Silence is golden?

Recently I took a hiatus from life. This included a departure from my local surroundings, as well as something that most of us would not dare to do; a departure from technology. All of it. No phone, no email, no music. Yes you read the last part correctly; no music; although that part was not planned. For a few weeks I did without the creature comforts of TV and cell phones, it was actually very refreshing; well except for the lack of music. But something amazing happened on a daily basis with me that you might relate to as well. My music never left me. Nevermore had I related to Tim Robbins character Andy Dufrese in Shawshank. There is a memorable dialog in that movie between Robbins character and Morgan Freeman's (Red), that went like this: 

Andy Dufresne: That's the beauty of music. They can't get that from you... Haven't you ever felt that way about music?

Red: I played a mean harmonica as a younger man. Lost interest in it though. Didn't make much sense in here.

Andy Dufresne: Here's where it makes the most sense. You need it so you don't forget.

Red: Forget?

Andy Dufresne: Forget that... there are places in this world that aren't made out of stone. That there's something inside... that they can't get to, that they can't touch. That's yours

See music for me is almost everything. I have written about this before but I had never realized how important it was to me until I could not listen to it everyday. I should really be clear about not being able to listen to music; I could not listen to my music; there was the occasional rap or reggae song playing in the background, but I could not listen to what I wanted to. Back to the point that my music never left me. My mind went into survival mode somehow and kept the songs and bands that I loved fresh in my mind. I could play almost from start to finish some of my favorite albums; granted it did not take as long and not all the lyrics where there however it was enough to get me through the days and keep my spirits up.

There is no real point to this post; just something that I wanted to share; hell that is why I call it a rant!

It's all your fault!

For those of you unaware Mark Hoppus of Blink 182 fame has been given his own show on FUSE. A Different Spin with Mark Hoppus airs every Thursday @ 7 pm on FUSE. I am not here to plug his show; frankly if anything he should be plugging my blog; rather I would like to talk about an interesting comment that he said on episode one, season one.

The topic was one that we are all familiar with; the digital download. The conversation focused more on the purchase of the digital single rather than downloading all together. We all know someone who just purchases a song on iTunes rather than the whole album. This has a effect on record sales, which in turn hurts the over all money generated for the record company, hence making it down to the artist. Instead of sitting there and whining about the situation that is the digital single, our esteemed host took a different route. To put it in a nut shell, he stated that the responsibility was with the artist to make better music to ensure the purchase of the whole album.

I was not expecting for him to say that, but it got me thinking that for the most part he was right. Singles allow artists to get away with making sub par albums. If the album doesn't sell a million, maybe their single will, and maybe that is the mentality these days with new bands. This would make sense being that half the new artists that come out these days; especially the ones on the pop chart we never hear from again. It has gotten so bad that some pop artists release singles at a time; not even a whole album at once. Is this because they just don't have the material to make a solid 12 songs?

There is something to be said about taking one's time. I was recently talking to a friend about Buckcherry's album 15. How it was damn near perfection. I honestly believe it is because they took a well deserved break from one another and when they came back years later they had all this great material that they each individually had been knocking around in their heads. In fact so much good material that I wish Josh Todd and Keith Nelson would have taken a little bit longer with their newest album. It could have been so much more.

Bottom line we all should be buying full albums and not just singles, however maybe it is time for our artists to put together a solid album and not just rely on single sale's.

Back on Top!!!

Papa Roach

I typically hate getting my new issue of Rolling Stone simply for the fact that it is usually filled with drudge, more politics than music these days; probably why I will be ditching my subscription when it comes to end in another 5 years. At the end of every issue it lists the top 40 albums for the 2 weeks, and for the end of Sept 30th's issue I was super duper happy fun time to discover that a metal record was on top. Disturbed: Asylum. David Draimen, possibly the angriest man in the world has done it again, and frankly I own the album and it deserves to be there. Pop princesses beware, there are 3 others on the list as well! Avenged Sevenfold, Papa Roach, and Iron Maiden all have places in the top 40.

Begging the question will hard rock and metal regain it's once famed late 80's reign?  I'm thinking no. That is really not the point. There has been such a resurgence of quality hard rock and metal music that I have never been flooded with such joy on what to listen too. It is wonderful feeling to know that most of the new music coming out is by vetran artists. In fact here are the top 10 recently released albums you should go out and snatch up right now:

• Avenged Sevenfold : Nightmare
• Papa Roach : Time For Annihiliation
• Iron Maiden : Final Frontier
• Disturbed : Asylum
• Sevendust : Cold Day Memory
• Stone Sour : Audio Secrecy
• Hellyeah : Stampede 
• Buckcherry : All Night Long
• Digital Summer : Counting The Hours
• (And just for good measure) Pantera : 20th ann Cowboys From Hell

And please buy the whole album, not some single. That is what makes metal heads different from the poppers.

One final note on all this; billboard announced today that Linkin Park's new album debuted at #1.

Commercial success: stop it.... your killing me!

Commercial success is something that every band, in their heart of hearts, strives for. Mass appeal usually leads to more record sales, which leads to more money at the end of the day. This is a rare thing in the hard rock / metal scene. A million sold is a big deal to in this genre, as opposed to the 11 million, that say, a Lady GaGa can sell. But I am not talking about commercial success in the means of more air play or increase in album sales; I am talking about hearing songs on commercials.

insert cheesy love song here

From what I can remember this all started when "Revolution", by the Beatles was used in a Nike commercial. It caused quite a commotion at the time in regards to royalty rights; leading brands to stay away from such tactics. However there seems to be a resurgence in this marketing program; using popular songs to promote a product. We have all seen the P&G ads for swiffer and their use of popular 80's love songs; they get annoying after a time don't they. I've never had a problem with the use of popular songs in ads, until now. It has gone awry; now I am hearing hard rock and metal songs used; songs that I love. Correction: songs that i once loved. Over and over and over again I hear these songs on TV, and it is making me loathe the fact that I have to hear it again.

Yahoo has successfully killed "Home Sweet Home" (Motley Crue) for me. The Deadliest Catch killed "Dead or Alive" (Bon Jovi), and Cadillac killed "Rock & Roll" (Led Zeppelin) for me. And now before their new album has even dropped ; I have to hear over and over again "The Catalyst" (Linkin Park), promoting the new TLC show Surviving the Cut.

I don't need to be force fed my music. I listen to music over and over again because I love the song; not because I am interested in buying a product. It makes sense for brands to associate popular songs when promoting a product. It gives a sense of comfort that you are familiar with a song associated to the product; hence making you feel comfortable with the brand and it's product. It is, on it's lowest level, a birds of a feather marking plea; the thought: "If brand managers at Cadillac like Led Zeppelin; and I like Led Zeppelin then we must be like minded people". This level of branding often works, but what a cost it comes at to the true fan, like myself.

Somewhere along the line a brand manager came to Motley Crue, and proposed the idea that they should give rights to them for a product. Which makes me wonder; who am I more upset with: Motley Crue or the marketer for approaching them. Bands get money for the royalties used; which goes back to what I first said about commercial success; so I get it. I cant hate them for wanting a tad bit more money in their pocket. As for hating the brand manager / marketer; well that is a little easier. Even if these yahoo's (no pun intended) were fans to begin with, they should have stayed away from it; because they were fans. A true fan will often find themselves not wanting to share their favorite songs with the rest of the world; they want to keep it for their own; a sense of; this song is just for me. It makes us as fans feel closer to our bands. If you don't believe my last statement just ask any die hard Phish fan: would they would feel the same about the band if they reached air wave success? I bet you they would say that it would suck; that their little gem of a band is out in the open for middle aged yuppies to hear and exploit. That is how I feel now when I hear "Home Sweet Home"; exploited!

The next big scene

From time to time we see the emergence of a scene. A group of bands coming out of a particular area of the county, all with the same sound. It is often cultivated in the under-ground club scene; more often than not making it's way to the fore front after one of it's acts gets signed with a major label. The glam scene was honed and perfected on Sunset; grunge in Seattle; punk in London. Where will the next scene be? If you ask me it is right where you are sitting. The computer.

create the scene

It seems to me that music is not endemic to a particular area anymore. With the advent of technology we are all exposed to new sounds, and acts on a daily basis. 20 years ago living in NYC your exposure to glam rock would have been very limited; simply for the fact that the scene was out on the west coast. Now with tools like youtube, twitter, and facebook, bands have the ability to go far beyond their geographical reach; infecting us all one viral minute, after another.

I recently opened a twitter account (@vahlemusicrant), and I have been getting followers from all across the country (granted I don't have many). One of my followers is a band that I had never heard of until they started following me. Digital Summer is a band that is using the internet for self promotion and exposure. 20 years ago I would have had a very rare chance of hearing these unsigned talents based out of AZ. Now they are one of my favorite acts; simply for clicking a button. CHECK THEM OUT! 

More and more bands have the ability to do work from their home base, and get their music out there. Granted this opens the door for tons of untalented folks to get exposure, however it makes it all worthwhile when you come across a true gem like Digital Summer. So sit back and wait for the next big music scene to hit your computer screen. Hell, you can even create your own.

Play my favorite song! No, play my favorite album!

There is nothing better than seeing one of your favorite songs played live, but what about having one of your favorite albums played live. Even better right? There is a new emerging trend in the hard rock / metal community; bands playing from start to finish one of their "classic" (see prior post for definition) albums. Motley Crue has done Dr. Feelgood from start to finish, Megadeth plans on doing Rust in Peace this summer, and Metallica did Master of Puppets a few years ago. What is the driving force behind these decisions? Is it to increase old album sales? Keep their core fan base loyal? Prove that they still can rock like they once did? The answer to the question is unclear on all levels; however it poses anther question; do you really want to hear the whole album?

When bands first start touring they typically have a limited material to work with, and thus a "cookie cutter" show is created. 10 songs on their first alum, only one album out, pretty much guarantees that you will hear those 10 songs. But seasoned bands, as the aforementioned ones, have a catalog that vasts over 20+ years and multiple albums, so why choose just to play the same set over and over again? Seems to me that it would get boring for the band, and really downplay that their music has evolved, and become more complex over the past 20 years. 

As a fan I see this as a coin toss. On one side of the coin we get to hear an album in it's entirety; one that most likely we grew up with. We hear songs that probably we would have never heard live, simply because at the time the album dropped, certain songs were not popular enough to be played. On the other side we don't get to hear our new favorite songs. We have to hear songs on an album that we possibly did not love from start to finish.

I have not witnessed a show like this yet, and frankly I guess I would be at a cross road about how I felt about it if it occurred. There are pro's and con's to doing it. Dr. Feelgood is a great album, however it does not include some of my favorite Motley songs like Home Sweet Home, and Live Wire, and I just dont know how I would feel if I went to a Motley show and did not hear those two gems.

This is classic rock?

Once upon a time classic rock was defined as a sound; bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, and Deep Purple fell into the category. Slower guitar riffs backed with heavy drum beats were the prototypical characteristics, though as we all know, there is no set formula to a particular genre. Every now and then we would hear a new band, a current band, put out that great classic rock sound; JET happens to be a perfect example. Radio it seems has taken it upon itself to change the old definition of classic rock into something new. It is more about the date that it was released that makes it classic, not the sound. Granted there has to be an element to the music that made it popular when it was initially released; or why in the hell would we want to hear it again, but more and more I hear bands on classic rock stations that I am really dumbfounded are considered classic rock.

Motley Crue is classic rock? Really? So this would mean that, Britney Fox, Faster Pussycat, Poison, Def Leppard are all classic rock as well. Crazy to think right? Perhaps I am having more trouble with this because I grew up listening to these albums that are now considered classic rock. So maybe this is more about me getting old, rather than my musical tastes getting old.

It scares me to think that one day we might be calling Nirvana classic rock. There is nothing classic about sound that came out of Seattle during the early 90's. However with this new definition, this just might be the case. This opens the door for clumping all the genres that we to defined over the years of rock & roll into one lump sum: classic rock. Makes it seem silly that we as fans often fight over what type of rock music we listen to; as if it is going to even matter, cause in 20 years it will all just be classic rock.
  

Band! We don't need no stinkin band!

Browsing through my iTunes recommendations last night and I came across Brandon Boyd's solo release. Better known as the front man for Incubus; and being that it is a band that I am into, I gave the solo album a quick listen to. Then to even more of a surprise I see a solo album for Ed Kowalczyk of Live fame; then Brandon Flowers, The Killers; and another new Brett Michaels, Poison. The list goes on and on with front men of former great bands moving out on their own. This is not a new occurrence by any means, however it always surprises me how vastly different their solo projects are from their work with their previous band mates.

Granted there are front man that do solo gigs and their sound stays the same; Vince Neil is a perfect example. Nine times out of ten though, their work is a departure from what they do when they have their founding bands backing them. Makes me wonder; are front men in general creatively suppressed?

Roles vary from band to band, sometimes the lead singer just writes lyrics, sometimes they just sing them, and sometimes, in cases like Steven Tyler, they do it all. The role of the front man tends to be, in the grand scheme of things, merely for face value. Of course they should be able to sing, however more and more of them have some redeeming quality that sets them apart form the rest of the band; most of the time it is their looks. Stage presence sometimes supersedes musical ability, and what better way to have stage presence then to have a memorable front man.

All this being said you have to wonder sometimes if lead singers just get fed up with not having their creative voice heard. In the case of Vince Neil I can see this happening, it is clear that Nikki is the brains behind the operation; however I can not speak for the rest of the aforementioned singers. Needless to say Brandon's solo effort is horrible.

Our time is now...

The saying is, "timing is everything"; I couldn't agree more. On a recent train ride back from Vermont I began to listen to Three Days Grace: ONE X, and it dawned on me that this is an older album, and at the time it dropped I didn't even like the band. So what happened?

For me music reflects periods in my life, and what I can relate to at that time. Though I have always been a fan of hard rock and metal, it has not been until the last 3 years that I have been focusing my musical tastes to it.  I have not become more angry or hostile in the past three years (though some may disagree), I have just become more aware that this is the music lyrically that I relate too more. There was a time in my life where I would only listen to Phish, Widespread Panic, and The Dead; upon which those times were not any less hectic or aggressive.

Does this hold true for the masses though? Recently I went to go see Story of the Year, hands down one of my favorite bands. Though they are more widely known for their first album Page Avenue, the boys of SOTY are 4 albums deep, and all of them are heavily played in my rotation. About 4 years ago I went to go see them at Irving Plaza and at the time Anberlin; a great band as well; opened for them. To my surprise when I went to go see them at Highline Ballroom about 2 months ago the order was reversed, SOTY opened for Anberlin. This is not the first time in music history that this is occurred; however it was the first time that I have actually witnessed it.

The wonderful thing about all this, and I believe it holds true for everyone, is that we can all turn on an old album and have it bring us back to the time and the place where we first heard it, or got turned on to it. Music is not only a refection of our current emotions but as of our past ones as well. So hop in your car, or pop on your iPod and listen to an old jam!

Best known for being dead..

This past week we were reminded that Michael Jackson died. Just by pure curiosity I watched the documentary, "This is it"; chronicling the preparation for his last tour. I was bored, nonetheless it made me realize that the performer I once admired as a child was no longer there. It begged me to ask the question: "Would it have been better if he had passed earlier on in life?"

Pretty broad question to ask I know, however it has always made me wonder about artists passing in their younger years, and how they would have been perceived if they had just burned out. Would Jim Morrison become such a drunk that his antics would have gotten old? Would he have cleaned up his act? Would Jimi and Janice have done the same? No one will ever know. What we do know that music fans hold them in such high regard for what they did in their short time on this earth; that their perceived problems did not over-shadow their musical genius.

Going back to Michael Jackson; he was not as fortunate. We can not be certain that the allegations made over and over about his particular taste for young boys were true; however we can be certain that it did do damage to his reputation and his fan base. One fan in particular; me. I am not judging the man by any means, god knows I have many flaws, however my respect level went down over the course of time and the increase of his eccentricities. If his unfortunate demise had occurred earlier in his career he might be remembered all together differently; such the likes of Jim and Janice.

More importantly would these fallen artists stayed relevant?  Would there be new music and a new evolution of their music? There have been artists who have pulled off such a grand stunt; a few come to mind like Aerosmith, Alice Cooper,  and, Ronnie James Dio. My belief is that some of them would fall into the Jackson category; their music would have gotten stale and their antics intolerable.

Which bring me back to the never ending rock & roll question: "Is it better to burn out or to fade away?". In my opinion: burn out.

Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll, Rehab

Let's face it Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll go well together. It is, as I have mentioned before, not only a mantra but a lifestyle. There is only two real ways we could finish this handy little slogan; death, or rehab. More and more artists are realizing that if they choose to partake in the first three parts of the equation, and if they are not comfortable with death, then they will be looking at rehab at some point. This does not hold true for all rock stars, but it does for the majority of them.  

Some hide it well and we are shocked to find out that they ever had a problem, others not so. Guy's like Ozzy, Nikki Sixx, and Scott Weiland had made it as clear as day that they lived the lifestyle. Others like Benjamin Burnley (Breaking Benjamin), and Adam Gontier (Three Days Grace) did not make us so aware. Please understand, I don't think that as fans we were under and delusion that they were not having a good time, I just don't think we knew the extent of their problems.

I am highlighting Benjamin and Adam, not because I am going after them; actually I am doing the exact opposite. Both of them have come out about their problems. They did it away from the stage, and out from behind the microphone. Each one faced down their demons in ways that most of us would never dream of.

In a recent article in, Revolver Magazine, Benjamin spoke about his addiction to alcohol and how it has effected his mind and his body. He had done so much damage to his body that he gave himself what is known as "wet brain"; a condition caused by consuming alcohol over a period of time and not eating enough; causing a vitamin deficiency of b-1. He spoke about this for the first time in the article, and did it in a very matter of fact way.  We as fans did not have a clue, and would have never heard about, it if he did not speak up. I find this rare and refreshing. His willingness to speak openly about his problem is amazing, but nothing to what Adam did.

Adam for years suffered behind the scenes with a pain pill addition. When things finally got bad enough he checked himself in to rehab. There is nothing really special about this, however video taping the whole experience and putting it up on the web is. Adam shared his pain and struggle with all his fans; typically done though his lyrics he gave us all an intricate look at what he went through. If you are interested in watching some if please take a look at "Behind the Pain" on Google videos.

I am speaking to this because these are two front men of bands I love, and I have struggled with demons all my life. Though not to the extent that either of these gentleman went through. I find peace in their music, and even before I knew these things about them their lyrics, and music spoke to me. This is really what the core of the this blog is to me; relating to music.

I think often times we take for granted that some of our favorite songs are driven from such a dark place. Though we love to sing along to them we must realize that there is real pain there.

Holy Diver

Life is part of death. Yesterday the hard rock / metal universe lost one of the greatest singers of all time; and probably the nicest to boot.  Yesterday morning Ronnie James Dio lost his battle with cancer. It was a short battle, but one that Ronnie handled the same way he handled everything else in life; with faith and positivity. For those of you unaware of R.J.D he was best known for replacing Ozzy in Black Sabbath, but his accomplishments musically go beyond the dial; "This one goes to 11" (Spinal Tap reference) .

He was a consummate gentleman at all times, and a true icon. There is nothing negative to say about the man. It is a sad day; and as Forrest Gump would say; “.. that’s all I have to say about that…”

How Fred Durst saved rock & roll

That is right, you read the heading correctly. I think that Fred Durst saved rock & roll. OK maybe not really saved rock & roll music; but more of the lifestyle. Which is important; the lifestyle that is. What would be the point of  dreaming to be a musician if there was not sex, drugs and other debauchery? OK, well maybe artistic integrity; but even guys like Led Zepplin and Jimi Hendrix had that, along with all the nonsense.

Yet, as grunge killed the golden days of hair metal, we saw a rise in the socially conscious rock star.  Whiny guys like Eddie Vedder, and Billy Corgan flooded the airways with their self loathing anthems, and killed the days where rock stars were supposed to be careless, and have no regard to hotel furniture. No longer was it about having a good time, or losing your best girl. Battles with Ticketmaster, and saving the peach trees became more important. Frankly that is just lame.

Enter William Fredrick Durst; the man who killed grunge and brought back the lifestyle. Now we can not let dear 'ol Freddie take all the credit, but he was the front man of the most popular nu-metal bands; Limp Bizkit. Along with bands like Papa Roach, Linkin Park, and Korn nu-metal successfully killed grunge. No longer were songs about saving the rain forrest, they were about doing it all for the "Nookie" and "Adidas" (for those of you not aware of this Korn classic; please look up the meaning). Granted there was a spin on the old version of sex drugs and rock & roll; it was not really the same messaging as it was in the hair metal days; nonetheless the fun was back.

And that is what rock & roll is all about; having fun. It is about being loud and out of control and not watching what you say. I want it loud and I want it fast is the saying here, it isnt I want it loud and want to hear your opinion about how we should do things the right way.

But of course this is just a rant.

Who is going to be next?

In a recent interview, Motorhead frontman,  Lemmy Kilmister said something that struck me as both funny and sad. When it was mentioned in the interview with Crypt Magazine, that Lemmy is a living legend, this is what his response was:

"I just think it's funny. I mean, the trouble with legends is they're dead. To call somebody a legend, you need to listen to their new stuff, you know. I'm not interested in being a fucking legend. I want to be around to be competitive, you know. I don't want to get stuck with this legend bullshit."

Disregard the majority of that quote and focus on one part of it; the fact that he states that the trouble with legends is that they are all dead. Are they, or is there just a lack of them?

Based on Lemmy's comment it seems that he has a lack of faith that there are any alive ones out there. I am going to take the opposite stance on the subject, and say that there are many living legends.  Ozzy, Mick Jagger, Ronnie James Dio, Steve Perry, Bowie, are just a few of the guys that I believe to be of legend status, and they still have the ability to kick the dust off their boots.(Though some better than others)

Lets turn the conversation to people who have become legend simply because of their death status, specifically one; Kurt Cobain. I talked about Kurt back in a January post, and I do not want come off as someone who has a vendetta against him, or hatred towards him. I have a problem with what we have done with his life, and life's work. We the fans make legends. We put them on a pedestal for something that they accomplish in their lives; and they do that something consistently, and with innovation. Did Kurt really do that much? He was a simple writer; with simple skills; and although it seems that he gets a lot of credit for killing hair bands, the only thing that he really did offer us is a look into his pain. He didn't even want it when it all came down to it, and you have to question that if he was looking down on all the people who put him in that light if he would even appreciate it.

You see to be a real legend in my eyes you have to embrace it, and own it. Lemmy, much like Kurt just doesn't want it. It all makes me wonder who will be the next guy to reach legend status in the arena of hard rock / metal. Any suggestions?

The Church of Rock & Roll

Music has always made me feel closer to a spiritual being. It satisfies something in my soul; and most likely it does in you as well. Throughout the years there have been a few bands that have made it known their ties to their religion. Stryper is one such band. Recently Stryper announced that they will be putting out a new album filled with covers of their favorite songs by bands that influenced them. Shockingly enough the songs that drove them to musicianship are not religious songs. Michael Sweet, lead guitarist and front-man was recently quoted in their decision to do such an album:

"For those of you who may think that we're walking away from our faith — you're wrong. We've never been more serious about our faith at any point in our lives. It is, however, important to enjoy what you do and lighten up from time to time. That's what we plan to do."

This statement really bothers me; it seems that Mr Sweet is saying that rock & roll and keeping ones faith can not be done simultaneously. What if rock & roll is my church? I find sanctuary in it; peace; a sense of calm.  Isn't that what religion is supposed to do? I even look to find answers in it sometimes. Music has always been a constant in my life that can take me to a different place. Isn't conventional religion supposed to focus on what is good for the soul. Why can't an insane guitar solo be good for my soul?

There has always been this divide when it comes to Rock & Roll and God. Somehow folks got the notion that people who listen to hard rock / metal, and good old fashioned rock and roll are not religious, or even worse against God. This could not be farther from the truth. We praise God every time we go to a show, or every time our favorite artist drops a new album. We thank God that we were alive to see that show, or hear that lick. Rock & Roll and God go hand in hand. Granted there are groups that do denounce God however they are so few of them. Hell even Ozzy goes to Church! 

In fact I dare you to find a more Christian environment that a rock concert. You will never find a place where people are more in harmony, more forgiving, or more generous than they are at a rock concert. Aren't these what our core religions try to instill in us.

The charmed life of Robert Trujillo

Bass players tend to be over shadowed by the singer and lead guitarist, leaving them literally keeping the back beat. Granted there are a few of them who have stepped out from the shadows to front their bands; guys like Mike Watt; Les Claypool and of course Kip Winger. (That last name should have generated some laughs) But in the natural hierarchy of bands they tend to be bottom at the bottom. There are few that leave us with a lasting impression; a few such as Metallica bassist Robert Trujillo.

It is not just because he is the bass player for possibly one of the best metal / hard rock bands out there. It lies in his roots; on where he has been. Metallica has not been the first go around for this talent. At the tender age of 45, Robert has played with some of the most innovate artists out there, and has been apart of some great teams.

Starting in 1989 he was part of one of the craziest bands out there; Suicidal Tendencies , which later evolved into Infectious Grooves. Evolved is a loose term in this matter because it was really only Robert and front man Mike Muir that were still playing together. He pulled double duty at the time with Infectious Grooves by re-recording tracks with Ozzy and Company; for Blizzard of OZ.  Which leads us to him working with Jerry Cantrell and then Black Label Society and then on to Metallica.

Lets forget the fact that he has played with all these people; that is not what makes him great. It is his dual ability to play either with a pick or with his hands. It's his combination of funk and metal that makes his sound so unique. To top it off he looks like a spider creeping around looking for its next meal;  creating a looming stage presence. Taking all these factors into place is the reason why he is one to remember!

Never say die

The passing of a loved one tears at us and often is a difficult thing to move on from. When a member of our favorite band dies we as fans often suffer two losses; the loss the musician and the loss of our band. Throughout the years music has lost some talented souls, and through those years the future of the bands they left behind we uncertain. Some of them pressed on and found new talent; but every now and then the loss of the member is too much strain on the dynamic of the band, and things can not go on.

The choice of the band continuing on is not reliant on the position the deceased held in the band. Sure if your lead singer dies and they were as charismatic as someone like a Jim Morrison, or Shannon Hoon, the replacement is darn near impossible. However in both of these cases these bands have carried on. I am sure that you are rolling your eyes right now and saying; "The Doors ended after MOJO died. Vahle you idiot". And you would be correct if you felt that The Doors were Jim, Ray, John and Robby. But the remaining Doors members have played shows after Jim's death with different front men. (Many many many years later) In fact if you can dig it up they actually played with Patrick Monahan (Train) a few times, as well as, rock legend Ian Astbury (The Cult).  So it is still The Doors with a different guy singing right?

Depending on how you answer this question is really what will determine your view on this. If you say yes then I agree with you. If you say no then I agree with you as well. For those of you say yes it is still The Doors because Robby, Ray and John were still there and they used The Doors moniker; then I get why you say yes. The core is still there and the bands name did not change. If you say heck no; when Jim died the original line up died and so they are not the true Doors; then I get it as well. It truly is a circular debate.

Here is how I look at it.  Did they create new music after the loss of said band member? If they have, then I hold true that they are still the band by the name the once were. If they do not make new music; then to me they only have someone, playing cover, for the lost band-mate. So in that sense; as much as I agree that Ian Astbury singing with The Doors was great; it still was not The Doors. Ian sang with them; but they were never The Doors. Bands like Alice in Chains, AC/DC, Blind Melon, Lynyrd Skynyrd all to me were bands that truely moved on after thier loss. They all made new music with a new band-mate.

Produce your own fate

What goes into a great band? The obvious is a great front-man with a creative and talented crew of musicainas to back him up. But what makes a great album?

Producers are the unsung hero of the music community. They are the driving force that we never see on stage, hear about in lyrics, or in a beat that make a great band put out with a great album.  What really is their role; here is a brief description provided by wikipedia.

A Record producer is an individual working within the music industry, whose job is to oversee and manage the production of an artist's CD. The Producer, has many roles that include, but are not limited to, coaching the musicians, controlling the recording sessions, gathering the ideas of the product, and supervising the final production through mixing and mastering. Over the latter half of the 20th Century, producers have also taken on a wider entrepreneurial role.

Notice they mentioned coaching the musicians. This is key into really getting a band to put out their best in a recording session. Their are many greats in the producing arena, however when it comes to the hard rock  &  the metal community there is one man that really stands out in my mind as the best in coaching. That man is Bob Rock. I am probably showing a little bit of favoritism because of his work with Motley Crue and Metallica; however Bob Rock has proven to be able to work with the most difficult situations, and the most difficult rock bands, and he does it when they are at their worst.

By no means no means am I saying that he is the best at all of his job duties as a producer. Mutt Lange deserves major credit for all the work he did with two bands after major tragedies.  Mutt was able to put AC/DC back together after the death of Bon Scott and make the integration of Brian Johnson seem effortless on Back in Black. His work on Hysteria for Def Leppard after Rick Allen lost his arm is a feat as well. However, Bob Rock still stands out in my mind because Bob was dealing more with personalities than the loss of a member from a death or accident. And when I say personalities i mean, sex drugs and rock and roll. The situations that Mutt dealt with were bands that were trying to heal; not destroy.

Hands down though if we had to look at the best producer out there; across all genre's of music; across all disciplines;  I think that most of us would agree that it is Rick Rubin. How could you not?

The three producers that I have mentioned have put out some of the most infulential and greatest rock albums of the past 30 years. I think that they deserve a little time in the spotlight. Show em some love!

We all have a little Ripper Owens in us

One of my favorite movies of all time has been on HBO a lot lately; Rock Star. I love it for many reasons; it has a killer soundtrack, it incorporates real rock stars into the script, and it plays on a dream that all music lovers have; to one day sing in our favorite band.

Some of you may not know that this movie is based on a true story; not line for line however it holds a pretty accurate account of what happen to a guy named Tim Owens. Affectionately known in the industry now as Ripper; Tim was some dude in Akron, Ohio who had a Judas Priest tribute band. A salesman by day, Tim would go through the motions, but at night he would don his best Robert Halford get up, and take the stage to become Ripper.

When Halford left Judas Priest the fate of the band was unknown. Rob Halford has one of those voices that you cant just find on the street; he is known as, "Metal God" for a reason. Through fans videos, and the luck that a Priest member walked in the door one night at a club in Ohio, and saw a man named Tim Owens on the stage singing just as powerful as Halford; the replacement was found.

This is a bitter sweet situation for any true fan that loves a particular band.  As a fan want you want nothing more than your band to keep cranking out songs that you love. On the other hand it gives you what you always wanted; the chance to be in that band. Ripper suffered the fate of not lasting long in Priest, and as a true gentleman, when Halford reunited with Priest he stepped aside. He has not been forgotten though; in fact he works with the best in the business to this day.

We emulate our favorite front-men, guitarists, and drummers in a wondering of what it would be like to be in their shoes. But when the time comes would we really be prepared for the call? I'd love to sing for Papa Roach or Buckcherry; however I know that I am no Jacoby Shaddix, or Josh Todd.

Buy me that!

Today back in 1997 Ben and Jerry's launched the wonderful flavor Phish Food; a tribute to the best damn band that has ever come out of Vermont. It is flat out delicious; a combination of chocolate ice cream with gooey marshmallow, caramel swirls & fudge fish. Which brings us to the topic of marketing. How far is too far? Granted Phish as a band did not put this idea into the boys heads at B&J, so this is probably not the best example; so lets move to one that is. Coffins. KISS has a coffin among other outrageous branded materials; such as condoms, snow-globes, bookends, lunch boxes and it goes on, and on, and on. Gene Simmons has raped us all with the branding of that damn band. 

It all started with the concert t-shirt. A novel idea to purchase at the concert of the band you were seeing to 1) remember the show and 2) support the band by wearing post concert, and let the rest of the world know that you were there, and you are a fan damn nit. I was never a concert t-shirt kind of guy. I always feared being "that guy"; you know the guy who wears the t-shirt of the band that they are going to see to the show. (Hopefully someone got that obscure PCU reference) I don't think that buying a t-shirt is a bad way to support your band; however once it goes past that point of purchasing just a t-shirt, you might want to check yourself into band rehab.

KISS, and few other bands have taken band merch to a level that to me is just unacceptable. PHISH is even a little guilty. To me it seems like the purpose of them making music was lost in the fact that they could make a little more money by putting their name on some shit piece of product. They became musicians to make music; not to pimp stuff.

Any band that refers to themselves as a brand should get out of the business.

Not your average white band...

I just learned that Living Colour is playing a show near me; thinking about hearing Corey Glover's vocals again live is something I am looking forward to! Think about the loss we would have had if he had followed big brother onto a fulfilling acting career; granted he was in Platoon, and maybe I should not say that big brother Danny Glover is an accomplished actor. Back to the subject; I am a huge fan of the band and it makes me happy that Vernon Reid and co., are taking the stage again to promote their new album; "The Chair in the Doorway".

Living Colour stands out in my mind for many reason's; they are Grammy winners; I have seen them 7 times; Vernon Reid is an insane guitarist, Corey Glover's vocals are moving.... the list goes on..... One thing that is beyond obvious is that they transcended the color barrier. The notion that only red - neck white dudes created hard rock and heavy metal was demystified. They are not alone in this plight; guys like Angelo Moore (Fishbone), Lajone Witherspoon (Sevendust), Doug Pinnick (Kings X), and of course Johnny Allen Hendrix (aka Jimi Hendrix). If you have not heard of these guys then you are missing out. I could talk for days about Angelo's energy and stage presence; Corey and Lajone's vocal talents; Doug's bass playing and Jimi, well Jimi is in a league of his own.


But the question begs to be asked; Why are there not more black artists in the rock genre's? I am open to hearing your opinion....but I think that the time is come where we see more of them. Hell, rap has Eminem.

Oh yeah if you are in NYC around March 2; I highly recommend you getting a ticket for the Living Colour at Carnegie Hall.

The girls are alright

Rock & Roll, especially hard rock and metal, has never been flushed with women vocalists, let alone bands. The stereotype that rock and roll is a boys club perpetuates well.

With the recent hoopla at Sundance over "The Runaways" movie, I thought that I would pay a some respects to other women rockers that have done it well and those who are doing it well. I don't want to sit here and give shout outs to women who I think have stellar rock vocals like, Lacey Mosley (Flyleaf), or Hayley Williams (Paramore), or Amy Lee; but rather I would like to talk about the way that women rock vocalists are viewed different that your prototypical pop princess.

Don't get me wrong, women in rock bands are still drooled over by the boys in the band and in the audience, however there seems to be less pressure on them to keep up a certain image. There seems to be more and more worry over women in pop music whom started their careers before their 18th birthday and how they transition into being an adult singer. Christina Aguilera probably did it the most abruptly in the pop community, with her DIRTY phase. Not a day goes by where there is not an article about some Mickey Mouse Club Alum taking pictures, that don't put her in lets just say; the most holiest of ways. They are under constant scrutiny from the public eye about their image; and part of me feels a little bad.

Why do the women of rock not feel this pressure? Is it because they are less attractive, or not as in the spotlight? This is a rhetorical question. No one, especially me can provide an accurate answer. My opinion is simply that leading women of rock and metal bands have a different on-stage persona, which translates us to thinking that their off-stage persona is the same. Simply stated: DON'T MESS WITH THEM.

This leads me back to my original thought on why I wanted to write this piece tonight; The Runaways. These girls were tough. They ate up men and spit them out; partied like hardened rock stars; and yet when they formed back in 1975, all of them were under the age of 18. They were left to their own devices, and handled themselves with less than admirable grace of that of young ladies. They all grew into adulthood while in a public light; granted this was many years ago; however I do credit them for setting the standards of women in rock. Simply stated again: DON'T MESS WITH THEM.

It seems to be working for Hayley Williams, who was only 15 when she took the stage, and has not had to deal with the pressuring of what her image should be.

Sorry man you got to go... or do you....

When is it the right time for conflicting artists to server ties with one another. Steven Tyler's rumble with the rest of Aerosmith has been going on for weeks and the crossfire has gotten out of control, and frankly confusing. Is he in or is he out? Is he suing or is he not? Is Paul Rodgers or Sammy Hagar going to sing, "Love in and elevator" to me now? The most vocal in the break up has been the other half of the TOXIC TWINS; Joy Perry. He had made it abundantly clear that Tyler was out in prior weeks, however new news has surfaced that Tyler is still in and is on what he calls "a vacation".

This is not a new story with Perry and Tyler. This shit has been going on for years. But the amazing thing is that throughout it all they have remained together. Honestly they have really been through hell. So why is it that they have not said; done, and done? And why have other tumultuous relationships in other bands have made them call it quits? I believe it is the damn magic that those two put out in the studio.

I love a good fight like the next guy, but I don't like it when it endangers something that I love, and I happen to love all of the early Aerosmith albums, and even would go as far as say like the majority of them after Permanent Vacation.

In the long run I hope that it works out for the two of them. I do not want to see another front-man for Aerosmith; it wouldn't be right. I would not go as far as Tyler saying, "I am Aerosmith", however I would not want to hear another tone behind that microphone.

I paid to hear you sing not preach

I would like to touch upon a comment that Brian Johnson from AC/DC made last week, and he is getting a good amount of flack for it. It is in regards to U2's front-man BONO, and his never ending need to bring poverty and world affairs to light.

"I don't tell everybody they should give money — they can't afford it. When I was a working man, I didn't want to go to a concert for some bastard to talk down to me that I should be thinking of some kid in Africa. I'm sorry, mate, do it yourself, spend some of your own money and get it done."

I couldn't agree more with this. Don't get me wrong, I believe in donating one's money and one's time to charitable organizations; and I believe that Brian does too, however some artists just take it too far. Frankly some of us are not in the position to give a little extra money or time when we can't even handle our own bills, more importantly our own country's needs. I don't want to pay for a $100 dollar ticket to hear some self righteous front-man give us a speech about others in need. I am in need; I am in need for an environment that will help me forget about my problems; that is why I am at the damn concert! We want / need entertainment to help us escape from the bad around us; not be reminded of it. Use your celebrity for good; I get that; just don't make me pay for you to do it.

This comes in the wake of the largest earthquake this world has ever known, and the Haitian relief efforts are all abound. The million dollar question has always been; "Where does all this money go?". In a perfect world it would all go to the desired charity, however it saddens me that Haiti's own native son, Wyclef Jean's organization; Yele Haiti; is under investigation for misappropriation of funds. The fact of the matter is that funds from event's such as the relief concert, do not go to where they are supposed to go.

Artist should be there to entertain and entertain only, especially when I am there paying for it. If I am not paying for it then donate your time off camera. That broadcast concert was free for everyone to watch; and free publicity for any high-level artist to come off as a good guy; giving us all that warm and fuzzy feeling.

Do good things like no one is going to give you credit for it like the rest of us BONO.

Super-groups

Being that Super Bowl weekend is upon us I thought that I would touch upon the subject of super-groups. Of course there is folk lore that back in 1956, on this day, that Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, Carl Perkins, and Jerry Lee Lewis all convened in Sun Studios for a jam session, becoming "The Million Dollar Quartet". The dates of this magical day are not verifiable, however today is given as one of the possible dates. The super-group was born.

I am torn on how I feel about super-groups. There have been some really good ones in the past; specifically Led Zeppelin. Yes I said Led Zeppelin! Some may not know this but after endless changes in, The Yardbirds; Led Zeppelin was born; and without a change in line up. In fact come to think of it Jimmy Page had a nasty habit of being in super-groups: The Honeydrippers, Led Zeppelin, and The Firm.

On the other hand though I feel that a super-group is just a bad idea. The chemistry that a band has when they are trying to make it is lost. There is no more struggle and frankly you already know that the best stuff was written. Vinnie Paul said it best (something to this effect), "....after your third album you know that all your best stuff is pretty much gone...". "You have years to write those first three albums, but after you have done those, the studio will always be barking at you to do it faster and better."

Some of my favorite artists are guilty of creating a super group, and I have never-ever been into their super-group as much as I was into their original band. Prime example is our dear friend Maynard James Keenan. I am a huge Tool fan; A Perfect Circle, eh not so much.

I am open to hearing what maybe your own super-group line-up. Frankly I don't have one. Oh wait I think that I just had a moment of clarity...... I don't like super-groups........ besides Zeppelin! :)

Feb 2 1979 - Death of a showman

On this date 31 years ago the bass player from the Sex Pistols; Sid Vicious: real name Simon John Ritche, was found dead of an apparent overdose; he was 21. I am not going to divulge into conspiracy theories that he was murdered by his girlfriend, but rather talk about his legacy.

Sid will not be remembered for his bass playing, but for his antics. When one thinks about the Sex Pistols they tend not to think about top notch musical talent. They think about the craziness that they caused. Bar fights, heroin and attitude is more what the Pistols represented. Now, I only have seen old vintage video's of their concerts, but from what I can see they put on a hell of a show. Sure it sounded like crap, but one did not go to see them because they wanted to hear a symphony. They went to go see what Sid would do.

Another punk icon known more for his on stage antics would be GG Allin; born Jesus Christ Allin. GG took it to a different level. Consistently saying to crowds that he was going to kill him-self on stage; GG would cut, defecate and piss all over the stage. As disgusting as this all is; he still had a dedicated fan base.

Both of these gentleman had a following; not for their musical prowess; but more for their showmanship. Their antics drew more of a crowd than their ability to play their instruments; begging the question on why they were in a band and not in the circus.

Ask yourself the question; "How important is your favorite bands front-man?". Neither of these guys were backed by a solid band; and I don't care what anyone says about John Lydon; he was not the front man for the Pistols. This being said they both drew crowds based on their behavior and through time actually got people into their music. Job well done indeed. Posing the never ending question on does one need to have talent to make it in the music business; or is showmanship more important?

Just look at Britney Spears.

Grammys shun live award for Metal and Hard Rock

I am going to keep this short. Grammy's suck there is no doubt about that if you are a hard rock / metal fan. I want to thank Eddie Trunk for getting this up on his site:

Both Judas Priest And AC/DC Win Grammy Awards | Rock News | Eddie Trunk

Now if we can only get the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame to get their heads out of their asses.

Who do you influence?

We all know that our favorite bands have been inspired by certain artists in their lives. Sometimes they flat out tell us in an interview, other times you can simply hear it in their music. If you are lucky you see it reflected on stage at a live show, the way they hold the mic, or possibly the way they slouch when they play the guitar.

I want to talk about a different kind of influence. The influence that the music we listen to has an effect on the people around us. I am thinking about this because something quite funny happened tonight.

My mother is in town from Florida, and being that my days of going out on the town and tearing it up with her is past me, we decided to head to a local restaurant for some BBQ. Not the scene I am sure that she is used to; heck I am even too old to be in that place now that I look back; however she wanted ribs so I obliged.

The check arrives; we pay, and as I am looking up I see my mother nodding her head back and forth to none other than Motley Crue's, Dr. Feelgood. She didn't know the words but you can tell that years of me pumping that particular album some how resonated in her head.

I am not sure why this makes me so happy. Possibly it stems from the fact that she could take some form of enjoyment from it; or possibly because as a kid growing up one of the fondest memories I have of my mother is her singing in the car. It made me realize that as much as an influence she had on me, that I have had some on her.

It makes me stop and think on where my love for certain bands came from? I know that some of my childhood friends who had older brother that listened to metal is part of it. But the majority of the bands I love today I am not quite sure. I just know that I love music and what it can do, and how something so simple can bring people together.

How dedicated are you to your band?

Sitting here thinking about all the concerts that I have been to in my life; there has been quite a few. My first concert was Paul McCartney and it was an invite from a friends family; and honestly it wasn't until I got into HS that I went to another concert. Something happened to me in college though. I realized how much I loved going to see shows. It was all consuming. I have been fortunate enough to see shows when they come to my town; although in college we would drive all over the country to follow bands. It dawns on me that I have seen certain bands more than a dozen times. Now for all my hippie friends out there this is not a big feat; Phans and Heads have seen Phish and the Dead 100's of times; and in the "jam band" communities this is the norm. However in the hard rock scene it is not.

Don't get me wrong we are die hard fans for our Metal and Rock, but you just don't hear much of people going to see TOOL 100 times; I'm sure that they are out there; I just have not run into them. When I tell people that I have seen Papa Roach, or Buckcherry a dozen to half a dozen times people sometimes stare at me. I love both of those bands and frankly if I still had the free time I would go to other states to see them. I am dedicated to my bands. This does not just include purchasing concert tickets but it includes buying every one of their albums a listening to it until my ears bleed.

If I could have it my way I would be seeing a concert every night. It's funny cause I have been in a funk all day because I just found out that one of my favorite bands is coming to town and I will not be around to see them due to a prior commitment. I just might have to jump on a plane and go see them somewhere else.

Bring back the 8-track

I am sure that this is not the first time that you will hear the statement that digital downloads have killed the album. Long gone are the days when we were forced to listen to 11 of the 12 songs on an album to get to our favorite song. Hell with the implementation of the cassette we started getting that itch to just press fast forward; and with cd's it became even easier. And now, in the wonderful digital age that we are in, we have the option to once again just buy that one song from that one artist and neglect the rest of it, if we so choose.

Notice I say once again. This is not the first time where single song purchases were available. Remember cassingles? And the 45 was even there before that wonderful invention. However both of these attempts did not have as much success in killing full album sales as the digital single. Is this possibly because even with cassingles and 45's we were given a "B-side"? Or is it because we simply did not want to acquire more junk in our little disco boxes and figured that it might just save us some space in our cassette holders if we just went out and bought the whole tape. Who knows.

I am a fan of the musicians that I listen to first and foremost. As an artist and poet myself I would feel cheated if someone only read one line of my work; or only looked at one piece of the work. Embrace it all. You have to read / see / hear the whole thing to truly grasp what that artist is saying.

Lastly; single song purchases of artists will always occur; there is nothing that we can do to stop it. There will always be individuals out there that want to have the top 40 on their iPod for their own discretionary play. Which to me makes no sense. If you wanted to hear all the hits all the time then just buy a damn radio, and skip the $200-$400 dollars on an iPod.

So buy the album people; the whole album. Think of all the gems that you could find!

Nirvana set back

So here goes; my fist post where I will probably get some backlash. (good thing that I don't have any readers yet)

Nirvana set guitar talent back 10 years! Notice I did not say music, but specifically aspiring guitarists. Don't get me wrong when Bleach came out I was enthralled with the simplistic guitar riffs, it was a far departure of my love of such bands and guitarists as Motley Crue and Steve Vai. As grunge slowly killed the "HAIR METAL" scene; new bands began to surface and this is where I feel the problem started. Three chords that was all it took to take aspiring musicians from wanting to wail out as many notes in a second; to being complacent enough to just learn three little power chords. Music to me for that time period became so boring. There were no 5 minute mind bending solo; just three strumming chords over and over again.

This is probably the reason why I just can't stand Nirvana as a band. Granted there were bands before them that focused only on three chords; some may argue that The Ramones were guilty of such a crime; heck some might even say The Clash were as well. But those were not my musical years; and from what I know; those bands were not blared on the radio quite like Nirvana was.

Kurt Cobain was a talented and trouble soul. I am by no means bashing him as an individual nor am I playing down his personal demons. It just bothers me at the end of the day that there are so many people that put some much stock in the fact that he was an icon. We as music fans most pose the question, "If Kurt never died would have Nirvana survived and evolved?"

My answer is no. They would have never changed or grown as a band. And to think that Dave Grohl sat on that drum kit and probably would have never been able to express his full potential.

This is just my opinion. So feel free to tell me to shut up if need be.

Play some Skynyrd man!

It is not often that one can scream out, "play some Skynyrd man", at a concert and the band will actually accommodate. However this is not true with Shinedown; whom are known to play an excellent rendition of "Simple Man". Unfortunately they did not play such cover at the 1-23-10 show at Nokia Theater. They did however play an excellent cover of Otis Redding's, "sitting on the dock". Which brings me to my point. The importance of covering songs well after you have "made it".

Too often bands do not pay tribute to whom their musical influences are after they become big. They seem to shun the fact that most likely they started off as a cover band and have moved on to bigger and better things such as writing their own self loathing lyrics. I like the cover song; it brings me a better understanding of what drove the guys on the stage to do what they do; it brings me closer. Puddle of Mudd even graced us with an awesome cover of AC/DC's "TNT".

So as an open request to all those artists whom I have seen; who I will see: BRING ON THE COVER SONG.

Skillet

Last night we headed to Nokia to see Puddle of Muddd and Shinedown. To my surprise a band named Skillet opened the show. Now I have heard of them; they actually have a popular song called "Monster" (http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/monster/id325821860?i=325821862) on hard rock radio; if you ask me it sounds very similar to "Riot" by Three Days Grace; but we wont get into that. The point was that they were surprisingly good and had a great stage presence. I guess where I am going with this is that often times we go to shows expecting to see our favorite acts and not really give much to attention to to opening acts. Skillet is worth checking out; for a brief moment I was even sure that their lead guitarist was a slimmer Ben Moody (Evanescence). I give these guys a two thumbs up; in fact bought their album this am; THIER WHOLE ALBUM!