The decade has a bad reputation; I personally find it difficult see past hair bands playing pointless power ballads with vapid lyrics, or how Joe Piscopo was considered sexy, or how at Live Aid, Phil Collins played in London, jumped the Concorde, then played in Philadelphia… and people cheered! People cheered because Phil Collins played music. You can’t tell me that wasn’t just a messed up decade. But fixating on 80s pop culture’s ludicrousness only prevents us from appreciating some truly great music. The punk scene of the 70s evolved into alternative in the US (The Replacements, Violent Femmes, and They Might Be Giants) and ska revival (Two Tone) in the UK (Dexys Midnight Runners, Madness, UB40, and The Jam.)

As far as “classic rock” goes, the 80s were a bad decade. For two decades, so many rock stars like Pete Townshend, Eric Clapton, Elton John, all of Fleetwood Mac, even my hero George Harrison had been doing drug (and hard ones at that,) but by the beginning of the 80s, so many had overdosed, Lennon was shot, and so rock stars everywhere were saying, “Maybe I shouldn’t kill myself with drugs.” The 80s thusly became a time for rock stars to detox, and, with their attention diverted toward not dying, their music suffered.

No group was on the front of the country-rock movement more than The Flying Burrito Brothers. After Gram Parsons’s brief stint with The Byrds, where his influence resulted in the country Sweetheart of the Rodeo, he pilfered Byrd Chris Hillman and formed the new band. Unlike blues-rock, country-rock is ultimately indistinguishable from country and caters to the same crowd. Parsons brought his high lonesome voice and songs about heartache and drinking into a bona fide country group, whose sound was highlighted by the amazing work of Sneaky Pete Kleinow on pedal steel. Though FBB albums are hard to find, the library has a greatest hits.

If rock is blues and country, then is blues-rock just bluesy blues and country? How blues is blues-rock in comparison to rock? Of course, if someone in 1956 called a group or artist “blues-rock,” it most certainly would have been redundant, but by the time of the sub-genre explosion in rock music (or as I like to call it, The Great Rock Schism) in the late sixties, all sorts of groups like Cream (and for that matter, any of Eric Clapton’s groups,) The Spencer Davis Group, The Rolling Stones, J. Geils Band, Fleetwood Mac (Peter Green’s version,) and hoards more identified themselves as blues-rock.

Truly, as far as punk rock is concerned, we must remember two things:
1) Never say you like punk because you like The Clash. That’s like saying you like rap because you like Run-DMC. Of course you like The Clash. They rule. That goes unsaid. Saying you like The Clash is going to make people think you don’t know what you’re talking about.
2) The Sex Pistols are awful. If you haven’t heard their one record displaying how truly bad and nonsensical their music is, don’t bother, because the Pistols are not the end all, be all of punk. Near the end of the punk’s prominence, a London clothier fabricated this band to capitalize on the punk fashion scene.

Most people (rightfully) believe rock music came from the hybridization of country and blues music. After all, the early rock and rollers like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and Jerry Lee Lewis played nothing more than twelve-bar blues with a country backbeat. But toward the end of the sixties, rock music had a sub-genre explosion, with rock and roll giving way to [blank]-rock (the blank filled with some adjective, e.g. “hard,” “country,” “blues,” and cetera.) Progressive rock, though, while still in the blanket term of “rock,” has little to no blues background. Yes, especially by the time they hit their stride with The Yes Album and Fragile, were little more than a classical music ensemble playing rock instruments.

Part of me is surprised that I didn’t write on this Monday when I came into work. At the time, The Zombies seemed much more important. But I’ve reconsidered the significance of Britney Spears’s poor performance at the VMAs last weekend. People went nuts over her lackluster dancing/walking, poor lip-synching, and her out-of-shape body (of course, people, she wasn’t out of shape. Certainly less in-shape, but not out of shape,) but beyond all that, the incident marks a shifting trend and now Britney Spears, for the second time in her life finds herself the harbinger of change.

In the last installment of "The Roaring 90s," I talked almost exclusively about The Wallflowers, but their story is the story of the 90s: an alternative band releases a multi-platinum album, maybe a mildly successful single off of their next one, then finds themselves trapped in the limbo that is the Adult Contemporary charts (ugh... Adult Contemporary,) falling off the face of the planet, or worse: selling out. The Wallflowers, Counting Crows, Spin Doctors, Live, Blind Melon, The Black Crowes, Pearl Jam, Sublime, and the list goes on. Actually, it’s a fun rainy day game to try and list all of the bands that couldn’t quite release that second album up to the standards of their first.

Folks my age oft criticize me for my musical tastes, persistently asking me, "Don’t you like any new music?" It’s true; I do gravitate toward older music mostly released before I was even born (and, according to my questioners, the Rolling Stones' newest record doesn’t count as "new.") But I love music from my lifetime, and I find myself very lucky to be born in 1984, because by the time I grew old enough to enjoy popular music, a revolution had taken place and a stream of great, roots rock, "alternative" bands starting popping up everywhere. A deluge of bands came on playing their instruments well in tight ensembles, reviving an earlier mentality of how a band should sound, eschewing synthesizers, excessive reverb, and the hair. Of these new groups, my favourite is The Wallflowers.