Defending the Not So Innocent

It’s okay to like Pop Music. Seriously. I have defended my favorite Pop artists to friends who thought their musical tastes too sophisticated. It is frustrating that people refuse to allow themselves to enjoy Pop Music simply because it is mass produced and trendy. Yes, there is a large cadre of artists who prove that point, who make music for the masses to consume without any thought as to what is behind it. At the same time there are artists who have found their creative voice in a style of music that happens to sell well. It takes tremendous luck to make it as a Pop Star, and it takes a Madonna/David Bowie-like ability to shift images with each new release, to stay on top. The point being that Pop Music, while seemingly focused on consumerism and brainlessness, has substance in it. It just needs to be teased out delicately because for every Depeche Mode there are a thousand Flock of Seagulls.

Pop Music is not a genre per-se; it is a type of music characterized by large sales and chart domination. Today the term includes Rap and R&B. It arose in the 50s and 60s as an alternative to Rock & Roll. Basing its style and structure on Rock, Pop was smoother and more listenable. The songs themselves were traditionally short, less than five minutes, and concentrated on the repetitive verse/chorus/bridge song structure. Famously eschewing their Progressive Rock roots and entering the Pop Music sphere, Genesis’ 1981 hit “ABACAB” was a take on this form. The song’s title refers to the basic Pop structure, part-a part-b part-a again and so on. To many this album signified the death of a truly great band, to others it signified their acceptance of the mainstream and showcased the band’s ability to reach out to a broader audience. Former Genesis singer Peter Gabriel used his freedom from the band to venture into his Pop dreams, crafting lighter, more focused, but equally imaginative music. People argue that when a band ascends the ladder of Stardom, they inevitably alienate their die-hard fans for an appreciation of a larger audience. This may be seen as the case with Genesis and its spin-off solo artists who all made names for themselves making Pop Music; one even won an Academy Award (Phil Collins – “You’ll be in my Heart – Tarzan.”) On the other hand, Blink-182 signed to a major label for their fourth album, and the music did not change a bit. It was better produced to be sure, but still retained the same adrenaline-filled teenage Punk that earned them their early acclaim. The minute they released “Enema of the State” in 1999 and entered the mainstream, all of my friends who were huge Punk fans decided that they could no longer support Blink-182, and threw away their copies of “Dude Ranch”.

It is the mass appeal and pervading digestibility that runs the music industry, and causes many music fans to turn away arguing that those who are popular now are less artistic than ever, only doing what industry executives dictate. A good example of this is The Offspring. Between their break-out record “Smash” to their follow up “Ixnay on the Hombre” the band moved from Epitaph Records to Columbia. That label switch also found their music change from Heavy Metal-influenced Hardcore Punk, to standard Hard Rock. Would the band that wrote songs like “Kick Him When He’s Down” and “Beheaded” have written a power ballad like “Gone Away” if they were still with Epitaph? Probably not. The term sell-out was written for times like this when artists turned their back on their past in order to presumably make more money. That is not to say that the opposite is not true. Famed 80’s band Talk Talk, who are remembered now mostly for the Gwen Stefani remake of their classic “It’s My Life”, started out riding on the tails of Duran Duran and the other New Romantics. (The term refers to a sleek, perfectly produced danceable type of Pop Music, combined with heavy make-up and fashionable stage garb.) After achieving a fair amount of success on their first two releases, Talk Talk reinvented themselves. By embracing Jazz, Ambient, and other music styles, they created a wholly unique sound that distanced them from their peers and began to alienate them from their record label.

The other side of selling-out is the number of acts who start as viable products and continue in that vein throughout their career. Take Brittany Spears, who can hardly be considered original, but can be credited (for better or worse) with bringing back Teen Pop in a big way. She was the first in the endless wave of Boy Bands and Pop Singers who sprang up around the turn of the century. Additionally, Creed became the driving force in late 90s Hard Rock, and they influenced a generation of imitators like Nickelback and Hinder who seemed to spring up one after another in an industry that will forget them as soon as their profit margins slip. This is not a knock on the artists themselves, but an industry that is only too eager to drain the artistry from the music. It was rapper Ice-T who said it best on his track “Hate the Playa”: “I don't know why a player wanna hate T/ I didn't choose the game, the game chose me". We cannot fault the multitude of acts that all seem the same for trying to become rich and famous, but take Kelly Clarkson for example. A media darling with two platinum albums and two Grammy Awards, Kelly famously feuded with RCA head Clive Davis over the direction of her third album (My December, 2007), and as a result her label refused to promote it and cancelled her tour. (She is already working on follow up.)

There are plenty of artists who sell a lot of records and are truly talented individuals. Aside from the obvious Madonnas and Michael Jacksons, people seem to forget that for a while in the 80s George Michael was just as popular. It was not just the perfect dance pop he created with Wham!, his debut album “Faith” is a classic, blending Dance and R&B elements into a more adult sound. It’s smooth and listenable and shows how truly vocally talented Michael is. Recently, the band Keane became stars with a largely piano driven sound that shimmers with its maturity and poise. Depeche Mode have been making dark electronically driven Pop for nearly 25 years, and with their 2005 release “Playing the Angel” showed no signs of age in their abilities. Steve Winwood is still making great albums more than 25 years after his classic “Arc of a Diver.” There is so much beautiful music out there; it is a shame that people adamantly refuse to go out to find it.

What I am listening to: K.D. Lang – Absolute Torch and Twang

At the peak of her Nashville faze, Lang had found her voice in a decidedly more Pop oriented Country music. Her voice is supple and strong with just a hint of smoke, and it’s truly astonishing that such a sound can come from a person. It is a strong batch of songs and worth listening to if only for the voice, but the music stands on its own as well.

Industrial Revolution

I knew the song “Closer”, but nothing could have prepared me for the opening track on Nine Inch Nails’ epic 1994 release “The Downward Spiral” where a man get shot to death. I was thirteen when I picked the album up and it scared the hell out of me. The violence, the intensity, the barrage of sounds and textures were a little more than I could handle. The truth is that I liked it because of its ability to instill the darkest fears in me. I would lie in bed listening to the album, shivering in my jammies even though it was the middle of summer. The music, if stripped of its lush aural soundscapes, would probably seem very straight forward, but with Trent Reznor’s creativity it was anything but. Combining the hooks and crunch of Heavy Metal with a solid dose of Electronica and odd time signatures, Reznor created a musical envelope for his dark brooding personality. In short he was not about Industrial Music, he was of it.

Certainly not the first person to experiment thusly in Rock, Reznor can be accounted as one of the few who was able to make the sound mainstream. Some of the earliest influences came from avant-garde composers like Luigi Russolo, whose manifesto “The Art of Noises” argued that the human ear had grown accustomed to the modern urban soundscape; therefore, new approaches were needed in order to push music forward. He often incorporated household items in his compositions as a way to approach “Noise Sound” (engines, rustling trees, car horns, etc.) and break from conventional music methods. While this was a more abrasive way to enrich the sound palate, other composers were approaching the idea of sound as music from a more ambient perspective. A quick definition, Ambient is a style of music that focuses on sound and atmosphere more than the notes themselves. The immortal John Cage (who any artist dabbling in ambient productions owes their livelihood to) was instrumental in taking everyday sounds and using them in a way to "affirm life – not an attempt to bring order out of chaos nor to suggest improvements in creation, but simply a way of waking up to the very life we're living." The best example of this is his 1952 composition “4’33”. A pianist (or an entire orchestra) sits with their instruments without sounding a single note; the point being that the surrounding sounds of the concert hall, people coughing, the air conditioning blowing and so on, create the composition itself.

In this examination of early ideas of Industrial music, it is interesting to note that as the music began to grow in popularity and scope, the songs became about nihilism and despair. The very style that was created as a source of hope for the future of music began to be its death knell. If we look at the idea of the Industrial sound as a deconstruction of known forms, the growth of pain and hopelessness as underlying themes in the music is a natural deconstruction of the love and sex themes in Pop Music that have become familiar. It is Rusollo’s idea taken from the realm of sound and applied to lyric.

Industrial music was still more of a curiosity then a viable movement of its own. It was during the 70s when bands began to take the idea of the music to its potential. There is a trio of bands considered to be the founders of the genre; each brought their own creativity to the form. The first, England’s Throbbing Gristle (yes that is really their name) made powerfully distorted and twisted music; however they were more known for their live shows which were more about performance art. The second band, Einstürzende Neubauten from Germany, focused on the sound itself, pushing the boundaries to their most extreme by using power tools and construction materials. The last, England’s Cabaret Voltaire experimented with Electronica as a tool with which to dig into the harsh sounds the movement was obsessed with. It was raw and unfocused but it was Industrial, and it was something new.

That bands like Nine Inch Nails and KMFDM (more on both soon) were able to create their own tonal landscapes speaks to their predecessors who gave them these very singular musical experiences to draw from. Interestingly enough it was another form of music (that was also viewed as a breakdown) that helped the New Wave of Industrial acts find their voice. Punk’s raw, explosive power was exactly what Industrial artists needed in order to polish their music. Where early Industrial music had a tendency to ramble on in unfocused directions, adding the terse manic energy of Punk directed all of that noise into a more constructed package. Beyond that, bands like England’s Nitzer Eb and Canada’s Skinny Puppy injected pounding Electronic beats that pushed the music forward.

It was bands like Ministry and Germany’s KMFDM who were able to take all of these precedents and create what is considered the true blueprint for Industrial success. KMFDM did it by tapping into Electronic Music and highly distorting it. Consider it Disco music for a generation of audiophiles raised on feedback. Ministry took it to the other side. They filled their music with hammering Heavy Metal guitar riffs, and through that were able to appeal to a much more vast audience.

So the table was set for Nine Inch Nails (whose only real full-time member is Trent Reznor) to take the world by storm. By using his musical talent and charismatic personality, Reznor was able to bring the music into the mainstream and influence an entire sub-genre of imitators with limited talent. The only Nine Inch Nails follower that had any true and lasting success was the Richard Patrick-led Filter. Patrick had toured with NIN as a guitar player on their first couple of tours, and as such drank directly from the Well of Knowledge that is Trent Reznor. Filter’s first hit “Hey Man Nice Shot” had them pegged as a one-hit-wonder, but as they have developed as a band they have successfully distanced themselves from that song, growing lyrically as well as musically.

Industrial music grew from early avant-garde roots to briefly top the charts as the most popular music in the land. As it stands today it is a mere niche, a small footnote in music history. What is interesting about Industrial music is how it grew from a style hell-bent on deconstruction to another cog in the great machine of the music industry. What is even more interesting about that is that none of the artists mentioned here would compromise their sound in order to sell records. So in that respect they made the industry bow to them, if only for a brief period of time.

What I’m listening to: Army of Anyone: Self Titled

Comprising of Robert and Dean Deleo of Stone Temple Pilots and the above mentioned Richard Patrick, the band went a bit under the radar with this, their first release. The music is straight-up Hard Rock, with added nuances courtesy of the Deleo Brothers who seem to play off one another with an almost psychic gift. The music is tight and Richard Patrick’s vocals soar above. A great album.

Hand In Hand

Stone Temple Pilots used to be awesome. Though their initial sound borrowed heavily from other bands that were either more popular or more recognizable, they refined the Grunge sound as the first true Arena Rock group of the era. Their music was groovy and catchy. They had all the right elements; a preening, dour frontman, and a tight backing band. With their second release “Purple” the sound got even tighter, and the songs even catchier. They were beginning to develop as a serious contender to the more “legitimate” Alternative acts, although they were habitually panned by the critics. Then in 1996 they released their third album, the bizarrely titled “Tiny Music: Songs from the Vatican Gift Shop.” It sold well, going multi-platinum, but the material was a departure from their early formula. Adding elements from all over the musical spectrum the album was incoherent and rambling, unable to focus on any one element long enough to make a serious go of it. In addition the usually airtight musicianship of Dean and Robert Deleo and Eric Kretz was loose, jangling like the jowls of the elderly.

There are many arguments you can make as to why something like this happened. For one the band, achieving a great deal of recognition, decided to branch out and try something different. With the band’s fame came an elevated profile; with that came information about the band’s very public struggle with drug abuse. After cancelling most of their tour in 1995 the members decided to get help. They emerged from rehab a few months later feeling refreshed and renewed, entering the studio amid a flurry of publicity only to come out with the question mark that is “Tiny Music”.

Yes, I am implying that drugs, or more specifically Heroin, Scag, Smack, Horse, (what have you) played a significant part in the early works of the band. Its removal during the recording process left the band members unfocused and confused. Take the Beatles as an example: the most creative and forward thinking era of their career, from “Rubber Soul” to “Abby Road”, was created amid a wave of hallucinogenic intake. The point I am trying to make is not that drugs are good, I am merely pointing out what Bill Hicks said best; that all those people that have made the music that enhanced our lives were “rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreal f-----g high on drugs.” Sad yes, but startling, no. Our singers and Rockstars live above the law in a realm where we give them a pass on anything they do. People were shocked when Keith Moon (Drums, The Who) busted up his teeth diving into an empty swimming pool. In a sense we are the greatest enablers of all. We stand back and watch our favorite artists self-destruct, only becoming concerned when they are no longer a viable product. The presence of drugs in the lives of our Rock heroes is hardly shocking either. In some respects the artists themselves feel that drugs help them provide us with the best possible product. George Michael, who has sold over 80 million albums in his 25 year career has said that he absolutely needs weed to make music, that he cannot write songs without it.

What is most interesting about this relationship is how the music being created usually reflects the most popular drugs being consumed at the time. For example, in the 60s and 70s the most popular drugs were LSD and Marijuana. The laid back nature of Folk-Rock and proto-psychedelic classics like Donovan’s “Sunshine Superman” represented the free-thinking and free-living these drugs stereotypically foster. As the 70s began and the Vietnam War continued to escalate, more and more soldiers were found with weed stashed in the butts of their M16s. It seemed that was going to be the way of things, but as the decade wore on and musical tastes shifted, so did the drugs being consumed. As Punk-Rock rose and its newly wealthy artists turned to PCP, the youth who largely could not afford the real thing turned to Glue Huffing to satisfy their desire. PCP, or Angel Dust, Ozone, Sherm, Kools, (well, you get the picture) is an anesthetic and an amphetamine combined, which was perfectly suited for the frantic, often self-destructive nature of the music. Across town, the early superclubs like Studio 54 were packed to the gills with the social elite burying their heads in mountains of cocaine. The socio-economic rift between the Punks and the more bourgeois Disco fans is apparent. Where PCP made you crazy, Coke kept your head in the clouds and your feet on the dance floor.

This continued into the 80s. As New Wave music and early Electronica rose from the ashes of Disco, cocaine followed it. Led largely by Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, and The Pet Shop Boys, the music was ripe with the overly synthesized dance sound that filled dance floors. While true Punk faded into Hardcore, the growing Hip-Hop community already had a problem; Cocaine’s ugly stepsister, Crack. Known as a ghetto drug, crack infested poor ethnic communities all over the United States, and became the source of the rallying cry for early rappers like Grand Master Flash and Eric B and Rakim. In that respect it is not the music that reflects the drugs, rather it is the lyrics that are influenced by crack’s siege on their communities.

As the 90s were ushered in, the freewheeling rockstar cokeheads were replaced by Kurt Cobain and his eras Heroin-chic Grunge sound. The widespread use of heroin was so prevalent that Rolling Stone magazine famously put Layne Staley (vocals, Alice In Chains) on a magazine cover under the headline “The Needle and the Damage Done.” This was a reference to the Neil Young song that speaks about drug abuse. At the same time that Rock was undergoing a public struggle with heroin, another narcotic was infecting the youth of the fledgling Trance community. Ecstacy, or X, E, Go, Adam, Clarity, and so on was a bit of everything. It combined the euphoria of Marijuana with the craziness of crack, and some mild hallucinations to boot. In clubs like London’s famous Ministry of Sound it was all the rage; it fit with the upbeat excitement of the music as well as the sensory overloading light shows. That the pills were cut with a dangerous cocktail of other substances did not seem to bother the kids who came for the drugs and stayed for the music. In the late 90s the DJs themselves tried to put some semblance of sanity back into their scene. Famously Paul Van Dyk, one of the genre’s founders, donned a shirt that read “There is no E in Dyk.” This combined his fear for the drug-obsessed youth of Europe with the correct spelling of his oft misspelled surname.

As we find ourselves hurtling forward into the new millennium, this question seems to beg: what is next? We certainly will continue to idolize our favorite artists with the ever impressionable youth striving to emulate them in every way. A recent poll in England showed that Amy Winehouse, a Heroin addict, is the most influential woman in the country. Where are the boundaries? Is it our fault for idolizing these flawed people, or is it their fault for falling into the trappings of stardom? It is a symbiotic relationship that cycles from our obsessions to the artists fears, and trickles back down. At the end of the day it seems to be not only our choice but one that we have to make together.

What I am listening to: Above & Beyond – Tri-State: A trio of British producers Above & Beyond are one of the first groups in Trance to create an artist album that stands as a cohesive work. Expertly produced with crystal clear beats and lush melodies they proved that Electronic Music is alive and well. They also showed that it was possible for producers who felt trapped by the DJs whose careers they were fueling to escape the shadows and become recognized on their own.

Machine Gun Punk

In the mid 70s everything in popular music seemed ok. Led Zeppelin released their epic “Physical Graffiti,” and Pink Floyd put out their classic, “Wish you were here.” Brian Eno, began to experiment with Ambient Electronica on his release “Another Green World,” while Aerosmith were putting nuts in the cracker with “Toys in the Attic.” Across the pond, David Bowie released a legitimate Soul classic with “Young Americans,” and Queen took us out to “A Night at the Opera.” It was a magical time where the boundaries of musical exploration were constantly being tested and expanded. Progressive Rock was at its peak, Funk was ruling the party scene, and Electronic music was getting its feet wet at the deft hands of Vangelis and Tangerine Dream. Something had to give, and something surely did.

Almost at the same time two bands formed that were to crush the mighty with their loud yet simple ways. Even legends like The Sex Pistols and The Ramones have predecessors. Emerging from NYC and Ann Arbor Michigan, the New York Dolls and the Stooges were stripping down everything the aforementioned bands had spent years building. The Dolls had a bit more of direction with their heavily influenced Chuck Berry meets the Rolling Stones sound, although to see and hear them you would never know. The music was loud and dysfunctional. It was everything they could do to not fall apart on stage. Similarly The Stooges went even further. Raw and manic, their playing seemed to try to prove the point that anyone can be in a Rock band, and the less you knew the better. The fascinating thing about these two bands is that their debut albums were both produced by famous members of other musical movements. John Cale, who produced The Stooges eponymous debut, was known for his contributions to The Velvet Underground as much as his experiments with Ambient and Electronic Music. Todd Rungren, who produced The New York Dolls debut, was famous for his work with Carole King. These two men saw something in this new gritty style of music, and chose to offer their talent to help the fledgling genre along.

It was not until The Ramones and the Sex Pistols that Punk, which got its title when people adopted it as a source of pride rather than let arrogant music journalists use it as an insult, began to achieve mainstream success. The desire was to strip Rock down from its high horse, and bring back the fun. That many of the bands advocated drug abuse and violence added to their influence both positively on the youth and negatively on the critics who initially panned them for being unpolished, and uninteresting. Despite their best efforts though, by the end of the 70s a whole slew of bands had reached the upper echelons of the Rock sphere playing this base and unintelligent style of music.

So Punk had effectively killed off everything good about 70s music. But what of Punk itself? Could a style formed on such basic principles last? What would the artists themselves do to keep the music interesting? Well there were two schools of thought. In one instance bands began to incorporate a greater palate of sounds to the same stripped raw sound of early Punk. On the other hand was the Hardcore movement based largely in California. The best known acts came out of the Post Punk-New Wave scene because of the acceptance of diversity in the style allowed for greater radio play. The Clash were experts at this, and their 1979 release “London Calling” was a testament to that. Incorporating Reggae and Pop elements with the uncompromising lyrics of Punk, the album is still considered to be a landmark release, and one of the greatest albums in history. The realization that their genre could only go so far showed that Punk had a bit of maturity after all. It seems that the catalyst for that was the death of Sex Pistol’s Bass player Sid Vicious of a heroin overdose. His death was seen by many as a symbol of Punk being doomed from the start, a sentiment that Punk’s numerous and vocal detractors would take to heart.

The Hardcore scene took Punk at its word and made it heavier and faster, the lyrics only coming out in a series of grunts. Ruled by The Misfits, The Dead Kennedy’s, and Henry Rollins’ first band Black-Flag, their uncompromising assault on the senses did not win them much fame, but it did afford a dedicated following that persists to this day.

It is the New Wave and Post Punk movement that is most interesting though. It is almost as though the artists began to realize that they destroyed something beautiful, and needed to scramble to make up for that. The Talking Heads began to toy with electronic production methods. Blondie embraced Disco, and The Police helped to make Reggae mainstream, bringing a whole new generation of fans to the music of Peter Tosh and Bob Marley. These bands showed that the music could still contain the same frantic scathing lyrics, without sacrificing musical experimentation. It was no longer about youth culture sticking their middle fingers into the face of the government. The second wave of Punk was led by some of the most intelligent artists of our time. It shows in the way they were able to achieve mainstream acceptance at the same time they were politically active, and trying to broaden their musical horizons. Interestingly enough, it was the collaboration between the Talking Head’s David Byrne, and Brian Eno that afforded the band their greatest creative period.

Looking through the lens of early Punk trying to break rules and destroy what came before them, it is almost funny to see where Punk stands, as one of the most popular styles of music today. That the music is based on simple rhythms and chord progressions is not lost in an industry where digestibility is paramount. It is for this reason that early pioneers like Johnny Rotten, hate these new kids. He sees himself as a martyr to a cause that has long since left him behind, and is angry about the people that took over. Many of the artists understand this growth, this need to adapt and change. It is not that Punk killed what was good about the 70s, not really. It is more that a few bad seeds got loose and upset the balance for a while. It came together in the end, it nearly always does.

What I am listening to: The Smashing Pumpkins - Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness

One of the most ambitious albums from the Grunge era, Mellon Collie… is an epic, two disks, with songs that range from Heavy Metal, to Classical, and almost Folk. Billy Corgan, described the album as “The Wall for Generation X.” It is a rewarding listen. Full of beautiful compositions the material almost never lags. It is the sign of a man at the peak of his creative gifts.

Funk Soul Brothers

They always hated the label Funk Metal, yet here they were, one of the founding members of the form. I hope the irony of dedicating an entire column to a sub-genre a scant week after saying that sub-genres were meaningless is not lost on you dear readers, but I digress. Faith No More hated the term because they felt it pushed them into a corner when they were trying so hard to do so much more. It even sounds obscure - Funk and Metal. The two styles seem so diametrically opposed that the term itself seems to be an oxymoron. Let’s examine the terms at their face value. Funk implies groove, soul and good feelings; Metal implies rage, pain, and speed. The truth is that as we will discover, the two are not as different as you think. But before I can tell you about all of that we have to have a history lesson.

Funk is a style of music that was born in the late 60s and early 70s as a development from R&B. By focusing on complex rhythms and primarily bass driven sounds, early artists in the form were able to make R&B sound more raw than ever. The Godfather of Soul, James Brown, a man who collected nicknames like fake tattoos from a bag of potato chips, was actually The Godfather of Funk. With such classic recordings as “Papa’s Got a Brand New Bag,” and "Get Up (I Feel Like Being A Sex Machine)” James was able to showcase his airtight rhythm section and wail over songs where the melody was less important than the groove. The next founding member of the form, Sly Stone (of Sly and the Family Stone) was able to build on James Brown’s sparse raw sound to create more lush soundscapes, still heavily bass driven but now with a touch of psychedelia that made the music more radio friendly. On a side note, with men, women and black and white musicians, Sly & the Family Stone was the first fully integrated band in Rock history. George Clinton, the man probably most responsible for making Funk popular, took Sly’s psychedelic influences to their fullest and made the music the ultimate party soundtrack. This is not to say that the music lacks real creative weight.

Thematically, Parliament/Funkadelic’s long time bass player Bootsy Collins is a legend in his own right. Along with Larry Graham of Sly and the Family Stone, Bootsy is credited with the invention of the slapping and popping method of playing bass. Instead of plucking strings, the thumb and index fingers aggressively thump on the strings, creating a popping sound. A great example of this is on the song “Thank you for Talkin’ to me Africa” by Sly and the Family Stone.

So, everyone was having a great time, the music was selling well and charting on Billboard’s top lists. What happened? The decline of the Funk era came in several stages. To begin with, the highly reviled Disco era owed much of its influences to Funk. When Punk took over in the early 80’s and Disco burnings were held in stadiums, Funk suffered the ire of the record buying community. The second stage was the development of equipment in the 80s. Synthesizers were taking over the roles of entire horn sections, and drummers were fired to make way for the Roland TR-808 drum machine. The slick overproduced sound of 80s Pop and R&B owed much to the earlier Funk days, but not in a way that its influences could be easily recognized. They are there though. Take Bandy’s 1994 hit “Wanna Be Down” - the pounding bass is there though the Rap beat disguises it.

Down but not out, Funk received two helping hands that brought its’ influence back from obscurity. In the mid-80s a black guitar player by the name Vernon Reid formed the band Living Colour, who had the noticeable distinction of being an all African-American band in a Heavy Metal world. While the Metal world at large was playing with demons and hot-chicks, Living Colour was injecting a serious dose of soul and rhythm. Popular almost at once, their style of Hard Rock built over a solid foundation of Funk was an extremely new sound. Similarly, when The Red Hot Chili Peppers formed, the partnership between Hillel Slovak’s Funky grooves and Flea’s popping bass at Punk speeds was dynamic. Hard Rock had another band that was championing their Funk influences.

Another movement that fully embraced their Funk predecessors (almost to a fault) was the G-Funk era of West Coast Rap in the 90s. Almost every song that was a hit in those days was lifted from Parliament, Stevie Wonder and others. Some examples: Dr. Dre – “Let me Ride” (Parliament – “Mothership Connection”), Warren G – “Regulators” (Michael Macdonald – “I Keep Forgettin”), Tupac – “Staring at the World” (Phil Collins – “In the Air Tonight”). Led largely by Dr. Dre and the Death Row Records family, G-Funk partnered violent hedonistic lyrics with smooth laid back beats. Interestingly, Rap used Funk in order to make hard lyrics seem more laid back. Rock and Metal used the style in order to add a smoother dimension to their music.

Once Faith No More came onto the scene in the late 80s, the form was ripe for the picking and this they did with great adeptness. They were able to combine an appreciation for earlier Funk with an understanding of 70s Soul music, and incorporate all of that into their vision for Heavy Metal. The problems came after the band’s demise in the late 90s. Mike Patton, the lead singer, had tried to distance himself from the legions of Funk-Metal followers that came onto the scene. From Korn to Limp Bizkit and P.O.D., almost every Heavy Metal act in the post-Grunge era flirted with Funk as an influence. Part of the reason is Funk’s ability to be hard and uncompromising while remaining easily digested by the masses. It is this link that best ties it to Heavy Metal. When a Metal act is looking to add melody without sacrificing the sheer weight of their sonic force, they need look no further than Funk. Fieldy, the Bass player for Korn, seems to understand this best and his super detuned Funk basslines drive Korn’s aggressive approach without sacrificing intensity.

It is upsetting that all these bands influenced by Faith No More are denied respect from their heroes. Like Dr. Frankenstein refusing to take responsibility for his monster, Mike Patton has moved on to different projects in other realms of the musical sphere. It is not his dislike of the genre, rather his fear of being typecast has driven him to branch out into such diverse genres.

With the death of Disco, Funk had lost almost all of its credibility. It took visionaries from the opposite ends of the spectrum to return it to glory. The tradition we remember so gloriously today owes almost all of its revival to, of all things, Heavy Metal. At the same time Funk can blame its’ death on Punk. I think that there is a column in there somewhere.

What I am listening to: Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble – Texas Flood

Bringing the Blues back from the brink of destruction, SRV’s debut shines with the influences of his heroes while paving new ground. The set is a high energy burst of Texas Blues in the image of Lightning Hopkins. From the tone of his guitar to the killer licks of “Rude Mood” and “Testify,” the album is a classic.

Talking About My Sub-Generation

I was looking through a friend's Ipod, the best way to see deep into someone's soul, and was annoyed by all the genres. They were not poorly organized, rather there were just too many of them. He had Alternative, Alternative Rock, Alt/Rock, Rock, Heavy Metal, Metal, Punk, Punk-Rock, and more. One explanation is that he does not care about his musical grouping as I do (an almost O.C.D. attention to organization and details.) Maybe these are the ways people organize their music. It is possible. The question that begs is: What is the difference between all these Genres? It seems that in the current music industry the lines have become so blurred with the influx of bands trying to cross promote themselves, they are not even sure who their target market is anymore. Take a band like The Strokes. Are they Punk? Are they the last remnant of the long-dead Grunge revolution? Maybe they are just a Rock band trying to find their place by combining aesthetics. Ask the boys; they probably are not even sure themselves. Another example: I recently watched Madonna's new music video. The Timbaland produced "4 Minutes to Save the World," has an R&B sound matched with a Rap beat, and features Justin Timberlake. The target market seems to be everyone. Is it Pop? Is it R&B? The only thing that people seem to care about is that it will sell.

Let's start off simply. There is no Alt/Rock. In fact these days Alternative itself is practically dead. Before we discuss the genre breakdown and its meaningless sub categories, let us go back to the mid-90s to relive its' glorious, albeit brief life. After Hair Metal (shudder) came Nirvana, and essentially Grunge was born. In my opinion the term Grunge only refers to four bands. The Seattle scene's finest: Alice-In-Chains, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, and the aforementioned Nirvana. Grunge responded to the decadence of the 80s, the end of Reagenomics, and the desire to put true feeling back into the music. Alternative then became the banner for all the hangers-on, who inevitably rode in on the trends and faded out anonymously. Grunge, and to a similar extent Alternative, started as Sub-Genres until the CDs began to fly off the shelves, prompting many record store chains to create entire sections devoted to the style. On a side note, there is nothing more irritating then going to music stores, (you remember what those are right?) and not being able to find anything because you are not sure what section it's in. So Grunge and Alternative, let us call them kissing cousins, had arrived. After Kurt Cobain took his own life and the idea of Grunge with him, Alternative was left without its' relative to give it legitimacy. What I find most interesting about Grunge is that in any other era Soundgarden and Alice-In-Chains would probably have been considered Heavy Metal.

These Genre lines began to crumble in earnest when the first true crossover act of the era came into prominence in the late 90s. Creed was able to borrow the heavily distorted guitar tones of Alice-In-Chains, and the hollow Eddie Vedder-esque voice of Pearl Jam, and marry that with uplifting lyrics. Their debut album "My Own Prison" had a few minor hits but was a darker affair than their 1999 follow up "Human Clay." Its' more hopeful outlook spawned megahits like "With Arms Wide Open," and "Higher," raising the band to superstardom. The music was hard enough for the guys and yet sweet enough for the girls. Many critics see this as the beginning of a sorry period for Rock, where any true originality was lost amid a sea of copycat acts.

Heavy Metal, on the other hand, has enjoyed Sub-Genre status for decades, only being realized as a commercially viable product it itself in certain specific circumstances. That almost every band in Heavy Metal is its own category is an amusing fact. Take some of my favorite bands for example. Testament is Thrash, Faith No More is Funk, and Arch Enemy is Black Metal. With so many ways to classify a Sub-Genre all the categories begin to lose meaning, because as a wise man once said "No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney."

The circumstances surrounding the peaks in Metal's popularity came in two ignominious eras of the music. In the 80s when Thrash (more on this in the future) ruled the Bay Area, Hair Metal ruled the airwaves. Led by Motley Crue and the triumvirate of bands that are all essentially the same, Ratt, Warrant, and Poison, the music was more about personalities and having a good time then making any sort of statement of consequence. It reflected the nature of the times; the economy was booming, and the Iron Curtain was crumbling, so let's party. The most telling aspect of the rise of Hair Metal is that almost all of their radio hits were the inevitable power ballads that made them more palatable to the layperson.

The second era was the Nu-Metal, or sometimes called Rap-Metal, scene of the late 90s and early 00s. Rap, as one of the last styles of music to carry any real countercultural weight, seemed a natural partner for Heavy Metal who had lost almost all credibility with the ceremonial cutting of Metallica's hair. When Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park burst onto the scene, they were able to cross promote themselves to angry urban kids buying Busta Rhymes disks and with Metal-Heads alike.

To borrow an idea from Plato, (yeah I'm going there) God created the idea of Rock. The next step was for the musicians to interpret that idea. We as consumers are the lowest level of society because all we do is classify the interpretations of God's grand idea. In all seriousness though, do we need all these Genres and Sub-Genres? Does Ska so beg to be differed from Punk? Is fusion so far removed from Jazz, and will someone please explain to me the difference between Classical and Symphonic Heavy Metal? Beyond that I think that this endless classification of musical forms says something about us as a society. In the ever pressing need to compartmentalize out lives and find our niche in the world, it seems arrogant of us to exclude new experiences because they do not fit into our narrow world view.

I get frustrated when people say they "listen to everything" and then resist new musical experiences. The endless classifications in the Rock world seem to be nothing more than self-justification about staying in one's comfort zone. I will listen to anything, at least once. That does not mean that I like everything, but sometimes I am pleasantly surprised. Recently Michael got me into Papa Roach, who drew me in with their strong hooks and powerful riffs. With the internet and the myriad of websites that are geared towards musical discovery, it is easier than ever to expand your horizons and learn something new. In other words, do not adjust your radio, just change the channel.



What I am listening to: In order to help you broaden your minds, dear readers, I am starting this section to inform you about different music you might not be aware of. This week I am excited to start you off with…

Arc of a Diver: By Steve Winwood. After departing Traffic, he had a very successful solo career. This, his second album, showcased his musicianship (he played every instrument on the album) and arrangements. It is a tight and melodic set of songs and shows that Steve had as much to say in his second career as he did in his first.

Jonny

Wearing the Music

I have to say I looked great. Fluevog Shoes, Donna Karen Jeans, a Ted Baker shirt and over all that a black suit jacket. I was not going to a nice dinner or a play, not even a college party. I was going to see Arch Enemy and Iron Maiden at the Hammerstien Ballroom in Manhattan . Due to the popularity of my college radio show “The Hot Box with Jonny and Chaya,” I was able to get free tickets to many concerts. This time no one wanted to go with me because it was around midterm time and my friends weren’t sufficient fans to risk failing exams. So I went alone.

I picked up my tickets (2) and proceeded to seek out one of the forlorn looking kids without a ticket lingering about outside. After a sweep of the crowd, a motley crew (you like that?) of Metal Heads, I saw a guy that looked like he could use a pick me up. He was a little chunky, with dark red hair and was wearing an old sleeveless Iron Maiden shirt. His pants were another story altogether. Baggy and worn like a WWII Parachute, they seemed to have been sliced by a Japanese Katana and repaired with zippers over every hole. Needless to say, they were black. I approached the young man and asked him if he wanted a free ticket to the show. This is our exchange to the best of my memory. Let’s say his name was Josh.

Me: Hey man you want a ticket to the show?

Josh: How Much?

Me: Free.

Josh: Get out of here.

Me: Look I have two tickets right here and I am offering you one. Do you want it?

Josh: For real?

Me: For Real.

Josh: No strings.

Me: Well you have to be my date. Just kidding have a good time.

Josh, who looked every bit the Metal-Head, did not trust me in my incongruous garb to be a Metal fan or even attend a concert. In my daily dress I do not look like I can wail along with Iced Earth and Testament. The thing is that does not matter. Being a fan of a Rock band is not the same as rooting for your favorite baseball team. The love for our Rock heroes comes from within. Outward self -representation should not have to indicate where your musical preferences lie. I have found, in my concert going experiences, the most judgmental and unforgiving cliques of music fans are Punk-Rockers and Metal-Heads. This results from their strict self-imposed dress code. Through that lens, it is amusing when you realize that Punk and Metal are the two forms of Rock most strongly Anti-establishment. The way I see it, the more immature members of each society are so paranoid about being encroached upon by people who either do not respect or understand their music, they have created their own establishment. The dress code then becomes more of a defense mechanism than an actual statement. Based on the way I dress, if I approached any one of these kids regardless of my knowledge they would call me a poser or a Narc. If a Rock show is about people sharing a communal experience then anyone who would exclude another person based on their clothing is a poser.

Interestingly enough when speaking of bands themselves the opposite seems to be true. The mode of dress of a specific artist needs to be representative of what they want their music to convey. When I saw Dream Theater they were all in black. Simple and effective; perhaps the lack of pretense in regards to their clothes leaves the audience with no choice but to take the music as it comes. Another Rock sub-genre, whose dress is more haphazard than stylish, are Shoegazers: So called because of the droning music and listless performances of the artists who seem to be staring at their shoes rather than make eye contact with the crowd. A standard in their mode of dress are the Converse All-Stars whose bleached white laces seem to glow beneath the stage lights.

This can also work against a band. I hate to have my column be the Green Day bashing hour, especially since I used to love them but we will go there one more time. I recall a recent poster on which the boys were all dressed in red and black it seemed like an ad for Hot Topic more than a Rock poster. If we are to take them by their music and believe them to be Punk what do we think when we see these perfectly groomed corporate representations? Let us extend this to Electronic music. On Armin Van Buuren’s live DVD, an event in front of almost 20,000 people, where all the audience and the performers were dressed to impress, Armin was wearing a ratty old t-shirt and jeans. This shows a lack of professionalism. The band Kiss, whose professionalism only goes as far as the latest product they are hawking, have never made any bones about the corporate nature of their machine. Even the ceremonial removal of their makeup for 1983’s “Lick it Up” seemed a calculated move to get the band press after the previous album “Creatures of the Night” sold dismally. There are many who would argue it was precisely the mass marketing of the Grunge look that added to Kurt Cobain’s feelings of disillusionment, and caused him to take his own life.

At the Arch Enemy show I remember thinking how well put together the band looked. Angela, the lead singer, was wearing tight black jeans and a red and black shirt festooned with a power fist. The rest of the band wore all black to varying styles and lengths. It was later that I read that Angela, who is one of seven children, has known how to sew from a very young age. She travels with a sewing machine in order to help her with alterations of the band’s stage wear. Believe it or not, Ozzy Osbourne also designs his stage costumes. The line between personal style and corporate sponsorship is easily spotted. Take for example Lilly Allen who is coming out with her own clothing line. In sharp contrast, Amy Winehouse’s heroin chic beehive serves as a testament to the turmoil in her personal life. Perhaps artists with no style say it best by letting their music speak for itself. Either way it is up to them to match the two, not up to us to create an establishment to contain them.