soundtrack to my life, Vol. VII

Revolution - "The Beatles"

Beatles vs. Stones. The perennial question: who was better?

Both great bands. But the Beatles were better. Much better. Not only that, they were tougher. Most Stones fans labor under the delusion that the lore surrounding the Stones, the wild stories and stage antics, make them the more badass band.

To those people: have you not heard John Lennon scream before?

John Lennon screamed loud. He screamed like he meant it. Listen to the desperate urgency in each "all right!" during the outro of "Revolution". And the scream over the intro riff at the beginning...good god! (NOTE: there is some question as to whether Paul actually did the intro scream, since he performed it live. No matter...he screamed better than any Stone as well). Mick did not and could not have screamed like that. So, even though the Beatles were much poppier than the Stones, even though they never penned a tune that captured the sexual energy of a generation as well "Satisfaction", they had more balls.

So clearly is this the case that I'm overlooking the political overtones of one of the greatest wartime songs ever written, a scorching distorted guitar intro that could probably melt steel, and an unforgettable chorus, to focus merely on the screams of the lead singer. This certainly isn't the sole reason I prefer the Beatles to the Stones. I could list 100 reasons, but so much has been said about the Beatles already, as a musical group and cultural phenomenon. What can one say that hasn't already been said? The lore surrounding the fab four has become almost apocryphal, elevating them to iconic status. Their greatness, at this point, is all but assumed, accepted as a nearly incontrovertible fact. They have become the face of rock n' roll, the yardstick against which all other bands are measured. Their sheer ubiquitousness makes them annoying to some people.

And, somehow, to me, it's still difficult to overstate the importance of the Beatles. They really were that good.

unexplained malaise - soundtrack to my life, Vol VI

"Leave the Thinking to the Smart People" - MTX

Some days just don't feel right. Something is off, slightly askew...but for no apparent reason. There's not really any point in bitching about it, because you don't even know what - if anything - is wrong. The best thing to do is just ignore it.

There's something to be said for calculated ignorance. Say what you will about denial and self-deception; they work. Don't look beyond the surface-level, don't read between the lines, don't deconstruct or over-analyze (remember, you can't spell analyze without "anal"). When someone asks you how you are, just say "fine" and be on with your day. Do you truly believe that he/she could handle it if you were entirely forthcoming?

"How are ya?"
"Kinda tired, overanxious, and slightly horny."
"Uhh..."

Seriously. Did you really think it was better to be honest? Not if you want to keep your friends and acquaintenances. Shut up before someone hears what you actually think. You'll do less damage that way.

Keep your feelings deep inside you
so they'll always be around
but keep your comments to a minimum--
the more you say, the worse you sound

Leave the thinking to the smart people
you know you'd only do it wrong

looking the part

Beatles producer George Martin once lamented, "Songs aren't as interesting these days because most young people listen with their eyes and not their ears."

Of the countless reviews of both our live shows and CDs/records, most are very good. The negative ones invariably focus on how we look. Blah blah overly casual blah blah shorts on stage (it was like 100+ degrees, you prick) blah blah preppy lead singer blah blah plain and ordinary blah well-behaved blah blah too clean cut. If the Hat has any one "problem" that recurs, it's our image. We don't have one. We don't look like a band. We don't look like anything. We rock (arguably), but we aren't rock stars. At the same time, we're not quite dorky enough to pull off the rock god/rock geek image a la Cheap Trick and Weezer. We're simply not visually memorable (especially since we ditched that tired matching bowling shirt schtick). We just play our songs.

An excellent example of how this confuses people can be seen in a review of our CMW appearance here. With predetermined categories for analysis like "haircut", "nods to disposable fashion", and "indie rock footwear", it's no wonder Hannah was perplexed. Her comments are somewhat amusing and more or less accurate/fair - we don't look particularly badass. She was clearly more concerned with image than any other aspect of the band. She spent more time talking about Mike's puka-shell necklace (which is admittedly pretty lame) and our need to be "dirtied up" than about the music itself. We even scored pitifully low in "cool equipment", which is just dumb, since most bands at CMW aren't even playing their own gear. However, one key observation she makes - and what has always confused our detractors - is that our songs say "Let's rock and fucking roll!", but our look (as well as my self-referential lyrical schtick) says something more like, "We're Ruth's Hat and we're not going to hurt you."

People like to make big sweeping statements like, "it's all about the music", but it isn't, and everyone fucking knows it. Rock and roll is about style. And I don't just mean the mainstream bullshit that everyone with a modicum of taste hates categorically. Everyone KNOWS that Britney Spears is a ridiculous, manufactured entity, that her off-key caterwauling is just the soundtrack to her T & A. No, I'm talking about specific scenes, plenty of which ooze street cred. Do you really think any self-respecting neo-Ramones wannabe band would be seen in public without leather jackets and Chucks? To play dirty rock n' roll, you don't have to be dirty at all. You do, however, have to look dirty. Never mind that this sneering, faux atittude often borders on self-parody; it will almost always win you more fans than good songs.

Like Mr. Martin, I like the sound of rock n' roll. The Beatles certainly didn't look all that dangerous when they came to the States in the early 60s, but if you can't see past the silly shirt-and-tie merseybeat outfits and hear the rebellious, primal energy in John Lennon's voice, then you're not listening very hard. Early Beatles albums are often written off as silly pop and take a back seat to their trippier late 60s material. This is not to disparage the latter ("Abbey Road" is a fantastic album), but the Beatles in Hamburg circa 1961, playing sweaty rock n' roll all night, are the Beatles that I like best. They weren't yet big enough to have an overblown calculated image; they just happened to be the best goddamn band in Liverpool.

Early Beatles are an exception to an unfortunate rule: a band simply must look the part to be taken seriously. Hell, it's not as if I'm impervious to these things; image affects our opinion of everything. I guess I resent it...for obvious reasons. Typically, my only consideration in terms of fashion is deciding which plain black t-shirt to wear onstage.

Right about now, someone is probably noting that I myself am full of shit, that not having a style is, in fact, my style. And he/she wouldn't be entirely wrong. It's all about me, one way or another. People use music to create and understand their identities, and my identity is basically rooted in my refusal to assume and embrace an identity. As such, my rants are more about me than the "issues" they deconstruct or attack. In the words of Chuck Klosterman, "All criticism is really just veiled autobiography."

furthermore...

I am compelled to expand a bit on my previous blog entry, lest I be construed as some grumpy, aging misanthrope.

I still wholeheartedly support the democratizing potential of punk rock. I still believe most of what I wrote here (even though I sound like a bit of a pretentious turd in this old article). The earliest phases of rock n' roll are the most real, when the band isn't yet hindered by scene politics or their own popularity. I still believe that a concerted effort to create a particular kind of music tends to kill the original inspiration. It all makes me sound like some kind of free jazz junkie, but this is far from the case. The raw and primitive brilliance of bands The Sonics and The Ramones - free of pretense of full of spontaneous passion - epitomize the unique power of rock n' roll, but Ornette Coleman just comes off as an academic deconstruction of music itself, a contrived attempt at "anti-music" more in line with the atonal noise of Half Japanese.

So, go start your own band. Anyone can do it. That's the beauty of punk rock.

That said, please don't send your demo to me.

scenes and scenesters

Our band grew out of the punk scene, but we don't really play punk rock. We sure as hell aren't punks. Punk was music to me. I didn't care at all about the scene, and I didn't retreat there to escape an intolerant society. I loved the devil-may-care spirit and rough-around-the-edges qualities of the music, and was drawn to the DIY ethos of it all. However, I always thought the nihilism and accompanying style were basically...silly. Ridiculous, even. Finding solidarity with other like-minded misfits is great, but I was never THAT much of a social maverick. In some ways I was, but I didn't really want to be.

Punk rock, at its core, seems to be grounded in the ideal that making music should never be left to the professionals. For me, that was it. Punk wasn't a way of life, and I didn't care about sticking it to the establishment (although that can be pretty rewarding at times). I never kept it real, and I have no intention of ever doing so.

I don't mean to take issue with punk rock specifically; it's just an example. I just really despise the idea of "scenes" in general. It's all very high school, and though many are formed in opposition to a herd mentality, most embody it. The problem isn't that people in scenes are full of shit. The problem is that everyone everywhere is full of shit, and a scene is a way for some people to pretend that they're not. Don't delude yourself into thinking that those who comprise your little counterculture are any more real or substantial than those who make up mainstream society. Scenes are just like any other group of people: a few winners, a whole lotta losers.

I only bring this up because, as a music fan, it bugs me when people go looking for a scene to join, rather than for bands to like. Some scenes are incidental, and come together entirely by accident, but they still tend to adopt a sameness that eventually becomes dullness. The inbred little cliques that form around music always end up killing it. Communities and scenes, however well-meaning, create expectations. Within any scene, the bands are usually joined by some musical similarity. Inevitably, unwritten rules begin to guide the songwriting. Those in the scene - however tacitly - become reluctant to venture outside the sonic niche. Once a scene establishes a "sound", people start consciously trying to emulate it, and then the whole thing goes belly up.

I music when it's a happy accident. Communities, as warm and fuzzy as they might make us feel, tend to ruin that. As a random assemblage of people becomes a "community", others start forming crappy generic bands just to be a part of it.

The only thing worse than a mindless conformist is a contrived nonconformist. Most people would like to believe that they walk to the beat of their own drums, but really, they just follow different sets of rules.