I always seem to find my way back to YouTube. Sometimes I realize just how much we take for granted something as amazing as YT - a virtually (and in all actuality, potentially) unlimited fountain of music (and new ideas, cultural blah blah blah, but we're talking about music here).
Honestly, it's a very nearly perfect medium for discovering music.
"But Evan, it's so full of ads. Don't you hate marketing with a passion?"
Well, yes. That is true. And I do. Very much. But I'm also a realist. (Shut up, I am.)
What people don't seem to realize is what a financial black hole YT is. Consider first the amount of memory it takes to store video files. Then consider the sheer volume of videos being uploaded onto YT. Also remember that membership (and thereby the video hosting) is free. The picture starts to come together.
A year ago, there were over 120 million videos on YT, with over 200,000 new videos being uploaded every single day. Their bandwidth alone cost $360M that year, with ads only bringing in $240M. Factor in all of the money they have to spend buying the rights to the music so widely uploaded, defending themselves in the lawsuits from the copyrights they'll inevitably be unable to secure, not to mention all the other expenses that a normal business has to worry about, and you start to understand. They lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $470M that year.
My point? Only that while ads suck, and the entire marketing business is an evil pirate ship populated by wretched, twisted souls feeding on the naivety of the innocent, YT has no choice if they want to stay afloat. In fact, they're going to have to do a whole lot more to actually make it. And honestly, I hope they do, because like I said, it's a very useful tool for finding new music.
Perhaps most importantly, it serves as a medium for artists to circumvent the giant foreboding castle on the hillside which is always mysteriously rainy that is the music "biz," and focus on their music instead of...business.
In that way, it's another avenue by which the people are unknowingly bringing about the inevitable doom of the record companies, along with home recording and indie labels, and not a moment too soon if you ask me.
And, because you've been so good and read this far, here's this.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Unexpected
I've been busy. Between crashing my car and trying to keep up with deadlines/get things done in spite of it, this was the first thing that dropped. Sorry about that. Even now, I don't have a lot of time, so I'll spare you the boring sob story.
Basically, this is just a brief expansion on my earlier point about mainstream music. I was talking about sifting through the field of feces that is the music industry these days and how in spite of the less-than-savory nature of the sifting, you could find some really great stuff. Almost like they flooded a whole field with their chunky, stinky bile and then scattered a small box of little shiny fun things all over the field. But this analogy is getting a little worn out. Moving on, then.
My point was that no matter how bad things get in "the biz," how corrupt and downright evil everyone in it seems to be, there is absolutely NO crushing the spirit of music. It is there, period, end of story. As such, it will always find ways to manifest itself - to shine through the murky poo water filling the field. (Leaving that analogy behind for real this time - I promise.)
My incontrovertible evidence:
In spite of its origins (a big, evil multinational corporation), this piece of music managed to take on a life of its own. A truly original idea came out and was perfectly executed, circumventing all of the BS that stops most original music before it can even see the light of day through the bars in its window.
Who woulda thunk it?
Basically, this is just a brief expansion on my earlier point about mainstream music. I was talking about sifting through the field of feces that is the music industry these days and how in spite of the less-than-savory nature of the sifting, you could find some really great stuff. Almost like they flooded a whole field with their chunky, stinky bile and then scattered a small box of little shiny fun things all over the field. But this analogy is getting a little worn out. Moving on, then.
My point was that no matter how bad things get in "the biz," how corrupt and downright evil everyone in it seems to be, there is absolutely NO crushing the spirit of music. It is there, period, end of story. As such, it will always find ways to manifest itself - to shine through the murky poo water filling the field. (Leaving that analogy behind for real this time - I promise.)
My incontrovertible evidence:
In spite of its origins (a big, evil multinational corporation), this piece of music managed to take on a life of its own. A truly original idea came out and was perfectly executed, circumventing all of the BS that stops most original music before it can even see the light of day through the bars in its window.
Who woulda thunk it?
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Surprising?
I know what you're thinking.
"Evan, musical cynic you, stop being such a negative Nancy and boring us with your endless ranting and complaining about the music industry! Some of the music being made today is really good."
And you'd be right.
I'm often mistaken for one of those people who insists that no good music was made after nineteen hundred and whatever year, arbitrarily picking out a specific time when everything worthwhile ceased to be, elitist snobs that they are. Believe it or not, there actually is a significant amount of music made recently that I like, some of it even mainstream. I can feel your shock and disbelief even now. But it's true.
First off, Richard Bona. If you know much of anything about my musical taste, you would know that he makes my pants tight for a lot of reasons, none of them homoerotic in any way. I could go on and on talking about why he's so amazing, but I've talked about him before, and there's little doubt that I'll find some reason to talk about him again, so I'll demonstrate my superhuman self-restraint by just dropping a video in here and calling it good.
"But what about someone the rest of us have, you know, HEARD OF?"
Fine, fine.
Well, immediately I think of Christina Aguilera. Yes, I said Christina Aguilera. She's one of the relatively few musicians who came out of the '90s:
A) Alive,
B) Still performing, and
C) Still worth listening to.
And really, she's gotten considerably better since the beginning of the new millenium, by my estimation. That's saying something, because I hadn't really thought much of her way back when, so it took some serious changing of my mind to get me to a place where I'd be saying this. But she's really, really good. Case and point: the video below.
With pop stars, I usually see a certain sort of unrestrained cliche in their music that mirrors whatever trend is "in" at the time among popular acts. But in this song particularly, I see and hear a subtle but definite restraint with a very specific purpose - the meaning of the song.
She could have performed it in other ways, made it more "flashy" and "pop starish," but instead she reserved her (formidable) talent as a singer and let the music as a whole speak for itself. The result is a very surprisingly powerful song. She had something she wanted to say with this song, and she said it - the honesty is unmistakable. It's real.
I'll put it this way - it gets me teary-eyed. There's very little in music that can do that, so I pay special attention when it does happen. Even if you don't think that her music is "your thing," I urge you to listen to this. It may very well change your mind.
I can also recommend exploring her other music without having to grit my teeth as I say it, making her even more of an oddity. She's put out her fair share of great albums; I personally really dug "Back to Basics" and "Stripped," both of which seem obvious to me as evidence of a teen pop star who, through some combination of fortune and sheer tenacity, managed to survive through the major obstacles of young success, and went on to take charge of her own career to whatever degree she was able and make exactly the music she wanted to make. Now, if that isn't worthy of some heavy praise in the artistic mire of the modern music industry, I don't know what is.
I really don't have a whole lot more to say about this. I could go on recommending modern stuff that I think is great, but that's not going to necessarily do you any good. So I'll offer what advice about it that I can. Basically, in spite of the wretched, twisted business that controls music today, there are still gems to be found. Not the pseudogems that "aren't bad to listen to," or are "impressive" because they write their own songs before they turn 18 - that doesn't matter one bit if the music ISN'T GOOD. Give everything a real chance to impress and surprise you, but be honest when what you hear is just another iteration of the same manufactured "musical" trend.
Ears, mind, and heart open, you will find good music.
"Evan, musical cynic you, stop being such a negative Nancy and boring us with your endless ranting and complaining about the music industry! Some of the music being made today is really good."
And you'd be right.
I'm often mistaken for one of those people who insists that no good music was made after nineteen hundred and whatever year, arbitrarily picking out a specific time when everything worthwhile ceased to be, elitist snobs that they are. Believe it or not, there actually is a significant amount of music made recently that I like, some of it even mainstream. I can feel your shock and disbelief even now. But it's true.
First off, Richard Bona. If you know much of anything about my musical taste, you would know that he makes my pants tight for a lot of reasons, none of them homoerotic in any way. I could go on and on talking about why he's so amazing, but I've talked about him before, and there's little doubt that I'll find some reason to talk about him again, so I'll demonstrate my superhuman self-restraint by just dropping a video in here and calling it good.
"But what about someone the rest of us have, you know, HEARD OF?"
Fine, fine.
Well, immediately I think of Christina Aguilera. Yes, I said Christina Aguilera. She's one of the relatively few musicians who came out of the '90s:
A) Alive,
B) Still performing, and
C) Still worth listening to.
And really, she's gotten considerably better since the beginning of the new millenium, by my estimation. That's saying something, because I hadn't really thought much of her way back when, so it took some serious changing of my mind to get me to a place where I'd be saying this. But she's really, really good. Case and point: the video below.
With pop stars, I usually see a certain sort of unrestrained cliche in their music that mirrors whatever trend is "in" at the time among popular acts. But in this song particularly, I see and hear a subtle but definite restraint with a very specific purpose - the meaning of the song.
She could have performed it in other ways, made it more "flashy" and "pop starish," but instead she reserved her (formidable) talent as a singer and let the music as a whole speak for itself. The result is a very surprisingly powerful song. She had something she wanted to say with this song, and she said it - the honesty is unmistakable. It's real.
I'll put it this way - it gets me teary-eyed. There's very little in music that can do that, so I pay special attention when it does happen. Even if you don't think that her music is "your thing," I urge you to listen to this. It may very well change your mind.
I can also recommend exploring her other music without having to grit my teeth as I say it, making her even more of an oddity. She's put out her fair share of great albums; I personally really dug "Back to Basics" and "Stripped," both of which seem obvious to me as evidence of a teen pop star who, through some combination of fortune and sheer tenacity, managed to survive through the major obstacles of young success, and went on to take charge of her own career to whatever degree she was able and make exactly the music she wanted to make. Now, if that isn't worthy of some heavy praise in the artistic mire of the modern music industry, I don't know what is.
I really don't have a whole lot more to say about this. I could go on recommending modern stuff that I think is great, but that's not going to necessarily do you any good. So I'll offer what advice about it that I can. Basically, in spite of the wretched, twisted business that controls music today, there are still gems to be found. Not the pseudogems that "aren't bad to listen to," or are "impressive" because they write their own songs before they turn 18 - that doesn't matter one bit if the music ISN'T GOOD. Give everything a real chance to impress and surprise you, but be honest when what you hear is just another iteration of the same manufactured "musical" trend.
Ears, mind, and heart open, you will find good music.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Finally, a point
Saying that I dislike the music industry would be a lot like Liberace rising from the dead tomorrow to confess that he was really all about guys. It's just not news (aside from the whole “rising from the dead” thing, but you know what I mean). It's more in the sphere of “common knowledge”.
Yes, I hate the music industry. You can stop writing “BIAS” in bright red on your picket signs, because I fully admit it – I'm not going to be completely impartial with these guys. After all, this is an opinion blog, so I'll be stating my opinion.
And to be honest, I really don't think they need me sitting there weighing the moral consequences of the mean things I could say about them, because they've got billions of dollars and packs of wild lawyers foaming at the mouth and tugging on their chains trying to get close enough to me to slap me across the face with their big, meaty libel lawsuits. Because, of course, what they need is MORE MONEY. I'll take whatever honest advantage I can get. To me, that's fair.
I'm not going to say anything about them that I don't consider to be entirely true, but I'm not going to hesitate to hurl whatever rocks I do have in my pile through the windows of their corner offices. That aught to be a sufficient disclaimer, so I'll stop boring you and get to the part where I actually say things about stuff.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, and so that you can adequately brace yourself for the obviousness of the truth, I'll warn you that I'm going to say it right now: Record companies have been obsolete for almost 30 years.
Yes, you heard me right. Why?
Well, IBM introduced the first personal computer in 1981. That right there aught to be fairly self explanatory. (Before you say it, yes; I know that Apple had two before it, so did a slew of others, but IBM was the first to call it a PC, and it was at least one of the earliest widely used ones out there. So for the sake of argument, we're going with 1981. Just go with it.)
Basically, personal computing made a whole lot of new things possible – we haven't even scratched the surface of the tip of that iceberg yet. But for our purposes, it made home recording possible. Yes, that's right – people can create music, record it, and distribute it through the Internet, and completely circumvent the gargantuan drooling troll that personifies record labels as a whole. Like I said before: Poof! Bye, record companies!
Obviously, it hasn't been that fast or that simple. Quite frankly, I'd sooner list all the names and addresses of every registered sex offender in the country than all of the reasons that record companies are still around, because it would probably take a lot less time and would end up being more meaningful to most people. It would also make me a lot less bitter, and that's saying something. But for the sake of relevance, I'll hash out the basic gist of it.
My theory can be fairly well summed up with a melting pot and having short, bald, sweaty, pig-eyed men in fitted suits filling it with enormous amounts of cocaine, bribe money, fast talking, cologne, and Cuban cigars. But that probably doesn't make as much sense to anybody else as it does to me, so I'll put it another way.
It's interesting to compare the timelines of the music industry and personal computing side by side, because what you see is a lot like the competitive stockpiling and militaristic innovation of the Cold War. Consider this: the year that IBM's first PC was released was the very same year of MTV's wretched, demonic birth. (To dig deeper the “conspiracy hole,” the MTV project was actually launched in 1977, the year that the Apple II was released, which was actually the first widely popular home computer. Yes, it's a conspiracy, and yes, they're reading your thoughts right now. Go put on your tin foil hat before it's too late.)
Since then, both have evolved considerably. Personal computing's evolution has mostly been in scope of capability, smoothness of operation, ease of access, and quality of product and experience. In what I see as direct response, the output of the music industry has been increasingly big, loud, and flashy. Through the '90s and thus far into the 2000s, popular music has become more and more of a mediocre afterthought following the factor that has kept the public hypnotized: image.
What I see is a 30-year attempt to blind the public to the fact that they don't need the record companies anymore. In reality, the whole concept of a record company was almost completely obviated the day that affordable personal computers hit the open market. But the big, shiny, flashy image that the music industry continues to inflate in front of its market has distracted them from the truth. Look around and you'll see what I mean.
And it worked pretty well for awhile. The enormous flashiness of the music industry served its purpose for a long time by convincing aspiring artists that they couldn't measure up on their own, and that the only way they'd be able to make it anywhere in a business like that would be from within one of those massive towers of hundred dollar bills.
On the other hand, the past few years have seen a very sharp rise in the amount of home recording taking place. This is a VERY good sign. People in the know are starting to see that between the recording software that's now widely available, some of it for free, and the Internet, the record companies are little more than the weird guy on the bench yelling incoherently at you that you walk past and pretend not to notice. “You need us! We make music possible!” he yells. “Uh...huh,” you say to yourself as you hurriedly walk by, weighing dessert possibilities instead of the multitude of ways that your record label might screw you over. The way it should have been from the beginning.
The fact that music has been made into a business at all speaks volumes about just how wrong this whole situation is. Call me an idealist (no, really, do it – my evil socialist powers grow with every jab, soon I'll consume the world), but what ever happened to art for art's sake? I think, and maybe I'm crazy here, that artists aught to be supported and allowed to just do what they do best – create.
Introducing capitalism into the situation is like trying to get a very hungry lion to make friends with a puppy – sure, there'll be some scattered remains of the puppy here and there, but really all you're doing is feeding the poor thing to the big hungry lion of capitalism. Cast your Darwinian “survival of the fittest” stones all you want, but that's not really the point. Darwin didn't really take into account what might make a pleasant house pet, did he?
Sure, a lion may be able to make a puddle out of the puppy with his roar, and sure, capitalism may create competition and constant improvement of products. La tee da. But since when was art about competition? Progression, yes, but any good artist does that on their own. We keep dogs as pets because they're fun to play with and don't have teeth as long as our arms, and we like artists for the same reasons.
Figuratively, of course.
Art and capitalism really are just oil and water. The latter may work for a lot of things, but if we value art at all, we need to recognize that putting it through the meat grinder of business doesn't benefit anybody in the long run. If artists were supported and allowed to do what they do without having to take *business* into account, they'd exercise their freedom to honestly express, and in return we'd get a wide variety of honest art, and everybody wouldn't be forced to choke down the homogenous mainstream bile that's poured over our heads day and night. It'd be like hiring a team of passionate, professional cooks to make our food after countless years of indentured servants robotically serving up the soulless microwavable stuff in the back of the freezer.
Isn't that a win-win situation?
Yes, I hate the music industry. You can stop writing “BIAS” in bright red on your picket signs, because I fully admit it – I'm not going to be completely impartial with these guys. After all, this is an opinion blog, so I'll be stating my opinion.
And to be honest, I really don't think they need me sitting there weighing the moral consequences of the mean things I could say about them, because they've got billions of dollars and packs of wild lawyers foaming at the mouth and tugging on their chains trying to get close enough to me to slap me across the face with their big, meaty libel lawsuits. Because, of course, what they need is MORE MONEY. I'll take whatever honest advantage I can get. To me, that's fair.
I'm not going to say anything about them that I don't consider to be entirely true, but I'm not going to hesitate to hurl whatever rocks I do have in my pile through the windows of their corner offices. That aught to be a sufficient disclaimer, so I'll stop boring you and get to the part where I actually say things about stuff.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, and so that you can adequately brace yourself for the obviousness of the truth, I'll warn you that I'm going to say it right now: Record companies have been obsolete for almost 30 years.
Yes, you heard me right. Why?
Well, IBM introduced the first personal computer in 1981. That right there aught to be fairly self explanatory. (Before you say it, yes; I know that Apple had two before it, so did a slew of others, but IBM was the first to call it a PC, and it was at least one of the earliest widely used ones out there. So for the sake of argument, we're going with 1981. Just go with it.)
Basically, personal computing made a whole lot of new things possible – we haven't even scratched the surface of the tip of that iceberg yet. But for our purposes, it made home recording possible. Yes, that's right – people can create music, record it, and distribute it through the Internet, and completely circumvent the gargantuan drooling troll that personifies record labels as a whole. Like I said before: Poof! Bye, record companies!
Obviously, it hasn't been that fast or that simple. Quite frankly, I'd sooner list all the names and addresses of every registered sex offender in the country than all of the reasons that record companies are still around, because it would probably take a lot less time and would end up being more meaningful to most people. It would also make me a lot less bitter, and that's saying something. But for the sake of relevance, I'll hash out the basic gist of it.
My theory can be fairly well summed up with a melting pot and having short, bald, sweaty, pig-eyed men in fitted suits filling it with enormous amounts of cocaine, bribe money, fast talking, cologne, and Cuban cigars. But that probably doesn't make as much sense to anybody else as it does to me, so I'll put it another way.
It's interesting to compare the timelines of the music industry and personal computing side by side, because what you see is a lot like the competitive stockpiling and militaristic innovation of the Cold War. Consider this: the year that IBM's first PC was released was the very same year of MTV's wretched, demonic birth. (To dig deeper the “conspiracy hole,” the MTV project was actually launched in 1977, the year that the Apple II was released, which was actually the first widely popular home computer. Yes, it's a conspiracy, and yes, they're reading your thoughts right now. Go put on your tin foil hat before it's too late.)
Since then, both have evolved considerably. Personal computing's evolution has mostly been in scope of capability, smoothness of operation, ease of access, and quality of product and experience. In what I see as direct response, the output of the music industry has been increasingly big, loud, and flashy. Through the '90s and thus far into the 2000s, popular music has become more and more of a mediocre afterthought following the factor that has kept the public hypnotized: image.
What I see is a 30-year attempt to blind the public to the fact that they don't need the record companies anymore. In reality, the whole concept of a record company was almost completely obviated the day that affordable personal computers hit the open market. But the big, shiny, flashy image that the music industry continues to inflate in front of its market has distracted them from the truth. Look around and you'll see what I mean.
And it worked pretty well for awhile. The enormous flashiness of the music industry served its purpose for a long time by convincing aspiring artists that they couldn't measure up on their own, and that the only way they'd be able to make it anywhere in a business like that would be from within one of those massive towers of hundred dollar bills.
On the other hand, the past few years have seen a very sharp rise in the amount of home recording taking place. This is a VERY good sign. People in the know are starting to see that between the recording software that's now widely available, some of it for free, and the Internet, the record companies are little more than the weird guy on the bench yelling incoherently at you that you walk past and pretend not to notice. “You need us! We make music possible!” he yells. “Uh...huh,” you say to yourself as you hurriedly walk by, weighing dessert possibilities instead of the multitude of ways that your record label might screw you over. The way it should have been from the beginning.
The fact that music has been made into a business at all speaks volumes about just how wrong this whole situation is. Call me an idealist (no, really, do it – my evil socialist powers grow with every jab, soon I'll consume the world), but what ever happened to art for art's sake? I think, and maybe I'm crazy here, that artists aught to be supported and allowed to just do what they do best – create.
Introducing capitalism into the situation is like trying to get a very hungry lion to make friends with a puppy – sure, there'll be some scattered remains of the puppy here and there, but really all you're doing is feeding the poor thing to the big hungry lion of capitalism. Cast your Darwinian “survival of the fittest” stones all you want, but that's not really the point. Darwin didn't really take into account what might make a pleasant house pet, did he?
Sure, a lion may be able to make a puddle out of the puppy with his roar, and sure, capitalism may create competition and constant improvement of products. La tee da. But since when was art about competition? Progression, yes, but any good artist does that on their own. We keep dogs as pets because they're fun to play with and don't have teeth as long as our arms, and we like artists for the same reasons.
Figuratively, of course.
Art and capitalism really are just oil and water. The latter may work for a lot of things, but if we value art at all, we need to recognize that putting it through the meat grinder of business doesn't benefit anybody in the long run. If artists were supported and allowed to do what they do without having to take *business* into account, they'd exercise their freedom to honestly express, and in return we'd get a wide variety of honest art, and everybody wouldn't be forced to choke down the homogenous mainstream bile that's poured over our heads day and night. It'd be like hiring a team of passionate, professional cooks to make our food after countless years of indentured servants robotically serving up the soulless microwavable stuff in the back of the freezer.
Isn't that a win-win situation?
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Promise/Contemplation
EDIT: I just learned that within 24 hours of posting this blog, Fretkillr's YouTube account was suspended. There will be blood.
Well, first off, I feel like I need to come clean - this isn't the post chock full of relevance and cutting social commentary that I've been promising. It's coming along, but really it's just been a busy week, and I had more to say about the whole thing (the music industry) than I had thought going into it, so it's taking longer than I'd anticipated.
I'm tempted to split it in two and post the first bit right away, but I worry that slicing it down the middle will cut off the momentum I've got going. I'll sleep on it, and might put my thoughts so far on here tomorrow if it seems like the thing to do.
But I'll attempt to buy back your love and trust with a little gem I found on YouTube. It seems to be getting harder and harder to find consistently high quality stuff on YouTube, and so the good stuff that is out there is becoming more and more valuable.
"Good stuff" would be a terrible understatement of user Fretkillr's contributions. High quality audio of a staggering variety of music executed flawlessly with an understated, anonymous (oddly enough) approach really makes Fretkillr one of the rare things in music with which I have absolutely no issue. Aside from sort of wanting to know who he is (and simultaneously sort of not - the indecision is making my brain spin like a ballet dancer geeked on speed), I consider Fretkillr's music to be perfect for what it is - excellent renditions of a variety of songs on acoustic guitar.
So enjoy a few of these, and explore some of his other videos - God knows there's a lot to choose from. And more interesting, relevant stuff is in the works and on the way - I promise.
(By the by, he's disabled embedding, so you're stuck with links. Sorry about that. But make the effort and check him out anyway - it's really worth it.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pIoSkKOuvo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBsWwdYHAVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7cY2_Wr-9g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr6IdWQjI3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwrrnZeNjOQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW2sTktB2Dg
Well, first off, I feel like I need to come clean - this isn't the post chock full of relevance and cutting social commentary that I've been promising. It's coming along, but really it's just been a busy week, and I had more to say about the whole thing (the music industry) than I had thought going into it, so it's taking longer than I'd anticipated.
I'm tempted to split it in two and post the first bit right away, but I worry that slicing it down the middle will cut off the momentum I've got going. I'll sleep on it, and might put my thoughts so far on here tomorrow if it seems like the thing to do.
But I'll attempt to buy back your love and trust with a little gem I found on YouTube. It seems to be getting harder and harder to find consistently high quality stuff on YouTube, and so the good stuff that is out there is becoming more and more valuable.
"Good stuff" would be a terrible understatement of user Fretkillr's contributions. High quality audio of a staggering variety of music executed flawlessly with an understated, anonymous (oddly enough) approach really makes Fretkillr one of the rare things in music with which I have absolutely no issue. Aside from sort of wanting to know who he is (and simultaneously sort of not - the indecision is making my brain spin like a ballet dancer geeked on speed), I consider Fretkillr's music to be perfect for what it is - excellent renditions of a variety of songs on acoustic guitar.
So enjoy a few of these, and explore some of his other videos - God knows there's a lot to choose from. And more interesting, relevant stuff is in the works and on the way - I promise.
(By the by, he's disabled embedding, so you're stuck with links. Sorry about that. But make the effort and check him out anyway - it's really worth it.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pIoSkKOuvo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBsWwdYHAVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7cY2_Wr-9g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr6IdWQjI3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwrrnZeNjOQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW2sTktB2Dg
Monday, April 19, 2010
Ketchup, Episode II - Because Episode I just didn't cut it
Hopefully, this will be sufficient to get all of these backed up tidbits out of my system, because I've got real things to talk about! I swear I do! In any case, I won't waste any time.
Consider this first one to be an invitation - I'm inviting you both into my mindset as I pull all of these videos together, and to join the loyal following of Mr. Richard Bona. It's nigh on impossible to not be head over heels for Richard Bona, if you ask me. His words may be in a different language (he sings in his native Douala), but the music speaks for itself. The passion in his music is beyond infectious - it's a feeling that resonates throughout your body and soul, because that's what they're supposed to do in response to great music. I think of it as the entire self acting as an eardrum; you sense the music with all of yourself. It's something that you know how to do, you just have to remember that you know how to. All you've got to do is let it happen.
A long time ago, I had hastily written Simon and Garfunkel off as "not my thing". Deep down, I started to reconsider that decision when I realized what a genius Paul Simon is (if you haven't heard Graceland, you owe it to yourself to make it happen). Fortunately, I gave it another real chance, and stumbled on some truly incredible songs. This one in particular speaks eloquently on a very deep level, and that alone should be enough to pay special attention to it. The incredible musicianship is just icing on a very tasty, substantial cake.
Speaking of incredible musicianship (and really, shouldn't we always be?), I just couldn't live with myself if I didn't mention Andres Segovia. And what better music to highlight his incredible genius than that of another God-among-men? Absolutely none. Bach and Segovia both consistently highlight the other's indescribable genius, and the following is certainly no exception.
This video has become one of my favorites of all time, for a number of reasons. First of all, and most obviously, it showcases the talent of some incredible musicians. It was originally written by Stevie Wonder and recorded by Jeff Beck (guitarist) for 1975s "Blow by Blow" (perhaps the most aptly titled album of the '70s). And while the original is good, there are still more reasons that I like this video. Beyond just being a great piece, this particular video serves to prove that it really is possible to perform a song better than the original performance. This fact seems to ruffle the feathers of some purists out there, but you would be hard pressed to make an argument that the original is better in any significant way than the live performance. Lastly, to my ear at least, it goes beyond a simply "great" performance of a good song, and marches balls-first into the seldom-trodden territory of "truly magical moments of performance caught on tape to be enjoyed forever". Repeated listening might be necessary to really understand why, but I think it's in the subtlety of Jeff's playing. The more you listen to Jeff Beck, the more you come to understand that nuance is his specialty. He's keenly aware of music as a language, and he doesn't hesitate to say what he's thinking. This particular performance just comes together with a passion and solidarity rarely found in recordings or live performances.
Maybe I'm just picky, but it's hard for me to find renditions of old songs that I find adequate, much less satisfying. It seems to me that the more widely performed a song is, the harder it becomes to find a single version that can be described as anywhere in the proximity of "good". That said, it makes it that much more special when I do find a really good performance of a song that I like. Case and point: Hayley Westenra singing "Danny Boy". Boy, did I have this song all wrong. Never again will I doubt the ability of a truly gifted singer to breathe life into an otherwise badly done, overdone song. This version is about as close to perfect as it's ever bound to get.
On the subject of singers, I feel compelled to include this next one. Partially, I want to remember the life and genius of Pink Floyd's Richard Wright, but I also just consider this to be another one of those hard to find vocal performances. You know, the ones that leave the false security of the little pillow and sheet fortress of cliche? The ones that are able to find their own way outside with those little senses...what were they again...oh, right - originality and conviction. With the latest wave of the generic singer-songwriter virus, this time infecting young women with pianos and the desire to be "different" while not being "that different," the female vocalist is in a pretty deep ditch these days. But it's worthwhile to point out that the virus is vulnerable to genuine creativity and balls. These ladies have both.
But (there's always a but) while we in the west are worshipping our false talents, our precious Jonas Brothers, etc., there are people in other corners of the world who have been using their energy to uncover the untold potential that we have as human beings. In the Russian republic of Tuva (Tyva), there's a tradition of singers who can simultaneously sing four different notes, and do so by circular breathing. To put it simply, they can sing four different lines, at the same time, for as long as they want. Still clinging to that precious little idea that our pop idols have any significant talent? Watch and reconsider. If this doesn't make you reassess your ideas on human potential, I can't imagine what would.
Well, I think I've stretched this out long enough. Since I'm bad at goodbyes, I've decided to let Richard Bona say it for me, since this song better expresses the "so long, farewell" feeling than I likely could with any semblance of brevity. This may become a theme. Stay tuned for a new (real) post sometime this week. It'll be interesting!
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Playing Ketchup
Since this is my first blog, it would seem obvious that I've got some ground to make up. This will mean that some of the videos are old news to some of you, but perhaps some won't be. Either way, I'm posting them (in no meaningful order), 'cause I likes 'em.
First off, Tommy Johnson - Canned Heat Blues. So titled after the somewhat popular Prohibition-era "drink" made from straining alcohol from Sterno (cooking fuel). Tommy's one of those bluesmen who's rumored to have sold his sold his soul to the Devil - this song is an excellent argument in support of the legend. The falsetto notes he hits certainly sound like a man possessed by something. The Devil, or dangerously raw alcohol? You decide.
While we're on blues, I feel obligated to post this'un. It's a bit "notey," but the guy plays from his heart, that's for damn sure. If you don't feel how expressive his soloing is, you should probably see a doctor. Very raw, very powerful. Reminds me of some of Jimi Hendrix's more passionate moments.
Now for something completely different - Paul Young. Say what you will about the '80s, but there's no denying that some amazing music came out of it, just like any other era. Paul knew what he was doing making the music that he did. He combined Joni Mitchell's vocal dialog with an expressive fretless bass player (Pino Palladino, in this case; a genius in his own right) with a more approachable, commercially viable approach to songwriting.
Due to my complete lack of focus and prior planning for this first blog, there's precious little continuity to speak of. Case and point: the next bit, Israel Zohar. Clarinet player for the Israel Philharmonic, and even more successful on his own, playing klezmer music, as he is here. Just an enormously talented player in general, and the music is the sort of thing where if you love it, you just love it, and if you don't...well, you just don't. But hey, nobody's ever forcing you to listen to any music, and if they are, you should probably look into picking up a concealed weapons permit and a small-ish caliber handgun.
And to wrap it up, Mr. Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf. (Yes, that is his name, und yes, it's all German und fahny, und yes, he vast ein brilliant composer, certainly brilliant enough that his name deserves some damn recognition, even from some two-bit spellcheck program. Rabble rabble.) Considering the fact that he played the *violin*, it aught to come as some surprise that he wrote more (and better) concertos for bass than he did for violin. Of course, he wrote twice as many concertos for oboe than for bass, four times as many as he did for violin, but that's beside the point. The point is that he was a self-hating violin player, for good reason (obviously), and for reasons unbeknownst to the general musical snob hierarchy, had a strange fetish for small double reeds. Actually, that's probably not true at all, but it makes for a good story. For fun, listen for Bach and Vivaldi in there and see what you can pick out. This is my late Easter celebration. Instead of eggs, I go looking for obscure Classical quotes of mainstream Baroque composers. What? Like that's any less relevant to the story of Jesus' resurrection than a giant bunny leaving chocolate eggs everywhere? Bah.
I'll probably make this a two-parter, just to get all the stuff out there that I've had safely tucked away in my YouTube favorites for the past year or so. More on the way sometime in the next week.
Generic farewell until I come up with something more personal and original!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)