If the turtles don’t snap they get turned into soup.
Songs are written by committee, committees don’t write tunes.
On May 6, at 5:07pm, it will be “7 hours and 15 days since [Prince] took his love away”. This, of course, is the opening line from “Nothing Compares 2 U”, one of his greatest songs.
I’m calling for the internet to pay tribute to Prince by posting the following meme to social media at 5:07pm on May 6. (It’s probably easiest to save the image to your desktop and schedule it now to update later on.)
Let’s break the internet, just like our hearts are broken right now.
(Many thanks to Sydney for creating the meme during class)
I don’t like particularly like the sound of the usual open G chord ( 3 2 0 0 0 3 ) and much prefer to mute the A string (3 x 0 0 0 3). I think I have found the reason why I don’t like the B on the 5th string.
Some suggest it’s due to thirds always being more out of tune but I’m not convinced because there’s still a B (the 3rd) on the second string and I’m also not a tuning freak like Jack Endino. So, I think the answer lies in voicing and the overtone series.
The overtone series (or the notes that are produced as you successively cut the string in half, thirds, quarters etc.) of G is as follows:
If we take my revised chord, we see that the notes on the guitar basically follow the middle of the overtone series:
Adding the B (as in the standard G chord) adds the following note towards the bottom of the series:
So, perhaps the altered version with the muted string sounds more pleasing to me because it is more consistent with the overtone series. And, if you added a G on bass guitar, you’d have the whole series except for the slightly off-putting F harmonic.
I also applied this idea to the C-chord to give (x 3 x 0 1 0), and I like that more, too. It’s not just the ease of playing, but the sound.
Basic rule (poor version): chords sound nicer if the notes are more spaced out at the bottom and more bunched together at the top.
Basic rule (better version): chords sound nicer the more they follow an overtone series
Sonic Youth rule (for another day): Let’s mess with this.
The highest art is to transcend method.
The big news today is that Pitchfork has been acquired by the owners of Vanity Fair, Vogue etc. I don’t think it changes anything, but it does highlight the economics of websites, or what I call cool laundering.
Stage 1. Exchange cool for attention (or money). Someone creates something fun or innovative. Pitchfork or someone covers it in order to appear cooler, and the artist gains exposure (ie. the attention of readers) in exchange. This is a type of mercantile exchange, in which cool is exchanged for attention.
Stage 2. Exchange attention for advertising. The second necessary exchange for cool laundering, the second economic exchange necessary for websites like Pitchfork to exist, is to trade attention of readers for money from advertisers. If I read everyday, Pitchfork has one more reader, and that’s what advertisers care about, how much attention people give to a website. This crowd attention is traded for advertising money. As Bazan would say, “you make a living, selling advertising”.
The complete trade is cool to attention to cash, with Pitchfork acting the part of the East India Company.
(When you are powerful enough, you can cut out the middleman, such as when acts like Daft Punk make money by soundtracking fashion shows, but that’s rare.)
There other forms of economic exchange too (e.g. product placement for Apple Music, Converse & Beats) but the main question is whether this trading view that I take is consistent with review anomalies on Pitchfork.
I want to suggest that bad reviews are routinely given for anything challenging this trading system. Example: the new album by Refused was given a lukewarm review (mind you, Pitchfork didn’t even seem to review The Shape Of Punk To Come when it came out). Why? It doesn’t stack up to the album, which was quite fun and fresh, and highly rated elsewhere. Nonetheless, the album could be offensive to the fashion industry in Paris (“Genocide was Paris’ will”, the reference to the corporate system in “nothing has changed”) and offensive to the advertising industry generally. Better pan it!
In the time of the zine, people made things out of love. Pitchfork makes things with money, and now someone has recognized the cash cow that is Pitchfork. Caveat emptor.
I have to put this post up because when I typed the search term into Google, nothing came up.
When students ask me whether I like hiphop I often say, “Sure, I love Jay Droz”. They look at me strangely, and then I suggest they go check him out. If you’ve never heard him, you’re in for a treat. Jay offers a truly personal vision of music, way beyond hipster (he won’t do interviews), and incredibly prolific.
My personal favorite is “Were You There?” (do NOT end it early) but there is a high level of consistency between songs, so don’t be afraid to dip into as much as you want (e.g. Creation Series).
This is just one logical step back on from The Shaggs. It has the same internal logic that seems to defy many conventional music logics. But, given that most people dislike Jay Droz, does this mean The Shaggs are actually bad? I doubt it. I believe in ideal forms in music, meaning that hearing pure versions makes the lesser forms more bearable (e.g. Rod Stewart is bearable once you’ve heard Sam Cooke). I think The Shaggs unlock a way of hearing Jay Droz that makes him incredible, rather than terrible. Sure, you’ll like The Shaggs more, but Jay Droz is fun too.