Life has been ridiculously busy
over that course of time, there's been a lot to write about
about leaving Dovetails
Metallica and Lou Reed
Primus
Noel Gallagher
gonna see Noel Gallagher tomorrow night
so exciting
i will be back soon
one day
when life brings me back
oh ya
my dragonfly is broken
:'(
the headstock snapped off
fuck....
Monday, November 7, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Jack White and Insane Clown Posse
Initial reaction = "I'm very disappointed in you Jack White :("
Later one after mulling over it, I've seemed to change my mind. Although I think ICP still is the scum of the earth, I understand Jack White's position. As an artist these days, it's hard to really shock an audience. As Alice Cooper says, CNN is much more shocking than anything he's going to do. He dies on stage (fake), well on CNN there are real people dying. So these days, artist need to take "shocking an audience" in a more creative approach. If you think about the most ridiculous pairing or collaborations, one thing comes to mind, Elton John and Eminem. After that any collaboration doesn't seem so exciting. That really is the benchmark those two have made.
Well here comes Jack White and ICP. That IS SHOCKING!!! Why would one of the most respected musicians work with the most hated musicians in the world? Well isn't that the point?
(and to make matters more complicated sampling Mozart -___-)
I read somewhere a little while back from something Jack White said about this, he could have collaborated with Megadeth and it would not have had the same amount of media attention that this had. And that is true.
I've already decided on my opinion on ICP. That they are horrible. But this collaboration will not be passed judgement until I hear the whole track. Because if we know anything about Jack White, is that he doesn't do things normally. Which does provide a very interesting musical landscape for all of us to enjoy.
As a closing note: I feel a little uneasy either way about this track. If it is good, I'll feel strange liking something ICP has worked on. If it is bad, I would expect to because ICP is on it, but disappointed because Jack White put a lot of credibility on the line to do this.
We shall see....
Later one after mulling over it, I've seemed to change my mind. Although I think ICP still is the scum of the earth, I understand Jack White's position. As an artist these days, it's hard to really shock an audience. As Alice Cooper says, CNN is much more shocking than anything he's going to do. He dies on stage (fake), well on CNN there are real people dying. So these days, artist need to take "shocking an audience" in a more creative approach. If you think about the most ridiculous pairing or collaborations, one thing comes to mind, Elton John and Eminem. After that any collaboration doesn't seem so exciting. That really is the benchmark those two have made.
Well here comes Jack White and ICP. That IS SHOCKING!!! Why would one of the most respected musicians work with the most hated musicians in the world? Well isn't that the point?
(and to make matters more complicated sampling Mozart -___-)
I read somewhere a little while back from something Jack White said about this, he could have collaborated with Megadeth and it would not have had the same amount of media attention that this had. And that is true.
I've already decided on my opinion on ICP. That they are horrible. But this collaboration will not be passed judgement until I hear the whole track. Because if we know anything about Jack White, is that he doesn't do things normally. Which does provide a very interesting musical landscape for all of us to enjoy.
As a closing note: I feel a little uneasy either way about this track. If it is good, I'll feel strange liking something ICP has worked on. If it is bad, I would expect to because ICP is on it, but disappointed because Jack White put a lot of credibility on the line to do this.
We shall see....
The Kids Growing Up on Black Metal are at a Disadvantage
A few days ago that thought popped into my head. A lot of metalheads don't start listening to metal from day one. Only the kids with parents or adult figures in their lives that teach them about metal have that. For those who start there journey on their own, I'd say the worst genre for anyone to start off with is Black Metal. Metal is where kids go to hide themselves away from the real world. It's where they can be themselves no matter what that means. And overtime take that self-worth and confidence gained in their own journey and be able to stand on their own 2 feet in the real world. It's a journey that we take to understand ourselves and find out our own real worth. But for most of us "real" metal isn't where we start from. We start with what's on the radio, or what's popular. For me it was Nu-Metal. For a lot of people in the 80s and early 90s it was hair metal. For people earlier than that it was KISS. For maybe some arena rock types like Van Halen. In any case, most people don't go straight into the Slayers or Iron Maidens or Sepulturas.
As most people that know me, I have a large disdain for both Black Metal and Hair Metal. Hair metal is a different story. Black Metal is today's topic. The reason why I think that kids that grow up on Black Metal are at a disadvantage is because it is the one genre of "Metal" music that at it's core is not metal at all. Metal is an expression of freedom; the ability to be who you want to be without impeding on other's freedoms. Metal gives you the courage to stand up and be who you really are in the face of the rest of the world. All genres of metal music gives you that lesson.... EVEN hair metal. Hair metal although idiotic and very very commercial driven, at one time it was also about self expression that you don't have to look ugly and play metal. It was a rebellion against the standard school of metal. Wear high heels, big poofy hair, makeup, etc. It was a rebellion to be who you want to be, a metalhead who was not afraid to look like every other metalhead (jeans, long hair, dirty, etc). Although later on it become so commercial that it lost sight of that idea, but at the core of it; the reason why it started was because it was self-expression. Black Metal has none of that. It is a genre based on who can be more "evil". Who can show up and be the most "hardcore" and the most "satanic". Nevermind that it isn't about the music at all, the major complaint is that it is not metal at all. The idea behind Black Metal is that we should all try to be as "evil" as possible. In other words Black Metal tries to make us all the same. It does not allow for self-expression. It just wants us to go against religion and be "evil". Black Metal doesn't care about your own freedoms or self-expression. It is all about being the same.
Even an idiotic genre like Nu-Metal is still more metal than Black Metal. For all its posturing and bullshit, at the end of the day Nu-Metal still is about being yourself not matter what that means. I grew up on Korn and Limp Bizkit; and you might even add System of a Down and Slipknot in the mix. The most hated band of the genre, Limp Bizkit, what is their mantra? "It's Cool to be a Hater". They're whole idea is that even if the whole world hates Limp Bizkit, "we don't care" we like us for us and we won't change that. This is METAL. We can sit here all day and argue about whether metalcore really is metal, but from an ideological standpoint, real metal is something that promotes individuality and encourages it, regardless of what it sounds like. Why is a song like "The Islander" by Nightwish considered metal? The thing songs like a fusion of pop and folk. But we still consider it metal. Metal is not defined by what it sounds like, there is a reason why there are so many deviations from the genre and there actually is no band that plays Metal. Even the holy and great Black Sabbath is considered Early Metal. There is no pure genre of Metal. There may be glimpses of Heavy Metal, but it would be hard to find a band that isn't classified by a more detailed approach than Heavy Metal.
At the end of the day, kids who grow up on Black Metal are at a disadvantage. Besides the fact that the music is garbage, Black Metal does not promote and encourage individuality. It is a religion on it's own that (like all other religions) tries to choke off individuality and takes away the freedoms of the individual. As a closing example, how many times have Death Metal bands been ridiculed by Black Metal fans because they aren't "evil enough". That my friends is not freedom of speech that is a censorship.
As most people that know me, I have a large disdain for both Black Metal and Hair Metal. Hair metal is a different story. Black Metal is today's topic. The reason why I think that kids that grow up on Black Metal are at a disadvantage is because it is the one genre of "Metal" music that at it's core is not metal at all. Metal is an expression of freedom; the ability to be who you want to be without impeding on other's freedoms. Metal gives you the courage to stand up and be who you really are in the face of the rest of the world. All genres of metal music gives you that lesson.... EVEN hair metal. Hair metal although idiotic and very very commercial driven, at one time it was also about self expression that you don't have to look ugly and play metal. It was a rebellion against the standard school of metal. Wear high heels, big poofy hair, makeup, etc. It was a rebellion to be who you want to be, a metalhead who was not afraid to look like every other metalhead (jeans, long hair, dirty, etc). Although later on it become so commercial that it lost sight of that idea, but at the core of it; the reason why it started was because it was self-expression. Black Metal has none of that. It is a genre based on who can be more "evil". Who can show up and be the most "hardcore" and the most "satanic". Nevermind that it isn't about the music at all, the major complaint is that it is not metal at all. The idea behind Black Metal is that we should all try to be as "evil" as possible. In other words Black Metal tries to make us all the same. It does not allow for self-expression. It just wants us to go against religion and be "evil". Black Metal doesn't care about your own freedoms or self-expression. It is all about being the same.
Even an idiotic genre like Nu-Metal is still more metal than Black Metal. For all its posturing and bullshit, at the end of the day Nu-Metal still is about being yourself not matter what that means. I grew up on Korn and Limp Bizkit; and you might even add System of a Down and Slipknot in the mix. The most hated band of the genre, Limp Bizkit, what is their mantra? "It's Cool to be a Hater". They're whole idea is that even if the whole world hates Limp Bizkit, "we don't care" we like us for us and we won't change that. This is METAL. We can sit here all day and argue about whether metalcore really is metal, but from an ideological standpoint, real metal is something that promotes individuality and encourages it, regardless of what it sounds like. Why is a song like "The Islander" by Nightwish considered metal? The thing songs like a fusion of pop and folk. But we still consider it metal. Metal is not defined by what it sounds like, there is a reason why there are so many deviations from the genre and there actually is no band that plays Metal. Even the holy and great Black Sabbath is considered Early Metal. There is no pure genre of Metal. There may be glimpses of Heavy Metal, but it would be hard to find a band that isn't classified by a more detailed approach than Heavy Metal.
At the end of the day, kids who grow up on Black Metal are at a disadvantage. Besides the fact that the music is garbage, Black Metal does not promote and encourage individuality. It is a religion on it's own that (like all other religions) tries to choke off individuality and takes away the freedoms of the individual. As a closing example, how many times have Death Metal bands been ridiculed by Black Metal fans because they aren't "evil enough". That my friends is not freedom of speech that is a censorship.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Worth Living For
Metal is the only thing worth living for. At the end of the day it is the only thing that gives me comfort. Metal is a way of life. So Up the Irons and Kill 'Em All because that's all that really matters.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Hate Series: Ep. 3 - Gene Simmons
Gene Simmons isn't a very good bassist, nor is he a very good musician. What he is good at is being a businessman. I don't think a majority of Kiss' reperitore is any good. With that said, Kiss is probably one of the biggest bands ever. Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons make a very good team, but Simmons is the real marketing genius behind the brand-band. Simmons is hated for the wrong reasons mostly. He is hated because he takes music and sells out all night and all day. But really that is what should be admired. Gene Simmons does not lie. He does not proclaim that his "music" is art or that it changes how people think. He makes music to sell it and make money. Nothing more. He does not lie. He will say it right to your face. Kiss is a brand not a band. When people lie to your face and say it's music, that's when we chase them down the street with pitchforks. No Kiss is not a band, they are a brand, and they have never tried to convince anyone else otherwise. Is Gene an ass? Probably. But you can't be a successful businessman without being an ass. But if you are going to hate on him, don't hate him for anything related to music credibility. If you are gonna hate him, hate him because he's just another suit. You can still respect the man for doing what he's done with Kiss while still hating what he is.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Hate Series: Ep. 2 - Liam Gallagher
Part 2 of the "Hate Series" will examine Liam Gallagher, the lead singer of Oasis and currently of Beady Eye. Now it must be said, I am a huge Noel Gallagher fan. If I had my way in this world, all Oasis songs would be sung by Noel. Anyways, continuing on with this post.
Liam doesn't really have that great of a voice, but what pisses people off is his attitude. Liam is a prick. Plain and simple. He bad mouths everyone, has terrible manners, and pisses off pretty much everyone. With all that said, Liam really is the last standing rock star. He is the last frontman to have that masculine swagger and live the "not care about the world" lifestyle. What Liam has is presence. Look at any footage of him in a live situation. Cocked off to his right with a bad posture, both hands behind his back, face/lips forward to the microphone. Yes, this man has mad swagger. It doesn't matter what comes out his mouth. Just him walking up on stage and standing behind the microphone and people are compelled to listen to what he says. There aren't many who can just stand there and command attention. Mick Jagger needs to do pirouettes across stage, Mercury commands everyone with his voice, Elvis did it with his hips. No Liam does not need any of that. He stands there, with the mentality that he is the best. He seems to believe in it so much, that it seeps into others and they are compelled to listen. This is the one redeeming quality of this man. You can't help but respect what he can do. Could he do this all without being a prick? Probably not. The cockiness transcends the stage, it is his life. He cannot have one without the other. Liam may not be the best musicians in the world, and he definitively isn't the best singer, but the case could be made that he is one of the best frontmen of all time. No fancy moves, him just standing there justifies that claim.
Liam doesn't really have that great of a voice, but what pisses people off is his attitude. Liam is a prick. Plain and simple. He bad mouths everyone, has terrible manners, and pisses off pretty much everyone. With all that said, Liam really is the last standing rock star. He is the last frontman to have that masculine swagger and live the "not care about the world" lifestyle. What Liam has is presence. Look at any footage of him in a live situation. Cocked off to his right with a bad posture, both hands behind his back, face/lips forward to the microphone. Yes, this man has mad swagger. It doesn't matter what comes out his mouth. Just him walking up on stage and standing behind the microphone and people are compelled to listen to what he says. There aren't many who can just stand there and command attention. Mick Jagger needs to do pirouettes across stage, Mercury commands everyone with his voice, Elvis did it with his hips. No Liam does not need any of that. He stands there, with the mentality that he is the best. He seems to believe in it so much, that it seeps into others and they are compelled to listen. This is the one redeeming quality of this man. You can't help but respect what he can do. Could he do this all without being a prick? Probably not. The cockiness transcends the stage, it is his life. He cannot have one without the other. Liam may not be the best musicians in the world, and he definitively isn't the best singer, but the case could be made that he is one of the best frontmen of all time. No fancy moves, him just standing there justifies that claim.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Hate Series: Ep. 1 - Bono
Let me make the case today why Bono is the greatest frontman of all time. With the probable exception of Freddie Mercury, Bono has got to be the most well rounded, most compelling frontman of all time. He has got an undeniable voice; his name is Bono for fricks sakes. He's got the stage prescence, to keep the the crowd in the palm of his hands. And above all he is a frontman that can improv. He can make up vocal melody lines on the spot, he can create lyrics on the spot - much a kin to freestyle rapping. That's what puts him above the rest, to be able to, on-the-spot, make lines for himself on the fly is truly inspiring. How many bands do you know, that when the band gets together to jam, the vocalist sits in the corner doing nothing (maybe hitting a pot or something). No, Bono is someone that can sit there and move with the band, making his vocals an instruments instead of a seperate entitiy.
Now, I'm starting this "Hate Series" to go against the general perspective (or at least perceived general perspective). Today's subject is Bono. Of all the musician's in history, no one has been hated so much for trying to do a good thing. Bono the savior of Africa went off the deepend when he asked everyone to give away their money and not (apparently) giving enough of his own. I think these days people are less "nice". I would like to say it's because of America, but then again you really couldn't say that. Here's a little economic/social experiement. Why is welfare and other lower-income related benefits about 20% lower in America than in Europe? A bigger factor may be because America is multicultural. Who would have thought, eh? A lot of countries in Europe are culutrally related, they are mostly all of one nation, so donating money to "their own people" they are more inclinded to be generous. Whereas in America, giving money to immigrants (not of own relation) is less inclinded to be generous. It's because America has a set culture and has the ability to differentiate American heritage vs immigrant heritage (the reason why Canada does not fall in with America). So who's to say if the reverse was true (Europe was mostly immigrants) they wouldn't be less generous. So it's hard to find a justification for being less "nice". Regardless Bono has become the posterchild (how ironic) for Africa. And with that, for some reason a lot of hate.
The first issue that comes up a lot is the whole Belgium - tax-evasion thing. First off, to who ever calls this a crime, you are an idiot. This is not illegal, and hardly anything morally wrong with it. If taxes are too high in one country, you will move your business to greener pastuers. Simple as that. So you Americans who keep fighting in red-eyed frenzy for lower taxes, you have no say in calling this act by the U2 group wrong. Sorry, you have no right. Your need to lower corporate taxes is exactly what U2 is/has done. Why lower corporate taxes? To attact businesses to your country to operate, well that is exactly what U2 has done. I see nothing wrong with what they did. When it comes to business/money, efficiency is the name of the game. If you can make a bigger profit by relocating your business somewhere else than that is what you NEED to do. Don't be an idiot. Now with that, there is the argument, well Bono does call for governments to increase aid to third world countries. How do they do that? Through taxes. To that I have no argument against it. What I think that Bono does wrong is how he thinks Africa can be saved. No amount of free money will save Africa, what needs to change is the political system, the society/people, and the debt they owe. Quick fixes of aid money will help the children for a few days, but it wouldn't help them to grow-up. Something more than just money must be used. Even if debt owed is completely forgotten, where does that leave Africa? They would still need to borrow money to finance their society. No, I think Bono has the right intentions but his execution is wrong. But I do think that the Belgium thing and his proclaimation of more aid to Africa are seperate issues. The Belgium thing is a non-issue, when you pair it with proclaimation of more aid, we do run into a slight technicallity, but i think what Bono wants goes beyond a paycheque from a government, what I think he wants is equality.
The second issue, is the big, rich, rock star. Bono makes a crap load of money. A ridiculous amount of money with U2 and an even more ridiculous amount of money through his investment firm. So a lot of people argue if he asks us to give our money away, why can't he? Percentage-wise i'm sure he gives just as much (or more) as the average Joe, or at least what he asks us regular folk to give. But that's hardly an argumentment for the heaps of cash he sits on after donations. If there's one thing to be understood in all this, Bono doesn't expect us all to live in mud huts and hunt for food. He wants the 1st world to keep being the 1st world but at the same time he wants the 3rd world to become the 1st world also. That I say is quite impossible. It's either Rich and poor or poor and poor. But that is a different argument. I highly doubt that Bono sits on a lot of free cash. I would assume 90% of his revenues are in investments and other U2-related projects. If you expect any person in his position to give away his money in such a highly volitile industry is being unrelastic. It's like asking a football player to give away 50% of his money he has now because he makes a lot. You just never know if those taps will someday just shut off. And really Bono has no professional expereience, he's a frickin' lead singer of a rock band, hardly qualifications for a chemist or engineer. And the world will not be filled with love and peace if Bono is poor either. It won't help a damn.
With all that said, what we need is less hate for Bono because he is a damn good singer and musician. What we need from Bono is more advocacy for Africa and other third-world countries (yes I said it, we need more) but in the form of what he does best - MUSIC. Bono ain't no saint, but he doesn't ask any of us to be saints either. And I think he's given a lot more than any of use ever will, just in his loss of face is enough payment for the average human.
The reason why I will always defend Bono is because he's the only one brave enough to standup and say something. He tried to change the world. I think on a big picture front he did change the world. I think on a personal level he failed. But there's no way he could have succeeded. The backlash he received is unavoidable, short of being homeless. I remember hearing he once said, that he would love to not talk about this at all, but that what a sad state of the world is when you are talking advise on world issues from rock stars such as himself. No one else at the time was willing to stand up for the cause (no one in a position of power). I don't think he expected the amount of backlash. I know he expected some backlash. But he took that risk regardless just so that maybe the world would change regardless of his own public image and pride. That's why I will always defend Bono.
At the end of the day U2 is still probably the best band of the past 30 years. And Bono is still one of the greatest frontman of all time. Besides someone who, everytime claps, causes a poor African child to die, should not be angered.
Now, I'm starting this "Hate Series" to go against the general perspective (or at least perceived general perspective). Today's subject is Bono. Of all the musician's in history, no one has been hated so much for trying to do a good thing. Bono the savior of Africa went off the deepend when he asked everyone to give away their money and not (apparently) giving enough of his own. I think these days people are less "nice". I would like to say it's because of America, but then again you really couldn't say that. Here's a little economic/social experiement. Why is welfare and other lower-income related benefits about 20% lower in America than in Europe? A bigger factor may be because America is multicultural. Who would have thought, eh? A lot of countries in Europe are culutrally related, they are mostly all of one nation, so donating money to "their own people" they are more inclinded to be generous. Whereas in America, giving money to immigrants (not of own relation) is less inclinded to be generous. It's because America has a set culture and has the ability to differentiate American heritage vs immigrant heritage (the reason why Canada does not fall in with America). So who's to say if the reverse was true (Europe was mostly immigrants) they wouldn't be less generous. So it's hard to find a justification for being less "nice". Regardless Bono has become the posterchild (how ironic) for Africa. And with that, for some reason a lot of hate.
The first issue that comes up a lot is the whole Belgium - tax-evasion thing. First off, to who ever calls this a crime, you are an idiot. This is not illegal, and hardly anything morally wrong with it. If taxes are too high in one country, you will move your business to greener pastuers. Simple as that. So you Americans who keep fighting in red-eyed frenzy for lower taxes, you have no say in calling this act by the U2 group wrong. Sorry, you have no right. Your need to lower corporate taxes is exactly what U2 is/has done. Why lower corporate taxes? To attact businesses to your country to operate, well that is exactly what U2 has done. I see nothing wrong with what they did. When it comes to business/money, efficiency is the name of the game. If you can make a bigger profit by relocating your business somewhere else than that is what you NEED to do. Don't be an idiot. Now with that, there is the argument, well Bono does call for governments to increase aid to third world countries. How do they do that? Through taxes. To that I have no argument against it. What I think that Bono does wrong is how he thinks Africa can be saved. No amount of free money will save Africa, what needs to change is the political system, the society/people, and the debt they owe. Quick fixes of aid money will help the children for a few days, but it wouldn't help them to grow-up. Something more than just money must be used. Even if debt owed is completely forgotten, where does that leave Africa? They would still need to borrow money to finance their society. No, I think Bono has the right intentions but his execution is wrong. But I do think that the Belgium thing and his proclaimation of more aid to Africa are seperate issues. The Belgium thing is a non-issue, when you pair it with proclaimation of more aid, we do run into a slight technicallity, but i think what Bono wants goes beyond a paycheque from a government, what I think he wants is equality.
The second issue, is the big, rich, rock star. Bono makes a crap load of money. A ridiculous amount of money with U2 and an even more ridiculous amount of money through his investment firm. So a lot of people argue if he asks us to give our money away, why can't he? Percentage-wise i'm sure he gives just as much (or more) as the average Joe, or at least what he asks us regular folk to give. But that's hardly an argumentment for the heaps of cash he sits on after donations. If there's one thing to be understood in all this, Bono doesn't expect us all to live in mud huts and hunt for food. He wants the 1st world to keep being the 1st world but at the same time he wants the 3rd world to become the 1st world also. That I say is quite impossible. It's either Rich and poor or poor and poor. But that is a different argument. I highly doubt that Bono sits on a lot of free cash. I would assume 90% of his revenues are in investments and other U2-related projects. If you expect any person in his position to give away his money in such a highly volitile industry is being unrelastic. It's like asking a football player to give away 50% of his money he has now because he makes a lot. You just never know if those taps will someday just shut off. And really Bono has no professional expereience, he's a frickin' lead singer of a rock band, hardly qualifications for a chemist or engineer. And the world will not be filled with love and peace if Bono is poor either. It won't help a damn.
With all that said, what we need is less hate for Bono because he is a damn good singer and musician. What we need from Bono is more advocacy for Africa and other third-world countries (yes I said it, we need more) but in the form of what he does best - MUSIC. Bono ain't no saint, but he doesn't ask any of us to be saints either. And I think he's given a lot more than any of use ever will, just in his loss of face is enough payment for the average human.
The reason why I will always defend Bono is because he's the only one brave enough to standup and say something. He tried to change the world. I think on a big picture front he did change the world. I think on a personal level he failed. But there's no way he could have succeeded. The backlash he received is unavoidable, short of being homeless. I remember hearing he once said, that he would love to not talk about this at all, but that what a sad state of the world is when you are talking advise on world issues from rock stars such as himself. No one else at the time was willing to stand up for the cause (no one in a position of power). I don't think he expected the amount of backlash. I know he expected some backlash. But he took that risk regardless just so that maybe the world would change regardless of his own public image and pride. That's why I will always defend Bono.
At the end of the day U2 is still probably the best band of the past 30 years. And Bono is still one of the greatest frontman of all time. Besides someone who, everytime claps, causes a poor African child to die, should not be angered.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Theory, Why It's the Most Important Thing to Being a Musician
Ok, so TalkBass.com has a shitstorm of a forum topic about the importance of theory.
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f22/theory-over-rated-795999/
There's a lot of crap posted as I can read. A lot of it I disagree both on the agreeing and disagreeing sides of the arguement. The problem is how people are framing the problem. The closest to the truth they get to is trying to answer it as a musician who plays covers and someone who plays originals.
One incredibly glaring post to me was written by Staind's bassist. Now I don't know his/her name, nor do I know if he/she can even play, but let's assume in this multi-plantinum band, the bassist can at least play at the level of The Foo Fighters.
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f22/theory-over-rated-795999/
There's a lot of crap posted as I can read. A lot of it I disagree both on the agreeing and disagreeing sides of the arguement. The problem is how people are framing the problem. The closest to the truth they get to is trying to answer it as a musician who plays covers and someone who plays originals.
One incredibly glaring post to me was written by Staind's bassist. Now I don't know his/her name, nor do I know if he/she can even play, but let's assume in this multi-plantinum band, the bassist can at least play at the level of The Foo Fighters.
Staindbass: "if you follow theory, you end up playing stuff everyone else played already.. similar to cooking from a cookbook instead of inventing your own creations. it is a fact you dont need theory to be successful. i think it is a good thing to know, but not required. maybe if i had studied theory i would not be where i am, i play the way i do because i figured it out myself. 15 million albums aint that bad."
Now, on so many levels this is completely wrong and for an actual working musician sets a bad prescedent for young musicians learning to survive in such an turbulent environment. Without going into the metaphysical element of theory as a language, "15 million albums aint that bad" is not a justification. Milli Vanilli sold a ridiculous amount of albums. Record sales is never an indication of musical talent.
Ok, now the real argument against Staind's bassist's statement. "if you follow theory, you end up playing stuff everyone else played already" omg. Composition, yes can be completely original (hard to find), with infinite combinatations (combinatorics majors please) you can do your own thing (especially with each instrument added). But actual chord structures and scales, no you will not create a "new scale" that no one has ever played before. That is just ridiculous. If you stick within the dodecaphonic (12 note) structure of most modern music, you aren't finding anything new. (still looking for that brown note though) I'm sorry, what was written in those old dusty books are the only tools you have. Just a few days ago, going through my Harmony book I discovered a Supertonic seventh chord paired with a imperfect cadence followed by a perfect cadence. Used it in a song, something I would have never thought of doing if I didn't pick up a book. If you play something you've never played before, you'll find that someone has already done it, and written it in a book somewhere. So in theory, you would have found it faster if you read a book. Don't be stupid. Stop having some romantisized version of what music really is. Don't be naive enough to think you are the greatest thing ever, because you are the first person to play this, because you aren't. I don't see any music professor coming with a big cheque to learn what you just played. To them what you just played is boring in theory. Some blatent copy of so-and-so. Sorry, if you want to look at your music on paper, it's nothing short of plagerism. lol, so no the argument that "if you follow theory, you end up playing stuff everyone else played already" is actually true, but if you don't follow theory, ur also following stufff that everyone else played already.
Now, on so many levels this is completely wrong and for an actual working musician sets a bad prescedent for young musicians learning to survive in such an turbulent environment. Without going into the metaphysical element of theory as a language, "15 million albums aint that bad" is not a justification. Milli Vanilli sold a ridiculous amount of albums. Record sales is never an indication of musical talent.
Ok, now the real argument against Staind's bassist's statement. "if you follow theory, you end up playing stuff everyone else played already" omg. Composition, yes can be completely original (hard to find), with infinite combinatations (combinatorics majors please) you can do your own thing (especially with each instrument added). But actual chord structures and scales, no you will not create a "new scale" that no one has ever played before. That is just ridiculous. If you stick within the dodecaphonic (12 note) structure of most modern music, you aren't finding anything new. (still looking for that brown note though) I'm sorry, what was written in those old dusty books are the only tools you have. Just a few days ago, going through my Harmony book I discovered a Supertonic seventh chord paired with a imperfect cadence followed by a perfect cadence. Used it in a song, something I would have never thought of doing if I didn't pick up a book. If you play something you've never played before, you'll find that someone has already done it, and written it in a book somewhere. So in theory, you would have found it faster if you read a book. Don't be stupid. Stop having some romantisized version of what music really is. Don't be naive enough to think you are the greatest thing ever, because you are the first person to play this, because you aren't. I don't see any music professor coming with a big cheque to learn what you just played. To them what you just played is boring in theory. Some blatent copy of so-and-so. Sorry, if you want to look at your music on paper, it's nothing short of plagerism. lol, so no the argument that "if you follow theory, you end up playing stuff everyone else played already" is actually true, but if you don't follow theory, ur also following stufff that everyone else played already.
Enough of that, let's go to my opinion of theory.
Theory is essential to becoming a good musician. It is not essential to becoming a good bassist, a good trumpet player, a good pianist, a good violinist, etc. It is not essential to becoming a good artist. The only thing it is good for is becoming a good musician.
You can be a good instrumentalist without knowing a lick of theory. That is obvious.
You can be a good artist without knowing a lick of theory. Simply because being an artist goes beyond music.
You cannot be a good musician without knowing any theory. A musician is someone who is given any playable instrument, given any genre of music, given a room of other knowledgable musician, can lead the group to make music. Let's go with worst case scenerio and you are given a baton. If you can command the room to play the music that is in your head, then you are a great musician. The more theory you know, the stronger your command will be of the room. Not only will you be able to communicate what is in your head, but your confidence and respect will be high because the players are being spoken to in their language. An artist cannot do this and an instrumentalist cannot do this. Both these types of players tell others just to follow them. It is true that groove cannot be taught or read about in a book. But taking that groove and giving it to others is something that needs to be learned in a book.
Now with that said, the modern western, 12 tone, theory taught is not the be all end all. It is just one form of language. Just as there is English, French, and Chinese. There is also, Pentatonic and Quarter tones. Theory is essential to becoming a great musician because it is the uniform norm of the majority. It's just like great business men need to know how to speak English in order to compete in the big markets because it is the business norm. Much akin to people arguing that we should learn Chinese because they are the emerging market that will be the norm (hahahahaha).
The worst thing about theory is that it is boring and there is no secret to it. Everything that is, is written in that book. There are no shortcuts. It is important to understand at the very least the basic concepts of musical theory because it is how we as musicians communicate with other musicians. What we communicate to the audiences is not be communicated thru forte and cantabille. No, but our language is Arnold Schoenberg's alogrhythm. How it is interpretted is a whole different issue.
Stop being lazy.
Theory is essential to becoming a good musician. It is not essential to becoming a good bassist, a good trumpet player, a good pianist, a good violinist, etc. It is not essential to becoming a good artist. The only thing it is good for is becoming a good musician.
You can be a good instrumentalist without knowing a lick of theory. That is obvious.
You can be a good artist without knowing a lick of theory. Simply because being an artist goes beyond music.
You cannot be a good musician without knowing any theory. A musician is someone who is given any playable instrument, given any genre of music, given a room of other knowledgable musician, can lead the group to make music. Let's go with worst case scenerio and you are given a baton. If you can command the room to play the music that is in your head, then you are a great musician. The more theory you know, the stronger your command will be of the room. Not only will you be able to communicate what is in your head, but your confidence and respect will be high because the players are being spoken to in their language. An artist cannot do this and an instrumentalist cannot do this. Both these types of players tell others just to follow them. It is true that groove cannot be taught or read about in a book. But taking that groove and giving it to others is something that needs to be learned in a book.
Now with that said, the modern western, 12 tone, theory taught is not the be all end all. It is just one form of language. Just as there is English, French, and Chinese. There is also, Pentatonic and Quarter tones. Theory is essential to becoming a great musician because it is the uniform norm of the majority. It's just like great business men need to know how to speak English in order to compete in the big markets because it is the business norm. Much akin to people arguing that we should learn Chinese because they are the emerging market that will be the norm (hahahahaha).
The worst thing about theory is that it is boring and there is no secret to it. Everything that is, is written in that book. There are no shortcuts. It is important to understand at the very least the basic concepts of musical theory because it is how we as musicians communicate with other musicians. What we communicate to the audiences is not be communicated thru forte and cantabille. No, but our language is Arnold Schoenberg's alogrhythm. How it is interpretted is a whole different issue.
Stop being lazy.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Notice: Know This
NOTICE: Know This
"In the light of news of Souljah Boy buying a 55 Million Dollar Jet in these times for many people especially of color. This is a polite respect call to the troops , to continue to inspire but reflect the people better.
OTIS Redding was a humble country man from Macon Georgia who bought a jet to work in, not flash. He perished in that plane. Heres to hoping that the J & K supergroup can elevate the masses and try a little bit more to reflect OTIS heart rather than swag, because they're too good to be less."
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Stage Persona
It's an interesting position that musicians/artists are put in. Balancing their art and commerciality. When we describe music, we think of the art in its purest form. When we think stage act, we think entertainment. Although I don't believe these two things are completely polar things. They should be something musicians should and must embrace. Listing off a few larger than life personas in popular music we can come up with a rather intense list. Kiss, Prince, Elton John, Slipknot, Maryiln Manson, etc. Now I don't advocate any musician goes out of their way to perpetuate a stage persona, rather it should be a natural extension of themselves.
Let's say we take David Bowie and his Ziggy Stardust character. If we are to take a direct quote from Bowie, "Offstage I'm a robot. Onstage I achieve emotion. It's probably why I prefer dressing up as Ziggy to being David." Now at first glance this may seem pardoxial. In real life he feels nothing but on stage (in the fake, articifical stage) he feels alive but maybe it is us that see things wrongly. The stage is where the real David Bowie comes alive, the sorta Jekyll and Hyde transformation, and in real life he is the one pretending. Pretending to fit in all of societies little niceties and pleasantries. On stage is when the unchained David Bowie comes to life.
Or we can take Alice Cooper, where there is the Alice Cooper we see on stage, then there's Vincent in real life. Yet again, this is a Jekyll and Hyde transformation. It isn't purely manufactured (although, you have to know that some of it is exagerated, but that is theatre, exagerated). Alice Cooper is just as much a real person is as Vincent is. They are both seperate identies but both the same person.
So what should stage persona be?
What we know is that it shouldn't be black metal. It shouldn't be fake. It shouldn't be manufactured. And it defintely shouldn't be something that you try and make people believe. What it should be is yourself. It should be an extention of yourself that doesn't exist in everyday life. So there is a fine line in all that. What point does it become a self perpetuated act, and when is it a natural extention of yourself. That is something that only the individual can answer for themselves. And the audience will know, they will feel what is fake and what is true.
As a final note, I have been discussing very extreme cases of stage persona. But it is not limited to just Slipknot-esque stage demenor. Where would Jimi Hendrix be without stage persona? Where would Janis Joplin be without stage persona. When you are on stage, you are bigger than life. At the end of the day, as the great prophet once said, people come to be entertained; no one comes to a show to be whipped; and if you do come to the show to be whipped isn't that for entertainment? If you have no stage persona, you become the stereotypical classical musician. Nose in the books, playing off the sheet. It doesn't matter how talented you are, without a presence no one will pay attention.
Let's say we take David Bowie and his Ziggy Stardust character. If we are to take a direct quote from Bowie, "Offstage I'm a robot. Onstage I achieve emotion. It's probably why I prefer dressing up as Ziggy to being David." Now at first glance this may seem pardoxial. In real life he feels nothing but on stage (in the fake, articifical stage) he feels alive but maybe it is us that see things wrongly. The stage is where the real David Bowie comes alive, the sorta Jekyll and Hyde transformation, and in real life he is the one pretending. Pretending to fit in all of societies little niceties and pleasantries. On stage is when the unchained David Bowie comes to life.
Or we can take Alice Cooper, where there is the Alice Cooper we see on stage, then there's Vincent in real life. Yet again, this is a Jekyll and Hyde transformation. It isn't purely manufactured (although, you have to know that some of it is exagerated, but that is theatre, exagerated). Alice Cooper is just as much a real person is as Vincent is. They are both seperate identies but both the same person.
So what should stage persona be?
What we know is that it shouldn't be black metal. It shouldn't be fake. It shouldn't be manufactured. And it defintely shouldn't be something that you try and make people believe. What it should be is yourself. It should be an extention of yourself that doesn't exist in everyday life. So there is a fine line in all that. What point does it become a self perpetuated act, and when is it a natural extention of yourself. That is something that only the individual can answer for themselves. And the audience will know, they will feel what is fake and what is true.
As a final note, I have been discussing very extreme cases of stage persona. But it is not limited to just Slipknot-esque stage demenor. Where would Jimi Hendrix be without stage persona? Where would Janis Joplin be without stage persona. When you are on stage, you are bigger than life. At the end of the day, as the great prophet once said, people come to be entertained; no one comes to a show to be whipped; and if you do come to the show to be whipped isn't that for entertainment? If you have no stage persona, you become the stereotypical classical musician. Nose in the books, playing off the sheet. It doesn't matter how talented you are, without a presence no one will pay attention.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Legacy: Amy Winehouse
Well a few days have past since the passing of Amy Winehouse. I deliberately put off writing about her untimely death I wanted to wait until the whole celebrity aspect of it died down. Now I'm not gonna speculate on what caused her death. It was most like due to drugs, but you never know. Maybe it was a murder. Maybe it was a suicide. Maybe it was due to sobering up that caused other complications in her health. It is endless and not a debate that we need to go into at this point.
From a historical stand point just another number added to the list of 27. Another victim of the Curse of 27. Joining the ranks of Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain, she's in good company (Joplin would be a better example but whatever). Many have speculated on the Curse of 27 and tried to answer why 27 is so significant. Ultimately, I believe it is just a stastical anomaly. No good reason. It's just because. Maybe except for Kurt Cobain, since he was so enchanted by the allure of the curse, 27 really holds no signficance. Regardless it is a sad time, when we as musciains have another number to add to the curse.
Now to the music, the legacy that Amy Winehouse leaves. 2 really, really influencial albums. Well maybe 1 influencial regardless music would not be where it is today without her. Back to Black won her 5 Grammys in one night, which is incredible. Now I don't place much significance in the Grammys (actually I loath them) but something must be said by the dynamics of winning that many awards. I'm not going to into the discussion of the level of artistry or musical maturity that this album has simply because I know very little of her music. However, what is important to note (in my mind) is the influence she has had on modern music. That throw back style to early swing and big band music, with that very old soul voice - modernizing it and bringing it to the 21st century. That spawned a large industry shift. The old was new and the new was old. Right now on the radio I hear that Cee Lo song, Fuck You... I think is what it's called. Don't worry I'm not listen to it by choice, I just happen to be at work right now, and it's on the radio. Regardless, I listen to it, and think could this really be possible without Amy Winehouse. Look at the top female charters today, Lady Gaga to Duffy. They all cite her as influences and some even say the reason they even decided to pursue a career in music. That's huge. Regardless of how daft I think Duffy is or blatently Gaga is a copycat, it still a huge thing to influence a whole scene.
So with all that said, it is very tragic that she pased away. We all knew that it was inevitable, but that does not take away the shock or saddness of the event. But what is inportant after death, is to celebrate their life. Celebrate the music she left us. That hopefully will be her legacy and not all that garbage in the tabloids and such.
On a sidenote, apparently she's one of Geezer's favourite musicians. Who would have thought eh?
From a historical stand point just another number added to the list of 27. Another victim of the Curse of 27. Joining the ranks of Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain, she's in good company (Joplin would be a better example but whatever). Many have speculated on the Curse of 27 and tried to answer why 27 is so significant. Ultimately, I believe it is just a stastical anomaly. No good reason. It's just because. Maybe except for Kurt Cobain, since he was so enchanted by the allure of the curse, 27 really holds no signficance. Regardless it is a sad time, when we as musciains have another number to add to the curse.
Now to the music, the legacy that Amy Winehouse leaves. 2 really, really influencial albums. Well maybe 1 influencial regardless music would not be where it is today without her. Back to Black won her 5 Grammys in one night, which is incredible. Now I don't place much significance in the Grammys (actually I loath them) but something must be said by the dynamics of winning that many awards. I'm not going to into the discussion of the level of artistry or musical maturity that this album has simply because I know very little of her music. However, what is important to note (in my mind) is the influence she has had on modern music. That throw back style to early swing and big band music, with that very old soul voice - modernizing it and bringing it to the 21st century. That spawned a large industry shift. The old was new and the new was old. Right now on the radio I hear that Cee Lo song, Fuck You... I think is what it's called. Don't worry I'm not listen to it by choice, I just happen to be at work right now, and it's on the radio. Regardless, I listen to it, and think could this really be possible without Amy Winehouse. Look at the top female charters today, Lady Gaga to Duffy. They all cite her as influences and some even say the reason they even decided to pursue a career in music. That's huge. Regardless of how daft I think Duffy is or blatently Gaga is a copycat, it still a huge thing to influence a whole scene.
So with all that said, it is very tragic that she pased away. We all knew that it was inevitable, but that does not take away the shock or saddness of the event. But what is inportant after death, is to celebrate their life. Celebrate the music she left us. That hopefully will be her legacy and not all that garbage in the tabloids and such.
On a sidenote, apparently she's one of Geezer's favourite musicians. Who would have thought eh?
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Payola
What is payola?
"The illegal practice of payment or other inducement by record companies for the broadcast of recordings on music radio, in which the song is presented as being part of the normal day's broadcast." - Wiki
At first glance, payola seems immoral and wrong but if you think about it, what's wrong with it? Music is not only art, but it is also a product. The airwaves and TV channels are just mediums in which you promote your product. The internet works in such a way. Paying for adverts in digital space, paying for placement in certain sites, etc. I personally find nothing wrong with Payola. Although if it is publically funded then there is a problem, but let's just work with privatly owned firms and corporations. This is just simply how things the private sector should work. Paying money for prime advertising time/space is the same as paying money for a prime location of a business. And yes I realize the implications of this if it becomes a legal process). It will mean musicians need a large financial backer to be able to acquire prime advertising options. But this is how the private sector works. You need to invest money and hopefully come up with a profit. This is the pure business logistics of the issue and I see no point in making it illegal in the private sector. The public sector is a different issue because that is paid by the public and should not be influenced by some company to shove music down thier throats. But the private sector should be what it is.
I was reading an article in The Economist about payola issues in the K-pop industry and relating it to the legal troubles of the America industry in the 50's and 60's. This is not surprising to see that payola is an issue in an industry that is over saturated with plastic manufactuered crap. It's not much of music industry, rather it's more of an idol/celebrity industry. Regardless, I'm not surprised. What I'm surprised by is how much the author is surprised by such a revelation that payola is still an issue in South Korea. No one should be so stupid as to think that payola doesn't occur in North America/UK. There's no way this practice doesn't happen. I care not what Spitzer does in New York. In happens and you can't stop it. You pay so low paid jokey 10,000 bucks and get a possible return of 1,000,000 record sales. It's pretty simple math. Even if you get caught, the fine can't be anywhere close to the money you would make from a million sales + all the other publicity that comes with it. The industry today is the same as the industry of the 50's and 60's in that regard. Nothing has changed. It's just done more in the shadows now instead of out in the open.
Now, why is payola not really an issue that everyone should be concerned with. Ultimately, the product needs to be good. No matter how much someone forces me to listen to a song, it will not change my opinion of how good or how bad it is. Yes, yes extra publicity will = more people hearing your song. But if no one likes your song, no matter how much money you throw at it, it makes no differenece. Good is good. Now I'm not naive enough to think that people listen to music for the artistic element but rather they just listen to it because it's entertaining or background noise or *gasp popular. And to that I say, should we really care. Should, we as musicians really care, what drones such as them really listen to. Yes, yes it is a market of music buyers but it is also a market that we have no place in. We can make a quick buck in that market, but in the long run, there is no place. Should we really care about what drones listen to. Should we really care that they are being spoonfed a setlist that was paid by a corporation. They are not taking any of our marketshare, people looking for real music will not listen to the radio or the TV, they will listen to their heart. They will listen to the pulse of the song and find the true spirit of the artist who wrote it. Those are the people that you must reach out to. Those are the people that we really care about. If the radio station chooses to take payola offers, those people will leave and never listen again to that station. They will move on and find the music that can be felt by the heart. Real music will reach the masses soon enough, it may not be immediate, but the underground will hear and they will listen. So is payola that important? No, because it really does not affect us in any way.
**unless in the extreme case, all music that comes out is actually real music. Then those without a big cheque book are screwed. But seriously, that's not gonna happen. There's only one Bob Dylan. So I don't expect 1000 Bob Dylans one day to show up and flood the charts.
"The illegal practice of payment or other inducement by record companies for the broadcast of recordings on music radio, in which the song is presented as being part of the normal day's broadcast." - Wiki
At first glance, payola seems immoral and wrong but if you think about it, what's wrong with it? Music is not only art, but it is also a product. The airwaves and TV channels are just mediums in which you promote your product. The internet works in such a way. Paying for adverts in digital space, paying for placement in certain sites, etc. I personally find nothing wrong with Payola. Although if it is publically funded then there is a problem, but let's just work with privatly owned firms and corporations. This is just simply how things the private sector should work. Paying money for prime advertising time/space is the same as paying money for a prime location of a business. And yes I realize the implications of this if it becomes a legal process). It will mean musicians need a large financial backer to be able to acquire prime advertising options. But this is how the private sector works. You need to invest money and hopefully come up with a profit. This is the pure business logistics of the issue and I see no point in making it illegal in the private sector. The public sector is a different issue because that is paid by the public and should not be influenced by some company to shove music down thier throats. But the private sector should be what it is.
I was reading an article in The Economist about payola issues in the K-pop industry and relating it to the legal troubles of the America industry in the 50's and 60's. This is not surprising to see that payola is an issue in an industry that is over saturated with plastic manufactuered crap. It's not much of music industry, rather it's more of an idol/celebrity industry. Regardless, I'm not surprised. What I'm surprised by is how much the author is surprised by such a revelation that payola is still an issue in South Korea. No one should be so stupid as to think that payola doesn't occur in North America/UK. There's no way this practice doesn't happen. I care not what Spitzer does in New York. In happens and you can't stop it. You pay so low paid jokey 10,000 bucks and get a possible return of 1,000,000 record sales. It's pretty simple math. Even if you get caught, the fine can't be anywhere close to the money you would make from a million sales + all the other publicity that comes with it. The industry today is the same as the industry of the 50's and 60's in that regard. Nothing has changed. It's just done more in the shadows now instead of out in the open.
Now, why is payola not really an issue that everyone should be concerned with. Ultimately, the product needs to be good. No matter how much someone forces me to listen to a song, it will not change my opinion of how good or how bad it is. Yes, yes extra publicity will = more people hearing your song. But if no one likes your song, no matter how much money you throw at it, it makes no differenece. Good is good. Now I'm not naive enough to think that people listen to music for the artistic element but rather they just listen to it because it's entertaining or background noise or *gasp popular. And to that I say, should we really care. Should, we as musicians really care, what drones such as them really listen to. Yes, yes it is a market of music buyers but it is also a market that we have no place in. We can make a quick buck in that market, but in the long run, there is no place. Should we really care about what drones listen to. Should we really care that they are being spoonfed a setlist that was paid by a corporation. They are not taking any of our marketshare, people looking for real music will not listen to the radio or the TV, they will listen to their heart. They will listen to the pulse of the song and find the true spirit of the artist who wrote it. Those are the people that you must reach out to. Those are the people that we really care about. If the radio station chooses to take payola offers, those people will leave and never listen again to that station. They will move on and find the music that can be felt by the heart. Real music will reach the masses soon enough, it may not be immediate, but the underground will hear and they will listen. So is payola that important? No, because it really does not affect us in any way.
**unless in the extreme case, all music that comes out is actually real music. Then those without a big cheque book are screwed. But seriously, that's not gonna happen. There's only one Bob Dylan. So I don't expect 1000 Bob Dylans one day to show up and flood the charts.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Visual Kei Metal
Without going to specifics of any particular band, today's topic will be Visual Kei Metal.
Now you have to realze that the Japanese culture is very different from North American culture. Just as British tastes (Oasis, Muse) is much different from American tastes (Van Halen, Bon Jovi). So a big reason why bands become the way they are. What may seem strange to us, isn't so strange to them and vice versa. This is akin to the early days of The Beatles (around that time). This is a time where full albums were not made, this was the day of singles. 2 tracks on the A side, 2 tracks on the B side, maybe not even. If you look at the scope of 70s to 00s and artist that just released singles would have been seemed as odd. Much of this is due to industry reasons, I know, but a standard was put in place that expected an artist to have full album, 16 track releases. It seems these days, we're slowly trending back to those olden times, but that is a seperate topic. The main point of this is that bands (with their industry) cater to an audience. The majority of bands will do what is expected of them.
Now with that in mind Visual Kei Metal hails from Japan. A certain type of metal that takes what hair metal did and puts it to the extreme (no allusion intended). The better your band looks, the better your band is. Quite literally. It's similar to the Black Metal Argument, where the more evil you are the better your band is. Which obviously doesn't make sense, but whatever this is norm. Visual Kei is all about dressing in crazy costumes, putting on crazy makeup, crazy anime hair, etc. Styles in Visual Kei in itself are quite varied. They sound like anything from Dimmu to Mr. Big. But the nice thing about Visual Kei metal is that they're not afraid to be heavy. You have to understand that Visual Kei metal is a mainstream form of music, much a kin to Iron Maiden-esque crowd draws, but only within the country of Japan. That's a lot of people. They are part of the pop culture there... just imagine if Slayer was a part of our pop culture. Kerry King will be so pissed all day. So it's interesting that, as a personal hater of hair metal, that such a form of metal is able to exist in such a legitimate metal environment. I think their redeeming quality is due to their music. Not afraid to throw in death growls, not afraid to put in black metal shrieks, not afraid to be heavy. Yet a lot of it stinks of formulas.
I think the bottom line is, Visual Kei metal isn't really all that bad as individual bands. As a whole it is just another cookie cutter. But really and truely there are awesome Visual kei bands. You cannot disregard the meaning or passion that some of these musician's have for the visual arts. Because a lot of these bands the music is a part of the costumes as much as the costumes are a part of the music. Just because these musicians don't look like the musicians we usually see around here, doesn't mean they aren't real musicians. For a different culture a musician just doesn't make music, they combine music with visual presentations. Because at the end of the day this is enteratinment, people come to be entertained. And there is nothing entertaining about Eddie Veddar in a flannel shirt.
Now you have to realze that the Japanese culture is very different from North American culture. Just as British tastes (Oasis, Muse) is much different from American tastes (Van Halen, Bon Jovi). So a big reason why bands become the way they are. What may seem strange to us, isn't so strange to them and vice versa. This is akin to the early days of The Beatles (around that time). This is a time where full albums were not made, this was the day of singles. 2 tracks on the A side, 2 tracks on the B side, maybe not even. If you look at the scope of 70s to 00s and artist that just released singles would have been seemed as odd. Much of this is due to industry reasons, I know, but a standard was put in place that expected an artist to have full album, 16 track releases. It seems these days, we're slowly trending back to those olden times, but that is a seperate topic. The main point of this is that bands (with their industry) cater to an audience. The majority of bands will do what is expected of them.
Now with that in mind Visual Kei Metal hails from Japan. A certain type of metal that takes what hair metal did and puts it to the extreme (no allusion intended). The better your band looks, the better your band is. Quite literally. It's similar to the Black Metal Argument, where the more evil you are the better your band is. Which obviously doesn't make sense, but whatever this is norm. Visual Kei is all about dressing in crazy costumes, putting on crazy makeup, crazy anime hair, etc. Styles in Visual Kei in itself are quite varied. They sound like anything from Dimmu to Mr. Big. But the nice thing about Visual Kei metal is that they're not afraid to be heavy. You have to understand that Visual Kei metal is a mainstream form of music, much a kin to Iron Maiden-esque crowd draws, but only within the country of Japan. That's a lot of people. They are part of the pop culture there... just imagine if Slayer was a part of our pop culture. Kerry King will be so pissed all day. So it's interesting that, as a personal hater of hair metal, that such a form of metal is able to exist in such a legitimate metal environment. I think their redeeming quality is due to their music. Not afraid to throw in death growls, not afraid to put in black metal shrieks, not afraid to be heavy. Yet a lot of it stinks of formulas.
I think the bottom line is, Visual Kei metal isn't really all that bad as individual bands. As a whole it is just another cookie cutter. But really and truely there are awesome Visual kei bands. You cannot disregard the meaning or passion that some of these musician's have for the visual arts. Because a lot of these bands the music is a part of the costumes as much as the costumes are a part of the music. Just because these musicians don't look like the musicians we usually see around here, doesn't mean they aren't real musicians. For a different culture a musician just doesn't make music, they combine music with visual presentations. Because at the end of the day this is enteratinment, people come to be entertained. And there is nothing entertaining about Eddie Veddar in a flannel shirt.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
2 Topics: Paramore and Blood Stain Child
So topic 1 for today,
Paramore has finally released their single Monster for the Transformers movie.
There's only 3 members left... hmmmmm... plus hired hands I guess.
The video looks like a scene out of Left for Dead the video game.
Regardless, this is a lot darker than the Paramore of Riot era but it does seem a more natural progression from Brand New Eyes.
The song is mediocre at best.
There was a time when I thought Paramore would be the next No Doubt, unfortunately things don't always work out how you want. It's important to note the importance of Hayley Williams however, there will be a new generation of female musicians because of Hayley. That can't be understated. However the leaving of the Farro brothers is an important indication of the state of affairs within this band. Paramore has turned into a corporate machine rather than a band. Regardless i wish these guys well because I'm still hoping that they become the next No Doubt, but I have no expectations for their next album.
Blood Stain Child is a band you should check out. Not really anything that revolutionary. But a good case study for metal. Metal isn't afraid to push boundaries, actually it's a staple of the lifestyle. Melodic death metal + dance/trance. Sounds like Rammstein minus the melodic death. If you took In Flames and added Visions of Atlantis this is what you would get. Probably not a useful comparison since Visions of Atlantis isn't that well know, but it is the closest thing I can think of.
Paramore has finally released their single Monster for the Transformers movie.
There's only 3 members left... hmmmmm... plus hired hands I guess.
The video looks like a scene out of Left for Dead the video game.
Regardless, this is a lot darker than the Paramore of Riot era but it does seem a more natural progression from Brand New Eyes.
The song is mediocre at best.
There was a time when I thought Paramore would be the next No Doubt, unfortunately things don't always work out how you want. It's important to note the importance of Hayley Williams however, there will be a new generation of female musicians because of Hayley. That can't be understated. However the leaving of the Farro brothers is an important indication of the state of affairs within this band. Paramore has turned into a corporate machine rather than a band. Regardless i wish these guys well because I'm still hoping that they become the next No Doubt, but I have no expectations for their next album.
Blood Stain Child is a band you should check out. Not really anything that revolutionary. But a good case study for metal. Metal isn't afraid to push boundaries, actually it's a staple of the lifestyle. Melodic death metal + dance/trance. Sounds like Rammstein minus the melodic death. If you took In Flames and added Visions of Atlantis this is what you would get. Probably not a useful comparison since Visions of Atlantis isn't that well know, but it is the closest thing I can think of.
All this talk of Japanese metal gives me an idea to do a post on Visual Kei Metal. I'll get on that tomorrow
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
My Stupid Pedalboard
My stupid pedalboard is not co-operating with me. Although you really should into the mindset of the pedalboard should fit the pedals not the other way around, I'm trying to keep thing as compact as possible. delay or distortion? Compressor or EQ? arg arg arg
need to choose wisely.
need to choose wisely.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Nothing Much Today
For the past two days, have been going a little British on my playlists. Oasis and Radiohead have been on constant rotation.
If there are two songs (one from each band) I'd have to choose, it would be
Slide Away - Oasis
15 Step - Radiohead
Pure bliss
If there are two songs (one from each band) I'd have to choose, it would be
Slide Away - Oasis
15 Step - Radiohead
Pure bliss
Friday, July 8, 2011
Album Review: Gold Cobra - Limp Bizkit
Ok, so Limp Bizkit released Gold Cobra and it's been out for a little bit now but I wasn't too compelled to go listen to it to be honest. To say that Limp Bizkit wasn't an important band when i was growing up would be a flat out lie (sometimes I wish it was true though). It's a combination of the times and the feeling of being an outsider that drew me to the band. I grew up in an era where rap and metal were being combined to make Nu-Metal. From the Linkin Parks to the System of a Downs there were thousands of Nu-Metal bands popping out everywhere. But what made Limp Bizkit different was that everyone hated them. Limp Bizkit relished in that hate and embraced it. They even had the slogan "It's Cool to be a Hater". Regardless, looking back now most of it was dribble.. HOWEVER, unlike general consensus I still LOVE "Results May Vary" . The one album without Wes on guitar, replaced by Mike Smith of Snot. It's the one album in Limp Bizkit's catalog that actually holds some level on intelligence. (Closing track, Drown, is an awesome song).
Anyways, to the review of the album.... well what can I say.... bad bad bad. They went too heavy. Which is a strange thing to say coming from a metalhead but Limp Bizkit basically thought heavy heavy heavy and muddy watered so much of their album with distortion that it just sounds ridiculous and boring. Take for example Napalm Death's first album, incredible, but no one wants to sit through that album from start to beginning. Not comparing these albums in any way but this album sufferers from bullheadedness.
With that said, Wes sounds amazing, guitar riffs are absolutely original and ripping. Lethal still has it, he still knows how to just beef up the rest of the band. Sam and Otto are still ripping rhythm players. And Fred sounds really good on this album, he usually does, but just saying there's a new fire in this one. So after all that it's hard to believe this album could suck so much.
Fred didn't lie, all I can remember from his mouth is "it's going to be heavy as shit"
or at least something to that extent. It's so heavy that the whole thing just sounds like one dribbling song. There's no uniqueness and there's no difinitive focus. It's just heavy as shit. This is the equivalent to a metalcore album but Nu-Metal. Just bland and childish. Another problem with this album are the lyrics, they're very very weak. Fred's delivery is good because he sounds so good but the lyrics are stupid. They are on a lower IQ level than stuff on Chocolate Starfish.
They took the good elements of Three Dolla Bills, Y'all (the heavy) combined it with the good elements of Significant Other (Rap) and tried to make this album. It failed.
There isn't much to say about this album after that, except that it is terrible but there are some finer points on this album.
The thing that makes this album not a complete disaster is Wes. Wes is one of those guitarists that just doesn't get the credit he deserves. All his licks are completely original and awesome. He plays like no one else and no one plays like him. It really is a shame that he hasn't gone beyond the Limp Bizkit moniker.
This album deserves a 1/10.
It's a shame really, everyone sounds and plays so well but really all the songs are boring and undefinitive. The +1 is for the interlude right before Autotune, where Fred starts singing Nookie with autotune. Quite funny, very nostalgic.
Anyways, to the review of the album.... well what can I say.... bad bad bad. They went too heavy. Which is a strange thing to say coming from a metalhead but Limp Bizkit basically thought heavy heavy heavy and muddy watered so much of their album with distortion that it just sounds ridiculous and boring. Take for example Napalm Death's first album, incredible, but no one wants to sit through that album from start to beginning. Not comparing these albums in any way but this album sufferers from bullheadedness.
With that said, Wes sounds amazing, guitar riffs are absolutely original and ripping. Lethal still has it, he still knows how to just beef up the rest of the band. Sam and Otto are still ripping rhythm players. And Fred sounds really good on this album, he usually does, but just saying there's a new fire in this one. So after all that it's hard to believe this album could suck so much.
Fred didn't lie, all I can remember from his mouth is "it's going to be heavy as shit"
or at least something to that extent. It's so heavy that the whole thing just sounds like one dribbling song. There's no uniqueness and there's no difinitive focus. It's just heavy as shit. This is the equivalent to a metalcore album but Nu-Metal. Just bland and childish. Another problem with this album are the lyrics, they're very very weak. Fred's delivery is good because he sounds so good but the lyrics are stupid. They are on a lower IQ level than stuff on Chocolate Starfish.
They took the good elements of Three Dolla Bills, Y'all (the heavy) combined it with the good elements of Significant Other (Rap) and tried to make this album. It failed.
There isn't much to say about this album after that, except that it is terrible but there are some finer points on this album.
The thing that makes this album not a complete disaster is Wes. Wes is one of those guitarists that just doesn't get the credit he deserves. All his licks are completely original and awesome. He plays like no one else and no one plays like him. It really is a shame that he hasn't gone beyond the Limp Bizkit moniker.
This album deserves a 1/10.
It's a shame really, everyone sounds and plays so well but really all the songs are boring and undefinitive. The +1 is for the interlude right before Autotune, where Fred starts singing Nookie with autotune. Quite funny, very nostalgic.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Monday, July 4, 2011
Don't Go Away MAD (Just Go Away) should be his theme song
Slow day in music so let's talk about something unrelated to today...
I could talk about why Mutt Lange is the world's biggest idiot.... OHHHH.... speaking of idiots
that brings us to today's topic
Vince Neil
Vince Neil lead singer of Motley Crue, but more notably the guy who killed his friend in a car crash because he was drunk driving. When we talk about Tommy Lee we think drummer for Crue, sex tape with Pamela Anderson. When we talk about Nikki Six we think douchebag but talented song writter for Crue. When we talk about Mick Mars we think guitarist with a spinal disease who is able to stand on his own two feet and still play. I'm sorry, this band might look like a bunch of rowdy holligans but every single one of these guys is attributable to some level of musicianship or some level of respect... except for Vince Neil.
What a testament this dog leaves, as the man that killed his friend in a car crash due to drunk driving. When you compare him to Mick there are strides of differences. Yes, yes one mistake in life should not define who you are. But my disgust for this animal is not solely based on this horrific event. Vince Neil to this day continues to drink and drive. WTF!!!
I can understand doing it once, I can understand doing it twice, I can even understand doing it until you fucking kill someone; but what I don't understand is why the fuck you do it after killing someone. No ladies and gentlemen, Vince Neil is no person to look up to. He is something to be looked down upon. He is a representation of the scum that exists on this earth.
Motley Crue still holds second place on my list of most hated band ever in my opinion. However, there is still a certain level of respect for Tommy, there is a whole lot of respect for Mick, and I have a tinnie tiny ounce of meh for Nikki. But Vince Neil has no such respect. Does he contribute anything to Motley Crue? Hardly, co-writing two song per album doesn't cut it. Replaceable and dismissable. He is no David Lee Roth, he is no Ozzy Osbourne, he is no Axl Rose.
Forever, his legacy will be not the lead singer of Motley Crue, rather he'll go down as that guy who killed his friend in a car crash while drinking and driving; and continued to do so after murdering his friend.
I could talk about why Mutt Lange is the world's biggest idiot.... OHHHH.... speaking of idiots
that brings us to today's topic
Vince Neil
Vince Neil lead singer of Motley Crue, but more notably the guy who killed his friend in a car crash because he was drunk driving. When we talk about Tommy Lee we think drummer for Crue, sex tape with Pamela Anderson. When we talk about Nikki Six we think douchebag but talented song writter for Crue. When we talk about Mick Mars we think guitarist with a spinal disease who is able to stand on his own two feet and still play. I'm sorry, this band might look like a bunch of rowdy holligans but every single one of these guys is attributable to some level of musicianship or some level of respect... except for Vince Neil.
What a testament this dog leaves, as the man that killed his friend in a car crash due to drunk driving. When you compare him to Mick there are strides of differences. Yes, yes one mistake in life should not define who you are. But my disgust for this animal is not solely based on this horrific event. Vince Neil to this day continues to drink and drive. WTF!!!
I can understand doing it once, I can understand doing it twice, I can even understand doing it until you fucking kill someone; but what I don't understand is why the fuck you do it after killing someone. No ladies and gentlemen, Vince Neil is no person to look up to. He is something to be looked down upon. He is a representation of the scum that exists on this earth.
Motley Crue still holds second place on my list of most hated band ever in my opinion. However, there is still a certain level of respect for Tommy, there is a whole lot of respect for Mick, and I have a tinnie tiny ounce of meh for Nikki. But Vince Neil has no such respect. Does he contribute anything to Motley Crue? Hardly, co-writing two song per album doesn't cut it. Replaceable and dismissable. He is no David Lee Roth, he is no Ozzy Osbourne, he is no Axl Rose.
Forever, his legacy will be not the lead singer of Motley Crue, rather he'll go down as that guy who killed his friend in a car crash while drinking and driving; and continued to do so after murdering his friend.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Label to be Labeled
Why does Sean Kingston have his own record label? Ok, I understand that any joe-shmoe can start a record label as long as they are willing to put up the funds but I have a sinking feeling (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that this is a supported and funded subsidy of Sony Music. Now this is not a complaint specifically about Sean Kingston rather it's my disgust with the whole industry. These days every artist has their own "record label". What gives these kids the right to manage and control the success/failures of other people. They are not their maker nor their musical mentor nor their business consultants. It makes sense to give Led Zepplin and Sonic Youth their own boutique labels. BUT those are boutique labels, allocating a specific team to manage their clients file personally. It makes sense that Bad Boy Records is run by P. Diddy/Diddy/Puff Daddy. And it makes sense that roc-a-fella and Def Jam are controlled by Jay-Z. But what does not makes sense to me is these subpar musicians that have one seminal record under their belt being given potentially millions of dollars in advertising expenses and recording expenses. WHY!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?
Realistically, if you step back, it isn't as complicated and ridiculous as it seems. In name, these "record labels" are "artist" owned. But really these are not real record labels, they're still controlled by the parent company directly. The big companies just want to inflate their artists both in ego and in status. Giving a "record label" to their artist does two things. One, gives the artist a ridiculous amount of confidence. Two, gives the public a sense of power from the artist. When it comes down to the paper work, these artist have 1% influence. They are not important at all. Why do artists allow this to happen to themselves? because they are puppets. Puppets to the higher power that is their master over their souls.
Realistically, if you step back, it isn't as complicated and ridiculous as it seems. In name, these "record labels" are "artist" owned. But really these are not real record labels, they're still controlled by the parent company directly. The big companies just want to inflate their artists both in ego and in status. Giving a "record label" to their artist does two things. One, gives the artist a ridiculous amount of confidence. Two, gives the public a sense of power from the artist. When it comes down to the paper work, these artist have 1% influence. They are not important at all. Why do artists allow this to happen to themselves? because they are puppets. Puppets to the higher power that is their master over their souls.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Old Age - Aretha Franklin
This weekend I had the great honour of seeing Aretha Franklin perform live
at the Toronto Jazz Festival. It would foolish to expect a 20 year old
Aretha Franklin to show up and dazzle the crowd. But it didn't matter to
the crowd, they loved every moment of it.
No, Aretha Franklin is no longer the greatest singer in the world, but she
still is the Queen of Soul. She might not hit the notes, she might not have
the stamina to carry the show. But this is where professional musicians and
amateurs and seperated. 3 songs in, I could see that time has caught up to
Aretha and she was tired to the bone. But to the average listener you
wouldn't be able to tell the difference. She let the band carry the song
and she hit certain lines and notes here and there, while inbetween getting
her strength back. And not once did she let the pain show, not once did she
give up. A lesser musician would have been done right then and there.
Either giving up and not knowing what to do. No, this is the strength that
is Aretha Franklin today. She can no longer live off her voice or her body
anymore. What she now lives on is her name and what's inside of her. People
come to see her because they still love the happiness that Aretha Franklin
brought to their lives. But why they still are happy at the shows is not
because she can sing but because of the charisma that she still has. You
can't manufacture that. She is still a sassy old gal and the fans love it.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Find out what it means to me
I think we all found it.
Seeing her on stage at the age it makes me wonder what i'll be doing if I
ever get old. I don't expect to playing my bass my whole life, nor to I
expect to be on stage when I get old. What I do expect is to continue to
make music on a piano. In terms of musical tastes, I'm still going to
listen to Master of Puppets until I die but i don't expect to be
headbanging. It's strange, although my main instrument is the bass I still
consider myself a pianist rather than a bassist.
at the Toronto Jazz Festival. It would foolish to expect a 20 year old
Aretha Franklin to show up and dazzle the crowd. But it didn't matter to
the crowd, they loved every moment of it.
No, Aretha Franklin is no longer the greatest singer in the world, but she
still is the Queen of Soul. She might not hit the notes, she might not have
the stamina to carry the show. But this is where professional musicians and
amateurs and seperated. 3 songs in, I could see that time has caught up to
Aretha and she was tired to the bone. But to the average listener you
wouldn't be able to tell the difference. She let the band carry the song
and she hit certain lines and notes here and there, while inbetween getting
her strength back. And not once did she let the pain show, not once did she
give up. A lesser musician would have been done right then and there.
Either giving up and not knowing what to do. No, this is the strength that
is Aretha Franklin today. She can no longer live off her voice or her body
anymore. What she now lives on is her name and what's inside of her. People
come to see her because they still love the happiness that Aretha Franklin
brought to their lives. But why they still are happy at the shows is not
because she can sing but because of the charisma that she still has. You
can't manufacture that. She is still a sassy old gal and the fans love it.
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Find out what it means to me
I think we all found it.
Seeing her on stage at the age it makes me wonder what i'll be doing if I
ever get old. I don't expect to playing my bass my whole life, nor to I
expect to be on stage when I get old. What I do expect is to continue to
make music on a piano. In terms of musical tastes, I'm still going to
listen to Master of Puppets until I die but i don't expect to be
headbanging. It's strange, although my main instrument is the bass I still
consider myself a pianist rather than a bassist.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Album Review: Sounds of a Playground Fading - In Flames
In Flames is back, more focused and sounding tighter than ever before. When things are good, things are good. However, when things are bad, they are boring. This review is a going to be a little different. I'm writing this as I listen to this album track by track. Currently Where the Dead Ships Dwell just ended and we're now off to The Attic. If I back track a little, the two opening tracks are killers. No this is not the old In Flames of Whoricle but rather a new chapter in this very talented band's career. There are two major and sharp contrast that set this new album apart from In Flames of the past. One, the use of electronics/ambiance is a lot more prevalent. This is a natural conclusion one should come to when listening to the 2 previous albums, Come Clarity and A Sense of Purpose. Each successive album has relied more and more on these backdrops to carry the heavy guitars and drums. The second major point is Anders... holy crap where the heck have you been?!?!? He sounds absolutely incredible. Just listening to The Attic his sense of melody and pitch is bounds ahead of the days of A Sense of Purpose. Now Darker Times is on and here is another evolution in his voice. His death growls are no longer pitchy, they're deep and dark. He no longer sings from the throat of the devil, it comes from the belly of the devil. If there is only one merit in this album, it has to be Anders. Now back to the point of when it's bad, it's boring. After the second track, Deliver Us, we sorta fall off the train a little and lose the pulse. It's not bad, but when it comes to talented bands, hardly anything they make sounds bad. The problem they face is keeping interest in the audience. Here and there, there are little sparks of inspiration, such as the very end of All For Me, but not enough to continue the fire. But man have these guitars tightened up. With the departure of Jesper, it was not known how Bjorn would pick up the slack but luckily Niclas has come back and they have really picked up the slack. Man, without Jesper, you would have expected the guitars to suffer, but no way, these guitars soar. Ropes and Enter Tragedy are good examples. However, it still remain the same old recycled Melodic Death Metal we expect from In Flames. Now we're at the Jester's Door... and you know what. Anders really reminds me of Jon Davis now. Which is a good thing; deep, growly; evil vocals is definitely what this band needs. Ok, this may be unconventional but I think so far the best track is Jester's Door. It's so far from Melodic Death Metal but it maybe their best. There isn't even guitars in it. Ok, now A New Dawn which starts off very similar to Crawling Through Knives. OMG, ANDERS HE GREW BALLS!!!! Those are DEEP death growls. And thank god his whiny clean vocals from the Come Clarity days are gone. Those were annoying and very metalcore/punkish.
So, at this point I'm half way through A New Dawn and have yet to listen to Liberation. But I think I get the general idea of this album. It's a nice album. It's a very nice album. It's not a hard shift away from the core In Flames sound, but it is far enough to sometimes ask whether this is even melodeath anymore.... wow, A New Dawn has just taken the award for best song from Jester's Door. They really did save the best for last.
The In Flames of the past are gone and it's a good thing. I'm sorry I've listened to Colony and Clayman already. Those albums have been written, recorded, and shared with the world. It's time to move on. In Flames does not need to write another hashed out Lunar Strain.
Now, I'm on Liberation. and OMG
this album is beautiful. Regardless of where In Flames goes on from this point it doesn't matter. This album is an evolution, a personal diary of the journey of this band. From the opening track, Sounds of a Playground Fading, the title should be self-explanatory. It is a fitting title for this album. This album is a statement of the band, that the sounds of their childhood, of their youth are slowly fading away. In Flames are not the band they were when they started in 1993. They are a new band. From the good times to the Darker Times. They come out of this by climbing the Ropes. Through their journeys life happens and there Enter Tragedy. There is A New Dawn the band must face and at the end there is Liberation.
I can tell you right now, that those "true" fans of In Flames will bitch and complain about this album, but hell they've been complaining since Reroute to Remain. This is what In Flames is. This album is a perfect journal of the life of this band and their journey.
Yes, there are weak spots in this album. But as a whole this album couldn't be better. It's a beautiful time capsule of the band, a great piece of art.
To a metalhead the ending of this album may signal the demise of In Flames as we know them. But if this is the direction that their hearts take them, then there is no better way to convey this new direction to the fans like this album.
So, at this point I'm half way through A New Dawn and have yet to listen to Liberation. But I think I get the general idea of this album. It's a nice album. It's a very nice album. It's not a hard shift away from the core In Flames sound, but it is far enough to sometimes ask whether this is even melodeath anymore.... wow, A New Dawn has just taken the award for best song from Jester's Door. They really did save the best for last.
The In Flames of the past are gone and it's a good thing. I'm sorry I've listened to Colony and Clayman already. Those albums have been written, recorded, and shared with the world. It's time to move on. In Flames does not need to write another hashed out Lunar Strain.
Now, I'm on Liberation. and OMG
this album is beautiful. Regardless of where In Flames goes on from this point it doesn't matter. This album is an evolution, a personal diary of the journey of this band. From the opening track, Sounds of a Playground Fading, the title should be self-explanatory. It is a fitting title for this album. This album is a statement of the band, that the sounds of their childhood, of their youth are slowly fading away. In Flames are not the band they were when they started in 1993. They are a new band. From the good times to the Darker Times. They come out of this by climbing the Ropes. Through their journeys life happens and there Enter Tragedy. There is A New Dawn the band must face and at the end there is Liberation.
I can tell you right now, that those "true" fans of In Flames will bitch and complain about this album, but hell they've been complaining since Reroute to Remain. This is what In Flames is. This album is a perfect journal of the life of this band and their journey.
Yes, there are weak spots in this album. But as a whole this album couldn't be better. It's a beautiful time capsule of the band, a great piece of art.
To a metalhead the ending of this album may signal the demise of In Flames as we know them. But if this is the direction that their hearts take them, then there is no better way to convey this new direction to the fans like this album.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Music vs. Entertainment
Today will just be a short one to kill some time for me.
The argument of what music/art is and what is entertainment.
Are they the same or are they completely different elements.
At the end of the day, who really cares.
Art is there to be enjoyed therefore it is entertainment.
Entertainment people can be an art form so it also art.
I don't sit around listening to the music on billboard 100 but at the same time I don't mind that it exists (that might be a lie, but whatever).
All those pop stars/boy bands/girl bands/etc, have their place in society.
Is it crap? sure it is.
But at the end of the day, it's not hurting anyone (maybe the performer themselves, but that's a different argument).
Noel puts it best, "It's better than stacking shelves at Tesco, just don't call it music."
reading this back
i actually don't know if I believe this myself
Case in point, this post is completely useless
except I do believe in Noel's quote
The argument of what music/art is and what is entertainment.
Are they the same or are they completely different elements.
At the end of the day, who really cares.
Art is there to be enjoyed therefore it is entertainment.
Entertainment people can be an art form so it also art.
I don't sit around listening to the music on billboard 100 but at the same time I don't mind that it exists (that might be a lie, but whatever).
All those pop stars/boy bands/girl bands/etc, have their place in society.
Is it crap? sure it is.
But at the end of the day, it's not hurting anyone (maybe the performer themselves, but that's a different argument).
Noel puts it best, "It's better than stacking shelves at Tesco, just don't call it music."
reading this back
i actually don't know if I believe this myself
Case in point, this post is completely useless
except I do believe in Noel's quote
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Sounds of a Playground Fading
The album has been released or will be released soon in a country near you. The boys of In Flames are back. However, without any founding members. At this point, not sure what it comes down to. When I look at Napalm Death they shouldn't be calling themselves Napalm Death.
I'll be doing a review of Sounds of a Playground Fading shortly, once I take a listen
- no original members
- they're a death metal band now, not a grindcore band
I'll be doing a review of Sounds of a Playground Fading shortly, once I take a listen
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
Again, 2nd Time This Month.... WHAT?!??!?!?!
Seriously, the world of pop culture is so weird sometimes. Ozzy is set to be a voiceover actor for a kid's show. That in itself isn't too weird. He's playing an Earth Troll.... ok? but for some reason this earth troll lives in the sea........ WHAT?!?!!?!??!
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Les Paul
There's a lot to thank Les Paul for.
Just ponder for a moment where we would be without his influence and innovations.
Just ponder for a moment where we would be without his influence and innovations.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Why the hell was Bono hitchhiking????
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/oilers-forward-brule-picks-up-unlikely-hitchhiker---u2s-bono/article2044667/
this is the most confounding mysteries of rock 'n roll history ever.
this is the most confounding mysteries of rock 'n roll history ever.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Born This Way? Psshh, the original song was "born" this way also
So today Born this Way hit some record.... *goes to look it up....oh it's number #1... i'm assuming billboard. Regardless, breaking 1 million is sales in one week is actually impressive. How much of that is profit? Probably a lot less then you think. From what I've been seeing, lots of $$$ have been going into marketing. Regardless of that 1 million these days is still impressive.
Now, onto the real discussion because numbers are a tad boring. Everyone these days goes on about the liberating nature of the song Born this Way blah blah blah. Now there's nothing wrong with advocating gay rights (actually it should be encouraged) but if you think that Lady Gaga is some revolutionary with real intentions you are a fool to think is such a way. When it comes down to it, Lady Gaga is no Dylan, she is no RATM. Not in the musical or genius sense. In the sense that they live what they preach. Lady Gaga is no real advocate for gay and lesbian rights. She uses these avenues and audience base to sell her product. Since Elton did Disney, since Bowie is pretty much retired, and since the death of Freddie, the market for gays and lesbians has a large void on large stage. The only logical thing for big record companies to ask is how to fill that hole. This is where Lady Gaga steps in. What I'm trying to get at is, Lady Gaga advocates for human rights because it makes money not because it's her nature. She'll do whatever that makes her money. If the market needed a white, female to do NWA style gangsta rap then Lady Gaga would be doing that. Case in point, since previous this most is just speculation.
VS
We are defintely not making the assumption that she writes the instrumental parts because she isn't that talented.
So let's assume Lady Gaga writes her own lyrics, which I have a hard time believing. Just because she's acredited with lyrics doesn't mean she writes them, it's just how big your pocket books are... as my drummer would say. So Lady Gaga writes these lyrics for gay and lesbian rights she really believes in. Ok, so why in the world would you put those lyrics to a backdrop that isn't even yours. I've never heard or met a musician who writes lyrics close to their heart and allows some flunky to take it and colour it in. It's your heart and soul, no one else should touch it. Which leads me to believe that these lyrics are either not genuine to her soul, or some record company told her to write on this subject matter (which still is not genuine).
Go be a Courtney Love (I can't believe I just said that). But to Love's credit she's honest about her short comings (which are a lot). She's honest about not being a true solo artist. That she always writes her music with a partner or a group. Which at the end of the day you can't discredit her for it. No one discredits Lars and James of being hacks because they can't write music without each other. No one discredits Mick and Keith, Perry and Tyler, etc etc. But the difference is, these artists write with other artists. Not the record hacks that Lady Gaga writes with. It would be better to write music with Billy Corgan, even though he is a complete ass, than to write with a company. Lady Gaga is no artists, nor does she have any interest in being in an artist, only if being an artist is a means to end for money.
Monday, May 30, 2011
The Blister Exists
it must be like 1 year since I last had blisters on my fingers
that's what you get for not practicing properly and then all of a sudden playing long sets
oh well
blisters always remind of me the Slipknot song
The Blister Exists
This is one awesome song.
So today, in honour of blisters, Slipknot is my featured artist.
There's a lot to say about Slipknot. Lots of dimensions that go beyond just the teenage kid who's angry with the work. but it's late, and i'm sleepy. The inner workings and why they're important will have to be discussed at some other point.
So today, in honour of blisters, Slipknot is my featured artist.
There's a lot to say about Slipknot. Lots of dimensions that go beyond just the teenage kid who's angry with the work. but it's late, and i'm sleepy. The inner workings and why they're important will have to be discussed at some other point.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
American Idol?
So yesterday, I watched a good chunk of the American Idol Finale. And in some respects I think it's a bigger night for music than the grammys have been for the past thousand years. Yes yes, American Idol doesn't have The Police Re-uniting for the first time in 30 years. Nor does it have Sir Elton John and Eminem doing a duet. But what it does have is music..... yes.... music (very loosly used). The night is about performance, good or not. The night is about performing. Top whatever females doing a Beyonce medley then a surprise performance by Beyonce. Beautiful. It's a vocal show, so you can't base merit on instrumentation. Fat Bottom Girls with Jack Black, the sense of ironical humour is uncanny. Sure there are a lot of problem with the concept of American Idol, but the finale is a statement about music today, while still throwing it back to the early days. Judas Priest seems like an odd choice but then again there are 2 Judas Priests, there's the old rock n' roll Judas Priest with Living after Midnight and Breaking the Law; and then there is Painkiller Judas
Priest. (We'll just ignore that Turbo Lover ever existed). The Grammys are useless, they fill the pockets of the suits. A self pat on the back for all the hard work they've done. The only merit the Grammys has
is the music education charity program they have. But that isn't syndicated with the Grammys, a group of famous, rich musicians can start that on their own. Yes yes, American Idol is waste of air and life, but that doesn't mean
it's not entertaining. And it also means it doesn't put on a good show.
BTW Judas Priest without K. K. a BIG THUMBS DOWN
they're still metal gods, but Judas Priest is on it's final legs without K. K.
Also, I really don't think it's worth mentioning the Spiderman musical with The Edge and Bono. Good luck to them is all I'm gonna say, and that they should stick with U2.
Also again, TLC? uhhhh, I love Chilli, but without Left Eye it's not gonna be special like it used to
Priest. (We'll just ignore that Turbo Lover ever existed). The Grammys are useless, they fill the pockets of the suits. A self pat on the back for all the hard work they've done. The only merit the Grammys has
is the music education charity program they have. But that isn't syndicated with the Grammys, a group of famous, rich musicians can start that on their own. Yes yes, American Idol is waste of air and life, but that doesn't mean
it's not entertaining. And it also means it doesn't put on a good show.
BTW Judas Priest without K. K. a BIG THUMBS DOWN
they're still metal gods, but Judas Priest is on it's final legs without K. K.
Also, I really don't think it's worth mentioning the Spiderman musical with The Edge and Bono. Good luck to them is all I'm gonna say, and that they should stick with U2.
Also again, TLC? uhhhh, I love Chilli, but without Left Eye it's not gonna be special like it used to
Why I Do What I Do
As my drummer recently said to me (referring to a song idea), "Listen to
what you're saying, who wants to listen to that?"
No one has spoken anything truer.
With that said, I question myself, if that's what I'm doing then why even
bother.
I understand the argument of entertainment, but you shouldn't try and guess
what will entertain the audience.
Dylan has a great quote on this one, (paraphrasing) no one comes to a show
to get whipped, they come to get entertained. And even if they're coming to
the show to get whipped aren't they coming to be entertained?
So why bother trying to guess what the audience wants to hear, people will
come if you believe in it.
Because at some point, that audience will go home and you'll be left
standing alone.
What do you have then?
This is a good point to bring up a new case study: The Foo Fighters and
Dave Grohl.
Without a doubt Dave Grohl is a class A guy; you'll find it hard to find
anyone say anything otherwise.
But at some point you have to look at the big picture of his career, and
you just have to ask what happened?
What happened:
There will never be another Kurt Kobain.
Of course there are Kurt Kobains walking around all around us, but one that
can go through all that, stay alive, and emote all that on such a large
stage... no, it won't happenn
The reason why Dave Grohl has been able to find his own place on the world
stage is because he distanced himself so far away from Nirvana.
If Dave Grohl took on the persona of Kurt Kobain 2.0 we would have all
laughed at him.
But at the same time, what are The Foo Fighters.
They represents everything that is wrong with pop music.
Sure they play "rock".
But at the core of it, they play pop music.
Fluffy, meaningless garbage.
But with all pop music, you can't fault them for sounding good and catchy.
To all those people (and this includes the great Lemmy) who think The Foos
are bringing rock 'n roll back to the masses, you're an idiot.
If there's 12-13 year old kids out there that want to be rock stars because
of The Foos will not interest me one bit.
That's because these kids will come out with no soul.
If you take influence from The Foos, what you'll get is boring ass rock
with 4 chords, verse, chorse, verse, chorse.
ZZZzzzZZzzZzzZzz
Yes, The Foos undoubtedly have causes thousands of kids to pick a guitar.
But to go from a guitar player to an artist, that kid needs to go back to
the Nirvana catelogue and see what real music is.
At the end of the day, The Foo Fighters are a good band, terrible artists.
All good artists (and this surprisingly includes Kiss) can teach you a
lesson in music.
For example, Bowie: the survive, you need to adapt; also don't fuck up your
money.
What can we learn from The Foo Fighters?
Play generic rock music, loud, and hard. It doesn't matter what your songs
mean, it just needs to sound good.
With that said, Dave Grohl did a hell of a job rebranding himself.
So why do I do what I do?
I don't write music to entertain the audience, nor do I play music for the
audience.
I'm not a pop artist.
I play music for myself.
Whether it be in my room with a 10 watt amp, or whether it be at Madison
Square Garden.
I will always play music for myself, I don't show up for the audience, the
audience shows up for me (even if that sounds pompous).
Back to the original question, "Who wants to listen to that?"
The answer is, I do.
And at the end of the day, that's all that matters.
what you're saying, who wants to listen to that?"
No one has spoken anything truer.
With that said, I question myself, if that's what I'm doing then why even
bother.
I understand the argument of entertainment, but you shouldn't try and guess
what will entertain the audience.
Dylan has a great quote on this one, (paraphrasing) no one comes to a show
to get whipped, they come to get entertained. And even if they're coming to
the show to get whipped aren't they coming to be entertained?
So why bother trying to guess what the audience wants to hear, people will
come if you believe in it.
Because at some point, that audience will go home and you'll be left
standing alone.
What do you have then?
This is a good point to bring up a new case study: The Foo Fighters and
Dave Grohl.
Without a doubt Dave Grohl is a class A guy; you'll find it hard to find
anyone say anything otherwise.
But at some point you have to look at the big picture of his career, and
you just have to ask what happened?
What happened:
- He went from being the drummer for the biggest band of a generation to the guitarist/vocalist of the biggest band of a generation.... ok not much of a differenece
- He went from being part of the most gripping, heartfelt, raw-emotion, stab yourself in the heart band to a band that writes random words on paper so that the lyrics match the meter of the song
There will never be another Kurt Kobain.
Of course there are Kurt Kobains walking around all around us, but one that
can go through all that, stay alive, and emote all that on such a large
stage... no, it won't happenn
The reason why Dave Grohl has been able to find his own place on the world
stage is because he distanced himself so far away from Nirvana.
If Dave Grohl took on the persona of Kurt Kobain 2.0 we would have all
laughed at him.
But at the same time, what are The Foo Fighters.
They represents everything that is wrong with pop music.
Sure they play "rock".
But at the core of it, they play pop music.
Fluffy, meaningless garbage.
But with all pop music, you can't fault them for sounding good and catchy.
To all those people (and this includes the great Lemmy) who think The Foos
are bringing rock 'n roll back to the masses, you're an idiot.
If there's 12-13 year old kids out there that want to be rock stars because
of The Foos will not interest me one bit.
That's because these kids will come out with no soul.
If you take influence from The Foos, what you'll get is boring ass rock
with 4 chords, verse, chorse, verse, chorse.
ZZZzzzZZzzZzzZzz
Yes, The Foos undoubtedly have causes thousands of kids to pick a guitar.
But to go from a guitar player to an artist, that kid needs to go back to
the Nirvana catelogue and see what real music is.
At the end of the day, The Foo Fighters are a good band, terrible artists.
All good artists (and this surprisingly includes Kiss) can teach you a
lesson in music.
For example, Bowie: the survive, you need to adapt; also don't fuck up your
money.
What can we learn from The Foo Fighters?
Play generic rock music, loud, and hard. It doesn't matter what your songs
mean, it just needs to sound good.
With that said, Dave Grohl did a hell of a job rebranding himself.
So why do I do what I do?
I don't write music to entertain the audience, nor do I play music for the
audience.
I'm not a pop artist.
I play music for myself.
Whether it be in my room with a 10 watt amp, or whether it be at Madison
Square Garden.
I will always play music for myself, I don't show up for the audience, the
audience shows up for me (even if that sounds pompous).
Back to the original question, "Who wants to listen to that?"
The answer is, I do.
And at the end of the day, that's all that matters.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Hip-Hop
THE REAL HIP-HOP IS OVER HERE!!!
There's a saying that goes, if you think it's too loud, you're too old. If you think Hip-hop isn't music, you're too odd. I'm not saying that you're too physically old, your head-space is old. You can't accept the new and mode of communication which is Hip-Hop. It's because you don't understand what Hip-Hop is. I am Hip-hop.
As a metalhead (and as all metalheads can relate too), I can understand the struggle of being accepted as a form of music. Not until recently has metal been really recognized as a form of music, although with that said it still has a long ways to go (this can be debated as a direction to go in [see hair metal and kiss as an example] but that's for another time).
Anyways, Hip-Hop is the street preacher. It's what punk music did for the disenchanted youth. In the regards they are exactly the same.
The music you hear on the radio today is not Hip-Hop. It's some derivative that's bastardized into pop music. And people think it's just entertainment but no it's a much more important issue than that. It's a bastardization of the struggle African-Americans had to go through in the pre-civil rights movement era. It's a total disregard and quite honestly disrespectful to all the elders of our time. Hip-Hop is for the people and by the people and not meant to be used to rap about bitches and hoes. It's a tool, it's a lifestyle for bring people together, not smacking asses. It's a celebration of black history and it's a celebration of equality. Not about whips and rims. It's a rebellion against oppression and hate. It's not for degradation of women and quite frankly self. Rappers that come out today, who rhyme about their big rims or how much cash they supposedly have should be ashamed of themselves. They're a blasphemy to what Dr. King and Malcolm X did for society... for the world. Every time someone uses Hip-Hop for some vain, superficial way, it is a de-evolution of the fight for equal rights. As the great Chuck D once said, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything". At the end of the day, you just have to realize that this so called pop music is a detriment to society. It's worse than any black metal band could ever be. Pop music is the reason why society is so fucked up. It teaches the kids to be vain. It teaches them to be superficial. Because pop music by definition is music that just sounds good without regard to meaning or soul.
On another day, I'll discuss gangsta rappers, but not today. That discussion is in a totally different direction.
Nothing new here, just classics
There's a saying that goes, if you think it's too loud, you're too old. If you think Hip-hop isn't music, you're too odd. I'm not saying that you're too physically old, your head-space is old. You can't accept the new and mode of communication which is Hip-Hop. It's because you don't understand what Hip-Hop is. I am Hip-hop.
As a metalhead (and as all metalheads can relate too), I can understand the struggle of being accepted as a form of music. Not until recently has metal been really recognized as a form of music, although with that said it still has a long ways to go (this can be debated as a direction to go in [see hair metal and kiss as an example] but that's for another time).
Anyways, Hip-Hop is the street preacher. It's what punk music did for the disenchanted youth. In the regards they are exactly the same.
The music you hear on the radio today is not Hip-Hop. It's some derivative that's bastardized into pop music. And people think it's just entertainment but no it's a much more important issue than that. It's a bastardization of the struggle African-Americans had to go through in the pre-civil rights movement era. It's a total disregard and quite honestly disrespectful to all the elders of our time. Hip-Hop is for the people and by the people and not meant to be used to rap about bitches and hoes. It's a tool, it's a lifestyle for bring people together, not smacking asses. It's a celebration of black history and it's a celebration of equality. Not about whips and rims. It's a rebellion against oppression and hate. It's not for degradation of women and quite frankly self. Rappers that come out today, who rhyme about their big rims or how much cash they supposedly have should be ashamed of themselves. They're a blasphemy to what Dr. King and Malcolm X did for society... for the world. Every time someone uses Hip-Hop for some vain, superficial way, it is a de-evolution of the fight for equal rights. As the great Chuck D once said, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything". At the end of the day, you just have to realize that this so called pop music is a detriment to society. It's worse than any black metal band could ever be. Pop music is the reason why society is so fucked up. It teaches the kids to be vain. It teaches them to be superficial. Because pop music by definition is music that just sounds good without regard to meaning or soul.
On another day, I'll discuss gangsta rappers, but not today. That discussion is in a totally different direction.
Monday, May 16, 2011
The Gig from Hell Pt.2
So the original gig from hell was Dovetails' very first gig (back when we were called Dovetail, without the S) in high school. Grade 12, Live Aid, in our high school cafetorium (cafeteria + auditorium). That was the show where we:
- got yelled at for playing too long
- we played so fast that my arm was sore for the next 2 days
- Eric's patch cord blew a fuse
- during Cappello's drum solo, the double kicks fell off the drumset
- at the end of that solo, one of those drumsticks blewup into little shards
- and my fingers were so tired that I couldn't play Master of Puppet's properly
That was that, but this past Saturday was The Gig from Hell Pt. 2.
So collectively I think all of us have decided never to work with or for Supernova ever again. They are a shit company ultimately and don't know what the heck they're doing. They're good for the little kids, because they can be pushed around and they're happy just to play. But when really work needs to be done Supernova is definitely not the place you want to be. Regardless, so the past Saturday we played at the El Mocambo for the first time. We played upstairs because (obviously) we aren't that popular enough to play downstairs). Anyways, the venue is pretty shit, but the place has history. The first part is the heat. Holy crap it was freaking hot there, they really should have installed windows or kept the door open and vented the place out. But regardless spotlights make all stages pretty hot. The thing that makes this the gig from hell is a combination of an untalented soundguy and lack of organization on the part of Supernova.
So collectively I think all of us have decided never to work with or for Supernova ever again. They are a shit company ultimately and don't know what the heck they're doing. They're good for the little kids, because they can be pushed around and they're happy just to play. But when really work needs to be done Supernova is definitely not the place you want to be. Regardless, so the past Saturday we played at the El Mocambo for the first time. We played upstairs because (obviously) we aren't that popular enough to play downstairs). Anyways, the venue is pretty shit, but the place has history. The first part is the heat. Holy crap it was freaking hot there, they really should have installed windows or kept the door open and vented the place out. But regardless spotlights make all stages pretty hot. The thing that makes this the gig from hell is a combination of an untalented soundguy and lack of organization on the part of Supernova.
I think a lot of our fans were dumbfounded by the short setlist of the night, so I will explain here what happened. The night of we planned on 6 songs, with an addition by Cappello and I to sing Eric Happy Birthday that night. However we got shafted to only 5 songs and no birthday song. After we finished Balsam Lake (our 4th song), Cappello and I were supposed to get everyone to sing Happy Birthday and then go into the cover song, YYZ (yes!!! I know -___-). Regardless when Balsam Lake ended, the sound guy told us we had one song left. Now, I totally lost track of time but for fuck sakes, there's no way that was our full set time. They just cut us short and told us to leave. So that's the fault of Supernova. They did because they were behind schedule. We got on stage 30 mins late due to previous bands pilling up on stage time. So it's not our fault that their organization sucks (double meaning). We should not have our set cut short due to their incompetence.
Now for the soundguy. I don't know if this guy is experienced or he's just new. but there is one thing I can tell you, he is untalented in every way. (this first part is a little music geeky), I know that my XLR output is hot, but the solution to that is not to turn the bass on my bass all the way down. He should have fucking told me I was blowing out his speakers and clipping. What I really needed to do was turn down the gain and cut some volume on the preamp. He's a moron for that, a much more experienced and talented guy would know that the musician has much more familiarity with his equipment and would know what to do. He's lucky that I had my orange nickel plated strings, if I had my monel flatwounds, he would have gotten his face melted off. The second this is that he doesn't understand line 6 amps. Now, after this gig, I've decided to return my spider IV because I'm not happy with it, but it is a very important part of eric's setup. But if u've done enough amateur shows you've worked with enough line 6 amps. And therefore you should know that volume channels are all preset on line 6 amps. Working and playing around on the amp will not do anything. In this case the sound guy kept trying to turn down the volume on eric's amp because it was blowing back feedback all night. He should know better that line 6 amps can't be changed like that. I don't know how much experience this soundguy had, but i can say that he was definitely the worst one I've had so far.
Anyways that's enough of complaining about that gig.
what we've learned after this gig was: never to work with Supernova ever again
what I've learned: have control.
I took on a lot more than I could chew that gig.
Anyways that's enough of complaining about that gig.
what we've learned after this gig was: never to work with Supernova ever again
what I've learned: have control.
I took on a lot more than I could chew that gig.
- too many new effects/toys to handle (not enough experience to truly control it in a live setting)
- too uncontrolled energy, so much so that it was throwing my tempo
- i almost beatup a guy in the crowd by accident, I thought he was trying to high-five me, but then he turned around; and in my moment of sheer highness, i shook the shit out of him and forced him to give me a high-five. I keep forgetting this is not a mosh-pit.... sorry dude if ur reading this, didn't mean to ruff u up like that (I'm pretty sure he was like a foot taller than me)
Let's see today's featured artist, i'm gonna have to go and find one right now. How about Selena.... what's her name? lol ya that's not happening. ok it's really late, so not gonna spend time to feature a band. So instead of that I list a bunch of random music things that happened recently.
- Bob Marley's death anniversary (30 years), wow 30 years with Marley, I saw a guy wearing a Marley shirt on the day, it made me smile
- this seems sorta out of place but whatever, Limp Bizkit actually released a new single called Shotgun. It's ok, in my opinion. It's sorta retarded actually, the Wes on the guitar is really good and DJ Lethal does a really good job on it, but Fred is just retarded. I don't hate Fred, actually I don't even dislike him. I used to be the biggest Bizkit fan, but I liked the stuff the "fans didn't like" I love Results May Vary, the one album everyone hated. I didn't really care for the other stuff. I swear give that album a chance, listen to the closing track Drown, one of the best songs ever from a very unlikely source.
- Limewire has been forced to pay like 100 million dollars for distributing music illegally.... lololololol, I really don't care much actually
- The Darkness are coming back!!!!! CHEESE METAL!!!!! but I like them but not enough to be a fan
- Something important happened on American Idol... that's what they always say
- There's no Ozzfest this year!!!! not that I go, but still, that sucks for metal in North America
- Noel Gallagher's fake twitter account announced tracklistings I believe. I don't remember, I didn't believe it when I saw the headline. Why? because Noel doesn't own a computer that's why. He would have steal his girlfriend's laptop to first make a twitter account and then he would have to figure out how to type... actually no, he would first have to figure out how to turn the laptop on. No no, I can just imagine Noel going "this is bollocks, fook this, this is a student's job, fook this"
Good Night
Friday, May 6, 2011
If I Could Work With One Person
So the question for today is (which also alludes to today's featured artist), if there was one person that I could work with on a musical level, who would it be?
The surprising thing is that for a metalhead like me the answer is nothing short of odd. No it wouldn't be my heroes in Metallica, Hetfield and Ulrich. It wouldn't be Alice Cooper or Bob Dylan. It wouldn't be Trent, nor Noel Gallagher. Neil Young, Neil Peart, Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, Marley, Eminem, Dre, Clapton, Lauryn, Bruce and Steve, Gaye, Jaco, Stanley, Wooten, Nas, the boys in PTH, Thom, Morello, Tuomas, Bono and The Edge, Wu-Tang, just to name a few. When I think of who out of all my travels through the sonicwaves of life. One person comes to mind.
That one person is a Korean Pop Singer known as Younha. Go Younha (고윤하) is everything a pop singer should be. Intelligent, talented, driven, and most of all a defined sense of self. Pop musicians are a different breed from regular musicians. Musicians and artist are called on by music to find themselves, to delve in their own misfortunes and their own shortcomings and embrace all of that in the music that pours out of their heart. Pop musicians have no such luxury. No such luxury to bask in their own absurdness and no room for error. Pop Musicians are stuck in their own perfection or at the very least perceived perfection. No person who listens to pop music is looking for a poor sod dribble in their own annoyances and ponderings. No, pop music is for those who are there to be entertained through superficial means and through artificial perfection.
In such a sterile environment a pop musician must be much stronger than any other musician. Not only must they be talented and driven. But they must also be intelligent and above all they must know oneself.
Younha is a singer/pianist. Hugely popular and famous in Korea and Japan. She made her debut in Japan at the age of 16. As time went by she has become one of the most famous pop musicians in Korea and Japan. Now that's all fine and dandy but you might ask why her? why a pop singer?
Ultimately, the music is sub-par and dismissive. However, if you look beyond that and look at the soul of the human being singing the song you'll see a far more impressive portrait.
It's not so much that I think that working with Noel Gallagher wouldn't be cool, quite the opposite, it would be awesome. However, what would I bring to the table. I can't think of anything. Noel Gallagher is already a master of his craft, I don't see what I could bring to his music. That goes for everyone else.
However, when I look at Younha I see incredible talent but more importantly a real human being. All of that trapped under the weights of pop music.
With all that said (as I always tell people), be wary of the pop "artists" for things aren't as they appear. If my characterization of Younha isn't true to reality, well then that illusion will be shattered. But it's hard to fool a skeptic like me.
All in all, if there was one person I could work with, that would be Younha and that makes her my featured artist today.
maybe not the best video to showcase her talent, however it does show a human element to her performance
At the end of the day, she got through the song. But more importantly it showcases her attachment and belief in the music she sings. She actually BELIEVES in her music... what a thing of beauty.
A cover of an American song
of all the songs to pick, I don't know why this is picked except that it's in the piano rock genre, but a showcase of her rhythm and coordination
Probably the song that most people know her by (this is the Korean version)
The surprising thing is that for a metalhead like me the answer is nothing short of odd. No it wouldn't be my heroes in Metallica, Hetfield and Ulrich. It wouldn't be Alice Cooper or Bob Dylan. It wouldn't be Trent, nor Noel Gallagher. Neil Young, Neil Peart, Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson, Marley, Eminem, Dre, Clapton, Lauryn, Bruce and Steve, Gaye, Jaco, Stanley, Wooten, Nas, the boys in PTH, Thom, Morello, Tuomas, Bono and The Edge, Wu-Tang, just to name a few. When I think of who out of all my travels through the sonicwaves of life. One person comes to mind.
That one person is a Korean Pop Singer known as Younha. Go Younha (고윤하) is everything a pop singer should be. Intelligent, talented, driven, and most of all a defined sense of self. Pop musicians are a different breed from regular musicians. Musicians and artist are called on by music to find themselves, to delve in their own misfortunes and their own shortcomings and embrace all of that in the music that pours out of their heart. Pop musicians have no such luxury. No such luxury to bask in their own absurdness and no room for error. Pop Musicians are stuck in their own perfection or at the very least perceived perfection. No person who listens to pop music is looking for a poor sod dribble in their own annoyances and ponderings. No, pop music is for those who are there to be entertained through superficial means and through artificial perfection.
In such a sterile environment a pop musician must be much stronger than any other musician. Not only must they be talented and driven. But they must also be intelligent and above all they must know oneself.
Younha is a singer/pianist. Hugely popular and famous in Korea and Japan. She made her debut in Japan at the age of 16. As time went by she has become one of the most famous pop musicians in Korea and Japan. Now that's all fine and dandy but you might ask why her? why a pop singer?
Ultimately, the music is sub-par and dismissive. However, if you look beyond that and look at the soul of the human being singing the song you'll see a far more impressive portrait.
It's not so much that I think that working with Noel Gallagher wouldn't be cool, quite the opposite, it would be awesome. However, what would I bring to the table. I can't think of anything. Noel Gallagher is already a master of his craft, I don't see what I could bring to his music. That goes for everyone else.
However, when I look at Younha I see incredible talent but more importantly a real human being. All of that trapped under the weights of pop music.
With all that said (as I always tell people), be wary of the pop "artists" for things aren't as they appear. If my characterization of Younha isn't true to reality, well then that illusion will be shattered. But it's hard to fool a skeptic like me.
All in all, if there was one person I could work with, that would be Younha and that makes her my featured artist today.
maybe not the best video to showcase her talent, however it does show a human element to her performance
At the end of the day, she got through the song. But more importantly it showcases her attachment and belief in the music she sings. She actually BELIEVES in her music... what a thing of beauty.
A cover of an American song
of all the songs to pick, I don't know why this is picked except that it's in the piano rock genre, but a showcase of her rhythm and coordination
Probably the song that most people know her by (this is the Korean version)
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Karmin
Karmin
............omg
this girl has swagga
Karmin is composed of Amy Heidermann and Nick Noonan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od6sUNTHiHs
originals? I really don't have much of an opinion on them... partly because I'm not that interested but omg just check out the Lil' Wayne and Cory Gunz cover. This girl has got mad swagga. Just incredible flow.
Sometimes, you just have to have fun. You shouldn't have your head in your ass and your nose held high because then you'll just smell shit. There is nothing original or incredibly enlightening about Karmin or for that matter Lil' Wayne (and without saying Cory Gunz) but there is a certain level of entertainment value that you get when you aren't too stuffy.
............omg
this girl has swagga
Karmin is composed of Amy Heidermann and Nick Noonan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od6sUNTHiHs
originals? I really don't have much of an opinion on them... partly because I'm not that interested but omg just check out the Lil' Wayne and Cory Gunz cover. This girl has got mad swagga. Just incredible flow.
Sometimes, you just have to have fun. You shouldn't have your head in your ass and your nose held high because then you'll just smell shit. There is nothing original or incredibly enlightening about Karmin or for that matter Lil' Wayne (and without saying Cory Gunz) but there is a certain level of entertainment value that you get when you aren't too stuffy.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
2 Youtubers
In today's ever changing technological world, The Times They Are A-Changin'. Even the way we consume music is different. These days a lot of my music consumption is lost in youtube land. The nice thing about consuming music in this way is that there is no frill. It's not clean, it's just dirty music. Too many artist that come out today worry too much about making the perfect product. They make things sound too nice and too polished. People on youtube bring a different dimension to music. It's not so much about producing and money. It's just music.
Although there's quite a few youtubers I do follow, I'm going to pick 2 to feature today.
Elena Cohen A.K.A. elenaaaxx
http://www.youtube.com/user/elenaaaxx
Pianist/singer/songwritter
OMG what a voice. She does cover songs but what's more interesting are her originals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsSAMWppbWA
This song is defintely one of my favourites, it's called Follow Me Down. A very balanced song, but the kicker is towards the end. A real display of her vocals. She hits octaves like it's nobody's business.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycDGB5FFdK8
If you believe in magic, you have to check her out.
Marie Hsiao A.K.A. mreebee3
http://www.youtube.com/user/mreebee3
Guitarist/Singer/Songwritter
As much I love her originals, what really get's me are her covers. They ooze of clean melody lines. Her Elvis cover is one of the most gripping things I've heard ever. There was a good week where this is all I listened to. This cover is better than any "professional" could do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQMUot5vpSA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPfXTgKHDpk
The bottom line is that, this whole world is filled with incredibly talented people. But 99% of these people will never be rich and famous. 99% of these people will not play for a room with more than 100 people. The WWW has brought the audience closer. And now that room is no longer confined to a physical entity rather now the room is now potentially the whole world.
Although there's quite a few youtubers I do follow, I'm going to pick 2 to feature today.
Elena Cohen A.K.A. elenaaaxx
http://www.youtube.com/user/elenaaaxx
Pianist/singer/songwritter
OMG what a voice. She does cover songs but what's more interesting are her originals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsSAMWppbWA
This song is defintely one of my favourites, it's called Follow Me Down. A very balanced song, but the kicker is towards the end. A real display of her vocals. She hits octaves like it's nobody's business.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycDGB5FFdK8
If you believe in magic, you have to check her out.
Marie Hsiao A.K.A. mreebee3
http://www.youtube.com/user/mreebee3
Guitarist/Singer/Songwritter
As much I love her originals, what really get's me are her covers. They ooze of clean melody lines. Her Elvis cover is one of the most gripping things I've heard ever. There was a good week where this is all I listened to. This cover is better than any "professional" could do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQMUot5vpSA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPfXTgKHDpk
The bottom line is that, this whole world is filled with incredibly talented people. But 99% of these people will never be rich and famous. 99% of these people will not play for a room with more than 100 people. The WWW has brought the audience closer. And now that room is no longer confined to a physical entity rather now the room is now potentially the whole world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)