[bomp] Glimmer of hope?

["Perry L. Adler" <PerryAdler@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Am I a crochety '60s garage or '70s punk purist?  Possibly but I honestly
>think I'm more open-minded than that.  And I don't want to begrudge the
>success of this new school of rock & roll--I agree with most people's
>statements here that it's a vast improvement over the Pearl Jam/Creed/Korn
>krap and that it's good to see kids digging decent guitar-based music
>again.
>But there's undefinable *something* missing in it all to me.  Passion?
>Memorable tunes?  Distinctive, attractive-to-the-ears musicianship and
>singing voices?  The dreaded "originality"?  All of the above???  I cannot
>tell.  I want to like it, I really do.	I was actually kinda pleased with
>the state of popular rock & roll back in the Nirvana/Green Day era of the
>early '90s--that phenomenon reminded me of the late '70s when Cheap Trick &
>the Knack ruled the airwaves.  I'd love to see a similar takeover
>today--but
>I'd just prefer to see the kids digging something better.  (Admittedly, I'm
>yearning for acceptance of sounds that would fit my own personal standards
>of "better"--YMMV.)
>
>Signed D.C.

    I am VERY skeptical that rock'n'roll has another renaissance left in it.
But one hopeful sign: that plural band names are back in style. Not that there
weren't some great, unpretentious bands with singular names (like Slade, or
Motorhead). But an era defined by band names like the Ramones and the Sex
Pistols, or the Hives and the Strokes, is going to have less bullshit than one
with names like Grateful Dead and Pink Floyd, or Phish and Radiohead.

===> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe bomp" to majordomo@xnet2.com <===