Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Monday, November 5, 2007
John Mayer: Hero, Hack, or Somewhere in Between?
Okay, so John Mayer wrote "Your Body is a Wonderland".... get over it.
First and foremost, let's talk about the aspects of John Mayer's life that have nothing to do with music. And that's exactly my point. The things I'm about to discuss have nothing to do with music. Anyways... so you might think John Mayer is a "douchebag", a term commonly associated with his name, due to the fact that he posts blogs about his watches. Or because he once smoked pot out of a vaporizer in a Rolling Stone interview. Or because the lyrics to one of his hit songs turned into a cheesy pickup line for frat boys everywhere. Or because he's taken on stand-up comedy in his free time and is apparently failing miserably. Or because he often comes off cocky, confident, and arrogant in strongly opinionated interviews. Or because he uses big words and sarcasm. The point is, none of this has anything to do with musical credibility. Whether or not you chose to believe or judge Mayer on any of the aforementioned points, no one trying to make an intelligent argument should ever use any of these points in trying to justify the idea that John Mayer is a hack on the guitar. The youtube comments are classic, "John Mayer is a douche and sux at teh guitar, Yngwie rulezz!!!11!!1!!!!!!1".... Okay little boy, please remove yourself from the internet now. The fact of the matter is, maybe John Mayer is a douchebag. Well, Clapton snorted a lot of coke, Stevie Ray Vaughan binged his brains out, Hendrix took a lot of acid (and I doubt his girlfriends "made" him), and Buddy Guy got around like nobody's business in his prime; and they're all guitar legends. And maybe you argue that they lived in different time periods where "acceptable" had a different definition. Newsflash: John Frusciante of the Red Hot Chili Peppers has all kinds of personal demons, and he still blazes up and down a guitar neck. Musical artists do not owe us their personal lives. Leave that to people who are famous for being famous like Paris Hilton. Only when aspects of an artist's personal life interfere with their musical career is there conflict. By no means am I using what other guitarists of the past have done to excuse John Mayer's perceived personality flaws. What I'm trying to say is that I don't care what any of them do outside their musical careers.
That's done with... Let's talk music. When you first heard John Mayer he was most likely as poppy as can be. Heartfelt acoustic ballads about lost love and finding yourself, overplay on the radio, the whole nine yard
s. That's great and all, but if you're on the cynical side of the John Mayer War initiated by the Rolling Stone cover article that proclaimed Mayer one of the "New Guitar Gods", then you probably aren't that into pop music. What people often fail to realize is that long before Mayer was writing acoustic pop music, he was rocking out and playing the blues. At a young age Mayer took a liking to the blues, citing influences such as Hendrix, SRV, Buddy Guy, Eric Clapton, B.B. King, the works. Contrary to popular belief, Mayer's first guitar was a Squier Stratocaster. For those that don't know, that's an electric guitar. Mayer went on to become involved in a few bands at young ages, and eventually began his short stint at Berkeley. Only then, Mayer has said, did he pick up an acoustic guitar. Without a band, a musician has no choice but to pick up an acoustic and try to keep creating. What people miss out on among Mayer's early acoustic music is the jazz/blues fusion and complex, funky strumming patterns in some of his lesser known or unreleased songs. Despite appearing often in acoustic form, songs like "Neon" even demonstrate John's vast technical ability on guitar, and this song dates back to Mayer's original CD, Inside Wants Out, which was released in 1999.
What we hear on the radio and on the albums is one thing; singles pushed by record companies for their mass marketing potential. What we see in concert is different ballgame. Record companies own musicians, giving artists less freedom to create on an album than one would think. However, live shows take place on a less restricted playing field. Fast forward to 2002 and you will find that Mayer had already begun to channel bits and pieces of where he was headed musically through his live shows. Consult Mayer's live album/DVD, Any Given Thursday, and yes, you will find "Your Body is a Wonderland". But what you will also find is an astonishingly epic guitar ballad with an uncharacteristic solo for the time period of Mayer's career in 2002. This live gem, "Covered in Rain", never made it onto a studio album, but it provided live audiences with an example of Mayer's potential to become a great guitarist, as did the cover of SRV's "Lenny" in Mayer's intro to "Man on the Side", also from Any Given Thursday. Mayer continued to tease audiences as his career progressed, with his shows' setlists containing less of his early hits, and more of his encores and intros tainted with blues, with covers and influences of Stevie Ray Vaughan and Jimi Hendrix filtered into his performances. And then Mayer went ahead and lost the pop act all together, taking up the side project of the John Mayer Trio in 2005 with Pino Palladino and Steve Jordan, playing only blues-inspired live music. With this project Mayer began getting recognition for some of his more guitar-intensive work. However, my point here is to show that Mayer did not one day wake up and decide to play the blues. Even now with his most credible album Continuum, Mayer is still shunned by those who listen only to album recordings. Mayer shows great restraint on the album recordings in terms of face-melting guitar work-- a restraint that is not shown in the live concert experience.
Now is the part where I stop nut-swinging on John Mayer. So Mayer didn't just pick up the blues like a high schooler does a hot fad. But there's another side to the argument... He's also not a prodigy. I know there are people out there just shouting at the computer screen that they can think of some unknown virtuoso whose guitar skills can wipe the floor with John Mayer. And they may be correct. John Mayer is not a second coming of Jimi Hendrix, but his mainstream status provokes these kinds of comparisons by people who jump on the John Mayer bandwagon, proclaiming him as the best guitarist to ever live. I don't agree and neither would Mayer himself. So why do I value John Mayer as a guitarist? If Mayer is not a hack and not a hero, then what exactly is he doing that benefits anyone? People are mistakenly putting Mayer in the same league as innovators and icons because there is no current equivalent. Musical quality has dropped so much in the mainstream that Mayer may be one of the closest people in the mainstream to bridge the gap between the music of today and the guitar gods of the past. Like I said, Mayer may be the closest in the mainstream.
And that's where his value comes in. Mayer did not take his love for the blues mainstream until he had the star power to do so, because struggling artists cannot set their own agendas. But Mayer's fusion of pop, rock, and blues is having an i
mportant effect. It's not that Mayer is single-handedly saving music, but rather providing a connection between the worlds of blues and guitar gods, and the world of pop music. As if I haven't referred to Jimi Hendrix enough, I must admit that he falls into the realm of my favorite musicians of all time, and I blame much of my musical taste on John Mayer. Once upon a time I was not so musically diverse, and was working on expanding my horizons a bit. I checked out John Mayer and liked a lot of his live acoustic performances. Then I heard a bootleg audio recording of him covering Jimi Hendrix's "Wind Cries Mary", and then later "Wait Until Tomorrow", also originally by Hendrix. Now I must admit that at one point I had never looked much further into Hendrix than the typical "Purple Haze", because I had no influences compelling me to do so. Hearing an artist more relevant to my generation provide a recreation of Hendrix inspired me to dive deeper into Hendrix himself, and other influences of Mayer after hearing his cover of SRV's "Ain't Gonna Give Up on Love". From there I explored their influences. And their influences' influences. I had discovered truly good music. The greats: Hendrix, SRV, Eric Clapton, Buddy Guy, B.B. King, Muddy Waters, Freddie King, Albert King, Robert Cray, et cetera. Mayer provides a link to these genres of music through his live performances to a whole audience that might not have otherwise discovered such music. If John Mayer cannot even directly inspire someone, but rather points them in the direction of inspiring music, then his efforts are worthwhile.
Despite all that's been said, there are those that still say despite John Mayer having some technical ability, that he is a copy cat of those before him whom he cites as influences. At an early stage it was clear that Mayer drew guitar licks heavily from SRV among others. Some say he still "steals licks from Clapton" as he joked in the credits to Continuum. But as any other musical artist does, Mayer has progressed, doing less and less channeling of his influences by means of covers, and more so finding his own style and technique. Although often debated, Mayer's ability on guitar is becoming more distinctly "Mayer" and less susceptible to "SRV clone" comments. Whether or not Mayer is all the way "there" or not, and despite whatever pedestal the term "there" may reflect, John Mayer still has much of his career ahead of him at the age of 30. Love him or hate him, douchebag or guitar god, he's what we've got, and he's not going away.
I think one day he'll be great. Maybe not "changing music forever great", but great.
-Mark
First and foremost, let's talk about the aspects of John Mayer's life that have nothing to do with music. And that's exactly my point. The things I'm about to discuss have nothing to do with music. Anyways... so you might think John Mayer is a "douchebag", a term commonly associated with his name, due to the fact that he posts blogs about his watches. Or because he once smoked pot out of a vaporizer in a Rolling Stone interview. Or because the lyrics to one of his hit songs turned into a cheesy pickup line for frat boys everywhere. Or because he's taken on stand-up comedy in his free time and is apparently failing miserably. Or because he often comes off cocky, confident, and arrogant in strongly opinionated interviews. Or because he uses big words and sarcasm. The point is, none of this has anything to do with musical credibility. Whether or not you chose to believe or judge Mayer on any of the aforementioned points, no one trying to make an intelligent argument should ever use any of these points in trying to justify the idea that John Mayer is a hack on the guitar. The youtube comments are classic, "John Mayer is a douche and sux at teh guitar, Yngwie rulezz!!!11!!1!!!!!!1".... Okay little boy, please remove yourself from the internet now. The fact of the matter is, maybe John Mayer is a douchebag. Well, Clapton snorted a lot of coke, Stevie Ray Vaughan binged his brains out, Hendrix took a lot of acid (and I doubt his girlfriends "made" him), and Buddy Guy got around like nobody's business in his prime; and they're all guitar legends. And maybe you argue that they lived in different time periods where "acceptable" had a different definition. Newsflash: John Frusciante of the Red Hot Chili Peppers has all kinds of personal demons, and he still blazes up and down a guitar neck. Musical artists do not owe us their personal lives. Leave that to people who are famous for being famous like Paris Hilton. Only when aspects of an artist's personal life interfere with their musical career is there conflict. By no means am I using what other guitarists of the past have done to excuse John Mayer's perceived personality flaws. What I'm trying to say is that I don't care what any of them do outside their musical careers.
That's done with... Let's talk music. When you first heard John Mayer he was most likely as poppy as can be. Heartfelt acoustic ballads about lost love and finding yourself, overplay on the radio, the whole nine yard
s. That's great and all, but if you're on the cynical side of the John Mayer War initiated by the Rolling Stone cover article that proclaimed Mayer one of the "New Guitar Gods", then you probably aren't that into pop music. What people often fail to realize is that long before Mayer was writing acoustic pop music, he was rocking out and playing the blues. At a young age Mayer took a liking to the blues, citing influences such as Hendrix, SRV, Buddy Guy, Eric Clapton, B.B. King, the works. Contrary to popular belief, Mayer's first guitar was a Squier Stratocaster. For those that don't know, that's an electric guitar. Mayer went on to become involved in a few bands at young ages, and eventually began his short stint at Berkeley. Only then, Mayer has said, did he pick up an acoustic guitar. Without a band, a musician has no choice but to pick up an acoustic and try to keep creating. What people miss out on among Mayer's early acoustic music is the jazz/blues fusion and complex, funky strumming patterns in some of his lesser known or unreleased songs. Despite appearing often in acoustic form, songs like "Neon" even demonstrate John's vast technical ability on guitar, and this song dates back to Mayer's original CD, Inside Wants Out, which was released in 1999.What we hear on the radio and on the albums is one thing; singles pushed by record companies for their mass marketing potential. What we see in concert is different ballgame. Record companies own musicians, giving artists less freedom to create on an album than one would think. However, live shows take place on a less restricted playing field. Fast forward to 2002 and you will find that Mayer had already begun to channel bits and pieces of where he was headed musically through his live shows. Consult Mayer's live album/DVD, Any Given Thursday, and yes, you will find "Your Body is a Wonderland". But what you will also find is an astonishingly epic guitar ballad with an uncharacteristic solo for the time period of Mayer's career in 2002. This live gem, "Covered in Rain", never made it onto a studio album, but it provided live audiences with an example of Mayer's potential to become a great guitarist, as did the cover of SRV's "Lenny" in Mayer's intro to "Man on the Side", also from Any Given Thursday. Mayer continued to tease audiences as his career progressed, with his shows' setlists containing less of his early hits, and more of his encores and intros tainted with blues, with covers and influences of Stevie Ray Vaughan and Jimi Hendrix filtered into his performances. And then Mayer went ahead and lost the pop act all together, taking up the side project of the John Mayer Trio in 2005 with Pino Palladino and Steve Jordan, playing only blues-inspired live music. With this project Mayer began getting recognition for some of his more guitar-intensive work. However, my point here is to show that Mayer did not one day wake up and decide to play the blues. Even now with his most credible album Continuum, Mayer is still shunned by those who listen only to album recordings. Mayer shows great restraint on the album recordings in terms of face-melting guitar work-- a restraint that is not shown in the live concert experience.
Now is the part where I stop nut-swinging on John Mayer. So Mayer didn't just pick up the blues like a high schooler does a hot fad. But there's another side to the argument... He's also not a prodigy. I know there are people out there just shouting at the computer screen that they can think of some unknown virtuoso whose guitar skills can wipe the floor with John Mayer. And they may be correct. John Mayer is not a second coming of Jimi Hendrix, but his mainstream status provokes these kinds of comparisons by people who jump on the John Mayer bandwagon, proclaiming him as the best guitarist to ever live. I don't agree and neither would Mayer himself. So why do I value John Mayer as a guitarist? If Mayer is not a hack and not a hero, then what exactly is he doing that benefits anyone? People are mistakenly putting Mayer in the same league as innovators and icons because there is no current equivalent. Musical quality has dropped so much in the mainstream that Mayer may be one of the closest people in the mainstream to bridge the gap between the music of today and the guitar gods of the past. Like I said, Mayer may be the closest in the mainstream.
And that's where his value comes in. Mayer did not take his love for the blues mainstream until he had the star power to do so, because struggling artists cannot set their own agendas. But Mayer's fusion of pop, rock, and blues is having an i
mportant effect. It's not that Mayer is single-handedly saving music, but rather providing a connection between the worlds of blues and guitar gods, and the world of pop music. As if I haven't referred to Jimi Hendrix enough, I must admit that he falls into the realm of my favorite musicians of all time, and I blame much of my musical taste on John Mayer. Once upon a time I was not so musically diverse, and was working on expanding my horizons a bit. I checked out John Mayer and liked a lot of his live acoustic performances. Then I heard a bootleg audio recording of him covering Jimi Hendrix's "Wind Cries Mary", and then later "Wait Until Tomorrow", also originally by Hendrix. Now I must admit that at one point I had never looked much further into Hendrix than the typical "Purple Haze", because I had no influences compelling me to do so. Hearing an artist more relevant to my generation provide a recreation of Hendrix inspired me to dive deeper into Hendrix himself, and other influences of Mayer after hearing his cover of SRV's "Ain't Gonna Give Up on Love". From there I explored their influences. And their influences' influences. I had discovered truly good music. The greats: Hendrix, SRV, Eric Clapton, Buddy Guy, B.B. King, Muddy Waters, Freddie King, Albert King, Robert Cray, et cetera. Mayer provides a link to these genres of music through his live performances to a whole audience that might not have otherwise discovered such music. If John Mayer cannot even directly inspire someone, but rather points them in the direction of inspiring music, then his efforts are worthwhile.Despite all that's been said, there are those that still say despite John Mayer having some technical ability, that he is a copy cat of those before him whom he cites as influences. At an early stage it was clear that Mayer drew guitar licks heavily from SRV among others. Some say he still "steals licks from Clapton" as he joked in the credits to Continuum. But as any other musical artist does, Mayer has progressed, doing less and less channeling of his influences by means of covers, and more so finding his own style and technique. Although often debated, Mayer's ability on guitar is becoming more distinctly "Mayer" and less susceptible to "SRV clone" comments. Whether or not Mayer is all the way "there" or not, and despite whatever pedestal the term "there" may reflect, John Mayer still has much of his career ahead of him at the age of 30. Love him or hate him, douchebag or guitar god, he's what we've got, and he's not going away.
I think one day he'll be great. Maybe not "changing music forever great", but great.
-Mark
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Got My Mojo Workin'
Ahh the vintage guitar phenomenon...
Why is it that most guitarists and collectors these days are lusting for high dollar guitars that look like their histories might include previous action as scratching posts for lions? Or maybe some might contain some leftover shrapnel embedded deep inside the guitar body as a result of a mine explosi
on somewhere deep in Vietnam in the late 60's. Especially with Stratocasters, the boys over at the Fender Custom Shop are reeling in the bucks by simulating years of use and abuse by means of a very meticulous manufacturing process, creating wear on their "relic" models down to a tee, specifically where it would have occurred naturally: along the contours and edges due to arm rubbing and dropping, above the pickguard due to overeager strumming, and along the back of the body due to belt rash. Sometimes relic models even go so far as to replicate cigarette burns earned in late night drunken club gigs.So why would anyone ever pay extra for these models that appear to be not-so-gently used but come with price tags that might otherwise indicate a finish of solid gold? I'm going to answer this question trying to sound as little as possible like an elderly, overweight blues guitarist with a cigarette and whiskey in hand...... but the answer is it's all in the mojo! That's right, I just said mojo. You might ask yourself what exactly that is, and if an exact answer is what you're looking for, stop. It's just a certain charm a guitar gets to it, usually acquired after being nicely broken in, becoming a smooth playing work of art with resonance to die for. Some might say it's when you don't make the guitar speak, but rather it speaks to you. Regardless a guitar without mojo is equivalent to a preacher without a soul. Now, as to whether or not this sought effect can be had by means of a manufacturing process, that is to be debated. I prefer to buy a guitar that suits me and let it gain its own battle scars as I play the bloody hell out of it, but who knows, maybe my opinion would change if I could afford these holy grails of storytelling guitars instant-made in an assembly line.
Correct, some fanboys with too much pocket change pick up relic models for the come-see-how-good-I-am-my-guitar-has-no-paint-because-I've-been-playing-so-long effect. But some aspects of the relicing phenomenon have their technical benefits as well. Sanding the back of the neck isn't always to make it look like you've been playing so long that the finish has worn off. A sanded neck is more quickly and easily maneuverable than one with a heap of gloss finish. And rolling the fretboard edges makes playing much more comfortable than waiting for them to smooth over with time. Nitrocellulose finishes also resonate and age much better than standard polyurethane finishes.
However, the vintage obsession expands as we even treasure our iconic guitar slingers and their prized pieces enough to replicate their wear and tear. Many guitar gods have absolutely be
aten their favorite strats over the years, showing traces of the past, carrying on a little legacy from every famous show the artist has ever played. Just look at artists like Stevie Ray Vaughan and his prized "Number One" strat which he has been quoted as saying he holds closer in life than his wife. And then there are others such as Eric Clapton and his "Blackie", or Eddie Van Halen and his "Frankenstein" strat. These stars' legendary guitars were sent into limited edition replica production runs, fetching prices up to or over $25,000 a pop. Worth it? Maybe to some lifetime fans and collectors. Except to me, manufactured mojo makes little sense, and paying extra for a replica of someone else's self-created mojo makes even less. I feel I should add that I once had the opportunity to personally touch an EVH Frankenstein replica guitar (price tag: $25,000), and the electronics jiggled around in the body. Now, not to piss in the cheerios of any EVH strat owners, but there is a point at which aesthetics overtake functionality, and I think this breaks it. I don't understand the concept, but maybe I would if I had $25,000 to spend on a guitar that is best suited as a wall ornament because it's a little too beaten up.The vintage craze is an unstoppable American obsession. It's not just guitars; look at those cool distressed jeans with the frayed cloth and tiny rips that you might have paid a little more for at Abercrombie. Or that brand new Mustang you might have bought, designed after the ones from the 60's. And people have paid top dollar for antique furniture for decades. It's not just taking place in the world of guitars, and by no means am I knocking the Fender Custom Shop for doing what they do-- they do it well, and the work is nice to look at. And by no means am I knocking anyone with a relic strat-- I'm sure it's got all the mojo in the world. Okay, so maybe I'm knocking a few people who might have bought the Eddie Van Halen strat for 25 grand, but I couldn't write something about relic guitars without knocking someone.
Anyways, I've said my part, and maybe I'll post pictures of my guitar a few years down the road when it has lost its paint as a result of sitting atop Mount Everest after a short stint at the bottom of the Atlantic. And maybe I'll try to be less of a cynical brat next time I post. The first two are setting a trend....
-Mark
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
The Evolution of Modern Music...
.... and the devolution of talent?
The surf music of the 1950's once faded out as the iconic changes of the 60's took place, bringing into the public eye many young, talented guitar-slingers and songwriters; there was Hendrix, Clapton, The Beatles, Zepplin, The Grateful Dead, and that's just one genre. People embraced the music. Popular music was a self-evident genre: music which was popular at the time-- as opposed to its modern definition, which if defined by example would make one cringe at the nasal, almost prepubescent voices nearly shouting over generic, highly produced backing tracks composed by studio musicians. There was once a time where rock music and pop music could be defined by either term without sacrificing its integrity by falling under the latter.
Unfortunately that time has passed. Today-- let's face it-- the vast majority of pop and rock music quite frankly sucks. We've gone from the poetic perfection of Jimi Hendrix's "The Wind Cries Mary" to the staggering genius of Blink 182's lyrics in "Blow Job". It's all quite disappointing really. Don't be mistaken, the rock star attitude and concept of live band music have not nearly disappeared (though they may have come close in the Nsync/Britney era). These rock star essentials are still very much present. Unfortunately more often than not, it's the talent-- the X factor that is missing. Bands take their nice Gibsons and Marshall stacks, crank the volume, and belt out the loudest, power-chord ridden, bitter lyric bound excuse of a song, accompanied by screaming voices and light shows designed to produce a widespread distribution of seizures as a weapon of mass destruction, all concluded by a violent "sacrificial" display of aggression in the destroying of anything on stage that is of monetary value. Catchy? Maybe. A dime a dozen act? Absolutely.
Don't get me wrong, people probably thought the same thing about Hendrix and The Who when he lit his guitar on fire and they smashed their instruments respectively at the 1967 Monterey Pop Festival in front of a mixed crowd of innocent hippie girls and acid-crazed junkies. The difference is, I can't picture anyone remembering the majority of today's musical artists in the way that musical icons of the past have been. Something is obviously missing from modern music, and it will take a musical revolution to fix it.
Musical devolution is often associated with the hip-hop/rap genre, and I doubt the direct correlation. Since its creation rap has experienced its own high points and downfalls. There were the originators, the innovators, the men with messages. And then someone discovered the profitable machine that is known as most modern rap, where record companies find a decent looking face, throw him a catchy name that hints at a vague trace of street cred, and pump out a new, overproduced song with accompanying dance illustrated by a cheesy, yet expensive music video. These songs linger around in the dance clubs for a few months at a time, with song after song sharing a beat vaguely separated from the previous, and people eat the music up. Sorry to all the club goers (I don't go to clubs expecting to find lyrical genius either), but at the same time it is this kind of music that gives modern hip-hop such a negative view. Songs about supersoaking hoes and two-stepping (a Soulja Boy reference for those of you who haven't stepped foot onto a college campus lately) just don't hold much water. Once again, the rap/hip-hop genre is still cranking out its fair share of talent. But these artists are overshadowed by more profitable music like the artist aforementioned, similar to how young prodigies in the blues and rock world are overshadowed by large, profitable names.
The infectious disease that is the slow-burning destruction of music is not confined to any specific genre. Jazz and blues are weening away, rock is an excuse for what it used to be, and rap is becoming an excuse for music in general. Those who come close to the ranks of the past's greatness by means of channeling their influences are shunned as replications of dead or dying icons. But if you're going to do something totally original, make it worth listening; otherwise I'll stick to the so-called copycats who come close to hitting the spot that those so long ago once did. So this is the part where I beg more artists to bring us listeners music we can listen to and come away with something. I know from experience that being an artist is not easy; I'm basically asking you to throw out a piece of your soul so I can devour it with my ears to cure my exponentially expanding thirst for something great. Someone bring us a little closer to the evolutionary side of things in music. Otherwise we'll be single-cell organisms before we know it.
-----------rant over.
-Mark
The surf music of the 1950's once faded out as the iconic changes of the 60's took place, bringing into the public eye many young, talented guitar-slingers and songwriters; there was Hendrix, Clapton, The Beatles, Zepplin, The Grateful Dead, and that's just one genre. People embraced the music. Popular music was a self-evident genre: music which was popular at the time-- as opposed to its modern definition, which if defined by example would make one cringe at the nasal, almost prepubescent voices nearly shouting over generic, highly produced backing tracks composed by studio musicians. There was once a time where rock music and pop music could be defined by either term without sacrificing its integrity by falling under the latter.
Unfortunately that time has passed. Today-- let's face it-- the vast majority of pop and rock music quite frankly sucks. We've gone from the poetic perfection of Jimi Hendrix's "The Wind Cries Mary" to the staggering genius of Blink 182's lyrics in "Blow Job". It's all quite disappointing really. Don't be mistaken, the rock star attitude and concept of live band music have not nearly disappeared (though they may have come close in the Nsync/Britney era). These rock star essentials are still very much present. Unfortunately more often than not, it's the talent-- the X factor that is missing. Bands take their nice Gibsons and Marshall stacks, crank the volume, and belt out the loudest, power-chord ridden, bitter lyric bound excuse of a song, accompanied by screaming voices and light shows designed to produce a widespread distribution of seizures as a weapon of mass destruction, all concluded by a violent "sacrificial" display of aggression in the destroying of anything on stage that is of monetary value. Catchy? Maybe. A dime a dozen act? Absolutely.
Don't get me wrong, people probably thought the same thing about Hendrix and The Who when he lit his guitar on fire and they smashed their instruments respectively at the 1967 Monterey Pop Festival in front of a mixed crowd of innocent hippie girls and acid-crazed junkies. The difference is, I can't picture anyone remembering the majority of today's musical artists in the way that musical icons of the past have been. Something is obviously missing from modern music, and it will take a musical revolution to fix it.
Musical devolution is often associated with the hip-hop/rap genre, and I doubt the direct correlation. Since its creation rap has experienced its own high points and downfalls. There were the originators, the innovators, the men with messages. And then someone discovered the profitable machine that is known as most modern rap, where record companies find a decent looking face, throw him a catchy name that hints at a vague trace of street cred, and pump out a new, overproduced song with accompanying dance illustrated by a cheesy, yet expensive music video. These songs linger around in the dance clubs for a few months at a time, with song after song sharing a beat vaguely separated from the previous, and people eat the music up. Sorry to all the club goers (I don't go to clubs expecting to find lyrical genius either), but at the same time it is this kind of music that gives modern hip-hop such a negative view. Songs about supersoaking hoes and two-stepping (a Soulja Boy reference for those of you who haven't stepped foot onto a college campus lately) just don't hold much water. Once again, the rap/hip-hop genre is still cranking out its fair share of talent. But these artists are overshadowed by more profitable music like the artist aforementioned, similar to how young prodigies in the blues and rock world are overshadowed by large, profitable names.
The infectious disease that is the slow-burning destruction of music is not confined to any specific genre. Jazz and blues are weening away, rock is an excuse for what it used to be, and rap is becoming an excuse for music in general. Those who come close to the ranks of the past's greatness by means of channeling their influences are shunned as replications of dead or dying icons. But if you're going to do something totally original, make it worth listening; otherwise I'll stick to the so-called copycats who come close to hitting the spot that those so long ago once did. So this is the part where I beg more artists to bring us listeners music we can listen to and come away with something. I know from experience that being an artist is not easy; I'm basically asking you to throw out a piece of your soul so I can devour it with my ears to cure my exponentially expanding thirst for something great. Someone bring us a little closer to the evolutionary side of things in music. Otherwise we'll be single-cell organisms before we know it.
-----------rant over.
-Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)