Burning Wood

Monday, December 24, 2012

Musical Hopes & Fantasies For 2013




Billy Gibbons pre-ZZ Top psych band the Moving Sidewalks will be performing a handful of live dates next year. This excites me and it's something that I know I discussed over drinks about ten years ago. "You know, I'd love to see a Moving Sidewalks reunion." "Yeah, that'll never happen," one friend was quick to point out. And neither will a reunion of all four Young Rascals, right?

If I had my druthers:

A new David Bowie record will be released and it will not be produced by Tony Visconti.

Live music will become age appropriate. When Wilco comes to town, they play a seated venue with a proper start time and not some outdoor GA cornfield on a rainy day with a $60 rain or shine ducat. When Ty Segall performs, he can jam as many 20 year olds into a tiny club and hit the stage at 11:45 on a Tuesday, if he feels like it. And while we're at it, if Bruce Springsteen can keep his ticket prices under a $100, so can every one else. And while we're at it, I love you John Hiatt and Joan Osborne, but you guys are not $85 a ticket acts. Sorry guys.

The trend of artists performing full albums in concert will continue, but not at the expense of abandoning the rest of the back catalogue. Mix it up for the fans. Think about the fans. Learn your songs for the fans. 

The cost of new vinyl will drop to something a tad less odious than $26 a record.

Jazz artists will start swingin' again.  If I wanted to hear a piano trio cover Nirvana and Radiohead, I'd...well...nothing. I don't.


Todd Rundgren and Daryl Hall will turn their two brilliant episodes of "Live From Daryl House" into a record and tour.

Music journalists and critics will pull back on the hype reins just a bit and start telling like it is. Maybe a few less new Dylans and new Beatles in 2013 will help the jaded and the cranky appreciate the new guys a bit more.

Andy Partridge, Colin Moulding, and Dave Gregory will shake hands and release one more new record as XTC.

The following artists will release stripped-down-back-to-basics records:
Rolling Stones



So what are your musical wishes for 2013?


Monday, December 17, 2012

Burn Out, Fade Away, Or Be The Rolling Stones




This is something I posted as a comment on Burning Wood's "12-12-12 Recap":


When does it end? At what point do Rolling Stones fans, of which I am one, just admit that what they are playing...the music they are making... the sounds...just ain't cutting it?

I'm not looking to start an unnecessary firestorm with Stones diehards. I'm simply looking for an understanding as to why the handful of 50th Anniversary shows that have taken place thus far, with below standard and predictable set lists, with ticket prices close to $1000, with Mick Jagger's voice sounding more and more like Ian McKellen and with Keith Richards so obviously struggling with his axe, haven't frustrated more people. I love this band. I've defended this band right through 1989's "Steel Wheels," and even sang high-praise over their last tour. But something is just not right with these last few shows, and few but me, seem to see and hear it.

So is it me?

I went on to say this-

What is this loyalty? Is it just about longevity and nothing else? They don't even play for the fans anymore. Look at this current set list. I don't care how old they are, how long they've been around, how cool Keef is or how amazing "Sticky Fingers" is, this band is done. It's ok. Just say it.


I do understand loyalty. So in retrospect, that shouldn't have been a point of discussion. Yet, I know people who were trashing The Who and their live performances as far back as 2002, when only Keith Moon was missing from the mix. Pete & Roger were all but laughed at for their Super Bowl performance. Why? Where was the loyalty there? What makes Mick & Keith immune to the critical bashing taken by other dinosaur acts? The Stones certainly aren't any more relevant. If anything, Jagger's attempts to stay relevant usually amount to some crappy new music with some hip producer, or the signing on of "relevant" artists like Lady Gaga and Christina Aguilera for guest spots, and yet the Stones roll on, sounding older and older, and raping the fans in every way possible.

One last thing I wrote in that comment--

Beatles fans never had any qualms at all trashing Paul McCartney's solo work, sometimes even before listening and this was when Macca was half the age of the Stones and putting out records that were at least as good as any of the Stones records since 1981. 

While we're at it, what about Bob Dylan? The guy gets abused at every turn. Again, I'm not looking for a discussion about who is better. The Beatles, McCartney, The Who, Dylan or the Stones.  I just want to know, are we truly enjoying the Rolling Stones these days, or are we watching them the way we'd watch our crazy Uncle Ed warble through "I'll Be Seeing You" at his 90th birthday party, with respect and pathos, while secretly wishing we could just have some cake and go home.






Monday, December 10, 2012

"Stop Children, What's That Sound?"




The Beatles and the Rolling Stones. You know'em. You love'em.

In two separate conversations this week, with two dear friends who also happen to be two wonderful bass players, the topic of who was better, The Beatles or the Stones, was discussed. One friend simply said, "Apples and oranges." The other? "It's not apples and oranges. They were two rock and roll bands who came out of England at the same. One was better. Simple."

My intention this week is not a Beatles VS. Stones debate, though feel free to weigh in, if that's what will float your boat.

Some friends and I were listening to "Kaleidoscope" by Siouxsie & The Banshees and we all offered a similar opinion. Few bands, if any, sounded like Siouxsie & The Banshees before Siouxsie, and though many "goth," "punk," and "new wave" bands tried after Siouxsie, it was the Banshees who created the sound. A sound we feel was propelled by the drumming of Budgie and delivered with the evil grace of Siouxsie Sioux. Very special, like it or not.

Two others bands, from two somewhat different genres, seemed to have cornered the market on that special sound. AC/DC and The Cars. There were hard rock bands before and aft, as well as new wave bands. But the sound of AC/DC and The Cars is distinctive. It's nothing to shake a stick at. It was their own.

Even The Beatles and the Stones had peers doing the same exact thing at the same time. Not as well, but they were there with the same sound. As years went on, bands from the 60s right up to the present, emulated the Beatles harmonies, chord changes and overall sound. With the Stones, it's only rock and roll, so that sound was hard to avoid.

So your headstart---Siouxsie, AC/DC, and The Cars-

What successful band truly had an original sound, a sound that seems to have been created with the release of their first LP?

Monday, December 3, 2012

Your Best Records Of 2012



It's that time of year, folks. Time for making lists. Best this. Worst that. Most whatever.

So how about you?

What are your favorite records of 2012?

I have 20 that I hope to post by Wednesday morning.

Feel like posting yours.  One, ten, or twenty.  Feel free!

(The photo has nothing at all really, to do with anything. Just records on my floor.)