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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.