The Perpetuation of Rock and Roll

This is old news, and it doesn't really matter, but last year Grand Master Flash and the Furious Five were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Strange and stranger still is the list of groups that are "eligible" for inclusion this year:

Afrika Bambaataa
Beastie Boys
Chic
Dave Clark Five
Donna Summer
John Mellencamp
Leonard Cohen
Madonna
The Ventures

Read it again. And again. I will now list the nominees respective genres.

Hip hop/Rap
Hip hop/Rap
Disco/R'n'B
Folk Rock
Disco/R'n'B
American Rock
Folk
Dance/Pop/R'nB/Electro/Kabbalah
Rock and Roll

Notice anything? Yeah, so did I. Two straight up Rock acts. Two.

What the fuck is going on here? It pissed me off when they opened this supposed "Rock and Roll Hall of Fame", honoring a completely ridiculous and seemingly random number of artists. Also, could the idea of a Hall of Fame be any more embarrassingly American? In driving to my new home town of Outside of Chicago, myself and the Cleverest One passed the "RV Hall of Fame" in Indiana. They have Halls for everything. It is not a grandiose place of legends, it's a capital-driven tourist attraction, located in Cleveland, the Fertile Crescent of Rock and Roll that spawned such great groups as...well, not many great groups, I don't have time to cherry pick here.

This is besides the point. Has Rock and Roll really run out of useful candidates to induct? Or is Rock really trying to stake a claim for all other genres? Again:

Africa Bambaataa-in the mid to late 70's, he spurred a cultural movement in the Boogie Down Bronx, DJing block parties to give the youth something to do. He later teamed up with Renaissance man Arthur Baker and Funk and Soul pioneer James Brown to name a few collaborators. He and the Zulu Nation helped shape the early age of Hip Hop as we know it.

Nothing to do with Rock and Roll. Nothing.

Beastie Boys- one could make a claim that their marraige of hardcore rock ideals and aesthetic with the booming bap of Rick Rubin's 808 drum machine could make them semi-suitable candidates. I semi-agree. Only semi-wise, though.

Chic- The music was funky and made you dance like nothing else. Unless you were white, because white people dance like uncomfortable robots with self esteem issues. But that's the core of the issue. This music is not rock and roll. It spans several genres, but last time I checked Rock and Roll wasn't defined as any music played with a guitar, bass, drum and singing.

Dave Clark Five - Sure, why not. It would get the naysayers like this guy off of your collective back, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame:

"They were a hard driving group who played with all their heart and soul. Their music is still played today by a lot of people. Mike Smith had one of the best voices of the time and maybe in all of rock and roll. They sold over 50 million records as a group and they should be in the Hall of Fame."

Playing with their heart and soul? I'm sure that's easy criteria to assess. There has to be some universal gauge for heart and soul lying around. And no, their music is not played by a lot of people. Only old codgers and indie bands doing Garageband remixes. Also, when was the last time you read or heard anything about Mike Smith being a great vocalist? Never. That's right, never. Howling Wolf, Chuck Berry, John Lennon, Robert Plant, Harry Nilsson, the list goes on. And it usually does so without Mike Smith. Fuck you.

Donna Summer - What the fuck? What the fuck is going on here? Seriously, like, what the fuck? She did a disco cover of "The Wanderer?" I just...fuck. Is this...where am I? I'm blinded by this...Wait, seriously, I'm writing about Donna Summer and Rock. No. Disco. She did disco. Instrumentally, there were some...nevermind, it's fruitless.

This hurts too much to even finish the list. The real kicker is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's criteria for a candidate:

"Criteria include the influence and significance of the artist's contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll."

Awful. Rock has been teetering on the brink of extinction for a while now, but that perpetuation line is a kick in the crotch of the movement itself.

The idea that a form of music that was so alive is now dead is sad enough. To state that other genres are mere perpetuations of Rock is just wrong. If it was true, and we're basing this on honest to god chains of influence, rock came out of the Chicago and New Orleans Jazz scenes, which were in turn birthed from the New Orleans brothel house music. So really this should be the New Orleans Brothel House Music Hall of Fame, and it should encompass all music everywhere.

A message to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: No need to be pathetic. Why not choose from any number of great bands out there who deserve a ridiculous and arbitrary award? Husker Du, Minor Threat, Black Flag, Television, New York Dolls, etc. Rock and Roll is great, and you don't need to grab other genres to make yourself feel good.

Unless you're Madonna. There was supposed to be a humorous drum shot there. Nevermind.

Weird and Easy

I've really got to stop pillaging from the fruitful tree that is Pitchfork. My favorite thing about their site is the relentless amount of indie-isms abounding. This is a website dedicated to underground music, but really it's nothing of the sort. Go read the best new music. Who's there? Jens Lekman? Deerhunter? Black Kids?

Nope, it's the kings of the underground, the radical, the unsigned, the DIY enthusiasts- Radiohead. Listen: either you want to be Rolling Stone, or you don't. No more of this toeing the line nonsense. We all know that Radiohead makes some great music. I'm pretty sure that they could drop a hot load into a CD case, close it, put it inside a manila envelope, crap even more hot load inside of the envelope, and then send it to any record company in the world and they would put it out.

Thom Yorke's a good songwriter/lead singer. Jonny Greenwood and that Ed guy are great guitarists. Phil and Colin are a good rhythm section. We all know this. Seriously. Why even review a record that everyone knows is going to be solid at the least?

Oh yeah, so you can use a bunch of adjectives, verbs and nouns! I forgot about that. Here is a full list of every descriptive phrase that showed up in this review:

-overlong and scattershot
-guitar-centric compositions
-user friendly
-glacial distance
-dollops of reverb
-mulched up drum intro
-zestful guitar line
-gold mine of one-off fills
-jazzier, fluid guitar line
-eschews verse/chorus/verse structure
-sludgy riff
-skronks along noisily
-keening melodies and immutable prettiness
-drain-circling arpeggios
-skeletal rhythm section in cavernous swaths of glockenspiel
-syrupy strings
-slinky, elongated falsetto backed by frosty, clanging percussion and a meandering guitar line
-woozily beautiful things
-lethargic, chipped-at guitar chords
-slow, R.E.M.-shaped ballad
- spry guitar workout
-breakneck conclusion
-breathless closing rant
-"Pyramid Song" in the making
-circling piano coda
-bassline that seems to promise a climax that never comes
-rickety drum beat and shuddering percussions
-real life drums
-barely distinguishable electronic counterpart
-piano gently uncoils
-a fitting close to such a human album

I don't even know where to start, so I'll start with the end. A human album? I'll have to admit, I liked it better when Yorke and company made animal albums. Yorke's solo manimal work is much better as well.

My time on this library-owned computer is finishing up, so I'll finish this post later. Until next time, just read more about Deerhunter. It's good for you.

I promise.

time to like another band!

all signs point to black kids (the name of the band) being totally hot right now. all the essential ingredients of indie fame are there: awkward synths abound, the lead singer sounds like robert smith doused in reverb, the songs are "dance songs" without even a hint of a backbeat (perfect for white audiences), and the choruses are dependably louder than the verses (which makes rock critics happy). the band's self-released EP ("wizard of ahhhs") is available for download at their myspace page. check it out for tomorrow's hype today.
if anybody's reading this, i'd be interested to see if you actually like these songs ("i'm not gonna teach your boyfriend how to dance with you" is apparently good). please leave a comment explaining what you enjoyed. usually when i make such a request, i'd be baiting someone into a fight. this time, however, i'm genuinely curious.**
to my ears, it sounds like music meant for a john hughes movie (maybe "the breakfast club" or "weird science"). it's not uniquely terrible in any way; it just doesn't seem exciting or new. perhaps "indie" music has, at last, fully evolved into the new bubblegum pop.
pitchfork tells me that black kids "make catchy, tightly executed songs that put a memorable stamp on pop's classic themes." catchy? perhaps. tightly executed? whatever (claims this vapid are tough to disagree with). i hear "classic themes" all over the place, but what their "memorable stamp" is, i can't quite tell.
black kids don't have a label yet, but it's only a matter of time. and who knows? maybe they'll make a terrific debut record and i'll be eating my words. but i can't avoid the feeling that they're destined to be yet another moderately fun band, just waiting for effete college students to chew them up and spit them out.
in the course of his review, marc hogan manages to drop the arcade fire, the go! team, morrissey, jim henson's "labyrinth", and motown (most of these references make sense, but that last one really comes out of left field). critics love saying that stuff reminds them of other stuff, and "wizard of ahhhs" certainly lends itself to that practice. maybe this is what's good about it.
in the end, this episode seems to me like one of the final stages in "indie" music's regression into irrelevance. entering our seventh year of global war, our fifth year occupying the heart of the middle east, as the constitution continues to be dismantled amendment by amendment, we are told to enjoy songs that even a young molly ringwald may have found trite.

whatever keeps the educated class in lline, i guess.


** i really mean this. feed me your thoughts.

various things

a fellow i recently went through great pains to slime has just written a lovely article about battles' live show. if you haven't heard "mirrored" (my favorite of the year), you should. if you have heard their recordings, but have not seem them live, you should. these are four adventurous, tasteful, and above all spectacular musicians operating at the top of their game. "independent" music doesn't often get much better than this, and i'm very pleased to see that critics are actually giving them the praise they deserve ("math-rock" is usually little more than a punch line).

on a tangential note, i noticed that j-temp had to explain our project all over again (as if the picture at the top weren't crystal clear). allow me to add that if i can aggravate critics to one tenth of the degree that they aggravate musicians, i will consider my efforts successful.

finally, i've recently been working at a job that requires me to wake up much earlier than a lazy human being ever should. on account of this, my interneting has waned, and the blog hasn't been kept up (i haven't even ripped the new fiery furnaces record yet). fortunately for me -- and for my vast throng of loyal readers -- that job has been replaced by one that is much easier on this ol' sloth. regular vitriol will return shortly. in the mean time, enjoy this bit of the funny.

Go Neil!!

Props of the day to Mr. Drum Boner himself, Neil Peart, who was named by Blender as the second worst lyricist in rock! Only the mighty Sting himself rated higher (lower?), and while I haven't seen a full list, this tidbit from Reuters is a pure delight:

Blender described Canadian rocker Peart's lyrics as "richly awful tapestries of fantasy and science."

Pretty much, yeah.

God, I want to listen to "Marathon" right now.

A Brief Fungasm

I have very limited access to the interwebertory these days, but I'd just like to remind all the 8 readers of this blog:

This website is based on the idea of criticizing criticism. Take things personally if you must, that's kind of the point.

If you find something you dislike about our criticisms of criticisms, critique us. Sometimes we'll criticize your critique of our critiques of someone's criticism, and other times we'll nod and say, "Oh yeah, solid point." Make us think twice the next time we hate on Interpol.





Never mind. Don't do that. Carlos D is a turd.

top ten ways to bury your head in your ass

it would be best if i began by saying outright that i find this to be one of the more irritating bits of writing i've ever come across (and i spend a fair amount of time trolling the right-wing internets). nick southall is a critic who states -- almost with pride -- that he is "not an engineer or a musician." still, he seems to think himself uniquely qualified to tell musicians how to make better records.
indeed, the title of this odious turd of a piece is: "top ten ways to make better records".
i am a musician. and i'm a lucky guy, because nick is graciously writing this piece for my own benefit -- and for the benefit of all musicians who try to express themselves. after not liking a lot of records, he's "come to the inevitable, ineffable conclusion that musicians are often fumbling in the dark during the recording and production process." he continues: "many musicians don't know what their best material is, and even if they do, they don't know how to make the most of it half the time anyway, and so the ostensibly simple process of making good records gets repeatedly cocked-up by people who ought to know better, if they could only remember the things they loved about records when they were just fans themselves."
let's try to absorb all of the bullshit in that last bit of paragraph. musicians don't know how to record music, how to differentiate their good works from their bad ones, how to "make the most" of their best songs, how to avoid cocking up the "ostensibly simple [!] process of making good records," and to top it all off, they don't even remember what they love about music (because they're so distracted by making it). jeez, these musician guys sound really really stupid. aside from working in the service industry, is there anything they CAN do?
hang on one second. hold down the meatballs! the obvious question is: what makes a critic, who admits to having nothing but second-hand knowledge about the whole process of recording, think he can the supply advice that will shelter musicians from their own bad taste? granted that musicians are totally dumb, what makes this guy so fucking clever? amazingly enough, it's precisely because he's not a musician that he feels his thoughts will be of value. "as a music journalist, and more importantly as a music fan, i've spent a lot of time paying a lot of attention to a lot of records, researching how they're made and talking to the people who make them." if only we could all just talk to musicians, we wouldn't even need his advice. sadly, you go to war with the army you have, so onward and upward.
as far as the specific advice he offers is concerned, there are few surprises. record live if your band sounds better live, a 40 minute cd is better than a 75 minute one (hat tip to j-temp for his previous work on the absurd concept of "exhausting" music), don't overcompress stuff ("it sounds crap"), don't get too stoned, be creative with sequencing, and so forth. it's not that he gives any advice that's particularly BAD; it's just all so OBVIOUS. he writes as if "be economical with time" were some sort of epiphany worthy of publication. that southall thinks any of this advice is uncharted territory for musicians only goes to further establish how out of touch he is with the actual experience of being creative.
but beyond nuts and bolts idiocy, there's something so essentially arrogant and stupid about the whole project. the entire piece is written from the premise that nick is better at listening to music than the people who make it -- which is to say, it's a load of self-serving, narcissistic nonsense. one more time: critics are not special. being a critic does not make you smarter, and it doesn't help you understand music in any noteworthy way. all they do is listen to songs, and then talk about whether or not they like them. everyone does this. as a profession, it impresses mostly fellow english majors, and practically nobody else.
creativity is about embracing risk. criticism is about SHIELDING yourself from risk. nick doesn't understand the difference (because he's not very smart). he thinks his experience evaluating music makes him better equipped to understand the process of making music (imagine a homeless man advising a room full of chefs on the culinary arts -- and justifying this by saying, "i've eaten a lot of bad shit in my day."). and so nick offers advice only on how to avoid fucking up, which is easily the least effective and most self-centered approach an artist can possibly take. creative people take risks; critics fear them.
his tenth and final piece of advice is: "don't be afraid to follow, or ignore, any and all advice you may be privy to, including this. it's your record after all." again, hold down the meatballs. has he just revoked his original statement that musicians are "fumbling in the dark" when it comes to being musicians? is he trying to insulate himself from the possibility that someone would find his advice condescending? is this a recognition that the very idea of such an article necessitates it being an utter waste of time? his world-weary knowledge of records is slamming right into his disingenuous populism. this is fingernails-on-a-blackboard cognitive dissonance. really impressive stuff.
in a discussion about the traffic in los angeles, larry david once said, "sometimes it gets so bad you can hardly breathe." when it occurs to me that dime store fools like nick southall actually hold sway over the success of "independent" musicians, i think i know what he means.