The Good Ol' Days

So, no, I haven't been putting much up here, as of late. however, that's mostly because I've been really enjoying some older stuff. The best of it is my re-discovery of Skin Yard's "Hallowed Ground". Now, if you don't know who Skin Yard were, here's a nutshell- they were the single most responsible unit in the creation of the whole "Grunge" thing. Don't believe me? Let's review- Dan House, the bass player ran C/Z records which put out the deep six compilation, considered by many to be the first Grunge record. Jack Endino, the guitar player, was the in-house engineer/producer for Sub Pop, so everything from Bleach to Zeke was recorded at Reciprocal studios. Matt Cameron, the drummer, went on to Soundgarden. Ben McMillan, the singer, formed Gruntruck, which opened for Alice in Chains more often than any other band, and were key to bringing Alice in Chains into the seattle scene. So, yeah, I think they were the unit most responsible for Grunge. On "Hallowed Ground" probably their most abrasive record they mix doom, psychedelia, funk metal, and Gothic rock- which tell me if you've heard different- is the formula for both grunge and Stoner rock. So, a key record? Yes, undoubtedly. Find it, if you can.
Another work of staggering genius that I've been listening to is the Effigies "For Ever Grounded". The Effigies were a early chicago skinhead punk band. Not quite Oi! and not quite Punk Rock, they mixed the two in a way that went a long way to creating the "Chicago sound" of bands like Naked Raygun, Pegboy, and Big Black. Then, they got influenced by Joy Division, and created some unique post punk, but on For Ever Grounded, they created a metallic, hard-edged new sound for punk, drawing from Oi!, like Blitz and the early Angelic Upstarts, from Punk, like The Ruts and Penetration and also from arty post punk like Killing Joke and Wire and Uk Decay. Really thrilling stuff, much better than what Los Angeles was producing in 1984.
Lastly, I've been listening to Chrome. Chrome were a kind of missing link between hard-edged psychedelic bands like Hawkwind and early industrial electronic bands like Caberet Voltaire. There were elements in common with The Stooges, Hawkwind, german Krautrock, like Neu! art like the Residents, and even Devo. So, I've been listening to Half Machine Lip Moves and Third from the Sun, both of which pursue a tinny metallic motorik grind with sci-fi lyrics half mumbled into badly functioning recording devices, then coat the whole thing in analog tape effects- it's like Silver Machine runs headlong into Throbbing Gristle. Easily some of the strangest stuff I had in my record collection in the early 1980's, and it wasn't until Six Finger Satellite revived the sound in 1997 that I thought about it. Now, I love it.

That's not music

I just spent the last 45 minutes listening to squeaking noises, and I liked it.
I think the hard part about electronic, synthesized music is that it doesn't follow musical convention. Oh, sure, there are a lot of synthesizers in pop music, even, but the machinery, at its core, isn't designed to make music- it's pure noise generation. Certainly, the same argument can be made for any musical instrument- a guitar, a saxophone, a piano, all make noise- but all have a certain preset- a lot of conventions went in. Now, certainly, an electric guitar occupies a space where the conventional meets the pure noise element, and that might very well be why the electric guitar is my favorite instrument. But, the thing about hard electronics is that you have to harnass it to get it to follow the conventions. Sure, a lot are chained to a keyboard, but ultimately, the base machinery is just generating noise. Some folks need the conventions, and they need that system of organizing noise. I can understand that, and I don't look down upon it, but I also can appreciate pure noise- just the sound of an air conditioner running, or plates clinking in the sink while being washed can be aesthetically pleasing for me.
An appreciation for noise is what sets the Bloody Beetroots apart from other purveyors of electronica in Europe, right now. I can see how they have as much in common with Throbbing Gristle as Georgio Moroder , whereas a troupe like Justice, or Daft Punk are much more married to the disco end of the stick. Yes, you can dance to the Bloody Beetroots, and yes, they are "de nom" DJs, but they, themselves, even call it the Church of Noise. I am thoroughly impressed with how committed they are to exploring noise. It'd be very easy for them to adapt their sound to dubstep, or dance punk, or disco, and become far more mainstream, but they seem to love pure high-volume noise. Unless you're comfortable with hearing a good 45 minutes of squeaking, throbbing and oscillating noise, they're going to be somewhat off-putting.
So, I just got their best of remixes CD, and it carries on from the Death Crew 77 stuff. If anything, they seem to be even more committed to pure noise. That (and references to "Escape from New York") is certain to catch my attention. But what makes it work for me is the understanding of structure and dynamics. So, follow this link to what I think is the new highlight for them. Squeaking noises on a much higher level.

The Cute Lepers

So, I've liked Steve E Nix's retropunk fixation for quite awhile, but it was just pure retropunk- all fetishizing a mythical 1977, with little to add. Forming the Cute Lepers was a step in the right direction, as up until the latest record, it's been punk-informed Power Pop. Now, with Adventure Time, we're getting to the payoff on all that. The music is still heavily referencing older music- there's a lot of Buzzcocks, and the Saints in there, but a new element makes it a better ballgame- Bruce Springsteen. Seriously, I can hear more than an echo of "Born to Run" era Springsteen in the new tunes and I like it. I'm not a big fan of Springsteen. I think he, like Nix, is a bit too slavish in his hero worship of earlier sounds, but the thing that Springsteen does bring is a kind of urgency- a desperation to cling to cliches as if not doing so will rob him of his life. That's what makes Springsteen listenable, where his progeny are not (ever listened all the way through a mid 80's John Cougar LP? How about ever made it all the way through Bat out of Hell 2? Meat loaf is a neat guy, and a good actor, but that stuff will drive you to applying a nail gun to your forehead). Steve E seems to have managed to channel some of that, and it really has elevated the music. So, yes, I can finally say that I like the Cute Lepers...

Sometimes it crosses over

This'll be on both blogs, because it applies pretty universally. How do I feel about my life, my country and my culture. Knifeman by The Bronx

Thundercats, Hoooo!

So, yes, I used to watch thundercats. Why not? It was better than some of the other options. Quite randomly, I caught the premiere of the reboot tonight. And? Well, it's not quite as cheesetastic, and it's borrowing heavily from quasi-Asian fare like the Avatar series. I suppose it's good to try to tell a story, and try to grow the show both in terms of maturity and story, but, I don't know.... I miss being able to laugh at it. If you're into it, here you go....

Quiet? Really?

So, enough with the negativity. I've got a new band for you. Call themselves "Quiet Arcs", and they play metallic hardcore with a grunge twist. It's a bit like like the Slayer-influenced hardcore from the mid 1990's, mixed with the doomy grunge of the late 1990's grunge of the Melvins. Pretty darn classy, if you ask me. There are some moments that are a bit screamo, which isn't exactly my favorite, but this stuff still gets the blood and brain moving enough that I can forgive the occasional overwrought passage. Overall, it's hardcore enough that I don't think I'm hearing a metal band in waiting, but it's metal enough that it appeals to my testosterone levels. My much younger self would complain that there are too many slow bits so it'd be hard to slam to
( and now time for a digression. It's slamming. It's not pogo. Pogo has become so mainstream that hippies pogo at Blues Traveller gigs. I've seen them, it's nothing good. It's not moshing. Moshing is the dance equivalent of a toilet flushing, with everyone chasing each others' ass. None for me, thanks. When I was a kid, it was slamming- kind of like the circle pit, but far more chaotic. Ever heard of the Naked Raygun "Wall of Death"? Yeah, I thought not. Basically, Slamming was like trying to pogo in a mosh, mixed with playing American football. All with folks stage diving on top. So, yes, I'm exact with my terms. You Pogo at a Weirdos gig. You mosh at a Slayer gig. You slam at a hardcore show. Teeth get lost, skulls get cracked, ribs get bruised, and a good time is had by all. Seriously, I've lost teeth, I've cracked my skull, and I've bruised my ribs in the pit, and I don't regret it at all. )

but screw my younger self, I dig the slower bits, too. Put it on very loudly, you might just like it, and say, just like me, Why Quiet Arcs? That makes no sense....
Then, again, I'm still with Brian Grillo- I'm not good at keeping silent. Am I loud? Hehehe...

Ghouls Night out

OK, yes, I know this might be ghoulish, coming only minutes after she's found dead, But honestly, Amy Winehouse dead? Hmmm, file that under "Yeah, I thought so". I don't think anyone will be surprised, and I don't think anyone will doubt the reason why boils down to self-abuse. If it wasn't the drugs, drink and smoking, it was the obvious easting disorder. If it was neither of those, it was due to a misadventure brought on by poor judgement.
She was 27. That's about the same age as the rest of them, right? All the rock stars and movie stars who drug it up, and make a religion out of abusing themselves.
Not to get all political on you, but I still believe that drugs should be legalized. All of them. Because it's not that the substance is good or bad, in and of itself. It's that we, as human beings, can be so stupid, so selfish, and so cruel. Oh, they'll talk about Amy's "struggle" with her "demons", but what a load of crap! I believe in demons, but they're not in bottles, or packets. They're us. We are the demons we fear. Not the substance. Her fight was not with any substance. She chose her demons over everything else. Demons of her psyche, not of her ingestion. So, yes, we might pity her, but why? She got exactly what she asked for- demons want us dead. She chose her demons, and her demons did what demons do. So, while I think drugs should all be legal, I don't believe in excusing bad behaviour. You kill somebody while drunk driving, you're a murderer in my eyes. You rob people so you can get drugs? You're a thief in my eyes, plain and simple. I don't believe in excusing bad behaviour. I don't care if it was bipolar or Benzedrine you blame it on- if you act poorly, it's on you. I don't care if you're on Alcohol or Al-Anon, if you're a jerk to me.
So, she died young. Good for her, I guess. That's what the drive was, anyway. A drive for death. Ask Kurt, ask Jim Morrison, ask John Belushi, ask Brittney Murphy- ultimately, all this stuff is simply a desire to be nowhere and no one.
If it makes me a ghoul to be so harsh, then a Ghoul I am. There are so many others I'd prefer to celebrate; people who really are struggling with their demons- and trying to overcome them. Tell me about Carla Bozulich who had far more personal issues than Amy Winehouse will ever have, but strives to find beauty outside of those issues. Tell me about Art Alexakis who had all those demons, but has made a career out of destroying those demons one by one. Tell me about Robert Downey Jr who went as far down a self destructive path as anyone, and now doesn't make much of it, focusing instead on living a full artistic life. Get the idea? If I'm a ghoul for not giving honour to the disgraceful dead its only because I'm more concerned with the grace and honour of the will to live.

Bury Potter and the Ghastly, hallowed

Not that I've got an "audience"- we're all friends, here- but I've set myself up for charges of hypocrisy from the audience, here.
What I mean is that I've chartered this here blog on the idea that so-called "mass culture" is dead, dead, dead, and that we can operate on a different scale. I still believe that. However, I do talk about stuff that would register on the scales for "mass culture"- stuff like TV shows, U2, and today, the Harry Potter movies. So, what's up with that?
Here's my internal rationalization- It's me talking about this stuff. I don't really have an audience, and I'm strange, so necessarily, my take on it will be sideways, and anyone reading my take will read it sideways, as well. That's an internal rationalization, though. I recognize that we're all "non-conformists"- everybody thinks they're a unique snowflake, and I'm no different. Except, well, I really am a bit different, and I can prove it; most folks haven't worked in the industry, and of those who have, even fewer have my particular brand of mixed feelings about it.
But, enough with the intellectual pud-pulling! I've got a more external, objective reasoning- that is, the process is in enough flux that we can talk about mass culture. What I mean is that there still is enough of the old world to talk about, that when I say "Mass culture" you have an idea of what I mean. Because of that, in a dialectic, we're not yet at a new synthesis- we're still negotiating between theses. Exactly how much mass, and how much idiosyncratic culture will come out is still up for grabs. Therefore, I cannot totally ignore mass culture, and though I might be hostile to the vast majority of it, it really isn't the job of history to be hostile to an idea until it's totally resolved.
What I am saying is that I am a product of my upbringing, and my environs- which has weighted in favor of mass culture very heavily, but I'm not a blind consumer, so I'm welcoming the impending demise of that paradigm- I'm welcoming it, because it's not yet complete.
Seem like neurotic posturing to you? Yeah, it might be, but I'm going to see the new Harry potter movie today, most likely. I've got a few thoughts on that. The first is on the phenomena. Obviously, it's become a world-wide cultural phenomena- but it's not unique in that. In fact, it takes quite a bit from earlier incarnations of that same phenomena- most notably JRR Tolkien and the "teen mystery" novels (Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys). So, the reasons for Harry Potter becoming such a phenomena are probably much the same as for the earlier incarnations of the same phenomena. I don't think it's all that productive looking for significance in the books themselves, in that they're simply re-tellings of already existing themes, tropes and even stories. (By the way, this isn't meant as a slam on the books- since the time of the Greeks, the point of telling stories and myths isn't to be wholly original- the point is to tell the story that does the most for the audience)The real interest, for me, is why these stories? Why is Harry Potter world wide, while, say,Lemony Snicket, isn't? I suspect that it's something to do with Britain. Think about how many people watched the recent Royal Wedding. Think about how vast the British Empire was. Think about how rotten things have been in England since the 1970's. I think there's a strong element in Empire nostalgia in the Harry Potter series. Children seem to desire strong parents. I think I can see why. There is a comfort in knowing what's expected, and there is security in strength. Adults find that "strong parent" is authoritarian governments. I can understand that it's easier to place one's faith in a person than in abstract ideas, and for all the "magic" and "mystery" of Harry Potter, the strongest theme is of Harry seeking the comfort of a strong parent who won't go away. His birth parents are dead, his Godfather gets killed, his mentors die, and still, Harry never truly looks within to set his own agenda. Instead, he's always the plaything of his fears, as personified by Lord Voldemort. Essentially, the need fulfilled, on a cultural level, by the Harry Potter series, is the post-modern, multicultural democratic longing for the premodern monocultural empire. It's the desire for people to be exonerated for the crimes of their cultural past, while also wishing that the past could be secure enough to be the present. JK Rowling has said that her books were a plea for tolerance, but tolerance for whom? I'm a white middle class, middle aged American. I don't see a need for me to "tolerate" the third world, or women, or any other group. At this stage in history, I can only hope that all these other groups, who are much more dynamic than my own culture, will tolerate me. I think that's who rowling is pleading tolerance for, ultimately. Harry Potter is the British Empire personified in the most sympathetic light possible. That's what I think, anyway. Essentially, I think the Harry potter answer to the dialectic is to reject it altogether, and wish that we could all just be happy together. I think that Rowling's answer to my Blog's question would be something along the lines of "We don't need to tolerate mass culture, Mass culture should be tolerant, and, if we can accept others, mass culture will be tolerant". Now to draw too much of a straw man, but my answer to such thinking is that mass culture is not the same as the culture of the masses. I don't think that mass culture can be tolerant or intolerant. Mass culture is ultimately a proposition, and attempt to persuade us to a mindset. I have come to the opposite conclusion from what I see as the Harry potter answer to post modern insecurity. I think we should just give in to that insecurity, not look for our Parents, and instead enjoy what joys our lives can afford us, and fight those who would seek to be our cultural Parents.
So, if that's how I feel, why am I seeing the movie? Because my wife and kid do not feel as I do. They both really like Harry Potter. My son likes to identify as Harry Potter, and sees himself as the misunderstood noble hero, and my wife has literally said that she enjoys the "world of Harry Potter" because it's like her imaginings of old England.I'm interested enough in seeing the phenomena that I'm allowing myself to dragged along.

Badstrip

Horrible band name, good band. I wonder why it works out like that? Killing Joke, Thin White Rope, Kyuss- all are terrible names.
Anyway, Badstrip play the high energy kinda glammy punky rock that flows from the New York Dolls onwards. The closest comparison would be the early output of the Lazy Cowgirls. There isn't much to say in the way of music criticism, but for music like this, that stuff is kinda besides the point. This is rocknroll as greasy kids' stuff. If you dig Kiss, the NY Dolls, the Stooges, The Heartbreakers and so on, you'll find something to like. Don't ask too much more from it, and you'll be fine.

A little something soothing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxmZUzpMuQo

I mentioned what I've been listening to? Yeah, well, I always am listening to stuff I've had. This week I was on my James Robbins kick. This song just seems right. Be well, oh my Brovvers...