The Club Cafe in the Southside hosts an open mic every Monday night for artists in the more folk/acoustic side of the rock genre. Last Monday, Mike went to check it out and reported some good musicians and songs to match. Unfortunately, I am unable to check it out myself because the venue is 21 and over.
The open mic is hosted by the group, Acousticafe, and from what I can tell, they are fairly active in Pittsburgh's music scene. Their website is worth checking out, and I hope to find out more about the group, because I have either met or seen live several of the artists involved with it. My understanding of Acousticafe is limited though so if anyone knows more, please help me out.
Tomorrow night, Mike is going down to the Club Cafe as a lone Broke in order to perform a few songs. From what I know about the venue thus far, I'm hoping it will be a good match for the Brokes type of music. Although they have the ability to play high-energy live shows, the single acoustic guitar sound works well for them, too...so it should be a good performance and something worth attending if you like the "bar/cafe with music" atmosphere.
29 November 2009
25 November 2009
The Unsmokable Genre
There are a few blanket categories of genre that I suppose the Unsmokable Brokes could fit into: folk, indie, or blues, for example. I really don't have a problem with saying this about the band, or any band, because these terms are useful, specific enough (sometimes too specific), and a good place to start. I would have a problem stopping there, though.
Before I get into the specifics of the Brokes, let's talk about originality. Is it a compliment or an insult for someone to tell you that you sound like another band? Personally, I see it as a compliment. Music is art, and art does not exist in a vacuum. It is a constant and eternal conversation between contemplative and socially conscious minds.
When someone listens to the Brokes' "I Can Find You Anywhere" and says it sounds a little Dylanesque, it doesn't matter if I think Dylan is good or bad, a genius or a hack. He had a lot to say about music and the world, and so do the Brokes. If one of their songs sounds like one of his songs, chances are it was on purpose. Through similarities, they are saying, "Hey Dylan, I liked (or hated) the way you talked about this thing...but did you think about this other thing?" And thus the conversation continues.
(Of course, there are rip-offs and copycat artists, but that is a discussion of its own. For now, I think it is best if everyone makes their own decisions regarding authenticity.)
Just to give everyone a little perspective, I will list a few popular artists/bands that influence the Brokes music in a conscious way:
Lyrically heavy, complex yet melodic, socially conscious compositions are the result. You won't mistake their vocalist for an opera singer, but he writes the songs and knows just how to sing them. Passion and emotion bleed from the words as they leave his mouth. The guitar won't be something that just plays a role in the song. It is going to make you think and make you learn. All you have to do is listen.
I take music pretty seriously, but I don't want it to seem like it is all serious. When I'm in my car and my life sucks, I blast the Brokes to make me feel better just like I blast Bob Marley or the Ramones. They can rock out at a show, and the people dance around not because thematic diversity really tugged at a heart string, but because of a sick bass line or a mellow groove.
Their songs are versatile, and therefore their genre is complex to pin down. Fortunately, you can just listen to a couple of songs to figure out what they sound like.
Before I get into the specifics of the Brokes, let's talk about originality. Is it a compliment or an insult for someone to tell you that you sound like another band? Personally, I see it as a compliment. Music is art, and art does not exist in a vacuum. It is a constant and eternal conversation between contemplative and socially conscious minds.
When someone listens to the Brokes' "I Can Find You Anywhere" and says it sounds a little Dylanesque, it doesn't matter if I think Dylan is good or bad, a genius or a hack. He had a lot to say about music and the world, and so do the Brokes. If one of their songs sounds like one of his songs, chances are it was on purpose. Through similarities, they are saying, "Hey Dylan, I liked (or hated) the way you talked about this thing...but did you think about this other thing?" And thus the conversation continues.
(Of course, there are rip-offs and copycat artists, but that is a discussion of its own. For now, I think it is best if everyone makes their own decisions regarding authenticity.)
Just to give everyone a little perspective, I will list a few popular artists/bands that influence the Brokes music in a conscious way:
Bob Dylan, Neil Young, The Doors, the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, The Pixies, The Violent Femmes, The Velvet Underground, REM, Nirvana, Pavement, Wilco, Guided by Voices, The Stone Roses, Neutral Milk Hotel, Blur, The Kinks, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Smashing Pumpkins, and The White Stripes. (There are many, many more, but I don't want the references to get too obscure)Part of the reason why these bands are valued though, is because of their variety. The above list contains so much variety and talent. Combined, it is hard to fathom what it would sound like. Myself and the Brokes value these bands ability to look to past traditions in music and implement them while developing new ones. This is the influence genre has on their music.
Lyrically heavy, complex yet melodic, socially conscious compositions are the result. You won't mistake their vocalist for an opera singer, but he writes the songs and knows just how to sing them. Passion and emotion bleed from the words as they leave his mouth. The guitar won't be something that just plays a role in the song. It is going to make you think and make you learn. All you have to do is listen.
I take music pretty seriously, but I don't want it to seem like it is all serious. When I'm in my car and my life sucks, I blast the Brokes to make me feel better just like I blast Bob Marley or the Ramones. They can rock out at a show, and the people dance around not because thematic diversity really tugged at a heart string, but because of a sick bass line or a mellow groove.
Their songs are versatile, and therefore their genre is complex to pin down. Fortunately, you can just listen to a couple of songs to figure out what they sound like.
20 November 2009
The Birth of a Song
I am not dodging the 'The Unsmokable Brokes' genre question, but I thought it might be good to preface it by explaining how a song is written, and therefore, trace the origins of their sound. I must also note that I will generalize this process, from my perspective, so it will not be applicable to every song. However, I have witnessed the birth of many the Brokes songs and followed them throughout their development, and I have followed their continuing development. And the process generally is something like this...
A song begins, after an 8-hour work day, in a basement, with an acoustic guitar. Mike opens his notebook filled with worn pages bound by cheap glue, and his spontaneous or recycled reflections from the day to day routine. Words upon words upon words are meticulously spliced together and rearranged, invented when necessary, in the hope of achieving something harmonious.
Chord patterns are then summoned, to give his hands something to do while he thinks. Some come from Will. These are rhythmic transitions from C#m to Asus2 to Bsus2 or G or anything else that fits the key--guitar voices that he stumbled upon some late night in his apartment during a solitary conversation with his Fender Jazzmaster. Other chord patterns come from Mike, himself. These patterns are born out of necessity. They need to exist. Moments, days or even months after their creation, he finds that maybe they were not created in vain. Maybe, there is something beautiful in their existence.
When words are added to chords, the life of the song begins. Mike and Will, together, add layers of intricate guitar riffs, vocal melodies, lines of bass and any other appropriate elements that will make this life one worth living.
The result is a combination of lush layers of sound, lucid lyrical poetry and a child-like appeal that is not far removed from the soothing melody of lullabies. Their songs are intelligent, complex and artistic, yet they do not lose their ability to be sung in the shower or whistled while washing the dishes.
Personally, I have likened their sound, the result of their songs in tandem, to a choir of barking angels. This may be something no one has ever heard, but the words alone create such stirring imagery. The difference is that the Brokes' songs can be heard, and therefore the images are all the more stirring.
A song begins, after an 8-hour work day, in a basement, with an acoustic guitar. Mike opens his notebook filled with worn pages bound by cheap glue, and his spontaneous or recycled reflections from the day to day routine. Words upon words upon words are meticulously spliced together and rearranged, invented when necessary, in the hope of achieving something harmonious.
Chord patterns are then summoned, to give his hands something to do while he thinks. Some come from Will. These are rhythmic transitions from C#m to Asus2 to Bsus2 or G or anything else that fits the key--guitar voices that he stumbled upon some late night in his apartment during a solitary conversation with his Fender Jazzmaster. Other chord patterns come from Mike, himself. These patterns are born out of necessity. They need to exist. Moments, days or even months after their creation, he finds that maybe they were not created in vain. Maybe, there is something beautiful in their existence.
When words are added to chords, the life of the song begins. Mike and Will, together, add layers of intricate guitar riffs, vocal melodies, lines of bass and any other appropriate elements that will make this life one worth living.
The result is a combination of lush layers of sound, lucid lyrical poetry and a child-like appeal that is not far removed from the soothing melody of lullabies. Their songs are intelligent, complex and artistic, yet they do not lose their ability to be sung in the shower or whistled while washing the dishes.
Personally, I have likened their sound, the result of their songs in tandem, to a choir of barking angels. This may be something no one has ever heard, but the words alone create such stirring imagery. The difference is that the Brokes' songs can be heard, and therefore the images are all the more stirring.
15 November 2009
Genre Battles, The Purists Vs. The Mutts
I have been getting into quite a few discussions about genre recently, so I want to voice a few observations.
First of all, there seem to be two main approaches to genre. One school of thought encourages artists to find a sound and stick to it. This works well when bands develop a niche and use it to their advantage...in other words, specialization. The opposition to that is quite simply when bands do not observe the rules of a given scene, transcend (hopefully) the limitations of a certain sound, or mix and match.
Examples of success and failure for both approaches can easily be pointed to. Some bands that come to mind that fall under the "purist" philosophy are Radiohead, The Ramones, Bob Marley, and Simon and Garfunkel. Basically this is any band/artist that develops a sound that can be easily recognized and defined, regardless of how unique it may be to that particular band. There still is a lot of creative freedom in these genres and with these bands, but when I hear a Bob Marley song, I know it's reggae. The same can be said for these other artists, given their respective genres, and many more I have not named.
Then there are "the mutts." Beck, Gorillaz, The Transplants, David Bowie and other similar bands/artists come to mind. These individuals are known for either their ability to combine multiple genres or their constant exploration into the various genres of modern music. They may develop a characteristic sound (for example, most people can point out a Bowie tune when they hear it), but there is not a single genre the majority of their songs conform to.
*Note: one approach is not purely superior to the other, as with most things. Pros and cons exist with both, and given some of the names I dropped, I hope it is apparent that choosing either path does not limit an artist's potential.
A developing artist faces the question of genre time after time. In my opinion, it is answered not at one defining moment in his/her career, but time after time as well. In other words, the artist has little control over it anyhow.
With this said, there are still ways to jeopardize the overall quality of an one's musical output as a result of not understanding interaction with genre. A prime example of this is Green Day. In my opinion (and NOT in the opinion of thousands of other music listeners...however), Green Day committed genre suicide when they released "American Idiot." With the release of this album they shifted their identity as post-grunge 90's punk band to a tweener emo band. They also alienated their devout following in place of prepubescent, Disney Radio-listening, get-dropped-off-at-the-show-by-their-minivan-driving-mom, young children. I saw this happen when I was in high school, and they played a show at the Mellon Arena.
From my understanding, it did wonders for their popularity and record sales, but something was lost by the change. Several problems arose. For example, what do these kids do when a song like "Longview" shuffles into their playlist, and their parents are in the room? My prediction is that Green Day will forever be remembered in music circles as the band that should have stopped when they released their greatest hits, and this is a direct result of abandoning their genre.
Maybe losing your credibility in place of lots and lots of money isn't something bands worry about, but from the majority of people I talk to, it matters. My suggestion would be not to let genre define you but define genres with your music. Understand them and be loyal to them, regardless of whether you are a purist or a mutt. Although genre terms and categories are inherently superficial, they help a fan understand the underlying creative messages in music and get to the deeper levels of sonic enjoyment.
First of all, there seem to be two main approaches to genre. One school of thought encourages artists to find a sound and stick to it. This works well when bands develop a niche and use it to their advantage...in other words, specialization. The opposition to that is quite simply when bands do not observe the rules of a given scene, transcend (hopefully) the limitations of a certain sound, or mix and match.
Examples of success and failure for both approaches can easily be pointed to. Some bands that come to mind that fall under the "purist" philosophy are Radiohead, The Ramones, Bob Marley, and Simon and Garfunkel. Basically this is any band/artist that develops a sound that can be easily recognized and defined, regardless of how unique it may be to that particular band. There still is a lot of creative freedom in these genres and with these bands, but when I hear a Bob Marley song, I know it's reggae. The same can be said for these other artists, given their respective genres, and many more I have not named.
Then there are "the mutts." Beck, Gorillaz, The Transplants, David Bowie and other similar bands/artists come to mind. These individuals are known for either their ability to combine multiple genres or their constant exploration into the various genres of modern music. They may develop a characteristic sound (for example, most people can point out a Bowie tune when they hear it), but there is not a single genre the majority of their songs conform to.
*Note: one approach is not purely superior to the other, as with most things. Pros and cons exist with both, and given some of the names I dropped, I hope it is apparent that choosing either path does not limit an artist's potential.
A developing artist faces the question of genre time after time. In my opinion, it is answered not at one defining moment in his/her career, but time after time as well. In other words, the artist has little control over it anyhow.
With this said, there are still ways to jeopardize the overall quality of an one's musical output as a result of not understanding interaction with genre. A prime example of this is Green Day. In my opinion (and NOT in the opinion of thousands of other music listeners...however), Green Day committed genre suicide when they released "American Idiot." With the release of this album they shifted their identity as post-grunge 90's punk band to a tweener emo band. They also alienated their devout following in place of prepubescent, Disney Radio-listening, get-dropped-off-at-the-show-by-their-minivan-driving-mom, young children. I saw this happen when I was in high school, and they played a show at the Mellon Arena.
From my understanding, it did wonders for their popularity and record sales, but something was lost by the change. Several problems arose. For example, what do these kids do when a song like "Longview" shuffles into their playlist, and their parents are in the room? My prediction is that Green Day will forever be remembered in music circles as the band that should have stopped when they released their greatest hits, and this is a direct result of abandoning their genre.
Maybe losing your credibility in place of lots and lots of money isn't something bands worry about, but from the majority of people I talk to, it matters. My suggestion would be not to let genre define you but define genres with your music. Understand them and be loyal to them, regardless of whether you are a purist or a mutt. Although genre terms and categories are inherently superficial, they help a fan understand the underlying creative messages in music and get to the deeper levels of sonic enjoyment.
11 November 2009
Record Players with USB
(This is a follow-up to my post "Vinyl Comeback!")
They exist. Old media meets new with these interesting little Frankensteins known as USB turntables, or CD recorders, or any other incredibly creative ways of saying record players connected to something else.
I was most surprised to see that these items are popular even in the mainstream. Target's collection is fairly expansive and, from what I can tell, they are popular sellers, too.
I think the idea behind these hybrids was to provide people with a way of taking their classic music collection and updating it to new formats (big mistake in my opinion). However, if you are like me and like to use your record player and your ipod depending on the situation, this might be a good purchase.
*My intention with this post wasn't a merchandise plug. I thought combining media was applicable and interesting, so I wanted to see what everyone else thought.
They exist. Old media meets new with these interesting little Frankensteins known as USB turntables, or CD recorders, or any other incredibly creative ways of saying record players connected to something else.
I was most surprised to see that these items are popular even in the mainstream. Target's collection is fairly expansive and, from what I can tell, they are popular sellers, too.
I think the idea behind these hybrids was to provide people with a way of taking their classic music collection and updating it to new formats (big mistake in my opinion). However, if you are like me and like to use your record player and your ipod depending on the situation, this might be a good purchase.
*My intention with this post wasn't a merchandise plug. I thought combining media was applicable and interesting, so I wanted to see what everyone else thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)