Radiohead Rush

The anti-Arcade Fire:

I love how in this video, Thom Yorke is a marionette
whose strings are being pulled by the music.

These guys are otherworldly. They do what every dopey indie-rock band wishes they can do but can only pretend to do.

Hey Look everybody! A band that actually possesses vision, artistry, unparalleled musicianship and amazing sounding recordings! Novel, ain't it?! If you go obnoxiously around saying how much you prefer "Lo-Fi" recordings, you're just belying your misguided affinity for rudimentary recording equipment and terrible engineering.

I can't believe I live in a world where Radiohead has never won a Grammy for Album of the Year, and the much lesser band, Arcade Fire has.

Way to go Grammys!!! -- Getting it right since Jethro Tull won over Metallica for best metal performance! I mean at least they've been nominated, right? For instance, Radiohead's Kid A was nominated for Album of the Year in 2001, but they unfortunately lost ... to Steely Dan.

STEELY DAN!

Oh, and in case you were wondering, I'm far from finished with this topic…

Arcade Fire Extinguisher

Arcade Fire is a bunch of mediocre musicians staring straight ahead with conviction while they play. Am I supposed to think they're great just because THEY think they are? They've surely hypnotized their audience by pretending to be good.

Their mysticism apparently worked on the Grammy Academy having just won the Album of the Year award. I see right through AF's pretense. It's much like the emperor's new clothes, except everyone could clearly see the emperor's balls. Arcade Fire has no balls... they have tantrums on stage that people mistake for defiance.

One day their luster will wear and people will see that what they were really listening to was just a shiny turd... featuring the accordion! While I'm on this topic, I might as well bash all of the "indy rock" hipsters. I'm all for independent music, but this concept is lost on the hipster crowd. It's a conundrum -- people get so upset whenever their favorite indy band gets popular or "sells out." How else does anyone expect to keep hearing music from these "unknown" bands unless they make some sort of living and continue to make music. You can't have it both ways.

Their attitude exceeds their talent. I get annoyed when I see the indie rock equivalent to a pop star who is also undeserving of elevated status. It's hyperbolically and inversely ironical. Arcade Fire approaches the Indie rock event horizon, whereby the smaller the audience, the cooler they are -- at one point, not only will the band be the SIZE of its audience, it will actually BE it's own audience.

The hipsters love them because they secretly fantasize about sneaking up on stage with them and blending in with the over 400 band members, in the hopes that while they beat their ladle on a pot (out of time), they can get caught between some of the snarky looks that the guys in AF constantly shoot each other while performing. Won't that just feel so cool!

Moreover, they can go suck an egg.

Casey Abrams threw it down.

I've been watching the 10th season of American Idol and the judges (Randy Jackson, Jennifer Lopez, and Steven Tyler) are completely confounding me with who they send to Hollywood. There's a lot of schlocky stock talent that they've been sending through just because they shed a few tears and said "pretty please!?" The only person that showed any sort of actual musicianship and ability thus far has been Casey Abrams. He effortlessly trumps the other contestants with his jazzy, horn-like vocals, and feel. Sure there have been some people that can "sing nice," but no one has shown that they can actually throw down, command attention and suck you into their performance. Although they edited his introduction to make him appear somewhat awkward, he seems to be the kind of guy who's bigger than the show itself.

Black Swan

Black Swan is a really good movie, maybe not great... but definitely really good. Darren Aronofsky's latest effort is true to his form. I'm pretty sure he's the only director that can make an edgy film about Swan Lake. I like that he maintains a certain level of freshness to what he brings to the screen.

The film captures the obsession and utter despair of someone who is a perfectionist. We ultimately learn there is no perfection in life. Natalie Portman does a fantastic and convincing job in her role of the obsessive dancer. People are saying she should get the Oscar, but we'll see who else is in contention. A lot is being said about Mila Kunis' performance and that she should get an Oscar nod for supporting actress, but I think Barbara Hershey was much better in her supporting role.

I've been a fan of his since π -- despite it being almost the exact same premise of a screenplay I had written in college!

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.

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.

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.

Are you adding a note or a person?

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!