Chris C: Physicists say gravity is a constant, but it's getting hard to believe that when the sands in the hourglass seem to be falling faster with each passing year. Here we are again, getting ready to pass judgment on the music to come from another trip 'round the sun. We can be thankful to still have our health and youthful vigor, but as we mentioned in a separate conversation, not everyone we know is so lucky. In that way, whether the year in music was good or bad, it would be hard to walk away from 2018 all that disappointed.
This was another eventful year for music, with plenty of good, bad, and even heart-breaking twists and turns. We got records that were amazing, we finally get to be rid of KISS, and we lost some important members of the metal community. Believe me, we will get to Jill Janus, and a discussion surrounding mental health later. But I want to start things off on a different note, with perhaps the biggest development of the year in rock; Greta Van Fleet. They sold more records than perennial chart-toppers Disturbed, and generated a massive amount of press (including a laughable review from Pitchfork that created a lot of press about the press about the record - meta!), while seeming to make no one happy.
We've both come to the conclusion that bands are damned if they do, damned if they don't. New rock bands get compared to the past, and told they can't measure up, because rock and roll was better back then. When a band tries to recapture that sound, they get called rip-offs. Greta Van Fleet is the biggest poster child yet for that. Accused of ripping off a band that ripped off countless blues musicians, I was not at all surprised to see the mixed-at-best reaction to their debut album, most of which mentioned almost nothing about the music itself. We laugh about when rock in the 80s was all about image, but it's the same thing now, isn't it? Greta Van Fleet is being punished for their guitar tone and vocal timbre (not to mention wardrobe and hair choices), which is the antithesis of rock, right?
I prefer to focus on the music that gets made, since that's the only thing that actually matters. My thoughts on their album are posted here. I find them to be an update throwback, of similar spirit but different sound, like Graveyard. What say you? And where else do you want to begin?
D.M: Briefly addressing your opening statement, a friend once opined that the passage of time may appear to abbreviate in our perception because each passing year represents a lesser and lesser percentage of the total time we've been on earth. I had never thought about it that way, but I bet there's some mileage to be gotten out of that if you spent enough time on it.
Anyway.
Did we really get rid of KISS? I personally doubt it. We've heard this song and dance before, and at the very least, even if they're not making music or touring anymore, we all know Gene won't be satisfied until he's sold the KISS logo and name to every product on earth. I don't know if there are KISS dish towels yet (there probably are,) but let's assume they're coming, along with KISS thumbtacks, KISS home insulation and KISS printer paper.
I'm going to try to tackle Greta Van Fleet in two parts.
First, the music itself. I've listened to the album a few times now, both while sitting and concentrating on it, and on a few road trips with my wife, who is a fan. The album is fine...but it's just fine. There's nothing there that makes me jump out of my seat in appreciation, or have any desire to go out and defend the music with GVF on my shield. There's also nothing absolutely terrible about it. You and I are both mature enough as people and as music critics to recognize that the comparisons to Led Zeppelin are appropriate to some degree, but also editorially a little lazy. There's both more and less going on in the record than a simple copy of Zep, as I can hear some Grand Funk Railroad and maybe a little Neil Young and a dash of sixties folk rock. That said, I find it to be a synthesis of those things rather than a recreation of them, which I'll address more in the second part. I think my main detraction from the album as a whole is that I feel like Josh Kiszka is yelling at me all the time, and I'm not sure he knows why. It's funny you mentioned Disturbed - Josh's vocals are akin to Dave Draiman, in that he seems to have one single intonation. Now, I'm fine with being shouted at by a vocalist for an extended period (Brian Johnson comes to mind,) but only if I believe the conviction behind it, and I don't get the sense of that purpose from Josh's vocals. He's yelling either because he can, or because he's not even grown into his voice yet, which are both forgivable offenses in the short term, but are a point of concern moving forward.
Here's the second part, which will combine both my larger concerns and address some of the more global criticisms of the band. This comes with the caveat that I will use Led Zeppelin as a comparison because it is the most common frame of reference for GVF, more than because I believe them to be the only parallel. And my thoughts go like this: to emulate is one thing. To be is another thing entirely. Yes, the band has captured the essence of something that has come before, but I disagree that they're created something new. No one is suggesting it's easy to become successful as a precise recitation of the past, but at some point, you become an also-ran of that same past unless you can transcend. And what's getting lost in the endless "next Led Zeppelin" press is that Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones and John Bonham (and fine, Robert Plant, too,) were a cosmically-ordained, planet-aligning mix of incredibly talented musicians, and the jury is still very much out on whether these kids from Michigan have that same knack for creation and genre definition. In the present, there's nothing on this album that tells me they do. I don't see these kids writing "In My Time of Dying" just yet (which is a sneaky great Zeppelin tune, btw.)
When you and I were strictly (or more strictly) covering metal records, we were inundated with bands who sounded like Black Sabbath. People made a whole career of being a Black Sabbath copy (looking at you, Church of Misery,) but nobody was putting away their copy of "Master of Reality" in favor of one of these clones. If they're not careful, the same fate will befall GVF, because it is categorically impossible to out-Zeppelin Zeppelin. They are the definition of Led Zeppelin. They've done it. Same goes for Black Sabbath and Kyuss and Iron Maiden and the Wu-Tang Clan and Rage Against the Machine and all those headline acts who defined or re-defined their genre. Perhaps "re-define" is the key word. Graveyard, to your point, has done this (and I'm sure we'll discuss "Peace" later.) Yes, they have a lot of the past in the their sound, but their arrangement is unique - they don't sound exactly like anyone, and you know a Graveyard song when you hear one. If GVF can't find that same level of separation, people are just going to go back to listening to "Led Zeppelin II" because it's the prime, unimpeachable example of that sound. And it'll happen, because right now, everyone says GVF sounds like Led Zeppelin - no one is saying they're an improvement on Led Zeppelin. (And I know this rings a little flat to you, as a non-Zep fan.)
As for the other criticisms, the Pitchfork review was entirely too glib and click-baity for its own good, but there was one interesting kernel in there - the idea that we might, for the first time, have a band that comes to the height of popularity because an algorithm is feeding them to a captive audience. Are they a product of Spotify or YouTube or whatever? Greta Van Fleet is on tour right now - I am deeply curious to know what the median age of the paying customers is. There are only three choices, really - young people who are experiencing rock for the first time, young people who love classic rock and want the chance to get a glimpse of what it was like back in the day, and old farts who are reliving the glory of their youth for a limited time. I'm inclined to think group three has a heavy hand here. Did this band come to fame because of a career spent toiling in the underground with misfit kids latching on and spreading the word, or are they prominent because dudes like Eddie Trunk (and all respect to Eddie Trunk, he's a legend,) got hold of the record and touted it as a resurrection of the past? That doesn't diminish their authenticity or even come as a criticism, but it does bring me back to the concerns in the above paragraph about their staying power, and it does tread into interesting territory about the future distribution and promotion of music.
This might be petty of me, but I can't totally dismiss the haircuts and throwback clothing of Greta Van Fleet. I know it's the smallest one percent of everything they have going on, but as they say, 'dress for the job you want.' It would be one thing if these guys were out there in street clothes and had a retro sound, but there's a level of conscious decision that's gone into the band's image and appearance that can't be dismissed in the final analysis. Maybe I'm cynical, but whoever is driving Greta Van Fleet's bus (van, I suppose,) whether it's the kids themselves or somebody else, wants them to appear as a revival act, as a rolling piece of living nostalgia. Which means they'll inevitably be judged against that standard.
Right now, Greta Van Fleet is where Airbourne was after their first record. No more and no less. Airbourne's made a living as an AC/DC copy (and a good one, for the record,) but they never supplanted the root band, and a lot of people moved on.
That's probably a thousand words from me to digest, so before we get into other stuff, I'll let you deal with my initial ramblings.
CHRIS C: I know I have made that point before, though I can't for the life of me remember if I said it to you at any time.
Ah yes, clone bands. I would say we have encountered at least one of them for every big name that has ever existed. Sabbath is the most common, which my hatred of Ozzy's voice (fun fact; Ozzy is not on my top three, or four, Sabbath albums - discuss) means I will be forever tortured by it, but they are all represented. The thing about clone bands is that they say out loud what is supposed to be whispered. Music is a business, sure, but we like to pretend most of the people involved are still at it because of artistic drive. But when you are in a clone band, there isn't a way to claim you're doing it for noble intentions. Nothing you have to say is important, since the band you're cloning has already said it. What's weird, though, is that there is one of them that made a big name for themselves. Primal Fear is absolutely a Judas Priest clone, featuring a guy who auditioned for Halford's spot, recreating the two or three 'good' Priest albums for those kinds of metal fans.
Greta Van Fleet are absolutely a clone of Zeppelin. I don't deny that. The band is pretty obviously playing on the hunger that is still out there for Page and Plant, but I suppose that might be the reason why I give them more of a pass. They are cloning a band that is never coming back, whereas all the Maiden and Sabbath clones were running concurrently with the originals. I wasn't so much saying Greta Van Fleet has done something original with their sound as I was saying they write songs in a slightly different way than Zeppelin, which at least to my ears makes them sound a hair bit less of a rip-off. I might be hearing things.
Don't get me started on vocalists. The feeling of being screamed at is the biggest reason why large swaths of metal are unlistenable to me. I ascribe to a theory that if the band wasn't there, would I put up with the person performing that way in my ear? The answer for all of the intelligible screamers and growlers is NO. I would never sit through more than twenty seconds of Messhugah's vocalist screaming at me, so I can't see why I would allow it just because the band is playing some sludgy riffs behind it. I get a bit high-minded here, but I think of music as a way for humans to connect, to share bits of their minds and feelings that have no other form of expression. But when you then decide to scream, you suck the humanity out of the performance, which waters down the pull of the music. Voices are all individual, and we're never going to hear them the same way and like the same ones, but I would like to think we can at least agree on what the point of having a vocalist is supposed to be. But maybe not.
That brings us to "Peace", as you mentioned. Since vocalists are so unique, it often leaves me shaking my head at bands that employ more than one singing lead. I don't know if there has ever been a band other than The Beatles where I haven't easily preferred one over the other(s). Graveyard is one of them, and the fact that they have been giving tracks to the other members to sing is a major reason why I haven't found myself returning to these most recent albums as much as "Hisingen Blues" and "Lights Out". "Peace" is great, and it's their most rocking record, but only Joakim sounds like he was singing directly into the grooves of a vinyl record. But to return to our original point, Graveyard works exponentially better than Greta Van Fleet, because they are the ultimate example of inspiration existing with originality. No one can possibly deny Graveyard is pure classic rock, but I have never heard anyone tell me who they sound like. They synthesized an entire genre, without letting too much of any one band bleed through. That is not as good a business move, but it is the artistic choice.
Here's what I mean by us being rid of KISS. Sure, the tour might never end, but they see the light waiting for them to walk into it, and they seem firmly committed to never trying to make music again. If all they ever do is tour under the guise of being done, they will fade into obscurity in time. Not that anyone ever should have, but no one will take them seriously again. They are now as relevant as Herman's Hermits (who still play the state fair, or similar events around here, most years).
Perhaps what ties a lot of these stories together is that musicians need to have an unhealthy mental bent to make it to the top. They either need to be greedy (like Gene Simmons), delusional (take your pick), or fine with taking credit for the accomplishments of others (here's your Greta Van Fleet types). Artistry and mental illness have long had connections, but music right now is a form where it isn't just that a mental condition can spark creativity, but a healthy disposition can force people to rightly say the business isn't worth the effort. I wouldn't dare try to explain what was going on in Jill Janus' mind, but I have thought about her often when these sorts of points come up. Clearly, our musical communities don't have enough understanding for the people who live behind the music we listen to.
I've given you a few things to chew on, so I will hand you the baton.
D.M: Fundamentally, the issue with clone bands is that the players involved may not be as talented as the pinnacle musicians they're trying to emulate. As so many of my metaphors do, this one will turn to sports - the triangle offense looked great with Jordan, Pippen and Grant/Rodman/Harper/etc, and it looked great with O'Neal and Bryant...and then it didn't look so great with Carmelo, Tim Hardaway Jr and Iman Shumpert. Mike Martz created the Greatest Show on Turf, and now is a head coach in something called the Alliance of American Football because lo and behold, he couldn't recreate his success without five hall of fame caliber players (Warner, Bruce, Holt, Faulk, Pace.) Really, 'clone' may not be the accurate nomenclature for what we're trying to describe, since clone implies an equal level of ability.
What makes the clone band so disappointing is that they have the opportunity to extend the creativity of something that came before when that thing has faded. To use your example, Judas Priest is probably coming to the end of their run as innovative songwriters (and that be being kind,) but Primal Fear, who is a talented band for what it's worth, hasn't taken the reins and shifted the paradigm at all. Essentially, we've just gotten another decade of the same things we loved about "Painkiller," and as we all know, to simply repeat yourself over the course of decades and never offer something of substance makes you....Bruce Springsteen.
Back up a second - let me see if I can guess your four favorite Sabbath albums based on your quip. Okay, I know you love "Mob Rules" and "Heaven & Hell," so that's two. I'm gonna say "Dehumanizer" and...."Headless Cross"? I know a few people who are mysteriously big on the Tony Martin era, are you among them?
This is the point of the show where I make a complete ass of myself and broadcast for the masses that I am not someone who hears the vocals of a song in the forefront. That sounds insane, I know, and it's hard to describe, but it's true. I hear the rhythm section first, and that's what collects my attention, especially if the melody and the rhythm are in sync. To that end, I hear the vocals more as an additional instrument in the overall mix than a do a prime driving factor in the song. My point is this - I think I have a high tolerance for screamed vocals because to me, it's a part of the arrangement, more than a direct message to the listener. Subsequently, I think this is why I don't have the same dilemma with Graveyard passing out the vocals duties - there's no question that the different gentlemen all sound different, which lends a different color to the proceedings. And for me, they're not like Soundgarden or Alice in Chains or the Screaming Trees, where Cornell/Staley & Cantrell/Lanegan are so idiomatic of the band's sound. Joakim Nilsson is a fine vocalist, but I don't need him in every song. This is where you're really going to take a swing at me, but "From a Hole in the Hall" was my favorite song on "Innocence and Decadence."
Let's be clear though - we may disagree about facets of them, and I don't want to go out on a limb and speak for you, but if we were to independently list our top five favorite active bands, we would both have Graveyard in the top ten. Maybe we'd both have them in the top five. It probably sounds pedantic, but they're simply amazing. One of the few bands who never disappoints with their creativity and expression (Turisas, you're on that list. Get off your ass and release another album already! It's been five years!)
Oh man, the mental imbalance required to be successful in music may not be all that different from the one required to be successful in sports (here I go again.) Larry Bird and Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods and Tom Brady are, from a strictly psychological point of view, borderline sociopaths. They are guilty of having an all-consuming obsession with winning, at the least. To be a success in the music business is no doubt similar, with a notable exception - athletes don't have to provide the source material. The sport already existed, they just have to live within the rules and structure of it (or push the boundaries of it.) As we've seen, to really have an impact in music, your message needs to be on point, and that usually requires the kind of passion or heartache (or both,) that can only come with strange circumstances and unusual mindsets. The struggle has to be relevant, but also very real. That's a potent and toxic combination in many cases.
And thus, Jill Janus. I don't have a ton to say here except that I was extraordinarily sad when I heard the news. She was one of my favorite people I ever interviewed - charming and kind and funny and quick-witted, accepting and patient and candid in a way that few others were. You got the impression that she was uniquely aware of her fans and not only knew how to connect with them on a human level, but felt the need to do so. For me, the real story of her passing is that we all need to be in touch with our friends. See how they're doing. You can't always see the signs, but for the person suffering, knowing that someone cares enough to hang around and ask can make a difference.
No easy transition off of that, but aside from the expectations surrounding Greta Van Fleet, the other major story of the year was Ghost. I'm a fan of "Prequelle," I think it comes down to a band having fun doing what they want to do (which was a theme for a lot of bands this year,) but the purists weren't fans. You're more pop-oriented than me, how did it strike you?
CHRIS C: You're mostly right about the clone bands, but there is a detail in Primal Fear's history that shows they both did try something new, and failed to modify what a clone is. There was a period a decade or so back when they released "The Seventh Seal", wherein they tried to expand their songwriting. They had a few longer tracks, and they introduced more symphonic bits.... and the fans complained they didn't sound enough like Judas Priest anymore. The ultimate problem with clones isn't that they get compared unfavorably to the originals, it's that they can never escape the comparisons. Unless you branch off very early, you will forever be a clone. For an example, see the band Soen. Their first album is a 100% Tool clone. In the old Limewire days, it would have spread like wildfire AS the new Tool album. But as soon as their second album, they moved on to a more Opeth vibe, so now they aren't looked at in that manner. You can use a similarity to get your name out there, but you don't have long before you have to prove yourself.
Speaking of clones; I've always been hoping for more bands to try cloning the sound Bruce Dickinson had going on "Accident Of Birth" and "The Chemical Wedding". There was one band that did it very well, but they disappeared after one album. And yet we get new Priest clones each and every year....
You absolutely nailed it. I am not a big Tony Martin guy, and I can do without his other albums, but "Headless Cross" is indeed awesome. It sounds horribly 80s, but it's good stuff.
You're not weird. I've had several people over the years tell me I'm wrong, not weird - wrong, for listening the way I do. But it makes sense to me. I am a writer/lyricist, and I would be a singer if I had a better voice, so it's natural for me to focus on the part of a song that I would be most intent on creating myself. Given the popularity of hip-hop, modern pop, and the various forms of extreme metal, I'm clearly in what is now the minority. Maybe I just picked up my instrument too late in life, and I had already baked in my opinions. I'm the weirdo who didn't learn how to play guitar because I wanted to play guitar, but with the sole purpose of having a tool to write songs with. I think if I was a more dedicated guitar player, I would have a tighter focus on the instrumental parts when I'm listening to new stuff. But nothing is absolute, and an album like Trouble's awesome self-titled is a guitar album first and foremost, even for me.
Top five active bands, eh? You had your confession, so here's mine. I'm not really a fan of bands. I'm fickle enough to please that even bands I like disappoint me a good portion of the time, so there aren't many I would so outright I am a fan of, with no reservations. That said, as short as my list of options would be, Graveyard is absolutely on there. Given that I can't truly say my favorite band is 'active', Graveyard is probably in a dogfight with Halestorm for the title of my favorite going at the moment. That name brings up something I want to talk about, but that's for when we get to what surprised us this year.
Too much of society is focused on lauding the sociopath. Music, sports, politics (oh man); they're all filled with terrible people doing terrible things in the name of advancing themselves. We all get twisted up when those behaviors become normalized. What's always given me a face-palm moment is when the 'analysts' complain about an athlete who doesn't scream in his teammates face and act like a belligerent douche-nozzle, because it proves he's not a leader. Being quiet and doing your job well isn't good enough. So why do we demonize the failed leader, but not the people who need someone screaming in their face in order to do their job? That sounds like the issue to me, and you never hear any of the supposed experts calling out the people who are actually showing weakness. As long as you aren't the highest paid, you apparently have no responsibility to give a damn.
Ghost went full pop, that's for sure. I thought it was great, and the logical extension for them if they really do want to take over the rock world, but I get why a lot of more hardcore rock and metal fans weren't into it. I know Eddie Trunk did several shows trying to figure out why so many metal musicians love Ghost. I give him no credence, though, since the band he can't stop talking about just put out a Queen-aping record that features them doing a version of their single with Kesha, in a blatant play for mainstream pop appeal. For Ghost, going pop works with the gimmick. They are supposedly trying to spread the word of Satan, and how better to do that than with bubblegum songs that can sneak into the heads of average people? By no means am I saying they're perfect. I can't defend the idea of this kind of band putting two five-minute instrumentals on a record. Ghost is about the gimmick and the character, so leaving ten of the forty minutes without either was inexplicable. Watch, you're going to say you loved those parts. We've talked before about how a rock band is going to grow into something that will push into the mainstream, it's going to take moves that make the original fans uncomfortable. Ghost is trying, and we still have to wait to see if it works.
I mentioned it earlier, so let's get to it. What about this year was a surprise, either for good or bad? You know who my surprise is about, but maybe not how.
D.M: You know, so long as we're going down the rabbit hole, who's the best clone band ever? Is it even possible to rate such a thing? I'm not sure what the metric would be - is it the most enjoyable, or would it be the one who accomplished the most, or the one who advanced the genre the most? And if the latter, is it a clone band anymore? For my money, I might stick with Airbourne. Their first album is great, and the more AC/DC turns into nothing but a traveling museum made out of mercenary parts, the more Airbourne's authenticity helps their case. I could also go with the Texas Hippie Coalition, but I hold them in too high esteem to denigrate them by calling them strictly a clone band.
Because you asked (wait, it was me who asked,) my top five active bands, in no order, looks like this: Turisas, Destrage, Red Fang, Red Eleven, Graveyard. Cancer Bats on the outside looking in.
It's funny you mention lauding the sociopath - a mutual friend of ours and I were recently having a conversation of much this same stripe, and he encapsulated it better than I think I could have - we, as a society, equate success with virtue. Which is not only frighteningly true, but it works hand in hand with something we've been dancing around for years - that in America, we struggle mightily with the concept that a person can be two things concurrently. Ronnie Radke can be a successful musician AND a questionable (to be gentle about it,) human being. Phil Spector can be a visionary AND a lunatic. Aaron Rodgers can be an all-time great quarterback talent AND a prickly, cold person. These things aren't mutually exclusive. I think what makes the scenarios I just talked about so unique is that when it comes to public life and accolades, it is often difficult to be one WITHOUT being the other. (As an aside, here's my favorite one - Michael Jordan can be the best basketball player AND a brutal, tyrannical teammate and self-absorbed asshole. The man could be the greatest ambassador for his game in history, greater even than Magic Johnson, but he never speaks, doesn't make appearances, doesn't do interviews. Granted, he doesn't owe those things to anybody, but knowing what we know, doesn't it feel like there's some spite there?)
Speaking of people who may be some degree of sociopathic (is that a word?) I'm going to stray from music for a moment. I meant to ask you think offline, but what the hell, we're here - this whole Phil and Tiger match for a bazillion dollars, this is a crock of shit, right? (And for those reading, I am writing this about two days prior to the event,) Like, this feels ten years too late, and it also feels like it wouldn't have happened ten years ago, if that makes sense. This, for me, has all the hallmarks of two dudes cashing in while they're past their prime but still game enough to draw. But you're my golf guy - you tell me. (Things only I would notice that drive me nuts - on their media tour the other day, when they appeared on "Pardon the Interruption," Phil sat screen left and Tiger screen right, then on "SportsCenter" at 6pm, they were reversed for no reason I could tell.)
Getting back to it, I think the one thing that really surprised me this year was the number of bands who seemed to just want to have fun. That sound vague and stupid even as I type it, but allow me to elaborate. Ghost just went for it and made the pop record they've been leaning toward for a while now (and no, I'm with you - I didn't need two instrumentals.) The Cancer Bats were clearing going for a particular mood on their previous album "Searching for Zero," but dumped it and went back to making rock-core (I invented a new genre!) for this year's "The Spark That Moves." Clutch continued the bouncy momentum of "Psychic Warfare" with "Book of Bad Decisions," and Orange Goblin...well, they just made another Orange Goblin record. But I can't help but feel like this is a good thing - maybe, optimistically, we've gotten to the point with easy digital distribution and audience intelligence where bands don't need to fit a 'scene' anymore. They can just be, and people will find them. Maybe.
This name will come up for me again, but I was also surprised by the band Alien Weaponry. As soon as I read "teenagers" in the band bio, horrible memories of the flood (no pun intended) or expectation that surrounded Black Tide came back to me. And listen, AW's album "Tu" is as raw as can be, and they've got a lot they can tighten up, but their sound is unique and they're on to something.
You?
CHRIS C: The best clone band? Wow, that's actually a far harder question than I thought it was going to be, mainly because the vast majority of them are cloning someone I was never a super big fan of to begin with. I can appreciate AC/DC, Priest, and Sabbath, but I don't listen to enough of any of them to give much credence to bands that sound like them. I suppose I have to say my answer is none, and I have mostly avoided becoming invested in any clones. You could make the argument that Edguy and Avantasia both started as Helloween clones, but they have shifted far away from that as they moved along, and it's the later stuff I'm more a fan of. As for a slightly different question; Avenged Sevenfold is probably the most successful of them, what with that album they made that was pretty much lightly rewritten rock/metal standards. I didn't even listen to it, but I still hate them for that.
You're absolutely right about our inability to hold two thoughts in our heads about a single person. Before diving into sports, I'll throw another one out there. Everyone talks about Ellen as this loving, generous, kind spirit. And yet she tortures her employees and friends by deliberately scaring them or making them do things she knows they hate, all for a laugh. If there wasn't a camera on the whole time, it would be disturbing.
Success really is the cure-all. I need to point no further than to the current occupant of a certain residence. Half of the country is willing to justify anything, so long as their side is picking out the curtains. Aaron Rodgers is absolutely a cold person. As one myself, I don't mean that as a criticism, but it's pretty clear to me he's not the kind of guy who should be in commercials, and yet.... Or look at Eli Manning. When the Giants were good, people thought he was 'charming' in a doofus kind of way. Now that they suck, not so much. But those Super Bowls do keep people from reminding everyone Eli engaged in outright fraud that sucked money out of the pockets of people who actually thought his signature was worth something. The joys of fame.
We're also seeing it with the recently deceased rapper with the horrible name I'm not going to bother googling to spell correctly. He was, by all estimations, a shitty human being. Yet because someone thought his mumbling flows were good, there was mourning upon his death. I won't be so callous as to say he deserved it, but he certainly didn't deserve tributes, or to have his stuff go to the top of the charts. There's something bred into the American idea wherein we think success is a limited entity, and since we all make it there on our own (a lie, but widely believed), people have to be screwed in order to get there. Success is far more than having the most money, or being on tv the most. People say we lose sight that music and sports are a business. No, I think we lose sight that music is supposed to be an art.
Tiger and Phil, oh boy. Tiger fits into that sociopath category as well. He can flash a smile, and he was taught how to fool people by his father, but you don't set up a system with your agent to cheat on your wife in every city you travel to without having a degree of sociopath in you. And just to be clear, while the rest of the world was creaming themselves as Tiger finally won a tournament again, I haven't forgiven him (and don't plan to) for lying to our faces for so long while being a lousy person. As to the matchup, of course it's two guys cashing in while they still can. Phil knows he only has a year or two left before he's on the first tee of the US Senior Open, and Tiger's body is going to fail him entirely at some point. The whole thing is a manufactured mess that proves neither one of them actually cares about their fans, despite what they say (and Phil's reputation for majorly tipping - which is probably more PR than anything). You have to multi-millionaires getting together to play for someone else's money they they don't need, and then want the fans to pay for the privilege of watching the rich get richer. Holy Roman debauchery, Batman! Could you imagine Michael Jordan making people pay to come watch him light cigars with $100 bills? Actually, I can, so scratch that. This match is everything that's wrong with modern sports. It is greed masking as entertainment. They could have done a great thing and put the match on regular tv while playing for their own money, which would have been something original and unique, and maybe revealed a bit about who they really are when the stress got to them. Instead, how is anyone supposed to give a damn about someone obscenely rich winning or not winning more money that they don't need?
Back to the point, now. My surprise of the year was Halestorm, but not in the way you might think. I'm not surprised that "Vicious" was a good album, if that's what you were thinking. While I was quite vocal about not liking the one before this, I know they're a good band, and I adore Lzzy, so I hadn't dared write them off yet. No, what surprised me is how this record has changed my perception. "Into The Wild Life" was a departure, both in terms of how it was written, and how it sounded. "Vicious" goes in that same direction, so you would think I would be similarly wary. I was at first, but it's a better written album. They have shifted focus to being more riff and rhythm focused, but because they have better songs behind them, I can clearly hear what they are going for. And now that I see where the path leads, I can see where the previous album was trying to go. So with that better understanding, I can appreciate what they were trying to do last time far more than I did before. What I thought were mistakes are now more evidently growing pains on the way to something new that is just as good as what I regretted them leaving behind. I can't think of another time when a record changed my opinion of a different record. I thought that was rather interesting.
I suppose we have talked long enough to start wrapping things up. So I will pose to you the usual array of questions; the good, the bad, and what is waiting on the other side of the horizon?
D.M: Take this for what it's worth - I cannot personally attest to this, I have only heard it twenty-fifth hand. Rumor has it Ellen is so tough to work for that the show at one point had burned through six directors in seven years, or some similarly ridiculous proportion. Yikes.
I can't say I shed a tear when I read that Turner was going to issue refunds on the Tiger/Phil fiasco, and make absolutely no money on the proceedings at all. As you said, served them right. As an aside, I'm not much for MMA, but why on God's green earth was Chuck Lidell fighting the other night? Good lord, he's starting to get Ric Flair's body. Never a positive sign, at least not during my adult life. Dude, hang it up.
My best thing for this year may be repetitive, but I am increasingly thankful for it - my top ten albums haven't been narrowed down into a solid list yet, but I am thankful that eleven of the contenders are bands I wasn't familiar with before. They say by our age that people stop discovering new music and new media and recess into their favorites of old. I am happy that I am vital enough to keep wanting to hear new and better and most of all, more.
Also good, more crossover between the electronic and the rock and metal. I might be getting suckered in a little here because I am an easy target for a heavy downbeat, which electronic music specializes in almost exclusively, but besides the Browning, Lord of the Lost and Fear of Domination both turned in excellent records that integrated two previously disparate styles. As a musical society, we toyed with this in the '90s, between Nine Inch Nails and Prodigy and Godhead and a hundred others, but these new albums seem to be built on an established foundation. Curious to see where it goes next.
The bad was that a bunch of bands I already loved failed to live up to expectation. I was amped for new records from Red Dragon Cartel and Emigrate, and both were lukewarm affairs that totally lost the keen edge which made their previous efforts so laudable. And the beat goes on - heavyweights like Monster Magnet and Skindred failed to impress, and even bands further under the radar like Halcyon Way and Spiders couldn't deliver for me. So make no mistake, Clutch and a few others rose to the occasion, but it was a bad year for established names on the whole.
And the ugly - just the crossover effort between Gridfailure and Megalophobe. This isn't even necessarily their fault - they're totally allowed to make whatever music they want to make. But with names like that, it sounds like any collaboration should represent the soundtrack to a category five hurricane. Instead, it sounds like forty-five minutes of windy farts. Not very editorially insightful on my fart, but there it is.
Next year? New Children of Bodom record, curious to see what they evolve into this time. Also, new John 5 & the Creatures, and at this point, I daresay that John 5 is a more vital and creative artist than Rob Zombie himself (with no disrespect to the Rob, he'll always be a legend to me,) so I'm looking forward to that. Nothing else screams out at me, unless, as I put in here every year, Blackguard finally releases "Storm."
Take us home!
CHRIS C: I am not versed in the MMA world, so I can't comment too much about Chuck Liddell. What I know is old guys who haven't been deemed good in ages shouldn't be headlining a major card. Although, being Ric Flair wouldn't be a bad thing. Sure, he was never the most cosmetically amazing wrestler out there, but that body wrestled more matches for more years than just about anybody. As an aside, have you ever seen the pictures of him from before the plane crash? Holy hell, he was thick. He became an entirely different person after that.
That statistic is depressing. I love all my old favorite records, but I can't yet imagine having only them to listen to for the rest of my life. Even when we hit December, and the flow of new stuff slows down, I find myself getting antsy for something new to come along. While I can get worn down by the grind at various points during the year, I also know that new music is what keeps me interested in the art. I would say that if you are a real music lover, you can't shut yourself off. Not kowing when the next great thing is going to come along would be criminal for a fan. But I suppose it comes down to the simple fact most people aren't fans in the same way they we are. They have 'families'. Bah! Albums are better, right?
For me, the best thing this year wasn't even music. Sure, there was a lot of good stuff, but my favorite experiences of the year were interactions I had with musicians. I've already recounted them to you, but being able to have that kind of connection with people I like and admire is one of those things that still makes me shake my head. I'm not sure how it happened, or why I can't seem to replicate it when it would be helpful, but it's hard to find anything better than making an impact with someone who has done the same for you. Highlight of my year, definitely.
The bad is the number of older artists who keep trying to chase youth, looking pathetic in the process. It happened to Machine Head and Ministry (not that they were ever good) this year, and it's already been made clear Weezer has another epic faceplant on the schedule for 2019. I continually get annoyed when artists in their 40s and 50s try to prove they're still hip and current. You aren't. Your actual fans don't care, because they aren't either. No one wants to watch a guy with a gray beard playing songs about Bronies.
Normally, I don't know of much to get excited about as the new year approaches. This time, though, there's a host of stuff to (perhaps dangerously) pique my interest. In the first few months, we're going to have new records from The Neal Morse Band, Dream Theater (AOTY winner in 2011), Avantasia (a long-time favorite), Michael Monroe (#2 in 2015), and the one I might be most interested in, a new Soen record (AOTY winner this time last year). That's quite a few albums with a lot of potential already on my radar. Perhaps it will be another great year.
And as we wind this up for another year, I just want to make note of the realization we came to, that sums up a lot of this. We can be two very different people, who come to music from different approaches, and who use music for different reasons, but we still come together because we love music. It is important to us, despite those differences. And as long as it remains important, this is still a practice worth pursuing. Cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment