important band and always will be. But that doesn't mean they don't suck. There are some definite criteria to this. 


1) Another friend listed, "any boy band since 1984".  I'm not sure what boy band pre-1984 did not suck, perhaps she was referring to Van Halen. But, while the most overrated band of all time may have originated in 1984, it just doesn't seem like nearly enough time. To be the world's truly most overrated band you must have time to have your reputation grow and flourish. You can not be a flash in the pan, and you can not be forgotten. Indeed, you must have certainly been great, or nearly so, and only the ravages of time have exposed your limitations. This, in my mind, disqualifies anyone from so recent a year as 1984. You can certainly argue for artistic decline, nearly every rock n' roll survivor suffers from decline, but that does not mean that they were not great or that their reputations were ill-deserved. Prince, to just pick one example, certainly has not maintained his quality, but it is difficult to dispute his golden age or his influence. 


2) Sticking with the 'boy band' premise, another requirement to being 'the most overrated band of all time' or the MOBAT, you have to be taken seriously in the first place. Certainly there are bands that have been critically panned but have gone on to prove their importance, Led Zepplin comes to mind as the most obvious example. But there are hundreds of bands that achieved a fairly significant level of popularity that have not, and will never, be any more than the entertaining flash-in-the-pans that they are. New Kids on the Block sure as shit bothered me when I was in the sixth grade, and they sold a kajillion records, but they were not influential (except for providing a template for future money-making-shit-shows) and they certainly were not important. The true MOBAT must have achieved, at some point, either during their heyday or later, some critical praise.


3) "Other people like them, but I don't". I must admit, this is a double-edged sword. First, it is very hard to not slap this label on your favorite band to hate. Right off the bat a couple friends put forth Rush. I must admit it is very tempting to me. I am not a fan of Rush. I have never found them captivating, and I think Geddy Lee sounds like a chimp being strangled. But, this is exactly why I am inclined to give Rush a pass. They traffic in music I believe I do not fully understand. I certainly know what I like, but even when engaging in a purely subjective enterprise, that is no reason to completely discard the objective. However, this also biases me against The Doors. I understand their music. I'm familiar with their genre and I know what their trying to do. I'm familiar with their catalog, and even now, nominating them for the MOBAT, I enjoy their music, but no where near as much as I used to.  


4) While I was at a happy hour I put this question to a couple co-workers and one of them listed The Beatles. I didn't think much of it at the time, not being a huge Beatle fan, but this is another important criteria, and the one where The Doors have the best chance to take their stand against being named the MOBAT. Simply, some bands are just too influential to be the MOBAT. I'll be the first to admit that the Boomer hold on pop music drives me nuts, but that doesn't mean that they aren't right. Artists like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and, in my mind the most important, Bob Dylan, are revered for a reason; they influenced EVERYONE. It is literally impossible to imagine the trajectory and development of rock and roll without certain people, and by definition none of those people on that list could be the MOBAT. Are The Doors on that list? I don't know. I think it could be argued, persuasively, that they are. I would certainly put people considered lesser artists on it. I personally would include Black Sabbath, Metallica, and Nirvana. People without which the pop music scene could very well look considerably different. 


But for this criteria to really work you must have influenced other artists. Without conducting a search of artist interviews for mentions of Jim Morrison, let's look at their "Followed by" list from Allmusic.com. Billy Idol, Echo & the Bunnymen, Alice Cooper, The Jesus and Mary Chain, MC5, The Mission UK, The Birthday Party, Mother Love Bone, Julian Cope, Iggy Pop, Danzig, The Stooges, Jane's Addiction, INXS, Godsmack, Pearl Jam...


I don't know, if I see an Iggy interview saying Jim Morrison led him to become a singer, well, that might be something. I don't really see the MC5 as actually giving a shit. I think there is little doubt that Jim Morrison was an influential character and probably gave license to many front men dying to misbehave, but whether that translated to influence for his band is debatable. And whether it allows them escape the noose of the MOBAT is very debatable. My point is rock would've survived without most of those people, and those who were most influential from that list, I don't see having a direct link to The Doors. I think The Doors came along at the perfect time to be named the MOBAT. Early enough to matter, but late enough to not be an indisputable pioneer. 


5) Of the criteria so far, this is the most subjective. Do they just suck? Some bands just do not hold up, and this is my main problem with The Doors. In my Facebook inquiry Pink Floyd was mentioned, and I must admit that I thought of them. But, and this is the subjective part, I think that The Wall has not held up well lyrically, or maybe it just means more when you're 16 than when you're 35, or maybe complaining about your mother just does not age well. But Animals, Wish You Were Here, Meddle and Dark Side of the Moon I still consider masterpieces of rock and just because I do not listen to them due to familiarity does not mean that I do not get a charge from them when I do. On the other hand, The Doors tend to bore me. They seem to have only the flimsiest grasp of the blues, Jim Morrison's lyrics, while unconventional, are not too impressive once you are familiar with Dylan's 'electric' records, and they have some of the most boring solos this side of a 4th grade recorder recital. The records, to be sure, are not bad. In fact, when The Doors do have a hit it is hard to argue with it, Roadhouse Blues, Break on Through, and L.A. Woman, in my opinion, are great pop songs, but can they carry the weight of The Doors entire reputation?


6) And that brings me to the final point. What is the gap between ability and reputation. Certainly another subjective criteria, but not as much as #5. Here I think is where one could argue for Rush taking home the MOBAT. In my mind The Doors are still widely popular. If a band acheieved widespread critical importance, and a loyal fan base, but cannot deliver the goods when you crank them up on your home stereo, do they not deserve to be called overrated? But, here again, I am applying my own teenage worship of Jim Morrison. Maybe no one gives a shit. Maybe the world has moved on. Maybe, somehow, inexplicably, Rush records are flying off the shelves. Two decades have passed since I listened to The Doors with anything approaching attention (until tonight), perhaps you can no longer find posters of Jim and his youthful, iconic torso in your local Spencer's. Despite my current ambivalence towards The Doors, that does make me a little sad. But, no doubt, those who seek The Doors will still find them. 

You say 'Apocalypse' like it's a bad thing...

What can I say about the failure of this Congress to raise the debt ceiling that hasn't already been said? I have been reading about this obsessively for months now. Had I started reading 'War and Peace' at about the same time, with the same intensity, I'd be half-way through that fucker by now. No, I can't add anything to the debate, but that won't stop me.

I guess my main point is this, This is the Republican's Fault. It is their show. They are completely and totally to blame for this. I can not stress this enough. And anyone that tries to play this as 'both sides' is either a delusional Blue Dog, a Lying Republican, or a reporter too afraid of being labeled 'Liberal' that he's forced to treat both sides 'equally'.

I say this because I've read so much of this shit that even I'm starting to waver. Are the Dems being unreasonable? They have tried to draw lines in the sand, but this issue is so important, is it worth drawing any lines, particularly when facing opponents that seem insatiable and hell-bent on getting their way? Is it worth default, and all the potential horrors that follow, merely to maintain some sense of dignity? Because, let's face it, at this point that's pretty much what Dems are fighting for... No, that's unfair, but only slightly.

But then I remember, this is ALL the REPUBLICANS' FUCKING FAULT.

And why is that? Because, this is a routine vote. Let me restate that... Never in the history of the existence of the debt ceiling has there ever been anything but the most token of debates over it WhatSoFUCKINGEver. I know, I know, Obama voted against it when he was a Senator. Allow me to retort, Fuck you. Just because one man made a symbolic vote a few years ago does not mean you get to hold the entire Republic Hostage. Hell, Ron Paul votes against this thing every fucking time. But that doesn't make him right, it just makes him consistent... and potentially crazy. But, allow me to restate my original point, THIS IS ALL THE REPUBLICANS' FUCKING FAULT.

If a clean vote on the debt ceiling were brought to the floor tomorrow nearly every House Democrat, and I'd wager nearly every Senator would vote for the thing. All of this wrangling and posturing is solely because too many over-zealous and over-caffinated (Tea is high in caffeine) House Republicans have decided that this is the perfect opportunity to hold the entire government and the US economy hostage to get some 'concessions' and, as a bonus, make Obama look completely ineffectual (which, regardless of the outcome is largely succeeding), and possibly most importantly, burn out the clock on Obama's presidency. And that is it, that is all.

It has become common knowledge that there HAS to be some sort of Debt Ceiling deal. And such Common Knowledge is just complete bullshit. If the Republicans want to have a fight over the fucking budget then Congress holds the purse strings. They own half of Congress. In another year, due to the magic of Democrazy, they'll probably own BOTH fucking Houses. If they are so goddamn serious about the deficit, well, Congress sets the fucking budget. Let them fucking debate it on their own time. Let them win it on their own time. Let them win their concessions on merits of their Arguments, not by scaring the hell out of people by threatening to force the US Government into Default.

Oh, but they aren't really serious about the Deficit, it really should be obvious, but it clearly isn't to half the electorate and nearly all of the goddamned media (despite, ahem, 2001 through 2006 which really wasn't that fucking long ago). But it's late, and that's a whole other thing.

Anyway...

Some people don't understand other people

Uhg. You know what pisses me off. Bill O'Reilly. Not his existence. Ok, a tiny bit his existence. But mainly that he gets paid for political commentary and I don't. Now, please do not misunderstand me. I do not think I am 'all that'. And, I do certainly do not think I am, as the kids might say, 'all that with a bag o' chips.'

Ok, that's just my intro. I'm fucking around. But seriously, let's ask a question, why is Bill O'Reilly being paid, By Anyone, for political commentary? But, as Levar Burton used to say, "Don't take my word for it," see for yourself:

There is something strange in the air when former President Clinton compliments Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann. Speaking on CNN last week, Mr. Clinton said that he is not surprised the Congresswoman is rising in the polls because she is a "compelling public figure" and comes across as "real."

No, Bill, there is nothing fucking strange in the air. I'll cut you a little bit of a break here, because writing an intro to a column is hard (see above) and, well that's it. But let's pretend for a moment, just a moment, that Michele Bachmann is indeed a "compelling public figure," who does indeed come across as 'real." I assure you, Bill, from everything I've thus heard about Michelle Bachmann, I find her morally repugnant, and yet, as our former President acknowledges, I find her to be both of those things. Let's move on.

Since Mrs. Bachmann pretty much opposes everything Bill Clinton believes in, the question becomes exactly why does he think she's compelling. It can't be her ardently pro-life views. Or her lower taxes, smaller government beliefs. Or even her call to abolish national health care. Bill Clinton can't find those things attractive at all. And the Congresswoman absolutely loves the Tea Party. Is the former president down with that?

Umm... No. Bill Clinton is not "down with that". What the fuck you talking 'bout, Billus? This should not be a difficult point to grasp, but apparently Bill O doesn't quite get it, there is such a thing as acknowledging a person's skill at a particular profession, say Banking, or Assassin, or Politician, and at the same time Not appreciating what that person is Actually Doing.

Can't be.

Oh, I stand corrected. People of differing political views can not appreciate the skills of one another. Do go on, Bill. Enlighten me.

So, I sense some gamesmanship in the air, and I suspect it has to do with Sarah Palin. Most Democrats loathe Governor Palin so much that they are happy to see a candidate who is taking up some of her air time. Both Bachmann and Palin appeal to the same audience: traditional, conservative working folks. Their views are almost identical on many subjects, but Mrs. Bachmann, for some reason, seems to be easier for the Democrats to accept.

Umm... Really? This might be the stupidest thing ever said by a major political commentator. Are you Serious, Bill? I agree, Palin may actually run for President in her fashion. She'll probably be the first person in history to run for President AND manage to keep her highly paid and high profile job as a political commentator for a high profile network. If anyone can pull off that sort of business savvy coup de grace it's our girl Sarah. But only fucking morons think that A) she is a legitimate threat to democrats at this point, and that b) anyone except for her die-hard supporters care if she actually runs or not. Here's a clue, Bill. Democrats WANT Sarah to run. Jesus, you're a fucking moron. But let's see what other kernels of wisdom you have to share.

This might come down to personality. Sarah Palin has a harder edge than Michele Bachmann. A new Granite State Poll in New Hampshire puts Palin's unfavorable opinion rating among registered Republicans at a whopping 52%, with 41% approving of her. On the other hand, 52% like Congressman Bachmann; just 23% do not.

So you would think that Democrats would want to promote a Republican who has high negatives instead of one who is gaining momentum. Not in this case.

It seems that Sarah Palin has replaced George W. Bush has the person many liberal Americans love to hate. That has benefited Michele Bachmann, who is getting compliments aimed at bolstering her candidacy at Palin's expense. Democrats well understand that the GOP does not have room for both women in the primary fray. They would split the Tea Party vote.

Jesus Christ. I guess I could break this all down line-by-line, but it's all so fucking dumb, what's the point (aside from immense personal satisfaction). Again, this is just jumbled garbage based on one two bullshit premises; A) that Sarah Palin has anything but the slightest outside chance at winning the Republican Primary; and B) that Bachmann, in the highly unlikely event that she wins the Primary, is able to win the General Election.

Bill O, Yes, Obama is vulnerable, but Democrats, if the are boosting Michelle at all, they are boosting her because the are afraid of Mitt Romney, not that fucking psycho. Jesus. This is basic. This is easy. Someone paid to break down politics should not get their analysis wrong on so many levels; indeed, Every Single Level. It's fucking embarrassing, man.

This is not hard to understand.

If unemployment hits 10% Obama could be beaten by, if you'll forgive me, a Rhino wearing a tutu of monkey skins. SO, chances are that Democrats, who are not fucking morons, (i.e. do not have paid commentary jobs for Fox News) understand this. So, yes, they will likely promote and acknowledge weaker candidates in the hope that one of these weaker candidates goes on to win the primary granting Obama a better chance to maintain his position another 4 years. BUT, this does not mean that one politician (Bill Clinton) cannot appreciate another politician (Michelle Bachman) for her singular skill at livelying up the base, in a way that, if you'll forgive me, Sarah Palin, with all her back-woodsey bullshit, just can not touch. If there was ever an expert in back-woodsy bull-shit, it's Clinton. And, maybe, you should pay a bit of legitimate attention to the former President's analysis, Bill. Because, you know, yours' fucking blows.

Anyway...

Travel wear - Do's and Do not's.

So, Sadly, No! took a recent column by Dennis Prager of the National Review, and dismissed it thusly with one of their usual 'shorter' posts:

God says that men flying around on airplanes in women’s clothing, even if their penises are covered, might as well be flying around naked.

While this pretty much does capture the spirit of Prager's post, it's worth it to click on the original to see what exactly has got his panties in such a twist. Upon doing so we find this horrifying tale:

On June 9, a man boarded a U.S. Airways flight from Fort Lauderdale to Phoenix, dressed in women’s panties, a bra, and thigh-high stockings.

No U.S. Airways employee at the Fort Lauderdale airport asked him to cover himself. Nor did any flight attendant ask him to do so. And obviously, no one demanded that he get off the plane.

I have to say, I'm a little sympathetic to Prager's point here. I wouldn't want some middle-aged guy in panties and a tank-top sitting next to me on an airplane. Hell, I wouldn't want most middle-aged women seated next to me in bra and panties. Hell, I usually don't want Anyone sitting next to me on an airplane regardless of his or her personal fashion sense.

Now, I get that as a columnist you often take small events and use them to make a larger point about society, and it's using this common technique that Prager makes himself look like the small-minded ass-hole I have little doubt he is. He continues:

The decline of American civilization since the 1960s has been so fast and so dramatic that it takes one’s breath away.

That a woman speaking on behalf of a major airline can say with a straight face that her airline allows anyone dressed or undressed to fly on its airplanes, so long as they do not expose their genitals, perfectly encapsulates this decline.

The only question is: How did we get here?

For one thing, the concept of decency is dying. I suspect that if an adult were to say to a group of randomly chosen American college students that this man indecently exposed himself and should not have been allowed to fly, that adult would be (a) not understood (what does “indecent” mean?) or (b) roundly condemned for intolerance and bigotry.

Hippies! Damn dirty hippies. This is what is so funny to me about people like Prager. One person acts like a selfish prick and it all goes back to the 60s, when the dirty hippies totally ruined everything. First, the idea that decency is dying has been a theme since well before the 60s. It's called getting old, Prager, you prick. As you get older you have less fun (if you ever did) and everyone having fun seems indecent. Second, I love the blanket statement, that college students would approve of this. I personally suspect they would hand Airport Man a ping-pong ball and ask him to totally come party at the beer pong championship! And my opinion is just as valid, because, I, like Prager, didn't actually ASK any fucking college students what they might think if this guy was trying to waltz onto their flight.

But, the truly great thing about this story is that if you click the link to it on Prager's article, you find things go even deeper.

Six days before a college football player was arrested at San Francisco International Airport in a dispute that began when a US Airways employee asked him to pull up his sagging pants, a man who was wearing little but women's undergarments was allowed to fly the airline, a US Airways spokeswoman conceded Tuesday.

A photo of the scantily clad man was provided to The Chronicle by Jill Tarlow, a passenger on the June 9 flight from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to Phoenix. Tarlow said other passengers had complained to airline workers before the plane boarded, but that employees had ignored those complaints.

So, basically, a black kid with his underwear sticking out couldn't get on the plane, because one airline screener decided it was inappropriate. And one middle-aged white dude got on wearing women's underwear because another airline employee decided to not give a shit. Of course, Prager makes no mention of the guy who DID get sidelined from his flight due to questionable fashion sense, because it would totally get in the way of his wingnut narrative about the hippies who totally destroyed America.

But, given the situation, I believe we can come to only one conclusion, America is completely tolerant, except when we're busy being intolerant, and it all really depends on which asshole is on duty at the check-in desk.

Anyway...

Newt's Moon Mission

So, for those of you with the stomach to handle the Republican Debate on CNN you saw some weird stuff. T-Paw prefers Coke to Pepsi, Herman Cain is a Deep Dish guy, as opposed to Thin Crust. I can only assume that thin crust is for pussies. And there was a lot of fluffing up the base, trashing the opposition, and just in general lying. But it's a Presidential Primary Debate and, well, what you gonna do?

BUT, the award for Dumbest Thing Said has to go to Newt. He said, and I quote,

you take all the money we've spent at NASA since we landed on the moon and you had applied that money for incentives to the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles. And instead, what we've had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy after bureaucracy and failure after failure."

So, Newt is a fan of the Space Program. Good for him, but what I think he's really a fan of are Star Trek reruns, otherwise he'd know he was talking complete shit. Or maybe he does, this is Newt after all.

But three or four permanent space stations? A permanent Moon Base? Built by the Private Sector? For What Exactly?

This is one of my major problems with this current dumb and dumbed down version of conservative thought, this simplistic idea that the Free Market is the solution for all problems.

Why the Hell would a company waste money putting people on the moon? The object of the Free Market is to create goods and services, and distribute those goods and services. So what are they doing on the moon? Opening Starbucks? Opening a Gap? For Christ's sake, find me a legitimate marketing plan for putting a base on the Moon. Seriously.

Space Exploration is Exactly the kind of thing the government should be financing. The government can afford to finance activities with no other point than the expansion of human knowledge. That's not what the Private Sector does. How much money can you make by putting three guys in million dollar suits on a rock hundreds of thousands of miles away? Short answer is: None. The slightly longer answer is: fucking less than none and you'll be a trillion dollars in debt to boot.

Now, you can argue against the necessity of the space program. In fact, a great song by the Drive-By Truckers titled, "Putting People on the Moon" does exactly that. The song is sung from the perspective of a man with absolutely nothing marveling that there is enough money to send people to the moon, but not enough to help him with his life. Not exactly a Conservative message, but a legitimate argument against NASA.

You can argue, from a conservative perspective, that the Government should not be involved in funding pure scientific research and that space Exploration is not a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars.

You can argue, also, that we are finally at the point where it makes sense to turn our space exploration over to private enterprise hoping to make a go of the moon tourism 'industry', leaving government exploration, I suppose, to the Chinese and Russians.

But, what you can't argue, and be a serious person, is that the Free Market left to it's own devices, starting in 1960 or so, would've developed an entire space society by now. But there it was, said out loud, by a person considered (at least as of a week or so ago) to be a serious contender for President. Yippee.