Alienated youth, dead-end jobs and the music left of the dial

Rock music history also shows the divide between mainstream and alternative, between normal and dislocating, between complacent and critical. It does not quite translate into the difference between commercial and non-commerical, more arty rock. This documentary shows the (uncomfortable?) truth that the non-commercial proved to be higly rewarding in commercial terms. But what does it prove that counter-culture turned out to have a high exchange value? Does this prove that the counter culture was just an image, a commercialy inspired choice that works well in the marketplace because it seduces bored youth that want to be against whatever we define as the normal culture? 'Where are only in it for the money, as Zappa joked. Does the result corrumpate the intention? Does the commercial succes negate the authentic quality of the music? In the case of Kurt Cobain and REM this hardly seems to hold. Sure enough, a lot of bands and rappers chose this anti-image for commercial reasons. A good example is Ava Devine, or whatever the name of that cunt is, with her so-called bad ass skater image. Never trust skater's anyway.

Note how the narrative juxtaposes (and this happens agan and again in contemporary documentaries) Reagonomics with a new upsurge of discontent. Alienated youth, the generation X, the high school dropouts who had to survive by means of dead end jobs. Kurt Cobain worked as a janitor, mopping the floors of the school he dropped out of. The music of Nirvana, Black Flag etc. appears within this narrative as critcal theory in musical form. This reminds me of the passage in Lipstick Traces wherein Jonhny Rotten is described as a punk version of Adorno's negative dialects.