MORE BLOGS: Blurt | Stuck in VT | Mistress Maeve

Seven Days Blogs: Solid State Music Blog

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Rock Madness

The union of music and sports is often imperfect. And in some cases, it is downright ugly. (See: Every Super Bowl halftime show ever, any NBA player turned rapper, and every time I've so much as whispered "Red Sox" on this very blog.)

Part of the issue is that the fundamental cores of each pursuit are diametrically opposed. On a large scale, yes, they are both essentially forms of entertainment. But music is — ideally, at least — rooted in some degree of artistic expression, of intellectual or emotional creation. Conversely, sports are designed around competition, proving physical superiority at the expense of an opponent. 

Combined with a host of other social and cultural roadblocks, meshing sports and music presents a unique, and often insurmountable challenge. Aside from montages in sports movies and the occasional battle of the bands, they just don't fit. But that doesn't mean it's not fun to try.

With March Madness soon to get under way, ESPN Radio host Colin Cowherd has applied the college basketball tourney's bracket system to rock and roll, in an attempt to decide just who is the greatest rock band of all time. It's totally silly. However, while not without flaws, it's actually pretty entertaining.

For the non-sports inclined, here's the gist. 64 prominent bands, roughly spanning the history of rock, are separated into four groups — or, in NCAA tourney lingo, "regions." The bands in each grouping are ranked, 1-16, and then pitted against one another, highest seeds vs. lowest seeds. Winners are determined by fan voting, with the victorious groups moving on to the second round, then a "Sweet 16," "Elite 8," "Final 4" (consisting of the overall winners from each region) and eventually, a championship match.

The highest seeds are rock icons — think the Beatles, the Stones, etc. The mid-to-lower seeds are well known, commerically successful bands that, while perhaps not legendary, have (mostly) left some kind of significant imprint on popular music over the last 50 years. Particularly given the target audience — sports fans first, rock fans second — ESPN did a decent job of selecting and ranking bands. I would have likely come up with a slightly different group. (311 and Nickelback made the tourney and the Beach Boys didn't? U2 as a 1-seed? Seriously?) But whatever. Its close enough for jazz. Or for rock on a sports site.

The matchups between top seeds and bottom seeds are pretty much obvious blowouts — the Stones vs. Blink 182, Zep vs. Creed, etc. Where things get interesting are the middle brackets. Just like in the real tournament, the best chances for upsets are found in the 5-12, 6-11, 7-10 range, where the gap in talent, or at least rock iconography is narrower. Here we find some interesting hypothetical debates. For instance:

Seattle regional: 8-seed Motley Crue vs. 9-seed Weezer.

Based solely on personal taste, I'd vote Weezer 99 out of 100 times — the one exception being if I'm drunk at a bowling alley. But taking their careers as a whole into account, the Crue might actually have an edge. Weezer made two-and-half great albums, and a slew of dreck since. But do two transcendant records (The Blue Album, Pinkerton) beat the Crue's more consistent, but never particularly "great" output? Hard to say. Ultimately, it comes down to which is less wussy: Buddy Holly glasses and cardigans vs. feathered hair and tights. 

London regional: 6-seed Red Hot Chili Peppers vs. 11-seed Black Sabbath

On the surface, it looks like someone should be shot, or at least fired for this seeding. Boil it down, and we're essentially talking Ozzy (OK, and Ronnie James Dio) vs. Anthony Kiedis. It's Ozzy and Dio, and it's not close. But again, taking the scope of each band's career into account, the Chili Peppers are still relevant — at least where modern commerical rock is concerned — and have been through three decades. And it would be a mistake to overlook the contributions of Flea here. Meanwhile, Ozzy is making 4G commericals with Justin Bieber. Still, we're talking about Sabbath, one of the most important metal bands in history. This game is reasonably close in the first half. Then Sabbath pulls away in the second when Ozzy alley-oops Kiedis' severed head on a nice feed from Geezer Butler.

Cleveland regional: 6-seed Bob Marley & the Wailers vs. 11-seed the Beastie Boys 

Probably my favorite matchup, and one I really struggled with. But it calls into question how we define greatness. Marley is an icon, arguably more synonymous with his genre than any other artist, in any genre in history. On the other hand, I personally just prefer listening to the Beastie Boys. It may sound like blasphemy, but you can make a case that the quality and, perhaps more importantly, the sheer volume of the Beasties' contributions to pop music cumulatively approach those of Marley. At the very least, it isn't as lopsided a match as it might initially seem. Still, much like you wouldn't bet against Jordan or Bird in a big game, you gotta go with the legend. That's Marley.

Cleveland regional: 5-seed Phish vs. 10-seed the Ramones 

Another interesting debate, especially 'round here. I voted for the Ramones, but it wasn't as easy a decision as regular readers probably assume. Phish, no question, are a historically great band. But then, so are the Ramones. The tie-breaker for me wasn't personal preference, but whose historical significance was greater. Phish elevated the game, but will always be viewed as Clyde Drexler to the Dead's Jordan. The Ramones changed the game forever, altering the landscape of rock in way Phish, wile probably more "successful," never did. To hack the basketball metaphor even further, the Ramones would be like Dr. J, a revolutionary player who changed people's perceptions of how basketball could be played. Plus, in a sporting situation, I'll take aggressive vices like booze, coke and cigarettes over weed and hallucinogens any day.

I could go on with stuff for hours. But maybe I should cut to the chase and let y'all decide for yourselves. Here's the link. Feel free to debate in the comments. And go Def Leppard!

 

 

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

CMJ Day 2: The Curmudgeons of Rock

Hey, folks.

Welcome to my ongoing scattershot coverage of the CMJ Music Marathon, live from balmy NYC.

I just got back from a mildly interesting panel discussion, the Curmudgeons of Rock, featuring some pretty serious names in music journalism, including Rob Harvilla of the Village Voice, Sean Fennessey of eMusic, freelancer Maura Johnston, SPIN magazine music editor Charles Aaron and the newly minted music critic at New York magazine, Nitsuh Abebe. The hour-long discussion touched on a variety of issues of particular interest to yours truly, including the changing face of music journalism in the Internet age, the relevance of "authoritative" opinions when anyone with a keyboard and a web connection can blog their thoughts, or download an album in the time takes to read a review, and whether there is any value in publishing negative criticism. I especially enjoyed that last one.

But the elephant in the room was the general decline of print media and how the music journalism industry as whole has been forced to adapt. Fennessey had some particularly poignant remarks, speaking as both a former print journalist and currently as one of the driving forces behind eMusic. His stance was essentially that sites such as his, and several others around the web serve more as curators of taste rather than arbiters of cool. Unlike Harvilla and Aaron — or myself, for that matter — writers for his site have the luxury of writing solely about music that interests them, that they have a passion for. Since they promote music — in an effort to sell it, of course — true criticism never enters into the equation. They simply write about stuff they like, and hope some other folks will too.

The flip side, and perhaps the most spirited debate of the day, centered on whether negative criticism has a place in modern music journalism. Aaron was particularly candid, all but admitting to formerly feeling at least somewhat beholden to record labels advertising in his mag. But now that major label influence has waned, he feels more emboldened to tell it like it is … to a point. He added that negative reviews rarely benefit anyone, whether it be the artist (obviously), the publication, the writer or, more importantly, said artist's fans, who often respond passionately when they feel their favorite band has been unduly skewered. He also added that a negative review can often sever relationships with artists whom you may wish to cover in the future. I can attest to the validity of all of those points. But my take is this: so what?

If I may, I'd like to borrow a line from the late, great Lester Bangs:

"My responsibility as I see it as a critic is not to help a lot of new bands sell their records. It's to help people who are buying the records to keep from making a purchase that they're going to get home and hate my guts and the band's too because it's a piece of shit."

Amen. Harvilla echoed a similar sentiment, offering that trust is a key component between a writer and his or her readership. And part of building that trust means offerring a negative opinion when it's warranted. It doesn't have to be mean-spirited or snarky — though those are often the most fun to read … and write. Ahem. But it does have to be honest. To illustrate, Harvilla pointed to the "I'm not mad, I'm disappointed" style review — read my review of the Death reunion show for an example.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, or just naive, but I believe professional music criticism is still a valid and important part of how we collectively experience music. I'm biased, of course, since I am one of a lucky — and shrinking — few who actually make a living doing this. And as Fennessey put it, it's hard to take any of it too seriously because, "We're not doing God's work. We're writing about rock and hip-hop records." Yup. But there is still a place for informed, well-reasoned discussions about music amid the shrieking blogosphere … at least I hope.

*******

A couple more notes on last night's rambling.

1. Das Racist was … disappointing. Coulda just been the poor sound, or the general difficulty of translating hip-hop to a live setting, or maybe they just haven't made the developmental adjustment from studio darlings to live act, but I left unimpressed. With a cadre of hype men and various hangers-on crowding the stage, dudes just seemed a little too comfortable letting shenanigans drive the show, instead of focusing on performing. It's too bad, since they write such clever, funny songs but you'd never know it based on last night's show.

2. The surprise of the night was … well, still a surprise, but I'm working on that. The band was an incredible art folk outfit from North Carolina. But they were a late addition, not listed in the CMJ guide  and never actually told the crowd who they were. But I'll figure who they were and pass that info along, hopefully soon.

3. On the docket for tonight: a Press Mixer — not my bag, but the food and booze is free, which is key in this town. Surfer Blood, Good Old War and … well, who knows? But that's the whole point, right?

 

 

 

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Tuesday Link Dump

Just noticed a serious backlog of bloggerly stuff on the menu. So in the interest of cleaning my plate for dessert, here's a good old-fashioned link dump.

First up, James Kochalka has the opportunity to live out a lifelong (8-bit) dream, but he needs our help.

Ditto our pals at Big Heavy World, who could use a kickstart in their efforts for a new server.

Higher Ground just announced a Flynn MainStage show with Rodrigo Y Gabriela. Tix go on sale this Friday.

Though it doesn't come out for another week, the studio recording of Anaïs Mitchell's folk opera Hadestown has already been garnering some strong buzz. And the nice folks at Brooklyn Vegan have three tracks available for download, including my current favorite cut, "Wait for Me" with The Low Anthem's Ben Knox Miller and Justin "BonfuckingIver" Vernon. Be sure to scroll to the end of that post for a lovely YouTube clip of Mitchell and Bon Iver performing "Lovin's for Fools" in Paris in 2008.

BURNTmd's new single, "Let's Get Ill" hit the streets today and is available on iTunes.

File under "Just Because" … hipster puppies!

When I spoke with her last week, Neko Case didn't know that Matador had posted this awesome advance track from the forthcoming New Pornographers record. (And yes, I totally just name dropped Neko Case right there. But how awesome is it that this loosely qualifies as local music news?)

Speaking of music news that loosely qualifies as being local, Grace Potter and the Nocturnals have a track on Almost Alice, a compilation of music inspired by or thematically related to Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland." GPN are in select company. Others appearing on the comp include Robert Smith, Franz Ferdinand, Avril Lavigne, Wolfmother and Plain White T's. Here's a video of the band performing their contribution to the comp, Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit." Gotta say, Grace's performance is pretty slick. (Rimshot!)

I almost feel guilty about it, but I'm loving this new video from Mayer Hawthorne which pays tribute to my all-time favorite Temptations song. (On a personal note, as a young buck songwriter, I totally cribbed the lyrics from "I Wish it Would Rain" in a song myself.)

And last but not least, the Planning Commissioners Journal wants to know your thoughts on cell phones and driving. No, it's not a local poll. And there's no music hook here either. But since I've nearly been run over twice this week by chatty motorists in Burlington, I figured I'd pass it along anyway. Hang up and drive, dammit. And then go vote.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Nightmares & Tweetscapes

My name is Dan, and I have a Twitter feed.

"Hi, Dan!"

I thought I had kicked the habit. Really, I did. I mean, I was never a terribly prolific Tweeter — Tweeterer? Tweetist? — to begin with. And deep down, I do sort of resent the intrusion of yet another social networking tool that reduces communication to truncated pseudo-English — or as I like to call it, webonics.

Is your day really enriched by knowing that I'm over-caffeinated in the morning, reading FailBlog in the afternoon when I really ought to be doing club listings or craving a cold beer in the morn, er, after work? Probably not. By the same token, do I really need an up-to-the-minute rundown of how your day is going? I like you guys and all, but I'm the kind of fella who likes to leave the mystery intact to some degree.

So I had basically stopped Twittering. For like a good two weeks. Maybe longer. But every day, I noticed more and more people following my (then dormant) feed. And I started feeling guilty. Not guilty enough to actually start using Twitter again, mind you. But guilty just the same. Is this what it's like to be Catholic?

Anyway, today I finally succumbed and unleashed a few sub-140 character brain dribblings into the Tweetscape. And you know what? It felt good. Really good. Like that first beer in the morn, er, after work. And that's not all.

After acquiring a small cadre of followers over the last couple of weeks, I found myself checking in to view their brain dribblings too. What's worse, I started to care. (My 7D predecessor, Casey Rae-Hunter, tweets like Robert Pollard writes songs, which is to say non-freakin'-stop.)

Then came the tipping point, when after being forced to wait several seconds because Twitter was "over capacity" — WTF?! NOOOOOO!Daryl Rabidoux posted a link to a YouTube clip of late San Diego outfit No Knife, whom I'd never heard of but fell immediately in love with and promptly downloaded an album via eMusic. (Pinback fans might recognize the drummer.) Here's the clip:


If this keeps up, I'll be broke in a week. Damn you, Twitter. Damn you!

Aw . . . I can't stay mad at you.

Recent Comments

Blurt (7D Staff)

Stuck in VT (VIDEOS)

Mistress Maeve (Sex)

All Rights Reserved © SEVEN DAYS 1995-2010 | PO Box 1164, Burlington, VT 05402-1164 | 802.864.5684