Friday 31 May 2013

28 May 20013 (Day 148) – New & Old; Old & New

I always want to hear something new.  Or unique.  Or challenging.  Or groundbreaking.  Even better is something that’s all of the above, although in this instance my definition of the word “new” would be flexible enough to include acts or albums from music history that was barely heard when first released.

The challenge for today’s rising musicians though is to produce something that will challenge the musical status quo and/or stand the test of time.  However, the question that’s been voiced over the last decade or two has been whether there are any new directions that can be explored.  To recall a sentiment  I read in a Rolling Stone article about 20 years ago, is it possible that rock will become a form of music that will increasingly become out dated and seen as something emblematic of a bygone era like the 1940’s big band and their crooners (a.k.a. the “rock stars”) of the era?
It was an interesting analogy.  Who could have possibly foreseen the rise of Harry Connick, Michael Buble and others as well as the resurgence in popularity of Tony Bennett when that Rolling Stone sentiment was written?  Whatever one thinks about that style of music, it is reasonably clear that the musicians concerned have taken advantage of modern recording technologies to produce something that is now seen as fresh.  Tony Bennett, of course, is simply continuing to do what he’s always done but has been able to seem fresh via his alliances with present day acts.

And this is what today’s newer acts have in their favour.  Technology has given them some advantages in terms of recording equipment, computerised instruments, sampling and alternative distribution modes such as the internet.  The internet, in turn, also enables them to far more easily discover a wider range of music from around the world and/or through history.
But what is also reasonably clear to me is another factor that allows newer acts to develop.  It is a general lack of knowledge of music history on the part of the audience.  One of the things I’ve continually noticed throughout my life is the acclaim that’s been heaped upon new acts whose initial recordings have been based in part upon music from the past that the audience had either forgotten or never knew about.  (The same thing also applies to individual songs.  How many times have you or someone you know express admiration about a “new” song only to be advised that it is a cover of a long ago hit?)  I well remember the explosion of praise that, for example, accompanied The Strokes first album.  I saw the band touring behind it as special guests of You Am I on an Australian tour.   After their set, punters around me excitedly spoke about their “unique” or “new” sound.  Although I thought they’d done well, I didn’t quite share that level of enthusiasm.  The Strokes had demonstrated a great ability to recreate the sounds of 70s NYC new wave but not much else.  But I knew it was a great platform from which to develop.  As for the level of enthusiasm in the audience, I did notice I was in the upper percentile of the age bracket present that night and realised that to the bulk of the audience, The Strokes were producing music that seemed to them fresh, new and exciting.

That young musicians should produce music based upon acts or records they’ve admired is completely understandable.  After all, everyone needs a frame of reference, a form of standard to which they strive in defining initial success.  This should never be the basis for negative criticism, unless the act claims that they haven’t been influenced that way.  However brilliant the first couple of Led Zeppelin albums were, they were widely and justifiably criticised for the band’s refusal to acknowledge that key tracks were blatant rewrites of electric blues standards.  On the other hand, a local journalist here inappropriately tried to argue that Silverchair’s first album was a blatant Nirvana rip off.  There are a couple of distinguishing features in these examples here.  Led Zeppelin already had two session music veterans in the guise of Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones within its ranks; the refusal to acknowledge the sources for specific songs might well have been forced upon them by their manager, Peter Grant.  But Silverchair at the time was a trio of 17 year old kids.  No one had claimed they had ripped off a specific Nirvana track and the criticism made little allowance for their age.  If you were a teenager and wanted to form a rock band in the mid 1990s who were you likely to adopt as a musical role model other than Nirvana?  But what both examples also have in common is that by their end of their respective lives, each band (Led Zeppelin obviously far more spectacularly and enduringly) was producing music that far outstripped their original sources.  I’m not necessarily saying that Led Zeppelin ended up producing music that was better than the Chicago and delta blues masters and I’m definitely not claiming that Silverchair ended up producing music that surpassed Nirvana’s.  What I’m suggesting is that both bands ended up producing music that was the product of their own imaginations and which is clearly and recognisably theirs.
And this is one of the great thing to me about hearing new acts or albums.  Who are going to surpass their initial influences?  Who’s going to take the great leap forward?  Like Radiohead shrugging off an R.E.M influence to produce Kid A and its successors.  Or like XTC’s early punkish evolution into the lush pastoral sounds of Skylarking?   Or, Metallica forgoing its thrash roots to collaborate with Lou Reed?  Maybe, just maybe, it will be one of these acts, who I’ve only discovered over the last 12 months, and which I listened to today;

(# 383) Beach House – Bloom (2012)
This is the fourth album released by this American band that hails from Baltimore.  On the basis of this album they produce a dreamy form of rock very much in the vein of Mercury Rev and The Flaming Lips albeit without a lot of the eccentricities associated with either act.  (Lead vocalist Victoria Legrand even has a voice that sounds not that dissimilar to Mercury Rev’s Johnathan Donahue.)  Lazuli is reminiscent os the blissed out portions of My Bloody Valentine’s Loveless album and The Hours adds Beach Boy harmonies and instrumentation to the mix. 

(# 384) Laurels – Plains (2012)
Incredibly, this debut album from a band in New South Wales, appears to musically pick up exactly where the Beach House album ends.  The great opener Tidal Wave is very much in My Bloody Valentine mode, or perhaps more appropriate the (ahem) flood of shoegazing bands that followed in their (ahem) wake.  The remainder of the album has them showing off what I suspect is a deep range of musical influences.  This City Is Coming Down and Glacier are acoustic variations of the opener’s approach,  Manic Saturday deploys jangly guitars of a type beloved by so many young Australian bands and Sway Me Down Gently suggests an affinity with Come’s classic album Eleven:Eleven.

(#385) Grimes – Visions (2012)
This is the third album by Canadian singer songwriter Claire Boucher.  She possesses a girlish voice, sort of early Madonna meets Enya and Bjork and Korean popsters which is deployed over New Orderish synth lines to mesmerizing effect.  She really hits her stride in the middle portion of this release; Circumambient brings some Crystal Method type touches to the mix whilst  Vowels = Space and Time and Visiting Statue are incredibly catchy.

No comments:

Post a Comment