by James Mann
Because of the fact that I'm older than most of the Ink Nineteen readership (added together!) I've heard more than my fair share of rock and roll, jazz, country and what-all. Some I liked, some I didn't. I've seen the Stones 6 times, saw the first American Sex Pistols show, the Who with Moon, and Zeppelin in 1978. So I know my shit. Every now and again, however, I run across something that people think is the bee's knees that I just don't "get." In an never-ending quest to broaden my horizons (as well as those of our beloved readers) I'm giving you a forum to attempt to convince me that your favorite band doesn't reek of wet cats.
The rules are simple. Every issue, we'll throw out three bands that we just don't see the attraction of, with a brief reason why. Your job? Tell us why we're all wet. The best one for each band will get printed in Ink19, I'll make another attempt to listen to the artist in question (send me a tape of the best stuff if you'd like, c/o this magazine) and you get the thrill of proving some blow-hard music writer wrong. Use complete sentences, full trains of thought, that sort of thing. "MAN, THEY RULE" ain't gonna cut it.
Okay, here we go:
1: Fugazi: Yeah, I know loud fast rules and all that, but haven't these guys recorded the same damn song about 500 times?
2: Frank Zappa: The emperor has no clothes. Other than helping the world discover Captain Beefheart, Frank Zappa didn't do much more than stretch butt jokes and endless guitar solos into a career. Why?
3: Rush: Maybe this is too simple, but these guys are pretentious little twits who hide the fact that they have nothing to say under pounds of guitar solos, weird time patterns and hyperactive hamster vocals.
Okay. You have your mission, should you choose to accept it. Go for the throat! Email your justifications to email@example.com.