What's The Big Deal With Stone Temple Pilots?

I am not convinced that those tassels aren't hanging from a vanity belt.

ROFL-copter away! Nerd.

Nerd.

That's what she said.

Morywynd, I agree with you. I like(d) Velvet Revolver more than Guns N Roses and STP. Unfortunately it won't be easy for VR to find a good replacement lead singer.

Evan, I feel the same way...STP is okay, but was never a fave grunge band of mine....most of their songs I will listen to the on the radio, but I wouldn't buy or download any of their stuff. Something about Weiland's voice makes it hard for me to sing along :)

It's funny that you started this topic because I've been wondering what the fascination was with KISS. I can't get past the costumes, plus I don't think their music is that great. Must make the time for that article :)

Grunge:

Loud Quiet Loud Quiet

Grunge:

Loud Quiet Loud Quiet

Even if that's all grunge was, which it isn't, what would be wrong with that? I happen to love the loud/quiet dynamic.

Uh, it was a joke.

With that said, it's meant to be funny because it's somewhat true. However, explaining it in great detail probably won't do wonders for the humor.

I know, Brian, I got it. I actually totally agree with what you said below.

But I know I'm not going to be doing that listening now. Not when I can run out and buy some Kurt Cobain Converse high-tops! That Courtney. She knows texture.

Marxist Monkey takes the win!

I saw an article this week about Keith Richards' latest exhibition- he's a pretty good painter, imo. What he looks like is of no importance as to how he's developed as a person over his lifetime, so I reckon he's probably aging pretty well! :)

I never liked STP though ;)

Phrased realistically in the music industry, if you ask me.

Perhaps phrased realistically in the pop music industry. That's all based on image rather than music anyway really. Although I guess you don't see new talent emerging at age 35... older artists are usually respected 'cause they've been around for a long time... hmmmm, now I'm depressed!

What makes it great? As you said, it's in the eye of the beholder. STP has always been one of my favorite bands.

According to wikipedia:

The band's five albums have sold over 17.5 million copies in the United States alone and over 20 million albums worldwide. The band had fifteen top ten singles on the Billboard rock charts, including six #1's, and one #1 album on the pop charts (1994's Purple). In 1994, the band won a Grammy for "Best Hard Rock Performance" for their song "Plush". Stone Temple Pilots were also ranked at #40 by VH1 on the 100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock list.[4

Obviously, many many people disagree with you. Do you want to know what I don't get? Pompous music critics such as you are trying to be, trying to tell the masses what is good music and what isn't, what we should like and what we shouldn't. I would be interested in hearing who you happen to think is a "good" rock band. Linkin Park?!! Give me a frickin' break!!

Linkin Park?!!

Flagged as inflammatory.

Now that's funny right there, I don't care who ya are!!

According to wikipedia:

The band's five albums have sold over 17.5 million copies in the United States alone and over 20 million albums worldwide. The band had fifteen top ten singles on the Billboard rock charts, including six #1's, and one #1 album on the pop charts (1994's Purple). In 1994, the band won a Grammy for "Best Hard Rock Performance" for their song "Plush". Stone Temple Pilots were also ranked at #40 by VH1 on the 100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock list.[4

Obviously, many many people disagree with you.

Well, if we're going by that metric:

The group has charted 12 U.S. Top 40 hits on the Billboard Hot 100, The band approximately sold 120.6 million records

I assume your Backstreet Boys albums are sitting right next to your STP records?

Eric, not at all. Read what I said below at comment #18.

I didn't write an article, by the way, talking about how much Backstreet Boys suck. He said that STP is over rated and mediocre and I just pointed out that obviously many people disagree with that assessment. Obviously, many people disagree with me about the merits or lack thereof of the Backstreet Boys, no matter, I didn't write an article about it.

But you're right, I would still like STP if they only sold a fraction of what they have. I don't base my musical tastes on the charts.

Eric, not at all. Read what I said below at comment #18.

I didn't write an article, by the way, talking about how much Backstreet Boys suck. He said that STP is over rated and mediocre and I just pointed out that obviously many people disagree with that assessment. Obviously, many people disagree with me about the merits or lack thereof of the Backstreet Boys, no matter, I didn't write an article about it.

But you're right, I would still like STP if they only sold a fraction of what they have. I don't base my musical tastes on the charts.

Then what's the point of even quoting sales charts in your argument? It's a pretty irrelevant statistic in this discussion. Even if everyone on the planet loved them, that wouldn't invalidate his opinion of their music. In fact, that they've sold so many records despite that fact that Evan doesn't like their music would be the definition of "over-rated" in his mind (and mine, incidentally.)

Great music? That's in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Personally, I think STP is one of the most overrated bands of all time.

As always, the answer to almost every one of these "what's the big deal with" questions is:

"Well, uh -- their music makes me happy when I listen to it."

Asking someone to then tell you "why" that is -- is a bit silly, imo.

I like this series better when people use it to actually talk about bands that are a bit low-key but that are worth checking out, rather than as a way to get people defensive about something they have every right to enjoy, but shouldn't be expected to have to qualify that with anything other than the statement that they enjoy it.

No one really learns much of anything in an article like this. You don't like the band. Okay, so -- that's great. Instead, why not put together something comparing STP to some other bands of the era, how they rode their coat-tails, etc. I think that would at least be more interesting, and it would give people who disagree something to actually debate, rather than their own subjective opinion vs. yours -- when theirs is already being called into question as part of the article itself.

In short: No offense, but "what's the big deal" with "what's the big deal articles" (when they're formatted in this way?)

?

It's that they're musically mediocre, over-the-hill, and irrelevant. They never innovated. They're not particularly talented. As entertainers, they're fine if you like the aesthetic - but will we be hearkening back to their influence in 50 years? Did they have anything of import to say? Did they, in the end, matter? I argue: "No."

Strange I always thought that of the beatles.

The problem with most of their 'influence' is that it may have been them or may not have. The market had been shifting to groups over solo acts before they hit the scene, yet they are credited with it. It seems all one needs to be called influential is 10-15 artists doing covers of your work.

People enjoy it? Fine. People also enjoy Steel Reserve and @!$%#ty fast food. They have every right to do so - but I think people too often enjoy mediocre things because they don't realize there's better stuff to be had, and that's a real shame.

See, this is what I'm talking about. This is much more than a simple I don't like STP and here's why. This is an arrogant polemic against everyone who does. It is telling me that I'm less of a music fan, less of a music critic than you, because I happen to like STP and find them highly influential. You don't like them? Fine. Stop condescending those of us who do. I happen to agree wholeheartedly(gasp!!) with everything that Brian Ford said. I don't understand why you can't understand what he is saying to you. This article was much more than a simple I don't like STP and here's why. It's arrogant and condescending.

Eric, the point of quoting sales figures was to show that millions of people disagree with him about his assessment. Nothing more. Millions of people disagree with me about my assessment of the Backstreet Boys, but I did not write an article demeaning everyone who likes their music. See the difference? If I had written detailing why I don't like their music, that's one things, if I wrote an article like this, demeaning everyone who does like their music, I'd have to expect people taking offense.

I happen to love @!$%#ty fast food too, by the way. As to your list of great rock bands:

Good rock:

* Smashing Pumpkins * Tool * Rage Against the Machine * Led Zeppelin * Eric Clapton * The Clash

I happen to agree with many of them. Smashing Pumpkins is one of my all time favorite bands. You do realize though that many people find them highly over rated too, don't you?

What about all the recording techniques and stuff, though?

Which ones would those be?

As entertainers, they're fine if you like the aesthetic - but will we be hearkening back to their influence in 50 years? Did they have anything of import to say? Did they, in the end, matter? I argue: "No."

Okay, but that means you've added them to a list of 95% (yes, I'm making that number up) of all music. And, even in that 5%, you're going to have some contrarian saying:

"Pffft. Zeppelin? What makes them so great?" Page was just ripping off this guy, who you probably haven't heard because you're so stuck on what everyone else tells you to like." Hell, most great bands/performers won't be heard about in 50 years. I don't think that's a worthwhile metric of greatness or, at least, it's incredibly limiting. Which is why I find this to be boring (and yes, a bit elitist) but why I find articles like Stolte-Sawa's "women in music" to be incredibly interesting.

Saying "this band isn't as good as popular radio would have you believe" is like shooting fish in a barrel. Turning someone on to a band that (whether they're great or not) is much more compelling, at least to me.

Again, I just feel like all the things that, for you, rule out STP, rule out this sort of writing for me.

It's not very imaginative, it's easy, and will probably only serve to bring out the chuckleheads to tell people that the music that they have some sort of personal connection to isn't all that technically good. Then, it begins to look like a way to make people feel stupid for enjoying something.

I only say this because I've seen you write more compelling content, and this article is just like the last article like this which was just like the last article. The band has just changed, but the song remains the same.

You seem to be arguing that it's elitist for him to say he doesn't like something, but compelling for stolte-sawa (or anyone else) to say that they do like something. The motivations for both positive and negative reviews are the same. Expressing an opinion about what the writer thinks is or isn't worth while.

Whether the content is positive or negative, both types of article are as valid as the other. If it's elitist for one to say "this sucks, you shouldn't listen to it" then it's equally elitist for one to say "this is awesome and you should listen to it." I personally think both routes are acceptable and I think it's good that a negative review now and again exists to stand counter to PR and buzz.

The motivations for both positive and negative reviews are the same.

No, I'm saying that the style of writing comes across as elitist, as does the response to those who come in to say that they like the music. I don't think the response is supported all that well, either. I see people saying that it's boring and repetitive, but all I see are people saying that and I don't see any real explanation about music theory to back it up. So, it comes across as one casual music lover's subjective opinion about quality against another's.

He says he went into their sound, but the only thing he said in the article about their sound was one sentence about it not being all that compelling. Great, buy why? I know nothing at all about it, having read this article, except that the author thinks they're lame.

Ryan, at least, goes into pretty good detail to explain her content, she writes about her reasoning in a fairly in depth fashion, and she tends to support the reasons for liking the music with some good examples, and cross-references.

I'm sorry if it comes off as harsh to tell him that this series is lame and easy, because he doesn't really back it up with anything, but at least I'm telling him why, contrasting it to someone who I think beats him on that front (and also mentioning that I know he's capable of better) and that there's nothing particularly creative about this article or the way he interprets the series.

I think that's even more necessary to point it out, given the fact that the whole point of the series is to criticize the concept of mediocrity. I think Evan is better than this series.

Edit:

Shoot, sorry Evan -- anywhere I say "Eric" substitute your name.

You go, Brian, maybe you're not so bad after all!!

It's not even that I think the concept is bad, I simply think some people would prefer to see something with a bit more meat on it. You can read this anywhere, and if you can do it, I think it would be much more interesting to see you compare the musical structure of STP to the structure of other 90s era grunge bands, maybe compare lyrics, compare pedigree, etc.

Now, perhaps you'd lose readership. But, I bet the quality of discussion would be better.

On the other hand, for a band to have achieved such huge commercial and popular success, but then ultimately not have any lasting influence? Yeah, I think that's indicative of something.

Well, I think it's indicative of the music industry and the way it's structured. On the other hand, I also believe it's possible to connect strongly to something that is mediocre or that doesn't stack up to the greats, and to connect to it powerfully. Life experience when you connect has a great deal to do with how we connect, and so -- when you ask "what's the big" deal -- the only answer people should have go give is: "I just like them."

Ultimately, that's enough.

but then ultimately not have any lasting influence?

Who says they haven't had any lasting influence?! You?!! This is what galls me. I have read plenty of band bios who have listed STP as musical influences.

And how exactly, was Rage Against the Machine musically progressive? They weren't, yet you list them as a great band.

I happen to love RATM, they have ALWAYS been one of my favorite bands. So aesthetically, yes, they are great. What I am trying to get you to understand though, is that no matter what Morello does to the guitar, neither him nor anyone else in the band are virtuosos. I play bass guitar myself, there is nothing very technically skilled about the way Tim Commerford plays bass. It is all very basic stuff that he does. I taught myself to play bass guitar and I can play everything in the RATM catalogue.

Also, you mentioned that one of the things that makes a band great is that they use different instruments, well Morello's guitar playing may sound like he is using different instruments, the point remains that it's just his guitar. RATM is just a guitar, a bass, drums and a singer/rapper. And if you want to talk about poetry, nothing Zach has ever written is very poetic when put on paper.

One of my favorite RATM tracks is Killing in the Name Of. Let's take a gander at they lyrics, shall we?

Killing in the name of!
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses
Huh!

Killing in the name of!
Killing in the name of

And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
But now you do what they told ya
Well now you do what they told ya

Those who died are justified, for wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
Those who died are justified, for wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites

Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses
Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses
Uggh!

Killing in the name of!
Killing in the name of

And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya
And now you do what they told ya, now you're under control (7 times)
And now you do what they told ya, now you're under control
And now you do what they told ya, now you're under control
And now you do what they told ya, now you're under control
And now you do what they told ya, now you're under control
And now you do what they told ya, now you're under control
And now you do what they told ya, now you're under control
And now you do what they told ya!

Those who died are justified, for wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
Those who died are justified, for wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
Come on!

Yeah! Come on!

@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me!
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me!
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me!
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me!
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me!
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me!
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me!
@!$%# you, I won't do what you tell me!
Mother@!$%#er!
Uggh!

Wow!!! Real poetry there!!!

My point in all of this? I still love RATM!! I think your idea of what makes great music is just more than a little skewed.

I am going to flesh this out further in a future article, but let me just say here, that there are bands out there whereby every member is a technical virtuoso, they push the boundaries of rock music and are the definition of progressive. One such band? The Mars Volta. The problem? Their music is unlistenable! On the other end of the spectrum you have many bands whereby the musicianship is just run of the mill, nothing progressive about it, maybe even a little derivative, formulaic, but you know what? They have and are producing some really terrific kick ass music. Somewhere in the middle you have bands that are able to make terrific kick ass music AND be progressive at the same time. An example? Creed! Just kidding!!! ha ha. A perfect example of this though is Smashing Pumpkins, my all time favorite band.

I love it all though, I don't think a band has to be the most technically sound and progressive in order for me to be able to appreciate their music. Just as in my reading, I love to read high brow Tom Robbins novels, but I also can appreciate Stephen King and Dean Koontz. In movies, I love intelligent sophisticated fare, but I also love the mindless entertainment of Austin Powers or Dumb and Dumber. It's ALL good!!

You need to lighten up a bit I think and learn to just appreciate rock music for what it is, it's just music, it's just rock n roll, come down off your pedestal, out of the clouds for a minute and learn to enjoy STP for what it is, great rock music. Technical virtuosos? No, maybe not. Progressive music, pushing the envelope? Of course not. Kick ass rock n roll? Absolutely!!

It's cool, and it's totally ok that you disagree with me about STP. I really do not see them as formulaic or derivative AT ALL, but that's just me.

For me, I think the definition of music is: music = emotion. That's it. If a song or a band can convey emotion, they they have done their job. STP conveys emotion to me, they bring back memories for me of another time and place in my life. Their music is as much a part of me as the grey hair that is starting to sprout on the sides of my head. Their music speaks to me. If it doesn't speak to you, that's fine, there are plenty of other bands out there that do, and that I agree are great. I just don't think that a band has to be progressive to be great or "kick ass". To me, that is another mark of musical genius, when a band can take the standard instrumentation, standard chord progressions, and yet still make something totally unique and original out of that. I think that is what STP did, you don't, that's cool. For all the people that think STP was just derivative of other bands, I am willing to bet that when an STP song comes on, even if it's one they have never heard before, even before Scott starts to sing, it will be instantly recognizable as an STP song. They have their own unique sound, even if it is derivative. You know it's STP when you hear it, there is never any confusion as to, "Is this STP or Pearl Jam?" To me, that is genius.

As far as Smashing Pumpkins, they are my all time favorite band. I think Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness is probably one of the greatest albums ever made. I think Billy Corgan is a musical genius, pure genius. I love everything he does. I loved the fast heavy songs and I loved the slow melodic stuff. The slow melodic stuff was just so amazingly beautiful and transcendent.

Having said that, I had high expectations for their new album Zeitgeist. But I hate to say it, I was a little disappointed. There were some great songs on it, a few I really love, but over all, I thought it mediocre.

As far as Smashing Pumpkins, they are my all time favorite band. I think Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness is probably one of the greatest albums ever made. I think Billy Corgan is a musical genius, pure genius. I love everything he does. I loved the fast heavy songs and I loved the slow melodic stuff. The slow melodic stuff was just so amazingly beautiful and transcendent.

Having said that, I had high expectations for their new album Zeitgeist. But I hate to say it, I was a little disappointed. There were some great songs on it, a few I really love, but over all, I thought it mediocre.

Ok, you just had to go and mention Sonic Youth, didn't you? Another one of my all time favorite bands, although I didn't actually discover them until a few years ago. How they went all that time unnoticed by me, is beyond me. I had heard OF them, knew how influential they were, saw the cool kids wearing their t-shirts, but for some reason just never listened to them. I did listen to Dinosaur Jr back in those days, though, and I think Dinosaur is very similar to Sonic Youth.

Another band though that you failed to mention, who were around during the grunge days, albeit for a short time, yet actually came to influence emo more than anything. Can you guess? Sunny Day Real Estate. Another terrific band, one of my favorites, yet I didn't discover them until a few years ago either. Again, how they went unnoticed by me, I have no idea.

Another band back in the 90's that I loved but one of my best friend in the Navy hated, saying they were nothing more than jock rock, meant to make the testosterone fueled meat heads jump up and down on the dance floor, was Bush. I'm sorry, but I disagreed. I loved their music as well. I'm curious as to what you thought of Bush. I think they are another example of a band who were not incredibly innovative, although I do think their sound was quite different from what everyone else was doing, yet they made fantastic kick ass music.

Quite frankly, I kind of thought that you probably didn't like Bush. I love Bush though, all varieties of it. ha ha.

I implore you to take another listen to STP's song, "Creep" and then tell me what is wrong with it. It is a damn near perfect song, if you ask me. I can remember many a drunken night in my early 20's, drinking beer, chasing skirts while this song was playing in the background. But thats' neither here nor there, I want to know what you think is wrong with this song in particular. As you said, musical taste is in the ear of the beholder, if you just don't like it, that's fine, what I take exception to is you calling them over rated and mediocre.

I implore you to take another listen to STP's song, "Creep" and then tell me what is wrong with it.

Sheer poetry. ...Please. "Take the time with a wounded hand 'cause it likes to heal, I like to steal" ? Major backing not withstanding, I wrote better "lyrics" in high school.

First off, if you wrote better poetry, where's it at? Why haven't you graced Newsvine with it's presence?

Secondly, song lyrics are meant to be sung and when in written form, sometimes it looks like less than poetry. Look at some of Dylan's lyrics.

Thirdly, the lyrics you mention actually read:

"Take time with a wounded hand
cause it likes to heal
take time with a wounded hand
cause I like to steal
take time with a wounded hand
cause it likes to heal, I like to steal

I mean if you want to get technical.

lastly, there is more to music than just the lyrics. you have to look at the song as a whole and how the lyrics are sung and how it fits in with the song.

Name me a band that you happen to like and I'm willing to bet I can go find the lyrics and make it look pretty silly.

First off, if you wrote better poetry, where's it at? Why haven't you graced Newsvine with it's presence?

I think poetry is lame.

I have to say that I think this whole argument is kind of silly. In the end all of this is totally subjective. That's why I don't generally write bad music reviews. I prefer to just write about what I like, writing a negative review is kind of irrelevant. If a bunch of people like someone's sound, they should be able to listen to them.

People do have the right to talk about what they do and do not like in music, but arguments about whose lyrics are worthy versus those who are not have nowhere to go really. There is no objective measurement in these things. All you can do at the end of the day is acknowledge that they dislike a group you like.

I will say however, that I really hope Scott Weiland keeps his shirt on this time.

(admittedly, this bit is purely subjective)

Admittedly, this entire article and your entire assessment of "Creep" is subjective. Don't you see that? Everything you have said about STP is subjective, as is everything I said, as is musical tastes in general. I really don't care that you don't like STP, that's cool, not everyone likes the same music, and the rest of the bands that you mentioned being good, Smashing Pumpkins, Tool, etc, I happen to love, so we have more in common than not. What I take exception to is the condescending and demeaning manner in which you criticize everyone who does happen to like STP and that IS what you are doing when you say things like,

People enjoy it? Fine. People also enjoy Steel Reserve and @!$%#ty fast food. They have every right to do so - but I think people too often enjoy mediocre things because they don't realize there's better stuff to be had, and that's a real shame.

Personally, I don't even understand all this crap people say about STP being derivative of bands like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden. First of all, STP preceded Pearl Jam by several years, STP was around when Pearl Jam was just a gleam in Mother Love Bone's eye, and they were concurrent with Soundgarden. The music may all sound slightly similar, it's all grunge after all, but STP sounds like STP. I personally don't get all the comparisons. To be honest, I never read and still don't music critics and magazines such as Rolling Stone, never have, so I never even knew till now, and I'm 35, that STP was pretty much panned by the critics. It just goes to show that the critics are almost always wrong, that what the critics like and what the people like are two entirely different things. I read that the band Pavement made some disparaging remarks about STP in a song lyric. From wikipedia:

Another single, "Range Life", was infamous chiefly for lyrics that criticized alt-rock superstars The Smashing Pumpkins and the Stone Temple Pilots. Malkmus has insisted over the years that the line is meant to be light-hearted and timely, sung from the point of view of the aging hippie character in the song - later live versions of the track had the singer substituting "The Spice Girls", "The Counting Crows", or countless others for "Stone Temple Pilots". Billy Corgan, leader of The Smashing Pumpkins, threatened to drop his band from the 1994 Lollapalooza Festival if Pavement was allowed to play. The Smashing Pumpkins were headlining Lollapalooza that year.[10] Corgan and Malkmus would trade barbs through the press for several years after.

Seems many critics didn't like Smashing Pumpkins either, but you do, as do I, so what exactly is the point of listening to the critics? How many people, by the way, have even heard of Pavement or their music, as compared to STP and Smashing Pumpkins? I think the answer is obvious. I think just a bit of jealousy is to be seen in the following lyrics:

Out on tour with the smashing pumpkins
Nature kids, i/they dont have no function
I dont understand what they mean
And I could really give a @!$%#.
The stone temple pilots,
Theyre elegant bachelors
Theyre foxy to me are they foxy to you?
I will agree there isnt absolutely nothing
Nothing more than me

And, dare I say it, arrogance?

You want to know what is irrelevant? Rock music critics.

How many people, by the way, have even heard of Pavement or their music, as compared to STP and Smashing Pumpkins?

You're right. By the same token, Britney Spears it t3h l33t.

I thought you were ignoring me, Stolte?! What ever happened to that?

You want to know what is irrelevant? Rock music critics.

But how do you really feel?

Clearly, Pheaderus, you are an unabashedly devoted fan to STP, and that's okay. No one here is explicitly telling you (nor, as far as I can tell, implying) that you are stupid for liking them. However, as such a devoted fan, you probably are willing to overlook some of their failings that we can't get past, namely having a drug-addled croaking skeleton fronting the band, and that their music's popularity peaked and is no longer especially relevant.

I regularly hear STP on the radio and that's good for them, great for their label, and a bummer for me, because I, like many who write here, are and never were especially wowed by what they were doing. You can be, but at least recognize that a lot of us here think the music's kinda lame, and have the freedom to write about it in a slightly tongue-in-cheek recurring column. To defend one's opinion in the comments may seem to you to be a subtle way of saying "@!$%# you Phaedrus, you're old and like @!$%#ty rock from the 90's," but this community thrives on the back-and-forth debate in in comments, and no one is trying to belittle you, nor your music taste. What they are doing is just calling it as they see (or rather, hear) it.

As far as being a critic of critics, there is the whole saying of what everyone is (you know, a critic), so you might tone down the rhetoric. Attacking someone for being critical of music you like is just as annoying to an outside observer as having your favorite band criticized is to you. In the end, you can go home and rock the hell out to Weiland & Co. just to spite us if you like, but the fact remains that very few people under 30 still love the Stone Temple Pilots, and they're who's writing the reviews.

Word!!

It's the February '97 cover.

I know it's not great music. But it still hits me deep in the back of my soul when I hear it played.

If it hits you in the back of the soul, as it does me, then it IS great music, is it not? What other definition of great music is there?

But you hit the nail on the head though. When Creep came out, I was 21 and in the US Navy, barely out of boot camp and in "A" school. At this point, I hated the Navy and everything they stood for, the way they suck your life from you like a vampire, the way they try to steal your soul and blend you in with the "team". I hated every bit of it and was absolutely miserable, more miserable than I had ever been in my life. I, along with all my friends, would drown our sorrows at all the local bars, clubs, and strip joints, ever free moment we had. If I wasn't in school, I was drunk, I can remember many a time, literally being carried back to the barracks by my "shipmates". Then the song Creep comes out and Scott sings the lyrics, "I'm half the man I used to be." Like you said, it just clicked. When I listen to that song today, all those memories come flooding back to me, and to hear someone demeaning the song, for me, is to demean an entire period of my life, to demean my own experience.

For me the great requires something more in terms of music. Buddy Holly was great, Tchaikovsky and Mozart, were great. Hendrix was great. I love STP but they aren't in the same league. I like the beatles but they weren't in the same league either. I think Johnny Cash was an awesome showman and songwriter, I own everything of his that is available, but I can't put him in the great music category. Solid, inspiring, timely, and relevant but I don't think it will echo the same way.

The more I think on it, I think you had to live through some bands in order to really appreciate them.

The more I think on it, I think you had to live through some bands in order to really appreciate them.

Exactly, that's why I think, in part, that Evan can not appreciate STP. He was just too young in the earl 90's to really appreciate them in particular, and grunge in general. For him, grunge is like New Wave was for us.

The more I think on it, I think you had to live through some bands in order to really appreciate them.

Totally! And the years from, y'know, 13-20 are big! Music is an integral part of most young people's lives and that love may or may not continue, but it shapes your life in very powerful ways.