To the editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Your “unified theory of rock” [Hitsville, November 5] was interesting to read, and largely accurate, but there are a few holes in your argument. Your generational distinction between the listeners (and buyers) of music by musicians like Pearl Jam, and the rather staid fans of Sting, Clapton, and Phil Collins certainly holds true; then again, you are comparing William Burroughs to Danielle Steel, apples to oranges, leather to polyester. All of them come out of the same category, but they achieve a different effect.
There are teenagers who adore the Ramones (same generation as Sting), Iggy Pop, Patti Smith, Brian Eno . . . Granted, put their catalog together, and none of these musicians would have outsold one Phil Collins CD (or Pearl Jam, for that matter). But they must be doing something right because they still remain relevant. My own psychic abilities tell me that bands like Pearl Jam and U2 will go the nostalgic route of the Stones, Who, and Elvis, while groups like Nirvana and Rollins Band will stay germane for every meaning-seeking generation under 20. But just like anything you write, it is only an opinion.
