on covering songs...

if you're going to do it, do it well.
if you're not doing to do it well, don't do it.

I just recently finished reading a book called the "Rock Bible" which had humorous tidbits from guys in bands/guys in the music industry explaining what to and not to do as a part of a band (e.g. "The Gospel According To The Guitarist/Fan/Drummer"). while very funny, it was also pretty good. On the concept of covering songs, they said not to cover a song that no one knows. not to cover a song that EVERYONE has done once before. and a cover =/= re-doing the song note for note. take the song, make it different, but still keep the basic integrity.

as I'm sure many of you know, there are many "Punk Goes _______" albums out there where punk/alternative/posthardcore/pop-punk bands do covers of ________ genre hits. My favorites are Punk Goes Pop (1 and 2), Punk Goes Crunk, and Punk Goes 80s (I'm an eighties girl at heart, it's true). The newest installment of this series is "Punk Goes Classic Rock" which sounds okay in theory, but new-wave bands trying to re-create arena rock hits just doesn't work. for the most part, the song either sounds exactly the same - other than a singer who isn't the original, an experience I liken to listening to Kidzbop, and we all hate those.... - or it sounds worse (Nevershoutnever's rendition of Bohemian Rhapsody *cough*).

the whole album is on THIS MYSPACE (http://www.myspace.com/punkgoesclassicrock)
if you're so inclined.

if you want proof that NO ONE does Queen well other than Queen, I suggest listening to Bohemian Rhapsody by Nevershoutnever, though your ears may bleed and you may lose your faith in humanity. The best song on there, in my opinion, is Paint It Black by VersaEmerge. It's fresh, it's new, but still maintains the integrity of the original.

lemme know what you think, please. I'm dying to know.

drugs = rock and roll?

if that's what you want to call it, yes.


inevitably, the drug world has been brought into this blog.
drugs are another of the many problems I have with the current music industry.
everything about drugs are glamourized in the news. sure, there are tons of prevention ads, but it's hard to really get that message across when "stars" go to rehab/jail for drug use and get TONS of media for it. or, they get caught but don't get in any legal trouble. or (this is the richest one), EVERYONE knows they're using, and they admit to using, and a simple search of their belongings would turn up illegal substances, but no one ever searches. no one wants to be a "narc" (probably to save their own skin). the health of their coworker/friend/bandmate isn't important enough to end the cruel cycle of drug use and eliminate the glamour of using. it's truly sad. and unfair, but in the wise, wise words of Scar, "Life's not fair, is it?"

peace.

tonight. tonight. tonight. last blog for tonight. tonight

sounds silly, right?

there is ABSOLUTELY no need to say the word "tonight" more than once in my title. let alone five times. but apparently that's all the rage right now in the music industry.

every "popular" song I hear, while catchy, basically says the same phrase over and over. and over. and over again.
Exhibit A:
MAKE UP OF JUSTIN BEIBER'S SONGS (click here)

so true. the proof is in the pudding lyrics...
"There's gonna be one less lonely girl
One less lonely girl
There's gonna be one less lonely girl
How many I told you's
And start overs and shoulders
Have you cried on before
How many promises be honest girl
How many tears you let hit the floor
How many bags you packed
Just to take 'em back, tell me that
How many either or's
But no more,
If you let me inside of your world
There'd be one less lonely girl
(Chorus)
Oh no
I saw so many pretty faces
Before I saw you, you
Now all I see is you
Oh no
Don't need these other pretty faces
'Cause when your mine in the world
There's gonna be one less lonely girl
One less lonely girl
One less lonely girl
One less lonely girl
There's gonna be one less lonely girl
I'm gonna put you first
I'll show you what your worth
If you let me inside your world
There's gonna be one less lonely girl
Christmas wasn't merry, 14th of February
Not one of them spent with you
How many dinner dates, set dinner plates
And he didn't even touch his food
How many torn photographs are you taping back
Tell me that you couldn't see an open door
But no more,
If you let me inside of your world
(Chorus)
Oh no
I saw so many pretty faces
Before I saw you, you
Now all I see is you
Oh no
Don't need these other pretty faces
'Cause when your mine in the world
There's gonna be one less lonely girl
One less lonely girl
One less lonely girl
One less lonely girl
There's gonna be one less lonely girl
I'm gonna put you first
I'll show you what your worth
If you let me inside your world
There's gonna be one less lonely girl
I can fix up your broken heart
I can give you a brand new start
I can make you believe,
I just wanna set one girl free to fall
She's free to fall
With me
My hearts locked and nowhere to get the key
I'l take her and leave this world
With one less lonely girl
There's gonna be one less lonely girl
One less lonely girl
There's gonna be one less lonely girl
One less lonely girl"

of the 387 words in this song, 23 are "girl", 32 "you/your"s, and the phrase "one less lonely girl" appears no fewer than 21 times. for those of you counting at home, the "girl"s and "you/your"s account for 14.2% of the song. the 21 phrases make up 1/3 (33%) of the song based on number of lines. in a strict word:word ratio, the repetition of those four words in succession accounts for 21.7% of the song. don't tell me it's not repetitive.

this song has NO meaning aside from the fact that the kid is sixteen and has very little experience in real relationships. how in the WORLD is this actually popular?

I don't think I'll ever understand...

had I chosen

to spread out my previous two blogs, I would currently have four. bummer.
anyway,

since modern artists are so pressed for time, their lyrics suffer. I guess... the music itself isn't so hot either. I'll explain:

Panic! At The Disco got their start in spring of 2004. Pete Wentz (of the band formerly known as Fall Out Boy) heard some of their demo stuff, brought it to his label (Fueled by Ramen), and wanted a full-length album in September of 2004. Granted, the band had been around for a little while, so they had a few songs in their repertoire to throw on an album, but their first album, "A Fever You Can't Sweat Out", is full of mildly interesting, hugely catchy lyrics, and a unique breakdown of songs -- the first half is largely techno/electronically tinged songs which is interrupted by the "Intermission", a track with few words explaining that this is the part of the album where it switches to strings, heavy piano playing and muffled background sounds similar to those of a phonograph with a blanket over it.

so, here's how it sounds, briefly:


interesting, catchy as anything, fun, danceable, but not that impressive musically. clever lyrics, but rather meaningless when it really comes down to it.

then, almost four years later, in spring of 2008, (hey, they deserved the time to write this one carefully...) Panic at the Disco released their second album, Pretty. Odd. - sans the "!", mind you.
this one has more deliberate lyrics. a new sound, different writing styles, a folk-ier sound, and an almost overwhelming Beatles influence. as if there's such a thing as too much Beatles, HA! anyway, no more gimmicks, no more "we don't have another song, so here's an instrumental to fill this track space".
here's how this one sounds:
(also, I apologize for the audio on this one, but I couldn't find a better one)



see what an amazing difference time to write and think can make?

save the music!

okay, so maybe "save the music" refers more to bringing music to schools whose music programs have gone down the tubes, but I think in a very dramatic sense, it can relate to the music industry as well.

sure, there's loads of great music swimming around out there. the local scene is becoming even more popular too. what used to be reserved for the "indie/hipster" kids (I don't even know which is which, so I'm obviously not really either) has now become THE place to be for anyone who wants new music or wants to be a close part of the music industry without shelling out $100 for a concert ticket (not to mention the CD you'll buy there, and the t-shirt, and the gas, and the parking, and the ... whatever else: booty shorts?). for ten bucks (often less than that), anyone can go to a little local show for a local metal/hardcore/posthardcore/pop/pop-punk/punk/alternative/[insert other genre here...] band. this awesome opportunity isn't guaranteed to be a great one aurally, but let me tell you, supporting these local gigs is what is going to save the industry.

at local shows, it's kids trying to make it big, but they know that without a label behind them, they're not gonna go anywhere unless they're original. without originality, the "scene" is going to write the band of as either posers or wannabes, which DO exist, but they're not common. it's at these shows that music is taken back to its roots and what it should be: pure and untarnished. it's about music and people. not money (although, they do need gas money every once in a while).

the music industry and its cronies are caught up in their own egos. they produce what will make money with little regard to what is actually talent because they're the ones who "know what they're doing".

I say "whatever". it's the local cats who are doing it right. support them instead.

you're proving my point, Miley

As previously stated, my whole goal with this blog is to establish a clear thought on whether the present music industry is capable of handling the awe that is associated with bands like Queen, the Beatles, and (as much as it pains me to say it,) Metallica.

Exhibit A:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxbFLYa0_bw


"Somebody To Love", Queen c. 1976

I mean, seriously. How can you even begin to compare an undisputed music great like Queen with today's latest trash?

The simple answer? You can't.
The industry today, like everyone else in the entire world, doesn't know that it's okay to slow down. They push for shorter deadlines in order to get CDs on the shelves (= money in their pockets). In doing so, they run out of bands ready to produce good music, and resort to anyone who has a: pretty face/"mom-/dad-ager"/no shame/money already/an overly inflated ego, etc., etc. The list goes on! Thus, we get garbage like Nickelback, The Jonas Brothers, and Miley Cyrus.
Now, this isn't to say that I don't like ANYTHING by ANY of the artists who are in similar positions. In fact, there are one or two Nickelback songs that I listen to frequently (though they are from their early years when their one song was new and they hadn't re-done it for four albums and just changed the lyrics...). But I digress...

Basically, the rushed studio time (which I believe is exacerbated by the accessibility of music: iTunes-->search-->click-->done) leads to shoddy workmanship.

What do you think? Does the music industry allow true talent (which takes time) to fall to the wayside in order to keep up with the demands of listeners everywhere?


Forthcoming topics:
-> end of "Rock Gods"?
-> vinyl vs mp3
-> how exactly does one "nod their head like 'yeah'"?

peace.
kateschutte

NOTICE:

all posts prior to this one are irrelevant to the assignment at hand.

on a darker note,
THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IS DEAD.

unless of course you consider Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana/whoever she is today and the Jonas Brothers "music".

more on this devastating realization to come...

it's sad...

that I have to be assigned to blog to actually update this.
hm.
the worst part is I don't know what I'm going to actually blog about. this obviously doesn't count. I just don't have the focus to blog anything of substance. gr. ohwell. I'll get around to it.