Six-word reviews of SXSW bands helps both everyone and no one
About a month ago, SXSW organizers released a torrent containing a single mp3 from roughly half the bands appearing at the festival. This number was in the OMG range of digits: 763 free singles. I Spotlit it on my show three weeks ago, and since then I’ve been trying to make my way through the exhaustive list, picking and choosing my way to a solid mix tape of bands I plan to pay attention to in the future. Because I don’t do this music thing for a living, three weeks of casual listening has landed me in the mid-C’s. I have seven and a half forever’s to go.
But just because I’m not a marathon champion doesn’t mean other people aren’t. Paul Ford of the Morning News recently posted a grid containing six-word reviews and a 1-5 rating of every song. The offering is appreciated by many, I’m sure. By a process of elimination, he’s given 5-star reviews to 72 songs, eliminating 90 percent of the trudge if you just want to get to the good shit. I’ve no doubt many will find this map illuminating and an incredible time saver.
But one should remember that as fantastic a job Ford has done with climbing the mountain, the SXSW torrent is still a mountain that can be climbed by others. Just because he found a particular route doesn’t mean you have to take it. Assuming you delete the 600 or so bands he decides weren’t 5 star worthy? You’re left with 72 bands of which you have to judge yourself. Bands that you might not like, because your taste may differ from Ford’s.
I know, I know. “Do it yourself” is a tired argument. Some people need a railing up the steps, and Ford does that wonderfully. I don’t necessarily disagree with his comments about anyone, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you will. Music is and has always been about being cool and going with the crowd AND being yourself and going against the crowd. It’s no surprise both options easily present themselves in regards to SXSW.
Sigur Rós’ entire film “Heima” available on Youtube
Remember yesterday on the show when I was talking about free content being the current way to spread awareness of a band? Well, Sigur Rós just upped the standard a notch by releasing their entire new concert film on youtube.
Why this makes almost more sense than giving away a record is that the concert film was always considered advertising anyway. Although the film is absolutely gorgeous, the one major message to be taken from it is “come see us live.” That’s the whole point of any televised music event. Whereas one can argue an album is something in and of itself, a concert film isn’t; it can’t exist without the live component, and it will always pale to anything heard in person.
Having said that, Heima is an astounding film. If you can manage to watch a youtube screen for an hour and a half, it’s definitely worth it.
Why people who don’t listen to music and can’t write proper journalism probably shouldn’t be a regular columnist
Suite101 is a site about nearly everything, whose contributors seem diverse and professional. This isn’t a knock on them. I’m sure they do good stuff. It’s also not a knock on Alex Keshen. I’m sure she’s a fine writer with a good head on her shoulders. At least, I’m sure she is when she’s not talking about the music industry. A recent article published on Suite101 by young Alex was brought to my attention for several reasons, and I’d like, if I can, to use her as an example on how not to write a column about music.
First of all, the opening: “As different styles of music are often representative of different groups of people, can they also represent different types of behaviors?” Is this a question? Is it a thesis? What types of behaviors are you talking about? Because in reading your article, it seems you mostly want to concentrate on murderers and hooligans. As a leading sentence, this is about as vague as it can possibly get.
Then, the first paragraph ends with “But, are they just innocently listening to their favorite tunes? Or are they in for something more?” This makes it seem that you’re leading me to a sinister conclusion. As well, by suggestion that the listener is there “for something more,” that they are in fact looking to take some kind of message or permission from the music. That is to say, they’re already criminals and are searching for an excuse.
The next section is what really gets me. It also completely disqualifies Alex’s argument from any and all anchors to logic and reality: “In the media it seems that certain groups affiliated with particular genres of music, often seen with rap – typically African-Americans – and hard-rock/heavy metal – often misfits or troublemakers – are pinpointed when something within their community goes awry, as having been strongly influenced by the music they listen to.”
There are four things terribly, terribly wrong with that paragraph: a) Beginning with ‘in the media’ and not providing any sort of citation means that you’re either taking the media at their word (which is almost always a mistake) or that you’re simply making up a ‘media’ so that you don’t have to take the imperative in your b) blatant racism and stereotyping. We know this isn’t an article about music at all; it is in fact a smear piece against African-Americans, fans of hip-hop, and fans of metal. c) Are these always the people pinpointed in a society when things go awry? What society? What is going awry? Finally, d) this paragraph is atrocious. It is grammatically incorrect in at least three different ways. Some serious red marker is in need here.
The line that follows this paragraph kills me: “But does it truly work this way? Can the content of a song influence one’s actions and/or behavior?” It’s as if to say “I’m not accusing anyone of doing anything. I’m suggesting a connection, but who knows if it’s even real?” Rule #1 of editorial journalism is to own your opinion, Alex. Is this column an argument that the groups you suggest are causing all this alleged trouble? Or is it passive-agreesive semi-anonymous finger waving at groups you know absolutely nothing about? Are you even a fan of music, Alex? Or are you only a fan of a certain kind of music, say, a kind that doesn’t offend your precious un-awry society?
“According to an article in the Stanford Online Report, the average teenager listens to up to five hours of music per day, a number which seems to be steadily growing with the ever-growing popularity of mp3 players.” This sentence informs me that this article was actually written in 2000. Ever-growing popularity of mp3 players? Really? That’s like suggesting in 1997 that CD players might just take over the Walkman market. It’s 2008, Alex. People have mp3 players in their toothbrushes now. Get with it. Also, what article in the Stanford Online Report? We couldn’t get a link to that article, could we?
This next part is the king-fish of the column, however: “As the popularity of music among youth grows, the number of teens who are becoming more violent, more sexually active and who are experimenting with drugs is steadily increasing. The parallel seen between the two analyses sparks questions regarding a connection; does music influence potentially harmful behavior?” Okay, even if the Stanford report exists somewhere that says we listen to 5 hours a day (I listen to far more than that, let me tell you), what’s the other report telling you that teens are turning into the cast from Escape from LA? It’s very possible this section was written in 1954. What’s next? The kids’ll start hanging around on motorcycles and roughing up soda shops?
So what evidence to we have of any of this? Columbine, of course. Alex quotes Marylin Manson, an artist who’s been de-fanged completely. Alex then brings up a slightly more recent case: “Similar to, but not to the same extent, the media made a point to mention that Kimveer Gill, the shooter at the more recent Sept. 13, 2006, shooting at Dawson College in Montréal, Que., followed the music and lifestyle of a Goth. Why would the media have mentioned this, if it was not attributing it to the shooting?”
Let’s repeat that last sentence, just to give it the proper gutspa it deserves: Why would the media have mentioned this, if it was not attributing it to the shooting?
Let’s forget the fact that the article ends here, leaving me wondering where else Alex might have gone with this asinine passive-aggressive ramble on moral righteousness. Let’s also forget the ridiculous uses of Columbine and Montréal as examples for why metal music is evil (also, what happened to those African-Americans and hip-hop fans you mentioned earlier? Don’t they get an under-researched example?) This line about the media is what got me to write this response. Alex, I feel sorry for you. Believing the media’s speculation, especially in incidences involving pop culture they don’t understand (metal, hip-hop, etc) is what helps create paranoia in society. The media doesn’t have the first clue as to what they’re talking about, and shouldn’t be considered authorities on anything. They are reporters looking for an angle to sell, and that’s it. By believing them, swallowing their hype, and spewing it out yourself, you’ve become one of them. Your opinion is misinformed, and your uneducated and unresearched bias is an insult to music fans, an insult to music journalists, and an insult to your readers, especially considering the article was placed in the child psychology section.
Good day.
***
Addendum
If you read the comments section of this post, you’ll find a fueled conversation between me and the author of this piece (as well as others) that resulted in the article being altered in significant ways. Check it out yourself. It’s a good day when criticism leads to change. It doesn’t happen often. In fact, that’s the lesson of the day. If you see something out there that doesn’t seem right in your eyes, say something and stand by it. Who knows what might happen.
Download the Charlatans record for free
I mentioned this a while back on the show, but I just thought I’d remind everyone that the Charlatans’ new record, You Cross My Path, is available to download for nilch.
Download the album for nilch (and possibly nadda).
Live-streaming concerts will never work, but that’s not to say small acts can’t benefit in the short term
Over the last two years, video streaming has gone from enterprise-meeting ideals to a mass-market concept. It is the culmination of moving almost all analog broadcast ideas over to digital, and it will eventually lead to some great things, such as streaming television channels online that people actually watch, to live digital broadcasts of important events, as well as direct-to-net entertainment. The focal point of this movement is, for some reason, live concerts. It’s somebody’s wet dream out there to be able to watch a live concert as it happens from their computer, so of course it has to happen.
AT&T’s Blueroom already does this. It has for years. Several other websites also offer this sort of service. These things are largely ignored because of the simple reality that watching a live concert from a single camera (or even a few) is a shit experience. I don’t care how large the screen is or how crisp the quality, concerts simply don’t translate well to a screen.
Youtube’s new plan is to take this idea and place it in the mainstream environment their site has become. Their thinking is that people do actually want to see live streaming concerts, but they don’t want to go elsewhere on the internet to do it. They may have a point about this. There are lots of video sites on the net, but none have come even close to becoming household names like Youtube. Their gravitas may be able to get people to watch concerts on their site. But it will still suck.
I would imagine that the AAA rock stars out there who have had big-budget live streaming sets before (because this sort of setup required a huge budget; I would imagine with Youtube all it will take is a camcorder connected to a computer) have little to gain from this sort of thing. Instead, it’s more likely that smaller bands out to make a name for themselves will champion this new technology I went to a recent show in my neighbourhood. It was the first live show for a fantastic new band called The Bang. They were supported by local bands Beautiful Losers, Edo, and the Notorious V.A.G. One thing I noticed about the show was the cameraman. He had this huge weather-reporter style cam on his shoulder, and he stood stage-left of the concert, recording the thing in its entirety. In theory, he could have been streaming the entire show to a Youtube feed. A quick look at the facebook page for the event showed that 88 people couldn’t make it and 124 people didn’t reply to the RSVP. Give whatever reason that they couldn’t make it to the show, how many of these people would have tuned into the concert live online? That’s an impossible number to estimate.
What could be done for a band like The Bang is to get in on the ground floor of this. The only general knowledge of live concert streaming is that it a) seems expensive, and b) so far only big names have done it. Say The Bang are one of the first bands to do the live-concert experience. They’ll have a built-in audience of curious listeners because of the new technology. I don’t believe that the concept will take off, but there will be a two-three week period where people check the thing out because it’s a new Youtube feature. (This isn’t to say it won’t work. Live streaming will be fantastic for tv, news, and all that. But broadcast concerts will never, ever work).
South By Southwest’s been ahead of everyone all along
Tomorrow, I’m going to be talking about this on the show, but I wanted to explain it in better detail. Recently, a team of music executives got together in New York to try and figure out how to save this whole mess about losing billions of dollars a year (even though the President of the RIAA made over a billion dollars all by himself last year) and they came to the conclusion that Music 1.0 is dead, whatever that means. New plans have to be hatched, new schemes have to be unfoiled, etc etc etc.
All they have to do is look around.
South by Southwest (SXSW) has, for the past three years, given out a gigantic torrent filled with one song from each act that performs at the festival. This year, the package chimes in at over three gigabites. That’s more gigs than a low-to-mid level iPod can handle. Every year, thousands of people download this file. Hell, this year’s package has only been up for little over a week and already 500 people have begun to seed the thing.
What good is three gigs of singles, though? Well, apart from being a fantastic free taste for the festival (to lure in ticket sales), it’s also the digital equivalent to what the festival is itself; a way for new bands to be given time in our ears. Even if one only 10 percent of the songs get a proper listen in your ears, you’re still allowing yourself to listen to seventy new bands.
This torrent enables bloggers almost a year’s worth of bands to highlight and brag about to their friends. It allows casual fans of mainstream music a free shot at hearing an entire community of indie acts. It allows venue promoters a chance to see a shortlist of what is hot with the kids these days, and it allows retailers to predict what to stock.
Wired has an excellent cover story this month on the future of the ‘free’ market, and mp3s have to be included in this discussion. Much like Gillette gave away razors to sell blades, bands are going to have to give away mp3s in order to sell concert tickets.
But it’s more than that. If Music 1.0 is something dead, then we must have in place a business system that is truly 2.0, and that means integrating interactivity into the mix. It’s not just the end of days in terms of selling overpriced CDs, it’s also the end of the one-way road of musicians selling to customers. In the past 3 years, the internet has shown us a fantastic way of gaining a crowd, and that’s social networking. In plain speak, word of mouth at the base level, where everyone gets a say, and the pyramid of free-market capitalism collapses.
Of course, one could argue that nothing needs fixing, that the slow demise of the music industry will benefit both the listener and the artists, but not the machine that’s kept them apart. That’s where SXSW and organizations like it truly shine, because they can exist without the machine. One might argue it would be better to have people like them in charge.
Guest interview by Elizabeth Hirst: Garner
When I sat down with Garner a few weeks ago before their performance at a benefit show, they had a lot to tell me about the past few months. Lead guitarist James Bloemendal, Keyboardist Matt McKenna and Drummer Matt McFarland are eager to talk about their new album, It’s About Time.
As we get into the interview, I start to realize that underlying the positive attitude of Garner is a streak of successes that would give just about anyone reason to grin. According to both McFarland and McKenna, their journey toward creating It’s About Time began about a year ago, when the band first developed the unique sound that’s been steadily attracting fans ever since.
“We didn’t really have a sound at the beginning, and when we did start to acquire one we had this kind of more folky thing happening with our first EP,” Says McKenna of their progression as a group.
McFarland adds in that, “When we (Garner) started writing our own music, McKenna brought in this jazzier funk and soul thing that really opened doors.”
The influence of jazz and funk is definitely evident in It’s About Time, especially in the flowing lyrics and fast-paced guitar work of “Slow Down” and the more mellow feel of the album’s title track. The album has a nice blend of funky, catchy tunes that mix jazz licks with a sound similar to that of Barenaked Ladies in the late nineties and tender love songs that accentuate McKenna’s soulful vocals. The lyrics, especially on the opening track, You Were Right, are skillfully written and blend nicely with the instrumentals.
According to the band, Garner’s new sound brought even more successes. On a chance encounter, they ended up at the Canterbury music company in Toronto, famous for its production of Chantal Kreviazuk, Raine Maida and even one of Garner’s major musical influences, the Barenaked Ladies. I ask the guys about their experiences working with Canterbury, and what it was like in the studio producing It’s About Time.
McFarland says that working with their producer in the studio “Was really fun. Sort of like a kid in a candy store. We had all these new things open to us and at the same time it was our first big experience with a studio, so it was a bit of a crash course on how the industry works.”
They are also thankful for the added diversity that they acquired in the studio.
“The producer that we had encouraged us to go in places that we thought might not fit and just try them out,” says McKenna.
According to Bloemendal, Garner ran into some surprises on the way to finishing It’s About Time, as well.
“We had a bass player named Marc Rogers just kind of wander in and we found out later that he played with Nora Jones, The Philosopher Kings and Nelly Furtado, and he was willing to perform the bass parts for our album. Those circles are so open. I was expecting the artists to be a little more exclusive, but they’re not.”
It really has been a year full of successes for Garner, but they tell me that they’ve still got more planned for the future. Rather than rest on their achievements they would prefer to continue writing and getting their music out to the public. Last month, It’s About Time became available for download on iTunes. This month, they have an ever-widening array of concerts as scheduled on garnerband.com geared toward reaching out to new fans. The guys even admit that they’ve been writing more songs and integrating all the members of the band into the songwriting, something that has been challenging for Garner in the past.
In addition to the old standby of world domination, McKenna says that “We just want to get our music out to the people. We’re looking at trying to get out to the east and west coast, and we’re also trying to hit at least two new cities a month in Ontario.” which means that pretty soon, Garner will have the chance to put a smile on your face, too.
-Elizabeth Hirst
Guest live show review by Elizabeth Hirst
When I arrive at St. Catharines’s The London Arms on Tuesday, December 22, McKenna is already there. Lead singer Ryan McKenna, Guitarist Joel McKenna, and Drummer Danno O’Shae are at the table closest to the stage, laughing and chatting with passersby. Within a few minutes, Ryan and Joel get up to start the show. Ryan throws a festive Santa hat on his head and a girl stands up from a group in the corner, calling out, “Sociable!”
This is not the first sociable of McKenna’s career, nor will it be the last. Ryan explains the tradition after opening with a guitar-and-vocals rendition of Elton John’s Rocket Man. A “sociable” is, essentially, an impromptu Cape Breton toast. Ryan counts down from three; we all raise a glass, shout “Sociable!” as loudly as possible and take a drink. After a few tries, just about everyone at the bar is joining in.
Ryan and Joel carry on with their set, applying their self-described sound of “aggressive acoustic guitar-driven rock” to James Taylor’s Carolina on my Mind. The duo showcases some tight harmonies in the final chorus of Canadian classic The Drinking Song. Next, they power down for a quiet moment with I’ll be Home for Christmas. Ryan’s powerful yet expressive vocals lend the necessary sensitivity to the song, while Joel’s guitar work acquires a hint of gentleness. Despite the serious tone of the song, Ryan doesn’t lose his sense of fun. He plays at tripping someone on the way to the bathroom, and lets a passing girl sing part of one verse.
Long time fan Liz Chapman says that having fun and enjoying community are essential parts of the McKenna experience.
“The boys joke around, but they’re trying to draw everyone in,” she says via chat, “After a visit or two, (the band) started to recognize me by face and name. I think it took (Ryan) a month to get me up on the stage regularly. I don’t think many people out there could have convinced me to do the same.”
Ryan agrees that fan interaction is very important to McKenna. He shares some of his favorite aspects of McKenna’s fan base during an online interview.
“I love seeing people return to us time and again and make the experience their own. They make shirts, travel distances, and organize theme nights. It becomes a kind of community. I mean, sure, we’ve been flashed. Our schmengies have been grabbed. Lots of cool and crazy things have happened, but the atmosphere generated by our fans who are willing to open themselves up to public experiences is the best part of it all.”
As Ryan implies, McKenna has more fan traditions than just sociables and “amazing guest musician spots”. Their regular Wednesday night show at Patrick Sheehan’s on St. Paul St. sees fans reciting bawdy call and answer chants, taking off their shirts during specific songs and singing along to such original McKenna classics as Big Fat Bag of Awesome (originally conceptualized by a slightly tipsy fan). Patrons can cozy up to fifty of their best buddies in the raised area where the band plays, affectionately dubbed “the love pit,” or relax at a booth. Get there before ten though, because floor space fills up fast.
Interested parties, or those interested in a party, can still see McKenna even if Tuesday and Wednesday nights in St. Catharines are off-limits. In addition to their regular gigs at The London Arms and Patrick Sheehan’s, McKenna will be playing in Stratford on the twelfth of January at Molly Bloom’s Irish Pub, The Honest Lawyer in Hamilton on the seventeenth and Ceilidh’s Maritime Pub in Barrie on the eighteenth and nineteenth. Come out, drink a sociable or two and create your own McKenna fan tradition.
-Elizabeth Hirst
The problem is that people want to buy the album
This is a complete conversation I had this morning at Starbucks. Italics added for emphasis.
Starbucks barista: Have a good weekend, sir?
Kyle: (Not paying attention, ears covered in giant headphones) …hmm?
SB: Good weekend?
K: Yeah, yeah great.
SB: Here’s your latte, sir.
K: (Noticing that Radiohead’s new record, In Rainbows is priced for $20.99) Um…
SB: Yes?
K: Okay, I know I’m just here to get a latte, but…seriously, twenty bucks?
SB: I’m sorry, sir?
K: How does that happen?
SB: (Noticing that I’m talking about the album) Oh, you mean because they gave it away online for free?
K: Well, they gave it away for whatever people wanted to pay for it. But yeah, free. How does it go from free to twenty bucks?
SB: I didn’t price it.
K: I know that. I’m not accusing you, personally. But across the street at Chapters, they’re selling it for thirteen bucks. At HMV, they’re selling it for ten. How does Starbucks get off selling it for twenty?
SB: The problem is that people want to buy it, I guess.
K: (Seriously holding back an early morning freak out) …Yes, the problem is that people want to buy it.
SB: Have a good day, sir.
