I Smell Something Lovely

So I hit you few lovely people who actually read this hard last post. Almost went too far. But it didn't. I'm just saying I pulled out some philosophy guns on you all. And I wasn't even trying. I was still trying to make it poetic and spiritually meaningful, more so than rationalistically. Making music the subject of purely philosophical debate sounds fun, but honestly I can't help but feel I'd be disrespecting it somehow. Whatever musicians are trying to say, I'm not positive whether formal metaphysical enunciation will help decipher it. But of course, saying such a thing is philosophy, so I'm already breaking my own rules. Son of a bitch.

So I think I'll just review some stuff. Maybe the new Red Chord, or the new Between the Buried and Me. Haven't gotten around to the Blue Record yet (though I promise I will) and honestly, reviewing the new Converge would be analogous to be giving them a 19 paragraph-long blowjob. It's amazing just fucking buy it. Then we'll do some new stuff that's been sounding cool.

The Red Chord - Fed Through the Teeth Machine

I suppose if you don't even a wee little bit enjoy grindcore it's hard to like this band. If you're not sure whether or not you like grindcore (or even know what it is), go look up Nasum, or Pig Destroyer. Those are my favorites (the latter even more so). It's an unusual mixture of death metal and hardcore which isn't at all like what you heard from modern "deathcore". It has hardcore speeds and vitality, with the noisiness and chaos of brutal/technical death. And then the songs are a minute long each. Agoraphobic Nosebleed would be fun to check out, just realize something: they really suck. But it would still be fun. Their new record is actually impressive. The 4 second songs they used to release just don't do it for me. The electronic drumming is also a bit much. But Scott Hull (Pig Destroyer, Agoraphobic Nosebleed) can do no wrong with his guitar work.

But The Red Chord are odd: they exemplify grind well, but they know, and are obviously trying as far as I'm concerned, to bridge the gap between the modern progressive influx into metal on one end, and traditional hardcore intensity on the other. Bands like The Faceless are really bringing metal into a new era of raw technicality, that refreshingly doesn't devolve into pure notey-ness and blind riffage. It seems like The Red Chord has either been listening in, or at least wants to join the club. Sweet.

Needless to say, this record pushes the limits of everything they've ever done. It is more technical, but not to a fault. It's fucking brutal. The occasion breakdown, or chugged riff in general, is not only tasteful, but absolutely inspiring. The groove is palpable, and it should easily please both the musicians like myself trying to write solid groovy yet technical riffs, and the moshers/hardcore dancers trying to sweat their nuts off to some silky sonic transportation. (By the way, I'm definitely going to need to write a post about my newly found acceptance of hardcore dancing, and why. Stay tuned.) It's the only grind album I could ever label as even slightly melodic: "Hour of Rats" and "Mouthful of Precious Stones" in particular. If you like modern death metal, and the more technical direction it's tending towards, not only will you enjoy this record, but it will make you want to write the slickest, most brutal, funkiest death metal ever, and it's an awesome fucking feeling. I hope I'm not the only one who loves this LP. That would be sad. (9/10. Favorite track: Embarrassment Legacy.)

Between the Buried and Me - The Great Misdirect

I'm a huge fan of this band. So I should not be reviewing it, for the same reasons I won't and shouldn't be review the new Converge. Nothing I say will actually be informative: it'll just be me slobbering. See, even though The Red Chord review was purely complimentary, it still told you something I hope. Actually, here I'll show you: before going into BTBAM, I will presently review Converge's new album, Axe to Fall.

Converge - Axe to Fall

Fuck. (9/10. Favorite Track: Axe to Fall/Losing Battle)

There, hope that helped.

So yeah, Between the Buried and Me. First of all, it is appropriate to prologue this review with my conclusion, so that I don't scare people: this LP is not a disappointment at all, but it is not as good as even Alaska, let alone Colors. Now, that criticism will only make sense to fans of those records, or at least the knowledgeable reader of their older material. If you are not one of these people, I shall explain myself better.

BTBAM is an extremely unique outfit. Even if you don't like it, you have to pay attention to it. I understand not everyone can get into the almost overly-progressiveness of it, and at times, especially on The Great Misdirect, I hear that. Almost every track is like cosine in a single period: up, then down, then up, then you hit 2pi and it starts all over again with the next tune. By "up" and "down" I mean up in intensity, then down to a groovy soft eloquence. Do I like both extremes? Yes. Will everyone? No. Even fans of the previous stuff? Yes. Why? Because they do it way more than is perhaps welcome on The Great Misdirect, and it could get a bit tiresome. Does it for me? Not really. Although I must say, I hate what they did on "Disease, Injury, Madness". The 4 minute quiet classical-guitar-strewn groove after just two minutes seemed artificial to me, and even worse, like a gimmick to prolong the length of the tune unnecessarily. I hate that. Maybe I need more time with it, and I just don't see the point of that section yet. On Colors, what was so inspiring was that everything was so beautifully deliberate, and not only that, but purposefully deliberate. If I could just sit them down and ask them about it, and they said, "oh yeah, we were trying to do X and/or Y with that part" I'd believe them, and I'd take back this part of this criticism. Wouldn't change the feeling of arbitrariness I feel during it personally, but it would satisfy me intellectually.

This being said however, the album pushes the experimental envelope they opened on Colors. There is more weird, avant gardeism on this record, and I love it, to be honest. The riffs lose some of the brutality/technicality they had on Colors, but they're whole musical horizons have seemed to broaden on this LP. There is 1930s big band jazz, Bach, country, indie rock, and more going on here, all beneath a thick metal shell. I can't help but admit I miss their more death metal leanings on Colors and previous records. But the diversity is awe-inspiring, and definitely not overdone. Although it comes damn close. When it comes down to it, not calling this a death metal record is an insult to these guys. But calling it brutal might be an insult to more brutal death metal outfits. Of course, brutality is not everything to me, nor should it be all that important most of the time; I'm just warning those readers to whom it may mean quite a lot.

If you were to come up to me on the street and ask me about it, I'd tell you to go pick it up immediately: it's amazing. They never cease to push themselves, and that in itself is worth going to see them live, and supporting their shit. They continue to be such a blessing to a genre where people are definitely afraid to experiment and declassify themselves from the usual labeling-system and downright bullshit that is "the scene". Vishnu bless their fingers. (7/10. Favorite track: Swim to the Moon.)

Wow long post so far. But I'm not fucking done. So thank you for reading so far, I love you all. If you quit on me, and you're not reading this, I feel okay saying the following: "You're are...very...impolite."

God I suck at being mean.

So anyway, here's some stuff to look into if you're bored:

Ceremony - really impressive hardcore band who is about to tour with AFI. I recently went to see AFI with Gallows (another impressive hardcore band), and although the new record is disappointing, the show was fun. Go see them both when they come around.

Mammoth Grinder - I don't know what to call it yet, but it's sludgey and delicious, and built out the dead burning carcasses of prehistoric elephant. Brutal.

Slayer - hey that new Slayer is out. It's good I guess. I'm not impressed as I was with Christ Illusion. Worth mentioning nonetheless.

After the Burial - just rereleased their record "Rareform" since for clarity of recording and to introduce their new vocalist. He has a more hardcore tinge then that other fucker, which I like, but overall the remastering was much needed and well done. For whatever reason, the first release of Rareform sounded like they recorded it through an asshole. That's right, an asshole. Good job guys. Now you need to fucking release the tabs. Learning this shit would be an amazing way to learn technical riffing better. I'm not their biggest fan, but they are amazing technical songwriters. Once they mature just a little bit more, they will release a groundbreaker, and it will change the fucking game. So far, it's just been pretty cool stuff, though enjoyable.

Before I leave you to your turkey (Happy Thanksgiving by the way, dear readers), I have to comment on Spin magazine's listing of the 16 Rock Myths Debunked. Their top myth was not only astounding, but the epitome of what is totally and absolutely wrong with music criticism and journalism. Not that Spin is at all a exemplary music news source. Seems more like a magazine for 40-year-old washed-up, boring, Midwestern motherfuckers who feel Pearl Jam's Ten changed their life (with all do respect to that record and Pearl Jam, who I like). But that's an unfounded claim for sure. Another thing Spin seems to be good for.

But the number one myth was this: "Radiohead can do no wrong". The article basically made the following "arguments": Radiohead uses a formula: spacey, transcendental, "two-chord", electronic jams; their "progression" as a band is due only to a misplaced sense of experimentation stemming from their own sort of self-righeousness as rock musicians trying to push the limits, ultimately showing their own shallowness in the end; and they don't know how to play to a crowd, or even move an audience properly.

Let's start from the last point, and move back (since the last point was indeed a minor one). They started an encore with one of Thom Yorke's solo tunes, which was, to say the least, quiet. How can a band actually do such a despicable thing? Actually not only are (true) Radiohead fans smart enough to understand a move like that, but I'm sure they fucking loved it, as I definitely would have. How that is a criticism only shows how unfortunately misguided rock critics have become (at least at Spin), and how necessary bands like Radiohead are. Most rock radio stations, as well as critics, are stuck in the 90s.

Radiohead has certainly evolved over the years. For fans of the very old Radiohead, something like Hail to the Thief must seem forced, or maybe even a sin. That amount of change may seem a bit much. But why? That is indeed an artificial gauge; change results from a sort of uneasiness with where you presently are musically. A lot of the electronic shift in their sound was the result of Thom Yorke taking the reigns, yes. Is that good? No, it should always be a band decision. But no one quit, no one gave up on his vision, and as far as I know, they have all embraced it. Embracement of your change is all you need to understand it, and to realize it as more than just "moving on" for the sake of an artistic facade with which you wish to impress people. It objectively seems like the change Radiohead has gone through has been a struggle, and not only that, a productive struggle. It has resulted in music that is actually moving, just as much so as any tune on The Bends, which is undoubtably a beautiful record. Any knowledge of how this band changed, and also how long it actually took, clarifies any ambiguity about how they came about deciding to become what they have become. Plus, In Rainbows is literally a step back: they wanted to go back ever so slightly to their less electronic roots, and it resulted in (again) a brilliant LP. And insisting that they are posers for initially electronically releasing In Rainbows, then moving to CD release, is utter bullshit. They wanted people to hear it as easily as possible. People said, "hey I love you guys, but I either can't easily acquire it electronically, or I really just want the physical CD." They said, "yeah good point, let's release it on CD." They did. Why they are then putting up a facade of progressivism and only half-heartedly producing music is beyond my understanding.

Lastly, they are only as formulaic as the musically feeble, uninformed listener wants them to be. Moreover, they are only as formulaic as rocks bands tend to be at all. Their songs can be two-chord electronic "jams" if you like, but they are chords (or better yet, chordal transitions/changes) no other rock band has the balls to use, and they are "jams" only if you misuse the term: they motif the same few chords, but the lyrical content is constantly pushing the music along, to someplace new. A jam is stationary, and only really good for the self-pleasure the musicians involved. And if that is how you feel is the best way to understand Radiohead, then you are simply wrong, and need to listen closer.

But of course, no one actually gives music a try any longer: once a band releases something odd or different it is immediately trashed, especially in rock circles, which has turned the entire genre of modern rock into a frivolous parade of overly-produced, pandering, meaningless nonsense which won't get played unless it is fully purposeless and devoid of all emotional ingenuity. I dislike general rock music, if you haven't gotten that idea yet. Rock music in the 70s was inspiring and exciting, and now it seems to simply being playing on a fan base's unfortunate tolerance for hearing the same shit over and over again (I have a similar complaint against modern jazz). Radiohead is doing exactly not that. And it should be embraced, not criticized. Again, it's okay to just not like how something sounds. It's not okay to say it's terrible because they do this, this, and the other thing, when they don't even do those things. Don't try to understand it in that case. Become more informed first, more musically knowledgeable. Then try. And really try. And if that doesn't work, then okay, that's alright. At least afterward you'll understand you don't like it for actually well-founded reasons. But trying is a beautiful thing in musical appreciation. Be open. Stop living through the the accomplishments of a previous era of music, where people were listening, and were pushing it. But it's already been pushed. So push further, or sit down and shut the fuck up, and let someone better than you do it.

I smell something lovely.

The Giant Entropy-Monster

In a sense, what I've hoped for this blog to perhaps, in a more or less poetic fashion, reveal my own (if I can really call it my own and not simply what great musicians and friends have bequeathed to me) philosophy of music. I've never actually read any philosophy of music, even though I major in philosophy, and love music. Indeed, I already am too predisposed to view music the way I do now to understand how a rigorous philosophy of music could make sense. It's a certain subset of aesthetics, or philosophy of art. But I don't do aesthetics either. Or not yet. Either way, I find it way too fun in my little (perhaps ill-formed and hypocritically-conceived) bubble of self-truths and self-compromises: the kinds I've had to make with myself to fully come to grips with what it is I play, I listen to, and in some sense, I live. I literally breath in D minor. More like D harmonic minor nowadays, but whatever (only metal musicians would get that one I think). My point is just this: I'm trying to slowly make you all my minions. I want to start a righteous band of defenders of this understanding of music: 1. music is emotional; 2. music is (almost always) anything you say it can't be; 3. musical statements have truth-value (or meaning) only insofar as we want them to have meaning (John Cage's ideas). But of course my important addendum is this: not only should we want to conceive of meaning therein; we need to.

"We need to" should require some sort of psychological/anthropological argument on the face of it. We need to? How? Which ancient ancestor so faithfully engraved this idea into humanity that we need it? Well that's not how I meant it.

Asshole.

I meant it like this: to fully "get it", to completely feel embraced by it, we need music to transfer meaning. And even if the meaning is arbitrarily (notes and sounds simply do not equal linguistic assertions) inserted, it is not done so by the logical mind, but by our emotional faculties. Or whatever you call the part of the brain that enjoys art/beauty/music. But if this is not done by the logical mind, our standard idea of arbitrariness is dead: it is arbitrary from the perspective of the logical analysis of the situation at hand, but there really is something deep within the arrangement of sound and silence that strikes a chord with something else within us (I love puns).

So that was me doing a little philosophy. Think about it. Don't simply judge. Think. We have a duty as the unique keepers of rationality (as Aristotle would say) to discern our world, because we can, and the answers are out there, and if we don't they'll remain out there, where nothing can reach them, and even after we have all died off at least we've struggled to grip something beautifully insignificant to the giant entropy-monster, but may not be so insignificant compared to the love we have of another human being, or the joy we get from familiar people, laughter, catharsis, unrelenting misery, death, birth, an orgasm.

In a sense, what I mean is: we should be asking these questions simply because we can. Knowledge is not something to which we can ascribe value: it just is. And similarly, we just are. We just are, and knowledge just is, and we are are together. Sounds like something from Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds.

Recently, I got into something of an argument with someone I didn't even know over Facebook (of course) about metal, and in general, music "with screaming". He made the claim that whatever it is, it's definitely not music. This made me angry because I really love such music, but it would have made me angry regardless: if you want to come tell me you think something isn't music, I promise you're wrong (unless you claim that frogs are music, or something; I mean serious claims). You can't logically maintain it, unless you're willing to admit that we people who obviously do experience it as music do not. Then good luck living with 1=2.

Of course I should've known better. This kid was not only wrong, but simply immature. I think we was much younger than me (being a friend of one of my cousins, who is also younger than me). But he wouldn't give up: if there is screaming in it, it can't be music. This idea hurts my soul. Honestly, I wanted to drive to his house and fucking punt his ass through his own living room. But for now, let's just say we had a friendly disagreement, and now it's all forgotten.

The goal of music is to find a place in each of us that is nothing at all most of the time, but only then becomes this sort of metaphysical inner-radio. Music is the hand trying to tune us in to something people have yet to fully understand. Since this analogy could seem a bit sexual, I'm going to say that's awesome. I like when music reaches inside of me and turns my knobs and shit. Aw yeah.

Perhaps it would be better for us all if we just listened to each other. What is so terrible about a band that screams? I mean, really. I won't accept "it sounds bad" or "it's too dissonant" or "I'm a pussy" as answers. They all may be true, but they don't answer anything. I mean: what is objectively wrong with it? What about it's essence (what makes it it) is so abrasive to the very fabric of our being? What about Ravel's Concerto for the Left Hand makes people hate on it so much? I mean, what the fuck. It's definitely fucking good. I cried when I first heard it. Son of a bitch.

Anyway, I just hope you can understand one thing: if we need somehow to ascribe meaning to music, and we restrict which things we are allowing into the special club "Things-which-can-be-called-"music"", then we are taking opportunities away from ourselves to experience a fuller, more beautiful life. Full of the worst and best of everything. Experiencing what is already there, waiting for you to take witness to its claims to such power, is truly living.

Live.