A few days ago, TheYank pointed me in the direction of Davy, the second album by actor Jason Schwartzman’s solo project Coconut Records. I remarked that it reminded me of a more indie version of Of Montreal without the gender bending and with the softness of The Postal Service.
Which is a strange thing to do, given we could both hear it, so why bother with references to other bands?
Perhaps it’s because of the history of music press? I remember in the late 1980s that the only way to hear new music (without purchasing it) was to hang out with friends, at record shops, or go to clubs and gigs. It was very rare for Melody Maker, Sounds or NME to issue 7″ samplers. So the best way to properly convey a particular song, album or band was to compare it to others. This was problematic, because it required the reader to know those others.
When I was first encountered the unfamiliar world of independent music, it was through my friends’ record collections. I ended up purchasing a lot of what they already had, using this as a bootstrap for my own listening experiments. The issue with music reviews at that time (apart from the obvious pretension, which I was always totally okay with) was that to properly appreciate them, you already had to know a lot of music.
Despite the arrival of digital music which allows us almost instant access to, you know, the actual music, reviews are still like this. Part of this is due to authors self-aggrandising, but the primary reason is that simply mentioning another artist brings a heap of musical and contextual references that, if stated explicitly, would otherwise bog them down.
This leads me to conclude that regardless of where technology takes us in the future, there will still be a place for music reviews, and that one’s own process of discovery will be as scarily exciting as it’s always been.
coconut records, of montreal, the postal service
Apparently there was something important announced this morning: the tour dates to support U2’s new album No Line on the Horizon. The ballyhoo that surrounded this is matched by the ludicrousness of U2’s virtual stage. Gasp at the fact that everyone gets to see the band. Yes, you guessed it, the stage is in the centre of the audience.
What is particularly amusing is that it’s called the U2360° Tour, and whilst their marketeers are hoping it’s seen as a nod towards this innovative setting, the reality is different. For U2 has signed a 12 year deal with Live Nation, and the tour title reflects the terms of that deal in that it also covers tour revenue.
Tour revenue is important to music corporations because they are losing income from recorded music, not due to piracy, but due to their own incompetence at failing to see the direction their industry is going in. It’s inevitable that they’ll try to secure other rights to keep their cash coming in.
The irony behind bands such as U2 blowing wads of cash at excessive concert indulgences is that it merely highlights their inability to innovate where it counts: the music. It’s a form of compensation. And, if no-one is making money from recorded music, why put effort into its production? Just use smoke and mirrors in a live setting and the sheeple - thanks to TheYank for that word - will flock in.
Music however is going back to its roots. More musicians and bands are making direct connections to their fans, and some survive solely on their financial patronage. This allows them to give away music for free, building their fanbase in the process. The record companies are becoming irrelevant. Live music (now thought of as a cash cow by these corporations) will also go the same way, being arranged and organised by fans rather than promoters. Furthermore, house concerts are becoming increasingly common, and artists often stay in fans’ houses to both reduce the cost of touring and to build relationships.
I don’t do this to make money. I don’t do this to win approval. I do this to be around people I love. I do this to make art, to feel connected, to make love and not war and art and not pain.
Amanda Palmer
amanda palmer, u2
Quick note after watching Andrew Bird play on the Craig Ferguson show, I did some quick googling to get more of a feel for who Bird is. Even though I’m familiar with his songs, I’m not terribly familiar with his background. I found this quote highly amusing, Bird has stated that, at 22, he found a lot of indie rock and pop music repetitive and boring, but now understands it better.
Damn straight! The irony here is not only is Bird pimp-handing the current genre that feeds him but he’s also right.
andrew bird
