3 Songs on Shuffle and more (Click here for Vivian Girls Video! Yay!)

I'm working on reinventing this blog. For no good reason other than I like music and writing and like writing about music probably more than any other type of writing. So I want to have regular features, rather than just random occasional rants. Maybe I'll keep doing the random occasional rants too, but I found myself ranting less and less, so time would go by and suddenly it's been nearly 4 months since I wrote an entry. So for today, I'm doing a "3 songs on shuffle" experiment. Fire up the 'ol iTunes library and let it shuffle to 3 songs and see what happens. I like seeing if songs link to each other in any peculiar way. I also just like the discovery process of listening to my library on shuffle. I have a whole lot on here that I've never heard or haven't heard much, so I wanted to mostly do a stream of consciousness approach to writing about it--attempt to capture the moment of listening to music. And then maybe go back and add on some further impressions. So here is todays "3 Songs on Shuffle". Sometime soon, I'll have a new feature as well. Would like to reprise the podcast very soon as well. If you are reading this, PLEASE, let me know and spread the word if you like what you read. I have an ego that needs to be inflated!!

You Don't Know What Love Is (You Just Do As Your Told)--The White Stripes
The infectious hooks of the White Stripes open up this song which is in the vein of the classic type of "I'm gonna tell it like it is because I don't really care anymore" song. There's a few good ones in this vein. Dylan's "Positively 4th Street" possibly being the best. This one is pretty good, though. A couple of really good lines here, the title itself being one, the opening line being another (In some respects I suspect you've got a respectable side), and a line in the chorus as well (Just as a child of ten might act but you're far too old). I like a good "tell it like it is" song. And everyone knows the type of person who can't tell the difference between infatuation and love, who goes along with whatever the other person says, just because they say it and are supposedly in love with that person. Usually pretty unhealthy stuff happens here. One person dominates and manipulates, why the other is blindly pulled around in the name of "love". Good one Jack White! Love the typical Jack White high register guitar solo at the end of this White Stripes classic!

Don't Ya Tell Henry--Bob Dylan and the Band
Levon Helm of The Band takes vocals on this up tempo shuffle off of the classic, "The Basement Tapes". I definitely hear a little New Orleans influence on here. I could listen to The Band all the time. They had the unique ability to draw upon almost every type of American popular music of the last century and meld it into something fresh and alive. And to me, much of it sounds fresh and alive forty years plus after the fact. I'm not too familiar with the song, but there's nothing on "The Basement Tapes" I don't like. So big ups to this one as well. Why isn't music like this made anymore? Maybe it is and the landscape is just too crowded with crap to realize it. I don't really know. Oh and a connection to the previous song: Jack White was frequently playing with Dylan there for awhile, I think it was last summer, during Dylan concerts. There's a couple of weird dudes, but man, they both can play some music!

Where Do You Run To--Vivian Girls
I don't know a whole lot about Vivian Girls, which is one of the fun parts about listening to music on shuffle. I do know they are on Chicago's Bloodshot Records label, which is a plus for me already, as I love a lot of what Bloodshot puts out and also Bloodshot has some of the best SXSW parties. Back to the song. Pretty good. Kind of your basic straight ahead rock song. I don't know how to describe the beat other than kind of '60s pop rockisk (think "That Thing You Do!" and you've got it). The verses are hard to understand and but the chorus, which repeats the title of the song is clear and it's cool how they build upon it with harmonies. Vocals kind of seem Veruca Salt-ish (If you try to sing "Seether" with the opening strains of this song, it actually works pretty well...pretty sure it's in the same key) or Ravonettes-ish. Emotionless in a way, at least until the chorus, which it should be apparent, is my favorite part of this one. I think this might be a little bit of an accusatory song as well. "Where do you run to baby, why do you leave me all alone?" Maybe in a similar family to the White Stripes song. Not exactly siblings, but possibly cousins. They're both kind of angry, but this one actually asks for an answer rather than just ranting at someone. Although, I think maybe it's a rhetorical question. Either way, good dance-able pop rock. Would have fit right in on the "Pulp Fiction" soundtrack.

I included a link to a fun little Vivian Girls vid for ya too. Click on the title of the post. I'm not tech savvy so I didn't know how to embed it on here. But still...Enjoy!

To Innovate or To Emulate?

A question I've always pondered in all things in life, most certainly applies directly to music as well. Are there any truly original ideas left in the world? Is everything just an imitation of something that came before?





Ironically, this blog idea is not mine. Thanks again, Mike. I'm not sure how many original ideas I have within me. I've learned to surround myself with people who do, though, so I guess it works out all right for me.





I've heard this debate within several spheres of life. There are people within the art world who say that there is no where left to go when it comes to painting. That would be a sad thing, but is there really a limit to what you can do with color, shape, form, and intricacy when it comes to paint on canvas? I'm no expert in this field, so I can't say. Maybe no one can until the next innovator comes along to refute that assumption.





So since this is a music blog, what about music? I once read a songwriting book that quoted one of the Gallagher brothers of Oasis, who said that there is a finite number of notes and chords that one can effectively use in popular music. He basically said everything had already been done, which explains the direction that Oasis has decided to go with their music. They are blatent emulators.





I don't really agree with this assumption. I think it is challenging to be innovative within pop music, but it doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen. But then again, what's wrong with emulation anyway? There is a certain comfort in familiarity. Bob Dylan started his career basically emulating Woody Guthrie in every single way. Dylan didn't stick with this for long, though. Some make quite a career off of emulating what was done before. Dr. Dog, a band I've blogged about in the past, sounds like they were pulled straight out of the '60s rock scene. They do it well, though. But too much emulation can be a bit tiresome. But on the other hand, too much innovation can too. You don't want to lose your audience by going off the deep end, thank you very much Plastic Ono Band!!!





So what to do then? What are the pros and cons for both sides of the debate? How does one successfully do a little of each (which is probably the formula for success after all)? Let's look at both sides, shall we?

,

Innovation

On most accounts, it's hard to argue against innovation. Inventors aren't usually scolded for the ideas they put into practice. Who are the biggest innovators in today's music scene?



Number one has to be Radiohead. I can't think of anyone who has done more in terms of successful experimentation and innovation. Early on in their career, they were kind of your basic, good mid-'90s alt-rock band. But along comes a little album by the name of "OK Computer" and you can forever drop "run-of-the-mill" as an adjective for Radiohead. And they've continued to push the limits with albums like "Kid A" and "In Rainbows". Their use of electronics and "sound" in general is amazing.



Other innovators that come to mind at least right this moment are Joanna Newsom, Beck, Sufjan Stevens, Saul Williams, and to some degree, Wilco (although they tend to fit in both categories).



But like anything in life, there tends to be a downside to innovation. There is a line between being innovative and experimental and being just plain crappy. Think concept albums. A lot don't work out too well.

I think the problem is when someone thinks they're being innovative, but really are just messing around and fail miserably. You can't fault artists for experimenting, it comes with the territory of being an artist. I think success sometimes brings a whole lot of ego, which leads to grand ideas of what the artist thinks he/she is capable of. Sometimes fans will go along for the ride, sometimes they won't. Remember when country icon Garth Brooks decided to create an alter-ego who sang bad pop songs? Country fans were confused, pop music fans were confused, and most everyone was generally disgusted. I guess you can't fault the guy for trying, but there's a fine line between being an innovator and being horrible. For some, the best thing to do is stick to what they are good at.

Emmulation
Which then brings us to the idea of emulation. I'm going to start with the downside of it. It's no mystery why artists try to emulate the greats. They were great. But given the choice between listening to a knock-off version of The Beatles or The Beatles themselves, it doesn't take a genius to know who most would choose.

For example, there is this band that I saw in Austin called The Explorer's Club. They are a good band, but it doesn't take long to realize that they are blatently ripping off The Beach Boys. They put on a fun show, but I really don't care to buy any of their music.

From an artist's point of you, wouldn't you get tired of emulating someone else's art? I mean, I suppose there is a market for someone who can make exact replicas of Piccaso's and Monet's, but is it fulfilling? Don't you want to explore what you are capable of?

Ok, so it's pretty easy to find the downside of emmulating another artist. So what about the upside?

There is a definite comfort in familiarity (although the old saying does say, "Familiarity breeds contempt). It's fun to hear something and say, "Yeah, I like this, I've heard something like it before". It's kind of like unravelling a mystery. Who did you rip off?

But "rip off" is too strong. Some bands are incredible because they obviously draw upon past influences, but somehow make it sound fresh. One of my favorite bands of all time, as I've said here, is The Band. If you listen to their music, you hear about every imaginable influence conceivable, from early rock and roll, to country, to R & B, to Tin Pan Alley. You can hear it all. But at the same time, when you hear it, you know you are listening to The Band's sound.

I kind of feel the same way about Bright Eyes/Conor Oberst. You've heard this type of music before, definitely, but he manages to put his own spin on it (at least most of the time).

The first time I heard "The Underdog" by Spoon, I thought I was hearing a rarely heard track by Thin Lizzy. But once I knew it was Spoon, it was kind of like, "Ohhhh, ok, Spoon". I hear it now.

The Best of Both Worlds
I'm going to make a slightly disappointing conclusion by saying a mix of both innovation and emmulation is necessary. But like most things in life, the truth is found somewhere in the middle ground.

Let's say for example, I invent a word called, "crangigulous". Obviously, just because I invented a new word, doesn't mean I'm an innovator. The way I would become an innovator in this example, is by either convincing people that this is an incredible word that they should be using in every day life to express profound emotions and somehow having them accept that, or by creating a suitable context for this word to fit into. The latter is probably more reasonable, as what is a word without context anyway? As it is, in creating this word, I'm using a basic knowledge of the English language. "Crangigulous" would probably be an adjective because of its "ous" ending, such as "ambiguous", or "ambitious". So in a way, I'm emulating what I already know (which isn't a lot, considering I've spelled "emulate" a few different ways as you may have noticed). The trick would be taking some random keystrokes, like "alueouohfoiawhfkhd" and finding a way for that to work. Then I'd be among the truest of the true innovators.

But I don't think that type of world exists. People need context. What makes the really great innovators of today's music truly innovative, is that they take risks and try new things in the fairly narrow field of pop/rock/indie music. Instead of branching off completely, they are simply adding to the lineage built before them. "Odelay" is one of the most innovative albums of the past 25 years, but there's really nothing new there. Beck managed to take all sorts of elements and meld them together into something original. It's kind of Frankenstein monster-ish. Making new out of the old.

To me it's not necessarily creating something previously unheard of, it's creating something with the pieces you have in a way that has never been thought of. I don't know if a truly new form of popular music is even possible. Maybe it is, but we won't know until we see it. So I guess the only thing we can hope for is for true artists to keep creating and see what happens.

The Underappreciated Life of the Sideman

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.