Odds/Sods

So, How’d That Happen? — “Godzilla”

Odds/Sods, , , , Leave a comment

With the newest iteration of Godzilla being released this Friday, now is as good a time as any to ask this question: how did possibly the greatest song in the entire Rage Against The Machine catalog end up on the soundtrack to an incredibly shitty film?

Mind you, I have no answers or inside knowledge as to how it occurred.  Yes, there is a mention of the beloved monster in the lyrics.  Of course, the full line is “Godzilla?  Pure motherfuckin’ filler, get your eyes off the real killer.”  I would never excuse entertainment executives of ignoring salient context, but you would think someone would have said at some point “this song is kind of mocking the very existence of this movie, is it a great idea to include it on the soundtrack?”  I would imagine if this question was so posed, that the answer was “Any publicity is good publicity; we’re just being edgy, kids eat that shit up.”

But that distracts a bit from my original point, that this is some of Rage Against The Machine’s finest work.  It doesn’t feature any incredible guitar theatrics from Tom Morello (the solo is basically just one tremolo’d wah note played multiple times, like a whacked-out version of the memorable one-note solo from Neil Young’s “Cinnamon Girl”), but it does feature a groovy riff and a rocking coda, and some of Zach de la Rocha’s best lyrics.  It’s such a great song that I spent years trying to find the Australian import of The Battle of Los Angeles so I could have the song on an actual Rage album, and not some crappy soundtrack where I’d have to skip around to get to the good stuff.  I did end up finding a certain version of the “Guerrilla Radio” single that included the track, so it all ended up working pretty well.

That said, there were some hidden gems on that soundtrack.  I always thought that “A320” fitted nicely along with other well-known classic Foo Fighters tracks, and is definitely their most underrated song.  I could listen to that ever-escalating coda forever.  And then there’s “Deeper Underground”, which I’m told is one of Jamiroquai’s better songs, at least from that period (confirmation from RIJR has yet to take place).  Finally, we have the remixed version of “Brain Stew” which not only adds some nice electronic touches, but also includes well-placed Godzilla screams.  I’ve always said that we need more Godzilla remixes of songs, and it’s too bad that no one has taken on that mantle.  Can’t you imagine how bitching a Godzilla remix of The Shins’ “New Slang” would be?  It would totally take that song to another level.

I can only hope to be pleasantly surprised this weekend, and that we find out that history repeats itself and we randomly get another brilliant Rage Against The Machine song.  It would definitely help take the sting out of the Blazers’ elimination a little bit.

Sometimes A Cigar Is Just A Cigar

Criticism Criticism, Odds/Sods, Leave a comment

Sometimes I get in the bad habit of finishing an article, and then deciding to stick around the site by clicking on an attention-grabbing headline to a different story.  Yes, I understand that this is the very foundation of the online publication model, but there are some sites where that strategy is not a good idea and that it is best to disengage from standard internet protocol.

We recently posted a link to an article in Slate that explored the mystery of the time signature of the theme from The Terminator.  This was an interesting and fun story that allowed the reader to indulge in harmless music nerd-like tendencies, while also revisiting a great film.  It’s a perfect time-waster that also benefits by adding a little bit of knowledge of music theory and production.  However, instead of closing the tab and continuing with my previously-planned surfing, I made the (figuratively) fatal error of clicking on this article.

Sexism worthy of more concern

Sexism worthy of more concern

There’s not much to this article–an NPR producer has an extensive record collection, and his wife started a Tumblr where she criticizes his albums called “My Husband’s Stupid Record Collection”.  Sounds innocent enough, right?  But apparently when constructing a personal Tumblr examining a record collection, one needs to be hyper-aware about the possible gender politics, and the politics of the gender politics as well.  The initial criticism derived from the premise of the Tumblr itself, with Slate mentioning that “[f]emale music writers Annie Zaleski, Maura Johnston, and Ann Powers have pushed back against the blog’s conceit, arguing that it reinforces negative stereotypes about the role of women in the music world.”  This of course assumes that a personal response to a shared relationship concern is somehow supposed to be a reflection of music criticism as a whole.  If someone can clue me in on why this assumption exists, I would appreciate it.

In addition, according to the critics cited in the piece, not only should there be concerns about the blog itself, but with the reactions to the blog and their possible sexism.  To quote: “Flavorwire‘s Judy Berman initially appreciated the blog’s charm, but then, ‘as acquaintance after acquaintance—almost all of them men—enthusiastically shared the blog, I noticed a more powerful, gendered slant to their appreciation of it,’ she wrote.”  Is the point then that an author should then be concerned not only with the reactions of readers to the piece itself, but then how they then frame their appreciation of it later?  The article continues, “[b]ut seen another way, her exercise is not very funny at all, because it helps those same music-nerd dudes who have boxed women out of the subculture—keeping them on the periphery in the roles of wives and girlfriends—to share the link as confirmation that women just don’t get it.”  At this point, anyone’s reaction should be “Who gives a shit about what these people think, and more than that, why should anyone believe that this Tumblr is great evidence of their point?”  The fact that I’m reading an analysis that amounts to a reaction to the reaction to the (initial) reaction means that we are ever closer to fulfilling the prophecy that the internet is merely an ouroboros of shit.*

The article itself makes a half-hearted attempt to justify all this wrangling over nothing, and the best the piece could do was talk about the premise of art from the perspective of the outsider.  Congratulations for explaining how a significant percentage of comedy works (to the piece’s credit, the author acknowledged this).  The problem is that this analysis should have been the one and only paragraph that was needed.  The author of the Tumblr is not attempting to ingratiate herself within the insular culture of record collectors; she is distinctly attempting to mock it from the perspective of an outsider.  It is not her responsibility for how other insiders react, and it’s not her concern.  By criticizing her, it takes away from other issues of gender politics within the music community.  The fact that women still fight to achieve respect within the community is a significant issue, and taking on pieces like this one is irrelevant to that fight.

The ultimate lesson should be that when critics are going so far down the rabbit hole to look at third-level reactions of a piece and what it means about society, it’s time to take a step back.  There are other issues of gender politics that are worthy of concern, but this is not one of them.  And next time, I’ll remember not to click that extra article.

*Note: I am fully aware that by participating at another level of criticism can be cited as an example of perpetuating the problem, but hopefully my intentions are clear that rather than perpetuating the cycle I am attempting to end it and slay the ouroboros.

The Curious Case of the Happy Birthday Copyright

News, Odds/Sods, , , One comment

Last week, Stephen Colbert did a hilarious segment about the copyright of the song “Happy Birthday”, noting the litigiousness of Warner Music and the way they hound any potential violators.  Stephen’s substitute, an arrangement of “The Star-Spangled Banner” with alternate lyrics, is a particularly genius suggestion, and the bit becomes part of a long comedic tradition of attempts to avoid the wrath of Warner.  By using a song in the public domain like the National Anthem, Stephen is safe, even in his public performance–though imagine if one had to clear each use of the National Anthem or pay a license for every time it was played; that would probably bankrupt most kickball leagues.

Somebody messed with the copyright.

Somebody messed with the copyright.

(Side Note: The technical difficulties graphic that Stephen uses cracks me up every time, though it should be stated that The Critic was the master of that particular gag.  Also, the birthday hat for the silent lawyer was a great touch.  Comedy’s forged in the subtleties, folks.)

So it’s not exactly news to most people that somebody owns the copyright to a song that is familiar to just about everyone, and gets sung thousands of times everyday.  Not only that, it’s also well-known that the public performance of that song has several issues (as I mentioned, there have been numerous comedic bits built on that fact).  But did you know that in the past year that the copyright was challenged?  It shouldn’t be a surprise that a fairly simple song from the early 20th century would have some disputed origins; however it is surprising that somehow despite those dubious origins, the copyright holder has been able to maintain an iron grip on the use and performance of the song.  Right now, the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts, due to the various technical complexities that are bound to arise when law meets art: various state claims are being separated from the federal claims, and arguments over whether the federal statutes preempt any state claims are being heard.  As for the disputed facts of the case, the hook for you and me is that plaintiffs are offering up some interesting evidence that the song was in circulation prior to the registration of the copyright in 1935, using both the original music of “Good Morning To You” (from 1893) with the lyrics we all know, all the way back in 1911.  This would pretty much destroy any claim of originality, a necessary requirement for copyright protection.

The thing to remember is that, “Happy Birthday” notwithstanding, the concept of “copyright” is good.  We want to protect the works of artists, and allow them the ability to be fairly compensated for their work and protect against unauthorized distribution.  Now, whether or not that means that the protection should extend 90 years (or whatever arbitrary number Congress decides when Disney lobbies again to protect the image of Mickey Mouse), or protect works that even giving the benefit of the doubt as “original”, that’s a different story.  Maybe Colbert can do a bit on that.

Fun With Maps!

News, Odds/Sods, Leave a comment

Cartography doesn’t usually get much attention, but in the past week there have been a couple of maps that have been making the rounds on social media and entertainment websites.  These maps were an attempt by Music Machinery to break down the listening habits of people by state and document exactly where certain artists are most popular.

Unfortunately, plenty of people seemed to have forgotten the basics of reading a map, like “take a look at the explanation below the map”.  That’s usually a good place to start, especially if you’re confused.  Since plenty of people forgot about that general rule, the reactions to the maps could charitably be described as chaos and total bedlam.  Also there was general mocking of Arizona and South Dakota, but at least this time we could tie that mocking directly to the maps themselves.

A Useful Map.

A Useful Map.

The first map that caused the ruckus was one entitled “Distinctive Artists By State”.  The purpose of the map was to represent whether certain artists enjoyed a particularly strong interest in certain states as opposed to the rest of the country.  The result was that a lot of people from different states responded with great vengeance and furious anger, shouting “I have no idea who the hell this band is!” (which was actually a fair complaint by someone from Alaska, because does anybody really know what a ‘Ginger Kwan’ is?)  Of course, when you’re looking for an artist that’s distinctive, that means there’s going to be a greater likelihood that the result is not universally known.  Generally, the most popular artists are ones that are universally popular, but the ones that are slightly below may vary quite a bit.  In other words, you and your friends are not special for liking Kendrick Lamar–a lot of people like him.

The site printed out some of their data to show how they got the results, and you can see how very obscure artists could be spit out.  If you think about it for a little bit, it makes sense then that someone like Kurt Vile could represent Oregon–while there are tons of alternative acts that get a lot of attention here, it’s not a stretch to say that it’s not significantly more attention.  We’re generally talking about maybe a slightly bigger venue for when their tour comes through (a difference of probably a couple of hundred people at the most), which wouldn’t be anything like a standard deviation off.

(It also helps if you take two seconds and realize that “by state” does not mean the artist comes from your home state, but that may be some second-order thinking for some folks.)

The second map was much simpler: a map of “Favorite Artists By State”. People then expressed surprise and anger at the results that…the most popular artists in the country are also the most popular artists in several states?  Did people honestly expect Jay Z, Drake, and Macklemore to not be popular, even after selling millions of albums this year?

That’s when people began attacking the methodology, though I doubt many of those who did so know the meaning of the word (or even knew that such a word existed).  I love that some complained that a sample of 250,000 people was too small, without knowing that very accurate polling (especially in politics) often comes from samples that are 10 to 100 times smaller.  The other complaint that I noticed was how the map used only streaming sources.  This is in some ways a legitimate point–due to the demographics of those who stream (young folks), the results are going to be skewed a bit.  On the other hand, a large sample size can help cancel this out a bit.

And on yet another hand (hopefully you packed an extra set),  were any of you going to answer a phone survey for just a fun side project?

I hope you enjoyed this short lesson in maps and statistics.  At the very least, it should help you understand what you’re dealing with when you tackle the Anti-preference map.