Oh yes, wait a minute Mr. Danzig...

For a few days now, I've been listening to the fabulous radio station on itunes "Sock Hop Radio." I felt like searching for a station such as this the other day and happened to come across this one. It does seem to veer into a bit of 60s music as well, but a good selection of 50s. My preference is for a completely doo wop station and this is about as close as I've come. People I speak to seem to sometimes be cloudy on the definition of doo wop or which songs/groups are classified as such, so as an example:



For some unknown reason, I just love the sound of groups and singers like this. Aside from fun and interesting harmonies (and plenty of bass vocals which now are rather unrepresented) the songs were short and cute.

After listening for a while, I did a wikipedia search for doo wop to see what it said. One of the things I happened to notice was a box on the side that listed "derivative music" that came from doo wop and listed were horrorpunk and 'beach music' which I would alter into surf music. I always sort of knew there was a retro-ness to the way the Misfits sounded and after seeing this little box, it made it quite evident that the simplicity and chord structure of many of the Misfits' songs were really tied directly into doo wop songs.
As an example of the similarities, I took a doo wop song and sped it up while lowering the pitch to give it more of a Misfits feel - Runaway Misfits. I just found it interesting how the Misfits were, in essence, a mean and modern version of doo wop music. It was probably somewhat intentional - trying to be retro in a way to have the music reflect on old horror movies from the 50s by using the music of the 50s as a basis for their songs. Interestingly enough, wikipedia says "Musically the band has drawn from punk rock, heavy metal, and 1950s rock and roll and rockabilly to inform their style" where again I disagree and say their music is much more directly similar to doo wop, not rock and roll. (If you listen to the Misfits' "Saturday Night" it sounds exactly like a 50s doo wop ballad).

The rock and roll from this era went into a much different path. While 'modern rock' really has no root in rock and roll, surf, rockabilly and psychobilly are directly taken from it. Give Jerry Lee Lewis a guitar and he's Reverend Horton Heat. Easier connection there. If you know both bands, you would probably see (or hear, rather) that Reverend Horton Heat and the Misfits don't sound too alke and this, I posit, is because their roots are actually from different genres.

I have a feeling devilocks were not quite as popular a coif back in 1957.

Son of a Niche

For the past few months, I've been going to a pseudo "open mic" at the guitar store in my city (where I now subsequently work). I'm always sort of intrigued by who knows/likes which kind of music and what they end up playing. Some people range quite a bit, others disperse their talents nicely. I'm pretty much the only person, agewise, who's right in the middle of everyone else so I can act like an outsider with some observations about music and youth vs. (or just compared to) music of people 10-20 years older than me.

I am constantly either surprised or perhaps a bit puzzled why the majority of the kids who come to the open mic between 13 and 18 seem to only know and want to play classic rock. (As a side note, I tend to be the token bassist and spend most of the evening staying on 'stage' and other people take turns up there). A bunch of us will be on stage and someone will inevitably ask "Know any Who? or Zeppelin? or ACDC?" I'm not a fan of the latter two, so I often grimace while opting for the Who or asking if they know anything else. I too grew up on classic rock (Rolling Stones, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane) but soon after pre-pubescence I began to form my own likes (which may or may not have included Ace of Base and the Spice Girls). Still, why is it that all these kids ONLY know classic rock? Last week we did end up covering "When I Come Around," "Santeria" and "What I Got?" but only two out of the four of us on stage actually knew those songs. At least I'd figure the kids would listen to current new rock which they also don't seem to (not that I blame them because it's terrible).

I tend to like the younger bands that go on stage to perform who have either their own original sound or they aren't just doing covers of classic rock. One band, a trio of boys probably around 16 or 17, play a fun combination of jazzy funk (not a slap bass, but some fun melodies). They could use some vocals, but they have their own sound carved out pretty well.

Another "band" that came this and last week is a trio (sans drummer, but someone will usually go up and play drums with them) doing punk originals and covers. The singer/guitarist who's probably around 15 and quite sassy (not so much 'mean' as he acts like he has PMS with a hint of ennui). They've covered Agent Orange, Social Distortion and NOFX which, while not perfect in their instrumentation, I applaud because I'm not bored by the songs. I like NOFX and got into them when I was around 15 as well so kudos to them. All the classic rock kids seem to not know how to branch out.

Then there are those people who do the same song everytime. Let's say a certain popular Nirvana song and a certain popular Pantera song. No, you cannot sing like either of them and yes you need to in order to make the songs sound acceptable.

There's also a duo who play metal. That's it. Nobody can follow what they're doing, especially drummers. Good luck kids.

--------------

With the older crowd you also get a mix of interests. One guy is that typical middle aged guy who thinks he's cool and thinks he somehow has a chance of making it big when he's clearly delusional, annoying and stands too close when he talks to you. He thinks "Cocaine" by Eric Clapton is a surefire way of pepping up a crowd. Yeah. Ok. (At least he's nice to younger musicians and wants to teach them how to play songs and is relatively patient if they mess up or aren't sure).

There's another guy around the same age who plays a bigger variety of originals and covers. Tonight we did Joey Ramone's version of "What a Wonderful World" along with two songs I didn't know that I think were covers. Last week he did some acoustic songs, one where he used a slide and it had an awesome sound. While he might not be pumping up a crowd with all his music, he doesn't seem delusional about his talent, musical interests or his age. His music is well-suited for his age/appearance and he isn't embarassing himself.

Then there's that last group of older guys who play whatever they enjoy but make it known it is THEIR TIME TO PLAY and YOU BETTER NOT MESS UP. One guy literally said, a few months ago, "Well I'm going to play now because I drove 40 miles here." Oh entitlement! How modest. I'm more amused that someone would feel a need to push their way on stage at what is primarily a youth-focused event.

-------------

In any event, everyone loves me because:
1. I'm female.
2. I play bass.
3. I can do both, simultaneously.

Quick Observations

I'm seeing Mindless Self Indulgence next week. Electronic punk metal.

I took out six (6) Jim Brickman cds from the library today. New Age piano.
(I also eyed a 'hits of 50s' cd as well).

So I was listening to this song and then it

This isn't really a very interesting musical topic, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I find that in the past, I've listened to some songs a certain way for such a long time that the actual version of the song sounds funny.

What I mean is that I have several mp3s that: are poor quality due to ripping, cut off in the middle of the song, or that are edited versions. But the weird thing is that I get used to these versions and then the clean, full length, unedited version sounds funny.

I noticed this circumstance the other day. I'd be constantly listening (and still am) to the song "How to Handle a Rope" by Queens of the Stone Age. I wasn't able to find a real mp3 anywhere online (not even itunes or amazon) so I ripped it from youtube, which you imagine sounded terrible, but it was all I could do. Recently I was finally able to find an actual rip of the song from the CD and at first it sounded funny because it was actually mixed properly. I'll be - there's a hi hat in there too, which I never heard with my awesome 48ish kbps mp3 prior to that.

Another example is edited vs. non-edited songs. I really like the song What You Know by T.I and the version I happened to get was edited, so I've grown used to the background vocals going "what?!" or "oooooh" or simply cutting out instead of swearing. So hearing the version I linked to, for example, always catches me offguard.

I also have a few mp3s that never finished downloading so they end somewhere in the middle of the song. But, since that's the version I have, I always expect the song to end there. So if the song is on the radio and it goes past that point, I'm very confused, especially when my version was missing an entire verse. I've gotten very used to "Eyeless" by Slipknot ending in a certain place as well as "I'll Remember" by Madonna. I finally got a full version of "Live For Lovin' You" by Gloria Estefan and am always taken aback when the song actually finishes.

I guess another scenario is just two entirely different versions of songs. Freshman year of college, I would play the song "I'll Fly With You" by Gigi D'Agostino and my roommate would swear there was another version with some guys making weird background noises and lo and behold, she was right and very excited when I found her version. Same thing with "We Be Burnin'" by Sean Paul. Unbeknownst to me, I have the clean version, whereas the other version is clearly about smoking pot.

The Best Thing Since Sliced Bread (Possibly Not)

I was in a band for about 8/9 years as many of you know. We're not "not a band" anymore, but since Brian moved 3 hours away and Adam's still finishing up his Master's, we have hardly anytime to meet up as a full group.

Regardless, I have been trying for about 8 months to find a new band. Many fruitless efforts through craigslist have dampened my spirits a bit, but I'm still hopeful.

Recently, I posted on craigslist, similar to how I've posted in previous attempts. In brief, the message was "I play guitar and bass, I'm looking for other musicians; I like Queens of the Stone Age, Dead Kennedys, Alice in Chains, etc." I got a few responses here and there - the typical problem is the bands or band members live too far from me or inconveniently out of the way (since I drive 80 miles a day to and from work, total).

But one response sounded intriguing. He said he loved that I liked the Dead Kennedys since he finds a lot of people online with really bad taste in music. I was hopeful because I figured "Great, someone likes the bands I do. Their band is bound to have a good sound." After saying how his band was the best thing since sliced bread, the only hip band in Connecticut, and the only band worth joining (modest he was) he sent me a link to his myspace.

Immediately, my hopes were dashed. If nothing else, the genres listed for his band included "indie" and "psychedelic," words that, in general, turn me off. To add insult to injury, the music was slow, dreadfully boring and he was among the poorer singers I've heard. I'm really not trying to bash his band or criticize, but when someone has the same musical interests and leads you to believe the band will sound as such, it's disappointing to hear a slow, psychedelic indie band with a kind of lame singer.

I emailed him back to let him know it wasn't really the sound I was looking for. He said I haven't heard his full set and I should really come to a practice to hear the full set. I apologized and said I wasn't interested and I couldn't imagine the music being too much different in person than on a myspace recording. I told him I was looking for a punk/grunge sound (and sent him a QOTSA song I really enjoy).

To quote his response:
"punk rock is an attitude not a sound but that is OK. Good luck and check out Public Image Ltd. Johnny Rotten's project after the Sex Pistols most punk rockers eventually grow up and so does the sound. Good Luck! CT music scene is a vast wasteland."

When it comes down to it, I'm probably the least punk person I know. I'll admit that. But I disagreed with his sentiment. Uppity punk 17 year olds will tell you as they smoke, give you the finger and say 'oi' that punk is an attitude. Fine. Let them be. But I've gotta say I'm pretty sure political lyrics, fast guitars and drums and typical crazy voices lead to punk more than strictly an "attitude." If Celine Dion got angry and sang angry political ballads...I'd doubt that she would suddenly be considered punk. (Most of all, I hate how the guy called it 'punk rock.') Mohawks and heroin do not alone constitute punk.

And he was also wrong. Well, most punk rockers do grow up (the ones who don't die) but their sound doesn't grow up. They become angry public speakers.

I Like Them, So You Can't

I was having a conversation with my friend the other day about the music we like. He finds all of his new music by listening to pop/contemporary radio. The songs he mentioned recently downloading were tracks that make me cringe (even if I don't know the song, just the artist). I really wasn't trying to shun his music or say it's necessarily bad, I just don't prefer it.

But an interesting observation he pointed out is that he doesn't care if other people listen to his music as much as he does. That is to say he likes songs and bands regardless of how popular they are or how often they're on the radio. And my reaction is the exact opposite. The more a song is on the radio, the less I like it. While I don't purposely try to listen to weird or unpopular bands, I do like the fact that there are some bands and songs I like that nobody else knows or not many people know. Granted my list of favorite bands is so 90s mainstream it hurts, I could just as easily post a list of bands nobody I know has heard of. I've frequently looked at a person's "favorite bands" sections on facebook or myspace and not recognized a single name. The one big difference between them and myself is that typically their list is of indie, emo or hardcore bands and mine is random punk or electronic bands I found on yahoo 4 years ago.

I can't really differentiate between whether I really like the way certain bands sound or if I like the fact that other people don't like them. Plenty of people like the Dead Kennedys but no one I know is among them. Jello Biafra really truly does kind of sing like a goat. Mindless Self Indulgence is incredibly immature and spastic, but I like them. I like drum and bass because it's loud and fast, but it's very repetitive. To me, loud and fast and screechy and obnoxious is likeable. Things that are radio friendly are too...radio friendly.

How Best to Create 3-10 Minute Epics.

The closest I've come to making a music video were the videos we had to make in our Spanish class 3 years in a row in high school. They got progressively better, but this is unrelated to the topic at hand.

The point of this entry isn't to complain about how MTV and MTV2 and VH1 no longer play music videos. We know that; we don't like it, but we've accepted it and moved on to youtube. However, after reading someone's article/selection of the 29 best music videos, I thought I'd throw in my 2 (or 3) cents not just on what videos I like but what I think makes a good music video.

I think the one mistake bands tend to make is to put themselves in the video, performing. This sounds contradictory, but there's not much talent in just playing the song in front of the camera. If there's no plot to go with it or no interesting effects, the video falls kind of flat. For example, The Foo Fighters' "All My Life" is fairly unexciting as nothing unexpected happens during the course of them just performing the song, as compared to their videos for "Everlong" (a strange dream sequence), "Big Me" (a Mentos commercial spoof). or "My Hero" (which does show parts of the band playing, but secondary to the plot).

It's hard to pinpoint what you SHOULD do in a video, but I'll give it a try. A band should definitely not incorporate all of the following concepts, but at least one will prove decent, usually.

Do:
1. Make a plot for your video. I guess your song and video don't necessarily have to relate, but keep in mind the watchers may focus more on the video than the song if they aren't harmonious. (Example: "Paranoid Android" by Radiohead. It's a good video, but the song doesn't relate and you forget what it's actually about).
2. Use interesting special effects. Maybe you're not really big on "plots" but you want the viewer to think your video is kind of fun to watch. (Example: "Everything is Everything" by Lauryn Hill. Who says Manhattan can't be a giant turntable? Also, "Girl" by Beck. Things folding in half is a neat trick, possibly brought to you by Mad Magazine).
3. Hire directors who are fans of animation. Animation can be used to create a video where actions wouldn't be possible with real actors (like Paranoid Android) or when a director/producer comes up with a new technique that makes people flock to the video. (Example: "Fell in Love With a Girl" by the White Stripes for the innovative use of legos and "Ankle Injuries" by Fujiya and Miyagi for unique use of dice).
4. Develop a plot so strong that you make the viewer want to cry, jump for joy, or kill themselves (the latter is generally not so good). Again not always related to the song either, but so emotive that you're glued to the screen for the duration. (Example: "Viðrar Vel til Loftárasá" by Sigúr Ros - I'll let you watch for yourself. As well as "Hellbent" by Kenna which is a two-for due to emotiveness and animation.)
5. Be funny, but not completely ludicrous. Sometimes videos go beyond this point and are just stupid. (Example: "All the Small Things" by Blink 182. Way too over the top, "look at how ridiculous we can be.") But there are others that trick you into serious songs with unserious music videos, such as "New Millenium Cyanide Christ" by Meshuggah. Air guitar and singing into a pen may be comic gold. (Thanks to Jeremy for the example).
6. Confuse/disturb/sicken the viewer so much they can't help but watch anyway and then wonder what's wrong with them. ("Greedy Fly" by Bush'; "Closer" by Nine Inch Nails; "All is Full of Love" by Bjork; "The Beautiful People" by Marilyn Manson.)
7. Be OK Go. Their videos are in their own class.

It seems like a moot point to talk about rap videos because they're all the same. Girls, bikinis, champagne, cars, bling, and every other rapper they know. Pop tends to be highly choreographed or cheesy attempts at seriousness or humor. In general, good videos take effort, time and energy. They're the ones that stick with you for years.

Before the advent of youtube I would dwell on videos I thought I'd never be able to see again. I tried to purchase a copy of the video for "Greedy Fly" from someone in England (that didn't really work). I'd watch the video for "Viðrar Vel" from MTV's site. I forgot about videos and confused the ones I did know. I never could have predicted a site dedicated to videos would come about and save me from the despair of lost music videos. I actually kept a list of all the videos I'd seen (up until about 2 years ago) on my website. It seems tedious to update it now, but it was a useful tool in going through videos in this post.

Please feel free to comment with whatever videos I should have included or qualifications for "good" music videos. I'm interested in other people's theories as well.

Soft by Popular Vote

I'm always surprised that wherever you seem to go, the 'norm' for music is light, pleasant, and vaguely catchy. Someone mentions a light pop or r&b singer and others chime in that they're a fan too. Doctors' and dentists' offices are unfalteringly tuned to the lite fm station in the area. I'm amazed that people never complain. The only thing I like less than going to the dentist is having to sit through Celine Dion and Natasha Beddingfield.

I guess alternative music is named as such because it's an alternative to what people consider 'normal' or at least 'typical.' At work, you'll tend to have coworkers listening to lite fm, pop or r&b. Any office I walk into at work will not disappoint me in playing music I don't like listening to. And it's weird that a conversation can strike up between coworkers about one of those three genres. I tend to stay out of the conversations rather than uttering my disdain for their preferences.

I truly believe that no matter where I go, my music will not be the norm. My coworker and boss had a discussion today about a new singer named James Morrison. That spurned a conversation about Daniel and Natasha Beddingfield which led to a brief mention of David Gray and what could have, in a horrible turn of events, resulted in discussion of Coldplay where I would have to depart my office by window, head first. I sit quietly listening to the more agreeable sounds of Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, the Sex Pistols and Minor Threat (among others). It's not loud; it's not even audible over the pop nearby. Nobody even notices I'm listening to what would be seen as "disagreeable" music. I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to have anyone stop by my office and say "I love Macho Insecurity! Remember when that album came out...." If anything, I'd expect someone to come in and say "WHAT are you listening to??" Whereas pop and r&b will evoke the exact opposite reaction.

Anyway, this is just a very lame rant about musical standards. What is it about clichéd songs about rain falling that makes them so well loved by office workers? Even more strange are the people who put up with it who don't like it. Are no dental hygenists hardcore metal freaks? None? Really?

In any matter, Alex again sums things up best.

trust your jello: what kind of guy likes the fray?
YouKldKnny: the lead singer of the fray?

Back to Bassics

There are some personal phenomena that, as is implied, cannot be explained. To me, these take the form of "jazzy basslines/melodies that attempt to invoke some memory I can't grasp." I can't really simplify that, but there are a few songs I know with interesting scales (if any of you are jazz buffs, perhaps you can tell me if the four clips I'll post have a scale in common - something like a major 7th?) Basically when I listen to them, I feel like I'm trying to remember something (from childhood? from no where in particular?) that I can never put my finger on. And it's probably safe to say that nobody else has this weird sense come to them when listening to these or any other songs.

Spinnin' by Bernard Wright (sampled in Skee Lo's "I Wish")
Definitely a jazz based section - piano may add to the effect I'm talking about.

Space by Galt McDermot (sampled in Woohah by Busta Rhymes)
Not quite the same effect, even though it has a similar staccato bassline as "Spinnin"

Deja Vu by Beyonce
Granted her voice overpowers everything, but there's the same bassline type phrase as in "Spinnin"

Get Involved by Raphael Saadiq
This one is more done by the 'guitar' than the bass and uses the vocals to add to the chord as well.

Murmur Twins by Yu Tokiwa
Aside from annoying most of you, it has sort of crazy-piano + bass which also gives me the same feeling.

Anyone who can make sense of what it is that appeals to me in these songs would intrigue me. I do wonder, however, if there is some ability for music/songs/chords/scales to activate certain parts of our brain to make us think of something. Is there a receptor in people's brains (or musicians' brains) that sets off some reaction when hearing one type of chord/song as opposed to another? Most of us can discern a "happy" song from a "sad" one being that typically we think of major as happy and minor as sad, and that even certain keys are happier and sadder than others. (I might even say major 7ths are sadder than minor chords sometimes, too).

Just a musing. If anyone isn't very musical and wants examples of minor vs. major vs. major 7th chords, I'd be happy to share them.

No ideas, so here's some lunch

I debated writing about "Christian" music ("Our god is an awesome god" versus MxPx versus DC Talk) but couldn't think of way to make that interesting. So here's lunch.

Replace Love with Lunch. Repeat.

Can't Buy Me Lunch
Come and Get Your Lunch
Crazy Little Thing Called Lunch
Justify My Lunch
My First Lunch
My Lunch is Like Wo
Now That We Found Lunch
The Power of Lunch
Sapphire Bullets of Lunch
Songs of Lunch
Stop! In the Name of Lunch
Stand Inside Your Lunch
What is Lunch? (Baby don't eat me, don't eat me no mo)
What I Did For Lunch
You've Got To Hide Your Lunch Away
You Gave Your Lunch to Me Softly
Where Did Our Lunch Go?
You Gets No Lunch
100% Pure Lunch

and the best

Get Down Make Lunch.

An Overstayed Welcome?

Can you spot the 147 differences in these two pictures?

Those of you who know me to any small extent know that I've been a fan of Green Day for many years. (Don't worry this is far from an entry about why I like them). Bands like the Rolling Stones and Aerosmith have been around for several decades, but their current cds aren't as appealing to teens as the merchandise thrown at teenagers in Hot Topics across the country. (Yes, they do sell Rolling Stones shirts, but that goth kid in your math class sure isn't wearing one).

The interesting thing about Green Day, and perhaps something to their advantage (but at their audience's expense) is that they've managed to keep their main fan base between the ages of 13 and 18 for approximately 15 years. The problem? People who were 14 in 1994 are now nearly 28. The Green Day that spoke to fans in 1994 was speaking from a different time period and with a different generation of people. It was a just-barely-post-grunge era where apathy wasn't regarded a character flaw. Dirt was okay; drugs were okay. 1994/1995 marked the end for some other popular bands (Nirvana, Soundgarden) while Green Day was just beginning the start of their rather astonishingly lucrative career. Rock music really had its heyday because pop from 1990-2000 was pretty atrocious. (See: Marky Mark).

Starting out in the late 80s, Green Day formed and played local shows in California, producing two CDs for Lookout! Records. The songs were mostly, if not entirely, about Billie Joe's girlfriend (and later wife). Had emo been a widespread genre in 1990, they would have been right in the middle of it. When they got signed to Reprise and released Dookie, the band skyrocketed to stardom almost overnight and since then their success hasn't really dwindled. The tough part in looking back at their career is where they stood on "the issues." In 1994, there were no issues. They sang songs about nothing and cared about nobody. Billie Joe maintained the poor punk kid image (which was fairly true before 1994).

The stark difference in what Green Day represents now was sort of obvious when American Idiot came out because there were suddenly strange political undertones (or overtones as "Zieg Heil to the president gasman") compared to the gentler times of 1991's Kerplunk (Laying in my bed I think I'm in left field. I picture someone, I think it's you.) Even more stark a contrast came from 2000's Warning because many people, such as myself, saw Green Day maturing into obscurity, where they would continue making generic adult contemporary songs or just simply quit. Yet, suddenly in 2004 they decide to revamp their entire sound and take on the music industry for a second time by releasing American Idiot. What really made me more cognizant of the fact that they had really taken a very different turn was upon seeing them perform in 2005. My three friends and I were 20 and realized we were the oldest people at the concert, save for the boatloads of mommies who begrudgingly took their 13 year old kids to the show. (I saw some children who were definitely too young to be at a blaringly loud show). Even worse was dealing with the half hour of pain that was embodied in My Chemical Romance.

In any matter, I'll have to say, I do like the majority of the songs on American Idiot (sans the title track and "We Are the Waiting"). But, it doesn't feel like I'm listening to the same band I first heard (who, surprisingly, I really disliked when I first heard them in 1994). Throughout their 2 decades of releasing music, they've come to represent four entirely different bands. (Click links for examples). Emo Green Day (1987-1992), Apathetic Green Day (1994-1997; appealing to loathsome teens), Maturity/Obscurity Green Day (2000) and Zach De La Robert Smith Green Day (2004, the political/goth adorned era, appealing to teens of the 00s). There is something to be said for ingenuity; in constantly recreating yourself or your sound to keep the audience on its toes. But at what point is it considered too much? I don't really know but while Green Day has maintained a massive fan base over the years, I don't think its members are staying the same.

May We Suggest....

We all have bands we love. In a basic sense, we typically know what it is about a band that draws us into them. Things like speed, timbre, vocal qualities and even looks are fairly normal ways we judge the bands we like (and don't). Some people get into details of which brand of guitar, cymbals or bass strings a band uses, but that gets too cumbersome for the average music listener.

What I have recently grown an affinity for are sites that play music they think you'll like because of a band or genre you entered. Primarily, I use Last.fm as my music recommendation site and player. With a little guess-and-check I'm usually able to enter a band, genre, or tag that brings me the kinds of songs I'm looking for. Typing in "Alice in Chains" brought me a number of their songs along with Jerry Cantrell (AIC's guitarist), Soundgarden and Stone Temple Pilots. Queens of the Stone Age brought me their songs and others by Kyuss (QOTSA's lead singer's previous band), The Desert Sessions (another of his bands), and Fu Manchu (who sound incredibly like QOTSA). Marcy Playground gave me a large number of mid-90s pop rock bands like Fastball and Barenaked Ladies. I found that choosing the option of "Songs tagged as" produces less accurate results. I tried listening to songs tagged as "Surf" and it kept playing reggae and punk. When I typed in "Bands that sound like the Penetrators (a surf band) my results were all surf songs. As I mentioned, guess-and-check methods do pan out.

Now here's the interesting part. Occasionally Last.fm will grow weary of catering to me and will stop working. Rather than shaking a fist, I hop over to Pandora. This is similar music recommendation engine/player where you can pick several bands you like and it will play you songs similar to them. But, instead of leaving you out of the loop, Pandora will tell you why you like the bands you like. Since they're currently my favorite band, I typed in "Play bands that sound like Queens of the Stone Age." On Last.fm it would accept my challenge and play me things by Kyuss. But on Pandora, it tells you:
"To start things off, we'll play a song that exemplifies the musical style of Queens of the Stone Age which features hard rock roots, extensive vamping, intricate melodic phrasing, minor key tonality and dirty electric guitar riffs."

Well, whaddya know? I couldn't define vamping for you and I'd say a lot of bands would consider themselves to have "intricate melodic phrasing." But the "minor key tonality" is fairly interesting because while the chords aren't minor, the scales definitely are. It seems that songs or bands that use major key tonalities will leave a more or less "happy" taste in your mouth (in your ears?) Or if not happy, then cheesy/sappy. I personally think it takes more effort to write things in minor scales, as far as rock songs go.

So anyway, the first track Pandora plays is a Queens song. Next is a song by The Cave In. After listening, I didn't love it, i did notice similarities between it and the Queens.
"This track, 'Anchor' by the Cave In, has similar hard rock roots, minor key tonality, prominent drums and many other similarities identified in the music genome project."

All in all, I'd say these types of sites are informative if a little unsettling to know so much about why you might like something. I also wonder if by reading descriptions of bands in this way can help savvy musicians figure out how to sound more like a band. This is a lame way to gain popularity (see: copying other bands) but there are definitely qualities about the bands I like that do fit into patterns I'm sure I could follow if I studied them as much as Pandora did. If I'm successful in writing a song that sounds like Queens of the Stone Age (and if I figure out what vamping is) I'll let you know.

Dave Grohl's My Hero; Watch Him as he Grohls

As much as I'd like to take credit for the headline, Alex is the genius behind it.

Dave Grohl, who turns 39 in three days, is one of those musicians who has literally done it all. He's the sort of musician you envy because he can play everything, sing, scream, has been in two huge bands and no fewer than 851 side projects or guest appearances.

Phase I: Nirvana

The most impressive thing about Nirvana, I think, is they were together for 7 years, released 3 studio albums, and are still one of the most notable bands of all time. In any matter, Dave Grohl joined in 1990 and recorded the second two cds with the band. Interestingly enough, he felt that he dramatically altered the band in a bad way which is highly debatable. Granted the sounds of Bleach and Nevermind were completely different, but one cost a tad more to produce. In general, Dave was mostly overlooked, though not for his drumming skills. Even now, doing a google search for "Nirvana" brings up many photos of Kurt Cobain or the band and few to none of just Dave Grohl or just Krist Novoselic.

Phase II: Kurt Dies; Dave Foos

The Foo Fighters began as a side project by Dave who didn't contribute much in the way of song/lyric-writing in Nirvana. He did release a side project called "Pocketwatch," but neither you nor I knew that. The first Foo Fighters cd featured Dave playing all the instruments. This CD didn't spurn any huge singles (although, as seen above, a video tribute to Mentos for the song "Big Me").

In the period between his debut CD and the second, he worked on the soundtrack to a movie called Touch which I have also never heard of as well as writing a song for the X-Files and making a cameo with his then wife. The second CD, The Colour and the Shape, was the Foo Fighters' second release and this time it featured other band members and large hands:

The singles (and later, hits) on the CD were Everlong, Monkey Wrench, and My Hero. In all, the Foo Fighters (whether it be Dave or a whole band) released a total of 27 singles and plenty of music video accompaniment.

Phase III: The Most Hire-able Man on the Planet?

In 2001, instead of turning to drugs, he unfortunately turned to Tenacious D (*my opinion, obviously) where he played a devil in their video for the song "Tribute." It worked: he already had the proper satanic facial hair.

In 2002, he managed to work on both the album "One by One" by the Foo Fighters for which he sang, played guitar and wrote songs, as well as "Songs for the Deaf" by Queens of the Stone Age where he played the drums. (He actually put FF on hiatus while touring with QOTSA - way to play favorites, Dave).

In 2004, Dave went another route and reverted back to the ways of his debut FF cd by playing all the instruments for a band called Probot where he enlisted the help of heavy metal singers he idolized. While the Probot CD didn't gain too much publicity, it did showcase Dave's talents fairly well as a metal musician.

To sum things up, Dave has also worked with: Killing Joke, Cat Power, Nine Inch Nails, Garbage, Juliet and the Licks, Pete Yorn, Neil Young, Afghan Whigs, Tom Petty and 835 other bands. I think he once came and played with our band. He's sort of like Santa - manages to visit everyone's house, or in this case band practice, in a short period of time. But instead of presents, he gives you presence.

Several fight law; efforts futile

"I Fought the Law" is one of those songs most people seem to know in some context. To most people it's probably "that Clash song," and to a select few, the song is more accurately known as being originally recorded in 1959 (in D) by Sonny Curtis and the Crickets. (of 'Mary Tyler Moore Show theme song fame). Conjuring up the image of a petty criminal working in the prison yard, it was a slow, twangy song, wont to gain much popularity until 1965 when the Bobby Fuller Four took their cover (in G) and made it a surfy hit (Rolling Stone's #175 of greatest 500 songs of...ever).

20 years after the original, The Clash came out with their rendition of the song (back in D) which kept several elements of the Bobby Fuller Four's version, but added a dash of british punk as well. In 1987, the Dead Kennedys took a stab at the song (in G) and changed the lyrics so that they dealth with a 1978 murder case.

The most recent (and well known) cover was done by Green Day (in F) modeled mostly after The Clash's cover than any of the other recordings. This version, used to promote Apple computers, seemed to relate more to piracy charges than 50s stick-ups. Some may agree that Green Day's cover was so similar to The Clash's that it might not have warranted a cover.

While plenty other covers of this song pop up here and there, an interesting cover I obtained (in G) was by The International Beat. It's a reggae/ska version which makes it stand out from the punk or rock and roll versions, but stays relatively true to its predecessors.

Lyrics
Lyrics to the Dead Kennedys version

I couldn't really say what made this song garner so much attention but I hypothesize that songs with simple lyrics and an equally simple, catchy melody are easy to cover and therefore readily covered. Perhaps now I'll have to wait for a mashup - I Fought the Law (But I Did Not Shoot the Deputy).

Tomorrow: Dave Grohl.