Okay, so if you've downloaded the latest version of iTunes (and being a good little program, it should be prompting you to do so regularly if you haven't), you may have noticed the little item under your "playlists" heading that says "Genius" (with a graphic next to it of an atom). Basically, Genius is a feature that 1) generates playlists for you and 2) recommends music to you from the iTunes store based on what you already listen to and enjoy.
I really didn't even give the recommendation part a chance, primarily because I'm in a bit of a spending freeze in terms of music at the moment (I even quit Emusic, which is a waaaay better deal than iTunes to begin with). But the playlist thing intrigued me. Basically, all you do is select a song in your library and hit the Genius button (in the bottom right corner of the iTunes interface), and it generates a playlist of 25 songs (minimum; you can up it to 50, 75, 100...) that it thinks "go well together" based on your selection (the song you select becomes track 1 of the playlist). I basically went through my library finding the most diverse, random songs possible and hitting the Genius button just to see what it came up with. Some results were intriguing, some were frustrating, and some were disappointing.
Most frustrating is the fact that if the song is not something that is sold in the iTunes Store, or is by an independent artist, more than likely the Genius will just balk at it. For instance, if I select something really obscure and avant-garde (like "Industrial Ambients" by Laibach, from a compilation entitled "An Anthology of Noise & Electronic Music Volume 2), I get a message that says: "Genius is unavailable for the song "Industrial Ambients"." The same thing happens when I select a Dr. Pants song, or even a song by Abi Tapia, an up and coming songwriter in the folk scene (for the record, Genius doesn't work on K.C. Clifford, either).
The "disappointing" element mostly has to do with the stylistically narrow vision of the Genius, especially when it comes to music in genres primarily populated by African-American artists. For instance, I could tell it to generate a playlist based on a Marvin Gaye song, a Sly Stone song, or a Prince song, and I'd get an entire list of r&b stuff. Why, if I select "Little Red Corvette", do I not get some additional 80's hits that happened to be by white people? Why do I only get a list of all the other black folks in my collection? When it come to genres like this (r&b, hip hop, jazz, and even electronica), the Genius assumes that when I select a certain song (like, say, "South Side" by Moby) that I want an entire playlist of things that are in the same genre (a whole crapload of electronic stuff).
Interestingly enough, the Genius becomes most adventurous when operating in the exceptionally broad genre of "rock" (what on earth does that even mean anymore?). However, the Genius tends to select certain songs over and over again, regardless of what else is in the playlist ("Cars" by Gary Numan seems to be the Genius' favorite song in my entire library). I saved 23 of the playlists Genius generated for me that first day, and "Cars" is in 6 of them. It was in a whole bunch of other ones that I didn't save, too. My iTunes library has 9,192 songs in it, and it can't find another song to put in there instead? Seriously?
It did have some very intriguing results as well, though. Here are a couple of playlists that genuinely impressed me:
Playlist Based On "I Don't Wanna Grow Up" by Tom Waits:
I DON'T WANNA GROW UP-TOM WAITS
IT'S A MOTHERFUCKER-EELS
SEE NO EVIL-TELEVISION
YOUR LITTLE HOODRAT FRIEND-THE HOLD STEADY
I AM WAITING-THE ROLLING STONES
BOB DYLAN'S 49TH BEARD-WILCO
SONG AGAINST SEX-NEUTRAL MILK HOTEL
PASSENGER SIDE-WILCO
HOLD ON-TOM WAITS
LORD ONLY KNOWS-BECK
IT'S A HIT-RILO KILEY
DRUNKEN ANGEL-LUCINDA WILLIAMS
LOW SELF-OPINION-ROLLINS BAND (When does Rollins Band EVER follow Lucinda??? That's AWESOME!!)
START A WAR-THE NATIONAL
100%-SONIC YOUTH
LETTER FROM AN OCCUPANT-THE NEW PORNOGRAPHERS
CALIFORNIA GIRLS-MAGNETIC FIELDS
PABLO PICASSO-THE MODERN LOVERS
RAILROAD MAN-EELS
HELL IS CHROME-WILCO
GHOST-NEUTRAL MILK HOTEL
YOU CAN HAVE IT ALL-YO LA TENGO
BACK IN THE HIGH LIFE AGAIN-WARREN ZEVON
EARTH DIED SCREAMING-TOM WAITS
TALKING WORLD WAR III BLUES-BOB DYLAN
If you know a good portion of those songs, then I don't have to tell you that it's a mix of the exciting and the bewildering. Also, I don't like the fact that whatever artist you ask it to base the playlist on, it will invariably include at least 3 of that artist's songs in the playlist. Here is my absolute favorite, though. I asked it to create a playlist based on the song "Bustin' Surfboards" by the Tornadoes (featured on the soundtrack to "Pulp Fiction"). THIS is what I got:
BUSTIN' SURFBOARDS-THE TORNADOES
EVERYBODY'S GONNA BE HAPPY-THE KINKS
FOOLS GOLD-THE STONE ROSES
DERELICT-BECK
WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS NOW IS LOVE-JACKIE DESHANNON
FLYSWATTER-EELS
STARMAN-DAVID BOWIE
PICTURES OF LILY-THE WHO
DIGITAL-JOY DIVISION
EVERY FALLEN IN LOVE?-THE BUZZCOCKS
WAVE OF MUTILATION-THE PIXIES
BEETLEBUM-BLUR
DAYS-THE KINKS
BELA LUGOSI'S DEAD-BAUHAUS
SWEETNESS FOLLOWS-R.E.M.
LIAR, LIAR-THE CASTAWAYS
MOTHER'S LITTLE HELPER-THE ROLLING STONES
WALK ON THE WILD SIDE-LOU REED
JACK-ASS-BECK
CARS-GARY NUMAN (there it is again...)
LET'S SEE ACTION-THE WHO
TIRED OF WAITING FOR YOU-THE KINKS
ON YOUR OWN-BLUR
IMITATION OF LIFE-R.E.M.
(WHITE MAN) IN HAMMERSMITH PALAIS-THE CLASH
There are portions of this that melt my brain. First of all WHAT ON EARTH does "Bela Lugosi's Dead" have in common with "Bustin' Surfboards"? And THEN it follows that up with "Sweetness Follows" by R.E.M.?? Truly inspired. I mean, that moment almost made me weep with joy. Not all the playlists were this adventurous by any means...It's really interesting to see how inconsistent this thing is.
So, perhaps for a certain brand of listener, iTunes Genius could be construed as brilliantly smart (or some other adjective combination suggested by its name). I'm not convinced. Leave the Genius playlist making to we humans who have practiced it since our adolescence. I want Frank Zappa, Prince, R.E.M and Sly Stone all on the same playlist, and the Genius ain't gonna do that for me.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
7 Random Facts About Me and Music
Okay, so I was "tagged" by my friend Miss Scarlett (www.thoughtsgoalsandnonsense.blogspot.com) to do a "7 random facts about me" post, but this is a music blog so I'm doing 7 random facts about me and music.
1. To my knowledge, the first record I ever heard was the song "Frog Kissin'" by Chet Atkins. I only know this second hand from my parents. The record WORE OUT before I was old enough to have any recollection of it. I apparently used to ask to hear it incessantly in my 2 year old language by saying, "Play frogsin."
2. Technically, the first record I ever owned was The Beatles Yellow Submarine soundtrack. A birthday gift from a neighborhood friend when I was in kindergarten.
3. Synchronistically enough, the first real concert I ever attended was Paul McCartney at RFK Stadium on July 4, 1990. I was 15, and it was awesome. Our seats weren't very good...We could just barely see Paul, but it was truly unforgettable. I remember before he played "Birthday" he said: "Hey America! It's your birthday!"
4. I really, REALLY don't like the song "Time of the Season" by the Zombies.
5. Circa 1985-86, I probably would have told you that Starship was my favorite band.
6. I don't really enjoy vocal jazz. In fact, most of the things I like that might be called "jazz" are quite noisy and unpleasant to most people. Especially lately.
7. Explicit or controversial lyrical content almost NEVER offends me. Being "offended" by such things is really a waste of time and energy. It results in bitterness, fear, and an inability to enjoy the other merits of a given song or composition. "Catholic Girls" by Frank Zappa might be offensive to you lyrically, but that song is the JAM. Listen to the break in the middle and tell me it doesn't make you convulse with joy.
Okay. Random indeed. Maybe not particularly interesting. I guess I'll tag OkayCityNate, but there's sooo not any pressure from me to carry on with this. I hope to have another more substantial entry up soon, hopefully about the new iTunes Genius feature. I'll be interested to hear what all of you have to say about it, if you've played with it. Later.
1. To my knowledge, the first record I ever heard was the song "Frog Kissin'" by Chet Atkins. I only know this second hand from my parents. The record WORE OUT before I was old enough to have any recollection of it. I apparently used to ask to hear it incessantly in my 2 year old language by saying, "Play frogsin."
2. Technically, the first record I ever owned was The Beatles Yellow Submarine soundtrack. A birthday gift from a neighborhood friend when I was in kindergarten.
3. Synchronistically enough, the first real concert I ever attended was Paul McCartney at RFK Stadium on July 4, 1990. I was 15, and it was awesome. Our seats weren't very good...We could just barely see Paul, but it was truly unforgettable. I remember before he played "Birthday" he said: "Hey America! It's your birthday!"
4. I really, REALLY don't like the song "Time of the Season" by the Zombies.
5. Circa 1985-86, I probably would have told you that Starship was my favorite band.
6. I don't really enjoy vocal jazz. In fact, most of the things I like that might be called "jazz" are quite noisy and unpleasant to most people. Especially lately.
7. Explicit or controversial lyrical content almost NEVER offends me. Being "offended" by such things is really a waste of time and energy. It results in bitterness, fear, and an inability to enjoy the other merits of a given song or composition. "Catholic Girls" by Frank Zappa might be offensive to you lyrically, but that song is the JAM. Listen to the break in the middle and tell me it doesn't make you convulse with joy.
Okay. Random indeed. Maybe not particularly interesting. I guess I'll tag OkayCityNate, but there's sooo not any pressure from me to carry on with this. I hope to have another more substantial entry up soon, hopefully about the new iTunes Genius feature. I'll be interested to hear what all of you have to say about it, if you've played with it. Later.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Being Honest With Myself...
So, in case you haven't noticed already, I am not the uber-cool, indie rock guy that every music blogger in the known universe seems to want to be. I really can be pretty geeky in my taste, and don't have a lot of interest in certain large sections of the indie rock world. I don't like Pavement, I don't listen to Conor Oberst, etc. I've made concessions to the indie rock world (I am officially a Robert Pollard fan, and things like the New Pornographers, The Hold Steady and Rilo Kiley/Jenny Lewis), but I don't hang out there exlusively. The truth is that many times I'd really rather listen to Frank Zappa or Phish, or maybe Led Zeppelin or the Who. Even more so, I really think that R.E.M. is a better band than many of the indie rock luminaries of the last ten to twenty years. I'd rather hear them than Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, or Vampire Weekend, or any of the newfangled indie rock darlings.
I've really been enjoying Frank Zappa lately. It's easy to forget sometimes how much certain things inspire you if you haven't experienced them in a while. My own aesthetic is really a lot closer to his than it is to someone like, say, Robert Pollard...Pollard's music is fairly one-dimensional by comparison (this is NOT an insult...I love Bob, and think what he does is fantastic, but when you compare it to Zappa's "utopian disregard for genre", it's not exactly diverse). Frank's music is kaleidoscopic, and I've always wanted to be...I've subdivided my work to keep each project within a certain set of parameters, but when you look at it as a whole the picture is large and there's a lot going on (I would never propose that my work measures up to Zappa's, but it's easy to see that he's been an inspiration).
The facts are that the music that has been the most inspiring to me has never been the hippest, except for maybe a brief moment around 1991 or so (or it could have been the fact that everyone I knew and thought was cool was listening to R.E.M. and They Might Be Giants, too). I've always been pretty eclectic, and quasi-picky at the same time. As I post more of the Soundtrack Spotlight mixtapes, you'll see this more and more...1996 is up next and it's a perfect example. There were things that came out in 1996 that I should have been just ga-ga over, but I either didn't like them or didn't catch on until later (I was at least a year late on Cibo Matto, possibly 2 years). Anyway, all of this to say that as I've been falling back into the Zappa zone of late, I feel like I really need to cut myself some slack. I've been very concerned the past couple of years about what I'm listening to, how it's affecting (or not affecting) the music I'm writing, and that maybe if the music I'm listening to isn't hip enough then by default the music I'm writing won't be hip enough...and the reality is that's a bunch of shit. You heard it here first, folks. A bunch of shit. It doesn't matter if I'm hip enough or not. If I'm ahead, or behind, one way or another the world will catch up; it'll come back around.
Go find Frank's album LATHER (there's supposed to be an umlaut over the "A", but I don't have an umlaut key) and bask in the grandiosity of his vision. There is where my inspiration and aspiration lie. At least today.
I've really been enjoying Frank Zappa lately. It's easy to forget sometimes how much certain things inspire you if you haven't experienced them in a while. My own aesthetic is really a lot closer to his than it is to someone like, say, Robert Pollard...Pollard's music is fairly one-dimensional by comparison (this is NOT an insult...I love Bob, and think what he does is fantastic, but when you compare it to Zappa's "utopian disregard for genre", it's not exactly diverse). Frank's music is kaleidoscopic, and I've always wanted to be...I've subdivided my work to keep each project within a certain set of parameters, but when you look at it as a whole the picture is large and there's a lot going on (I would never propose that my work measures up to Zappa's, but it's easy to see that he's been an inspiration).
The facts are that the music that has been the most inspiring to me has never been the hippest, except for maybe a brief moment around 1991 or so (or it could have been the fact that everyone I knew and thought was cool was listening to R.E.M. and They Might Be Giants, too). I've always been pretty eclectic, and quasi-picky at the same time. As I post more of the Soundtrack Spotlight mixtapes, you'll see this more and more...1996 is up next and it's a perfect example. There were things that came out in 1996 that I should have been just ga-ga over, but I either didn't like them or didn't catch on until later (I was at least a year late on Cibo Matto, possibly 2 years). Anyway, all of this to say that as I've been falling back into the Zappa zone of late, I feel like I really need to cut myself some slack. I've been very concerned the past couple of years about what I'm listening to, how it's affecting (or not affecting) the music I'm writing, and that maybe if the music I'm listening to isn't hip enough then by default the music I'm writing won't be hip enough...and the reality is that's a bunch of shit. You heard it here first, folks. A bunch of shit. It doesn't matter if I'm hip enough or not. If I'm ahead, or behind, one way or another the world will catch up; it'll come back around.
Go find Frank's album LATHER (there's supposed to be an umlaut over the "A", but I don't have an umlaut key) and bask in the grandiosity of his vision. There is where my inspiration and aspiration lie. At least today.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The Band That Wouldn't Die
Okay, so let me be clear...I am a fan of the band Phish. I am not a "phan", because I think that such terms are ridiculous. I am not a "deadhead" or a "beatlemaniac" either. But let me talk a bit about why I love Phish.
I have always been a listener who appreciates musical complexity and skill, probably because I am really nerdy when it comes to music theory and such things. I also appreciate a sense of humor in my music, as well as a weird, quasi-avant-garde sensibility. Listening to Phish's early records, especially LAWN BOY (1990) and A PICTURE OF NECTAR (1991), one can hear all of these elements, and they worked together to create something really magical. Now, let's all understand that I was not a fan of their live work early on because I had no access to it. I didn't know anyone who was in on the tape trading network, and Phish never came to my town, so I didn't get a chance to really explore what they did live until their first live album came out in 1995 (I did manage to see them play twice in concert before this, in 1992 and 1994, but these shows were relatively tame and straightforward). Little things trickled out here and there for a number of years after that, and then, in 2001 or so, the LIVE PHISH series of CDs started to hit stores, and a veritable deluge of high quality live Phish music was available to me. This all came after their first breakup (or "hiatus" as it was called) towards the end of 2000.
All of this is meant to illustrate that, to me, Phish really were a studio band. Did they make a few lousy records? Yes, perhaps more per capita than most bands I'm a really big fan of. But the good stuff, I SWEAR, is REALLY good. The high point for me has to be BILLY BREATHES, their 1996 album. I don't care who you are or what you lean towards; it's a nearly flawless rock record.
The quandary is that, to themselves and many of their followers, Phish were a LIVE band. That was the meat and potatoes of what they did. So, even after they came back from the hiatus, and made a really GOOD record (UNDERMIND), they quit again because the touring lifestyle wasn't working out anymore (mind you, there were some things going on underneath the surface that many didn't really know about at the time...Trey's addiction to hard drugs being the main one), and because the music wasn't moving forward to speak of. This was in 2004.
So, this brings up a number of questions for me in regards to this upcoming reunion. Apparently, they're doing three shows in March at the Hampton coliseum, and then additional touring for 2009 will be announced. What are they playing? The same shit that they were tired of four years ago? Is four years really long enough to decide that you want to go out there and play "The Divided Sky" again? And will there be a new record? Any new material at all? These are my questions, because if there is no new record or new material, and if there is no serious consideration being given to what's on/off limits in terms of setlists (I have LONG been vocal about the fact that, at some point, they should have cut everything from before 1994 out of the set, and that way they could really develop some of the newer songs without worrying about playing "You Enjoy Myself" or "Mike's/Groove" all the time), then this will die a quick and ugly death. It (the reunion) will have most of the same problems and issues that contributed to the 2004 breakup, and it will continue to sully and weaken the reputation of a band that many parts of the music community regard with a LOT of trepidation to begin with. And they don't deserve it. They really don't. At least, not YET. This latest announcement could change all that, if they're not careful.
Stay tuned to www.phish.com for more details, and stay tuned here for more opinions.
I have always been a listener who appreciates musical complexity and skill, probably because I am really nerdy when it comes to music theory and such things. I also appreciate a sense of humor in my music, as well as a weird, quasi-avant-garde sensibility. Listening to Phish's early records, especially LAWN BOY (1990) and A PICTURE OF NECTAR (1991), one can hear all of these elements, and they worked together to create something really magical. Now, let's all understand that I was not a fan of their live work early on because I had no access to it. I didn't know anyone who was in on the tape trading network, and Phish never came to my town, so I didn't get a chance to really explore what they did live until their first live album came out in 1995 (I did manage to see them play twice in concert before this, in 1992 and 1994, but these shows were relatively tame and straightforward). Little things trickled out here and there for a number of years after that, and then, in 2001 or so, the LIVE PHISH series of CDs started to hit stores, and a veritable deluge of high quality live Phish music was available to me. This all came after their first breakup (or "hiatus" as it was called) towards the end of 2000.
All of this is meant to illustrate that, to me, Phish really were a studio band. Did they make a few lousy records? Yes, perhaps more per capita than most bands I'm a really big fan of. But the good stuff, I SWEAR, is REALLY good. The high point for me has to be BILLY BREATHES, their 1996 album. I don't care who you are or what you lean towards; it's a nearly flawless rock record.
The quandary is that, to themselves and many of their followers, Phish were a LIVE band. That was the meat and potatoes of what they did. So, even after they came back from the hiatus, and made a really GOOD record (UNDERMIND), they quit again because the touring lifestyle wasn't working out anymore (mind you, there were some things going on underneath the surface that many didn't really know about at the time...Trey's addiction to hard drugs being the main one), and because the music wasn't moving forward to speak of. This was in 2004.
So, this brings up a number of questions for me in regards to this upcoming reunion. Apparently, they're doing three shows in March at the Hampton coliseum, and then additional touring for 2009 will be announced. What are they playing? The same shit that they were tired of four years ago? Is four years really long enough to decide that you want to go out there and play "The Divided Sky" again? And will there be a new record? Any new material at all? These are my questions, because if there is no new record or new material, and if there is no serious consideration being given to what's on/off limits in terms of setlists (I have LONG been vocal about the fact that, at some point, they should have cut everything from before 1994 out of the set, and that way they could really develop some of the newer songs without worrying about playing "You Enjoy Myself" or "Mike's/Groove" all the time), then this will die a quick and ugly death. It (the reunion) will have most of the same problems and issues that contributed to the 2004 breakup, and it will continue to sully and weaken the reputation of a band that many parts of the music community regard with a LOT of trepidation to begin with. And they don't deserve it. They really don't. At least, not YET. This latest announcement could change all that, if they're not careful.
Stay tuned to www.phish.com for more details, and stay tuned here for more opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
