dave's music log

Final thoughts.

2005-04-21T08:48:00.000-07:00

As far as music is concerned, I'll take classic rock to anything coming out today, with the exception of some underground rap . That's one of the few styles of music I consider innovative, along with a little bit of indie rock that's around. The people who are good in modern music are really good, but unfortunately they go unnoticed, or they have a pretty small underground following with exception of a few bands and artists.
There are a few artists today who I think have potential or are actaully pretty good, but according my standards they're good becuase they follow some of the older ideas in music and sound more like the bands of the past, rather than new commercialized radio. One artist out today who I consider excellent and innovative is Ben Folds. This is because his music is simple, yet he's extremly skilled, he tells good stories with his songs, and he incorporates great harmonies like some of the better acts of the past like the beatles, the beach boys, and crosby stills and nash. He produces what some would call classic pop music. It's not heavy at all but yet it has a distinctly alternative feel. This is what the radio is lacking today and popular music in general. In order to find sounds like this you have to dig into the underground and independent scene. To be frank, music like this isn't all that popular, that's probably why its hard to categorize as pop because it certainly isnt main stream.
My advice to bands coming out today is define your influences. Study the classics and put your music together based on what they have done, while adding something that's unique to your act. Be experimental but stay true to what has worked in the past and keep pop sensibilities in mind.

Back to basics

2005-04-19T08:58:00.000-07:00

Following a few rants on the state of modern music, I find myself treading on familiar grounds with a review of a classic Neil Young album, "After the Goldrush". This may be my favorite album of all time. If you're not a fan of Neil Young, you still might like this album. It's pretty much a singer-songwriter album with piano and acoustic guitar-heavy compositions. That being said the album is extremely mellow and appeals to pop sensibilities, while also including a lot of country and folk sound.
There are some pretty notable Neil Young songs on here. Songs like Tell Me Why, Southern Man, After the Goldrush, Only Love Can Break Your Heart, and When You Dance You Can Really Love. The best thing about this album is its simplicity. There's a pretty simple 4 piece arrangement with guitar, piano, bass, and drums; all capped off by Neil's infamous high-pitched whine. This album came about during Neil's run with Crosby, Stills, and Nash, and its pretty easy to see a few similarities. CSNY tends to rock a little harder on their album out at the same time, DEJA VU, but Neil puts his personal stamp on the music of Goldrush and keeps it mellow like certain points on Deja Vu. There are great lyrics on this album, and they are encapsulated in love songs, protest songs, and country tales. Some of Neil's lyrics come off as strange, especially on songs like After the Goldrush, which is bizarre in itself, but great. If I could have picked two people to present in my Pop-Icon speech my second would have been Neil Young, without question. He is one of the most consistent legends of rock n roll and his music is classic and is up there with the likes of the Beatles.

Country?... yea

2005-04-12T08:06:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of discussion about country music in our class lately, whether its neo-country by the likes of Tim McGraw and Kenny Chesney or old school country by people like Hank Williams, Johnny Cash, Merle Haggard, or Willie Nelson. In my opinion, and this probably won't surprise anybody, I like the old stuff better, but this isn't unsupported. It's not purely opinion, there's definitely some basis behind this.
Once again we're talking about pop culture ruining a class of music that can be considered classic and many ways. Country music stars today are less like their folksy forefathers and more like the terrible hairbands of the 80s. These new country stars are so overproduced and willing to define their sound by want the public wants to hear rather than being true to their art. That's why you see a team-up like Tim McGraw and Nelly. Not that I'm saying collaborations of different styles are bad, but they need to be credible artists. I mean, Nelly's not even a good rapper, but he's popular and he sells, hence the collaboration. I comes down to dollars. Now if you had someone like Willie Nelson and Mos Def team up, I'd be extremely interested because I respect both artists a lot. The music they would create would be something incredibly new and original, unlike the pre packaged popular garbage that Tim McGraw and Nelly would produce. The Nelson/Mos team up would be for artistic purpuses rather than "Hey, let's put these two huge selling artists together and see how people respond." The names and images alone sell for these artists. It honestly wouldn't matter what the music sounds like. Country musicians should stop trying to make their way into the mainstream and build upon the sounds of old school country. Theres a reason people like Hank Williams, Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard are so well respected. Many like the rustic twang of songs about their woman leaving them and taking everything, or going on road trips, or songs about a dad naming his son Sue. I want the kind of country singer that killed a man in a bar fight, or at least acts like he did(like Johnny Cash). Country music isn't supposed to be shiny and overproduced. It's gritty and its the great instrumentation and stories that make it legitamite and great. Listen to a song like "I'm so Lonesome I could die" by Hank Williams. That is truly original and it sounds like he recorded it in his basement. Was Hank Williams thinking about record sales and how he can make the most money, maybe, but there's musical merit to his songs. There's no question what today's country music stars are focused on.
Often times I come down hard on things that are considered popular, and that's not fair. I'm not one of these people who think everything in the mainstream is garbage. eventhough it comes of that way sometimes. It just so happens i write about this a lot because one area I am against the mainstream in is music. I don't have any tolerance for music without susbstance. Sure it's good to hear a fun song and music that makes you feel good, but songs that are legititmate can do this as well. It doesnt have to be crap , or maybe in today's society it does.

One hand washes the other.

2005-03-31T09:23:00.000-08:00

Kori and I have been going back in forth, in a good way, about more and more modern music. She said that a band I mentioned made her want to write a blog on them. Well pretty much the same is going on here. She brought up a band derrived from metal/funk band At the Drive-In, known as the Mars Volta, who I consider one of the best bands out today, becuase of great skill, intelligent lyrics, and a willingness to experiment. Their willingness to experiment is what really interests me about this band because they're pretty far out. They can be compared to bands of the 70s like Pink Floyd who really played around with styles, but at the same time the Mars Volta has their own distinct sound which sounds like a fusion of Led Zeppelin, Parliament Funkadelic, metal, and even jazz.
The band is fronted by Cedric Bixler-Zavala and Omar Rodriguez-Lopez who are both of Puerto Rican descent and infuse latin styles into many of their rhythms and instrumentation. Bixler-Zavala writes the lyrics and Rodriguez-Lopez writes the music, and as bizarre as both can seem at times, they come together in a way in which no other band can duplicate. It is obvious that Rodriguez-Lopez draws a lot of inspiration from George Clinton's band Funkadelic, in that the guitar has a distinct funk sound at many points and funk rhythms and basslines are added. Bixler-Zavala's voice and phrasing is similiar to that of Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin and at times the band does have a big Led Zeppelin feel. Then the metal comes in, Mars Volta does not mind experimenting with sounds and the mixing of styles, and while sometimes their songs tend to drag on as the musicians play around with sound, it pays off in the end because their experimentations come together in the meat of their songs, and when that happens few modern bands can compare.

I'd like to see a change.

2005-03-29T08:48:00.000-08:00

I've commented on the state of modern music many times before, but I've noticed something that is really different now than in the music of the 60s and 70s. A lot of popular music of that time was country based. Not that there is not a lot of country music out today, but in the past many groups involved with the southern rock sound and light country were very popular. It's pretty rare to find a group you'd consider a rock group to experiment with country sounds that really enhance music and have good sounds. I understand that the country music of today is not very good, case and point any Toby Keith song, but mixing country and rock is an underused technique these days.
Think of bands like The Eagles, Crosby Stills Nash and Young, Lynyrd Skynyrd, the Allman Brothers, the Doobie Brothers, and the Band. These were all great groups who combined country music with their rock n' roll sound. The mixture of these genres can produce a great sound. It can be extremly laid back and mellow, or uptempo and fast paced. The sound is pretty unique and adds an aspect of musical knowledge that many bands of today don't think to use. Incorporating country music really enhances a bands sound and shows great range. Country music these days has become too distinct from the popular rock music of the past. Honestly, if I were making music today I couldn't refer to the country acts of today to draw a sound, but musicians as students of music should be able to refer to classics and be able to put aspects into their music that enhance it. Acts today should look at the likes of the bands listed above and put out music that is truly original and great.
The lack of country music in pop/rock today is probably related to the lack of willingness of musical experimentation in pop music these days, but I'd like to see this music come back because its excellent and deserves to be listened to.

Music, better now or worse?

2005-03-24T09:09:00.000-08:00

Just to get away from the same old reviews, I want to take a look at the quality of music coming out today in comparison to the quality of music being produced in the 60s and 70s, what most people would consider classic rock. In my opinion, music today does not compare to the music of the past. The title of classic rock does not mean that the music is automatically great, but the state of popular music in the past is far better than it is today. There are several reasons I feel this way.
First of all, what is considered the alternative today sounds more like the popular music of the 60s and 70s. Just to compare, groups in the mainstream today bring about very few innovations to music. Look at boy bands, corporate rock and a lot of R and B and hip hop thats out today. Very little of this music is experiental or improves music as we understand it. Compare mainstream music to the mainstream music of the past. Bands like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, the Allman Brothers, Sly and the Family Stone, and Motown groups were mainstream music. All of these acts were innovative and pushed the creative boundaries of music, and they were considered "pop" at the time. If you think about it, they shaped the sound of today, but it seems like very few popular groups today are trying to expand the musical scene. The music pushing the boundaries today are independent, underground, and alternative types of music. Pop music of today has very little value, musically. I think this is due to the fact that less people play their own instruments, and those that do play their own instruments are no where as near as good as the acts of the past. You won't see another Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, or Jimmy Page anytime soon, and if there are people out there as good as these guys, you'll never hear about them because they would never be popular by todays standards. Music that requires skill is not in the mainstram nowadays. Thats why the popular music of the past was better without comparison.

Wearing it out.

2005-03-22T09:10:00.001-08:00

I know I write about the Beatles too much, so this is the final Beatles review for the semester. I am motivated to review them one last time because of the album Abbey Road. Abbey Road was the last studio recording of the Beatles and their last official effort as a group. By this time the band was falling apart and everyone was going in their own directions. Supposedly being in the studio together was painful at times, which is pretty sad if you watch John, Paul, George, and Ringo through about 1966-67 when they're at the peak of their game. So in an effort to close out their run as a band, The Beatles decided to walk away, but not without leaving one last master effort, a heartfelt farewell.
Abbey Road is that effort. It's an extremely interesting album in that it combines aspects of their previous recording. The first half of the album includes singles, meant to be listened to a song at a time. Classics like "Come Together," "Something," "Here Comes the Sun," and "Octopus's Garden" are included. These songs are great but they pale in comparison to the second half of the album which is pretty odd, in that it blends all of the songs together into one or two 15 min songs. The different portions on the second half of the album are called "suites" and each suite is bookended by similar pieces of music. So while you might hear 2 or 3 different sounding songs, it is just various parts within the framework of the same suite. It's amazing how the music flows so seamlessly into each portion. For this reason alone, the album is considered a masterpiece.
The Beatles wanted to go out with a bang, and on Abbey Road, they do. Eventhough, they're life as a band was coming to an end, they were still innovating and making some of the best music of all time, as is reflected on both parts of Abbey Road.

Wearing it out.

2005-03-22T09:10:00.000-08:00

Possible masterpiece?

2005-03-15T08:14:00.000-08:00

Bob Dylan has written too many good albums to list. Being a pretty big fan I try to pick up whatever albums are considered his best or albums people tell me are worth listening to. An album I'd always heard was good was "Desire," but everyone I've talked to said that it pales in comparison to his 70s masterpiece, "Blood on the Tracks." The last time I had some money in my pocket I bought Desire and its definitely up there with any of Dylan's best albums.
Desire is an album of story songs. Every song has a vivid description of a character or place with a plot. Some of the songs are based on real life and others are imagined, but they all sound great. The most famous song from Desire is probably "Hurricane," which is about Ruben Carter, the famous middleweight fighter who was locked up for a crime he didn't commit. This used to be my favorite Dylan song, but now I definitely have to debate it after hearing the rest of this album. The pacing of the album is perfect. The beginning of the album is pretty upbeat, the middle is a little slower, and the end combines the two. All of the songs on the album also feature a fiddle, which adds a great sound to the music and although Dylan has incorporated the fiddle in his music before, its never sounded like this. You might say it gives the album a country texture, but the sound goes beyond that. Different styles and pacing of the fiddle give it a world music feel, kind of like a Paul Simon type of song. It's great. The best songs on the album are Hurricane, Isis, Mozambique, and Sara, in my opinion. There's no question, though, that the album can be listened to the whole way through.
For me the ability to listen to an album the whole way through qualifies it as a great work, as this is so rare. Desire can be listened to the whole way through.

Business as usual.

2005-03-03T08:14:00.000-08:00

After my last rant on Scorsese, I thought it would be a good idea to get back to the typical writing you see on this page. I'm back to the business of music, specifically, The Beatles. For this band considered to be the greatest of all time, there is a lot of dispute about which of their albums is their best. This is definitely a tough question to tackle. I've heard it said that Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band are in the running, as well as the running for best album ever. I can't disagree with this claim. So I ask myself, which album do I think of these three could be the best ever?
I'd have to go with Sgt. Pepper's. While it is not my favorite of these three albums and I acutallly like the other 2 a little better because of particular songs, it works the best as an album and produced serious innovations in modern music. Don't get me wrong, the songs on the album are great. "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," "Help From My Friends," "A Day In the Life," and "When I'm Sixty-Four" are probably the most well known songs on this album, but you can't say they're the best. While these songs are great, its the experience of listening to the whole album together that makes it unique. In my opinion, a group of songs has never hung together as well as this group of songs, making it what many people refer to as a concept album. While each song might not blow you away after the first listen, listen to it again and the range and nuance of the music will get your attention. The variety of songs on the album is amazing. Another aspect that many people consider when claiming this is the best album of all time is the innovation involved. No one had ever arranged an album to be listened to the whole way through before, as one large work. The Beatles made the album as a whole an artform. Odd production and musical arrangements are also what make this album great. Some songs feature a harp, a clarinet, a kaliopie, full orchestra, and sitar. Few albums ever can compare with the experimentation present here, and in my opinion, no one experimenting this much with sound has ever made an album nearly this good, maintaining pop sensability.
While some Beatles albums may feature better songs to listen to a song at a time, no album ever is tied together as well as Sgt. Pepper's. When listening to this album you can appreciate the songs for how good they are, but you do not truly realize the impact this album has on you until you've listened to it start to finish and let the experience sink in. In my mind, The Beatles will be considered in the same paragraph as the likes of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart in the future for their contributions to art. This album will likely stand as their crowning achievement.

Kind of off the topic.

2005-03-02T17:14:00.000-08:00

Normally this page is dedicated to things that are purely musical in some way or another, but for this comment music will take a backseat. Aside following music, I also watch a lot of movies. My favorite director is definitely Martin Scorsese, and in a way I guess you can relate Scorsese to music. A lot of times he chooses all the music for his films and he directed with what is considered the best music movie ever, The Band's The Last Waltz. Anyways, its hard to believe that the director of movies such as Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, GoodFellas, Casino, Color of Money, Gangs of New York, and many other classic movies has never won an Academy Award. In my opinion, its ridiculous.
The fact that Scorsese didn't win an Oscar this year is crazy. I didn't see The Aviator and I don't know if its any good, but for Scorsese to be nominated for Best Director 5 times and never win is horrible. Clint Eastwood's alright, but I'd put any of the movies I listed above against Clint Eastwood's best movie and Scorsese's movies would be better without question. Nothing against Clint Eastwood, but he's not Martin Scorsese and I've never really been impressed with what he's done anyway except maybe Mystic River. Plus, Eastwood has won the award before. I don't think he should not win purely because he's won it before, but Scorsese, who should have won mutliple times still doesnt have the award. How bout next time throw Martin the award, he'll probably deserve it nex time too

Kind of Old School.

2005-02-24T09:14:00.000-08:00

Honestly, I don't listen to much current music unless its some rap, or one of the few new bands I follow. One of these modern bands that I started listening to a few years ago was The Strokes. I heard them when they came out with "Last Nite", which I thought was a great song. It interested me, so I picked up their first album and loved it, even saw them live. Their sound is unlike any other band out right now, although they are highly copied. I'd say their music is like a lot of Velvet Underground stuff, with an R&B spin. They have pretty simple instrumentation, but the music sounds great.
I got their latest album a few months ago and I liked it as much as the first one. Their music experiments with the 80s punk/new wave sound on this album, which honestly I'm not a huge fan of, but liked this alot. The music on the album ranges from the use of synthesizers and keyboards, to guitar and bass centered sounds. One song on the record, one of my favortie, called "Automatic Stop" has serious reggae influence and a good beat. My favorite song on the album though is "Under Control". This song sounds like it came straight out of the 50s and is a straight-forward, old fashioned R&B sound. This refernce I'm using is pretty outdated, but the song sounds like Sam Cooke R&B. I tend to like bands with a lot of range, but with their own distinct sound. The Strokes are a band who are unashamed to admit their unfluences, but definitely pave new ground with their unique, and highly immitated sound.

selling out?

2005-02-22T09:38:00.000-08:00

Often times on TV these days, you'll see a commercial with a classic song playing in the background. I picture the AT&T cellular plan commercial where this guy is driving cross country to be with his girlfriend, and The Band's "The Weight" is playing in the background. When I saw this, I was surprised because this isn't a really popular song, but its always been one of my favorites. My second feeling was, this sucks, someone from the Band sold out and let the AT&T people use this classic song on a commercial. The more you watch TV, the more you notice this phenomenon. I've seen commercials with songs by The Who, the Clash and Iggy Pop, all early figures on the punk scene, whose politics and personalities definitely wouldn't allow them to put their songs on TV commercials. This raised the question in my mind, would these artists support their music being on commercials (I really don't think so) or does someone else own the rights to these songs despite their writing credits (like Michael Jackson with all Lennon/McCartney songs). Honestly, I don't know the answer to this dilemma, but I'm posing the question of whether or not these artists sold out their songs for TV commercials. I really hope that's not the case.

Underrataed.

2005-02-21T09:19:00.000-08:00

Usually I listen to classic rock or alternative music, but depending on the situation sometimes I'm forced to listen to something else. A good example of this is when I'm at home. Obviously your parents tend to have different taste in music. Usually they don't want to listen to a 5 min guitar solo or hear some offensive language, that's understandable I guess. My parents tend to turn to what a lot of people call classics. People like Sinatra, Dean Martin, Jerry Vale, and Tony Bennett. Basically, the kind of music you hear on mob movies.
A lot of people today think this music is cheesy, and I can't disagree, a lot of it is, but some of it isnt bad. I typically hear this music on a Sunday afternoon when my mom's cooking pasta, so I guess the atmosphere is right. Despite some ridiculous lyrics this music is pretty good. Good backing music, good voices. A few Sundays ago the song "that's amore" was on. I heard the words "moon hit your eye like a big pizza pie" and thought it was really stupid, but I kept listening, and if I didn't like the words, I liked the music in the background. There's a few redeedming qualities to songs like this. So, if your folks put some Sinatra on, listen to it for at least a little, while you're eating some linguini with clam sauce and a nice antipasto.

two albums too many

2005-02-15T08:35:00.000-08:00

Getting a little nostalgic, I started listening to a band I really used to like a few years back, Weezer. I remember getting the Blue CD for "Buddy Holly" around 95' and playing the hell out of it. That was a rare CD where every song was good. Their next album, "Pinkerton" was different but just as good. After these efforts I kind of lost interest in Weezer, as their next few albums weren't very good.
The Blue Album is a great CD from start to finish, just straight forward power-pop. The thing that's great about the music is its simplicity. The guitar consists of chords while the bass is usually one plucked note per chord. This plus the most basic drumming you could think of composes Weezer's sound. Some might think these are guys who can't play so they play simple stuff. This definitely isn't the case. All of the musicians are good and they make the decision that few artists with ability make, and that is to not overplay. The music's good the way it is, don't over complicate it. However, to say the music's simple might be a little too vague, all of the songs have their own unique feel and the guitar, while usually the main instrument, is not always at the front of the sound (weezer uses some heavy bass in songs). Songs like "My Name is Jonas," "The World has Turned and Left Me Here," " Buddy Holly," and "Say it Ain't So" are definite stand-outs on the album. This is truly subjective though, because every song on the album is awesome.
Despite Weezer's fall off on their later attempts, nothing should be taken away from how good a band they were. Their first two CDs are classics and they were definitely largely influential on some of the music that's coming out now.

Not what it used to be

2005-02-10T09:12:00.000-08:00

Remember when you'd put the radio on about 5 or 10 years ago and you heard good hip-hop. I can. Hip-hop music today isn't all bad, there's definitely a few bright spots, but it's not half of what it used to be. From about 95' to 98' you would hear pretty good hip-hop music on the radio. Now its terrible. All you hear are people talking about bling, trucks, and women. Sometimes this is fun and good for a party, but when you're in your car listening to music, you'd like to hear some decent songs.
I've been pretty into rap since the 6th or 7th grade. That's when Busta Rhymes, Wu-Tang Clan, Redman, Notorious B.I.G., the Beasties, and DMX (when he was good) were putting really good songs out. It seems like what used to be the mainstream is now the underground. People used to say something in their songs, whether it was talking about social problems, life in the streets, or rap, itself, the music was definitely different. The only people saying things these days are lesser known artists who would never get a lot of radio play. Artists like Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Jurrasic 5, Blackalicious, are considered more underground rap, but it my opinion, these are the type of artists who are truest to the art. The only real exception, to me, is Kanye West. He puts out songs with solid beats and actually raps about something; not just about how rich is and how many women he gets, and actaully gets radio play. There are also a few other exceptions. Jay-Z, 50-cent, and Ludacris will put some good stuff out, just because its a little different, and while its about money and women, its at least a little unique.
It's time for hip-hop to get back to its roots and start saying something again. Don't get me wrong, some of the popular stuff out now is great to party with, but it doesn't get to the point of rap. Good beats. Good rhymes. Good music.

No wardrobe malfunctions.

2005-02-08T09:22:00.000-08:00

Normally, I like to write about music in the context of album reviews, but following the halftime show during this year's SuperBowl, I gotta write about Paul McCartney. Paul's over 60 now and he still puts on awesome shows. This was definitely the best halftime show I've seen in a long time(wardrobe malfunctions excluded).
Paul's choice of songs was great for a large crowd, and oddly enough, he played some Beatles songs. Mostly, solo artists who used to play in bands shy away from playing their collaborations. This wasn't the case McCartney. He played three Beatles songs; "Drive My Car," "Get Back," and "Hey Jude". All awesome cuts. The crowd definitely responded to his playing and it was cool to see a show with no distractions, just music and serious talent. Paul played his bass on several songs then switched to the piano twice. I thought this was great. Before the SuperBowl, people were saying that they got the least talented Beatle to perform and that the show would be terrible. McCartney dissapointed his critics. Paul played four songs, and the third of his four, "Live and Let Die" really got the crowd involved. This was an awesome choice of song to play to a stadium. Another song that got the crowd involved was "Hey Jude" with the NA NA NAs. He couldn't have closed the performance any better.
Watching Paul perform by himself made me think of how sweet a Beatles' show would have been. We got the next best thing. His musical range and ability put any music coming out today to shame, and instead of catering to his artistic ideals, he gave the crowd what they wanted. Not bad for the least talented Beatle.

First true greatest hits album.

2005-02-03T09:10:00.000-08:00

Over the years, Neil Young has put out a ton of albums. Most of his work as a solo artist has been very critically acclaimed, along with his work playing in bands like Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, Buffalo Springfield, and Crazy Horse. His early works are borderline masterpieces, while his middle and later works have also stood out and remained consistent. Oddly enough, Young, who is responsible for many classic songs has never put out a true "Greatest Hits" album. His album "Decade" spans the 70s, and many have cited this as a greatest hits, but not album or box set has truly spanned his whole carear.
Just in time for Christmas, Neil Young put together a greatest hits collection. Unlike many greatest hits collections, Young put his together using a variety of sources; such as radio airplay, spots on the charts, album sales, and oddly enough, internet downloads of his music. Few artists have as much range as Neil Young. He has songs that are hard and appeal to people who like heavier music, for example, "Cinnamon Girl," "Southern Man," "Hey Hey My My (depending on the version)," and "Keep on Rockin' in the Free World". Other songs are extremely mellow and are along the lines of singer-songwriter categorization. Songs like "After the Goldrush," "Old Man," "Only Love Can Break Your Heart," and "Heart of Gold" are great songs to chill to. Not only that, but many of these songs have a country feel that Yound makes his own with his legendary whining vocals. Most of Young's songs consist of rhythmic guitar strumming, sparse pianos, and a simple beat; while other songs consist of large arrangments, these songs include horn and string sections usually.
Honestly, I'd recommend that people just buy his albums and listen to those rather than a greatest hits collection, but for artists like Young, new listeners need some kind of introduction to his catalog of great songs. Young's Greatest Hits is a good place to start for anyone starting to listen to Neil Young

Might as well be a greatest hits.

2005-02-01T09:09:00.000-08:00

I like to look at music magazines' "best of all time lists." These lists are really subjective, and best all-time albums can be totally different for people, but you can find some music worth listening to after checking these out. One album I saw repeatedly on "best of all time" lists was "Moondance" by Van Morrison. Van Morrison is a musician I've appreciated was talented but never really listened to seriously. A couple months ago I started downloading his music and really liked it. Van has some serious range stylistically and that impressed me. I bought the "Moondance" album recently and I think its awesome.
"Moondance" has many Van Morrison classics on it. While he has great songs on many albums, "Moondance" is a standout because it has one great song after another. Van's got a style of his own, and with a voice that's pretty distinct, you know when you're hearing a Van Morrison song. Morrison's music is really more R&B than anything else. It's got some folk elements, but R&B and soul are definately Van's primary influences. I've heard it said that Van's music is like an guy from Ireland interpreting Ray Charles. This is actaully a pretty good description. Van's music has a lot of keyboard involvement that really pushes the R&B/Soul music feel. A lot of the songs also have some heavy bass. All of his songs have great arrangements and usually feature a horn section, which also adds to the R&B sound. The songs alternate pacing and rhythm really well , too. Classics like "And It Stoned Me," "Moondance," and "Into the Mystic" are really mellow songs, that aren't too fast paced and have great vocals. Van puts serious soul into his vocal performances and you are immediately aware of his ability as a soul singer. Van's upbeat songs like "Caravan," "Come Running," and "Everyone" are all keyboard heavy songs and the first two here have really nice horn arrangements, but his voice stands out here as well.
This album is great from beginning to end, with a lot of Van's classic songs on it. I recommend this album over a greatest hits collection because you get the well-known songs here as well as some other lesser known, equally good songs. After listening to "Moondance", Van has become one of my favorite artists.

Never gets old.

2005-01-27T09:18:00.000-08:00

The other night my roommate and I were chillin out. He picked up my CD book and asked what album we should toss on. I thought about it for a minute, as I take music very seriously (probably too seriously) and I told him to put on Ben Folds Five's "Whatever and Ever Amen" album. I think Ben Folds' music is awesome, new stuff, old stuff, it doesn't matter. I had just heard a new Ben Folds song that day and thought a listen to this album would be worthwhile. I was definitely right. I bought this album in 7th grade and its one of the best albums I've ever heard.
From beginning to end, the album stays fresh. The themes and approaches to the songs change, but the Ben Folds Five sound is always there. There's something awesome about a piano, bass, and drums. Of all the bands I listen too, there may be no better band at drifting between styles and sounds than Ben Folds Five, maybe the Beatles, but they're beyond comparison. A Beatles comparison that may be fitting has to do with both bands vocal approach. Ben Folds Five's harmonies are very Beatlesque and kind of float above the instrumentation, which is also incredble. The musicians in the band are obviously elite. Obviously, Ben is an incredible piano player, but he doesn't overplay. Then he'll tear into a solo that rivals any Billy Joel or Elton John solo. The bass almost acts like a guitar, in that, there's high levels of distortion and it takes a leading role throught their songs. The drummer also experiments with different beats and makes the right one fit with each melody. Another great aspect of their music is the lyrics. Folds tells stories with really funny lyrics, but also relates seriousness and topics that are controversial. The song "Battle of Who Could Care Less" is one of my favorite songs of all time. It's got a great beat and the lyrics are hilarious. One thing to mention about funny lyrics is, it is important that they're not cheezy, and on this album and most of his others Ben Folds manages to be funny without being cheezy. The band incorporates different instruments as well, such as strings and the occasional clarinet. I can't really say which songs on the album are the best because they're all really excellent.
This album is, without question, one of my favorites of all time. Ben Folds Five was definitely one of the most underrated bands of the 90s. Ben Folds has achieved some level of musical celebrity and is well respected by critics and his fans, but he is truly a musical genius that should be appreciated by the casual music fan the way other piano men, Billy Joel and Elton John are. After 8 years or so of having this album, I can listen to any song off of it at anytime.

American Icon

2005-01-24T11:13:00.000-08:00

Mostly, when people hear the name Bob Dylan, they think of a popular figure 30 years ago who wrote protest songs and had a weird singing voice. A lot of people don't find Dylan's music to be listenable and are thrown off by some of the serious content of his songs. I'm a real big Bob Dylan fan and have seen him live a few times. I like some of the serious aspects of his songs and appreciate his voice, sometimes. One album anyone can agree is excellent and fun to listen to is Dylan's "Nashville Skyline". He sheds some of the seriousness of past and future recordings and seems to have fun with a backing band that includes Johnny Cash and Charlie Daniels, who wrote the awesome song, "Devil Went Down to Georgia".
On most of his albums, Dylan goes beyond strumming a guitar and playing his harmonica. This is the case in "Nashville Skyline". The signature harmonica shows up sometimes, but theres great musical arrangement with organs, fiddles, gritty pianos, and twangy slide-guitars. Needless to say, this album has some serious country feel. Aside from the strong country influence, there are also some bluesy sounds, which give the album some nice range. Another difference between this album and other Dylan albums is the lack of serious content, the songs can be funny, and most of them are highly upbeat. One of my favorite songs is the title track, "Nashville Skyline", which is an instrumental. It's a real upbeat song that's kind of rambling and happy, and the instruments can all be appreciated; awesome song. A lot of Dylan's songs have humor involved in them, but this album really lacks any seriousness, aside from the occaisional love song.
This is defnitely one of my favorite albums, and I encourage any Dylan fan or person with interest in music to listen to this. It's a half hour well spent.

I'm not a hippie.

2005-01-18T15:10:00.000-08:00

In my continuing exploration of music, I've stumbled onto the Grateful Dead's "American Beauty". Now, when the Grateful Dead are mentioned, people typically think they're music for "stoners" and the band is a hippie band, and some of these stereotypes may be fitting. However the Grateful Dead are far too good a band to be dismissed as stoner rock, although some of the best music ever has been created through experiementation with substances (I'm not particularly advocating drug use), but whatever.
Anyways, "American Beauty" is typically considered the Grateful Dead's best studio work, which is interesting for a band who made their reputation on improvisation , or jamming. The songs are highly structured and rolling, while some improvisation can be noted. This album has varied influences. One can hear blues, bluegrass, country, and rock genres intermixed. The Dead make these categories come together seamlessly. There are some Dead classics on this album, but they don't really stand out because the whole album is so good. The standards on the album are "Box of Rain," "Friend of the Devil," "Sugar Magnolias," " Brokedown Palace," and "Truckin'". All of these songs have great vocal harmony as well as amazing musicianship. Of all these songs, "Brokedown Palace" tends to impress me the most. It has great three-part vocal harmony and nice piano playing.
Something else to note is the influence the songs on this album have carried. Many would say jambands like Phish, the String Cheese Incident, and Widespread Panic have drawn inspiration from the songs on this album. I don't often like the jamband comparison to the Grateful Dead because I don't feel the explanation is that simple, but you can see some resemblence. While I like some of these other bands' music, it doesn't compare to the Dead because of their great range and talent.

Not just for Beatles' fans

2005-01-11T09:13:00.000-08:00

With some of my few remaining dollars from Christmas, I bought The Beatles' "Rubber Soul". I'd heard it was a great album many times before, usually during arguements with my friends' dads about what qualifies good music.
Honestly, I don't really have to be convinced that The Beatles are an incredible band. I've been a fan for a few years now and continue to try to find their material which I haven't heard yet. "Rubber Soul" was an album I'm surprised I'm just finding.
"Rubber Soul" is a stellar album from beginning to end. There's familiar songs on it like "Nowhere Man," "In My Life," and "Drive My Car" which can all be heard on the radio , but even the songs on the album that aren't as recognizable are extremely good. There isn't a weak song on the album and the range is amazing. Some songs are polished, with precise piano lines, and some songs are ragged and have a folk feel. The song, "Girl," even incorporates a Mediterranean feel, which is pretty cool and different. Apparently this album has had serious influence on many artists and you can also see the Beatles' influences here as well. Some of the songs have a real Bob Dylan feel, as well as classical sounds
I've heard it said that "Rubber Soul" could be the greatest album of all time. For the reasons stated above, I definitely think it is a possibility. I found an album I can definitely listen to many times, and at the moment this is my favorite piece of music.