Shafted! #5: Generation X

When you’re a kid you want everything to be fair. I can remember, on a long car ride from Massachusetts to Miami, my dad went into a gas station and came out with a Sprite for my brother and nothing for me. He may as well have taken a knife and stabbed it in my heart – how dare my brother gets a Sprite and I get nothing! This was a travesty! What sort of father would do this to a child?

Well, the older I got the more I learned life was anything but fair. Indeed, from the minute you’re born the playing field is already unlevel. Whether you’re born on a rice paddy in Vietnam or in a mansion in Silicon Valley is beyond your control – it’s just life. Whether you’re butt ugly or shockingly beautiful is basically predetermined the minute your parents copulate (sorry for the visual image there).

When you were born also has a lot to do with your advantages and disadvantages in life. The Boomers certainly didn’t have it great and wonderful – the minute they were of age, they were shipped to Southeast Asia to fight an unpopular war. They also had to contend with the very real possibility of nuclear annihilation, and a 1970s economy that was nothing like the Land-O-Plenty their parents were able to enjoy after WWII.

That being said, Gen X (and you could easily argue the following generation(s) as well) has been completely, incontrovertibly, wholly 100 percent shafted. Let me count the ways:




In terms of economics...

By the time the Gen Xers reached adulthood a single income home was no longer the norm. Most families need two incomes to get by.

The gold standard had been abolished and the country is trillions in debt; the flourishing economy of the 80s and 90s is a long time gone

Social Security will most likely be tapped out by the time Gen Xers are senior citizens

Given the anti-materialist mantra of the hippie generation, it is a tad disconcerting to see the money-lust that exploded on Wall Street of late. Certainly not all the culprits were Boomers, but the big players in the game were primarily from the same generation that preached so convincingly against greed thirty years before.



In terms of lifestyle...

In the wake of the excesses of the Boomers in the seventies, all the debauchery seems to be played out. Now that Boomers are much older and “wiser”, drugs are suddenly verboten and the Sexual Revolution is a distant memory.

In other words, we missed all the fun. By the time Gen Xers were old enough to enjoy it, the discos and the hot tub parties were extinct; replaced by a more politically correct and "healthy" environment.



In terms of the workplace...

The workplace has become much more rigid and stress inducing. Hence the Starbucks on every corner and 5 Hour Energy Drink in every desk drawer. The number of hours worked per week has increased significantly and company loyalty has all but disappeared. Where I work, employees used to drink martinis during their breaks; now, you’d be fired for that.

Small businesses, bustling downtowns, and restaurants with character are becoming rarer and rarer as franchises and super centers homogenize every McCity and McTown in McMerica. Yes, the previous generation has given us a country that has been royally Starb***ed.

I could go on, but you get the picture. It certainly wouldn’t be right to place the blame solely on the shoulders of the Boomers. You could argue that these changes were inevitable, and that “The Greatest Generation” was no shrinking violet in this whole mess. It wasn’t the Boomers who elected the president that would chunk the gold standard, for example.

You could argue the rest of your life as to the real cause of the situation we’re in; however, life isn’t that simple – it’s a multitude of factors. In the end it doesn’t even really matter because, as I said before, life is not fair. Your brother gets the Sprite, not you.

Shafted! #4: Blaxploitation Cinema

Before you point it out: Yes, I see the humor in saying blaxploitation cinema was "shafted" (as in "Shut your mouth! I'm talkin' 'bout Shaft!").  But there's nothing funny about the way African American film was given a debilitating kick in the crotch by, of all people, the NAACP!  The films were accused of creating negative stereotypes, protested against, and summarily removed from theaters. 

Guys like Fred Williamson, a popular blaxploitation actor, were saying WTF? We finally have a genre of cinema that we can call our own, and it employs tons of black actors and movie crews.... and the the NAACP takes it away from us!  

Personally, I view this as a travesty. You didn't see Caucasian groups boycotting Stallone- Seagal- Schwarzenegger because they portrayed whites in a violent light.  No, they let them do their thing and get filthy stinking rich in the process..... something Richard Roundtree, Fred Williamson, and Pam Grier were not allowed to do.

For those of you naysayers who think it was a good thing to shut these films down, consider the following points.

1.  Perhaps the pimps, hustlers, and hoes weren't stereotypes, but rather a real reflection of the crime ridden urban neighborhoods.  Should they have made all their movies like The Cosby Show, a pretend alternate universe far removed from reality?
2. If you actually WATCH these films, you'll quickly discover that there's always a very moral to the story.  The young black man who decides to get rich pimping and selling drugs always ends up paying a heavy price, and often makes a positive turnaround.
3. As I mentioned, these films employed hundreds and hundreds of black actors and movie crews.  They may have been shut out of mainstream Hollywood, but folks like Pam Grier and Ron O'Neal found a venue in the ghettos across America.
4. These films had EXCELLENT soundtracks.  It was a wonderful opportunity to promote black music, and names like Curtis Mayfield and Isaac Hayes profited from it.

And have you looked in theaters these  days?  I just don't understand it.  It seems like black people are only allowed to play in comedies..... literally EVERY African American movie is a goofy comedy! How is okay for them to constantly play buffoons, but they were forbidden to play empowered badasses givin' it to "the man"?  I won't say a racist conspiracy is at work here, but it certainly makes you wonder what the hell is going on.

Shafted! #3: Kiss' The Elder

I think every pop artist who ever made it big has tried desperately to attain the love of critics.  Norman Rockwell never felt like a "credible" artist because the critics regarded him as a magazine artist hack.  Never mind the fact that he had incredible artistic skills and his works were often profound..... critics reserved their praise for guys like Jackson Pollack who sprinkled big canvases with globs of paint.  Note: critics also bashed The Grapes of Wrath, Brave New World and Lord of the Flies (source); so, exactly why they are people popular artists should want to please is beyond me.

Kiss had experienced an unbelievable level of success in the mid seventies.  Arenas were packed, live and double albums selling like hotcakes, a Kiss Army of devoted fans, tons of merchandising, a TV movie, and "Hard Luck Woman" and "Beth" topping the singles charts.... it just couldn't get any better.

But the critics hated them.  So none of that mattered.... just ask The Bee Gees.

Truth be told, sales were starting dwindle by 1979, but instead of just riding out the lull, Kiss started to implode.  Ace Frehley left in 1981, and Peter Criss had left before that. The band had alienated a lot of fans via a disco song ("I Was Made for Loving You") and a glut of merchandising.  Somewhere along the way, Simmons and Stanley decided to completely change course and stop singing about sex and make a concept album.

Yes, the band would put together an album Emerson, Lake and Palmer would be proud of.  At first listen, it's sorta cheesy and, well, a tad embarrassing.  Not the sort of thing you want blaring from your muscle car whilst cruising for chicks.... a massive departure from their earlier stuff.  But this album grows on you - and I think in the final analysis, it's pretty damn good.

Well, fans didn't know what to make of this. It didn't even have a picture of the band on the cover - unheard of! It sold poorly, and to this day nothing from the album is played at concerts.  It's as if it never happened. Well, I think it deserves a better reception.  Indeed, it should be ranked among the great concept albums of rock history.

I'd love to let you have a listen to the whole album so you can form your own opinion.  However, I'm pretty sure Gene Simmons' team of lawyers would have Retrospace shut down within the hour.  Hopefully, he won't mind if I just stick a taste of The Elder in this post - one song from a sinfully underplayed Kiss Album: "Only You".


download

Shafted! #2: Hair Bands

I'm not the biggest fan of hair bands - never was.  When Whitesnake, White Lion and Great White were all topping the charts, I was listening to Danzig and Metallica.  These hairsprayed poseurs looked like chicks and were affront to metal itself.  They were spitting on the legacy of Sabbath and Priest.  Bon Scott was spinning in his grave every time "Cherry Pie" was played.... or so I thought.

With the perspective of time, I see that it wasn't metal blasphemy at all - just another brand.  Perhaps hair bands shouldn't be considered "metal"; but that's just semantics.  The real question is whether they deserve the derision they've garnered since their heyday.  I think they do not.

Every phase of rock music is identified by a type of rebellion - without a rebellion of some kind, it simply isn't rock.  The onset of rock and roll via Elvis and The Beatles was obviously a cultural rebellion - Baby Boomers breaking free of social restraints imposed by the older generation.

Psychedelia was a transcendental rebellion - seeing beyond the ordinary, reaching a transcendent state of mind. In contrast, the rock of the seventies was largely a rebellion of debauchery.  There was no philosophy behind it - just lots of drinking, sex and drugs.

Once it grew too big (i.e. Styx, Boston, Journey) and lost its rebelliousness, punk entered the scene and staged a rebellion of destruction.  By its very nature, the rebellion of destruction couldn't last long, and morphed into radio friendly new wave.  And it's here that hair bands come on the scene to earn their rightful place in the legacy of rock and roll.  This time it was a rebellion of hedonism.

By the mid eighties, things had gotten rather clean.  Huey Lewis & the News was all over the airwaves, Randy Rhodes had died, KISS had lost the makeup, David Lee Roth had gone solo, and Richard Marx was about as loud as it got on the radio. Rock needed another good rebellion - and what better to rebel against than the squeaky clean 80s.  Yes, a rebellion of hedonism was definitely the way to go.

And it didn't get much more hedonistic than the glam rock coming off Sunset Boulevard.  Androgenous costumes, lyrics about nothing but sex and partying, spandex that left nothing to the imagination, and a lifestyle that would've made Caligula blush.... this is what rock and roll needed!

But what about Maiden, Motorhead, AC/DC, Scorpions, and Def Leppard?  They were great, but let's face it - their time had long since past.  We needed something to cut through "Let's Hear It for the Boy" and "Breakin' My Stride" on the ol' radio.  Plus, it came by its style honestly - its roots were firmly planted in the glam rock of Bowie, T. Rex, New York Dolls and KISS.  It wasn't always gritty and smelly like AC/DC was (although, Slash could get a little gamey), but that was never it's intention - it was all about flair.

And then came Nirvana. Once the hair bands lost their rebellion and got too commercial, it was time for another rebellion.... but this time it was different.  This time it was nihilism.  It was as if Generation X got up on the peak of a giant hill and stared back at the history of rock music and found it lacking.  It was like punk but it had no agenda. It wasn't rebelling against anything; it was just a sort of death knell.

Nowadays, what is there to rebel against? You can't use any sort of rebellion of decadence or debauchery - the popular culture is too immune - we've seen it all.  You can't give us anything we can't find on cable.  The obvious rebellion would be against materialism and commercialism.... but to do that you'd need to be NON commercial (i.e. indie) and thereby not on the radio or any of Viacom's subsidiaries.  And so, the only thing left to rebel against in essence ensures that it will not occur.  So, enjoy your Justin Bieber with a cameo by the oh-so rebellious Ludacris, that's as good as it's going to get.

So, I've taken a long way to say it, but, the fact is, the much derided hair metal was actually rock and roll's last stand.  May it rest in peace.

Shafted!: The Monkees

Despite the historically awful reviews from critics, I took the kids to see The Last Airbender - they loved it.  I kept waiting for it to be horrible; instead, it was entertaining throughout, akin to something like GI Joe or The Transformers.  It certainly didn't deserve the universal derision of movie critics - were they expecting Citizen Kane?

Anyway, it got me thinking about other pop culture things from years past that had also been unjustly criticized, and my mind immediately went to the Monkees. They were the critics' favorite punching bag, and even worse, they were mocked by other supposedly credible artists.  For instance, The Byrds' "So You Wan to Be a Rock and Roll Star" was a jab at the prefabricated band, aimed directly at the Monkees. 

Mike Nesmith has stated: "The press went into a full-scale war against us, talking about how 'The Monkees are four guys who have no credits, no credibility whatsoever and have been trying to trick us into believing they are a rock band.'"

The irony is that The Beatles, the greatest, most talented and influential band in history, actually liked The Monkees. Indeed, there was a lot to like about them: Mickey Dolenz was an amazing singer, they did contribute to their recordings, they were innovative (i.e. Dolenz was the first to use the moog in a rock song), they did play their instruments on tour, etc., etc. Sure, they didn't always write their own music, but so what? Either did Sinatra or Elvis.

The Take Home Message: Critics are idiots. It's astonishing that we still listen to their opinions when they've demonstrated time and again their irrelevancy.