The Unifying Force of Christmas Music

For many people in North America and elsewhere, December is the Christmas season. Some celebrate Christmas with religious traditions and some use non-religious ones. Regardless of secular or sacred celebrations, the one thing in common is music. Christmas songs. There is also a divide between secular and sacred Christmas music. But in spite of this divide, there is considerable overlap as musical bridges provide a means of traversing between the secular world and the sacred world while maintaining a foothold in the chosen belief system. In other words, “Jingle Bells” is sung by religious people just as often as “Joy To The World” is sung by non-religious ones.

Of course the music we hear during the holidays is only played once a year, and it is ubiquitous during this time. The variations and renditions of traditional Christmas songs coupled with newer compositions are played everywhere. Stores, malls, TV, radio, ads on TV and radio--the recognizable strains of every Christmas song permeate the cacophony of daily life.

It is, however, a limited playlist. Compared, for example, to blues songs, there are few different Christmas songs. It’s always the same songs done by a variety of different artists in different styles. What are lacking are new contemporary Christmas songs. There are some written in the twentieth century but only a chosen few attain the status of being accepted into the canon of public recognition. How many people sit around and sing Run-DMC’s “Christmas In Hollis” or John Prine’s “Christmas In Prison”? My guess is there’s more Prine. It’s easier to play.

But there is a plethora of contemporary artists doing their version of popular Christmas songs. John Mellencamp, Bruce Springsteen, and Madonna come to mind. This is coupled with the traditional Christmas music performed by contemporary artists and what we have is new sounding Christmas music but no new Christmas music. In my humble opinion, one of the best Christmas songs written in the twentieth century is “Please Come Home For Christmas.” The song was originally released in 1960 by American blues singer and pianist Charles Brown. It was re-released as a holiday single by the Eagles in 1978. It has stood the test of time and has been frequently covered by other artists; more importantly though, it’s a good song. Divorced from the holiday meaning and on a purely musical level, the song is an excellent composition in its own right. And just like in the pop chart world, a popular Christmas song has to be at first a good piece of music.

Still, it would not be the holiday season without music and what we have is a collection of songs that bring together family, friends, and communities in a common and comfortable musical environment. In fact, it’s advantageous the canon of Christmas music is so small. It results in widespread dissemination and cultural unification. There’s a public “warmth and fuzziness” created by the commonality of music during the holidays. Everyone knows the words. Everyone knows the music, even the most stoic quietly mumbles their way through “Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer.”

Gene Autry would be proud.

Cross-posted at VideoJug: http://pages.videojug.com/pages/16504-The-Unifying-Force-Of-Christmas-Music

The Death of the Music Game?

When the music video game Guitar Hero was released in 2005, initially it was looked at curiously and with trepidation. At first it was thought using plastic instrument-shaped controllers to pretend to play the guitar to classic rock and independent tunes would not catch on. Well, it did and GH went on to sell an enormous number of units, and it generated interest among the music community to use the game as a platform to showcase or release new material. The success of GH spawned Rock Band, which took the idea one step further. Whereas GH is only pretend guitar, RB is pretend guitar, bass, drums, and vocals.

For a number of years the music video game industry has enjoyed an explosion of popularity that game developers only dream of. Both GH and RB have multiple versions of the games such as the Aerosmith-branded GH and the Beatles-branded RB. Recently the release of RB3 has upped the ante by offering a "real" music experience. New controllers for RB3 include a keyboard or keytar and stringed guitars that double as controllers and conventional electric guitars. RB3 also touts the fact their "pro" mode is the closest thing to playing a real instrument in a band you can get, without actually playing a real instrument in a band.

But for all the hype and hullaballoo, the music video game industry has possibly contributed to its own demise. Saturation of the market almost never works and in the case of music video games it has been an albatross around the neck of the game developers. With stiff competition from other video game franchises like Call of Duty, Halo, and Grand Theft Auto the music video game industry has found itself wondering what happened. Recent sales figures show a disturbing trend. In 2008, the music video game industry made over 1.6 billion. A year later, in 2009, that figure dropped to half, and in 2010 it is even bleaker. All of the various expansions and versions of both Guitar Hero and Rock Band did not boost sales or popularity, if anything it generated complacency. In essence, no one cares.

The communal, party atmosphere of music video games has been subsumed as well by new gaming platforms. Nintendo's Wii has in a lot of ways, overtaken the privileged position of popularity that GH and RB have enjoyed. The party atmosphere of gameplay that is created by music video games became the party atmosphere created by playing baseball, tennis, bowling, or golf on the Wii. And for a lot of people, having plastic instrument-shaped controllers takes up space and for some, setting up the game and instruments takes time they don't have.

Does the drop in sales preview a complete destruction of the music video game industry? After all, MTV's owners Viacom are dropping Rock Band's developer Harmonix. The company's future is thought to be in the hands of Electronic Arts, a partner in Rock Band. Having said that, even though sales have dropped for the various music video games, they are still profitable and corporations like profit. My humble prediction is that the music video games will settle into a sales routine that is more in keeping with actual popularity. In other words, hype, promotion, and word of mouth propelled video game sales initially. But that has worn off and now what's left are the consumers that actually enjoy playing the games and derive some musical satisfaction from them.

Music video games do foster an interest in playing a real instrument and while their popularity has diminished, the games still sell -- albeit not as much as previously. Plus, the Rock Band Network has emerged as a vehicle for releasing new material from established artists and showcasing independent artists. It is possible for songwriters to upload their own tracks to the Rock Band Network, thereby generating sales (you have to buy the tracks) and exposure that they would not ordinarily have access to. The new album from Pearl Jam, Backspacer was released on RB and along with an exclusive deal with Target stores, the band managed to release the album without a major label. Plus, in the works are deals with other artists for the Rock Band Network, and this has opened up opportunities for sales and promotion that eschews major label pathology.The music industry is changing.

It will be interesting to observe the consequences of declining sales on one hand and increased interest in using the platforms to release new material on the other. Still, music video games can be a lot of fun to play and they are a great way to preview new songs and artists that may never have had the exposure that the games generated.

I predict that music video games will be around for some time to come. Their supposed demise might be premature and given the interest by a considerable number of established artists, music video games might become the new AM radio -- all the hits all the time. And best of all, you can "play" them too.

Crossposted at VideoJug: http://pages.videojug.com/pages/15161-The-Death-of-the-Music-Game-

A Moment Of Silence For the Sony Walkman

It has happened. After some thirty years, Sony has discontinued production of the cassette Walkman. For those old enough to remember, the Walkman was the first portable music device. It is the forefather of the iPod. It allowed us for the first time to carry our music with us. It created a personal, isolated world, a soundtrack for life. It changed the way we listen to music.

Previous to the Walkman, listening to music was a static activity. Record players are not that portable, and while portable record players that played 45s did exist, it was a huge hassle to gather up the records and pack up the turntable just so you could listen to records at your friend's house. Plus, you needed headphones if you wanted to listen in private and headphones were a luxury that few had or could afford.

The first Walkman appeared in 1979. It came equipped with a faux leather carrying case and headphones. The buttons were big and chunky and it had second headphone jack so two people could listen. Battery life was about three hours. It was originally marketed in the US as the Soundabout, but trademark difficulties necessitated Sony use the name Walkman worldwide, thereby creating a popular culture icon. Incredibly Sony has sold over 200 million units since the device was introduced.

In the early 1980s, the Walkman turned the cassette into the dominant format, outselling LPs. With the ubiquity of home cassette recorders, consumers could create their own so-called mix tapes by cherry picking favourite songs off albums. Blank cassette sales soared and the record companies countered by releasing new albums on high-quality tape complete with liner notes printed so small you needed a magnifying glass to read the lyrics and production credits.

The Walkman morphed into other models like the Sport Walkman that was designed for joggers and outdoor use. It was even waterproof. Scuba divers listened to music. Just kidding. There was a version that had an AM/FM radio and one that could record as well as play back. It was a Walkman with a radio that provided my contact with the outside world during the Great Blackout of 2003, when the northeastern corner of the US and southern Ontario suffered a huge power failure.

While Sony has stopped manufacturing the cassette Walkman, the CD version will still be available along with third-party knockoffs. But for many, the Walkman will fondly live on, if only vicariously through an iPod. 

Fun Has Six Strings

Guitar instruction has become big business. There's a proliferation of "how-to" methods that all, obviously, teach essentially the same thing. From printed tablature anthologies of the latest and greatest songs to Internet tab sites and YouTube videos, from guitar magazines and instructional DVDs to Estoban and iPhone apps, guitar instruction is readily available. And much of it is free.

This plethora of guitar instruction materials and methods got me thinking what effect this field of fretted pedagogy will have. I'm all in favour of someone learning to play a musical instrument. It's good for you. And now with all these ways to learn how to play the guitar, anyone with a modicum of talent can manage to bang out a few chords and amaze and astound their friends.

I am a self-taught guitarist. Compared to what is available today, in 1969 when I started it was a wasteland. There were printed guitar instruction methods like the venerable Alfred's series and the odd guitar teacher here and there, but that was it. I had a book and a guitar and a burning desire to be a musician. So, I taught myself how to read music notation and how to play a few chords and rapidly chewed through the meagre amount of materials I had. In order to go any further, I realized that I would have to resort to figuring out songs off records and the radio. In the beginning, a hugely daunting task that I was not looking forward to. It seemed impossible. How was I supposed to listen to a record and then magically play what I heard?

I discovered the technique of playing and re-playing the song over and over painstakingly trying different chords until I found the ones that fit. When it came time to learn how to play lead guitar, this skill was even more necessary. Eventually it became easier to do and, during my tenure as a road musician, it continued to be the way I learned songs. I was not the only one either. Every band and musician used the same method. The recording had gained supremacy as the primary text.

Fast forward to the present. Today's novice guitarist has, as I said, a vast amount of resources available. Whereas once upon a time I would have had to play a song like "Magic Carpet Ride" over and over to figure out what the guitar is doing, the new guitarist today can Google how to play it. Technology even makes it possible to slow down audio tracks without pitch loss to help decipher a rapid-fire guitar solo like Randy Rhodes' masterpiece in "Crazy Train." A far cry from hearing the solo and trying to reproduce it in real time, something that takes a lot of practice and is not easy to do. Moreover, the difficulty of this can be seen as a contributing factor to the rise of the fore-mentioned Internet tab sites and anthologies.

The "play it again" method helps develop the musical ear among other things. Popular music is formulaic and familiar patterns emerge after repeated listening. Something heard in one song can many times be found in others. Some songs cross genres and styles, so inadvertently by learning a rock song, for example, it's possible to learn the blues or country at the same time. As a result, listening to music takes on a whole new meaning. Songs become aurally deconstructed to reveal their musical secrets. There is much to be said for doing it this way.

You would think with the materials available there would be more people playing the guitar. But regardless of the amount or quality of guitar instruction, the simple fact remains that in order to play any instrument, one truism rises above the rest. You have to practice and unless you're a musical prodigy, the pay-off takes time. While today's guitar instruction methods have not resulted in measurably more people seriously playing the guitar, they have fostered a new sort of "hobby" guitarist. This guitarist can play a few chords, wank out a passable version of the "Sunshine Of Your Love" riff, and almost knows at least five songs. Almost. The hobby guitarist picks up his or her guitar now and then, using it more for relaxation or something to do to kill some time.

So, the hobby guitarist is what's driving the guitar as big business. And having more people interested in music education can only be beneficial, not only to the students but to the teachers and other musicians as well. Learning to play the guitar can create opportunities to hear a diverse amount of new music and, at the same time, generate an appreciation for styles that may otherwise be ignored. Whether it's learning by ear or by some other method, playing the guitar or any instrument can be immensely rewarding as a means of relaxation, a way of creative expression, or just plain enjoyment.

"I don't want you to play me a riff that will impress Joe Satriani; give me a riff that makes a kid want to go out and buy a guitar and learn to play." -Ozzy Osbourne

In Praise Of The Yellow Pages

This post is slightly off topic. "Talking About Music and Stuff" is the subtitle of this blog, so file this post under "Stuff."

The other day something showed up on my doorstep. I was quite excited to see it and I always enjoy its arrival. I'm talking about the new phone book. More specifically, the new Yellow Pages. Imagine, every business in the city listed categorically and alphabetically. Need a starter for your car? The "Used Auto Parts" section is the place to check.

Now, some of the younger generation, who shall remain anonymous for the purposes of this post, think the Yellow Pages and the white pages are out of date. Why bother with the bulkiness of these books when you can find the same information on the Internets?

You know, it is a good point. Why bother? Well, despite the fact the Yellow Pages website may purport to have the same information as the printed version, I don't think that's true. My results, when I search yellowpages.ca, seem fewer than the listings in the printed version. I haven't counted them, but it seems the local listings are lacking on the website. There are, however, a lot of national ads. No help there.

And then there's the time it takes to boot up what ever device you use to do your stuff on the Internets, whether it's a computer, an iPad, or a smartphone; it takes time to wake the thing up, start the browser, type in the address, search, look through the results, and not find what you're looking for. And if you're spelling challenged it can take even longer. On the other hand, I can find what I need from the printed Yellow Pages in less time than it takes on an electronic device.

I also realize that getting rid of the printed Yellow Pages makes environmental sense. It's got to take a lot of paper to print all those copies. And I realize that eventually the printed Yellow Pages will end up in the same place as the drive-in movie theatre, rotary dial telephone, VCR, and other technology past its Best Before date.

But, until the Yellow Pages appears on my doorstep no more - long live the Yellow Pages! (the book not the website that is)

Just sayin'.

Has The Internet Really Destroyed Rock Music?

The Internet has taken a bashing lately from old rockers John Mellencamp (nee: John Cougar Mellencamp, nee: John Cougar) and Stevie Nicks (ex-Fleetwood Mac). Both assert the Internet is destroying rock music. Mellencamp thinks the Internet is more dangerous than an atomic bomb and Nicks thinks the online music industry stifles talent.

Neither of these artists really have to use the Internet. Mellencamp and Nicks have already had successful careers that were established under the old music industry regime. The A&R (Artist & Repertoire) person finds the new act either by solicited demo tapes or the chance meeting in a nightclub. The new act is signed to a major label, the promotion machine kicks in, the Great Unwashed gobbles up the product, and voila, a star is born.

While that may have worked twenty years ago, in today's world that does not hold true. It is not necessary to be signed to a major label or to avail oneself of the promotion and distribution that a major label offers. It is possible to build a successful music career from a grassroots or cottage industry base that is entirely online. Independent artists and labels can now have global distribution simply by offering the music for sale at a website such as eMusic or AmieStreet. Perhaps the poster child for a successful music career that is entirely Internet-driven is Jonathan Coulton. Coulton writes geek rock, which is, I think, the best description of his music. He regularly draws a substantial audience to his shows, has a considerable online catalogue for sale, and produces his own DVDs. In addition to the online sales, he sells product at his concerts and has managed to garner considerable interest from online press such as Wired and ArsTechnica.

Mellencamp and Nicks are acting like curmudgeons. All that is missing is for them to yell "Get off my lawn you rotten kids!" As well, their comments are based more on aesthetics, or what they consider "good" rock music, than anything else. Maybe they don't like the new rock acts or the new rock music, but that doesn't mean the Internet is at fault. The Internet is a tool for musicians, plain and simple. No, you don't have to slog it out in the clubs or on the road anymore. Paying your musical dues means something different today. No longer is it the months and years of playing before the awesomeness of signing to a major label, in fact the opposite is true. Bands can be signed with no live experience at all (I'm looking at you Everclear). That doesn't mean they perform well live though, there is something to be said for years in the clubs. But it does mean that the Great Unwashed potentially has access to the music in a manner that dwarfs what the traditional major label paradigm can offer.

There's a whiff of Luddite in what Mellencamp and Nicks have to say too. Plenty of folks over 50 can only and barely check their email, let alone figure out how to upload songs to a website or create a website of their own. Perhaps if Mellencamp and Nicks were starting their careers they might have a different attitude toward the Internet. Given the questionable accounting practices of the major labels, one would think they would welcome a new way to sell and promote their music that is driven by them and not some multinational entertainment conglomerate. I guess it's the "old dog new tricks" adage come to life.

I wish we had the Internet when I was on the road. It used to cost around $4000.00 to record and manufacture a 45. But just because you had a 45 didn't mean you got airplay either. When Killer Tumbleweeds released "When The Rain Comes" as a single, we managed to get airplay in the US, but here in Canada, all we got was criticism about the production values. As if a radio DJ in Peace River would know how much reverb is needed on the voices. Most radio DJs I have met are a "good voice" and that's it. Suffice to say, Killer Tumbleweeds received no airplay in Canada. Thanks for the support.

So, has the Internet destroyed rock music? Hardly. If anything the Internet has diversified rock music. The traditional gatekeepers no longer have control and there is plenty of new and exciting music available. Music hybrids are cropping up, musicians that otherwise would remain in obscurity now have a place to be seen and heard, and global distribution is all but guaranteed. All that is required is an Internet connection and a MySpace account. 

It is harder, however, to separate the wheat from the chaff, but more choices are better than fewer choices. The "old" music industry offered fewer choices, the "new" music industry offers more, and that's a good thing. Mellencamp and Nicks are off-base and showing their age. I mean really. "Pink Houses" and "Don't Stop" only go so far.

While you're at it, check out my MySpace page. Got some tunes posted there.

It Takes A Lot Of Years To Play Classic Rock, Or Does It?

Back from my self-imposed summer hiatus, I have some not earthshaking news. Randy Bachman and Fred Turner have reunited to form Bachman & Turner, a kind of twenty-first century BTO revival. They have released a new album Bachman & Turner with the first single "Rock And Roll Is The Only Way Out" being an anthemic, Kiss-style rocker complete with chantable chorus, "Whoa oh, rock and roll is the only way out." [pump fist appropriately here]

I'm not trying to promote the album but rather it serves as a segue to the real point of this post. Mike Ragogna of the Huffington Post interviewed Randy and Fred. Randy is asked about the retro BTO sound of the songs on Bachman & Turner, to which he replies, "I wanted to give them a taste of new classic rock, as if it was '77. You can't do that with guys in their twenties. It's almost like blues, where if you want really great blues, you've got to get a Buddy Guy or somebody who is of a certain age and has lived it. It's hard to get somebody twenty-two and really get an authentic evening or a whole album of blues because they're only touching on it, they've only just started the journey."

This got me thinking. Is Randy right? Does it take similar life experiences as playing blues to authentically play classic rock? This would mean classic rock has become a unique genre, like blues or country music. Never mind that classic rock encompasses several genres ranging from singer/songwriters like Elton John, Billy Joel, and James Taylor to bands like Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, and Grand Funk Railroad. With all the genres and sub-genres, classic rock is a massive style of music. If you think of it that way.

But, Randy is not thinking of classic rock as this monolithic genre, rather he is suggesting that, like blues, in order to play which ever genre of classic rock you choose, there must be a degree of authenticity that can only come from individual life experience and years of practice and performance. That ephemeral degree of authenticity is what makes a performance "real." In the words of Jerry Doucette, "He's too young for the blues, he's still inside his first pair of shoes."*

Now, Randy is not entirely off-base with his statement. Anyone can play the blues. How many times have you seen a new or amateur band play a questionable cover of Cream's "Crossroads" or any other blues song for that matter? The parts are there but something is missing. That missing "something" is the small degree of authenticity that seasoned musicians have. And this is what Randy is alluding to. Being a seasoned musician means playing countless hours and umpteen songs. Practicing. Practicing. Practicing. Paying dues in crummy clubs. Being shafted by club owners, managers, record companies, and other musicians. Living the life. Dreaming the dream. Not everyone can pull that off nor does everyone have the desire to.

It does take particular performance practice techniques to ensure that the music being played conforms to what is expected for that genre. In other words, you have to play the guitar or any other instrument a certain way for blues and a different way for country. Each genre has its own rhythms, song structures, riffs, and melodic characteristics. In fact, this applies to every genre and style of music.

Certainly new styles can be created by amalgamation or cross-pollenization, but this is not what Randy is talking about. He means experience. And again, this applies to all music. Seasoned musicians are a pleasure to hear. They impart emotion and give the illusion that their musicianship is effortless. They know the value of playing "in the pocket" and their playing makes people dance, or at least want to. Seasoned playing is what people expect.

For much of the Great Unwashed, classic rock is musical comfort food. It's what they grew up with and what they still enjoy. And while there are numerous bar bands, wedding bands, party bands, weekend bands, basement bands, garage bands, and jam bands playing classic rock songs, it takes that certain type of musician to authentically recreate, or even create, the classic rock music experience - at least in the way some people remember it. 

You'll know it when you hear it. 
 
*"Mama Let Him Play" by Jerry Doucette (1977)

Remembering a Calgary Stampede Tradition

The Stampede has started in Calgary, Alberta. That venerable time of year when the city goes from urban to rural overnight. Wannabe cowboys appear everywhere, storefronts are decorated with barn boards and hay bales along with the requisite "yahoo" painted on the windows. Pancake breakfasts abound. This year there is an iPhone app that will find the elusive flapjack feasts. Maple syrup fans rejoice. Country music oozes out of stores, cars, and bars. The city fixes the roads. Okay, I was kidding with that last one.

Stampede's arrival used to mean the arrival as well of the Big Downtown Cabaret. A past hallmark of Stampede festivities, the Big Downtown Cabaret (BDC) was a popular meeting place, a keep-the-buzz-going-after-the-Stampede-bbq-at-work place. The BDC was a place where you could create Stampede stories that would be told and retold for years to come. "Remember when you [insert embarrassing activity here]?" It was a place where you could become someone else for a few hours. A someone that only comes out at night during Stampede. A someone that drinks beer from a cowboy boot.

There once was more than one BDC. And they had fanciful, good-time-will-be-had-by-all names such as The Golden Garter and The Silver Slipper. And the people would start queuing up as early as 2 pm. Doors open at 6. These BDCs were essentially big, empty boxes, convention areas in downtown hotels, filled for the occasion with tables, chairs, and "country" decorations. Usually three or four bands would provide the two-stepping fun. People would dance and throw up. A good time was had by all. The BDCs were the place to go.

Times changed and the BDCs moved from the downtown hotel convention facilities to downtown nightclubs. Cowboys erected a tent beside their building which added another 2000 or so drunken patrons to the already filled to capacity nightclub. Other nightclubs followed suit. There were lots of good bands playing. There was lots of beer. Good times continued to be had by all. 

Then Cowboys lost its lease.The owners tried to open another Cowboys a few blocks from its original location but downtown merchants wouldn't have it. "We don't want the trouble that comes with nightclubs," they said. "We are scared," they meant. The gentrification of Victoria Park, the area around the Stampede grounds, was in full swing. Another nightclub BDC conveniently located two blocks from Stampede Park was swallowed up by city appropriation. And with that, BDCs disappeared. Good times too. Now where can people go to gather and collectively get as drunk as possible? What can be used as the excuse for calling in sick at work the next day? Where do you go to hear Hank Williams' songs?

The end of the Big Downtown Cabarets is the end of a unique time in Calgary when live music was king, especially during the Stampede. This is not to say that live music has entirely disappeared during Stampede week, there are still bands and singers playing here and there, but the ubiquity of live music during Stampede has substantially dwindled. In a lot of ways it's too bad. The BDCs were the reason people went downtown. Stampede was sure to vitalize not only the hotels that hosted the BDCs but also the restaurants and other clubs in the vicinity. They were a destination. They added an atmosphere of decadence and depravity, a kind of safe walk on the Dark Side, complete with boots and hat. In short, they were a lot of fun, not only for the wannabe cowboys but the musicians that played them.

Here's to the Big Downtown Cabarets. May they rest in peace.

Festival Express: Rockin' Across The Country

Canada Day. July 4th. Big celebrations at the start of the summer. Woodstock, Monterey Pop, and Altamont Speedway, big rock festivals that have become symbols of the counter-culture and hippiedom. This weekend marks the 30th anniversary of another big celebration and festival - Festival Express. While the other festivals cemented their place in popular music history, Festival Express quietly slipped into obscurity.

What's Festival Express you ask? Well, it was a cross-country concert train that travelled from Toronto to Calgary, Alberta and included some of the more famous groups and singers of the time. Imagine The Band (above right), Grateful Dead (right), Janis Joplin (below), Mashmakan, Tom Rush, Buddy Guy, Ian and Sylvia, Delaney and Bonnie, New Riders of the Purple Sage, Mountain, Traffic, and a host of others gathered together at the same time. All the musicians were sequestered on a Canadian National Railways train and they travelled across the Canadian Shield and the prairies. They jammed together, drank together, and hallucinated together all in the name of freedom, peace, and musical goodwill. Sounds fantastic I know, but it really happened.

Festival Express was supposed to begin in Montreal on June 24, but the date was cancelled; so instead FE began at the CNE (Canadian National Exposition) grandstand in Toronto on June 27 and 28. Riots occurred during the TO shows largely as a result of Woodstock, the famous festival at Max Yasgur's farm in New York state in 1969. There, over 300,000 people essentially stormed the gates and turned what was originally a ticketed event into a counter-culture love-in (see my previous post on the anniversary of Woodstock). Because Woodstock was ostensibly "free," thousands of concert-goers in TO thought FE should be free too. TO police quelled the uprising adding a black mark to the reputation of the show. The Grateful Dead ended up performing a free concert in Varsity Park to placate the protesters.

From Toronto the train rolled west to Winnipeg, Manitoba for a show on July 1, which was Dominion Day back then not Canada Day. The show went off without a hitch and the train chugged off to Calgary for the July 4 show, which was the last one on the bill. The final show was supposed to be in Vancouver but, like the Montreal show, it was cancelled leaving the McMahon Stadium show in Calgary the final one (video clip below the fold). An amusing event occurred after leaving Winnipeg when the train ran out of liquor. It made a pit stop in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and the musicians descended on the closest liquor store buying all of the Canadian Club rye, among other things, the store had. Restocked and happy, FE trundled on to Cowville.

Financial difficulties plagued the tour from the start and when it was all said and done, the organizers and sponsors, which included Maclean-Hunter and Thor Eaton (remember Eaton's department stores?), lost close to half a million dollars. In Calgary as well, controversy hit again as then-mayor Rod Sykes confronted the promoter Ken Walker demanding the show be free, like Woodstock. Walker, smarting from the financial debacle as it was, responded by punching the mayor in the face.

I remember when FE came to Calgary. I was a young, impressionable teenager that just started playing the guitar. As I recall, tickets were around $14.00 or $15.00, which was pricey for the time, and there was no way my parents would let me attend a festival that had The Band, Grateful Dead, and Janis Joplin. Horror of Horrors! So, despite the best laid plans of me and my best friend (his parents wouldn't let him go either), attending FE ended up being something we wished we could have attended.

Festival Express faded into oblivion until 2003, when the movie Festival Express premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival. Originally, the tour was filmed and the audio recorded for a concert movie and soundtrack album, again like Woodstock. But this was not to be as the film production company went bankrupt. The original film footage was lost and then discovered gathering dust in the garage of Gavin Poolman, son of Willem Poolman the producer of the 1970 footage. Anecdotal evidence reveals the film cans were used in a quintesstially Canadian way - as goalposts for road hockey games. Apropos? I think so.

Festival Express (the movie) is a valuable piece of popular music history. Mostly because of the performances and partly due to the fact the Calgary show was one of the last concerts that Janis Joplin would ever play. She died of a heroin overdose in October of 1970 a scant two months after FE (note: Joplin's last performance was August 12, 1970 with The Full Tilt Boogie Band at Harvard Stadium in Boston). Festival Express (the movie) is available on DVD and comes loaded with a host of extras such as concert performances not featured in the film along with commentaries by musicians, journalists, and academics. My Ph.D. supervisor Rob Bowman gives his usual astute analyses in the movie, for me this is worth the price of admission alone.

Festival Express (the DVD) is available at HMV, Chapters, and Amazon for less than twenty dollars. If you haven't added it to your collection, I highly recommend you do so. Festival Express (the DVD) is entertaining and enlightening, plus seeing and hearing these artists is a walk down memory lane you won't soon forget. And it's educational for the youngsters that have no idea about these artists or the movie.

Festival Express. Only in Canada, eh? Sweet.


Check out this performance of Janis Joplin doing "Tell Mama" in Calgary.

Happy Birthday LP and The Ten Best Album Covers Of All Time

June 21 marks an auspicious day in popular music history. 62 years ago, June 21, 1948, Columbia Records introduced the world to the twelve-inch, 33 1/3 rpm, long-playing vinyl record, forever changing the way we listen to music.

Thomas Edison pioneered the first technology that could preserve a conversation or musical performance in 1877. His wax cylinder "talking machines" were the first devices that allowed recording and playback. In 1889 Emile Berliner perfected the technology and developed flat-disc recording; instead of a cylinder now the records were flat discs that rotated on a turntable. Unlike the wax cylinders, though, recording was not possible on this medium. The flat disc innovation was adopted by the fledgling recording industry and became the standard. The fact that Berliner had a hand in creating the three largest record companies in the world, EMI, Deutsche Grammophone, and RCA Victor, didn't hurt either.

The discs were known as 78s because they rotated at 78 rpm. They were about ten inches in diameter and somewhat fragile. (right) Sound fidelity was the best that could be achieved at the time. Very quickly 78s and the record players, known as grammophones, graphophones, and other "phones," caught on and there was big money to be made.

78s were extremely popular in the early twentieth century. Most households had a grammophone in the living room. Musicians became stars. Songs became hits. Record companies sprang up everywhere. But 78s were limited by the amount of information that could be recorded on a single side. One side of a 78 could only take about three minutes of music or one song.

Since the 1930s, Columbia Records had been working on technology that would allow more recording time and better fidelity. The rotation speed of 33 1/3 rpm had been decided upon and work progressed on reducing the groove size to allow 22 minutes of space per side. (left) Now instead of one song there could be five or six songs per side. Once this had been perfected, Columbia released the first twelve-inch, long-playing record on June 21, 1948. It was a recording of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto in E minor performed by Nathan Milstein and the Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra of New York.

The new long-playing records were slow to catch on initially. Virtually every household already had a grammophone and a collection of 78s, so the technological shift took some time.

In the 1950s, record companies discovered an untapped market in the teenage baby boomers. RCA Victor had countered Columbia's long-playing record with the development of the 45. It was seven inches in diameter and had a giant hole in the center. (right) It too used microgroove technology, but was a throwback to the days of 78s. 45s, so called because of the rotation speed of 45 rpm, could only hold one song per side. The rotation speed of the 45 was not arrived at scientifically either. RCA simply subtracted the rotation speed of the long-playing record from the rotation speed of the 78. 78 minus 33 equals 45. Simple math that changed music.

LPs were commonly a collection of songs by one artist, or a classical work like an opera or concerto. The big seller was the 45, aimed squarely at the youth market. As a result, record companies used the 45 more as a promotion vehicle than to sell an album. Very often the album would not contain the song released as a 45. The 45 or single, was played on the radio and its primary function was to sell the artist. Plus, most teenagers at the time could only afford the single, the album was somewhat cost prohibitive.

By the mid-1960s, the album had evolved into something more than a collection of songs. Helped by the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds (1966) and The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967) the idea of a narrative thread or concept that ran through the songs on an album became the norm. Now albums could be a cohesive work. Artists could realize creative concepts beyond the pop music platitudes of girls, cars, high school, and love.

Coupled with the narrative paradigm, the idea of the album cover as art also took over. Kick-started by the Sgt. Pepper album, cover design quickly became as esoteric and artful as some of the music. Famous graphic artists like Andy Warhol and Richard Hamilton would lend their talents to creating some of the most iconic album covers.

So, in honour of the LP's birthday, I present my choice for the ten best album covers of all time.

1. Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon (1971)

From its gatefold design, to the posters and stickers, the graphic design company Hipgnosis took the idea of cover art to a new level. Hipgnosis would design the covers for almost every Pink Floyd album.

2. The Beatles Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)

The one that started it all. How many hours of teenage life have been wasted staring at this cover? It was also the first album to print the lyrics on the cover. Plus it used the gatefold design, which was innovative at the time, and the album included an insert with cut-out mustache and sergeant stripes.

3. Rolling Stones Sticky Fingers (1971)

Andy Warhol design complete with real zipper.

4. Cream Disraeli Gears (1967)

The album that almost singlehandedly codified the artistic style of the counter-culture.

5. Joni Mitchell Blue (1971)

Its unique photography technique creates a cover that is evocative of the music.

6. Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young Deja Vu (1970)

The initial release used textured paper to resemble the cover of a hymnal. The printing was gold-leaf and expensive. The Civil War-era photograph was glued on and expensive as well. The whole project was costly from start to finish but worth it. Platinum worth it.

7. Led Zeppelin IV (1971)

The band name does not appear on the cover nor does the title. Simply known as "Led Zeppelin Four" the cover evokes the folksiness and fantasy of the music.


8. Meatloaf Bat Out Of Hell (1977)

The motorcycle explodes out of the grave, like a bat out of hell. Awesome. Perfect mural for a Chevy van too.


9. The Beatles The Beatles (1968)

Richard Hamilton design. Minimalism at its finest. Known as "the white album" because of the cover, included in the album jacket were four individual colour 8" x 10" photographs of the band and a collage poster.The band name was embossed on the jacket and first pressings had a serial number printed in the bottom right corner.

10. Moody Blues Every Good Boy Deserves Favour (1971)

A textured cover and fantastic painting. The title is the mnemonic device used to remember the lines on a musical staff.

This is by no means the definitive list, just my top ten favourites.

Feel free to comment. What's your vote for the top ten album covers of all time?

Copywrong: Harper Conservative Copyright Reform Misses The Mark...Again

Bill C32 is coming. Be afraid, be very afraid.

What's Bill C32 you ask? Why it's the new copyright reform bill from the Harper conservatives. Canada needs to modernize its copyright legislation and C32 purports to do just that. Harper's conservatives have toiled long into the night, asking for advice from U.S. special interest groups and, of course, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) along with the U.S. ambassador to Canada. I wonder too, what the U.S. ambassador knows about copyright or the needs of Canadians. Ask Harper, he knows the answer to that one.

The last time copyright reform was tried (2008), it died a merciful death because of the election. That bill was deeply flawed and garnered a response from across the country the Harper conservatives did not expect. Bill C32, though, was expected to take into account the concerns of consumers but after much discussion, deliberation, and even online public forums last summer, consumers were ignored and the Harper conservatives went forward with drafting Bill C32.

On the surface, Bill C32 looks impressive. Whereas it is presently illegal in Canada to record TV shows (seriously), Bill C32 allows for PVRs and time-shifting (time-shifting is when you record a show on Monday and watch it on Wednesday). It allows for format shifting. This is when you take the CD you just bought and rip it to your iPod. Awesome you say? Maybe not. It also allows consumers to make backup copies of CDs, DVDs, and software they own. Swell. And it allows for satire, parody, education uses, research, and library archiving. Again, swell, right?

Well, with all the new stuff we Canadians will be able to do with our music and DVDs, we should be rejoicing. Now Canada will be as modern and forward-thinking as the U.S. We sure are lucky. Yet, when the veil of misinformation is lifted, the ugly truth is revealed.

Sure, Bill C32 allows for all of the things listed above, but there is a fly in the ointment and it's known as TPMs or Technological Protection Measures. More commonly TPMs are referred to as DRM (digital rights management) or digital locks. 

Try to wrap your head around this one. Backup copies, time-shifting, format shifting, all looked after. Yes we can finally legally make backup copies of software, music, and video; yes we can watch Glee three days after it airs; yes you can rip your newly purchased CD into the portable music device of your choice. BUT (and this is a big but), if there is a digital lock it will be illegal to break the lock or to own software that will break the lock. In other words, all of the provisions allowed in Bill C32 are moot if there is a digital lock. And a lot of media (DVDs, CDs, software, etc.) have digital locks. Even some TV shows have them, they're called broadcast flags and if a show is "flagged" you can't record it.

Michael Geist, law professor and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, gives a succinct analysis of the consumer rights portion of Bill C32. It's worth a read. Also, major newspapers across the country have published op-eds regarding Bill C32. Two of them are here and here. There is also an excellent website called Speak Out On Copyright that has a lot of useful information. As well, Prof. Geist has started a Facebook page Fair Copyright For Canada. Please join the group.

The general consensus is that Bill C32, while "modernizing" a lot of the activities the Great Unwashed indulges in everyday, actually handcuffs consumers, researchers, librarians, and educators because of the TPM provision. It's like saying "Sure, have a cookie, it's illegal to open the cookie jar, but you can have as many cookies as you want."

Despite public outcry, there is no way the Harper conservatives are going to pass up on this one. They view this as an important step toward bringing Canada's copyright laws more in line with what is happening in other countries (read: U.S.A.). They shout their self-congratulatory claims to the heavens (as conservatives are wont to do), but in reality Bill C32 is lip service to the Canadian public and a towing of the line to American special interest groups. I didn't realize the line needed towing. I thought Canada was capable of creating copyright legislation by and for Canadians, or more accurately, I thought the Harper conservatives were capable. I guess I was wrong.

The only thing missing in this debacle, is the creation of Copyright Police.

Maybe I shouldn't give Harper any ideas.
 

Learning To Play Guitar With A Video Game: Are Guitar Teachers Obsolete?

In 2005 Activision released the music video game Guitar Hero. The premise was reasonably simple. Digitally carve up a bunch of rock tunes into various sized pieces then use a guitar-shaped controller with coloured buttons to "play" the pieces of the song by timing the controller's button pushing with the appearance of coloured icons on the screen. That's a facile description, but the basics of what's going on.

To play any version of Guitar Hero (there are five so far) no musical ability is required. Push the buttons at the right time and the song plays, and you can pretend to be a rock guitarist. Awesome. Rock on dude, even. But remember it's a video game.

In 2008, Activision's competitor Harmonix upped the ante and released Rock Band, adding vocals and drums and a cool Stratocaster-shaped guitar controller (right). The "Strat" is even branded "Fender" with the authentic Fender logo on the wee plastic headstock. Now it is possible to have guitar, bass, drums, and vocals. Just like a real band. And, ironically, the addition of vocals and drums began to close the gap between simulation and reality. You need a modicum of rhythmic ability to play the drums and you have to sing in tune and know the melody to play (sing) the vocal part, kind of like karaoke. But it's still a video game.

Both Guitar Hero and Rock Band have become wildly popular. At first a lot of big name music acts were not on board with the idea of having their music in a video game, but the popularity and the amount of money that could be made off the music licensing changed their minds in a hurry. Artists like Green Day, Metallica, Aerosmith, and even The Beatles have their music in special editions of the games. Rock Band has an in-game store where you can buy and download tracks. In some cases, entire albums are available. For example, now you can play in its entirety (video game play that is) Rush's Moving Pictures album. Rock Band also features the Rock Band Network where independent artists can submit and upload their songs. The tracks are available for purchase and download into the game. It's a great way for new bands to have their music heard, and the financial rewards are considerable if the song becomes a game "hit."

Now the gap between simulation and reality has been closed even more. Harmonix announced the release of Rock Band 3 and the addition of a MIDI keyboard controller (left). Now you can have guitar, bass, drums, vocals, and keyboards. Just like a real band. Get your drunk friends to heckle you while you play and it will really be like playing in a band, especially if they throw beer bottles at you. But what is most interesting, is the addition of the new Pro mode. In this mode, the keyboard controller becomes more keyboard-like and instead of timing the button pushing, you actually have to push the right key at the right time. Like the drums and vocals, a modicum of talent is needed to pull this one off. Wait a minute, I thought this was a video game.

To go along with the new keyboard controller and Pro mode, Fender (maker of the Stratocaster guitar, the real Stratocaster that is) has developed a hybrid controller. Whereas other guitar controllers are stringless and have coloured buttons, this hybrid controller is a full-sized, fully functional electric guitar. Fender has worked closely with Harmonix since the release of Rock Band, so it is no surprise they would develop an instrument like this. Aside from the odd press release, not much information is presently available about the guitar. The Harmonix Rock Band website says the guitar "uses technology built into the neck and fingerboard of the guitar to track finger positions in real time. The guitar also transmits strum data for the six individual strings, allowing the game to give feedback to players as they make the leap from rhythm game rocking to real world skills. Players can unplug from the fun of Rock Band 3 and plug directly into an amp to rock for real."

I'm guessing here - the neck probably lights up on the fretboard to show where to put your fingers, similiar to the Optek Fretlight guitar. But how close is this to really playing the guitar? Harmonix says "Rock Band Pro is available in all modes of Rock Band 3, and features tutorials and a variety of difficulties, including Easy, meaning that real instrument performance is within reach of any player, no matter their experience level." Easy? Does this mean pluck one note and the entire riff plays? Not much of a gap closer there. In fact that is pretty much what the non-stringed controllers do. I imagine the Hard setting is more realistic. I can't say until I've played the controller.  

What does this mean for people like me? Guitar teachers. Are we going to become obsolete? I don't think so. There are other things besides putting your fingers in the right spot. Pressing hard enough on the strings to make them sound without buzzing is one, picking the right string at the right time is another, switching chords and chord positions is another and not that easy I might add. And let's not forget about tuning. Guitars have to be tuned. Then there's music theory. A daunting subject even with a teacher. You get the idea.

So it seems to me that this new hybrid controller, while attempting to close the gap between simulation and reality, will achieve that goal to a certain extent; however, I don't think it will be for everyone. Most likely a person that can already play, or at least make noise on a guitar, will buy one and use it to actually learn to play better. Fingers can get sore really fast and unless you keep up the practice, the ability goes away equally as fast. 

The learning curve on an instrument is incredibly steep. Satisfaction comes slowly, frustration comes quickly. A teacher can help motivate and work through the inevitable problems of technique. And what about feeling? Playing music is also about imparting some kind of emotion into the music. Having had experience with music video games, or rhythm games as they're called, there is no emotive quality whatsoever. I can't see the addition of a fancy hybrid guitar controller teaching someone about dynamics (there aren't any), expression (again, zippo), or interpretation (you're playing the recorded tracks, interpretation doesn't even enter into the picture). And like I said, you have to practice. Practice is the most important factor when learning an instrument. But practice takes time. Time that can be used for other things like shopping or watching a movie or playing a video game where you kill things and blow stuff up. Learning an instrument takes self-discipline, self-motivation, and a desire to get better. In today's fast-paced, Internet-based, instant-gratification world, time is a valuable commodity and not one that is given up easily.

What about the cost? You can buy an entire student electric guitar package complete with Squier Stratocaster, Fender amplifier, strap, strings, picks, cable, method book, and big cardboard box for around $350.00. The guitar doesn't interface with Rock Band 3 though and doesn't light up. Will the hybrid controller be in the affordable range for the average video game consumer? Hard to say at this point. There is no information on price available. My guess is the guitar will sell for around $200.00, in which case it becomes a cheap electric guitar or an expensive video game controller. Take your pick.

Undoubtedly Rock Band 3 will generate interest among certain gamers to actually learn to play an instrument. This is already happening. More music schools are seeing an increase in enrolment for guitar, drum, and vocal lessons as a result of these games. Some gamers want to learn to play the opening riff to "Carry On My Wayward Son" for real, not just pushing the buttons at the right time. In this way, the music video games bring more people into the world of music-making and there are numerous studies showing the benefits of learning to play music. Playing an instrument involves the entire brain. It's good for you. And playing music is a great way to relax.

There won't be a sudden influx of novice guitarists, or keyboardists for that matter, and guitar teachers won't be put out of work once Rock Band 3 is released. In fact, learning to play the guitar using RB3 is not much different than learning with Estoban's guitar method without the hat. But like the other versions in the Rock Band and Guitar Hero franchises RB3 will expose more people to music and might foster an interest in learning to play for real. That's never a bad thing.

And call me, I can help. Remember, it's a video game.

UPDATE: June 16, 2010

The website Engadget has pictures and video of the Squier Stratocaster hybrid controller guitar. Plus pictures of a Fender Mustang controller that features buttons for each string and fret. Both instruments utilize the new Pro setting in RB3. 

Play "Snakes Crawl At Night" Or We're Gonna Kill You

Play something sweet
Play something mellow
Play something I can sink my teeth in like Jello
Play something I can understand
Play me some Brickyard Blues*

For fifteen years I played in bands that travelled around the prairies playing cover songs in bars and nightclubs. Over that time I calculated I have played 2,160,000 songs. Not different songs mind you, but 2,160,000 songs nonetheless.

Here's the math:
50 songs a night/6 nights a week = 300 songs
300 songs/week = 1200 songs/month
1200 songs/month = 144,000 songs/year
144,000 songs/year x 15 years = 2,160,000 songs

(note: 50 songs/night is an average)
(note as well: these figures are only for the period I was on the road. The total is higher if you include post-road gigs and bands)

During that time we played songs that satisfied our musical mojo and set us apart somewhat from other bands because we didn't play a lot of Top Forty hits. We played the other songs on the album. It worked for the most part, but every now and then there would be requests from the audience. 

Before loonies and toonies, there were one and two dollar bills. Very often we would receive a song request written on a bill. Sometimes the bill would be a fiver or a ten or rarely a twenty, most times it was a one dollar bill. A buck for a song, such a deal. 

We decided that we would save the money/song requests and the bass player took charge of handling the request money. We called it the "slush fund." After a couple of years we had amassed around $250.00 in the slush fund. Then we had a gig cancelled in Moosamin, Saskatchewan so we drove to Regina (where the next gig was booked) and bought motel rooms for three nights until we could move into the band house the club provided. We dutifully paid for the motel rooms with the slush fund. I remember the look on the front desk clerk's face. All of the bills had something scrawled on them. Still, cash is cash and we got the rooms.

The Great Unwashed likes to hear their favourite songs and if there is a band to play them, even better, because bands are, as everyone knows, a personal jukebox. Generally the requests were for hit songs or standards, some we knew and some we didn't. Those requests were easy to deal with. The more difficult requests usually came from a bar patron, usually drunk, during the set breaks. "What kind of music do you guys play?" they would ask, after we played two sets. "Do you play anything good?" would be another. These questions invariably would get responses like: "We play Lithuanian tap dance music" for the former and "No, we learned bad songs. Everyone plays the good stuff" for the latter. Duh.

I have also been asked questions while I'm singing. I don't know about you, but I am able to sing and talk at the same time. It's a talent, what can I say? Oh, and let's not forget, "last week's band played [insert song here] why can't you guys play it?"

The Great Unwashed has the perception that if you are a musician playing in a band that plays cover songs, you will automatically know every song ever written. It would be quite an accomplishment if we could have played every song ever written, but we couldn't. And, not only every song ever written, but specifically the song the person is requesting. Plus, we should play it because: a) the person just walked in; b) there is some kind of celebration going on; c) if we were any good we would play it; d) the person is special, so of course we should play it; etc. For an entertaining and humorous look at this exact thing, check out the video below the fold.

More often than not, we would placate the set break request people and say, "sure we'll play it." And then they would go away. We wouldn't play the song, and they would forget. No harm done. For the money requests we made an honest attempt at the tune if we didn't know it, if we did know it we played it. Money talks. I remember a gig at the Lethbridge Hotel, an old divey joint with strippers in the daytime. One night we received a request for "The Baby Elephant Walk" written on a twenty dollar bill. Good thing we had a keyboard player that knew it. "The Baby Elephant Walk"? Hey, twenty bucks is twenty bucks. We played it twice.

So, the next time you think about requesting a song from a band, first make sure you understand what the band is playing. Don't ask for a jazz tune from a country band. Make sure the band hasn't played it already, musicians hate playing songs twice. And wait until the singer has finished singing, ventriloquism is not something singers do well.

And take "we don't know that song" for what it is. The band doesn't know the song. Most musicians are accommodating souls and will play the tune if they know it. Ask politely and don't be a jerk.

Write the request on a twenty dollar bill, that always helps.



*"Play Something Sweet (Brickyard Blues)" by Allen Toussaint

The Guitar Is The Thing

There are many famous guitarists in the world. The ones that are most familiar are British and they gained their notoriety during the late 1960s and early 1970s. I'm speaking, of course, of Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck, Richie Blackmore, and Eric Clapton, and let's not forget Jimi Hendrix, not British but gained most of his success while in Britain. If you throw in notable American rock guitarists such as Duane Allman of the Allman Brothers, Aerosmith's Steven Perry, Slash ex of Guns n' Roses, and Stevie Ray Vaughn and the list is a virtual who's who of rock guitar. Their musical accomplishments are well documented, but aside from the famous riffs they have composed and the songs they have written, the one element that defines each of these guitar players is tone.

What is tone? For a rock guitarist it's a kind of Holy Grail. It's a combination of the type of guitar, the model of amplifier, and effects such as distortion, compression, and delay (echo). Every guitarist manipulates some or all of these elements to create an identifiable sound or tone that distinguishes them from other guitarists. The primary factor in a guitarist's tone, though, is the guitar and every model of electric guitar sounds different than the others.

The electric guitar has been around since the 1930s and three models have become the most popular and most prevalent in rock music. Fender's Telecaster and Stratocaster (left) and the Gibson Les Paul (right) have, in a lot of ways, become the de facto instruments for playing rock music. However, the Stratocaster and Les Paul have an edge over the Telecaster, particularly in rock.

The guitarists above are also identified with the model of guitar they play. Beck, Clapton, Blackmore, Hendrix, and Vaughn are known for playing the Stratocaster. Allman, Page, Perry, and Slash are known for playing the Les Paul. Largely because of the fame of these guitarists, other guitarists want to capture the same tone and seek out the same kinds of guitars. As a result, some guitars have become as famous as the guitarists that play them.

Mike Campbell plays guitar with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. A master of musical understatement and purveyor of killer tone, Campbell plays a variety of guitars. He recently purchased a 1959 sunburst Les Paul. He calls it "the classic Jimmy Page, Peter Green, Eric Clapton-era guitar." Campbell is alluding to the tone of this particular type of Les Paul. In fact, the sound of this guitar is so influential that Tom Petty based his newest album Mojo around the sound of it. An entire album based on a guitar's tone. As far as I know, that has never been done before. The album is a testament to the tone of the 1959 Les Paul. A sound found in no other instrument. Campbell says, "There's just something about the harmonic overtones in it when I picked it up and plugged it in, it immediately had that classic British blues sound. It was kind of eerie." So to capture that eerieness, Campbell bought the guitar.

Recently the band Chilliwack had a 40 year reunion. From 1978 to 1982 Brian "Too Loud" Macleod played guitar for the band. As a side project when Chilliwack was not touring, Macleod formed Headpins. Like other well-known guitarists, he was known for his tone and it became an integral part of the sound of both Chilliwack and Headpins. The opening guitar riff in Headpins' "Don't It Make Ya Feel" is Brian's Stratocaster. Sadly he died of cancer in 1992 and the whereabouts of his Stratocaster was unknown for years. The guitar was eventually tracked to Calgary musician Al Barrett, its present owner. Barrett allowed the long-lost Stratocaster to make an appearance on stage during the Chilliwack reunion show as a tribute to Brian Macleod. The next best thing to Brian Macleod actually being there was his guitar. Even though Brian is missed by fans and the band, the tone of his guitar is missed even more.

So the next time you hear "Whole Lotta Love" or "Smoke On The Water" or "Walk This Way" or "Welcome To The Jungle" think about the guitar making that sound. You can't get that sound without it.

History Reissued and Remastered

A couple of weeks ago, the Rolling Stones' eponymous album Exile On Main Street was re-released amid much fanfare and hype. The album is remastered by Don Was and includes up to 10 additional, never-before-released tracks and a vinyl version, depending on the "specialness" of the edition you buy.

Previously, the big reissue hype was centered on the recent Beatles box set. All of their albums received the remastering treatment, and in addition to the box set, each album is available separately in the new remastered condition. Included with the late period albums is a short documentary that can be viewed using a computer. This is not the first Beatles box set, their catalogue has been remastered and reissued before, under the auspices of being "the definitive remaster." I have the first four albums from this series and must confess they do sound pretty good. I couldn't say whether they sound better than the current reissues, I haven't heard any of the new early album remasters. And let's not forget McCartney's ultimate remix and remaster, Let It Be...Naked,  the reissue scrubbed of Phil Spector's strings and choirs and, in Paul's words, closer to the original vision. It's how the album was intended to begin with, or rather, the way Paul intended it to be heard.

As an aside here, Beatles history geeks will recall Paul's anger over the decision to use Spector on Let It Be. This was during the breakup period of the Beatles and Paul was somewhat estranged from the rest of the group. John, George, and Ringo unilaterally decided to call in Spector without Paul's knowledge or permission. Spector then added strings and choirs to three songs including "The Long and Winding Road,"  a McCartney composition. Paul was not thrilled to put it mildly and after thirty years, rectified the situation by returning to the studio and remixing Let It Be stripping off any semblance of Spector.

Before the Beatles there was the Band. Their box set released in 2005 was heralded as the definitive collection too and like the Stones' Exile, contains previously unreleased tracks, plus a big fancy booklet with pictures.

How historically valuable are these reissues? Considering the albums already exist, it's not like an unknown Rembrandt being discovered. Certainly the B sides and previously unreleased tracks are historically valuable. Many times these uncover the compositional process, as they can be demo versions or first attempts of a song. The Beatles' Anthology, while not being a remaster reissue, contains several alternate takes of their hits. In the case of Exile, Jagger added new melodies and lyrics to some existing bed tracks, sort of finishing the songs forty years after the fact, throwing the compositional timeline into disarray.

The music is not changed when albums are remastered. Generally it's the overall sound of the album that is tweaked.  Exile On Main Street  is an exception, but the "spirit" of the album was retained with the new lyrics and melodies that Jagger added. So what it comes down to is a fix of the technology. It's changing analogue to digital. It's repainting over old colours. The sounds are made current for today's audio reproduction devices. The big audiophile stereo systems of the past have been replaced by digital home theatre audio with Dolby this and THX that and a sub-woofer and, of course, the teensy little earbuds, but I digress.

Imperfections in the analogue recordings show up to a greater degree once the sounds are digitized, so in essence, an album's sound is cleaned up when it is remastered. There is more definition between instruments, although one could argue that we don't hear that way in the real world. Performance sound is not as clinical as a digital recording. In a live setting, the instruments blend to give a complete audio experience and even if the album was originally recorded live in the studio (the band plays like it's on stage rather than recording each instrument individually), if the digital reissue has been remixed, it is not the same recording as the original vinyl mix. 

Remasters, remixes, and reissues are financially attractive for the record companies and the artists. They have already made money once off the recordings and the reissue gives them the opportunity to make money off the same recordings again. If you throw greatest hits albums into the mix, the labels can profit several times off the same set of songs. Over and over.

I'm geeky enough that remasters are interesting to me. I have audiophile vinyl records that, at the time, were touted as being the definitive way the records should be heard. Definitive as far as the current technology goes that is. The reissues today are no different. It's a modernizing of the sound taking advantage of the fact that people don't like to listen to "old sounding" records. If we did, 78s would be the rage too. But, generally the Great Unwashed could not tell the difference between a good vinyl record and a remastered digital one. The digital one would sound louder, that's all. And most people (geeks aside) are content with whatever version of an album they have. Are the reissues valuable? In a manner of speaking, yes. Vinyl will last longer, but the reissues help bring the music to a new audience and they can be useful for archival purposes.

So, for the music geeks out there, reissues, remasters, etc. satisfy the musical Jones. And if it's your favourite band, even better.