"My Chemical Romance is this generation's Nirvana"

No, not OTM. I'm 25 and I still listen to a lot of the music I liked when I was 16. Or am I missing the point?

BTW, I'm Not Okay (I Promise) is one of the greatest complaint rock songs in history and it manages to have a sense of humour as well.

FUCK OFFS!

when i was 16 one of my favourite albums was the miseducation of lauryn hill and i still listen to it, but not as much as i did. another of my favourite albums from then, boys for pele, i hardly listen to at all now, though i'll still defend it.

i don't think this in any way means that my love for those songs (and by proxy the band responsible for them) is less than that of a new order crate-digging obsessive, or that i'm less qualified to talk about them. and i'm pretty disgusted by the assertion that one can only have genuine feeling for the music if you've sat up all night alone with it. fucking indie kids.

i feel that privileging the "doing of one's homework", as if one's love of music can only be fully realised by approaching it as if it was an exam, is spectacularly wrong-headed.

but don't you think it is if you are basing your whole identity on the 'fact' that you are someone who, you know, does that homework? i mean, what's the difference between sarah's solicitation of chris' shoegaze list so she can put it in her book and look informed, or at least hip to the genres that the bands in the 9 pm slots at the mercury lounge are biting, and jonah goldberg's solicitiation of his readers' explanations of laws so he can put it in his book and look informed?

chris said pretty clearly that knowing about bands is neither required, nor inherently cool, but the problem is that sarah bases her whole identity on the 'fact' that she is discovering bands like louis xiv, mcr, etc. -- and then she hypes them to the moon, and name-drops certain 'trigger' acts to get the attention of, yeah, people like us. not to take the homework analogy too far, but there's definitely an amount of cheating going on there. do people buy it? i don't know. the world of blog comments is not exactly a scientific measure.

her f-list 'celebrity,' fleeting and blog-echo-chambery as it is, is sort of perfect for the gawker media/vh1-talking-head age -- 'we'll show you this item of popculture, please react to it on-the-spot and we'll totally put a chyron of your latest project under your face, we promise.' as long as she can babble on for long enough and keep up a good face, she's going to have her little slot as a faux expert sewn up.

I really don't think that someone who loved, say Joy Division, from the age of 16 is necessarily more credible than anyone who started listening at 23, other than the chance for reflection and the perspective that time allows. It's that annoying tendency to treat knowledge as some sort of credibility while obscuring your source ("Oh yeah, I've always listened to them," etc.) that really differentiates people who like music from people who think they can use it as social currency.

(Music Reviewer): This new band Y really sounds like old songs from X.
(Scene Kid listening to band Y): I have loved band X forever!

but don't you think it is if you are basing your whole identity on the 'fact' that you are someone who, you know, does that homework?

yeah, that's lame, but kind of DOUBLE lame - firstly for the lying/cheating and so on, though if this is what she does it's not as if she's anything like the only one among music hacks. but even if she HAD done her homework, had lived and breathed those bands she claims to love, and was trading off that - that's lame as well! unless she can write really, really well, and if you can do that you don't need to trade off anything else. (what, incidentally, makes people think that she doesn't love them deeply? there are several old bands i love deeply even though i only discovered them through a greatest hits, like, last year.)

but whether Current Song X sounds like Old Song Y is generally the least interesting thing about it - that sort of cross-referencing journalism can be interesting but it shouldn't be a template.

That is a world of difference from hearing a Joy Division song on the net, on the radio, or seeing the video for "LWTUA" on MTV, or reading about another band and finding out they were very into Joy Division, and quietly going about the business of finding out about this band because you like their music. To get to Joy Division from the Unknown Pleasures t-shirt you saw at Urban Outfitters (7 out of 10 kids do not know what that image is, by the way) or as an attempt to ally yourself with the band because of how they're viewed by your peers is vilely insincere.

We are not talking about some 15 year-old kid who doesn't know any better. And that's what you're saying with the "I have liked band X forever" rejoinder - that it's terrible and wrong to shit on someone who's new to something just because you're so invested in it. I completely agree, but for a person in her position, with her history, to post things like "OMG I LUV JOY DIVISION THEY ARE IN MY SOUL" is both shallow and vilely strategic. Stop taking her at her tone, it's a put-on.

or: people note that lots of other people, some of whom they may respect for their cultural knowledge or whatevs, are talking about Old Band X (eg joy div). so OF COURSE they will gravitate towards exploring that band, yeah partly because it's the in-thing but also because they want to hear the music. and if they already know that things which are dark/austere/cool/romantic appeal to them, and joy division seem to be all those things, it'd be kind of counter-intuitive NOT to check them out. basically: i don't see that getting into a band via a chain brand t-shirt is anything to be ashamed of. nor do i think that getting into them because you think it'll make you look cool is necessarily a bad thing, either.

and again, i don't know who this sarah person is, but 99% of arts journalists do things which are shallow and strategic.

Kidding aside, I was referring to people who are technically adults when I said "scene kid." It wasn't meant as a rejoinder at all, I was basically echoing some of your sentiments. I have, in fact, run into people who have claimed a long-term love of bands that they heard of literally a week ago when mentioned in the context of their new interest.

Nice Joy Division book, Chris. I'd ask you, though: If the reading that someone did to decide "..Joy Division seems to be dark and austere and unassailably cool" was from your own book and they walked around passing off knowledge from it without actually listening to the music, how vile is that? I've also heard people do that sort of thing without even being able to hum a few bars.

Don't get me wrong -- I realize you're talking about people who glom onto surface images and use them as some sort of shorthand of credibility. I just think that there is more than one type of misrepresentation that goes on.

But for Dog Latin— No, if you're still listening to exclusively the same music you did when you were 16, that's more likely a deficiency than something to be proud of.

Precisely. Close thread.

No, not OTM. I'm 25 and I still listen to a lot of the music I liked when I was 16. Or am I missing the point?

I enjoyed Nirvana a lot in middle school (92-94), was bored with them in high school, got really into them once again in college, and now post-college they are my favorite band of alltime. They seemed to make more sense to me after my tastes matured, I guess. I think MCR may have the opposite effect.

I think we would all agree that if your musical palate hasn't grown (both deeper and broader) from 16 to 25, then it's a problem. But all the original poster said was that he would still listen to MCR, not that he would only listen to them.

I had never heard of Ultragrrl before this post pointed me to her blog. But generally Chris seems OTM, if we're talking about her (as opposed to her argument). If you read more of her posts, you definitely get the sense that music is on one hand a fashionable accessory to her "beautiful life," and on the other, something that she's used to build/maintain that life.

And, nothing against Lex, I do think there is a difference between the love of New Order that you describe and that of the "crate-digging obsessive." Saying you love New Order because you love Blue Monday, True Faith, and Regret, is different from saying you love New Order and having five albums (or ever just a singles comp). Not that it's wrong, just different.

if i'm feelin nostalgic, i'll throw those in, but that's not often.
and usually while drunk.

not to say i don't like the music, it's just too much of reminder item/wrapped in memories to lend itself to being something i feel the need to listen to anymore...that and i burned those disc OUT!

i'm not saying ultra's doing that. i don't know her. but there are surely many who do.

at age 16 i was already crazy for early rough trade, pillows & prayers and bands from athens. i fail to see how i've progressed since then...

It's strange to think that as recently as 1992, this was considered an untouchable record-breaking phenomenon. In the same respect, I'm still surprised it too as long as it did before Pearl Jam's one-week record was killed by... uhh it was probably BSB or Eminem or someone.. I forget.

Now, I don't mean this as a knock against MCR. I like "Helena" and I think that frankly, MCR are targeting a significantly different audience than the one I am part of. But I also think that comparing MCR to Nirvana is considerably hyperbolic, if not in an artistic sense, than definitely in a sense of cultural impact. Nirvana altered the playing field, changing the rules of the game for at least a decade (for better or for worse, as undoubtedly many of you will argue). MCR, by comparison, is not an abberation in today's pop landscape, but a clear continuation of a phenomenon that was already thriving before they emerged onto the scene.

For some people, MCR may fulfill the role that Nirvana did for others a decade ago in their youth. This point is ultimately inarguable. However, I don't think that MCR have had nearly the broad-based cultural impact on this generation that Nirvana did in their time. I could be wrong, but with siblings at the age in question, I certainly don't notice a perceptible trend.

"yeah man by the time I was 6 I was already through with most of ornette coleman's ideas, and it wasn't until about 9 that I really got into atonal as a concept"

i don't think i'd subscribe to that angle, but i'm glad i've shifted my taste! if only for the people around me (whom i am certain are ALSO very glad!!!).
MCR just isn't the 'phenom' that nirvana was. it's just that simple.
i still see more kids touting Misfits gear than any MCR stuff! and the Misfits have been done since '84 (well, technically i guess)!

i'll gladly suffer thru some 'crap music' but, damned if MCR is something i can sit thru...
bring on that Mclusky 3 disc, and git wit it.

In 2006, I am obviously older, but I listen to a lot more current music. My kids are music-obsessed older teenagers with similar friends; eventually if they or their friends like something I tend to hear it. I have yet to hear note #1 of My Chemical Romance, or to meet any teenager (and I talk regularly to dozens of 15-20 year-olds) who cares enough about them, one way or another, to mention them. Ever. I did see a picture in Newsweek or something, and recently discussions of this Ultragrrl thing; otherwise I would not know they existed.

Which is not to say that they are good, bad, or whatever. Only that there are quantum-levels of difference between this band's general social presence and that of Nirvana in its prime, and that if it is the signature band of this generation someone forgot to tell my kids and everyone they hang out and go to shows with. And by "someone", I mean Pitchfork, which is their main media source for music tips, etc. Which I don't think is dominated by 35+ muso types.

So I don't get what this is about, except for a self-promotional kid playing the age card because it's what she's got to play.

As a pre-teen, my friends and I just thought Nirvana was really catchy and rocked, and there was no shock as if we had never heard anything like it. Everyone's discman would either have one of the Use Your Illusions or Nevermind, with no consciosness of the gap between them, which is less musical than cultural and therefore irrelevant to an eleven-year old's mind.

-- Vornado (joh...), April 21st, 2006."

OTfuckinM!!!
but, i'm guessin this is what ultragrrrrrrrrrrrrl wanted, right?
some reactionary thoughts...

Now, MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE (thanks for the venom)
Preach all you want but who's gonna save me?
I keep a gun on the book you gave me, hallelujah, lock and load
Black is the kiss, the touch of the serpent son
It ain't the mark or the scar that makes you one

It may just be me, but the MCR's lyrics are way better than Nirvana. Sometimes you need good lyrics to go with the songs, and MCR is on the money. Nirvana was..well...yeah

kid, some real from-the-heart advice here. you're right about nirvana! but you should also put down the mcr rekkids, and go and listen to CIARA.

i can't help that i had awesome taste back then.

-- 25 yr old slacker cokehead (miltonpinsk...), April 27th, 2006."

so did i! and then i aged+changed. as did my music.