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...

New this week

OK, so no, I don't think any of this just came out this week, but this is what I've been listening to, this week, and some of it is new to me.
First up- Yeah, go ahead, I'm a poseur. I'm jumping on the Bandito bandwagon. Bandito are a Dutch stoner band that have the first LP Kyuss sound down pretty well.Yes, just the first LP. They don't get all Psychedelic punk rock. It's more just six cylinder rock- the kind of fat, distorted boogie that the bearded nation loves. They're not great, just like "Wretch" wasn't great- but also just like Wretch, it's fun stuff.
Next is Halo of Snakes.The record is called "Viper letters and Murder Ballads" Nice. Atonal Metal, like latter Day Black Flag, or Bl'Ast, or all those Am Rep bands. But, as a really nice twist, the guitars aren't all muddy, as they usually are for this kind of thing. Instead they're overdriven and spiny, with some twang even. I'm much more fond of that guitar tone than I am of Greg Ginn's, so that's a treat. So, if you're like me, and love Black Flag, until death, but wished that they had discovered treble- here's your answer.
But, then, there's Hail! Hornet. It's ok, but I slightly regret the purchase. It's a bit too grindy sludge for me. It's the kind of Sludge metal that only works as thrash- the songs that clip along at Thrash speeds are nice, powerful bulldozers of songs, but when they slow it down, it sounds like rehearsal. Still, even the thrash isn't quite up to the amazing stand of the Capaces...
I don't just listen to blasting loud rock, as you can tell. So, I was glad to get the newer Ida Marie record- Katla. I wish she was where Adele is- She's an equal singer, but with much, much better songs that don't rely upon nostalgia for soul. They rely upon naked honesty, which is probably why she's not a best seller. Still, it's bluesy, glammy, retro rock with great vocals. Surely that's worth something?
It isn't exactly new, but I dug out a copy of Snapcase's End Transmission. I mentioned Snapcase a few posts back, but yes, I am a fan of latter-day Snapcase- believe it or not, Progression through Unlearning and Designs for Automation aren't really, truly moving to me. Not like End Transmission does. Bright Flashes was good, too. But for emotional depth, and pushing the boundaries of Hardcore? I'm a big fan of End Transmission. I put it into the same post hardcore category as Refused, The Rise and Quicksand, but not quite up to Refused or Quicksand. Still, this kind of post-hardcore reconnected me to my thrash past when it came out, and I love it for that, if for no other reason.If you're not familiar with Snapcase- they're like Deftones with a touch of Refused, only minus the Hip Hop theory. They specialize in lush spacey hardcore, played like they mean it.

Over to yer left

See that link for exploding in sound? Yeah, follow it. Hopefully when you do so, the video footage of the mighty Kylesa will still be up. They are seriously one of the most awesome bands going, right now. They get called stoner/sludge, metal, but I find they transcend that category. Awesome Psychedelic indie/Alternative/metal/Rock. If it's not still up, here's some links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o83PttPl1j0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3h2Csxh6QE&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Jh8Gl3hzEnI
and more from the same set:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NFq-Kh5sGU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrIAidNea14
If this were investment banking, I'd put Kylesa in my "aggressive growth" fund...

Totally unrelated

So, besides watching TV, and rediscovering U2, I've been doing what I usually do. Here's the coolest from the past few days:
First, if you love QOTSA, check out this link. Well worth your time.
I just caught up to Germany's Ritual. Awesome band, and you should hear "Paper Skin" their new CD. Post-hardcore is becoming boring, with everyone referencing the same stuff- Fugazi and Snapcase, you know? But Ritual don't exactly sound like that. I can tell they've got some of the same influences as Fugazi and Snapcase, but... this is more like if early Refused rand head on into later Quicksand, with a yen to play "Revelations" era Killing Joke. In other words, you've got the punky-slayer hoarse screeching vocals and chuggy guitar breakdowns, mixed with strange layered rhythms covered in a frosty sheen of alternate-turned guitars. I could see them playing with Early Neurosis- to a draw, and that's saying something. Really excellent post-hardcore- and they're one of the few bands who I think are getting post-hardcore right.
Finally, I also have just got caught up with Ha Ha Tonka. Yes, they play Southern-fried Country-tinged indie rock, which is a sound you've heard before, but if Kings of Leon, My Morning Jacket and the Arcade Fire sounded like Ha Ha Tonka, I'd like them, too. Instead, only Ha Ha Tonka have the punky-indie rock drive of the Arcade Fire, married to bluegrass influenced southern rock, with superb vocal harmonies. I don't know why it took me so long to find them, but they're really good. They're so good, I would suggest them even to my friends who don't care for either indie rock nor Appalachian country. Much, much better than the similarly-sounding Mumford and Sons. I just got Death of a Decade , but I'm sure I'm getting more by them, soon.

Now, yes, these three are suggestions, and that's the only binding tie between them. However, as always, I know my taste is no better than yours- if you don't agree with any or all, that's fine. However, I hope it expands your tastes just a little- that is, I hope that an indie rock fan can get a little something from Ritual, and I hope a hardcore Punker can get a little high lonesome harmony from Ha Ha Tonka, and seriously, who doesn't like Queens of the Stone Age?

TV Eye

So, finally, my Television season is starting. Yes, I actually prefer mostly "summer shows". Now, for those unaware of the evolution, it goes something like this: all TV revolves around the school year working week. So, in other words, if you're a Network TV programmer, traditionally, you'd put your strongest shows mid week (Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday) and coinciding with the start of the American school year ( September). You'd shoot 22-25 episodes of your strongest stuff (Read= Stuff that moves units in advertising) and 10-15 episodes of stuff you're taking a small chance on, with only a pilot of stuff you're shotgunning ( that is, TV concepts you're entirely unsure will sell anything, but you're willing to throw out there to try for as broad a range of consumers as possible). That formula worked for many years- y'see, kids do their homework on Mondays, and are out on Friday nights. People are not watching as much TV on weekends and summers because that's when they're on holiday. However, technology, as always, wouldn't let that sit. With VCRS and TiVO and DVR's, and DVD boxed sets of TV Shows, and changes in the American work week (the traditional 9-5, Monday through Friday is all but a myth, at this point) alongside the creation of massive amounts of broadcast space ( I've got 400 channels, how about you?) really made programmers' lives much more difficult. In the new Millenium, premium channels ( that is, pay TV networks, that aren't included in a flat cable TV rate) getting into producing TV shows really has changed the game. In particular, HBO's The Sopranos completely changed the programming rules. So, now, TV seasons are stretched out, and episodes get divided, and so on and so forth. Basically, TV programming is almost "asynchronous" with Programmers filling in 52 week slots with two seasons of Reality TV shows, and shorter seasons of scripted dramas (17-22 episodes, often with a break- the break being an "innovation" brought about by the massive writer's strike of the mid decade). The only TV still clinging to the old schedules would be Half Hour Sit Coms on Network (regular broadcast) TV.
So, my individual season, since we can have those now, would start this year near the end of June, with Burn Notice coming back on the USA network, True Blood coming back on HBO, Rescue Me coming back on FX in the beginning of July, the re-broadcast of Boardwalk Empire on HBO in July, followed up by the second season in september. Add that to my regular watching of sports (both Fake- wrestling- and real- racing, boxing, and some Football) and movies, and News, and I've got a pretty complete schedule of TV coming up for me. Mathwise, this comes out to about 12-14 hours a week, which makes for about 1.5 to 2 hours a night, which is about how much TV I watched in the fall as a kid.
The only one I've seen so far has been the season opener of Burn Notice. Now, I'm not here to say that Burn Notice is particularly deep TV. I watch it for the pretty colors and witty one liners. However, I do like that they're trying to add a little depth to the characters. Michael, it seems, is not so much motivated by a desire to serve his country, as he is by petty revenge, and preening vanity. That's interesting. Likewise, Fiona isn't so blindly attached to Michael, as she is addicted to the action he can provide. Again, interesting. They even managed to tie Michael's personality to his Mother; a nice little twist near the end. I don't know that I'd want that every week, but it's nice to add just a little depth to our cartoon spies.
True Blood, which is on tonight is more my wife's thing than mine, but I am looking forward to seeing Sam go real dark. He's one of my favorite characters on the show, and I hope they let him be a real bad guy for awhile. He's got every reason to be bad, and no real reason to be good. I'm also looking forward to seeing more Eric Northman, and less Bill, err Lux Interior (What? I can't be the only one to notice the similarity?) . So, yes, my TV season has started....

Classic Rock

Yes, I hate that term, too. Doesn't everyone? Well, apart from lunkheads who wouldn't be reading this....
However, it struck me this week that there are bands that occupy that kind of headspace for me. By that I mean; most folks would talk about Elvis and the British Invasion as "Classic Rock". They might add in some 70's stuff like Led Zeppelin and The Eagles, or they might want a bit of San Francisco thrown in, but they have this echelon of musical groups in their heads that are separated and a bit sanctified. Stuff that is raised outside of the realm of critical thinking. There are some acts, as I get older that get lumped into that same sort of category for me. However, mostly because of my age, those musical artists aren't from the 1950's, 1960's or 1970's- they're from the 1980's, or very late 1970's, or very early 1990's. Oh, I get it- I'm part of Generation X, no doubt about it. However, I don't think that this kind of thinking is nearly as endemic to my generation as previous generations. I don't think we'd deign to call our music "classic", except ironically.
However, let me give you a counter example: I saw U2 this week. It was at a mega-stadium, with 85,000 people. The stage show must have cost hundreds of thousands to put on, and tickets were expensive. They put on a two hour show, and played nothing but hits. Most of the audience knew most of the words.The requisite "ooo" and "aaa" moments of technological bliss came at the right spots, and the band both looked and sounded according to the guidebook, and they even varied the songs slightly from the recordings, so's the audience wouldn't think that it was by rote. All in all, exactly the opposite of what this blog is about, and yet, I liked it because hey, man, it was U2.... See what I mean? Separate and Sanctified. Judging by T shirts and hairlines, and tattoos, there was a percentage of folks there- I'd call it at about 20%, who were just like me- people who wouldn't normally go for this kind of show, and certainly wouldn't bother to show up for The Eagles, if they did the same kind of show- and yet, here they were, and like me, they were even buying the T shirts, because "Hey, Man, it's U2". What else evokes exactly that mindset except "classic rock"? So, no, this isn't a criticism of U2, in any way. No, this isn't a review of the show. I'm reviewing myself as an audience member, and realizing that I'm prone to exactly the usual stuff for music fans.
Still, I would stack my generation's "classic rock" up against the prior generations, and I think we come up winners. Put the Beatles up against U2, put The Rolling Stones up against Motley Crue or Bon Jovi (doesn't really matter) and Put The Who up against The Clash, and my generation wins at least twice, depending upon how you count it. If you're talking hits, U2/Crue/Bon Jovi win easily. If you're talking Artistic merit, U2/Clash take on all the above- and yes, I mean that. If you're talking about advancing the Culture, as a whole, U2/Clash win again vs Beatles/Stones/Who. Yes, I know, for our Baby-boomer controlled media all this is heresy but I am saying it's the truth. So, U2 as a "tentpole" act for me? In a way, yes, but that's a mighty big tentpole.

A quick note of disappointment

I just want to express my disappointment with Amazon/Itunes' "Audible" system. Quite frankly, it was a failure on all fronts for me. The interface, and downloading instructions were difficult, if not impossible. The software didn't work and was incompatible with my Itunes software, and if not for precautionary software I already had, uninstalling would've been a real bitch, too. All I can say is that I don't support piracy, but it would've been easier, quicker, and better to just find a torrent of Samuel Jackson reading "Go the F*ck to sleep", so until the legal software can catch up to the illegal, I really can't say that I blame others for pirating. The only reason why I don't pirate is because I worked for so many years in the entertainment system, that it feels wrong to me to not pay the "cover charge". Seriously, that's it. The legal system is full of jackasses (Hello, RIAA!) and the software they peddle is lousy (Hello everything from DRM-infected downloads to Audible, to even Adobe) and most pirates seem like good people to me, but I cannot make the leap because of my personal history.

Metal Rulez!

I keep on saying that I'm not a metal head, yet I keep on writing about the metal bands I'm listening to. I can understand how that might seem like the kind of pretentious denial that indie hipsters have been practising since the media discovery of youth subculture. You know the "don't label me" tripe?
The issue, there, though is that I don't care if you label me. You want to say I'm a Metalhead, Punk, poseur, Indie hipster, aging grunge head, whatever, I don't care. It's your call, because it won't affect me.
The reason why I wouldn't label myself as any of the above is because my aesthetics don't conform to the rules of the genres. I don't care about virtuoso musicianship- I see that as a trap. I don't think loudness or distortion prove much of anything- they're just tools to get across feelings and thoughts. I don't care about tempo because I'm not much of a dancer. I could care less about which clothes the musicians wear, and I don't care what instruments they play either. I'm not one for "authenticity" in the music- by the time I get to hear it, it's in the world of commerce anyway, so quite frankly, authenticity, "being real", and so forth are already compromised. I don't believe that a song, in and of itself, does anything- it's what people do in reaction to it that counts. So, when I say I'm no metalhead, no goth, or no punk, it's not me trying to put myself above it- I'm warning any potential readers that my tastes are bound to disappoint you, if you are one of these.
I can give you two examples from this morning.
I've been listening to the new Pain cd- "You only Live Twice", and the last Surfact Cd "Euphoria". So, Pain, as you may or may not know, was Peter Tagtgren's side project from Hypocrisy, his thrash/death metal band. I say "was" because the sales and longevity of Pain are starting to eclipse Hypocrisy's. So, "real" Metalheads are prone to hating Pain, because it's taking Peter bit by bit away from "true metal' and more into experimental dance pop. Certainly, there's tons of industrial metal on even this new record, and it's probably heavier than several of the prior Pain records, but the parts that are bringing in a bigger audience and that I like about Pain, and not Hypocrisy is the reliance upon Pop songcraft- there are hooks, choruses, and relatively straight forward dance beats. There are harmonies, and moments of reflection, not constant intensity. This isn't a top 40 Pop confection, to be sure, but still, as compared to Hypocrisy, it's ABBA. Now, I really am a big fan of Pain (the band, silly) because I'm not a big fan of Pain (the physical sensation, dummy)- and that's what the "real" metalheads seem to be missing. They like everything to be intense. The terms they'll use from "shredding" to "brutal" all convey the intensity adequately- they like pain. I don't. So, I'll listen to Pain, all day long before I'll listen to Hypocrisy. Some intensity, some moments of extremity are valuable as shade to the light, but I don't want everything to be about that. I like some sunshine with my rain.
Which brings me to Surfact. Now, if you're not in Denmark, there's a good chance you won't know who I mean. They're a Danish rock band that sound, for all the world, to me, like Filter, but with much better production. We're talking American Pop Princess levels of production. The kind of studio glitz that makes everything into a kind of midrange hum and drone. You know that very comfortable buzz that makes stuff on the radio pleasant enough to hear that you don't change the channel, but you cannot remember a single note? That kind of production. So, why listen to Surfact, and why not just listen to Britney Spears? Because it's still rock, underneath all that shiny glitz. It's like diamonds- where it's very, very pretty, but sharp enough to cut through glass. The edge that it has isn't about hurting or cutting, though. It's more about urgency and plaintiveness. That kind of vulnerability, that kind of humanity inside the glitz is far more intriguing to me than either the raw honesty or cool glamour that most pop music serves up. Surfact sound like teenagers given shiny new sportscars by Daddy. I can understand how some folks would hate them, but I feel for them, a bit, having been given things they don't really seem to grasp. I'm willing to bet, they thought they were gonna be an Ozzfest styled band, and had no idea that they were being made into Linkin Park's poppier cousins. Enjoying that runs a bit counter to the punk and metal stylebook, don't you think?
So, If you want to think I'm any kind of purist do so at your own peril....

The Goldilocks mean

Yeah, I bet that if you've heard of "The Golden Mean", that's about all the deeper you've gone into it. That's fair enough. I'm not going to get all didactic on you, and try to teach you that it's not quite a 1:1 ratio. Instead, I'll use the common misconception to talk about sludge metal.
See, most folks see it more or less like the Goldilocks story- this porridge is too hot, this is too cold, but this final bowl of gruel is just right. The problem is that folks miss the subjectivity. What's too hot to one is too cold to another. So, there's no one good balance, right?
Well, it becomes easier if you see it more or less as a range, as most people will grudgingly concede. But, I'm not most people. Rather that put it into a nice blurry sludge like that, I'd prefer to see it as competing spikes. The low end around the edges would be the extremes that you don't like, and the peak of the spike is what you like, exactly. You have your spikes, for your tastes, and I've got my spikes for mine. With me so far? Then, you'll surely follow me through to understand that just like spiked belts, the continuity is established when your spikes and mine are roughly the same, but if they're not, you end up with one of those horrible mismatched wierd-ass pseudo metal belts that the disco dollies wore a few years back to try to look like "rock chicks". What I'm getting at, to return to Goldilocks, is that you have to start with the same kind of gruel for the comparison to mean anything- if your starting point is very different from mine, it's meaningless to have us on the same scale, or the same range. It only works if we're the same kind of spikes, geddit? So, that's what we're gonna call the "goldilocks mean".
So, If you agree with me that sludge metal is, in essence, a mix between retro-70's elements (from prog/metal types like Blue Cheer, Deep purple, Uriah Heep, and most especially Black Sabbath) and Thrash (from more metallic types like Discharge, Tragedy, Cro Mags, DRI, COC and so on) with an over-arching post punk aesthetic ( either Goth or hardcore, but never New Wave) then, let's talk about what makes the mix "right".
See, a lot of bands go way overboard on the retro end of things. From Fu Manchu, to Lo Pan, a lot are basically 1970's boogies with a few bellows thrown in. I'm not really into that, thanks. Now, I love some stuff that dips pretty heavily into that end of the muck- but usually, that's the exception, not the rule- so this would be the lower, flatter end of the spike ( Even if I do like some Clutch, and the aforementioned Lo Pan's "Salvador" is a new one worth giving a listen).
Still other bands try way too hard to be hard. Everyone from Eyehategod to Black Tusk gets a bit too screamy and belligerent. Dudes, I have news for you- it's only music. You're not firing guns, you're not physically threatened, you're playing in a rock band. It can look pretty damn silly. So, again, we're near the belt, not the sky.
Such extremes are obvious. What gets harder to define is the peak of the spike. I would submit it's bands like Torche, Kylesa, the newly revitalised Red Fang, and now, Coliseum. I had written them off as a sublevel thrash band, so I've only recently heard last year's "House with a Curse". I actually picked it up because I heard it dissed so hard by former fans of the band. When I see some 19 year old jaded hipster hardcore type in tattoos and skinny jeans say a band "used to be good, but now they're all mainstream" I get a bit interested. When I hear a clip like Blind in One Eye I get far more intrigued. Now, this is "Coliseum" mind you, not "Colosseum" who do doomy- sludge completely not my style. And tell me that this track doesn't win you over. If not, you may like the other Colosseum. And you're on another spike. But, for me, that's the Goldilocks mean.

The Goth King Sings

Peter Murphy just released his ninth solo album, appropriately, if simply, called "Ninth".
So, let's get the obvious out of the way: was I a big fan of Bauhaus? Yes, I was. However, I'm not enough of any kind of purist to consider myself a goth, or an ex goth, or whatever. I never wore all black, never wore makeup, didn't like a ton of "Goth" mainstays, like Alien Sex Fiend, The Mission, and latter day Christian Death. I got into some bands that got called "goth" like Joy Division, Killing Joke, Bauhaus, and Kommunity FK not for some kind of creepy death obsession of bad poetry. I thought they were all pretty good post punk, that's all. I don't see a huge difference, musically, between Bauhaus and "Sandanista" era Clash. Sure, they like minor keys, but so did Japan at the time, and who calls them Goth?
So, I didn't buy this for goth nostalgia. Also, the last Peter Murphy I bought was "Deep", in 1990. No, I'm not pining for his 1990's output. What I liked about Should the World Fail to Fall Apart, Love Hysteria, and Deep and what I like about this brand new one is the full range of emotions, and he only seems to have that whenever he's just left Bauhaus. Seriously- he left the first time in the mid 1980's, and between Dali's Car, and the first couple of solo records, he's on Bowie-esque fire- going from hard glam to lushly orchestrated neo-standards track to track. Now, he left Bauhaus in 2009, and he puts this out, and I was expecting a return to the failed Turkish pop of Dust, but instead this is again, a Bowie-esque mix of standards and Glam rock- like Bing Crosby joins Slade. I've downloaded it to my itunes, and listened to it twice, and it came out yesterday. Get the notion? Yes, it's very sweeping melodramatic music, with serious mood swings, and Murphy's odd croon. But- I've not heard glammy post punk with this kind of range since Murphy and Andrew Eldritch were locked into some kind of race to see who could out "Heroes" Bowie ( and if you can't hear the debt to Bowie, I'd suggest you go back and re-listen to everything Bowie put out from 1976 to 1982, then get back to me) Highlights are the singles "I spit Roses" and "Seesaw Sway" but also rockers like "Uneven & Brittle".
Is it nostalgia, because he's returned to a sound I wish he'd never left? I guess it could be. But, I don't want a Peter Murphy album where he plays a bunch of dubstep and baroque folk music. I like him doing a particularly glammy and theatrical kind of Alt rock and pop. I like the songs to have some reverb on the guitars, some fretless bass, and that baritone croon. That's his sound, his corner of the market, and so I'd call it no more nostalgia than I'd say that Levi's are doing nostalgia for making jeans. So, fine, call him the Goth King. If you want to reduce it down to that, feel free. But just listen to him sing...