About a week ago, I had all of these boss ideas for posts for the ER. But then, school happened, life happened, and I forgot what I wanted to say. eek.
One thing I've been noticing lately, though, is that I seem to have acquired an inability to get rid of music in my collection. I think I'm a musical pack-rat. There's loads of full albums that need to be purged from my music vault, but that I simply don't have the heart to toss out. Even worse, I don't seem to have the ability to break up albums either. For me, everything is digital now, so it would be so easy to simply keep the one or two good songs on an album and ditch the rest... but I can't. I simply can't bring myself to do it. There seems to be this issue of posterity that keeps coming up with me- that I want to keep everything that I can because it's all important somehow. This leads me to question: Am I building a music collection or a music library?
Maybe it's a library until I run out of space on the hard-drive, then it will become a collection...
Showing posts with label Music Musings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Music Musings. Show all posts
Friday, November 09, 2007
Monday, August 06, 2007
Willie Nelson on Vinyl
There is just not much more pleasant than opening up the doors and windows, when the air is still bright and morning like. And dropping a needle on to the grooves of some Willie on vinyl. Sure, there are some instrumental tracks that don't really move the story along, and the story kinda doesn't make sense - but then really does make sense. But there is such magic in this record and listening to it in two halves and watching that black disc circle round and round - it's just special.
Just good and pure and sad and happy and tragic and fun, simple and difficult, joyous. In a way few pieces of art in any medium
succeeed this record (played on lovingly preserved vinyl) is pure, muddied, Art.
(p.s. - Thanks to Sonny and Margaret for letting me have this when they downsized their vinyl collection)
Friday, March 23, 2007
McCartney Due to Release Album on New Starbucks Label
Damn!
Well, Paul McCartney has just been the first major artist to sign with the newly formed Starbucks music label Hear Music. Apparently, big Paul, one of the most important musicians in the history of modern popular music, has been enticed by the coffee chain's new music venture because of its "commitment and passion" and "love of music."
Great news for Starbucks too, who are (obviously) hoping that other big-name artists will follow in Mr. McCartney's footsteps. Bad news, however, for me who emphatically expounded my rather un-optimistic opinion of the new Starbucks Hear Music label. *Searches for spatula, removes egg from face.*
It will be interesting to see who else climbs on board the new label that I previously likened to a "sinking ship." This doesn't change my view of the record industry in the least (and why would it?), but it is an interesting development in this story. And to Mr. Dr. Confusion, *tips hat* nice call- hindsight is 20/20, foresight rarely is.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Byrne Speaks on the Future
Mr. Doctor Confusion sent me a LINK to this little snippet in Boing Boing about a presentation by David Byrne where the music icon muses that record labels will soon be obsolete and that he currently gets all of his music from eMusic or via illegal download. Mr. Byrne quotes issues with DRM for his not purchasing music online from distributors like iTunes. Very interesting indeed. I might try to dig up more on this, but thanks for now to Dr. C for catching this cool piece of info!
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Starbucks Records?
So just gliding in on the tail-feathers of my last post about how the music industry is a 'declining empire,' is a story I found in USA Today reporting that Starbucks is on the cusp of launching its own record label. Um, ok.....
It is debatable whether this is a sound move for the monster coffee corporation or not, but I believe they're jumping onto a sinking ship while everyone else is scrambling for the life-boats....
*Open slot; insert 2 cents.*
************2007-03-15***********
A Dr. Confusion rebuttal:
Ah, but see. I think this the smart move and shows the necessity of working around the fractured system that's currently in place. I'm pretty sure that Starbucks records are ONLY going to be sold inside a starbucks - right there that eliminates the need for paying for end caps at a record store like EMI or sony do now, or working out deals with wal-mart AND ever independent record store in medium and large towns. Plus, they can distribute the new CDs on the same palates that they deliver the coffee and cups and junk - removing/absorbing lots of shipping costs.
And who cares about radio/payola to get radio airplay - if you play the record instore - you're probably targeting and HITTING more people than radio in some markets AND (watch me now) they've got disposable income a-plenty (they're already in the starbuck for their luxury item {coffee}) AND the unit to move is RIGHT THERE next to the register for the impulse buy. Game, Set and Match capitol records! And it is now in your face.
Plus, they just need to work up some TV spots to say "HEY! new Norah Jones starbucks special snoozy live performance, only at starbucks" to get folks jonesing for their coffee AND to pick up the cream of the lifestyle-music crop. It's all is the synergy of the coffee, the starbucks cafe "experience" (seriously - the Pottery Barn's inventory is just cribbed from any starbucks interior design) and now they're just providing the convenient at-home soundtrack to that "experience".
It's almost worked on me with that Dylan thing they had a couple years back.
Sounds like a pretty genius move for Starbucks and one more bell toll for the extortion racket that was the plastic disc manufacturing and distribution cartels. Over all, I think it's a good thing but i think that the heterogeneration of music and it's distribution is a good thing on the whole. We could write a book on that subject. Thanks for letting me step on your post!
Dr. Confusion
******* ...and later, the same day... *******
Dear Doc Confusion:
First, I'm so glad you did step on my post because I think you've made some awesome points. I still have some problems with this whole endeavor, however. Let's dive in and take a look....
First, Starbucks will not be selling their label's music exclusively in Starbucks stores. The USA Today article states that Starbucks' "Los Angeles-based Hear Music label will sign its own artists and sell records through Starbucks stores and other retailers." It goes on to quote Ken Lombard, president of Starbucks Entertainment who said, "We're not setting this up so that Starbucks stores would have any advantage over other retailers." This negates most of the advantages you've listed above I'm afraid, and turns the new Starbucks venture into just another record label.
I would be inclined to say, then, that Starbucks would do well to look at things from the perspective that you've just taken, except.... Well, there's something that bugged me from the start about this whole deal, but I couldn't put my finger on what my problems/concerns were until I read your addendum to my original post:
If, in fact, Starbucks was planning to distribute their label's music exclusively in Starbucks stores (which they aren't), why would any artist want to be on a label that would only sell their records at a Starbucks? The draw of the atmosphere and the loads of potential impulse buys would be great for the Starbucks company, but what artist would want their music delineated to an 'impulse buy?' Would 50-Cent have ever gone multi-platinum if his only venue was next to the register at Starbucks?
Not to mention the fact that the "luxury item," which is the coffee, that is drawing people in is substantially cheaper than a CD (which is the impulse item). Isn't the impulse item usually cheaper than what the customer originally came in to buy? I can understand if you're at a record store and go, "Hey, I was going to spend $15 on a CD, I don't mind dropping another $1 or $2 for this little peace-sign key chain with a skull in the middle." But, if you're at a coffee shop and are only there to spend maybe 3 or 4 bucks, you're not going to very nonchalantly decide to spend 3 to 5 times more (plus the price of the coffee) at the register than what you came in prepared to spend in the first place. And, that's if you only buy one CD. If, for example, you buy 2, you're already spending in the neighborhood of 10 times more than if you'd just bought your cup of coffee.
Plus, I can't see people lining up outside a coffee-shop to buy the new Norah Jones CD. But if they did, Starbucks (and people who like to go there for the coffee/atmosphere) would have a problem on their hands because Starbucks would have to totally rearrange all their stores to make room for the CDs and the CD shoppers, and Starbucks as we know it would become a retail store... bye bye atmosphere. And if, perhaps, you're thinking that it could turn into something as cool as the Starbucks/Barnes & Noble combo, think again. Why? Because at Barnes & Noble you can snatch up a copy of "Naked Lunch" and sit there reading it (for free) over an espresso.... Everybody wins. In contrast, I can walk into my local Starbucks right now, pick up the "John Lennon's Greatest Hits" CD from beside the register, sit down with it and my cup of coffee, but then what? All you can do with a CD (until you get it home, that is) is sit there and hold it, and what's the allure of that? It doesn't add to the experience at all.
Ok, so it seems that if we do write a book on the subject, this might be an entire chapter by itself! I realize I've been a bit long-winded here, but I'm excited by the discourse, to be honest. Holla back and let me know what you think- we've never done this kind of posting before, and I'm interested to see if it takes us anywhere weird.
P.S. After re-reading what you wrote above, I realize that we've both been really hurling rocks at what you termed "the plastic disc manufacturing and distribution cartels" recently. Rock on.
-Myku
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Behold, the Declining Empire
If you haven't heard the hoopla regarding the newest bit of battling over musical content on the internet, check THIS out.
I am more or less outraged by the RIAA's push to suck internet radio stations dry by imposing ghastly royalty rates on them, but this post is not entirely about that; it is about the fact that I feel that this a pristine example, an uncomplicated omen, another point of light in a constellation spelling ultimate doom for the record industry as it has existed and been known to us in our lifetimes. There is a new direction on the horizon; a cultural revolution involving artists, society, and the corporations that have traditionally linked the two.
What, then, will the new direction be? I will not (and can not) offer speculation- I can only say that it's an exciting time. It is my hope that artists continue to push the envelop, inventing new means of circumventing the powers that be in order to see a more direct flow of revenue straight from the hands of the listeners into the pockets of the creators- middleman be damned. We need to realize as a society of music listeners and music makers that we exist at a point in time that is unique in the fact that we no longer need record companies to act as brokers in what could be an extremely beneficial relationship between artist and public; so, why don't we start dealing directly with the artists whose work we love instead of with the record companies and groups like the RIAA whose work is becoming an increasing intrusion, as well as an assault, on our personal sensibilities and listening liberties? We don't need anyone telling us what music we should or should not be listening to, what we should or should not be buying, and overtly attempting to corral us all into some sort of top-40 vacuum that profits only a few to the detriment of music as a whole.
I believe the problem, however, is that too much of what would be called the 'opposition' to the aforementioned Goliaths is comprised of a largely disjointed populace, yet without singular vision, not united and, therefore, still without the power to invoke necessary change. The internet, for sure, is full of independent music, but a large chunk of it is made by people like me. So? What's the problem? I think a lot of artists like myself are just looking to put their music out there and get heard. We've been making music for years at home, with friends, in private, and at drunken parties; we've been lucky to scrape together enough dough to dip into a studio and cut a demo of blandly produced snippets of our 'best stuff,' or to have a friend with a four-track we could use to record a few extremely questionable, quality challenged opuses that would largely be considered unlistenable to most people. We are the huddled masses finally breathing free via the conduit of affordable home-recording software and the ease of making digital media available on the web, the everyman (and woman) who once stood mute behind an invisible podium now handed an open-ended ticket for a center-spotlight performance and top billing at an online 'open-mic night' that at any given moment might play to one solitary listener or to an audience of thousands. Because we are basically 'weekend warriors' and so have minimal expectations and no power or pull within the 'industry,' the question of the future of music only lies with us as much as we can become united under one flag.
Likewise, a great deal of the responsibility for change rests on the shoulders of professional artists. It is for those intent on making a living in this crazy business to forge new means of contenting all of us who have been so accustomed to the ease of getting new music online (often, ahem, for free) while somehow simultaneously turning a profit. I am not trying to pass the buck here, either. I believe this is a natural progression that will inevitably be felt out anyway as artists seek to rectify the gross inconsistencies plaguing their profession of choice and attempt to take advantage of a changing marketplace that will not continue to play by the archaic rules of an obsolete game. How this will come about is not clear. Maybe it could be from artists using the internet for self-promotion (MySpacers do it all the time) and making the actual scratch from live shows and merchandising. Perhaps, the biggest hit and the scariest prospect to artists who decide to cut out the middle-man 'play ball' with internet users is not the lack of revenue from CD sales (since most of that goes to the record companies anyway), but it's the absence of that old cliche of getting 'discovered' and being offered a 'big record deal' and a gargantuan fistful of cash.
However, as times change, more and more brave souls will just wing it and work the system as best they can. Plus, a new generation of artists are emerging who have known little other than the market that now exists and will no doubt bring about innovations in the way that music is thought of and handled, innovations that for now are just barely beyond visibility out there on the horizon. I, for one, am hanging on the edge of my seat waiting to see who comes out and turns the industry (and the world) on its ear.
Bye bye, Evil Empire. It's only a matter of time.
I am more or less outraged by the RIAA's push to suck internet radio stations dry by imposing ghastly royalty rates on them, but this post is not entirely about that; it is about the fact that I feel that this a pristine example, an uncomplicated omen, another point of light in a constellation spelling ultimate doom for the record industry as it has existed and been known to us in our lifetimes. There is a new direction on the horizon; a cultural revolution involving artists, society, and the corporations that have traditionally linked the two.
What, then, will the new direction be? I will not (and can not) offer speculation- I can only say that it's an exciting time. It is my hope that artists continue to push the envelop, inventing new means of circumventing the powers that be in order to see a more direct flow of revenue straight from the hands of the listeners into the pockets of the creators- middleman be damned. We need to realize as a society of music listeners and music makers that we exist at a point in time that is unique in the fact that we no longer need record companies to act as brokers in what could be an extremely beneficial relationship between artist and public; so, why don't we start dealing directly with the artists whose work we love instead of with the record companies and groups like the RIAA whose work is becoming an increasing intrusion, as well as an assault, on our personal sensibilities and listening liberties? We don't need anyone telling us what music we should or should not be listening to, what we should or should not be buying, and overtly attempting to corral us all into some sort of top-40 vacuum that profits only a few to the detriment of music as a whole.
I believe the problem, however, is that too much of what would be called the 'opposition' to the aforementioned Goliaths is comprised of a largely disjointed populace, yet without singular vision, not united and, therefore, still without the power to invoke necessary change. The internet, for sure, is full of independent music, but a large chunk of it is made by people like me. So? What's the problem? I think a lot of artists like myself are just looking to put their music out there and get heard. We've been making music for years at home, with friends, in private, and at drunken parties; we've been lucky to scrape together enough dough to dip into a studio and cut a demo of blandly produced snippets of our 'best stuff,' or to have a friend with a four-track we could use to record a few extremely questionable, quality challenged opuses that would largely be considered unlistenable to most people. We are the huddled masses finally breathing free via the conduit of affordable home-recording software and the ease of making digital media available on the web, the everyman (and woman) who once stood mute behind an invisible podium now handed an open-ended ticket for a center-spotlight performance and top billing at an online 'open-mic night' that at any given moment might play to one solitary listener or to an audience of thousands. Because we are basically 'weekend warriors' and so have minimal expectations and no power or pull within the 'industry,' the question of the future of music only lies with us as much as we can become united under one flag.
Likewise, a great deal of the responsibility for change rests on the shoulders of professional artists. It is for those intent on making a living in this crazy business to forge new means of contenting all of us who have been so accustomed to the ease of getting new music online (often, ahem, for free) while somehow simultaneously turning a profit. I am not trying to pass the buck here, either. I believe this is a natural progression that will inevitably be felt out anyway as artists seek to rectify the gross inconsistencies plaguing their profession of choice and attempt to take advantage of a changing marketplace that will not continue to play by the archaic rules of an obsolete game. How this will come about is not clear. Maybe it could be from artists using the internet for self-promotion (MySpacers do it all the time) and making the actual scratch from live shows and merchandising. Perhaps, the biggest hit and the scariest prospect to artists who decide to cut out the middle-man 'play ball' with internet users is not the lack of revenue from CD sales (since most of that goes to the record companies anyway), but it's the absence of that old cliche of getting 'discovered' and being offered a 'big record deal' and a gargantuan fistful of cash.
However, as times change, more and more brave souls will just wing it and work the system as best they can. Plus, a new generation of artists are emerging who have known little other than the market that now exists and will no doubt bring about innovations in the way that music is thought of and handled, innovations that for now are just barely beyond visibility out there on the horizon. I, for one, am hanging on the edge of my seat waiting to see who comes out and turns the industry (and the world) on its ear.
Bye bye, Evil Empire. It's only a matter of time.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Why is Life So Hard?
So I've got a 30 gig ipod and I've recently run out of storage space.
What's this mean exactly? Well, naturally, it means that I have to sift through my music collection and essentially triage albums and artists. This is hard, man. I mean, seriously, how do you choose between "Birth of the Cool," "Walkin'," and "Relaxin' with the Miles Davis Quintet?" It's like the age old question, 'would you rather be stabbed, hung, or shot?' Just set me on fire and get it over with.
Not to mention the fact that I'm really going through a kind of 'discovery' phase, picking up loads of albums that I've never heard but that the rest of the free world has know about for decades. Case in point, Springsteen's "Born to Run." OMMFG! If this isn't a great album, then what is??? I'm also seriously getting into Built to Spill and have just discovered some classic old school Elton John and a whole slew of Bowie's early stuff that I knew of but hadn't actually heard. Now I've cut Madonna's "Something to Remember" and just left "The Immaculate Collection," I've shamelessly disregarded Coltrane's "Impulse! Years" two CD set and just left "My Favorite Things" and (of course) his album with Johnny Hartman, but my question is, 'where's this all going to end?' I'm eventually going to wind up at a point where its easier to pull my own hair out than to decide who's more important to me, Elvis Costello or Tom Waits, Built to Spill or the Archers of Loaf, Miles or Dizzy, Orff or Prokofiev, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, David Bowie or Lou Reed, Cibo Matto or Deerhoof?
Ok, now I might cry. As my music collection grows and my interests and experiences expand, I can't help but long for a day when hard-drive space is simply a 'sky's the limit' situation. I look forward to a society where all the world's music is accessible at any time and at any place. Let's end the misery, shall we?
*A tear falls into the abyss....*
What's this mean exactly? Well, naturally, it means that I have to sift through my music collection and essentially triage albums and artists. This is hard, man. I mean, seriously, how do you choose between "Birth of the Cool," "Walkin'," and "Relaxin' with the Miles Davis Quintet?" It's like the age old question, 'would you rather be stabbed, hung, or shot?' Just set me on fire and get it over with.
Not to mention the fact that I'm really going through a kind of 'discovery' phase, picking up loads of albums that I've never heard but that the rest of the free world has know about for decades. Case in point, Springsteen's "Born to Run." OMMFG! If this isn't a great album, then what is??? I'm also seriously getting into Built to Spill and have just discovered some classic old school Elton John and a whole slew of Bowie's early stuff that I knew of but hadn't actually heard. Now I've cut Madonna's "Something to Remember" and just left "The Immaculate Collection," I've shamelessly disregarded Coltrane's "Impulse! Years" two CD set and just left "My Favorite Things" and (of course) his album with Johnny Hartman, but my question is, 'where's this all going to end?' I'm eventually going to wind up at a point where its easier to pull my own hair out than to decide who's more important to me, Elvis Costello or Tom Waits, Built to Spill or the Archers of Loaf, Miles or Dizzy, Orff or Prokofiev, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, David Bowie or Lou Reed, Cibo Matto or Deerhoof?
Ok, now I might cry. As my music collection grows and my interests and experiences expand, I can't help but long for a day when hard-drive space is simply a 'sky's the limit' situation. I look forward to a society where all the world's music is accessible at any time and at any place. Let's end the misery, shall we?
*A tear falls into the abyss....*
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
About Me, School, and the Jelly She Don't Use….
The News:
Ok, so I'm sure our millions of readers have been wondering what in the h-e-double-hockey sticks happened to me. Well, I recently moved to Columbia, SC and started at the U of SC as a studio art major. Thanks, BTW, to Mr. Dr. Confusion for so aptly and sentimentally presenting this news to the rest of cyberspace.
Anyway, aside from being busy with school and the wife and staying up pretty much all night every night painting, I've been listening to loads of music. And, let's talk about that because, after all, that's why we're here, mammal.
Down To Bidness:
I was walking to school today, with the MP3 on shuffle, when "Chewin the Apple of Your Eye" came on. Now this is a very cool little acoustic-low fi type thing that sits right around the middle of The Flaming Lips' album Transmissions from the Satellite Heart, and breaks up the record great. It got me thinking about how I'd heard "She Don't Use Jelly" back when it came out (around '97, I think??). I remember hating that song and thinking that The Flaming Lips were just another idiot, no-talent band trying to skate in on the corporate side of the then new musical genre called 'alternative.' For some reason, the song just rubbed me the wrong way.
Of course, I'd never heard of the band at that time and so didn't have the affection toward their music that I do now- This left me wondering how much of my change in attitude (regarding "She Don't Use Jelly" specifically) was contextual and how much reflected my now different musical outlook. To state things more clearly: did my tastes change so dramatically, or did I simply accept The Flaming Lips' silly little ditty as a 'classic' after having been exposed to so many (other) masterworks by the group? I mean, how differently do we view individual works by an artist when we have other works by that same artist to compare them to? I think it often makes a difference to me, as I seem to be willing to cut more slack to artists that I respect when they come up with a silly or a lower standard piece of work.
This is not to say that I consider "She Don't Use Jelly" to be a lower standard work, but when you hear it by itself does it wreak of brilliance? What if I'd heard Transmissions from the Satellite Heart and it had sucked? What if "She Don't Use Jelly" had been the best thing, hands down, on the album? What then? Would I have said, yeah, The Flaming Lips, I was right about them……they S-U-C-K!.......(I'm stickin' with Nirvana.)
Makes you think, or at least, it does me. I need to go through my record collection and try to see some of the music I listen to with new eyes (or new ears, rather)- Shuffle is good for that. It also makes me think how you can develop a 'personal' kind of relationship with an artist over time and exposure to a greater bulk of their work, and through this relationship, begin to view their works with a sort of knowing 'familiarity,' a familiarity that turns a song like "She Don't Use Jelly" into a kind of inside joke that (maybe) only Flaming Lips fans can get.
And, to answer the question, is the song good by itself? I can only answer with that most popular addage, "I don't know if it's art, but I like it!" Pick up a copy of Transmissions from the Satellite Heart and decide for yourself *plug plug*.
Ok, so I'm sure our millions of readers have been wondering what in the h-e-double-hockey sticks happened to me. Well, I recently moved to Columbia, SC and started at the U of SC as a studio art major. Thanks, BTW, to Mr. Dr. Confusion for so aptly and sentimentally presenting this news to the rest of cyberspace.
Anyway, aside from being busy with school and the wife and staying up pretty much all night every night painting, I've been listening to loads of music. And, let's talk about that because, after all, that's why we're here, mammal.
Down To Bidness:
I was walking to school today, with the MP3 on shuffle, when "Chewin the Apple of Your Eye" came on. Now this is a very cool little acoustic-low fi type thing that sits right around the middle of The Flaming Lips' album Transmissions from the Satellite Heart, and breaks up the record great. It got me thinking about how I'd heard "She Don't Use Jelly" back when it came out (around '97, I think??). I remember hating that song and thinking that The Flaming Lips were just another idiot, no-talent band trying to skate in on the corporate side of the then new musical genre called 'alternative.' For some reason, the song just rubbed me the wrong way.
Of course, I'd never heard of the band at that time and so didn't have the affection toward their music that I do now- This left me wondering how much of my change in attitude (regarding "She Don't Use Jelly" specifically) was contextual and how much reflected my now different musical outlook. To state things more clearly: did my tastes change so dramatically, or did I simply accept The Flaming Lips' silly little ditty as a 'classic' after having been exposed to so many (other) masterworks by the group? I mean, how differently do we view individual works by an artist when we have other works by that same artist to compare them to? I think it often makes a difference to me, as I seem to be willing to cut more slack to artists that I respect when they come up with a silly or a lower standard piece of work.
This is not to say that I consider "She Don't Use Jelly" to be a lower standard work, but when you hear it by itself does it wreak of brilliance? What if I'd heard Transmissions from the Satellite Heart and it had sucked? What if "She Don't Use Jelly" had been the best thing, hands down, on the album? What then? Would I have said, yeah, The Flaming Lips, I was right about them……they S-U-C-K!.......(I'm stickin' with Nirvana.)
Makes you think, or at least, it does me. I need to go through my record collection and try to see some of the music I listen to with new eyes (or new ears, rather)- Shuffle is good for that. It also makes me think how you can develop a 'personal' kind of relationship with an artist over time and exposure to a greater bulk of their work, and through this relationship, begin to view their works with a sort of knowing 'familiarity,' a familiarity that turns a song like "She Don't Use Jelly" into a kind of inside joke that (maybe) only Flaming Lips fans can get.
And, to answer the question, is the song good by itself? I can only answer with that most popular addage, "I don't know if it's art, but I like it!" Pick up a copy of Transmissions from the Satellite Heart and decide for yourself *plug plug*.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Guitar Sounds Revisited
I got all worked up when I read Doc Confusion's post on guitar sounds and wanted to post a comment with a list of my own. Once I started rambling on, however, I figured I might as well just 'blog it' and be done with it.
Here's a few of my faves, just to see what's what:
The Flaming Lips (What's that you say??) - That's right, check out Transmissions from the Satellite Heart for some great bass-heavy distorto-rock madness. "Slow Nerve Action" in particular has a sound that straight-up hits like a Samurai sword in between your earbuds.
Neil Young and Crazy Horse, Everybody Knows This is Knowhere - Need I even say anything? Well, just in case, Everybody knows that "Cinnamon Girl" and "Cowgirl in the Sand" have influenced more rock guitarists than china white, and "Round and Round (It Won't Be Long)" is about as luscious as an acoustic sound recorded in 1969 can be. Personally, I've always dug the rhythm guitar on "Down By the River" too.
Dinosaur Jr., Green Mind - It's crunchy, it's muddy, it's your run of the mill Les Paul/Marshall stack sound with a heavy, fuzzy, bassy distortion. It's the kind of set-up that so many players work with, but few make it sound as punchy and as alive as J. Mascis. His open chord style is different as well, considering most rockers of the Green Mind era would have gone the way of the 'Power-Chord' in expressing their angst.
Hendrix, Electric Ladyland - It's cliché to pull out Hendrix, but I can really get behind some of that sharp, crisp, perfect tone that he was known to lay down. I especially love the fuzzed-out sound mixed with some phaze and those super-heavy gauge strings, which gave the tone an awesome 'pop' and kept it from turning to mud under all that distortion.
Robert Fripp - Well, I guess somebody was bound to say it, right? Maybe it's just me. Anyway, I'm into the 'Frippertronics' in general, but his work on Bowie's Scary Monsters reigns supreme in my opinion. "Fashion" has this sweet plastic distortion that I think is bombs, "Teenage Wildlife" is both laid-back and uplifting in its Prog-Rockiness with Fripp's all-over the place background noodlefesting and rock-anthem slow riffs, and let's just say "Because Your Young" is about to get kicked out of my MP3 player for being a cooler track than I should be allowed to listen to. Fripp is all over Peter Gabriel's early stuff too- same sound, but it doesn't get old to me……..
Mark Ribot - His sound on Tom Wait's Big Time and Elvis Costello's Spike is not for those prone to nightmares. It's sharp, and very very darkly-percussive, like an evil marimba that dreamt it was a guitar and awoke plugged into a '63 Fender Twin. (The Horror, The Horror.)
Television, Marquee Moon - What can I say about this album? Tom Verlaine and Richard Lloyd got the goods, and they certainly come correct. And, it's not just the fabulous back and forth riffing, but the pristine sounds as well. Every note strangled from every guitar string on this record sounds like it was coddled and cared for like a baby wolf-cub that would one day grow up to eat its loving master. And every track just drips guitar coolness as those fuge-like siamese riffs blossom into a single concrete web, as inseparable as city sidewalks and streets. I can only imagine that if you found yourself lost in NYC, circa 1977, you could just as easily find your way with a copy of "Venus de Milo" in hand as you could with any map bought at a service station.
Ok, I just realized this list could go on for a while……………. I'm gonna go listen to some music.
.m
Here's a few of my faves, just to see what's what:
The Flaming Lips (What's that you say??) - That's right, check out Transmissions from the Satellite Heart for some great bass-heavy distorto-rock madness. "Slow Nerve Action" in particular has a sound that straight-up hits like a Samurai sword in between your earbuds.
Neil Young and Crazy Horse, Everybody Knows This is Knowhere - Need I even say anything? Well, just in case, Everybody knows that "Cinnamon Girl" and "Cowgirl in the Sand" have influenced more rock guitarists than china white, and "Round and Round (It Won't Be Long)" is about as luscious as an acoustic sound recorded in 1969 can be. Personally, I've always dug the rhythm guitar on "Down By the River" too.
Dinosaur Jr., Green Mind - It's crunchy, it's muddy, it's your run of the mill Les Paul/Marshall stack sound with a heavy, fuzzy, bassy distortion. It's the kind of set-up that so many players work with, but few make it sound as punchy and as alive as J. Mascis. His open chord style is different as well, considering most rockers of the Green Mind era would have gone the way of the 'Power-Chord' in expressing their angst.
Hendrix, Electric Ladyland - It's cliché to pull out Hendrix, but I can really get behind some of that sharp, crisp, perfect tone that he was known to lay down. I especially love the fuzzed-out sound mixed with some phaze and those super-heavy gauge strings, which gave the tone an awesome 'pop' and kept it from turning to mud under all that distortion.
Robert Fripp - Well, I guess somebody was bound to say it, right? Maybe it's just me. Anyway, I'm into the 'Frippertronics' in general, but his work on Bowie's Scary Monsters reigns supreme in my opinion. "Fashion" has this sweet plastic distortion that I think is bombs, "Teenage Wildlife" is both laid-back and uplifting in its Prog-Rockiness with Fripp's all-over the place background noodlefesting and rock-anthem slow riffs, and let's just say "Because Your Young" is about to get kicked out of my MP3 player for being a cooler track than I should be allowed to listen to. Fripp is all over Peter Gabriel's early stuff too- same sound, but it doesn't get old to me……..
Mark Ribot - His sound on Tom Wait's Big Time and Elvis Costello's Spike is not for those prone to nightmares. It's sharp, and very very darkly-percussive, like an evil marimba that dreamt it was a guitar and awoke plugged into a '63 Fender Twin. (The Horror, The Horror.)
Television, Marquee Moon - What can I say about this album? Tom Verlaine and Richard Lloyd got the goods, and they certainly come correct. And, it's not just the fabulous back and forth riffing, but the pristine sounds as well. Every note strangled from every guitar string on this record sounds like it was coddled and cared for like a baby wolf-cub that would one day grow up to eat its loving master. And every track just drips guitar coolness as those fuge-like siamese riffs blossom into a single concrete web, as inseparable as city sidewalks and streets. I can only imagine that if you found yourself lost in NYC, circa 1977, you could just as easily find your way with a copy of "Venus de Milo" in hand as you could with any map bought at a service station.
Ok, I just realized this list could go on for a while……………. I'm gonna go listen to some music.
.m
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)