Rethinking the NEA.

A street grate in SF. Art is everywhere.

A few weekends ago I got into a debate with my sister-in-law about the NEA. Fueled by a little wine and more than a little rudeness (she was a guest and makes her living in the arts), I stridently pointed out that the NEA is an organization that takes money by threat of force and gives it to artists, thereby putting the government in the role of determining what is and what is not art.

A bit over the top, I admit, but fundamentally true as the NEA is funded by taxes. I pontificated further to say I did not believe the government had any role in something so subjective as art and that if NEA funding were cut off the arts would hardly suffer for it, while society as a whole would probably benefit.

But…

In thinking about it more in the days that followed I came to a different conclusion. I think pursuing art with no commercial intent is like basic research in that its primary value lies in the pursuit not the outcome. In other words, the pursuit of art for art's sake is valuable. But who can afford to do that, especially folks who are no longer in their teens and early twenties? No one. And that's where the NEA comes in. It allows people to pursue art in a society that would otherwise deny them. Yes, they could work day jobs and do their art at night, but so could basic researchers and if I'm going to fund someone I'd like him to be no more sleep deprived than necessary.

As I hit "save and publish" for this post, I admit, I have doubts. My favorite artists all did their thing without NEA money. Big picture, though? I just think we're a better society to support the arts with a little government money than to not do anything at all.

Creativity in fits and starts. Can it work?

Sam Bevan at Hyde Street Studio C, SF, tracking Java Junkie.

Sam Bevan at Hyde Street Studio C, SF, tracking Java Junkie.

I read somewhere that Robert Pollard of Guided by Voices was afraid to stop writing songs because he believes that his profound ability to create at a rapid, nonstop pace would stop. He might be right. I’m no Mr. Pollard but, like him, I believe that creativity begets creativity. In other words, the more creative projects you take on the more creative you become; creativity is not something you use up, it’s a perpetual motion machine as long you keep it in motion.

I didn’t use to believe this. Back before my accident, I worried that pursuing creative projects outside of my work as a creative director would rob my advertising output of good ideas because I would be spread too thin. But after falling and damaging my brain, I see things differently. Instead of worrying about being too creative, I worry about not being creative enough.

So despite a very busy job, twin toddlers, sporadic attempts to do a little exercise and attempting to stay in touch with friends (and failing) I still write songs. Gone are the days when I used to pluck my guitar for hours as I worked out ideas or just searched for them. Now I write when I can, a few minutes here, a few minutes there, more minutes on walks to work and occasional nights when Catherine goes out with friends. My quantity is down, no question, but I think my quality is holding.

The very first tune I wrote under my new, as Jon Kabat Zinn calls it, “Full Catastrophe Living” conditions, was “I Found Out the Hard Way I Should Have Done it the Easy Way.” Check it out.

And just this weekend, I was back at Hyde Street Studio C, a place that has become like a best friend to me, someone you can go for years without seeing and when you do finally get time to spend together it’s like those years never happened. And so it was on Saturday when Jaimeson Durr, Sam Bevan (pictured) and I gathered at Hyde Street to track bass parts. I’ll be posting the results in a few more months.

Stay tuned

 

Why the acceptance of selling out could be a sign of social progress.

IMG_0485.JPG

I remember the 70s. I was a teenager for about half of them and I was also, in my opinion, a very discerning lover of music. My stereo system was always pretty decent, in my car and at home, my record collection large and getting larger. I knew my Dolby settings and grew to prefer cassettes without either B or C and recorded on normal bias tape, but never liked cassettes, regardless. I listened to all kinds of music, from Paul Simon to Judas Priest and the one constant among all the musicians I liked was that no one was a sell out.

Hard to believe in today’s world, but back in the 70s, to my knowledge, big musical acts did not sell their songs for use in advertising, no one played corporate parties and, overall, everyone believed that if your music was being used in marketing it was because your music wasn’t good enough to stand on its own. No more.

Is this a problem?

Is it a problem that the Stones sold Start Me Up Microsoft?

Is it a problem that Led Zeppelin sold Rock and Roll to Cadillac?

Is it a problem that Jay-Z sold his entire latest album to Samsung?

I’m really not sure. But in my opinion — call me a victim of my generation — I think when a song is tied to a brand, it denigrates the brand, the composer and/or performer, the listener and, of course, the song. For example, whenever I heard Start Me Up during Microsoft’s mid-90’s ad blitz, here’s what went through my mind: Microsoft sucks because their products don’t Start Me Up, they stop me with their complexity, bugs and counterintuitiveness; Mick and Keith suck for polluting Start Me Up with images of a shitty operating system; I suck because I’m still listening; and Start Me Up becomes a lot less killer.

But that’s my problem. What does the world at large think?

I don’t think anyone cares, certainly not a number that matters. And I think it might be in large part because rock and roll was a response to an overly uptight culture and it has done its job. Well. Maybe too well.

Don’t get me wrong. I miss the days when steering clear of being overtly “commercial” was a badge of honor, when being a rock star meant not being beholden to anyone (myth that it was), when tours were not underwritten by American Express. But again, that’s my problem. The genie is out of the bottle and she ain’t going back in.

So now here is the real question: with music being so respectable, what is the next art form for social agitation? But that’s another post (and I have no idea).

 

Digging up exquisite cadavers.

Virginia Beach, VA

Virginia Beach, VA

Virginia Beach, the beach not the city, stretches for what must be a good few miles. It is a classic sandy beach, exactly what you imagine when you think of a Southern California beach if you’ve never been to a Southern California beach: wide, covered in soft, hot sand and lapped by warm watery waves pushing more than the occasional surfer.

I visited this beach recently for two weeks. My wife and little girls were there, my sister in law, my brother in law and his girlfriend and my mother and father in law, some friends. It was bliss. And though my mind most assuredly contemplated the wind, earth, water and sky, as well as the inexpressible joy of watching my girls run along a beach and run to and from the surf and feelings of love in general, me being me, I also became fixated on an exquisite cadaver.

I came across the term exquisite cadaver on the flight home. It appears in a book I am still working my way through and was penned by bored French surrealist poets (is there any other kind?). I thought what a perfect term for that old song I had unearthed in Virginia and performed a lengthy autopsy on before determining, like Frankenstein with his corpses, that it could be brought back to life, or more accurately given life since the song had never really, truly lived.

The song is called You Can Come Back But I Can’t Stay and first arose in the mind of a an old college friend who sent me the lyrics about 10 years after we graduated, or maybe it was longer ago than that, I really can’t remember. I was in a U2 phase and especially into Achtung Baby and wanted to write a song in that vain -- bass driven, simple but cool drum beat, ethereal guitar, melodic vocal -- and the words my friend sent seemed to evoke exactly that kind of song.

At the moment, I have music for the verse and chorus and lyrics for the first verse and chorus. I’m massaging the original lyrics pretty heavily so as soon as I have enough of a song to present to my old friend I will. I don’t want to bastardize his lyrics too much because they’re good and better than what I could write.

To help me finish, I will stare out the window at the West Coast water that fills the bay I live by. Perhaps the cold slap of snow run-off mixed with fog shrouded tidal currents is what my exquisite cadaver needs to finally wake up.

Stay tuned.

 

What exactly is it like to turn 50?

It’s a bummer.

But wait! Before you (understandably) assume that this post will be all woe is me please bare with me a read a bit further.

For me, no birthday of my own has ever been cause for rejoicing. I can’t explain it, that’s just the way it is. And though many friends have looked at me with me confusion about my attitude toward my own birthday and have told me things like “this is your day”, “this is the day you were born”, “aren’t you happy to be alive?”, it has all been for naught.

But this year, as I cross yet another arbitrary birthday milestone, I can feel my attitude changing. There are two reasons: Avalon and Amelia, my baby daughters. When I think about their birthday I cannot think of a happier day. It’s the day they were welcomed to the world, the day the world changed ever so slightly for most and in the greatest and best possible way for me and my wife, Catherine, the day they will forever call their birthday. And though I will most likely never be one to celebrate my own birthday with much of a celebration I will always want to celebrate theirs in grand style.

So, yes, turning 50 has me a bit down. But not as much as past birthdays and not as much as every birthday of mine to come, because I am starting to look at my own birthday through the lens of how I see Avalon and Amelia’s, and this is no mere rose tinted lens but rather one that lets me see the rose that actually, truly tints the world.

Here's my song for my babies! (Yes, I've posted it before but today's my birthday!) 

What would John Lennon say about the NSA?

As the whole NSA story continues to unfold, I think we can all be sure of one thing: nothing, at least with regard to what the government is saying and what the companies affected by the NSA’s actions are saying. But we can also be sure that what the NSA is doing is un-American, a mushy concept, I confess, but, you know, certain things just feel unlike what the country proclaims to stand for, and the NSA’s changing role is one of them. And of all the questions I have about the NSA, the biggest is what would John Lennon say.

In fact, let’s not stop there. We know he would be speaking out, goading the government to shut him up, taking a personal risk for what he believes is right. Is anyone in music doing this? I get the impression that the answer is NO but I truly do not have any idea. I’m too out of touch with pop culture. But I’m not totally out of touch and I think if someone in music were taking on the NSA in the way John Lennon took on Uncle Sam during Viet Nam I’d have heard about it so I’m going to assume that whatever protests are being held are small.

But here’s what I think John Lennon would be saying and what I wish someone were saying now. (Wait, I know, I bet The Daily Show is all over this but I don’t care. Stewart is smart, I agree with him a lot, but this NSA crap demands more than his smug, funnier-than-thou delivery. This demands a bit of anger. So here’s what I think Lennon would say.)

“It’s Tricky Dick all over again, can’t you see that? You’re being lied to, your Constitution is being dragged through sewage, your freedoms are being taken away. You think this is all being done in the name of national security? Well, ask yourself if you think becoming like the very countries you hate is right for the country you love. I mean, it’s that simple. It’s like fighting for peace. We’re all for the thing we say we’re against to protect the thing we say we’re for. Obama, how do you sleep at night knowing that this is the exact behavior you claim to revile?”

Obviously, Lennon would do a better job than I just did. And he’d be heard by more people. So my simple request is that at least a few of today’s biggest musicians go after Uncle Sam. Let’s not let rock stars sell out anymore than they already have (another post).

PS - Here’s a tune I wrote about this topic. It’s about Joe Strummer who was a lot like Lennon. I miss these kinds of people

 

The problem with Seth Godin’s problem with getting picked.

Seth Godin has recently been writing blog posts about the wrongheadedness of trying to get picked, or trying to get someone with influence to invest in you. His point is that you are better off picking yourself than you are trying to get someone else to pick you. For example, don’t wait for some record company honcho to call you and offer you a deal, just get out there and do your thing.

But you see the problem, right? Either way, you’re hoping to get picked. I, for one, am most certainly not trying to get a deal with a label but I am most definitely trying to get people to listen to my songs and spread the word (good or bad, by the way). So what’s the real difference? I guess it comes down to being picked by one person who will try to sell you to many people vs. trying to sell yourself to many people all by your lonesome.

In other words, the end goal is the same and even the means of getting there aren’t all that different. Either way, you’re trying to get picked. In fairness to Godin, what he’s really commenting on is the shift from a world where you absolutely had to pass through gatekeepers to gain wider exposure to a world where you can create massive exposure on your own. It’s a powerful difference, but I don’t think Godin has quite nailed the right catch phrase to define today vs. yesterday.

Maybe he will read this post and help me out? Would be cool, for sure. (Wait, did I just try to get picked? Heck yeah!)

 

The genius of AND vs the tyranny of OR.

I was at a press event for Cloudera, a big data company, earlier today and one of the speakers started off with the statement “the genius of AND vs the tyranny of OR.” It was a good statement for the data world, where cost forces hard choices between what data to keep vs. what data to toss. But what about songwriting? Is there a tyranny of OR? And is AND really genius?

No and no.

In songwriting OR is good. If you’re not making hard choices, not carving away fat and discarding your babies for the greater good, you’re probably not coming up with much that’s worthwhile.

And what of AND? Is it really a good idea to layer on harmony after harmony or more chords or bridges or pre-choruses? Probably not. Don’t get me wrong, I like pre-choruses and middle 8s to a fault, but I know that the real challenge is to write a verse and chorus so good you don’t need extra elements to keep the song interesting. Creedence was the best at this.

In songwriting, OR is genius. (Okay, a tyrannical genius.)

When does a song become a soung?

When Doves Cry by Prince.

A Day in the LIfe by the Beatles.

Good Vibrations by the Beach Boys.

All of these are more than just songs, they are what I call soungs, or musical expressions that are as much about the notes as the are about the sound of those notes.

When I first started doing serious songwriting/recording back in 2008, I thought mostly about music and lyrics and just wanted my songs to have good sounds. I wanted good guitars through good amps, properly mic-ed up drums, punchy bass, warm vocals. In other words, I wanted the expected in the hope that the song itself would be enough to grab people. Think Honky Tonk Women or Alright Now or any number of other great, great songs that are distinctive for their music and not so much their sounds.

Now consider those soungs I mentioned at the start of this post. When you first heard When Doves Cry you had never heard anything like it? Same with A Day in the Life and Good Vibrations. The sounds that these songs are built on are as important as the songs themselves. Sure, you could record them with just an acoustic guitar and they would still be great but they would not be the indelible marks on music history that these songs have become.

Have I written a soung yet? I wish. Mostly I’m just after a good song, I find that to be challenge enough. Which reminds me. Have you ever seen this video? It’s by Gotye and shows what he is willing — even eager — to go through to create soungs. Amazing.

And here’s another one:

I think the closest I’ve come to creating a soung is Old Wounds Still Bleed, but only one sound is truly different from my usual approach, not every sound. It’s a guitar played by Tim Young through a device I call The Spooky Box, which is a rotating speaker thingamajiggy Tim bought from some guy in Oregon who built it by hand out of wood and found-parts.

If you see ever see a Spooky Box in person you will think it a beast. Black, clearly home-made, not in the least bit sleek or refined, big. Pick it up and you feel it’s heft and solidity and you are a little nervous about it all because you’ve just never seen anything quite like it. Now plug it in and play through it. What comes out at first sounds like a chorus pedal that just escaped from a SuperMax but then you hear the beauty and the delicacy and the mystery.

On Old Wounds, the Spooky Box creates ethereal textures that are meant to enhance the lyrics and evoke the kinds of haunting feelings that rise up out of the past and engulf you in your present and drag you backward; a ghost hugging you, drawing you in, pushing you away. It’s the one instrument on the whole song that’s unconventional but it defines the sound of the song and pushes the song toward being a soung. Is it enough? No, because a soung has to be about every instrument sounding new and a little strange and adding up to a whole that cannot survive without all its parts. But it’s the best I’ve been able to do, so far.

Just wondering, do you have a favorite soung? Leave a comment if you do. I’d love to compile a list of favorites.​

A shoutout for earbits.

I few years ago I started using a service called Jango to get more exposure for my songs. If you've never heard of Jango think of it as radio for musicians who can't get on the radio. All I had to do was pay them a fee and they would play my tunes over their internet radio service. Great, right? Not so fast. Jango offers no integration with Facebook or other social services (at least not that I can figure out) and a lot of the email addresses I collected seemed less than legit. Now, I think the folks who run Jango are fine and not running a scam but, regardless, I became disenchanted. Then I heard about something called earbits. Can't remember how I discovered them, but earbits was immediately appealing to me in two key ways: (1) earbits won't play just anybody, you have to submit your music so the earbits crew can be sure your quality is at least decent; and (2) Facebook integration. Oh, and they don't charge you for incomplete plays. And they answer emails. And they're nice. I could go on and on but suffice it to say I think earbits rocks. Check them out by visiting www.earbits.com where you can listen to and discover new music for free. Pretty cool. 

• What’s the difference between Keith Richards and Lance Armstrong?

I was in a meeting yesterday and before we got down to business we got into a debate about drugs, specifically performance enhancing drugs. The catalyst was an offhand comment about how the people in charge of awarding Tour de France medals had had to go back several places to award a new first. In other words, it seems like all the top riders were either users or former users. A colleague blurted out, “What’s wrong with using drugs or plastic surgery or whatever to make yourself better?” He then added, “I mean, what’s different about John Lennon?”

I agreed with him. I think banning performance enhancing drugs is dumb but I also felt that there was a difference between musicians and athletes. So I asked myself, “What’s the difference between Keith Richards and Lance Armstrong?” Keith used drugs to enhance his creativity; Lance used them (or so it seems) to enhance his cycling. Both of them broke the law to get an advantage, right?

No so fast. If you do a little heroin, smoke some dope, drink a fair bit and then snort of bit of coke to stay awake, you might write a great riff but there is no guarantee. Steroids, on the other hand, will make you stronger, full stop. In other words, there are no guaranteed performance enhancing drugs for creativity so using drugs isn’t cheating. In sports, on the other hand, the drugs work and they are outlawed so using them makes you a cheater. And that’s the difference. Lance cheated to win a race. All Keith has ever cheated is death.