By: James Slider
I've been reading the Practice of the Wild by Gary Snyder and that book has definitely influenced my thinking in regards to nature and what we hold to be natural or wild. By Snyder's definition:
Natural - Anything that exists on earth
Wilderness - Something allowed to grow to its full potential
Wild - The fundamental essence of our relationship with all other things on earth
These concepts led me to thinking about alot of other things and the way we view ourselves as humans.
The concept that we are seperate and different from nature is a huge part of the mindset of a "civilized human." I also think that this concept is a mistake. We are innately wild, and one of our largest flaws is to think that concrete ground and brick buildings seperate us from every other creature that eats and is in turn eaten. We identify with material objects, our houses, our cars, our clothes because they seperate us from what we view as untamed and unorganized nature. We pave over grass and cut down trees to "organize things," essentially we do it to feel that we are in control.
The flaw in this concept is that raw nature is structured upon an organizational pattern that is complex beyond our comprehension, a system of checks and balances that innately maintains itself until we come in and shatter its equillibrium. In this way, the ignorance of the human race leads it to destroying or "civilizing" the natural landscape and destroying a far more intricate and beautiful system than we could even dream of creating.
To accept the fact that our bodies are wild is almost like learning to walk again. We are wild in instinct, in each moment spent involuntarily frozen in the darkness after hearing a noise, in the way we size each other up unconciously, a spark in our minds that cant be put out. To accept this fact means relating yourself to all that we view as untame, in my view this is far from regression, it is closer to revolution. To be wild is not to be cruel or uncaring, it is to grow to the full of your potential, while accepting your place and relation to everything else on earth. The wild is to eat and be eaten, to take life in order to live your own, and to give life so that others may live, to see yourself in every other creature because you are all interdependant. Quite a thought.
If this thought intrigues you as much as it did me you should check out Snyders book, or talk to me about it sometime, im always happy to talk.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Adolescent Fight Club
By: Kris Harrison |Editor|
I just finished watching Fight Club, which I initially put on to make myself feel better about hating studying and the pointlessness of college on whole. It worked. However, this time I caught a glimpse of something I did not pick up on before. It is something I find very crucial to the film and its meaning. It was also prompted by a Facebook message I received quoting the movie. The quote was from a philosophy/personal friend of mine who usually zings me with one liners. Although it wasn't the one liner this time, it still zinged me in a most likely unintended way.
What it made me realize is that I disagreed with what Fight Club stands for. I appreciate the ideas, the meaninglessness of modern life and all that jazz. These are big topics with me. However, what Josh's comment made me realize was the adolescence of the film, and the ideas presented. Now, I must first say that I still love the movie and appreciate it on many other different levels. However, the most important level, which is its message, I do not. Also, I could be misled in my interpretation (in your opinion) but it is a work of art and is open to such, so bear with me. What struck me about the adolescence is its reflection on myself, and encounters I have had. My friend Ryan Clark wrote a song, and believes in the idea that revolution is dead. I agree. Revolution as it has existed for the extent of human history is of no value anymore. This applies to the revolution posed in the movie as well.
You may be say "aw hell Kris, it's just a film." Fuck that, it has a message and if you do not take it serious than I doubt you appreciate the movie with the depth it deserves. Furthermore, if you are one of those revolutionary types, I advise you to read the Unabomber's Manifesto, he articulates why in better detail as well as proves its defaults. Anyways, back to the film. What I am disgusted by is this idea of revolution as a collectivist, gun shooting, explosive, anarchistic event. This is how it has always occurred, and though it may prove effective in some way (blowing shit up still changes things) I do not feel it would have the psychological effect it used to. Blowing up credit card unions wouldn't do anything to further mankind. Not buying things with them on a mass scale would. It is easy to demonize wild eyed revolutionaries. Look at Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. The man was a genius who saw humanity heading down a bad path, used force to get his message across and now everyone believes he is a nut. The same would happen to Tyler Durden, regardless of how rational his ideas may seem. Look what they're doing to Tiger Woods for god's sake. The guy got in a car accident late at night, and now everyone's freaking out like he's some loony.
Yes, the tenants of the movie are adolescent. They appear to be awesome in theory, and of course work out in a movie. However, the real revolution would not happen. Yes, there are a great deal of males (and females) disenfranchised with the current state of affairs. Yes, fighting may be a productive form of psychotherapy rather than copious consumption and some fucked up identity therein. However, I emphasize the "may." There is a better way of approaching the clear meaninglessness. It's a lot simpler, and doesn't involve explosions, so people will not latch onto it as well as Fight Club (which by the way, white collar boxing does exist). The solution is in the methods of revolution, and attacks the heart of what the current system is founded on. What I mean is money. The consumer has power as such, what they buy determines what businesses and power exists. Hate Starbucks and Wal-Mart? Stop shopping there. Feel like products aren't doing anything to make you happy? Stop buying them. Feel like a part of you is missing, figure out what it is.
I'm simplifying, of course, but the solution is simple in theory. In practice on a large scale I believe it's impossible. Even the strongest of will splurges now and then. Multiply that by the population of the country and Wal-Mart is still doing fine. However, I find this to be the shape of revolution to come. It is a form of slave rebellion, but it makes more sense than blowing shit up. Just stop buying from places you don't agree with. Cancel your credit cards. "Oh, but things are so expensive! We need Wal-Mart and Meijer for their deals!" Shop Sav-A-Lot and Good Will. They're cheaper and the profits go to the perpetuation of humanity. There are alternatives. I know because I do them. Yes, I could be doing more, and I should be. I'm not asking for all or nothing, just something more sensible for all out chaos. We already live in that, but most people aren't equipped for digesting it.
Look, I don't mean to be preachy, and I know I am coming off like that. My point is, don't let the fantasy get you. It got me, and my glimmering eyes did nothing but shine. Fight Club is a great film, and exposes a lot of stuff going on that people don't often discuss. However, the solution is weak. If you disagree, than fuck it, let's make some soap.
I just finished watching Fight Club, which I initially put on to make myself feel better about hating studying and the pointlessness of college on whole. It worked. However, this time I caught a glimpse of something I did not pick up on before. It is something I find very crucial to the film and its meaning. It was also prompted by a Facebook message I received quoting the movie. The quote was from a philosophy/personal friend of mine who usually zings me with one liners. Although it wasn't the one liner this time, it still zinged me in a most likely unintended way.
What it made me realize is that I disagreed with what Fight Club stands for. I appreciate the ideas, the meaninglessness of modern life and all that jazz. These are big topics with me. However, what Josh's comment made me realize was the adolescence of the film, and the ideas presented. Now, I must first say that I still love the movie and appreciate it on many other different levels. However, the most important level, which is its message, I do not. Also, I could be misled in my interpretation (in your opinion) but it is a work of art and is open to such, so bear with me. What struck me about the adolescence is its reflection on myself, and encounters I have had. My friend Ryan Clark wrote a song, and believes in the idea that revolution is dead. I agree. Revolution as it has existed for the extent of human history is of no value anymore. This applies to the revolution posed in the movie as well.
You may be say "aw hell Kris, it's just a film." Fuck that, it has a message and if you do not take it serious than I doubt you appreciate the movie with the depth it deserves. Furthermore, if you are one of those revolutionary types, I advise you to read the Unabomber's Manifesto, he articulates why in better detail as well as proves its defaults. Anyways, back to the film. What I am disgusted by is this idea of revolution as a collectivist, gun shooting, explosive, anarchistic event. This is how it has always occurred, and though it may prove effective in some way (blowing shit up still changes things) I do not feel it would have the psychological effect it used to. Blowing up credit card unions wouldn't do anything to further mankind. Not buying things with them on a mass scale would. It is easy to demonize wild eyed revolutionaries. Look at Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. The man was a genius who saw humanity heading down a bad path, used force to get his message across and now everyone believes he is a nut. The same would happen to Tyler Durden, regardless of how rational his ideas may seem. Look what they're doing to Tiger Woods for god's sake. The guy got in a car accident late at night, and now everyone's freaking out like he's some loony.
Yes, the tenants of the movie are adolescent. They appear to be awesome in theory, and of course work out in a movie. However, the real revolution would not happen. Yes, there are a great deal of males (and females) disenfranchised with the current state of affairs. Yes, fighting may be a productive form of psychotherapy rather than copious consumption and some fucked up identity therein. However, I emphasize the "may." There is a better way of approaching the clear meaninglessness. It's a lot simpler, and doesn't involve explosions, so people will not latch onto it as well as Fight Club (which by the way, white collar boxing does exist). The solution is in the methods of revolution, and attacks the heart of what the current system is founded on. What I mean is money. The consumer has power as such, what they buy determines what businesses and power exists. Hate Starbucks and Wal-Mart? Stop shopping there. Feel like products aren't doing anything to make you happy? Stop buying them. Feel like a part of you is missing, figure out what it is.
I'm simplifying, of course, but the solution is simple in theory. In practice on a large scale I believe it's impossible. Even the strongest of will splurges now and then. Multiply that by the population of the country and Wal-Mart is still doing fine. However, I find this to be the shape of revolution to come. It is a form of slave rebellion, but it makes more sense than blowing shit up. Just stop buying from places you don't agree with. Cancel your credit cards. "Oh, but things are so expensive! We need Wal-Mart and Meijer for their deals!" Shop Sav-A-Lot and Good Will. They're cheaper and the profits go to the perpetuation of humanity. There are alternatives. I know because I do them. Yes, I could be doing more, and I should be. I'm not asking for all or nothing, just something more sensible for all out chaos. We already live in that, but most people aren't equipped for digesting it.
Look, I don't mean to be preachy, and I know I am coming off like that. My point is, don't let the fantasy get you. It got me, and my glimmering eyes did nothing but shine. Fight Club is a great film, and exposes a lot of stuff going on that people don't often discuss. However, the solution is weak. If you disagree, than fuck it, let's make some soap.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Final Cut Sutra
By: James Slider
This is just one of those notes where you notice something about life that you want to write about, so if you have a spare minute read it over, if not, don't.
I was walking home from class today, against a constant stream of people. Each had their ipods in, heads bowed down, dead to the world. It seems that each person here makes a constant effort to seal themselves off into a discrete social environment, apart from anything they find displeasing or are not force fed by a professor.
This observation led me to thinking about the way we life our lives. We constantly edit our own existence. Just as in a movie, we fade up on parts that we feel are important. These "destinations" in life are the only part we pay attention to. Each transition between these destinations, moments we feel we should be enjoying, is faded to black, or simply cut. We lay our eyes safely on the cracks of the sidewalk, turn our volume up to drown out the noise of the outside world, and forget what it means to be part of a whole.
Our essential mistake is that life is not just a series of destinations, connected from dot to dot and joined by the resulting lines of meaningless existence between arrivals. Reality is more like a river, a continuous flow of perceptions and sensations, recreated and interpreted in our thoughts. If we choose to edit out the time between each place we go, more importantly, if we choose to zone out for things we feel we shouldn't enjoy, we are losing a huge amount of the experience that is life. If you spend every day blanking out class, your job, the walk home, doing the dishes, and a myriad of other experiences, we are editing out an enormous portion of the time we have to exist.
This is an invitation to be present for your own life. To watch the extended version instead of the abridged. To live in sentences instead of syllables. Enjoy exactly where you are and what you are doing all the time, not just when you get somewhere you thought would be fun of you heard should be fun.
This is just one of those notes where you notice something about life that you want to write about, so if you have a spare minute read it over, if not, don't.
I was walking home from class today, against a constant stream of people. Each had their ipods in, heads bowed down, dead to the world. It seems that each person here makes a constant effort to seal themselves off into a discrete social environment, apart from anything they find displeasing or are not force fed by a professor.
This observation led me to thinking about the way we life our lives. We constantly edit our own existence. Just as in a movie, we fade up on parts that we feel are important. These "destinations" in life are the only part we pay attention to. Each transition between these destinations, moments we feel we should be enjoying, is faded to black, or simply cut. We lay our eyes safely on the cracks of the sidewalk, turn our volume up to drown out the noise of the outside world, and forget what it means to be part of a whole.
Our essential mistake is that life is not just a series of destinations, connected from dot to dot and joined by the resulting lines of meaningless existence between arrivals. Reality is more like a river, a continuous flow of perceptions and sensations, recreated and interpreted in our thoughts. If we choose to edit out the time between each place we go, more importantly, if we choose to zone out for things we feel we shouldn't enjoy, we are losing a huge amount of the experience that is life. If you spend every day blanking out class, your job, the walk home, doing the dishes, and a myriad of other experiences, we are editing out an enormous portion of the time we have to exist.
This is an invitation to be present for your own life. To watch the extended version instead of the abridged. To live in sentences instead of syllables. Enjoy exactly where you are and what you are doing all the time, not just when you get somewhere you thought would be fun of you heard should be fun.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Hellbettys and Barfights: An Evening With Hank Williams III
By Willie Burmeister
My whole life, I’ve tended to shun country music as some hillbilly garbage that just isn’t worth listening to. At this point I still haven’t put a whole lot of time in to listening to country, but I have given a fair chance to a select few artists. What I’ve found is that country music is just like any other kind: When the artist makes honest music it can be incredible, and when the artist tries to sell tons of records and be played on the radio it generally turns into trash. Just like most genres, the stuff that we’re bombarded with the most isn’t worth a listen. However, with some searching it is possible to find some real music where the artist has something to say and totally nails their message.
This weekend Hank Williams III and Assjack played at Saint Andrews Hall. I was initially fascinated by the crowd that shows up to see these guys. The first half of the show is country music, and the second half is thrash metal.
The result of this is that part of the audience are hillbillies, part are metalheads, and most are some mutant combination of the two. What everyone had in common was the desire for a balls out show with nothing held back.
The show was absolutely incredible. I was in awe of just how musically talented every member of the band was; the lap steel, banjo, and violin players could really shred and they straight up stole the show. But what really made it a great performance was how perfectly pissed off the music was.
From the classic “Cocaine Blues” to “Dick in Dixie”, these guys were more rock and roll than rock and rollers. They were able to perfectly nail their message: Life is fucked up, let’s have some fun. They’re proud of their roots and they have every right to be. They represent all that is real and cool about southern hellraisers.
As far as metal bands go, there are better bands out there than Assjack. However, that doesn’t mean that they didn’t go out on that stage and kick ass. In this medium, the band was able to really let their anger out. They were intense and energetic, and they nailed a Slayer medley, which to me was the highlight of their portion of the show.
The point I want to make here is that even if you don’t think of yourself as a country music fan, you should treat yourself to checking out Hank III. There is nothing inherently wrong with country music. There is, however, something wrong with the artists who’ve sold their cocks and balls for fame. After this weekend’s show, I decided to listen to a little of the music that Hank’s grandfather wrote. What I found is that Hank Williams could really wail also, and if country music would have stayed on the path that he started (instead of tumbling downhill like popular music always tends to do) the genre would still be packed with artists that go out and break faces, honky tonk style. I think we can look at Hank III as yet another example of the fact that there will always be real musicians who want to make honest music for themselves and their fans.
Photos Courtesy of starpulse.com and culturebully.com
My whole life, I’ve tended to shun country music as some hillbilly garbage that just isn’t worth listening to. At this point I still haven’t put a whole lot of time in to listening to country, but I have given a fair chance to a select few artists. What I’ve found is that country music is just like any other kind: When the artist makes honest music it can be incredible, and when the artist tries to sell tons of records and be played on the radio it generally turns into trash. Just like most genres, the stuff that we’re bombarded with the most isn’t worth a listen. However, with some searching it is possible to find some real music where the artist has something to say and totally nails their message.
This weekend Hank Williams III and Assjack played at Saint Andrews Hall. I was initially fascinated by the crowd that shows up to see these guys. The first half of the show is country music, and the second half is thrash metal.
The result of this is that part of the audience are hillbillies, part are metalheads, and most are some mutant combination of the two. What everyone had in common was the desire for a balls out show with nothing held back.The show was absolutely incredible. I was in awe of just how musically talented every member of the band was; the lap steel, banjo, and violin players could really shred and they straight up stole the show. But what really made it a great performance was how perfectly pissed off the music was.
From the classic “Cocaine Blues” to “Dick in Dixie”, these guys were more rock and roll than rock and rollers. They were able to perfectly nail their message: Life is fucked up, let’s have some fun. They’re proud of their roots and they have every right to be. They represent all that is real and cool about southern hellraisers.As far as metal bands go, there are better bands out there than Assjack. However, that doesn’t mean that they didn’t go out on that stage and kick ass. In this medium, the band was able to really let their anger out. They were intense and energetic, and they nailed a Slayer medley, which to me was the highlight of their portion of the show.
The point I want to make here is that even if you don’t think of yourself as a country music fan, you should treat yourself to checking out Hank III. There is nothing inherently wrong with country music. There is, however, something wrong with the artists who’ve sold their cocks and balls for fame. After this weekend’s show, I decided to listen to a little of the music that Hank’s grandfather wrote. What I found is that Hank Williams could really wail also, and if country music would have stayed on the path that he started (instead of tumbling downhill like popular music always tends to do) the genre would still be packed with artists that go out and break faces, honky tonk style. I think we can look at Hank III as yet another example of the fact that there will always be real musicians who want to make honest music for themselves and their fans.
Photos Courtesy of starpulse.com and culturebully.com
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Megadeth Continue to Take No Prisoners, Nor Shit
By: Ryan Linska
Megadeth are back with another mind crushing thrash album titled Endgame, and all I can say is “holy shit”. Megadeth are one of those bands that never cease to impress with each release. This trend continues with Endgame. The album sucks you in with the opener "Dialectic Chaos”, pleasing you with the sounds of the shredding duo of none other than Megadeth front man Dave Mustaine and his new partner in crime Chris Broderick. This is Chris Broderick’s first appearance on a Megadeth album, and he does nothing but impress the entire way through…this guy can SHRED! He is easily one of the most talented guitar players on the thrash scene right now.
Throughout Endgame the guitar playing of Broderick and Mustaine is top notch, every note, every solo, nailed with the upmost perfection. Mustaine and Broderick trade off solos that feed off one another in a magical fashion hardly seen in newer releases nowadays, the chemistry is perfect. Supported by the strong rhythm section provided by James Lomenzo (drums) and Shawn Drover (bass) the thrash beast that is Megadeth continues to assault it’s listeners with ear-bleeding thrash metal.
The album is a pure thrash album from start to finish, from the aforementioned “Dialectic Chaos” to the single “Head Crusher” Megadeth unleashes a force which no-one can withstand. However, the album is not without its breathing space. On “The Hardest Part of Letting Go…Sealed With a Kiss” we get a chance to rest our necks from the full on head banging assault. The song itself lets the listener breath before the pummeling thrash assault begins again. Through and through there are few low points on this album; each song is as strong as the last, angry and pissed. My personal favorite tracks on this album were: Dialectic Chaos, Head Crusher, This Day We Fight, Endgame and 44 Minutes.
The song writing continues the previous thread we saw on “United Abominations” with a couple of the songs being very politically based, and one going far as attacking ex-President Bush directly in it’s lyrics (Endgame). However, it seems Mustaine has taken it easy on political songs and allowed some other influences in as well, such as on the song 1,320 which is about nitro fuel funny cars. Overall, Mustaine’s songwriting hasn’t lost its touch on this record in the least.
Now for the criticism, I overall enjoyed this album, but one thing that threw me off was the ballad…When I think Megadeth I do not think love ballad, the example of this being “The Hardest Part of Letting Go…Sealed With a Kiss”. Now I don’t know about anyone else’s opinion of a thrash record, but when I think thrash the word "ballad" does not even cross my mind. The ballad doesn’t bring down the album too much by any means, but could have been left out; it just doesn't fit. At least this time we didn’t have to hear a duet with the lead singer of Lacuna Coil…
Another small problem I have with this record is the abundance of politically based songs. Now I don’t mind political songs, but sometimes it becomes overkill. Unlike the last record “United Abominations” Mustaine has toned down on his politics, which is a step up. However, I feel like during these songs, instead of bringing issues of society to light, I hear bitching. Overall, not a huge problem but something I wouldn’t mind seeing removed from future albums.
Final judgment… Endgame is an amazing thrash record. It shows growth for Megadeth as a band, and paves the path for, hopefully, many more albums to come from. I award this album with a solid 9/10. I highly recommend this album for anyone who is a fan of Megadeth, metal, or heavier music in general.
Megadeth are back with another mind crushing thrash album titled Endgame, and all I can say is “holy shit”. Megadeth are one of those bands that never cease to impress with each release. This trend continues with Endgame. The album sucks you in with the opener "Dialectic Chaos”, pleasing you with the sounds of the shredding duo of none other than Megadeth front man Dave Mustaine and his new partner in crime Chris Broderick. This is Chris Broderick’s first appearance on a Megadeth album, and he does nothing but impress the entire way through…this guy can SHRED! He is easily one of the most talented guitar players on the thrash scene right now.
Throughout Endgame the guitar playing of Broderick and Mustaine is top notch, every note, every solo, nailed with the upmost perfection. Mustaine and Broderick trade off solos that feed off one another in a magical fashion hardly seen in newer releases nowadays, the chemistry is perfect. Supported by the strong rhythm section provided by James Lomenzo (drums) and Shawn Drover (bass) the thrash beast that is Megadeth continues to assault it’s listeners with ear-bleeding thrash metal.
The album is a pure thrash album from start to finish, from the aforementioned “Dialectic Chaos” to the single “Head Crusher” Megadeth unleashes a force which no-one can withstand. However, the album is not without its breathing space. On “The Hardest Part of Letting Go…Sealed With a Kiss” we get a chance to rest our necks from the full on head banging assault. The song itself lets the listener breath before the pummeling thrash assault begins again. Through and through there are few low points on this album; each song is as strong as the last, angry and pissed. My personal favorite tracks on this album were: Dialectic Chaos, Head Crusher, This Day We Fight, Endgame and 44 Minutes.
The song writing continues the previous thread we saw on “United Abominations” with a couple of the songs being very politically based, and one going far as attacking ex-President Bush directly in it’s lyrics (Endgame). However, it seems Mustaine has taken it easy on political songs and allowed some other influences in as well, such as on the song 1,320 which is about nitro fuel funny cars. Overall, Mustaine’s songwriting hasn’t lost its touch on this record in the least.
Now for the criticism, I overall enjoyed this album, but one thing that threw me off was the ballad…When I think Megadeth I do not think love ballad, the example of this being “The Hardest Part of Letting Go…Sealed With a Kiss”. Now I don’t know about anyone else’s opinion of a thrash record, but when I think thrash the word "ballad" does not even cross my mind. The ballad doesn’t bring down the album too much by any means, but could have been left out; it just doesn't fit. At least this time we didn’t have to hear a duet with the lead singer of Lacuna Coil…
Another small problem I have with this record is the abundance of politically based songs. Now I don’t mind political songs, but sometimes it becomes overkill. Unlike the last record “United Abominations” Mustaine has toned down on his politics, which is a step up. However, I feel like during these songs, instead of bringing issues of society to light, I hear bitching. Overall, not a huge problem but something I wouldn’t mind seeing removed from future albums.
Final judgment… Endgame is an amazing thrash record. It shows growth for Megadeth as a band, and paves the path for, hopefully, many more albums to come from. I award this album with a solid 9/10. I highly recommend this album for anyone who is a fan of Megadeth, metal, or heavier music in general.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Absurdity and Beauty in "Common Existence"
By: Kris Harrison |Editor|
Preface
Let me begin by pointing out the relationship I've had with Thursday's music. In high school, I hated emo music, or scene music, or screamo. Whatever you want to call it I hated it. I saw it as cheap, fake, and overdone. The whining, the lame metaphors, the white middle class melodrama bugged me. Maybe this is because I just didn't get it, or because it actually was all those things.
However, hate often implies a fear, and interest one does not want to admit to themselves. Aware of this, I began giving it a try. I even went so far as to dress the part for a while (because of a Halloween debacle that opened me up to the comfort of girl jeans). Anyways, I went and tested a great deal of "emo" bands out to see if there was any substance to them. Most did not. A few I enjoyed simply as pop music, but they didn't really have anything to say. Thursday was one of the bands I tried out. I hated them at first because the vocals threw me off; whiney, off key, no growl, and sporadic yells. However, one day I decided to grab their album "Full Collapse" which I'd stolen from my girlfriend and took it along with me on a road trip with my family. I listened to it song after song, and it still wasn't clicking. Not until the song "Flames In Paris" came on. There was a moment of clarity, where my hair stood on end. You know, the "wow these guys got it!" moment. Since then I've been fascinated with them. This only intensified as I got more and more into philosophy and began relating the ideas to their music (ideas which will be explored further down).
I also stole their next album "War All The Time" from my girlfriend who had already dismissed them and was happy to get rid of it. This album clicked more. It explored former issues in a refined sense and was a great deal heavier while maintaining its melody. I lost interest for a while in the band, they'd signed to a major label and made a lame electronic tinged album that. Though, honestly, I've yet to give a good listen. It wasn't until I saw the title of their newest album "Common Existence" and learned that they were back on an independent label, owned by Bad Religion's guitarist Dave Fridmann, that I had took interest again.
Review
Former releases portray the almost unbearable state of modern life. Songs like "The Workforce Drowning" and "Division Street" explores suicide and the hopeless experienced as a reflection of the vast nihilism of life.
A lot of people often misunderstand the mention of this as somehow an advancement or advocacy of such action. However, I see their intention to be less malicious or emo and more proactive. It's a cry to do something about it. Bands like Thursday are simply using different tones and themes as their hardcore predecessors. Much like the way Fugazi are labeled as "emo" due to their evolution in delivery and expanding perspectives on issues tackled by hardcore, so too do Thursday suffer the same shallow criticisms. It's a matter of growth and some fans within and outside of the scene are unable to, or are too immature, to do the same.
Sonically, the album comes across one dimensional. The structure is basically a wall of sound comprised of jangling guitar chords, distorted, consistent riffs, chimerical drums, and blistering, impassioned vocals over ringing keyboard melodies. A wall of sound reminiscent of the thick, almost blinding layers of stimuli one faces in everyday life. However, something breaks this dimension and enters deeper into the subconscious. You can feel the swell of the music.
Like when listening to an Iggy Pop song, he vamps on the same dense, distorted chords the whole song, but the swells are what make the song interesting and somehow intensely emotional. There is a subtle, yet powerful atonality and dissonance throughout the album. It's reflected in the tone of the lyrics; moody, depressing, yet remains eye opening. They entice one to dive inward. It is strange too how it fits into my head at the moment because I've been listening to free jazz and reveling in its overbearing atonality, dissonance, and musical chaos. This music thus acted as a crippling force onto how it can be effectively used in a way I would never have considered (that is, outside of improvisation or orchestration).
Matthew Cole of Slant Magazine berates the record's lack of climax, but I feel this is quite in line with the theme of the record and band as a whole. Their philosophy and perspective on life is anticlimactic. An emphasis placed on the banality, desperation, and glazed over existence most of humanity, in suburban/urban America knows too well. The atonality of the band works as the most effective aphorism for their overall message. They use the music as a reinforcement of these emotions, which may be intentional or simply just an organic expression of their being as a group. You can feel the notes bouncing off one another with some chaotic calculation.
Rickly's lyrics are more a cry for action than a cry for self pity, an emotion we all must have experience at least once to qualify as a living human being. You know, to stare out into the world and feel imprisoned by the inability to scream at the top of your lungs and topple buildings with the sheer force of your conviction. This to me in inherently punk: a cathartic release of emotion. If you are going to critique this band as emo, as maybe you did when the trend was at its height, I respond with a stern "so what?" Maybe it was overdone but with the recent rise of auto tune, the inorganic spawn of Satan (in a bad way), what we need are emotions again. Music has lost a lot of its emotional impressionism-its authenticity.
Thursday are a musical representation of the 20th century spirit. I see pieces of Existentialism, Modernism, Post Modernism, and a great deal of Deconstructivism in their work. They make beauty out of ugliness, and life out of nothingness. The album is like an Albert Camus novel put to pissed off free jazz musicians picking up guitars and giving rock music a try.
To many, this may be a far off observation, but again it is the spirit of the band that I find so compelling in this light. They beautifully portray the mix of chaos and order seen that composes city living. The aesthetic is familiar, it lies in the awe of giant structures, the beauty of dilapidates houses, graffiti covered walls. For those who appreciate greyness, cloudy skies, winter, nights, and all the overlooked and written off states of life, this music will click with you. It's not emo. Emo is cheesy and superficial. This is relevant. It encapsulates real aspects of life people don't often admit to. Thursday cut too deep to be emo. Pun intended.
People have an inherent fear of disorder and the emotions atonality elicits. They like neat little packages for their life to fit in, with 4 sides and a start and finish. Any hint of disorder evokes an intense anxiety. This is also true in music. Frank Zappa one said people like to decorate their lives with music, and I imagine they go about this in the same manner as they would their house. They choose nice, organized, and "fine tuned" decorations that make their lives easier to swallow. There is no room for this mess. Well fuck that. Wake up and smell the garbage folks. Until you begin to enjoy the smell of it, you're not ready to face up to reality.
Point being: buy this album, roll in garbage.
Preface
Let me begin by pointing out the relationship I've had with Thursday's music. In high school, I hated emo music, or scene music, or screamo. Whatever you want to call it I hated it. I saw it as cheap, fake, and overdone. The whining, the lame metaphors, the white middle class melodrama bugged me. Maybe this is because I just didn't get it, or because it actually was all those things.
However, hate often implies a fear, and interest one does not want to admit to themselves. Aware of this, I began giving it a try. I even went so far as to dress the part for a while (because of a Halloween debacle that opened me up to the comfort of girl jeans). Anyways, I went and tested a great deal of "emo" bands out to see if there was any substance to them. Most did not. A few I enjoyed simply as pop music, but they didn't really have anything to say. Thursday was one of the bands I tried out. I hated them at first because the vocals threw me off; whiney, off key, no growl, and sporadic yells. However, one day I decided to grab their album "Full Collapse" which I'd stolen from my girlfriend and took it along with me on a road trip with my family. I listened to it song after song, and it still wasn't clicking. Not until the song "Flames In Paris" came on. There was a moment of clarity, where my hair stood on end. You know, the "wow these guys got it!" moment. Since then I've been fascinated with them. This only intensified as I got more and more into philosophy and began relating the ideas to their music (ideas which will be explored further down). I also stole their next album "War All The Time" from my girlfriend who had already dismissed them and was happy to get rid of it. This album clicked more. It explored former issues in a refined sense and was a great deal heavier while maintaining its melody. I lost interest for a while in the band, they'd signed to a major label and made a lame electronic tinged album that. Though, honestly, I've yet to give a good listen. It wasn't until I saw the title of their newest album "Common Existence" and learned that they were back on an independent label, owned by Bad Religion's guitarist Dave Fridmann, that I had took interest again.
Review
Former releases portray the almost unbearable state of modern life. Songs like "The Workforce Drowning" and "Division Street" explores suicide and the hopeless experienced as a reflection of the vast nihilism of life.
A lot of people often misunderstand the mention of this as somehow an advancement or advocacy of such action. However, I see their intention to be less malicious or emo and more proactive. It's a cry to do something about it. Bands like Thursday are simply using different tones and themes as their hardcore predecessors. Much like the way Fugazi are labeled as "emo" due to their evolution in delivery and expanding perspectives on issues tackled by hardcore, so too do Thursday suffer the same shallow criticisms. It's a matter of growth and some fans within and outside of the scene are unable to, or are too immature, to do the same. Sonically, the album comes across one dimensional. The structure is basically a wall of sound comprised of jangling guitar chords, distorted, consistent riffs, chimerical drums, and blistering, impassioned vocals over ringing keyboard melodies. A wall of sound reminiscent of the thick, almost blinding layers of stimuli one faces in everyday life. However, something breaks this dimension and enters deeper into the subconscious. You can feel the swell of the music.
Like when listening to an Iggy Pop song, he vamps on the same dense, distorted chords the whole song, but the swells are what make the song interesting and somehow intensely emotional. There is a subtle, yet powerful atonality and dissonance throughout the album. It's reflected in the tone of the lyrics; moody, depressing, yet remains eye opening. They entice one to dive inward. It is strange too how it fits into my head at the moment because I've been listening to free jazz and reveling in its overbearing atonality, dissonance, and musical chaos. This music thus acted as a crippling force onto how it can be effectively used in a way I would never have considered (that is, outside of improvisation or orchestration). Matthew Cole of Slant Magazine berates the record's lack of climax, but I feel this is quite in line with the theme of the record and band as a whole. Their philosophy and perspective on life is anticlimactic. An emphasis placed on the banality, desperation, and glazed over existence most of humanity, in suburban/urban America knows too well. The atonality of the band works as the most effective aphorism for their overall message. They use the music as a reinforcement of these emotions, which may be intentional or simply just an organic expression of their being as a group. You can feel the notes bouncing off one another with some chaotic calculation.
Rickly's lyrics are more a cry for action than a cry for self pity, an emotion we all must have experience at least once to qualify as a living human being. You know, to stare out into the world and feel imprisoned by the inability to scream at the top of your lungs and topple buildings with the sheer force of your conviction. This to me in inherently punk: a cathartic release of emotion. If you are going to critique this band as emo, as maybe you did when the trend was at its height, I respond with a stern "so what?" Maybe it was overdone but with the recent rise of auto tune, the inorganic spawn of Satan (in a bad way), what we need are emotions again. Music has lost a lot of its emotional impressionism-its authenticity.
Thursday are a musical representation of the 20th century spirit. I see pieces of Existentialism, Modernism, Post Modernism, and a great deal of Deconstructivism in their work. They make beauty out of ugliness, and life out of nothingness. The album is like an Albert Camus novel put to pissed off free jazz musicians picking up guitars and giving rock music a try.
To many, this may be a far off observation, but again it is the spirit of the band that I find so compelling in this light. They beautifully portray the mix of chaos and order seen that composes city living. The aesthetic is familiar, it lies in the awe of giant structures, the beauty of dilapidates houses, graffiti covered walls. For those who appreciate greyness, cloudy skies, winter, nights, and all the overlooked and written off states of life, this music will click with you. It's not emo. Emo is cheesy and superficial. This is relevant. It encapsulates real aspects of life people don't often admit to. Thursday cut too deep to be emo. Pun intended. People have an inherent fear of disorder and the emotions atonality elicits. They like neat little packages for their life to fit in, with 4 sides and a start and finish. Any hint of disorder evokes an intense anxiety. This is also true in music. Frank Zappa one said people like to decorate their lives with music, and I imagine they go about this in the same manner as they would their house. They choose nice, organized, and "fine tuned" decorations that make their lives easier to swallow. There is no room for this mess. Well fuck that. Wake up and smell the garbage folks. Until you begin to enjoy the smell of it, you're not ready to face up to reality.
Point being: buy this album, roll in garbage.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
3D Movies: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Glasses.
By: Matt Harris
The time has come for a final decision on the future of cinema. We currently stand at the forefront of a battle between business and art. 3D movies are becoming more and more prevalent in the modern film industry and they are produced for only one reason: making money, not making art. Historically, 3D movies did not sell. Technology for this technique has been trying to push its way into the mainstream spotlight since the early 1920’s. Since then, production companies have been tempting audiences with the occasional 3D movie in an on/off pattern every decade or so, even teasing audiences with 3D porn. Until recently, the majority of moviegoers have not been satisfied enough with the quality or effect of the 3D to buy into the technology. But with improved image quality and increased production value for these films, 3D has finally caught.
3D movies are whopping money-makers. This past weekend Robert Zemeckis’ 3D version of A Christmas Carol grossed 31 million dollars at the box office. In all fairness, it is a timeless story that has been woven into the culture of every modern generation. And speaking of timeless classics, G-Force grossed one mil more than A Christmas Carol did when it was released this past July. That’s right, the guinea pig movie. I think I see a selling point-- 3D!
With children growing up on movies like this, there’s no doubt that it’ll be around for years to come. This is understandable, filmmakers are going to make the movies that will get them paid, and nothing sells better than throwing the movie right in your face.
So what’s the problem? Most 3D movies are kids movies anyway, so what’s wrong with a little 3D flare? The answer revolves around content. The current state of 3D movies, in general, is all about the eye-popping effects, not the content. These movies use 3D to counteract the weak plots, underdeveloped characters, and poor filmography. The easiest way to cover a problem or a weak point is to distract from it. Films wave 3D in front of your face in hopes that you’ll forget to look past it. The fact that it’s mainly used in kid’s movies makes me think that 3D is all about how long you can keep the distraction running. In a way this is what all movies have ever wanted, a captive audience. But 3D takes it a step further. It tends to take away from the value of the film, but still remains to hold your attention.
Thankfully, for now, we movie-goers have kept 3D in check, limiting it to silly kids movies or else box office flops like My Bloody Valentine. But recently, with 3D on the rise, more serious productions are going third dimension. I’m personally excited for the upcoming 3D release of Avatar.
James Cameron has finally gotten his hands around a more effective way to throw his garbage in your face. Films like this practically grow money, now add 3D to it and watch it change the face of the movie industry. 3D is becoming a permanent way of watching films and, more importantly, conducting business.
There is absolutely no problem with filmmakers capitalizing on gimmicks like 3D. They, like us, look out for number one. It only becomes a problem when the artistic value disappears into the cash cow of 3D. More and more often art has taken the back seat to business in the film industry. Film can be an expressive art form that can incite some very powerful emotions. Film is also a big business that can put food on the table. It is becoming more evident that the two do not go hand in hand and, unfortunately, art looses out. 3D just magnifies the corporate aspect of film because it’s only intent is to sell. However, I do not wish to turn this into a “save the arts” thing. This is a “have some standards” thing. If we all lower our standards to that of 3D movies, film will cease to be meaningful. If we encourage 3D films to evolve into what is an acceptable work of art, meaning is not lost and the movies may even be enhanced by this technique. Until then, reconsider that “the new Alice in Wonderland is gonna be so awesome.” Otherwise, the future of cinema will be comfortable with the fact that bad movies sell… in 3D!
The time has come for a final decision on the future of cinema. We currently stand at the forefront of a battle between business and art. 3D movies are becoming more and more prevalent in the modern film industry and they are produced for only one reason: making money, not making art. Historically, 3D movies did not sell. Technology for this technique has been trying to push its way into the mainstream spotlight since the early 1920’s. Since then, production companies have been tempting audiences with the occasional 3D movie in an on/off pattern every decade or so, even teasing audiences with 3D porn. Until recently, the majority of moviegoers have not been satisfied enough with the quality or effect of the 3D to buy into the technology. But with improved image quality and increased production value for these films, 3D has finally caught.
3D movies are whopping money-makers. This past weekend Robert Zemeckis’ 3D version of A Christmas Carol grossed 31 million dollars at the box office. In all fairness, it is a timeless story that has been woven into the culture of every modern generation. And speaking of timeless classics, G-Force grossed one mil more than A Christmas Carol did when it was released this past July. That’s right, the guinea pig movie. I think I see a selling point-- 3D!
With children growing up on movies like this, there’s no doubt that it’ll be around for years to come. This is understandable, filmmakers are going to make the movies that will get them paid, and nothing sells better than throwing the movie right in your face.So what’s the problem? Most 3D movies are kids movies anyway, so what’s wrong with a little 3D flare? The answer revolves around content. The current state of 3D movies, in general, is all about the eye-popping effects, not the content. These movies use 3D to counteract the weak plots, underdeveloped characters, and poor filmography. The easiest way to cover a problem or a weak point is to distract from it. Films wave 3D in front of your face in hopes that you’ll forget to look past it. The fact that it’s mainly used in kid’s movies makes me think that 3D is all about how long you can keep the distraction running. In a way this is what all movies have ever wanted, a captive audience. But 3D takes it a step further. It tends to take away from the value of the film, but still remains to hold your attention.
Thankfully, for now, we movie-goers have kept 3D in check, limiting it to silly kids movies or else box office flops like My Bloody Valentine. But recently, with 3D on the rise, more serious productions are going third dimension. I’m personally excited for the upcoming 3D release of Avatar.
James Cameron has finally gotten his hands around a more effective way to throw his garbage in your face. Films like this practically grow money, now add 3D to it and watch it change the face of the movie industry. 3D is becoming a permanent way of watching films and, more importantly, conducting business.There is absolutely no problem with filmmakers capitalizing on gimmicks like 3D. They, like us, look out for number one. It only becomes a problem when the artistic value disappears into the cash cow of 3D. More and more often art has taken the back seat to business in the film industry. Film can be an expressive art form that can incite some very powerful emotions. Film is also a big business that can put food on the table. It is becoming more evident that the two do not go hand in hand and, unfortunately, art looses out. 3D just magnifies the corporate aspect of film because it’s only intent is to sell. However, I do not wish to turn this into a “save the arts” thing. This is a “have some standards” thing. If we all lower our standards to that of 3D movies, film will cease to be meaningful. If we encourage 3D films to evolve into what is an acceptable work of art, meaning is not lost and the movies may even be enhanced by this technique. Until then, reconsider that “the new Alice in Wonderland is gonna be so awesome.” Otherwise, the future of cinema will be comfortable with the fact that bad movies sell… in 3D!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Lack Of Independence in Indie Culture
By: Kevin Harris
Something needs to be done about the ‘indie’ movement. Once used to describe artists not belonging to a major record label, the term ‘indie’ now represents an annoying culture of coffee, cigarettes and colorful sunglasses.
Please keep in mind: this article is not about the music. Although I dislike a large majority of ‘indie’ music, some of my favorite albums come from ‘indie’ artists. At this point in the article, you (the reader) may be asking yourself “if this silly white person likes ‘indie’ music, why is he wasting time bashing the culture surrounding it?”
First of all, I would like to thank you (the reader) for posing such a wonderful question! To answer your question, you and I need to take a look at fashion (yes, fashion!) in the music industry. As Frank Zappa once pointed out, each new style of music was accompanied by a new fashion style. If you lived in the 70’s and put on bellbottoms and platform shoes, you were disco. If you lived in the 80’s and shoved a safety pin through your nose and bought a leather jacket, you were punk. If you lived in the 90’s and wore flannel, you were grunge.
If you woke up in the morning today, put on your expensive jeans, North Face and orange sunglasses you’re…independent? That is what ‘indie’ stands for, right? Independent? Is shopping at Urban Outfitters an independent trend? The independence that surrounds the ‘indie’ scene is minimal. The music may be full of new ideas and expression, but the culture is lacking of these basic ideas.
That’s where the biggest flaw shows its face: the name. If the name were anything, ANYTHING other than ‘indie’, I would have no big beef. However, it is, so I do. ALL MUSIC IS INDEPENDENT. It doesn’t matter whose label it’s on or who created the material (even if it was a big record exec.), each original song is individual and independent. Just change the name.
A city that exemplifies all of the flaws of ‘indie’ culture is Ann Arbor, Michigan. Ann Arbor is a beautiful city with a culturally rich downtown (only if your culture is white American). On a recent visit to this city I realized that I was so surrounded by ‘indie’ people that I felt independent to not be like them!
I have the mindset of the suburbs (be afraid, be angry and clip coupons) while these people had a more ‘indie’ mindset (be afraid, be pompous and have lots of money). After leaving Urban Outfitters with my girlfriend, I realized that the entire city resembled that store; pretty white people with lots of cash who enjoyed jumping on bandwagons. I was surrounded and outnumbered, so I tried to blend in by drinking PBR and reading Vonnegut.
At this point in the article, you may be feeling a full spectrum of emotions. You may be angry (because you consider yourself ‘indie’ or live in Ann Arbor); you may be joyful (because you agree with me); or you may be indifferent (because you honestly just don’t care). If you care enough to form an opinion and feel an emotion, let me guide you to a justification of the ‘indie’ scene.
The ‘indie’ movement is simply a way for white people to express their ever-changing culture. Just as we associate rap with black culture, we can now associate ‘indie’ with white culture. Just as we associate artists like Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp and Bob Seger with middle class, industrial workers of the 1970’s and 80’s, we are now able to associate ‘indie’ artists like The Shins and The Hives with the young people entering our Information Age workforce.
One of the reasons that the industrious musicians of the past became so successful is that they spoke to the working class. Their lyrics related to the men and women building the physical infrastructure of our country. Now, the successful ‘indie’ musicians of our time speak to the young people entering the working class, however their work has changed. Many fresh college graduates associate hard work with answering long e-mails, office politics and calculators. ‘Indie’ music gives them a chance to escape from their ‘grueling’ lives and become ‘independent’ once again.
So now I pose to you (the reader) a series of questions. What does it mean to be truly independent? Is independence a state of mind or a physical entity, like a record label? Are you an independent, or are you another just another ‘indie’?
Something needs to be done about the ‘indie’ movement. Once used to describe artists not belonging to a major record label, the term ‘indie’ now represents an annoying culture of coffee, cigarettes and colorful sunglasses.
Please keep in mind: this article is not about the music. Although I dislike a large majority of ‘indie’ music, some of my favorite albums come from ‘indie’ artists. At this point in the article, you (the reader) may be asking yourself “if this silly white person likes ‘indie’ music, why is he wasting time bashing the culture surrounding it?” First of all, I would like to thank you (the reader) for posing such a wonderful question! To answer your question, you and I need to take a look at fashion (yes, fashion!) in the music industry. As Frank Zappa once pointed out, each new style of music was accompanied by a new fashion style. If you lived in the 70’s and put on bellbottoms and platform shoes, you were disco. If you lived in the 80’s and shoved a safety pin through your nose and bought a leather jacket, you were punk. If you lived in the 90’s and wore flannel, you were grunge.
If you woke up in the morning today, put on your expensive jeans, North Face and orange sunglasses you’re…independent? That is what ‘indie’ stands for, right? Independent? Is shopping at Urban Outfitters an independent trend? The independence that surrounds the ‘indie’ scene is minimal. The music may be full of new ideas and expression, but the culture is lacking of these basic ideas. That’s where the biggest flaw shows its face: the name. If the name were anything, ANYTHING other than ‘indie’, I would have no big beef. However, it is, so I do. ALL MUSIC IS INDEPENDENT. It doesn’t matter whose label it’s on or who created the material (even if it was a big record exec.), each original song is individual and independent. Just change the name.
A city that exemplifies all of the flaws of ‘indie’ culture is Ann Arbor, Michigan. Ann Arbor is a beautiful city with a culturally rich downtown (only if your culture is white American). On a recent visit to this city I realized that I was so surrounded by ‘indie’ people that I felt independent to not be like them!
I have the mindset of the suburbs (be afraid, be angry and clip coupons) while these people had a more ‘indie’ mindset (be afraid, be pompous and have lots of money). After leaving Urban Outfitters with my girlfriend, I realized that the entire city resembled that store; pretty white people with lots of cash who enjoyed jumping on bandwagons. I was surrounded and outnumbered, so I tried to blend in by drinking PBR and reading Vonnegut. At this point in the article, you may be feeling a full spectrum of emotions. You may be angry (because you consider yourself ‘indie’ or live in Ann Arbor); you may be joyful (because you agree with me); or you may be indifferent (because you honestly just don’t care). If you care enough to form an opinion and feel an emotion, let me guide you to a justification of the ‘indie’ scene.
The ‘indie’ movement is simply a way for white people to express their ever-changing culture. Just as we associate rap with black culture, we can now associate ‘indie’ with white culture. Just as we associate artists like Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp and Bob Seger with middle class, industrial workers of the 1970’s and 80’s, we are now able to associate ‘indie’ artists like The Shins and The Hives with the young people entering our Information Age workforce.
One of the reasons that the industrious musicians of the past became so successful is that they spoke to the working class. Their lyrics related to the men and women building the physical infrastructure of our country. Now, the successful ‘indie’ musicians of our time speak to the young people entering the working class, however their work has changed. Many fresh college graduates associate hard work with answering long e-mails, office politics and calculators. ‘Indie’ music gives them a chance to escape from their ‘grueling’ lives and become ‘independent’ once again. So now I pose to you (the reader) a series of questions. What does it mean to be truly independent? Is independence a state of mind or a physical entity, like a record label? Are you an independent, or are you another just another ‘indie’?
The Year of the Metal
By: Kris Harrison |Editor|
It's arrived! Finally, after years of waiting and hating, awesome metal is back! I've ached for badass riffs and soaring solos that were written in my lifetime. I mean, outside of Pantera, Mastodon, and Slayer, We've had to suffer through hardcore-esque metal riffs and robotic leads through the 90's and into the new millennium. There was what you could call a resurgence of "metal" music in the mid 00's. However, the releases scored quite low on my badassery scale. Bands like Lamb of God, Avenged Sevenfold, God Forbid, and *shiver* As I Lay Dying were flying the flag for metal. I was torn on how I felt about it. On one hand, heavy music is receiving attention; on the other hand, this was mediocre at best.
I have a very particular view on metal and what qualifies as such. Most people would think chuggy riffs, screaming vocals, and double bass stomping qualify a band as metal. Though a great deal of metal bands do contain said qualities, these are as superficial and secondary to the genre as spiked hair is to punk. There was something missing in these bands, something missing in a great deal of music, but the word escapes me. Ah, yes...BALLS!
nonsense marketed and accepted as metal over the past decade is the whiniest and testosterone free music to be categorized as metal since Poison. Sure, they're pissed...I guess, but I don't feel it. I mean, when you listen to a Slayer album, you feel their hate, their anger, their disgust. When I listen to Lamb of God I hear Randy on the verge of tears. A lot of the metal became so rigid too, man, so mechanical and squeaky clean. The leads were so clean cut they could have applied for a desk job, and the riffs were as dirty as an anal retentive broad's apartment. It just disgusted me. What made it worse was that I couldn't simply hate it, or write it off because the musicians were talented and it was "aggressive" music to at least some extent. However, what the modern conception of "metal" fails to even touch the greats.
Now I'm not going to go on how metal used to be great and now it's bad, because I don't think era or time has anything to do with it. The blame should be pointed to the media and promoters for dishing out such shitty bands to the masses. Ozzfest could have had Cannibal Corpse, Municipal Waste, Gama Bomb, and Slayer on their tours but they didn't. They got As I Lay Dying and Killswitch Engage instead. They fed us pussy-emo-hardcore metal that only qualified as such because they used high distortion amps and double bass. Anyways, I don't have do dwell on the past anymore because a new age is upon us, and new talent is coming to the forefront once again. This year has shown great releases from older bands like Slayer, Cannibal Corpse, and Megadeth (best album since Rust in Peace), newer bands such as Mastodon and High on Fire, and brand spanken' new bands like Municipal Waste, Toxic Holocaust, and Gama Bomb. It is the year of metal.
What impresses me most are the new up and coming metal bands from around the world playing thrash with sheer intensity and talent, a looseness unseen since Pantera, and FINALLY a sense of humor. These songs are about zombies, beer, shredding, partying, fighting, ninja's, you name it. They get it. They understand what metal is about and some things metal had lost a long time ago: fun and zombies. Metal has been so serious since the Grunge days, when you couldn't play unless you had a fucked up childhood or were some melodramatic dickhead with nothing better to say that "fuck you" or "feel bad for me" in the weakest tone, whimpering and screaming over two Mesa Boogie half stacks. How did this become the standard? Now we have guys who may have problems, but would rather sing about stuff like monsters, or tell elaborate stories, adding some level of creativity and intelligence back into the music. Most people listen to metal to become empowered, to make themselves feel better, not to hear about this jerkoff's problems.
It's not only the subject matter either; the musicianship just keeps getting better and looser as the records go on. The musicians are stretching themselves, their voices, and their intensity. Singers are actually singing again, and wailing on plains not heard since Halford. Even Mastodon are starting to articulate their lyrics with some sort of a melody. Formerly, bands would do this really neat thing where they would scream and sing. When the music strums into that touching part of the song where the guitars harmonize and the guy with his spikey hair holding the microphone takes a break and sooths you with his sultry lyrics about pain and love. After this the blast beats would kick in and the audience gets blown away. I see it as masturbation, and a sad excuse for singing. What is thought of as singing is just whining. Every line is ended with an AYA! noise, such as "and my heart resides with youAYA!" Like a half orgasm, but while choking back tears. A sadgasm, if you will. It's disgusting.
Anyways, metal is back in full fury, even my friends are putting out great music, so its even spreading back to the suburbs. Musicians and fans alike are getting the hint that there is this potential that has been suppressed all these years. Metal can be relevant and reinvent itself without having to ball one's eyes out onstage. Shine on my metal compatriots, and until next time, keep shredding.
It's arrived! Finally, after years of waiting and hating, awesome metal is back! I've ached for badass riffs and soaring solos that were written in my lifetime. I mean, outside of Pantera, Mastodon, and Slayer, We've had to suffer through hardcore-esque metal riffs and robotic leads through the 90's and into the new millennium. There was what you could call a resurgence of "metal" music in the mid 00's. However, the releases scored quite low on my badassery scale. Bands like Lamb of God, Avenged Sevenfold, God Forbid, and *shiver* As I Lay Dying were flying the flag for metal. I was torn on how I felt about it. On one hand, heavy music is receiving attention; on the other hand, this was mediocre at best.
I have a very particular view on metal and what qualifies as such. Most people would think chuggy riffs, screaming vocals, and double bass stomping qualify a band as metal. Though a great deal of metal bands do contain said qualities, these are as superficial and secondary to the genre as spiked hair is to punk. There was something missing in these bands, something missing in a great deal of music, but the word escapes me. Ah, yes...BALLS!
nonsense marketed and accepted as metal over the past decade is the whiniest and testosterone free music to be categorized as metal since Poison. Sure, they're pissed...I guess, but I don't feel it. I mean, when you listen to a Slayer album, you feel their hate, their anger, their disgust. When I listen to Lamb of God I hear Randy on the verge of tears. A lot of the metal became so rigid too, man, so mechanical and squeaky clean. The leads were so clean cut they could have applied for a desk job, and the riffs were as dirty as an anal retentive broad's apartment. It just disgusted me. What made it worse was that I couldn't simply hate it, or write it off because the musicians were talented and it was "aggressive" music to at least some extent. However, what the modern conception of "metal" fails to even touch the greats. Now I'm not going to go on how metal used to be great and now it's bad, because I don't think era or time has anything to do with it. The blame should be pointed to the media and promoters for dishing out such shitty bands to the masses. Ozzfest could have had Cannibal Corpse, Municipal Waste, Gama Bomb, and Slayer on their tours but they didn't. They got As I Lay Dying and Killswitch Engage instead. They fed us pussy-emo-hardcore metal that only qualified as such because they used high distortion amps and double bass. Anyways, I don't have do dwell on the past anymore because a new age is upon us, and new talent is coming to the forefront once again. This year has shown great releases from older bands like Slayer, Cannibal Corpse, and Megadeth (best album since Rust in Peace), newer bands such as Mastodon and High on Fire, and brand spanken' new bands like Municipal Waste, Toxic Holocaust, and Gama Bomb. It is the year of metal.
What impresses me most are the new up and coming metal bands from around the world playing thrash with sheer intensity and talent, a looseness unseen since Pantera, and FINALLY a sense of humor. These songs are about zombies, beer, shredding, partying, fighting, ninja's, you name it. They get it. They understand what metal is about and some things metal had lost a long time ago: fun and zombies. Metal has been so serious since the Grunge days, when you couldn't play unless you had a fucked up childhood or were some melodramatic dickhead with nothing better to say that "fuck you" or "feel bad for me" in the weakest tone, whimpering and screaming over two Mesa Boogie half stacks. How did this become the standard? Now we have guys who may have problems, but would rather sing about stuff like monsters, or tell elaborate stories, adding some level of creativity and intelligence back into the music. Most people listen to metal to become empowered, to make themselves feel better, not to hear about this jerkoff's problems.
It's not only the subject matter either; the musicianship just keeps getting better and looser as the records go on. The musicians are stretching themselves, their voices, and their intensity. Singers are actually singing again, and wailing on plains not heard since Halford. Even Mastodon are starting to articulate their lyrics with some sort of a melody. Formerly, bands would do this really neat thing where they would scream and sing. When the music strums into that touching part of the song where the guitars harmonize and the guy with his spikey hair holding the microphone takes a break and sooths you with his sultry lyrics about pain and love. After this the blast beats would kick in and the audience gets blown away. I see it as masturbation, and a sad excuse for singing. What is thought of as singing is just whining. Every line is ended with an AYA! noise, such as "and my heart resides with youAYA!" Like a half orgasm, but while choking back tears. A sadgasm, if you will. It's disgusting.
Anyways, metal is back in full fury, even my friends are putting out great music, so its even spreading back to the suburbs. Musicians and fans alike are getting the hint that there is this potential that has been suppressed all these years. Metal can be relevant and reinvent itself without having to ball one's eyes out onstage. Shine on my metal compatriots, and until next time, keep shredding.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Music In an Empty Room
By:Brandon Crane
The following is a true story, meant as a bit of advice for other musicians. A fable, if you will, on how to make your music a more effective means of getting whatever it is you want to say out there. Sometimes, the best way to learn how to do it right is to learn from those that do it wrong. My band was one of those examples.
Back in high school, I was in a punk band. I was a little shit who did their fair share of misdeed. Our band was a 4 chord, off-key rendition of our political and societal angst. The changing hormones didn't help much either. A link to the music is below:
http://www.purevolume.com/notforsale
I look back fondly on these days. It was fun as hell to yell "fuck you" at all the fake, fraudulent and passive sheep who let the big bad government kill innocent people and silence voices at home and abroad. As the media slowly jerked off into our ears and everyone around me seemed to cup their balls, I undoubtedly felt a little anger. At least enough to keep me screaming about it into a microphone.
"Don't beat around the Bush, just beat Bush"
Armed with my homemade shirts and our combined post-pubescent rage we managed to play about 5 shows before we went our separate ways. I fell out of punk rock after awhile; Iwas pretty unsettled by these atrocities, but I just wasn't that angry to keep playing shows. I had a lingering suspicion that screaming at 3 or 4 people about politics wasn't the most effective way to make a change. And the fact that these were complex issues we knew very little about became pretty clear after awhile. Our lack of activism outside of music became more apparent as I ran out of answers to the question, "Well, what ARE you doing about it, Brandon?"
Punk rock days. Those were good times, and I still love punk rock, but none of it really made a difference towards the ends I was going for at the time. Nothing changed because, well, you have to make good music for it to be an effective medium. People from all around have to hear the message and get inspired in the right way. We were pretty effective at getting our 3 or 4 fans to arbitrarily break shit, but none of us volunteered our time towards influencing the causes we sang about. In the end, our songs were about us after all.
So what went wrong? With a different, young-but-slightly-older perspective (I no longer view people as sheep, and I can see the excellence in many federally-run programs) it didn't take much hindsight to answer that question. In retrospect, our ego-stroking, condescending approach had elements of decent arguments in them, but we never spent the time to polish the guttural and misinformed rants. We never listened to different viewpoints; we just tuned out what we didn't like or didn't understand at that time.
So, where am I going with this? Have you ever gone to a show and the band never addressed the audience, just played with the 'we just blew your minds' cocky attitude? That shit is the disease of music, the defense mechanism us musicians use to cope with the insecurities of the stage. Often, we aren't aware of it, or just don't see the point in developing good stage presence. Good stage presence, by the way, involves including the audience. Your fans don't have to make the drive, and probably won't again if they get blown off.
Sure, sure, half of rock and roll is about being an asshole for a couple hours. We made a habit in our band to talk down the venue we played at, like the ungrateful, over-privileged suburbanites we were. This is the sort of shit I want to highlight. There's a strong sense of identity in music, especially music you create. It can manifest as a possessive thing, that visceral growl that comes out of your gut when someone just finds out about your favorite band once they make it big.
It seems silly, and it is. But it gets plain ugly when a band gets possessive about its OWN music. It is one thing to play for oneself, it is another entirely to play ONLY for yourself, without your fans in mind. Sure, taking the audience into consideration seems like a limitation to creativity, sounds like 'playing to please', and if taken to an extreme is exactly that. But not all limitation are bad. Sometimes, the limitations of playing music your audience likes is merely keeping you on track, preventing one of those experimental mishaps your favorite band probably took halfway through their career. But clearly, playing a public concert only for yourself is selfish. If a fan takes the effort to drive out, pay the cover, and stick it out at a local show in the hopes that you guys won't be the shitty band that makes them leave the bar, you at least owe them the time of day. If you're wondering, like we were, why there's only your girlfriend and the roadie in the crowd, it could be the music, but it's often the attitude that accompanies the performance.
My intention with this article is NOT to say that playing music for the sake of playing music is pointless, or that activism is of a higher form than music. They're different mediums with the potential for overlap. Music performance as a medium introduces a whole new side to the art than music on a record: the band's aesthetic on stage, up to and including the band's attitude. Rock and roll's spirit has always been "don't do what you're told, and fuck off". For my band, the problems came when we told our audience to fuck off. Something as simple as thanking the audience for coming out can make the show more enjoyable for your audience, which in turn makes the show more rewarding for the band.
So, where do we get off? As musicians, we generally have something to say, and want to say it in our music. For a band with strong political views, a question that will inevitably come up is, "Are we accomplishing anything, and could our energy be more effective elsewhere?" Sometimes, this question will kill a band. For me, it pushed music onto a far away back burner. For many, the politics aren't charged enough to become a greater priority than the band, which is something you'll have to evaluate for yourself. Some bands aren't very political and spare themselves the existential crises. Either way, we need dedicated musicians who've got the spirit and great ideas they want to get out into the world.
I just ask that the community extend its creativity beyond the music and into our day to day interactions with fans. After all, what's the use of a good message if we don't present it the best we can? What if Black Sabbath unloads tonal fury in the woods, and nobody is there to gape in awe and delight? Was there a message at all?
The following is a true story, meant as a bit of advice for other musicians. A fable, if you will, on how to make your music a more effective means of getting whatever it is you want to say out there. Sometimes, the best way to learn how to do it right is to learn from those that do it wrong. My band was one of those examples.
Back in high school, I was in a punk band. I was a little shit who did their fair share of misdeed. Our band was a 4 chord, off-key rendition of our political and societal angst. The changing hormones didn't help much either. A link to the music is below:
http://www.purevolume.com/notforsale
I look back fondly on these days. It was fun as hell to yell "fuck you" at all the fake, fraudulent and passive sheep who let the big bad government kill innocent people and silence voices at home and abroad. As the media slowly jerked off into our ears and everyone around me seemed to cup their balls, I undoubtedly felt a little anger. At least enough to keep me screaming about it into a microphone.
"Don't beat around the Bush, just beat Bush"
Armed with my homemade shirts and our combined post-pubescent rage we managed to play about 5 shows before we went our separate ways. I fell out of punk rock after awhile; Iwas pretty unsettled by these atrocities, but I just wasn't that angry to keep playing shows. I had a lingering suspicion that screaming at 3 or 4 people about politics wasn't the most effective way to make a change. And the fact that these were complex issues we knew very little about became pretty clear after awhile. Our lack of activism outside of music became more apparent as I ran out of answers to the question, "Well, what ARE you doing about it, Brandon?"
Punk rock days. Those were good times, and I still love punk rock, but none of it really made a difference towards the ends I was going for at the time. Nothing changed because, well, you have to make good music for it to be an effective medium. People from all around have to hear the message and get inspired in the right way. We were pretty effective at getting our 3 or 4 fans to arbitrarily break shit, but none of us volunteered our time towards influencing the causes we sang about. In the end, our songs were about us after all.
So what went wrong? With a different, young-but-slightly-older perspective (I no longer view people as sheep, and I can see the excellence in many federally-run programs) it didn't take much hindsight to answer that question. In retrospect, our ego-stroking, condescending approach had elements of decent arguments in them, but we never spent the time to polish the guttural and misinformed rants. We never listened to different viewpoints; we just tuned out what we didn't like or didn't understand at that time.
So, where am I going with this? Have you ever gone to a show and the band never addressed the audience, just played with the 'we just blew your minds' cocky attitude? That shit is the disease of music, the defense mechanism us musicians use to cope with the insecurities of the stage. Often, we aren't aware of it, or just don't see the point in developing good stage presence. Good stage presence, by the way, involves including the audience. Your fans don't have to make the drive, and probably won't again if they get blown off.
Sure, sure, half of rock and roll is about being an asshole for a couple hours. We made a habit in our band to talk down the venue we played at, like the ungrateful, over-privileged suburbanites we were. This is the sort of shit I want to highlight. There's a strong sense of identity in music, especially music you create. It can manifest as a possessive thing, that visceral growl that comes out of your gut when someone just finds out about your favorite band once they make it big.
It seems silly, and it is. But it gets plain ugly when a band gets possessive about its OWN music. It is one thing to play for oneself, it is another entirely to play ONLY for yourself, without your fans in mind. Sure, taking the audience into consideration seems like a limitation to creativity, sounds like 'playing to please', and if taken to an extreme is exactly that. But not all limitation are bad. Sometimes, the limitations of playing music your audience likes is merely keeping you on track, preventing one of those experimental mishaps your favorite band probably took halfway through their career. But clearly, playing a public concert only for yourself is selfish. If a fan takes the effort to drive out, pay the cover, and stick it out at a local show in the hopes that you guys won't be the shitty band that makes them leave the bar, you at least owe them the time of day. If you're wondering, like we were, why there's only your girlfriend and the roadie in the crowd, it could be the music, but it's often the attitude that accompanies the performance.My intention with this article is NOT to say that playing music for the sake of playing music is pointless, or that activism is of a higher form than music. They're different mediums with the potential for overlap. Music performance as a medium introduces a whole new side to the art than music on a record: the band's aesthetic on stage, up to and including the band's attitude. Rock and roll's spirit has always been "don't do what you're told, and fuck off". For my band, the problems came when we told our audience to fuck off. Something as simple as thanking the audience for coming out can make the show more enjoyable for your audience, which in turn makes the show more rewarding for the band.
So, where do we get off? As musicians, we generally have something to say, and want to say it in our music. For a band with strong political views, a question that will inevitably come up is, "Are we accomplishing anything, and could our energy be more effective elsewhere?" Sometimes, this question will kill a band. For me, it pushed music onto a far away back burner. For many, the politics aren't charged enough to become a greater priority than the band, which is something you'll have to evaluate for yourself. Some bands aren't very political and spare themselves the existential crises. Either way, we need dedicated musicians who've got the spirit and great ideas they want to get out into the world.
I just ask that the community extend its creativity beyond the music and into our day to day interactions with fans. After all, what's the use of a good message if we don't present it the best we can? What if Black Sabbath unloads tonal fury in the woods, and nobody is there to gape in awe and delight? Was there a message at all?
The Eternal Search for Tasty Jams
By: Kris Harrison |Editor|
In today's multi media, face paced and information saturated reality, we all face a great deal of bullshit thrown our way. Not all of it is bullshit, but the sheer amount hurled at us while sipping our diet colas at the monitor makes it easier to adopt a cynical outlook on the whole. This has its upside, when I do find something that is musically, philosophically, or aesthetically worth a damn it is overwhelming and utterly stupefying. This is not so only out of sheer amazement for the existence of contemporary talent or depth of any kind, but because of the enormous amount of effort it takes just to find something that can qualify as "awesome". I've spent a number of nights staying up on iTunes, jumping from album to album, band to band, recommendation to recommendation trying to find something that will rattle my bones. Usually, around 4a.m. I feel my eyes creeping back into my skull, and stomach curdling with a mixture of diet coke, pretzels and the six hours of garbage I just ingested through my ears. Maybe I'm just picky, and maybe I just have too "high" of expectations, but I can say in full honesty that by 3a.m. Oasis are sounding good to me. I'd take anything with a catchy melody at that point.
Music journalists and publications are no better; I've piled up stacks of Guitar World, Revolver, Rolling Stone, and any other "rock" or metal oriented publication that has shreddable looking fellows on the cover. All that is inside these would be encyclopedias of rock are shitty writers kissing the ass of mediocre musicians next to ads of mediocre products (which feature borderline-unattractive women). I have bought countless metal, punk, screamo, and rock albums because these writers built them up to be the next "BIG THING". They were even stupid enough to use the phrase "The Next Nirvana!" for a number of bands. They were right; these bands sounded like Nirvana, but were worthless for doing so. After a while I began to tell how shitty or good bands would be just by how they looked in these magazines. This failed from time to time because most of my favorite artists looked like dumbasses in dumbass poses written about by dumbasses who didn't really know what was so badass about these guys. These mags also led you to believe there wasn't much going on out there in music land. They'd feature the same guys on the cover every couple months, or couple them all together in one big issue. This led a teenage me to think "well, this is all that's out there better not bother looking elsewhere." Don't worry, I still searched and discovered a lot. One can only read about Zakk Wylde's squeals, Eddie Van Halen's tapping technique, and Kurt Cobain's suicide for so long before they begin to start loathing the music rather than just the poor form of media they're receiving. This is just a micro chasm for media as a whole, but I'll save that for another day.
The worst was the writers though. They always kissed ass. ALWAYS. Some of these guys needed to be tore apart, their music was aweful. Shadows Fall for example. They were hyped by everyone and their step-mom as being THE heavy metal band. I bought the "Art of Balance" album, put it in, and expected some fuckin fury to come busting out of the speakers. What I got was Dream Theater metal. Shallow, lame riffs, precalculated solos with the weakest high E bends I've ever had to hear attempted. I wasn't a big fan of screaming vocals at the time either, but I put up with Bodom at the time because the music still stood up. Shadows Fall were just lame. The singer's dreads were the most appealing aspect of the band. I was dumb enough not to stop here, and to keep trying to digest it. I told a few of my friends about my experience and you'da thought I just ripped on Sabbath. So I kept at it. Never caught on (thank God), I even tried learning some of the riffs. This made it worse because I felt it infecting my guitar playing. I went through this same shit with Avenged Sevenfold-another band Guitar World claimed were the saviors of metal. My ass! These bands suck. All the while, a good metal band, Mastodon, slipped through my fingers. Oh, the hours wasted on shitty riffs that could have been well spent rocking to "Blood and Thunder" or learning the chicken pickin' of "Aqua Dementia". Mastodon only received a few articles here and there, were also hyped as the saviors of metal along with bands like Pig Destroyer. It was a sad tale. Wasn't until they finally came out on a major label that they got the cover, and the coverage they deserved.
These magazines weren't for the music, they were for the lifestyle. Even Guitar World, who you'd think would be looking out for GUITARISTS was really just pushing product. Not too surprising, but still. Where the fuck are all the real critics? These bands are going to think they're fucking Led Zeppelin and eat up all the press their getting. They're going to start believing they are the saviors of metal or rock or punk or whatever. Back in the heyday of rock n' roll, when those untouchable by today's standards, albums were released by actually talented musicians they were still being torn apart. People forget Zeppelin used to be referred to as a Sabbath rip off until their fourth album or that people used to hate the Stooges.
We're so exposed to mediocrity that people don't even realize it, and if they do they won't write about it! Those of us who get that there is a real leveling down of society, especially art and music walk around in quiet desperation, holding in our screams. Well, I say let them out. Let these musicians know we will not settle for shit, they need to try harder, think deeper, and stop riding the nostalgia train. I'm sick of going to the store and buying thirty-some-odd-year old albums because what today's artists have to offer is embarrassing. Not all of it, but most of it. I've now found a better way of discovering new bands and it started with closing the cover of those magazines. Let's usher in some bitching, constructive bitching. Not your run of the mill anonymous comment on a YouTube video. Blurt out your opinion and put your name on it. Here's your chance. Atonal Magazine is just for that purpose. Write it, I'll print it and hopefully others will read it.
The project starts now.
Stay True, Jam Econo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
