On Shock vs. Substance

Ok, this is unrelated to the rest of the post, but it's something I'd like to share. Part of the journalist's code of ethics, the MEAA (I forget what it stands for) is that you cannot use your position as a journalist improperly for personal gain. Does that mean that if you meet a chick with a journalist fetish (it could happen!) it's improper to give her a good seeing to? Get back to me.

Anyway, shock vs. substance. What I'm talking about here is the difference between standing out by quality vs. standing out by outlandishness. There's a place for both, sure, but it's really a question of who's gonna be remembered when the next thing comes along. I'm gonna attack this one via music, but there'll be a few tangents into TV and writing while I'm here.
So, new music comes along quite a bit. I'll be totally honest, I ignore a lot of it. I know that sounds odd coming from a music fan, but realistically, I've listened to a lot of music, from a lot of different styles. Odds are, these new guys? I've probably heard something like it before. Probably something better, too. Yeah that sounds smug, but it's the honest truth. I stopped giving a shit about technical metal when Protest the Hero declared a moratorium on all things technical. Ditto Oceansize and crazy jammy space-prog-indie. Yeah, that's a genre, get over it. Fact is, in any given genre, there's really only about 5(ish) really good bands that are actually worth listening to, the rest are pale imitations or just not that good.
So, how do you stand out from the crowd? Well, you've gotta do something different, obviously. You have to be a new take on an idea. A good way to gauge if something is a new take on an idea is if it pisses off (most) old people. People of a certain age, let's say... 40 and over, are much more likely to be conservative in their tastes and dismissive of new ideas. Therefore, if it happens to piss off people in that age bracket, it's probably doing something different. Critics fapping over something is also a good (but imperfect) gauge of quality.
Now, admittedly, some things are just designed to be abrasive, difficult and exclusionary. Hardcore music, for example. Hardcore is basically designed to push all but the most open minded or deranged folk out, simply by virtue of its requirement for fast tempos, aggressive sounds and its generally antagonistic take on pop and rock. Now, the average hardcore band, who's gonna give a shit about them in two years time? Someone heavier or faster or more whatever will come along eventually, it's just the way it goes. You're only as good as the next guys who try to out-irritate you.
Take a show like South Park. Despite what your parents may tell you, it is NOT designed to be offensive. It can be, sure, but the average episode of South Park is more likely to be politically or socially subversive than outright offensive. Half the reason South Park has such a reputation as an offensive show is because it lampoons public figures, makes fun of silly traditions and calls stuff out when it's stupid. People hate swear words, but they hate being told they're stupid more, even more so when the person telling them is right. South Park offends via substance, not shock, and that's why it's so endearing.
There's this cute little grunge revival happening in music now, it's darling. It's like watching a 6 year old try on mummy's heels and makeup. I loved the nineties, great time for music in general. We don't need it again though, it's already happened. It's currently 2011, not 1991. It's not original, it's not subversive and it certainly won't be memorable in ten years time. People are still listening to Jane's Addiction (guess who my favourite band is right now!) and they'll continue to listen to them long after this little imitationist fad has died. The original grunge acts had substance. This second wave is just trying to shock. Probably not consciously, but by trying to ape the sounds of their heroes, they're trying to get a reaction without having the substance to back it up.
There's always gonna be imitationists. It goes with the territory. But original ideas live on. Pale imitations don't. Guys, go for substance, not shock.

P.S. As someone who has proclaimed outright he's trying to offend and alienate, I feel it is my duty to acknowledge that yes, I know I'm being a hypocrite, and no it doesn't bother me because the readership of this here blag is miniscule at best. If you want to make me feel bad, get more people reading.