Pump up the Jam and Peanut Butter

WOLFMOTHER: BACK TO THE BASICS

2007-02-05T14:57:00.000-07:00

when i first heard wolfmother's "woman" while playing guitar hero 2, i thought it was another old school classic rock group i somehow missed. i was confused. i mean, how could i have missed these guys all these years? way to go classic rock radio. in spite of my best efforts to keep up with rock older than myself, i have failed to come across wolfmother even once. but i was wrong. they are incredibly new. they just have the sound of an old classic rock band and i love it.

i still dont know that much about them, but i do know that they are from australia and they look like ac/dc and sound like deep purple.

one of the key characteristics that they have is the use of unison parts. they often play nearly the same thing on bass and guitar and they blend very well.

the singer also reminds me a little of led zepplin and ozzy. he sings rather high and he doesnt try to make it sound pretty. he just sings the notes and adds his own voice inflections to it. very simple. more rock singers should sing that way. lets face it, there are very few rockers with voice training experience. simple is good for the novice and for rock.

also, they rely more on rhythmic patterns than most new bands do. they even use swing patterns and 6/8 time on occasion. they seem like the sort of band that could get away with doing nothing but jamming. they have that kind of chemistry.

in short, if you like black sabbath, led zepplin, deep purple, lynyrd skynyrd, ac/dc, jimi hendrix, rush or foghat, you will love these guys. dont believe me? here is a music video.

recommended songs: woman, dimension, pyramid, joker and the thief, colossal, tales from the forest of gnomes, the white unicorn, vagabond, and witchcraft.

CORPOREAL

2007-01-29T12:17:00.000-07:00

i dont know anything about these guys, but they are really good. anyone who likes acoustic guitars or the video game halo will appreciate these clips.

this one has three guys playing the same guitar at the same time.

this is the halo theme song played live.

i love little projects like this.

I WANT MY NICKELBACK

2006-11-28T12:43:00.000-07:00

nickelback emanates everything that hard rock has evolved into over the years. this is both good and bad. they have powerful lyrics and controversial issues. they have great style but the musicianship could be better. also, i cant think of a single guitar solo in any of their songs.

some say they have a "pretty" frontman. sure, he has a raspy voice and he has no trouble hitting lower notes (granted he is not a true bass), but he still looks too well kept for a rocker. i like him even though i have never heard a live performance and every time i see him i cant help but think that he might be over produced.

but his golden locks aside, he delivers his songs well. quite well actually. most of nickelback's songs are less than uplifting. they tend to address some very difficult topics and they try to do so from unusual perspectives. for example, the song "never again" is about spousal abuse in all its horror. but it offers the viewpoint of the young son who can do nothing but watch it happen. it is rather disturbing. but the vocal delivery is perfect for the nature of the song.

they tackle other topics which are some what controversial. like teenage relationships. everyone has an opinion on how serious teenage relationships should or should not be. most teenagers say they shouldnt be restricted and most parents say there should be some kind of boundary especially with regards to physical aspects of the relationship. this power struggle has been going on for decades. nickelback offers the view of the teenagers in the song "animals", but they do it in a flurry of emotions. the song is fast paced and aggressive in style. and it leaves the listener with a confused feeling of "well, are we or are we not just like animals?"

one of the strongest points nickelback has is their lyrics. they are pretty clever. one of my personal favorites is from their album "the long road." it is wittily pessimistic about a rocky relationship that has had a spurt of passion: "something's gotta go wrong, cuz im feeling way too damn good."

i dont usually watch music videos, but i happened to catch one of nickelback's more recent videos for a song on their newest album "all the right reasons." the song is called "savin me" but the lyrics arent what interested me. the video itself caught my attention. the basic idea is that a guy is saved by someone. after he is saved he sees a clock above everyone around him. at first he is really confused. but then he sees an older woman being lifted into an ambulance as her clock reaches zero. and she dies. of course, now he is really panicky and worried. it ends the video with him saving another person and the clocks go away. i thought it was a cool idea.

but as much as i like nickelback i have to say that they could do better with the musicianship. the only band member that stands out to me at all is the bassist. and this is mostly because he plays really low and still has good clarity as he slaps the stings. not much else can be said about the other musicians other than that they blend well. but blending could be the product of a good producer.

UPDATE VIDEO: SAVIN' ME

METALLICA PHILHARMONICA

2006-11-07T12:54:00.000-07:00

i have said it before, and i will say it again. "metallica s&m" is one of the best rock albums ever made.

i have several reasons for this. first, i am partial to any group with the cojones to produce something with a symphony orchestra. second, metallica took their older songs and made them even better. third, excellent musicianship.

im not always a fan of live albums. it is extremely risky. not only are there thousands of things that could potentially go wrong, but the band is completely exposed. you cant hide behind a great producer. you are wide open. i have seen several groups flop at live performances. take for example, red hot chili peppers at the 2000 mtv music awards ceremony. the band was dead on. fantastic even. but the singer wasnt even close to the same key. it was painful to listen to. but even worse is when you are at the performance, you think it is amazing, and when you hear a recording you find that they were not as good as you remember. the mistakes and sour notes stand out a lot more post facto.

but metallica did extremely well. in fact, i prefer some of their new orchestral arrangements over some of the original recordings. i think that part of this is that james hetfield (the lead singer) has matured immensely since metallica first hit the scene. he has cleaner tone, better sense of pitch, better technique and his voice is lower.

screeching high vocals worked for many of the hair bands of the 80's but i have to say that i prefer the raspy drunken-sailor tone you find in some of today's newer groups. hetfield has slowly developed into this type of vocalist. and i think that this is a good transition for hard rock. leave the squeaks to the younger punk rockers.

the band as a whole has matured greatly also. they are less concerned with playing really fast and really loud (a problem i see in many young bands). they utilize dynamics and tempos to a greater degree than traditional metal bands. and then they compliment it with perfectly tuned violins. even my mother admitted "hero of the day" was pretty.

there are two songs that were written especially for this album: "no leaf clover" and "-human." you will not find any other arrangement of these songs. they were written with the orchestra in mind from the beginning. all of the other songs on the album were re-written to fit in the orchestra. no leaf clover is my favorite metallica song. it has every aspect of metallica that i like: dynamics, a guitar solo, an orchestra, a heavy beat. and it is very well written. i dont talk about lyrics much but this song has one of metallica's best lines. "when it comes to be as your seeing the light at the end of your tunnel--it's just a freight train coming your way."

the other song, "-human," is just hard and heavy rock. one thing that i like about this song is its near overuse of hetfield's filler phrases. you know, stuff like "yeah" and "uhhh" and other grunts and moans and growls that give the song some character. i also like the backup singer screaming in the background.

sometimes screaming backups can be distracting and annoying, but they keep him far enough in the back that he doesnt overwhelm the listener. also, this song has some pretty cool rhythmic patterns. the patterns are slow to develop. but be patient, they are there.

one of my favorite remakes on this album is, well, "one." this song tells the story of a war veteran who has been severely injured during a war ( i assume vietnam, but im not positive). he is bed-ridden and unable to do anything for himself. he has become a vegetable and all he wants to do is die. this is a pretty sensitive topic and metallica does a fantastic job in portraying the individual's perspective. they include musical simulation of war sounds to open the scene. then the individual tells how he feels and then leads way to feelings of rage, fright, regret and just all out sorrow and prayers to wake up. i really like this song.

anyway, this album is great. songs that i particularly like: "the call of ktulu" "master of puppets" "fuel" "no leaf clover" "hero of the day" "bleeding me" "-human" "outlaw torn" "one."

UPDATE VIDEO: NO LEAF CLOVER

SCARY MUSIC

2006-10-24T12:09:00.000-07:00

i suppose that since halloween is coming up, this is the perfect time to throw in my 2 cents about the artists that are most likely to scare your children. first things first, however. i have mixed feelings about scary music.

there are some groups that i do actually like and some that i cant stand. one of the reasons for this is that many groups that try scaring their audiences for entertainment are so good at it and so focused on that part of the show that they forget that they are still musicians. their music can become repetitively redundant. and they fail to write anything interesting from a musical stand point.

i should also clarify that groups like evanesence, metallica, tool and anthrax, although sometimes eerie and "hardcore" are not actually scary. im talking about groups that leave people with that feeling you get after a great horror flick. you know, when you feel like you are being watched as you leave the theatre and you almost feel nauseous at the suggestion of food. im talking about groups like korn, marilyn manson, white zombie, and prodigy.

ok, maybe prodigy doesnt exactly fit this category. they dont exactly leave you feeling totally creeped out. but they are eerie enough that i would throw them in the mix. i dont have that much to say about prodigy, actually. they are like spooky heavy metal euro-techno. interesting to a point, i guess. but they dont have much to offer besides a slight novelty factor.

white zombie is one of those groups that i feel like i should like for some reason, but i dont. they dont do anything. they play the same thing over and over with different lyrics and call it a new song. it is boring. but in the theatrical department they are one of the best. they will scare the pants off of any child. they are among the first shock-rockers. they make people like marylin manson look like they are trying too hard to imitate them. quite frankly marilyn manson is a joke. his version of shock-rock is lame. self-mutilation is the best way to describe it. look at his tactics: cutting himself with glass; breast implants; joining the church of satan. he is basically a kid looking for attention in any way he can get it. on the other hand, i am actually convinced that rob zombie talks to satan.

korn. this group has little more to offer than marilyn manson, but they do. they have similar tactics to get attention as manson, but not quite as mutilating. they used to be just really dark hard rock. i mean really dark. but i recently heard some songs from their new album, "see you on the other side," and i realized that they are going the way of white zombie. they are a little repetitive, but only in style. they arent half-bad musicians. but sadly the best song they have released that i have come across is their cover of pink floyd's classic "another brick in the wall."

black sabbath is one of the first groups to experiment with heavy metal. they were almost as influencial in its creation as led zepplin. but black sabbath was darker. ok ok, i know. ozzy osbourne isnt exactly in this category either. but he is the original hard rock shock-rocker.

one of my favorite stories about ozzy is how he got signed a record deal. it is a pretty well known story but there are still lots of people who dont know it. so i am going to tell it as best i can.

ozzy was dating sharon (now his wife--longest celebrity marriage ever) while he and black sabbath were just starting out. sharon's father was a ceo of a record company in england and sharon pulled some strings to get ozzy an interview. before ozzy goes into the interview with the board of directors, sharon tells ozzy to leave a good impression so they wont forget him. ozzy assures her that he will certainly leave an impression they will never forget.

so ozzy goes in and sits down on the lap of a female executive, looks her in the eyes and pulls out a pigeon from his coat. then he opens his mouth and bites the pigeon's head off. he was right. he left a truly lasting impression as he left the interview with pigeon blood dripping down his chin.

in a side note, that bit with the pigeon became one of black sabbath's first shock-rock techniques. although, they modified it slightly by substituting the pigeon with rubber bats. but that proved to be somewhat haphazard when someone threw in a real bat and ozzy bit its head off. he had to get rabies shots.

JIMI AND STEVIE: LEFT AND RIGHT

2006-10-18T13:16:00.000-07:00

of all the instruments to emerge or evolve in the 20th century few have contributed to popular music as much as the guitar. it spans over virually every style of music. and since the hippie revolution the guitar has undergone some major transformations itself with the advent of distorsion and peddles.

one of the most influential guitar players of any generation is jimi hendrix. jimi was an experimentalist. he loved improvization and throwing in new techniques to catch people's attention.

probably the best example of the true genius of jimi's music is found in his rendition of "the star spangled banner." i have heard several versions of the story behind it. the basic jist of it was that he was performing at woodstock and the band wasnt playing well. so jimi cut the band off and started playing the national anthem.

what makes this version of the anthem unique was the political undertones. there were no words. just jimi playing his left-handed guitar. but he was able to mimic the sounds of machine gun fire, airplanes, helicopters and even bombs. war sounds to protest the vietnam war. and it laced in and out of the melody as if it were pre-written that way.

for all of his genius and uncontested influence on today's music, he was sloppy. i hate to say it but he was lacking in quality of technique. granted, poor technique doesnt negate the quality of his music. for years classical musicians have ragged on jazz artists for being sloppy. but the jazz musicians counter that it adds character and style to their music. the same is true of jimi. although he does get sloppy, he does so in a way that fits the music. it is raw. it is fresh. it has a touch of his colorful background.

but there are those that have just as much genius in music as jimi, but do in fact have good technique. sqeaky clean technique, even.

stevie ray vaughn isnt exactly a contemporary of jimi hendrix. stevie's career didnt really take off until after hendrix's death and reached its peak years later. i wont go on about his background so much. mostly because im not as familiar with it. but i will say this: stevie ray vaughn has the best technique i have ever heard on guitar. he is clean and smooth and completely original.

stevie tends to play more blues than rock and roll. and as a blues musician tends find himself in bars and clubs more than the arenas that jimi had come to fill.

probably the best way to tell the difference in technique between the two musical giants is to compare jimi's orignal "little wing" with stevie's cover. jimi's version is certainly after his own style. it is a little sloppy and has jimi singing with his slightly slurred voice over the guitar part. it isnt his best work, honestly. but it's jimi, so it isnt that bad either.

stevie drops the vocals and just plays the melody with his guitar. as you listen to it you can hear the difference in clearity of picking at the strings. also, stevie gives it a little bit of a blues night club flare.

song recommendations. jimi hendrix: "purple haze" "fire" "hey joe" "stone free" "if 6 was 9" "foxey lady" "castles made of sand" "voodoo child" "the star spangled banner." stevie ray vaughn: "texas flood" "the house is rockin'" "pride and joy" "tight rope" "little wing."

UPDATE VIDEO: SRV LITTLE WING LIVE

BLOOD SWEAT & TEARS: FUNKY ROCKERS

2006-10-06T10:15:00.000-07:00

most bands that last more than ten years or so will try to redefine their sound. metallica, jethro tull, bon jovi (a few that i have already written about) have all experimented with new styles and techniques. some more than others. some better than others. for example, jethro tull tried a song ("broad sword") which has a part medieval, part 80's pop rock feel to it. i usually skip it on the playlist.

every once in a while you come across a band that makes the transition well. 'blood sweat and tears' is one of those bands.

one of the first things you will notice about BS&T is that they use a lot of instruments not commonly used in today's popular music. namely, jazz band instruments. in fact, structurally speaking they resemble a jazz band more than anything else. this is because they probably started out as one. but in their transition stage, they turned their sound into more of a funk/rock band. it is not exclusively one or the other. and they kept their jazz roots as well. towards the end of their career they even tried a little disco. but that didnt stick as well. they were much better at the funk/rock style.

in fact some of their contemporaries also made similar stylistic changes but were more successful in the end. for example, chicago started out as pretty much the same thing as BS&T. in fact, some times i get them mixed up.

but when the time came to make a change in their style in the 80's they dropped the jazz instruments, took up more guitars and synthesizers and wrote a plethora of pop ballads. BS&T however, tried to keep their whole band together, which proved too much for pop music and they eventually went the way of every other major jazz ensemble.

because of their experimentation with styles and such, their songs are kind of hit and miss. about half of their songs are really well done and worth listening to. the rest is so-so. they are usually well written and well played. they just lack some style points and entertainment value. also they have two singers. i dont know if one is from earlier records or they just wanted to mix it up a bit. but in my opinion, one is much better than the other. if you look up the songs in my recommendation list, he is the singer for most of those songs. he is more raspy and gritty than the other.

at any rate, i do recommend this group. good music is good music no matter how old it is. songs that i like: "house in the country" "more and more""smiling phases" "spinning wheel" "lucretia macevil" "fourty thoursand headmen" "go down gamblin'" "mama gets high" "lisa, listen to me" "roller coaster" "got to get you into my life" "mean old world."

UPDATE VIDEO: GO DOWN GAMBLIN
im pretty sure the beginning of this is actually van halen's "eruption" but they get to their own song soon enough.

B.T.R....BUTTER AIR?

2006-09-26T12:09:00.000-07:00

as some people know, i lived in bulgaria for a couple years. it was quite the experience. one of the good things i got out of it was an appreciation for some of the local musical groups. one group in particular has impressed me: "B.T.R." (pronounced "buh-tuh-air").

in fact i was so impressed by them that i actually bought another album of theirs after i returned to the states. i got it from a bulgarian website.

i have tried to pin down their style for a while. they seem to model a few different bands from the 80's and 90's. bands like motley crue, gun 'n roses, van halen and others. but they dont follow anything specific from those bands that i can hear. they just remind me of those bands for some reason.

they are rock (and they do). they are sort of 80's hair band rock. but they are definitely original. in fact, they have one song on their more recent album "igrata" ("the game") which has some really cool rhythmic patterns that i have never heard anyone else do. sort of a double-time swing in a ballad about a lonely boy who's only friend is a toy soldier ("olovniet voinik"). they have sort of a garage band feel also which is refreshing. aside from the shear technical stand point, they have a great sound and each band member compliments the others well.

one of the most definitive characteristics about B.T.R. is their lyrics. i know that most people who read this wont care about lyrics since it is in a language they dont understand. but they are really upbeat. they usually have a very positive outlook on life and love and such. which is great considering they live in a country which is going to pot in a lot of ways, and most people look at life bleakly.

i have three of their albums and i like all of them. i have been looking for more of their stuff but i havent found anything new yet. if you want to check out some audio samples try this site:
http://www.bulgariancds.com/c/sl-e/mid-10/p-p/id-940/btr-93-04.html

UPDATE VIDEO: THIS IS FROM BULGARIAN TV

AUDIOSLAVE: REVISITED

2006-09-22T13:35:00.000-07:00

this isnt going to be a full review. this is just an update on audioslave's new album which just came out. and i just bought. it is called "revelations" and is really good. the first several songs can only be described as hard rock funk ("revelations" "one and the same" "broken city" "original fire"). great stuff. very up beat and fun to listen to. the last few songs are more like audioslave's other albums ("moth" "nothing left to say but goodbye" "wide awake"). just straight hard rock. also very good.

UPDATE VIDEO: ORIGINAL FIRE

AUDIOSLAVE: MIX 'N MATCH MAGIC

2006-09-08T11:48:00.000-07:00

bands come and go. some fall apart by members not playing nice. others are torn apart by tragedy. every once in a while bands will reunite for a reunion tour. but rarely do those groups stay together afterward. some members go on to do solo careers. while others join completely new groups.

take for example audioslave. comprised of members from two successful rock bands of the 90's: "rage against the machine" and "sound garden."

i didnt listened to sound garden that much. only when they were on the radio. but i liked them. i now have a couple of their albums: "superunknown" and "down on the upside." they are ''ok'' albums. there are a few songs that i really like ("burden in my hand," "fell on black days," "spoonman," "black hole sun"). but they arent the type of albums that i can just pop into the cd player and listen to straight through.

as for rage against the machine, i never really liked them. i was distracted by the annoying screeches of their lead singer/rapper. they were a very political group. very much against "the man" and anything mainstream. from what i have heard, that is part of the reason the band split. the singer was more politically aggressive than the rest of the band. so he left.

and with their powers combined, they created audioslave. the singer from soundgarden left and eventually found the abandoned instrumentalists of rage.

this was for the better.

audioslave is one of the best new bands i have come across. they have incredible talent on their respective instruments. and the singer, chris cornell (a strong baritone), isnt half bad either.

they have two albums now ("cochise" and "out of exile") and they are working on a third which will be released soon. they have been airing one song from the new album on the radio lately called "original fire." it certainly has political undertones (especially if you watch the video) but nothing near the antagonism of rage against the machine.

UPDATE VIDEO: DOESNT REMIND ME

SONGS VS ALBUMS: KILLER DEATHMATCH BATTLE TO THE DEATH

2006-09-05T12:18:00.000-07:00

for hundreds of years classical music has followed a simple formula for concerts and symphonies involving themes and variations. songs would have common phrases and musical styles but each variation of the theme would do so a little bit differently. i suppose it could become redundant after a while. but if done well it can make the music all the more interesting. part of the reason for doing this was to tell a story. operas, plays often followed this same format for this very reason. but even just plain symphonies would do this.

take, for example, handel's messiah. this classic to my knowledge never had a corresponding play or theatrics of any sort but very clearly uses recurring themes and lyrics to help tell a story of the life of christ.

but the idea of using music to tell a story has pretty much been lost. sure you get movie sound tracks. and those are great. but you really dont see much of this in the music industry anymore. and when you do very rarely does this extend for more than one song.

but there have been a few albums which have come out recently which have brought this musical aid back to mainstream music. and some of them have done it in an unexpected genre: punk.

there are two albums that i am referring to in this category. greenday's "american idiot" and good charolette's "chronicles of life and death."

i should admit that im not generally a fan of punk bands but these are exceptions. my main issue with punk is that it tends to be rather redundant and not very well written or played. they are mostly just irritable teenage boys whining while playing guitars too fast for their skill level. but these two albums have shown me that punk can be well written and well played. since listening to these albums i have actually started to find some punk songs i can listen to and enjoy.

i attribute part of this change of mind to the fact that both albums told a story and used themes and variations to do so.

another unlikely spot for themes and variations is found in the heavy metal category. tool has been around for a while. but i have only been listening to their music for the last couple years. just today i realized that their most recent album, "10,000 days" actually follows this formula. i still have no idea what the point of their music is lyrically, but they are incredible musicians. and i have really enjoyed listening for this odd classical tactic in their other albums. i dont know if it is as strongly used in their other albums, however.

well, all of these new bands are fine and dandy but i cant leave out the earliest rock band i can think of to use this method of story telling: pink floyd. every album i have come across by pink floyd has used this method. "the wall," "dark side of the moon," "wish you were here." this is part of the reason why these albums are often featured at laser show venues. each song rolls right along into the next. there are limited breaks in sound so listening to them in their entirety can pass by before you realize it.

as great as these albums are there is one bad thing about creating a continuous album. it is difficult to just listen to one or two songs, like on the radio or while driving to the store. i prefer only listening to these albums if i can commit to sitting through the whole thing. consequently, i dont get to listen to these albums as often as i would like.

THE EAGLES: PICK A GENRE, WIN A DOLLAR

2006-08-29T11:15:00.000-07:00

"the eagles" is one of those groups that you cant quite pin down to one genre. they have some songs which are clearly classic rock. yet they have some songs that can only be called country. why?

i'll be honest, i really dont know that much about the eagles themselves. but for a time it was common for bands to incorporate several genres. i think this is because for this period of time, their were very few well defined styles of music. so you would end up with bands that wouldnt pick any one style and just play whatever they wanted. to my knowledge, once apon a time no one really cared what you listened to. music didnt always stereotype its listeners. picking up the tailend of this period, the eagles just played music.

i dont really like country. i respect it as a viable style of music and i readily admit that there are many very talented country artists. but i dont really like the style. so i dont really like the eagles' country songs.

luckily, they have plenty of great classic rock songs that i can enjoy. classics like "life in the fast lane," and "take it easy" are perfect examples of this. but my personal favorites are "hotel california," and "desperado." these songs are more mello than most rock songs, but they do qualify as such. and more importantly, they show great musicianship.

one of the best ways to tell just how good a band actually is, is by their live album (every group eventually does one). the eagles are no exception. admittedly, i havent heard the album in its entirety, but i have heard enough to know that they are the real deal.

but the eagles didnt just simply do another live album. there are some very cleaver adaptations to some of their original song arrangments. for example, anyone who has ever heard an eagles song is familiar with "hotel california." the original song is rather eery and somewhat ghostly. it is in a minor key which only adds to the effect. it is very much a classic rock ballad. in one of their live versions they start out with more of a latin beat. it is very soft and very subtle, but if you are listening for it you can hear it. but like great musicians, they dont actually change the mood of the song itself. it is just as eery and and just as musically interesting as the original.

one of the most famous parts of "hotel california" is the interlude. you know, that really cool guitar solo in the middle. there are two main characteristics of that solo which stand out: harmony and hemiolas. the harmonic parts are great. they have influenced several bands to follow. even some which might seem unlikely (metallica: "master of puppets"--believe me, it's there). as for hemiolas, well the simplest way to describe that is simply a rhythmic pattern which when repeated extends over the barline. this solo is full of them.

i have already given my suggestions for songs to look up. if you like classic rock, country or just chill music, check these guys out.

APOCALYPTICA: FIDDLES AND STICKS

2006-08-18T13:10:00.000-07:00

lets start this one with a joke. 'what is the difference between a violin and a bass?' 'one burns longer!'

i love that joke. not because i hate string instruments, but because someone always gets offended by it. in all fairness, i have equivalent jokes for trumpet players, drummers and others.

actually, i am a huge fan of string instruments. they compliment so many styles: full orchestras, blue grass bands, country, rock. i suppose to do a full comparison you have to specify which instruments are being used. i mean, there is a huge difference between an electric guitar with a "wah wah" peddle and a viola. but there are those that like to completely ignore those differences. and the world is a better place for it.

for those who have never heard of apocalyptica before, they are four cellists from finland who play heavy metal on their cellos. i cant get enough of these guys. i think it is such a great idea. and they do it so incredibly well.

one of the best parts about this group is their background. from what i understand, they are from finland. while they were studying at a very prestigious classical music school they got together and started exploring heavy metal cellos through metallica remakes. in fact, that is how i first heard them. the first few albums they released had at least a few metallica remakes on them. songs like, "for whom the bell tolls," "fade to black," "one," and several others from metallica's earlier albums. they also re-do a few classical pieces (adding a bit more distortion, of course). but dont think that they only do remakes. they have several original compositions as well. some of which wouldnt be classified as metal at all, but more like contemporary classical. either way, i like it.

they try things other than just cellos also. some of their albums feature guest singers and artists, like the drummer from "slayer." personally, i prefer their songs without vocals, but the drums are a nice touch.

one of the most note worthy things about apocalyptica is their shear talent. they are incredible musicians. just listen to the cello solos on "hall of the mountain king," and "one.'' every note they play (incredibly fast i might add) fits perfectly in the chord progression.

every so often they throw in a slow song. this is where they really show their classical background. "drive," "conclusion," "pandemonium" all focus on classical technique and phrasing. they drop out the drums (except for part of "conclusion") and they just play with perfect vibrato. very pleasant.

i cant wait till they tour the US.

UPDATE VIDEOS: I COULDNT DECIDE WHICH ONE TO POST SO I AM POSTING A FEW

SOMEWHERE AROUND NOWHERE

UNFORGIVEN

MASTER OF PUPPETS (LIVE)

JETHRO TULL: THE FLAUTERIEST

2006-08-17T09:51:00.000-07:00

teenage rebellion? love for the medieval? hippie revolution? perhaps it is a combination of all three that best describes jethrol tull. clearly, they model after several classical styles in their songs. im not just saying that because they have a flute. they incorporate styles from military marches to french sonettes. but they are still classic rock.

jethro tull is one of those bands that will always be remembered...by a few. they are very talented musicians and song writers. but very few people are familiar with their music and since younger generations are overlooking classic rock they will gradually go the way of "foghat." they have two main styles that they try to incorporate: classical and classic rock. their most distinguishing mark is their flautist, who seems to be well trained in classical theory and playing. probably the best song to illustrate this is "bouree." there are no words; it is just instrumental. it goes back and forth between two styles: six-eight classical waltz, and 4-4 rock. the classical sections show his technique through articulations and accents. during the rock portions there is a lot of improvisation and unorthodox techniques like humming/growling through the flute. other musicians have also used this. for example maynard ferguson used it in his jazz/funk band in the mid-late 70's. you'll find it in the song "the fly," which models the sounds of a fly going nuts.

but jethro tull is not exclusively a classical/classic rock combo. they do have some songs which almost completely leave out the flute. songs like "aqualung," "locomotive breath," and "steel monkey." they also do some acappella in a few of their songs, but only small amounts. although, they do have some really cool harmonies when they do. if you like regular rock they are still a good choice.

songs to check out: "living in the past," "aqualung," "sweet dream," "bungle in the jungle," "locomotive breath," "thick as a brick," "bouree," "life is a long song," "heavy horses."

UPDATE VIDEO: BOUREE (LIVE)

WHY I HATE NORA JONES

2006-08-14T08:15:00.000-07:00

most people are surprised to hear that i like jazz. they are even more surprised when i say that i am a jazz musician. i have been playing jazz for about 10 years now. i play trumpet, sax, piano and a little bit of clarinet and bass. my cup of tea is trumpet improvization. (what can i say--big lips means a big mouth piece which means not so many high notes, so lead was never really an option) so for me, jazz is on somewhat of a musical pedestal. some of the best musicians who have ever lived help make jazz into a respectable genre.

for years i have heard that the beatles are one of the greatest bands to grace god's green earth. one of the reasons for this statement is that they have written lots and lots of songs. i have heard estimates as high as one thousand songs. child's play. duke ellington beat that record long before the beatles ever played on american bandstand.

the duke is not only one of the greatest american song writers of any age, but he is also one of the most influencial composers in american pop culture--and no one realizes it. songs like "cottontail," "it dont mean a thing if it aint got that swing," "dont get around much anymore" and many others can be heard everywhere. you can find his songs in comercials, movies, dance remixes, country fairs, you name it, the duke has been played there.

then we have other great musicians like dizzy gillespie and charlie "the bird" parker who developed a new class of jazz called bebop. this style of music is not for beginners. they take the general idea of jazz (chord progressions and improv) and speed it up about 4 times. in their prime they would approach speeds of about 500 beats per minute. insane. nowadays you'll be lucky to find a song at 240 bpm. songs to look for from these guys: "yard bird suite," "ornithology," "donna lee." the most impressive part about these bebop musicians was that they still had incredible technique and style at those tempos.

other musicians chose to emphisize other aspects of jazz music. for example thelonius monk wrote incredibly complex chord progressions. stuff that i cant even read. yet that is part of the reason no one but hardcore jazz buffs have ever heard his music. his music seems to only be enjoyable to those who know a thing or two about jazz theory. the fact that very few people actually do know jazz theory is part of the reason jazz has become somewhat of a lost art. dont believe me? just ask jazz purists like wynton marsalis. wynton is one of the last great jazz musicians, sadly. i say this because he is one of the youngest great jazz musicians still alive. and he is like 40-something. he is pushing older forms of jazz at his jazz festival in new york city: the "essentially ellington jazz festival" at the lincoln center (a tribute to the duke). but still, not even a musician as influential as wynton can rekindle the flame of "hot music."

but what about the new swing bands of the 90's like "big bad voodoo daddy" and "cherry poppin daddies?" arent they jazz? sigh...technically. to their credit groups like that and harry connick, jr. (actually, harry is pretty good, escpecially compaired to these other guys) and even nora jones have helped to make people more aware of jazz. but their music just isnt the same as "fats" domino, benny goodman, don lamphere, bob curnow, stan kenton, pat metheny, bill watrous, harry james, louis armstrong, count basie, matt catingub, the brecker brothers, allan vizzutti, sammy nestico, buddy rich, benny carter, lionel hampton, tommy and jimmy dorsy, artie shaw, al hirt, and lester young, (just to name a few). they lack the style, the lifestyle, the technique, and the charisma that jazz giants have had for decades.

by technique i mean actual proficiency with the instruments. musicians like stan getz and jon faddis are considered great not just because they can play anything correctly, but rather because they can model any song after any musician's personal style, in any key, at any octave...by ear. they are truely amazing musicians.

with regards to nora jones: she gets a special diss because she actually got a grammy for jazz. what? how the...? i dont get it. it's like acclaiming "new kids on the block" for their outstanding dance numbers and then compairing them to fred astaire and ginger rodgers...tisk tisk. at best she is a pop star who plays simple jazz on piano. why do people like her? they say its her voice. it could be. in fact that wouldnt surprise me. but that doesnt mean she is a good jazz musician. it just means she has a pleasant tone. where is the technique that we see in vocalists like ella fitzgerald, or aretha franklin, who can sing over a chord progression with the accuracy of a pianist or saxophonist? she just doesnt have it. the only thing she has to her credit is her tone of voice. that's it really. sorry to sound so negative about everyone's favorite jazz vocalist, but she really isnt that good. and the fact that she got a grammy in the jazz category...come on people, we can do better than that. jazz isnt THAT dead yet.

UPDATE VIDEOS:

WYNTON MARSALIS: CHEROKEE (LIVE)

ELLA FITZGERALD: MACK THE KNIFE (LIVE)

THE METALLICATS!

2006-08-11T11:02:00.000-07:00

ah, metallica. where do i begin. metallica is one of my favorite bands. i have noticed that there are many people out there who only kinda like metallica, or kinda like a couple of their songs. i started out just like them actually. like most of my generation, i was first exposed to the black album. i thought it was cool, but never considered getting it for myself. this is in part because my mom would have thrown it away as soon as she saw it. i didnt really care either way. i was still very much into jazz and instrumental music.

the first time i listened to a metallica song and really really liked it was my freshman year in high school. "anywhere i roam" was the theme song for our high school wrestling team and we would play it during warm ups before matches. i was hooked from then on.

the next album i was exposed to was "S&M." pure genius. take the high energy, in your face rock that metallica is known for and combine it with the extremely talented san fransico philharmonic orchestra. in another post i may go on about this album, but that's all i will say for now. the album i want to talk about is actually their newest: "st. anger."

"st anger" is what i like to call metallica's post re-hab album. most of the older bands have one. it is full of rage and double bass peddles. i first heard the song "st anger" on mtv a while back. i love the fact that before the video the band members had to sign a waiver saying that they understand that the prison guards do not negotiate for hostages and they enter at their own risk. that's right. they actually did the video inside a state prison. it is basically a concert for the inmates. still, it is pretty cool to watch a bunch of roid-raged inmates headbanging to metallica. but i didnt really like the song.

it was too different from other songs i was more familiar with. but then i watched metallica's documentary ("some kind of monster") and decided to give it another chance. i got the album and listened to it with an open mind. there are a few things i noticed. first they swear a lot more than usual. the second thing i noticed was that they seemed to model their older, hair band style. longer songs; longer riffs; more yelling; and a focus on musicianship. that's right, metallica is very talented. they do have some cool lyrics that get you thinking but the focus seems to be more on rhythmic patterns and dynamics--things often overlooked in popular music (maybe that's why "st anger" isnt as popular as their other albums). then there are the drums.

i still havent figured out exactly what it is about the drums that stand out. most drummers try to get the toms to ring out with a nice full sound. you'll find it in songs like "in-a-gadda-da-vida," "wipe out," most songs by greenday, anything by megadeth, and pretty much anything by metallica from "black" to this album ("anywhere i roam," "turn the page," "the god that failed," "fuel"). i think they just tightened the heads almost to the breaking point to give it that shallow, non-resonant ping they achieve. it is different from anything i have heard.

one thing that i still dont like about this album is that it is kind of repetative. the longer songs repeat some of the riffs too much. they are good riffs, dont get me wrong. but some of the songs sound like they need to either end before the last few riffs or use a different riff to fade out on or something.

all in all, i do like this album. it took me a while to warm up to it, but now it is one of my top choices for road trips.

(does anyone actually miss hair bands? im just saying...)

UPDATE VIDEO: SOME KIND OF MONSTER

BON JOVI: DEAD OR ALIVE?

2006-08-10T14:39:00.000-07:00

there is no doubt that bon jovi has had their share of success. during the 80's they exploded into popularity as the first hard rock hair band with at least some fashion sense and plenty of baby faces for the ladies. let's face it, hard rockers arent the prettiest bunch. but aside from their glammed out album covers and tight jeans, they actually had good music. sure it wasnt too complicated. nothing that screamed musical genius. but it was well written and fun to listen to. bon jovi knew what they were good at and used it effectively.

with that said, bon jovi has lost some of its popularity and even with their hit single in 2000, "its my life" they have yet to regain their old flame. i didnt realize this until i was driving with a friend a couple of years ago and the song "shot through the heart" came on the radio and the girl i was with had never heard the song before. she had never even heard of bon jovi! i was amazed.
well, i have come across a somewhat new album by bon jovi called "this left feels right." i found it in one of those stores that doesnt have a lot of any one thing, but it does have a ton of stuff no one else carries. sort of like hollywood video. i looked on the back and found songs like "wanted dead or alive" "its my life" and "livin on a prayer" and thought it was a greatest hits album. nope. not even close.

it was bon jovi. all of the songs were hits. but they were new arrangements of the originals. i'll admit it, i didnt like it at first. but it has started to grow on me a little bit if im in the mood for ballad/accoustic versions of "bad medicine" and "lay your hands on me" (something akin to bryan adams). it is creative. it is well written for the most part. but it isnt the bon jovi i once knew. maybe that's a good thing. trying new projects is great for creative musicians. but, i dont know, maybe a samba album would have worked better.

major beefs:
too slow. the whole album is too slow. i dont mind the occasional ballad on a rock album, but let's not get carried away.
the first song "wanted dead or alive" is too far from the original. well, sort of. they play the original in a slower tempo, then add guitar punches to spice up the rhythm. it has potential. maybe a more simple rhythic pattern would have worked out better for this one. something like "downbeat on one; up beat on two; downbeat on four." its not as complex, but neither is bon jovi.

testing

2006-08-10T11:25:00.000-07:00

1-2-3; 2-2-3; 3-2-3; 4-2-3