The eve of the fourth SFA show in Toronto in the last 15 months: In December, the NME stated that SFA were "easily the best band never to have changed anybody's life". I concur -- but I can't hold it against the Super Furries. Five people as intelligent as the members of SFA know that they won't change the world with songs about magic scissors and mobile phones. Any band that is so in touch with these elements of pop culture knows, basically by definition, exactly where their songs fit in the grand scheme of the universe. Perhaps not so with Mogwai. The five lads from Glasgow are (collectively) the Alex Rodriguez of rock -- perhaps the best band in the world despite being only in their early twenties. Their main weakness is that they might, just might, possess an elevated sense of their own self-importance. From their lengthy hate list to their undying support of their post rock peers (culminating in their widely praised All Tomorrow's Parties festival), Mogwai are less a band than an agenda. Even though last years' "e.p." is their strongest musical statement to date, it's a short jump from the blissfully controlled calm of "Stanley Kubrick" to the self indulgence of recent Sonic Youth releases.

One of the things I don't understand about music journalism: Moby is the latest example of a just-outside-the-mainstream artist who has achieved sales success without major airplay. The key word in that last sentence is "latest". If it happens almost every year, why are journalists always surprised? More precisely, if it happens every year, why do they make like it's the first time with each and every occurrence? By 1991, NIN's "Pretty Hate Machine" had gone platinum in the US -- remarkable since this was pre-grunge, pre-Lollapalooza, pre-alternative. By 1993, the Cranberries quietly sold almost two million copies of their debut album "Everyone Else is Doing it, Why Can't We?". Now Moby's "Play" has quietly gone platinum, and the mainstream press is finally waking up and smelling his success. Don't sound so surprised! We've seen all this before!

Alan Cross, "Ongoing History of New Music" mainman extraordinaire, is an ass. I could busy myself writing these short columns each and every week after listening to his radio show. He riles me up. Rather than sit here each and every week and criticize his smugness and attack the ludicrousy of some of his opinions, I'll get it off my chest in one sitting.

Last Sunday, Mr. Cross did a show as part of a series of the all-time top 25 New Music artists. I believe this series was first aired several months ago, but I can only bear to listen to CFNY once every several months so bear with me. To stray from my main point for a moment, just what in the hell does "New Music" mean in 2000? For one thing, the use of the term "new" is insulting much in the way it has been applied to the word "Testament", it suggests everything that came before it was "old", meaning "no longer relevant". It is also shortsighted, for just as so-called "oldies" stations lead you to believe that music ended around 1974, Mr. Cross (and CFNY, by extrapolation) lead you to believe that music sprung from a vacuum around 1977. Finally, the term is only slightly less outdated than Mr. Cross' mustache. Who, besides him has used the words "New Music" in a sentence since 1983?

Now to my point. Smashing Pumpkins were on the top 25 list. Why do they deserve to be there? What was the source of their greatness? What were their grand innovations which influenced so many of their peers? According to Mr. Cross, one reason is that Billy Corgan made it "cool" to like terminally "uncool" '70's bands such as Queen, Kiss, and Judas Priest. I agree with this statement. Another of his statements was way off the mark: SP's sound has been copied all over the world.

There is some truth to this, as anyone who has heard The Cranberries "Zombie" can attest. However, SP's sound is not, and I repeat NOT NOT NOT highly original. Just because Presidents of the USA and Blink 182 ripped off Green Day's sound makes Green Day influential, I suppose, but it does NOT make them original in any way. And shouldn't we be holding our all time top 25 to higher standards than that?

SP, perhaps more than any other band in the 1990's, were generous in citing their influences (as was inferred two paragraphs ago). Of course they ripped off the '70's stadium rock bands -- just listen to all those power ballads on SP albums. Of course they ripped off guitar innovators such as Husker Du, Sonic Youth and My Bloody Valentine -- just about every '90's rock band does (whether they know it or not). Indeed, the aforementioned three bands are the true sound innovators. No band can vulture that claim via increased popularity.

Now, to prove that I am part of the solution, not merely part of the problem, here are some *proper* reasons why SP deserve to appear in the top 25:

1. They made it cool to like "uncool" bands (already mentioned)
2. They were one of the only bands closely associated with the grunge scene that were not from the Seattle area

3. They paved the way for hugely successful rock bands to explore rock/electronica hybrids

Arguably, Goldie and MBV are the only artists ever to create and destroy a genre of music with consecutive albums. The folks at Select were kind enough to remind me that "Saturnz Return" exposed drum 'n bass as electronic prog rock. This effectively limited anyone's ability to take drum 'n bass seriously. On the other hand, "Loveless" effectively limited anyone's ability to take Ride, Lush and Chapterhouse seriously.