Great Musical Bands/Artists Debate Part 1 of 2

With the release of the Beatles Rock Band this week there has been a surge in the general talk about the Beatles and some of it has centered around their place in rock and roll history. I was watching the Dan Patrick Show on Direct TVs 101 channel and one of the shows members stated that he thought that the Beatles were overrated. As you might imagine this brought quite a reaction from both the other show members and the listening/watching audience. Since it seemed that there was a commercial for the Beatles Rock Band during every commercial break while I was watching football this weekend I began to think about the Beatles and weather or not I thought they were overrated.

I think when you talk about something being overrated you have to first begin with where they are actually rated. Since things like this are subjective I can only start with my own feeling on the subject. Admittedly I don't know all of the sales numbers so I can not use facts and figures to determine who sold the most records or had the most #1 hits or spent the longest time on the charts. I can only use my experiences and observations about the band or bands in question. The first thing that needs to be done is to rate a number of bands to form a base for the argument of over or underrated. So I took into account the bands overall popularity, their impact on popular music and how good, in my opinion, their music was. Here are the bands I chose to evaluate.

The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
Led Zeppelin
Elvis Presley
Michael Jackson

I limited the list to these five because I thought that they represented the five bands or artists who have had the longest lasting influence on the music business and the most commercial success. I considered other bands like U2, The Who, or Madonna, but I felt like this list would provide a round enough argument. Also, understand that these are not my top 5 favorite bands or acts they are simply the five "biggest".

Lets start with Michael Jackson, the "King of Pop". Some people might feel that he may be misplaced on this list but his influence in the music industry coupled with the huge commercial success that he enjoyed justified that he was one of the greatest acts of all time. Maybe not top 5, but again this argument is subjective so here he is. Although I liked Michael Jackson as much as anyone during his peak, I can not say that he was ever one of my favorite artists. It is worth noting that he is one of two artists on the list who were actively making music while I was old enough to remember or enjoy it. I think that creatively Michael was innovative but not revolutionary. He has some advantage over a few of the other groups due to the, relatively, broad appeal of his music. He had a fairly long career, although there was a large gap in the middle of it. I suppose he could get points for a comeback. Overall, great, but perhaps not the greatest of all time. In the case of Michael Jackson I would have to say that he is a little overrated because I feel that while his music was good, his fame and fan base were disproportionate to the quality of his music.

Next up is Elvis Presley, the "King of Rock and Roll". Elvis' music was not revolutionary in my opinion. He took a burgeoning form of music in rock and roll that was already rooted in jazz and blues and gave it life with his stage presence. Charisma was the real magic of Elvis. He was a legendary performer and he proved it with the commercial success of his movies. It is interesting that when you read about how people felt about Elvis, at the time he was considered a threat to the social norm. Apparently most adults thought he was much to sexually provocative and all those gyrations on stage were the imitation of sexual acts and inappropriate. In light of this, it seems like Elvis' popularity was something of legend. The more time passed the bigger his legend grew. I could be totally wrong about this, but that is my perception. Looking back on his career, he seems tame and even lame now. More of a crooner than a rocker, like a Frank Sinatra or Tom Jones. Perhaps he gained his reputation early in his career and built up his fan base late in his career with his movies and his time in Vegas. Regardless of how it happened, Elvis has become HUGE, but the "King of Rock"? Hardly. His career was great, and his commercial appeal was just as big as any of our bands, but his inflated legend prompts me to label him overrated.

Led Zeppelin is by far my favorite of these five bands and it will probably be reflected in my evaluation of them. For this I do not apologize. After all, it is my blog and my assessment. Although they had broken up long before I discovered them, Led Zeppelin was the first band that I was truly awed by. The combination of Jimmy Page and Robert Plant was magic. In my opinion, Jimmy Page is one of the great guitarist, EVER, and although I don't think that Robert Plant had the greatest voice I had ever heard, it was the way in which he riffed and rocked along with his band mates that made them great as a group. Led Zeppelin was dark and mysterious. Their music wasn't especially innovative, but their technique was. There is a spiritual and earthy quality to a lot of their music which probably stems from the time in which they were written. Their commercial success was good, but historically they don't seem to have the same broad appeal as the other four bands. Perhaps this is due to the fact that their music was not "pop" music. I believe that if they had decided to continue on after the death of John Bonham they would have benefited from both the media explosion that came in later years and the increased exposure that a long career provide. Unfortunately they decided not to continue as a band, and it is because of this that I don't think that their legend became to inflated. They are considered one of the greatest rock bands of all time, but I don't think that they are considered by most people to be as great as the Beatles, and I don't think they have as many younger fans as the Rolling Stones, there for I have to come to the conclusion that they are not overrated. In my opinion they are rated right where they should be, great, even legendary, but not the greatest.

Well, I hadn't planned on this blog being exclusively a sports blog, but the unfortunate events of last nights college football game between #14 Boise State and #16 Oregon provide to compelling a topic not to mention.

If you are a sports fan, just a college football fan, or even just like to watch Sportscenter you have probably seen the footage of Oregon starting running back LeGarrette Blount punching Boise State defensive end Byron Hout after Hout taunted him at the conclusion of the game. Unbelievable! Oregon and Blount were beaten at home last year by Boise State and Blount had said publicly that he and Oregon "owed Boise State an ass whoopin". Well, it didn't quite turn out that way. Boise State won the game 19 to 8 and Oregon looked awful in the process. Ironically, the two teams shook hands before the game in a move to promote sportsmanship by the NCAA and the American Football Coaches Association. This sounds nice, but like so many other campaigns to passively push people to "do the right thing" it is in my opinion misguided and misplaced. Forcing two teams that have just been given a "pep" talk by there respective coaches in the locker room to come out and shake hands before the game in no way teaches sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is the result of respect for your fellow competitors and maturity, and in my opinion can not be legislated. You either respect others or you don't. You can teach a person to be respectful, but right before a football game, which is violent by nature, is not the time. Shake hands after the game, control your emotions win or lose. This kind of teaching should have taken place long ago, and is a shared responsibility with parents. I obviously don't know Mr. Blount and don't know what he is like off the field. According to one story I read, people at Oregon who know him say that he is not a "thug", but his actions Thursday night betray those sentiments. What also concerns me was the continued reaction of Blount who swung at a team mate who tried to restrain him and had to be pulled away from a confrontation with fans by coaches and event security. The punch was just the beginning. There have reportedly been other problems with Blount, but nothing to this degree. Coach Chip Kelly suspended Blount for the entire season, ending his career at Oregon. (Blount is a senior) His future in football is also in question. Without a senior season he will likely have difficulty staying in "football" shape in order to be impressive enough to turn heads for the 2010 NFL draft, and character questions will hold him back as well, right or wrong. The good news for Blount is that he retains his scholarship and will continue to workout with the team. I hope he makes the most of it. The last thing I want to see is another talented athlete squander their opportunities for success and usually a better life for them and their families because they could not get out of their own way. I am impressed with the University of Oregon for suspending him for the entire season. He is talented and as we covered yesterday, talent trumps all. His fate is not predetermined. He may still make the most of his opportunities and, who knows, may even make it to the NFL, but the damage is done.

It's not my job to place blame, and I will never pretend to be perfect, but it is clear that mistakes were made and opportunities to teach were missed at more than one point leading up to this. Most of these athletes have been playing sports since before high school leaving plenty of time for learning sportsmanship before collage. Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I fear that sportsmanship took a back seat to talent. Turn a blind eye and keep on winning. It makes the player look good, the coach look good, and the team look good. Ride the kids coattails and reap the benefits. I hope that is not the case, but I'm not stupid enough to think it doesn't happen.

To be fair, Houts' actions were also unacceptable, and according to reports he will be disciplined as well. I don't want to excuse his part in this, but no matter what he said, the reaction of Blount was unwarranted. It will be a couple of years before we find out if LeGarrette Blount can take this "mistake" and make it into a footnote in his life or if this is the moment for which he will always be known. I hope the mentors he has at Oregon can guide him to a better end than they have so far.

Now that the initial introduction is out of the way lets get into some "topic". I am a football fan, and the big topic for pro football this summer, besides Brett Farve who makes himself a topic every summer, is Michael Vick.

First off, I am a dog owner. Two, to be exact, and I am a firm believer that there is no point in having an "outside" dog as a pet, unless you live on a farm, in which case it is acceptable. Although I guess dogs on farms may not technically be considered pets but rather partners in the business of farming, but then again I consider my dogs partners in the business of my life. A pet is a relationship and like any relationship requires time, and usually money. I suppose that it is possible for someone to have an outside dog that they visit rather often and maintain a close relationship with, but for me it seems rather inefficient. It seems much better to be able to spend time together even when you are not interacting directly. When watching T.V. or reading a book, for example, and your pet is on your lap or at your feet. That is quality time in which bonding is taking place. Time you don't get with an outside pet. If I am spending time and money on this relationship then I want to get the maximum benefit from it and, for me, that is an inside dog.

What does this have to do with Michael Vick, other than dogs? Well, not much, it's just a little bit of insight into my feelings about dogs. I'm not going out on a limb when I say that I think what Vick did was horrible, and it is no surprise to find out that I am against dog fighting as well, but I do think that the punishment may have been a bit excessive. While the brutal killing of innocent dogs is unacceptable and repulsive, does it warrant two years in federal prison? I'm not sure. I definitely think that it should be punished, but two years is a long time.

On the other hand you have to consider intent. Vick killed these animals knowing full well what he was doing. It wasn't an accident or a fit of rage or even a mercy killing, it was premeditated. You don't just have water in a tub, or electrodes (I guess?) laying around. You have to set these kinds of things up for the express purpose of killing. That is disturbing, and when I think of it that way I think two years sound about right. I also don't believe that he is sorry for running a dog fighting ring or for killing those dogs. I think he is sorry that he got caught. He is sorry he lost his job and status in the NFL. He is sorry he lost a lot of money. He may even be sorry that he let a lot of people down or hurt a lot of people, but I don't believe that he believes dog fighting is wrong. From what I have read he grew up in a culture of dog fighting. In his world dog fighting was accepted. It was fun and cool, something you might do on a Friday night with your friends, like going to the movies. How can that be wrong? He was following the example that was set for him. No different than any other child. Does that make it o.k.? No, but it takes a strong person to go against your friends and role models, your family and the people you look up to. It's a lonely road. One that usually has no reward. Is it the right thing to do? Sure. Can we all say that we have always done the right thing, gone against the crowd? Not me.

In the end he will play the game, and I don't mean football, and he will do the right things and say the right things. He will be a spokesperson for the Humane Society and speak to kids about animal cruelty. He will play in the NFL again, and make money again. Fans will buy his jersey, and cheer for him on Sunday. That's o.k. I guess. After all, he is human. He paid a price for what he did and his name will forever be associated with what he did, like O.J. I will not be buying a Vick jersey or cheering for him on Sunday. Lucky for me he doesn't play for my team. I can only hope that regardless of weather or not he thinks what he did was wrong, that his celebrity can make a difference, change a culture and make the world a little bit better.

Christening

Welcome to my first blog entry. Some introductions are in order, my name is Todd. I am a married 35 year old and have no children. I grew up in the mid-west and south in a conservative christian household. That is a bit of an understatement since my Father was a pastor and/or staff member of different churches for the majority of my childhood and my Mother has worked for our "general church headquarters" for my entire non-infant life. We moved around a little during my childhood due to the nature of my fathers job, but not excessively. Although moving as a child was sometimes difficult, I am thankful now for the different people and perspectives I was exposed to and feel that it has given me a broader understanding of our country, the world, and people in general that I may not have gotten had I been born and raised in one place and been exposed to one set of ideas, perspectives, values, religions, and opinions. I like to think of myself as intellectually flexible, that is to say that I am open to opposing ideas. At this point in my life it has become somewhat of a pet peeve. If a person is unwilling or unable to see things from any perspective other than his or her own then how can any progress be expected. I hope that this blog will become a source of learning for me. My opinions are what I am thinking at any one time and are limited by my current understanding of any one situation or issue, therefore I feel that it is important to be flexible enough to change your view or opinion based on new information or upon the presentation of a new perspective. So, with that in mind, I hereby "christen" this blog Caffeine Sunglasses! May our minds always be open.