I was reading this article by Stephen Silver on Blogcritics.org. Blech! the same old reactionary critique to music that (for better or for worse) wears its influences on shirt-sleeves. Im quite jaded, but the Those in the Know rail against the Strokes, the Vines, the Hives, and to a lesser degree the White Stripes for their lack of musical 'originality', or 'skill' is getting to me. They chuckle at the media's take on the these bands as "Saving Roll -n- Roll" - often parroting the tired comments strewn throughout this critic's piece, "How can that be saving rock, when its nothing but re-hashed 60s garage filtered through punk...." (mixed with whatever else they think makes them seem witty and truly one of Those in the Know). If originality was the only criterion for why I listen to music, then half of my music collection would have to be thrown out. These bands are not "Saving Rock" for Those in the Know, these bands are saving rock for the majority of people, who, at sea, are rapidly sinking above the USS Nu Metal or as an alternative the USS Singing Tits-n-Ass. How is Rock being saved? Well, of course 'saving' is the wrong word. But it sounds dramatic enough for a snazzy magazine article. If it is from stagnation that Rock needs to be saved, then the Vines and their ilk won't do it. Who knows where the next truly original injection into rock n roll is going to come from. But until then, it needs to be kept on the radar. And this is what I mean when I say these bands are saving Rock-n-Roll. They are offering the masses an alternative to the sinking ships. And in this capacity, Who cares if the music is 'unoriginal'- it is pure rawk...it makes me want to move my ass.

Ok, well here are some thoughts that I had while listening to David Bowie's masterpiece- The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from
Mars. The thoughts are by no means cohesive. Instead, a stream of consciousness- neuronal blips that crossed my radar while listening. First, I
would say there is no better 'big' record than Ziggy- none, whatsoever (and no I havent heard everything, and no I do not care). What the hell is 'big', you dare
ask- Well, can I have a run at defining 'obscene' instead? Or perhaps give examples rather than a definition- but then the problem of induction would
remain. A similarly afflicted (read: musically addicted) friend and I were having this conversation the other day. We threw around adjectives in an attempt
to grasp at its meaning: 'full', 'big'. We agreed that Ziggy belonged to it, she made a case for Neutral Milk Hotel as well. On CMJ, a simliar
attempt was made to categorize (boo!!!, you say, I know) another (related?) 'type' of music- phrases such as Epic Pop, Orchestral Pop, Chamber Pop were
bandied about. But were these definitions based on the number of instruments used? The sheer magnitude of acoustic output? This is not what I had in mind. It
is not acoustic in nature, but perceptual. It has less to do with the acoustic properties of the stimulus than the perceptual/cognitive reactions it
evokes. The physical-perceptual link is often not linear. Instead, small acoustic events can often induce enormous perceptions.

It is this perceptual reaction that I refer to. Perceptually, Ziggy is big. Should I rely on a more linguistically opaque term than 'big'? What does it matter?
the phenomena to which I refer remains the same. Not to mention, as perception is highly subjective, I am offered a loop-hole when confronted with opposing opinion.
To me, Ziggy is big. Oh right, The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. Maybe I will talk about that next time.