In Defense of Rose Rock

Like many here at Saint Rose, I enjoy the weekly scan through a new edition of The Chronicle. It allows me to catch up with the happenings on campus, as well as showcase the media talents of those in the communications department. In the recent Jan. 28 edition, I found myself glued to one article in particular: a write -up on this year’s Rose Rock, by opinion editor Zachary Olsavicky. It was a mostly negative piece about the issues concerning Rose Rock 2014, chiefly the headliner finalist list, referred to as “lacking inspiration” and as overall poor choices. I re-read the article several times and found that the scathing review deserves a rebuttal from a person who sees Rose Rock in a much different light.
To his defense, Olsavicky presents some fair points. This year’s headliner list certainly did not contain a slam-dunk name that would resonate with a large portion of the student body, and the artists themselves do immediately send one’s memories back to the early 2000s. He is correct when he says that students “have mocked the final list”: seeing artists such as Vanilla Ice, Aaron Carter, and Ying Yang Twins on the list certainly elicited a laugh and a joke from many, myself included.
But it is in his last accurate point that demands attention: money. There is no doubt Saint Rose is a small school, which presents two problems. First, funds will always be tight for any sort of student function. Second, and more importantly, lack of funds and lack of name recognition combine to torpedo most attempts to get a big-shot music act. As Olsavicky stated correctly, Zac Brown and Paramore are not going to come to a school that can’t pay their fee. In music, as it is in life, money still rules.
The problem is that this hugely important factor is not given the attention it deserves. Complain all you want about the choices, but when you can only afford B-List acts, you have to work creatively and fiscally responsibly. This is likely why local bands are asked to fill up the majority of the time slots. People are not perfect, but I do believe the organizers of the event try their best to put on a show everyone can enjoy. If you are that angry that top artists are never on the ballot for headliner of Rose Rock, blame yourself for coming to Saint Rose, not your peers for doing the best they can.
My second issue with the article concerns an overriding theme that centers around the concept that “opinions are not created equal.” It is indeed true to have a more logical opinion, when one can back up his/hers feelings on a subject with factual points, but that does not make it better. Music is inherently subjective, and no one’s tastes are ever quite like another’s (I, for one, like to compliment my Pink Floyd with a little Eiffel 65 and Material Girl by Madonna). If someone doesn’t like the Ying Yang Twins, that is completely fine. Just like it was acceptable not to like Chris Wallace. Or Streetlight Manifesto. The wonderful thing about music is that there isn’t supposed to be a good or bad band; merely a group that speaks to you more than another. As ridiculous as it sounds, there is at least one person out there who believes in his/her heart that Ying Yang Twins truly are the pinnacle of lyrical genius. When we start to tell people who it is and isn’t ok to like and listen to, we begin our descent on a very slippery slope of disrespect, control, and exclusion that borders on fascist.
Some, like Olsavicky, seem to believe that some are more qualified to judge music. While our brothers-in-arms in Massry are greatly educated in the art of playing and writing music, they are no more qualified to select music choices than any other major. In fact, there is just as good of a chance that a music major would be more biased on what they considered “good music.” This idea that music majors are better at judging music has been perpetuated for far too long at this college and has resulted in much alienation towards others, one that Olsavicky seems to want to continue. Simply put, it is unfair to music listeners, and it is especially unfair to those who play instruments or sing, but chose another career path to pursue. The process of voting is fine and needs no amending.
Olsavicky stated that if the headliner is of poor quality, then people will not be excited and that we are all better off without Rose Rock. I am writing to say that he is very wrong. Rose Rock has, and always will be, much more than just who the big act is. People will come because they want to hear the many local, fresh bands that open up the proceedings. People will come because the day tends to be warm, spirits are high, friends are out and about, and the food is plentiful (and also because it probably isn’t water in that Poland Spring bottle). People will come because wherever there is music, no matter what kind it is, they will likely be caught up in the atmosphere of fun. There is no accurate way to describe the feeling of being a part of the crowd during a concert, but it encompasses everyone. That, to me, is what this day is all about: one student body uniting as one to relax and enjoy the day. Truly, the only thing worse than having Rose Rock with an uninspiring headliner, is the thought of not having Rose Rock at all.
–Nathaniel Meyers