The Rock and Roll Report

Reunion a go go

2007 is turning out to be one weird year in rock and roll. We have the Police back together and touring, David Lee Roth back with Van Halen and touring (or not?). There are rumblings that Page, Plant and Jones are planning a trip to a concert stage near you, 2/3 of The Jam are back (no Paul Weller so what's the point?). Plus there is talk that the original version of Guns and Roses are thinking of hitting the road again as well as a newly reunited Cult. To top that all off I noticed that this year's Rock Fest is a veritable trip back to 1976. We have Boston, Deep Purple, Grand Funk Railroad and Chicago joining personal fave The Tragically Hip for a night of what, nostalgia? Bad weed? Trying to figure out why the lead singer looks nowhere near like the guy featured on that huge poster of Boston you used to have hanging in your bedroom in high school?

All these reunions are starting to take there toll on me. Personally I think the Police reunion is a good thing as they never properly exited the scene but Grand Funk Railroad!!! Yikes, pass the Thunderbird and slap on an 8 track before I wake up. I'm all dazed and confused.

Later.

Are Garage Bands being replaced by Garageband?

I love technology and I love how it has enabled so many musicians to create great sounding music and then get it heard through services like MySpace as well as via podcasts and music blogs. I distinctly remember being in a band in the early days of the cassette- based Portastudio "revolution" and I am not quite sure if those early 2 and 4 track cassette recorders enhanced or hindered creativity due to their convoluted inputs and the requirement to "ping pong" recorded tracks. But today, bands have a lot of amazing, relatively inexpensive and easy to use options to help the creative process along and one such program, Apple's Garageband software that comes bundled with all Macs is coming under a bit of criticism.

According to Trading guitars for software: Today's garage bands are more likely to be one person and a computer author Emily Young laments that the days of a bunch of friends getting together in somebody's garage and banging out some rough and ready rock and roll may be over as musicians trade in the family garage or rec room, as well as their buddies on bass and drums for a laptop and some software. Now there is no doubt that the range of backing loops available for something like Garageband opens up the sonic possibilities considerably for a musician but the fear that this will replace performing with other live musicians, I believe is a little off the mark. Rock and roll has always been about playing live and the feedback and interaction you get from both the crowd and your fellow band members. Being a drummer, the buzz that I would get from just making eye contact with the bass player as we locked into a groove could never, ever be replaced by any software. As Janet Meyer argues in her response piece Garageband: Harmful to Musical Creativity? software like Garageband will "continue to be a good tool to enhance creativity" but anybody who locks themselves in their bedroom to create a 64 track rock and roll opus by themselves to be released only online will miss out on why we tend to make music in the first place, that it is a communal act best experienced in the company of friends (in the band) and strangers (in the crowd).

While software and laptops will increase in capacity and quality and more and more musicians will use them to jot down their ideas in a more fully realized form that they might have been unable to do in the past, the fear that we will all revert to our bedrooms to make music is a bit unfounded in my book because it goes against our nature. Even interacting on something like MySpace, as sociable as that is leaves something to be desired as you tend to miss that all important physical interaction that really makes life worth living. We are social animals and while there will always be those of us who will retreat to their lairs and shun all human contact, most of us will realize that the joy of music is best shared with other people. Anything less just demeans the power and impact of the music and its effect on us as people. Just ask Brian Wilson.

Later.

Please, Hall of Fame, Get This One Right on the First Go ‘round

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is about two weeks overdue in producing it list of nominees for induction in 2007, no doubt due in part to a change in the administration and committee members. So, while I wait for the list to come out any minute now and find its way to the media, I’ll take the opportunity to opine here and save my friends the trouble of rolling their eyes with the “Here we go again” comment.

By 1981 I was so sick of hearing REO Speedwagon, if I had to hear “Take It on the Run” one more time I was going to have to do something desperate like throw my oversized radio headphones from a freeway overpass while skating over on my old school roller skates. Top 40 sucked, The Beatles were now playing on the “oldies” stations anything remotely alternative (a word that had not been used to categorize music yet) was classified as “punk”. A new generation was waiting to kick the end of the Baby Boomers off the disco floor and slam dance to the music that would define their generation. America, in between recessions and still recovering from the black eye of the Iranian hostage crisis, needed to have some fun again. In L.A., a band that had formed 3 years earlier, just completed recording an album with a line up of players that was finalized just six months prior; they were Charlotte Caffey, Belinda Carlisle, Gina Schock, Kathy Valentine and Jane Wiedlin. They were of course, the Go Go’s and within one year the album, Beauty and the Beat, would hold the number one spot on the Billboard Charts. The Go Go’s became and are the iconic representation of fun in the 80’s. In fact, they put the F U in fun. They would spearhead a musical and cultural revolution, and light the spark that would ignite the fire in countless little girls to pick up a guitar or drum sticks and rock to their own music in their own words. They smacked an unsuspecting world in the head and finally answered the question “Can an all girl band, writing and performing their own material be commercially successful while maintaining artistic integrity?” The album success and the mania that followed answered that question with resounding affirmation. “Yeah, you bet your ass we got the beat!...and a Multi-Platinum album too” they added while applying a fresh coat of eyeliner.

“…the influence and significance of the artist’s contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll” That’s the chief criterion considered by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame when the nominating committee selects its list of potential inductees. Also, 25 years must have passed since their first record release-which means 2007 is the first year the Go-Go’s are eligible. The global popularity of their music and cultural influence for about a 5 year period in the early 1980’s is indisputable, and had they not imploded so soon into their original effort, their induction would probably be a slam dunk, but as it is my first pair of 501’s lasted longer than their first incarnation. So, what’s left for consideration? Four original albums, one of which was released 17 years after their initial breakup, a few singles and whatever influence and significance they produced. Is it enough to warrant Rock and Roll Hall of Fame status? Of course it is and here’s why:

• During their original run, they released 3 solid albums: Beauty and the Beat (1981), Vacation (1982), and Talk Show (1984)-not a lot in terms of volume, but in terms of lasting influence, these albums produced a handful of tunes which will be forever associated with that period as “Blue Suede Shoes” will be with the 50’s, “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” will be with the 60’s or “Stairway to Heaven” will be with the 70’s. Beauty and the Beat, which reached Billboard’s #1 spot in March of 1982, went Multi-Platinum and delivered “Our Lips are Sealed” and “We Got the Beat”. Is there anybody alive who hasn’t heard these songs? Have you ever heard anyone ask “Who sings that song again?” Vacation, the album climbed as high as # 8 and “Vacation” the single peaked at Top 40. “Head Over Heals” came from the Talk Show album which peaked at #18. Everybody knows this song too, they just don’t know when the handclap comes in. Of course shortly after it’s release, the band officially broke up and probably killed whatever success Talk Show may have still had in it. Seventeen years later God Bless the Go Go’s was released, its most recognizable song “Unforgiven” was co-written with Billy Joe Armstrong of Greenday. Return to the Valley of the Go Go’s, a two-disk anthology released in 1994 contains some of their earliest recordings and documents their evolution from punk to power rockers. Three new songs were recorded for the collection and though they had an updated sound they had classic Go Go elements: foot-tapping tunes, backed by Kathy Valentine’s melodic bass lines and Gina Schock’s time perfect drumming with singable lyrics and just a smidge of darkness. One of these three, “The Whole World’s Lost its Head” reached #21 on Billboard’s Modern Rock Tracks chart (and you didn’t even think they were still recording in 1994.)

• The Go Go’s remain the gold standard for the “girl group” genre, the measuring stick to which all other female bands are compared. Though not the first all female band (props to Daisy Chain, Fanny, The Runaways, etc.) their success and popularity reached a level seldom attained by any band of any gender make up. The success of bands like The Donna’s, The Ette’s, and Go Betty Go and any to come in the future will forever be measured in comparison to the achievements of the Go Go’s, and as of yet, none has even come close. Unlike many of the female bands before them, they were largely responsible for their own look and sound, writing all their own material (with the exception of Donald Storball’s “Cool Jerk” every song on all four original studio albums was written completely or in part by the Go Go’s) and choosing to stick with a more classic guitar/drums/bass sound at a time when many bands were using synthesizers and drum machines. While many female groups have come after them, none has yet realized the recognition or success that the Go Go’s have, because they were and are above all else, not just a “girl band”, but a rock band (or punk, or new wave or whatever label you want to put on it) and their emotion and energy translated from the vinyl to something we felt in our gut.

• They practically invented the sound that would become known as “power pop”. Their punk roots mostly forgotten (but fondly remembered on Valley of the Go Go’s) and with all the energy intact, the style that brought them so much success evolved into its own genre. Hard enough to be popular with the young crowd, mainstream enough to get Top 40 station play, a number of acts to come would find success in this middle ground sound they popularized.

• Other than the music, their most significant contribution was to the overall regard towards women and their role in rock music. They proved women could be more than just a successful vocal group in shimmering evening gowns, or just the songwriting genius behind the music, they could write songs about cars, love, sex, or just silliness that would appeal to both men and women, strap on a Gibson SG and perform those songs to sell-out, crazed audiences and of course they could move records off the shelf. No major records labels were inclined to sign all-female or female fronted bands until the Go Go’s proved it could be done profitably. Not only did the images inspire, but they helped open the door for other female rockers, aware or not of the facility afforded to them by the success of the Go Go’s thanks to the changed attitudes in the industry.

Love them, hate them or indifferent, you can’t ignore the Go Go’s reign, albeit short, on the music world and the lasting influence they would have on creating the next generation of rockers. The images of them clad in bath towels or waterskiing in formation are still instantly recognizable as the covers from their 1st and 2nd albums. (In 2003 VH1 named the cover of Vacation #24 on their list of the 50 Greatest Album Covers) Their music has popped up in movies from Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) to Superstar (1999) Cinderella Story (2004) 13 Going on 30 (2004) and I’m sure I could find more, but I’m too googled out to look them up. 25 years later, major brands like Papa John’s Pizza, Pantene and Priceline wouldn’t be using their music in national advertising campaigns if people didn’t react positively to “We Got the Beat”-or Meat in this case, “Head Over Heals” or “Vacation” all of which ran in the last year. Despite sometimes large gaps between projects, they have continued to tour and record new material over the last 25 years and have a new project in the works, the Pogo's with Disney, but until any new material is released, it’s surely the work they released in the 80’s that will be considered in estimating their influence and significance.

On the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame’s website is a timeline with various off-shoots that highlight a specific genre and significant events. Among the other tabs they could appropriately be filed under is one titled “girl groups”. Of course the early influences and great vocal groups of the sixties are there, but is there any other band, (by “band” I mean people who actually wrote/played their own music) that deserves to be there more than the Go Go’s? While there is a laundry list of people who deserve to be inducted into Hall but haven’t, this would smack of some kind of bias if they weren’t. Now that the 25 year mark has passed, any list that doesn’t include the Go Go’s would be incomplete and leave a gaping hole in the musical history of that period. So please, Rock Hall, don’t discount what their music has accomplished and get this one right on the first go (go) round. My friends will thank you for it.

 

Thanks to Melissa Henry and Besty Cruz for contirbuting and Rick Russell for the current pictures

Summertime

Two recent posts on the RNR Report, one on the return of the summer posting schedule [ah, I do wish I had summers off again] and the mix tapes got me thinking about summer songs. And there are a ton that have the word summer in them [proved by a search on Amazon]... a few off the top being Summer in the City by the Lovin' Spoonful [sorry, still do no think they are RNR Hall of Fame worthy], lots of people doing Summertime from Porgy and Bess, the best rock version being Big Brother and the Holding Company's version on Cheap Thrills, Summer by War [more on that in a minute], Summer Nights from Grease, Sly and the Family Stone's Hot Fun in the Summertime... just to name a few.

Anyway, it put me in the reflective mood thinking about how certain songs get associated with summers, especially your summers as a kid. For example, certain songs remind me of summers spent in the state parks of West Virginia when we lived there: Band on the Run by Paul McCartney and Wings, Miracles by Jefferson Starship and Grand Funk doing The Locomotion. And there's certain songs I associate with summers with my grandparents when I was much younger like Do It Again [remember AM radio?] by Steely Dan, Dead Skunk by Louden Wainwright, Tie A Yellow Ribbon by Tony Orlando and Dawn, Hooked on A Feeling by Blue Suede and a terrible song called Playground in My Mind by Clint Holmes that was an AM hit in Pittsburgh one summer...

There's also been some stinkers that get played every summer like Summertime, Summertime by the Jamies {I think, you know the onewhere they sing 'Summer time, summer time, sum sum summer time' with some thick East Coast acccent} and In The Summertime by Mungo Jerry. Geez what schlock!

Then of course there are the standards for summer like the Beach Boys and Jan and Dean and all those beach and car songs. I submit that a good War 'Best of' collection should be essential summer gear. All those great songs that just seem to be a soundtrack to the 1970s summers: Why Can't We Be Friends, Cisco Kid, Low Rider, Summer, Spill the Wine, All Day Music, City,Country,City... talk about old school jams!

My high school years [1982-1985] are also dotted with classic summer songs like Magic by the Cars, Photograph by Def Leppard, Centerfold [and Love Stinks from the previous summer] by the J Geils Band, Who Can It Be Now by Men at Work, Jessie's Girl by Rick Springfield, Cheap Sunglasses by ZZ Top, Tom Sawyer by Rush, Whitesnake's Slow and Easy, Van Halen's cover of Pretty Woman, Knocking at Your Back Door by Deep Purple ... but those days we were getting into albums. We'd pile into someones car and go running around blasting Van Hal en, Sammy Hagar [pre-Van Hagar: remember Three Lock Box and Standing Hampton?], Led Zeppelin, ZZ, Whitesnake's Slide It In, Don't Say No by Billy Squier, the whole Pyromania record, Rebel Yell. Judas Priest's Defenders of the Faith [Freewheel Burning still gets the old blood pumping!]...

The last summer I remember 'summer music' was the summer of 87: working in a record store and still young enough to not give a hoot. There were a few hot records that year: Faster Pussycat's debut, Whitesnake [the one where Coverdale fired John Sykes and hired Adrian Vandenberg and Viv Campbell and they'd do all the Tawny Kitaen videos], Aerosmith's Permanent Vacation, Metallica's 5.98 EP of covers, Bon Jovi's Slippery When Wet [I still hate it because I heard it so many times], the Cars under-rated Door to Door, Prince's Sign O the Times, GNR's Appetite, REM Document, Def Leppard Hysteria, U2 Joshua Tree, Replacements Pleased to Meet Me, Dwight Yoakum's Hillbilly Deluxe....  what did I do that summer besides drink beer, play sand volleyball and listen to music? Oh, and go to work and listen to more music...

In the years since, sense of summer, other than the hot of Texas, has lost its meaning. There's very few albums I still associate with summer since: the Smithereens Green Thoughts, Los Lobos Colossal Head, Superchunk's Foolish... a few years ago I made a Summer Tape; actually I made all the Four Seasons in honor of Vivaldi's Four Seasons... I just dug it out again to review and there's not bad stuff: the War, Big Brother, Car Jamming by the Clash, Pulling Mussels from a Shell by Squeeze, White Lies by Jason and the Scorchers, Rockaway Beach by the Ramones, Iggy's Lust for Life, Pretenders' Night in My Veins, The Kings great from the summer of 1980 The Beat Goes On/Switching to Glide, Jimmy Buffet's Livingston Saturday Night, AM Radio by Everclear...

Is there still something about summer we can all remember, days when you had absolutely nothing to do and had all day to do it?  Summer days you'd play sandlot ball and hang out and ride bikes and play and play and play and not have a care in the world?

So next time you catch yourself staring into space in your cubicle or you're driving home by some kids playing ball or riding bikes that are out for the summer, just kind of ask yourself how long the tape of your summertime memories would have to be and what songs you'd have to put on there...
   

Rock and Roll Activism

Should rock stars get political? That's the question the BBC's Ollie Stone-Lee asks in When pop stars get political in light of the announcement of Live8. I personally have no problem with rockers using their position to push a political agenda or social goal as long as they (a) know what the hell they are talking about, and (b) they stick with the issue for the long haul.
Later.

I Love You... Now Change?

I was thinking the other day [instead of concentrating on my JOB] about R.E.M. because of the impending [as in doom] release of the Warner Bros. years catalog [remastered, bonus tracks, all the bells and whistles]. And I asked myself, why did I grow to ... loathe this band so? Did I turn away from a band that did some very good/bordering on great work in the 80's  or did they turn away from me? Which led me to a broader question: How is it that we can complain about bands who change and also complain about bands that stay the same?

Let me state up front that this is not to bash R.E.M.; I wouldn't buy one of their new records if they were giving away gold bricks with them, but I can say the same for U2 after the disasters that were Zooropa and Pop. And while I see myself interested in only ONE of the WB catalog, the under rated Monster; maybe Green--- used, and I still believe they should have followed their original plan and broken up with the millennium [or when Bill Berry quit... Buck lost a powerful part of his rock and roll voting block there and Mills and Stipe took advantage of the power vacuum], I can see that some people still did them. I don't get it, but I don't get a lot of things. Who are they making record for these days? Is there some urgent void in music that only they can fill or is it because it's what the DO, the only thing they CAN do??

Staying on R.E.M. for a second: they made those great jangly records in the early 80's that no one was making anymore. Peter Buck and those Rickenbacker's and clean arpeggios ringing out like bells instead of sludging around in power chords like everyone else... it was another breath of fresh air. And that group was frighteningly original, the bass player and drummer only falling together by accident most of the time, not locked into each other like every other band, and Michael Stipe like a big old fog horn in the middle of it all. [Thanks to Musician magazine for the imagery]. They showed a touch of roots in folk, musically and politically] beginning on Reconstruction of the Fables/ Fables of the Reconstruction [Green Grow the Rushes, Wendell Gee], but by the time of their major label debut, Green, featuring the worst pop song in the history of music, Stand, they seemed torn between folk and rock, not really finding a middle ground, and it seemed the album suffered as a result. I was disappointed in their next effort, the decidedly un-pop but very popular Out of Time [well produced, but kitschy], never heard much of Automatic for the People, reveled in the return to rock of Monster, then got lost in the lushness of New Adventures in Hi Fi, bought Up, listened once and sold it back...

The band changed, but so did I. Why was I unable to roll through these changes? What was it about these albums that made me want to retch?  How about the Replacements fan who put on Don't Tell A Soul and said 'What happened to my favorite band?' Neil Young changes styles and  bands like some people change their jeans, and not that I like every one of Neil's records, but  you can never be sure so you have to check them out. David Bowie is also famous for his changes and shifting gears and again, some of it works better than others. Ryan Adams is struggling with who he wants to be. I think part of him wants to be a rich and famous Rock and Roll STAR, and part of him wants to be the guy with the guitar singing sad songs in bars, and the only time he's put them both together in a completely satisfying way was Gold. Unfortunately I can no longer buy his records on the strength of his name. Unfortunately Aerosmith is stuck making their 90's records over and over and now they're something I can't stand the sight of anymore. They updated their sound for Permanent Vacation, a good [not great] record, Pump rocked, they they  [or their record company] decided they have to sound like Bon Jovi and they have ever since, much to the dismay of those who remember and still worship Toys in the Attic and Rocks. U2 also updated their sound with resounding success on Achtung Baby, but then did one okay record and one over the edge record and now I am no longer interested, no matter how much you tell me they sound like Boy or War. Wilco continues to make challenging and interesting albums, refusing to be locked into anyone's box. There may come a day when I say Tweedy too has gone to far though.

On the flip side of the coin, we have bands that don't change: the safe as milk bet. Son Volt made Trace, then Trace 2 and Trace 3... or so it seems. One was a critical hit and a good record, why didn't the other two connect in my mind? The Stones changed way back in '68 and grew into something great, but they've been regurgitating that formula ever since '72 with mixed success... only Some Girls and Tattoo You seem to have had any lasting bite in the last 25 years! AC/DC continues to go in and out of style, but they rarely alter the formula. The Black Crowes regurgitate the Stones, Faces and Zeppelin but I love that...

I guess I just need to know if we're all thinking the same way: we want what sounds different but the same from out favorite bands. We want them to grow but not grow. We want to grow up but not change too much. We want to have it both ways.

The great part of music is that what I like and dislike and what you fellow listeners like and dislike are all matters of opinion. I try to make you a convert to what I like and vice-verse. We argue, we debate, but I think in the end we agree that we will never all agree. And that's the fun part. You make me explore something I haven't heard before and I turn you onto something. The we all gang up on someone else and make him listen to something we both like. And the beat goes on, eh?

Does anybody care anymore?

03/07/05- "BW&BK reports: To tide fans over before a new studio release, Velvet Revolver is planning on unveiling a live album and DVD at some point.

"We record everything," Slash says. "We've done a bunch of shows where we've full-on multi-tracked and we're actually mixing the stuff."

What is going on here? A band has one album and they're ALREADY talking live album? That's insane!

There used to be a real spot in rock and roll for live albums. And live albums used to mean something. But now it seems they're just part of the souvenir packaging available at shows. [Grabbing back, leaning on my cane...] Back in my day all  we got was a lousy T-shirt or tour book.. and we liked it!

There was a period when the live album was used to break an artist, to use the energy that a band would feed off of during the live show to drive them to new heights. Of course, a lot of them seem rooted in that mythical time when rock and roll was going through it's adolescence and not afraid to experiment a little, roughly 1969 - 1976... starting with, oh 1969's Live Dead by the Grateful Dead and ending with Frampton Comes Alive or [maybe] the Stones' Love You Live. Think about some of the great live albums in those years:

Allman Brothers - Live at the Fillmore East
CSNY - Four Way Street
Rory Gallagher - Irish Tour 74
J Geils Band - Full House
Humble Pie - Performance: Rockin' the Fillmore
Kiss - Alive!
Lou Reed - Rock N Roll Animal
Rolling Stones - Get Your Ya Yas Out
Johnny Winter And... Live
Wishbone Ash - Live Dates

After  this golden period, the live album became a 'rite of passage' or a 'contract filler'...think about mediocre live albums like the Stones Still Life, Aerosmith Live Bootleg, J Geils Blow Your Face Out, David Bowie's David Live, Fleetwood Mac Live, The Alice Cooper Show, any number of Grateful Dead double discs that could have been cut back to single albums... sure there were a couple great ones like Cheap Trick at Budokahn and Foghat Live, but they became exceptions.

Now it appears that bands are using the live album as another concert souvenir. I blame the Grateful Dead for this mess, but Pearl Jam releasing all those live shows and the Stones, Pink Floyd and Paul McCartney following each tour with a live album set an ugly and dangerous precedent.

A live album does not give the experience of seeing the band from your chair, trying to see around people or trying not to choke on all the smoke in a bar show and the guitar player taking an extra solo because the singer is yelling at the monitor engineer... but it DOES put a part of that experience onto plastic and freezes it like a photograph as compared to a video. Frampton found this out on his next tour following the live album. I remember reading an article in the 90s where he described the next tour as hell because 'they didn't want new music, they wanted the live album.'

My point is this: in a mass consumer, instant gratification age, where there is a lot of competition for the dollar, this is just bands taking advantage of people wanting to consume product and being obsessed with bands. Instead of saying 'Use your dollars to check out some of the people who influenced us,' I think this is saying [in the words of the Thamesmen a/k/a/ Spinal Tap] 'Gimme Some Money.'  The Stones, Pink Floyd, Paul McCartney, Pearl Jam, etc  need more of your dollars for their old age retirement funds.

In recent years there has also been a huge glut of previously unissued live works by 'Classic Rock' acts, such as the Live at the BBC series, Live at the Fillmore [Jefferson Airplane, Santana, Janis Joplin... you know Bill Graham also recorded AND FILMED a lot, if not all  the acts that played there...] and the King Biscuit Flour Hour series. We've also seen  additional or expanded live releases by the Who [Isle of Wight, and TWO expanded Live at Leeds packages], Jimi Hendrix [always a target for the questionably legal release, hopefullly the family is getting some $ for these releases], the Led Zeppelin live album that for years the band refused to do [saying The Song Remains the Same would be the only live release... how many Benjamins did it take to change Jimmy Page's mind?] and the Doors Hollywood bowl appearance [with a rehersal added too! Which do you think Jim was more sober for?] and The Band's Last Waltz. Again, all these recoding paid for and/or written off years ago. How many of these are truly quality performances?  Is there historical significance to any of these performances? Okay, I'll grant the BBC tend to be very good and the Zep is very good, but I do not have much interest in a lot of this any more; I am looking for something NEW, not rehashing past glories. Is this just the record company's last grab at the Baby Boomer's yearn for nostalgia?

This is the same argument I have against endless repackaging of bands. How many Best of the Doors are there? Aerosmith? The Stones? The Beatles? The Who? Record companies issue these because the material is all ready paid for several times over, it's proven to sell and they usually pay a lower royalty rate on repackaged material. It's a money grab by the record company!

I have nothing against getting a best of to check out a band you know little about, just don't get fooled into buying the same song ten different times. And beware of the live album... once you have it you will forget your real concert experience and only remember what you hear on that piece of plastic.

Hey Rube!

It's with a sadness in my heart I type on the death of the famed journalist Hunter S Thompson.

True I am one of the legions who felt Thompson's writing had been 'going downhill' in recent years. So disappointed in 2003's Kingdom of Fear [I felt it covered a lot of the same ground as Songs of the Doomed; Hunter seemed to be stuck in the Gail Slater-Palmer trial], that I skipped Hey Rube, as just a collection of columns for ESPN Page 2, some of which were entertaining and caused a smile, but nothing that lit the world on fire. Thompson's last great work, for my money, was 1994's Better Than Sex, a good mix of Thompson's political view and humor. Thompson's scattered work since his firing from Rolling Stone in the mid-Seventies never equaled that time again. As America sank into the mellow sounds of the Eagles and Fleetwod Mac and Steely Dan, Thompson faded into a self induced sunset, popping up only occasionally for his short run at the San Francisco Examiner and the ESPN column and an rare special in Rolling Stone. His piece on the death of Richard Nixon may have been his finest work of his last years.

Thompson will always be best known for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and well he should. It is truly a first person masterpiece of exaggeration and braggadocio. It will be the On the Road for a generation. Hells Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga brought Thompson to the attention of mainstream America, not quite realizing that the journalist was about to spike its collective sugar cube the way the San Francisco bands were spiking the cube for rock and roll. Thompson said himself in Fear:

"San Francisco in the middle Sixties was a very special time and place to be a part of. Maybe it meant something. Maybe not, in the long run... but no explanation, no mix of words or music or memories can touch the sense of knowing that you were there and alive in that corner of time and the world. Whatever it meant..."

But in finding his own voice, a voice of the 'Counter-culture' that read Rolling Stone magazine, Thompson became a legend for all the wrong reasons. He became a cartoon, almost literally, inspiring Gary Trudeau's Uncle Duke in the Doonesbury [another voice of the 'Counter-culture'], for which he was never given a cent. [And, in my humble belief, inspiring the bald, chain smoking, drug and booze ingesting, city hating, firearm loving, gonzo political journalist in Garth Ellis' excellent Transmetropolitan comic book.] Thompson became famous for his massive intake of drugs and booze, which no doubt fueled his own madness. I fear that in finding his own voice, Thompson locked himself in his own box. Like Jim Morrison, he had a reputation that had to be lived up to that may have ultimately lead to his demise.

Thompson quipped "I do not advocate the use of dangerous drugs, wild amounts of alcohol and violence and weirdness - but they've always worked for me." Did they finally all take a massive turn on the depleted body and mind of Thompson? In coming days we may know if his mind or body [or both] were found in recent months to be deteriorating from disease or abuse... my guess if this is so, Thompson would not want to be seen as an aging deteriorated shell of himself as Ronald Reagan was for his last decade. Thompson had all ready lived fast, but somehow managed to avoid dying young; perhaps he was leaving a good looking corpse and the memory of him still in his prime.

We may really never know. Like Lester Bangs, HST is now immortal in the literary world. His genius can no longer be called into question. He did inspire a generation to just write what they had to say and not worry about the rules of the English language we were taught in high schools and colleges across America. You can even make up your own word to describe your style, like Gonzo, which is now a term for any writer who seems to break 'established rules,' whatever that means.

We suspected Thompson couldn't live forever, all evidence to the contrary. I loved his writing, I loved his style [or non-style], though I have learned in recent years not to put too much trust into heroes, as they are only mortal men like the rest of us. His sad and shocking decision to pull the plug himself will only be equaled by Papa Hemingway's suicide and the brutal murders of John Lennon and Darrell Abbott just for making music. We really don't know what demons HST was fighting up there in his compound, nor for how long. I suspect though that once the decision was made, it put the man at peace.

So long baby,SALEH, EXCELSIOR and Amen.

Apple's GarageBand 2 Is In The Spotlight

There's a new star in the house and with the 4-track sitting in the corner, dusty and unused, GarageBand has come along and moved straight into the spotlight.

After never getting into using the old 4-track, hoping that there was another way around studio costs and trying to find engineers that 'shared the same vision', GarageBand has made the whole recording process more efficient and has allowed me to be more creative than any time before. One of the best things about using GarageBand is that infamous 'C' word: Control. I'm doing things now that I would never have imagined a few months ago. The thought of using GarageBand was at first intimidating considering I had never 'engineered', however once the software was downloaded, the ease of use was amazing. Everything is right there in front of you. Basic enough for the beginner and yet challenging enough for the experienced engineer to keep their interest.

The freedom to use what seems like limitless tracks is refreshing and with a simple interface like the M-Audio MobilePre USB, plugging in a mic, guitars or midi keyboard is pretty straightforward.

The effects were okay in the beginning with version one, but as someone who likes to play with effects on vocals as well as bass and guitars, after awhile, I was wanting more. And what happened next?

GarageBand 2 was released.

It didn't take long before the software was installed, and after opening up version two, on the surface things didn't look too much different form version one.  For those who might be concerned about losing any previous mixes from the first version, no need to worry.  Everything was still intact after the installation.

The first thing I had to check out were the new effects.  There are some mouth watering additions for the vocals like Epic Diva and Vocal Reflection. The guitar and bass also have some new effects like English Channel, Glam and New Nashville for guitar and Deep Reggae, Seventies and Studio Direct Box for Bass. The loop additions are also a welcome site as is the built in tuner.

GarageBand 1 lacked the ability to record more than one real instrument at a time. With the new version, you can record up to eight real instruments simultaneously!  You can also change the tempo and key of recorded instruments, as well as lock tracks to avoid accidental changes.

As great as GarageBand 2 is, there have been some frustrating moments and glitches along the way, such as some distorting of tracks and even with 1 GB of memory, functioning has slowed down while adding more tracks to a song. But just as in version one, there are ways to optimize the system to prevent sluggishness, that you can find in GarageBand 'help'.  Also, there's a friendly community over at the GarageBand discussion group: http://discussions.info.apple.com/.  Usually if there are problems, you're not the only one having them. Whenever I've gone there for support, I've been able to resolve any issues by searching through the recent discussions, and the one time I did post a question, someone was quick to respond.

At this early stage, I am still getting to know GarageBand 2 and am looking forward to using the other new features like timing and pitch enhancement and the displaying of musical notation.

If you want to hear what we've done using GarageBand 2, go to The Babylon Cowboys website and listen to 'Reflection'. For the direct song link go to: http://www.thebabyloncowboys.com/reflection.mp3.

Jenny May is one half of The Babylon Cowboys. Together with Dave Tommo they are holed up in Oxford, England recording their new album on Garageband 2. Check out their website and blog for regular updates of their progress.

Paul McCartney - Most influential living artist?

While watching Paul McCartney perform during the Super Bowl halftime, it occurred to me that he just possibly may have done more to influence popular culture on a global level than any other living person (emphasis on living).  Whether you adore him as a Beatle, or bitterly dismiss him as a purveyor of silly love songs, it's hard to think of anyone whose artistic accomplishments have had such a wide reaching and enduring impact.  Obviously, there are plenty of innovative artists who have started popular trends, or made groundbreaking contributions that have significantly changed the fields of music, filmmaking, art, literature, and fashion.  However, it could be argued that few, if any, have influenced global culture to the extent that McCartney has.

This isn't to say that McCartney is the best musician or the most brilliant songwriter in the world.  It doesn't matter if you love him, hate him, or couldn't care less about him.  It's merely an objective observation that seems worthy of consideration, and which has the makings of a terrific subject for discussion and debate among the readers of the Rock and Roll Report.  So don't be shy, let's hear your opinions! 

Are Covers a Good Idea?

After reading about Def Leppard's upcoming covers CD (which looks quite interesting actually) the question always comes up when bands cover other material: Why? Why do they do it? In Blowing their covers (registration required) Charles Purcell declares the cover a "crime against culture" and sometimes you would have to agree with him as there have been some truly horrific covers thrust upon us (does anybody remember "Love is all around" by Wet Wet Wet which ironically was also done by R.E.M. to somewhat better effect). But on the other hand, when a band like Rush releases their 8 song EP "Feedback" that consists exclusively of covers of songs that influenced them when they first started out, the intention is to give a loving tribute and a tip of the hat to the great songs that encouraged them to pursue rock and roll in the first place and certainly you can't fault the band for that. Whether the cover version is done well or not is always subject to debate but there can be no doubt that recording a cover version of a song is a two edged sword. It is either a heartfelt tribute to a great song or a crass commercial ploy to trade off on the good name of a classic recording. Whichever way you look at it, it would be best to tread that path with care.
Later.

Ten Years Gone

Here's a conundrum for you to puzzle on: Your band has been together going on nine years. You toured Ohio hundreds of times in a station wagon, caught a break with your third album, sold lots of copies of that and your fourth, sold a respectable bunch with your fifth, though it's a major disappointment, mediocre and the band shows signs of burn out and now you're trying to do an album with one hand and tour and your singer and your lead guitarist are major dope fiends and are at each other's throats every night.... Is it time to break up your band?

Try this one: You're together ten years, you're replaced one guitar player, you're coming off a string of successful albums, (though the last two are critical duds, they sell well), your lead guitarist is sinking into a drugged out haze, and suddenly, without warning, your other guitar player quits.Is this a sign you should break up your band?

John Lennon when asked in 1964 or 65 about how long the Beatles would go on replied, "You want to be big headed and say you'll go on for ten years." (Remember, at that time rock and roll was barley ten years old, depending on what you say the first rock and roll record was...) And the Beatles, when they broke up had been together ten years. Was John Lennon right? Is ten years about the workable limit for a rock and roll band?

Lets look at our examples above: Band one is Aerosmith. Joe Perry left, Jimmy Crespo made one great (criminally under-rated) record with the rhythm section and Tyler, then the Toxic Twins got back together, got sober, then lost their artistic integrity after being back together about five years and they continue to tour and make record, though their original fans continue to wonder why other than for the money and Steven Tyler's ego.

Band two is the Rolling Stones of course. They made an album with a hodgepodge of guitar players (Black and Blue, which is not as bad as you think, not as bad as Goat's Head Soup or It's Only Rock and Roll) then brought in Ronnie Wood, who injected life into the band for exactly ONE record (Some Girls, Tattoo You is a collection of songs from 1974 to 1979) then the band falls apart, comes together and puts out new records every three years and a live records after every tour... Basically they've been skating by on name and reputation since 1978. Balls you say? Need I mention Undercover and Dirty Work? I see you all shuddering at those memories!

Think now about this: Chris Cornell (don't kid yourself, when Chris said it was over, it was over) broke up Soundgarden after eleven years. The Clash and the Jam all said their peace in five years worth of recordings. The Replacements did all that in ten years. Should there be a mandatory rule/ law that bands have to break up or take a mandatory three-year hiatus ten years after the release of their first record? Before you snap to a decision, think about this: How many band produce GREAT work after their ten-year anniversary? How many bands hit their artistic peak after ten years? Think about the careers of storied, legendary bands:

The Who 1964 - ???: Last Great Record - Quadrophenia 1974 [10 yrs]
Elton John  1970 - ???  LGR - Captain Fantastic 1976 [6 yrs]
Queen 1973 - 1996: LGR - The Game 1981 [8 yrs]
Aerosmith 1973 - ?? LGR 1st time around: Rocks [3 yrs] LGR 2nd time around [1984- pres] Pump 1989 [5 yrs]
U2 1981 - ??? LGR - Achtung Baby 1990 [9 yrs]
REM 1980 - ??? LGR - Document 1987 [7 yrs]

Yeah, there are a few souls who continue to do it and do it well, but how many 'okay/ all right' albums litter the wake of Lou Reed, Neil Young and the Kinks? Was it Elton John coming out of the closet or a decline in the quality of his songs that slowed his career after 1977? The history of Rock and Roll is just littered with bands that peak after 5 years, then die slow spiraling painful deaths like the Jefferson Airplane. Point all you like to the longevity of Yes, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, Kiss and the Grateful Dead and I ask again, how many great or even really good or interesting albums came after their ten year anniversary? Face it, after ten years bands get weighted down with self importance (U2) or trying to meet critical expectations (REM) that they lose touch with the fun and spirit that drove them to be rock and rollers in the first place. Tommy Lee was a cool rebel in 1987; now he's a clown. The only thing worse than someone trying to meet critical expectations or puffing themselves up in the mirror are those who can't let it GO (ATTENTION MOTLEY!!!). 'No one's buying our solo rekkids, let's reform and make some scratch and party like it's 1995 again...' I HOPE they have the good sense to KEEP AWAY FROM THE SPANDEX!!! Sadly, just like my parents generation flocks to see Paul McCartney hoping to relive that glory, people my age will dig out those Crue tour shirts and try to party like it is 1985 again and they will grouse and moan for days afterward about how they never USED to get hangovers.

They and we have to occasionally be reminded that rock and roll is a young man's game. Sure the Stones can point to Muddy Waters and John Lee Hooker doing it until they're 70... Those guys weren't playing stadiums in front of football field sized video screens that do not hide the aging process. They weren't jumping around like they had firecrackers in their shorts. They sat and PLAYED. It's one thing to be Joni Mitchell or Van Morrison trying to play music, it's another to be Mick Jagger. Anyone who made records in the 60s and still thinks their music is RELEVANT other than being Classic Rock is kidding themselves. People go to see Bruce, Dylan, Pink Floyd, the Stones, the Allmans, Paulie McC for the LEGEND... They don't go to hear "Here's a song from our new album." As a matter of fact, that goes for the 70s and 80s bands, too. DO YOU HEAR ME ROD STEWART WHO'S TRYING TO RE-INVENT HIMSELF AS THE ENGLISH TONY BENNETT??? Hell, U2 almost followed the Queen path right into the sunset, though I hear this new album is more like War or October than anything else. But they took a long vacation after Pop and asked themselves if they'd gotten too big for their britches and at least took the right road and said 'Yeah we have.' Has REM done anything worth listening to since Bill Berry left the band? (I remember reading a long article in Musician back in 87 about how Berry and Buck were the 'stay a cult band' guys and Stipe and Mills were the 'willing to go for mass appeal' guys. Of course, Michael Stipe was quoted "I understand you can utilize this stuff and make it work for you without becoming a victim of it." Better check again, Mike.)

I will admit bands do come up with good albums late in careers. AC/DC seems to cough one up every five years. And do the artists still have something to say? Probably. But are they going to reach numbers like they did way back when? No way. Did anyone see Stevie Nicks on VH1 trying to explain to Lindsey Buckingham how people who buy CDs now are the 17-35 demographic and how Mac fans won't just drop everything to buy their new album; they have houses and cars and kids to pay for? (Which did not stop them for soaking us for 125 a pop on tour. And Say You Will was just another Lindsey Buckingham solo record he allowed Stevie to add to.. she's relegated to a presence (as opposed to a force or a dynamo)on the record, perhaps explaining the mediocrity of the album. Maybe Lindsey did save his best work for his solo record again.)All I am suggesting is this: after ten-twelve years of working together, yes, you have a good feel for each other and where the other guy is going to be at any time... but most of the time, that leads to stale recordings and ego clashes. Even John Lennon knew that the end of the Beatles had come (though he was talked into Abbey Road, "something slick to preserve the myth."). Too many bands try to hold on after their time or keep pushing forward when what they really need is a good two-year BREAK from each other. I'm not saying kill ALL of the dinosaurs, but be realistic about your expectations.

By Chaz Galupi

2004: The Year of the Nipple

If I were to name the year like the Chinese, I suppose you could refer to 2004 as the Year of the Nipple. What a weird year it's been. With this surreal debate about decency and morality on the airwaves in the midst of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Sudan and elsewhere, everything seemed to take on an air of unreality as we grappled with the implications of both terrorism and a nipple at the Superbowl. But luckily, as always, the music never stopped and 2004 was a great year for rock and roll. More bands and more record labels gave plenty to choose from if you were adventurous and based on the feedback I have received, plenty of you still are.
In December 2003, I had been writing The Rock and Roll Report for six months. Originally this site was a vehicle for me and me alone but as time went on I have been lucky to welcome more people on board and 2005 looks to feature even more authors than ever before, all passionate about rock and roll and all with fun and interesting viewpoints to share. Not only will there be more authors but the plan is for more record reviews, more record label and radio show spotlights but most of all, more bands. Over this year I have come across some incredible unsigned and indie rock and roll talent that deserves to be heard. As we kick off 2005, expect more features on more rock and roll artists that you may never have heard of but deserve their slice of the rock and roll pie. It is these artists that keep rock and roll alive and I hope to spotlight as many of them as possible for your reading and downloading pleasure. In addition, The Rock and Roll Report, not content to play just in the blogging sand box will also attempt that other buzz word of 2004: podcasting. That's right, I am currently organizing the techical aspects of putting together a 10 minute podcast as an audio companion to The Rock and Roll Report highlighting some of the cool things covered over the previous week as well as featuring some of the music you may not have had a chance to listen to yet. Should be an interesting experiment.
Once again I urge you all to support your local independent record store, stores run by people who are passionate about music. The same for the myriad of indie record labels, radio shows, fanzines, websites and blogs that are put together with untold hours of sweat and a love of music. Support them with your mouse clicks and your dollars and together we can continue to foster and grow an amazingly diverse and sonically wonderful rock and roll ecosystem that will shelter us from the Clear Channel infested radio waters and American Idol marketing machines that continue to prey on the unsuspecting. Go out to shows, start your own band, get a blog or podcast going, just do something to contribute to this wonderful sonic machine. If you are interested in joining up with us here at The Rock and Roll Report drop me a line and I will get you involved in whatever capacity you choose.
While 2004 was a great year, I continue to mourn the passing of Greg Shaw, John Peel and Alex Soria, people who embraced music as a vital part of their being and who understood both its power and capacity to inspire. They will all be missed and they will continue to inspire me and I hope you as well.
In closing I wish you all my very best for this holiday season. I look forward to continuing the rock and roll journey with you in 2005 as we seek out the cool, the eclectic, the fun and the spirit of that form of music we refer to as rock and roll. Take care of one another and enjoy the holidays with family and friends. Thank you for reading. I'll see you all again in the first week of January.
Later.

What in the hell is going on?

Is it me or is the world going nuts? Right after the Dimebag Darrell murder comes news that former Iron Maiden front man Paul Di'Anno was attacked on stage at a heavy metal festival in Israel. I could be wrong but I don't believe that bands being physically attacked on stage has happened that often in the past and now with the tragedy of last week fresh in our minds is there going to be a bunch of lunatics enacting copycat crimes for the publicity? Remember when the only danger a band faced on stage was firecrackers, beer bottles and over-excited teenyboppers? Am I overreacting? Please tell me that I am.
Later.

Is Pop-Punk Dead?

Yes states Jim Farber in his New York Daily News article One Speedy Genre Does a Fast Fade as he points to the misfortunes of Jimmy Eat World, the Used, Sum 41 and Good Charlotte as evidence. Of course that is the problem when you are only looking at those bands who have cracked the mainstream buying, American Idol loving  public while ignoring the hundreds of great indie bands bubbling under the surface. He also points out that Green Day and Canada's own Simple Plan go against his argument. Maybe these four bands just put out shitty follow-up albums, the dreaded sophomore curse. It has happened before.
Later.

Revolution Evolution

When Jefferson Airplane recorded "Volunteers" in 1969, it was an anthem celebrating the era's spirit of rebellion that was dedicated to toppling the Establishment and everything it represented.  The street referred to in the song's opening lines, "Look what's happening on the street/Got a revolution," most definitely wasn't Wall Street.  Back then, the very idea that "Volunteers" would ever be associated with corporate America in a way that didn't involve tearing it down brick by brick would have been as inconceivable as a Beatle being knighted.

Which just goes to show what a difference a few decades can make, as Sir Paul McCartney would surely agree.  Recently, "Volunteers" was used in a TV commercial for an on-line stock trading company (which shall remain nameless without a substantial promotional fee), presumably to emphasize how the company is "revolutionizing" the way people invest their money.  No doubt, this ad was the brainchild of some young ad exec who thought "Volunteers" was a catchy tune, but who had absolutely no clue about the meaning of its message or its context within the turbulent social climate that inspired it.

If something like this had happened back in 1969, some people would have considered it an irrefutable sign that the Apocalypse was close at hand.  At the very least, it would have caused extreme outrage and indignation on both ends of the political spectrum. Today, nobody seems to be complaining, and "Volunteers" is apparently seen as just another classic rock song that's being used to sell a product. While it probably doesn't portend the end of the world, it is certainly ironic in a weird, twisted way--like a Hunter S. Thompson version of an O. Henry story.  The long trip just seems to get stranger all the time.

The Joys of Modern Tech

The Report is a later sparse today as I have been pre-occupied trying to get my brand spankin' new Mpio FL100 Mp3 player to work. I recieved it as a gift and it is a very cool little MP3 player and the sound of the sample MP3 loaded in it is great but there is a slight problem in that I can't get my Windows 2000 PC to work with the freakin' thing! It is driving me up the wall since the whole point of having an MP3 player is so I could listen and review MP3s from all these cool bands I write about without being chained to my desk! Geez at least my old Sony Walkman just worked. Please tell me that I don't need to upgrade to Windows XP at this point! Back to the tech saltmines I go.
Later.

Peter Buck on Rock and Roll Part Deux

I read an article in the Montreal Gazette this week by Nick Marino of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution called “Choosing Art Over Charts” discussing R.E.M.’s peculiar relationship (or so it would seem) to rock and roll and mainstream popularity. Unfortunately I can’t find a link to it but it is a good read especially for those of you who may be dismayed by “Around The Sun” and feel that is time the band hung up its boots. One of the things that Marino discusses is the waning popularity of rock and roll in general and R.E.M. in particular. In response to this Peter Buck opines:

“Rock ‘n’ roll isn’t superhip anymore. You’re never gonna have a new Beatles or Who, because most people just aren’t interested in a rock group writing and singing and playing their own songs that have meaning to them, and ideally meaning to the audience. The people that like that kind of stuff, that like the Strokes, the White Stripes and us or whatever, it’s a smaller market.”

Now that is pretty much an accurate statement but the problem is that the mainstream press always seems to be looking for the next Beatles when in reality rock and roll is so beyond that stage. We have to shift the context of the debate from quantity or mainstream visibility to quality and artistic integrity. The choice these days is almost overwhelming. There are more quality bands and small indie record labels now then probably anytime in history. Of course there is a lot of crap out there but so what. The wheat always separates from the chaff in the end, plus some of the best rock and roll is blatantly and wonderfully crap! Peter Buck, as a fan and collector of rock and roll doesn’t believe rock and roll is dead, he just believes that it has lost its mainstream glow and in a way that’s a relief. Rock and roll may be a niche in the overall music biz but my oh my, what a great niche to listen to. When I look at the all CDs I still want to get and all the MP3s sitting on my hard drive that I still haven’t had time to listen to, I am relieved that rock and roll is so “unpopular.” If I have to listen to all of my rock and roll on indie labels and see it at tiny live clubs then to me the time has finally arrived where rock and roll has returned to its roots. If you had to chuck out all the "enormodome" concerts and bullshit major label politics I would say “good riddance.” As long as bands want to play there will always be people who want to listen and dance. Rock and roll is dead. Long live rock and roll.
Later.

Franz Ferdinand, the Death of Punk and the Future of Rock

John Harris of the Guardian has written an interesting piece called The Slow Death of Punk in which he bemoans the fate of rock and roll:
“So, our beloved rock may well have drawn to a halt at the same point at which modern jazz arrived in the late 1960s: hamstrung by an exhausted vocabulary, largely cut off from the everyday, and content to chase its own tail.”
Perhaps he is only just listening to what’s on the charts and not to some of the actual rock and roll that is currently out there. Click on the “Now This is Rock ‘n’ Roll!” category to the left to see (and hear) that, yes indeed there are still some bands out there with attitude and hooks! And since when did rock and roll ever have a “vocabulary” to exhaust? Three chords has pretty much always been what it’s all about, it’s just how you mix things up that counts.
Later.

What I did on my summer vacation

Well The Rock and Roll Report is back in business. After a week at the cottage soaking up some rays (and a bit of rain) with my family, fishing, swimming and eating BBQ I am ready to rock and roll again. On my week off the closest I got to rock and roll were the two issues of Magnet magazine and the May issue of Mojo that I dragged down to the beach every day. I ended up mostly reading instead a cheesy murder-mystery called "The Rock Critic Murders" that I found in the marina library which passed the time quite nicely. I probably should have brought some music with me since I have about an iPod's worth of rock and roll to listen to but since I don't have an iPod, and since my family wouldn't appreciate me walking around with headphones on the whole week I wisely decided to forego the music. Anyhow it was a nice break. We'll be sticking to the summer schedule for the remainder of August then go back to five days a week in September. As always, your comments and e-mails are appreciated.
Thanks for reading and let's get back to that music we like to call rock and roll.
Later.

Cool Quote by Nietzche

I just came across a very cool quote by Nietzche at the Mac Mothership that I feel sums up my "philosophy" quite well:

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently."
-Nietzsche

Something to think about. Now back to the Rock and Roll!
Later.

The Rules of the Remake

I was driving in my car the other day when the song "Mexican Radio" came on by Wall of Voodoo. Only problem was it wasn't Wall of Voodoo at all, but it was indeed "Mexican Radio".
Thoughts ran through my head in this order:

1. "I didn't know someone remade "Mexican Radio".
2. "I didn't think someone NEEDED to remake "Mexican Radio".

Don't get me wrong. I love a good remake as much as the next girl, but there are definite, unwritten rules to the remake.

They go a little something like this:

1. Don't remake a song that was already really good UNLESS you have something new and original to add to it.
2. Don't remake a bad song UNLESS you can make it good.
3. Never let your remake become bigger than any original song you've done on your own. (i.e. Jeffrey "In Your Eyes" Gaines).

It's not so much that this new version of "Mexican Radio" was bad. It couldn't be. Because it sounded almost EXACTLY LIKE THE ORIGINAL SONG!

At any rate, hearing the song prompted me to research if there was an actual remake and it turns out there was more than one. The good news though is that I'm currently reading about some remakes of interest that I didn't know about.

Got a good remake you this is worth a listen?

The Song Remains The Same

I was reading an article the other day about the supposed rebirth of alternative music. Suddenly, eager to rid the world of the dime a dozen alt rock bands like Nickelback and Puddle of Mudd, the industry is all a buzz with a new era of sound. Leading the pack are bands such as Modest Mouse, Franz Ferdinand, The Killers and the Yeah Yeah Yeah's.

It's too early to say, but already I'm feeling torn. While I'm all for good, new music (cause God knows it has been awhile), I'm still a little reluctant to call this "new" stuff revolutionary. Maybe it's my disgruntled twenty-something self talking here, but new bands that are ALSO original at this point, seem to be a bit of a myth.

Let's break a few down a bit, shall we?

Yeah Yeah Yeah's- Songs like "Tick" obviously owe their sound to the likes of eighties bands i.e. Berlin and with their breakout hit, "Maps" Chrisse Hynde called and wants her mojo back.

Franz Ferdinand- Is already doing The Strokes who are ALL doing early eighties rock/new wave (insert various names of artists here).

Modest Mouse- "Float On" and others, is The Talking Heads revisited with a bit of Squeeze's pop sensibility thrown in for good measure.

And let's not stop at the sound... have you seen pictures of these bands? It's like it's 1983 all over again complete with Flock of Seagulls inspired hair "creations" and the lead singer who has mastered the indiferrent stare.

There's also this little talked about concept called backlash. Eventually, these bands are bound to feel the pressure 1. from their underground fans who hate when indie becomes mainstream and 2. by reviewers and listeners who are eyeing them suspiciously, waiting for them to become the one hit bargain bin drop offs of a new generation.

I can remember about ten years ago when Dave Matthews had just started to become huge. Before then, their fan base was predominated by yuppy college kids making bootlegs of the 99th live version of "Tripping Billies". Fast forward some and those same yuppy college kids are now upper middle class, yuppy newlyweds shopping at Baby Gap instead of Aeropastle. There are even cover bands devoted to covering purely D. Matthews tunes. Suddenly, Matthews is the elder statesmen, the James Taylor of Generation X if you will.

Not that this is a bad thing. It's inevitable. Every generation needs their pop princess, their bad boy garage band, their eccentric, strangely loveable pop trio. All I'm saying is don't pass it off as fresh. The reason YOU like it so much falls into one of the following three categories:

1. The older generation. There's a familiarity to it. It reminds you of your own youth.
2. The younger generation. You identify with its rebelliousness, devil may care, (calculated) indifference.
3. You live under a rock. Didn't hear it the first time and you're just discovering this type of music. Yet since it was once a hit because it sounded good twenty years ago, everything old is new again.

All this being said, I do find myself bopping to a lot of these new tunes. I'm also constantly in the state of new artists making good music, despite what it sounds like here (so if you have any suggestions, please send 'em.)

Call it a comeback. Call it a tribute. Call it whatever you want.

Just don't call it new.

Are Canadians afraid of Heavy Metal?

So says Sebastian Bach, he of Skid Row fame who thinks that “Canada's far from the heavy metal capital of the world. They're scared of the word 'heavy metal' here.” I prefer to look at it this way “dude” in that Canadians like Heavy Metal, we just don’t like shitty heavy metal.
Later.

From First to Worst

The Lullaby Pit has an excellent article titled “Oh How the Mighty have Fallen” by Sam Smith which is a list “dedicated to the first-to-worst club, a set of artists who once ruled, but somehow found a way to deteriorate as the years passed.” My favourite quote is the one about Rod Stewart:
“Now he has legions of frustrated middle-aged housewives heaving their high-waisted size XXL panties at him, and he seems to enjoy it. More power to you, Rod.”
A great read.
Later.

The debate rages on

I just finished reading “Rock’s 50th Anniversary” by Nekesa Mumbi Moody on Xposed seeing as how July 5th was the 50th anniversary of “That’s All Right” by Elvis Presley and the debate on who originated rock and roll and when is to me mildly amusing. While I am pretty much in the “Rocket 88 as first rock and roll song” camp, in the end where rock and roll started is less important then seeing it continue and maybe even flourish. At the end of the day I would tend to agree with Lenny Kravitz that the originators of the form are probably nameless black musicians from the deep South but I really think it is far more important for bands to get out there and try and make their rock and roll mark then to debate its origins.
Just my 2 cents.
Later.

Chuck Klosterman looks at the nature of being a rock and roll star circa 2004

Chuck Klosterman writes a pretty good piece in Spin Magazine (!) on the changing nature of being a “rock star” in 2004 called “We Will One Day Become That Which We Despise.” His main thesis is that “today, we’ve reached the bizarre cultural moment when bands are adopting the trappings of superstardom without the (seemingly essential) component of being successful.” He goes on to name Franz Ferdinand, The Stills, The Killers, The Rapture, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Interpol as good examples of bands who seem to act more successful then they actually are. “What these bands do best—the main purpose of their existence, and the main thing people seem to like about them—is embrace and embody all the signifiers of massive rock stardom. And nobody seems to realize how weird this is.” In a way he has a point but in a way it really doesn’t matter as the scale of what rock bands are doing these days is finally coming down to a level that is sustainable both in attitude and style without the assistance (or requirement) of a huge marketing machine behind them. That and maybe people are just playing rock and roll to dress up and have fun. It’s certainly working for The Darkness!
Later.

Here We Go Again! The 10 Greatest Frontmen in Rock

The July issue of the UK’s Classic Rock Magazine has a feature on the 10 greatest frontmen in rock. According to Blabbermouth they are:

01. Bon Scott (AC/DC)
02. Freddie Mercury (QUEEN)
03. Robert Plant (LED ZEPPELIN)
04. Dave Lee Roth (VAN HALEN)
05. Steven Tyler (AEROSMITH)
06. Ozzy Osbourne (BLACK SABBATH)
07. Axl Rose (GUNS N' ROSES)
08. Bruce Dickinson (IRON MAIDEN)
09. Roger Daltrey (THE WHO)
10. Phil Lynott (THIN LIZZY)

Not too sure about Bon Scott getting the nod here. Personally I think Freddie Mercury set the bar pretty high but as usual this is so subjective it’s tough to really argue about it one way or the other but really Bruce Dickinson? Run to the hills buddy and make way for Mick Jagger for crying out loud. He almost single-handedly invented the position!
Later.

One Hundred Albums You Should Remove from Your Collection Immediately

I read about One Hundred Albums You Should Remove from Your Collection Immediately on An American Parrothead in Canada and I thought that this was exactly the kind of article all free-thinking rock and roll maniacs should read. They should print it out (preferably by a group of friends) and investigate each other’s record collections to see if any of these classics reside in their collections. Then they must state in one sentence out loud to their buddies why they shouldn’t toss the offending albums in the garbage, as this article demands that they must. Combine this with ample supplies of beer (and taxi chits to go from one home to the next) and a group of four or five friends could be quite amused for a weekend. Of course they might not necessarily be friends by the end of this exercise but really, too bad. Three U2 albums on the list and just when I am getting to know and like them! Good times, good times.
Later.

Abandon all hope ye who enter here? Some thoughts on “The Way the Music Died.”

I watched last night’s broadcast of the Frontline program “The Way the Music Died” and over all it was well done although quite depressing. I had hoped that they would feature some interviews from people on the indie side of things more, but still overall I thought that it set out the issues affecting today’s music industry quite well. David Crosby had some nice dead on quotes including this one that I pinched from Slashdot where the usual debate is in full swing:

“David Crosby is a music legend known for his solo performances as well as his work with the Byrds, and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. In this interview, he recounts how the music industry has changed over his career. "When it all started, record companies -- and there were many of them, and this was a good thing -- were run by people who loved records," he says. "Now record companies are run by lawyers and accountants. … The people who run record companies now wouldn't know a song if it flew up their nose and died." Crosby also argues that the quality of music has suffered because of corporate interference. "It doesn't matter that Britney Spears has nothing to say and is about as deep as a birdbath," he says.”

Now for any real music fan, what they saw on the program (which will be streaming on the ‘Net starting May 29th) will be depressingly familiar but I hope not too discouraging. What the program aptly points out is that the way business is conducted by the major labels is collapsing, not the existence of good music per se. As we have highlighted here on The Rock and Roll Report alone there are literally thousands of ways that you can still get excellent music that has nothing to do with the struggling “hit making” machinery that is the music industry today. On top of that there all kinds of experiments going on, from Internet music label Magnatunes to the alternative copy write work of the Creative Commons that offer a glint of hope to all those musicians currently being ignored by the “big 5.”
The important thing for those of us that are music fans in 2004 is to make ourselves heard. How? Well first of all, support all those great yet struggling indie record labels, record stores and bands with your hard earned cash. Buy something! Stop leaching off the system by illegally downloading stuff off the ‘Net. Trust me there is plenty of ways to legally download stuff for free that you wont have to bother with the likes of Kazaa and you can get a taste of all that is good (or not so good) out there. Most of the record labels that have been featured on The Rock and Roll Report feature tons of free downloads so that you can get a good feel for what they offer. Download them, listen to them and then buy something. Simple.
Also, just because the major labels have evolved into the loathsome creatures that they have, do not feel guilty if your favourite band is on a major label. As a matter of fact buy their CDs, especially if they are of the eclectic persuasion since that is about the only way you can show a major label that there are people out there that do care about music that doesn’t fit their rigid, formulaic cookie-cutter “product.”
Above all, people have to get off their ass and go see real musicians playing live. I am talking about musicians that write their own stuff, play their own instruments and basically put it all on the line every night on a stage somewhere just for the love of creating music. Support them with your applause, your feedback and your money. Give as much to them as they give back to you. Musicians feed off the crowd so feed them. Show them that there are still people out there that care about music and no matter what crap the majors keep trying to foist on us, we will still be there listening to real music long after they have slid into financial ruin. You can’t keep a good sound down and it is up to all of us to prove it. Music, all music is a wondrous, joyful thing. Just because it is often being twisted and destroyed doesn’t mean that there is not plenty of great and worthwhile music waiting just around the corner. Search it out, explore, listen to it and support it. It is all part of the fun, and frustration, of being a music fan in 2004.
Later.

Are these examples of rock and roll getting a bit too full of itself?

Two recent articles got me thinking about some trends in rock and roll that I have never been crazy about. Apparently, Green Day are planning to release a “rock opera” along the lines of “Tommy” on their upcoming album “American Idiot” according to Aversion. First of all, just the term “rock opera” gives me the willies. I could never understand the appeal of Tommy or any other such indulgence in rock and roll goofiness but hey, that’s just me. Then I read that Aerosmith are planning some kind of concert with the Boston Pops! I suppose they were influenced by Kiss’s big extravaganza with the Australian Symphony over the winter. I can only wonder why rock and roll bands insist on trying to combine two such divergent musical art forms. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should boys. Please give it a break. If I want to listen to classical music, I’ll listen to the MSO without Steve Tyler’s lip wagging over the whole thing thank you very much! “Back in the Saddle” radically re-arranged for the Boston Pop? Sheesh!
Later.

While my Indie Guitar Gently Weeps

One thing that tends to differentiate in the coverage (whether in fanzines, magazines or websites) between “indie” rock and something like “prog” rock or “hard” rock is the lack of information or publicity regarding the tools that indie musicians use (for the most part). I can find a site that will tell me what kind of bass strings Geddy Lee used in 1974 but nothing about what kind of amps Mission of Burma use. Most people couldn’t care less but I find that stuff kind of interesting, especially if I am looking at emulating a certain “sound.” Another thing that is noticeable is the lack of appreciation for the musicianship of these bands. Now I realize that using the term “musicianship” in relation to lets say The Ramones or The Sex Pistols might be a bit of a leap but why should it be? As far as I’m concerned, if you can play 2 chords on a guitar or hold down a backbeat for two minutes and thirty seconds you are a musician and that takes some kind of commitment that can be applauded if you so choose. With that in mind it was nice to read Stylus Magazine’s John Smietanik’s article Top Ten Indie Guitar Riffs of All Time. Don’t recognize a lot of the bands but this is something I wish we would see more of. And riffs are not evil. As Smietanik points out, they can apply to indie rock as much as to heavy metal. Point well taken.
Later.

Are these the greatest 100 Psychedelic albums of all time?

According to a very cool site called Digital Dream Door these are the top 20 of the 100 greatest psychedelic albums of all time:

1. Piper at The Gates of Dawn - Pink Floyd
2. Electric Music For The Mind & Body - Country Joe & The Fish
3. Strange Days - The Doors
4. Anthem Of The Sun - Grateful Dead
5. United States of America - United States of America
6. Are You Experienced - Jimi Hendrix Experience
7. After Bathing At Baxter's - Jefferson Airplane
8. A Saucerful Of Secrets - Pink Floyd
9. Surrealistic Pillow - Jefferson Airplane
10. Easter Everywhere - 13th Floor Elevators
11. H.P. Lovecraft - H.P. Lovecraft
12. Balaklava - Pearls Before Swine
13. Beacon From Mars - Kaleidoscope
14. Dear Mr Fantasy - Traffic
15. Fifth Dimension - The Byrds
16. DeCapo - Love
17. Stonedhenge - Ten Years After
18. Clear Light - Clear Light
19. Ogden's Nut Gone Flake - Small Faces
20. Tomorrow - Tomorrow

Check out the link for the rest of the best and join in on the debate. I don’t even know half of these albums so already this site is going to cost me a fortune but their #1 pick sounds about right to me. This looks to be a very cool site by the way with tons of interesting music lists that you can debate until your typing fingers go numb. Great fodder for an argument amongst friends!
Later.

2 Cents with Chuck Dimaria

Antimusic is now featuring the rants of Chuck Dimaria on its website and his rant about Britney Spears and lip-synching is dead on. Luckily for those of us who still believe in real, honest to goodness live rock and roll we have no illusions about what a live concert is supposed to be about. Rock and roll is as much about bum notes and drunken on-stage behavior as it is about music and that’s not necessarily always a bad thing. It’s all part of the territory and of course completely dependant on who you are seeing. Of course, after paying 300 bucks to see the Rolling Stones I don’t suppose I’d be too happy to see Ronnie Wood staggering around in a drunken stupor or Mick Jagger forgetting lyrics. With Keef that’s a whole other story of course (although I must be fair in saying that last night I saw a bit of The Rolling Stones - Four Flicks playing for the first time on a plasma screen TV at the local mall and the boys were spot on, they sounded fantastic). If you want predictable family entertainment watch TV. Caveat emptor.
Later.

An Ode to Hair Metal

A Love Affair with Hair Metal: Kitsch, Irony and Posterity by Audrea Lim is probably the most eloquent article I have ever read about one person’s reasons why they enjoy Hair Metal 20 years after the fact (let’s not split hairs now, we are talking mainstream spotlight). A good read. I feel the urge to get out my Scorpions “World Wide Live” tape. Yes, tape.
Later.

We all live in a yellow submarine!

I tried not to talk about this whole “Grey Album” controversy but it is all so ridiculous. For those of you not sure what I am talking about, DJ Danger Mouse created a CD mixing the music of rapper of Jay-Z with songs from the Beatles’ White Album creating something he called the Grey Album (get it). Problem is he forgot to ask EMI and The Beatles. EMI basically said this is copyrighted material and you can’t do it and everybody suddenly lost their marbles. A protest formed and Downhill Battle initiated Grey Tuesday where more than 100,000 people downloaded the album in “protest.” Protest against what? I am not a big fan of the major labels but since when have you been allowed to take somebody’s music and mix it up whichever way you please without the musicians consent? Never! Give me a break people. If you want to protest something protest the slow degradation of our fair use rights or the DMCA or artists rights or the lousy state of public education in North America or (insert favourite cause here) but protesting something called “corporate censorship” is a bit beyond the pale. If you are concerned about the artistic merit of DJ Danger Mouse’s album you should be equally concerned about the artistic merit inherent in the White Album. Artists have a right to protect their work since that’s all they have at the end of the day. Letting somebody screw around with my masterpiece wouldn’t sit too kindly with me or most musicians and I don’t see any reason why things should be different here. This isn’t corporate censorship; this is about a guy who didn’t want to play by the rules. Either play by them or change them but don’t run around them. There are plenty of reasons to hate the major record labels. In my opinion, this example isn’t one of them.
Later.

Number 65 in the list of articles asking the question “Has rock and roll become irrelevant?”

Here we go again. Another article asking the same question and of course I have to talk about it. This article on CNN.com titled “Has rock and roll become irrelevant?” is actually from last October and is quite well written using “The Last DJ” by Tom Petty as a springboard in describing all that ails rock and roll. I’m not disputing the fact that mainstream radio sucks, the record labels for the most part are more interested in the bottom line than over good music of any style and the fact that rock and roll is certainly not as popular in a general sense as it once was but I like to look at things from the “glass half full” kind of perspective. Every week I post about another very cool, usually independent record label putting out cool rock and roll made today. Every week I highlight at least one radio station or radio show pumping out cool rock and roll sounds from today and yesterday that keep the music vibrant and alive. Last but not least I talk about all kinds of cool rock and roll bands still making great rock and roll week in and week out. Now is all this stuff popular or “relevant”? Well that depends on how you define “popular” first of all. No, quality rock and roll by it’s very nature doesn’t appeal to the lowest common musical denominator, or to the American Idol loving, Brittany obsessed, Janet’s boob rules masses since it requires a spirit of musical adventure but so what. Any genre of music, be it rock and roll, blues, reggae or bluegrass can survive outside the glare of the local Enormodome’s spotlights and not only thrive but survive if people want it to. Popularity has nothing to do with the amount of units shifted (although sales like it or not are necessary for any musician, label or radio station to make a living but then again everything is relative. Selling a million records on a major record label versus selling 10,000 on a small indie label carry two totally different meanings with the indie musician arguably more popular and “successful” than the major label artist after the accountants have a go at things). Being popular does not also equate with being good. Justin Timberlake is popular. The Dirtbombs are good. And relevancy is such a loaded term. I would have no problem arguing that the people going to see The High Dials, or The A-Sides, or The Shazaam consider their music to be more personally relevant than the average fan at a Clay Aikman concert (look him up). I think that the days of rock and roll ruling the planet as the sole musical force for rebellious teenagers are sadly over but I prefer the current reality in that those that buy cool rock and roll records and go see cool rock and roll bands while supporting cool local record stores and cool indie record labels are more interested in what is good than in what is popular and at the end of the day, the music is better for it. Instead of moaning over what is wrong with the music industry, focus in on what is right and support it. Buy your next batch of indie records from an indie record store, go see cool rock and roll in smaller clubs and support that amazing radio station that you listen to on the ‘Net with a couple of your hard earned bucks. All you will have to show for it will be some amazing times listening to amazing music and that is more than enough by me and the thousands of other people that listen to this stuff every day. Real rock and roll thanks you and that is why rock and roll is not only still relevant to those of us who love real rock and roll, it is a necessary antidote to all that is crap in music today and in this day and age we need all the rock and roll we can possibly muster. The job of those of us who really care for rock and roll is to publicize it, write about it, talk about it and play it to as many of those ignorant of its existence as we possibly can. Will this make it more relevant? Perhaps. Will this make people happier? Definitely. Will this cure the world’s ills? Well, it couldn’t hurt. Really.
Later.

Alexis Petridis: Rock and Pop Comments from Across the Pond

I am starting to read more and more articles published on Guardian Unlimited out of the UK and I am especially enjoying those by The Guardian’s rock and pop critic Alexis Petridis. His pieces are often the perfect fodder for arguments over a coffee on a Saturday morning (or a potentially more dangerous beer on Saturday nights) because he has a well articulated, and often contrary opinion. In The day the music dies Petridis comments on the creation of MUDDA (Magnificent Union of Digitally Downloading Artists) by Peter Gabriel and Brian Eno and argues that an artist with too much freedom and no producer/editor will go on to produce self-indulgent “rubbish.” He points to musicians like Prince who basically went on to produce crap when released from the “shackles” of his major label record contract (no comment on the quality of his stuff while on a major label but I digress). “The internet encourages self-indulgence in the most unassuming people, as proven by the vast number of interminable weblogs and homepages featuring gripping pictures of pets. When rock stars get involved with it, all sense of quality control goes out the window.” What he fails to take into account of course is that the Internet is also responsible for allowing tiny Indie labels access to a vast distribution network the likes of which was previously available only to the major record labels. More importantly, the Internet is allowing musicians who may not be considered “commercial” to make a living writing, recording and releasing their music for sale directly to the public while at the same time reaping more of a financial gain as well as maintaining all legal rights to their work. Lack of talent let loose on the Internet can be awful but somebody with bucket loads of talent held hostage by some record label looking for the next Justin Timberlake can be much worse. At least the Internet holds out the possibility of leveling out the playing field a little bit while enabling musicians to take better control of their own livelihoods. I’m willing to put up with Prince’s Internet noodlings if it allows me to hear and read about music that I might never have heard about before and that’s a high price to pay!

In his piece Roll over Britpop…it’s the rebirth of art rock Petridis traces what some people are calling a new renaissance in rock and roll with the emergence of “art rock” bands like Scissor Sisters and Franz Ferdinand displacing the “boring” Britpop of bands like Oasis, Blur and Coldplay. One thing I did find quite funny is the assumption that musicians that go to Art School are somehow influenced to come up with this more “intellectually challenging” form of rock and roll. What some might tend to forget is that Mr. Rock and Roll and Chuck Berry wannabe Keith Richards himself attended art school amongst many other rock and roll revolutionaries and I dare say that there is not much “Art” in his rock. But the article is great in that it makes you think. His argument that “the post-Britpop bands had entirely exhausted the possibilities of ripping off the rock canon - the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Faces - forcing new bands to look further afield for inspiration” cannot be entirely dismissed. Of course, at the end of the article he points out a couple of other current trends in rock and roll and one of them has the dreaded “retro rock” tag. Now I leave it to you to determine if bands like the Kings of Leon, Jet and The Darkness are responsible for more of a musical trend than Franz Ferdinand and friends but that is perhaps just a function of what I want to listen to since I’m far from being a hip music scenester. At the end of the day, those that listen to “retro rock” might argue with the fans of “neo prog rock” and the connoisseurs of “art rock” as to the particular merits of what they are currently listening to but the bottom line is that they will all be arguing, and listening to the same thing: rock and roll. And that is the reason that this site is not called “The Art Rock Report” or “The Garage Rock Report” since the diversity of rock and roll is what allows it to live, breath and grow. I’m just waiting for the birth of “polka rock.” Get ready, it’s gonna be big.
Later.

Why I call my rock and roll “niche-free.”

Rock and roll has always had genres or niches. Originally during the mid-sixties there was a distinction made between pop and rock. Then there evolved styles such as psychedelic rock, folk rock, blues rock, mod and beat but somehow it was all still considered generally a part of Rock ‘n’ Roll. The ‘70s and ‘80s exacerbated things until nowadays, music has splintered into so many genres and sub-genres and sub-sub genres that the term “rock and roll” is almost a historical reference. Almost. But there are bands and record labels that still cling to the seemingly antiquated concept of what rock and roll is and always has been. Radio stations that continue to play it and magazines, clubs and websites that continue to promote it. Sure they might sometimes refer to it as garage, power pop, freak beat, punk, indie or alternative but really, when you dig deep down, everybody would probably agree that it is all in essence Rock and Roll. Music made with real instruments for the most part by bands with plenty of attitude that have no problem pillaging hooks from the best rock and roll that came before them in order to create a sound that is both timeless and yet new. Sometimes it gets popular, most times it is bubbling under the mainstream consciousness but it always means the same thing to those that make the music and those that listen to it: fun, hip shaking songs that compel you to have a great time. Why do I bring this up (again)? Because I just read an article on Canada.Com entitled Rock 'n' roll: A to Z: A guide to music genres (by way of Music Journalist) which as usual reduces rock and roll to a bunch of genres for the supposed ease of music critics, “consumers” and the record store clerks of Wall Mart and Best Buy. When it comes to classifying music, the current rage is to add “alt” to the beginning of everything as in “alt-country”, “alt-rock”, “alt-polka” or alt-whatever so as to indicate that the musical style in question is an “alternative” to the mainstream genre. But what if rock and roll itself is not mainstream? How do you classify it? The answer is that you don’t. Instead of further dividing and classifying the music I say you drag it all back in kicking and screaming and if anybody asks what the hell this type of music is you just tell them what it is not. It’s not country (although it will gladly steal some of country’s licks). It’s not reggae (but it will help itself to its’ rhythm). It’s not blues (but it will gladly steal pretty much everything that the blues has to offer thank you very much), and it’s definitely not classical or the opera (that’s two aisles down by the Broadway musical soundtracks sir).
Am I just being naïve? Perhaps. Hopelessly retro and “unhip.” Maybe. Anxious to listen
to a rock and roll that means more than depressingly mindless drivel pounded out by electronic machines that erase all soul and songcraft from music? Most definitely. We don’t have to mindlessly retread the rock and roll of the past to create the rock and roll of the future as there is no need. As Greg Shaw of Bomp Records has pointed out, rock and roll is more like a process, a process that is continually evolving and yet builds on what has happened before it. The same attitudes and emotions, influences and passions that have kicked out the jams in the past will continue to fuel honest to goodness, niche-free rock and roll now and into the foreseeable future, whether we want it to or not. We are not condemned to be haunted by the specters of the past because this presumes that their influence is a bad thing. Bring on the Beatles and the Stones. Bring on the Pretty Things and the 13th Floor Elevators. Bring on the New York Dolls, The Runaways and The Ramones. Bring on Springsteen and R.E.M. Bring on Jet and the White Stripes. Niche-free rock and roll unabashedly builds on rock and roll’s past while continuing to provide for it’s continually evolving future. As usual, some people get it, and some people don’t. Sure there will always be the extremes that spit out crap with no sense of artistic integrity but they will never last and you shouldn’t be so concerned with that or with what is currently “fashionable.” You and I listen to rock and roll, not because it’s a “musical journey” or a “wellspring of inspiration.” No, we listen to rock and roll because it forms a direct connection with our hips and our hearts, bypassing our brain if necessary. I might not be able to describe my rock and roll in a neat and tidy package but that’s why I like it so much. That is why rock and roll continues to survive. That is why rock and roll continues to thrive. Long live rock and roll.
Later.

A bit of perspective

I saw this quote in the weekly mailing from Rock's Backpages (a review to follow soon) and I thought it appropriate to put things into a bit of perspective:

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

''Rock music is no longer about being a rebel. It is a product being sold by huge companies. If you want to be a rebel, don't be a rock musician -be a human rights campaigner or something.''

JEAN-BENOIT DUNCKEL, Air

Now, despite the fact that The Rock and Roll Report concentrates on the type of rock and roll that is anything but product put out by record labels that are anything but big business, it's a good quote to think about don't you agree?
Later.

Polls? You want polls, you’ve got polls.

You looking for year end polls? Then Scott Woods over at Rock Critics Daily has found a great place to start. Check out FIMOCULOUS for every poll you could ever imagine.
Later.

Where has the time gone?

It’s been six months to the day that I started The Rock and Roll Report and the time has flown by. When I started writing this blog, I had the vague idea to publish the increasing amount of cool rock and roll links that I had been collecting for the benefit of people sadly mistaken that “classic rock” and “adult alternative” radio were the only way to get their rock and roll kicks. After six months I can unequivocally state that the amount of cool rock and roll record labels, radio stations, magazines and websites featuring tons of cool rock and roll bands number in the hundreds and quite possibly the thousands. While my tastes and your tastes may vary on a particular band or song, looking at the big picture confirms that rock and roll is still alive and kicking on the cusp of 2004 and you don’t need to listen to “Stairway to Heaven”, “Back in Black” or “Start Me Up” forty times a day on the radio to satisfy your rock and roll fix. As I take a break from writing for the next couple of days (don’t worry I still have a couple of rock and roll tricks left for the remainder of 2003, they will just be sporadically posted) I am looking forward to the hype, the excesses and the stupidity that the music world no doubt will be throwing our way next year because I know that in some garage, basement or rehearsal space somewhere out there, a guitar amp is humming, a bass is being tuned and cymbals are being polished in preparation to unleash another wave of timeless, niche free rock and roll on the world and man, I can hardly wait! Trust me when I say that rock and roll is far from dead, you just have to know where to look. As Frank Zappa stated when describing the musical “underground” of the sixties and which still seems appropriate today “The mainstream comes to you, but you have to go to the underground." Join me for an exciting 2004 as we continue to search the “underground” for real, exciting rock and roll fun, have a couple of laughs along the way and maybe introduce some people to some really good (and really crappy yet strangely still good) rock and roll. Thanks for reading. Have a great 2004 and please, comments to the site are accepted and in fact encouraged. Attitude antennae up! Ears tuned to the underground! Turntables at the ready! Let’s go!
Later.

Are my rock and roll tastes evolving or regressing and does it really matter?

When I first started writing the rock and roll report back in June, my original motivation was to write about “niche free” rock and roll, which I define as, well there is no definition since that was the whole point. No alternative, no indie, no garage, no pop. As I continued to write, I found that although my tastes are quite wide and include everything from Rush to Ozzy (get well soon!) to the Beach Boys to the Tragically Hip, the bands and record labels and magazines that I found the most interesting were (and still often are) the ones dealing with, for want of a better word, garage. The popularity of the Strokes, the Hives and the White Stripes and radio shows like Little Steven’s Underground Garage seem to me to indicate that there is a healthy interest in primal rock and roll. At the same time, bands like the High Dials and Sloan add a dose of pop and psychedelia to their sound that creates a real refreshing rock and roll cocktail. What I am beginning to realize is that one of the reasons people often describe the ‘60s as the “golden age of rock and roll” is not so much for the nostalgia (although there is too much of that in my book) but because during the ‘60s there was this great cross-fertilization of musical styles that all seemed to mix together to form a satisfying rock and roll whole. Indian sitar combined with fuzzed out guitar and vibraphone all backed by a primal jungle beat, that’s what most people miss, the carefree experimentation and, yes, fun of rock and roll circa 1966-67. It is ironic that in trying to identify and popularize niche free rock and roll, it is technically taking me closer and closer to the realization that niche-free rock and roll is in fact a niche! Whether you call it garage rock, psychedelic punk or whatever, it certainly holds true to its rock and roll roots but is it original or is it merely copying the past? Does it really matter?
These are the weighty topics that I struggle with daily. I don’t want to be saddled with the “retro” tag but at the same time, I do want to listen to the type of rock and roll that really and truly floats my boat and these days it just so happens to be bands like the Boss Martians, the High Dials, the Swinging Neckbreakers and countless other stylistically similar rock and roll bands that seems to do it for me. Of course, by this time next week I might be waxing poetic about my rediscovery of Yes, ELP and Peter Gabriel era Genesis so feel free to ignore this rant and treat it for what it really is, a quick screed by a guy who loves rock and roll, all of it.
Wait a second, is that my old Loverboy album? “Lady of the Eighties” was a great song so I think I’ll slap it on the turntable for a quick listen. Holy crap there’s all my old Los Lobos records! What was that song that I used to blare in my parent’s basement all the time?
And the beat goes on…
Later.

Let’s get ready to rock!

So I hear that Deep Purple and Thin Lizzy will be touring together. Cool! I love Deep Purple. Man that Richie Blackmore sure can wail on his strat. What, he’s not with Deep Purple anymore? Well at least that master of the Hammond organ, Jon Lord will be there…what, him too? Ok, that’s not so bad because I love Thin Lizzy too man. Phil Lynott is a genius. Wait a sec, didn’t he die a while back! I’m sure of it because I saw it on that MTV documentary! Who the hell are these guys on tour anyways?
You know, I have no problems with aging rockers touring (still love my Stones and hey check out Duran Duran!) but when somebody as integral to a band as Richie Blackmore or Phil Lynott not being there the whole exercise seems really kind of pointless. I can only think of a couple of bands that successfully moved on to bigger and better things after losing a key member: Mick Taylor era Rolling Stones, Post Peter Gabriel Genesis, Sammy Hagar era Van Halen, Bruce Dickinson era Iron Maiden and post-Bon Scott AC/DC. You can also throw in Page-Plant I suppose although John Paul Jones might have a problem with this. And for every one of these bands is a sad example of a group that should have just given up: post Phil “I can’t hear you” Collins Genesis, John Corabi led Motley Crue or Steve Perry missing in action Journey. You can also throw in Coverdale-Page. And what about Whitesnake and Quiet Riot? Sheesh. The history of heavy metal seems to be littered with these posers and fakers but perhaps The Temptations and The Beach Boys could give all these guys a run for their money. What I’m I trying to say here is that bands can go on forever if they want but at some point when the only original guy left is the keyboard player ya gotta wonder if it’s not time to hang up the ol’ microphone. Right dude?
Later.

The Rock and Roll Report: Your Home For Niche Free Rock and Roll!

I have been having a pleasant debate with Coolfer about the future (or potentially lack of) of something referred to as "roots rock" which is essentially defined as bands like the Strokes and White Stripes who borrow liberally from the past which could theoretically be anyone from the Rolling Stones and the Psychotic Reaction to the Stooges, MC5 and Television. I hate the description "roots rock." I want my own description dammit! From here on in The Rock and Roll Report, the blog that refuses to categorize rock and roll, has invented its own category (tongue planted firmly in cheek). I will champion the cause of "Niche Free Rock and Roll." What might this be you ask? Well niche free rock and roll is practiced by bands who help themselves to the musical past to come up with something new, as in "made today" not as in "wildly innovative and socially important." Do these bands and performers borrow from a particular band or genre? No way baby! These bands and performers pillage from everything. Punk, Pop, Psychedelic, Mod, Blue Eyed Soul, Bubblegum, Blues, Acid Rock, Country Rock, Sunshine Pop, the list is endless. They warp it, they twist it, they slavishly copy it, they make it there own today. They record demos, play gigs wherever they can, record some more, post MP3s, collect records, rant and rave and basically fly their freak flag as high and for as long as they possibly can. They look back to the past while enthusiastically creating their own future. And sometimes they even use computers! Call them retro, call them copycats, call them old school, these cats just want to rock and roll your world. Help me find these people and remind them that they are acting so "unhip." And stop smiling and tapping your feet! This is serious people, like music is suppose to be. Right? Ah, niche free rock and roll! How satisfying. Just like music should be. Now where did I put that record by Moby? Moby Grape that is.
Later.

Talkin' Bout My Generation

My friend Coolfer has posted a link to the article Pop's Living Dead and a quick read brings out the same old tired "rock is dead" argument that I have to put up with these days. Rock died in 1979 the article proclaims so get over it. Dance, house, hip hop and techno, now this is the future of pop, something which it has decided requires "soul, funk or newness." Now, my own biased observations are simply and humbly thus: (1) My experience with dance music is limited to a couple of headaches. My experience with rock and roll is extensive and usually results in a good time with (shock) other people that are quite often (gasp!) also young!. They dance, they scream, they have a good time. Ecstacy not required. (2) Just because it's popular doesn’t mean that it's good. Just ask Milli Vanilli or Vanilla Ice. (3) A failure to use computers and turntables does not equal musical progression. (4) If Rock is "dead" somebody better let The High Dials, Sloan, The Kings of Leon, The Strokes, BRMC, Brian Jonestown Massacre, Bomp Records, Orange Sky Records, Mimi La Twisteuse, Little Steven and a host of others know as they slave away at blasting out your ear drums with fine rock and roll guaranteed to please you, confuse you, excite you and delight you, no computers required. But you might have to yell over the volume of guitar amplifiers and farfisa organs to be heard ok! So rock and roll is not the new kid on the block. Who the hell cares! Do you remember when they were popular? The kids still dig it baby and you and I both know why. Let's just keep it a secret between you and me ok. You too? Allright. Sorry bud I mean you as well. And how can I forget you. And you....And you...
Later.

The Sharks Will Get Better, The Avs Will Rule and Rock and Roll Is Alive and Well

Over at Chaz is a Music Snob, aside from his NHL season preview (hey Chaz, not only am I a Habs fans but I too picked the Sharks to win their division last year!) he poses an interesting question, namely ‘What the heck happened to rock and roll?” and my answer is simple. Nothing. It's still out there Chaz, buzzing around the perimeter, trying to get in. Sure the backlash against the Strokes and (soon the White Stripes) has already begun but it's still here, vibrant and loud. You just have to work at finding it. If anything, cynicism is our biggest enemy my friend. Well that and American Idol but I digress.
Later.

In a New Yet Familiar Post This Sums Up In The Most Fully Realized Way the Most Overused Words, Phrases and Cliches by Music Critics

Coolfer has an excellent post on the 10 most overused music critics words, phrases and clichés. I was quite full of angst when I started reading but now I am merely feeling pathos. Way to go Coolfer!
Later.

"So have Britain's rock dinosaurs produced their last roar?"

"So have Britain's rock dinosaurs produced their last roar?" This is the question that the Christian Science Monitor asks in the article Can't get no satisfaction - from new songs. It makes a very good point about other genres of music like blues and jazz when it states "Jazz and blues audiences nurture their legends, many of whom remain productive into old age." I suppose it's debatable whether artists like Sting or the Who have remained productive since that is quite a subjective term. My personal reference post, the Rolling Stones, have remained consistently inconsistent throughout their forty year career, something that tends to endear me to them still. I mean, except for the fertile "Beggars Banquet" into the "Mick Taylor" years where almost everything was of a high calibre, The Stones have allways managed to slip in a couple of gems amidst the dross and "Bridges to Babylon" was no different. They have allways operated like that. I think the point should be that any artist should not be obliged to hang up their instrument, whether it being a fountain pen, paint brush or guitar due to age. Rock and roll will forever be a young person's game for sure but just try telling that to Keith Richards. If you feel the need to create, age should not be a restriction. If you have something to say, say it. That is something that should never change. Thanks to Coolfer for the link.
Later.

Has Rock and Roll Gone Mickey Mouse?

I have often read culture critics decrying the Disneyfication of our culture and how the essence of what makes us unique is being re-packaged, tarted up and sold based on the lowest cultural denominator. They always refer to everything Disney as being not only a personification of that which is an idealized version of Americana but the fact that it is a false reality, an artificial utopia. Rock and roll has not escaped this argument, especially when it comes to the dreaded “retro” word which I have talked about in pasts posts, but the greatest criticism seems to be leveled at institutions like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum. Now the argument seems to go something like this: Rock and Roll was once a vibrant and potent force of youth rebellion but now that energy is either spent or has been re-directed to other forms of music or entertainment, therefore the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is merely a museum of memories for out of touch 40 somethings with more time and money than sense. On the surface, I partially agree with this argument because places like the Experience Music Project. Hardrock Vault and the Beatles Story give one the image that rock and roll is a spent force that is only now available for your viewing and listening pleasure at a museum or the public records department of your local library under the heading “contemporary music from the “rock ‘n’ roll era”” or worse yet at a Monkees reunion concert. When I am at a concert at some local club listening to really great rock and roll, museum exhibit is the last thing on my mind. Perception is reality in this day and age and the perception that rock and roll is dead is something that a lot of bands and record labels are trying hard to overcome and at first blush these places might not help the cause but have you seen these places? Have you actually checked out what they offer? Visiting the Italian pavilion at Epcot certainly does not in any way diminish your experience when you actually visit Italy, in fact it giving you a taste of the country may actually encourage you to visit the real thing. Therefore, places like these are not a replacement for the real thing but merely a teaser, an introduction to what the real experience can be. Now if you think all you’re going to see are Iggy Pop’s blood stained pants or the cherry red sunburst guitar that Eric Clapton used to record his triple tracked solo from Layla you will be quite surprised. From a recreation of the Cavern Club at the Beatles Story to the “2 Decades of U2” exhibit at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (granted that the EMP is hosting an exhibit on disco but they do have “The Quest for Volume” amplifier exhibit as well as the “Sound Lab”), these are not the places to inspire rebellion but to enjoy and explore the rich heritage of rock and roll. If anything they may inspire you to pick up a guitar and create some of your own noise and that may be your inspiration to try and change the world through music but don’t expect watching “Don’t Knock The Rock” to do anything more than make you laugh at how silly it must have all seemed in the ‘50s. Visit these places, enjoy them, argue about them but please, at the end of the day enjoy them for what they are intended to be, fun. That is what they are there for. That is why you should go.
Later.

Hail To The Chancellor!

Just a quick follow up to my somewhat exuberant post from last night after seeing Gord Downie in concert. Good rock and roll is all about that moment in time when you forget about everything to immerse yourself in the power of the music. It doesn’t happen every show but when it does it is not something you will soon forget. I mean, my buddy and brother-in-law and I sat there before the show talking about all the great shows we had seen in the past (yet the shitty shows were a lot harder to remember)! The experience can be unforgettable. Well last night gave me enough rock and roll moments to keep me going for a little while longer. All the ingredients were there. First off, we saw the show in a small rock ‘n roll club in a stereotypical skanky part of town. We sat at tables a mere two feet from the stage (We could actually make eye contact with the band!). Finally, the band was one that I was anxiously awaiting to see yet I didn’t know all the material so the sense of anticipation was high. What was it about this show at this time that has me slavering all over my keyboard this morning you might ask? All I can say was that the experience was like stumbling into a bunch of friends banging away at guitars in your buddy’s basement rec room only to discover that your friends happen to play and sing like BB King’s long lost kin. There was a sense of intimacy and communication that went on all night that was absolutely revelatory. The music was both tight and loose (to borrow from that most apt description of Led Zeppelin in their hey day). And our positive experience was not just because we were seeing Gordie in a small club, although that is certainly the way I like to experience my rock and roll these days. My brother-in-law had just returned from seeing Bruce Springsteen at Fenway Park and his rock and roll experience was at least as powerful if not more so than mine (he is both a huge baseball fan and a Springsteen fan so I think he will coast on that natural high until February!). No, the experience was a direct result of (wait for it) “the true power of rock ‘n roll.” Now, it’s not going to save your soul, or change the world, but it is going to feed your soul, put a smile on your face and a skip to your step. The music is both of the moment and timeless. Good rock and roll compels you to have a good time. What more could you possible ask for in this day and age? What more could you possible want? Rock and Roll might not change your life, but it certainly makes it a lot more fun. That my friends is priceless. That is the power of good rock and roll. That is why we listen, again and again and again.
Later.

Reflections in a Computer Monitor

Today marks two months since I have been writing this blog and my enthusiasm for the form and the subject matter remain undimmed. The whole purpose of starting this blog was naively simple, to reclaim rock and roll from those who insist on dividing it into a never ending list of niches and sub-genres. In my mind, garage is rock and roll, punk is rock and roll and pop is rock and roll along with country rock, alternative rock, modern rock (what the hell is that?), schlock rock, rolling rock and whatever other type of (insert description here)rock you can name. U2 is rock and roll along with the Ramones, the Buzzcocks, The Woggles, The Tragically Hip, Wilco White Stripes, 13th Floor Elevators and Midnight Oil to give just a varied example. All of this music is simply rock and roll interpreted in a multitude of ways based on a multitude of inspirations. No band is sacred, no style lords down over all the others (metal rules dude!). Rock and roll is, and will always be a vast melting pot of styles and influences played with attitude, emotion and conviction with enough of an amplified beat to get your hips shaking and gyrating in time. And for heaven’s sake it has to be fun!
In the next few months, The Rock and Roll Report will also be changing and evolving. While I like to concentrate on publicizing record labels, radio stations, magazines and web sites, I have not had the chance to really highlight specific bands that float my rock and roll boat as much as I would like to but hopefully that will change as both time and money allow.
Thanks for all the encouragement to everyone who has e-mailed me with suggestions, links, hints and tips, your generosity does not go unappreciated. And a special thanks to my wife and son for putting up with this crazy venture. Remember to book mark www.rockandrollreport.com for plenty more rock and roll fun and adventure in the future and let me know what you like and hate about this crazy music called rock and roll. Have a great long weekend for anybody lucky enough to celebrate it. I’ll be back September 2nd.
Later.

What the heck is "Garage Rock" anyways?

This article "A Mighty Wind by Frank Kogan" from the Village Voice is an interesting attempt to define the term "Garage Rock." Some cool bands to check out.
Later.

MTV.com: The Argument: The Album Is Played Out

I can't say that I agree with this article "MTV.com: The Argument: The Album Is Played Out" but it's food for thought. Think about it.
Later.

Who Killed Rock and Roll: Myths of Rock 'n' Roll

Read this excellent article "Who Killed Rock 'n' Roll?" by Gene Sculatti that I found on the WFMU FM web site. The debate rages on.
Later.

On the Cover of the Rolling Stone

I used to subscribe to Rolling Stone and I used to enjoy it. But alas no more. And I’m not the only one with that same sinking feeling. This article (courtesy of Rock Critics Daily) eloquently, yet sadly illustrates the tale of woe of yet another ex-subscriber. I have to agree whole heartedly with his reasons. Oddly enough, he mentions Spin as well. I picked the latest issue up this week (with the White Stripes on the cover) and I find it incredibly ironic that the only article I actually read completely, the cover story on the White Stripes, was a reprint of a Detroit Free Press article for god’s sake! And what the heck is it with fashion spreads in Rolling Stone and Spin? I doubt very much that I will see a fashion spread in Ugly Things, or Lollipop or even Mojo for that matter.
I must be getting old when I start complaining about the oh so hip rock press circa 2003, but is this what the kids today really want? I certainly hope not. At least one thing is for sure, a shit load of them bought Elephant. So it’s not all bad.
Later.

The Value of Free

Well, in anticipation of my holidays I stopped off at a local magazine store and picked up the latest copies of Mojo, Uncut and Spin. Meaty issues as usual full of rock and roll nuggets but on my way out I grabbed the latest issues of the free mags that are now available namely the Montreal Mirror and Exclaim. It would be a mistake to idly discount the quality of these free mags. Sure the ink used usually gets all over your fingers but that’s a small price to pay for the quality printed with that crappy ink. Exclaim in particular is so full of cool rock and roll scene reports, record reviews and concert listings as well as in-depth stories like a career retrospective of Neil Young and a feature on The Constantines that Exclaim was actually the first mag I settled down with after cursory first looks at Spin, Mojo and Uncut. Every city in North America and probably Europe has some kind of free music mag available. On your way out to buy your usual assortment of Rolling Stone, Q and the like, don’t forget to grab a copy of these freebies. You would be amazed at the quality that they contain. Just don’t forget to wash your hands after reading. If you have any particular recommendations, let me know.
Later.

Does Rock and Roll Need to be Saved?

Yes it does according to Soft Canyon, a Montreal (go Habs go!) based band in this story found at Chart Attack and I gotta say I agree with the point they are trying to make. Where is the adventure?
Later.

In Pursuit of an “Entertainment Strategy”

As the song says, I love rock and roll. Now, despite the fact that I think music should be fun, something that provides entertainment and not salvation for the entire world, I am not so naïve as to think that it’s not a business. In fact, by promoting some of the labels, bands, clubs, radio stations, magazines and web sites that I think are cool, I am hoping that anybody reading The Rock and Roll Report will actually buy, visit or donate to them because they see the value in them like I do, but this morning I read an article in the business section of the Montreal Gazette that just made me shake my head. The article “Scrushy gave options to Sony exec” by Lawrence Viele of Bloomberg News ( I couldn’t find a link but this article details the background) talks about the actions of a CEO for a company called HealthSouth Corp. and its granting of possibly illegal stock options to the ex-CEO of Sony Music Entertainment Inc. Thomas Mottola. The part that gets me is that the then CEO of HealthSouth was pursuing for his company an “entertainment strategy.” Fair enough you say, but get what HealthSouth does. They are an operator of rehabilitation hospitals for crying out loud! This guy created a girl band called 3rd Faze that he wanted to use to promote a company that provides rehabilitation and outpatient surgery services. I actually have no problem with manufactured pop groups. They have been a part of the rock and roll landscape forever (I always liked The Monkees. Go rent Head now!) but this is just a bit too freaky for me to contemplate. Rock out with the babes while getting your back re-adjusted. Too weird.
Later.

Consciousness Raising as a Social Tool

There is a really cool and well crafted indie/alternative rock news site that features a nice twist as they donate any money raised to human rights organizations Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, UNICEF and Witness. The site is called Rockbites and it features rock and human rights news. Now, I think that this is great since I have been a member of Amnesty International since the early eighties but the question always comes up, should rock and roll and politics mix? (not that I consider the fight for human rights “politics” with a capital P, it just got me thinking about the big picture is all) Looking back on the history of rock and roll you probably think that this is a stupid question as the answer appears to be self evident but what if you don’t agree with the politics of your favourite rock and roller? In between Bono campaigning for third world debt relief and Ted Nugent going on about the rights of hunters, I think most rational people (!) would agree that there is a place for everybody’s opinion as long as the music doesn’t suffer. After all, we as fans can take the message to heart and learn more, or ignore it and just enjoy the music as is. But what if you don’t agree with the message? Do you pull off a boycott a la Dixie Chicks? Do you ignore them and treat it as if nothing happened? This issue doesn’t seem to bother most people since either (a) they agree with the issue already or (b) they don’t give a shit about all politics anyway, but listening to Gene Simmons spout off about liberals and the war in Iraq makes me (who actually likes Kiss) wonder. But I shouldn’t really be too worried. Last I heard freedom of expression still existed in most of the western world (although that is certainly debatable) so if it bothers me or you that much, we don’t listen. It’s as easy as that. Plenty of Phish in the sea. Move on to Sammy Hagar or somebody else who doesn’t give a rats ass about politics. Unless it involves tequila. Then we’ve got problems.
By the way, the title of this post is a direct lift from that former great band The Pursuit of Happiness. Thank you Moe Berg!
Later.

“more bands but less originality”

I just read an interview with one of my all time rock and roll heroes, Peter Buck of R.E.M. on Murmurs (an excellent R.E.M. fan site) and was struck by his comment that, compared with the ‘80s underground that existed when R.E.M. first started out, he feels that there are “more bands but less originality” today except for some of the new “alt-country” bands gigging around. Who am I to argue with Peter Buck except to say that “originality” is an extremely subjective term. A lot of music that I like some people would consider to be “retro” or worse (from, Sloan to the High Dials to Oasis to….R.E.M.) but is that a lack of originality?
Now, if I had a comments system for this site I would be hoping to get some feedback from anybody reading but I don’t (yet, stay tuned..) so let me know what you think here. Are there in fact more rock and roll bands but less originality? In fact, what do you consider to be “original?” Enquiring minds want to know.
Later.

I Still Love the Stones

You know, I still love the Rolling Stones. What you say? Those old farts? Ah, they’re just in it for the money you scream. Then you use that famous line that drives me bananas: “They’re just not relevant anymore.” Hoo boy I hate that statement, proclamation, opinion or whatever you want to call it! They are relevant to me and the approximately 470,000 people crowded into an old air force base in Toronto that’s who. What do you expect Keith Richards to do? Retire? The guy would die if he couldn’t tour anymore. And Charlie Watts? Coolest man in rock and roll. I think that this article, though written in 1997, puts everything into perspective perfectly. Read it and show some respect. You never know when you might run into Keith Richards and it’s rumoured that he carries a switch blade. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Later.

A Quick One While I Was Away

While on vacation this week I had managed to avoid most forms of electronic information and only glanced at a newspaper for a couple of minutes so all in all I stuck to my rule of family first, everything else second (although I did drag the July issue of Uncut with me to the beach on a couple of occasions, great article on Neil Young). Ironically enough, while making a campfire one evening, the paper that I was using to start the fire happened to be a copy of the Toronto Sun from a few weeks past and within that issue I noticed the headline “Does Pearl Jam Matter Anymore?” in reference to their upcoming gig (at the time) in Toronto. This is the kind of hack navel gazing I can’t stand. Kinda like “Is Rock Dead” or “Altamont: The Death of the Sixties.” Does Pearl Jam matter? To whom? To the musicians? I would certainly think so. To the 16,000 fans expected at the concert? Most definitely. To the millions that buy Pearl Jam albums? Of course. The point about rock and roll in my opinion has always been that it’s not about social revolution. It’s not about being “the voice of a generation” or the “sounds of rebellion.” Those are all byproducts of the music, not the reasons for making it. It’s all about the moment. The moment that you spend with headphones on in your room listening to a great tune that always sends chills up your spine. The moment when you are screaming your lungs out at a concert to your favourite song with a bunch of your friends, oblivious to anything but that moment in time. The moment when you finally figure out the chords to a song you’ve always wanted to play or finding that rare single by “The Haunted” that you had been searching for for years at a record swap meet. Good rock and roll is fun. Great rock and roll can transport you to another place, if only for a moment but hopefully time and time again. That’s what it’s all about. You and the moment. Nothing else should matter. At least for that moment.
Later.

Site News

It’s been about 2 weeks since I started this blog and I am having a blast putting it together. I have had nothing but positive feedback from all 3 of my readers (thanks mom!) and I am already looking forward to moving it all up a notch.
In the next couple of months I want to move to some more sophisticated software. It has to support public comments, a searchable archives, e-mail notification of site updates and the ability to create posts in advance and automatically have the software upload them according to a schedule I create. So far I’m evaluating Radio Userland, Movable Type, Live Journal and Type Pad. In the more immediate future I will dive into the HTML code of my basic free Blogger site and at the very least reduce the size of the fonts and maybe change the typeface. In the distant future will be a move to www.rockandrollreport.com, which I now own (don’t click on it now, nothing to see, move along). The search is also on for a used “Flower Power” iMac Special Edition. Why? Because it looks cool! Any and all comments and suggestions are appreciated!
Later.

Tracking the Revolution

If you want to see the source behind one of my inspirations for writing this blog then you need look no further than this editorial “Revolution: Now” penned by Rock and Roll super fan and Bomp Records Grand Pooh Bah Greg Shaw. What I like about Shaw’s outlook on Rock and Roll is that he refuses to label it, pigeonhole it, or otherwise get bogged down in classifying any of Rock’s supposed genres like a botanist classifying some plant species. I agree wholeheartedly with his opinion that “rock and roll itself should be seen not as a genre, not as a mere noun or even a verb, but also as a process.” That “process” is what The Rock and Roll Report hopes to be all about. The conditions are ripe for the revolution that Shaw writes about (and in fact in a lot of ways it has already begun), the evidence is out there, you just might not notice it amongst the background noise of “American Idol” and Eminem. There are amazing record labels, bands, clubs, websites and blogs showing the way. Major, indie, garage, alternative, retro. These are just smokescreens hiding some great music. Check it out. Go to your local clubs. Start a band. Buy some CD’s from some of these cool new bands. Start a rock and roll radio show at your local community radio station or on the internet. Read and contribute to The Rock and Roll Report or any other website/blog out there and show the way. Have fun. Rock and Roll is here to stay. Sometimes you just have to look harder to find it. Let’s look together.
Later.

In Retro

What is considered retro? Slavish imitation of rock and roll’s past or taking the best of the attitudes that made music in the past so great (cough, cough, subjective generalization I know) and incorporating them into a sound that defines a band today? I’ve mentioned The High Dials before but this article about them addresses this question and answers it about as well as anybody has. As Little Stevie Van Zandt has said in the past, it doesn’t matter if a song came out 50 years ago or 50 minutes ago, a great song is a great song, regardless of the “classification” of it by the so called “experts” of the rock/media biz.