Flashforward: Return of the '70s!

In another one of my highly incisive, ultimately pitiable attempts to bridge the greatest era of rock music with todays scene, I am here going to try to reconstruct the 1970's using groups formed over the past decade(ish). Yes, the past does have a way of repeating itself, as I hope this little diversion will show.


Janis Joplin & Amy Winehouse

Turbulence. Soul. Stimulants and abuse. Those are a few of these ladies favorite things. And though Joss Stone may want to claim the throne of the fallen psychedelic soul diva, she hasn't ingested the necessary dosage of MDMA to be considered heir to the Pearl Queen's throne.



Electric Light Orchestra & The Flaming Lips

Always ones for a big show, epic orchestration and off-kilter lyrics, ELO and The Flaming Lips share a passion for space oddity. With just the right mixture of synthetic nonsense, mischievous guitar riffery, and upbeat sing-song lyrics (samples 1 & 2), both of these lighthearted troublemakers have found hold in some of rock's more experimental pop niches.



The Band & Wilco

Sometimes it's the simple things we need to appreciate the most. Both of these harworking bands-made-good share a love for updating that tried and true Americana sound through their own unique voices. I can't hold it against The Band for their Canadian roots, as their internalization of American folk and soul produced some of the most recognizable classics from the late 60's and 70's. And Wilco can't get any more American, hailing from the 'nois, with records built to examine their own nearly Mid-western psyches.



Pink Floyd & Radiohead

It's tough enough to stay on the charts for over ten years, let alone doing it with progressive, weird-as-fuck music. That sort of feat takes a rare breed of creativity that leave even the doldrums of pop clamoring for another innovation. Both Yorke & Waters were known in their own right for lyrics that questioned the social climate and probed the empty spaces left by mainstream culture.



Cream & The Black Keys

It's all about dirty, straightforward blues. It's in the idea that simplicity, big hooks and heavy rhythms can produce something groundbreaking. The Black Keys tip their hand of influences with a tribute to bluesman Junior Kimbraugh with Chulahoma: The Songs of Junior Kimbraugh. Similarly, Eric Clapton and his Cream penned spades of blues standards throughout their 3 year stint- indulging in everything from Robert Johnson to T. Bone Walker.



Bob Dylan & The Roots

Both Bobby and boys from Illadelph have a knack for diagnosing the ailments of their day in song. They both are known for busting out a medical kit of supplies including scalpel, guitar, gauze, and a list of demands- all aimed at undermining social order and hierarchy in the search for a more perfect voice of the people.



Led Zeppelin & The White Stripes

Generally speaking, I consider comparisons to Led Zeppelin to be blasphemous at worst and highly suspect at best. But for the past 10 years, Jack White and his "sister" Meg have been churning out gnarled black-and-blue garage rock, folk balladry and blues send-ups that echo only one predecessor. They have the same reverence for the black American songbook, the same criminal instincts for plundering that songbook, and the same ability to stay on the charts while staying honest in their pursuit of musical purity. I once heard Robert Plant say that Led Zeppelin was successful because they were able to distill all the best of what had come before them and make it their own- that mantle has passed on to the next forward thinking traditionalists, The White Stripes.

Van Gogh & Yorke...Separated at Birth?

Silly geniuses with their weird haircuts and manic eyes... just wait a couple years and Thom will be missing an ear. Granted these dudes were born more than a hundred years apart, 115 years to be exact, but these brothers-in-art share the same wildness that often inspires groundbreaking, out-of-the-box creativity.

Both Thom and Vince (as he will henceforth be known) are well known for their ability to conjure abstract expressions of the world around them from unique, albeit disturbed perspectives. Van Gogh wore his crazies right out on his sleeve- be it the bloodletting, ear gouging moments, or twisted works like Skull with Cigarette. Yorke's eccentricities, though subtle in nature, still scare the living hell out of you once you wrap your head around them. Take for instance his spine-tingling, deranged falsetto that sounds like frostbitten wind whipping through a desolate house. Or take the surrealism of "Jigsaw Fall Into Place":

The walls abandon shape
You've got a Cheshire cat grin
All blurring into one
This place is on a mission
Before the night owl
Before the animal noises
Closed circuit cameras
Before you're comatose

Yeah, not exactly "Love Me Do". This is the kind of stuff I'd imagine Dali painting after a long night of LSD.

But beyond the weird, there is at the heart of both these artists something that connects with us lowly, less deranged humans. There is this looming feeling that everything isn't in it's right place- that at our core there is something very fucked up in each and every one of us. Warm, isn't it? But that's the whole point- life can be a strange fate. It reminds us that for every Mick Jagger and Tila Tequila out there smiling for the camera, somewhere out there is a tortured artist tucked away in his room, pouring out less-than-pretty stories that we so often call life.

Futurology and the Music Machine

As daunting a task as it might be, I'm going to try to sketch out where the music industry is going to be forced to move over the next five years or so. At this point it's kind of redundant to say it's going to be 'online', so what shape will it take online? As information online multiplies like jackrabbits on speed, people are going to want their information customized and centralized. The rise of home pages like Google's iGoogle gives a hint of what the future of music might look like. Cooperative, customizable, and compilation-driven sites featuring streaming audio, video and news items will overtake storefront proprietors like iTunes and magazine sites like Spin.

Now onto the fun part- content. As best I can tell, a good one-stop-shop music homepage would utilize something like what Pandora currently does with it's stations, providing relevant information based on past clicked information and purchases. The compilation site will automatically feed in videos from sites like Youtube and songs from Imeem based on user access and interests, as well as automatically update information based on an RSS feed system taken from users desired sites. Instead of surfing through the entirety of the internet for relevant music and news, that information will be delivered daily to the users homepage. This homepage would include literally anything you point to online. There would be a customized digg feeds section, an AOL Music Sessions section, announcements/pics/vid from your favorite band, the list goes on.

Additionally, the homepage will have a ubiquitous presence online. Love David Fricke but hate Peter Travers? No problem. You can designate favorite writer's pages and blogs right on their page- much in the way digg and Stumble Upon are linkable right now. Your homepage will serve as a broad base of information culled from an unlimited number of places you specifically choose, blended in seamlessly with suggestions.

How about them cash-dolla-bills, y'all? Well, probably the most effective way to make money on a homepage site dedicated to customized information would be to provide advertisements also based on customized information, something like Google's AdSense program. Not only will users be able to purchase any and all video and music featured on your homepage, but all advertisements will come from places like LiveNation, Wolfgang's Vault, as well as major and indie labels that are compatible with user tastes.

Music Licensing: Good or Evil?

The question of music licensing, albeit a new one, brings us back to the age old problem of defining the term 'sell-out'. The obvious knee-jerk protest most of us hardcore fans put up against licensing is pretty understandable, if a little immature. Songs hold meaning for us, we cherish the totality of the artists work, not just a 30 second derivation of some poppier element. There is this sneaking suspicion among music lovers that with song licensing, somehow 'The Man' has infiltrated that sacred realm of fanhood, stolen away a sort of proprietary hold we have over our beloved artists.

As easy (and tempting) as it would be to go right along and put down song licensing altogether, it might be best to step back and look at the big picture to get some clarity. Why do the artists make the music they do? If it's to create a cult following of hardcore, die hard supporters that will be there through thick and thin, licensing probably won't appeal to the artists to begin with. But rather if their aim is to get their music out there and be heard regardless of who hears it, licensing may be a rather non-offensive route to achieve that goal.

Although I'm not into making arguments as to which approach is better, I will say that the latter is in need of at least some defense. As nice as it might be to have a great group of fans to support an artist, we often run the risk of the sort of elitism associated with such proprietary notions. Rather, I would say that the latter approach could even be considered more democratic in nature, giving the music to anyone that would listen instead of tucking it away for fans vetted for dedication.

Now to the bigger question of how this reflects back on the band, and what really constitutes a 'sell-out'. I'm not going to pretend I own the definition of sell-out, but I would suggest that selling out is when you change your music to fit demands that are not genuinely within the musical interests of the band members themselves. Whether that demand is a monetary one, fan demands, or a recent trend, dishonest change constitutes the purist form of self-adulteration.

So how does this tie back in to licensing? Aren't these guys all just trying to cash in on contracts that have nothing to do with the music, but are all about making a quick buck? Well, if you talk to any artist who makes sacrifices so their art can be broadcast out to the people, the quick buck isn't the only, or even the biggest force driving music licensing. To be frank, yes record companies, licensing companies, and bands do make a buck or two from licensing. But if the band manages to find root with a broader fan base, that helps everyone.

It certainly benefits the big bad record company making fat on the backs of it's artists, but the band may get a better contract or a bigger billing at a venue near you or more studio time for their next record. All of this exposure can translate into artistic freedom for the artist, freedom that can only serve to bolster the creativity they have.

So the next time you cringe at a Wilco song in a commercial for the new Jetta, or feel like disowning Grace Potter & The Nocturnals for that spot on Grey's Anatomy, just remember for every whine you cry out, a new fan is born.