The question shouldn't be whether a lasting "rock star" was produced but whether lasting music was produced. We're still talking about "Nevermind" and "Ten" sixteen years later, so it seems some lasting music was created. Taking Kurt and Eddie at their words, the point was most assuredly not to be a larger-than-life rock star with the attendant ego and petulance (Axl Rose), but to emphasize the music over the "personality." Does anybody really believe someone like Axl cares about making worthwhile music as much as he cares about being rich and famous and celebrating his wondrousness? And while U2 has made a great deal of outstanding (and lasting) music over the years, appreciation of it, for me at least, is signficantly mitigated by Bono's unrelenting self-aggrandizement - I cannot enjoy U2's music because I'm constantly reminded how important Bono believes himself to be. As the article noted, Kurt fought the notion that he was a "rock star" and Eddie simply demurred, both characterizing their actions as attempts to focus attention on the music instead of the person responsible for creating it. A sublimation of self in service to the music. Of course art does not exist in a vacuum, and will obviously reflect the circumstances of its creation, including aspects of its creator's personality. But the position was that the music did not have to be considered apart from itself - it could stand (or fall) on its own without taking into consideration how pretty the singer was, or who he or she was sleeping with. Perhaps it was misguided, since anyone who aspires to climb up onstage to perform music for an audience is not entirely adverse to the idea of being the center of attention, but that ambition does not have to become all-consuming. It seemed to them then, and seems to me now, that it is possible to want to be onstage in order to direct the audience's attention to the music one is making, and not necessarily to celebrate oneself. And what's so wrong with that?

I'm surprised I haven't seen any of these bands mentioned, as I have always understood them to have a reputation as great live bands. Having seen all of them myself (usually more than once), I can attest to the fact that they all offer outstanging live experiences:

1. Drive-by Truckers: will blow your head off with their power, but also possess a lyricism that balances that. They also offer great storytelling between songs.

2. The Hold Steady: also very powerful and very exuberant, which is really contagious. I'm way too old to be jumping around down in front, but I am compelled to do so when I see these guys.

3. The Twilight Singers: Apart from the music, which takes on a harder rock edge live (which is good), Greg Dulli is just flat-out entertaining in his interaction with the crowd - sometimes playful, sometimes confrontational, but always fun.

What these bands have that I appreciate is an ability to engage the crowd and make them feel a part of the event, and not just inert viewers. And I always get the feeling that the show I've just seen is not the same show they will give the next night to the next crowd. Because if all the concert turns out to be is a big listening party, then I can just stay home and wind up the stereo and get the same experience.

I have enjoyed the Fix and Audiofile for some time, and find myself less interested in Salon.com without them. There seems to be fewer book reviews as well, which were also a destination for me. I find Salon.com's political writing to be well-informed and I do look forward to it, but it's just not as fun to read as the culture stuff. You state that you're bringing new features in, but you said the same thing after canning "The Fix" and we haven't seen anything to replace it. Quite disappointing.

At least he wasn't trying to legislate morality like Vitter, Guiliani, Santorum, ad nauseum (and I do mean nauseum). Not to excuse his monumental lapse in judgment.