…is not dead, or even relegated to bands hailing from the early 90s.
I went to a concert the other day – The Two Funerals – and the lead singer introduced the most of the songs in this fashion:
“This song’s about how fucked up racism and sexism is.” *feedback* *feedback* *powerchord* *scream*
I feel… elated.
I’ve been a reasonably big fan of Sick of Sarah since, well, a while (probably since ‘Not Listening’ became the theme for Brunch with Bridget), but hadn’t seen them live until several weeks ago (one of the downsides of living in a small metro area…).
I wasn’t really sure what to expect. Their online videos sound decent, but not incredible, and the album is processed enough that you might question whether they could pull it off live. Besides, even really excellent bands with years and years of experience often sound less than perfect live. It’s just the nature of rock music.
Not to worry – I was completely blown away.
Read full post »
I like to complain about art snobs on occasion. And I like to think that I’m not one. But I’ve been having a minor problem lately with regard to two things: electronica and modern country. Here’s why:
I listened to a bunch of older country this weekend while digitizing some vinyl (and wrote a FWF post about one song), and I think I’m learning to enjoy it, just a little. I’m concerned though – the songs I like best are the most ‘rock’ like and the most ‘folk’ like. I still can’t stand the stereotypes. And I still think that modern country is unbearably whiny! Perhaps it’s just not my aesthetic. But that’s the whole point, isn’t it… Then again, I have noticed that the ‘bored’ aspect of country heightens the impact of some songs (think calm and soothing), so maybe I just need to listen until I get understand the ‘whiny’ aspect too.
On to electronica – I actually like electronic music as a whole, I really do. It’s just one particular aspect that’s driving me nuts: the highly altered voices. It’s those effects that sound rather like a voice is being used to set the pitch for another instrument, together with just enough of the original voice to still form words. I assume it’s done with some kind of complex comb filter, etc., but it sounds to me like somebody’s being tortured! Which is not a nice musical sound. At all.
Gah. I’m getting the shivers just thinking about it. Maybe I’ll never learn to like it. Maybe that’s okay…
Here are the lyrics for Bessie Smith’s Cold in Hand Blues.
Read full post »
Once upon a time, long, long ago, there weren’t any music recordings. Nothing. If you wanted to hear music, you had to find someone to play it.
Then some smart person invented the wax cylinder record and the wire recorder (like a tape recorder, only with a wire). They sounded terrible. Really terrible. From a modern perspective, they are rather hard to listen to.Here are some halfway decent pre-1910, as an example.
But things got better very quickly. Microphones improved dramatically, magnetic tape and vinyl records were invented, all the way to 24 bit DVD audio and $10,000 sound systems. And here’s where it all gets stupid.
Now, recording engineers are obsessed with headroom, with avoiding distortion, with getting the cleanest, ‘hottest’ recording at all costs (it is their job, but still…). Audiophiles, when they’re not buying the latest gadget, are debating the benefits of 24 bit vs 16 bit vs vinyl. And musicians (who were the actual inspiration for this post!) are obsessed with being recorded properly, with getting just the right equipment, and on and on and on.
I’d like to offer a simple solution. It doesn’t matter! Listen to this recording. And this one. Yes, there’s clipping, noise, distortion. Yes, Armstrong’s trumpet sounds strange and muted, significantly different from the true sound. Yes, the tape hiss on the Heifetz is almost as loud as the music at times. But they both are wonderful performances! Would it really make a difference if the recordings were better? Really? Sure, I might listen to the better one if I had it (or not! I’d have to hear it first – I’ve been known to prefer live versions of e.g. the Indigo Girls over studio versions.), but would I enjoy it more? I somehow doubt it.
Maybe all that really matters in music, is, well, the music.
Just a thought.
This ends today’s impassioned rant.
According to NPR (and the guy’s website) a drummer named Josh Freese has a rather fascinating pricing model for his new CD. It runs all the way from $7 to $75,000.
For that price, you get:
Signed CD/DVD, digital download, T-shirt, signed drum from the 2008 Nine Inch Nails tour; he’ll take you miniature golfing and give you a tour of his favorite haunts in Long Beach. You’ll get the foot or back massage, a private drum lesson and any three items from Josh’s closet.
and
Most of the above, plus you can go on tour with Josh for a few days. He’ll also write, record and release a five-song EP about you and your life story. You can take home any of his drum sets, go drinking and play with him on his Ouija board. Also enjoy a trip with Josh to Tijuana, take a flying-trapeze lesson and then join him for lasagna.
Yeah.
The massage, the flying-trapeze, and the closet items seem a bit silly. But the lunch and private drum lesson is a good idea. It’s rather like Radioheads ‘the album is worth what you want to pay for it’ experiment. Except, this capitalizes on the high end of the market instead of the low end.
Curious.
Afterellen.com is having a short film contest. I was considering reviewing all of them quickly, but most are… not so good, so I won’t (I’m trying to stay true to my ’semi-critical’ tagline.) I will say that I liked Too Much Plaid the best, despite the occasional awkward and/or preachy dialogue. At least it was unforced, the material suited to the actors.
Never mind about that. I do have something to say about all of the films:
There was too much music!
I never thought I’d hear myself say that – I am a semi-professional musician, after all! How can there be too much music? Especially if it is good music – and most of the music in these films was at least fairly good. Music makes everything better, right? (A la Jackie Primrose Monahan…)
Nope, it certainly doesn’t.
Problem #1 with music: Using it to create artificial emotion.
The writing and acting in a film must be able to create emotion on its own. The music is only useful for heightening existing emotion, not creating it! Girl Talk was the worst in this regard: I don’t know these people, I’m not identifying with them, and indie rock music isn’t going to make me care if they’re kissing! Simply having them kiss in silence would have improved it tremendously, mostly because:
Problem #2: Good music makes your average film look awful!
I used to play in a small youth orchestra. It was an informal group, and the director was more of an organizer than a musician. I was always having to convince her that having a pianist accompany the orchestra was a bad, bad idea. Why? Because the piano always sounds good! It’s always in tune, it has a good tone, and it’s usually play by an extremely competent player. In comparison, the orchestra, while quite good by itself, suddenly sounded out of tune, error prone, and generally made up of absolute beginners. It almost sounded as if we needed the piano to keep us together! Of course, if an orchestra is sufficiently talented, a piano can be a good addition – but as a member of the group, not as accompaniment.
The same thing happens with these films. Look – nobody expects them to be wonderful, but adding goodish music makes them seem worthless by contrast. In some of the worst cases, I found myself completely ignoring the picture and just listening to the music.
Perhaps I’m just in a Anyone But Me is the greatest web show ever – partly due to its economy with music – induced haze. Still, I can’t help but think that all of these films abused music. Even having no music at all would have been a great improvement.
Carrie Brownstein (rock goddess extraordinaire), several years ago, was in a little duo called The Spells with Mary Timony. They released an EP, and then ran out of time and never got anywhere with it.
Apparently, they recorded a few more song than were on the EP, and Carrie just released them on her blog. According to Carrie, they were just sitting around so, “…why not?”
I suppose this means that The Spells will never release an album now, but I’m certainly not going to complain. Four songs is infinitely better than nothing! And the songs are pretty darn cool, so go and listen now – they’re only available for two weeks.
Thoughts on the individual tracks:
Bat Vs. Bird
Punk rock style riffs plus a really beautiful melody plus sound effects! Timony has a very unique singing style, moving through the odd intervals in the opening easily. The hissing s’s are a nice touch, and the ‘fall’ (for lack of a better word) at the end of the chorus “listen to the birds… as they call”
The song is delicate, almost a ’springtime’ song, with just a touch of sadness. Being chased by a vampire bat never sounded more appealing!
Viola
Starts out with… a violin? I can’t really tell, but something just doesn’t sound right with the opening! That’s just a minor difficulty, though. The guitar playing is excellent, and the singing is absolutely haunting. I have a real weakness for women singing in a low register!
Very good, though not as good as Bat vs. Bird.
Champion Vampire
Almost sounds like an early Sleater-Kinney song! They both sing simultaneously throughout, and due to my inability to understand lyrics easily, the only time I can tell what they are singing is the unison “You’re the best thing I never had!” (Let me know if you can make out the rest, would you?)
This song sounds cool, in the most specific sense of the word.
Antarctica
Begins with generic angry background noise, almost like a Pink Floyd song. I’m not crazy about the singing on this one – and I still can’t understand the words! The ‘oo hoo’ sound is a bit silly, and overall the song is rather boring – just like Antarctica, I guess! I do like the guitar vibrato at the end of the phrases.
So, Bat vs. Bird is the best, Antarctica is the worst, and my primary reaction is, “YAY! Something new(ish) from Carrie!”
She should do a solo project, or something.
I’m going to make a music genre chart. Maybe I’ll even make it interactive someday. Look for it in the menu bar. Here’s why I’m doing it.
I’ve spent a lot of time on allmusic lately, reading about bands, trying to find new music, etc. It’s a pretty good site, if the reviews are only of variable quality (the editors subscribe to the ‘popularity is directly proportional to quality’ school of reviewing’) The information seems very accurate, and the sheer amount of material included is quite overwhelming.
So, if anybody should know about music genres, what they are, and what define them, it should be allmusic, right?
Not so much.
Their rock genre page alone has some 300 genres listed. The other broad genre pages aren’t quite so bad – and the classical page is sadly deficient – but my overall impression has been “big mess”.
So why do I even care, you ask?
For the last week or so, afterellen.com has been pushing a band called Sick of Sarah. I found the theme on Brunch with Bridget to be quite catchy, but I didn’t really like any of their other songs.
Then I saw the ‘Daisies’ video, and I thought I’d give them another shot. The last day or so, they’ve really been growing on me. I’m not really sure why – but I think it’s the melodies. The songs are clever, but not genius, the instrumentals are just average, but the melodies are interesting.
The constant use of triplets is unusual for pop music, and the occasional meter changes combined with the sharpness and snappiness of the lead singer’s voice create a kind of ‘off balance’ effect that forces you to listen.
Or something like that. I’ll review the album after I listen to it a few more times.