THE NASTIES OF ROCK ‘N’ ROLL

Is there anything good that can be said about the Beastie Boys, a group whose lyrics are often too crude to print in a family newspaper . . . a group that isn’t above the mindless thrashing of hotel rooms, that makes a big deal out of spilling beer all over the stage, thinks it’s funny to insult journalists, speaks about crack and “angel dust” as if they were an everyday part of teen life--and makes millions in the process?

Yes.

The New York rap ‘n’ roll trio, widely viewed as the rudest and most exploitative rock outfit since the Sex Pistols, could just as easily have been called the Nasty Boys.

But nasty isn’t always a negative force in rock. Many of the music’s most important figures have been considered unruly and/or exploitative in one form or another.

First, the perception of the Beastie Boys.

The Beasties are often viewed by insiders and outsiders alike as the ultimate in pop cynicism and manipulation: a group that goes the extra mile to shock parents and tantalize teens with its bratty swagger and its fantasies about the proverbial sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll.

The Boys are perhaps the first act since the Sex Pistols a decade ago to be looked upon by much of the record industry Establishment as a genuine embarrassment.

This was the last outfit that record execs wanted on the top of the charts at a time when parent groups are rallying against what they see as rock’s harmful influence on their kids. You could almost hear a sigh of relief from board rooms around town when a wholesome rock attraction--U2--finally overtook the Beasties’ “Licensed to Ill” album at the top of the best-seller charts.

Even some seasoned rock writers who are normally supportive of outrage and rebellion in rock have come down hard on the Beasties, convinced they are nothing more than a bunch of minor-league talents who have merely been shrewd enough to tap into the psyche of every frustrated adolescent in America. The L.A. Weekly--not exactly the Parents Music Resource Center newsletter--dismissed them as “cal-q-latedly obnoxious twerps.”

If these are the new teen heroes, parents wonder, what does their success (the album has passed the 3-million mark in the U.S. alone) tell us about today’s youth? Are kids so jaded that it takes something with the culture-shock assault of the Beasties to arouse them? Have we really sunk this far?

To many observers, the Beasties’ humor--including what they did to the sheriff’s daughter with the whiffle bat--isn’t just silly, it’s downright mean-spirited.

Now, the reality of the Beasties.

Rock has always tested the patience and sensibilities of the Establishment. Nothing that’s being said about the Beasties wasn’t also expressed in some form about Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, the Doors, Jimi Hendrix, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, the Velvet Underground, the Sex Pistols, Prince and, yes, the Beatles.

They were called no-talents, godless, cynical, dangerous, even degenerate--and those artists are now either in or are candidates for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

The Rolling Stones were the first rock act to fully understand--and exploit--the darkness of the soul as both a commercial strategy and an art form. Where earlier artists tended to downplay their radical, rebellious and/or sexual edges to placate local authorities, the Stones flaunted their hedonistic life style and themes.

Like many who followed, the Stones reshaped and liberated rock--and they are now looked back on as trailblazing artists whose best work reflected a revealing social realism. But subsequent generations of rock performers--from Bowie to the Pistols--had to find new, often unsettling ways to push the music’s social and cultural boundaries.

During the ‘70s, Alice Cooper and Kiss reduced outrage and rebellion to a cartoon level with such devices as spitting fake blood and chopping off dolls’ heads.

Dozens of other heavy-metal acts--from Ozzy Osbourne to Motley Crue--have continued in this cartoonish vein. They too fuel teen fantasies, but there is no sense of challenge or revolution in their work. They are just the new vaudeville.

The Beasties are important because they resurrected a rock theme--the powerlessness of teens in an adult world--that was first celebrated in songs like Eddie Cochran’s “Summertime Blues.” Except that the Beasties brought it alive by dressing it up with a jolting, “in your face” tenacity that combined almost all the musical traits that parents had learned to fear: the aggression of heavy metal, the anarchy of punk and the alien, street-level nature of rap.

“If parents can’t see the humor in what the (Beasties) do, they are just too serious about life,” said a teen-age fan at the Beasties’ recent Hollywood Palladium appearance.

The Beasties, who open a four-night stand tonight at the Greek Theatre, do refer to crack and angel dust in some songs--and those aren’t funny subjects. By sometimes lampooning the crack mythology, however, the Beasties (who insist in interviews that they don’t take drugs themselves) may do more to warn youngsters about the dangers of the drug than other rock stars do in patronizing public service announcements.

Rock’s power is that it speaks most powerfully and directly to a young audience that is at an especially impressionable age. By showing no real passion or originality, bands like Bon Jovi, Cinderella, Ratt, Poison and hundreds of others are simply telling their young fans that there is nothing beyond the status quo. The fans of these bands participate in the numbing rock ritual, not the uplifting rock experience. If the heroes are conformists, what motivation is there for the audience to be anything more?

The Beasties may never qualify as heroes, but their originality and freshness make an audience think. The most disheartening evenings in a concert hall are those spent with groups that merely recycle what has worked before. There is no invitation to dream. All these bands ask for is your money. That is the ultimate nastiness--and there is more of it today than ever in rock.