Shine On You Crazy Diamond

Roger Keith Barrett was born January 6, 1946 and passed from this world on July 7, 2006. During his time with us, he was best known by the nick name "Syd" and for founding one of the most influential rock bands of all time: Pink Floyd.

Syd's story is inspiring, influential and tragic at the same time. He inspired and continues to do so with his wild imagination. He was in a constant state of pushing boundaries through his art. It was his vision that caused EMI Records to take note of what his band was doing to push rock in a new direction. He was among the first in all of rock & roll to see how well visuals could be used in a live setting to accompany the music. As far as influence goes, one need look no further than every music performance over the past 3 decades or so. Prior to the stage productions of the Pink Floyd shows of the late 60's, concerts were prone to using "house lights" along with an occasional spot light on a featured band member. Syd had a much larger vision for what a rock performance could be and it branched out from him directly to every other stage on Earth. The alternating, variable lighting and rudimentary overhead projections of the time have made way to other artists constantly borrowing from and enhancing the same scheme to this very day.

Syd's story is also tragic in that, while on a constant quest to push forward or go further, it is universally agreed he eventually went too far. Syd was eventually dismissed from Pink Floyd because, through hallucinogenic drugs, he had pushed his on mind so far out there that he was no longer able to function in normal society. I don't want to focus too much on the negative and/or tragic aspect of Syd's legacy. A simple Google search will dig up all of the unfortunately accurate information available about his steady decline. I do however want to touch on an interesting point David Gilmour once made about Syd's decline. David was doing an interview about Syd's early yearts and was asked if he could describe what exactly happened to Syd. Gilmour thought for a few moments and replied "It was suddenly as if that light that was so bright in his eyes, that place where you know so much was going on, had been switched off. The light was gone, he looked looked completely lost instead of looking like a leader who could take you anywhere". That quote has always stuck with me as do pictures like the two above. One being from early in Syd's career with the Floyd and the second being from after he'd left the band. In those two pictures alone, you can see exactly what David Gilmour was describing.

After Syd was removed from Pink Floyd, he did go on to create a number of solo tracks which where originally released as his solo albums "The Madcap Laughs" and "Barrett" in the beginning and end of 1970 respectively. These albums, along with several outtakes and remixes of sorts have appeared on upwards of 10 compilation projects through the years.

One of my favorite songs Syd ever released was called "Octopus" (above) from The Mapcap Laughs LP. Recorded and released a few years after he'd been deemed unfit to carry on making music, I really feel that it shows something was still there for Syd creatively. For whatever reason, Syd chose to discontinue making music entirely soon after the original release of the first two solo efforts.  At no point did he partake in any further live performances neither solo or with Pink Floyd.

Pink Floyd obviously went on to greater success after Syd's departure. While working on their own Pink Floyd related projects, the members kept in touch with Syd as much as they could. David Gilmour and Richard Wright also lent a hand to the material and overall production of both of Syd's solo efforts. After the monumental album and tour for The Dark Side of the Moon, the remaining members of Floyd did not forget their original inspiration. Their next effort, 1975's "Wish You Were Here" is both a lavish tribute to their friend and scathing comment on the record industry that had a hand in pushing Syd well beyond his limits. At 40 some odd minutes and only 5 tracks long, the record stopped off in the middle for angry tracks like "Welcome To The Machine" and "Have A Cigar" to mark the anger with the music industry previously mentioned. Near the end of the record is the title track which is so universal, it can be applied to just about anyone. But with it's place in the track listing, one can only assume that Syd was front of mind when lyrics like "Did you exchange a walk on part in  the war for a lead role in a cage?" were written. The album is book ended with "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" (above), a sprawling and brilliant direct tribute to Syd. The song is a tribute and cautionary tale at the same time. Many of the lyrics point to the sheer brilliance that was Syd and others warn of the price Syd eventually paid. Can you read the prior quote from David Gilmour about Syd's decline and not immediately reference the lyric "Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky"?

As I said before, a quick Google search will quench any sort of thirst you have for knowledge of Syd's decline so I don't need to focus on that. I choose instead to focus on what he did accomplish, what he inspired, who he influenced and the music he gave us both directly and indirectly. He left our world physically five years ago today. He remains in so many hearts now and forever.

"Come on you raver, you seer of visions,
Come on you piper, you prisoner and shine"

Roger Keith "Syd" Barrett
January 6, 1946-July 7, 2006

Clarence Clemens: RIP big man

Clarence Clemons January 11, 1942 – June 18, 2011

We lost one of the best known sidemen in all of music yesterday when Clarence Clemons died from complications of a stroke yesterday. He suffered the stroke a week earlier and all indications was he would pull through, but almost a week later the bad news hit and now one of the biggest personalities in rock is gone.

If you have never seen Bruce Springsteen live you will never truly know the impact of Clarence. You can hear stories, you can watch video, but it isn't the same. Clarence was like a big burly sax carrying bodyguard for Bruce always right there with him to his right and always with a big smile on his face. You could always tell he loved being on stage and loved playing in that band.

I've seen the band 3 times. The first time was on the "Born In The USA" tour at the Pontiac Silverdome. The band was at the top of it's game, it was a well known commodity before this, but now they were on a different planet and playing in front of 70,000 people and made it feel like a club that was just over stuffed with friends. Since I had never seen the band I didn't know what to expect, you always heard about these great 3 hour marathon shows and I was thinking "3 hours? This could get boring in the middle, ugh..." But because of the band chemistry and the show that was put on it felt like a short show and Clarence was a huge part of it.

The 2nd time was at the Joe Louis Arena, this time on the "Tunnel Of Love" tour and it was another show where I wasn't sure what we would get. The album was a somber one about relationships falling apart and most of the E street band was not on the record. But the band didn't disappoint. They had several stage props including a bench where Bruce sat with Clarence and sang "Glory Days", but I will never forget the beginning of the show... They had a ticket booth at the front corner of the stage, each band member walked out and bought a ticket and took their place on stage, one by one they come out to applause (by now everyone in the band was recognizable) and then the big man came out and the roof damn near came off the place! He stood there and smiled at the crowd for a second and took it in, I think he was as happy to see us as we were to see him. Of course Bruce was last out, but Clarence had just as big a reception... He was that important.

The 3rd time was on "The Rising" tour at the Palace of Auburn Hills. It had been a long time since I'd seen Bruce live, a few solo tours that just didn't do it for me and a E Street reunion that I was too broke for, but I loved the album and didn't want to miss them again, so we went. It was an odd show because the album was about Bruce's reaction to 9/11 and he wanted some reflective moments which is not a party type thing, but when the E Streeters were out there it was fun and Clarence lead the way.

The last time I actually watched them was on TV at the Superbowl half time show. For me they were the 2nd best performance that the Superbowl has had (hard to beat Prince) and the amazing thing is that up to a week before the show I was hearing Clarence may not be there. He had just had knee surgery and was having a hard time walking, let alone standing, he was a big man after all, and I was telling people that were looking forward to it to not get too upset because it wouldn't be the same without him. Yesterday I read an account from a sports writer who was there. He saw Clarence and some handlers struggling to get him on stage and then once he got up there... BOOM! The big man! If you watch that performance you would never know he was in great pain.

He most recently contributed to Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" on 2 songs, one of them being the single "Edge Of Glory" showing once again that he was more then just Bruce's sideman but also a sought out performer 40 years into his career.


Side men are rarely known unless they have a significant solo career also. Clarence was the E Street band. I don't know if they will play again, this is their 2nd loss (Danny Federici died in 2008 while they were on tour, he was not on tour with them though) and their drummer can't handle the road stress anymore (So his son replaced him, lol) but this feels like the main cog is gone. It will never be the same again.

I'm going to leave with one of my favorite songs from the band live and it also features Clarence pretty heavily

Bruce Springsteen Live at Giants Stadium Night One by mikanosurrender

Michael Jackson 08/29/58 - 06/25/09

"Was Michael Jackson a friend of yours daddy?"

That's what my (then) 3 year old son said to me when I picked him up at daycare on June 25, 2009. I'd received a text about 30 minutes prior from a co-worker that read "Dude, Michael Jackson is dead". This particular co-worked spent a good amount of time on gossip websites so my immediate thought was "Nah... he read some BS on the internet". So I continued driving, listening to a mix CD in my car and finally arrived at my son's day care. When I turned the engine off, I opened my car door and stopped for a second. Again the thought of "Nah...." crossed my mind. Then I put the key back in the ignition and switched my car stereo to FM. I quickly flipped to one of the "pop" stations and heard the DJ say "...and that's all the information we have right now" then a far more familiar voice sang to me; "Another day is gone, I'm still all alone..." I turned the car off and literally went into shock.

I got out of the car and began to tear up. When I walked into the day care, people could see that I was shaken. They asked "What's wrong?" and my simple reply was "Michael Jackson died today". I could tell that this was news to those who asked because they all stopped what they were doing as well. Some became visibly shaken in the same way that I head. When I got to my son, he asked why I was so upset and knowing he wouldn't understand, I just said "Oh, daddy just got some very sad news, I'll be ok". When we got in the car, I couldn't help but leave the FM station on. I knew, if nothing else that there would be a bunch of his music playing.

When we made our way home, I turned on MTV to find that (as if it were 1983) they were playing Michael Jackson videos non stop. A very good friend of mine began to text me while watching the same broadcast I was across the state, consoling me (each other really) and talking about how shocking the news was, etc. My son sat on the couch next to me, enjoying the music and occasionally rubbing my back and smiling at me when I would get overcome.

Eventually, after hours of silence between us, my son said "Was Michael Jackson a friend of yours daddy?" When he first said it, I had about 2 seconds of shock; those of you who are parents know that "Kids Say The Darndest Things" moment. But I took a few more minutes, thought about it and replied "Yeah, Zakk. He certainly was"

Why did I say that? Why did he know to ask it?

I do not by any means claim to have been "friends" in the traditional sense with Michael Jackson. But what is a friend? Is a friend someone who brings something to your life? Is a friend someone who's there for you when you need it? Someone who lifts you up higher when you're doing great and someone who reaches down to help you up when you're at your lowest low? Seems like a pretty good definition to me of "friend" and I'll tell you what, Michael Jackson has been there for me TEN FOLD in both instances.

Does that mean I consider all musicians or all of my favorite bands "friends"? No, not by any means. It means that those rare tunes and/or artists, those who put it all out there, those who went in whatever direction their heart told them to and somehow, someway, I felt exactly what they were doing or meant to say... those are my friends. I count a song that knows how to bring me up and keep me there, or bring me down and keep me there as a friend. And Michael Jackson had so many of those to share with us and he did all the way to the end.

His passing was a world wide event in the same way that his record releases, tours and videos had been so many times in the past. On June 25, 2009 I had a friend on the other side of the planet stop in her tracks and stick to a TV to see the coverage. I had a friend (and contributor to this blog) who is as metal as metal gets, find a new appreciation for Michael and his music. I had a friend mine across the state who finds humor in EVERYTHING stop what he was doing to console me as much as possible and share in at least 25 years of Michael Jackson memories. I found my room mate and many of her friends gather at our house for a make shift vigil to Michael and his music. And I had my 3 year old son silent, sitting in support, appreciating the music with me in support.

Michael Jackson was something special and that is a vast understatement. This planet will never again see someone with such a wild imagination and so incredibly talented as a performer. As we approach two years without him, sometimes I get angry that he is gone, sometimes I am thankful he gave us everything he did. I sometimes find solace in watching This Is It, the documentary pieced together after his death about the incredible show he was planning. But at all times, I miss him.

To Michael Joseph Jackson, wherever you are, I say THANK YOU. I, along with so many others world wide, miss you so much. But you continually shared your will, determination and raw talent with us. It's so hard to deal with you being gone, but I truly believe that a world without you would've been so much less. They say "It's lonely at the top" and I hope that for all he had to endure, that Michael Jackson at least passed with the assurance that he had "friends" through the magic that he shared.

Michael Joseph Jackson
August 29, 1958 - June 25, 2009
I will miss you always
Your friend,
Russ

Music "Business" & iTunes

So yesterday was Record Store Day 2011. It was an awesome experience for me. While I was only interested in the Foo Fighters "Medium Rare" release, it was still great to be involved with. When I arrived at Dearborn Music around 8:30am, I found a line already existed in the rain! We quickly struck up conversation with others in line, discussed what releases each person was there for and just talked music in general with others. It instantly took me about about 20 years to a time when this was just a regular occurrence. It happened every Tuesday morning (but usually the Monday night before), when new quality releases were coming from artists and the fans were excited day in and day out.

However, Record Store Day is not the focus for this entry. Let's go back about 12 hours prior to getting in line at Dearborn Music. While doing a scan of Facebook, I'd noticed that Lady Gaga announced her new single "Judas" was being released 4 days early via iTunes for the price of $1.29. As time went on, the mere thought of this bothered me more and more. I've made my thoughts clear on iTunes and how many things it does counter-culture to what music, art, artists and fans are about, so I don't need to retread that here. But it's this particular practice of exclusive product with inflated cost that has me quite bothered.

It basically boils down to this; How is it ok and applauded by the public to charge a THIRD more for a product or service just because you can provide it earlier than others? Anyone else employing the business model of iTunes would be called on the carpet in public forums. You may say "It's only twenty-nine cents, what's the big deal?" And I would answer in this fashion "That's exactly what they expect you to say" Can you think of one other product or service that this is acceptable from? Electronics stores have exclusive products constantly that range from early movie or album releases, to gadget and even appliance exclusives. Do they up-charge? Sometimes. But 30%? Not that I've ever seen, it's not acceptable and there would be public outrage. In most cases I've encountered, media products might receive a $1 inflation based on an original cost between $10-$25. So you're dealing with one or less than one percent profit being made from exclusivity. Electronics & gadgets tend to be even less. Take a hot new gadget with an MSRP of around $400. The highest I've ever seen items like this at a store stocking it exclusively is around $10. So again, a fair charge to get the product earlier from one venue in particular.

Really think about it and ask yourself; would I consider paying 30% more for any other product if it were exclusive to one venue? Or would you consider this to be shady, under-handed, untrustworthy, etc? Now let's take it a step further; what if that product only worked via a device provided by the same venue charging you 30% more to use it in the first place?

I'll give a fabricated, non-real world example to make my point more clear. Let's say that an energy company manufactured small home appliances. But in order to use their products, you had to have special outlets installed in your home. These outlets didn't work any different than the wide variety of other outlets available, they were just "locked down" so to speak. They only power this company's products and sometimes cause problems with your other, non-compatible appliances. Now add this to the pile; now that you've installed this companies outlet (or delivery system) in your home; now you are locked into buying only their products to work with that outlet. Upon investigation, you find out that their products are several under powered when compared to similar products from other companies. To further compound the issue, you find out that these under powered products are priced two and sometimes FOUR times as much as other, more powerful products.

So far in this example, you've bought into two items that cost more, offer less functionality and often times cause many convenience issues. Now to top things off, you come to find out that you can get an item to use with this appliance a little earlier than elsewhere. In this example, the item will cost $100 elsewhere in a few short days. But the company that sold you on their outlet and their appliance that runs on that outlet will let you have that item a few days early for $130. Would you even consider that? Would you think of it as a favor, a plus or a reason to do business with that company? I sincerely doubt it. In fact, I believe quite the contrary. I honestly believe that if ANY other company on planet Earth used these practices, they would be subject to endless amounts of controversy and they wouldn't have a customer base very long.

Yet for some reason, this practice is not only ok, but expected and accepted from iTunes. You have to over pay quite a bit for any product in the iPod line. You have to install their system resources heavy, exclusive software that only works with the iPod line. And then get a song early that they're already overcharging for (at their regular $.99 price), you have to pay 30% more. It's wrong, it's bad for business and all I can do is hope that someday soon the general public wakes up and realizes it. When something is at such a low price point, it's easier to get away with practices like this. As I said before, you were probably thinking "But it's just thirty cents!" near the beginning of this post. But again, I maintain that it's the practice, not the price that it's important. You wouldn't go to a car dealership to purchase a car that only runs on a certain company's fuel, if that fuel were over priced. And you certainly wouldn't find it acceptable to pay 30% for a $30000 vehicle because they could get it to you a few days early.

So why is it ok for iTunes to do the same thing?


-Russ

Kurt & Courtney

Being the recent anniversary of the death of Kurt Cobain Hulu.com recently promoted that they had this doc on their website, I had seen it before years ago and thought it may be interesting to see it again since it was a long time since I had seen it.

The doc was done by Nick Broomfield a British film maker, and from the outset you can tell the film was done on the real cheap and you find out why about 1/2 of the way through the film. If you want something slick you will not like this at all.

The film starts as an examination of Cobain's relationship with Courtney Love and a look into his early life. We see the typical Cobain bridge in Seattle shots, we are taken to his school and hear from a teacher of his and an aunt. All say he was sweet but lonely in different ways and all look very unprepared for the meetings (A running theme throughout the movie). We go to a pre-fame girlfriend who has held on to a lot of Kurt's artwork from back then. You start to notice a lot of odd silence in the movie were the interviewee is nervously staring at the interviewer waiting for a sign on what he wants, Mr. Broomfield needs an editor badly.

This gets us to his relationship with Courtney. Looking back it feels like they were together for a long time, however the movie states it was only 2 years. He tracks down an old friend that the couple did drugs with, a friend who was repeatedly (and sadly) shunned by Kurt's handlers. Then it starts to get a little strange. The drug friend seems to be out of it, not that she is on something right then, but you can tell the years of drugs has killed most of what she may have been. Then we get to see some of Courtney's "people"... A father who has basically disowned her and a ex boyfriend/rockstar who claims Courtney's drive for fame drove him away from fame.

Courtney's father comes off in the film as a man angry at his daughter for her wild actions or just trying to peddle his books about the grunge couple. However after further research you find out that this man was a big force behind the Greatful Dead and has published many books on his own, most having nothing to do with Kurt or Courtney. But in the movie he comes off as a revengeful, sour man.

Next is Rozz Rezabek. He is a former Seattle phenom who Courtney tried to push to be famous. It got so crazy that he moved far away and dropped out. His thoughts are that Courtney wanted to be famous riding on the coattails of her famous boyfriend or husband, this is her game plan and he has her old writings to back his theory. Another weird, angry person in this story.

Now the film turns to a conspiracy movie. Did Courtney have Kurt killed? As odd as people had been... We ain't seen nothing yet... Welcome El Duce! We find ourselves in a vehicle being driven by "Divine Brown's pimp"!?! (Yes.... The "Hugh Grant" Divine Brown) And he claims to know someone who claims Courtney offered him $50,000 to kill Kurt and his name is El Duce, a singer for a band called The Mentors. We get some awful Mentors video. As they pull in they are greeted by a broken privacy fence and a barking dog, then a crazy, degenerate looking man who is introduced as El Duce. He says on camera the story of Courtney and $50,000 as best as his drunken self can. He also mentions a man named Alan then says "Ooops.... I'll let the FBI find him!" followed by laughter. It has been assumed by many that "Alan" killed Kurt, we may never know as El Duce dies two days later after passing out on a train track after leaving with some unknown individual.

We also get Tom Grant, a former cop who is now a PI who believes Courtney had Kurt killed. He even has an interesting site about it http://cobaincase.com/index.htm . The movie spends a lot of time with him really focusing on two things, the lack of fingerprints and the amount of heroin in Kurt's system (2 times a lethal dose) the latter is debunked by a doctor by showing a man standing on one leg with what is assumed is the same amount of heroin. There is a mountain of evidence on the site though that is better then these 2 items (Though they are bombshells themselves), I would recommend a look at the site if you are into this type of thing.

The film takes another turn as the films financing starts to be denied. A big financier is MTV and at the time "The People Vs. Larry Flint" is out and in the Oscar hunt, and Courtney is a big star on the rise. She is threating lawsuits against everyone who says or does anything remotely negative about her or Kurt. Nervous people start pulling the plug on the film and no we have gone from relationships and examining childhoods to a murder mystery to a movie about censorship.

We also get a visit with Dylan Carlson, Kurt's best friend and a very odd, screwed up individual. One thing you should keep in mind is that all these people had scheduled interviews and supposedly knew the subject matter, yet almost all seemed oddly lost. Dylan thinks that all the odd circumstances are just coincidence and then makes a very unconvincing threat saying that Kurt couldn't have been killed because if he had been then Dylan would have killed those responsible. We also go back to Courtney's dad for some more crazy threats to her and to the friend who was shunned by the handlers, she says she is scared of Courtney, we get a similar story from a journalist who had done a story on the couple when Courtney was pregnant, everyone in Seattle seems to be frightened of Courtney who is coming off as a psychotic lunatic who now has lots of money. We also go back to the druggie friend from earlier who claims to have pics of all three of them shooting up, which she never produces.

We end up with Broomfield finding Courtney at an ACLU gathering where she speaks of freedom of press as she is shutting down access and threating lawsuits behind the scenes. Mr. Broomfield somehow finds his way to the stage to call out Courtney but is quickly taken offstage after his comments, pretty ballsy stuff.

In the end Mr. Broomfield claims that he has not seen enough to say Kurt was murdered, but he is definitely not a Courtney fan. The doc is OK, a little messy, not very well produced, but worth it for the characters that the film comes across. It would have been nice if it could have used some Nirvana music, however Courtney killed that, but I doubt I had to tell you that, lol. I would recommend watching it if you like the music or are into conspiracies at all, just be ready for a slightly disjointed movie

Real rock n roll heroes

I will never forget walking into a Harmony House (A local, large music store, which is missed terribly by the way) I was there often, maybe too often as anyone who has seen my CD collection will probably say, lol... It was the 90s and Pearl Jam had just announced a few weeks earlier that they had abandoned the video format and ticketmaster and I was looking around for something interesting I overhear the staff, who were actually pretty good most of the time talking about how Pearl Jam were sell outs. Sell outs? They had just shunned the two biggest promotion tools out there and these people think they are sell outs? Go figure.

But it got me thinking and looking over the years as to what a true sell out is. To me a sell out is any act that does something different just to make a quick buck, like a sudden change in music style or licensing their music in an odd way. I think the term started gaining steam in the late 60s when acts would shy away from politics and in the 70s with "corporate rock". I guess most of the 80s acts would be sell outs as musicians whored themselves out to MTV just to get airplay, but in the 90s it seemed to vanish.

To me the 90s really started in the late summer of 1987 when I first heard "Welcome To The Jungle". Appetite For Destruction and to a lesser extent Master Of Puppets a year earlier, started bringing a punk element back to music that was later exploited by grunge. The biggest names of these bands, like Nirvana and Pearl Jam weren't really sell outs and instead railed against the machine to an extent, of course the machine ate Kurt Cobain alive and Pearl Jam went farther away playing smaller venues and getting more experimental, but neither ever seemed to sell out.

This brings us to today.... Today we have commercials featuring John Mellencamp and The Stooges, two acts I wouldn't have expected to be going jingles. but then again, in an age where MTV no longer exists for music and most radio is preprogrammed, I guess you need to do anything to get heard, which brings me to my other issue and to where the real selling out is happening these days, American Idol and Glee.

I have never been and Idol fan and Glee just seems bad in every way... So I was very happy to hear that 3 acts who I have liked over the years came out against using their music in Glee. First it was the Kings Of Leon, a newer band who could use the exposure, yet they literally told Glee to fuck off, then there was Slash who said no to any GnR music being used... And the Glee producers lost it calling out both these acts in the press as if it was some honor to be asked. And now it's Dave Grohl nixing any Foo Fighters music, no word yet from the Glee camp, but I'm sure it's coming.

Kings Of Leon released a new CD a few months back and it did OK, and Slash's solo CD also did well. Soon we will see two highly anticipated releases from the Foo Fighters. It is nice to see that these acts don't feel they need to sell out to keep their fans excited and happy, maybe others will follow their examples and do the same.

Where are all the rock stars today?

I am currently reading Slash's autobiography and it got me thinking about why a band like Guns n Roses are so well known world wide while other bands who may be equally good are forgotten. Now I'm not talking about a band that never made it, I'm talking bands that had a hit or two but were never talked about as a great band.

I think it boils down to personality more then music. If you look back at Elvis vs. guys like Johnny Cash or Carl Perkins and it's Elvis who is the bigger star, why? Because had the most personality. Why the Beatles instead of the 100s of other British bands? Personality. Even bands like Led Zeppelin played the "mysterious" angle, it's all about a gimmick. We want rock stars, not rock bands. My favorite example is Van Halen, with David Lee Roth - rock stars, with Sammy Hagar - rock band. Both great bands, but which version is more beloved? On the other hand... Which one sold better?

It's funny how we all want our favorite band to "be all about the music" and anything else is a joke and once our favorites get big notoriety they are sell outs. Bands that concentrate on nothing but music get forgotten, maybe a sell out isn't so bad.

When I look at bands from my era,the 80s, like Night Ranger or Extreme or tons of other bands I notice that musically they are sound, but since they just played the music and never got into trouble, never said anything controversial they are forgotten or at best are known as one hit wonders. On the other hand you have a band like the Sex Pistols who had little talent, but will be remembered forever. Is it fair?

Of course most of us know the Guns story, 5 crazy guys from very different backgrounds get wild, get signed, almost never make it because the industry doesn't know what to do with them and then they blow up because they are seen as an interesting oddity and people had to look, luckily they had the songs.

It sounds crazy to recommend that a band trash a hotel room or start a riot, but if you want to be remembered for more then a blip on the musical map then maybe that's what you have to do. And that is why I believe music has gotten to where it is.... Who is a rock star today? The only person I can think of today that fits the bill is Eminem.

We need our rock stars and I don't see them. Even Eminem is burned out by being the only one. The music biz needs them to come out of hiding and they need them now.