Since the arrival of the Internet and P2P file sharing, the music industry has gotten a lot more tricky. But in a way, it's nothing new. Musicians have always had somewhat of a fight in terms of getting properly compensated for their work. Stories abound of how musician "A" is screwed over by label/management "B". Or there's the timeless story of musician "A" getting his/her work stolen by musician "B" and not properly credited. And since it's political campaign season, this one's my favorite. Politician "A" decides he/she will use musician "B"'s song in his/her campaign without asking said musician. What a mess!
This is what happens though when art becomes a business. There was a time well before my and probably your time as well when art was not intricatly tied into business. I'm sure there are places in this world where art escapes the clutches of the business world. And to be fair, a lot of artists do make art for art's sake. But the problem that occurs in a market-driven society is that art for art's sake does not get viewed by a lot of people. And what is art if it is not shared? So if you have an artistic vision that you want to share with the world, you kind of have to make a deal with the devil and find your way into the business end of things.
It's not always a deal with the devil. It's a necessary evil, though. In a perfect world, art would be created by artists and appreciated by an audience without worry of monetary transactions. But it is not a perfect world. Artists need to know the business world in order to survive. Everyone needs to make a living.
All that being said, what rights does the musician have when it comes to controlling and/or getting compensated for their work?
P2P is a dicey situation. It's reality, whether artists like it or not. No one buys the physical product and many don't go to legal download sites for their mp3s. They go to Limewire and maybe get an download of inferior quality, but they got it for free. For many, it just doesn't feel like stealing, so it must not be, right? Many artists have accepted this as reality and have tried to roll with it. Radiohead said name your price. Saul Williams gave away an inferior version of his album, but asked for payment for the higher quality download. These ideas were met with mixed results. At least someone's trying though. It seems a lot better than fighting for the old models through litigation. Metallica lost a whole lot of fans after suing those who stole their music.
And now there's Axl Rose fighting against those who leaked GNR's work that is perpetually in the works, "Chinese Democracy". Apparently someone posted some leaked tracks and is now getting sued for it. Does Axl have the right to do so? I suppose so. Is it the best course of action to go after your fans? I really don't think so.
It's a tricky world we live in with the Internet and all. I think artists should have control over their work and be properly compensated as well, but at the same time, we all need to be realistic as well. P2P is reality and people will use it. People get excited about getting the scoop on their favorite artist's new work and will go after leaked tracks. Is it fair? Is it right? In a perfect world the answer to both of these questions is "no". But once again it is not a perfect world. Do I have a solution? No. If not, I'd probably be working within the music industry and not just blathering on about it as a blogger. It's not fair, Axl and others, whose work is stolen and/or leaked, but look it's going to happen. I say accept it and move on. The reality of the retail end of the music industry is that there is little left of the retail end of the music industry. Get creative with leaking your own music. Get creative with how to sell/give away your own music. Just don't waste time slamming your head against the brick wall that is suing your fans.
What about the right an artist has to who plays their music and how their music is represented (i.e. politicians and political campaigns)? This goes back to Ronald Reagan using "Born in the U.S.A." without Bruce Springsteen's permission. First of all, it's funny that Reagan would use this song which politically represented very little about where he stood. But did he have the right to do so, no matter how silly it seemed? Now here 24 years later, we have the likes of John Mellancamp, Jackson Browne, and Heart in an uproar over the use of their songs by the McCain campaign. None of these artists are McCain supporters, but does this give them the right to disallow the use of their work for McCain's purposes? At first thought I think that the artist should have control over how their songs are used, but it gets tricky. Where do you stop? Say you tell John McCain he can't use your song, does that mean you can go to radio stations that are owned by people of a certain political persuasion that does not suit you and yank your songs from them as well? What if a couple of horrible people decide to get married and try to play your song at their horrible wedding? Can you step in and break your cd over your knee and yell, "NO!"?
So maybe I'm getting a little silly here, but what happens when the product is out of your hands and within the public's realm. I'd like to think that out of good faith if an artist asked a politician not to use their work, the politician would comply. The McCain campaign hasn't. But then again, John McCain would be stuck with a whole lot of Ted Nugent and Kid Rock music, but little else. It probably stands to reason, as long as the artist is fairly compensated, anyone can use their music. Maybe a politician should have to pay a little bit more. I don't know. And to be honest, I don't know how any of the litigation attempts have panned out or if they have. At the very least, it's a little shady of someone to just say, "I'm going to use it whether you like it or not". Is it fair? Is it right? Once again no. But once again, we do not live in a perfect world.
So in conclusion, we live in an unfair world where musicians get screwed over. Is this the complete truth? No, but the society we live in is not artist friendly. You have to fight to make it and continually fight to keep making it. I wish we lived in a society where being an artist of any kind was rewarded with adequate funding from several directions--the public, the government, private agencies, etc. Some of that exists, but in my opinion, not enough. But hopefully it doesn't stop artists from producing art that inspires and transcends the world of money and litigation and so on. And hopefully one day artists will get their fair share.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
A Lollapalooza Recommendation
The city's all a-buzz with Lollapalooza starting tomorrow in Grant Park here in Chicago. I'm not going, which is the sad truth of the matter, but oh well, there's always next year. I won't go into my sob story, for this blog is supposed to be about the music, not me. I'm jealous of those who are going, though, I'm not going to hide that. My neighbor has the schedule printed and posted outside of his door. The damn thing is taunting me. Here's who you're missing, fool!! I'll live.
But for those who are going, I'm going to make a recommendation for you as you brave what might possibly be the hottest weekend of the Chicago summer, thus far. Go see Dr. Dog on Saturday at 1:30 at the MySpace Stage. Oh, you're all going to see Radiohead (rightfully so) and maybe Rage or NIN for some good 'ol fashioned '90s fun. And I'm sure they will be great, but please go see Dr. Dog, too.
Depending on who you talk to, these guys are either on the verge of breaking through, or already kind of have broken through (whatever breaking through means these days). The Philly band are known for their lo-fi approach, Beach Boy-esque harmonies, and '60s rock sensibilities. Being from Philly, I think they've got a bit of that old Philly Soul in them too. Maybe it's because I love '60s rock that I love this band, but although that may help, I'm going to say it's more than that. What exactly, I'm not positive. They are a tight band who play great live for one thing. I haven't seen them play their own material, but I can tell you that they were one of the best parts of a Lou Reed tribute show at this year's SXSW that featured Lou Reed himself. And who isn't a sucker for great rock harmonies? I feel like they really have an appreciation for what they do as well. You can tell when bands genuinely love music and you can conversely tell when they're just trying to make hits and cater to what might be cool in the moment.
They just released a new album entitled "Fate" that ranks up there as one of my favorite albums of the year so far. It's all of the soulful, harmonic stuff I talked about above, assembled into songs that have a real feel to them. The album has a definite mood. I don't know if it was meant to be a sort of concept album, or what, but you feel like you are on a ride through the span of human emotion as you listen to songs that can be uplifting and hopeful at one point, then dark and mysterious at another. Maybe that's the nature of "Fate" itself--one part hope, one part dread. Whatever the case may be, it's a great album from a great band. Maybe it would help if you like bands from the '60s like The Band and The Beatles (who doesn't, seriously), but I think all you need to be is a fan of rock and roll and its ability to make us feel alive. And while you're at it, check out there interactive website for the album "Fate". You get to click on a lot of imagery related to death and darkness, which seems to be a theme of the album. In the process you get to discover some of the great music from this amazing album.
On a side note, my 3 year old son is a fan of Dr. Dog. I think it's only because he thinks their name is funny, not because of the actual music. In his mind, I pretty sure he's thinking, "These guys are not The Wiggles. They just don't make the cut!" Really, though, Dr. Dog? That's an interesting band name for you. Are all the good ones seriously taken? I mean, not a bad name I guess. It's definitely original. Band names are for a different entry I think.
Go see Dr. Dog. I'll be working. Please tell me how great they were, but don't rub it in too much.
But for those who are going, I'm going to make a recommendation for you as you brave what might possibly be the hottest weekend of the Chicago summer, thus far. Go see Dr. Dog on Saturday at 1:30 at the MySpace Stage. Oh, you're all going to see Radiohead (rightfully so) and maybe Rage or NIN for some good 'ol fashioned '90s fun. And I'm sure they will be great, but please go see Dr. Dog, too.
Depending on who you talk to, these guys are either on the verge of breaking through, or already kind of have broken through (whatever breaking through means these days). The Philly band are known for their lo-fi approach, Beach Boy-esque harmonies, and '60s rock sensibilities. Being from Philly, I think they've got a bit of that old Philly Soul in them too. Maybe it's because I love '60s rock that I love this band, but although that may help, I'm going to say it's more than that. What exactly, I'm not positive. They are a tight band who play great live for one thing. I haven't seen them play their own material, but I can tell you that they were one of the best parts of a Lou Reed tribute show at this year's SXSW that featured Lou Reed himself. And who isn't a sucker for great rock harmonies? I feel like they really have an appreciation for what they do as well. You can tell when bands genuinely love music and you can conversely tell when they're just trying to make hits and cater to what might be cool in the moment.
They just released a new album entitled "Fate" that ranks up there as one of my favorite albums of the year so far. It's all of the soulful, harmonic stuff I talked about above, assembled into songs that have a real feel to them. The album has a definite mood. I don't know if it was meant to be a sort of concept album, or what, but you feel like you are on a ride through the span of human emotion as you listen to songs that can be uplifting and hopeful at one point, then dark and mysterious at another. Maybe that's the nature of "Fate" itself--one part hope, one part dread. Whatever the case may be, it's a great album from a great band. Maybe it would help if you like bands from the '60s like The Band and The Beatles (who doesn't, seriously), but I think all you need to be is a fan of rock and roll and its ability to make us feel alive. And while you're at it, check out there interactive website for the album "Fate". You get to click on a lot of imagery related to death and darkness, which seems to be a theme of the album. In the process you get to discover some of the great music from this amazing album.
On a side note, my 3 year old son is a fan of Dr. Dog. I think it's only because he thinks their name is funny, not because of the actual music. In his mind, I pretty sure he's thinking, "These guys are not The Wiggles. They just don't make the cut!" Really, though, Dr. Dog? That's an interesting band name for you. Are all the good ones seriously taken? I mean, not a bad name I guess. It's definitely original. Band names are for a different entry I think.
Go see Dr. Dog. I'll be working. Please tell me how great they were, but don't rub it in too much.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
A Welcome and an Explanation
Welcome to The Hidden Chord, a quest blog if you will, dedicated to uncovering and understanding the magical moments that popular music has to offer. I was thinking about calling it "The Moment", but that one was taken and really I wasn't too thrilled with it. Then I thought of the line in the Leonard Cohen song "Hallelujah" that goes, "I heard there was a secret chord..." The Secret Chord!!! How mysterious, yet enticing! But not surprisingly, taken as well. The Hidden Chord will have to do for now. I think it says something about my objective, though--the uncovering of something thats maybe un-uncoverable. The moments of magic are often fleeting and hard to describe to others. Kind of like when you hear a joke for the first time and you and everyone else think it's the greatest thing ever, but when you try to recreate it for someone else, it just doesn't work. Maybe it was the particular place or time or group of people. For whatever reason, the moment passed.
Here's the inspiration for this blog/podcast. There are a few inspirations actually. A colleague of mine told me that everytime he goes to SXSW he always has a particular SXSW moment. A particular performance will move him to want to buy the artist's whole catalog. It will become a sort of marker for the whole experience. SXSW is a great venue for magical moments. This year, I had a few. They're the type of moments that you audibly say to yourself, "wow". They make you want to remember all the little details of the experience--what things look like, smell like, feel like, who you are with, what you are drinking/eating--just so you have a reference point later on to try and relive it, even if you know you can't. For example, I don't even know the name of the band that was playing, but it was a perfect moment. It was near the end of the week in Austin and I went to one of the more interesting venues I've ever been to: the top of a parking garage in downtown Austin. It was a typically hot day and there was plenty of free/cheap booze to be had, which is also typical of SXSW. I was with a band who I consider friends, and with a new friend I just met during the week. There was something about the music this band from Brooklyn was playing, combined with the hot sunny day, the wind in people's hair, and the amazing view of Austin that just made me feel like, "Yeah, this is what it's all about". The image is engrained in my mind.
Live music has the greatest potential to create moments like this, but when I stop and think about it, there are plenty of times recorded music has evoked a similar reaction. I like keeping the iTunes library on shuffle and occasionally something will pop up that I haven't heard before that makes me stop in my tracks and really listen. It's so easy to have good music as a backdrop, but sometimes a song will just have a certain pull to it where whatever it was you were doing no longer matters. What is it exactly? Or I think of hearing The Beatles "Love" album in the 5.1 digital surround sound for the first time and feeling like I was hearing The Beatles again for the first time. All I wanted to do was sit there and soak it in. The Beatles have created a lot of those musical moments for me. And somehow, have done so for many others as well. What is it about them?
What are these moments? Why do they happen? Who are the bands/artists out there that are eliciting those types of reactions? What are their "wow" moments? To me, this is what popular music is all about. I think of why I first started liking rock music and it was about the music. Something about those guitars and the beat and the voices. And it has spread for me into not other genres too: alt-country, trad country, folk, hip-hop, jazz. Occasionally something just has the right combination to make things click for me, whether it's the music, the lyrics, or something totally unexpected. But that's what it's about. I once was under the delusion that maybe I could find a way to make money from being involved in the music industry. But that's not what it's supposed to be about. For awhile, the corporate world owned music and had a firm hand over what we were buying and listening to. But thankfully, things have been changing. Rightfully so, the corporate music industry is crumbling and the means of distribution are in the hands of indies, the artists, and we the listening public. Some will cry and fret about how it's all changing, but it's about damn time! My only worry is that the artists who create these great works can find a way to make a living. But the great thing about creative people, who care more about their art and less about the money, is they find ways to make it work. There are plenty of people out there to help support them as well, who carry the same music-centric view. The majors never cared about the music and that's why their empire is crumbling.
So this blog will exist to highlight those amazing artists and amazing moments. I hope to get a monthly podcast going very soon as well that will give an "every-fan" view and give an extra spotlight to the bands that matter. I want to eventually take submissions from people too, that document their own "moments" with music. Things are all really pretty rough right now, but the proverbial ball is now rolling.
Here's the inspiration for this blog/podcast. There are a few inspirations actually. A colleague of mine told me that everytime he goes to SXSW he always has a particular SXSW moment. A particular performance will move him to want to buy the artist's whole catalog. It will become a sort of marker for the whole experience. SXSW is a great venue for magical moments. This year, I had a few. They're the type of moments that you audibly say to yourself, "wow". They make you want to remember all the little details of the experience--what things look like, smell like, feel like, who you are with, what you are drinking/eating--just so you have a reference point later on to try and relive it, even if you know you can't. For example, I don't even know the name of the band that was playing, but it was a perfect moment. It was near the end of the week in Austin and I went to one of the more interesting venues I've ever been to: the top of a parking garage in downtown Austin. It was a typically hot day and there was plenty of free/cheap booze to be had, which is also typical of SXSW. I was with a band who I consider friends, and with a new friend I just met during the week. There was something about the music this band from Brooklyn was playing, combined with the hot sunny day, the wind in people's hair, and the amazing view of Austin that just made me feel like, "Yeah, this is what it's all about". The image is engrained in my mind.
Live music has the greatest potential to create moments like this, but when I stop and think about it, there are plenty of times recorded music has evoked a similar reaction. I like keeping the iTunes library on shuffle and occasionally something will pop up that I haven't heard before that makes me stop in my tracks and really listen. It's so easy to have good music as a backdrop, but sometimes a song will just have a certain pull to it where whatever it was you were doing no longer matters. What is it exactly? Or I think of hearing The Beatles "Love" album in the 5.1 digital surround sound for the first time and feeling like I was hearing The Beatles again for the first time. All I wanted to do was sit there and soak it in. The Beatles have created a lot of those musical moments for me. And somehow, have done so for many others as well. What is it about them?
What are these moments? Why do they happen? Who are the bands/artists out there that are eliciting those types of reactions? What are their "wow" moments? To me, this is what popular music is all about. I think of why I first started liking rock music and it was about the music. Something about those guitars and the beat and the voices. And it has spread for me into not other genres too: alt-country, trad country, folk, hip-hop, jazz. Occasionally something just has the right combination to make things click for me, whether it's the music, the lyrics, or something totally unexpected. But that's what it's about. I once was under the delusion that maybe I could find a way to make money from being involved in the music industry. But that's not what it's supposed to be about. For awhile, the corporate world owned music and had a firm hand over what we were buying and listening to. But thankfully, things have been changing. Rightfully so, the corporate music industry is crumbling and the means of distribution are in the hands of indies, the artists, and we the listening public. Some will cry and fret about how it's all changing, but it's about damn time! My only worry is that the artists who create these great works can find a way to make a living. But the great thing about creative people, who care more about their art and less about the money, is they find ways to make it work. There are plenty of people out there to help support them as well, who carry the same music-centric view. The majors never cared about the music and that's why their empire is crumbling.
So this blog will exist to highlight those amazing artists and amazing moments. I hope to get a monthly podcast going very soon as well that will give an "every-fan" view and give an extra spotlight to the bands that matter. I want to eventually take submissions from people too, that document their own "moments" with music. Things are all really pretty rough right now, but the proverbial ball is now rolling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
