>>>>>>Besides, punk is British,
>>>>>
>>>>>Screw that, those guys were copying the Ramones, The Stooges...
>>>>
>>>>Punk was created in the U.S., but if it weren't for the Sex Pistols from England, it would have died on the vine.
>>>
>>>
>>>Too bad they didn't shoot themselves!
>>
>>Hey, don't look at me. Crap is crap. My music comes from folks like Oscar Peterson, Miles, Coltrane, Stacey Kent, Tom Waits, etc. I just don't have the time to put up with someone drooling and ranting spittle into a microphone and pretending it's music.
>
>What you're missing is that even the worst, most inartistic punk rock sprang from passion. It was a reaction to the technically accomplished but soulless music of the time, bands like the Moody Blues and Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, as well as to the gathering storm of the Thatcher era.
>
>Besides, they weren't all musical crap. Listened to any Clash lately? That was a great band by anyone's definition.

Not anyone's. Sorry, but Clash does nothing for me. When I listen to most of the commercial bands - Rock, Metal, Punk, etc, I hear noise aimed at 13 year olds who are going to love it because it's supposedly rebellious. When I listen to Coltrane, I hear music, emotion, colour and depth. For me, it's not just about whether a player can handle an instrument; rather it's about whether the music is interesting. I don't get anything that interests me out of most of the rock, punk, rap, metal stuff around. In a Coltrane piece there are depths and intricacies and shades of colour that don't just hold my attention, they demand it. If I miss half of a Clash piece, it doesn't really seem to make any difference. But if I miss half of a Miles piece, then it's a problem. I don't know how better to explain it. Compared with Coltrane or Miles, or Oscar, or Waits, stuff like Clash only half fills my glass.

>
>Oddly enough, John Coltrane is sitting in my CD player from last night. So please don't dismiss me as a crapologist. There is room in the musical universe for lots of styles, and none of them is axiomatically "better" than the others.

There is lots of room for lots of styles; just not in my lifetime. I can only deal with so much, and if I have to make a choice between Coltrane and Clash, well I know where I want to spend my time.

On your note about American Idol, there are lots of people around with terrific voices, but that's not the same thing as being a terrific singer. I tried watching Idol, but I found most of the singers (even the ones with good voices) to be boring and tiresome. Singer after singer after singer, all I seemed to hear were a bunch of Whitney Houston/Celine Dion wannabes. I have no love at all for what I call the 'Baying at the moon' school of singing that seems to have taken over the world. Somebody else once called it 'Tarzan' singing (a great name for it, imho). Now, I don't know what you think of Whitney and Celine, but I suspect you find them entertaining if you like the Idol singers. But as for myself, well, you can't make me listen to them. Do they have good voices? Yes. Are they good singers (imho)? Emphatic no!!!

I guess for me it's a bit like beauty pageants. Are the women good looking? Yes. Are they beautiful? Not usually. Mostly their pretty faces don't appear to have much going on behind them, and that's how I feel about a lot of the singers with good voices. Give me a Patti Lupone over a Celine any day.

Now, I will be the first to admit that this is all certainly entirely subjective. Not everybody is going to like or dislike the same things. About all I can say in the end is that I'm right and you're wrong. ;)