A Freebie or Two

One of the cool things about the Internet is the plethora of free things. Sure, you can illegally get stuff for free, but I don't mean that. That's stealing, on some levels. At the basest, most reductionist level, sure, everything is "free" if you steal. Now, I hope it's obvious that I don't view file sharing quite that simply, but that argument has its merits. Still it's only a tangent to where I'm going. I mean that, as a promotional tool, people will willingly give you a lot of stuff on the Internet.Here's a few freebie things that I've enjoyed over the past week or so:

First, Violitionist. I went there for the Kylesa, and stuck around for some of the others. I especially dug the Locrian, Tombs, and True Widow sessions, but you might not be in as much of a sludge/post metal mood as me.

Now, of course, the engine that runs how they do the freebie downloads is one of my favorite sites: Bandcamp . I cannot tell you how much music I've checked out through bandcamp. Literally hundreds of hours worth. I guess I should mention that before Bandcamp, it was Jamendo for me, but the interface got too sticky for me. Maybe I should check it out again?

For movies, I pay for Netflix and Hulu, but I also really like Crackle. It's run by Sony, so it's not exactly "indie", but since they're giving it away, there's a certain "niche-ness" that feels ok to my sensibilities. For real independent spirit, though, you gotta check out Troma on Youtube. There's also OVguide. I hope I don't need to tell you about Youtube, Vimeo, Dailymotion, or the  Internet Archives, right? 

Now, I still like Paper books, but my wife likes her kindles. So, technically, this isn't my find, but if you're a kindle person, here you go: Free E-books

But the best thing for free on the Internet is jokes. And this post is one. An inside joke. See, this should totally inflate my reader stats. Why? Lots of links, and somehow, some spam bots have been browsing my blog, and artificially quintupling my readership stats So, I want to see if I can break 500 page views on a single post. If you're human, and reading this, you're now in on the joke, too.....

The Pixies

You know, the Pixies are another of those cornerstones for me. I suspect they are for a lot of people.  I'm a bitter, hard, crusty old bastard, so I'm not above criticizing them, even. About half of Bossanova, and a third of  Trompe Le Monde is just filler. That said, when they were on, they were untouchable, and the best band in the world. Bar none. The only ones who came close were The Clash, Husker Du,Thin White Rope, Jawbox, Kyuss, and Jane's Addiction. ( Don't get me wrong, every band has a moment, at least, where they're really good- but very few get even a moment where they're unassailable, where no one could argue against them.) I count myself as very fortunate to have seen them live.  I also know that the same volatility that made them great meant they will sometimes fall apart, and it just sucks. There are moments when one member or another will just separate, maybe due to ego, maybe distraction, maybe some emotional reason, but then, when it happens, they sucked, hard.
So, while it is sad that Kim Deal has decided to leave, I have some small hope that it isn't as final as it seems. It does seem probably, however, that it's all over, this time. So, in a fit of sentimentality, I watched loudQUIETloud and I saw it with new eyes. Charles seems less closed off, more generous. Joey seems more reserved and laid back, and Kim doesn't seem like quite such a diva. David still seems exactly the same to me: just a regular guy with more than regular energy- yes he is processing something heavy for him, but it seems pretty normal and regular to me. So, where did the dynamic go wrong, this time?
I cannot project what thoughts and feelings they might have, but I have a theory. What if it's me? Well, not me, personally, but my relationship with them as a band. Because, while I do recognize that these are people, just like me, there's something that happens when they go onstage, and make music together, and they're not people, they're "The Pixies" . I can see how, if I were inside that, it would both appeal and repulse. Yes, I'd want to be part of this act of genius that is more than me, and more than I could ever be, as a person, but at the same time, the pull would be- what about me? I want to be a person, I want people to react to me as me, and either love me, or hate me based upon that.  I want to pursue the interests that excite me, not necessarily this one thing that I need to be connected to, in order to be great. However, so long as every night, good or bad, there's people there who connect with that thing, probably even more than me, I go back to that thing. I might resent it some nights, and not others, but I can see how it would always push and pull. The bigger problem would be that it's the truth. I, as a person, could do anything, and it will never be that lightning-in-a-bottle genius that The Pixies can be, and people are right to be fans of that, and there will always be more people that are fans of The Pixies than me, it's inevitable. Eventually, the plug will get pulled. Someone will die, or will get sick, or will no longer be able to plug into that genius, and that will prevent the rest from happening, so just like a Kevorkian impulse, I might want to be the one to pull the plug. I might want that final act of self-determination to be mine.
I don't know, but it seems like as plausible a theory as anything else....

Kanye West Yeezus

So, no, I've not burned a copy. Let's get that out of the way. I know it's leaked. I plan on buying it. But, I'd be a nut if I didn't at least hear it, first. Kanye might be a sold out part of the problem, but he's also probably the most experimental mainstream pop star going. Who's his competition? Thom Yorke? Hardly mainstream.   Can you see, say, Madonna putting out a song called "I am a God"? With hard, unyielding power electronics of a type not heard this side of The Eugenics Council ? Seriously this is some harsh, challenging stuff.  But, in these days when Paul Mccartney is recording with the Bloody Beetroots, I guess things are changing.
Do I have problems with his lyrics? Of course, because I don't think you have to be a black man to see the hypocrisy in using derogatory terms for a black man in a song called "New Slaves". But, at least he's playing with ideas, which puts him head and shoulders above his peers. And musically he's on his own level. It's electronics of a type that only the most avante garde have used up until now.
But is it any good? Some bits definitely are. Songs like "On Sight" and "New Slaves"  are catchy in ways I cannot quite process. I know I'm thinking about the songs, yet I cannot quite say I'm humming the melodies. But then, a song like "I'm in it" I know why I like- harsh west coast gangsta meets deep dub? Yes, please. And LP centerpiece "Blood on the leaves" is a power ballad that turns Nina Simone into a rhythmic tool, with a synth line so bombastic you might think you're listening to some mutant remix of some mid-1980's Asia song, with a fairlight obsession.
But then we get to "Send it up". Holy shit. I've got no words. Both the most abrasive and the most catchy track on the LP- it puts Nine Inch Nails out of business, in a minute flat. Sinister, challenging, body rocking, it demands to be played at top volume and yes, it will annoy your neighbours and might just wreck your stereo and drink your beer.
So, I'm not ready to buy it, yet, but I'm pretty sure I will be.

Time Machines and private viewings

One thing that always annoys me is when I'm thumbing through a fashion magazine and I see the model wearing something I like,so I look over to the product list, and the item is identified as "vintage" or "model's own"- meaning, you can't find it. Likewise, I get annoyed when I read some blog and it's all about food that the blogger cooks using ingredients I cannot purchase, or all about live performances that already took place, and they're not touring here. I think you get the idea. So, the last thing I want to do is pass along that frustration, which is the tightrope I walk for this blog. I want to talk about my "singular culture" in Tom Barman's words, but I want to stick with the parts that are accessible to others, easily.  I'm not going to make it seem like work, because this isn't , but I want some usefulness out of it
So, I saw two versions of the same film today. First, I noticed on  my Prime TV subscription on my Roku that they had  "Clockwork Orange County" which is basically a re-working of  Urban Struggle: The battle of the Cuckoo's Nest  with added, more modern footage, so, you'd think that's the better, more accessible version. Not true. Legally, it's harder to see it than the 1981 Urban Struggle, which, if you follow the link, you can see it on Daily Motion, right now. It also has the advantage of being a slightly more pure document- there's no nostalgia trip added on, with a bunch of guys like me, remembering when they were guys like you see in Urban Struggle. There's something artsy about digitally smeared sepia-toned black and white interviews and live performances of Punk Rockers from Los Angeles. Of course, for me, there's the added layer that I used to go to the Cuckoo's Nest, and these are the people I grew up wanting to lead me. But, taking away the "model's own" elements, it's still a worthwhile way to spend 40 minutes. If nothing else, it effectively captures the young, male and alienated milieu that was hardcore Los Angeles. I think they did yet another version that I haven't seen, but, all these things- these nostalgic talking heads are a dime a dozen- what's unique is who they were back then, and Urban Struggle is nothing but that. It's amazing to me- nobody would hear punk kids like me, back then, and it seems they still don't. They'd prefer to hear from those teens and punks now that they're middle aged and recalcitrant - and those same middle aged former punks don't seem to want to hear from their vital, young selves, either. That's what makes a document like Urban Struggle more important-These are messages from subcultures who never got a chance. Now, that there's nothing truly coherent nor articulate to be said is not really the point. When faced with an existential threat, the most important part is simply to be. And make no mistake, to be a punk teenager in 1980 Los Angeles was to be under existential threat.
So, even if it's a bit obscure, there's the line for me- bringing a bit of my "singular culture" into the public view.

Random notes

This was originally a post bashing the ever-living hell out of Savages and Jimmy Eat world, but I'd rather let brevity be the soul of wit, and just say that they both suck, and I want the time I spent listening to their latest releases back. One more sentence on them, then on to better things: Who thought it was a good idea to have a Butch Siouxsie (Savages) and a Femme Tom Petty (Jimmy Eat World) ?
I'm still not on Twitter, exactly, and my facebook profile is still mainly a place for me to "dj" cool youtube music videos, but I feel like I'm finally coming into the 21st century with my little Roku box. I am mastering Plex and finding that I prefer the interface of Hulu plus and Netflix to my regular TV remote.
I'm not a huge T shirt guy, but if you want my picks for the best T shirts- it's Jon Wye  ( he also does great belts and cuffs) Tina Seamonster ( who also is my greeting card source) Shirtkiller and Nikholmes
I don't own them yet, but here are my three picks for the prettiest guitars out there, right now: The Talman ( shown as a righty, but available as a lefty. I'm a lefty) The Douglas and the Eastwood . Yes, I do like guitars. If somebody gave me 500 bucks out of the blue, I'd buy a guitar, but I'm certainly not expecting that.
Anyway, I'm going back to listening to Baroness, Coliseum, and Roomrunner for now ( Again, Baroness is a must-see live, I don't care if you're not into their CDs, Coliseum is a great band, full stop, and Roomrunner is some of the best new music I've heard. They're like The Jesus Lizard runs into Nirvana { yes, I know they hate the comparison, and it's not exactly true, but I don't feel right about saying what I was going to say first- the Pixies, because Roomrunner have a much heavier touch than the Pixies})

Get the Picture?

I read articles like This one and this one and I am convinced that the "experts" are completely oblivious. I am willing to bet that 99% of all cord-cutters, be they people who've cut Cable TV, Land line Telephones, or Internet have done so for the same reason- and it doesn't have anything to do with socio-demographics- it all comes down to redundancy. Why pay for two things that do the same thing? Why pay for Cable TV, when I can stream off the internet? Why pay for a home phone when I've got a Cell phone? Why pay for Internet when I can access Facebook, Email, and You Tube on my phone? Get the idea? In a way, the telecommunication industry theorists kinda piss me off- all of the theories are predicated on the notion that people are stupid in some fashion. Like- we won't notice that we're paying three seperate bills to watch Game of Thrones ( basic Cable Fees, HBO and our Electric bill) when we could just as easy stream it illegally, and just pay for electricity 'cause we're using somebody else's wi-fi. Don't get me wrong- I'm not advocating piracy, just admitting its reality. It's all part of the same mechanism. People feel that they are being overcharged if there is another way that is as convenient and cheaper. So, if I can get the new Backstreet Boys CD by filesharing, why do I want to pay Itunes 10 bucks or Best Buy 15? If I can watch Mad Men for 8 bucks a month, by streaming it off of Amazon, why pay 50 to have a cable subscription? If I can call my Aunt Mabel with my Samsung Galaxy 13 on a 50 dollar a month plan, while I'm at the Dress Barn buying shifts, why pay 70 bucks to be chained to a home phone?
So, if the industry theorists can't see that, they're stupid, not the people getting better deals for the same service. But, I don't think they're stupid, either. I think "crazy" is a better term.  I think they know the reality, they just cannot face it, and continue as they have been.
I think the Telecommunications industry, as a whole should be much more tightly regulated in terms of business practice, and far less regulated in terms of content, and entry. I think I should be able to broadcast whatever content I want, so long as I can afford the equipment to do so. But I think I should be regulated from being able to privately own the frequency I broadcast on. Likewise, I shouldn't be able to own all the frequencies, whether I plan on broadcasting or not. Yes, I'm simplifying, but the point is this- several years back, in the 1990's under President Clinton,  it was made possible that one company could own all the methods of telecommunication, while simultaneously, the barriers to entering into the telecommunications industry went up, enormously. If that strikes you as Un-American, and perhaps a bit Oligarchic, then, welcome to the Telecommunications act of 1996. I really believe it set us up for the situation we're in, now, where the only place where we're free is the Internet- and that's not enough. But people will take whatever tool they have and make the most of it, hence the massive upsurge in piracy, cable Cord cutting, even (paradoxically) cutting out internet service- the last freedom is the freedom to say "No". If I live in a rural part of America ( I'm semi-rural, right now) my choices are incredibly piss poor internet connection at home, or regular connectivity through the phone. So, shutting off the Internet at home might very well be my best choice for using the Internet. I'm not going to cut out Cable TV, because I never got Cable TV. I only use Satellite. It's not that I'm benefiting from the monopoly, you jackasses. It's that I'm making the only choices I can make. I certainly am not suffering from a surfeit of freedom.
I know it, you know it, and I bet even the authors of these "think pieces" know it. So, what's the solution? Well, the free market solution is lowering the bar to enter the market- more competition. The socialist solution is to make the airwaves ( at all frequencies, including those used for Wifi) a public trust. Neither is going to happen, soon. I think what's going to happen is the same thing that's been happening, ever-increasing defiance of the law, on both sides, until battle occurs. That's why, while again, I really don't advocate Piracy, I recognize it for what it is- a reaction to a situation that is not realistic. I happen to be a reasonably ethical, relatively smart, and fortunately lucky individual- so I haven't had to resort to piracy to get what I want. But in other circumstances, I bet I would. Even then, I must admit, I have been sorely tempted. Here's an example- I don't get HBO. Not anymore. But I really like Boardwalk Empire. As it stands, I can afford to pay 30-40 bucks to Amazon for the next season. However, I could, if I wanted, work out a deal with a friend who gets HBO. I could give the money, or flash some charm at them, and get their log in information to use HBO Go. An elegant, cheap and easy solution, yeah? A positive identity theft. Right? I mean, it's no different than what people have been doing for generations- I can remember when I was a kid, and they started busing- I was a white kid in a Latino neighbourhood. So, the advice my parents got was to lie about their address- use somebody else's address, so I'd be sent to a better ( read "whiter") school. Lots of people were doing that. Deeper still, how many people have names that have been butchered so's they'll appear like someone they're not? Isn't that right, "Roger" from Customer Service? Are you with me,  Chef Boy R Di? But I'm not going to do that- and my only reason is that I'm self-aware enough to know that I'm wealthy, and lucky enough that I don't need to break the law. I'll save my law breaking for when it counts more. The easier solution is in HBO's court- jailbreak HBO Go. Make the content available without a Subscription to a Cable service- or better still, without a subscription to HBO- have multiple tiered service- you can access HBO Go for free if you've got Cable TV,  15 bucks a month for an HBO Go, only subscription,  or a la carte purchases of single shows at a buck per episode ( thus undercutting Netflix, Vudu, and Amazon) . Now, I know why they haven't done that , yet- it makes their system a little less traditional, a little less appealing to Cox, Comcast, et al who make large dollars by bundling HBO into package deals- "Hey, we know our monthly service prices are higher than Lindsay Lohan on a location shoot in Columbia, but you're getting HBO for free"- meanwhile, 30% of your over-priced package is going into a sweetheart deal with HBO. What it is going to take is a massive number of cord cutters and Pirates. So, HBO won't take my money, unless it gets laundered through Comcast, first. But Amazon will. So, even though I could pirate more easily than be honest with Amazon, I like Amazon more than HBO- because they're a bit more 'above ground" about how they're ripping me off. Get the Picture?

TV Continued

So, like many cord cutters, I'm liking my decision. It's not all economics, even. I've got access to some content that I otherwise would not have. For example- TV shows that never show on TV. I've watched several web-only TV shows, and so far, the one I watch most would be Fearnet's Holliston . It's a low budget throw back to classic sitcoms  that is evidently a spin off from Adam Green's ultra low budget movie "Coffee & Donuts" . It's pretty inventive.
I'm also digging the Howdini shorts, Chosen and yes, Arrested Development  . Yes, I could've watched all of that and kept Cable, but why keep cable? I still can watch everything from Mad Men to How I met your Mother, without Cable, and between Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, and Vudu I can see every movie known. So, why?
So, yes, still happy to have cut the cable TV out....

All I could find from Youtube, etc

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKEj11bhg-8

But still I am comitted to showing what I saw...

High Tension

I've only just discovered High Tension, so not much to say, but I love how they invert the formula- they start with a screamo/metal screech, and build to a pop-grunge climax. At least, so far, they sound like what Arch Enemy would sound like if they wanted to be a grunge band. That's pretty cool.

Roomrunner

You know how people say that a band should be on a label? I'm about to do that, but for the opposite reason most folks do. See Roomrunner belong on Discord records because they would kick that hoary, staid old label in the keister to move them forward. See, they have a formula that's close to Discord's wheelhouse, but better. Yes, I said better. Bear with me, here.
I found their record "Ideal Cities"  when I was in Baltimore to see the mighty Baroness. I've been listening to it over the past week, and wow! I wish I'd become hip to them earlier. You start with an angular dub and skronk base, like Discord has been ripping off from Jawbox for years ( it's ok, we're all friends, here. You can admit it. Fugazi sounded ground breaking, until you heard Jawbox, right? ) But, then, Roomrunner add a layer of bubblegum pop melodies not seen since the late 1980's  "Alternative Nation" era. Not the cheap harmonies of pop punk. We're talking almost up to the Pixies type like stick to yer ribs/Why didn't I think of that? type songcraft. Then, they coat the whole shebang in a think gooey layer of sludgey grunge noise- all words chosen carefully. I think I'm in love...
But I'm cheating, here. I happen to know that they are, in fact, being distributed by Discord . I just wanted to set this up so you'll understand that I think they belong there precisely because they bring the quality level up to the standard you've come to expect from 1990's era Discord, without sounding imitative of any single Discord band. Hell, they actually sound new, different, and dare I say it? like the next big thing.
So, if you enjoy very loud, discordant pop-damaged post-hardcore punk rock, you're welcome...