Stevens and 'Chronicle' Suck Because They Don't Write Enough About My Band and the Other Bands I Like
RECEIVED Wed., July 13, 2005
Dear Editor, What exactly was it that caused Darcie Stevens to write “99 Bands” [Music, July 8]? A few months ago, she made our music scene out to be almost dead in "31 Nights" [Music, Sept. 10, 2004]. Now, suddenly, it “has never been so rich.” Perplexingly, in the same article, she states that “oversaturation breeds commonality” only to write off the truly inventive Opposite Day while tooting the horns of highly derivative rockers the Addictions. This logic does not compute. “99 Bands” reads like a Best and Worst Dressed of 2005 where bands are judged based upon the volume of their amps rather than the quality of their work. What happened to the value of musicianship? Stevens obviously does not want to hear anything out of the ordinary on Red River in spite of her “commonality” comment. She seems to believe an overabundance of Big Boys wannabes makes our scene “rich.” Only if we value homogeneity above all else. There were hundreds of bands playing on Red River during the time frame covered by “99 Bands.” Stevens apparently only caught a few of them that were not pounding out the usual mezzo forte drones at 120 bpm (Oh, Beast!, Cue, My Education). I challenge the Chronicle to give more coverage to bands that are forging their own musical vocabulary in Austin.