for 20 March 2001. Updated every WEEKDAY.
I Dig Your Wig
One of the great things about being a black male is being able to change your hair. If you look at all the various options out there it's obvious. Prince. Sisquo. Al Sharpton. Sam Jackson of course. I don't really think it's indicative of something greater. if you take that logic than every time Bill Shatner hits the Men's Boutique for a new toupee he's making some great statement. Don't get me wrong, Kirk's wigs are the bizzomb. when I go bald I'm hitting that brother up for some advice. I thought Mr. Jackson's cut in Unbreakable was great. He looked insane. That's the next one I'm going to rock.
You are so right, Francisco. Thank your lucky stars that you'll never know the pain of being a white guy whose only two hair options are to cut it right to the skull like Sergeant Carter or let it grow out and look like Jackson Brown.
I thought I was the only one who liked SLJ's 'do in Unbreakable. Hell, I thought I was the only one who liked Unbreakable.
You forget that the defining hairstyle of the '90s was the Rachel, as seen on the head of Pitt's Wife in "Friends." And the Rene Russo had its day as well. (But I guess for men's hair you're right. Wait! What about the Caesar?)
An excellent essay on the important subject of artificiality in this age of the phony Real.
I knew something had escaped my notice with this piece. There it was, barely visible, just outside my field of vision like some pouf of bulbous but comely tresses... The Rachel! The signature style of the nineties! Of course! The missing clue that explains everything and nothing!
Keeping it unreal, I remain,
Ummm... not to spoil your lead or anything... but there was a piece in last month's Vibe on Samuel L. Jackson & his hairdresser and how the two have worked to create different looks for each of Jackson's films.
Just thought you should know.
- a suck reader
So I hear. Also Entertainment Weekly now has a mini-history of Jacksonian coifs. Still, these are specialty outlets. When Peter Jennings leads with this story, that's when I'll be satisfied that America is learning the truth.
Run For Your Life
Thank you for your column today on the New Beatlemania. I've been thinking much the same since the whole 1 phenomenon began, but hadn't quite the gumption to write a suck quality article about it and then to send it unsolicited.
It is frightening to realize that the Boomers have apropriated Youthfull Rebelion. Sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll are the language of the establishment now. Whichever way we turn, to neo-flapperism, or facist puritanism, we've yet to rebel on terms our parents won't aprove of.
Can we even kill the amiable beast that gave us life? Perhaps, but only literally. The sole trend that has diferentiated this generation from those past, that has had any power to shock, have been the school-shootings and 12 year-old murderers that play so luridly on the television.
It is hatefull to think that these children are our only rebels. Violence though is the only facet of popular discourse that has yet to be entirely domesticated. In the imagined future of televised deathmatches and hardcore sex that everyone will simultaneously be forbidden and compulsory, will children be driven to kill their fathers and marry their mothers in order to live their own lives?
Thanks for that chilling look into America's nightmarish future. Is it too late for The Children, our nation's future? We say, hell no! Let's reclaim our country from the forces of nihilism and give our kids a brighter tomorrow of fucking their mothers and killing their fathers!
Dammit! That stupid Beatles album is still topping the charts. Why doesn't anyone listen to The Clash, man? I mean, why do all these people like a band I hate and care so little about a band I adore so? It's all the fault of the Boomers! Those horrible, horrible people. The Boomers are to blame for it all. How dare they be older than me? How dare they be proud of themselves and feel that their life experience has been meaningful? I swear, it's the Boomers' fault the new economy isn't taking off the way it should be. I mean, who was supplying all that VC dough anyway? It sure wasn't us do-no-wrong Xers. I mean, where would we get that kind of money? It's their fault I can't find a real job, too. Anyway, if the kids should be listening to anything, they should be listening to a bunch of guys from England who came out in the 70s, appropriated black music, and used the same chord progressions over and over...I mean, gee, The Clash put out a bunch of records too, and if it wasn't for The Clash, we wouldn't have Green Day, dude! I mean, can you imagine a world without Green Day? But in the interest of brevity, and the fact that I have no compelling argument to support my nonexistent thesis, old people suck!
Rockin' the casbah,
Alexia C. Henke
"...an attempt by aging boomers to colonize the youth of their children, to make all who come after them replicate the boomers' own sensibilities, tastes, and experiences "
Bingo this is an excellent summary of the problem -- the Boomers as Star Trek Borgs, trying to assimilate themselves onto the known universe. Passive resistance is futile?
All resistance is futile. We know nothing of these Borgs of yours: If you can remember Star Trek you weren't really there.
Dear Mr. M;
Did it ever occur to you that one reason for the Beatles' resurgant popularity is that, like, you know, their music is actually pretty good? In 1979, perhaps the cultural baggage of the '60s was still too ponderous (and the solo careers of the ex-Beatles still far too actively annoying) for an objective evaluation of their music. Today, with 30 years' perspective (and following a decade in which everything that was once "underground" became mainstream, but only in inferior, watered-down forms), maybe people are recognizing that those four guys wrote and played some pretty good songs that have actually stood the test of time a little better than the "raga rock" they inspired. Maybe 10 years of hearing swill like Oasis or Hootie & the Blowfish pawned off as "pop rock" have made some of us appreciate the "fabs" a little more.
Actually, I think it's kind of ironic/significant that you pick on the "raga rock" aspect of the Beatles' music to pan them in your article, considering that (as best as I can tell), not one of the songs on "Beatles 1" actually contains sitar, or any recognizable Indian influence. Are you really writing about the Beatles' new release? Or about your own feelings about the Beatles?
Anyway, just some thoughts... usually I enjoy your columns (as I do most of the Suck regulars) but I thought you were a little wide of the mark in this case. In case you're wondering "Where I'm coming from" (man), I'm a 36-year-old former new waver who thinks the Clash are the second best band to come out of England, so it's not a question of picking sides. You want to rag on "Free as a Bird", the Anthology book or Yoko? Knock yourself out. But to simply write off the Beatles old (i.e. real) music's popularity as simply a cultural phenomenon, is, I feel, to miss a lot of its (musical) appeal.
Take it easy,
PS: Did it occur to you that maybe Strummer was referring to the theatrical production of "Beatlemania" (i.e. "phoney") rather than the Beatles themselves in the lyrics of "London Calling"?
You err, Sir. Suck has never ragged on Yoko, but has always given the inventive Fifth Beatle full credit for her pivotal role in the band's history.