No, REALLY

2006-10-25T15:57:00.000-07:00

I was listening to Nick Lowe's "Let's Stay In And Make Love" today, I song I really enjoy, and it occurred to me that that song is just like Clapton's "Wonderful Tonight".

"!"

Except that "Wonderful Tonight" is sappy, unlistenable rubbish. So, you know- what's the difference? Nick has a sense of humour, and it comes through in the cliches? Maybe that's it.

Maybe the vocals have something to do with it- Eric sings like he's trying to convince us (and her) of his sincerity, his earnest sincerity... "I'm really a good guy... sensitive... and stuff". Whereas Nick sings about how, "I love to party hard, you know, but if you want to stay home and undress instead, that's fine"

2006-09-10T08:17:00.000-07:00

It was funny in The Bionic Woman whenever they needed her to really save the world, and she'd say, "well, where's Steve, can't HE do it?", and they'd say, "yeah, well, Steve's in space right now, um, on a lunar mission... or something", so Jamie would then HAVE TO do it.

2006-06-30T12:12:00.000-07:00

What makes a groundbreaking album groundbreaking???

It's okay, you don't have to think about it, I'll tell you the answer:

a groundbreaking album is groundbreaking when it opens up new vistas, possibilities spring forth that were previously obscured. Previously unimaginable.

The Ramones (1976) is a wonderful example of this; sure, it's a perfect album, but so is The Alan Parsons Project (or so I've heard). But The Ramones is important. I can't imagine anyone saying The Ramones is a guilty pleasure (except for the Nazi bits), the way you might about Parsons. What's special about The Ramones is what it made possible; now, I don't want to expend the energy to tell you who would be washing cars now instead of making hit records if not for The Ramones, instead I want to point out that the implications of The Ramones persist, specifically, with the Apples In Stereo album, Velocity of Sound. A fantastic, perfect album that Apples fans don't even like, it's all rhohr and bonk bonk bonk, 2 minute songs, one after another, and then you're done... in 30 minutes. Maybe 28 minutes. Continuously invoking the spirit of '76, but totally different, lyrically (I'm going out on a limb here) kind of Dylanesque. But no one heard it, the Apples stepping away from the baroque constructions of Wallpaper Reverie, I mean, who remakes The Magical Mystery Tour one day, and The Ramones the next? Of course the fans were lost. But it's still a perfect album.

2006-06-29T14:39:00.000-07:00

I remember when a Big Star reissue can out, around 1986 (on German Big Beat label, I think) , the liner notes started out with all this stuff about 'wasted talent', talking about how, aw heck, I'll just look it up..

okay-

"With the possible exception of Rod Stewart, no artist has betrayed his talent so completely as Alex Chilton."

I have no interest in Rod Stewart, and I can't speak to his talent, in any regard. As for Alex, any success that he may have sabataged over the years has to be weighed against what he has provided for us, and when the day finally comes that ordinary people have access to what only the taper community now holds close to their chest... I think Alex will see another appreciation revival, and will be studied by Bachelor of Arts students (to borrow a concept from Paul Nelson's VU 1969 liner notes).

But that's not what I want to talk about.

I mean, Alex IS famous, maybe not the way some would like, but so what? See, all this got me thinking again about Peter Stampfel. Is he a wasted talent? Wull, sure. Has he betrayed his talent? Gosh, I hope not. But, I mean, listen to his contributions to the first Fugs recording session, the Have Moicy album... even Going Nowhere Fast... "you got the right string, baby, but the wrong yo-yo" what an enornous talent, a music nut, ragged, inspired... but, okay, probably not driven. But I couldn't look him in the eye and accuse him of self-destruction, I know I could not... what will history say? Does Peter even care? Heck, I care.

2006-06-17T23:29:00.000-07:00

Since it's Father's Day, here's a picture of my dad (he's the one on the right)

The picture said 1931(!), I don't know who the other two guys are, they all look a bit mafioso to me (I'm sure the pic was taken in Chicago)

2006-06-06T12:12:00.000-07:00

My Own Fault??

I always wonder if it's my fault- I'll start listening to some band, and absolutely fall in love with the first few songs I hear, essentials, indications of brilliance, the start of a long career of making me smile, how did I ever live without this, like oxygen to my lungs. And then- no more. Nothing else they do strikes the same chord, or any other chord for that matter.

This all just occurred to me as I was listening to Hefner- a band I found through John Peel, loved the song he played as much as John did- Peppermint Taste. An incredible, unbelievable song, a song that you could form your life's philosophy around. Or just listen to it again and again instead. Either way. But that isn't the only song of such high stature- Painting & Kissing is just as good, probably better! When the Angels Play Their Drum Machines is nearly as good, insightful, witty, cute. But then- nothing else! Not a single other song by Hefner, that I can even sit through.

Same thing with the Neutral Milk Hotel (part of a collective, strangely). The King of Carrot Flowers- amazing! In The Aeroplane Over The Sea- amazing! Holland 1945- amazing! So I bought the rest of their stuff- and it's unlistenable. Sheesh.

So anyway, back to my original point- is this somehow my fault, am I not giving other tracks an honest try? I truly think I am giving them a fair shake, I mean, I love those other songs so much, you'd think I'd WANT to hear more of the same. But if it isn't me... what other possibilities are there? The artist struck gold a few times, but there's nothing else there? Maybe the art they are trying to achieve is not the art I'm interested in hearing... we have an honest difference of opinion.

2006-06-05T14:10:00.000-07:00

Fave Neil Young :

I used to build these buildings
I used to walk next to you

2006-05-26T15:09:00.000-07:00

I find it interesting the way 'rock deaths' make an impression on me. Because it's often not the way I think it might be.

The first rock death I remember is John Lennon; I was 15, I remember being very upset, I may have cried. Strange, because I didn't know much about him, but Beatle music made up much of my early childhood, so maybe I was mourning 'the end of an era'. I dunno. I also remember feeling foolish later, for having been upset about it. I'd been buying Beatles LPs for awhile at that time, trying to catch up, but it must be remembered that in those days, before Amazon, before the vast reissue market we expect today- there was no perceived reissue market. The majors didn't do that. So, it wasn't trivial finding a Beatles LP... shortly after Lennon's death, I went to the local indy record store (not that there were any chains!) and they had a copy of "'Yesterday' and Today", they'd had it awhile, I really wanted the John Lennon album (Double Fantasy) but no one had it, it was completely sold out everywhere... so I decided to buy Yesterday And Today, even though it didn't seem good value for money. Cotton-picking Capitol reissues. So I go up to pay for it, and the guy behind the counter snorts, "gee, I wonder why you're buying THAT?". I was a bit flustered, I mean, I'd been picking up Beatles albums for awhile... but I couldn't think of anything to say back.

The next rock death that really struck a chord wasn't for another 11 years- in 1991 when Johnny Thunders died. Now, don't get me wrong, I was never a rabid Thunders fan (although plenty of smart people are), but I loved to bits the LAMF record (even "Going Steady"!), and obviously the Dolls stuff is, well, being critique... Johnny's death took awhile to sink in, because I didn't expect it to be a big deal. But, I think the reason it mattered so much to me was that there was nobody- nobody- that seemed more alive, more vibrant on record that Johnny, and the idea that he was dead, even the idea that he could be dead, was at odds with, you know, my Perceived Rock 'n' Roll Reality. I remember wandering around, muttering... 'dead? no. really?' Then I'd put LAMF back on, and just think- no- there's a mistake, it's just a coma, he's had them before, I'm sure.

Now, just as disjointed as skipping from John Lennon to Johnny Thunders, I'm skipping to- the death of Jeffrey Frederick. Unless you've googled your way to this page, it's unlikely you've heard of him. He was part of that sub-genre I've-seen-described-as... acid folk. The best example of this is the legendary Have Moicy album, but a kind of super-group... Jeffrey Frederick and the Clamtones, The Unholy Modal Rounders, & Michael Hurley. Again, the vitality hidden inside those black grooves- surely these people never die! Listening to Peter Stampfel squeeze out Griselda (later resurrected by Yo La Tengo), the forbidden romance of Robbin' Banks, the pop jewel of Sweet Lucy... but through this, Jeff Frederick didn't jump out of the mix, Stampfel steals the show at the end. No, it was Frederick's Spiders In The Moonlight album- pure Jeff Frederick, laid-back, ribald, finding joy in the playing, the singing, the arranging, the writing... singing about rotten lettuce, falling off the toilet seat, Jaunita-I-need-ya, the joys of everyday life ooze forth. Of course, on tiny Rounder records, no one heard the news. And now he's dead. I expect, in our nostalgia oriented culture, he won't fade and be forgotten, or even become a footnote, but rather a growing cult figure, people are always on the lookout for new cult figures, right?

A scan from my LP, a little beat up