One, two, one two three four

It seems to me that unequivocally claiming that the music of yesteryear, whichever decade that means to you, is a sort of chronological snobbery.

I do not mean to say indisputably that music is getting better, or worse, or that it’s best decade was that ____’s.  I just mean that it seems very, very hard to prove; nigh impossible.

I recognize that time has brought the loudness race, which hurts Bob Dylan’s ears, or whatever, and is actually something interesting or troubling.

However, let me point out that the passing of time has allowed more and more people to record and thus release music, for several reasons…

1.  The world population has grown significantly as our ability to stay healthy has improved.  Thus, even if the same percentage of the population has made music over time, there is more music being made now than ever before.
2.  As we grow more and more wealthy, especially in developed countries, fewer people are involved in agriculture and manufacturing, and more people are involved in service.  I would guess this to also include the arts, thus music, thus there is even more music being made than the truth of point number one would lead us to believe.
3.  Modern technology in recording and creating music (i.e. multi-track recording, software, etc.) makes it even easier for people to make and record music.
4.  The internet has been something that has seriously injured the traditional structure of the music industry.  It’s also allowed for bands like, for example, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah and Panic at the Disco, two very different bands with very different audiences, to find an audience they might not have otherwise.  This encourages more people to make music in their basement or bedroom or whatever, and release it through MySpace or their outlet of choice.

While much of what constitutes traditional pop and rock sonic territory has been explored, that does not mean new music can’t flow from these structures.  Some is released within such structures; others subvert it; others reinvent it; others harken to a time before it.

All this to say that even if there is a significantly lower percentage of good music being released today, and even if the modern media structure is not designed to market good music and/or art to the masses, it doesn’t mean there are fewer great songs or great albums being made today.

I might add in closing that I am in no way trying to say that today’s music is better than ever – that’s probably not the case, just given the sheer amount of time passed.  It’s also very hard to prove that it’s true or not.  I, like many from my generation, have favorite musicians and bands and songs and so on from all over the map of the past half century, just as a starting point.

Filed under: Music, Recommendations, college, media

13 August 2007

Mae’s new album, “Singularity,” comes out tomorrow. I’m hoping not to be disappointed. You would think I’d have higher expectations – the last half of their first album, “Destination: Beautiful” was great, and their second LP, “The Everglow,” was very good. However, I can’t seem to separate three bands when I think about them: Copeland, Anberlin, and Mae. I think it’s because they’re relatively similar, although they’re all quite different. After “Singularity,” comes out, they will all have dropped their third LP within the past year. Hopefully Mae’s is closer to Copeland’s in quality. Let me explain.

Copeland’s first album, “Beneath Medicine Tree,” is quite loved in some circles. I can’t say it’s one of my all time favorites, but it’s very good, better than their second album, “In Motion.” “In Motion” showed the band maturing and growing more complex than “Beneath Medicine Tree,” even though some of the experiments, like “Kite,” have mixed results. Copeland’s third album, “Eat, Sleep Repeat,” was among the best of 2006 according to fans and critics alike, including Relevant magazine. It explored fears, without being wimpy or scary, it was musically adventurous without being cheesy or too self-important, mellow but not boring, and so on. It’s a great album. Hopefully their next one will be as good; they signed with a major label shortly after “Eat, Sleep, Repeat,” dropped. If the label lets them do their thing, they’ll keep making good music. If not…well, I don’t want to think about that.

Anberlin, on the other hand, didn’t make a very good first album. “Blueprints for the Black Market” had often cheesy lyrics, a small handful of good songs, and nothing that set them apart from a lot of other bands. However, their second LP, “Never Take Friendship Personal,” was solid front to back, despite having a title that just doesn’t sound good grammatically. It’s a little on the aggressive side, definitely the loudest album any of these three bands have put out, but not at all too noisy. The lyrics were sometimes still cheesy, but not often enough to bog down the rest of the album. Before their third album, “Cities,” came out, Anberlin acted like they had a masterpiece on their hands – they announced they’d release a special edition of the disc, with three extra songs plus a short DVD “making of” type film. They were fairly tight lipped about it in general, but they did point out that three albums which are often cited among the best of the bast 30 years–The Clash’s “London Calling”, U2’s “War”, and Radiohead’s “OK Computer”–were the third LP by those bands. I–and doubtlessly many others–expected significant growth and a great album. I pre-ordered the special edition, anticipated it’s release, received my copy…and I was promptly disappointed. It just didn’t show improvement over their last album, the lyrics slipped back into slightly more cheesiness, it wasn’t unique…I could go on, but I’ll spare you.

So needless to say, I’m hoping “Singularity” is more like “Eat, Sleep, Repeat” than “Cities,” but I’m not currently very optimistic. Some record company politics have gotten in the way, most disturbingly, at least one song was added after the album was finished a first time because some record company suit thought the album needed another song that sounded like a single (uh-oh). Having heard the song, I can say it does sound like a single, and not in a good way.

I do plan on buying the album tomorrow, so you might expect a review sometime soon.

Filed under: Music, media

The first real post

I just have a brief post about what you might call journalistic integrity.

In case you’ve been under a rock for a week, you probably heard that:

1.  Barry Bonds just broke the all-time home run record, and

2.  Alex Rodriguez just became the youngest player ever to hit 500 home runs.

Neither has ever tested positive for steroids, but Bonds is under constant suspicion for using them, for various reasons.  A-Rod, on the other hand, has generally sailed above that sort of thing.  It makes some sense; Rodriguez hit .358 with a .414 on-base percentage, 36 home runs, a triple, 54 doubles, and Gold Glove-caliber defense in 1996, a year in which he did not turn 21 until the season was more than halfway over.  If you’re unaware of how good that is…well, it’s tremendous, MVP quality.  He was a skinny kid then, he’s a rather skinny/fit man now, and he has not had any unusual home run spikes in his career, which is to say, nothing about him makes anyone think, “wow, I wonder if he got that big by eating his Flintstones vitamins everyday, or if he possibly took illegal pharmaceuticals to help him build muscle.”

Then this week, Braves third baseman Chipper Jones pointed out that in this day and age, being as good as A-Rod is–or even as good as Chipper is, which Chipper even pointed out–makes you susceptible to steroid whispers.  Well, the New York Post, showing the kind of unique, evenhandedness it’s known for (oh wait…no) ran a headline that read, “A’ROID SHOCKER:  Chipper says drug questions will dog Alex.”  The New York Daily News said something similar, and while I was at work, ESPN’s SportsCenter went to commercial with a tease that was very much like those headlines.

The problem was that Chipper didn’t imply that he took steroids, and didn’t imply that A-Rod took steroids.  It’s apparent from hearing or reading his quote.  He was just pointing out that Bud Selig and Major League Baseball turned a blind eye toward a problem until it got out of hand, and now no one is safe from suspicion.

I just want to know who the papers think they’re fooling, or if they know they throw their credibility out the window by silly, sensationalist yellow journalism like this.

(By the way, Chipper Jones was understandably angry about all this.  I also thought it was funny that  ESPN.com ran a story about how Jones was upset about what the papers wrote, even after their flagship program used the same sensationalist, obvious misinterpretation of Jones’ statement.)

For ESPN, this is part of a pattern.  They’re slowly turning into the “Access Hollywood” or “Us Weekly” of sports journalism.  So, media, take note:  just give us the facts, and quit making up stories.  That goes for all of you.

Filed under: journalism, media