Alright, the album, the record, the song cycle, the grouping of songs thrown together; however you wish to define them, are finished!
Complete.
Done.
And if that's all you want, congratulations. But, if you want more, say for people to hear them or buy them or stream them, then, as the song says; you've only just begun.
There's the artwork, creating the album cover, the disc cover, setup any distribution you might have in mind, get the word out through social media, the Mr Primitive website and blog, friends, associations. Issue a press release, initiate a row with some other important figure in the business; have your people get the ball rolling.
Unfortunately, I'm my people so it's all up to me.
And there's the not so insignificant fact that as a very well known unknown, I must juggle the expense against the no so insignificant return on that expense; I'm not so well off to be throwing money away.
So, the album covers are done, thanks in large part to the wonderful art created by Yuji Pearce, and they've been sent in to Disc Makers to be produced and to CD Baby for distribution to Spotify and Apple Music and the like. I've registered the album with the gubmint for copyright protection and set a release date of November 10th.
Please mark your calendars.
And, just because it sounds like fun, I'm going to have a release party at the house because that's what big stars like me do.
Will it push me over the top? Will I be an even bigger sensation that Taylor Swift who decided to release her new album on the very same day?
Only time will tell.
I'll confess that I don't find all of this particularly exciting, I'd rather be jumping right into making a decent recording of Winter, an album I made a demo of many years ago and never finished. But that's not how the game works and if no one knows about the new album, Whispers (From a Forgotten Memory), then there's a good chance they'll never hear it, and that's a shame because it turned out to be quite wonderful, if I may say so myself.
You do what you gotta do.
Check out this week's song from the new album, Stills, at http://www.mrprimitivemusic.com/home
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Monday, September 11, 2017
Thoughts on Steely Dan and Walter Becker
The three biggest influences on me and the music I make are Peter Gabriel, Lindsay Buckingham, and Steely Dan. The irony is I didn't see (or hear) that while making most of the music I had, but as time has given me the distance I need to understand that, their influences are clear to me.
All are iconoclastic in their approaches and all are instantly recognizable in their work. And I think they were deeply aware of this even if the press, and it's very interesting to go back and read the articles from music mags and the like to see the incomprehensibility of their music to a certain type of writer regardless of whether the publication was hip or not.
The big difference with Steely Dan, something they shared with the post '66 Beatles no less, was that unlike Gabriel and Buckingham, they stopped touring and through their most productive period from '74 to '77 were essentially recording artists and that was what they wanted to be. Beginning with Katy Lied through to Gaucho, their interest was in creating, as perfect as they could make them, records.
These weren't made to get butts in the seats when they toured, or to keep them in the public eye; they were notorious for making life difficult for the press, they were made to be listened to and appreciated as works, essentially, of musical art; something, I believe, they shared with Gabriel and Buckingham. They put an incredible amount of time, money and energy into their songs and it shows. The musicianship is outstanding as is the recording; even Katy Lied, whose masters were damaged by the Dolby unit they were using at the time (makes you wonder what the original must have sounded like).
Their genius, in my view, was that their records worked on many levels; song diversity, the initial dichotomy of a smooth seemingly straight forward pop tune, that was in fact exquisitely layered throughout and a listener rewarded each time the song played. They used any number of styles and genres; pop, rock, jazz, R&B to great effect. Their albums, whether planned or not; they would slyly say they created the songs independent of theme, but I'm not so sure; Aja and Gaucho are seeped in late '70's California.
Then there are the lyrics. Perhaps the most common thread in commentary about Steely Dan involved their lyrics; the problem being the supposed inscrutability within them, but that's a sham; all great artists have written lyrics that make no sense or are written such that the meaning, assuming there is one, is not clear to the listener. The difference with Steely Dan was simply that there was no sure connection with the artists themselves, Walter Becker, who died recently, and Donald Fagan. Whether the Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Gabriel, just to name a few, and no matter how diffuse the lyric, the common belief was that the lyrics reflected on the band and their lives. That could not be said of Becker and Fagan, and they knew this and reveled in it.
Not every writer feels the need to put themselves out there whatever the form. They may be in the minority, but they are not unknown. Steely Dan created a legacy of recorded material about their time, but not necessarily about them.
I think that's genius in a business that is so deeply naval-gazing.
All are iconoclastic in their approaches and all are instantly recognizable in their work. And I think they were deeply aware of this even if the press, and it's very interesting to go back and read the articles from music mags and the like to see the incomprehensibility of their music to a certain type of writer regardless of whether the publication was hip or not.
The big difference with Steely Dan, something they shared with the post '66 Beatles no less, was that unlike Gabriel and Buckingham, they stopped touring and through their most productive period from '74 to '77 were essentially recording artists and that was what they wanted to be. Beginning with Katy Lied through to Gaucho, their interest was in creating, as perfect as they could make them, records.
These weren't made to get butts in the seats when they toured, or to keep them in the public eye; they were notorious for making life difficult for the press, they were made to be listened to and appreciated as works, essentially, of musical art; something, I believe, they shared with Gabriel and Buckingham. They put an incredible amount of time, money and energy into their songs and it shows. The musicianship is outstanding as is the recording; even Katy Lied, whose masters were damaged by the Dolby unit they were using at the time (makes you wonder what the original must have sounded like).
Their genius, in my view, was that their records worked on many levels; song diversity, the initial dichotomy of a smooth seemingly straight forward pop tune, that was in fact exquisitely layered throughout and a listener rewarded each time the song played. They used any number of styles and genres; pop, rock, jazz, R&B to great effect. Their albums, whether planned or not; they would slyly say they created the songs independent of theme, but I'm not so sure; Aja and Gaucho are seeped in late '70's California.
Then there are the lyrics. Perhaps the most common thread in commentary about Steely Dan involved their lyrics; the problem being the supposed inscrutability within them, but that's a sham; all great artists have written lyrics that make no sense or are written such that the meaning, assuming there is one, is not clear to the listener. The difference with Steely Dan was simply that there was no sure connection with the artists themselves, Walter Becker, who died recently, and Donald Fagan. Whether the Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Gabriel, just to name a few, and no matter how diffuse the lyric, the common belief was that the lyrics reflected on the band and their lives. That could not be said of Becker and Fagan, and they knew this and reveled in it.
Not every writer feels the need to put themselves out there whatever the form. They may be in the minority, but they are not unknown. Steely Dan created a legacy of recorded material about their time, but not necessarily about them.
I think that's genius in a business that is so deeply naval-gazing.
Monday, September 4, 2017
More on Taylor and Mr Primitive and the need to create buzz
With the enormous glut of music sloshing around the world at any given moment, even the big stars need to get the word out. It is in this context that my present fascination with Taylor Swift continues. As most people with any music interest know, Ms Swift and her PR machine, team, group; apply any term you feel is appropriate, are getting us all exciting about the new album coming out in November.
Now if the hype is to be believed, the date has symbolic value and well as a means for a personal dig by Ms. Swift. That may or may not be true but it gets our attention. And it has paid off in the number of eyes and ears that have checked out her new song and its accompanying video-apparently they still make those-upon which a few dollars were spent.
So, what does this have to do with Mr Primitive, you ask? Well, not much beyond my personal fascination. Perhaps it's too bad I don't, or perhaps more importantly, Ms. Swift does not have a personal beef with me. I could use the attention more than she, but there no guarantee that I would garner anything from it other than spam from her pissed off legion of fans.
And who wants that?
Other than someone desperate for attention...you may assume as you like on that...
Still, it remarks on our times that such blandishments are required given Ms. Swift's stature; she is not as desperate for some worldwide PR as yours truly, and this may be the rose colored glasses talking, but the news that a new Beatles album didn't necessitate the need to bring up any manufactured feud with the Stones! Just the fact that new music was coming was enough, but such is life or how I choose to remember it.
The other intersection of the famous, or infamous for those of you who have a poor opinion of Ms. Swift, and the not so famous, that would be me, is that my new album, Whispers (From a Forgotten Memory), and hers are both due out in early November. Will I be riding her coattails, or will she be riding mine? Only time will tell.
Of course, for perfectly understandable reasons, I did not spend a small fortune on my album, or any videos, or in preparation for a long worldwide tour, so I don't have nearly the same level of investment riding on the outcome of the album's success as Ms. Swift and her team does. Nor do I need the same level of promotion, however acquired, to ensure that the money rolls in.
But I still want my album to be successful, by whatever metric I find supporting, and it is interesting that even the mega-famous must work the machine and feed the beast.
Now if the hype is to be believed, the date has symbolic value and well as a means for a personal dig by Ms. Swift. That may or may not be true but it gets our attention. And it has paid off in the number of eyes and ears that have checked out her new song and its accompanying video-apparently they still make those-upon which a few dollars were spent.
So, what does this have to do with Mr Primitive, you ask? Well, not much beyond my personal fascination. Perhaps it's too bad I don't, or perhaps more importantly, Ms. Swift does not have a personal beef with me. I could use the attention more than she, but there no guarantee that I would garner anything from it other than spam from her pissed off legion of fans.
And who wants that?
Other than someone desperate for attention...you may assume as you like on that...
Still, it remarks on our times that such blandishments are required given Ms. Swift's stature; she is not as desperate for some worldwide PR as yours truly, and this may be the rose colored glasses talking, but the news that a new Beatles album didn't necessitate the need to bring up any manufactured feud with the Stones! Just the fact that new music was coming was enough, but such is life or how I choose to remember it.
The other intersection of the famous, or infamous for those of you who have a poor opinion of Ms. Swift, and the not so famous, that would be me, is that my new album, Whispers (From a Forgotten Memory), and hers are both due out in early November. Will I be riding her coattails, or will she be riding mine? Only time will tell.
Of course, for perfectly understandable reasons, I did not spend a small fortune on my album, or any videos, or in preparation for a long worldwide tour, so I don't have nearly the same level of investment riding on the outcome of the album's success as Ms. Swift and her team does. Nor do I need the same level of promotion, however acquired, to ensure that the money rolls in.
But I still want my album to be successful, by whatever metric I find supporting, and it is interesting that even the mega-famous must work the machine and feed the beast.
Monday, August 28, 2017
Isn't it terrible that Taylor Swift is more famous than you?
Well, no. And before I tear into my soliloquy I should probably throw out a few qualifiers:
One, I had never actually listened to any Taylor Swift songs or albums. That wasn't for any particular reason other than I can't imagine being in her target audience when she began as a young country Ingenue in 2006, or as she progressed toward being the megastar she is now in popular music. But, as a service to those who will read this, I did go to Spotify, now that she's back, and listened to 2 songs per album as well as the new song that was released last week, You Made Me Do It.
Two, for those of us not in the business of being both a celebrity and an actual producer/creator-immaterial from we or others may think of your work-it is a kind of macabre fascination into everything that seems to go into being a pop star nowadays.
So is it terrible that I'm not as well known as Taylor Swift? Yes, it's terrible, but...
As a go it alone, work at my own pace, do what I want kind of artist, it is more to my suiting. How? For starters, I don't have a small army dependent on my success to maintain their financial well-being. Of course, they may work for any number of performers, but since Ms. Swift is at the top of the pile, I assume she comes first, and being at the top of the pile requires a whole other level of commitment because...
You're only one dismal record or song or controversy from becoming a B-list celebrity/performer/creator to then finding yourself on the nostalgia circuit or Dancing With The Stars!
That's not necessarily a bad thing, times change, you have to adapt. And she is an attractive woman who I imagine could easily transition in to TV/film, etc.
Sounds like more work than I'm up for (which the snarks would point out is why I'm living in nowheresville, man!).
BUT...the one thing I find most fascinating about Taylor Swift is the feuds, the bad boyfriends, the snark, the victimhood-manufactured or otherwise-it is evidently part and parcel to fame these days. Whatever it is works because everyone is talking and writing about it.
That's the point right? In this age of all that's out there, you have to rise above the noise (sadly that might include me) and be heard. I would think that just by being Taylor Swift whatever your next project would automatically be news in and of itself because you're Taylor Swift? Like the Beatles, right? It's the music, man!
I could be wrong.
The other question is whether this is par for the course when it come to women entertainers of a certain level? Maybe not Adele, but I don't know that for a fact, mainly because I don't care even if some think I should. Instead, I'm the type who thinks the work is what's most important and we know what happens to those types-think noise.
It seems though that to pierce through the fog or shine that bright light is a requirement that I don't think I'm up to even if I had the look, the hook, and the story compelling enough to warrant the scrutiny or interest.
That, however, would require a completely separate post.
One, I had never actually listened to any Taylor Swift songs or albums. That wasn't for any particular reason other than I can't imagine being in her target audience when she began as a young country Ingenue in 2006, or as she progressed toward being the megastar she is now in popular music. But, as a service to those who will read this, I did go to Spotify, now that she's back, and listened to 2 songs per album as well as the new song that was released last week, You Made Me Do It.
Two, for those of us not in the business of being both a celebrity and an actual producer/creator-immaterial from we or others may think of your work-it is a kind of macabre fascination into everything that seems to go into being a pop star nowadays.
So is it terrible that I'm not as well known as Taylor Swift? Yes, it's terrible, but...
As a go it alone, work at my own pace, do what I want kind of artist, it is more to my suiting. How? For starters, I don't have a small army dependent on my success to maintain their financial well-being. Of course, they may work for any number of performers, but since Ms. Swift is at the top of the pile, I assume she comes first, and being at the top of the pile requires a whole other level of commitment because...
You're only one dismal record or song or controversy from becoming a B-list celebrity/performer/creator to then finding yourself on the nostalgia circuit or Dancing With The Stars!
That's not necessarily a bad thing, times change, you have to adapt. And she is an attractive woman who I imagine could easily transition in to TV/film, etc.
Sounds like more work than I'm up for (which the snarks would point out is why I'm living in nowheresville, man!).
BUT...the one thing I find most fascinating about Taylor Swift is the feuds, the bad boyfriends, the snark, the victimhood-manufactured or otherwise-it is evidently part and parcel to fame these days. Whatever it is works because everyone is talking and writing about it.
That's the point right? In this age of all that's out there, you have to rise above the noise (sadly that might include me) and be heard. I would think that just by being Taylor Swift whatever your next project would automatically be news in and of itself because you're Taylor Swift? Like the Beatles, right? It's the music, man!
I could be wrong.
The other question is whether this is par for the course when it come to women entertainers of a certain level? Maybe not Adele, but I don't know that for a fact, mainly because I don't care even if some think I should. Instead, I'm the type who thinks the work is what's most important and we know what happens to those types-think noise.
It seems though that to pierce through the fog or shine that bright light is a requirement that I don't think I'm up to even if I had the look, the hook, and the story compelling enough to warrant the scrutiny or interest.
That, however, would require a completely separate post.
Monday, August 21, 2017
More on The Popular Tune
The myth of the hit single is the idea that it can happen to anyone who has a great song. This is not true. Yes, having a great tune is a good thing, but it may have no actual connection to the song's probability of becoming a hit single.
That, as it has always been, requires the right people with the right connections. This is true nationally and locally, although one wonders in this day and age if there is anything intrinsically local anymore that can then be moved nationally.
For instance:
Were I to produce a fabulous recording that all the world had to hear, just how would I go about getting them to hear it? Radio? Well who exactly controls what is heard on the radio? The big radio conglomerates, like the big record labels, are interested in that which will sell and make them money. Do I fit within the categorical imperatives they would require in order for them to promote the song? And without promotion, the song goes nowhere, period.
Simple facts of the game.
And the song is merely a component of the product which is the entertainer. Songwriters are a dime a dozen, and if it takes a dozen, along with as many producers and engineers to create the songs to project an up and coming entertainer into the mainstream stratosphere above the rest of the grasping masses, then if the bet is a good one; the bet is made.
If, on the other hand, you do not meet the necessary demographic, or cultural, or aesthetic (read physical) appeal that research tells us that a song, let's say the song you have written and recorded, will be targeted to, then it is highly likely, no matter how wonderful the song, that anyone will care-beyond telling you, assuming they even took a moment to listen to it, you're not a god fit.
Is this discouraging? It sure is.
And it gets worse! On the very off chance that hard work and perseverance, as well as the fact that you are photogenic and young (this is far more important than you might think for reasons you might not-think contracts), a hit must then be followed by more and any and all appearances must promote the brand in order to justify the burgeoning support foundation you will need to succeed- and those people don't work for free. In fact, most are failed performers who came to the realization that there is good money to be made in the industry behind the camera, if you will, than struggling to be in front.
You have to be able to maintain that infrastructure. many don't.
All for a hit song.
That's not the same as finding your audience. Or your musical calling. It is why I demure when offered unsolicited advice on what I need to do to write a hit song. It may all be good advice, and it may help you write a better song; it may...but a hit single?
That, as it has always been, requires the right people with the right connections. This is true nationally and locally, although one wonders in this day and age if there is anything intrinsically local anymore that can then be moved nationally.
For instance:
Were I to produce a fabulous recording that all the world had to hear, just how would I go about getting them to hear it? Radio? Well who exactly controls what is heard on the radio? The big radio conglomerates, like the big record labels, are interested in that which will sell and make them money. Do I fit within the categorical imperatives they would require in order for them to promote the song? And without promotion, the song goes nowhere, period.
Simple facts of the game.
And the song is merely a component of the product which is the entertainer. Songwriters are a dime a dozen, and if it takes a dozen, along with as many producers and engineers to create the songs to project an up and coming entertainer into the mainstream stratosphere above the rest of the grasping masses, then if the bet is a good one; the bet is made.
If, on the other hand, you do not meet the necessary demographic, or cultural, or aesthetic (read physical) appeal that research tells us that a song, let's say the song you have written and recorded, will be targeted to, then it is highly likely, no matter how wonderful the song, that anyone will care-beyond telling you, assuming they even took a moment to listen to it, you're not a god fit.
Is this discouraging? It sure is.
And it gets worse! On the very off chance that hard work and perseverance, as well as the fact that you are photogenic and young (this is far more important than you might think for reasons you might not-think contracts), a hit must then be followed by more and any and all appearances must promote the brand in order to justify the burgeoning support foundation you will need to succeed- and those people don't work for free. In fact, most are failed performers who came to the realization that there is good money to be made in the industry behind the camera, if you will, than struggling to be in front.
You have to be able to maintain that infrastructure. many don't.
All for a hit song.
That's not the same as finding your audience. Or your musical calling. It is why I demure when offered unsolicited advice on what I need to do to write a hit song. It may all be good advice, and it may help you write a better song; it may...but a hit single?
Monday, August 14, 2017
Hit, Hits, Hits!
It's got to be the hits, man!
Ok, I get that, but in truth, hits, or hit songs, are for the vast majority of songwriters, out of reach. The basics require a lot of legwork, networking; preferably in the hometown of the genre, think Nashville or LA, and, foremost, songs that are being looked for. Music publishers, agents, and the like, are the gatekeepers between you and your targeted star and the thrill of hearing or watching said star playing your song. And no matter how brilliant, fun, hauntingly beautiful your song may be, if it's not what they're looking for, it's just another song in a sea of millions.
But take heart, there's a beavy of folks out there ready willing and able, for a small fee, to get you to the golden land. I know, I get they're emails all the time. And I don't begrudge them for taking a moment of my time, but I went through this years ago.
At some point you have to decide what you want and how far you're willing to go to get it, and, and this is a big and which a lot of people don't like to own up to, are you or do you have the esthetics, which is a fancy term for the look, to present to your target audience wha they expect to see?
That's big.
And it buries a lot of performers and bands.
But we're talking about the hits! Bands without hits go nowhere, no matter the talent level. Every town has talent, players who will take you to the cleaners; that's life, but their bands never made it or only made it to a certain level, say local versus national. Some may have been one hit wonders. I remember that back in the 80's, the guitarist playing with Jill Sobule had been the guitarist for Sugarloaf (Green Eyed Lady), Bob Webber. And that's not a knock on Bob, he's had far more success than most of us ever will, but anyone who has been in this business knows, life turns quick and you do something different.
In my case I just wanted to make my music without a lot of direction, change, and most of all, a lot of debt. I did it my way and because of that, and a lot of obstinacy, I am an unknown, but I'm ok with that. And I don't mind writing songs for people and I try to give them what they want, but what they get is a Mr Primitive tune...something not too many others have (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
Looks like I went off-track
As everyone will tell you; don't try to write a hit. Write what you write and go from there.
You never know.
Ok, I get that, but in truth, hits, or hit songs, are for the vast majority of songwriters, out of reach. The basics require a lot of legwork, networking; preferably in the hometown of the genre, think Nashville or LA, and, foremost, songs that are being looked for. Music publishers, agents, and the like, are the gatekeepers between you and your targeted star and the thrill of hearing or watching said star playing your song. And no matter how brilliant, fun, hauntingly beautiful your song may be, if it's not what they're looking for, it's just another song in a sea of millions.
But take heart, there's a beavy of folks out there ready willing and able, for a small fee, to get you to the golden land. I know, I get they're emails all the time. And I don't begrudge them for taking a moment of my time, but I went through this years ago.
At some point you have to decide what you want and how far you're willing to go to get it, and, and this is a big and which a lot of people don't like to own up to, are you or do you have the esthetics, which is a fancy term for the look, to present to your target audience wha they expect to see?
That's big.
And it buries a lot of performers and bands.
But we're talking about the hits! Bands without hits go nowhere, no matter the talent level. Every town has talent, players who will take you to the cleaners; that's life, but their bands never made it or only made it to a certain level, say local versus national. Some may have been one hit wonders. I remember that back in the 80's, the guitarist playing with Jill Sobule had been the guitarist for Sugarloaf (Green Eyed Lady), Bob Webber. And that's not a knock on Bob, he's had far more success than most of us ever will, but anyone who has been in this business knows, life turns quick and you do something different.
In my case I just wanted to make my music without a lot of direction, change, and most of all, a lot of debt. I did it my way and because of that, and a lot of obstinacy, I am an unknown, but I'm ok with that. And I don't mind writing songs for people and I try to give them what they want, but what they get is a Mr Primitive tune...something not too many others have (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
Looks like I went off-track
As everyone will tell you; don't try to write a hit. Write what you write and go from there.
You never know.
Monday, August 7, 2017
So, what kind of music do you make?
One of the incredibly delightful parts of getting back into the music biz is describing and defining your sound; what kind of music do you make?
Well, what is my Sound?
Not that long ago I'd of just said Rock music, and those who grew up in the age of Rock would probably understand because Rock was a fairly expansive category in popular music, and it was popular. And at the time that's what it was. Now it still is, but not like it was and it now needs further categorization. Is it soft rock, or hard rock, or heavy metal, which in this day and age; assuming you listen to metal at all, is an archaic term, or is it something else?
Hmmm, something else...
When I listen to the albums I've produced, pre-release, and go over the many sub-genres available to label these older albums, all of which were recorded in the early to mid-80's, I inevitably slam into the same wall because to me it's just Rock music. Not Southern Rock, a term that started with the Allman Brother's Band, (who, incidentally, didn't care for the label, it was, as they stated many times just rock n roll), or progressive Rock, or glam, or Rockabilly, or...you get the drift.
Perhaps Rock was the wrong term to begin with, but I don't exactly know. To me, it's simply modern music based on the popular esthetic I was brought up with. But at the time I was growing up all kinds of music was waffling through the air, Rock, Pop, Swing, Jazz, Classical, Country; mostly on their own stations, but quite often there were crossover hits and on TV, back in the three network universe, you were exposed to any number of different acts; just check out the old Ed Sullivan or Dean Martin variety shows of the 60's to see what I mean. All of these influences infused my music. As did the fact that I was in bands, mostly school bands and orchestras, for all of my formative years. I listened to and played a lot of different music.
So how does that answer the question? It doesn't, but I think it aids anyone listening to what I've produced over the years, and this is more true of the music I'm producing now. Once I got into my own little groove and my own little DIY world, the music I've made is basically popular music driven by whatever influence the song found in me, be it Rock or Jazz or Country, whatever. And the albums themselves began taking on themes through which the songs worked. The idea and focus was that the music was a journey, basically 45 minutes long-the product of the limitations of what you could legitimately put on a vinyl record-and meant to be listened to from beginning to end. The time limit has ben amended given what digital recording affords, but I've stuck to that premise whether that's how people listen to it or not.
Did I answer the question? Probably not. Here's my evasive answer; it's just music. And to be fair, I don't really label or categorize the music I listen to beyond basic genres; it's either pop, or rock, or jazz, or country or classical, and I'll stick with that even if it's a bit blurry.
If you still need a better definition, here it is: Mood music flavored with the stylings of pop-rock-country-jazz.
Works for me.
Well, what is my Sound?
Not that long ago I'd of just said Rock music, and those who grew up in the age of Rock would probably understand because Rock was a fairly expansive category in popular music, and it was popular. And at the time that's what it was. Now it still is, but not like it was and it now needs further categorization. Is it soft rock, or hard rock, or heavy metal, which in this day and age; assuming you listen to metal at all, is an archaic term, or is it something else?
Hmmm, something else...
When I listen to the albums I've produced, pre-release, and go over the many sub-genres available to label these older albums, all of which were recorded in the early to mid-80's, I inevitably slam into the same wall because to me it's just Rock music. Not Southern Rock, a term that started with the Allman Brother's Band, (who, incidentally, didn't care for the label, it was, as they stated many times just rock n roll), or progressive Rock, or glam, or Rockabilly, or...you get the drift.
Perhaps Rock was the wrong term to begin with, but I don't exactly know. To me, it's simply modern music based on the popular esthetic I was brought up with. But at the time I was growing up all kinds of music was waffling through the air, Rock, Pop, Swing, Jazz, Classical, Country; mostly on their own stations, but quite often there were crossover hits and on TV, back in the three network universe, you were exposed to any number of different acts; just check out the old Ed Sullivan or Dean Martin variety shows of the 60's to see what I mean. All of these influences infused my music. As did the fact that I was in bands, mostly school bands and orchestras, for all of my formative years. I listened to and played a lot of different music.
So how does that answer the question? It doesn't, but I think it aids anyone listening to what I've produced over the years, and this is more true of the music I'm producing now. Once I got into my own little groove and my own little DIY world, the music I've made is basically popular music driven by whatever influence the song found in me, be it Rock or Jazz or Country, whatever. And the albums themselves began taking on themes through which the songs worked. The idea and focus was that the music was a journey, basically 45 minutes long-the product of the limitations of what you could legitimately put on a vinyl record-and meant to be listened to from beginning to end. The time limit has ben amended given what digital recording affords, but I've stuck to that premise whether that's how people listen to it or not.
Did I answer the question? Probably not. Here's my evasive answer; it's just music. And to be fair, I don't really label or categorize the music I listen to beyond basic genres; it's either pop, or rock, or jazz, or country or classical, and I'll stick with that even if it's a bit blurry.
If you still need a better definition, here it is: Mood music flavored with the stylings of pop-rock-country-jazz.
Works for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)