schwarsm

[schwarsm]

EVH

There’s only a small number of people that can be credited with truly changing the course of the instrument they play. It’s an monumental feat for any artist to have that kind of impact and influence on any instrument, but Eddie Van Halen was without a doubt among that small pantheon of people who changed the electric guitar.

You can distinctly draw a line of the electric guitar before and after the first Van Halen album. If you were a guitarist, you probably remember the first time hearing, “Eruption.” I certainly do. And like millions of others, it blew my mind.

Fast forward a few years and I got tickets to see VH’s 2004 Summer Tour, where the band reunited with Sammy Hagar. Eddie looked awful, and it was beyond difficult to watch. He had part of his tongue removed due to throat cancer, but there he was, smoking on stage and drunk to the point where he could barely play. He could barely talk, slurring his words. Having just lost my father from lung cancer a year before, it was heartbreaking.

After that concert, I kind of stepped away from VH for a while. It hurt to see someone you so admired in such bad shape. It wasn’t until two years later, I started working as an intern at Guitar World where I learned about Eddie, the person.

I never met him personally, but even though he never was physically in the offices during my two years there—he was in the throes of addiction—his presence was felt throughout the halls. No one there had a single bad word to say about him, and it was always a highlight when any of them would share a story about him. No matter the department, if you worked at GW, Eddie was most likely the reason they were there—and like millions, probably the reason they picked up a guitar in the first place. I learned about his demons, and how he was fighting them for his son, who was just a bit younger than me. My respect for him, as a musician and a man, has been unwavering ever since. No bad concert experience could change that, and seeing him sober and healthy again in recent years only cemented my admiration for him.

Eddie was never a major influence on my own playing, but I always respected his virtuosity—how could you not?—and the pure joy in his playing. While so many guitarists looked super serious or tried to look “cool,” he almost always played with a big smile on his face. Not only was it contagious, but you absolutely heard it in his playing as well. And to put aside his incredible playing for a second, without his tinkering of making his guitars and gear work for him, Guitar World, and the guitaring world at large, wouldn’t be what it’s become over the years. Full stop.

Eddie was the real deal, and his loss is beyond gargantuan. The list of those who forever changed the trajectory of the electric guitar is a short one. Les Paul and Jimi Hendrix come to mind. And so does EVH.

Shred in Peace, Edward Van Halen.

[schwarsm]

Manchester

Manchester holds a dear place in my heart. My grandmother's family are from Manchester. My favorite band is from Manchester. My favorite soccer team is from Manchester. And many of my friends are from Manchester. In fact, I was just there two weeks ago.

That's why this hits so close to home.

The purpose of targeting shows, sporting events, and markets is to make us afraid of many of the things we are privileged to enjoy. Terrorists want us to be in a perennial state of fear; to always look over our shoulders.

What they don't understand is that they have failed.

We will not cower, we will not bend, and we will not change our way of life. It didn't work in Paris in 2015, it didn't work in Orlando in 2016, and it certainly won't work now; if I know anything about Manchester, it's that it will take more than a bomb to scare them. Mancunians are a tough, resilient bunch, and these terrorists are about to find out they messed with the wrong city.

But more than that, think about your first concert. For many music lovers, it's what got you hooked. To feel the connectivity of artist and audience; to see total strangers coming together for one cause: to enjoy good music and, as Billy Joel once put it, "to forget about life for a while." That's because music—especially live music—has the power to unite. It can bring anyone together, no matter one's race, religion, gender, or creed.

For someone to attack a gig filled with such young fans makes this even worse. More evil, more cruel.

This was the first concert for many in the MEN tonight. They were finally experiencing the magic of live music. I hope, with every inch of my being, they will learn that live music is a celebration and a concert is not a place of fear. And if they do, they'll also learn that there are few places better to take advantage of live music than in Manchester.

So for many of us whose hearts go out to the rainy city but feel helpless, go to a concert. Play a record… loud. Pick up an instrument. Form a band. Love and help one another. Donate blood. Give to a charity. But most of all, live your life. Because when we change the way we live, those terrorists have won.

[schwarsm]

Is Desert Trip Worth It?

When Desert Trip was announced in May of this year, it was set up to be the music festival to end all music festivals. Six of the biggest names in music—Paul McCartney, The Who, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Neil Young, and Roger Waters—would coalesce for three nights of music in the same grounds that hold Coachella each year in Indio, California.

So why did it end up being mired in controversy?

It's An Outrageously Expensive Weekend

There was no doubt that such an all-star lineup would command a hefty ticket price, but the pricing for the festival is record shattering, leaving a lot of music fans out in the cold.

Tickets range anywhere from $399 to $1,599 for what essentially amounts to six concerts in three evenings. Entry for a single day ticket runs for $199, and the $399 standing room tickets behind the more expensive seating area immediately sold out. (Of course, there was always a VIP package that would run you over $3,000.)

So now you've got your exorbitant ticket. Now you need to get there. Of course, if you're an out of towner, you would need to buy a plane ticket (easy enough) and then rent a car—but you best expect surge prices for would be more expensive than normal, due to the 75,000 people planning to go to the festival. Surprisingly, there is free parking at the festival, but expect to walk quite a long distance to and from the campgrounds—and with the festivalgoer's average age of 51, that might not be such a great thing. That's why there's VIP parking, which runs you $150 (plus fees, of course).

Overnight parking is prohibited unless you buy a $99 car camping pass. (If you want to take an RV, be ready to shell out $950 for a pass to do so.) Because fuck you.

Nearby hotels were immediately booked up as soon as these shows were announced—at hiked prices, obviously—so if you don't want to schlep to and from L.A. and Indio, you'd have to either purchase a $99 tent that would go with your car camping pass, or spend a minimum of $1,600 for on-site camping. In teepees. (These prices go up to $10,000, by the way, with each option more luxurious than the last. So if you want yoga, pilates, and massages to go with your classic rock, that's the way to do it.)

Needless to say, once you're at Desert Trip's grounds, you'll eventually want something to eat. You could go wait in line at food stands like a plebeian, but this is Desert Trip, dammit! That's why there's a "Culinary Experience" featuring a curated food and drink menu by "over a dozen top regional and national restaurants" in air-conditioning. But why do that when you can have a $225 four-course prix fixe seated dinner organized by celebrity chefs? (Because nothing says rock 'n' roll like curated catered dining.)

An average Desert Tripper is expected to spend $1,000 at Desert Trip, according to the L.A. Times. Think about that when Roger Daltrey is singing “My Generation.”

Tickets Were Difficult To Get

A concert featuring some of the greatest rock artists of all time, on their first (and probably only) time sharing a bill together, tickets were clearly not going to be expensive, but damn near impossible to get.

The reason why tickets for high-profile events sell out so quickly is because it's a rigged system. Professional scalpers use illegal bots in order to swoop up tickets instantly after being made available to the public. Then, they sell them at incredible price increases on secondary markets such as StubHub and Ticketmaster's own aftermarket.

It's not just scalpers, though; when tickets go on sale, you would imagine that every ticket goes on sale. You couldn't be more wrong. After a multiyear investigation, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that 54 percent of tickets are set aside for insiders and third-party sellers. He went so far as to call ticketing a "fixed game." Add bots the equation—one of Schneiderman's findings was that a ticket bot purchased over 1,000 tickets to a U2 concert within the first minute of sale—and you'll often find yourself screwed out of events you most want to attend.

Luckily for hopeful Desert Trippers still without a ticket, the bubble burst over the past two weeks.

Though tickets to the festival were officially sold out, that doesn't mean every seat will be filled. In the lead up to opening night, prices on the secondary market dropped exponentially—sometimes over half of face value. The reason being was that people got greedy and bought expensive tickets, looking to make a quick buck or a thousand. When people decided not to shell out that kind of dough, the market collapsed.

That's a rarity in today's concert-buying market, but one that hopefully teaches some greedy people a lesson. (They probably won't, but this author is still hopeful.)

"Oldchella"

The Stones, Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan, Roger Waters, and The Who are amongst the greatest acts in not just rock, but modern recorded history. They inspired generations. While their music is timeless, they themselves aren't.

The performances will be phenomenal, they will be largely banking on one thing: nostalgia. These groups are not what they used to be. (Let's face it. When the average age of the performers on stage is 71, there's a reason why this festival was dubbed "Oldchella.") Most of these acts put on "greatest hits" performances; half of them only release new material somewhat regularly, and the Stones' new album—their first since 2006—is a collection of blues covers.

Most of them are a shell of what they once were; they don't have the voices they once had, and when you have to cheat by miming to pre-recorded vocals the way Roger Waters was caught doing by fans during his "The Wall Live" tour, you might not justify going.

Playground For The 1%

The music of Pink Floyd and Bob Dylan may be timeless and are enjoyed by countless people of different generations, but when the cost surrounding these concerts are so high, it's no wonder why the age of an average Desert Tripper is 51.

Baby Boomers are an untapped market when it comes to concerts and VIP music experiences; they grew up with the artists performing at the festival, and now that they are nearing (or past) the age of retirement, they have the means (and desire) to dish out good money for an experience.

This, unfortunately, leaves not just younger fans out in the cold, but the middle class.

Experience Over Price

Though touring is far more profitable now than ever, most acts usually stick to the big cities. That's the magic of Desert Trip; why wait for them to come to your hometown when you can see them all at once? If you've never seen them before, regardless of performance, you'll get to say you've seen the likes of Bob Dylan and The Rolling Stones on stage—and from the looks of it, you might see a collaboration or two. If you ever wanted to see Bob Dylan join The Stones as they play "Like a Rolling Stone," this would be the place.

So is Desert Trip worth it? It really comes down to you. If you can justify paying out the wazoo, you'll have an amazing time. It won't be your average Woodstock, with mud and bad brown acid and all. The love might not be as free as it once was, but, to paraphrase the old MasterCard commercials, the experience will be priceless.

[schwarsm]

Twenty Years of Oasis Fandom

I can actually track down my fandom of Oasis to the day: March 18, 1996.

From the age of six, I was obsessed with The Beatles. It was the perfect time to be a Beatlemanic; it was around the time of the Anthology documentary and albums. (Remember the “A-Beatle-C” promos ABC played back then?)

My parents, elated with the fact that I was into the Beatles rather than Biggie or Tupac, allowed me to get the album the day it came out—twenty years ago today.

A friend of mine at the time, Evan, came over to my place to listen to it with me. As I was trying to preen the plastic covering from the double CD, he said that there was this band his brother liked that he thought I might like as well. I was wary, but he put this black CD with white lettering into my CD player, turned to track four, and pressed play.

The song was “Don’t Look Back in Anger,” the album was “(What’s the Story) Morning Glory”, and the band was Oasis.

As soon as I heard the “Imagine” intro, I was hooked… and I haven't looked back since.

When Evan later brought over one of his brother’s EPs, I was introduced to the concept of b-sides. Condemned to ‘one hit wonder’ status in America since “Wonderwall,” I was obsessed with hearing every single morsel the brothers Gallagher released; today, I own nearly every single, EP, and album Oasis has ever officially released worldwide. (In a pre-internet world, this was quite the task—it was rare to find an Oasis single or EP in a Tower Records, Virgin Megastore, or HMV, and when you did, they were priced anywhere from $8-17 in the imports section. Clearly, "The Masterplan" wasn't enough to satiate my appetite.)

Oasis were my Beatles. They were the biggest band in the world, even if I happened to live in the one country that never quite bought in. Their personalities were seen as a detriment to many, but seeing these guys swagger and talk shit about everything and everybody inspired the perennially uncool me to see that you could at least fake it until you make it. They made music fun in a time when alt rock was depressing and rap was in the middle of a feud that would end in tragic bloodshed.

Their music became the soundtrack of my life. My Oasis fandom even carried into sports, having become a Manchester City fan when I started getting into soccer in the early 2000s. (Hell, my first introduction to Man City was “There and Then,” Oasis’ concert video of their sold-out concerts at Maine Road in 1996.) Their songs, loud, brash anthems drenched in overdrive, which left an indelible mark on my songwriting and guitar playing. They taught me to never underestimate the power of a great hook, and even the simplest of songs can do the job—but if it doesn’t sound good alone on an acoustic guitar, go back to the drawing board.

I can’t believe it’s been twenty years. So much has changed since 1996, from eight to 28. Noel is inching towards 50, and I towards 30. I grew up, graduated high school and college, and, most likely in part thanks to them, now work for a kickass music website. He quit the band in 2009, went solo, and became an elder statesman of rock. (Still outspoken as ever, of course.) And I can't wait to see what's in store for the next twenty years.

[schwarsm]

“Why isn’t my favorite band more popular?”

I frequent various music forums and sites. One comment I always see is a complaint; depending on the person, it will look different, but the message is the same: “Why isn’t my favorite band more popular?”

Music is deeply personal. It speaks to people on both a conscious and subconscious level and often expresses what words cannot. That’s a big reason why people get so passionate about a song, album, or band. (The more shallow aspects of the music industry, such as looks and fashion, can only do so much.) So when a group that a fan connect to in such a visceral way doesn’t quite connect to the general public at large the way it did with them, I think it could be seen as a personal slight to those fans.

They might scream lack of taste from the public at hand, poor marketing from a label, payola, lack of payola, you name it. (These criticisms and excuses are easy to come by on the internet—especially the dregs of humanity that are online comment sections.) But what those fans need to realize is that “stop liking what I don’t like,” and, conversely, “listen to only what I like” is stilly and unrealistic. The real world doesn’t work that way. People are going to listen to what they like. You can make the world’s greatest argument as to why you should like a band, but that doesn’t mean other people are going to start listening to them.

This all boils down to one thing: taste is relative. Every person is wired a different way. And you know what? That’s the way it ought to be.

The way each musician and artist approaches music differs than the next because no two person thinks alike. Two groups might release a similar song about falling in love, but they’ll go about it in a contrasting way. One might be in a major key and the other minor, one ironic and cynical and the other punch-drunk and sentimental.

Just as how people create differently, people consume differently as well. If that wasn’t the case, we’d live in a world where everyone had the same tastes, thought and believed the same things, ate the same foods, watched the same shows and movies, spoke the same language, listened to the same music. Imagine living in a world like that—it would almost be as boring as watching a film of paint drying for ten hours. (Which is a real thing, by the way.)

This leads me to the most ridiculous part of that aforementioned question: why should you care what other people think? If you like something, like it. If you don’t, don’t. That’s fine! Taste is relative. (That’s why I never understood the idea of guilty pleasures, but that’s another discussion for another day.) When it comes to musical preferences, you should only worry about you, and you alone. When your favorite band isn’t selling out arenas, you get to see them in more intimate settings without having to deal with tickets being sold out.

There’s one other thing to think about: maybe other people haven’t heard of your favorite band, or only know one or two songs. That should be seen not as a slight, but as an opportunity to share your passion with others by introducing those people to your favorite group. It’s easier to do so now than ever thanks to the internet—not to mention Music Aficionado. I for one love to hear my favorite bands through new ears and eyes; their songs will always sound new and fresh to me, even if I’ve heard them a thousand times.

At the end of the day, in the words of Oasis, it’s just rock ’n’ roll.

[schwarsm]

Glenn Frey

2016 is off to a terrible start for musicians. In the last 30 days, we have seen the passing of Lemmy, David Bowie, Natalie Cole, and now Glenn Frey.

Yet, this one hits me harder than the passing of Lemmy, Bowie, and Cole combined. It's because this was the music I would listen to with my father; The Eagles were our driving music.

My dad would often take me driving in his silver Acura Integra. With the Eagles as our background music, we would take me around Long Island—or "driving nowhere," as he would call it. We’d talk about sports, music, school, life, and pretty much anything you can think of. (And as a middle schooler going through puberty, there was plenty to discuss.) His go-to albums on these drives were the aforementioned "Hotel California" and "Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975," as well as their reunion "Hell Freezes Over" album. Sometimes, he would sing along to the songs, often trying to coax me to sing along with him ("Take it Easy" was a favorite); other times, we’d just let the music do the talking.

When Dad passed away of lung cancer in 2003 when I was fifteen years old, it took me a long time to hear the Eagles again. I always associated them with him and the memories I had with him in that car.

I’m kind of feeling the same way again today.

Glenn Frey’s passing has me looking back on those times I spent with my father with great fondness; though he passed away sixteen years ago, those times could have been just yesterday… Glenn Frey played a huge part in them.

Before we start hearing about the negative side of Frey (and trust me, he had plenty; just ask Don Felder), we need to remember the role his music played in our lives. I know as a definitive fact that I am not the only one with stories like that.

James Taylor once said that Frey and Henley were the American answer to Lennon and McCartney, and there's some truth in that; they played their part in writing and recording some of the most successful and beloved songs of any American artist, ever. Two of their albums, "Hotel California" and "Their Greatest Hits, 1971-1975," are amongst the best-selling albums of all time; they make up a collective 74 million claimed sales. (Expect that number to rise a bit in the coming days, by the way.) His music has been a staple of radio for nearly five decades; whether with the Eagles, Linda Ronstadt, or as a solo artist, Frey’s music a seminal part in the lives of countless people over the past nearly fifty years.

But just like the other musicians who have recently passed, we have their music to remember them with… and the memories that go with them.

[schwarsm]

Bowie

“Oh, look out now, you rock and rollers / Pretty soon now, you’re gonna get older.”

Hearing of David Bowie’s passing felt like a gut punch. This is how I felt when Lou Reed died, but this is different. Lou Reed was so very human, in his many flaws and venomous misgivings; David Bowie was not. He always seemed like a man from outer space who would live forever. He was the type of person not only transcended art, music, and fashion, but the idea of being a world where he doesn’t exist is, well, jarring.

It came as a shock to many—myself included—that he was sick. He always seemed to be there, at the forefront of it all. Music, art, theater, fashion… he was always leading the guard and setting the trends; he introduced countless people to glam, electronica, ambient, drum and bass, and industrial rock well before it hit the mainstream. (Not to mention his own version of funk, which was so funky even James Brown ripped him off!) He was an early adopter of the music video and would constantly and consistently push the boundaries in any genre or form that struck his fancy. He introduced a theatricality to music that had shaped the way people see live music, and that theatricality brought him to the silver screen and the Broadway stage—to great acclaim, mind you.

Yet, throughout all of his many transformations and transmutations, he was always unmistakably Bowie. Though he may have sold the world, he never sold his soul. He had many alter egos and identities, and even they had integrity.

It’s tempting to think the signs were there, especially in what turned out to be his swan song, the excellent Blackstar. The searching lyrics are clearly about death… but most of his albums are, in one way or another. Like many, I didn’t expect this record to be his parting gift with the world, but the realization that it was, was perfect. He was saying goodbye and we didn’t know; it’s the ultimate Bowie move for his musical epitaph: completely unexpected, bizarre, experimental, brilliant and leaving us begging for more. (And which of his contemporaries can say that with all sincerity?)

So farewell to an inspiration to millions, an innovator and fearless creator.

I have no idea what happens to us when we die, but I’d like to think that something different happens to David Bowie; he's stardust now.

[schwarsm]

"I Don't Like The Beatles"

Ever hear that before? It usually comes from someone who tries to separate himself (or herself) from the pack. “Look how original and unique I am! Aren’t I so cool?”

This isn’t going to be some long-winded article about how great or how groundbreaking or influential the Fab Four were and are; it’s safe to say that most people know that already. This isn’t a “stop liking what I don’t like” piece, either; I’m not superficial or insecure enough to force my tastes on others.

That said… Why, you ask? I have never met someone who actually dislikes The Beatles’ music. Even the ones that hate them.

I have one friend who grew up in the hardcore punk scene, and he HATES The Beatles. He hates their popularity, their image, and the idea that they are the cornerstone of all music that has come since their first record in 1962. Some of those points, I can’t argue with. Him calling them overrated? That’s just a matter of opinion—and one I disagree with. However, he never listened to the music. Eventually, I even got him to admit that he likes “Here Comes the Sun” and “Come Together.” (And, by the way, what’s not to like about The Beatles’ music? There’s something for everyone in their catalogue of songs and albums! But I digress.)

His story isn’t the first I’ve heard of this phenomenon. Hating the culture and the scene first, before even opening your mind and ears to the music. As if one is attempting to gain “cool person” points.

And you know what? The music is the only thing that matters. What the band represents, what they look like, how they dress, and everything else under the sun means absolutely jack squat at the end of the day—it’s about the music. It’s about what’s coming out of those headphones and into your ears.

That’s the issue I have, and the crux of what I’m attempting to get at here. This idea so pervasive amongst music lovers that because you listen to X, you can’t listen to Y—and if you listen to Y, you’re some sort of square, conformist plebeian. Not only is that gloriously wrong, it’s absurd. It’s like hearing people who refuse to leave Manhattan complain about how there’s nothing to do in New York City. (That’s something I’ve actually heard from a few people—I roll my eyes and laugh each and every time I hear it.)

This negative stigma attached to something that’s popular has got to go. It’s been around for ages; a knee-jerk negative reaction to something popular. The idea that popular ≠ good. Sure, most Top 40 music is written for the lowest common denominator, but The Beatles were also chart-toppers.

So listen to Uncle Spencer, kiddies. You can like whatever you want to like. Wanna rock out to EDM? Go for it. Wanna listen to Norwegian death metal or K-Pop? Be my guest. Wanna listen to Neo-Nazi hardcore punk? Okay, I might stop you there, but that’s another discussion for another day.

But what matters most is that you are true to yourself and listen to what you want to listen to. If you like something, like it! You don’t need to be a hardcore fan and know anything and everything about the particular genre, artist, album, or song you like. There’s a word for someone who makes you feel like you’re wrong for enjoying what you listen to isn’t just wrong; and that word is “asshole.”

So don’t be an asshole. Enjoy what you like, and let others do the same. It can be the most popular or best-selling artist in the world, or some group only you and ten other people know about. As long as you keep your ears and mind open, and actually form your opinions on the music after you listen to it.

[schwarsm]

With All Due Respect to Tommy Clufetos

As someone fully aware of how the music business can and will screw anyone who isn’t the face of a band (and they’ll screw those people as well), I understand how some reunions aren’t meant to be. However, don’t expect fans to be super excited about them when there are replacement members.

As if I needed to state the obvious, band reunions mean big money—especially when the original lineup reunites. If it’s a bigger group like, say, The Police or Led Zeppelin, it’s an absolute certainty that the band will sell out arenas and stadia around the world, raking in millions. For that kind of money, you’d have to be insane not to put your tail between your legs, hide your ego, and bottle up any enmity and hatred towards your now-once-again bandmates.

That’s why I find the new reports of Guns N’ Roses’ recently “reunited” lineup to be utterly ridiculous.

Those reports disclose a lineup of Axl Rose, Slash, Duff McKagan, Dizzy Reed, Frank Ferrer, Richard Fortus.

Wait, Frank and Richard who?

That’s right. These “reunion” reports only have three out of five original members. All are surviving.

Now, I don’t know the ins and outs of GNR’s most recent reunion. But I can tell you that fans are going to be disappointed. They want to see the real deal—especially when the members are still alive. Sure, there are countless fans who are clamoring to see Slash and Axl Rose on stage together. But that’s not Guns N’ Roses. That’s Page & Plant.

Frank Ferrer and Richard Fortus? Nobody outside of GNR superfans don’t know and don’t care who he is. They want the original lineup. They want Duff, Izzy, and Steven alongside them—and if they can’t get Steven, Matt. (And if they can’t get Izzy, how about Gilby Clarke?)

At least Dizzy Reed played with the classic lineup, having been a touring member of GNR since 1990.

This reminds me a lot of what’s been going on with Black Sabbath.

In 2012, Bill Ward sat alongside former Black Sabbath bandmates Geezer Butler, Tony Iommi, and Ozzy Osbourne to announce a brand new album—their first since 1978—and a world tour. Sure, they’ve toured on and off again since 1998 or so, mainly on Ozzfest, but this time, it wasn’t just another golden oldies set. This time, they had something to say, and something to prove. So when Bill Ward announced he was holding out over contractual disputes, most fans thought, “Okay, they’ll figure something out.”

They never did. So they hired Tommy Clufetos, the drummer in Ozzy’s solo band, to do the job. A drummer who was born in 1979—a full year after Ozzy originally left the group—is now about to sit behind the kid as they embark on their upcoming farewell tour.

With all due respect to Tommy Clufetos, Frank Ferrer, and Richard Fortus, who are all talented musicians, not many people really want to see them play on these tours. They want the “classic” lineups, not some replacements. It’s like seeing the hottest Broadway show and getting an understudy. Sure, they’re talented and will do the job, but that’s not what you wanted… and it sure isn’t what you paid to see.

And if they couldn’t get a member or two of the classic lineup, they could have at least looked into the past instead of picking up a hired gun. Look at Chris Slade’s return to AC/DC as an example.

AC/DC did it the right way. After Phil Rudd’s legal troubles, they didn’t just get some hired gun. They looked to their past and got the mighty Slade, who played with the group from 1989 to 1994, to rejoin the group.

He has a history with the band, which the fans respect. Okay, so you can’t get Steven Adler or Matt Sorum to play on the tour. Fine, use your current guy. But come on… Gilby Clarke couldn’t get a phone call if Izzy wasn’t going to do it?

This isn’t Jeff Lynne and ELO, where it’s one guy whose name we know in front of a bunch of nobodies. He can get away with doing that. But at what point does it become a respected reunion or just a cynical money grab?

[schwarsm]

David Lowery’s Spotify Lawsuit

I ain’t no fortunate one.

A week ago, musician and activist David Lowery filed a $150 million class action lawsuit against Spotify for knowingly, willingly, and unlawfully reproducing and distributing copyrighted recordings without obtaining the proper licenses.

In other words, this is huge. And more importantly, it changes the conversation.

David Lowery isn't some mega-wealthy superstar like Taylor Swift complaining. This is a smaller artist seeing his livelihood threatened by a big, bad company.

While he has had success with Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven, David Lowery has never been a star. He's a touring musician, and that's how he makes his living.

He doesn't have his own fashion label or his own brand of headphones. He hasn't raked in millions upon millions of dollars in endorsement deals like 50 Cent or Taylor Swift. He's never owned a sports team like KISS or Jay Z. You'll never see him in a commercial—and if you did, you would never know who he is.

Rather than having the likes of Jay Z, Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Adele, Madonna, or Kanye West acting like Norma Rae (see my previous post, "The Beatles and Streaming"), here's a guy who doesn't live a lavish life we see and hear about with Robin Leach's voice describing it.

He's not upset about having to downgrade from a Learjet 75 to a Learjet 70. He's upset about not being able to pay his bills.

Boasting over seventy five million active monthly users—twenty million of those users pay monthly subscriptions, Spotify has become a heavy hitter in the music industry. They may be newcomers, but those numbers are huge—they have clout.

Though they dispute this number, they can also afford to pay artists more than an estimated $0.0011 per stream.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m no class warrior. But let’s be honest here: who would you rather be the face of the fight, Madonna, or David Lowery?

That was the biggest issue with Tidal. They shouldn’t have had a who’s who of rich and successful musicians up on that stage during their nightmare of an announcement. They should have had smaller artists discussing their issues with other streaming services and payment plans. We don’t relate to Kanye or Madonna, and any complaints they may have, whether justified or not, comes off as disconnect. (Often times, it is.) When a smaller artist does it, though, it's a fight for their livelihood—something the public can relate to, and something we can get behind.

When everything is said and done, music is a business. The art always comes second. Always has been, always will be. And just like any other business, it’s all about the bottom line. No amount of romanticism about the power and majesty of music will change that. And just like every other industry, people are going to get dicked around… especially when it comes to the almighty dollar.

But when the public face of the victims are multimillionaires, good luck trying to get people to care.

[schwarsm]

GNR and the Business of Nostalgia

Do you know where you are? Neither do we! (Old age's a bitch.)

Let’s be honest here. Reunions are a money grab. They rarely offer anything new. Famous bands, now a bit older, playing their greatest hits all around the world for a good amount of cash sounds cynical to many.

But you know what? I’m okay with it… as long as it’s good.

I’ve seen a few reunion shows in my day, including Cream, The Police, and Pulp. Each one of those gigs were phenomenal. That’s because if they were charging an arm and a leg, they were going to give you a show you were going to remember. If there was to be a ride on the nostalgia train, it wasn’t going to be first class on a bullet train.

Other reunion tours have felt like, well, a rickety Amtrak. (I call them “fuck you, pay me” tours.) They don’t make much of an effort, play like crap, and charge so much that you practically have to take out a second mortgage on your house to afford them… and we still go because of the nostalgia factor that comes in to seeing your favorite bands of yore playing once again in front of you. (Or, for fans who were too young to experience them the first time around, finally seeing your heroes play live.)

Nostalgia is big business. Elvis has been dead for nearly forty years, and he rakes in an estimated $55 million in earnings per year. Bob Marley’s been dead for 34 years and earns roughly $20 million a year. Nostalgia sells. Just plaster a classic artist’s name on some merch and sell it like crazy.

That’s why I’m on the fence when it comes to Guns N’ Roses’ imminent reunion. The thought of even seeing Slash, Duff, Izzy, and Steven (or Matt) on the same stage as Axl is one no one in their right mind would ever think to see happen. How can you not get excited by it?

On the other hand, the tension, bitterness, drug fueled ego clashes, and enmity was so public that it could have been its own reality show; to see such a sudden change is what makes me think this is all about the Benjamins. (And at a reported $3 million per show, there are going to be a lot of Bens.)

The exorbitant amount of money aside, the classic GNR lineup is one of the most desired reunions ever. The only other possible reunion I could think of that come this close is a full-fledged Led Zeppelin tour. That’s how high the hype is for this reunion, and it hasn’t even been officially announced yet!

That’s why they need to bring down the house. Mainly Axl. He needs to bring the goods, and then some… AND ON TIME! The fans don’t want to pay in excess of $250 a pop to see a cornrowed, fat Elvis mess like the VMAs in 2002. He needs to sing far better than he has in recent years. We know from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ceremony that the rest of the original band can do the songs justice—Myles Kennedy adeptly stepped in for Axl, who was a no-show that night.

I wish them the best of luck; they have a lot of work ahead of them if they want to make this a success.

We’ll be waiting.

[schwarsm]

Lemmy

It took me by surprise by how so many people reacted to Lemmy’s death; I always thought of Motorhead as this under appreciated band for outsiders. But it made the news all over the world. I think it’s because he was one of the last authentic rock stars around.

Lemmy Kilmister never pretended to be anything other than himself. He could have had those moles removed, but they became his trademark. His obsession with Nazi regalia was weird, but he didn’t give a shit. It made him dangerous. He lived hard and played hard; he claimed to have downed a bottle of Jack’s every day until 2013.

But most of all, when so many rock stars started chasing the money, he stuck to his guns and played loud, fast, dangerous rock n’ roll. And it happened to be magnificent.

As leader of Motorhead, Lemmy had the chance to follow the trends in music. In the eighties, he could have gone for synths and heavy drum reverb, and he could have made a grunge record or have rappers make guest appearance on songs in the nineties, but he wouldn’t have any of that. He stayed true to himself and his sound. If you didn’t like it, then fuck off!

That’s what music needs more of these days. So many artists are obsessed with getting everyone to like them—probably because social media backlash knows no mercy. There aren’t many characters out there; when the only character in music right now you can think of is Miley Cyrus, you know things are getting bad.

So, Lemmy, thanks for the great music, and for being you. You’re missed already.

[schwarsm]

I Want My MTV Back

The first video MTV ever played was The Buggles’ “Video Killed the Radio Star.” Well, YouTube killed the MTV star.

The music video is, above anything else, a promotional tool for artists (and labels) to market songs and albums. If people aren’t purchasing records anymore, then what’s the point?

Since the rise of YouTube and streaming services, music is now “on demand” the way movies and TV shows are. In such an instant gratification world, it almost seems crazy to expect MTV’s key demographic of teens, high schoolers and college students to wait to hear the music they want. It’s all available online, on demand!

For ages, music videos and live performances uploaded to YouTube was seen as a nuisance and a threat to the traditional means of consuming visual music. This was a threat to music-related TV stations around the world, and as a generation of young people started going online to consume music—both audial and visual—it was the death knell for these stations as we knew them to be.

Thanks to dwindling ratings, VH1 and MTV started showing less music videos and music-related content for reality programming. VH1 removed their “Music First” slogan out of their logo in 2003, and, channeling KFC, Music Television officially became MTV in 2010.

For them, it’s a lose-lose, so why wouldn’t they want to get a piece of their pie? TLC airs Storage Wars, Toddlers and Tiaras, Honey Boo Boo, Cake Boss, and 19 Kids and Counting. You know what TLC stands for? The Learning Channel.

I rest my case.

In other words, if you want your MTV, it's called the internet. Stop your moaning about MTV not playing music videos. Go online. It’s more convenient, anyway.

[schwarsm]

The Beatles and Streaming

On Christmas Eve, The Beatles' music became available on seven streaming services worldwide, including Rhapsody, Tidal, and Spotify. The news (and streams) spread like wildfire, but to me, it's too little, too late.

Why? Because streaming is the great equalizer for musicians. For people under the age of 35, it's our radio. Terrestrial radio may as well be telegrams and Betamax to us.

Radio used to be the kingmaker. (MTV as well, but that’s a different subject for a different day.)

Since the 90s—perhaps even before that—radio stations have been corporatized and stripped of their local flavor and character. Now, no matter their location, they are treated as a franchise ala McDonalds or Burger King. They were forced to play a rotation of songs that data and polls told them would play, add more commercial breaks, and fire anyone who would do otherwise.

Turn on any non-independent radio station around the nation and you will be bound to hear the same songs, no matter where you are. DJs at classic rock stations nationwide must sympathize with Bill Murray's character in 'Groundhog Day' since they are forced to play "Stairway to Heaven," "Hotel California," or "More Than a Feeling" on repeat ad nauseum.

And people wonder why no one listens to the radio anymore.

This seems to be a motif in my blog, but the internet has changed everything. Mainly, how we consume music.

Before the likes of Napster, radio and MTV were pretty much the only way the public were able to see what's new in music. If we wanted to listen to a song that wasn't a single on repeat, we'd have to buy a CD, usually priced at $12.99-18.99. (Records used to be $8.99-10.99 before CDs, but the industry got greedy, raising prices because of "new technology." Everyone expected the prices to drop, but people were still buying records, so they never did.)

So now instead of having to buy a whole album for just one song, you could get it for free. OF COURSE people are going to do it!

The industry, like a modern day Norma Desmond, refused to change with the times. They refused to believe that the gravy train has left the station, and at a last grab for those “good old days,” the RIAA sued countless individuals for thousands upon thousands of so-called “lost revenue,” causing them to lose any public support they had.

Just like when an artist moves up his album’s release date to counteract leaks, the RIAA should have joined forces to create a user-friendly online music store. By the time the iTunes Store and Amazon MP3 became heavy hitters, the damage had been done to the RIAA’s reputation. Still, over 25 billion songs have been purchased on iTunes alone.

The music industry has, on the most part, caught up with the times and has stayed with current trends. But then something will happen and then their old and bad habits will pop up again.

Look at streaming.

Acts like Taylor Swift, AC/DC, and Adele have taken their music off streaming services because they feel they don’t get paid enough. While the likes of Spotify have some issues that really do need to be looked and changed—including how artists get paid, these are three of the most popular and richest artists in the world.

Tidal, for example, was a classic case of what not to do. At their press conference, here was a group of artists on stage, which included Jay Z, Beyonce, Madonna, Daft Punk, Rihanna, and Kanye West, with a net worth of roughly $2.8 billion dollars (yes, you read that correctly) telling us why we should all sign up to a service that will make them even richer… and for more than Spotify and Rhapsody.

Know what the rest of the world was thinking? A collective fuck you, that’s what!

This brings us back to the topic at hand: The Beatles and streaming.

There’s no doubt that pretty much anything The Beatles release will be bought by millions. But outside of vinyl and boxed sets, not many people these days want physical. They want streaming. Spotify has over 75 million active monthly users, 20 million of those users pay monthly subscriptions. That’s over one in four users.

This all leads to one thing: music lovers want to spend money on the music they love. When not given a means, they’ll find a way to get that music, illicitly or not. The way many people see it, they’ve been screwed by the music business so many times that they just don’t care. (How many times have you bought ‘Tommy’? There’s the vinyl, eight track, cassette, CD, then all the remasters, the boxed set. And that’s not mentioning the symphonic version, tickets to the Broadway show (and its soundtrack), and the film’s various formats (and its soundtrack as well)… I rest my case.)

So those artists holding out on streaming would apparently rather not get paid at all—and have fans pirate their music—because they want more. Someone needs to tell acts like Taylor Swift, Adele, and AC/DC that this isn’t the 90s anymore. They’re some of the most successful acts out there right now, and in a world where most musicians can’t make a living, they’re look like spoiled children stomping their feet in a Kids R Us because they didn’t get the toy they wanted.

So congrats, I guess, moptops. You joined streaming far too late. For a band that was so groundbreaking and ahead of the curve, you joined streaming far too late. (You also waited twenty years to remaster/reissue your CD/digital tracks.) So welcome to the digital revolution. You can start cashing in those checks now.

Lah-di-dah.

[schwarsm]

Spoilers, Leaks, and Trolls

I should have known better.

While waiting for the new Star Wars film at the cinema, I went on Twitter. Trolls had spoiled the movie to thousands of users—myself included.

It got me thinking about spoilers, but primarily the musical counterpart to it. I'd say it's when an album leaks.

Before the days of Napster, LimeWire and Kazaa, pretty much the only way you could get an album before it was officially released in stores was if a store mistakenly sold it to you a day or a week beforehand... or if you stole a promotion copy from a radio station or music magazine.

These days, it's easy peasy. Albums and songs are leaked like it's nobody's business. It's almost a given; leaks are so prevalent that artists often release their album as soon as it is leaked. It's pretty much all they can do to prevent leaks from killing their sales and revenues. They also stream their albums on websites as "first listens" (which are almost instantly recorded and shared amongst file-sharing networks).

This brings me to the other side of the coin; who can blame fans for listening to music by artists they love as quickly as possible?

I can.

Maybe it's a sign that I'm getting old, but I will never forget having to wait in line—sometimes at midnight—to get my hands on brand new albums. That first listen, reading the liner notes, seeing the artwork... it made for an amazing experience.

You lose that when you listen to a leaked album.

I will admit that I have listened to leaked albums in the past (mea culpa), and while I buy each and every album, by the time I actually get the official copy physically in my hands, I've often played the album so many times I'm already sick of it. Sure, the music is in a far better quality than the leak, it's the first time seeing the liner notes and the art inside the booklet, but I spoiled the experience of that magical first listen.

And you can't have that back.

So maybe patience is a virtue. Maybe it isn't; that all depends on what you want to do. But no matter what you decide to do, don't be an asshole and spoil a first listen (or viewing) for anyone but yourself.

[schwarsm]

The Internet And The Death Of The Local Music Scene

Remember when each local music scene had its own sound? Its own flavor? That’s increasingly rare to find now, and the internet is to blame.

The internet has significantly changed the way we consume and create music; it allows you to be introduced to music you would otherwise never have heard before and gives you the means to share your own music and tastes with people from all over the world. (*cough* Music Aficionado *cough*)

No matter where you are in the world, you can hear music from a group a million miles away the moment it is released.

While this is an incredible tool, it has its downsides.

Before the internet, you had your local scene and worked with it. You grew up with these guys, all loving the same music, all speaking the same language. You all played in various bands with one another, and maybe, just maybe, one of you would hit the big time. That’s how it worked.

If you’re a musician now, you don’t have that scene anymore. Why? Because it’s all online!

The world has gotten progressively smaller since the advent of the internet. In its doing so, the internet has become its own music scene. Ironically (and conflictingly), that music scene is worldwide. Music subcultures and subgenres are now so niche and specific that pretty much the only way to find likeminded people is online.

And that’s why it’s so hard to create a new and original sound. It’s because you’re on your own. Factor in the death of many local music venues all over the world—mainly due to rising rent costs—making for fewer places for bands to play. (So even if you had a local scene, good luck finding a place to play or hear it!)

Is there a way to reverse this? I honestly don’t know, but it won't be like before. Music used to be attached to certain places, like grunge with Seattle, The Paisley Underground with L.A., Madchester with Manchester, and Merseybeat with Liverpool. Nowadays, because of the internet, there's no need for that anymore. There will only be one collective scene: the internet.

They don't call it the world wide web for nothing.

[schwarsm]

You Are Wrong If You Think Music Today Isn't Good Anymore

If you're like me, you've heard this from music fans of all ages. And if you're *really* like me, you have the same reaction of smiling and nodding your head awkwardly while screaming internally.

So let me get it out in the open.

What you're saying: "Music today isn't good. They don't make 'em like they used to. I grew up in the wrong generation, yada, yada."

What I'm thinking: "You're stubborn and lazy. You're also wrong."

But you're more wrong than they ever were.

Sure, music from [enter decade here] had its share of great music. Over time, the crappy music gets forgotten. You can't ignore the bad music you hear today, but it will be forgotten.

For example, when was the last time you heard A Taste of Honey or The Osmonds? How about Fabian? Have you been rocking out to Winger or Deep Blue Something recently?

You know what, scratch that. "Breakfast At Tiffany's" was my jam back in the day. But I digress.

It's never been so easy to get good music now than there ever was before. That's because it's easier for a musician to get his or her music out to the world because of it; anyone with a computer and a microphone can record themselves and post it online.

Thanks to the Internet, it's easier to listen to good music now than there ever was before. Through a slew of different outlets online, you can find countless unknown talents who have plenty of interesting things to say. And for every musician like that, there are even more music fans—dare I say music aficionados?—who are more than willing to help you find some great music.

Any way you put it, there's great music out there. It's up to you to find it.

Happy hunting.