Over break, I finished reading Fargo Rock City, Chuck Klosterman's first book but, until last week, the only one I hadn't read. It's a bit of a hybrid, combining memoirs of Klosterman's upbringing in rural North Dakota with a discussion of 1980's metal and its social import.

Overall, it was a solid read, up there with the rest of Klosterman's writing. But this isn't a book review, so I won't go any further than "read it yourself; it's probably worth it." The reason I bring it up is because so many of the bands Klosterman mentions -- Mötley Crüe, Guns N' Roses and KISS among the most frequent -- left almost no impact whatsoever. Like much of the 80's as a whole, the metal genre was defined by consumption, commercialism and general superficiality.

Aware of the pitfalls of generalization, I've long said that there were only three relevant bands to come from the 80's. Now, when I say "from the 80's," I'm not including acts that were well established before the decade but happened to thrive during it (David Bowie, for instance) nor am I including acts that were technically forged in this vapid decade, but didn't really hit their stride until the 90's (Nirvana will always be considered a 90's band). I'm talking about band's whose careers were defined by what they did in the 1980's.

The first two of these bands, despite wide-reaching influence, are still relatively underrated for what they accomplished. These bands are the Talking Heads and the Smiths. The other band is one that, in another Klosterman book (Chuck Klosterman IV), is listed as the most accurately rated band of all time.

This band is Van Halen, who plays a significant role in Fargo Rock City.

Now, I realize there were other good bands to come from the 80's. There's plenty. But in that upper echelon of bands that are timelessly relevant, widely influential and generally artistically meritorious, the 80's doesn't hold a candle to the 60's, 70's, or 90's.

That being said, the Smiths, Talking Heads and Van Halen are all very, very different bands. While all three are great in three very different reasons, Van Halen was responsible for two trends in music for which I'm extremely grateful.

The first is musical virtuosity. Eddie Van Halen was probably the greatest guitar player of his generation, and arguably of all-time. At the very least, he's definitely in the top ten. But more than simply being an awesome guitar player, Eddie constantly went out of his way to make sure everybody knew he was an awesome guitar player. His guitar solos were known for being pretentious and self-indulgent, but undeniably awesome. For a while, during the beginning of Van Halen's run, Eddie would supposedly play with his back to the crowd, to prevent anyone in the audience from stealing his tricks.

The other is the simple concept of rock stardom. Now, there were rock stars before Van Halen, and more than a handful who were bigger than even Van Halen could have ever gotten. But Van Halen took it to a different level. From Eddie Van Halen's rumored soaking of his guitar strings in honey to David Lee Roth's demand of a giant bowl of M&M's in his dressing room, with all the brown ones taken out, this band could go gimmick-for-gimmick with even Spinal Tap. Van Halen was, at the same time, the biggest rock band in the world and a caricature of the biggest rock band in the world. If they took themselves any more or less seriously, Van Halen would have been a total laughingstock.

Now, in neither of these cases was Van Halen the first to do something. There were sick, showy guitarists before Eddie Van Halen, and there were rock stars before the rest of his band. What makes Van Halen what it was is the fact they did everything bigger and better than everyone else. And, for this reason, it is both the epitome of the 1980's metal band and something that can transcend the genre entirely. Even though the band's best and best-selling album came out in 1978, the band defined the 80's, showed why the decade was mostly a waste of time, and showed why Van Halen is a truly great band.

My roommate played a show on Friday night; after the set, he commented to me that, because of all the talking in the audience, he got distracted by a conversation and actually screwed up a little bit.

I'm all for showing up to a concert early to see all the bands. Whether you're looking to hear some new bands you've never heard or just to get your money's worth, it's usually a good idea. But if you're bored to the point that you can't keep your mouth shut, get away from the stage.

Now it's time to speak out of the other side of my mouth.

First of all, I've been to tons of shows with my roommate -- he's not always quiet.

Second, this was the opening act. Obviously not everyone is into it.

Third, this was an acoustic act. That means audience noise is a lot more audible.

Last, he doesn't have much on-stage experience (at least not with this material), so it's not surprising he got distracted.

Basically, he and I got into a bit of a dispute about whether or not these audience members were being rude. It only lasted a few seconds and never really went anywhere, but because I have a blog, I can list all the reasons he was wrong without giving him any fair rebuttal.

Though I guess he can always write a song about it and sing it at his next show. If he does, I'll probably talk loudly over it.

My original intention was to write this blog entry about the difference between all ages and 21+ concerts.

You see, I turned 21 early in the semester, and because I don't drink, I was unable to really take advantage of this coming of age for a while. Last week was my first opportunity: a 21+ Matt Pond PA concert at Lulu's Nightspot, 129 1/2 Pugh Street. This was a good show. Then, on Monday night, there was a Thermals concert at the same venue. This one was an all ages show, but it, too, was good.

There were few differences between these shows (for me, at least), other than the fact that I got carded at the former.

And, sadly, these shows were not unlike most of the other shows I've attended in State College: underattended.

I don't know the exact numbers, but suffice it to say there was a small crowd in front of the stage, and that was it. About 100 people, give or take.

If you're reading this blog, you probably read the Collegian, and you probably saw my previews of both shows. So you knew about them, which means either you like the bands and went to the shows, like the bands and had a legit excuse not to go, or dislike the bands and just didn't go.

But I can't imagine there are only 100 people or so in State College that like the Thermals.

Maybe the show was underpromoted (probable). Maybe a lot of people have tests or papers due the day after (I had a 15 page short story and a 5 page paper, not to mention a Roustabout! preview and this very blog entry). And maybe I just don't understand the music scene here and maybe there really aren't that many people who would want to see this show.

The first problem is fixable, but it's incumbent on the promoters to fix. The second problem is fixable, but it's incumbent on the students to get their crap done early (or late, if they prefer). The last problem, which is also the most likely one, is fixable inasmuch as things can get better, but it's not going to happen overnight. I don't know what it will take for State College to have a music scene, but I know we're not there yet.

We've had good shows this semester. Some really good ones, actually. But when good artists come to town, not enough people go to see them. I'm tired of harping on this subject, blog after blog. I promise, next week, I'll have something a little fresher.