Year Zero/In Rainbows

As a prelude, the Fresh Air of 13 March served to get this post (hovering since Year Zero was released last Spring) out of my head. It’s worth listening to.

If you don’t know that the music industry is changing, you’re hiding under a rock. Everyone ought to be aware by now that soon, the very meaning of music as a media and the business will be drastically different from how it is now, especially how it was two years ago. How we purchase music and, to me, more saliently, how we listen to it is undergoing a major revolution.

There are three major examples of this that have recently profoundly influenced my relationship with the industry—Girl Talk is one just by himself, but there has also been the release of Nine Inch Nails’ Year Zero and Radiohead’s In Rainbows.

I love Girl Talk, and an entry on him is coming soon, but for now, I want to address the latter 2. Both albums are similar in that they were released under conditions that were nothing short of revolutionary. For the full story of Year Zero’s release, go to the Wikipedia entry or for the full DETAILS, go to the NIN wiki and for In Rainbows, go to the Wikipedia entry or check out the backlog “In-Rainbows” blog-tags on Radiohead_At/Ease (many of my later links are cribbed from this, the best Radiohead resource on the net).

Basically, Nine Inch Nails leaked tracks on USB keys that were left in restrooms and such containing, along with a track or two, some kind of coded or hidden message that led you to a website that had further hidden or coded messages or some other kind of statement coinciding with the concept of the album. All of it worked together to tell a narrative that registered as if we are all unknowingly trapped in an oppressed society, drugged on some undetectable substance by an authoritarian government. They didn’t just decimate the fourth wall, they decimated all four of them at once—the album’s release blurred the lines between the artist and the audience, reality and a nightmarish dreamscape, perceptions of reality and certainty, and most importantly (in my opinion) self-expression and public consumption/social meaning.

Radiohead’s release held a much more limited meaning artistically, but in the sense of the business, their model is incredibly relevant. One initial report put album sales at a staggering at 1.2 million, although these numbers were later thrown into doubt. Still it seems, that the average listener paid somewhere around 8 dollars, but theoretically only 2/5 downloaders paid. Those numbers are in doubt, as Jonny Greenwood points out in a more recent interview. And this is on top of the stolen ones.

The first conclusion I’m drawing here is that the release of albums is getting much, MUCH more creative of late; there have been other marketing ploys of late—international bonus tracks, iTunes incentives, etc. But Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead achieved unprecedented levels of media buzz and fan exuberance. One reviewer (Pitchfork) of In Rainbows put it thusly—

Like many music lovers of a certain age, I have a lot of warm memories tied up with release days. I miss the simple ritual of making time to buy a record. I also miss listening to something special for the first time and imagining, against reason, the rest of the world holed up in their respective bedrooms, having the same experience. Before last Wednesday, I can't remember the last time I had that feeling. I also can't remember the last time I woke up voluntarily at 6 a.m. either, but like hundreds of thousands of other people around the world, there I was, sat at my computer, headphones on, groggy, but awake, and hitting play.

So these creative releases are certainly heightening the interest in the album and the interaction with the band, as Trent Reznor pointed out by saying in an interview on the Spiral (quoted from Wikipedia, for the Spiral—registration required): “'marketing’ is an inaccurate description of the alternate reality [marketing], and that it is ‘not some kind of gimmick to get you to buy a record - it IS the art form ...’”.

The second conclusion is a terrible one for the future of music, in my opinion. Despite this fan excitement, despite its ostensibly free release, In Rainbows was STILL stolen (DISCLOSURE: and I say this as a hypocrite, after trying to buy the album properly for $10, there was a huge internet snafu due to China issues—so I torrented it like so many other people).

The third conclusion here is that two of the most innovative albums of the last year or so were innovative NOT because of the artfulness of their musicality, but for the artfulness of the business surrounding their release. Indeed, musically, I was disappointed by both albums, although I think it had more to do with me being caught up in that aforementioned fan exuberance than it did with a lack of quality on the part of the albums themselves (I passionately love In Rainbows). But as Trent Reznor pointed out, the ideas concerning the release become some sort of meta-statement. The release became the album and the art itself.

Clearly, we as a society are rethinking what it means to purchase and appreciate music. And as Thom Yorke and David Byrne pointed out in their Wired interview, the very value of music is at stake. I’m curious to see where this will go in the next few years.

As an epilogue, and proof that Reznor and Nine Inch Nails are not letting up, Ghosts I-IV is getting RAVE reviews (VSL, RStone), and they're still getting innovative with fan interaction.

-Sean

Read more

Happy St. Patty's Day!

Just in case you were wondering where you should spend today celebrating, MSN has a guide to 'America's Most Authentic Irish Pubs'.

Personally, I'm happy with my own choice, Pat Troy's, one of my favorite bars ever, and owned and operated by a man who sounds like a leprechaun.


- M

Read more

A Poem for Thursday

An Echo from Willow-Wood
Christina Rossetti, ca. 1870

Two gazed into a pool, he gazed and she,
Not hand in hand, yet heart in heart, I think,
Pale and reluctant on the water's brink,
As on the brink of parting must be,
Each eyed the other's aspect, she and he,
Each felt one hungering heart leap up and sink,
Each teated bitterness which both must drink,
There on the brink of life's dividing sea.
Lilies upon the surface, deep below
Two wistful faces craving for each,
Resolute and reluctant without speech: -
A sudden ripple made the faces flow,
One moment joined, to vanish out of reach:
So those hearts joined, and ah were parted so.

Reproduced in Thomas C. Foster's How to Read Literature Like a Professor

- M

Read more

When to Walk Away

I really wanted to blog about something more cheerful—like War & Peace or my passionate and newfound hatred of David Baldacci, or even about the glorious uncheerfulness that is Garfield Minus Garfield. HOWEVER, I am compelled…FORCED even to vent about what I’ve learned from Hillary Clinton.

This article was inspired by two things; the horrendously arrogant talk of offering the VP slot to Obama and a new column by Andrew Sullivan. First, lest anyone accuse me of having rose-colored glasses concerning Obama’s politics, I don’t think he’s been much better on tailoring himself for voters than Hillary has, and here’s my proof.

Should Hillary Clinton give up? (Unfortunately) no. You see, somehow, she keeps pulling some magical rabbit out of her hat and somehow, she stays in the game. But saying “somehow” is a big stretch. Afterall, it’s only through dirty campaign tactics, blatant lies, silly melodramatic accusations to the press, and hypocritical straw-man attacks on Obama that she has kept herself viable. And why do I say that? It comes down to the simple explanation that she has nothing that Obama doesn’t have. What experience does she have? Since when being first lady all of a sudden make you an expert on the Presidency? ESPECIALLY as national security matters are concerned! Moreover, as a Senator, Hillary has not particularly distinguished herself as an enlightened decision-maker. In fact, the best example of this is the Iraq War. She supports the war in 2003, and to this day STILL refuses to account for the switch in her viewpoint (IS there an appropriate explanation? Maybe there is! WHO KNOWS?). Furthermore, her ridiculously hypocritical attacks on Obama in what she callsNAFTAGatethe link is an excellent analysis of the whole affair, in my opinion) are just continuing proof of her gut-wrenchingly awful campaign tactics.

And now, havingdragged Obama into the mudwith her (to Obama’s detriment, and a decision by him that I’m not the least bit supportive of), she continues to tear this party apart simply because she’s capable of doing so and the cost of it isn’t too great in pursuit of her dream. As Andrew Sullivan says:

They have been thinking of this moment since they were in college and being a senator or an ex-president or having two terms in the White House are not sufficient to satiate their sense of entitlement. Even if they have to put their own party through a divisive, bitter, possibly fatal death match, they will never give up. Their country, their party . . . none of this matters compared with them.

And some people might think, “What about Obama? Why shouldn’t he walk away?” A) he’s leading in the delegate count, and B) he has motivated and pulled out voters the Clintons never could have, boding well for a Democratic victory in November. Clinton is losing (barely, I understand) in the delegate count, and is guaranteed to alienate a significantly large and probably decisive portion of the voters in November. To me, both of those reasons are enough.

Really, the policy differences between Obama and Clinton are relatively miniscule. I mean, sure there are significant ones like health care, or smaller ones like Cuba policy, but when it comes down to it, we’re not choosing a candidate for their policy, we’re choosing a candidate for their leadership ability. Maybe Obama won’t be as good as I’m hoping, but that’s part of what he’s inspired in me—the idea that he is; and I believe his experience, however allegedly limited it may be, is enough to demonstrate his viability. Clinton has not demonstrated anything more to me than a desperate machine hungry for power, even if I have her wrong and she means well, she hasn’t been able to convince me of that. And one way or another, she’s driving this race, her party, and, in my opinion, this whole country into the ground.

So this is what I’ve learned from Hillary Clinton. As grand or well-meaning as my goals might be, I’m resolving to always know or be aware of when it’s time to walk away.

-Sean

Read more

Project Runway, Season 4

Another season of Project Runway has come and gone.

My love affair with Project Runway began only recently, in October, one day while I was home sick. My choices of inevitable midday rerun marathon were Law and Order (the original) and Project Runway, Season 3. Had SVU or Criminal Intent been playing, things might have turned out differently. Luckily too, the episode that was playing was the haute couture challenge, and Jeffrey designed that amazing dress.

I've ignored fashion these 20-odd years because its never seemed to make sense; so idiocyncratic and drifting in the vagaries of its own hot air. 'Who wears that stuff?' I'd ask. 'That's not the point' was the reply, which of course didn't make any sense - it's clothing, what is the point if not to wear it?

Of course, Jeffrey's yellow- and red-plaid confection was the least 'wearable' of the lot (altho I totally would, and the fact that I look horrible in yellow be damned), but that's why it's fashion: it is not mere clothing, but a reinterpretation of clothing. What is clothing? Why do we wear it? Why do we cut and drape certain articles of clothing in certain ways? What does it mean to cover our bodies this way? How else can we design clothing? These were the questions I found myself asking while watching the model float down the runway in both Paris and New York.

In answering these questions, I had to think about more than simply the cloth creation; I also had to think about the verb to clothe. Merriam Webster's defininition:

1a: to cover with or as if with cloth
2: to express or enhance by suitably significant language
3: to endow especially with power or a quality

Clothing can be so much more than covering from the elements, or for modesty. Project Runway (via Saturn)'s goal is 'rethinking design'. True fashion does the same. It makes a statement, expresses a point of view. At its best it reinterprets our understanding of our bodies, and of their presentation to society.

Put another way, true fashion is the cubism of clothing.

I used to, if not actively dislike, at least disregard, Pablo Picasso and the Cubists. Their art just didn't make any sense (a bad habit, I know). But then a few years ago, I was reading a book on string theory or space-time continuums (possibly The Elegant Universe, included in this year's List). The author was trying to explain the concept of multiple dimensions, and how we would perceive them, if we were able to. To do so, he brought up Picasso, and the Cubists; explaining that they would take a familiar subject - fruit, a woman, a guitar - and reimagine it as if it was shifting through space and time, and then paint that shift onto the canvas. That clicked; suddenly, Picasso made sense (multi-dimensional space I was actually already on board with - I read Flatland in high school. What does it say about me that a beyond 3-d world is easy to understand, but one of the greates artists of the 20th century bewilders me?).

I had a similar 'ah ha!' moment on my couch that day in October 2007. True story - Picasso's Portrait of Dora Maar popped into my head while I was thinking about Jeffrey's dress. I'm not sure if it was the similarity in colors and patterns, the flirty coyness, the lighthearted celebration, or what, but the two are indelibly linked in my mind.

I still pay very little attention to fashion (no subscription to Vogue yet!), but I'm learning to appreciate it. It still seems incredibly arbitrary, and I really don't understand why so much of it is so expensive; I get fine attention to detail and only the highest quality goods, but when so much of it seems only to say 'I've got more money than you', I realize that I have far more important things to spend my time thinking about (like alleviating poverty. Maybe we could jobs handcrafting Prada bags to starving orphans in Bangladesh - is it still considered a sweatshop if only the finest Italian leather is used?)

I'm also disappointed by the lack of importance of men's fashion - and I know this is something that upsets Sean as well. Ancient history, and Greek and Roman sculptures, tell us that the male form was highly celebrated. Why not now? Is it only appreciated in its nude form? Surely there is a way to design clothing for men that makes them look like the heros and gods we all want them to be. Now it's the women who wear armor. (Not that I'm sure I'd really want to see this, and I know no guy friend of mine would consider wearing any of it, but I dare a designer to create a feminined outfit for men - if women are wearing menswear-inspired clothing, what would the reverse look like?)

But these concerns will probably not end my new-found interest in fashion. I love Project Runway too much. Each year the designers are better, Tim is always witty and understated, Heidi, gorgeous. My plan for surviving the 'auf' season (ha ha) is to track the designers I like, and save money to buy their designs. Of the three finalists, I'm most excited about Jillian Lewis. I love her clothes. They are so strong and innovative. She somehow turns menswear-inspired design (a hot trend) on its head; instead of simply imitating the boys, her designs use masculine cuts and styles to compliment and emphasize the wearer's femininity, perfect for today's woman. The judges worried that she doesn't yet have a distinctive identity yet, but I'm not sure I agree, or at least it doesn't bother me. I think her clothes will fit my many moods.

Christian is also an incredibly talented designer, and I'm happy with his win, but his is not my style. I appreciate his 'fierceness' just as I appreciated Jeffrey's punk sensibility, but I don't think that I have the laissez-faire attitude those looks require. Rami is only good for evening wear. His gowns are always beautifully crafted, but I disagree with the judges in thinking he can put together more than a one-note collection. Whenever he steps away from evening gowns, his designs lack real innovation. The weaving in his tops didn't impress me so much as remind me of those seatbelt bags, which is cool in an accessory, but eww in a shirt (sorry for the lack of links; Bravo plays the photo gallery in Flash, so saving individual pictures is difficult). As a final gripe, the colors he uses are INCREDIBLY hard to wear.

It will be interesting to see where all three of this year's finalists end up. Christian wants to start his own studio, and I know Jillian already has, but I'm not sure about Rami. I guess this is how Bravo gets people to read the blogs and watch videos the rest of the year. Read more