My sister proved me right regarding my thoughts two posts back.

Album of the Year?  Outrageous!  Not.

Yesterday I was doing my usual Facebooking when I saw that my sister (a Boomer, no less) had made a post about how she couldn't believe that The Arcade Fire won the Grammy for Album of the Year.  She wondered how this could happen when there were so many other, "real" musicians out there who, I suppose, deserved it more.  I responded by saying that while the band is not a fave of mine, their popularity with their fans doesn't make them any less "real."

She then went on to cite Mumford and Sons, who did their little thing and then helped back up a groaning, growling Bob Dylan.  Now, you have to understand that my sister has basically claimed that she prays at the "altar of Bob Dylan."  I like Dylan myself, though I wouldn't choose the coot as any preferred rock deity to prostrate myself before.  And his performance was downright dull.  Mumford and Sons, on the other hand, are exactly the kind of folksy type of stuff my sister has always dug, which is fine.  You like who you like.

And as I said in my post about rock criticism, my age group can't be appeased these days because we're out of the market, which leaves us to bitch about the good old days, "real music," and the like that my sister's own ageism gladly spewed forth.  My original statement was satirical, mind you.  But her Facebook buddies were quick to chime in how they "didn't get it," either and had to turn off the TV.  Really?  You would think that with statements like that The Arcade Fire were some kind of dim-witted, no-talent hacks that were busy dry humping the wallets of all their fans.  But that isn't the case at all.  Though they don't exist in my music collection, having heard some of their stuff and seen what they can do, I'm not about to sit there and deny that they have talent and staying power.

"We're legit because we're REAL."  Oh, really?  How nice.

But my sis made the facetious remark of "In whose universe do they think they compare" to the likes of Mumford and Sons, et al.  Well, firstly, it's two different types of music.  You can't really compare a folkier group to a modern indie rock band.  Secondly, spouting such opinions just sort of proves that the listener can't be bothered with much that falls outside of their own musical safety zone.  To be sure, my sister even wondered how her 21-year-old son could think Lady Gaga was good.  Again, she misses the point.  And Lady Gaga is good.  She's going to be around for a nice, long time.

Now there's plenty of bands and artists I don't care for.  I enjoy getting a bash in on the likes of Radiohead or Bruce Springsteen at times.  But I don't not understand why those artists' fans love their music.  I can't fucking stand Nirvana and get tired of hearing their fans go on and on about how Kurt Cobain was a "genius," when he really wasn't, but there's no denying the impact the band had and the changes in musical climate that occurred when they came on the scene.

To growl or not to growl?  Wait, are you Tom Petty?

Truth be told, as I've gotten older, I've softened my approach.  There were times when I felt my opinions of music were "better" than others and that the stuff I listened to had more validity.  But good or bad, music is something that resonates with everyone in an individual way.  Why get "upset" about the likes of Justin Bieber?  He's corny, yeah, but the kid's made his mark, his money, and his fame.  It's not like he's going to just say, "OK, I'm done."  So it goes with all these other artists.  Pondering what made them popular or why their fans dig them isn't such a big mystery.  Pop music fashion is cyclical.  I've heard Dylan; I'd be more apt to dig a little deeper into The Arcade Fire's catalogue with some sincere listening and see if there isn't something I really liked.

By the way, my sister also really liked Michael Bolton at one point.