The Daily Swarm - The Swarm

The Swarm

February 05, 2010

An Old Rock Movie Still Rife with Ridiculous Parallels...

Matt Singer

(This article was originally posted at Termite Art)

The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years (1988)

No matter how dated its subjects look, The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years never gets old. Glam metal isn’t particularly relevant to popular culture in 2010, but its throng of money-hungry, talent-starved wannabes certainly is. Watching Penelope Spheeris’ superb documentary shows us how much and how little the music industry has changed. Though they assume an anti-authority posture, all they really want is to be rich and famous rock stars. If American Idol had been on television in 1988, they would have been the first ones in line.

The film isn’t just interviews with unknowns — Spheeris also includes enlightening talks with Ozzy Osborne, Lemmy, and Steven Tyler and other rock luminaries — but I find those conversations the most fascinating. Some are from forgotten bands like Odin or Seduce. Others are groupies or fans who desperately want to be in rock bands themselves but haven’t quite gotten there yet. Their answers to Spheeris’ questions are so similar sometimes it’s like they’re reading from cue cards. No, they don’t think of what they’ll be doing in ten years if they don’t make, because they will make it. In twenty years, they’ll all probably be dead. They’re not in it for the money, they’re in it for the music. And the women. Metal’s image is all about non-conformity. The Metal Years shows how all these non-conformists are all starting to look and sound exactly alike.

Selling rock and roll is as much selling the lifestyle as the music. So even as these rockers quickly grow bitter and jaded, they have to keep up the appearance that everything is going awesome and they wouldn’t have it any other way. They claim to be having a great time, but desperation hangs in the air like stage fog. Some of these folks are hungry in more than just the figurative sense. A few even admit to being so broke that they date women for meals (you or I might call this transaction prostitution).

Spheeris is a fabulous interviewer. Her questions are blunt and direct; in one a particularly mesmerizing sequence she talks to W.A.S.P. guitarist Chris Holmes while he’s drunk out of his mind, wading in a swimming pool. His mother a few feet away, he brags about groupie orgies. A few minutes later, with Spheeris pressing him, he acknowledges he’s a full-fledged alcoholic, and as he pours bottles of vodka down his throat he confesses that he doesn’t like himself very much and wouldn’t mind if he was less of a rock star. Holmes hadn’t learned the lessons that so many of the hard rock stars who came before him had: that the drugs of “sex, drugs, and rock and roll” basically kill whatever joy you might derive from the other two. The juxtaposition of the rockers from various points on the timeline of pop music stardom feed the image of the music industry as a monster that needs to be fed: it chews up the guys like Odin, then grinds on them until they look like Holmes. If they’re lucky they get spit out and can clean up, and get on with things. If not, they get devoured.

If you’ve ever watched American Idol, that model should sound familiar. That show feasts on the dreams of young musicians who are exactly like the ones in The Metal Years in every way except for the size of their hairdos. As I’m writing this, my wife is watching the show in the other room as a whole raft of new young kids get swept up in the journey toward superstardom. Of course, along the way most of them will be tossed to the wayside and forgotten. If my kid ever came to me and told me they wanted to be on American Idol, I would sit them down in front of The Metal Years and make them watch. “It ain’t all confetti, fireworks, and million dollar contracts, kiddo. Now go clean your room before you end up like this guy…”

We Are The Worst: Top Ten Terrible Artists Lending Haiti A Helping Hand...

Andrew Flanagan

With hearts firmly in the right place and substantial artistic contributions long past (if ever), The Daily Swarm humbly presents the top ten worst musicians helping Haiti.

#10 Slash and will.i.am Cover The Who

Who’s gonna be on iTunes Super Bowl Sunday? Probably a million people. Which is good…which is sad. Billboard:

A fresh remix of The Who’s “My Generation” is coming to raise money for Haitian earthquake relief.

The Black Eyed Peas’ will.i.am. tells Billboard.com that he was commissioned to remix the iconic 1965 rock anthem, which will air during the Super Bowl XLIV broadcast on Feb. 7—where the Who is performing at halftime—and then go on sale via iTunes. “It’s the Who, their song, and then I altered the lyric to fit my generation now and then have Slash on it,” will.i.am says. “It was awesome. I loved that song way before this even came up, and talking to Pete Townshend on the phone is like, ‘What?! I’m talking to Pete Townshend on the phone?!’ That was awesome, being able to just hear their advice and everything. Those guys are just awesome.”

#9 Muse

Muse put an old drum kit in the Oxfam auction. NME:

Muse have added the drum kit they used for live tours from 2006–2008 to the auction to raise money for the victims of the recent Haiti earthquake.

#8 Jessica Simpson

Jessica Simpson is sending old shoes to Haiti, maybe so they don’t stub their toes when rebuilding their houses? “Psst…watch our new show.”

With her hairdresser Ken Paves and pal CaCee Cobb, Simpson is working with Soles4Souls and 50000Shoes.com to raise funds for victims of the Haiti earthquake. Shoes are much needed amid all the broken glass, twisted metal and raw sewage. The charity has pledged 1 million pairs of shoes will be distributed to Haitians during a sustained giving plan in coordination with other agencies. (USA Today)

#7 Dave Matthews Band

Dave Matthews is no stranger to helping people out. Just send them money, Dave.

Rolling Stone:

In an effort to continue to raise funds for earthquake-ravaged Haiti, the Dave Matthews Band will release The Haiti Relief Project EP, featuring five unreleased live songs. The digital EP will go on sale tomorrow for $5 on DMBlive.com. Additionally, all sales from merchandise made at the DMB store between today and tomorrow will benefit the Bama Works Haiti Relief Fund, which was established by the Dave Matthews Band with the hopes of continuing to raise money for Haiti.

The Haiti Relief Project EP will boast Matthews’ solo performance of “Butterfly” from 2007, a rendition of “Cry Freedom” from 2004 with a “powerful performance” by LeRoi Moore and three live cuts from the band’s 2009 tour: “Out of My Hands,” “Lying in the Hands of God” and “Dive In.” Limited edition T-shirts of the EP’s cover art will also go on sale tomorrow, with proceeds once again going to Haiti.

#6 Chris Martin

Mr. Martin sold his jacket for nearly $20,000, which incidentally is how much money he didn’t send to Haiti (just kidding, he’s been and helped there before).

#5 Robbie Williams and Take That

I’ll admit to not knowing much about Britain, specifically why they’re so excited for Take That to reform. Need a segue from solo career to triumphant reformation? Haiti’s got your back.

The Sun wrote about their reunion in a tone describable as “way too excited”.

Robbie will be performing on his first track alongside his old band since he walked out in 1995.

The lads are set to record their vocals for the charity single in Los Angeles today.
It is hoped they will team up in the studio, but they may record separately and have their voices mixed together later.

Rumours have been rife for months of a reunion between Robbie and pals Gary Barlow, 39 Mark Owen, 38, Howard Donald, 41, and Jason Orange, 39.
Now the desperate plight of Haiti has finally put his voice on a record with his former band.

Producer John Shanks, who was behind Take That’s two smash-hit comeback albums, is recording the boys’ contributions in the US.

#4 Adam Lambert

Adam Lambert brought a framed and signed photo of himself to the Ellen show for auction, and tossed in his underwear too…I bet they smelled like waterproofer. Don’t watch the video.

(image via Idolator)

#3 Shaggy

“I am very proud of this song” – Shaggy

#2 Simon Cowell

Simon Cowell pulled a cattle-call for his charity single, getting over 20 artists in the studio to re-record R.E.M.‘s “Everybody Hurts”. His song selection is odd and appropriate in equal turns, with that distinctive smack of Simon sarcasm, too.

Examiner:

Rod Stewart said he could not think of “a more fitting song than “Everybody Hurts” to convey the unimaginable tragedy that is Haiti.”

Project organizer, American Idol/X-Factor star Simon Cowell, said it had been “an absolute priority for us all”.

In Entertainment:

The single to help out the Haiti earthquake appeal has been completed, and will be released on February 8. The single is arranged by Simon Cowell, and is a cover of REM’s 1992 hit ‘Everybody Hurts.’

21 artists were involved in the project including Robbie Williams and Take That, who have not recorded together since Robbie left the band in 1995. X Factor’s Alexandra Burke, Leona Lewis and Joe McElderry, Kylie Minogue, Mariah Carey, Rod Stewart, JLS, Cheryl Cole, Susan Boyle and Miley Cyrus are also involved in the charity single.

#1 Creed, Godsmack, and New Kids On The Block

From their release:

The plane took off from an airport in Long Beach, California on Wednesday January 27, and was on its way to Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince, as this went to press. Also involved in the mercy mission, which raised $1 million, were members of New Kids on the Block and rapper Eve.

Creed frontman Scott Stapp is already on the ground in Haiti and will help unload supplies when the plane lands and make sure food, water and medical equipment get to the right aid agencies.

Godsmack’s Sully Erna: “A soul is irreplaceable and should never be taken for granted, and since I can’t be there to help in person, I want to make my contribution as a fellow human being to give what I can while I’m in the fortunate situation that I am to help those that are so unfortunate in this time of tragedy.”

#0 Bonus Star-Studded All-Together-Now

Associated Press:

Twenty-five years after star-studded anthem “We Are the World” raised millions of dollars to aid famine relief in Africa, celebrities of a different generation were set to gather Monday night to re-record the charity tune to benefit Haiti.

Among those scheduled to perform on the revamped track the night after the Grammy Awards were Akon, Jason Mraz, Bono, Wyclef Jean, Carlos Santana, Enrique Iglesias, Usher, Toni Braxton and Lady Gaga. The session will be held at the same recording studio where the original was cut — the historic A&M complex in Hollywood.

Quincy Jones, who produced the 1985 anthem, announced last week that he planned to redo the song to benefit recovery from the deadly Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti.

The session was all the talk at Sunday night’s Grammy festivities. Music producer RedOne said being asked to participate was “the biggest honor a musician can ever do.”

Pitchfork Editor Takes to Public Forum to Defend Its Greatness... 'I Think You Underestimate How Much Bigger We Are'...

TDS Editors

The I Love Music message board has always been a lively place for music fans to gather, dish, flame, and occasionally have reasonable discussions about music. But last week, since the Village Voice’s Pazz & Jop Poll came out, a legendary thread was born.

Music critics Chuck Eddy, Christopher Weingarten, Maura Johnson, Scott Seward, Ned Raggett and others offered their assessments of the poll, and especially the unprecedented similarities between this year’s Pazz & Jop Poll and Pitchfork’s year-end polls. Has there been a mass indie-fication of music criticism? Has a myopic indie hive-mind mentality, fostered by Pitchfork, infected music writers? And what does “indie” mean nowadays anyway?

Soon Pitchfork’s Editor-in-Chief Scott Plagenhoef entered the conversation, and fired off some fantastic proclamations of Pitchfork’s cultural hegemony. Alternately lucid and aggressive, thoughtful and condescending, sometimes “confrontational”, “defensive” and “triumphant” (his words), the Pitchfork editor publicly reveals a consideration of the influential publication that it rarely projects on its own site.

Head over to ILX to read the entire conversation of over 1,100 posts here as we recount some of Scott’s highlights from his almost 50 posts(!) below:

(One thing to note: When Plagenhoef is referring to “Chris” for “Whiney,” that’s Chris Weingarten, or Whiney G)

On the Pazz & Jop poll and Pitchfork’s year-end list being so similar

in general, I don’t see why it’s weird to anyone that nominally indie rock is at the top of this. Rock music made by 20s and 30somethings presumably always was pretty well at the center of this stuff. Today almost any of that stuff that gets any critical traction is under the pointless tent of ‘indie’, whether its yyys or lcd or spoon or hold steady or some tiny band in williamsburg – or hell even electronic (v acoustic/electric) artists like mia or hot chip or anco. The change is with rock music more than it is with critics. This is what rock music made by and for adults looks and sounds like now.

No I don’t think our year-end lists specifically do shit for P&J. Any effect, which is totally impossible to quantify (so no there is no credit involved!), would come from our reviews throughout the year and the rather easy way we present our bnm. It’s quite simple to drop in and see what we’ve been most enthusiastic about. It’s not simple to do that with nearly any other pub of any size.

But it’s impossible to determine how much effect this or that thing has on the larger critical culture. Even w/AnCo, despite getting our best review in five years, I’m sure we had zero effect. We def had no effect on Uncut, since Stevie T, who wrote that review, heard the LP before I did and filed his review before ours. That’s the one real-world example I can give either way.

On why Pitchfork is more than just indie

Which is another way of me saying for the 100th time: we cover a lot more than the indie stuff, and I think we can direct people to more than that too. If anything, with our readers, it’s safer to say they’d have found Phoenix regardless and what we do more than anything is expand their POV, which I’ve said previously as well: For all the shit we get, I think our coverage of pop over the past seven years arguably did as much for “poptimism” as anything else. certainly more than the one time the NYT published an article on it, or whatever gets credit for that. (e.g. I assume joy o and shine blockas weird placements are more due to us than, say, phoenix or yyys)

In the internet-era, when there is way less guesswork about what readers want from critics, I don’t see much evidence from consumers or whomever that people want to read analytical or intelligent writing about, say, R&B or modern country, or even most metal. Maybe I’m wrong and there is some sort of place for discussion of this stuff, but I’ve seen us and RA and Stereogum and some other places thrive and/or get a foothold while the old VV, Blender, the thing CNET tried to start, Maura’s Idolator, Stylus (which was about 5% less indie than p4k anyway) drift away and I feel like by now everyone complaining about that or missing them are people, say, posting in this thread. Don’t get me wrong: And I say that regrettably, it’s an awful state for music criticism to be in, but after watching this happen for five years I have a pretty realistic and less romantic view about it than I used to. This is the way it is and unless you turn the people who do want to discuss and read about music online (i.e. who many of you would call “indie fans”) into R&B fans too, I don’t see where the audience for this stuff comes from….

And, so, it’s possible, just possible, that it was always like that—and a lot of outlets were publishing a lot of words about a lot of things their readers cared zero about, and now that we have fairly direct metrics to sort out what readers do like, that is being exposed.

don’t mean to sound either confrontational or triumphant, just feel a little defensive in the face of some of the finger-pointing and I think a lot of it is a matter of scapegoating us for the things one doesn’t like but never giving any credit for things that you all do like about these results.

On why Pitchfork does it better, and is bigger, than everybody else

re: Girls. Hellhole Ratrace was in our 2008 year-end list and we booked them for Primavera and SXSW this time last year. This is a meaningless argument over flag-planting but at the very least I will defend the false accusation that we’re following people. Just because we don’t have the luxury to post whateverthefuck, say nothing about it, have everyone forget you posted it, and then point to it months later and say “see, see, I posted it early!” if it’s advantageous to do so doesn’t mean we are hanging around looking over other people’s shoulders. People remember what we say and we give things due diligence, and as a consequence we sacrifice speed at times.
But, still, having the belief the that some blog is more responsible for spreading news about a band than us probably means you like in Brooklyn or somewhere else where you’re surrounded by this sort of inside baseball shit all the time. Even a “big” blog like gvsb, well we’ll have more readers from midnight to the time I clock in for work tomorrow than he’ll have all month. I think you underestimate how much bigger we are than these sites.

All I said to Chris was that it’s possible the publication with by far the second-biggest readership in the country had more effect on people than the kid down his block who runs a blog.

On why Pitchfork is so important to readers and bands

I def agree that people [editors] should not just follow the readers though, and I’ve think we’ve done that better than about anyone the second half of this decade. We’ve taken a staunchly indie audience and opened up a lot of doors for them, at risk to our reputation and therefore business. Not as many ppl choose to walk through those doors as I’d like but we keep trying.

But like I said upthread if you want people to read about R&B in any large numbers, I think your best bet is to turn music crit readers into R&B fans, not R&B fans into music crit readers. And if you disagree, plz circle back to the question above and let me know the names of the successful pop and R&B outlets doing what you’d like them to do, and how many readers they get. Considering you actually think our site, with its 2.5mm monthly readers and 1.5mm twitter followers, is merely “a niche website with a very specific demographic” I don’t think you’ll be able to locate an answer.

Pitchfork has thrived as a music magazine the past five years in a v difficult climate first for media and music, then for internet advertising, then for everybody. And I would guess being pretty ok at sniffing out what people who want to write, read, and think about music in this country tend to like is part of the reason.

On Pitchfork’s role in developing artists, aka “signing off” on bands

It is impossible for one thing to take a seedling of something totally in a vacuum and throw it onto the world these days. Someone was always there first, which is why, as I said above, it’s a fool’s errand to claim being there first as your badge of honor. So, no, [when Pitchfork gets behind something] the world doesn’t change course; but I think the world accelerates course to some degree. The jump in audience that these “slow builds anyone can see coming” gets from us is a fast track that you are underestimating. There used to be a hell of a lot of more steps between “punk shows” and some of the places these bands have gone lately.
Again, I’m not saying “We did it” but we helped way more than you think. Unless there was some other platform as large as ours in which to broadcast all of this “creaming” people were doing (radio; no; tv: maybe one late-night appearance; RS: no). Or you think the rest of the world is in tune to all these small indie outlets (they are not). The odd sort of third-tier death cab-y stuff that gets into gossip girl and satellite radio does well w/o us, but it’s the established channels of radio and tv selling those records, not the internet/bklyn types that you think would get AnCo09 all this attention w/o us.

If your theory holds, we haven’t mattered since 2004 or whatever you said, then all this shit would presumably exist the same w/o us then it would follow that there would be popular indie bands from the past 5–6 years that Pitchfork doesn’t like: So who do you think those are? Which indie bands are making the top 40 of p&j or doing very well in indie circles based solely on the “creaming” of the masses and w/o our signing off on them? I want to see some names.

On the Pitchfork-ification of music journalism

Isn’t it possible that, like I said before, a lot of people used to get paid a lot of money to write a lot of words about things that in actual fact nobody wanted to read? And now that we have direct metrics to measure online what is read, and less utilitarian need for critics (from a reader not a cultural POV), that has been found out to a degree?

I’m far far from celebrating that. It’s depressing as hell. But I’d guess that music crit is being kept alive by (and therefore populated by), as one of my colleagues said, the exact same people keeping record stores alive. Those are the diehards and the specialists and the people who care enough to buy product. And to read and reviews. And they listen to indie. And AnCo is #1 in pazz and Jop. And VW can sell 125K records on an indie label.

For whatever reason I just find it odd that we get swept under the rug so completely. I’ve generally stopped taking it personally years ago, but we take pride in what we do, we work very hard, we don’t rush judgments…I dunno, I got into this conversation talking about some of the marco reasons that rock = indie, or that the internet is homogenizing opinions (not a good thing mind you), but I can’t help find it weird that the one pub that has succeeded the past five years in this music, media, and economic environment was considered meaningless by 2003. in 2003, it was a one-man show, now it’s a real pub. This is just tunnelvision to me.

On the meaning of Pitchfork

we can basically 1. expose a lot of people to something, often something that would take years of touring and work to generate the exposure we can potentially provide, 2. expose nominally indie/guitar rock kids to non-indie music, 3. provide a large platform for opinions/artists that aren’t related in some ways to the machinations of the music industry (i.e. we don’t need a “cover star” or only have 12 “lead reviews” a month, or to run features only on newsstand-ready artists), which is something we share with the whole of the internet granted. Though we have a much bigger soapbox.
we are, at most accurate, I think something that accelerates a process that is or would already happen….

nobody likes some thing just because we do, and we aren’t telling people what to think…. If anything you could argue we’re better A&R people than journalists, but it’s possible that’s all readers want from a pub these days anyway.

On people “underestimating” Pitchfork

man, Pitchfork circa 2000 and 2001 vs now is night and day. The size of the site now utterly dwarfs the site then, and certainly the way it’s run and decisions are made are different (then: one guy in his apartment trying to juggle it all by calling a few labels and emailing people for reviews turned around asap; today: 17 f/t employees in two offices planning all aspects of a small biz/publication) is drastically different as well. It is amazing that people think the one is relevant to the other.

but I guess since many of you all live on the internet, and have an idea of “what pitchfork is” that extends back a decade, I don’t think you recognize the ways “what Pitchfork is” has changed. We reach more people right now that Spin or Vibe ever did, even if you use the bs print mag idea that “every copy is read by 2.5 people.” I get that we’re free, and that not everyone looks at everything, and that someone clicking on the site by accident or for a second counts as a “reader.” But not everyone looked at every individual piece of content in print pubs and the # of bs clicks we get is certainly not close to the number that were built into mag circ numbers/ad rates. e.g. it’s hard as hell to fudge our metrics once you get away the frontpage; I know how many people have read, say, our Contra review or our The Fame Monster review. I would not be surprised if in a month those are the most-read reviews of either album in the U.S.

But a lot of people are happy to just ignore our readership because they personally knew some blog or dude who knew about dan deacon before we published a track review. You know who didn’t? Most of our readers. (And Chris, if we’re talking about the effects on Pazz and Jop: We matched 11 of the top 13 LPs, the top four metal LPs, five of the six top h-h LPs, and 31 of the top 34 songs were on our top 100. Again, we didn’t do that through some sort of puppetmaster shit, but we are by any metric plugged in to what other critics and listeners want from music right now. We’ve succeeded at a time when nobody else has. I don’t beg for credit or claim to be responsible for things, but to dismiss us outright as if we don’t matter at all, which you’ve done, feels odd.)

hell, I should stop caring, get back to work, and let people keep underestimating us.

Extra credit: The great popular (and semi-popular) albums of the past 5 years that Pitchfork didn’t review thread in ILX.

Artists Vs. The Fans... Is 2010 The Year Artists Turn On Music Fans?... Was Lars Right All Along?...

Adam Shore

DJ Shadow wrote this on Monday:

Every artist is entitled to their own price point, just as every consumer has a choice in what they purchase. Nobody puts a gun to someone’s head and says, “Hey, buy this Picasso for 20 million.” Likewise, if $9.99 is too much to spend for one of my albums, so be it, your choice. But if you’re holding your breath, waiting for me to boost my cool-quotient by giving my music away for free, it’s not going to happen. The fact is that I feel my music has value. You may disagree, and that’s fine. But I know how much energy I put into what I do, and how long it takes me to make something I’m satisfied with. Giving that away just feels wrong to me. It’s not about money per se; I can donate a large sum of money to charity and not think twice, but I won’t give my art away. I’d rather sell it to 100 people who value it as I do than give it away to 1000 who could care less. That’s MY choice.

The RZA wrote this on Tuesday, in a letter to Bob Lefsetz:

Music cost to makes so it should have a turn around. Even a corner beggar with a guitar or voice makes coins and dollars with his music. Music being free on the internet is a subtle way of stealing from the artistic community. Music is free to be herd by any one but recorded music done by a recording artist should have a point of compensation from the listener of the recorded product. Especially if the product becomes part of the listeners possession such as in his I pod or laptop etc….The main thing I think we all are over looking is the fact that black music has been the victim of robbery for decades and according to the artist of the 60’s we just started getting our due in the 90’s with the emergence of hip hop and rnb. Now the hip hop generation is on the brink of extinction. Yet these internet free sites such as napster myspace and you tube just to name a few has sold for billions of dollars. I once read that the music industry was a 4 to 6 billion dollar a year industry and that money was spread out across many labels publishers and artist. Now that money has been put into the hands of just a few individuals who figured a way to get the product to the public for free yet the banks reward them for stealing our culture with supreme wealth.

Is 2010 the year of the artist backlash against music fans? Up until now, labels screwed the artists and sued the fans, and artists criticized and quit the labels. Now that labels, hobbled as they are, are victims and not oppressors, and fans still don’t pay for music, what’s next? More artists speaking out like this.

Amanda Palmer: Why I Am Not Afraid To Take Your Money:

Artists need to make money to eat and to continue to make art. Artists used to rely on middlemen to collect their money on their behalf, thereby rendering themselves innocent of cash-handling in the public eye. Artists will now be coming straight to you (yes YOU, you who want their music, their films, their books) for their paychecks.

please welcome them. please help them. please do not make them feel badly about asking you directly for money.

dead serious: this is the way shit is going to work from now on and it will work best if we all embrace it and don’t fight it.

Lars was right.