A Final Word on The Big 3, How it Relates to the Question of "The Audience" and What is Probably the First Review of {{{SUNSET}}}-The Glowing City

OK so the Celtics win the championship. Badass right? We were all hoping for this except my cousin Adam, the Lakers fan, but even he isn't so sore because next year is the Lakers year.

Let's look at the reactions of the Big 3 (all mostly paraphrased)
Paul Pierce: "Blood Sweat and Tears" -- I saw clips of Pierce saying this a number of times...the first instance with 4 minutes left in the game when the starters got pulled, and then after the game is over, and then again in the locker room. It was Pierce's catch phrase. What does this say to me that this championship meant to Pierce? It was about the hard work, the bad times, and the commitment that comes from being the franchise player for the Boston Celtics of the past 10 years. It was about getting better and growth as a player, a teammate, and a part of an organization. It was about getting stabbed 10 times, almost dying, and then coming back. Winning in what one could imagine Pierce considering life's overtime.

Ray Allen: I didn't really see that much of Ray Allen's celebration. Right after the game he was the first to find his family. "We're so proud of you baby," but he seemed far less jubilant than the other players. As some of you may know, he had a son sick in the hospital (later diagnosed with diabetes) during the end of the finals. I saw an interview afterwards where he said his mind wasn't really on Game 6 the entire time, that it was with his son (note: the guy set a Finals record, shooting 7-9 from 3pt land). And let's contrast this with...

Kevin Garnett: OK, Kevin Garnett is my favorite player in the NBA, and his vindication is my sports story of the year. KG's post-game quote (after a giant pause where he can't even put his emotion in to words) he says "anything can happen." Does this not strike anyone else as a total non-sequiter? Anything can happen? Really? And then it all comes out. After the game he gives shout outs to everywhere he has ever been in his whole life. Everywhere, like, I didn't forget about ch'all, and I told you I'd win a championship one day, and etc.,. I think I already posted that video, though. At this point, nothing in his career meant anything to him besides a ring, unreasonable or not. Check this video out



Here he says "other than my kid being born," but i swear i saw him somewhere right after the game saying "this is better than my kid being born." twice repeating it, as if confirming what he said the second time only with more conviction (like "oh yeah, definitely better.") I'm going to pretend that I know he said that for a fact. This win for him was all about personal vindication. KG held himself to a higher standard, and although a championship isn't something that can be granted strictly via one man's sheer force of will, the fact that he tried makes it seem as if one day Sisyphus rolled that rock right over the hill.

----------------------

Not that it needs to be related to music, but I'd like to make a little compare and contrast. One great advantage sports have over music is that if you are the champion, no one can take that away from you. Kevin Garnett knows that (see previously posted videos.) They can never take that away from him. Not the same with bands, either in historical viewpoint or in a living music career. It's not even "knowing how to take criticism," it's just hilarious to see people like "oh that's not good music." Like, what the fuck do you know? (A: If they are writing that on an internet comments section, probably nothing.) That's not the funny part--that's the part that if the artist is smart, they should go ahead and control to some extent; the funny part is the assumed power of the audience.

Check this out:
http://www.last.fm/music/%7B%7B%7BSunset%7D%7D%7D/The+Glowing+City

That's the stream of the new SUNSET album, which I'm listening to for the first time right now. Initial thought: Yesssss. 2nd thought: I've heard multiple people introduce it to me like "its a really long album, you kind of need to take it in 2 sittings." What the fuck? Are you guys trying to prepare me for it, or do you yourselves just need to man up? This record is a much easier listen than Bright Blue Dream, and although I loved that album, I loved it for certain specific things that I place a high value on (most prominently its willingness to take chances and its attempt at expanding a sonic palette.) This new album on first listen is a much, much better record, and a much easier listen. Its longer, but its lighter. Seven Samurai is 3 hours and 20 minutes, but that doesn't change the fact that every second is necessary and masterful. Go ahead and put your trust in this record and fuck what I think. (Me: "...much better record" Ideal You: "Your opinion has no affect on my life" Ideal You if you happen to be Bill "I'm smelling what you are stepping in. Let's jam.")

(This next bit was originally a parenthetical, but it got so long I'm just making it a paragraph)
Why don't I go ahead and give a specific example...I'm listening to Graveyard Dog right now, and it's actually the perfect one to use, because it's a reworking of a Soundteam song, so I have something to compare it to. The drum fill in this version doesn't build up to this like "oh hey! This is the climax!" type moment. And by avoiding that, it allows breathing room and forward motion. It doesn't have to take it down afterwards and build it back up. It's more playful, and its more suggestive. I mean look, the whole song is just the circle of 5ths, but as opposed to the old version its given to us in like 40 different ways, each of them basically just as delightful as the previous. In a word, it's kaleidoscopic. I also like the tracking, having it after "Dear Friend (Falling Domino)" which does a similar thing, rolling through styles with instrumentation (klezmer? whoa! and then something that sounds vaguely like Jim O'Rourke to my ears, but totally not.) The thing is, although the clarinet all through the first part of the song sets up the stylized breakdown, when it comes, the drums announce it very clearly as sectionally set up. And the second time an announced section comes around (with about a minute left), rather than repeating the klezmer instrumentation, its abandoned for a new one (more James Bond cinematic to my ears. Which itself is set-up both by the horns earlier in the song and also the (named) cinematicism of "Theme From 'A Perfect Light Awaits Me'") Then again the guitar line in the last 10 seconds for me does the same thing, suggesting the possibility of a third possibility for instrumentation (this one vaguely Hawaiian? Like it matters...)

So to me, the kaleidescope of Graveyard Dog is really set up by the sectionalism of the previous track.

--------

which (before I added in like 3 paragraphs in there) brings me to a hilarious point about the audience. I've heard some say that reading internet comments is a good way to check the pulse of your average joe on the street. More relevant to me is the insights gained by checking the tone of the voice, and it's different for different things: in a comments section beneath . I think it would be hilarious if (even as just an experiment, or an April fools joke, Pitchfork announced they were going to start allowing comments. Especially if that day they posted reviews to records that didn't exist). Right: so check this comment (the only one up as of this writing):

"Sorry Bill, but so far I've really only enjoyed Bright Blue Dream. I really like that album though."

"Sorry!" Like, look dude, you don't have to be sorry, your being sorry is irrelevant. People always thing its about them, like they had anything to do with anything. I read an article where Todd P makes a point about SXSW being a pageant for everyone who wants a piece, but actually has nothing to do with the music. Is this really so surprising? If they were in a band then they wouldn't be there in that capacity, but they are not; they are a certain breed of Joe super-fan on the street. What do they really want? Most of them just want to knock down some shots with the guys, and take credit for any success later. I can not in typed word properly express the derision with which I mention that.

But to clarify, its a specific sort of derision--I don't hold non-music-industry-Joe regular-super-fan in that regard, because in his relation to the artist, his desire to relate and participate doesn't extend into "I want to be the person who makes the decision as to whether or people hear this or not." And this actually also isn't to shit on the labels, or even the booking agents, or promoters. It's mostly for the lazy journalists, the shit talkers, and the grudge bearers, who exist in spades.

And I'm not being all high and mighty here against regular Joe music fan. Anyone who starts with rock and roll ideas has no idea what it means outside of how they relate to it, and I imagine there is a certain amount of similarity to how all youngsters relate to the bands they identify with, and I imagine it always involves "wanting a piece." The best concert experience of my life was (and will likely always be) seeing The Flaming Lips in summer of 2003. Long story short, I got to be on stage in the bunny costume, and in the Austin summertime made it all the way until the encore before taking my helmet off...I was the last one. Afterwards we got to hang out listening to Wayne talk a million miles a minute backstage. It was the best concert going event of my life; I was buzzing on that show for like 4 days, and it was all about wanting a piece and having it given to me, in spades. Just like Kevin Garnett's championship ring. My will of force had nothing to do with me being on stage that day, there was a total element of randomness to it, and furthermore it would never have happened if that band didn't make a conscious effort that part of what they do is this participatory thing (which they have an incredibly long history of doing.) That experience was priceless and cannot be duplicated, and I have great admiration for those who seek to give that experience to others at a similar age, or even to older people looking to reconnect with that feeling, because it truly is in one definition what it means to "feel alive."

So that's one potential audience.

But in my opinion there is a more rewarding way to relate to this entity we call "a band" or "the people who make music and we go see at shows" or whatever.

In my opinion, what the ideal audience member gives is this: their participation, as defined by the band. All comments to the contrary become irrelevant, and the reason the music industry is so easily derided is that its made up of adults who have been given or created for themselves power in the distribution of music, but most often insist on relating to the music against their preconceptions rather than trying to figure out what its striving for and judging it on how well it achieves that/the validity of what its striving for (in a social context, ... , it gets a bit fuzzy here, I'm open to debate on what establishes "validity".)

But fuck that, their iron grip is broken now anyways, we have this thing called "the internet" we know how to use, and if you keep hitting the road and have a show that connects with an audience, and really do everything in your power and work together, they will come. It's really great. And though in this case too it's somewhat of a non-sequiter, its like our friend KG says-- "Anything can happen."