One thing that never ceases to amaze (and annoy) me is when entertainers grow massive egos that are on the verge of eating themselves.

We see this happen all of the time with big-name film actors, especially since the Hollywood gossip rags eat that shit up. If Russell Crowe isn’t punching out some passerby, then something’s terribly wrong. Assholes in multimillion-dollar entertainment is nothing new, and will be around forever. It practically comes with the territory. However, what I’m focusing on today is when this douchebag streak affects creators of less popular media, so to speak; my examples today include comic book personalities and non-mainstream rock musicians.

First, let’s look at comic book creators. I’m sure plenty of readers could rattle off quite a few writers, artists, and even editors who have a reputation for being dicks. That behavior doesn’t really make much sense. Even now, when comics are arguably more popular than they’ve been in decades, they’re still a big fish in a small pond when compared to big moneymakers like movies or sports. I’ve met a few comic book folk that could use a lesson or two in humility, unfortunately. I didn’t get shouted at or anything; I certainly would not tolerate that bullshit, and would have no problem telling off the offender. I was just faced with general rudeness and arrogance. Not exactly the kind of attitude you want to give your fans in such a niche market, where your career could be over once the wind of popularity changes!

Next up, think about rock musicians. While most folks are familiar with big-name rock stars going out of control and pissing on their underlings, there’s some ridiculous egoism among the “underground” stuff, too. In my time covering extreme metal shows and interviewing bands, I have yet to meet anyone who was a total prick. (The closest I came was one bandmember who didn’t seem all of that interested in being interviewed and offered very brief responses to my questions; however, he was still very polite.) Still, some of the horror stories I’ve heard from other writers, photographers, and even musicians are enough to keep me on my guard. Shit, there’s been bar bands that have shit on patrons! How much sense does that make? Again, this is a very small market, and making a name for yourself as a dickhead doesn’t seem like a smart move.

The one thing that these creative endeavors have in common, and that sets them apart from just about any other career path out there, is that their success is completely built and driven by their fanbase. In other words: if it weren’t for fans’ devotion, these creators would never be able to do what they love for a living. (And even then, in many cases it’s not their primary means of employment!) I’m not saying that creators should be slaves to the fans’ whims, but a little more respect is in order in some cases.

I may have been big on tape trading in high school and early college for my metal needs, but I missed out on another important part of the underground movement: the ‘zine.

My high school had plenty of kids making and distributing their own ‘zines, but of course, they were all devoted to hardcore and punk rock. Aside from being filled with crappy writings on crappy music, they featured the usual potshots at the school administration for alleged horrible treatment of the student body; you know, the usual teen angst nonsense. One of the biggest ‘zines my high school had was Spackle, and it was one of many punk publications that were “banned” due to its smear campaigns against teachers and the principal. (I put “banned” in quotes, because I’m sure you’ve correctly guessed that kids distributed them anyway, rules be damned.)

If there were any metal ‘zines floating around my local area during high school, I sure as hell never came across a single one of them. Much later in life, I learned about all of these great metal ‘zines that circulated around Europe and the US, like Slayer (no relation to the band), and I was pretty pissed that I missed out. Before the rise of the World Wide Web, I had to get all of my metal news from shitty publications like Hit Parader and Metal Edge (both of which were jumping on the alternative bandwagon at the time), or via word of mouth from the school’s only death metal fan. (Yes, we only had one.) None of my local magazine racks carried anything along the lines of Metal Hammer, and I only saw an issue of Metal Maniacs once (the aforementioned death metal fan had it).

So, I was stuck with mass market junk, with little to no coverage of metal proper or the underground scene. ‘Zines handled all of that and more, but I was shit out of luck! Nowadays, the Internet has killed ‘zines dead, so I’m far too late to the party. Sadly, ‘zines represent yet another crucial piece of music history that’s been flushed down the toilet for mere convenience’s sake.

In all walks of life, there’s things that are “cool to hate.” From films to sports teams to books, there are a lot of popular properties that many people just seem to hold a grudge against for no discernible reason, other than that they think it’s cool to do so. Constructive criticism is one thing, but scathing attacks are something else entirely.

We could be here for weeks discussing them all, so for today, we’re just going to focus on five of them, each from a different medium. Some of the hatred directed at these may surprise you, given how influential each one is…but read on!

• The Da Vinci Code. We all know about the shitstorm that this 2003 novel whipped up, which was amplified by the 2006 film adaptation. Author Dan Brown certainly didn’t help matters any by making some controversial statements, not to mention that far too many people took the novel seriously. Even though the preface claimed that the book was based on “real” events and organizations, that’s irrelevant: it’s still a piece of fiction, from cover to cover. I’ve read science fiction novels with “historian’s notes” in their prefaces, and those aren’t real, either. Anyway, I’ve noticed in my experience that a majority of people who hate The Da Vinci Code have one thing in common: they’ve never read it. From right-wing Christians to bookworms, The Da Vinci Code was met with scorn and derision from folks who were unfamiliar with the work as a whole. Look, it’s certainly not the works of Shakespeare, but that doesn’t make it any less of an entertaining page-turner.

• Genesis. Specifically, it’s the post-Peter Gabriel lineup of this legendary progressive rock band that draws ire. Gabriel was largely responsible for Genesis making a huge splash in the early 1970s, but he departed from the band in order to pursue a solo career in 1975. Phil Collins replaced Gabriel on vocals, and the band went on to record countless albums after that, including the insanely popular Invisible Touch in 1986. (We all know “Land of Confusion,” don’t we?) Even back in the days before Internet message boards, fans flipped the fuck out. Somehow, Collins’ work was seen as a bad thing by “traditional” Genesis fans, and their ridiculous vitriol continues to this day. If you don’t like the Collins-era stuff, that’s fine, but these nutjobs barely even gave the stuff a chance. (Further exposition on this topic can be found on Writing the Scree.)
• Avatar. James Cameron’s box office smash was a great movie, but the legions of angry film snobs attacking it came as a bit of a surprise. The biggest complaint against the film is the story, and that I can least understand; it’s certainly nothing original. However, Cameron himself has admitted this, as his intent was in the telling of the story, not the story itself. Very few snobs hold other films’ stories up to the same lofty standards; let’s face it, most films these days aren’t original by a long shot. Another popular complaint is one that doesn’t hold a lot of water: Avatar is singularly blamed for Hollywood jumping on the 3D bandwagon all of a sudden. While Avatar certainly helped popularize that style of cinematography, people seem to forget that 3D films have been around for a long time. And I don’t mean the classic red-and-cyan glasses type, either; Disney and other studios have been releasing modern 3D films for years now. The technology was going to spread even without Avatar‘s success.
• Star Trek. When it comes to science fiction television’s influence on real-world technology, Star Trek certainly tops the list. It’s largely responsible for such innovations as cellphones, but that hasn’t stopped folks from trashing it. I know that its reputation as an “intellectual” science fiction show doesn’t endear it to most, as most plots revolve around advanced science, complicated technology, and problem solving, rather than the violent action sequences which make up a majority of modern science fiction. But that’s no reason for disgust, is it? The blind Star Trek hate could also be because it’s “old,” a pushback against truly nerdy genres such as “old school” science fiction…or something else. I know I’ve mentioned this before (on more than one occasion), but I must reiterate: a lot of the Star Trek hate comes from rabid Star Wars fans. In fact, the entire subplot of the film Fanboys was the main characters going out of their way to insult Star Trek fans. (And, of course, the Trekkies in the film were portrayed as idiots). It should also be noted that while there are hardcore Star Wars geeks, the franchise as a whole is not a nerdy one. It’s a pop culture tour de force, and unlike Star Trek, there’s no automatic nerd or geek stigma if you enjoy it. (In fact, it’s quite the opposite.) But back to my original point. There’s a lot of hate for hatred’s sake when it comes to Star Trek, and I can’t help but wonder: how many of these haters have even watched a Star Trek episode or movie? (Preferably not a shitty one; you can’t judge the whole Star Wars franchise based on the prequels, after all.)
• Superman. You wouldn’t think the Man of Steel would be reviled by many, but hear me out. The ultimate superhero archetype has been around since 1938, and every superhero that followed owes their livelihood to Superman in one way or another. No superhero is more influential, nor ever will be. Yet the negativity against ol’ Kal-El never seems to cease. From whining about his costume (“it’s too old-fashioned”) to grumbling about his powers (“too powerful”) to eye-rolling at his weakness to Kryptonite (“that makes no sense”), you’d think that there aren’t any Superman fans at all out there. (Of course, we know that over seventy years of comics, films, games, and television shows put that worry to rest.) Cripes, look at the comic book losers who whined about Superman Returns. The complaints I’ve heard about that film range from borderline to certifiably ridiculous, and they all translate to a simple belief: “Superman sucks.” I’ve heard little to no constructive criticism of the film, just fanboy whining. I certainly believe that this just boils down to dislike of the character himself. (Which begs the question: why did they even bother seeing Superman Returns in the first place?)

Feel free to bring up your own examples in the comments. I may revisit this idea in the future, as there’s certainly no shortage of things that people despise to make themselves feel better. Maybe I’ll even tackle that stupid Red Sox/Yankees rivalry…

While many people could easily point out aspects of the music industry that suck, there’s one thing gaining traction lately that really needs to stop: creating and applying musical genres based solely on a group’s lyrics.

Music is sound. It’s a combination of many things, not just words. Placing all of the focus on the lyrics is detrimental to the rest of the music, and often wildly misleading when trying to describe the musicians’ overall sound.

For example, I’ve seen scores of music bloggers referring to bands as “Viking metal”…just because they’re metal bands who sing about Vikings and Norse mythology. That’s not enough; a band would still need to use classical Scandinavian musical stylings and extreme riffs in there, otherwise any metal song about the legendary northern warriors would instantly be considered Viking metal based on the lyrics alone. If that’s the case, then Led Zeppelin’s famous “Immigrant Song” is Viking metal. Ridiculous!

Next we have Swashbuckle, who are often referred to as “pirate metal.” Technically, this is incorrect: Swashbuckle may perform in pirate costumes and write lyrics about nautical nonsense, but they’re a thrash/death metal band. (Full disclosure: I’ve written about Swashbuckle for Musician Photo Journal, and even I’ve fallen prey to using the term “pirate metal.”)

Drifting away from metal, we have “nerd rock.” This is rock or punk music wherein the lyrics deal with topics such as comic books or video games. Again, it’s a piss-poor genre; just because your band sings about something that might be geek-related, that doesn’t change the riffs on your guitars, now does it? Case and point: look at “I am the Law,” a thrash metal classic by Anthrax. Using modern standards, this song would be classified as “nerd rock” because the subject is Judge Dredd, a comic book character. Clearly, this is wrong; no one would ever consider an Anthrax song to be nerd rock! So why are other songs with nerdy lyrics given that rubber stamp?

We all know the real reason for these misleading genres: money. If you advertise your group as a rock band, even though you happen to sing about Star Trek, you won’t get far. Promote yourself as a nerd rock band, however, and science fiction convention planners will be knocking down your door. Furthermore, nerdy lyrics and the like are often used as a cover to hide many bands’ lack of musical skill. Fanboys are much more likely to give a crappy rock band a free pass if they’re singing about Batman than if they were performing Top 40 songs.

I still think a band should stick to its guns and forgo these fake genres. Your music should always come first before selling out, but that’s not a popular opinion these days.

As more and more CDs are coming in Digipak-style cardboard cases, I find myself becoming more and more annoyed.

Even if you’re not familiar with the patented name, you’re guaranteed to have come across a few Digipaks in your travels. These are CD cases made mostly (or sometimes completely) out of paper products, that unfold to reveal the disc, liner notes, et cetera. (They also have DVD cases that are built much the same way.)

My problem with Digipaks is their lack of durability. I take excellent care of my media, as I want it to last as long as possible. Unless you never remove them from your shelf, Digipaks are bound to get scuffed and worn, especially on the edges of their spines. Good old-fashioned jewel cases hold up much better than that. Plus, jewel cases are easily replaceable; Digipak albums have to be purchased again.

I understand that some artists use Digipaks to do clever creative things with the packaging, and that’s okay, I guess. I’m a big fan of collecting physical copies of my media, as I do like the artwork and such. What bugs me is when record labels just use it as a cost-cutting measure…but don’t drop the price of the CD itself. Unless you’re doing something with the packaging that cannot be replicated with a jewel case, then don’t bother.

Some might prefer Digipaks, claiming that their cardboard construction is better for the environment. Of course, most people aren’t throwing out CD cases like one would a plastic bag. Furthermore, additional printings of many CDs end up in jewel cases, anyway!

Clearly, this argument against Digipaks is one of personal preference. But guess what, it’s my damned blog, and my preference is solid plastic!