{"id":20404,"date":"2013-11-04T23:54:09","date_gmt":"2013-11-05T04:54:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rocktownhall.com\/blogs\/?p=20404"},"modified":"2013-11-05T22:55:55","modified_gmt":"2013-11-06T03:55:55","slug":"halloween-candy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rocktownhall.com\/blogs\/halloween-candy\/","title":{"rendered":"How Do Your Halloween Candy Preferences Relate to Your Tastes in Rock ‘ Roll?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Boyer,<\/a>

Boyer, the greatest knock-off indie label of candy?<\/p><\/div>\n

In the days following Halloween I participated in a few conversations, with adults and kids, about candies collected through the trick-or-treating process. People who’ve known me for a while know that I’m pretty old school in my candy tastes. People who only know me casually and learn this fact about me are not surprised.<\/p>\n

Although I don’t have much of a sweet tooth, I have strong opinions on candy. I’ve been known to rail against “reformatted” candies. This hang-up probably dates back to the launch of “bite-size” or “fun-size” candies, which I have gotten used to, thanks in part to those little Hershey’s Special Dark bars, which only seem to exist in fun size, thereby making them “original” candies. Reformatted candies are wrong for reasons of questionable character (ie, Who are you fooling by worrying about your diet as you shove a half dozen fun-size candies down your throat rather than a full-size candy bar?<\/em>). The candy reformatting practices that will forever stick in my craw, however, are related to shape and flavor. For instance, I don’t want my beloved Reese’s Peanut Butter cups in any form other than the classic circular, with the ridges around the edge. Changing the shape of a candy redistributes the ratio of flavors as well as the sensations when it hits one’s tongue. My tongue can adjust to the ever-shrinking circumference of a Reese’s, for instance, and my tastebuds are not alarmed by the slightly smaller dimensions, but a change in a candy’s shape messes with both the taste and the sensation of eating it. Not cool!<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"WRONG!\"<\/a>

WRONG!<\/p><\/div>\n

Worse than changes in shape are changes in flavor, such as seasonal additions, like adding a pumpkin taste to a candy that usually doesn’t have one, or the creation of hybrid candies. Take Reese’s Pieces, which some of the young people questioned me about the other night. They knew I liked M&M’s. They knew I loved Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups. Why didn’t I like Reese’s Pieces, which they pointed out, based on their adherence to the M&M’s design template,\u00a0skirted around most of my possible objections regarding changes in dimension. “It’s a hybrid candy,” I declared. “They’re all right, but I don’t like hybrid candies.” My close personal friend and dinner guest, E. Pluribus Gergely<\/strong>, totally backed me up on this matter. We tried to explain to our kids what a “candy family tree” would look like and how it would explain many of the issues they were too young to understand through experience.<\/p>\n

\"Just<\/a>

Just say NO to the pieces format!<\/p><\/div>\n

Gergs and I then left the kids’ protests in the dust and took a few moments to celebrate the discovery, after nearly 25 years of friendship, that just as we have long believed in a rough cut-off date of rock ‘n roll stylistically having peaked and rapidly going downhill after 1983, we held a rough notion of “post-1983” candies, the date at which our notion of “old school” candies passed actually being around 1977. It was good to learn that I wasn’t the only person who skips over certain candies for aesthetic reasons as much as taste. For instance, we agreed, there’s really nothing wrong with a Kit-Kat<\/a><\/strong>, a packet of 4 crisp wafers dipped in chocolate, but they became popular in the US in the late-’70s, making them “post-1977” candies. Kit-Kat is like the Elvis Costell0 & the Attractions’\u00a0Punch the Clock<\/em> of candies: a couple of good songs, some other good ideas, but just a little too slick and modern for “classic” status. Kit-Kat is the beginning of the end.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Another perfectly fine candy\u2014an excellent candy, for that matter\u2014that gained popularity well after the post-’77 new wave of candy era, is 1981’s Skor bar<\/strong><\/a>. “How dare anyone take on the mighty Heath bar<\/strong><\/a>!”<\/em>\u00a0I declared in 1982, when my then-new friend sammymaudlin<\/strong> touted the joys of the new chocolate-covered-toffee on the block. He kept on me for years, even buying my Heath bar\u2013loving bride and I a case of Skor bars as a wedding present, if memory serves. You know what? I’m still partial to the slightly thicker, eternally more authentic Heath bar, but the Skor bar is solid! In rare cases, one can equally love both the original artist and the newcomer, who’s almost slavishly devoted to the past.<\/p>\n

\"My<\/a>

My taste includes both snails and oysters.<\/p><\/div>\n

You may feel otherwise in your rankings of candies. Some of you may even feel like this is a complete load of crap, or that it’s beneath the sort of serious, high-minded rock ‘n roll discourse we’ve come to expect. All I know is, twice in the last couple of days I’ve heard my favorite, cool, old-school candy, Mary Jane<\/strong>, declared as “the worst” candy that could be collected at Halloween. I held my emotions in check, but I was hurt by hearing this. It was like hearing some rock snob say, “I don’t see what the big fuss is over\u00a0Robert Johnson<\/strong><\/a>!”<\/p>\n

In a completely unscientific way, I will try to provide some of the candy:musical associations I have developed through the years. Can we trade thoughts on not only associations over some of my candy choices but other candies that are meaningful to you and your tastes in music? The Younger Generation is encouraged to discuss its musical associations with any newfangled candies that aren’t so new to their lives. There are probably newer candies yet to which they turn their noses. A handful of my candy:musical associations follows the jump!<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n