Friday, October 29, 2004
I notice the AMC Empire 25 here in New York is showing a movie called In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Deed. Here is a description:
In the Face of Evil: Reagan’s War in Word and Deed' is a man and nation’s
journey through the heart of darkness—and what that journey means for us today.
This film is not a biography of Ronald Reagan, but a hard-hitting look at
leadership and moral courage. Based on Peter Schweizer’s acclaimed bestseller,
Reagan’s War, the new feature-length documentary film, 'In the Face of Evil,'
chronicles the brutal conflict between totalitarianism and freedom as seen
through Ronald Reagan’s forty-year confrontation with Communism.
This strikes me as kind of weird, but maybe it shouldn't.
posted by Mike B. at 1:22 PM
0 comments
Loose thoughts:
- Well, looks like maybe I won't need to write that book after all. Steven Johnson, who wrote Emergence, descibes his new book, Everything Bad Is Good For You: Why Today's Pop Culture Is Making Our Kids Smarter thusly:
Everything Bad is a pure work of persuasion, an old-fashioned
polemic...It's just me trying to marshal all the evidence I can to persuade the
reader of a single long-term trend: that popular culture on average has been
steadily growing more complex and cognitively challenging over the past thirty
years. The dumbing-down, instant gratification society assumption has it
completely wrong. Popular entertainment is making us smarter and more engaged, not catering to our base instincts.
Of course, then again, maybe this'll provide some actual, uh, evidence for the thing I'm trying to argue. Science is good:
The critical method I've concocted for making the argument is one of my favorite
things about the book -- it draws a little on narratology, a little on brain
science, a little economics and media criticism, a dash of social network
theory. But it tries to yoke all those disciplines together in a consistent and
unified way.
I like Steven's stuff a lot; Emergence was very good, and I learned about that via the good ol' days of Plastic. So I'm very much looking forward to this. [via bb]
- The results of Popjustice's make-your-own-Britney-album-cover contest are kind of horrifying.
- Clifford Pub is the site for the various compilations done by members of the Severed Heads list. I've got a song on the Mangled compilation, track 13, Lew et al - Mine Sweet Child (pts 1 + 2), which you may or may not be interested in hearing. It's a ukelele, samples and analogue electronics-based cover of a Guns 'n' Roses tune. Bit of a trifle. But poke around on there, all that stuff is choice.
posted by Mike B. at 11:12 AM
0 comments
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Maybe this is a bad idea, but since I've been downloading so much Pulp lately (b-sides, mainly), might as well offer a few good covers I've found.
Nick Cave - Disco 2000 A sort of loungey version, in a loose way. Not very disco. But that's OK. I guess less "loungey" and more "Nick Cavey."
Franz Ferdinand - Mis-Shapes Acoustic rave-up thingy. Funny because Alex's voice can't actually hit the high notes in the chorus. That'll teach you to do it an octave up, mate. And then there's a nice melodica/organ/harmonica/something or other bit at the end.
posted by Mike B. at 11:42 AM
0 comments
A few little things:
- I seriously need to update the ol' links bar. What's prompting it at the moment (it's honestly been prompting me for a while--I mean, Chee-rist, I don't have Douglas or Matos or Laces or Alex Ross or a whole lot of others on there) is this, which is new, and this, which is returned from hiatus. I'm glad Paul's with me on Rilo Kiley, but uh-oh, if he didn't like the brief Bloc Party rip, he's gonna be very unhappy at the review...(which should be out next week). [I am reminded of these two things by him.]
- With blogger/blogspot being down yesterday, and with the combination of increased free time and seriously decreased productivity I was experiencing the day before, I did a lot of poking around on ILM and Dissensus. And lord but I was bored. Am I just missing something?
- You should read the Voice article on Gilmore Girls written by Joy Press. Quo Vadimus has the link. You should download both songs here, especially the Ce'cile. You should pay Flyboy a visit if you haven't lately. You should give all the unemployed bloggers a job if you can.
- I kind of want to do this, but given my schedule next month, I probably shouldn't. Then again, as someone points out on the ILM thread, you can record a solo album really quickly, much more quickly than you can write an album. I guess I did record an album in 3 hours once. So maybe I will anyway if I have a free weekend. Which I won't. I will have some downtime this month and next, though, during which I plan on finishing the BB analysis, and possibly writing a book of criticism. Riiiiight.
posted by Mike B. at 10:55 AM
0 comments
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
And then, in the midst of all this thinking about politics and music, I did an interview with a local magazine today in which I was asked about, er, politics in music. I thought it might be interesting to relate my reply. It's below.
Q: The cover of your first EP was actually a picture of a thrift shop; also, your name implies some kind of interest in "left wing" values. Music seems to have lost most of its political impact and interest in the last few decades. Do you think it’s time for activism again?
A: I've been thinking a lot about this lately. There is actually a good bit of activism going on in music right now (aside from what was always there in hardcore, underground hip-hop, etc.), and, quite frankly, it's crap. The protest songs are just horrible, the tours are embarassingly lame, and the actual political speech is like self-parody. The problem with musicians being activists is that, by and large, musicians are morons. Or, at least (or additionally), morons when it comes to thinking in any sort of political way. I mean, economic issues drive politics, but do you really want to talk economic policy with someone whose career choice was probably made on the basis of the availability of free drugs and/or sex? (Or, even worse, a mild obsession with the Smiths or Tortoise or someone.) When going to work involves arriving at a club at 5 pm and ordering a beer, you're just not going to have a whole lot of credibility talking about the kind of populist issues musicians have been trying to address lately, not anymore. And lord, the irony of people who bitch about disposable pop stars embracing music that's going to be irrelevant in two weeks, don't get me started...uh, anyway, what I'm trying to say, I guess, is that musicians should tell people who to vote for, and then shut up, at least when it comes to taking policy positions. Now, as for politics (not activism), I think music is an expression of politics at a level most people aren't willing to dig for, but let's not get into that, or this answer will be even more needlessly long.
Anyway, as for the name, yeah, it's a bit lefty, but hey, we are musicians after all. I don't want it to come off like some dumbass anti-corporate thing though--I really am interested in the idea of musical production as this mechanical process, as this corporate thing, in a positive way. But.
ADDENDUM: Article in Flagpole asking local Athens musicians about politics in music, for comparison.
posted by Mike B. at 5:21 PM
0 comments
I wanted to follow up a bit on what Hillary and I were discussing below. What Brooks goes on and on (and ON) about amounts to a grafting of a very superficial understanding of the party system onto a macro vision of the culture, particularly middle-class culture. The result, which is a very circular one as we've all no doubt noticed by now, is that he sees both a huge cultural divide and a huge ideological divide that map directly onto one another. The problem is that this is MAYBE true for some white city dwellers, college students, and the most sheltered of evangelicals. It is not, ironically enough, true for the stereotypical middle-class person in a suburb. Brooks' argument is, of course, easy to dismantle; I understand Thomas Frank devoted a decent bit of his new book to doing just this.[1] He's become mildly insane, or at least obsessional, unable to see anything outside of this frame, and it's just horrendously self-justifying.
What I'm trying to say is, I think, considerably different. (I hope.) I have the polar opposite of Brooks' Big View: that people really are a lot closer, both culturally and politically, than we do (or want to--or, I guess, or pundits want to) admit. This is a dead horse I've been beating for, oh, 5 or 6 years now, I reckon, but I strongly disagree with the idea that there's No American Culture (Anymore).[2]
But I'm not really interested in mapping that onto politics disputes. I think what I was trying to say is that our political conversations are now largely cultural ones, in form more than in content, although contenty too. We don't really seem to talk about policy much anymore--and that's fine, I'm not bemoaning that necessarily. But it does seem like we talk about politics like we talk about pop culture now; conservatives take the same tone toward abortion that they did toward heavy metal or comic books, and liberals' opposition to the war or civil liberties abuses usually seems less couched in practicalities and more in an appeal to some sort of aesthetic ideal. In other words, it's not really arguing or debating, it's more just grandstanding. We're taking the most trivial aspects of our discourse about popular culture and making them into the basis of our civic dialogue. I'm all for salaciously gossiping about Britney's antics, or speculating on the way the new Usher single will impact his career, because, you know, art doesn't matter. But politics does, and when we're instead salaciously gossiping about Tom DeLay's antics, or speculating on the way the new Kerry ad will impact his career, I start to get worried.
But in contrast to what I think would be the normal approach, I don't think the way out lies along the path of avoiding cultural-type dialogue. I think the non-policy-based, non-ideological parts of our cultural dialogue, including aspects of cultural production itself, are far more political than the overt statements, and I think it's precisely those non-ideological ways of communicating that suggest a model for non-ideological (but, note, not non- political) civic discourse. I think that Eminem's "Stan" suggests a far more useful political model than Crossfire does.
I don't know if that actually clarifies anything, as I recognize a lot of this is hand-wavey, but this is merely because I've been considering this sort of question a lot lately in preparation for a possible large-scale project. Hopefully I'm conveying the gist, though.
[1] Which I'd love to read, as Frank's take on cultural criticism is always interesting and mainly correct, although his diagnosis of the Democrats' midwest problem was painfully ignorant, at least as he expressed it in the Salon interview, something I've wanted to break down for a while now. Ah well, maybe later.
[2] I don't know if I'll actually need to acronymize this or not, but hey, let's go ahead: NAC(A).
posted by Mike B. at 4:36 PM
0 comments
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Whoa. Meta-Timbaland. I feel like there's a great post to be made about this, but damn if I know what it is. It's interesting, though, the reductive, almost American Idol-ish version of the producer-hooking-up process the song's narrative portrays, with the singer hearing a Tim track, liking it, going to LA, asking Tim for a track, going into the studio where the whole group is gathered doing their various things, and getting it. Right, cause that's how it happens. It's an interesting, and maybe really effective, twist on the wish-fulfillment songs of pop acts past; in a way, it's not that different from a Backstreet Boys song about how the widely-lusted-after idols could just spy you and then you could spend the rest of your lives together. Oh sure, Tim seems highly sought-after and in-demand and, um, expensive to hire, but if you just ask, you can hang with Bubba and get a Tim track of your very own. It's willfully ignorant of biz realities but kind of charming for just that very reason. I can't quite tell how much it's winking, and I like that. I also like the way Tim processes his voice at the beginning of the song.
Oddly enough, I'm listening to this back-to-back with Pulp's " The Professional," which is actually a meta-Pulp song, so it all works out pretty well. They're both good tracks, too.
ADDENDUM: The part from 1:50-2:02 where Timbaland does vocal imitations of his own past beats is kinda mind-blowing.
posted by Mike B. at 6:11 PM
0 comments
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Went to Coney Island again a few weekends back, this time with our friends A. and K., and A.'s 9-year-old sister, Ar. The first place Ar. wanted to go once we got off the train was the ocean, even before our customary first stop, Nathan's, which was especially amazing when you consider that hot dogs are her second-favorite food (right behind cheeseburgers and ahead of pizza--we discussed this at one point, because it is important). She had never seen the ocean before. It was regrettably a cool day in the city, the first burst of fall, and so we were neither inclined nor allowed to go swimming, but Ar.'s pant legs were rolled up and she waded in tentatively, running away from the waves with a shout as they rolled in. I, still in socks and shoes, skittered back along with her, bending down at the edge to run my fingers through the thin foam. There was almost no one there. The sky was perfectly clear.
We left after a little while and rode the Wonder Wheel. I was in front and Ar., K., and A. were in back. I expressed some terror as the metal cage slid on its rails toward the boardwalk below, as I did the last time, and later, Ar. made fun of me for this (she adamently expressed her non-terror), which was fair enough. We also rode a log flume ride, taken around a water course in a cut-out plastic boat, which terrified my companion and delighted the hell out of me. (No roller coasters please though, thanks.) Then Nathan's, eaten on a bench on the boardwalk. Ar. sat for a while on the metal railing, her feet dangling over, and a few kids of concurrent age ran up to her and took a brief look and continued running. She rejoined us and decided to have some cheese fries after all, which I felt was a good decision.
It was then decided that we were to attend the sideshow, which as it was the last show of the season, we were admitted to for a discounted price. Everyone but me was surprised to discover that the majority of its performers stood a good chance of having attended a liberal arts college at one point. (I'm unclear why this didn't surprise me, but it really didn't.) Me and my companion were actually called up on stage to assist Eek the Geek, most likely not an attendee of a liberal arts college and all the more charming for it, by standing on a board with nails driven through it placed business-end down on his very large and very tatooed stomach, while at the same time he was lying on a similar board. My companion actually fell off, which was sort of funny. He told us to examine his skin afterwards and there were little indentations on the front and I think one puncture on the back. We sat down and he lit a torch on a girl's tongue and gave a speech about bigotry and how in the real world there were no freaks, only people. He closed by encouraging us to vote. Then there was a snake dance, at the mere mention of which K. and Ar. fled the room, but Ar. returned to watch, fascinated.
After a quick stop to get cotton candy for Ar. and cola for me (I was falling asleep, this minutes after seeing a woman put a snake in her mouth--clearly I am overdosing on pop culture here), we went back to the ocean. Ar.'s pant legs were rolled up again and she ventured in again, this time with far less hestitation. My companion and I took off our footwear and rolled up, too, and we ventured farther and farther in, jumping over waves now instead of running from them and laughing as the waves got bigger and started to send drops and sprays onto our clothes. This progressed as it was naturally wont to do until my companion and I had our whole lower halves soaked and Ar., being considerably shorter and even more considerably enthusiastic about the ocean, totally 100% irrevocably soaked, and loving it. Her sister had, of course, suggested she simply strip down to underwear, but Ar. had resisted this, and now, well, now she had made a bathing suit of what she had. My companion ventured back to the beach to dry off and A. and K. stood at the edge of the surf. I stood out in the water with Ar. as she taunted the waves, crouching as they approached and then attempting to jump with them, or against them, depending on her mood, as they crashed. When she faced back towards shore, I would warn her of the approaching wave in an excited voice and jump with her; when she faced away from shore, I stood a few paces behind her, far enough behind so she could forget my presence if she desired, but not so far back that I could not help her should she encounter trouble, wanting desperately for her to fall in love with the salt water and the rocks, or to fall in love, at any rate, more deeply than she already was, to remember it forever and to associate it with her first kiss whenever it might come; wanting, at the same kind, desperately to keep her safe, although this was only the second afternoon we had spent in each other's company, wanting quietly but infinitely that she suffer no harm aside from a mild chill, that she not only be OK but better, that no harm befall her wherever she might go; I am new at this, but it feels like second nature, although I may not actually be very good at it--it feels like second nature, this balancing of allowed pleasure and carefully monitored safety, this silent, breathless observation of total joy coupled with an all-consuming desire to see the joyous one be OK forever and always, to have all good things that she might wish and to wish then for even more, to forget her troubles and to smile like this always, to throw her arms up and embrace the air like it is, well, like it is what it is: the perfect encapsulation of this surf and this beach, the weightly confulence of enjoyment.
We left the ocean after a time, left and tracked up the dirty beach to the beachouse, where Ar. washed off her sandy feet under the foot-washer as K. went and got her a new outfit. She came back with a sweatshirt and a snug-fitting pair of shorts that she told us, somewhat disturbingly, were actually adult-sized, apparently being of the "booty" variety. Out of the water and cold now, Ar.'s face fell into the expression it had taken for most of the day. It might be presumtuous or wrong-headed, but I felt familiar with her, based on that expression and my knowledge of her recent history; it was an expression I felt I myself had worn before, and maybe, sure, would again. Which is OK. But I wanted to sit with her and play Connect-4 and talk about subways and sidewalks. And maybe I will, sometime. She may be coming to stay, as might a new addition, who I will buy a ukelele for, but will take it with me when I'm not there.
Then we went home on the train, but I don't remember this so well; some people slept, no doubt, and some people were hugged, and maps were consulted, and watches were checked, and we all ended up at home, safe and sound and warm and home.
posted by Mike B. at 5:23 AM
0 comments
A BRIEF ODE TO THE BEDROOM
Oh how I love you, home recording. The actual studio is nice, sure--it's great to have someone else there to set everything up, who knows what they're doing, someone to choose the mic and try out things you never would have thought of, someone to mix afterwards, someone to tell you if you're being retarded, or at least to slyly mix out your retarded bits later. That's all great.
But oh, for the comfort and leisure, the freedom and openness, the intimate obsessiveness, of the bedroom, of the one- or two-mic studio, the cozy corner with every instrument you own surrounding you in a semi-circle, obscure and never-documented effects chains, maybe incorporating the stereo or the VCR, chained in current-sapping tangles to power strips and Y-split 1/4" inputs. Oh that sense of possibility, of having everything there to play with, to cut and paste, to process and reverse and mix and copy and remix, to fuck with, to add an extra harmony part or a set of handclaps, to put on more reverb than would conventionally be held to be wise, to EQ out of all rationality, to delay into another channel, to pan wildly, to run percussion through a bass head, vocals through a live-miked PA, guitar through a DJ's FX unit, to pile keyboard line on top of keyboard line, to include, hell, the sound of your own amp turning on and off. Why not? You have the time, the possibility, and the amp, hey, you got that as part of a $20 package at Kay-Bee toys, and it runs on C batteries. It sounds horrible, and that's lovely.
Oh, of course it's great to sound professional, to sound like you're supposed to, especially when you sound kind of weird already. But it's also true that we judge things based on production, and new sounds come from these new production techniques, which you usually only figure out by fucking around with things yourself; that, after all, one of the most common bits of advice to people who want to be engineers or producers is just to get a four-track and to fuck around with it, to figure out what works for you. For me, that might be (in the case of the current album), something with no amp sounds on it whatsoever, where there's actually a note at one point that says "should sound more Matrix-y." Or an album where there are no drums aside from the occasional percusssion instrument. Or an album made only with acoustic instruments. Or an album made only with a sequencer. I understand why Merritt (who I'm listening to now) does it this way, still, does it in a home studio--the freedom there, the freedom to spend hours fucking around with equipment to get a neat sound, and then to record that sound directly as you've captured it, without incurring any additional charges beyond what you've already paid for the equipment, is wonderful, to have everything just there, while you're watching TV or reading, in case you get an idea, in case there's something you want to try out.
That lovely openness, that sublime sense of possibility--to look upon this table of cheap, used, partially-broken instruments and equipment you've got, and to know that you can do things with them, to know that you know how they work, you know how to make them make the best sounds, and how to make them make the worst sounds, how to make them sing or howl or whatever you want, and if you don't know yet, you will soon. (I'm looking at you, push-button accordion.) To know that it all makes sense, that it isn't a mystery, that they're just tools, just weapons, just instruments. To know that you might one day convince others to let you surround their voice and their songs with your sounds, or to sing your songs with their sentiments and their ideas. It is a lovely thing, to see all this here, simply sitting, waiting to be unleashed, and then to listen to what you've already done, and like it--a rare thing, to be true.
posted by Mike B. at 2:39 AM
0 comments
|
|