I found this blog by Carrie Brownstone, the ex-guitar player for sleater-kinney. After I read it I thought it was perfect for the OB crew, so I'm sharing it. Thoughts?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monitormix/200 ... raire.html

Au Contraire

I am a contrarian by nature. Hardcore vegans make me want to eat raw meat and shoot deer, extreme political correctness brings out my inner crudeness and insensitivity, and when I witness public displays of affection, my instinct is to swear off dating for good. Basically, if you're doing or saying something, and you're doing or saying it LOUDLY, then chances are, I will refuse to do it or say it along with you. In fact, I might do or say the opposite. Why? Because life is more fun this way.

As a contrarian, I am hardly alone. And music contrarians make up a large portion of us. You know the ones I'm talking about, those people who can never simply agree with popular, commonly held beliefs. Someone who insists that Chad Channing was Nirvana's best drummer, that Bleach was better than Nevermind, that the answer to "Beatles or Stones?" is The Kinks, that Springsteen's Tunnel of Love is one of his finest albums, that Bootsy Collins out-funked George Clinton, or that Soul Asylum was somehow the quintessential Minneapolis band. (Really? Over The 'Mats or Husker Du?)

Contrarians get even more infuriating when it comes to members of legendary bands, often claiming that the "genius" title has been misapplied. They'll tell you that the Buzzcocks were superior with Howard Devoto as their singer, and that Pink Floyd was at their peak with Syd Barrett. But were they? Was Fleetwood Mac actually more awesome before Stevie Nicks? Is Son Volt really a better offshoot of Uncle Tupelo than Wilco?

I can't answer those questions, but a music contrarian can, and will. In fact, their argument as to why Fugazi never outshone Minor Threat or Rites of Spring will be the contrarian's calling card, their 10-minute lecture at social events and why they'll never get asked to speak at a wedding.

But why? Why must you or I or our friends resort to such puerile incantations? Merely for the sake of argument, or to assert our individuality? Do we really mean it? Do we really care? I think we do care. I think that for people whose identities have been shaped by songs -- by songwriters, by bands, by cover art, by stage banter we live by and repeat the next day to our friends; by lyrics that make absolute sense or make so little sense that we worship them all the more; by those hours of memorization and by the effort it takes to embrace music, not just momentarily but to hold onto it for life -- that is not something you give up easily or readily. You fight and you contradict the norm not just to be an ass, but to defend all that's held you up over the years. Even if you're totally wrong.

So what contradictory musical beliefs do you hold? What contrarian musical opinions do your friends or co-workers have that drive you crazy? And what contrarian arguments do you find the most ridiculous or the most valid?

I've been reading her blog for some time,
and I agree, I thought of just about
every music board I look at when I read
this.

haha, cool read.

i think nirvana comes to mind regarding me. but i honestly don't see what people see in that band. i just don't get it.

I think a lot of people that are "contrarians" really got into the Kurt Cobain ethos around junior high and high school during the early and mid 90s. He represented everything rebellious and angry that we had pent up inside us, so naturally his music and story appealed to us. Now it's just a matter of nostalgia. I still think In Utero is a great album by any band, but I seldom listen to Nirvana anymore.

As for the album argument, Bleach and Nevermind both bow down to In Utero. They always have, in my mind.

I used to be like that a little. Today I think that going against the general opinion just for the sake of feeling special is just as stupid as following it, as is caring about the general opinion at all.

i think sometimes i come off like this, but i'm just not easily amused. but i really love that which amuses me

I'm pretty sure I'd like Coldplay if they weren't so popular with annoying with crappy taste. In Utero is clearly the best Nirvana album.

Yeah if you can't like this album, I don't understand your brain

I don't agree with that blog at all

Disagree.

I like to question why people like something so much. I don't immediately dismiss something because people like it, but I am skeptical and will check it out.
For example, I used to hate coldplay, but actually like them after giving a chance.

A Rush Of Blood To The Head is better than Parachutes.

S-K sucks.

were they the donnas?

i think its pretty clear that syd barrett was best without pink floyd, and pink floyd was best with out syd barrett

Maybe they were better without Barrett, but they were loads more interesting with Barrett and immediately after he left (which, given his influence on that sound, we can safely say he was at least with them in spirit). That makes them better with Barrett in my opinion.

i would say his presence in their music was always there. they made their best music w/o him, even if some of it was about him, it is still without him.

how bout him magically showing up after "Wish You Were Here" was being made?

This about sums up what I think.

I had a good friend in high school that took this to the extreme. Everything he did was designed to get a rise out of someone. That probably did a lot to keep me from ever leaning towards it myself.