Constructive Anarchy: The Blog

Jason at the Seminal

Want to change the face on the radio dial? Now you can!

In October, the FCC is opened a rare window for community and nonprofit organizations to build their own full-power, noncommercial radio stations across the country.
“Without a limit on the new licenses, any group could apply for thousands of full-power FM radio stations across the country and destroy this rare opportunity for local communities,” said Libby Reinish of Prometheus Radio Project.
“The FCC should make sure to put local and diverse voices first on the FM dial.”
This is how you get change. People, if you are tired of voice tracked DJs, the same dozen songs in heavy rotation, a half hour of advertisements, and never hearing anything interesting on commercial radio, you can do something about it!
The FCC’s licensing window could be one of the last chances for community-based nonprofits to gain access to the public airwaves. Organizations will have just seven days, from Oct. 12-19, to file for full-power FM licenses.
The agency asked for public comment on whether it should limit groups from owning more than 10 of the new stations nationwide. Over 10,000 people across the country have spoken out in favor of the limit.
Do you know a group that would like to start a radio station? If so, Click here for instructions and help on applying for your license
Do you feel corporations shouldn’t be able to buy and consolidate these new stations, creating even more blandness on the radio? If so, Click here to send the FCC your comments
This is an opportunity, and they don’t come around often. If you agree that commercialism has ruined the radio dial, then here is your chance to do something about it.

Don’t Fight File Sharing, Use It

Now here’s a novel idea. It seems at least one record company is using peer-to-peer download data for market research.
Interscope Records is using file sharing data from a company called MediaDefender, which bills itself as “the leading provider of anti-piracy solutions in the emerging Internet-Piracy-Prevention (IPP) industry.” MediaDefender makes its money by seeding file sharing networks with bogus files, allowing content providers to serve users ads instead of the files users request, and in general try to screw up the peer-to-peer experience. Not that it’s working.

In addition, they are apparently supplying traffic data to record companies like Interscope to help them choose which single to release next. Presumably, a song that is downloaded often on file sharing networks but has yet to be released as a single is a good target for promotion. It’s like record companies have a little test market running online, which they can learn from before they spend money on advertising in the real market.

Good for Interscope! The data that can be derived from peer-to-peer traffic is indeed a marketing gold mine, and can be used to find out all sorts of things beyond the next single candidate. Here are a couple other ways this data could be used by record or movie companies:

1. File sharing data could be used to discover new or under-promoted artists. Record companies would do well to take note of any spikes in traffic for a particular artist or song. I would assume that often, the trends that take shape on the Internet happen well in advance of a more public outbreak. Tracking and jumping on nascent file sharing phenomenons could help record companies get a jump on the next breakout artist or viral song, or find new interest in forgotten artists that could use a little re-promotion.
2. If the peer-to-peer marketplace is indeed more fast moving than the offline marketplace, file sharing data can be used to deduce when a trend is starting to fade. As file sharing traffic drops off, record and movie companies could reign in their marketing dollars to avoid spending extra money on a falling fad.
3. File sharing networks can allow record companies and artists to interact with their fans. For example, an artist could seed three different mixes of the same song out to the masses. Users would vote by sharing the version they like best with others, and the version that got the most votes would clearly be the most popular, and by extrapolation, the most successful.
4. Peer-to-peer data encompasses more than just numbers. By looking at the locations of users who download specific artists or movies, record companies could target their promotions to certain geographical markets, movie studios would know what cities to release certain films in, and artists could figure out where to play when they go out on tour.

The possibilities are literally endless. The data that can be gathered from peer-to-peer networks is the stuff marketing managers would kill for. Most importantly, if record companies pick up on the value of file sharing networks they might actually start treating file sharers like customers and not criminals.

It’s simple really. People who use file sharing networks care about music and movies. They are up on culture and they are often the trendsetters in their social circles. These are the kind of people record and movie companies need to learn from, not prosecute. Once these corporations realize the valuable market research that is at their disposal, maybe they will give up their draconian lawsuits and go back to the business of making good music and quality films.

The Era of Free Music Is Upon Us

I can see the writing on the wall. The album is dying.
Highly successful artists have started abandoning albums as a way to make money. They are now giving away their music for free. Instead of selling albums, they are concentrating on building their fan bases, putting out quality art, and making their bread through touring and merchandising.
First, Prince decided to give away his latest album Planet Earth in copies of the British tabloid The Mail this past summer. Predictably, the record industry was scared, with music retailers launching lawsuits and investigations and pulling Prince’s other records from the shelves.
Next, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails urged fans to steal his albums, saying, “If I could do what I want right now, I would put out my next album, you could download it from my site at as high a bit-rate as you want, [and] pay $4 through PayPal.”
Finally, Radiohead has told the world that we should pay what we want for their upcoming album In Rainbows. The album will be available as a download and users will really be able to name their price, or even pay nothing at all.
Together, these artists have sold over 55 million albums. They have dozens of top 10 hits to their names. These artists arguably understand the record business better than anyone and they’ve collectively decided that the album isn’t for making money anymore. This isn’t an isolated incident. This is a trend.
Small bands have never made money off albums because they can’t get signed or get a distribution deal. Now, the big guys are foregoing the album as well, giving up what was once their major source of income. The fans aren’t moaning the loss either, being happy to download content piecemeal. In short, nobody has a use for albums anymore besides the record companies. It’s pretty clear to anyone following musical trends that the era of the album is over. The file sharers have won and the era of free music is upon us.
I hope the music industry is ready for this change. I’m sure they see it coming, as they’ve taken steps to deal with the changing marketplace by selling digital downloads and ringtones on one hand and suing their file sharing customers on the other. But I wonder if a record exec has ever seriously thought, “What if nobody will buy albums anymore? What if the album goes extinct?”
The record industry is mammoth, corrupt, greedy, and above all, slow to change. They’ve already been caught flat footed by the digital music revolution. For their sake, let’s hope they are looking a little farther into the future.
I personally won’t morn the death of the album. If it does become extinct, so much the better. Do you think the future of the record industry lies with the album?

Phil Spector: Genius Breeds Instability

Most people have probably heard of Phil Spector. He’s currently on trial for allegedly murdering girlfriend and B-movie actress Lana Clarkson in 2003. What you may not know is that Spector has been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and is arguably the most influential music producer of his generation, up there with the likes of George Martin and The Beatles and Brain Wilson of Beach Boys fame.
Spector was famous for his “Wall of Sound” recording technique. In his own words, the Wall of Sound was, “a Wagnerian approach to rock & roll: little symphonies for the kids.” The effect was dense and layered, and it typically involved dozens of instruments, often in odd combinations, playing orchestral parts in unison at the same time in a large studio. The layered sound is then fed into an echo chamber to further muddle and beef it up before being transfered to tape. You can clearly hear the effect in
“Be My Baby” by The Ronettes, released in 1963…
YouTube the vid.
The effect is best appreciated in headphones. Laying down the rhythm is a strange mix of drums, castanets, shakers, and tambourines. Backing it up are multiple basses and guitars playing a single line in unison, fifths, or octaves. Topping off the instrumental lines is the orchestra, a bunch of strings playing in unison. Take a particular listen to the orchestral solo. That’s definitely more than one violin playing. Most likely, there are half a dozen players who put down that line at the same time. It’s a delightfully complex bit of recording, sweet and simple when you first hear it but increasingly layered, strange, and perverted the more you really listen. You can almost hear the madness showing through the cracks.
The Wall of Sound style transmitted well through the low quality jukebox and headphone speakers of the day, and Phil Spector had hit after hit in the early 60’s, including “You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feelin’”, “Unchained Melody”, and “River Deep - Mountain High”. Phil Spector was arguably the first record producer to really gain popular recognition outside the music industry and helped found the producer impresario archtype we see today in the likes of Kanye West or Timbaland. He was one of the first to turn the recording studio itself into a musical instrument, and his affect on pop music is almost immeasurable. Without Spector’s influence, there would be no Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band, or Pet Sounds, or even Dark Side of the Moon. All of these albums came out of the Spector tradition or the Spector image.
With Spector’s genius in the recording studio came some marked instability, which at the time gave Spector a kind of mad scientist vibe. He was known to be controlling in the studio, making artists work long hours in cramped quarters, sometimes playing the same chord over and over until fingers bled. Spector chewed through talent at a remarkable pace, recording, releasing, and dropping over a dozen artists in less than 10 years. He maintained a stranglehold on his suppliers and distributors, taking as much of the recording, producing, manufacturing, and selling in house as he could. He kept his wife as a virtual prisoner in their house. He watched Citizen Kane obsessively. He pulled guns on the talent.
Probably the most famous Spector story comes from The Beatles. In a way, Spector and The Beatles saved each other. In 1969 Spector’s star was falling and The Beatles were struggling to stay together. Spector was given the high profile assignment of salvaging the Let It Be sessions. Spector applied his Wall of Sound techniques and turned out such masterpieces as “The Long and Winding Road” and “Across the Universe”. While John and George loved the Spector versions, Paul McCartney hated them. Thirty years later, he released Let It Be…Naked, a version “how it was supposed to sound” without Spector’s meddling. Not surprisingly, the original Let It Be mix is still the true classic.
It is often said that with genius comes madness. Did Phil Spector murder his mistress? I have no idea, though I wouldn’t put it past him. But that doesn’t diminish his accomplishments. Spector, possibly more than anyone else, was responsible for the sounds of the countercultural revolution.

In the nondescript building at 1520 Sedgwick Avenue in the Bronx,
DJ Kool Herc invented the genre.
Kool Herc presided over the turntables at parties in that community room in 1973 that spilled into nearby parks before turning into a global assault. Playing snippets of the choicest beats from James Brown, Jimmy Castor, Babe Ruth and anything else that piqued his considerable musical curiosity, he provided the soundtrack savored by loose-limbed b-boys…

DJ Kool Herc and 1520 Sedgwick

Now, the owners of the building have decided to opt out of a government subsidised rent-control program and open the building up to development, rehab, and rising rent prices. The 100 mostly low-income apartment dwellers will be subject to huge rent increases or eviction.

Rising rents are nothing new in New York city, but preservationists have rallied around 1520 Sedgwick to try and get the building declared a National Landmark because of its hip hop heritage. Usually, Landmark buildings must be at least 50 years old, which this building is not, but exceptions are made in unusual circumstances. However, Lisa Kersavage points out that, “It is complicated when you try to preserve some other feature of a building besides its architecture.” The fight to save the birthplace of hip hop may be an uphill battle.

More interesting to me, though, is the interesting corollary between this building and hip hop as a whole. The building is uninspiring, built in typical housing project style, a high rise next to the highway. It quickly conjures up images of inner city decay. However, something vibrant, beautiful, and courageous was created there. In the same way, hip hop rises from the blighted urban landscape. Using borrowed songs and makeshift instruments, hip hop creates something from the ghetto that is full of life. As cliched as this may sound, hip hop derives much of its imagery and ideology from phoenix mythology, common to Greek, Christian, Egyptian, and Asian cultures. The phoenix rises from the ashes, reborn again and again, immortal, just as hip hop takes cultural roots from soul, jazz, and delta blues and rises from the ashes of the segregated urban conditions African-Americans found themselves consigned to after the civil rights era.

Hip Hop…From the Ashes Comes Beautiful Music

Hip hop couldn’t have been born in a building designed by Frank Lloyd Wright or Mies van der Rohe. It couldn’t have been born in a historic landmark or in a famous person’s home. Hip hop could only have come from such nondescript buildings like 1520 Sedgwick, and therein lies the lesson. The ultimate message of hip hop is that beauty can come from dirt, grime, pain, struggle, and oppression. And in a way, if 1520 Sedgwick is not turned into a landmark, its fate will be almost fitting. Landmark status will do little to honor hip hop’s original spirit, which has grown far beyond the confines of this building’s community center, and indeed far beyond its original ideologies, creators, and inspirations. Once started, the hip hop feeling has been unstoppable, rooted less in geography and history than a shared desire to rise up and overcome spiritually, physically, and artistically. In the words of Common, and so many others:

Freeing Musicians From Music Industry Tyranny

It is hard to believe that the modern music industry does much to bring better music to the world. Recent offenses to quality music such as boy bands, divas, and overproduced pop shlock have all but convinced me. Apparently, I’m not the only one. Witness the rise of independent music, music produced largely outside the system without much help from the traditional music industry, especially in the early stages. Clearly, the music consuming public isn’t being served by the glossy output of the major labels and they are looking elsewhere for original, artistic content. So, if the music industry fails at its single purpose to produce good music, what exactly is the problem?
There are lots of problems, but I feel it can be argued that a major issue facing the record industry is one of structure. The way the music industry typically handles artists is akin to the old studio system employed by Hollywood in the 1920’s through the 1950’s. In old Hollywood, actors, technicians, and directors were typically held under long-term contracts with one major movie studio. These studios used their in-house talent to make films. Under the studio system, actors and actresses, the big drivers of publicity for movies, were not allowed to be in any other studio’s movies without permission. The contracts were extremely restrictive, allowing for the studios to set pay rates, working hours, and even go so far as to mandate who an actor could marry or what an actress’s political views should be. The studios “owned” their stars.

Of course, while the studio system did produce many wonderful films, the situation for actors was poor. But wait, why did this not stop actors from making great films? Mostly because actors depend on a good foundation to pursue their art. A great performance can make a mediocre movie exceptional, but a great actor cannot make a terrible film into anything more than a terrible film. Actors were unhappy, but with good material, they were still able to create memorable movies. Once the studio system dissolved in the 1960’s, actors were free to make deals with any group of people they wished. Today, actors operate largely as independent agents. A group of actors, directors, and technicians are contracted for one film only. If they work together in the future, it is only because of their mutual desire to do so. This system has helped give rise to the independent film genre, so much so that today you can find big name stars in small budget films screened at film festivals all over the world. That kind of liberty to take any project an actor wishes was unthinkable in the studio age. Unfortunately, the music industry today is very similar to the old Hollywood studio system, and it operates at great detriment to artists and music lovers.

Prince was a slave to his record contract.

Prince was a slave to his record contract.
Once a musician or musical group is signed to a major label, they are typically locked into multi-album contracts, forbidden to work with artists or producers outside of the label to which they are signed without permission. Often, the labels exert tremendous financial and artistic pressure on artists. Forced to create under these stifling rules, musicians often rebel. Prince had a highly public fight with Warner Brothers over his restrictive contract, changing his name to an unpronounceable symbol and releasing mediocre albums in quick succession to end his obligations. Such conflicts and pressures over artistic control are not rare, but studios exert tremendous control of an artist’s finances as well. Courtney Love, a shrewd businesswoman when you look beyond her image, explains how record companies routinely screw artists financially: (Bear with me, this quote is long, but it is worth reading.)

This story is about a bidding-war band that gets a huge deal with a 20 percent royalty rate and a million-dollar advance. (No bidding-war band ever got a 20 percent royalty, but whatever.) This is my “funny” math based on some reality and I just want to qualify it by saying I’m positive it’s better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide.

What happens to that million dollars?

They spend half a million to record their album. That leaves the band with $500,000. They pay $100,000 to their manager for 20 percent commission. They pay $25,000 each to their lawyer and business manager.

That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there’s $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.

That’s $45,000 to live on for a year until the record gets released.

The record is a big hit and sells a million copies. (How a bidding-war band sells a million copies of its debut record is another rant entirely, but it’s based on any basic civics-class knowledge that any of us have about cartels. Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service.)

So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos. The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video production costs are recouped out of the band’s royalties.

The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100 percent recoupable.

The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations — the unified broadcast system — are getting paid to play their records.

All of those independent promotion costs are charged to the band.

Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company.

If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.

Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals … zero!

How much does the record company make?

They grossed $11 million.

It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000 in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.

The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.

They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That’s mostly retail advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.

Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.

So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.

How will a system like that produce good music? Artists feel incredible pressure to sign anything put forward by major labels because if they don’t, the artist is shut out of the manufacturing, distribution, and promotion channels that the labels control. While making a living as an independent is possible, indie bands face huge challenges without major label support, finding it difficult to get their albums in major record stores, on TV, and on the radio, and having trouble getting themselves booked at major concert venues around the country. Once an artists signs with a major label, which continues to be the only real way to score a major hit, the artist has little incentive to produce something new, exciting, or interesting. Once they are signed, they really only have incentive to release albums, no matter how poor in quality they may be. Witness the rash of greatest hits albums artists typically release to run out their contracts as proof of this phenomenon. These albums may make money for the label, but they don’t greatly enrich the artist and they certainly don’t add any new artistic material to the musical world.

It seems that music fans would be better served by a music industry that looked more like the modern movie studio system and less like the Hollywood system of old. A lot of musical innovation is driven by collaboration. With the new system, musicians or groups would be free to work with whoever they want. They could bring in other musicians, outside producers, engineers, or whoever they felt necessary to make a project great. Individual musicians could form groups for an album or two, or as long as the creativity kept flowing. Groups of talented people could form ad-hoc alliances to work on individual projects, and be free to walk away after that single project was finished. This kind of system, in my mind, encourages artists to seek out the people with whom they want to work, the people they could create the the most interesting music with. This system of collaboration seems like a win for the customer.

On top of that, groups creating albums would contract with distributors and labels for promotion and manufacturing. Groups would be free to negotiate any kind of contract they could get away with, without the fear that they would be shut out of the entire distribution and promotion system if they refused to accept unreasonable terms. Artists would have the possibility to make more money, and they most certainly would be able to negotiate for fairer and less restrictive contracts. If a certain label started putting too much pressure on a group, they could walk away after one album and find someone more amenable to their working style. It seems like this system would be a win for the artists as well.

I don’t propose that this system would solve pop music’s problems once and for all. Nearsighted copyright law, draconian enforcement, payola, corruption, and a national obsession with image over art all contribute to the crap you hear when you turn on the radio. However, if the music industry were to adopt a structure like I have proposed, things might have a chance to get better. It is not likely that this change would happen easily (it did take a Supreme Court anti-trust ruling to bring down the Hollywood system), but it is an interesting change to think about. Do you think a decentralized music industry would create better music for the fans? I’m interested to hear your take on this idea.

Illegal Downloading and the Long Tail

There is a point that is often missed when record labels and the RIAA talk about the power of illegal downloads to suck profits out of the music industry. The typical argument is pretty simplistic, and it goes something like this:
Back in the old days, people used to purchase the music they wanted to listen to. When Napster and other peer-to-peer downloading networks arrived, people no longer had to pay for what they could download for free. Thus, with people buying less music, record labels make less money, and the music industry as a whole loses out because there is less money to pay artists, thus there are less artists, thus there is less music. The RIAA, the music industry’s trade group, says illegal downloading is responsible for the recent loss of profits:

When 23 percent of surveyed music consumers say they are not buying more music because they are downloading or copying their music for free, we cannot ignore the impact on the marketplace.
However, I’m not quite convinced that illegal downloading affects the record industry’s core profit centers as much as they like to think it does.
The record industry makes its money on hits. According to some, 90% of records put out by the industry fail to make a profit. So, those records that are real hits, say selling over 1 million copies, are the ones that are really driving the profits of record companies. But people download much more than just the hits, and so the illegal downloading phenomenon might not be cannibalizing as much of the record industry’s profits as it might lead you to believe.
Last year, about 5 billion songs were downloaded illegally through peer-to-peer networks. I’ve attempted to roughly calculate how many of those were hit songs. According to PeerMind, a website that tracks peer-to-peer download numbers, the total number of downloads for the top 10 downloaded songs averages at about 8 million per week, or 416 million per year. That means that hit song downloads account for only about 8% of all music downloaded in a year. Hit songs, while being the profit center of the record industry, clearly only accounts for a small portion of peer-to-peer traffic.
So what else are people downloading? Well, in my experience, people download a wide variety of different songs. You might pick up that one song that’s been stuck in your head for a week, or download the track that your mother used to sing around the house in 1979. You might download a song written by a local band you heard the other night, or a song from 10 years ago your friend just reminded you about. You might download a live concert, or a remix. People might download all sorts of songs, and none of them might be current hits. Peer-to-peer music sharing exhibits intense long tail characteristics, in that most of the activity is not focused on a few big hits, but spread out along the rest of the collective music catalogue. Instead of millions of people downloading one song, millions of people are each downloading millions of different songs. Eventually, those small, spread out numbers add up to the big download figures we see above.
I don’t think the long tail effect of illegal downloads is necessarily bad for the music industry. How many of you would go out and buy an album just for that one song your mother used to sing back in 1979? I think it is a fair assumption to say that without peer-to-peer downloading, most people would just go without the little bits of music they were looking for. I don’t think too many would be out running to the record stores, cash in hand, just for a few old tracks. I remain unconvinced that the record industry is losing a lot of money on these long tail downloads. If they make their money off of their hits, why get all up in arms about the downloads taking place downstream of the major artists. Clearly, downloading of major hits hasn’t helped record sales (or maybe it has, that’s a discussion for another time), but as most of the activity is concentrated away from the major artists, why does the record industry maintain that all illegal downloads are a threat?
Illegal downloading on the long tail might actually help record companies in the long run. If you sample a long-forgotten artist and really like the work, you might be tempted to actually buy a record. In fact, some studies have concluded just that, alleging that people who share music files spend four and a half times more on legal music than their non-downloading peers. The long tail downloading phenomenon can and should be seen by record labels as an innovative and comprehensive promotional tool. People can easily sample music across a vast catalogue of recordings, far more than you can find in any record store, and they can easily get turned onto new favorites in the process. Instead of suing customers for downloading what looks like to be mostly unprofitable tracks, why don’t record labels concentrate on turning those long tail browsers into paying customers. I’m pretty sure that can be accomplished without lawsuits.
Music culture moves in cycles, just like anything else. A period of cultural creativity will inevitably follow a period of cultural decay, then, another period of creativity follows, coming out of left field to expand our cultural horizons once again. Our musical history is full of such revivals, especially modern popular history.

In all of these cycles, the major music industry has been a follower, not a leader. Record labels, the most powerful of the music industry institutions, are in the business to make money. Therefore, they typically shy away from taking too many risks on new sounds and artists. Instead, they try and hitch a ride on an upcoming wave of popularity, catching a genre before it gets too popular and making money as its popularity peaks and then falls. This means that record labels are reactionary, not visionary, and that they depend on the underground to incubate the “next big thing” just as the underground depends on the mainstream to popularize the fruits of its labor.
For an example, take the transition from rock to folk in the early 1960’s. After a steady diet of smooth crooners such as Frankie Avalon and Elvis Presley, the American music scene was ready for a change. Enter the folk crowd, with the likes of Bob Dylan, Simon & Garfunkel, and Joan Baez. You couldn’t have asked for more of a different style. Frankie Avalon, who hit #4 of the Billboard Charts in 1959 with “Venus,” was smooth as can be.
Venus on Dick Clark’s Bandstand

The Day the Music Died…Frankie Avalon replaces Buddy Holly on the Great Rock & Roll Tour of 1959…24 hours after Buddy’s plane crash
The song is full of lush instrumentation, sweet back up singers, and lyrics praising the God-like beauty of a girl. A nice tune, to be sure, but nothing like what came next. In fact, the folk movement sounds almost completely opposite. Take a track from Dylan’s The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan, “Blowin’ in the Wind.”

You’ve got one guy, strumming an acoustic guitar, who can’t even really sing! The performance is raw, the voice is cracked, and the harmonica is out of tune. The lyrics deal with more complex issues: “How many times must the cannon balls fly, before they are forever banned,” is a far cry from, “Venus, if you will, please send a little girl for me to thrill.” In short, a complete 180 from what came before.

Folk, like other musical movements, become popular after being “promoted” from the underground. By the time folk music broke into the mainstream, it had been brewing in the underground scenes around the country since the 1930’s. Artists like Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger played in small venues around the nation, influencing the giants of folk that came later. These artists survived for years without the support of major record labels, yet they eventually came to dominate the music scene in American in England, merging with rock & roll to create the soundtrack to the 1960’s counter-cultural revolution that has influenced so much of today’s music. This transformation exemplifies the typical path of a genre’s growth, from underground phenomenon into popular acceptance.

This also means that major record labels are accorded permanent “outsider” status. This is a reverse of the typical way of thinking, but I believe it to be true. Those who decide a music’s popularity are the people. They vote with the way they spend their hard earned money, either on records, concert tickets, merchandise, or other forms of support. The major labels have never been the establishment, in that they have never really had the power. They may control the major distribution streams, but people have continually shown that finding art that satisfies them is extremely important; they are more than willing to go outside “mainstream” distribution channels to find the music they want to hear. The current fight over copyright and illegal downloading exemplifies this point, in a way. Clearly, major labels are not putting out a product worth paying for. As such, customers decide they will not pay for it.

The record labels, then, are permanently a step behind our culture. As folk music became popular in the 60’s, labels such as Columbia Records realized the earning potential in kids like Bob Dylan and signed them to contracts. Sure, they were able to make out with a lot of money in the end, but they can never be credited with “discovering” or even really popularizing the sound. Folk music was on its way up by the time the majors got to it, all they could do was sign on as an outsider and ride the wave. Of course, they did promote the music and help grow the folk movement, but I argue there was little “innovation” involved.

An example of these same forces in action is clear today. In my view, right now, we are moving out of a cultural low point in the musical world. After the wasteland of boy bands and divas in the mid to late 90’s, we are seeing a huge resurgence in the indie rock genre, and the major labels are just starting to catch on. They have started signing the artists who will make them money, they are bringing this indie sound to the masses, and most people will be happy. The majors will make money, and the underground will see its little movement spread nationwide, which will certainly enrich the talented musicians who are fortunate enough to be picked up for national exposure.

That is why it is useless and shortsighted to complain about major record labels stifling innovation and flooding the airwaves with crap. These businesses never have, and never will “take chances” on unproven new styles. Any move they make will be a reaction to the trends already showing in the larger musical community. These companies don’t push bad music onto people in the hopes that through overexposure they will sell records, they push bad music to augment the sales of the records that are already selling. Even the recent rash of terrible hip hop and dance music represents this phenomenon. The latest “track” from Justin Timberlake or R. Kelly is just a reaction to the resurgence in club going and nightlife America has experienced since the mid 80’s.

The underground and the mainstream must work in concert. When there is a disconnect, you start seeing a downturn in quality and earning potential. Clearly, the major record labels are not mind readers. They can easily make mistakes, especially by placing too big of a bet on the wrong style of music. This seems to be the case with modern hip hop. As discussed here at The Seminal, it seems the major record labels placed a huge bet on post Biggie and Tupac gangster rap and southern-style hip hop music, hoping they would become long-lasting, national trends. Instead, we have started to see a downturn in hip hop sales. The underground hip hop scene, of course, is still making a ton of great music, but right now there is a distinct lack of a cohesive, money-making scene for the major labels to latch onto. Until the majors see that clear profit incentive, quality underground hip hop will continue to be overlooked, and the majors will continue to put out commercial hip hop crap.

The power for change is in your hands, or more accurately, in your wallets. If you help create a viable scene in the underground, you can be sure the majors will jump all over it when they see the opportunity to make a quick buck. This may, of course, be seen as a good or a bad thing, depending on who you are, what your scene looks like, and if you stand to make money from that popularization or not. However, the fact remains, if your style is profitable, major distribution will happen whether you like it or not. The record companies may have a lot of power and money, but they cannot yet force you to buy their products. Take heart in this fact; the country’s musical tastes, for better or for worse, rest squarely in our hands. Support the music you like and don’t support the music you don’t. Eventually, hopefully, the big labels will catch on.
Editor’s note:

J-Ro raises the great question: who was the greatest R&R Songwriter?

There are a lot of ways to appreciate the wide variety of music out there. You can appreciate a singer’s energy, or a band’s delivery, or an album’s concept. You can fall for a great tune or a catchy hook, or for the emotional content in a recording. You can take the long view and admire how an artist’s sound evolves and changes. Or you can take the technical route and listen for pristine recording and innovative studio techniques. I try and listen for all of these things, but my favorite way to appreciate pop music is through the appreciation of songwriting.

There is a peculiar art to songwriting. A great pop song is somehow both more and less than the sum of its parts. When well written, a song’s elements and structure come together to give you a great feeling and atmosphere, a certain sensation that every single element is in just the right place. A well written song also gives you the overwhelming sense of its simplicity; when you reduce it down to, say, just a strummed guitar and muted vocals, it still hangs together and affects you with the same intensity.

My favorite songwriters don’t necessarily write the most popular music. There are many other ways in which a song or group or album can be great. But as a musician and producer, I feel I appreciate a well-constructed song the most. Here is a list of my top 5 songwriters, with a little bit of description and an example of their genius. I hope you enjoy.

Van Morrison- Days Like This

Van Morrison’s execution sometimes leaves a lot to be desired, but there is no question that he writes great songs. Tunes like “Moondance” or “Brown Eyed Girl” may be lacking in the orchestration department, but the songs themselves stand up to the test of time. These songs embody the synergy that a great songwriter can effortlessly bring out. No matter how they are performed, these songs strike you as more than just verses and choruses. A song like “Jackie Wilson Said” gets stuck in your head for days, but you don’t mind. Van’s work is overwhelmingly simple, yet so hard to replicate. Take a listen to my favorite, “Days Like This.” The chords are exceedingly simple, yet Van’s voice and the horns just draw you in. The music builds, the full band comes in, and the horns and backing vocals get louder as things progress. The parts are so simple, and yet you’d be hard pressed to replicate this feeling in any other way.

Stevie Wonder- Living For the City

Stevie Wonder has a slightly different approach to songwriting than some of the others on this list, but the finished product exhibits the same level of craftsmanship. The instrumentation can sound strange on first listen, but after you spend some time with the music, you realize everything has been chosen for a reason. Each keyboard sound works with each song perfectly, and works with Stevie’s voice and lyrics to build on each other’s intensity. In “Living For The City,” he incorporates samples to the break, building a story along with the song. What sets Stevie apart, though, is his voice. Using it like an instrument, he makes the listener hear its tone as well as its words, and both add to the power in the song. Listen to this song. It’s different from the others, but as a package, it is just as good.

Kanye West- All Fall Down

Can a hip hop producer be a songwriter? Sure! Some of Kanye’s songs do in fact rise to that level. Take “All Falls Down,” playable below for your listening pleasure. The construction shows just as much thought as any folk tune. The emotion rises and falls, samples coming in and out, the hook subtly evolving as the song goes on. The samples take the place of careful instrumentation, combining together into something both simple and complex. The singing and rapping combine together to give a distinct mood and atmosphere. The verses and choruses flow together, the wordplay is clever (couldn’t afford a car/so she named her daughter Alexis), and I wouldn’t change a thing. I don’t think there can be any doubt that this is a great song, a complete piece of art that stands on its own.

Lennon/McCartney- Dear Prudence- By Sean Lennon

No songwriting list would be complete without the big guns. The John Lennon and Paul McCartney collaboration is arguably the most successful in music history, with 14 #1 albums and over 1 billions units sold. I don’t think they can quite compete with my top choice though. The Beatles’ songs feel slightly out of balance to me, in a good way. They are wild, sometimes rough around the edges. They grab you emotionally. But they don’t hang together as a discreet unit quite as well as some others. Still, there are a ton of standouts from which to choose, my favorite being “Dear Prudence.” Like others on this list, the song ebbs and flows, moving the listener along through instrumentation, intensity, and chord changes. Again, the structure is deceptively simple. Verses and choruses repeat essentially unchanged. However, each new version adds to the orchestration and changes the mood every so slightly. After building up, the song relaxes and lets the simple guitar melody shine through to the soft ending.

Paul Simon- Still Crazy After All These Years

Paul is the king of the perfect pop song. He came at the genre in the right way, from the folk tradition. The finished product can take all kinds of forms, from up-tempo rock and roll to huge piano ballads to a simple guitar tune. His recording utilize an astonishing variety of instrumentation, all to great effect, with jazzy keyboards in “Still Crazy After All These Years” to the African vocals in “Graceland.” But it is Paul’s songwriting that really sets him far above the rest. His stuff is so perfectly constructed you wouldn’t dream about changing a note. The mood overwhelms you from the first bar; and the combination of clever orchestration, beautiful recording, and well written lyrics makes these songs timeless. Paul Simon writes songs like Hayao Miyazaki makes movies; everything is in perfect balance.

Though it is next to impossible to pick a favorite from Paul’s collection (in my opinion, the period from 1973’s There Goes Rhymin’ Simon up to and including 1986’s Graceland is his best period), take a listen to “Slip Slidin’ Away.” Simon’s tone of voice fits perfectly with the soft keyboards. The backing vocals keep you moving along, bringing the listener from verse to chorus and navigating the complex chord changes. I can find no fault with anything about this piece of music.
Of course, these are just my favorites. Care to share yours?

Waaaaaaaaaaait a minute, J-ro!

Ah, yes…Lennon and Simon belong on any Top 5 list. BUT…
Perhaps we should expand…Let’s have several Top 5 R&R catagories:
Lennon was Classic Rock, but how can we ignore Jagger and Richards, Jimi and Jim Morrison? How about Pete Townshend’s brilliant rock opera TOMMY(rock_opera) or Ray Davies incredible opus Arthur
Paul Simon is a Folkie…so how can we exclude Dylan from this list?
Kanye West’s All Fall Down seems a lot like Bob’s Just Like a Woman:

And, let’s never forget the greatest folkie: Phil Ochs:

Roots: Every decent band in the history of R&R (myself included) has covered at least one tune by Robert Johnson and Willie Dixon. Without the influence of Chuck Berry the Beatles and the Rolling Stones would never have taken off. I could build a strong case that these 3 songwriters were the best in the history of R&R, but, they were all guilty of blackness…a serious crime in their time.

What is Rock?

I saw Janis and Jimi and Jim (Lizard King) live in the 1960s and there is only one artist today who brings the raw angst, excitement, flow-of-conscience that is the heart of R&R. (Constructive Anarchy hates “American Teen Idol” and ex-Mouseketeers Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears and Christine Aguilera. These poor kids are corporate Frankensteins…pitch-benders in the recording studio, click-tracks on stage). We have tickets to see Daniel Johnstone on Friday and I haven’t been this excited in MANY years. Will the show be pure magic or will it be a disaster? The uncertainity is Rock & Roll!

5 Reasons To Hate Indie Rock

Posted by J-Ro

Let’s get one thing straight: I hate indie rock, but I respect it. It isn’t music I like, but it isn’t destroying rock and roll or anything like that. Rock and roll isn’t dying because indie rock is getting popular. Chuck Berry isn’t rolling around in his grave. It is real music made by real musicians, and a lot of people think it’s great. But I don’t, I never have, and I doubt I ever will. And I think I’ve got a few good reasons why:
1. Indie rock is a catchall phrase.

There is hardly a type of music that you couldn’t put in the indie rock category. The Pitchfork Music Festival, one of the biggest indie festivals in the country, has all kinds of groups performing this year including De La Soul (hip hop), Yoko Ono (avant-garde, Beatles destroying type music), and the William Parker Quartet (jazz), to name a few. Granted, diversity in a music festival is a good thing, but I find the indie rock label to be too inclusive. Bands as diverse as Belle & Sebastian, Ratatat, and King Crimson could all be called indie rock groups. There is something to be said for having an expansive view of a genre’s aesthetic, but there is a point where the label becomes meaningless. Calling your band an indie rock band is like calling yourself a patriot. Everyone in America is a patriot, it ain’t that special, and unless you have a better definition, it is meaningless.
2. Indie rock doesn’t stand for anything.
Every subgenre of rock and roll has had some kind of overall message, however loosely defined. Early rock was about individual rebellion; think Rolling Stones. Punk rock was about group non-conformity. But indie rock seems to thrive on apathy, which in my opinion is a dodge. The absence of a message cannot be a message, and besides, apathy is just lame. Lyrics like this, from Modest Mouse’s 2004 hit “Float On,” I think prove my point:

I backed my car into a cop car the other day
Well he just drove off sometimes life’s ok
I ran my mouth off a bit too much oh what did I say
Well you just laughed it off it was all ok

And we’ll all float on ok
And we’ll all float on ok
And we’ll all float on ok
And we’ll all float on any way well

The message of this song is that every is ok, and apathy is ok. Congratulations hipster, you don’t care about anything, here’s your medal. That’s not how I want to live my life, and it’s not very compelling, to say the least.
3. Indie rock seems to think bad recording technique makes unspectacular music into art.

Many indie rock recordings go out of their way to sound junky and poorly recorded. Certainly, there is something to be said for lo-fi recordings, but those sounds have their place. Indie rock seems to think of these sounds as artistic in their own right, even when the artists don’t ask why they are using these sounds. Therefore, a lot of bands end up sounding like they have something to prove, that somehow by sounding bad, you can prove to the world how fucking cool and hip you are. Take The Strokes big hit, “Last Night”, in all its ridiculous lo-fi glory.

Why is this song so badly recorded? Are they trying to say something about overproduction in pop music? Doesn’t seem like it to me. Were they too poor to afford anything else? Nope, they’re signed to a major label with lots of money. Then why are the drums so boomy, the bass turned up too high, and the singer’s voice distorting? Seems to me like they need to prove their independent roots by making a shitty sounding album. The lack of technique doesn’t prove anything, except perhaps their insecurity, or their producer’s lack of imagination. (When in doubt, blame it on the producer I always say.)
4. Indie rock “singing” consistently ruins songs.

I’ll give credit where credit is due: A lot of indie songs are tuneful and catchy, and a lot of indie rock bands are made up of killer musicians. Some of these songs really move! But indie rock singers, almost without exception, suck. They whine, they moan, and they scream like dying animals…they do just about anything but sing. I can’t tell you how many indie rock songs have been ruined by the singer. For example, check out a track called “Get Away” by 120 Days.

You’ve got a full minute of intro, and it’s pretty good too! Cool guitar sounds, spot on rhythm, and some great synthesizer effects create some nice atmosphere. I’m sitting there, nodding my head to the beat, the singer comes in, and I lose the groove so quickly I get whiplash. The singer starts with this awful half sung, half spoken drone of a lyric, and then he proceeds to sing out of tune, in an annoying moaning style that makes cats go into heat. Trust me, I could have sung better, you could have sung better, even a smoker with a tracheotomy could have sung better. And this isn’t an isolated case, almost every indie rock song I hear gets ruined in this way. It happens way to often to forgive.
5. Let’s face it, indie rock is not alternative.

I loved the alternative genre back in the 90’s. Smashing Pumpkins, Oasis, Nirvana, Red Hot Chili Peppers; these are the bands that I loved, and still do! After the alternative movement died out way before its time, I suppose I was hoping that indie rock would be its second coming. It wasn’t, and I’m disappointed. I guess I had high expectations, that someone again could combine pop music and art in such an easy and unassuming way, but it didn’t pan out. I lost faith, and that’s when I switched to hip hop. (Incidentally, I’ve never looked back and never been happier. Take that Jack White!)

There it is. I hate indie rock. I’m prepared to take a lot of heat for that position, as indie rock is pretty damn popular in America today. I’ll leave the door open, though. What bands should I be listening to that don’t suck? What am I missing about this beloved genre? I must be out of touch, because for the life of me I can’t figure out how something this shitty became so popular. So, readers, enlighten me.

The Music Cycle: Relations Between The Majors And The Underground

Posted by J-Ro Music culture moves in cycles, just like anything else. A period of cultural creativity will inevitably follow a period of cultural decay, then, another period of creativity follows, coming out of left field to expand our cultural horizons once again. Our musical history is full of such revivals, especially modern popular history.

In all of these cycles, the major music industry has been a follower, not a leader. Record labels, the most powerful of the music industry institutions, are in the business to make money. Therefore, they typically shy away from taking too many risks on new sounds and artists. Instead, they try and hitch a ride on an upcoming wave of popularity, catching a genre before it gets too popular and making money as its popularity peaks and then falls. This means that record labels are reactionary, not visionary, and that they depend on the underground to incubate the “next big thing” just as the underground depends on the mainstream to popularize the fruits of its labor.

For an example, take the transition from rock to folk in the early 1960’s. After a steady diet of smooth crooners such as Frankie Avalon and Elvis Presley, the American music scene was ready for a change. Enter the folk crowd, with the likes of Bob Dylan, Simon & Garfunkel, and Joan Baez. You couldn’t have asked for more of a different style. Frankie Avalon, who hit #4 of the Billboard Charts in 1959 with “Venus,” was smooth as can be.
The song is full of lush instrumentation, sweet back up singers, and lyrics praising the God-like beauty of a girl. A nice tune, to be sure, but nothing like what came next. In fact, the folk movement sounds almost completely opposite. Take a track from Dylan’s The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan, “Blowin’ in the Wind.”

You’ve got one guy, strumming an acoustic guitar, who can’t even really sing! The performance is raw, the voice is cracked, and the harmonica is out of tune. The lyrics deal with more complex issues: “How many times must the cannon balls fly, before they are forever banned,” is a far cry from, “Venus, if you will, please send a little girl for me to thrill.” In short, a complete 180 from what came before.

Folk, like other musical movements, become popular after being “promoted” from the underground. By the time folk music broke into the mainstream, it had been brewing in the underground scenes around the country since the 1930’s. Artists like Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger played in small venues around the nation, influencing the giants of folk that came later. These artists survived for years without the support of major record labels, yet they eventually came to dominate the music scene in American in England, merging with rock & roll to create the soundtrack to the 1960’s counter-cultural revolution that has influenced so much of today’s music. This transformation exemplifies the typical path of a genre’s growth, from underground phenomenon into popular acceptance.

This also means that major record labels are accorded permanent “outsider” status. This is a reverse of the typical way of thinking, but I believe it to be true. Those who decide a music’s popularity are the people. They vote with the way they spend their hard earned money, either on records, concert tickets, merchandise, or other forms of support. The major labels have never been the establishment, in that they have never really had the power. They may control the major distribution streams, but people have continually shown that finding art that satisfies them is extremely important; they are more than willing to go outside “mainstream” distribution channels to find the music they want to hear. The current fight over copyright and illegal downloading exemplifies this point, in a way. Clearly, major labels are not putting out a product worth paying for. As such, customers decide they will not pay for it.

The record labels, then, are permanently a step behind our culture. As folk music became popular in the 60’s, labels such as Columbia Records realized the earning potential in kids like Bob Dylan and signed them to contracts. Sure, they were able to make out with a lot of money in the end, but they can never be credited with “discovering” or even really popularizing the sound. Folk music was on its way up by the time the majors got to it, all they could do was sign on as an outsider and ride the wave. Of course, they did promote the music and help grow the folk movement, but I argue there was little “innovation” involved.

An example of these same forces in action is clear today. In my view, right now, we are moving out of a cultural low point in the musical world. After the wasteland of boy bands and divas in the mid to late 90’s, we are seeing a huge resurgence in the indie rock genre, and the major labels are just starting to catch on. They have started signing the artists who will make them money, they are bringing this indie sound to the masses, and most people will be happy. The majors will make money, and the underground will see its little movement spread nationwide, which will certainly enrich the talented musicians who are fortunate enough to be picked up for national exposure.

That is why it is useless and shortsighted to complain about major record labels stifling innovation and flooding the airwaves with crap. These businesses never have, and never will “take chances” on unproven new styles. Any move they make will be a reaction to the trends already showing in the larger musical community. These companies don’t push bad music onto people in the hopes that through overexposure they will sell records, they push bad music to augment the sales of the records that are already selling. Even the recent rash of terrible hip hop and dance music represents this phenomenon. The latest “track” from Justin Timberlake or R. Kelly is just a reaction to the resurgence in club going and nightlife America has experienced since the mid 80’s.

The underground and the mainstream must work in concert. When there is a disconnect, you start seeing a downturn in quality and earning potential. Clearly, the major record labels are not mind readers. They can easily make mistakes, especially by placing too big of a bet on the wrong style of music. This seems to be the case with modern hip hop. As discussed here at The Seminal, it seems the major record labels placed a huge bet on post Biggie and Tupac gangster rap and southern-style hip hop music, hoping they would become long-lasting, national trends. Instead, we have started to see a downturn in hip hop sales. The underground hip hop scene, of course, is still making a ton of great music, but right now there is a distinct lack of a cohesive, money-making scene for the major labels to latch onto. Until the majors see that clear profit incentive, quality underground hip hop will continue to be overlooked, and the majors will continue to put out commercial hip hop crap.

The power for change is in your hands, or more accurately, in your wallets. If you help create a viable scene in the underground, you can be sure the majors will jump all over it when they see the opportunity to make a quick buck. This may, of course, be seen as a good or a bad thing, depending on who you are, what your scene looks like, and if you stand to make money from that popularization or not. However, the fact remains, if your style is profitable, major distribution will happen whether you like it or not. The record companies may have a lot of power and money, but they cannot yet force you to buy their products. Take heart in this fact; the country’s musical tastes, for better or for worse, rest squarely in our hands. Support the music you like and don’t support the music you don’t. Eventually, hopefully, the big labels will catch on.

This Proves It: Bush and I Live in Different Universes!

It’s no secret I don’t like President George W. Bush. Hell, most of America doesn’t like him either. I don’t think he’s smart, I don’t think he makes good decisions, and I don’t think he even won the 2000 election. But I’ve never really understood how different I am from him until I heard this:
Mono or stereo, “Sgt. Pepper” did NOT win universal acclaim. Future President George W. Bush said he stopped liking the Beatles when they, in his words, “went through kind of a weird, psychedelic period.”

That’s Beatles engineer Geoff Emerick, quoting our wonderful President, in a 40th anniversary retrospective of the release of the Fab 4’s seminal album, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band“.
George, are you fucking kidding me?
Even the album art was amazing.
Sgt. Pepper’s was a masterpiece, plain and simple. It’s number 1 on Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, it was the number 1 selling album on three continents (America, Britain, and Australia), it won 4 Grammy awards, and it has sold almost 12 million copies worldwide. If numbers aren’t your thing, try innovation. Sgt. Pepper’s was one of the first albums to use extensive multitracking and studio techniques such as automatic double tracking, phasing, and flanging that have now become classics. It included some radical instrumentation featuring string sections, sitar, Hammond organ, and sound collages of sampled noise and voices. On top of that, Sgt. Pepper’s was an early version of the concept album, with alter egos for each band member, songs and themes that come up again and again throughout the album, and smooth transitions and pacing between cuts.

For me, Sgt. Pepper’s was when the Beatles got good. Admittedly, I’m too young to have listened to their albums in order as they were released, but Sgt. Pepper’s marks the point where the Beatles completely abandoned their old pop sensibilities and struck out in a new direction. From there, things just got better, with The White Album, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road (my personal favorite), and Let It Be following, each a masterpiece in its own right. No more “Please Please Me” and “I Want To Hold Your Hand” fluff pieces; the Beatles started to really indulge their eclectic musical tastes with Sgt. Pepper’s, and thankfully they never looked back.

The fact that George Bush stopped liking the Beatles when they released this wonderful album perfectly highlights the different universes Bush and I inhabit. In my version of reality, Sgt. Pepper’s is a fountain of creativity. In Bush’s, it’s “weird.” Never mind that I think Bush fabricated the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Who cares that the WMDs were never found. While it may make me angry that Bush authorized illegal wiretaps, advocated for the use of torture on detainees, suspended the right of habeas corpus, and generally fucked up this country, until now, I didn’t realize why it made me angry. Now I get it. Bush doesn’t value anything I do; it’s really that simple.

Bush’s lack of appreciation for Sgt. Pepper’s shows a lack of intellectual curiosity that I find appalling; a lack of intellectual curiosity that I think he brings to problem solving in general. Sgt. Pepper’s, while a little bit “out there,” certainly doesn’t qualify as avant-garde in any way. The music isn’t obtuse; it still has a beat, verses and choruses, and the familiar trappings of pop music that we are used to. It’s just made with different instrumentation, a great attention to detail, and a depth of thought that is too often lacking in mass musical offerings. If Bush can’t appreciate that, how is he ever going to find the imagination to solve America’s problems, let alone the world’s? Sgt. Pepper’s may be a bit “psychedelic,” but come on; George Bush has done enough drugs, he should be able to understand the music at least on this level.

You may think I’m reading too much into this; I really doubt it. If people see fit to judge a man’s leadership capabilities by the God he chooses to worship, or by the color of his skin, or by the way that he talks, then I can judge him for his taste in music. If people think what our prospective leaders do for fun, or what they eat for lunch has any bearing whatsoever on their worth as public officials, then I think I’m allowed to equate bad musical taste with poor leadership. I’ll stand by it. Anyone who doesn’t like Sgt. Pepper’s shouldn’t be running anything, much less the most powerful country in the free world. And I’ll go even further. Anyone who likes Sgt. Pepper’s would never have gotten us into an un-winnable war in Iraq. It just wouldn’t happen!
June 1st, 2007 will always stand out in my memory as the day I finally understood why I have no confidence in George Bush. It’s not because of his policies. It’s not because of his mannerisms. It’s not because he thinks clearing brush at his ranch is a manly activity. It’s because he doesn’t like “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band”, one of the greatest albums of all time.

My Musical Portrait by J-Ro at the Seminal

Pete Townshend, the enigmatic guitarist from legendary rock band The Who, has come out with a new online music making project that has been years in the making. He calls it The Lifehouse Method. The idea is to allow users to “sit” for three musical portraits and create music from their uploaded “profiles,” essentially an online version of the idea he has been developing since 1969.
Lifehouse was originally conceived as a collaborative concert project. Using data derived from the personalities of those in the audience, Townshend would program his synthesizers accordingly, ultimately merging all of an audience’s biographical data into one “universal chord.” If everything went correctly, the vibration would be so pure that people would reach enlightenment on the spot.

The devil, of course, was in the details. Townshend nearly drove himself crazy trying to accomplish his mystic goal. The Lifehouse project was to be a movie created from concert footage interwoven with plot. The Who were to play for a regular audience every night and the band would develop the music as the concerts evolved, with the help of the audience. Eventually, when things began to take shape, the concerts would be filmed and a storyline created around them. Unfortunately, scheduling conflicts made nightly concerts impossible and Pete had a lot of trouble communicating the ideas behind the project to his fellow band members. The project was ultimately discarded, though Townshend has been trying to complete the movie/album ever since.

The new Lifehouse Method seems to be an outgrowth of this original idea. Users sign up and sit for a musical portrait. To do so, they upload or record short audio files of their voice, a sound they like, a rhythm that appeals to them, and a picture that represents them. Sitting for a musical portrait is relatively painless, it’s free, and at the end “your music” appears, ready to play.

So how does it sound? Well, I sat for a musical portrait and…it sound interesting actually!
For the first step I recorded myself saying, “My name is Jason, and I am very interested in making music using the Lifehouse Method.” Then, for the second step I uploaded this picture of myself, taken a couple years ago.
To read more and
hear the results Link to the Seminal

Hip Hop Isn’t Dying, It Just Sucks by J-Ro at the Seminal

Hip hop sales are down. According to Nielsen SoundScan, sales in the Rap category dropped 20.7% compared with sales in 2005. That is the second largest drop behind the New Age category, which fell 22.7%. Right behind in this dismal race is R&B with a drop of 18.4%. Of course record sales are down across the industry, but the average change is only -2.4% with some genres, such as Classical, gaining as many percentage points as Rap lost. Clearly hip hop, which has been the darling of the record industry these last few years, is in trouble.
But why are sales down? Countless articles, including a recent high profile story from the AP, have said the problems with hip hop stem solely from its content. The above article among others argues that hip hop lyrics too degrading towards women and the thug life image is played out. From the article:

“I’m not removed from it, but I can’t really tell the difference between Young Jeezy and Yung Joc. It’s the same dumb stuff to me,” says [Nicole] Duncan-Smith, 33 [who is married to a hip hop producer]. “I can’t listen to that nonsense … I can’t listen to another black man talk about you don’t come to the ‘hood anymore and ghetto revivals … I’m from the ‘hood. How can you tell me you want to revive it? How about you want to change it? Rejuvenate it?” READ MORE

OK. Point taken. The music doesn’t speak to you. But here’s the real deal: If you go out there and just replace all the negatives in rap lyrics with positives, replace every Young Jeezy-type MC with a Common and every call to murder with an exhortation to love your fellow man, hip hop sales would still be down. Why? Because people fail to realize that hip hop first and foremost is a musical art-form. Right now, hip hop just isn’t living up to musical standards. It’s just plain bad.
On one hand you’ve got what I would call “artistically interesting” hip hop, hip hop that has musical value and makes an artistic statement. One example would be the legendary song “CREAM” by The Wu-Tang Clan off of 1993’s Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers).
On the surface, the lyrical content of this cut is pretty similar to what’s popular today. It’s about growing up in the ghetto and living the thug life, the same exact themes hit on in about every song on the hip hop charts today. Here’s the rundown:
Do we have violence? Sure!
And running
up in gates, and doing hits for high stakes
Drugs? Yep.
No question I would speed, for cracks and weed
The combination made my eyes bleed
Money? That’s easy…just look at the title (CREAM = Cash Rules Everything Around Me).

It’s all there. So what’s the difference? Well to start, lyrically “CREAM” is about more than just drugs and guns. This particular song is also about survival, big dreams, and the mysteries of life:

It’s been twenty-two long hard years of still strugglin
Survival got me buggin, but I’m alive on arrival
I peep at the shape of the streets
And stay awake to the ways of the world cause shit is deep
A man with a dream with plans to make C.R.E.A.M.
Which failed; I went to jail at the age of 15
A young buck sellin drugs and such who never had much
Trying to get a clutch at what I could not… could not…
The court played me short, now I face incarceration
Pacin — going up state’s my destination
Handcuffed in back of a bus, forty of us
Life as a shorty shouldn’t be so ruff
But as the world turns I learned life is hell
Living in the world no different from a cell

The complexity in the lyrics helps push this song into the artistic realm. Of course, it has musical credentials too, but we’ll get to that later.
Let’s contrast the above with Pretty Ricky’s “Push It Baby”, which was as high as #5 on the Billboard hip hop/r&b charts.
Pretty Ricky…ugh
Again, on the surface this song references familiar themes. You’ve got sex of course. Here’s the hook:
I Wanna See You Push It Baby Oh Just Push That Thang On Me
Push It Baby I Wanna See You
You’ve got money:
Buying Out The Bar Like It Ain’t No Thang
Hot Boy Like Wayne
Diamonds In My Chain Blang Blang Blang
And the ghetto life:
Urban Legend In The Hood Like T.I.

But let’s face it, these lyrics can’t even begin to touch Raekwon and the rest of The Clan! Here’s a bit more if you aren’t convinced:

When I Step Up In He Club-I’m So Hot Hot Hot
Tossing Dollars At These Hoes Like Ah Ah Ah
Pretty Woman Up In Here Like Bah Bah Bah
Spitting Game In Their Ear Like - Lalalalalalaa
Baby Blue I Don’t Play No Games
Head To My Feet So Fresh So Clean
Buying Out The Bar Like It Ain’t No Thang
Hot Boy Like Wayne
Diamonds In My Chain Blang Blang Blang
I got canary diamond Bustas
Got the matching Lamborghini same color mustard
Baying drinks for these chicks and now they owe me
More gin if u wine I’m the same ol G

As far as I can tell, there isn’t another side to this song. There is no complexity to be found. There’s nothing about the world beyond “the club”, nothing about growing up poor, or even much about the classic rags to riches story. I get no indication that the rappers in this song are thinking beyond the next drink or the next diamond or the next girl. It’s all bitches and booty and bling (and bullshit if you ask me).
Now, “CREAM” may already be winning this comparison, but I would argue that if you put “CREAM’s” excellent lyrics under “Push It Baby’s” beat, you’d still have a dud. Here’s why:
Musically these songs are in different leagues. “CREAM” employs (by my count anyway) at least 10 different musical samples to create texture and to demarcate different internal sections. “Push It Baby” uses maybe 5. Sure the songs have the same basic structure of verse/chorus pairs, but “CREAM” adds musical drops, reversed samples, delays and echos to the mix. It all adds up to create an atmospheric track that feels empty, spacious and melancholic, and just like the lyrics.

On the other hand, “Push It Baby” will cut the beat occasionally, but the instrumentation is pretty static throughout the song with samples coming in and out in extremely predictable ways. To me it feels claustrophobic. Where “CREAM” is repetitive in a minimalist way, “Push It Baby” repeats like a bad advertising slogan; it’s determined to drive that hook into your head whether you like it or not. To me, “CREAM” comes off as well structured and layered where “Push It Baby” with its played out instrumentation and attention-getting riffs, feels cookie-cutter and monotonous. To put it another way, I can listen to “CREAM” over and over again and hear something new each time. With “Push It Baby” all I have to hear is the first verse and the hook and I’ve pretty much got the idea. Here’s what it comes down to: “CREAM” is art and “Push It Baby” is not.
Even if you take a step back, Wu-Tang’s entire album and image are way more interesting than Pretty Ricky’s. 36 Chambers is an album in the style of Pink Floyd or The Beatles. It is a coherent piece of work. Each of its songs have something to say and it holds together as a complete artistic statement. No wonder it is widely considered one of the greatest hip hop albums ever produced. On top of that, the Wu-Tang clan projects a multifaceted image. Part thug, pimp, philosopher and poet, the Clan isn’t just a one-note wonder.

Pretty Ricky’s album Late Night Special isn’t cohesive. It may be just about sex, but there is no artistic statement to be found. Here’s what one reviewer had to say:

If sex sells, then Pretty Ricky’s second album will likely be a big hit on the music charts, because songs about sex is about all that this four-man vocal group has to offer.

Certainly this album won’t stand the test of time like 36 Chambers, and neither will the group. Pretty Ricky’s image is the slick, blinged-out sex addict and that’s where it ends. How can I be expected to stay interested?

But Pop Ain’t Art

“OK!” you say, “You’ve made your point. Pretty Ricky isn’t art. But popular music isn’t about art anyway. Since when do the pop charts reflect artistic value?” Well, that’s not entirely true. I say the pop charts do reflect art, albeit in a roundabout way.

Good music, music with artistic value, does not necessarily rise to the top of the charts. However, the pop charts aren’t always the cultural wasteland they have been these past few years. Elvis Presley had #1 hits, so did Stevie Wonder, Santana, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, The Beatles, and Janis Joplin, all artists with significant artistic merit. In the hip hop world, real artists like Kanye West, OutKast, Lauryn Hill, and Biggy Smalls all spent at least a week at #1. Though the pop charts measure sales and not artistic merit, some of the good stuff does hit occasionally.

The real problem with hip hop though, to me anyway, is the lack of an artistically interesting underground from which these hits are spawned. Without a solid underground scene its hard to create hit after hit worth listening to. For example, in 1969 Marvin Gaye, Sly & the Family Stone, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Elvis Presley, Peter, Paul, and Mary, and Diana Ross & The Supremes all held a #1 song, and each one of these musical entities had something artistic to say. Why were there so many artistically valid #1 songs in 1969? Because the rock, folk and soul underground scenes were booming! With so many bands making so much music at the same time, smart artists had the opportunity to synthesize each genre down to its essential elements and craft songs that were both artistically valid and broadly appealing. I think hip hop right now lacks that critical mass that a vibrant artistic underground scene brings and which is needed to achieve the same effect. Without this kind of foundation the hip hop music that hits on the charts is fated to be nothing more than a fad, a quick flash in the pan with no real thought behind it.

Sure there are a lot of interesting artists in the underground hip hop scene. Immortal Technique, OneBeLo, and Thaione Davis are just a few of the hundreds out there trying to do something good with the music. But for every true artist trying to make it there are two MC’s just trying to ride the fad and cash in. As each hip hop “genre” comes and goes (Crunk, Screwed, Reggaeton, and Dancehall to name a sad few), more and more untalented people come out with their own version of the latest sound. This only serves to add more noise to the system and those putting out real music get drowned out. The scene right now is chaotic, without any unity or artistic purpose; it’s just people trying to get rich.

Without this cohesive scene there is no foundation. More one-hit wonders get thrown up the charts, each making pure pop music with no artistic backing behind it. Without a functioning underground artistic music will make it to the top only rarely because so little artistic music is being made in the first place. It is hard for an artist to synthesize, create, and collaborate if there is no one around worth working with. Honestly, it’s a wonder we’ve seen the likes of Kanye and Biggy on the charts at all!

Create Art People!

So what’s the answer? Well, I’d argue that it’s deceptively simple. Really, all you have to do is make good music. You can write your lyrics about whatever you want as long as you put some thought into it. And you can derive your musical influences and samples from whatever corner of the world you choose as long as they all come together in a cohesive and interesting way. Now, making art is by no means easy, but it is the only way to ensure hip hop will continue to be relevant in the future.

It takes a lot to “kill” a genre of music. People have been writing about the end of rock and rap since the day they were created. I’m not saying hip hop is dying or dead. But I am saying that if hip hop wants to be more than top 40 fluff, if it wants to mean something to people like it did in the 80’s and early 90’s, if it wants to speak for a generation, then it needs to get out of the money game and start getting back into making real music for real people. It is the only way.
If you think that I’m right then don’t buy the crap out there! Vote with your wallet and do your part to keep bad hip hop out of everyone’s ears. We will thank you later. On the flip side, support the artists out there who are making something you care about. When America gets over its current obsession with hip hop inspired money and violence, these worthy underground artists will still be there ready to give people something worth enjoying.

Kilgore Trout

Kurt Vonnegut recently reported that Kilgore Trout committed suicide by drinking Drāno in an article for In These Times magazine. Trout “died” at midnight on October 15, 2004 in Cohoes, New York, following his consultation with a psychic, who informed him that George W. Bush would win the U. S. Presidential election by a vote of 5-to-4 in the Supreme Court. The epitaph on his tombstone reads, “Life is no way to treat an animal.”
OTTAWA (Oct. 13) - Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy — almost impenetrable forests of 10-feet-high marijuana plants.
Sgt Lou Penney, Canadian Forces / Reuters
Canadian soldiers in an armored vehicle patrol near fields of corn and marijuana near the village of Kolk, Afghanistan. Taliban fighters have been using pot forests as cover.
General Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said on Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana. “The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It’s very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices … and as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don’t dodge in and out of those marijuana forests,” he said in a speech in Ottawa.
“We tried burning them with white phosphorous — it didn’t work. We tried burning them with diesel — it didn’t work. The plants are so full of water right now … that we simply couldn’t burn them,” he said.
Even successful incineration had its drawbacks.
“A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those (forests) did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some ill effects and decided that was probably not the right course of action,” Hillier said dryly.
One soldier told him later: “Sir, three years ago before I joined the army, I never thought I’d say ‘That damn marijuana’.”

America’s Birth Rate doubled 9 months after the end of WWII (1946) and suddenly returned to normal 9 months after JFK assassination (1964). First Boomers graduated high school in 1964 flooding the job market and universities. Would our economy have survived without Vietnam and the draft?

Weird Baby Boomer Stats:

Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945, and millions of America’s heroes returned home to end World War II. Exactly nine months later (May 15, 1946) the Baby Boom began. The birth rate shot up 20% from the previous year, passing the three million mark for the first time in our history, and then exploded to nearly four million new babies in 1947. The United States passed that high-water mark in 1948 and remained above that dangerous level for nearly two decades. This insane pace finally slowed down abruptly to a normal level in 1964… exactly nine months after the assassination of JFK.

The first Baby Boomer senior class, by far the largest in history, graduated from high school in 1964. The adult world was neither prepared nor pleased with this new arrival. How could society absorb such a large number of teens into mainstream America? There weren’t enough jobs or housing for all these kids. Many scheduled June weddings with their high school sweethearts, and planned to pop out a few kids of their own. The senior class of 1965 would be even bigger, and the class of ‘66 larger yet.
Teens couldn’t find permanent and/or summer jobs, especially in the inner city where the unemployment rate was already staggering. Black Boomers were “Dancing in the Streets” amid a “Heat Wave” in 1964. Might as well. Ain’t no work around.
Many teens from the pioneer Boomer class headed for college in the fall. Their group was 20% larger than the previous year’s, and they found themselves waiting in long lines, trying to get into overcrowded classes. The vast freshman army forced many colleges to install computers to handle the registration load. Boomer students wore T-shirts that read, “Do not fold, spindle or mutilate… I am a human being.” Read more
In 1964 as the first Baby Boomers turned 18, LBJ invaded Vietnam to give these idlers something to do. The occupation was scheduled to last until 1982 (when the last Boomer attacked the job market). Unfortunately, pesky patriots figured out Nixon’s/ Kissinger’s scheme and took to the streets to end the occupation. Plese note on the two graphs how the number of Baby Boomer Births (1946 to 1955) exactly matches Boomer Draftees (1964 to 1973).

ID Monster and Tailgunner Joe

What was the classic film from the Golden Age of Monsters? Don’t ever claim to be a Baby Boomer if you don’t know. Time is up. The answer is Forbidden Planet (1956). Loosely based on Shakespeare’s The Tempest. Walter Pidegon as Morbius/ Prospero, discovers the ancient records of the advanced Krell civilization on this brave new world. Morbius uses this technology to multiply his brainpower many times over, but in doing so, increases and releases the suppressed evils in his subconscious. His Id Monster takes on a huge, hideous physical form and then begins a rampage of death and destruction. Morbius, a good scientist with a noble quest, fights desperately to control his id because the human race can benefited greatly from this method of increasing intelligence…but only if one can first come to grips with, and then conquer the basic animal instincts deep within each subconscious. The message was clear… to ignore and/or suppress the id can only make it grow to gigantic proportions on the verge of an explodion of uncontrolled fury.
The oldest Boomers were only ten years old when this complex film premiered. Kids were accustomed to lightweight eye-candy with conventional monsters, the bomb and world destruction, and before the end credits rolled youngsters knew that good guys always win… before Forbidden Planet. That evil film raised a lot of disturbing questions the usual sources (school, church, TV and parents) were unwilling or unable to answer. Did George Washington have evils in his id? How about Jimmy Dodd? Gene Autry? Ike? The Pope?
How about us Boomers… did we have evils in our ids? After all, little girls and boys began playing doctor about this time. Some of the oldest Boomers felt strange, new urges. Talking about such feelings was absolutely taboo in 50’s society, so many kids began to think they were misfits, freaks and definitely sicko. That opinion changed when they found out that Morbius, too, had monsters in his id.
As did Nixon and Tailgunner Joe McCarthy…

READ MORE
1964: The Beatles invade America, America invades Vietnam. The world blows up in Fail Safe, and again in Dr. Strangelove.
Television embarked on the greatest sales campaign of all time, in an effort to sell patriotism. As usual, Boomers were the targets of the pitch. The networks pushed the “glory of war” concept with “12 O’Clock High”, “Combat”, “World War I” and “The Lieutenant”, and tried to sell “War is fun” with “Gomer Pyle, USMC”, “Broadside”, “No Time for Sergeants” and “McHale’s Navy”.
Bob Hope entertained happy troops in Vietnam on his Christmas Special, and Santa left an amazing new toy for younger Boomer boys under the tree… GI Joe and all his Friendly Fire Accessories. Joe (like Barbie) appeared as a realistic, grown-up doll, except for the absence of reproductive gear. But, Joe’s huge guns dwarfed Wyatt Earp’s, so he, unlike Babs, found a release for his sexual frustrations. With Barbie as a role model for little girls, and GI Joe for little boys, it’s amazing that the Baby Boomer Generation turned out as well as it did.
Kennedy’s New Frontier faded away. Fess Parker returned to the old frontier, this time as Daniel Boone. Ronald Reagan also returned to the tube, as a replacement for the Old Ranger on “Death Valley Days”. Welcome back to the Great (“Gee, I really wish that it could be once again”) Society of LBJ.
Puzzling Evidence Index -click on any underlined pop culture topic (ie GI Joe) and the index will take you to the page.
Mattel introduced Barbie in 1959, and Boomer females have never been satisfied with their bodies ever since. Babs transcended dollhood…she became a lifestyle…a role model to help adolescent girls make the painful transition to adulthood. Barbie possessed everything an All-American girl could possibly desire: a perfect face, figure, hair, a fabulous wardrobe and an ideal boyfriend (Ken). Babs was the first doll with boobs, which seemed natural, since the sale of training bras increased by 50% in 1959, and millions of little Boomer girls began to notice serious changes in their anatomy for the first time. But, how could they compete with Barbie? At full scale, Babs’ measurements would have read: 40C- 18- 26. Her breasts defied gravity and stuck out, high and well formed (and nippleless), and her exaggerated, hourglass waist could only have been achieved in the real world by the removal of a few ribs and vital organs. Barbie’s long, slender legs must have been achieved in a month on the stretch rack in a dungeon, or as the result of some terrible disease (perhaps the same one that caused her nipples to fall off). Indeed, if any real woman owned a full-scale figure exactly like Barbie’s, she would be the most popular photographic subject in medical journals since the Elephant Man.
Nonetheless, every little Boomer girl in America simply had to own a Barbie and as many accessories as her parents would tolerate. Mattel’s production line could barely keep up with demand. They started the Barbie Fan Club, and soon membership exceeded that of the Girl Scouts of America. Each subscriber received regular fan club letters with tips on how to become an all-American Dream Girl, and a complete shopping guide of the latest additions to Barbie’s wardrobe. Teenieboppers dropped all other dolls and concentrated on helping Barbie get ready for her next big date with Ken. In fact, Barbie’s entire schedule consisted of getting ready for dates, shopping, trying on new clothes and experimenting with new hairstyles and makeup (It is interesting to note that 1959 was also the year that Visa and Mastercharge cards were introduced).

Barbie’s life was not cluttered with any visible signs of education, marriage or career (until 1985, with Barbie’s “Home Office Center”), but no one seemed to wondered where she got all the money for her beautiful house, swimming pool, spa, horse, snazzy sports car, and more than a thousand expensive outfits. Perhaps Barbie was the mistress of a very wealthy man? What other job could she possibly qualify for that could earn her enough to maintain her luxurious lifestyle? Closer examination will dispel the mistress theory, however… Mattel neglected to provide Barbie with the physical equipment necessary to perform the duties of such an occupation. Perhaps that is why Ken has been the only guy to ask Barbie out during the last half century. He, too, has nothing going on below the waist or above the neck.

This vain, self-centered, materialistic, hollow-headed, sexless, cold, plastic princess served as the adult role model for little girls throughout the entire history of our generation. By her twenty-first birthday in 1980, 112 million Barbies had been sold… or, one for every American female.

Anyone who was lucky enough to be a teen in Arizona in the mid to late 1960s (like Steven Spielberg, Alice Cooper and Magic Sam) knows that the bet R&R group of that era wasn’t the Beach Boys, Beatles, Stones or Hendrix.
HUB KAPP AND THE WHEELS ruled! Alice (Vince) claims that Hub Kapp was his Muse…his raison d’ etre to enter show biz. Here are a couple tunes from the greatest rock band you’ve never heard:
Work, Work -a dirty word MP3 link
Little Volks MP3 link
Awake- 1:10 My TV-3:05 Oh, Tipper, Tipper- 1:28
Halitosis- 2:17- Dr. Demento Top Ten Hit-1978
Fresh Herring Love- 3:44
When Them Blues Come Over You- 5:35
Otto’s Autos- :58 Old Billy- 4:32 Cross-eyed in Love Over You
The War Is Over- Phil Ochs
Silent Soldiers on a silver screen/ Framed in fantasies and dragged in dream/ Unpaid actors of the mystery/ The mad director knows that freedom will not make you free/ And what’s this got to do with me?/ I declare the war is over/ It’s over, it’s over/ Drums are drizzling on a grain of sand/ Fading rhythms of a fading land / Prove your courage in the proud parade/ Trust your leaders where mistakes are almost never made/And they’re afraid that I’m afraid/ I’m afraid the war is over/ It’s over, it’s over/ Angry artists painting angry signs/ Use their vision just to blind the blind/ Poisoned players of a grizzly game/ One is guilty and the other gets the point to blame/ Pardon me if I refrain/ I declare the war is over/ It’s over, it’s over/ So do your duty, boys, and join with pride/ Serve your country in her suicide/ Find the flags so you can wave goodbye/ But just before the end even treason might be worth a try/ This country is to young to die/ I declare the war is over/ It’s over, it’s over/ One-legged veterans will greet the dawn/ And they’re whistling marches as they mow the lawn/ And the gargoyles only sit and grieve
The gypsy fortune teller told me that we’d been deceived/ You only are what you believe/ I believe the war is over/ It’s over, it’s over

Phil came up with the idea during Vietnam (1969) and John spread the message around the world:
THE WAR IS OVER!
An occupation based on lies is a crime against humanity…not a war.

The most important R&R Group in history?
In Chicago in 1968 every major group (Beatles, Stones, Big Brother, the Doors, etc) promised to be there, but when the scene turned ugly, only three R&R heroes walked the walk:

These artists are great American patriots and the spirit of rock: defiance of authority, teen angst, a sense of humor, drive-your-parents-up-a-wall lyrics with a jungle beat. Who was best?
Puzzling Evidence
Elvis, Dylan, John, Paul, Mick, Jimi, Janis wimped out.
HOME

Published by Greg at 11:59 PM on November 24, 2007

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Comments:

Comment preview: