What is rock and roll? (in defense of the Foo Fighters)

My friend Joseph baited me on Monday to get me all riled up with an article arguing that Dave Grohl and the Foo Fighters are fake and terrible.  I hesitate to provide the link, because I think the whole thing was conceived as click-bait and I don't want to give it the benefit of the 4 clicks it might receive from here.  Here is the old Foos video he mentions:

I couldn't help myself and I spent the next 20 minutes writing Joseph an e-mail back about how this article was full of crap and therefore he was also full of the brown.  And then I spent my whole commute home stewing about it and coming up with even better arguments in my head.  While I will not burden you with the entirety of that in-mind discussion, I thought it was interesting enough to add to the blog.

Summerlin's general argument is that he can't stand Dave Grohl because he makes rock and roll for the wrong reasons and is a fake rocker.  The money quote:

"Music is pure and honest and reliable and otherworldly, and it’s jeopardized when people create it for all the wrong reasons. And what’s worse is if it’s shaped for an audience. Or a dollar. The musicians don’t create it because they are driven mad by the fire inside them that throws them towards the craft."  He goes on to say "The Foo Fighters taste fake. They taste processed and soulless and repurposed. They try desperately to be something they’re not – real and raw and rock ‘n’ roll."  

I have no problem with the portion of his article saying that he just doesn't like their music. Thankfully, we don't all like the same kind of music and that leads to a great buffet of music where everyone can select a choice they enjoy.  I can dislike Lana Del Rey and Calvin Harris, but I get to go see the Avett Brothers and Pearl Jam instead.  I have no issue with someone's taste being different and deciding the Foos musical style is not their bag.

However, Summerlin argues that music is wrong (and "jeopardized!") if it is created for an audience or the performer will make money. That is super dumb.  Every artist, even really aggressive noise art weirdos (looking at you, Tune-Yards) make their music “for an audience.”  The whole point is to make something that people will enjoy, or if not to enjoy, that will affect them in some way.  You make music for it to be heard.  Yes, people also do it to make money, but to say that a band is "fake" because they try to make something people will enjoy is BS.

I totally get that Grohl can be annoyingly omnipresent, especially right now, with more than just this new Sonic Highways documentary and a movie a few years ago.  This makes him fail the non-sell-out test championed by those who think they control the gates to rock and roll, but I don’t think you can equate that to his music not being genuine.  Bono is the biggest camera hound around, and the lyrics to some of his recent songs (Put on your boots!  Your sexy boots!) could easily be laughed at if you wrote them out and made fun of them like this guy does, but I don’t think that makes U2's music any less authentic or bad to enjoy.  U2 rules.

There is a funny "sports" writer on Deadspin named Drew Magary who rips on ESPN's Gregg Easterbrook each week for writing obnoxious, pretentious crap about sports.  One of the things that Magary most rips on is Easterbrook's concept of "Authentic Wins" and the great value of small conference athletes and undrafted players who end up being great at football and therefore more valuable than someone taken in the first round who ends up being an expensive bust.  That is this Summerlin guy.  He craps on Grohl for being a big star and decides he is not authentic because he is making rock and roll that people will like instead of toiling away in his basement with a guitar made of a deck of cards and a jump rope, using the cries of an injured goat instead of boring human lyrics. 

I will absolutely agree that Grohl and the Foos got a career boost because of Nirvana.  But I think that boost only lasts for a little while and then the music needs to stand on its own. Novoselic has done music since Nirvana and no one but his mom has any clue that it exists. Slash and Axl tried to make music after Guns n' Roses which got press because of who they were, but no one has been clamoring for more from those dudes now.  Meanwhile, Jack White has gone on to kick ass after the White Stripes ended and Sting has 7 platinum albums stringing out over the years since the Police folded.  Those guys are good. Likewise, the Foo Fighters have collected 15 Grammy Awards and have five platinum records and three gold records to their name.  Some of that is the Nirvana boost, but I can't believe that they get twenty years of platinum-level goodwill from millions of "fake" fans just because of residual Nirvana love.

I used to rock this album before finals to get psyched up for crushing the Rule Against Perpetuities, and that one (Alone+Easy Target) was one of my favorites. 

Foo Fighters rant over.  But this whole discussion with Joseph brought me to another realization.  In trying to defend the fact that the Foo Fighters is authentic rock and roll, I determined that the world doesn't know what rock and roll is anymore.

rock and roll

noun

1. a type of popular dance music originating in the 1950s, characterized by a heavy beat and simple melodies. Rock and roll was an amalgam of black rhythm and blues and white country music, usually based on a twelve-bar structure and an instrumentation of guitar, bass, and drums.

Where to figure out how rock and roll is defined?  How about Billboard, the national self-appointed arbiter of popularity in music?

The Billboard Rock chart top ten albums for 2013 was:

1. Mumford & Sons
2. Imagine Dragons
3. the Lumineers
4. Phillip Phillips
5. fun.
6. Kid Rock
7. The Great Gatsby soundtrack
8. Ed Sheeran
9. Of Monsters and Men, and (wait for it...)
10. Lana Del Rey.  

I would call two of those true rock and roll (Imagine Dragons and Kid Rock), with maybe .fun, Monsters and Men, and Lumineers coming in as well.  But Lana Del Rey?  Mumford?  Those are not rock and roll.  And those two who are "rock and roll," currently suck.  Not a fan of Imagine Dragons.

How about rock station airplay instead of album sales?  Billboard's top rock airplay songs for 2013 were:

1. Muse’s Madness
2. Imagine Dragons’ Radioactive (for six freaking months)
3. Lorde’s Royals
4. Fitz & the Tantrums' Out of My League (for one week, the underdog!)
5. Bastille’s Pompeii, and 
6. Cage the Elephant’s Come a Little Closer.  

Lorde and Bastille are absolutely not rock and roll.  Billboard's “Hot Rock Songs” from 2013 is only Lumineers’ Ho Hey, Imagine Dragons’ Radioactive, and Lorde’s Royals.  Royals is not a rock and roll song.  I can't succinctly quantify what makes a song "rock," but if an alien landed on earth right now and asked what was rock and roll, no one would ever play Royals.  Or probably Ho Hey, which is a lovely little song, but is not very rockin’ at all.  I'd play that alien Eruption/You've Really Got Me and BLOW THEIR MIND!

So maybe last year was an outlier and I should see what is currently listed as the top rock songs by Billboard.  I listened to this week's top ten "Rock" songs according to Billboard, and, seriously, WTF.

1. Hozier - Take Me to Church.  Yes.  Solid blues rock.
2. Fall Out Boy - Centuries.  Aren't these guys gone yet?  So clever and heart on their sleeve.  While this song does have a steady drum beat and I think I heard a guitar in there, it also has trap beats. Also bites Suzanne Vega's Tom's Diner.  I think FOB does rock, but am not entirely sure this is it.
3. Vance Joy - Riptide.  I don't think so.  More folk pop than rock.  Same vein as Lumineers and Head and the Heart.
4. Milky Chance - Stolen Dance.  No.  Drum machines do not rock and roll maketh.  Not a bad song, but more like an electronic Jack Johnson pop nugget for Hawaiian stoners.
5. Coldplay - A Sky Full of Stars.  Absolutely NOT rock and roll.  This is EDM.  All synths and tambourine with a build up and drop to bass bass bass?  I enjoy Coldplay and I like this song, but zero rock and roll here.
6. KONGOS - Come With me Now.  Yeah, I'll call this rock.  The accordion is a weird addition, but sounds right to me.
7. Imagine Dragons - I Bet My Life.  Maybe.  I guess so, but this has more of a Mumford vibe than this band's other music.  More like a hand-clapping hootenanny than rock.  I don't know what I have against these guys, but I just don't like them at all.
8. Walk the Moon - Shut up and Dance.  I actually dig this song, but have a hard time categorizing this as rock and roll.  Has way more in common with dance pop from the 80's than a guitar and drums rock. Reminds me of old Fall Out Boy, which I guess was considered rock (emo), but I can't go there.  The big solo is on a keyboard.  Come on, man.
9. Paramore - Ain't It Fun.  I'll go with R&R for this.  The drums go a little disco during the chorus, but otherwise the guitar and drums take center stage.
10. Lorde - Yellow Flicker Beat.  Dude.  Lorde is not rock and roll.  What is wrong with you, Billboard?
11. (as an aside, the 13th top rock song is by a band called MisterWives, and it is straight disco.  If you like disco, you should go listen to that song.)

I think we can all agree that Billboard has no clue.  How about the genius group-think at Wikipedia? Their list of rock albums (purportedly critically acclaimed rock albums from at least two "sources") starts with AC/DC's Back in Black, which makes great sense.  But then it includes Johnny Cash, Miles Davis, Aretha Franklin, Lauren Hill, Tina Turner, and The Wailer's Catch a Fire.  What is wrong with you people?  Lauren Hill is not rock and roll.  Her album kicks ass and is really fantastic, but there is zero rock and roll going on there.  The collective crowd mind is an idiot.

What about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?  They ought to know what rock and roll is all about.  Let's check in with them.  This year's class of potential inductees includes Stevie Ray Vaughan and Joan Jett.  Rock and freaking roll, baby.  Oh, but wait, it also includes N.W.A. and Chic.  Ummm, not at all rock and roll.  I mean, you can argue that Sting's solo music is rock, albeit soft rock long on caresses and tantric sex methods, but there is no conceivable way that you could call N.W.A. rock.  Is Mozart in the Hall?  No?  Weird.  What about Miles Davis?  Oh, yeah, he's in there, recognized as the "key figures in the history of jazz."  Michael Jackson, the King of Pop?  Yep.  Johnny Cash?  Yessir.  Madonna is in. Public Enemy, Run D.M.C., Beastie Boys, and Grandmaster Flash & the Furious Five. Jimmy Cliff's reggae is in.  What the hell?  Don't get me wrong, all of those acts had a great effect on music and should be in a music hall of fame, but it makes zero sense for Madonna to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Where does that put us?  I think we end up going back to the laughable wisdom of the Supreme Court when talking about pornography.  You know it when you see it.  Or hear it in this case.  I think Foo Fighters, Black Keys, Pearl Jam, Kings of Leon, Springsteen, U2, and a few others are the huge rock and roll acts that are still out there carrying the torch.  I'm sure Summerlin thinks they are all phonies who tarnish the esteemed name of rock and roll by making good music that people actually enjoy.

  
If you drop down below those mega-star bands, rock is also alive and well in the lower-level bands out there making new music right now.  I'm sure these guys rate highly on the Summerlin Authentic Rock scale because they toil away in anonymity.  Two of my favorites from this year's ACL line-up - Spanish Gold and Benjamin Booker - are making awesome, new rock and roll that (God forbid!) sounds great and is popular with an audience.  Same with Gaslight Anthem and the Hold Steady and Weezer and Queens of the Stone Age and a hundred other bands that I've never even heard of.  But somewhere, someone is a fan and it makes them want to rock out.  Or, as Joseph said, a rock song you love should always make you "feel like you've got to go nuts."  Right on.