One Man Army

Well, it's "only"(?) been about 6 years since "indie" music became normal instead of something people stayed away from. Yet I've been bored as ever with music with the exception of a few CDs that I stumble upon at just the right time...
The whole "indie" explosion was really neat when it focused on emotions channeled into music (such as "emo" and pop-punk/Blink-182 "ripoffs"), but since then we've retreated back into the whole Radiohead/Pink Floyd landscape where it's all about style and the substance is either extremely dull or not there. It's either that or all this macho crap like Saliva and Godsmack...(I know they were around before the indie explosion, but the music they made/make is still going strong in the albums/singles of their musical offspring...).
Warner Bros is the COOLEST label, as far as labels go, 'cause they don't hire any old band who they think just might sell a couple hundred or more copies of a CD. If you look at the labels on your CD collection (supposing you have an "actual" CD collection - i.e.: one of any significant size...), you'll probably notice very few of your CDs are made by Warner Bros. Of course, Warner Bros. is owned by Time-Warner, who also owns Elektra, Reprise, and...a couple others I know I'm forgetting...but even Elektra, IMO, has a lot of great music under their wing, such as Third Eye Blind, Metallica, The Cars, etc.,...I don't think Elektra is AS cool as WB 'cause there's a lot more under their wing than Warner Bros.'s, but they do come close. And even editors at top magazines can agree with me that Elektra is (or at least was for a while...) a lot more "artist friendly" than some other labels...(I figure any label that lets a member of a new band produce their own debut has some "artist friendly"ness).
And the music itself that Warner Bros. has on its roster is pretty nifty, I think. Van Halen, R.E.M., Built To Spill, Black Sabbath, The Grateful Dead...man, I can't even think of any others, at least not at the moment. And I personally don't LIKE hardly any of those bands, but I do respect them for their vision(s) and their impact on society. However, I think the impact that music makes on society should be emotional not cultural. Friends - true friends - will be bonded regardless of what great band comes along. Music is not a social outing; music is AT BEST when locked alone in your room or house with headphones on. But if all you're gonna do is trip out on wacky sounds or bobble your head to a degrading guitar/drum combination, what's the point? Music can take you to places that rarely are seen by most people; 3EB's "I Want You" from their debut is a good example. That song reminded me of the cover-art for R.E.M.'s CD-single/E.P. STRANGE CURRENCIES before I even saw the thing.
Before my internet cut Rhapsody off, I was listening to Our Lady Peace's HAPPINESS IS NOT A FISH THAT YOU CAN CATCH and I have to admit, it's not a BAD album, but it's only a few or so notches above mediocre. I can probably say that about most of OLP's music. As far as I can tell, the reason I got (at least) one "unhelpful" vote for my Amazon review was b/c I gave it 4 stars instead of 5, but at the same time said it was "OLP's best", which is kind of an oxymoron right? You can't just give an album less than 5 stars and cite it as the band's best! - ...can you? I say you can. The 5 star rating is/was intended to be a signal to potential buyers that the item is a MUST-BUY, something that only really stubborn people will NOT LIKE (stubborn as in: I don't like country, so I don't like that album - even though the album is a beautiful, uplifting, energetic,...etc. etc. etc...perfect in every way!). I think people have a hard time identifying a GREAT album and an above average album. I guess it's just too depressing to think of 99.9% of CDs ever made as being less than perfect. And I guess it's too much work to try to distinguish between a 3 star and a 4 star album...the sucky thing is that any artist who cares about making quality music will most likely stick to their methods of creation if they have no complaints from anybody. Of course, (supposedly) most "rock" artists "don't give a f***" what anybody has to say about their music, but to me, that's part of what has caused music to degrade. Musicians pick up an instrument and yank a note out of it instead of actually PLAY the darn instrument(s), and then half of them can't sing unless a cat dying sounds like singing...you have to ASSUME that the artist is "feeling" something behind his/her/their meandering performances, instead of it being obvious based on the actual performance.
So aside from all these careless rock stars, there's two types of "pop" artists: those in it for the money and those in it for the music. Michael Jackson has always been in it for the music - and has been handsomely rewarded financially. I think his ego has got in the way to some extent, b/c people don't expect anything out of his music except what they get. i personally don't like the same set of notes being repeated for 4 minutes or more, but you know MJ wouldn't give me some unique creative experiment b/c that would alienate fans of his work - or at least those who know he has a new album out based on the fact that the radio is playing a Michael Jackson song they've never heard before...
But that's only the half of it. If you look at MJs personal life and his music, the music has nothing to do with MJ. He sings it the best he can, giving the impression he has experienced these things he sings about, b/c that's how good he is! But as far as writing music, experiencing very human emotions and wrenching them out on paper, he's useless in that respect. He doesn't even pretend to have written half the stuff he is known for.