gimme da fuckin' keys, cocksucker

I like music. Listening to it, reading about it, talking about it. I play a bit of guitar and sing and write some songs, and enjoy it.

I check Rolling Stone’s website almost every day. It’s my pipeline to American music, American culture. (I’ve been living outside of America off and on for several years.) I read the feature stories, read the reviews. So the other day I clicked on a video clip where two members of the RS staff reviewed a couple albums. One was the new Velvet Revolver and I forget what the other one was. Anyway. They were sitting in like a conference room discussing Weiland’s vocals and Slash’s guitar, playing snippets from a cd player behind them and talking about the music.

They had some good things to say about it and some bad things. But what struck me most was that the two of them had this underlying tone of smugness throughout the whole thing. It’s like they were reviewing the record, but at the same time they were kind of acting like they were too cool to be reviewing the record. Like somewhere just below the surface, they were making fun of the whole thing. Does that make sense?

So, like Chazz Palmentieri at the end of The Usual Suspects, I began to put together clues from Rolling Stone articles I’ve read over the years, and from other blogs I’ve stumbled upon, and from other interviews with people in the artistic and entertainment industry. What I’ve realized is that that smugness was not an isolated incident.

I’ve spent a lot of years teaching junior high school students. One clear behavioral pattern that children in that age group all over the world share is the desire for privacy. Their bodies are changing and they are shy about showing them, their minds are changing and they are hesitant to offer opinions. Junior high school kids love to pass little folded-up notes in class and keep secrets from their friends.

In the process of teaching, I’ll often play communicative activities in which I ask the kids various questions. One activity focused largely on pop culture, sports, and entertainment. Who’s your favorite baseball player? Who’s your favorite singer? Perhaps because of the privacy thing, when I ask kids who their favorite singer or movie star or pop star is, they’ll often hmm and haw, will be shy about saying a name. It’s not that they don’t have a favorite, they just don’t want to look stupid by saying someone not cool or unattractive.

Of course young adults in America talk about music and movies and singers and bands and all that. They offer opinions and say what they like and don’t like.

But I see that smugness everywhere, that too-cool-for-school attitude. (I have heard of this thing called a "hipster", but I'm not quite clear on what it is. However, I do feel like this hipster thing is related to this smugness somehow.) I don’t see it as cool at all, though. I see it as kind of insecurity about looking stupid for saying they like a certain band or singer. The smugness deflects being identified with that group or style of music, waters down the true opinion, like a defense mechanism.

A few points on this. First off, this is a strictly American and British phenomenon. I interact with people from all over the world. Most of my close friends at the moment are Australian, Kiwi, and Canadian, and no matter how many times I meet one of them, I am struck by how genuine they are, especially when it comes to basic likes and dislikes. Many Americans and Britishers, on the other hand, when you ask them their thoughts on a bar or club, sports team, or cultural icon, will give you an answer, but a snide remark will linger just there, just in case.

Now, to be perfectly honest, I don’t care much about this in itself. If people want to make fun of bands, go for it. But I don’t see it as a strictly cultural thing. I see it as a symptom of a larger unwillingness to identify with anyone or anything that might be unacceptable to someone else. I see it as a symptom of an inability or unwillingness to take personal responsibility for beliefs. What I worry about is that if people are afraid to take a stand on a musician that they like, what hope do they have of holding fast on issues that matter?

Questions: is it easier to identify yourself with something trivial like a favorite band, or something serious like a political ideal? It’s hip to bash Bush these days, hip to stop global warming. Those are safe. But what about unsafe, divisive issues? What about the war in Iraq, for example? I am utterly opposed to violence, I don’t even kill mosquitoes, but I have yet to hear a convincing plan for the withdrawal of troops from the area that will not result in millions of Iraqis slaughtering one another. What do you think about this and other serious matters? I would imagine that the smugness disappears when more pressing issues come up, but do you think people really believe what they say, or is the smugness replaced by another similar defense mechanism that absolves them from really having to go to bat for something they believe? Do you stand firm in your own opinions, or do you waver depending on the situation or the people with whom you’re talking? Have your basic principles or ideals changed as you’ve gotten older? Is it easy or hard for you to express your opinions? Do you temper your opinions with some sort of defense mechanism?

I’m not pointing fingers here. I wonder if I do the same thing in barroom conversations and in other more formal arenas. My opinions shift as much as anybody’s. But this raises another question. We give shit to politicians who waver, but we also give shit to politicians who hold their ground in the face of heavy opposition or overwhelming disagreement. Why is that? Which do you think is less appealing?

Will close for now. Nobody seems to have taken up the question about Democrats and Republicans, but that’s fine. If I get answers, I’ll be glad to address them. If not, I’ve got plenty more where this came from, so I’ll just continue to bash away.

Take care, peeps. Have a good one.