Entertainer | Professional Goofball | Content Creator and Host of the Infotainment #YouTube Series ⚡️ARISTOTLE | FULL THROTTLE⚡
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Work of Art
I love the new show about artists on Bravo called "Work of Art: The Next Great Artist." It's fun to see actual artists competing against pretend artists.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
True Art
An artist never compromises her vision. It may get tweaked and guided along the way, but the kernel of the original idea should be the prevailing theme in the finished work.
A real artist's work can never be duplicated. Others may reinterpret, but all true art is inextricably linked to its originator or unique collaborators.
To me, a worthy band is one which can not be mistaken for another. This is to say their sound, their style, their technique can only be reproduced by those particular individuals. A great example of this would be Tool. Whenever someone tries to duplicate one of their songs live, it just doesn't cut the mustard. I've seen bands attempt this way too many times and it invariably will sound like an inferior imitation. (Like when you really wanted an iPod Touch for Christmas, but you end up getting a Zune.)
Music covers tend to be a different story. A true artist can reinterpret a great song when they come at it from a new angle. A new approach, like Ryan Adams' version of Oasis' "Wonderwall."
Or Johnny Cash's incredibly powerful remake of "Hurt" by Nine Inch Nails... (which I will not post here because I don't want any one to get massively bummed out.)
I tend to disdain when people try to update a song simply by running an electric guitar through some distortion while playing the exact same thing at a faster tempo. For some reason people think this is a valid way to remake a song. Those people are dumb.
I've had some significant experiences dealing with those who have tried to redirect my vision because of their own inability to grasp what I was going for. This tends to happen a lot when artists deal with inflexible engineers, producers and other middlemen. In my own experience in dealing with particular recording engineers, I've had to fight tooth and nail to get my auditory "vision" across. Certain technicians learn only a few ways that things are conventionally done and only want to do them as such. These are people who don't want to find a new angle or new approach to something. I don't see how one can go through life this way.
I've spent a considerable amount of time developing my bass technique and what I believe to be a truly unique style. I will get more into the specifics of why my style is super-kick-ass in subsequent posts, but in the meantime you can read more about it here -> Wikipedia and watch videos here -> Youtube.
When recording in the studio, I will be working on "dialing in" my sound the way I hear it in my head. This is initially met with, "let's just make this sound like a bass and move on," by Joe Engineer. I generally want my bass to sound like purple thunder up your ass... which takes some time.
When recording my most recent album (Vaeda "Unsafe at any Speed") I had our producer rearrange our 45 day recording schedule so that we had twice the time originally slated to record bass. Though I am equally proud of my songwriting contributions, what I do on bass is a fundamental part of the sound and should not be compromised. Whatever ends up on record should sound distinctly like Vaeda. All parts of sound should serve the song, and many of our songs were born out of my bass. (I will elaborate on my experiences in a later posting which will be entitled "The Case for Bass.")
In the case of recording I've always stuck to my guns. I know what I wanted and pushed for it to come across in the final product sonically. It can cause tension and conflict, but I'm not making art to placate anyone. If it's not up to my standards, y'all can suck it.
A real artist's work can never be duplicated. Others may reinterpret, but all true art is inextricably linked to its originator or unique collaborators.
To me, a worthy band is one which can not be mistaken for another. This is to say their sound, their style, their technique can only be reproduced by those particular individuals. A great example of this would be Tool. Whenever someone tries to duplicate one of their songs live, it just doesn't cut the mustard. I've seen bands attempt this way too many times and it invariably will sound like an inferior imitation. (Like when you really wanted an iPod Touch for Christmas, but you end up getting a Zune.)
Music covers tend to be a different story. A true artist can reinterpret a great song when they come at it from a new angle. A new approach, like Ryan Adams' version of Oasis' "Wonderwall."
Or Johnny Cash's incredibly powerful remake of "Hurt" by Nine Inch Nails... (which I will not post here because I don't want any one to get massively bummed out.)
I tend to disdain when people try to update a song simply by running an electric guitar through some distortion while playing the exact same thing at a faster tempo. For some reason people think this is a valid way to remake a song. Those people are dumb.
I've had some significant experiences dealing with those who have tried to redirect my vision because of their own inability to grasp what I was going for. This tends to happen a lot when artists deal with inflexible engineers, producers and other middlemen. In my own experience in dealing with particular recording engineers, I've had to fight tooth and nail to get my auditory "vision" across. Certain technicians learn only a few ways that things are conventionally done and only want to do them as such. These are people who don't want to find a new angle or new approach to something. I don't see how one can go through life this way.
I've spent a considerable amount of time developing my bass technique and what I believe to be a truly unique style. I will get more into the specifics of why my style is super-kick-ass in subsequent posts, but in the meantime you can read more about it here -> Wikipedia and watch videos here -> Youtube.
When recording in the studio, I will be working on "dialing in" my sound the way I hear it in my head. This is initially met with, "let's just make this sound like a bass and move on," by Joe Engineer. I generally want my bass to sound like purple thunder up your ass... which takes some time.
When recording my most recent album (Vaeda "Unsafe at any Speed") I had our producer rearrange our 45 day recording schedule so that we had twice the time originally slated to record bass. Though I am equally proud of my songwriting contributions, what I do on bass is a fundamental part of the sound and should not be compromised. Whatever ends up on record should sound distinctly like Vaeda. All parts of sound should serve the song, and many of our songs were born out of my bass. (I will elaborate on my experiences in a later posting which will be entitled "The Case for Bass.")
In the case of recording I've always stuck to my guns. I know what I wanted and pushed for it to come across in the final product sonically. It can cause tension and conflict, but I'm not making art to placate anyone. If it's not up to my standards, y'all can suck it.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The GaGa Saga - Round 2
Dyami wrote:
Nice post. Hope it drives traffic and further talk. That said, if we were debating I'd win because I don't see how you've disproved my point, which I'll re-state here: Pop Music - The music is irrelevant (to make Lay Gaga relevant, which she probably is, you've called here a "singer/songwriter who unapologetically forgoes coffeehouse angst ridden folk music". Yep. She's more than a Pop artist. If she was all pop, she'd be all crap). Pure pop artist are about the show, the entertainment. Not the music. To diverge from my point, and explain my reasoning, as a non-professional musician I will re-state that what's important to me is if I enjoy it. Nothing else. I can respect Lady Gaga for many things but she don't float my boat.
By the way, it's Pearl Jam, Frank Zappa, Tito Puente & Vaeda.
As I stated in my previous post, we were sure to hear again from my good friend Dyami (follow his blog here -> The Penultimate Woodshop) about my beloved GaGa. I really have to thank him for igniting a fire in my belly about this issue and inspiring me to start posting again. I haven't been this fired up with angst about something since they stopped selling cheez waffles at my local 7-11!
So Pop music is purely about what you see than what you hear, eh? This is an absurd statement, since music is to be heard. Where does one get to SEE a show on the radio? What you're describing is pure entertainment, which could probably only best be demonstrated as... I dunno, a chimp in a suit, riding a bike...
But even still, you'd have to train the damn thing, and I'm sure there's an art to that... This has nothing to do with music.
If it's music we're talking about then the fact of the matter is: Pop connects with the largest audience. Plain and simple. That is what makes Pop(ular music) popular. To me, your statement is fatally flawed regarding the subject of debate... thus making me the winner by default! :)
I'm not going to argue that you should like her music, but I am going to discuss the inconsistencies in your approach.
Now you may say that all Pop music is successful because it's the "least common denominator." With that I would tend to agree that this happens more often than not. But in rare cases, you actually find an artist, like GaGa, who can extend her reach beyond the depths of mediocrity by actually connecting with the masses by providing music that is both good AND popular. Again, the greatest example of a group that was able to do that (and there really are a precious few) would be The Beatles. Is GaGa's music as good as The Beatles? Fuck no. But I think my point here is clear.
Regarding music in general you've stated that "as a non-professional musician... what's important to me is if I enjoy it. Nothing else." I can accept that you don't enjoy her music, though there is the insinuation that because I am a professional musician that is the only reason why I do. This is where you have painted yourself into a corner, my friend. Sure, I am able to relate to her on that level but one needn't be a musician to get down with GaGa. I would imagine that most of her fans are non-professional musicians... and/or as gay as a Summer scarf... but that's neither here nor flair.
With my expertise, I am only able to intellectualize and explain WHY she has such musical mass appeal. Nothing else.
Just as all tall buildings must have a reliable structure so that they can stand; or how all visual arts have universal principles of design that dictate what one is likely to find pleasing to the eye; or even how great cuisine requires knowledge of flavor proportions: -- music follows the same basis in method. The most irresistible foods are those that can be fundamentally expressed as a balance of fat, salt and sugar. If you mix those three components elegantly along with skill and understanding, you will please most palates with the tastiest of treats.
This is Pop music.
Like Pop, pie can suck or pie can be orgasmic. Granted one also needs protein and fiber to survive, and that's why every once in a while it's nice to eat a big hearty piece of GaGa Pop Pie.
So, everything that I mentioned in my last post (i.e. her excellent production value, skillful songwriting, strong melodies, lyrical content, infectious rhythms etc.) ARE the very reasons WHY people find music enjoyable... whether they perceive it or not.
This is why a select few producers, engineers, mixers, instrumentalists, songwriters get paid millions of dollars to do what they do... because they make recordings and create sounds that are enjoyable for most people's ear holes in any given genre. Though any of these professionals would be the first to tell you that they've "polished a few turds" in their time just for a payday, but again - GaGa is someone who rises above in her standards.
(Frank Zappa was extremely popular at being unpopular. A genius in every way, he was a pioneer who I'm sure made it easier for people like GaGa to exist in the mainstream. There are even those who would discount GaGa's artistic legitimacy simply because of the fact that she's overcome obscurity. What is wrong with connecting with millions? It just means more people like your work! What was Zappa's most commercial success and considered his masterpiece? That's right, "Joe's Garage!" He connected with most people with the music on that album because he sarcastically wrote in a POP rock format. Writing in a fashion that connects to the masses is truly a gift and a musical art form. Zappa was an artistic virtuoso... but I digress.)
Fundamentally I just think her music sounds great and I find her to be... cool. Her sound sucked me in right away because it was catchy and bold. Upon further investigating I became intrigued after seeing her on television all suited up in her unconventional duds, challenging audiences with her provocative performance pieces and constantly defying her interviewers with witticisms. I was sold once she revealed that she got her name from the song "Radio Ga Ga" by Queen.
On this subject I am winding down as I think I've thoroughly illustrated my position on what I consider quality music. I don't want to over inflate GaGa's stature (not that she needs any help) but I absolutely have to give her credit where it's due.
Thanks again to Dyami for his contributions and his nod to my favorite band... Vaeda!
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Defending Gaga
I'm going to see Lady Gaga for the SECOND time tomorrow night and I couldn't be more excited. But of course there will always be those haters out there. The following is an excerpt of a debate I'm having with my friend "D" about the state of Gaga... keep in mind, my friend owns 100's of Pearl Jam CDs and bootlegs. Now I love Pearl Jam just as much as the next bloke - but I do give other artists a listen from time to time. As far as I know "D" only listens to Pearl Jam, Frank Zappa and Tito Puente.
Read on... I just love how it becomes a sauce-fest. There's more to come, I'm sure.
(Me)
I just remembered I am going to see Lady Gaga tomorrow night so we will not be able to attend the festivities that were planned at el casa de tu.
--
(D)
No sweat. See a catch crappy artist. Get in the vibe. Enjoy what is sure to be a amusing & entertaining show.
--
(Me)
not quite sure how to decipher your email. You don't want to catch me on a rant about Gaga... because I'll take you down.
:)
--
(D)
Yeah. In my opinion her music is useless, much as crap is (though if you burn dried crap it will make fire). That said, I do see the entertainment value in her. I find her an amusing personality and I'm sure she puts on a amusing & entertaining show. She reminds me of Madonna. I also have little use for her music but she's entertaining as hell (or at least used to be).
--
(Me)
Your ears must be old shriveled and completely vestigial. Remind me never to discuss relevant pop music with you since it would be like trying to explain picasso to stevie wonder.
Have a great day!
--
(D)
You've made a mistake. Pop music by definition is irrelevant. Give me rock, or any other of many interesting sub-genres and I'm game. Any genre that can allow Ace of Base, Kris Kross & Sean Combs to rise to the top is clearly not based on the quality of the music. Some of them may be good showman or businessmen, but you couldn't pay me to listen to any of them.
--
(Me)
D - Downer,
First of all I'd like to say that I find it tragic that it pains you should anyone derive enjoyment out of something you disagree with. That being said, your argument is as flimsy as Richard Simmons. If you've ever seen "The Devil Wears Prada," then you'll appreciate the fact that I'm about to "Meryl Streep" you about the color blue...
The three artists you name -- one being a hip hop producer (Sean Combs), one being a rap group - kris kross, only one of which is a true pop artist - Ace of base. These groups all stem from the early to mid 90's with only Sean Combs staying relevant, purely through, association, reality tv and business saavy -- not musical ability. Biggie Smalls getting killed was the greatest thing to ever happen to Diddy (aka Sean "Puffy [Puff Daddy {p-diddy}]" Combs) I hate to tell you, but there have been at least 1 or 2 outstanding pop artists since then. This only further illustrates my point that you've stopped listening along the way. Which I'm sure you don't disagree with but it's absolutely crippled your ability to appreciate, acknowledge or even perceive artistry in Pop.
Yes, there have been horrible Artists and Eras in Pop, but you're only turning a blind eye on Third Eye Blind (pop-rock) or Limp Bizkit (nu-metal), or Nickelback ('modern rock' aka 'beer and lifestyle rock' aka 'pure shit') , or Creed (alt-christian rock)... Creed who incidentally gained popularity because they sounded (to the casual music consumer) like Pearl Jam (grunge / altrock). :) All these bands obviously fall under the umbrella of "Rock," which I would never completely disregard because of a few shit artists.
You mention Madonna, fair enough, but not quite the same. On the surface, of course there is the obvious parallel but Madonna never wrote a hit song on her own (since Lucky Star), nor can she play a lick on any instrument. She fakes playing guitar sometimes, because she's a fake musician and she's half the singer Gaga is. They are both brilliant at marketing themselves, but once again when Madonna emerged on the scene there were countless comparisons to Debbie Harry and Marilyn Monroe. It's all the same noise, but Gaga is something quite unique. To my ears, the quality of her music production (sound) alone is by far head and shoulders above and beyond the state of the art in recording and she actually co-produces her own music...
You don't give a shit, you say?
Ok then, take her musical ability - she performs/sings live (something no other pop artist would be caught dead doing these days), she's a phenomenal pianist and does countless interpretations of her own music which all could be and have been viable radio hits.
So fuckin' what?
Ok then, her songwriting alone eclipses any other artist in pop today. She brings a fresh perspective with ACTUAL songs (in the truest sense), melodies, rhythms and yes, lyrics. She's a singer/songwriter who unapologetically forgoes coffeehouse angst ridden folk music for the more profitable and accessible world of Pop. She adheres to the art of songwriting and has actually reinvigorated the world of today's music. Her songs have been interpreted in any number of the rock sub-genres that you've mentioned - and they all sound fantastic (except for 30 Seconds to Mars' version of Bad Romance... but that's just because Jared Leto is a bit of a douche) which is the mark of a great songwriter.
Again, she can have just as compelling a performance with an enormous production behind her or completely alone with a keytar. She's not a poser, it's not all lobster hat gimmicks... although that's incredibly amusing and all of her own invention and artistic collaboration.
Irrelevant? Most artists are copying her already.
You say that her music is "useless" which only reminds me of your utilitarian nature for everything. I suppose if you could build a shed with her music, you'd find value in it... Just as I'm sure that by now you can re-shingle your house with pearl jam cds. :)
The very fact that you and I have equal and opposite feelings regarding her and her music only proves that she is a relevant, powerful personality and compelling artist. If you want to dismiss her as "pure entertainment" that's your prerogative though completely inaccurate. She is culturally relevant in that she challenges viewers and takes a few pages out of Andy Warhol's playbook. Andy Warhol, of course being the face of "Pop Art." Like it or not, she's the only true "Rockstar" in these modern times, and the world of music hasn't seen the likes someone like her since Madonna/Michael Jackson. I don't think this is a point worth arguing.
Frankly, I don't give a crap that you think she's crap, it just comes off as a ill-informed pompous posturing.
I only ask that there be a 24 hr radio silence (as you prepare your saucy retort) regarding this because I prefer you didn't poop on my gaga parade as I gracefully withhold my comments about pearl jam. Comments like their first 2 albums are the only good ones and they've probably had about a dozen half way decent songs since then -- not to mention the fact that I don't think I could stomach watching another concert of theirs as they perform with 2% of the passion they once had. :P
If we continue to have these weekly arguments, I'm going to ask you to co-host my podcast! Also, thanks for giving me more fodder for my blog!
Read on... I just love how it becomes a sauce-fest. There's more to come, I'm sure.
(Me)
I just remembered I am going to see Lady Gaga tomorrow night so we will not be able to attend the festivities that were planned at el casa de tu.
--
(D)
No sweat. See a catch crappy artist. Get in the vibe. Enjoy what is sure to be a amusing & entertaining show.
--
(Me)
not quite sure how to decipher your email. You don't want to catch me on a rant about Gaga... because I'll take you down.
:)
--
(D)
Yeah. In my opinion her music is useless, much as crap is (though if you burn dried crap it will make fire). That said, I do see the entertainment value in her. I find her an amusing personality and I'm sure she puts on a amusing & entertaining show. She reminds me of Madonna. I also have little use for her music but she's entertaining as hell (or at least used to be).
--
(Me)
Your ears must be old shriveled and completely vestigial. Remind me never to discuss relevant pop music with you since it would be like trying to explain picasso to stevie wonder.
Have a great day!
--
(D)
You've made a mistake. Pop music by definition is irrelevant. Give me rock, or any other of many interesting sub-genres and I'm game. Any genre that can allow Ace of Base, Kris Kross & Sean Combs to rise to the top is clearly not based on the quality of the music. Some of them may be good showman or businessmen, but you couldn't pay me to listen to any of them.
--
(Me)
D - Downer,
First of all I'd like to say that I find it tragic that it pains you should anyone derive enjoyment out of something you disagree with. That being said, your argument is as flimsy as Richard Simmons. If you've ever seen "The Devil Wears Prada," then you'll appreciate the fact that I'm about to "Meryl Streep" you about the color blue...
The three artists you name -- one being a hip hop producer (Sean Combs), one being a rap group - kris kross, only one of which is a true pop artist - Ace of base. These groups all stem from the early to mid 90's with only Sean Combs staying relevant, purely through, association, reality tv and business saavy -- not musical ability. Biggie Smalls getting killed was the greatest thing to ever happen to Diddy (aka Sean "Puffy [Puff Daddy {p-diddy}]" Combs) I hate to tell you, but there have been at least 1 or 2 outstanding pop artists since then. This only further illustrates my point that you've stopped listening along the way. Which I'm sure you don't disagree with but it's absolutely crippled your ability to appreciate, acknowledge or even perceive artistry in Pop.
Yes, there have been horrible Artists and Eras in Pop, but you're only turning a blind eye on Third Eye Blind (pop-rock) or Limp Bizkit (nu-metal), or Nickelback ('modern rock' aka 'beer and lifestyle rock' aka 'pure shit') , or Creed (alt-christian rock)... Creed who incidentally gained popularity because they sounded (to the casual music consumer) like Pearl Jam (grunge / altrock). :) All these bands obviously fall under the umbrella of "Rock," which I would never completely disregard because of a few shit artists.
You mention Madonna, fair enough, but not quite the same. On the surface, of course there is the obvious parallel but Madonna never wrote a hit song on her own (since Lucky Star), nor can she play a lick on any instrument. She fakes playing guitar sometimes, because she's a fake musician and she's half the singer Gaga is. They are both brilliant at marketing themselves, but once again when Madonna emerged on the scene there were countless comparisons to Debbie Harry and Marilyn Monroe. It's all the same noise, but Gaga is something quite unique. To my ears, the quality of her music production (sound) alone is by far head and shoulders above and beyond the state of the art in recording and she actually co-produces her own music...
You don't give a shit, you say?
Ok then, take her musical ability - she performs/sings live (something no other pop artist would be caught dead doing these days), she's a phenomenal pianist and does countless interpretations of her own music which all could be and have been viable radio hits.
So fuckin' what?
Ok then, her songwriting alone eclipses any other artist in pop today. She brings a fresh perspective with ACTUAL songs (in the truest sense), melodies, rhythms and yes, lyrics. She's a singer/songwriter who unapologetically forgoes coffeehouse angst ridden folk music for the more profitable and accessible world of Pop. She adheres to the art of songwriting and has actually reinvigorated the world of today's music. Her songs have been interpreted in any number of the rock sub-genres that you've mentioned - and they all sound fantastic (except for 30 Seconds to Mars' version of Bad Romance... but that's just because Jared Leto is a bit of a douche) which is the mark of a great songwriter.
(
Again, she can have just as compelling a performance with an enormous production behind her or completely alone with a keytar. She's not a poser, it's not all lobster hat gimmicks... although that's incredibly amusing and all of her own invention and artistic collaboration.
Irrelevant? Most artists are copying her already.
You say that her music is "useless" which only reminds me of your utilitarian nature for everything. I suppose if you could build a shed with her music, you'd find value in it... Just as I'm sure that by now you can re-shingle your house with pearl jam cds. :)
The very fact that you and I have equal and opposite feelings regarding her and her music only proves that she is a relevant, powerful personality and compelling artist. If you want to dismiss her as "pure entertainment" that's your prerogative though completely inaccurate. She is culturally relevant in that she challenges viewers and takes a few pages out of Andy Warhol's playbook. Andy Warhol, of course being the face of "Pop Art." Like it or not, she's the only true "Rockstar" in these modern times, and the world of music hasn't seen the likes someone like her since Madonna/Michael Jackson. I don't think this is a point worth arguing.
Frankly, I don't give a crap that you think she's crap, it just comes off as a ill-informed pompous posturing.
I only ask that there be a 24 hr radio silence (as you prepare your saucy retort) regarding this because I prefer you didn't poop on my gaga parade as I gracefully withhold my comments about pearl jam. Comments like their first 2 albums are the only good ones and they've probably had about a dozen half way decent songs since then -- not to mention the fact that I don't think I could stomach watching another concert of theirs as they perform with 2% of the passion they once had. :P
If we continue to have these weekly arguments, I'm going to ask you to co-host my podcast! Also, thanks for giving me more fodder for my blog!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)