I decided to make a few changes to the new EP, so it will probably be several days until it's ready. Patience is a virtue...

Just wanted to throw out an update on the new ep - I have a strong feeling it's going to be finished by Sunday. And since it's being released by a netlabel it should be up for download not much later than that, although there's still the question of artwork. 5 songs are confirmed, (including Thank You Music Guru, a near-complete version of which is on the music page) a sixth song is probable, and a seventh is quite possible. I'll get a track listing up as soon as it's confirmed.

There's a new song up on the music page.

I just heard a report on npr today about music videos, and how mtv doesn't play them anymore and labels are hesitant to make big budget ones (and supposedly viewers don't care). The big thing is now co-branding; big videos get made when corporations fund them in part.
I started thinking about it, and I have three thoughts. One is that music videos aren't dead, and that the reason for their decline is due mostly to quality. The report talked about the golden age of videos - in the 80's - when bands like Devo created an identity for themselves with their art-film videos. (Their video for Whip It was made - for free - by an art student friend of theirs). When videos became ultra popular corporate America stepped in and made big budget videos like TLC's Waterfalls. Then CGI became a big deal and it got way overused and that's where we are now. There are a few alternative music video-viewing channels out there, but they all play the same lame-ass videos that MTV occasionally plays. I think it's possible for a return to quality videos to revive the genre.
My second thought is related to the first, that an indie consortium of amateur music video makers could be successful. Technology is such that a lot of people can now make decent quality videos, and if there was a reason for them to do so, an outlet for their videos, they would make them.
My third thought is that music videos as we know them are in fact dead. The rise of the internet has resulted in an expectation for demands to be met almost instantaneously. If I can go online to check out a video right now then there's no reason for me to wait to see it on MTV. And if all that matters is the song anyways, then I'm just going to download it from a P2P site. There's an overload of information these days, and traditional filters for music (radio, MTV) can't deal with the pressure of the flood. New music is seeping through the cracks, and artists are appealing directly to listeners for attention.
I believe this is all a good thing. The overload will result in certain types of music standing out from the pack - good music. A well-crafted song will be an oasis in a desert of mediocrity, and listeners will cling to quality artists for support and emotional fulfillment (the whole point of music, right?). Likewise, if these artists create videos of sufficient quality they will be rewarded. I envision videos similar to Thriller, the Michael Jackson mini-movie. I think of a move towards 'music movies' - 15 to 20 minute short films that are much more than simple vehicles for songs. I'm picturing full blown concept music videos - a series of songs that tell a meaningful story that are then portrayed as a short film. Everyone talks about the internet being the death of albums and the subsequent rise of singles, but I think the opposite will also be true. People will get sick of listening to one song at a time, just 3 or 4 minutes of emotional attachment, and will seek a more lasting relationship. A musical story will be the answer. Or so I think.

For those of you chomping at the bit for fresh news, here it is: things are going well. Work on the new EP (EPs) is progressing well - I'm finally working on it (them) on a regular basis. The possible plurality is due to the fact that since it's taking me so long and I've had so many starts and stops I now have quite a few potential songs - enough for a full length even. I'll probably do some sort of double release... we'll see. Basically I'll soon have a bunch more music available, so keep checking back.

The band is coming along well, we should be ready to play some shows in about a month. I should have some more updates on this in a week or so.

Hey there, auditioning for the new band is going well, i'd say i'm roughly 38% of the way there. Not much else to report right now, but I thought I'd recommend a few books.

1. The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell
This book discusses how information travels throughout society, and offers insights into fads, trends, teenage smoking and other such issues. A very cool read if you're looking for new marketing ideas.

2. The Wisdom of Crowds, by James Surowieki
This book makes the surprising assertion that large, diverse groups of people consistently make better decisions than the most intelligent and knowledgeable members of that group. A major implication of this is that democracy is a far better system than most people think.

3. Bo Knows Bo, by Bo Jackson
I think the title says enough.

4. How Soccer Explains the World, by Franklin Foer
This is more entertaining than enlightening, although the final chapter neatly sums up all the minor points made throughout the book - and equates to a fascinating insight into the liberal/conservative battle our country seems to be eternally mired in.

I just started Blink, also by Malcolm Gladwell. So far it is excellent, as expected - I highly recommend checking out his site at www.gladwell.com and reading all - yes, all - of his articles from The New Yorker. Every last one is free on his website.

I've decided to put all my mp3s online for free. Here's why:

In 1665, the Royal Society - one of the first institutions, and certainly the most important, formed to foster the growth of scientific knowledge - published the first issue of its Philosophical Transactions. It was a seminal moment in the history of science, because of the journal's fierce commitment to the idea that all new discoveries should be disseminated as widely and freely as possible. Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society and the editor of the Transactions, pioneered the idea that secrecy was inimical to scientific progress, and convinced scientists that they should give up their sole ownership of their ideas in exchange for the recognition they would receive as the creator or discoverer of those ideas. What Oldenburg grasped was the peculiar character of knowledge, which does not, unlike other commodities, get used up as it is consumed and which can be therefore spread widely without losing its value. If anything, in fact, the more a piece of knowledge becomes available, the more valuable it potentially becomes, because of the wider array of possible uses for it.
-From The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki

In science, one's private property is established by giving its substance away.
-Robert K. Merton

Hey, take a minute to jump over to You Ain't No Picasso (http://youaintnopicasso.blogspot.com/), a sweet little music blog that just did a review of Lost on Purpose. A very smart music reviewer he is, although I do not have all of my releases available for download... yet I think that day is coming soon. Keep checking back...

I feel like I had something else to post, but I must be wrong.

I heard a report on NPR this morning about the new indie flick "Monde de Vino" (or something like that). It echoes the types of things I've been thinking/writing about, but its focus is on the wine industry and the role globalization plays in the business. Which I think is pretty similar to the music industry, although I've never really thought of globalization as the culprit. But they both revolve around the same principle: creating a product with the broadest appeal.

In the movie traditional boutique wine makers lament the current state of the wine industry, much like indie rockers do at Spaceland here in LA. Seriously, these old French vinters sounded exactly like kids running around the scene out here. They were pissed off about the power of wine critics, especially one American guy. I don't remember his name. I guess in the movie they play him off like the bad guy (like that one McDonald's rep in Super Size Me). This American critic has gained a lot of power and consequently winemakers are pressured into catering to his tastes - otherwise their sales will suffer.

Someone in the report made a great statement, that no matter what, Velveeta still sells way more cheese than any carefully crafted small batch Italian cheesery. It's just the way things work. If you want to market a product to the masses, you're going to have to eliminate a lot of the nuances that give a product a unique identity and complexity, because the average consumer simply does not have enough time to devote to developing the knowledge to fully appreciate said nuances. In the case of wine, the average consumer wants a taste that is immediate and familiar. They are people who don't drink a lot of wine, and if a bottle does not immediately appeal to them then forget it. They have no interest in developing a taste for wine, they just want something to complement a meal (or to get wasted).

Music is the same. There are countless songs that I absolutely love, but that I didn't even like the first time I listened to them. Songs like these are never singles, they're always the 10th or 11th track on an album and sometimes it takes months for me to finally 'get' them. But when I do, the payoff is supreme. But time is the critical factor, and musical knowledge is ancillary to time. Most people don't have the resources or patience that I do when it comes to music; for them the single will have to do. Something immediate and familiar. The vast majority of people are like this.

The big question here is, is this wrong? That is to say, is the dumbing down of wine and music - Art - intrinsically bad? Obviously not, in my humble opinion. Since art is subjective, it's impossible to denigrate mass produced pop songs in any objective way. Look at the Ramones. What a shitty band. Seriously. When they first arrived on the scene they were just not good musicians. And their music was incredibly simplistic. But they stood for an attitude, a style, and they're in the rock pantheon because of it. There is nothing wrong with this.

Yes, pathetic pop music is different from the Ramones, but it's still music. You can't deny the talent of the songwriters who create these MTV countdown tunes. You can't deny the talent (or sex appeal) of the vocalists. Pop music is, in all respects, art. It has every right to exist, even if it purposely appeals to the lowest common denominator.

In fact, I blame the indie scenesters and the old French vinters for being far too bitter and elitist. (Yes, I'm calling myself out on this one). We carry around such an air of superiority that we alienate the masses, the possible converts and potential fans. We eschew corporate marketing tactics and mainstream media because using those avenues would be selling out. But they are incredibly effective methods of promoting music - we musicians dislike them simply because corporate America thought of them first and we hate everything corporate America stands for. But that's our own fault.

Underground music has its own culture, but that culture perpetuates itself: indie musicians only promote their music in indie magazines, on indie websites, at indie shows and venues. Essentially, anyone outside the indie community has to come to us to hear about our music. This is wrong. An true artist should not care about his/her audience, only the art should matter, right? I shouldn't care about who listens to my music; if some kid's grandpa in Kansas can somehow relate to one of my songs, how is that any different or less meaningful than if a skinny guy with tight-ass pants and a swooping haircut likes one of my songs? If anything I think it would mean more.

Everybody's always talking about how they hate the music business, how major labels suck and the current business model is way outdated. And they're right. But all these people end up hating business in general, and they love to profess how they're 'not in it for the money' or they're 'true artists'. But I'm willing to bet they'd like to work on their art full time, and not have to hold down a day job to support a marginal lifestyle. This requires money, and money requires business knowledge.
It's true that the current music business model (that the major labels adhere to) is way outdated and that it's in the beginning stages of its death throes even as I write this. That's why I'm sick and tired of musicians ripping on other musicians who actively try to market themselves. Come on, if you do nothing but play shows you definitely have a chance of being successful… but you'll have to end up on an indie, and then a major label to do so (unless you perpetually tour to make money - good luck with that). And guess what - you just bought into the current business model if you take that track cause you're letting the labels do all the business work for you. Nice one jackass.
I'm calling out all indie musicians to embrace business and come up with alternative means of making money and marketing yourselves. I know too many people who slog through five days of corporate crap week in and week out while waiting for the music business to come find them. It just ain't gonna happen that way.