Thanks for the kind words, Mr. McCarthy. Please come back here and let us know how you and your daughter liked the show!

Those are great questions, Josh. One thing to rebel against is the rising tide of aggression, stupidity and ignorance that is engulfing every aspect of our culture. So you can make a statement against that by making music that is peaceful and smart. I wrote a post about that here: http://michaelazerrad.typepad.com/you_and_what_army/2010/02/npr-rock.html At one point, "NPR rock" dominated indie. But naturally, music goes in pendulum swings, and now louder, more abrasive music is inevitably becoming fashionable. (See: the Men, Metz, Ty Segall, Iceage, Trash Talk, et al.) One could argue that this new, more aggressive music is a metaphor for being galvanized against the myriad new outrages of the modern world. Or, as catharsis, it could just serve to siphon off dissent. One thing music can rebel against is its own co-optation. And by extension, the co-optation and corporatization, of seemingly every aspect of public and even private life. Even indie rock, which many people think of as underground, is actually heavily co-opted by the corporate world. Just look at SXSW: last year, very high-profile bands played inside a six-storey-high Doritos vending machine. And there is music being made and scenes being built which just can't be bought off by the Man. But yeah, that's a great question. Rock music used to at least claim to rebel against things. And it did, at first: mixing the races onstage and off, and within the music itself. That was pretty rebellious. Then rock embodied and emboldened the sexual revolution and the peace movement. After that, except for punk and disco, it wasn't really that rebellious. Don't get me wrong, most of my favorite rock music was made well after the '60s. But, especially lately, rock hasn't placed a premium on being rebellious.

Thanks, that's big of you, Holderlin. Peace out, buddy.

Not at all, Holderlin. But that's still a strange email address. And you still have no idea what my connection to Mark Sandman was, so you should probably know what you're talking about before advertising your ignorance in a public forum.

Holderlin, I'm sorry that you are so deeply insecure about not being hip. It's OK, we all get old and out of touch. But the fact that you made a false email address that contains a hateful homophobic slur pretty much says it all about you.

You're absolutely right, beaterball, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. And there are plenty of examples. The example uppermost in my mind right now is the Psychic Paramount. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77HtN4qyxlQ

No, I'd say that it's you who have the agenda, since you seem to deliberately fail to understand how we can rule out one cause and still not know what the cause was. For instance, if a non-smoker contracted lung cancer, we could rule out smoking as the cause and still not know what the cause was. Hopefully, this will clear things up for you. How brave of you to hide your email address and post anonymously.

Well, no, morphine is a drug and that is what the band was named after, Sandman's coy claims to the contrary. The drug itself is named for Morpheus. If the band really wanted to say their music was like Morpheus, then they would have called the band Morpheus, or the adjectival form Morphean. It's OK, you can name your band after a drug and not actually use the drug. Only literal-minded cretins would believe otherwise. By their logic, one would have to assume that the members of the New Jersey Devils hockey team are satanists.

I'm not sure what the LOL is for. That seems kind of uncalled for and just weird. Nor did I claim that what happened to Sandman is unusual. I just said it's unexplained.

I guess you'd have to spend more time with contemporary indie music to really be able to tell who's putting on someone else's clothes. Just as I would have to spend more time with contemporary blues in order to figure out who's just copping Muddy Waters.

Since we all live in a commercial world, artist and non-artist alike, one would have to ask whether authenticity is possible for anyone. And it is. So it's possible for commercial artists too. And I'm not talking about kids who are 20 years old. Have you ever heard an Iron and Wine album?

Good thinking. Likewise, I don't blame people for thinking the members of Nirvana were Hindu, or that the members of the Smiths were all named Smith, or that the members of the Eagles can fly.

Turns out there are 24 tickets on StubHub. Not as bad as I feared. Most are going for $119, which is precisely 94 more dollars than they should be going for, not counting the various extortionate add-on fees.

Thanks for the clarification, Phil. I'm really sorry that you got shut out of the show. I'd like to know how many tickets are up on StubHub. I'd also like to know who put them there.

1. A little math: 6x$5= $30, not $25 2. Those hardcore matinees didn't have 13 bands. 3. You can still easily see shows — at least in Brooklyn — for $5, $6 every night of the week. 4. Shows at major venues like the Bpwery Ballroom were never the equivalent of $5. 5. The price of the ticket to see Our Band Could Be Your Concert had nothing to do with scalpers. 6. Finally, $25 is not a price for the "filthy rich." C'mon man, get real, check your facts, know what you're talking about before posting in a public forum. Thanks.

Well, no, actually.

Ben, the operative word in the first sentence is "coolness."

Despite the placement of the photo near the text, I wasn't actually referring to the type of person who would spray paint "DIE HIPSTER" on a subway platform. Nonetheless, I think you're right, Jody.