A lot of people have ugly feet and, unfortunately living in the hot climate that I do, I get to see more than my fair share. But what really brings me down is when I look in a magazine and see bands posing for pictures with no shoes on. Tell me what the fuck is that? Well sir, in my book its one of the biggest fashion/common decency faux pas possible. Case in point: the latest issue of Mojo with the Strokes on the cover, one of them, I think its the lead guitarist, is barefoot and, as if that's not enough, there's also a spread inside on My Morning Jacket which contains yet more unadorned ugly male feet.

Otherwise I'm kind of pleased with the latest issue of Mojo. It's the first issue I've bought in a while. I tend to just avert my eyes from the newsstand when they have people like Radiohead and White Stripes on the cover. But this issue has, for the first time I can recall, a full-length piece on hip-hop, which is a definite step in the right direction on the level of the inclusion of tit in an issue or two back of Optic Nerve (reference for people who read and appreciate the letters in comics). Even better, the piece in question focuses on the new school artists of the mid to late 1980's and early 1990's, which anyone who possesses ears for the music (and many don't) should be able to recognize as its high water mark.

There's also a quite nice CD that accompanies the mag, supposedly tracing hip-hop's roots or its "birth". That's a tall order, but any CD that starts with "Adventures of Grand Master Flash on the Wheels of Steel" and ends with the Funky Four Plus One More's "It's the Joint", is more than alreet with me. Also in the latest Mojo there's also a solid piece, by former Creem writer Bill Holdship, on the Cramps; whom I would offer (along with the Gun Club) as a wise alternative to the hokum that the White Stripes serve up (nice matching outfits though, that's real cute y'all). As for the Strokes, I like them and I'm not afraid to say it. Sure thing, like the rest of ya I was all ready to hate them, what with all the admitted hype, but I can't deny my ears, they write catchy tunes. I didn't and still don't hear the Velvets in their stuff; nah, they sound like Iggy fronting some hybrid of Television and Blondie. And that's a good combination. The record did wear a little thin near the end, especially with the overuse of distortion on the vocal, but I listened to it a lot more than most other going concerns. Any day of the week it beats the hell out of recent and similarly over hyped New York Rock and Post Punk. Come on admit it the Yeah Yeah Yeahs are just plain silly, they don't even rate with Bow Wow Wow fer christ's sake.

Anyway back to Is This It--it was all told an enjoyable and refreshingly brief record. Best of all it didn't sound forced. The Strokes had, and maybe still have, that intangible factor; perhaps it's just being young and dumb enough to rock unselfconsciously, maybe its all that time spent in school in Switzerland, which I imagine is a pretty un-rock'roll type of environment. Whatever the reason we can all agree that too much forethought and intellectualization is nothing but a hindrance, if not the direct antithesis of what makes good rock and roll. Bend an ear to Genesis and a host of other similar foolishness for examples that bear this theory out (pop music is excluded btw). Rock (and pop) music should be fun, as should the writing about it, which is one of many reasons why Greil Marcus doesn't make it. An old Little Richard 45 can blow the gaskets in yer brain much more quickly and profoundly than any piece of Essential Logic (ersatz indeed) vinyl or Situationist texts. Cause it lives and breathes the kind of wild abandon and freedom from restriction that those others could only theorize, strategize or mimic intellectually. And, as Lester Bangs points out in a piece in his new anthology, it’s not so much a question of nostalgia as a question of taste. Its also a question of having a sense of humor and irreverence which is one reason why I've never been impressed by writers like Kevin Pearce (of "something beginning with o" fame), whose stuff reads more like a humorless list of what's correct and what's not, more often than not with little or no insight as to the whys and wherefores. I dunno, maybe that's helpful or interesting to people who can't make up their mind what they like and what they don't or for those who need to be reassured that their choices are suitably appropriate or elite. You can keep your canon. Personally I like to hear different opinions even if I can't always understand them. I like variety. Uniformity of opinion is a bad thing and if a lack of it makes youth movements difficult maybe that's a good thing.

Mojo falls short in the area of fun as well; it's solid but unexciting writing. I miss the sense of irreverence that some of the same writers possessed when they wrote for the now long defunct Creem Magazine. By the way a common myth that I would like to negate is that Creem was only really relevant during its period with Lester at the helm. I possess many exciting and hilarious post-75 issues that prove this untrue. If anything the coverage got more interesting with the dawn of punk (which Creem arguably helped write and will into existence) and the ascendance of writers like Robot Hull, Rick Johnson, Richard C. Walls, J. Kordosh, Dave DiMartino, Richard Riegel, and Joe Fernbacher who continued to build and expand admirably on the work of their predecessors. There was a sense of community amongst Creem writers and readers not based on a correct canon but on understanding both the music and the culture well enough to have fun with it and make fun of it. Sometimes the letter pages in old Creems were as amusing as anything else in the issue. It was a culture born out of a combination of Playboy and Mad Magazine.

I started mulling this over on a recent late night spent reading an issue from 1978 while drinking whiskey and beer and listening to the Mirrors, Ricky Nelson, Armand Schaubroeck and the Blues Magoos. Here's some of the contents of the issue in question: Rick Johnson on how to buy records based on their title and cover alone, R. Meltzer on knowing and loving the Dictators, Ed Ward spending an afternoon watching and talking with Iggy prior to the Lust for Life tour, and an interesting Simon Frith piece (a reoccurring column called Letter From Britain) on how dull the American rock scene was and how strangely the Sex Pistols only seemed to appeal to the 25 and older rock critic set in the states. Even the articles on people I have little to no interest in, say Marty Balin, were worth reading because of the writers sense of humor and irreverence.

So what's my point? Well for one that it's possible to write interesting articles on even the most boring musicians if you have the spirit of inspiration on your side and a level of insight and humor. Think of it as a challenge. You don't even have to wait for music that lights you up or better you can too can maybe write/will that music into existence by the sheer power of your prose, or by explaining what's lacking in what we got and what we might need to remedy the situation. Otherwise I'm just trying to hit a few points along the way that I've been meaning to make while talking at you like I know you, like you might understand and if not agree maybe see my side of things a little.