|
Archives
September 2008
August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 |
2006:05:31:08:00. Wednesday. NO!: ZOLOF THE ROCK & ROLL DESTROYER (#92, MAY 25 2006).
After the first opening band finished (a local act called Clamorous, who reminded me a lot of Hello, Trauma, who opened last year for Karmella's Game, who remind me a lot of Zolof), we went upstairs to buy some merch. While I was deciding on a shirt, Emily asked the Zolof guy to play "Popsicle," because she thought it was the song I'd been talking about wanting to hear earlier in the day. He said that because he was new to the band they'd been playing a pretty strict set, which didn't include that song. In actuality, the song I wanted was "Crazy = Cute," the second song in this brief medley. This was the song that really awakened me to the band, and it's maybe the best two minutes of insane, 12-year-old scream pop ever made. If this song doesn't make you want to run around and jump and yell, you have no soul and you're a jerk. ("Argh... I'm a Pirate" is pretty good, if only for the lyrics about "plunder[ing] each other.")
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:29:12:47. Monday. OPEN LETTER #5. Dear News Media, Many of you have taken the opportunity this weekend to do human-interest pieces on the American soldiers in Iraq who are "defending our freedom." In your next round of these stories, please explain from what they are defending our freedom. If you don't know, please ask George Bush. If he doesn't know, please ask Henry Waxman and John Conyers. Love,
2006:05:29:08:00. NO!: ZOLOF THE ROCK & ROLL DESTROYER (#91, MAY 25 2006).
Best set of the year -- of the year -- thus far. I don't know if I've ever seen so much energy in such a small show before, with the possible exception of the first Motion City Soundtrack show I saw at the Union Terrace. Maybe it's just something about sugary synth-pop bands that brings out this kind of thing. There couldn't have been more than 40 people in the crowd, but the exchange of passion between the band and the audience was palpable from the first note of the set. The stage banter from singer/keyboardist Rachel Minton and guitarist Vince Ratti, as seen in this clip, was very crowd-friendly the whole time (an effect of the Journey's four-inch-high stage, I think) and they really seemed appreciative throughout their set. The only bad news -- a combination of the weird mixing and my location on the floor left the sound a little dull on these clips. They're still perfectly watchable and listenable, but some of the pre-song back-and-forth may be hard to make out -- just key in on "cheese castle" and you should be fine.
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:26:08:00. Friday. NO!: CHARLEMAGNE (#90, MAY 21 2006).
So, the weirdest thing about Charlemagne right now is that Detour Allure got a 7.0 from Pitchfork and the local media went insane. Apparently they saw a brief surge in record sales after the review came out, which led to all sorts of breathless stories about the power of Pitchfork as an opinion-leader and how the band was now on their way, etc., many of which spun off of the now legendary folktales of the Arcade Fire and Clap Your Hands Say Yeah. Look, the record's good and Charlemagne is one of Madison's most promising pop bands right now, but a Pitchfork 7.0 is not that big a deal. As far as I can tell from their interviews and live show, they're not taking the bait, which is nice. Ultimately, Pitchfork is what it is, but the band seems to know what they need to do take advantage of it.
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:25:08:00. Thursday. NO!: CHARLEMAGNE (#89, MAY 21 2006).
Charlemagne played a handful of songs from their self-titled debut, and most of them have the stink of debut all over them. The leap they made on Detour Allure was quite impressive -- Charlemagne was one of those mostly slow, mostly simple debuts that sounds like it comes from a band that's not quite ready to put a record out yet, where Detour Allure arrived fully formed. "Holland Daisy" is one of the good, upbeat tunes from the debut, and one that shows the promise they would later fulfill. Carl Johns is still no Andrew Bird, though.
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:23:20:05. Tuesday. A QUICK LOOK AT WHAT 2006 HATH WROUGHT. Let's take a quick look at the music of the year thus far, shall we? Nothing has leapt out at me as a great record yet in 2006, but four good ones have gotten more frequent play than the rest. The closest thing to a breakout band of the year is We Are Scientists, whose debut LP, With Love and Squalor, sounds at times like a tongue-in-cheek appropriation of Interpol. They've produced a really cohesive record with a number of good-to-great songs that are interspersed with the bad songs in the worst possible way. The tone of the record is smooth throughout, but the shifts in general quality can be kind of rough. I also discovered Centro-matic this spring, about ten years late. Their new record, Fort Recovery, is a heartfelt rocker that really shines on tunes such as "Patience For the Ride" and "Monument Sails," but tends to plod when its not shining. This may be just more of the same for their existing fans, but what I've managed to hear of their catalog doesn't sound as good as this record. When it works right, it stands as a nice kind of adult college rock. On the other hand, there's Rainer Maria's Catastrophe Keeps Us Together, which I think distinctly suffers by comparison to their last two albums. It's got a couple of really great songs and is pretty good for the most part, but not as good as A Better Version of Me and not as consistent as Long Knives Drawn. They spent a couple years trying to figure out where to take their sound and it seems like they never settled on an answer. And then there's the solo debut from Jenny Lewis, Rabbit Fur Coat, which features one great new song that should be on a Rilo Kiley album ("You Are What You Love") and a handful of others whose reach exceeds their grasp. It's good, it's fun to listen to and see live, but it so clearly wants to be doing more than it actually is. Oddly, the best record of the year so far might actually be a 2005 release. Maritime's We, the Vehicles was released in Japan last fall but only recently got worldwide distribution. It took a while to grow on me, but I like its smooth, smoky pop sound a little more every time I listen to it. I think it's unquestionably the best record Davey von Bohlen's ever made. Meanwhile, a number of other records have disappointed. Mates of State's Bring It Back is extremely uneven, drawing on disparate influences to come up with mostly uninspired tunes. Head Automatica's Popaganda, due in June, reveals quite clearly how important Dan the Automator was to Decadance by being one of the most boring records of the year. And Nellie McKay's Pretty Little Head, leaked to the Internet but officially unreleased pending a dispute with Sony, features little of the clever melody and lyricism of Get Away From Me. There are a few records yet to come this year that I'm looking forward to (Karmella's Game, Anna Waronker, I think a new one from Zolof the Rock & Roll Destroyer), but at this point I'm hoping some new band comes out of nowhere to blow me away this summer.
2006:05:23:08:00. NO!: CHARLEMAGNE (#88, MAY 21 2006).
One of the first clips I posted last fall was of the German Art Students playing at the Capitol as part of the Lunchtime Live series. In it, about a dozen kids went nuts near the stage area while the band played "Dick Clark." There were a lot of kids wandering around at the WORT Block Party, but only one that seemed to really be into Charlemagne's show. This toddler spent most of the set running back and forth between the stage and her mother, carting a bottle of water around, dancing or being mesmerized by the sound of the triangle. Practically speaking, she may have gotten some permanent hearing damage from the speaker stacks she was playing near, but for my purposes I found it hilarious.
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:22:08:00. Monday. NO!: CHARLEMAGNE (#87, MAY 21 2006).
Last Wednesday, we were going to go see Some By Sea at the Journey, mostly because local popsters Charlemagne were opening. Then the show got cancelled. Luckily for us, Charlemagne were the marquee attraction at yesterday's WORT Block Party. Indeed, so marquee were they that they were the only act we saw -- we got there just in time to hear the Selfish Gene's last song (but not see them) and left right at the end of the set to go get burritos. It was an impressive performance and certainly shows them to be worth all the accolades they've been gathering since the release of last year's Detour Allure. (And starting this week, enjoy a new title card with this year's NO! art!)
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:19:08:00. Friday. NO!: MIKE DOUGHTY (#86, MAY 4 2006).
I'll admit, I was quite surprised to see Doughty come back to Madison so quickly. His October show was certainly a success at the door, but Madison isn't really a must stop on any tour itineraries, especially if you're also stopping in Milwaukee. He's been touring a lot since Haughty Melodic came out and is certainly worth repeat visits, so I hope this becomes a regular thing. The older High Noon crowds are a little annoying (I'm going to see Jill Sobule next month, and I'm expecting the people to be completely insufferable) but they've been better for Doughty than for some of the other sold-out shows of late. I know we're a little out of the way for a Brooklyn guy, but the kind of shows he's had here recently have to be a strong draw.
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:18:08:00. Thursday. NO!: MIKE DOUGHTY (#85, MAY 4 2006).
Midway through his set, Doughty did the now-mandatory all-the-way-solo mini-set (see also Feist, Jenny Lewis), which included an audience-choice Soul Coughing song. Now, I have always been of two minds about Soul Coughing. The beginning of their first album is some really weird experimental alt. rock and the rest of their catalog is scattered with catchy songs. Their last stab at mainstream success -- the 1998 single "Circles" -- was probably their best attempt (it didn't work). So Doughty gave the audience a choice between "Circles" and "Janine," the closing track from their 1994 debut. To my shock and slight dismay, the people chose "Janine" by a wide margin, even though I'm pretty sure he played it when he was here last fall (he also responded to a request with "Fuck 'Circles'" last fall.) So, this is a decent little song for what it is, but I really wish "Circles" had gotten picked instead.
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:17:08:00. Wednesday. NO!: MIKE DOUGHTY (#84, MAY 4 2006).
Haughty Melodic came on in waves as one of my favorite records of 2005. I was quickly grabbed by "Madeline and Nine" and "Busting Up a Starbucks," but this was part of the second wave of obsession. Scrap's bowed bass is all the rhythm found in this rendition, which is really all that's needed. Doughty's rhythmic "small rock" guitar does most of the work during the verses, providing this sweet song with the bounce it needs. One of the songs I'm really glad to have recorded.
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:16:08:00. Tuesday. NO!: MIKE DOUGHTY (#83, MAY 4 2006).
And just like that, Doughty's back in Madison. Just about seven months after his last Madison, Doughty returned with just his bass player, "Scrap" Livingston, along. It was another one of those packed High Noon shows with a line extended across half the parking lot and a bunch of talky townie hipsters yammering away during the opening act. By the time I got inside, opener Mark Mallman had only two songs left -- no big loss, though, as I saw him in Milwaukee a couple years ago and wasn't impressed. Doughty's set had only two guitars and an upright bass to tune, but they took 40 minutes to come out anyway. When they did they started strong, playing this excellent tune early in the set. "27 Jennifers" is supposedly the song that prompted Dave Matthews to offer Doughty a deal on his label, and you can hear why. It's extremely catchy, and it would've been a real crime if it had stayed under the radar on the self-released Rockity Roll EP.
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:11:08:00. Thursday. NO!: WAKING ASHLAND (#82, MAY 2 2006).
When I mentioned in the last post that Waking Ashland had only two particularly good songs, this is one of the songs I was talking about (the other, "Silhouettes," didn't get played). Unfortunately, the singer had to take the the soaring vocal part down an octave because he was having throat problems or something -- they wound up not being able to do an encore because of it. Even though Waking Ashland didn't do that much for me, I was kind of impressed overall by the show that the Journey put together. Five bands for $7 is almost always a good deal (though I suspect it means the band themselves were criminally underpaid) and that kind of variety means you likely to find something new to enjoy. The last of the opening bands was Agent Sparks -- who I later found out had formed out of the ashes of Audiovent, of all things -- who Emily really got into, so I think it was $7 well spent.
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:08:08:00. Monday. NO!: WAKING ASHLAND (#81, MAY 2 2006).
When we went to see the Box Social last week, they were the first of four bands opening for Waking Ashland. I downloaded their LP last year and, while they have a couple of decent songs, I immediately slotted them somewhere in between Plans-style Death Cab and Keane on the wuss-mo spectrum. The set pretty much bore that out, I think. Their piano-playing singer was really, you know, emoting so much, and their sort of vague lyrics just kind of floated by. It's kind of ironic that I'd avoided shows at the Journey so far because I'd assumed most of them were filled with covert Christian mall-punk bands, but maybe I should've been avoiding them for the fourth-generation Travis knock-offs. It's not that Waking Ashland is bad, they're just not doing anything interesting or original, and when you don't break the formula your big successes are going to be few and far between.
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:05:08:00. Friday. NO!: THE BOX SOCIAL (#80, MAY 2 2006).
The Box Social's first LP is due out later this year, and this song will presumably be on it. (It's also possible that this is from their debut EP, which I don't have, but since they've disowned that record, I doubt it.) While it's true that the hard-edged sound of Blown to Bits is nowhere to be found in this song, it remains a harder approach than their previous EP, which was described to me as "pop-punk," but which I think would be more correctly classified as college rock. This song sounds like something on the hard end of the spectrum in the genre that I'm calling rademo (rayd-ee-moh) -- the radio-friendly emo-style rock of bands such as Jimmy Eat World and Death Cab. It'll be interesting to see if they can pull it off, since rademo is best characterized by its easy tendency to slip into LiveJournal soundtracking for 14-year-old girls, and I don't think that fits with the Box Social's tone at all.
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:03:08:00. Wednesday. NO!: THE BOX SOCIAL (#79, MAY 2 2006).
Almost a year and a half ago, I made a resolution to see more local bands. I also had made a point of trying to see the Box Social in particular, as their guitarist had been one of my students a few semesters ago. Since then I've seen enough local bands to count on one hand, and none of them had been the Box Social until yesterday. I had actually skipped seeing them at the King Club last weekend (and another local show at the Slipper Club), so finally getting to one of these shows really was an event. When Nick, the guitarist, was in my class, he gave me a copy of their then-current EP, Golly Gee Whiz!, which was kind of a laid-back pop affair, but their 2005 follow-up is much heavier. He told me that they basically had five songs that were much heavier than everything else they were working on and decided to segment them off, so I guess their upcoming full-length will sound a bit different. Whatever the record sounds like, I expect it to drop with an impact in the Madison/Milwaukee uber-scene, as they're putting in a ton of work and have been picking up some decent publicity.
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra 2006:05:01:22:36. Monday. GOOGLE "ANTIQUITY." Chris Anderson of Wired and The Long Tail has another interesting find -- over a quarter of the traffic at his site is from users being directed by Google into his archives.
We're used to the newspaper model of content: new is what matters and yesterday's news is fish-wrap. But Google and the other search engines are time-agnostic. And the result of that is a dramatic shift in demand towards older material.
What matters to modern search engines is relevance, measure mostly by the number of other sites that link to a page. A little-noticed implication of this is that older content tends to score higher because it's had longer to accumulate incoming links. In other words, search inverts the usual priority of content: older is often better. We don't think of Google as a time machine, but that's actually what it is. By subsuming time under more important criteria such as "authority", it frees us from the tyranny of the new. Quality lasts and freshness is just one factor in many that determine value. He goes on to note that search engines account for 37% of his total traffic, with 10% going to new material and 27% to the archives. By contrast, the traffic to his archives that originates elsewhere (e.g. his own archive navigation links) accounts for only 12% of his total -- search engines more than triple the readership of his old material, which now makes up 39% of his overall traffic. A commenter at Anderson's thread notes a similar phenomenon at his own site -- any given item gets about 20% of its lifetime traffic while new and 80% while archived, 35% of that from searches and 45% from outside links or archive browsing. Makes me wonder if the ephemeral content model that so many traditional media outlets like (and that I reluctantly use for my podcast) is really such a hot idea. It may be painful to have exponentially more resources tied up in archival content, but "new" doesn't quite mean what it used to anymore.
posted by Aaron S. Veenstra |
