Charlie has a 2nd house show

I got no pics, but I played a show at Charlie's last night. I had a Spanish test this morning and pre-show was in his music room doing Spanish homework for a little bit. That dude (maybe + roommates) has a killer record collection. Anyways, it was his second show in 3 days. It rained for this one which killed turnout a bit, but the people that were there had a great time. I think (hope) he is going to start putting more shows like that together, hes got a great house for it, and especially if it is sunshiny and the living room gets moved outside.

I started the show, playing the first Ethan, Master of the Hawaiian Ukulele set since the Oneida show last June. It was solo and 75% cowboy love songs on a guitar but we wont let the facts get in the way of keeping the moniker. It was nice to do it in a living room. The moment I finished about 6 more people came through the door. I think I will probably do it again on Saturday at our house. Eric Archer and Oguz came but after I was done. They brought this semi-spicy trail mix which was delicious.

After me Martin Crane from Brazos played. I had never seen him before. I had heard good things and tried to go see them at Local Live last month, but they played during this torrential downpour and I woke up from a nap and saw it and went back to bed. Anyways, I didnt make it and was glad to finally see it. Martin played 4 songs on acoustic guitar: a Beck cover, a Mark Ashworth cover, and then 2 of his own. Im glad he played after me because hes got this great high voice and I dont like to play after people who have actual vocal talent. Maybe its standard insecurity, but I think as a general rule in Western Society people prefer higher voices. For every Johnny Cash there are about 20 Justin Timberlakes, not to say Martin sounded like that. Anyways, hopefully he will be able to play the show at my house on Saturday, Ive been busy with school so I havent really gotten around to confirming the acts yet and I have a feeling maybe 1 or 2 slots will open and close back up before its all said and done.

Anyways the last band to play was The Shift from Colorado. They were a heavy instrumental 3 piece and they were great, though even with ear plugs in i felt like i was going deaf. Candice said the drummer was the fastest shed ever heard. I didnt think he was especially especially fast but i did think he was realy original and really good. I wouldnt say he made it look easy, but he looked very comfortable making some very complicated changes. Those guys really met my criteria for an instrumental 3 piece in the sense that I could focus on any of the instruments and be impressed and they all worked together. The bass was shockingly funky considering how often they changed or played in weird time signitures. The guitarist was doing these crazy crazy arpeggios and making really strange shapes. I want him to take a video fo the fretboard while he plays and post it on youtube. I told those guys after the show that they would go over really well in San Antonio and I am definately going to alert Crotch on Fire to their presence. They dont sound like those San Antonio bands, but knowing what those guys flip out about they would really like this band. They were so tight and always sounded heavy first and proggy second, even though they were doing really wacky shit sometimes.


ALSO: on a blogging note we may have some new voices joining us here pretty soon, so get ready. :P

Read More......

Yes, I like Jam bands, and how thats related to the Stones being better than the Beatles

Theres a couple ways to start this little thought of mine. The most obvious starts out "hey, FUCK you guys!..." or "forgive the spelling mistakes," but I think its better to go with the historical perspective. When I was in middle school this "cool" older kid turned me on to jam bands. I liked it because he did and Phish was his favorite band. He was really into it, he had the cassette tapes and everything. He had somehow managed to follow them around one summer even though he was only like a Freshman in High School. He must have had bad parents. Anyways, so I developed a liking for jam bands. I can tell you the basic principal is learn a large number of stock licks for your instrument (which is not unusual in an international context...you could compare it to having some stock rhymes for freestyling which is in many cultures, not just hiphop) and improvising around them. But what makes the jam band good is the actual improvising and what that is is personal style. The Rolling Stones were that personal style (aka "attitude"). The Beatles were those well crafted and ultimately middle of the road stock riffs.

Me and Shane were at this (awesome) show Charlie Alvarado and Michael Schernberg's (sp?) place and they had this jam band from Colorado playing. Those guys were just having a great time and everyone (including yours truly) sat in at some point towards the end. I had pulled my Berklee 5 week blowout shirt out of the woodwork and i think it gave me some jam band cred, even though I got stuck on keys which I really dont know how to play very well. But yeah, the drummer wanted to play this one tune that his band didnt know so he just told them "uptempo, bluegrass, G C D G 12 bar" or something and then he sang along. It went off without a hitch. The downside to this is that the individual songs lose their flavor, with the benefit being you can play any bluegrass song as long as you have 5 or 6 bluegrass riffs because in the course of a jam band set you will only play 1-3 of them (and if you are the type of jam band to play 3 of them you will likely have more than 5-6 bluegrass riffs). And they are definately premade riffs, learned like "hey check this one out" "oh thats cool." Another downside is sometimes it sounds like 6 riffs in a row one after another and not necessarily connected (which its not).

OK that being said I still like jam bands and it was great for the party.

And this next part is completely reactionary against "Sir" Paul McCartneys recent trip on the press circut to promote his new record (available in Starbuckes everywhere). That fucker just goes on and on about how great he is and the Beatles phenomenon etc etc etc. Those aging british playboys are all the same* (*actually not true)

Beatles fans always say they were the most creative or inventive band of their era but thats simply not true. While they made advances sonically (much of which can certainly be attributed to Phil Spector and not the Beatles proper) the songcraft remained mostly traditional through their career. I mean there are tracks less innovative than Revolution #9 (which was actually just a popularization of something that had been going on in France for TWENTY YEARS) straight through to the end of their catalogue. Also the Stones get lumped into the debate as Beatles vs. Stones even though the Beatles were broken up by 1970 and the Stones put out Sticky Fingers in 71 and then Exile on Main St. in 1972. But lets back up.

Meet the Beatles is 64. Their tracks are great sure, but could not be called innovative. I Want to Hold Your Hand is not an innovative track. They were innovaters sure, Im not here to take anything away from them* (*also not true) but I think 80% of what most people love about Beatles songs is the same thing that can be found in I Want to Hold Your Hand.

What are the lyrics to that song? What is the form of that song? Does it work? Fuck yeah it works but the fact that I can even ask such rhetorical questions proves a point. its not really self aware music in alot of ways. Maybe aware of what charted at the time. Alot of that cool shit on their later records is the drugs talking, and props to them for having the pop chops/song craftsmanship to pull it off, but really thats what does pull it off.

In my opinion the early Stones singles blow the early Bealtes singles out of the water. When you are talking 1965 I think its fair consider something as basic as the adaptation of the American Blues as an innovation, and its what their whole fucking sound is based off of. But they do shit with it. Their tracks sound different, and they found a way to make different instrumentations work. The vibes on Under My Thumb or even for christs sake you could count the sax on Satisfaction if you are gonna compare it to Buddy Holly.

I dont know, I sort of want to compare specific tracks and it only highlights one aspect of each of the bands. Compare the song "Yesterday" with "Wild Horses" or "Angie". Yesterday is a perfectly constructed pop song with well orchistrated strings and one chord in particlar (on the strings) that is just really awesome songcraft, but the point is arrived at the same way jam bands arrive at their points, which is make a chord progression and then build something off it. 90% of what the Beatles do is built off of chords with a melody on top with lyrics to fit in. Im mainly talking Paul here. But the real difference to me is that the lyrics are total fluff, and also totally self-absorbed. They hint at the 64 year old man and his Starbucks publicity tour. There are 2 very real parites in both of those Stones songs and they actually speak of life. Beatles songs sound to me like if you taught a 12 year old how to really write songs, what he would write, which is maybe why they are such a "phenomanon" (sp?) or whatever.


So that was longwinded enough, maybe ill let Mick do the talking for me and I want you as you read this to try and think of the best Beatles lyrics you can and then admit to yourself they are not as good:

Angie, angie, when will those clouds all disappear?
Angie, angie, where will it lead us from here?
With no loving in our souls and no money in our coats
You cant say were satisfied
But angie, angie, you cant say we never tried
Angie, youre beautiful, but aint it time we said good-bye?
Angie, I still love you, remember all those nights we cried?
All the dreams we held so close seemed to all go up in smoke
Let me whisper in your ear:
Angie, angie, where will it lead us from here?
Oh, angie, dont you weep, all your kisses still taste sweet
I hate that sadness in your eyes
But angie, angie, aint it time we said good-bye?
With no loving in our souls and no money in our coats
You cant say were satisfied
But angie, I still love you, baby
Evrywhere I look I see your eyes
There aint a woman that comes close to you
Come on baby, dry your eyes
But angie, angie, aint it good to be alive?
Angie, angie, they cant say we never tried





Childhood living is easy to do
The things you wanted I bought them for you
Graceless lady you know who I am
You know I cant let you slide through my hands

Wild horses couldnt drag me away
Wild, wild horses, couldnt drag me away

I watched you suffer a dull aching pain
Now you decided to show me the same
No sweeping exits or offstage lines
Could make me feel bitter or treat you unkind

Wild horses couldnt drag me away
Wild, wild horses, couldnt drag me away

"I know I dreamed you a sin and a lie
I have my freedom but I dont have much time
Faith has been broken, tears must be cried
Lets do some living after we die"

Read More......