Okay. I can understand not liking an artist/band that imitates another, and does it badly. I can understand that.

Kevin Canfield doesn't like Pete Yorn because he thinks he tries to be Bruce Springsteen, and doesn't live up to The Boss. But this quote bothered me in his little Yorn rant on Salon.com.

In a way, Yorn is everything that is wrong with contemporary rock and pop. The epitome of a mediocre (but carefully packaged) soulful white boy who looks good in publicity photos, he represents something very bad and very annoying about the relationship between labels and the rock writers who make careers of regurgitating press releases.

Everything that's wrong with it? Very bad and very annoying? Dang.

What did he do, but look good in some photos? Canfield talked about Pete's hair and soulful looks an awful lot, talked about his record packaging, says "the kid doesn't have the goods," but never actually talks about his music. This upsets me.

Okay so maybe he is a pretty boy. Maybe he did pattern his approach to rock after Springsteen's. But what about his music? What about the fact that after I bought Musicforthemorningafter it didn't leave my CD player for weeks. That I know every word, every chord on that record. That he covers Bowie's China Girl and The Smiths' Panic superbly. That his live show is laid back and energetic and exciting at the same time. That his lyrical quality makes it so easy to identify with his topics, and has just enough of a poetic quality to make you listen to the track again. And I could go on.

Go ahead and joke Pete's hair. Joke his wistful looks. But for god's sake if you're gonna make statements like he's "everything that's wrong" with rock music, back it up with something other than opinions on his appearance. Thanks.

To hear me run my mouth some more, see photos, read CD and show reviews, and catch up on scene drama, kick over to www.myaimistrue.com.