As an artist, I have spent my entire life waging an all out assault and war against artistic mediocrity in any way I could. I’m especially referring here to safe, disposable, forgettable, predictable pop (meaning “hit records”). To have the supposedly sacred gift of the hit record, the music must be a statement of complete mediocrity, as fine art is never for the masses. As the masses can only receive and relate to the level of consciousness they possess (which is of course, mediocre at best), that’s the kind of “art” they’ll gobble up and buy. The same boring chords and melodies grace the airwaves and the charts over and over, and when someone comes along who adds just a smidgen or a twist of a different flavor, they’re heralded as geniuses.
Throughout the history of popular music, the historical and cultural value attached to an artist has been largely based on how famous they’ve been. However, in today’s culture, someone’s sole value as an artist is now based on how famous they are – pure talent, innovation and artistic contribution don’t really matter. All one has to do is to be famous and all kinds of erroneous labels are attached to them: genius, pioneer, visionary, trailblazer, icon, legend, etc.
When I saw a parody video by the comedy musical group Axis of Awesome on this very subject, I wasn’t able to stop laughing all day. And if you’re a musician or have ever been around music making, you’ll really get how brilliant this video is. First, they take just 4 chords, and convincingly assert that all pop songs of the last 40 years only use these 4 chords. And then they back it up by performing an extended medley of these songs without missing a beat, even performing 2-3 of them simultaneously. Since these songs are so utterly mediocre from a musical perspective, 2-3 of them can be performed at the same time as if they are all the same song.
In addition to that, they left out 1950’s doo-wop hits which they could have also included, as so many of them use the exact same 4 chords. Just think, if I could only use those 4 chords, I’d be famous too, lol!
Then, I came across another video that captures the same spirit: A comedian named Rob Paravonian talks about his experience as a young cellist performing the Pachelbel Canon in D. Then, in the video, he starts humming multiple pop songs that all musically fit on top of the Canon. Ironically, all of those songs have the same 4 chords as mentioned in the Axis of Awesome video. For me as a musician, I found this to be as hilarious as one of my favorite movies, This is Spinal Tap.
As the musical world turns, our current artistic culture continues to be as lasting and brilliant as a gourmet McDonald’s cheeseburger.
I have always liked Mick Jagger both as a songwriter and a front-man. He’s my kind of performer because he takes charge and dominates the audience like an alpha-male lion tamer, just as a great entertainer must, especially in the context of the huge arena concert where so many things can go awry. As a front-person, one must always feel like he or she is playing in the Super Bowl to win and be the MVP – every single performance. This is the mindset I have always tried my best to have as a performer, and with my unbridled audacity, I fondly remember one reviewer referring to me as a “Mutant Mick Jagger” back in the day.
So when Mick Jagger was slated to be on Larry King Live recently (in part to promote the re-release of the Stones’ classic LP Exile on Main Streetalong with a companion film documentary of the time period), I was excited to see the interview. In watching Mick and Larry, I was somewhat surprised at how animated and engaging Jagger was, but most of all, quite startled by his humility. (Usually legendary rock stars like Jagger & humility are never spoken of in the same sentence.)
When Larry King asked about the enormity and longevity of the Rolling Stones’ success, Mick came right out and credited it to luck, along with being in the right place at the right time. In addition, Jagger also referenced hard work, the fans, and a certain degree of being tactical.
Instead, Mick could have easily told Larry, “Because we’re fucking great!” or “We’re the worlds’ greatest rock n roll band,” which he certainly could have gotten away with saying. Yet he didn’t, and that showed a great deal of awareness on his part regarding the actual reality of how and why The Stones’ success and fame happened. He didn’t let his ego get in the way, which would have been easy to do because of the level of success he’s received throughout his career. Mick may have called it like it is, but are luck and being at the right place at the right time really what they appear to be?
The word “luck” suggests something incredibly fantastic that happens to us seemingly out of the blue and at random with no actual cause behind it. However, “luck” is never really what it seems to be as things really do happen in our lives for a deeper spiritual reason than what meets the human eye. Even for those who are spiritually cynical, physics does indeed prove the immutable law of the universe that for every effect, there is an initial cause. In short, there is always a reason behind everything that happens to us.
As many of you already know, I have been trained by great spiritual masters since I was a teenager, and can easily speak with the spirits of the dead. And I understood from a spiritual perspective exactly what Mick was saying, as synchronously, I had been thinking of this very subject a few days before his interview with Larry King. When Jagger refers to being lucky and being at the right place at the right time, he is actually speaking to something that is quite spiritually profound.
There is a great metaphysical/spiritual phrase that states, “When nature supports a decision, you know it’s the right one.” In practical terms, what does this phrase really mean and how does it apply to musicians and entertainers like The Rolling Stones?
Presumably, every artist who gets into the game initially has a dream and the desire to make it. Then, they work hard and try their best to hit it big. Often, there is a business push by a record label. Yet, is that enough for someone to become successful? Of course it isn’t.
Becoming successful takes way more than what the artist or anyone associated with them can do to make it happen, as many artists who work hard and have talent never hit it big. Jagger spoke to that quite eloquently when he mentioned in the interview the often sad truth that there are a lot of artists who are talented and work hard but don’t ever make it.
For those who do strike gold like The Stones, something else outside of themselves must happen in addition to their hard work, talent and business push. The energetic universal force of nature that humans cannot control must support it, like a cosmic tidal wave that carries us in a certain direction. And this force has absolute direction, precision, intention, and purpose in our journeys. It brings people, things, and occurrences into our lives with precise synchronicity and perfect timing. This is all beyond what any of us can humanly do for ourselves. Think of it like being taken on a wondrous ride in a rocket to the moon or the magical miracle of winning the lottery.
In pragmatic terms, we witness this cosmic phenomenon when things just fall into place, miracles happen and everything comes together in a way that appears to be out of the blue. Never forget that if one thinks of all of the uncountable variables that would have to occur to make it big, and then stay there as The Rolling Stones have for multiple decades, they are humanly incalculable and/or controllable.
Why did Mick Jagger meet Keith Richards? Was that random? Why did their song Satisfaction sell ten million copies in the mid 1960’s? Why do things seem to keep falling into place for The Stones? Is it all an accident? The phenomenal success of The Rolling Stones represents a situation where nature clearly supports the decision.
Again, if someone is not spiritually minded and just dismisses it all as the luck of the draw with a little bit of business and talent thrown in for good measure, physics clearly dismisses that line of thinking by proving that everything that happens has an initial cause behind it – it is never at random. I just like to look at those provable causes from a deeper, more metaphysical and spiritual point of view.
Even as I reflect on my own artistic career, there have been times when nature supported what I was doing which was far beyond my own efforts and control (even though I was obsessive about it all, lol). The mere idea that I made it to the international stage within four years of debuting in Chicago without ever granting interviews, playing the game, or having any big money behind me speaks to this truth. The fact that I connected with Miles Copeland who signed me to an international record deal and put me in the classic film, Urgh! A Music War (which is what I’m probably the most well known for at this point in time), are examples of nature supporting a decision which was not of my doing.
When my most recent album, What’s This? 1976-1979 was finally released on April 1, 2008, it was over thirty years later, and for decades, it seemed like it would never see the light of day. However, when it was supposed to, it was released. The phrase, “When nature supports a decision, you know it’s the right one,” applies to that record being born. And I’m so grateful to have witnessed the meaning and implications of this great spiritual statement many times.
Whether Mick Jagger understands it spiritually or just in a practical sense, he’s wise enough to know that there was something that has been happening all along which facilitated The Stones’ great success that is far beyond hard work, the fans, and being tactical. Whether any of us think of it merely as luck and being at the right place at the right time, or as something quite spiritually profound, it is the atomic force of this universe which can move mountains in a heartbeat that does it. And every so often, we see how nature does that in such a remarkably precise, magical and wondrous way with artists and entertainers like The Rolling Stones.
I remember my band and I being on the same bill with U-2 at an outdoor concert in Dublin, Ireland in late July, 1980. I recall it so vividly because it was held at an ancient castle which was stunningly beautiful, and there were approximately 35, 000 people there — a huge audience for us, except that since our musical gear never made it through customs, we didn’t play that day. I only had like an hour or two of sleep the night before, and we flew from England to Ireland in this tiny private plane. Also on the bill that day were headliners The Police, along with XTC, John Otway, and Squeeze. At that time, Bono and U-2 were in the process of coming into their own.
As the years went on, I came to see Bono in a very different light than merely as the singer of U-2. I started seeing him as the ideal 21st century rock star model: one who isn’t self-indulgent and self-destructive like so many celebrities who marry multiple models. Rather, as someone who actually puts himself out there right on the front lines to make this very dark planet a better world.
If the universe is going to bless someone with the kind of fame and money Bono has, I really believe that they owe it to the world that gave it to them to make good use of it and try to help others (versus getting wrapped up into something so obviously self-undoing as drugs, alcohol, having sex with uncountable numbers of people, punching photographers, throwing tantrums, etc).
And giving back is exactly what Bono has done. From AIDS, to poverty, disease, hunger, to trying to assist Africa, he has been a wondrously tireless activist. He doesn’t just show up for the benefit concert on a private jet; he is in the trenches with political leaders all over the world, seemingly unafraid, courageous and committed. I can honestly say that if I ever had that type of success given to me, I would only hope to handle it in the same way Bono has.
So when I noticed that he had to have emergency back surgery right before a new leg of a U-2 tour was to occur, I held him in deep thoughts of healing and recovery and wished him the very best. Of course, I assumed everyone else would do so, too. After all, “Why wouldn’t somebody like Bono?” I asked myself. He’s not a jerk, isn’t impregnating waif-like models all over the world, or someone who cancels shows because of vanity problems.
As I read the story on CNN, I started breezing through the comments section to see what people were saying, assuming that it would all just be warm and fuzzy well wishes and thoughts of healing. But to my utter shock, the postings contained some of the nastiest, most vicious things one could imagine, especially because they were stated without cause or reason (except perhaps jealousy, dumbness, and shortsighted mean spiritedness). It just shows the state of our culture, where everyone has an opinion and has to open their mouth, but often, without anything of value to say.
People were referring to Bono as an egotistical ass, wishing that he would break his neck too, and saying that he did this on purpose to copy Bret Michaels in order to get more media attention. One person was snarking that since he’s 50, he can now join AARP and get discounts on senior citizen concert tickets, while someone else stated that his nose should also be removed in surgery to get it out of America’s politics. One cynical post on Twitter even said the Bono had to have emergency surgery to remove his head from his arse.
Of course, there were also sentiments from many on the CNN comments board who expressed utter outrage at the viciousness of these statements, as they are without any tangible or rational cause. Of all the rock stars and celebrities on earth, Bono is perhaps the one who has done the very most for the well being of this planet, incalculably given of his time, money, and has self-sacrificed (even to the point where his fellow band members have considered replacing him because they want to make music more often).
Whether someone likes Bono’s music or not is irrelevant. His worldwide efforts to help save the planet and its people should be applauded and championed not just by humanitarians, but by everyone. Hopefully, his tireless work will help to assist in healing this disease-laden world, and set a wondrous example for all performers and people to emulate. Also, for the record, I think he’s really a great singer and performer too.
I always find homophobia, especially in America, to be a combination of two extremes: the laughably absurd, and the terrifyingly tragic.
Absurd, when we see homophobic athletes hugging each other tighter than they’d ever with a woman, gently patting each other’s asses all game long, and even kissing, all under the guise of being absolutely straight “real men” together at war!
Tragic, in the case of the countless men who have been murdered, harassed, etc. because of being gay, or even for just being perceived to be. Of course, the Matthew Shepard murder is one of the first to come to mind. I’m sure most of you know the case, where twenty-one-year-old Matthew was brutally murdered in Wyoming simply because he was gay.
I was also quite emotionally struck by the suicide of Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, an eleven-year-old Massachusetts boy who killed himself because he could no longer take the bullying and taunts of his classmates for being perceived as being gay. Right before his twelfth birthday in April, 2009, he hung himself because of almost an entire year of daily harassment, where of course, the school did nothing about it. I wrote an essay about it here on my blog entitled Still, there’s no liberation here.
So in the seemingly endless struggle for gay people to have equal rights in a country that prides itself on equality but doesn’t legislate or live it out, here is the latest installment in Mom’s Apple Pie homophobia:
A dating website dedicated to gay men called mancrunch.com recently submitted an ad to be run during the Super Bowl of 2010. In it, two regular looking guys, wearing different football jerseys suddenly realize their attraction for each other as their hands gently touch in a snack bowl while watching the big game. Then, they start mock-madly hugging/kissing, while a male friend of theirs looks on with his jaw on the floor.
Well, of course, CBS television rejected the ad – as if any of us couldn’t predict that one, lol. CBS claimed that they just weren’t sure of mancrunch.com’s financial holdings. Conversely, a representative for the website says that they have more than enough cash to pay for the ad. We all know the real reason why CBS cited financial concerns. Even though they won’t cater to gays and lesbians for this ultimate testosterone muscle-flexing fest, they certainly don’t want to offend them, either. So I’m sure there was some hush-hush meeting behind closed doors where executives deduced that the only safe way to nix the ad (without experiencing the backlash of the national and international gay community) was to express financial concerns — as if a gay check wouldn’t clear the bank in the same way a straight check would, lol.
From a business point of view, both CBS and mancrunch.com are acting smart, and handling this in ways that benefit their respective interests. In the case of CBS, running that ad would mean that they would receive countless complaints, idiotic boycotts by religious housewives, and a lot of sensationalistic pseudo-media controversy. The network would take a strong financial hit as advertisers would frantically pull their dollars like scurrying cockroaches that have just been hit by roach spray when the lights are turned on.
Imagine if the ad actually ran: regular beer drinking jocks all across this country would be saying, “What the fuck, man, what is this mother fucking bull shit – two dudes, kissing!?” Perhaps, hoards of television patrons may even turn off their TV sets in disgust, pray to Jesus a while to purify themselves as if they were washing away cooties on their skin, while the good ole’ boys could run out and get drunk to find some man-validating pussy.
We’ve all seen how the religious right can create such a stir by boycotting products. With their shrill, relentless, judgmental voices, they intimidate sponsors and television networks into conforming to their uptight, hateful values. Imagine the family scene with little toddlers in front of the TV, as their parents and grandparents gasp in utter panic as two men show sexual/ romantic interest in each other. CBS shows would be boycotted all across this country as fast as one could say “In the name of Jesus,” alongside similar threats to any sponsor’s products that advertised on the network.
Mancrunch.com’s strategy is simply brilliant because it’s presumable that they knew that this ad would never get on CBS television for the super bowl. However, in submitting it, the media is already extensively covering this story. This brought a huge amount of traffic to their website, which is exactly what they wanted. Whether they paid for the ad to run during the super bowl or just reaped the cost-free benefits from the exposure they’re getting in the media, they can’t lose, as this ad certainly went viral and brought a huge boost to their client base.
Here’s the proof: First, it made a splash on the internet Then, in recent days leading up to the Super Bowl, Larry King Live covered this story where they aired the ad, along with people on both sides of the issue who debated the whole ordeal. In that show, a representative of mancrunch.com claimed that they’ve had 50 thousand new subscribers sign up in just the past week, obviously from all the attention this story has gotten.
For the Super Bowl, CBS is willing to run a Pro-Life ad featuring some down-home boy-next-door heartland college quarterback in it. Yet, if they want to run such a divisive ad (as this country is so split on abortion), so be it – but then let the mancrunch.com ad run, too. There was an article that stated that CBS worked with the organization doing the pro-life ad for months, but the Mancrunch ad did not get that same consideration.
So as we see that even in 2010, prejudice, homophobia, and the divisive, hateful qualities of traditional America are still well in toll. In my case, not only was I abused virtually every day of my 12 years in school for being perceives as being gay, called a “faggot,” attacked mercilessly by both students and shockingly, even teachers as well. The abuse didn’t stop there: When I entered the world of rock n roll, I naively thought I had found a home. How wrong I was, as rock n roll, especially punk, is a very conservative, narrow-minded art-form.
My contributions to Chicago and the world’s musical history have been virtually erased, especially by the punk community, which is just as myopic in its vision as 1970’s corporate arena rock was. When I created punk, new wave and alternative in Chicago and broke all the rules both musically and visually, there was one big problem: I could be perceived as a faggot. Besides gender bending, I presented one of the most ugly, unflattering, unattractive physical presentations in rock history – and Chicagoans, at large, weren’t having it. Whether it was me stripping down to an old, musty one-piece old-ladies bathing suit with babushka, or people seeing my actual breasts, the punk community, especially in Chicago, couldn’t deal with it.
David Witz, a writer for the Chicago Reader wrote in February 1978 about the terror of a “faggot” like me actually representing Chicago. As truth be told, I was the only Chicago artist back then to take it to the national and international stage and was the first American artist to secure a recording contract with one of the most influential record labels of all time to the birth of punk, new wave and alternative music, IRS Records. Witz begged people to boycott my performances and flee from seeing me.
It didn’t stop there: over thirty years later in the historically inaccurate Chicago punk documentary You Weren’t There, released in 2007, my musical contributions to Chicago and world culture were purposefully and completely erased. Because of the gender-phobia/perceived as gay/not being visually stereotypic issues, instead of receiving credit for what I accomplished and started musically, I was lumped in with fringe local performance artists. Websites such as the Chicago punk data base have trivialized and marginalized what I’ve done as an artist, saying I wasn’t really punk.
It’s just the same old homophobia I experienced in my high school locker room, except now, it is by the rock and punk community who bend history more than I ever did with gender. It gives me renewed meaning as to why I wrote such protest songs as No Liberation Herein the first place.
We tend to think of acoustic musical instruments as somehow being natural and organic: like a piano, acoustic guitar, violin, and a drum kit – but in reality, are they really? Why are the steel pieces of a drum kit natural? How about the wood of an acoustic guitar? What’s organic about the cast iron that’s used in a piano?
Over the last centuries, we’ve seen an evolution involving materials that are used in the making of music: whether it is the hammers and ivory of a piano to the heavy duty strings of an upright bass, or even the enormous machinery of a massive pipe organ. Could there have been purists even back then who thought it was anti-human to produce music using anything other than the only true natural instruments that exist on earth: the human voice and the sounds of nature?
Then, after electricity came along, we saw the whole game change in the 20th century: microphones could amplify the voice and alter its quality; performances could be recorded and reproduced. Was it natural to amplify the human voice? Couldn’t a purist have thought it hypocritical for some machine to make a person sound artificially louder than they were actually singing?
Imagine how some may have felt when multi-track recorders were introduced. For the first time ever, one could record music, and then overdub (“add-on”) more music to what had already been recorded within the same song. Then, when multi-track recording become even more sophisticated, entire albums started being recorded part-by-part: meaning the drummer played alone, then the guitarist could do his part separately by himself, etc. Even though it ended up sounding like everyone was all performing together at the same time, they weren’t. What about purists who thought that everyone should be forced to play at the same time when recording, just like it would have to be really done in a “live” performance? Could this all have been seen as some type of fraud and technological trickery!?
I remember in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s when drum machines were infiltrating the music- making market. Even though rhythm machines had existed before on such instruments as the Hammond Organ, people in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s were starting to make records using drums and rhythm from a non-human artificial machine. Did it cause controversy? Of course it did, as many people thought it was a fake and bogus way to produce rhythm on a record.
In addition to drum machines that produced mechanically perfect rhythm, sequencers also emerged, which allowed musical notes and parts to be entirely programmed and executed by a machine. Therefore, artists no longer had to play their instruments. I remember hearing Depeche Mode defend their work by saying that music is about “ideas,” and not necessarily being able to play an instrument. There were people who vehemently criticized groups like them and Human League. These were artists for all intents and purposes who did not have conventional musical ability to be able to play an instrument, or certainly, not to any technical level worth noting.
Yet, now, rhythm machines and sequenced music are commonplace and just accepted as a part of our musical culture. You would hardly hear anyone today complain about a drum machine, or a sequenced (machine played) musical part. Why is that?
The reason is that people are like sheep – and whenever something becomes culturally engrained in our collective psyche, it becomes accepted. Even though people think of themselves as being individuals with unique viewpoints because of their loudness, rudeness, and over-opinionated jabs, the collective culture is easily manipulated. If something is done long enough and becomes popular, it gets established as part of the conventional aesthetics of the time.
It all starts with the kids who are more open at the time because they’re young. When they first heard groups like Human League and Depeche Mode, they didn’t say: “Oh my God, they’re not playing those tick-tocky precise parts. It’s done by a fucking machine!!” It sounded good to them – it was new, seemed fresh and became popular. Plus, many other artists kept doing the same thing. Therefore, it is now as acceptable as electric guitars have been for several decades.
In the 1980’s, Metallica and REM were also quite successful, but do we ever think of them as decade-defining artists? Of course not, because they weren’t “pop,” which is what defines musical history in the overall sense in any given time period. That history involves artists who have multiple hit singles, the general sound of music that a lot of artists are doing, and the music that the masses can accept which is always watered-down.
The 1980’s is thought of as a combination of synth-music and heterosexual drag queen pussy-lovin’ “I’ll kick your ass, faggot, even though I’m wearing lipstick” hair metal, lol. The 1980’s was the first decade that openly celebrated and flaunted pop music that not only wasn’t played by a person, but also sounded artificial to the ear: synthesizers had repetitive, robotically fast mechanical notes, we heard programmed, fast hand claps that humans wouldn’t have done, there were some robotic voice effects, and drum machines that sounded like loud firecrackers popped out of a cannon, too.
I’m actually quite thankful for drum machines, as it gave me the ability to record my album, Best Kept Secrets that I released independently in May, 1992. Without a drummer, I was able to bypass a problem that could have wiped out the project. Because of my musicianship, I was able to program a drum machine to be anything I wanted it to be: from the feel of a real drummer to something deliberately electronic sounding.
I also have no problem with sequencers, even though I don’t need them. Anything that could be sequenced, I can play just as well and actually more quickly than it takes to be programmed on a machine. Every once in a while, I used a sequenced part on some songs to Best Kept Secrets, because I only had 4 tracks to work with as the record was done on a 4-track cassette recorder. By having something already sequenced, that mechanical part could be playing at the same time that I was performing a musical part, which allowed both the sequenced part and my part to be recorded onto a single track. Nothing like two for the price of one, lol! Is this clear to someone who doesn’t understand the muti-track recording process?
In the 21st century, the role of technology and machines in music has a far more expanded place than ever before in the creation of music – and some people embrace it, while others hate it with a passion. In reality, most of the music the consumer gets now is highly processed whether it sounds so or not: from rhythm machines and sequencing, to auto-tune pitch correction on the vocals, all the way now to the newest fad which are robotic vocoder voice treatments. Sure, auto-tune robot voice effects will fade, just as huge snare drums of the 1980’s became passé, but a new electronic machine-made gimmick will come along to replace them.
As I was browsing You Tube yesterday, I noticed a brand-new song that really represents what I’m saying here to a “T.” To anyone who knows music at all, it is presumable that none of the musical parts in this track were actually performed by anyone in the way someone sits down and plays a piano keyboard, and that at least the auto-tune robotic vocals were done electronically as well. Since it was machine programmed and executed, it would be hard to actually perform live. Check out Boom Boom Pop by Blacked Eyed Peas:
Another example is the biggest selling downloaded single ever for one week since Soundscan started tracking those figures. It just sold over 600,000 copies in one week, and is TiK ToK by Ke$ha.
In addition to vocoder voice treatments, the music on this track certainly wasn’t actually performed by anyone in the way you would see someone play a drum set or a musical keyboard live. A machine was programmed to do it. Because of the robotic, mechanical nature of the musical parts, it would be quite problematic to duplicate this song in a live show. It would seem that the choices would be to do what Britney Spears does, which is to have the band mime the musical parts like on a video shoot, or just run the track without anyone pretending to be playing anything and add some dancers.
Kids and young adults are used to this kind of thing as we now have more than a generation of music listeners who have grown up on perfect rhythm and machine-made music – not just well-played drums by a person with human feel, but mathematically perfect rhythm and musical parts executed by a machine. It’s now an aesthetic and a sensibility, and expected by listeners. Even if they don’t know so consciously, they need that “feel” to get into a record.
Of course, purists and older people are going to consider this type of music utter crap, but is it any different than a great drummer who saw drum machines as a cheap cop out back in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s, or competent arena-rock musicians who hated The Ramones?
However, with technology and machines being so prevalent in today’s music, it creates a weird sort of a dilemma for live performance as this type of music is not able to be authentically duplicated by actual people who would play or sing it. First, the sounds are so diverse and integral to the music and constantly changing, that you couldn’t get a “live” band to recreate that. In addition, the parts are mechanically perfect as programmed into a machine, so people playing them wouldn’t create a feel that sounded right. If there are electronic robotic treatments on the voice, how could someone just duplicate that singing straight into a microphone?
So what does an artist do? Perhaps Britney Spears knew it all along as she’s just lip-synched her way through her performances. Here’s a question: Would the audience who would pay to see these artists really care if anyone was playing, or even singing anything live? They may not want it rubbed in their face that the show is largely or totally canned, but it’s the product that needs to be perfect, not the reality or integrity of the aesthetic. Meaning, which would a kid rather hear: Britney singing horribly, a band who can’t match the sound and feel of the record, or hear pristine vocals and a backing track that was bang on? They want product-perfect, of course, and the experience of the concert to be right. That entails the music and singing being the same as the record and the visuals matching or being similar to whatever the videos are.
For kids today, music is thought of as a backdrop for the experience: of celebrity, the bigger-than-life persona of the artist, and the vibe – and that needs to match the record. Therefore, it might be better for these artists to just fake it live, where the “concert” becomes like a video shoot. For hip-hop, the backing musical tracks have almost always never been “live,” with at least the rapping being live. However, I’ve heard rappers double-tracked; meaning that there is a pre-recorded track of their rap mixed in with the actual “live” rhymes. To me, it’s ludicrous to imagine why that would need to be done, but I’ve heard it.
As this generation of kids grows into being adults, it will become accepted for music to be completely artificially made, and even performed that way. Again, it’s back to the sheep theory, which is that the collective culture will accept anything done long enough that becomes popular. Musicianship doesn’t matter to them, as the person who is the Producer or behind the machines becomes the magician, not the collective performing of a band of musical performers. It’s a different ball-game now.
On the other hand, many of today’s so-called “rock” bands who I’ve heard live have sounded dreadfully horrible. For me, I can really hear how auto-tune and rhythm corrected their records are. It’s as if the actual artist “live” sounds like a flabby, middle-aged second-rate wedding band performing a lame cover version.
Musicianship takes hard work and a lifetime of dedication, because besides the emotional and spiritual commitment needed, there is a tremendous amount of physicality that is involved in singing and playing correctly, and in today’s culture, people are lazier than ever. Could you imagine some kid playing simple scales at the piano hours a day, instead of learning how to operate a software music program that gives them instant results? I think we know the answer to that question in most instances. Even most of the rock bands of today can hardly even play a banal, basic guitar solo….
So as we move further into the 21st century, purists will complain about the current state of affairs. Who knows, there may even be movements of musicians who vehemently take a stand against technology to the degree it’s integrated into music today, but will we ever go back to a mid 20th century sensibility, where people played their instruments (whether acoustic or electric), and actually sang?
What’s next? I think we’ll see programs that you can tell what you want to have and it will create it for you: “I want a classical feel with a hip-hop beat and jazz chords,” and it will spit it out to you – all under the guise of being an original song. How about a program that could rip-off someone else’s song and change it just enough to avoid a copyright infringement lawsuit? It’s all possible—and probably in the works.
Back in the 1950’s, the question was actually asked if rock n roll was just some silly, adolescent passing fad. That seems comical to even speculate on now, but the same question can be asked about the role technology and machines will play in the creation, production and “performance” of music today and in the future. The answer is simple just as it was with rock n roll back in the 1950’s: technology and machines are definitely here to stay.
Here we see JD Dragus, a pal I went to high school with at Bishop Noll Institute. More than a school, BNI was like a abusive, tortuous, Catholic solitary confinement prison cell!
JD is sporting his Skafish T-shirt, classic derby hat and a very cool-looking guitar.
JD is a songwriter, singer, guitarist and musician who has already been signed to a major label. Now he’s ready to spread Skafish T-shirt mania! – Skafish
Mark Reynolds, a bass player and musician from Kansas City, Missouri, was kind enough to send us this pic looking quite dapper in his Skafish contest prize T-shirt and very hip ska style hat.
In addition to having had his music featured in a film, Mark has shared the stage with such groups as Black Flag and The Meat Puppets. Rock on Mark — Skafish
We’ve had people enter from all over the world in the 2009 Skafish Holiday season contest giveaway! Phil Bradley was one of our lucky contest winners from the UK. A Skafish fan for decades, Phil sent us these two images for us to enjoy.
We can appreciate the timeless, dignified, classic drawing on the front — OOOPS!!!!!! My right BOOB is exposed — Naked for the world to see! What a complete and utter disgrace I am — Don’t tell anyone…. or my mummy will be upset, have to change my diaper and spank me in church! — Skafish
Kim Tonry, a Skafish fan who lives in the Chicago area was one of five lucky people to win an ultimate What’s This? 1976-1979 press kit folder with autographed retail CD and extra surreal Santa Skafish treats. In addition, this prize included two firsts: a Skafish What’s This? 1976-1979 post card and sticker, which no one had yet to receive!
Kim, thank you for sharing your wide-eyed (or is it psychotic) joy with all of us, lol? — Skafish
For Week 5, I gave away five high-end What’s This? 1976-1979 press kit folders with autographed promo CD and lots of goodies inside. Larry Leibowitz, a long-time Skafish fan who now lives in Florida was one of the lucky winners. Here was kind enough to send us a picture with his prize to share with all of you. It is appreciated, Larry!
along with a companion film documentary of the time period), I was excited to see the interview. In watching Mick and Larry, I was somewhat surprised at how animated and engaging Jagger was, but most of all, quite startled by his humility. (Usually legendary rock stars like Jagger & humility are never spoken of in the same sentence.)
in the first place.
