Remeber Nelson? I Do, For Some Reason

by Tammany Hall Collective on January 9, 2012

by Zonker Woodgrove

         A couple hundred years ago Bill Shakespeare asked, “What’s in a name?” A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.” An astute observation, except that it’s wrong. If the word “rose” were to suddenly vanish from society’s lexicon, and these sweetly aromatic flowers were instead called “honeybee shit receptacles,” the multi-billion dollar flower industry would more than likely find another variety to market on Valentine’s Day.  Sometimes names do matter.

         Take the band “Nelson,” for example. I don’t have to listen to their album to know that they suck. I don’t have to know that, at one point in time, they had a number one hit that made VH1’s top 100 songs of the 90’s. Nor do I need to know that they’re the part of the only family to have three chart-toppers in three consecutive generations. All I need to know is that any group that Wikipedia claims to be a part of the hard rock genre that calls itself “Nelson” doesn’t know the first thing about the responsibilities of being a rock band or producing music that embodies the spirit of Rock n’ Roll. Gunner and Matthew Nelson sound like guys I’d hire off Craigslist if I needed a chemistry tutor. To be perfectly blunt, Nelson sounds like someone neutered the family name. Mötley Crüe, with its fake German punctuation, for example, is a band name that has balls. So does Poison and Led Zeppelin. Slash’s Snakepit qualifies, too. But I guarantee that if Eddie Van Halen’s last name were Herschfelder, he wouldn’t have used it to promote himself as a rock god.

One of these does not belong...kidding, we're pretty sure they were all in the band.

Here’s the perfect example of how some names work, and others don’t. Take a guy named Billy Dahmer. If he wanted to start a death metal group, he should use his last name. If he wanted to play the jazz flute, he should take a page from Kenny G and abbreviate with a first name, last initial sort of brevity. Sometimes, a band doesn’t even have to be any good to be memorable. All that’s needed is a good name. Take a group like the Butthole Surfers. That’s catchy. I haven’t heard their music in 15 years, but I still remember the name. Or the Dead Kennedy’s. Their music sucked worse than an Amish virgin on prom night, but nobody’s going to fucking forget a name like the Dead Kennedy’s.

Google “Nelson” and the band isn’t even the first search item to be associated with the name. Admiral Horatio Nelson comes first, and I’ll bet the farm that most people can’t name more than one fact about the man. Nor did he ever have a number one-hit. And yet he’s still more popular than the band, Nelson. The sad reality is that if you’re reading this blog, you probably can’t even remember the last time you thought of the band Nelson, or heard their music, or really even cared about them. They’re a footnote in history, a bar trivia question, and if 100 random Americans were asked to name the concert they regret not seeing most when they had a chance, not a single one would answer with Nelson. I’m sure that the Nelson twins themselves have a list of shows they’d rather be at than their own. It’s not that naming the band something else would make them suck less, or even any more famous—that’s up to fate and maybe a little more practice in the studio.  But naming a rock band Nelson and expecting any semblance of respect is like auditioning for porn packing a three-inch penis.  It’s a recipe for disaster and embarrassment that Guns and Roses never had to endure, nor did Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, because those names are significantly cooler than Nelson.

It doesn’t just apply to music either. In the business world, a woman named Jennifer is probably going to get the promotion ahead of the woman named Chastity.  In sports, take a look at some of the more successful teams and their respective names. Seattle sports teams haven’t won jack squat, but with names like the Seahawks, the Mariners, and the Supersonics, is it any surprise? The Supersonics move to Oklahoma City, change their name to the Thunder, and suddenly they’re good again. No surprise there.  The Pittsburgh Pirates haven’t been good in almost two decades, but that’s because Disney exploited pirates a few years ago and now these new-age posers in Somalia have hijacked the word. I know a pirate when I see one, and these punks are no more pirates than people who illegally upload albums on the Internet for mass download. This is an example of a name that used to be menacing and tough, but has been watered down over the years, leaving the Pirates in a twenty-year drought.  And the Cubs, c’mon, really? The Cubs? There’s a reason that they haven’t been to the World Series in forever. Nobody is intimidated by a bear cub. How could a team like the ’89 Cubs, with Greg Maddux, Ryne Sandberg, Andre Dawson, Mark Grace, Joe Girardi, Rick Sutcliffe, and Mitch Williams not win a championship? Trading Rafael Palmero may have had something to do with it, but I presuppose the team name was more to blame. Rugged, masculine names like the Yankees and the Braves have been the dominant forces in baseball over the past two decades. In the NFL, teams like the Patriots, Steelers, and Packers (tough, industrial sounding names) have fared better than the more passive-sounding Dolphins, Seahawks, and Browns. The list goes on and on.

Shakespeare made a point with his “What’s in a name?” question, but he never took the time to fully analyze it. Instead, he delved into a love story that ended with an unrealistic double-suicide involving magic potions and sleeping spells. Had he taken the time to ponder the accuracy of his pseudo-intellectual statement, he may have reconsidered his choice of words. What’s in a name means everything—had Romeo and Juliet (either one) had a different last name, they’d have ended up happily ever after instead of…dead. And if Nelson had called themselves something cool, like “8 Ball Corner Pocket” or “Wipe it on My Pant Leg,” people might actually remember them, if only for their name. Instead, Nelson and countless other bands like them will occupy the darkest purgatory in music hell—a status below “one-hit wonder.” The forgotten one-hit wonder.

Tennyson once asked if it’s better to have loved and lost, or never to have loved at all.  In Nelson’s case, despite the brief moment of success, the fact is that in 2012 nobody cares anymore. Their music has contributed nothing to the lyrical canon, and their contribution to society probably would have been far greater had they become accountants or something. Yes, it’s cool that they hit number one but if nobody remembers or cares, then what’s the point? No current bands are counting Nelson as their inspiration, and the only way a Nelson reunion tour could be any more pathetic is if Andrew Dice Clay opened for them.  The last time I heard Nelson was touring was in 2007. But more and more of these crappy bands refuse to let go of the dream. And that’s a trend that needs to end, for music’s sake. Nobody’s going to the county fair to see Gunnar and Matthew Nelson, and when you’re a former rock star who’s less of a draw than tilt-a-whirl and cotton candy, it’s time to put the guitar in the attic. It doesn’t get much worse for an aging rock star than carnivals and county fairs, except maybe a Royal Caribbean cruise or something. And I wish I were joking, but as of last year, that’s where Nelson’s remaining diehard fans can find them.

For the record, I have nothing against Nelson. I’m sure they’re great guys, and they probably get a few bucks every month from XM radio. That’s fine. My point was merely that nobody forms a rock band to become obscure, and Nelson is a pretty fucking obscure band these days. Without knowing anything about these guys, I know that they’ve got a shitty band name. Great bands never have shitty, unoriginal names, and therefore Nelson is not a great band. Great bands that have bad names change them. The Beatles realized that The Quarrymen didn’t work. It rolls off the tongue as a little effeminate, the kind of band that a group of amateurs may form to perform Christmas tunes at the mall during the holidays.  Look what happened when they changed their name, from The Quarrymen to Johnny and the Moondogs to the Silver Beatles to their final, classic, incarnation.  They blew up. If only someone had advised Nelson while there was still hope.

When two or more family members decide to form a band, it’s really only cool if it involves the Gallaghers, the Jackson 5, the Bee Gees, and members of Robert Randolph’s family. The next time you’re undecided if you want to buy an album, go with your gut and judge the book by its cover. I feel for the poor shmucks who shelled out cash money because of the temporary popularity of one or two singles back in the early 90s.  Nelson is simply not the kind of surname that warrants eponymous self-glorification, particularly in the rock genre.

Then again, neither is Hanson, but I digress…

{ 0 comments }

The Thing About Downloading Music

by Tammany Hall Collective on January 5, 2012

by Manning Roberts

         Say what you will about the illegal downloading of music.  I work with, and am close friends with, several musicians.  I understand that it is now more difficult to make a living making music because of the simple fact that it is so easy to download torrents for free from any number of places on the Internet.  Then again, I also understand that this same atmosphere of music sharing has made it exponentially easier for an unknown musician to place his or her music into the atmosphere, where potential listeners can more easily check out something new because the risk of not liking some new musician is nullified – the cost of checking out this new song or album is zero.  The only cost is just the short time it takes to complete a download.  I’m not about to argue here that illegal downloading is wrong or right, that it benefits music itself or hinders it.  All I want to say here is that the torrent world has definitely affected my listening habits.

         I hate to say it, but for some time now I have suspected that my entrance into the torrent culture of music has, in a way, diminished my love for music.  To clarify, it has not diminished my love for music in general; however, it has definitely altered the way that I appreciate each album that I acquire.  It is so easy to get an album now, and so many at a time, that I find it harder to really give an album its due, to spend time listening to it and appreciating it before moving onto the next one.

When I was younger, I remember buying a new CD, and listening to it over and over again along the course of the day, the next day, the next week.  I had to spend money on it, and because I did not have very much money, I really had to give each album a chance.  If, in the end, I didn’t like it, I had to reach that conclusion after several listens – after all, I just spent like thirteen bucks on the thing!  On the flipside, I remember finding some albums that I loved, albums that I can still recall each note, even the sequence of songs, because I played it over and over and over again.

When I first discovered Outkast and bought a copy of ATLiens, I listened to that CD basically on repeat.  I fell in love with it, and then fell in love with their others, and to this day I know that album so well that in a very real way it feels like home listening to it.  Then there was “Core” by Stone Temple Pilots, “Sailing the Seas of Cheese” by Primus, “Vulgar Display of Power” by Pantera, and, of course, “OK Computer” by Radiohead.  At any given time, one of these CDs would be with me everywhere I went, and because a teenager could only carry so many CDs on his person at once, they were all I had to listen to, and each time I was excited to play it again.  When I found a new album that I really liked, I would listen to it ad naseum, first because that’s what happens when you love a song or a record, but second because I could not immediately go out and buy a bunch of new ones.

How could there be anything sinister about this little guy?

With the world of torrents, I can download thirty albums in a week – maybe I don’t, but then maybe some weeks I will, the potential is there.  At first, it was a way to preview an album before going out and buying it.  It still is, more or less.  Before I knew it, I had so many new albums in a given month, I would find that often times I wouldn’t be able to remember all the new artists or albums that had found their way to my iPod.  Many of them were forgotten.  It’s harder to really fall in love with an album because no matter how much I love the first or second run through, there’s always another one just a click away.  As I write this, I don’t know how many albums are in my library that I have listened to once, and really liked, but haven’t listened to again because each time that I’m ready to go back to it, I remember that there’s a brand new one on queue.

If I download an album and like it, I still go out and buy a physical copy of it because there’s just something about being able to actually hold the album in your hands.  Even then, they get pushed to the back pretty quickly because there’s so much to discover out there, and only so many hours in the day.  I have to say, I kind of miss finding a record and really falling in love with it.  That’s not to say that I haven’t fallen in love with anything new since entering the world of the download, on the contrary I’ve found many, but it’s been a very, very long time since I spent so much time with an album that it started to feel like home.  I kind of miss that.  It’s like really loving and appreciating good food, but suddenly you have every dish under the sun on your table, all at once, all the time – it’s a little hard to sit there and savor each flavor when there are so many more right at your fingertips.

 

Thoughts?

Photo Credit

{ 0 comments }

by Soren Kobol

Everyone loves a soundtrack – it’s why music plays in the background to set or enhance the mood during television shows and movies.  Watching a character on screen cry while a string quartet swells in the background helps us to really grasp the gravity of a tragedy.  Hearing really fast slap bass and lots of horns or a Waylon Jennings song during a car chase helps us to realize that we should really be watching a different movie.  Who hasn’t wished, at one time or another, that you had a song playing in the background of your life?  If you just thought “me, I haven’t,” you’re lying (you scoundrel).  Everyone wants entrance music, it’s why baseball players walk up to the plate to a song of their choosing, and why basketball teams get introduced while an Alan Parsons Project song pumps over the PA (admit it, it was kind of cool when the Bulls did that in the Jordan/Pippen years).

Some songs scream intro music – or at least music that would be a fantastic soundtrack for the events of our lives.  One of the songs, hands down, is “The Final Countdown” by Europe.  Yes, you read that correctly.  I won’t discuss the song itself here, plenty of people have already talked about it and dissected it – what could be the cheesiest synth line of all time (which is also the quintessential synth riff of the 80s), the choogling hair metal guitars and the template guitar solo, the lyrics about going to Venus somehow for some reason (so many light-years to go? Where exactly are they leaving from?) sung by the typical over the top hair metal singer yelping.  Also, Europe somehow managed to write a song in which you can actually hear the fog machine through the speakers.  And the cover art from that album was priceless.  It’s meant to played loud, at occasions that make it ludicrously/awesomely tragic, and with a fog machine (really just like that scene of Gob doing his magic show in Arrested Development).

So without further banter, here are ten occasions during which I think a backing soundtrack of “The Final Countdown,” loud, with fog machine (never optional) should – nay, must be played.

10.  Each Presidential inauguration.  That’ll get the people interested in politics again, especially if the President has to follow the making of the oath with the wrestling of a bear.

Helloooooo Mr. President!

9.  Graduation from any graduate school.  No one will ever take a doctor or a lawyer seriously if they have to get their diploma by running through fog and jumping through a ring of fire.  Then having to have to climb a rope to the top of the arena to grab that glorious piece of paper.  Then sliding triumphantly down the rope with the diploma in their mouth, one fist raised.   “Ooooooooooohhhhhh oh ho ho.”

8.  Immediately preceding wedding night coitus.  I know that no one really waits anymore, but it would still be pretty funny.  The best man should have to walk behind the newlyweds holding a boom box over his head.  The maid of honor will walk beside him pushing a fog machine on a cart.  Also, include a dragon(s) wherever possible.

7.  This one isn’t a real life situation, but it still belongs on this list – during the opening sequence of Walker, Texas Ranger.  I just want to see whether or not the fabric of space and time would tear.

6.  The final five minutes and nine seconds of any final exam.  Do your homework.

5.  Immediately preceding any NASA launch in lieu of an actual countdown.  Obviously.

4.  On the playground before any grade school fight.  After school, by the bike racks.

3.  Before being put under anesthesia at the dentist’s office or before minor surgery.  How disconcerting would that be?

2.  The finals of the Scripps National Spelling Bee – maybe just snippets of the synth riff and the chorus as each kid walks up to the microphone.

1.  During weddings, but let’s be clear: DURING THE CEREMONY.  The reception won’t cut it.  Maybe it could be when the wedding party walks two by two down the aisle.  Of course, it would also be perfect for the bride to walk down the aisle, but in that case, it really shouldn’t be her father walking her down the aisle.  It should be a tiger.  Or a dragon.  Pops will understand.

Or in a pinch, some cheetahs would suffice.

(photo credit: bear; cheetahs)

{ 0 comments }

So What the Hell is Indie Anyway?

by Tammany Hall Collective on September 12, 2011

by Manning Roberts

Admittedly, I listen to a lot of bands that release albums on indie record labels.  But what the hell does indie mean anyway?  There are blogs all over the internet devoted to indie music, on top of music magazines and other cultural outlets that basically make up the tastemakers of the world.  Is it descriptive of the sound?  Does it just mean an artist not signed to EMI or Sony records or Jive or Geffen?  With how labels are just part of an umbrella group owned by a larger company, does the term “Major Label” even mean the same thing anymore?  Or is it that “indie” just refers to a subculture, with all the attitudes, styles of dress, an affinity for vinyl records (but not necessarily record players to play them), and just really random kitchy knick knacks that seem to pop up more and more near the checkouts and indie (there’s that word again) record stores.  Though, I must admit, some of the kitchy knick-knacks are kind of cool – I may have bought a random rubber ducky wearing a yarmulke or a kippa and a cork screw shaped like a penguin, but to be fair, I just really like penguins and I did manage to not buy the spatula shaped like a guitar or the ice cube tray that makes ice cubes in the shape of the Yellow Submarine.

Indie must mean something – after all, we would never mistake Katy Perry for Katie Stelmanis or Stephen Malkmus for one of those guys in Fall Out Boy (by the way, do they still even exist?  Maybe I shouldn’t have brought it up, they might read this and remember they were in a band once and release something else).  There are plenty of bands and artists that you won’t find at Best Buy or Target who nonetheless have very substantial followings.  It seems that “indie” has become what “jamband” meant five years ago or so.  In the late 90’s and early 2000’s it seemed that any band that played songs that lasted over six minutes or played instrumentals with a tinge of a funk or world-beat groove was slapped with the label “jamband.”  Really though, could you really consider Medeski, Martin and Wood to be playing in the same genre as Phish or Widespread Panic?  Moe. wasn’t too dissimilar from String Cheese Incident, and String Cheese Incident wasn’t too dissimilar from Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, but there’s a definite stylistic disconnect from point A to point B there.  But then, they all tended to play the same festivals, and fans of one tended to be fans of the other.  So it is with “indie” now.  James Blake is of a completely different spectrum than John Darnielle and the Mountain Goats, but fans of one seem to often be fans of the other (feel free to plug in other bands).  Maybe it’s because both have albums that Pitchfork called one of the year’s best.

So it seems that maybe it really is just a product of a more general subculture, or of a scene.  I suppose there’s nothing inherently wrong with that but it can get confusing.  How many of you reading this article have stared blankly at your computer screen trying to figure out what to put in the “genre” blank on your iTunes?  The problem that I see is that more and more music lovers spend more and more time focusing on what genre a particular artist falls in to.  There are some distinct differences sure, we know punk rock when we hear Descendents or Government Issue, we know Talib Kweli is a hip-hop artist and that Strapping Young Lad plays metal (we won’t get into the gazillion subgenres of metal here, that’s a whole ‘nother pot of fun).  But is there ever really a need to argue that James Blake isn’t really dubstep, or that you can’t really call the Arcade Fire “indie” anymore because they won a Grammy?

If this were really a Scottish bagpipe band, there would clearly be a 6:1 bagpipe to drum ratio.

It becomes a problem when we get into the “poseur dilemma.”  Did you like the band before their breakthrough?  No, well then you suck.  What?  Look we’re all a little guilty of this from time to time, and no one likes a bandwagon jumper, whether it be in music or in sports, but creating this sort of automatic disqualifier is pointless and not all that fair.  Have you ever heard people arguing over what qualifies as “real” hip-hop or “real” punk rock?  Don’t lie, of course you have.  You probably walked away, unless you had been drinking, and then against your better judgment you jumped in to argue that Evanescence is a metal band (God I hope you didn’t actually do that).  But really, we don’t gain anything arguing over who is really “indie” and who isn’t, especially when it doesn’t seems all that clear what “indie” means.  Sure, someone signed to Matador or Sub Pop will probably be labeled “indie.”  But both of those labels are pretty big now, or at least very well known.  There are oodles of little punk labels out there that seem to fit the definition of “indie” more that Matador or Sub Pop.  But then, in the punk world we tend to call it DIY.

What it boils down to is this: we love music, and it’s fantastic that there are so many devoted fans out there how take their passion so seriously.  But in the end, it’s music, and it’s subjective, and it ruins the fun when everybody gets so damn serious about it.  Can we really sum up an album by giving it four stars out of five, or an eight on a scale of one to ten?  Not really.  I think we’re starting to take things too seriously, and I’d hate to think that anyone might miss out on a band they might otherwise really love if it wasn’t for the fact that some magazine only gave them two stars, one reviewer really didn’t like the record, or because everybody else seems to classify them as a type of music that just doesn’t fit with the rest of their “musical identity.”  In the end, having a “musical identity” in the first place is a manifestation of the basic evil of having a closed mind.

Thoughts?

(photo credit)

{ 1 comment }