Being a sideman (or sidewoman as it were) is a tough gig.
A lot of times it's the sidemen who are the founders of the band. They are the originators of the band's sound and the secret life blood behind its success. But they are often overshadowed by the front man and/or lead guitarist. They watch as their band becomes associated with someone else. And that someone else gets all the glory and sometimes all of the money too. I read something from the always entertaining Lefsetz Letter blog that is often typical of what happens to a band. An unnamed band's sideman wrote in saying how his front man was getting all of the publishing royalties and not spreading the wealth around to the other members. While the front man was living a life of luxery, the sidemen continued to live the life more common to rock and roll bands--the life of near poverty and struggle. From the sounds of the letter, whatever band that this may have been is probably no longer a band anymore. Rock and roll lesson number one (or any genre for that matter): respect your sidemen.
I'm writing this particular blog today because of the passing of Dave Matthews Band saxophonist LeRoi Moore. I've never been a huge fan of Dave Matthews Band. I bought "Under the Table and Dreaming" when it came out and have liked a single here and a single there. But when I have enjoyed this band's music it's more of a credit to the sidemen than Dave himself. Frankly, Dave Matthews by himself is pretty dull. I thought his solo album was pretty lifeless. Why is it that this band is always a hit on the summer tour circuit? The band. I'm pretty sure Dave Matthews knows this as well. LeRoi Moore was the band's founder and one of the integral parts to its sound, which love it or hate it, is pretty original. When your audience is packed with both frat guy types and hippies you know you've accomplished something.
A sideman's passing is not as big of news as the passing of a front man, but from a musical standpoint is definitely no less important. The Who, to many, stopped being The Who after Keith Moon died in the early '80s. But to me it became official after John Entwistle died. Sure Pete and Roger were always more visible, but The Ox propelled this band forward with his outwardly calm demeanor, yet frantic, lead-style bass playing. The whole is only as good as the sum of its parts. That's how the saying goes, right? A band is only as good as each of the members that comprise it. Pete Townshend and Roger Daltry can tour around as The Who as much as they want, but they are no longer The Who without their most important sideman (and perhaps only sideman as the other three always found a way into the spotlight).
But that's the old story. That's the biopic script at least. Band starts as a tight unit struggling to the top then gains fame. Fame leads to the press honing in on the visible member or members of the band, while the rest get forgotten. This often leads to jealousy and/or resentment and often to the breakup of the band. There's the general outline of "The Doors" and "The Buddy Holly Story" and if I'm not mistaken, "That Thing You Do". What would rock and roll be without a Ray Manzarek for every Jim Morrison or a Big Brother and the Holding Company for every Janis Joplin.
It's not always so dramatic. Some frontmen truly know what they have. I think Dave Matthews does. I also think of the passing earlier this year of Danny Federici of The E Street Band. Bruce Springsteen has certainly had his fair share of success solo, but with the E Street band, he is electric! Maybe it's his working class roots, but The Boss understands the importance of the sidemen he employs. The sound of the E Street band is like no other. And yes it helps that Bruce Springsteen is one amazing songwriter, it also helps that he has a band that can fully realize the potential of the songs. Danny Federici played a huge part in that and Springsteen made that known after Danny's passing.
It's not always a bad thing being a sideman. The well-respected Nashville sidemen are talented musicians who make a good living off of playing on other people's albums. They get to do what it is that they are good at without the constant glare of the spotlight. The Buddy Miller's of the world are doing quite all right.
In fact one of my favorite bands of all time is a band comprised solely of sidemen. It is fitting that their name was The Band. They started as a backing band for Canadian rock and roll pioneer, Ronnie Hawkins. After gaining some notoriety as a talented group of musicians, Bob Dylan decided to hire them as his backing band as he transitioned from acoustic to electric. Fans booed their shows as they felt the poet/activist Dylan had betrayed them with this new sound. It's too bad they did. The music that was made between Dylan and The Band on these shows is absolutely amazing. It is a precurser of the outstanding work that they would do in their post-Dylan days. They were hard-working musicians, whose grasp and love of various styles of music, melded into some of the most influential music to come out of the late '60s and early '70s.
There was no frontman with The Band. You'd have Rick Danko taking vocals on one song, Levon Helm on another, and Richard Manuel on yet another. Robbie Robertson, who is generally credited with writing most of The Band's material (which is contested by some), added brilliant guitar work, while Garth Hudson jumped around from organs to saxophone to accordian to anything else imaginable, but with great skill just the same. The Band epitomize the importance of the sideman. That's what they were--amazing sidemen, who were the right combination of talent at the right time. The road took its toll on them, though. Maybe sidemen just aren't meant for the spotlight.
So here's hoping that people will take note of these overlooked elements of rock and roll. Would DMB be what it is today without the contributions of LeRoi Moore? I would venture to say, probably not. Would Bob Dylan still be touring successfully today without the help of the amazing band he has surrounded himself with? It sure wouldn't be as entertaining as it is.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
A Sort Of Review Of Wilco @ Lollapalooza
I'm in a forgiving mood tonight. Not that either of the people I was a little upset at even knew, or would even care if they knew I was holding a grudge against them. But nonetheless, I'm cleaning out my karmic closet with these two.
The first is Jim DeRogotis of the Chicago Sun-Times. He and Chicago Tribune rock critic Greg Kot host one of the best radio programs around, called Sound Opinions (NPR). It's billed as the world's only rock and roll talk show and features news, commentary, artist performance/interviews, and other segments as well. It's entertaining and great for music nerds like myself. I had the brilliant idea that I could intern on the program, so I went through the application process, pouring every ounce of love for music and their show into the lengthy application. But no internship for me. Not even an interview! Also, I was upset to learn that Kot and/or DeRogotis (can't remember which, or if it was both) failed to review the excellent Steve Goodman biography by Clay Eals entitled, "Steve Goodman: Facing the Music". So I guess I was holding a grudge against both, but I read the Sun-Times more frequently so DeRogotis got the brunt of my anger. But no more. I read his wrap up piece on Lollapalooza and really liked what he had to say, even though he did pan Dr. Dog. But I wasn't there. Maybe they didn't put on their best show (still check them out!). The guy knows what he's talking about and seems to truly have interesting things to say about music, so I trust his judgment. You are forgiven Jim DeRogotis.
The second forgivee is John Stirratt of Wilco. I had a chance to interview both John and Wilco bandmate, Pat Sansone while I was still in broadcast school. Besides Wilco, they are in a mellow, '70s California rock-styled band called The Autumn Defense. As a huge fan of Wilco, I was thrilled to get this opportunity. I had seen their show the night before and was primed for the interview. But only Pat Sansone showed, as apparently John Stirratt was too tired to do the interview. I took it as a bit of a slight. Who's really going to care if you don't show up to a podcast interview conducted by a couple of broadcast school students? That story didn't make Rolling Stone. Pat was extremely gracious and patient with us afterward as we snapped some "I'm with the rock star" photos. Still, I was a bit irked by the situation.
Here's where the "sort of review" comes in, as well as the forgiveness of Mr. Stirratt. I wasn't actually at Wilco's set at Lollapalooza, but through the magic of You Tube, I caught every song. Granted it was out of order, but I still got the idea. The conclusion I came to is that Wilco has to be up there as one of the most versitile, musically tight, entertaining rock and roll bands around. That's really no news flash to many. In fact, even the horribly written Lolla "official program" acknowledged that sometime within the past few years, Wilco has become the best rock and roll band around. And I have always liked them, but in the midst of watching this set, something clicked. At first when you hear them/watch them, you have a tendency to site the many influences. "Oh, there's the Uncle Tupelo country influence. There's the experimentalism. There's the '70s rock". But after awhile, you realize, it's just Wilco music. Even though each style is quite different from the other, there's a thread of good writing, great playing, and adventure running through the different elements. During last Saturday's set, there's a line Jeff Tweedy sings in the song "Misunderstood" that goes, "You still love rock and roll" and the crowed absolutely erupts. This is rock and roll resurrected. It is exciting, always interesting, and played with skill and passion. How can I remain mad at you, John Stirratt? Just keeping doing what you do and I'll forget all about our past troubles.
I do admit, though, I haven't been able to fully throw my support behind "Sky, Blue, Sky". I like it, don't get me wrong, but it's heavy on the mellow end of the spectrum. I like mellow, but I also like it when Wilco busts out a song like "I'm a Wheel". At the same time, this is Wilco for you. They don't let you get too comfortable with one style. Probably why they have been called by some as the American Radiohead. I wouldn't quite agree with that comparison, beyond the fact that they both are unafraid to experiment. But I get it. It is one of the things that makes Radiohead so interesting as well. It's the "what will they come up with next?" ethic. Which is why even though I'm undecided on "Sky, Blue, Sky", I'll keep coming back.
Did you see the Nudie suits too? The Nudie suit is generally thought of as a country/western deal, but they pull it off. It's fitting too that one of the other great adventurous spirits of music over the past 40 years, Gram Parsons, was also a fan of the bedazzled Nudie suit. Gram Parsons and Jeff Tweedy wear the Nudie suit a little bit differently, though. Gram's had a flaming cross and a marijuana leaf on it, while Tweedy's had one of those waving kitties you see at Chinese restaurants. Gram's may have been slightly more badass, but Tweedy still pulled it off. And anyone who looks comfortable in a red Nudie suit, is cool in my book. My old friend Pat Sansone looked slightly less comfortable, but the dude is an amazing musician, so he could wear backward Kriss Kross era clothes and still be cool in my book as well.
The first is Jim DeRogotis of the Chicago Sun-Times. He and Chicago Tribune rock critic Greg Kot host one of the best radio programs around, called Sound Opinions (NPR). It's billed as the world's only rock and roll talk show and features news, commentary, artist performance/interviews, and other segments as well. It's entertaining and great for music nerds like myself. I had the brilliant idea that I could intern on the program, so I went through the application process, pouring every ounce of love for music and their show into the lengthy application. But no internship for me. Not even an interview! Also, I was upset to learn that Kot and/or DeRogotis (can't remember which, or if it was both) failed to review the excellent Steve Goodman biography by Clay Eals entitled, "Steve Goodman: Facing the Music". So I guess I was holding a grudge against both, but I read the Sun-Times more frequently so DeRogotis got the brunt of my anger. But no more. I read his wrap up piece on Lollapalooza and really liked what he had to say, even though he did pan Dr. Dog. But I wasn't there. Maybe they didn't put on their best show (still check them out!). The guy knows what he's talking about and seems to truly have interesting things to say about music, so I trust his judgment. You are forgiven Jim DeRogotis.
The second forgivee is John Stirratt of Wilco. I had a chance to interview both John and Wilco bandmate, Pat Sansone while I was still in broadcast school. Besides Wilco, they are in a mellow, '70s California rock-styled band called The Autumn Defense. As a huge fan of Wilco, I was thrilled to get this opportunity. I had seen their show the night before and was primed for the interview. But only Pat Sansone showed, as apparently John Stirratt was too tired to do the interview. I took it as a bit of a slight. Who's really going to care if you don't show up to a podcast interview conducted by a couple of broadcast school students? That story didn't make Rolling Stone. Pat was extremely gracious and patient with us afterward as we snapped some "I'm with the rock star" photos. Still, I was a bit irked by the situation.
Here's where the "sort of review" comes in, as well as the forgiveness of Mr. Stirratt. I wasn't actually at Wilco's set at Lollapalooza, but through the magic of You Tube, I caught every song. Granted it was out of order, but I still got the idea. The conclusion I came to is that Wilco has to be up there as one of the most versitile, musically tight, entertaining rock and roll bands around. That's really no news flash to many. In fact, even the horribly written Lolla "official program" acknowledged that sometime within the past few years, Wilco has become the best rock and roll band around. And I have always liked them, but in the midst of watching this set, something clicked. At first when you hear them/watch them, you have a tendency to site the many influences. "Oh, there's the Uncle Tupelo country influence. There's the experimentalism. There's the '70s rock". But after awhile, you realize, it's just Wilco music. Even though each style is quite different from the other, there's a thread of good writing, great playing, and adventure running through the different elements. During last Saturday's set, there's a line Jeff Tweedy sings in the song "Misunderstood" that goes, "You still love rock and roll" and the crowed absolutely erupts. This is rock and roll resurrected. It is exciting, always interesting, and played with skill and passion. How can I remain mad at you, John Stirratt? Just keeping doing what you do and I'll forget all about our past troubles.
I do admit, though, I haven't been able to fully throw my support behind "Sky, Blue, Sky". I like it, don't get me wrong, but it's heavy on the mellow end of the spectrum. I like mellow, but I also like it when Wilco busts out a song like "I'm a Wheel". At the same time, this is Wilco for you. They don't let you get too comfortable with one style. Probably why they have been called by some as the American Radiohead. I wouldn't quite agree with that comparison, beyond the fact that they both are unafraid to experiment. But I get it. It is one of the things that makes Radiohead so interesting as well. It's the "what will they come up with next?" ethic. Which is why even though I'm undecided on "Sky, Blue, Sky", I'll keep coming back.
Did you see the Nudie suits too? The Nudie suit is generally thought of as a country/western deal, but they pull it off. It's fitting too that one of the other great adventurous spirits of music over the past 40 years, Gram Parsons, was also a fan of the bedazzled Nudie suit. Gram Parsons and Jeff Tweedy wear the Nudie suit a little bit differently, though. Gram's had a flaming cross and a marijuana leaf on it, while Tweedy's had one of those waving kitties you see at Chinese restaurants. Gram's may have been slightly more badass, but Tweedy still pulled it off. And anyone who looks comfortable in a red Nudie suit, is cool in my book. My old friend Pat Sansone looked slightly less comfortable, but the dude is an amazing musician, so he could wear backward Kriss Kross era clothes and still be cool in my book as well.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Novelty acts--what's their place?
From what I hear from first person accounts, Radiohead was pretty amazing at Lollapalooza. Maybe I can get someone who was there to write a review.
But I'm not going to talk about Radiohead right now. At least not directly. Plenty of coverage is given to this band and for good reason. What a truly outstanding band! Maybe the best around right now. But I read something once that is very simple, but true: Not every band can or should be Radiohead. One of the criticisms you hear sometimes of Radiohead is that they are too moody and serious. I personally find this criticism a bit ridiculous and probably made by people who don't really give it a good listen. But it's true, not everyone can or should be Radiohead.
So let's take a look at the opposite extreme of bands--novelty acts. I think of this because someone I was talking to the other night mentioned how his friend really wanted to see this band that has something like 18 lead singers and only sings songs with choruses and no verses. Something about Camero in the title. We all know our share of novelty acts. They are perfect bar entertainment. Some Chicago examples include, Wedding Banned, who are supposedly a wedding band that is so hardcore they got kicked off of the "wedding circuit", powder blue tuxes and all. Then there's Mucca Pazza--rock music played by a marching band. It's quite a sight to see these guys fit into a club. Let's just say you get to know the musicians pretty intimately. I could go on and on with examples.
I have a couple of thoughts concerning novelty acts. I usually end up being a little disappointed when someone hypes up a band who survives off of their schtick. I mean, ok, so you've got 18 lead singers and that's your thing, but are you any good. And if you are in one of these bands, aren't you worried that the novelty will wear out? I enjoyed Mucca Pazza when I saw them. It's a former band nerd's dream come true. Playing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" in a packed club with all of your other band nerd friends, oboes, tubas and all, and being respected and even liked. It's good entertaining fun, but would I go see it again? Probably not. And I wouldn't likely by a cd. Maybe they realize they are what they are--an entertaining novelty act.
Then there's unneccessary novelty. I saw a band at SXSW that was really great. It was like watching a band straight out of the heyday of '60s Rhythm and Blues. I'd never get to see Otis Redding live, but this was definitely in the same vein and really, really good. But I had one major problem with them. They were dressed in Star Trek uniforms. I don't know why. There would seem to be no point. None of the songs were geared toward Trekkies (or do they like to be called Trekkers now, I don't know). It was straight ahead soulful r&b. What were they doing with the uniforms? I found it distracting and really unneccessary. Just play the music! It's good, don't detract from it!
It's not that I don't like a good novelty act. I love Flight of the Conchords. There's also a great band from Austin called White Ghost Shivers, who I enjoy as well. Here's how I think they are different, though. Flight of the Conchords is extremely well written and has a context of a hilarious HBO program and previous to this, several comedy specials. These guys have developed solid characters (of themselves basically) and weaved those characters masterfully into ridiculously funny songs. If you're going to be a novelty act, be like these guys--write well and develop your schtick into something extremely solid.
White Ghost Shivers are an Austin-based Texas swing/vaudville act/hot jazz/bluegrass band. They do dress in period costumes, but it doesn't detract from their act. It's like if you took a '20s jazz band, pulled them into modern times and let them draw upon influences like punk and rock, and let the madness begin. It's high energy, at times very silly and raunchy and just a lot of fun. They work because they really seem to be a bunch of fun loving, silly, raunchy people, but also because they play really well.
And even though I am a fan of both of these bands, I wonder about their limitations. Will Flight of the Conchords follow up their initial success with another round of clever, funny songs? Can a band like White Ghost Shivers expand their fan base outside of the niche they've carved out in Texas?
But maybe I'm being overanalytical. Maybe novelty acts are just a pleasant diversion to be enjoyed on a basic level. Maybe they can occasionally give us those "wow" moments, but mostly serve just to make us laugh or dance or smile. Nothing wrong with that I suppose. If everyone was a Radiohead, Radiohead wouldn't be Radiohead, right? But just a couple of bits of unsolicited advice for bands concerning novlety--1.) If you're going to do it, do it right. Think it out, plan it out, be solid, and be good. Any fool can get up there with a ukelele and a funny hat, but it doesn't mean it's going to be anything special. And don't try to be like Flight of the Conchords. They do it good enough on their own. 2.) If you're starting a band and thinking about doing some sort of schtick, think it over. Do you want to be about the music or not? It's hard to do both, so if you want to be taken seriously as musicians, you might want to avoid gimmicks. I know it's hard to get recognized in this over saturated music world, but do it with your music.
In the meantime, I'm thinking about starting a band. So if you play kazoo, bassoon, or the spoons, let me know. I'll provide the pirate uniforms, and if you are a gymnist, that will definitely help. I'll explain later.
One more thing about Radiohead. I got my hands on a Lollapalooza program and the artist bio for them was horrible. I knew it was going to be bad when the first line goes, "I wish I was special" was all that Thom Yorke and the rest of Radiohead wanted (paraphrased slightly). Arrgghh!! How cheesy can we be? Plus, do we really need to reference a song that the band doesn't even care for? I guess they were trying to be clever and reference the band's early history, but really? If it were my choice, I might have referenced "Creep" at some point, but to start things out like that really minimizes what this band has become over the past decade. Maybe I'm being snobby, but to me, that's not the type of writing you want in the official program.
But I'm not going to talk about Radiohead right now. At least not directly. Plenty of coverage is given to this band and for good reason. What a truly outstanding band! Maybe the best around right now. But I read something once that is very simple, but true: Not every band can or should be Radiohead. One of the criticisms you hear sometimes of Radiohead is that they are too moody and serious. I personally find this criticism a bit ridiculous and probably made by people who don't really give it a good listen. But it's true, not everyone can or should be Radiohead.
So let's take a look at the opposite extreme of bands--novelty acts. I think of this because someone I was talking to the other night mentioned how his friend really wanted to see this band that has something like 18 lead singers and only sings songs with choruses and no verses. Something about Camero in the title. We all know our share of novelty acts. They are perfect bar entertainment. Some Chicago examples include, Wedding Banned, who are supposedly a wedding band that is so hardcore they got kicked off of the "wedding circuit", powder blue tuxes and all. Then there's Mucca Pazza--rock music played by a marching band. It's quite a sight to see these guys fit into a club. Let's just say you get to know the musicians pretty intimately. I could go on and on with examples.
I have a couple of thoughts concerning novelty acts. I usually end up being a little disappointed when someone hypes up a band who survives off of their schtick. I mean, ok, so you've got 18 lead singers and that's your thing, but are you any good. And if you are in one of these bands, aren't you worried that the novelty will wear out? I enjoyed Mucca Pazza when I saw them. It's a former band nerd's dream come true. Playing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" in a packed club with all of your other band nerd friends, oboes, tubas and all, and being respected and even liked. It's good entertaining fun, but would I go see it again? Probably not. And I wouldn't likely by a cd. Maybe they realize they are what they are--an entertaining novelty act.
Then there's unneccessary novelty. I saw a band at SXSW that was really great. It was like watching a band straight out of the heyday of '60s Rhythm and Blues. I'd never get to see Otis Redding live, but this was definitely in the same vein and really, really good. But I had one major problem with them. They were dressed in Star Trek uniforms. I don't know why. There would seem to be no point. None of the songs were geared toward Trekkies (or do they like to be called Trekkers now, I don't know). It was straight ahead soulful r&b. What were they doing with the uniforms? I found it distracting and really unneccessary. Just play the music! It's good, don't detract from it!
It's not that I don't like a good novelty act. I love Flight of the Conchords. There's also a great band from Austin called White Ghost Shivers, who I enjoy as well. Here's how I think they are different, though. Flight of the Conchords is extremely well written and has a context of a hilarious HBO program and previous to this, several comedy specials. These guys have developed solid characters (of themselves basically) and weaved those characters masterfully into ridiculously funny songs. If you're going to be a novelty act, be like these guys--write well and develop your schtick into something extremely solid.
White Ghost Shivers are an Austin-based Texas swing/vaudville act/hot jazz/bluegrass band. They do dress in period costumes, but it doesn't detract from their act. It's like if you took a '20s jazz band, pulled them into modern times and let them draw upon influences like punk and rock, and let the madness begin. It's high energy, at times very silly and raunchy and just a lot of fun. They work because they really seem to be a bunch of fun loving, silly, raunchy people, but also because they play really well.
And even though I am a fan of both of these bands, I wonder about their limitations. Will Flight of the Conchords follow up their initial success with another round of clever, funny songs? Can a band like White Ghost Shivers expand their fan base outside of the niche they've carved out in Texas?
But maybe I'm being overanalytical. Maybe novelty acts are just a pleasant diversion to be enjoyed on a basic level. Maybe they can occasionally give us those "wow" moments, but mostly serve just to make us laugh or dance or smile. Nothing wrong with that I suppose. If everyone was a Radiohead, Radiohead wouldn't be Radiohead, right? But just a couple of bits of unsolicited advice for bands concerning novlety--1.) If you're going to do it, do it right. Think it out, plan it out, be solid, and be good. Any fool can get up there with a ukelele and a funny hat, but it doesn't mean it's going to be anything special. And don't try to be like Flight of the Conchords. They do it good enough on their own. 2.) If you're starting a band and thinking about doing some sort of schtick, think it over. Do you want to be about the music or not? It's hard to do both, so if you want to be taken seriously as musicians, you might want to avoid gimmicks. I know it's hard to get recognized in this over saturated music world, but do it with your music.
In the meantime, I'm thinking about starting a band. So if you play kazoo, bassoon, or the spoons, let me know. I'll provide the pirate uniforms, and if you are a gymnist, that will definitely help. I'll explain later.
One more thing about Radiohead. I got my hands on a Lollapalooza program and the artist bio for them was horrible. I knew it was going to be bad when the first line goes, "I wish I was special" was all that Thom Yorke and the rest of Radiohead wanted (paraphrased slightly). Arrgghh!! How cheesy can we be? Plus, do we really need to reference a song that the band doesn't even care for? I guess they were trying to be clever and reference the band's early history, but really? If it were my choice, I might have referenced "Creep" at some point, but to start things out like that really minimizes what this band has become over the past decade. Maybe I'm being snobby, but to me, that's not the type of writing you want in the official program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
