POP ROOTS

An Upturned No
Alternative music, music snobs and the narcissism of rejection


In some ways one could see the reason behind Eddie Vedder's boycott of Ticketmaster and music videos. While his Ticketmaster boycott was a much tamer version of fellow grunge musician Kurt Cobain's rebellion against the plasticity of fame, his boycott against music videos appears motivated by a side of popular music he saw as unnecessary and self-aggrandizing. In this sense, he was something of a prophet as the dawn of the new millennium pulled the veil from the market-driven, ADHD-inducing whore known as MTV. In fact, MTV itself acknowledged its own rejection of its traditional standpoint of offering music television with a series if commercials arrogantly announcing the advent of MTV2 for those viewers who had to see music on music television (one of them featured a television being thrown through someone's window...if that's not a "fuck you here's your waffle," then nothing is).

But there's a subtle layer of arrogance to the "NO" alternative musicians give to fame; something that's not just motivated by social awareness, but status and image. And it affects not just them, but their fans as well.

In discussing alternative music, it's helpful to define the term"alternative music". The phrase itself is temporary as whatever is alternative eventually becomes mainstream. Alternative music is, in practice, any music which rebels against the accepted norm and provides a subversive "pop" music which neither desires nor expresses a wish to be pop music. This, in itself, is a struggle alternative musicians face as they struggle to rise above projecting a desire to be subversive when they no longer have to be (e.g. Fallout Boy or Eminem).

Fame is as difficult (perhaps even more so) an obstacle to overcome than obscurity; especially when one emerges from an underground/alternative music scene. Popularity could be anathema to a group built on rebelling against the machine. Perhaps it's why so many of these types of groups split. The infrastructure on which they're built is tainted and unsustainable when they become famous.

The best place to start the discussion is 80s rock: the foundation of an "alternative" music movement in the public consciousness. Politico-rock influenced by punk bands such as The Sex Pistols was just settling into the public mind frame and the 60s countercultural music was a fossil. The dollar looked as if it could go on forever and the music world seemed eternally malleable. Actually, it's The Sex Pistols which should be discussed first. Their nihilistic arrogance appears the base of narcissism in alternative rock. An antagonistic view of modern rock and the shallowness they saw in it was as polarizing as the music they spoke against. In other words, you're either with us or you're a wanker.

It was also a narcissism they embraced. They didn't want to be famous. They didn't want fans. At the same time, they did. They stayed in show business, playing shows and doing television. Johnny Lydon's snarling, brash interview with Tom Snyder on The Tomorrow Show in the early '80s was indicative of this attitude. Yet, in a 1997 interview with Snyder Lydon admitted it was "all show business". Lydon and The Sex Pistols may have had a pure rebellious motive at the beginning, but somewhere in there it became an act, a schtick people bought. Look at Lydon on VH1 and see if you don't agree.

The punk movement faded quickly in the 80s. With the advent of shiny clothes, ubiquitous synthesizing and music videos, the attentive music fan may have considered Lydon and those of the punk movement prophets in regard to the superficiality of the modern music scene, which seemed playing to itself rather than the public.

As punk was to the early 80s, so grunge became to the early 90s. The anger was still there, but now it was more internally than externally destructive. This was the era of Vedder and Cobain. As mentioned earlier both men saw the transformative qualities of the media and rebelled against it. Vedder rebelled by recognizing the flaws in the machine and refusing fame in favor of art and truth. Utilizing his underground roots, Vedder used his status to protest against wrongs he saw in (or outside of, as the case may be) society. It was something received openly as his open antagonism against the typical path to celebrity-dom painted him as a genuine artist with ideas rather than gimmicks.

Cobain had the opposite approach; he killed himself. Although it seems his reaction was just as potent for changing the Red Carpet's ways, Cobain's self-indulgent suicide letter was as much a sign of arrogance as Johnny Lydon's smart-ass remarks to Tom Snyder. It was even more so. Cobain, by killing himself, also portrayed himself as a martyr unable to hold up against the oppressive media machine. Yet, it was a selfish decision. He left a widow, a fatherless child and countless grieving fans. Cobain said NO and only NO. He provided no reasons beyond this. It was ignorant and arrogant. For proof, see Courtney Love's rage-soaked monologue at a vigil for Cobain shortly after his death. His suicide was a loss to the music world, but one senses Cobain knew it would be and maybe that's why he did it. If this is the case, his suicide is pure irony.

Of course, he didn't start off thinking of himself as a savior to rock n' roll in the beginning. Once upon a time, it was about music. Yet, the pressure and the funhouse mirror of fame did him in. As it was said earlier, alternative musicians cannot remain alternative.

On the coattails of the grunge movement, in the waning years of the 90s, Radiohead emerged as an impressive force from the U.K. Thom Yorke's etheric voice, crooning underdog ballads of an unfair world quickly earned legions of fans who identified with his pain. With each additional album, the songs became more cryptic, even more erudite one might say. Radiohead never blessed out a late-night talk show host, but they did offer their album for free for a short period of time; something which gave a music industry struggling with music pirating shivers in their spine. Even still, in a band as seemingly impervious to the pop machine as Radiohead, tendrils of narcissism are creeping through. Consider Radiohead's response to Miley Cyrus' desire to record with them. "When Miley Cyrus grows up she'll learn not to have such a sense of entitlement," they said. What motivates this response? Or, their Kanye West snub at this year's Grammys, which caused West to respond virulently during a VH1 Storytellers. Of course, West himself is no Humble John as several acts of big-headedness, including his upstage of Taylor Swift's VMA moment, indicate.

All these people were musicians with no fans at one point. At some point they crossed the threshold where there was a separation between the thought and the act. The NO for these musicians is, in a sense, a euphemism for their perceived impact on the music world. The NO for these musicians is inclusive; it does not allude to a deeper reason. It is merely an expression of their perceived importance. To do otherwise is risky, as mentioned earlier. Bands which attempted to say no to fame without actually embracing their abstract rebellion must play their cards delicately, otherwise they end up imploding from a supernova to a white dwarf (Rage Against The Machine, for example). The more strategic bands pick and choose their battles (The Dead Kennedys and The Clash) and hang around a bit longer before evaporating beneath the radar. Has any band ever remained true to their rebellious nature and remained extant? It seems not.

Yet, more interesting is the fruit these bands produce. Arrogance appears passed audibly in this sense as one marvels at the pride (and perhaps, arrogance) fans of bands such as The Sex Pistols and Radiohead take in simply by being fans of The Sex Pistols and Radiohead. Intriguingly, this level of fandom is surpassing the fame bestowed on musicians. Just as postmodern literary critics say literary criticism is itself literature, so music fans are bestowing ultimate power upon musical knowledge more so than music. The hot topic in music blogs is, superficially, the music; however, undulating beneath that is the arrogance of being the first to hear a song, the first to notice flaws or inconsistencies in the recording process, a discussion of inane facts about or comments made by the band. Displaying this information and one's individual reaction to it is the majority of a music blog.

The current modus is using the music as a catalyst for talking about oneself. This is a "genetic" characteristic which began in the rejection of mainstream music by certain bands, then given the label "alternative". It is inevitable to cross the line; to remain alternative is impossible as one eventually (with increasing fame) becomes mainstream. Yet, the desire to embrace rejection - as this defined one's essence as an alternative band - is addictive and the fear of being accused of a sell-out if one doesn't is always there. After a while, rejection becomes a brand and once it becomes a brand it becomes ungrounded. Rejection has no meaning and when rejection has no meaning, it is snobbery. Fans of the band in turn embrace not the lyrics or the spirit of the band's music, but the group's snobbery. Ergo, fans become snobs.

In a time where it is possible to know all bands in all places, the rebellious attitude once admired in rock n' roll for its subversive nature to alter a corrupt society has become the sickness. It has created a culture where people no longer listen to music, but talk about themselves listening to music.