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 One That Got Away

I'm kind of frustrated right now, I must admit. I'm trying to distract myself from the prospects of going out to my roommate's karaoke bar where I will no doubt drink too much and butcher one of my favorite songs in the process of trying to impress girls who are probably too young for me and too drunk to walk. Yes, slight impairment of the opposite sex may be good in that I just might seem a little more attractive and charismatic that I actually am, but it's a fine line between that and sloppy drunk. And once they or I reach the sloppy drunk point, well, all bets are off and I'll stumble home to get not enough sleep before a long day of work. All around, it would be a bad idea. Hense the need for a distraction.

The problem is that my distraction, music, isn't coming to me like I had hoped. Each month I get new downloads from eMusic and today is my "refresh" day. Usually it kicks in later in the day, so I just checked about five minutes ago and it hasn't given me my 40 new downloads for the month. Arrgghhh!!!! Yes, it's true that I have over 4500 songs on my iTunes, most of which I haven't even heard, but there's something exciting about something new. It's like cracking open the cellophane on a new cd, or showing my age and/or dorkiness, a record. You don't get that new smell from the download, but still, it's exciting.

Is it still exciting? I'm not sure if it is for the vast listening public. Sales are down across the board. I mean, the general business model for record labels these days doesn't hardly even consider the retail end of things. The money is in touring and merch if you're lucky.

Yeah, there are many reasons for this, but my mind started wandering a bit, once again hopelessly trying to avoid the karaoke bar, to a different theory. Indulge me for a minute while I open up my bizarre thought process.

I went to eMusic and I was excited about checking out two albums in particular. 1.) The new album by Of Montreal that is pretty well hyped and rightly so, as this is a good band that people expect good things from. 2.) The new album by The Rural Alberta Advantage, who I just heard recently for the first time because of a free track given out by eMusic. I dug it, so I was curious to hear more.

Of course, I have to wait until the damn downloads refresh, but I noticed something. Montreal, Alberta--Canada. Thank you, I know, I am master of the obvious. It's a talent I can't explain, nor can I impart to others. But then I started thinking about how I've been into Sigur Ros a lot lately and have really enjoyed some of the bands that have come out of the Saharan region of Africa, like Tinariwen and Etran Finatawa. Rock music has become quite international since it's "birth" in the '50s. Then I thought for a minute--maybe it's just spread out too much.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all. In fact it's brought a dimension into the music that the Chuck Berry's and Bo Diddley's of the world never could have dreamt of. But while this is exciting, I think as it keeps straying and fracturing and pushing into new un-thought-of grounds, its original core is lost a bit and it gets harder for the general public to follow. "Scenes" don't really exist anymore. I feel like rocks last real movement was grunge and the whole Seattle scene and after that fell apart, things were never quite the same for rock music.

And a lot of that happens to be a matter of timing as well. At around the same time, technology was beginning to change the world drastically. Physical product and media lost their strangle hold on the business and things began to open up. More people than ever have bands as social networking sites and easy to use home recording software make it seem like any idiot can do what the so-called big stars had been doing for half a century. And maybe that's it too. Maybe rock music lost a bit of its magic when everyone became a participant.

But here I am going on a tangent. But I think all of this is connected though. I think as people got bored, the truly talented decided to take new leaps and take risks and hope that a certain segment would follow. And I think it's that certain segment that also began to expect quality and substance over the drivel radio has been putting out for quite some time now and from what the amateurs on MySpace try to shove down their throats. Here lies the opportunities for the Tinariwen's and Sigur Ros's of the world to make their mark. It's also good timing for a band like Vampire Weekend who relies a lot on international influence and discerning "art-rock" lovers.

But look at the Billboard charts these days. These are just numbers, mind you, that have as much meaning in terms of quality as the tarnished old statues known as the Grammy Awards. That's right, ultimately nothing. However, it gives one a bit of an idea where the pulse of popular music lies, at least in the grand scheme of things. It isn't with any of the ones I listed above. Sure, an indie act charts high every so often, but it's usually a flash in the pan, I think out of sheer curiosity more than anything.

Let's be honest, though. There is no more "rock music". Just like there is no single definition for hip-hop, or electronic, or country, or any of the labels of the past. I think the effect that is going on right now is that so many unique niches have opened up that it's nearly impossible to market music on a large scale. In the days of '60s AM radio, you could turn on a station and hear everything from Neil Diamond to The Beatles to Aretha Franklin. It was all in one place. But the world has changed and radio has changed. The major labels try to fight it, but it already happened. Popular music has been freed from the clutches of the few and is now a true world democracy. It belongs to one and all, but ironically this amazing phenomenon has killed the industry.

Ultimately, like I said before, it's not necessarily a bad thing. The music hasn't died. Far from it. The music is more alive and vibrant than ever. And I have a feeling that as we continue to learn about and exchange ideas with our global neighbors, it is only bound to continue to get more interesting. And my original thought about Canada may not have been the best example. Our hockey loving neighbors to the north have been contributing for quite some time. And oh, there's that island nation known as the United Kingdom who's had a few decent bands over the years too. But now the world is such that it is possible for a more diverse selection of nation's peoples to contribute as well. I think the world is such too that the possibility for a larger diversity of ideas is available for artists as well. Things that were maybe taboo or too "outside-of-the-box" for major labels to handle, are now available because the majors just don't have that say anymore.

The only risk that underground or indie or whatever you call this pool of music runs is the potential for pretention. Rock music has always had a sort of "every-person" appeal to it, but every so often strays into territory that is elitist or too ego-filled for its own good. It's bound to happen to a certain extent. But I don't think it will matter. That music will have its niche and others will come along and fill a less pretentious niche.

So even though the industry may be "The One That Got Away", I have a feeling we are just at the beginning of an exciting time for rock and all popular music. There are a million different directions everything could go into. Hopefully it won't come to a point where it is so splintered that no one cares to put in the effort to seek out the good stuff.

But for now it's still relatively easy for those who don't mind a little effort in exchange for a large reward. And there will always be word of mouth, no matter how technologically advanced we become.

But now, my rambling ideas must stop (I don't think my high school English teacher would approve), as my downloads have finally refreshed. I have successfully resisted the temptation of beer and karaoke. For the millionth time and counting, thank god for great music.

A Look into an Obama Presidency

There's a line in "High Fidelity" that says (paraphrased), "It's not what you are like that matters, but what you like." Rob Gordon (John Cusack) tells us that what makes people interesting is their taste in music, movies, and all things pop culture, rather than their actual personality traits. I'm not quite as gung ho as this, but as a recovering music snob, I do give creedence to this philosophy. So based on this, what is an Obama Presidency going to look like?

Barack Obama's music taste isn't necesarily new news. Rolling Stone ran an interview with him in which he revealed some of what is on his iPod. But now that he's been elected, now is a good time to re-examine the tracks that can now officially be deemed, "president-worthy". To give credit where credit is due, my friend and talented musician in his own right, Michael Mullowney (left in photo) gave me this idea. I'm including the picture of him and podcast contributor, Joao Morlett (right in photo), with Michelle (and Sasha) Obama, who is (or I guess more appropriately, was) a regular at the restaurant we all work at. I'm supremely jealous of their photo op, but I too have waited on Michelle and the kids, and once, the man himself--the 44th President of the United States of America.

Yet I digress. My brush with greatness is a mere footnote. Let's get back to the serious business of fortelling the nature of the Obama Administration, based on his music tastes.

The Rolling Stones "Gimmie Shelter" I've always liked the song, but honestly never understood most of the lyrics beyond, "If I don't get some shelter. oh yeah I'm gonna fade away". So through the magic of search engines, I was able to find out what slurring Mick was singing about. Wow! Did you know this song is political? Here all this time I thought he was talking about finding a dry place to have a picnic!! Boy was I wrong! Kidding...mostly. What does this tell us about President Obama? It shows he's a realist. "War, children, it's just a shot away". He'll be careful with how he speaks to the rest of the world. There will be no chest-thumping speeches about the "Axis of Evil". President Obama will take the path of diplomacy. War is just a shot away and we are already mired in too much conflict. But this song is also a sign of Obama's optimism, as well. For in the end, "love is just a kiss away". Can we have peace in the world, Mr President? Yes we can!!

Bob Dylan "Maggie's Farm" and the album "Blood on the Tracks" So Barack is a fan, not just a casual observer, of good 'ol Zimmy. I mean, who doesn't like Bob Dylan. But there is a difference from saying "I like Blowin' in the Wind and Like A Rolling Stone." and saying you're into "Blood on the Tracks". Just one more piece of evidence that Barack Obama is the most perfect human being alive.

These are a couple of good choices. What does "Maggie's Farm" say? "I tried my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants me to be just like them...I ain't gonna work on Maggie's Farm no more." This is Dylan declaring himself to be his own man. Obama too, will be tested by those who want him to be just like them, but will hold firm in his beliefs and vision. He will rise above the "Idiot Wind" that blows through politics ("Idiot Wind" being a track from "Blood on the Tracks"--How do you like that segue?).

Essentially "Blood on the Tracks" is a break-up album. Inevitably, many Obama supporters who are currently "Tangled up in Barack" will feel let down, ignored, and betrayed. A break-up will be had. And like most break-ups, it won't necessarily be one thing that causes the split. It will be a series of things, but it will add up. And the once jubilant supporters will wonder who this man they once knew has become. For once they will see him for what he is--an imperfect human being like the rest of us. Obama knows this already and spoke of this at his victory rally in Grant Park. Expectations for any president are high, but expectations for him are Dylan-esque. At some point President Obama will metaphorically trade in his acoustic for an electric and many in his fawning masses will cry, "Judas!". Oh it will happen.

Jay-Z "Dirt off the Shoulder" I've got to admit, I've got nothing on this one. Maybe his suit will be dirty one day and he'll ask Joe Biden if he can brush it off for him. That's what the Constitution wants the Vice President to do right?

I mean, I liked the song, but I'm not very good at analyzing Jay-Z. I think it's Obama's way of being contemporary. This is a stretch, but here's my take on this song. There will be plenty of cleaning up to do when Obama is sworn in this January. Oh he'll be needing some extra strength multi-purpose cleaner to rid the the country of the unpleasant layer of Bush that pervades. This song will remind him that there will be some serious scrubbing to do. It's that or when we see him brushing his shoulders off it'll be how we know when President Obama is "feelin' like a pimp." I haven't quite figured it out yet.

Stevie Wonder The string of amazing albums in the '70s before anyone imagined he was capable of writing the awful load of crap called "I Just Called to Say I Love You". I mean, really???

Above anything this shows Obama's great taste in music. Stevie Wonder had a string of five albums that are unparalleled in music. These albums have it all--soul, rhythm, love, politics, spirituality, funky grooves, and innovation. This is Stevie Wonder at his genius period. Hopefully we are seeing Barack Obama at his genius period as well.

I think the song from this period that best encapsulates President Obama is "Higher Ground". Ok, so maybe that wasn't the biggest leap one could make, but oh well, my blog, my selections. "Teachers, keep on teachin', preachers keep on preachin' (the election is over, Rev. Wright, you too are allowed to preach again)...believers, keep on believin." To steal a phrase from Obama's former adversary, "It takes a village...". President Obama knows this and will ask for as much passion and effort from everyday Americans as he asks from himself and his own staff. "Gonna keep on tryin' till I reach the highest ground." He will fail, undoubtedly, but President Obama is not a quitter. There is always a higher ground to reach for, and this will be the time and place and history to reach for it.

Sheryl Crow Huhhh??????

Ok, so if you've seen the man dance, you know he's not the coolest person alive. That award goes to his wife Michelle. And no disrespect to you Mr. President, but if you have Sheryl Crow on your iPod, please don't admit it. Sigh! Ok, here goes.

I'll focus on "Are You Strong Enough". It is President Obama's way of telling his staff that, "I have a vision, but I'm going to rely on you heavily. You need to be strong enough to be with me and ready to support me when I fail and help me when I say 'I don't know'." As opposed to our current president, President Obama will not be afraid to ask questions and seek answers, rather than acting carelessly. He'll surround himself with intelligent, thoughtful, and pragmatic men and women who are strong enough to be his advisors on the tough road ahead.

This will be no easy ride, President Obama. This ain't no disco. This ain't no country club. This is DC. Again, I'm sorry to be a broken record, but...Sheryl Crow????

Miles Davis, John Coltrane, and Charlie Parker President Obama reclaims some of his lost cool points with these selections. I mean, without jazz, there would be no term "cool". Miles had an album called, "Birth of the Cool".

This is an encouraging sign. Jazz is a thinking person's music. Yes it may be improvisational, and no doubt President Obama is going to have to do a lot of improvising, but it is highly technical and complicated. Real jazz isn't Bill Clinton honking away on a saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show. It's ground-breaking and spiritual like Coltrane's "A Love Supreme". It's technically and auditorally beautiful like Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue". It's jaw-droppingly perfect like any Charlie Parker solo when he wasn't out of his mind on drugs. And jazz is the one true American artform. I think Barack Obama is a jazz kind of guy. Cool and calm on the outside, but always thinking and looking to break new ground on the inside. Constantly innovating and finding new ways to riff on old themes. He'll bring out the best in his side players to produce great work.

So there you have it: A look into an Obama presidency based on his iPod selections. You probably can't tell I'm an Obama supporter. I'm just basing my predictions on the facts that the music presents us. I'm sure McCain supporters are wondering where R.E.M.'s "It's the End of the World As We Know It" is. I'm not so naive to think that perfection is going to be what happens. There's going to be a lot of bumps in the road and missteps and moments that bring to mind Bob Dylan leaping into born-again Christianity that make us all collectively say, "What????" But I have hope.

Most of the music listed above is music for the thinking person. It's the type of music that academics study. And I don't know about you, but there is something very comforting in knowing that an intelligent person is running our country. And our government consists of three branches, not just an executive branch like George W. Bush wanted us to think. Our country's recovery is in the hands of Congress and the Supreme Court as well. I think President Obama can unite everyone if they are willing to be united. You're not going to "get" Miles Davis's "Bitches Brew" if you don't allow yourself to "get" it. You've got to keep with it and finally it all comes together and you realize that you've found something. You have been transformed in a way. That's what it's going to take for the USA to turn around: a good dose of transformation from the inside out.

Yes We Can!!!

Pulled Out of the Haze

For awhile there I was feeling uninspired by music. It's not that I stopped liking it or something, it's just that nothing was grabbing my attention. Maybe there were too many distractions. I'm a baseball fan, so I watched in utter disgust as my team, the Chicago Cubs were abruptly eliminated from the playoffs, further confirming their status as the most cruel, laughable, inept sports franchise of all time. Oh I'll be back next year, though.





Then there's the economy, which is looking about as good right now as Amy Winehouse after a night of being Amy Winehouse. Yep, we're in trouble. Start hiding away your money in shoeboxes and hording canned goods. Luckily I have no life savings to lose so I'm good. Actually it'll be kind of fun to watch former Wall Street big shots be lowered into my tax bracket. Ha, ha! How do you like the service industry fool!!





Oh yeah then there's the election. There's Muslim terrorist Barack Obama versus Old Man McCain who wants you to get off his lawn right now. All the while, cougar hockey mom Sarah Palin is riling the conservative base with her good looks and barely coherent sentences. The stupid are hypnotized by her. "Yes Governor Palin, kill the terrorist Obama. Whatever you say. You betcha!"





To make a musical comparison, if we were going to give this little chapter in American history an album title, we'd call it "Further, Further, Further Down the Downward Spiral". All of this has left me in a bit of a haze. Not the fun purple one that Jimi Hendrix spoke of. No it's kind of a bile-yellow haze. The stuff of dry heaving.





But the other night I was pulled out of it. At least for the briefest of moments. I was flipping through the cable channels, looking for more signs that we are living in the end times, when I found Sigur Ros at MoMA.



I'm a little late to Sigur Ros. I just found out about them from reading a review of their latest album, which was just released within the past few months. The Icelandic rockers have been around for quite sometime, though. I have definitely lost some cool points for that admission. It was a good review and I was intrigued, but didn't follow up. Then a co-worker who saw them live said it was the best live show she'd seen. My interest was piqued and so I had to turn on the show.



I wasn't pulled in right away. Maybe I was just in a bad mood, but I didn't get it at first. But gradually, it clicked. Before too long, I was hooked. Call it the Radiohead Effect. It's not instant gratification music. You kind of have to sit with it awhile. And so I did. And maybe it was the ethereal vocals. Maybe it was the interesting rhythmic structure. Maybe it was the combination of xylophone and horns. Maybe it was all of the layers. But as time went on I got it and wanted to hear more. There was a droning quality to it that was hypnotic. There was a certain ebb and flow to the music. These guys are good. I had no idea what any of the words meant, but it didn't matter. The songs had a certain life of their own and made me feel like everything was going to be all right. To me that's what music is about. Comfort, emotion, reassurance. The whole experience left me feeling a lot better about people living in the northern latitudes of our world, as well.

When it was over, way too quickly I might add, I wanted to reconnect with music. I went and got out my old cd's and started putting them into my iTunes collection. I wanted to revisit those songs and albums that got me through the tough times and inspired me. I listened to Nirvana and Soundgarden for the first time in years. I turned up some Neutral Milk Hotel. I rediscovered The Kinks and Eric Clapton. The project serves a practical purpose as well. Once the Great Depression II rolls around and we're all living on the street, it'll be easier to have mp3's than having all of those cd's to cart around. Music makes anything better, though. We'll be ok after all.

The Rights of the Musician

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.

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 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.