Survival is the optimal thing.

Not only am I a huge fan of The Smashing Pumpkins, but I am also a fan of Billy Corgan's outlook on and willingness to talk about the industry of creating and marketing pop music. Most musicians either don't have a deep outlook on their own industry or are unwilling to talk about it with fear of destroying whatever image they've created for their audience to view them by. Once it becomes about money the beauty of it is tainted, so many artists choose not to reveal that side of their craft.

In the very beginning of this interview, the dj asks Billy what he thinks about newer bands licensing their music to sell Jettas and Kodak film. Billy makes and important response which is that records don't sell anymore and without that source of income "survival is the optimal thing."

How do bands make records? How do they get that first source of income that allows them to go on tour? How does it reach the next level and become a career without that once very essential source of income?

It is pretty obvious that their is no slowing down in the creation of albums. In fact, their are more albums reaching the public consciousness than ever since bands no longer rely on the budget of a major label to record, release and promote a record. But, very few bands are able to turn this new DIY model into a profit and hence, can't quit their jobs and go on tour without maintaining a lifestyle of borderline homelessness or a financially supportive girlfriend/family.

So, what the hell can we all do? Do we purposely create music in hopes of hawking it to major manufacturers and retailers or do we just give up on the idea of ever being financially rewarded for our creative endeavors?

I think a lot about music in the days before their was a physical commodity to sell (e.g. records, tapes, cds, tee-shirts). There were a handful of genius composers who were given money by the local government to compose music, but most people's lives didn't have the possibility of seeing a creative endeavor realized. Depending on where in the world you were many people were too poor to even focus on something as trivial as art. They were just trying to survive.

It will never be quite like those times again, but maybe we can get back to a point where we just create without the hope of financial gain and not have to worry about whether the rest of the world knows what we are doing in the privacy of our hometowns.

Music misconceptions pt.1

A while back, Caleb Followill (the frontman of king's of leon) visited The Iron Chef and was quoted as saying the following:

I hate fucking hipsters. Everyone talks about indie this and indie that, but would you really want to be one of those indie bands that makes two albums and disappears? That’s just sad … When we signed on with our manager, we all said we wanted to have a box-set career. We’ll gladly be the next generation of bands that aren’t going anywhere.

I've been meaning to respond to this for a while now and will try to do it in the most constructive way, rather than as a means to hate on a band that I don't like.

Other than being a broad statement that tries to blanket decades of popular vs. indie music, the main thing I find distasteful about what he said was that it does a disservice to upcoming musicians for many reasons.

1. I haven't seen any evidence that being signed to a major label makes one's shelf-life or album releasing career last any longer. In fact, most major label bands seem to fade out just as fast as the indie's do. Most bands that attain any kind of mass popularity, whether it is on a major-level or an indie-level, do so on a current music style or whatever is happening at the moment. So, they release an album that may not be particularly engaging, but creates some kind of hype because it is new and fresh. Maybe they have one interesting single, but the rest of the album is just an exercise in their particular style. Most of these bands either refuse or are incapable of growing or changing with the ever-changing public interest, so when they go to release their second album which is of the same style and just as unengaging it falls flat on the music listening public who have moved on. This scenario goes for both indie and major label bands. To an extent, that explains the two album concept.

2. What does the real disservice is that it disguises what it really takes to keep a project going for more than two albums or if all projects were meant to last for more than two albums. Sometimes a television series was only meant to last a couple of seasons, but because of money and familiarity, continues into the six season being very stale just as many bands do into their sixth album. But, bands or musicians who do carry on and remain relevant are usually the one's who are mainly focused on songwriting and less on style, though David Bowie's ability to stay hip on what was going on from album to album up until the eighties kept him popular to an extent, if it wasn't for his amazing songwriting abilities his audience wouldn't have stayed with him and he probably would have been dropped from his label.

Regardless of what helps a band attain quick notoriety, staying power and gaining an interested audience who will stick with you for more than an album takes time and a focus on what gets people to listen to an album in the privacy of their own homes over and over again.

Why some bands sound huge and yours doesn't...

I'd like to start off by clarifying something. It isn't necessary to have a big sound to sound amazing. But, many bands, in their initial attempts at recording their songs find themselves disappointed at the results. It doesn't help that bands who have obtained this big sound rarely go out and start talking about how they did it. Either they don't completely understand it themselves or they just don't want to give away their secrets. But, fortunately for this blog, certain producers and engineers aren't quite as mum about how they did it.

So, why does a band like Nirvana sound so intense and the local rock band's demo sounds very flat? Well, one reason is the music itself. Some people are better songwriters and intrinsically understand how to write a powerful song. But, even then, some slick production can take it to the next level. For example, Nirvana's song, "Drain you."



Another good example of how studio production can go a long way are the early demo's of Weezer's "The Blue Album." They original demos sound good, but nothing in comparison to the final versions.



But, what can you do to fix this problem? When you go into a studio you are only given a certain amount of time to make things happen unless you have major financial backing. The engineers could possibly be the nicest and most dedicated professionals on the planet, but they have a time-line in mind as well and they can't make major decisions for you as far as guitar overdubs and where to put them. These are things that you have to either figure out before hand through self-recording your own demos. The more you know what you're going to do before you go into the studio the better, unless you have more than a weekend to get it done.

Don't devalue what others value.

I found an all to common problem with music criticism is when people trash something that they personally don't like as having no value. Whether you're a music fan or a musician at odds with a band or genre of music that seems antithetical to what you like or create, you are likely to create a distance between yourself and those who give this other music value. But, why is this bad? "I don't give a fuck about them," you say.

The worst is when you devalue an entire genre of music. You come off as very close-minded and as someone who doesn't really understand certain entities that make music. The most common genre that is devalued is hip-hop. Anyone who does this has to believe that rhythm isn't an essential part of music. Hip-hop is just a genre that is more based around rhythm and bass and less on melody. There is a hook that is looped during the majority of the song, but there is also a beat and verbal flow that moves the song forward. I've never heard anyone get worked up over a rock drummer who plays to the same cliche 4/4 rock beat.

More importantly, there are thousands or millions of other people who give this music great value. They love this music and just like the band you loved got you through hard times, these bands are doing the same for them. Their melody is moving them and gives them positive feelings. If you devalue this you seem out of touch of how they feel and are basically saying their feelings are irrelevant or wrong. This problem most often occurs between different generations. The basic emotions are the same, but the world that they exist is constantly changing. That last thing you want to do is come off as unsympathetic to the upcoming generations. Eventually, they are going to become the majority and so on.

I'll end this post with a quote from our favorite old crank.

"I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was...now what I'm with isn't it and what's it seems wierd and scary to me." - Grandpa Simpson

One nation under the clap beat.

If I explain it to someone who doesn't comprehend much about music, they'll look at me blankly. Most of the songs that you like on the radio have something in common and I'm not talking about verse, chorus, verse. It's the clap beat.

Everyone likes to clap their hands and sing along. Hell! There is even a band called "Clap your hands and say yeah!" You can clap on the two or the four or both.

One and clap! Three and Clap! Get it?

Today's clap beat jam is Big Boi's "Shutterbug." Keeping the clap on the two and the four, Big Boi (originally from Outkast) brings back memories of American wrestler turned Iranian traitor, Sgt. Slaughter.

com truise - Cyanide Sisters EP

Simple beats and hooks...interesting production. Plus, it's free.

http://www.last.fm/music/Com+Truise/Cyanide+Sisters+EP

You can definitely tell that its a work in progress style, which is possibly why he's giving it away for free. But, he's onto something which may turn into a great full-length.

the art of sampling

"It's the exact same song. He just rhymes over it."

This is a popular opinion when it comes to sampling. To an extent it's true. Some hip-hop songs don't even try to hide the fact that they're taking the catchiest part of a song and looping it. I don't know if anyone remembers P-Diddy back in the day when he was just a little Puff took the riff to Led Zeppelin's classic rock opus Kashmir, looped it and spit hot fire over the beat for the Godzilla soundtrack. It was pretty bad and the only reason the song was ever popular was probably because of the hook. But, we can't chastise an entire art-form for one of its less than adequate perpetrators no more than you can hate landscape painting for all those cheesy Thomas Kinkade paintings that your mom hangs in the bathroom.

What I disagree with most about the above statement is the word "just," as if rhyming, flowing and being a lyricist is such a trivial thing. The quote is real and is something I found under a youtube video for Herb Alperts forgotten classic Rise.



18 years later one of history's greatest MC's, Biggy Smalls, managed to just rhyme over a sample of the before mentioned song. Whether you think he was one of the greatest or not, the track Hypnotize does a pretty good job of finding the middle ground of sampling. It's not completely unreconizable from the original, but different enough to never be confused for the other. The lyrics are good, have a nice flow and do some interesting things rhythmically. To say there is no talent involved is pretty short-sighted. This song goes to show that even somewhere in P-Diddy's over-paid body existed talent when he was working with the right people and not doing his own shit.