17 December 2007

Macca lekka hi!


I used to think Paul McCartney was rapidly becoming irrelevant. A legend, sure, but the old "what've you done for me lately..." syndrome was creeping in. Then I read this article....

From
December 14, 2007

Paul McCartney's other break-up

He's become an OAP, he's divorcing Heather and he has severed his ties to EMI. But Paul McCartney remains upbeat and busy

A prurient inquiry springs to mind at this point. You wonder if Heather was there, singing along with the Maccas, all the better to imagine the atmosphere on that mildly mythical morning. But you weigh up the risks of upsetting a Beatle and you let it pass.

By the time he reached a pensionable 65 this year, he had turned into another one of his songs – he was here, there and everywhere. No doubt, some of the attention was unwelcome. When redtop headlines weren’t trumpeting the latest instalment of his divorce they were shining a light on his ensuing liaisons – a weekend apparently spent with the Hamptons socialite Nancy Shevell, and his current relationship with Rosanna Arquette. But even setting that aside, it was a period of activity unseen since the days when he had three other Beatles beside him to share the burden.

In June he formally severed his 45-year relationship with EMI by releasing his 14th solo album, Memory Almost Full, not with a conventional record label but with Starbucks’ music division Hear Music. Along the way, there were British and American gigs of hysteria-inducing intimacy and even a measure of acceptance for his classical work – his memorial piece to Linda McCartney, Ecce Cor Meum, earned him a Classical Brit.

During a 50-minute conversation, there is one word he uses more than any other. If, as GQ recently declared, Paul McCartney is the Man of the Year, then “exciting” was his word of the year. And if something wasn’t exciting, Macca didn’t want to know about it.

It seems that excitement – or rather the lack of it – struck the death knell for what was already becoming a strained relationship with his old label. “Everybody at EMI had become a part of the furniture. I’d be a couch; Coldplay are an armchair. And Robbie Williams, I dread to think what he was,” he begins. “But the most important thing was, I’d felt [the people at EMI] had become really very boring, y’know? And I dreaded going to see them.”

Boring in what way? “Well, because I could guess what they were going to say – ‘Love your record, Paul’ – and I’d say: ‘Well, what should we do with it?’ Then they’d go: ‘Well, we think you ought to go to Cologne’, which is what they always say.

“This idea became symbolic of the treadmill, you know? You go somewhere, speak to a million journalists for one day, and you get all the same questions. It’s mind-numbing. So I started saying: ‘God, we’ve got to do something else’.”

Had his American producer David Kahne not been on hand to hear these grievances then McCartney may never have got as far as working out what that “something else” was. Unluckily for EMI though, Kahne had friends at Hear Music. By the time McCartney got around to telling EMI the bad news, the deal was as good as done. Someone at the coffee chain told him that 400 Starbucks in China would be stocking the CD. He liked the idea almost as much as the fact that no one had mentioned Cologne.

The clincher, though, was the meeting he had with Starbucks executives, in which Memory Almost Full was played back in its entirety. “You Tell Me came on and one of the team started crying. It was weird. I thought, ‘Oh, this is real feedback.”

Not much crying at EMI then, lately? “Well, there is, but for other reasons,” McCartney says. It might be argued that, for an industry monolith such as EMI – now owned by a private equity firm, Terra Firma – losing Paul McCartney in one year is unlucky. That the label went on to lose Radiohead because, in the words of the guitarist Ed O’Brien, “Terra Firma doesn’t understand the music industry” – starts to look like recklessness. Thom Yorke may bristle at the idea of jumping ship to Starbucks, but one thing he and McCartney have in common is their enthusiasm for new, faster ways of putting out music.

Actually, they’re strangely reminiscent of the old ways. McCartney was one of millions who downloaded Radiohead’sIn Rainbows, paying “something reasonable”, on the week it appeared. “This was how we used to operate,” he enthuses. “I remember John [Lennon], for instance, writing Instant Karma and demanding it was released the following week.”

It wasn’t the case with EMI. “I’d started saying to them: ‘Look, we could write a thing and have it released the next week.’ And they would say: ‘You can’t do that these days.’ So I would say: ‘Well, how much time do you need?’ And they’d say six months. I said: ‘Why do you need that long?’ And do you know what they said? ‘To figure out how to market it.’ I said: ‘Wait a minute, are you sure you need six months for that? Couldn’t some bright people do that in two days?’ Jesus Christ. I said: ‘Look boys, I’m sorry, I’m digging a new furrow.”

And a fertile one at that. This year he bought the domain name www.meyesight. com (a pun on MySpace but pronounced so that it rhymes with “eyesight”) as a platform for his poems, paintings and demos. Far from making him retreat behind locked doors, the fallout from his divorce from Heather has thrown him not just into work but into a whirl of social engagements. At the Q Awards in September he got talking to Damon Albarn and congratulated him on the success of his Africa Express “super-jam” at Glastonbury.

“He asked me to take part in it, actually. I couldn’t do it because of my personal difficulties. I was looking after my daughter and I couldn’t really schlep her down and do that. But I think they’re gonna do another one, so I might get involved next year.”

The way his 2008 is shaping up, McCartney might find it no less of a struggle to fit in the next one. In February he picks up an award for Outstanding Contribution to Music at the Brits. Between then and his Anfield stadium show in the summer, he goes into the studio to assist on an album of songs by his famously shy son, James.

Also nearing completion are a guitar concerto and a new album under his nom de plume The Fireman. While he’s under no illusions about the place these projects will have in the mainstream, you suspect that much of his current swagger stems from the reception accorded to Memory Almost Full. It’s a record on which the Linda years seemed to loom large – not just on Wings-style rockers such as Only Mama Knows andNod Your Head, but across a succession of confessional, contemplative songs. Writing about his happiest years as though part of some increasingly intangible dream,You Tell Me, That Was Me and The End of the End numbered among his most affecting tunes for years.

That McCartney takes as much inspiration from Wings these days as he does from the Beatles, is probably no accident. The Beatles don’t need anyone to stick up for them. But the same can’t be said of the band formed by Paul and Linda in the hangover of the decade that the Beatles helped to define. When talk turns to the subject of Wings, McCartney relays a favourite story about Bruce Springsteen. “We were at the Rock ’n’ Roll Hall of Fame and we got talking. He said: ‘You know what? I like Silly Love Songs. I really didn’t get it at first, but now I’ve got a wife and kids I get what you meant’.”

It isn’t difficult to work out the subtext of this story. Having spent the Sixties as you would expect a Beatle to spend the Sixties – seeing Jane Asher, getting high with his arty mates at the Indica Gallery, being a Beatle – he changed with the new decade.

And many of his contemporaries resented him for it, little realising that the changes he underwent would befall them too. Family. Kids. Mellow times. “Some people wanna fill the world with silly love songs/And what’s wrong with that?”

Does he ever get bored of being portrayed as easygoing, thumbs-aloft Macca? I suggest that his glass-half-full persona must have been manufactured as a method for coping with his extraordinary fame. He bristles slightly at the word “manufactured”. In fact, he says, it was probably a mechanism that activated itself during an adolescence overshadowed by the death of his mother. “If you knew anyone I went to school with, it was the same, you know. I was pretty optimistic.”

Besides, even happy songs have a way of turning sad as the years go by. Penny Lane pauses the videotape of memory on a moment to which its author knows he can never return. Even When I’m 64 carries a poignancy that he couldn’t have foreseen when he wrote it. “You know, I think you’re getting to the philosophical core of things when you say that. Things that are happy also contain the seed of sadness.”

By way of illustration, he pretends to be a brass band playing I Do Like to be Beside the Seaside. Images of Victorian ghosts in stripy bathing costumes suddenly abound. “See what I mean? One day, when we discover the meaning of life, that will somehow be contained within it – that happy is sad and sad is happy.”

At the risk of sounding like an enterprising Starbucks executive with a chopped onion secreted in his handkerchief, I tell Paul that the home movies on The McCartney Years – a new DVD anthology spanning his work with and beyond Wings – movingly underscores the point. Particularly affecting is the footage of the McCartneys revelling in anonymity at their Scottish farm retreat. It must have been incredible to raise children who had yet to rumble who exactly their dad was.

“Exactly,” he says. “There was one moment where they were riding their little ponies in Scotland, and Stella said to me: ‘Dad! You’re Paul McCartney, aren’t you?’ ‘Yes darling, but I’m Daddy really’.”

Were any reminder needed that he’s still Daddy, he has to leave his studio in a few minutes to pick up four-year-old Beatrice from school. On the way back they might do some Christmas shopping – a ritual with which he is quite hands-on. “I like to do that myself, you know?” In terms of getting the kids excited, I tell him I can recommend the Argos catalogue. It’s got nearly 2,000 pages.

“I don’t get the Argos,” he says, with the mock air of a man who may yet do – now that the idea has occurred to him. “But I do have others. There are catalogues that are even better than Argos. Believe you me.”

07 December 2007

...and she's buying a $tairway to Heaven.


To honor their late friend Ahmet Ertegun, 3 out of the 4 members of Led Zeppelin are reuniting for a performance. As one of the greatest bands in the history of bands, Led Zep fans have been clamoring for a full fledged reunion tour for nearly three decades.

Word has been leaking out (probably intentionally...) that following this one-off performance, a true honest-to-goodness tour will be annouced. Scheduled stops thus far include the Bonneroo Festival in Tennessee and just about any stadium this side of Mars.

Having already seen the Police and Van Halen reunite (just this year!), it makes me wonder just what the true motivation is for Messrs Plant, Page, Jones and Bonham (Jr.). Supposedly, they're doing it for the spirit of the music, because they've got something to say, and because the totality of the band is bigger than anything they could ever do individually.

I'm inclined to believe that. But I'm also willing to bet that there were some mighty big dollar signs put in front of 'em. I also bet they waited to see what happened to a) new material by the Eagles (#1 on the charts), and the Van Halen boys together again (Dave didn't take a swing at Eddie - yet).


Let's take your average mega-stadium. Say you've got 40,000 seats to fill. Now imagine you're charging an average of $100 per ticket. That amounts to a total of $4,000,000 in nightly revenues. This doesn't include merch sales, concessions, parking, and whatever else. With all that money on the table (even after expenses!), wouldn't you consider a little jaunt across the country?

I would - even for half the price :)

27 November 2007

RockGeek Fact of the Day #1109

On most CD pressings of "Dark Side of the Moon", a barely-audible orchestral version of The Beatles' "Ticket to Ride" is audible after "Eclipse", playing very faintly over the heartbeats that close the album. It is unknown why this was included, but it may have been the consequence of a mastering error. The bootleg recording A Tree Full of Secrets includes an amplified, re-processed version of this oddity, which allows it to be heard clearly.

26 November 2007

Anthemic Rock - or a lack thereof ...


Yesterday evening, I went to an NFL game at [Big Corporate Sponsor] Stadium. Alongside the $8 beers, and the $7 hot dogs, I noticed that the music predates many of the attendees.

This got me to wondering: doesn't anyone today write the bone-rattling, crowd maddening, stadium shaking tunes that incite our teams to win?

Last night I heard lots of Ozzy Osbourne, AC/DC, and a bit o' Led Zeppelin. I know we don't hear Gary Glitter anymore since he got a little to, err, friendly with an underage girl. Still though, hasn't anything come out in the last 20 or 30 years? I swear, the most recent song I heard was by Guns 'n' Roses - and that came out in 1989.

And yes, I know where I am. I'm in the jungle baby ....

22 November 2007

A Thanksgiving distraction ....

Well, it amuses me. Oh, and for my friends in Canada: Happy Thursday, eh!





Musicial genius, right?

20 November 2007

Don't people check these things? Seriously.


The Red Hot Chili Peppers filed court documents Monday alleging that Showtime's hit series Californication inappropriately capitalizes off the band's 1999 album and single of the same name.

The lawsuit claims the term is "inherently distinctive, famous and ... is widely recognized" as being associated with the band.

"Californication is the signature CD, video and song of the band's career," lead singer Anthony Kiedis said in a statement to the Associated Press. "For some TV show to come along and steal our identity is not right."

The suit claims that the series (starring David Duchovny) "has caused and continues to cause a likelihood of confusion, mistake and deception" among the public, who assume the band is involved in the show.

Not to mention, Californication also features a character named Dani California, which is the title of a 2006 single from the Chili Peppers.

The suit also names series creator Tom Kapinos and two production companies. It seeks a permanent injunction against using the name "Californication" along with unnamed damages, legal fees and profits earned from the show.

Showtime reps did not immediately return calls for comment.

(People.com)

15 November 2007

RockGeek Fact of the Day #709

Although the song "Ride Captain Ride" has been rumored to be about (among other things) the Pueblo incident of January, 1968 when 83 U.S. sailors were captured by North Koreans, Blues Image lead singer Mike Pinera says the song was actually inspired by the number of keys on his Rhodes piano.

14 November 2007

RockGeek Fact of the Day #903

Depeche Mode had more Top 40 hits in the UK without a #1 hit than any other artist.

Writers on Strike - Film At Eleven


I'm willing to step away from the exciting world of music to look in on our brothers and sisters over at the WGA and SAG. If you haven't noticed, based upon the numbers of reality/game/reruns on TV, they're on strike. At the heart of their grievance is getting proper royalties and residual payments for DVD releaes and new media broadcasts.

Let me say that I'm totally in favor of fair payment, fair treatment, and fair everything for everyone. I'm not on the side of the studios, and honestly, I'm not on the side of the writers either. I'm rather Switzerland about the whole thing.

What fascinates me though, is that actual real honest-to-god numbers have not been readily shared with the public. While I don't need to know how many millions (or not!) of dollars the average writer is getting, knowing the percentages would let me take an educated position on the whole thing.

For example, studios take on multiple costs that writers don't. The studios have extreme overhead part of which is common to any business: utilities, salaries, product, etc. At the same time, obviously, they are dependent on the creative output of their writers. Bad writing equates to bad shows that no one watches, and the valuable advertising dollars disappear.

If the writers are only looking for a 1% increase, then the studios are being rather oppresive. However, is it possible that the writers are actually looking for something truly egregious? Are they biting the hand that feeds them? Is it the other way around?

Only the actual numbers tell the true story. Without them, it's a battle of marketing and PR. And in that kind of battle, you win by showing up with donuts for the strikers and not crossing a picket line. Right and wrong become irrelevant.

I guess it's all in how you write the story. Go figure...

12 November 2007

Don't you pity the major labels too?


I had a fascinating discussion yesterday. A friend of mine, with no background in the music industry, highlighted (with pinpoint accuracy) the downfalls of the major label system. In particular, the major labels are losing revenue streams and have to cut costs and opportunities in order to survive. At the same time, artists are getting far more savvy, and they feel the need to walk away from the hand that (claims to have) fed them for decades.

More specifically, the major labels had a great game going for years. They'd recoup the cost of recording, manufacturing, and distributing an artist's release out of the profits of the album. Anything left over would either pay off debts from lesser selling albums, or if no alternative could be found, then the money actually went to the recording artist. It should be noted that this was the least preferable option to the labels.

Either way, the advent of the Internet and the mp3 cut many costs way down. The artist was now selling a digital good which all but eliminated the manufacturing process, and the label was finding it increasingly difficult to pull money out of those binary bits which comprises the latest smash hit.

Now you've got major labels crying foul and using their bulldog (the RIAA) to stomp on illegal downloaders. Personally, I'm all in favor of this. No one should have the right to take something that a) isn't theirs and b) was never intended to be given away at all. Should the artist choose to make their music free, then fine. But in this case the RIAA, NARAS, and every label on the planet is right.

What's not right is the lame duck, head-in-the-sand attitude that makes up the Exec Teams at most major labels. Rather than find new ways to increase revenue, promote artists, and genuinely support and foster independent talent, their sole concern seems to be an effort to plead for mercy from a musical public who is hardly bemused by the hole they dug for themselves.

The "new" music business is very much a DIY operation. Radiohead shows it can be done as do hundreds of highly successful artists without the major label support. Get thee to MOG.com or Last.FM or Pandora, and check out bands that fall beyond the Sony-Universal-WB spectrum. You'll be surprised by what you find.

And please, BUY their music if they're selling it. Go to their gigs when they're in your neighborhood, and most of all -- enjoy the music!

RockGeek Fact of the Day #2784

The cover of Led Zeppelin's "Physical Graffiti" and the Rolling Stones video for "Waiting on a Friend" were shot in front of the same NYC building.

10 November 2007

Social Networking? Just go see a band...



The big trend across music and people and seemingly life itself is "social networking sites." You know, MySpace, Facebook, and a million others. The theory is that since you can't meet, find, or keep friends in real life, you need a way to do it virtually.

How refreshing! Now I don't have to actually have friends, I can just have cyberfriends. This way, I can have cyberfun, go on cyberdates, and maybe even get cyberlaid. Just want I always wanted!

On the music side of things, each of these sites are trying to find ways to lure bands and musicians in, and hopefully bring their fans with 'em. The endgame, as always, is money. Musicians and their fans represent eyeballs which translate to ad revenue.

This ad revenue isn't quite as big a deal as these sites want it to be though. But if they get the musicians to SELL their music online and take a bite at places like iTunes, then their own sense of self-importance can't be denied. Now they're making money on the backs of the musicians they're telling us they support.

One company in particular, SnoCap, tried to do this. They allowed artists on MySpace to start selling their music right off of their MySpace pages. The result: SnoCap just laid off 60% of its staff. Apparently no one really gives a shit about buying music on MySpace. Of course, anyone using Limewire, BitTorrent, or even Kazaa could've told you that. The delicious irony is that SnoCap was founded by Shawn Fanning. Remember Shawn? He started this little company called Napster. So, the guy who started us off stealing music is the same guy who says "oh, here, you should be paying for it." And no one did. Do you really think he was surprised?

Other sites are cool though. Pandora lets you tell 'em what you like, and they make suggestions while also offering you the tunes you know you want to hear. Good deal! Last.fm tracks or "scrobbles" what you play (and what exactly are they doing with this info?) and you can find others listening to the same (or close) stuff. OK, cool ... no pressure there.

But the best way to find new music remains tried and true: go out and see a band. There are clubs, bars, stadiums, theaters, and all kinds of places with live music playing. While you're out there, talk to people. Real people, doing real things will always be more satisfying than the cyber equivalent.

After all, when I'm hungry I don't go eat a cyberburger. It just wouldn't be the same...

09 November 2007

RockGeek Fact of the Day #237

Elton John was the first artist to have an album debut at #1 on the Billboard Charts with "Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy" in 1975.

The first posting - or, rather, back from the dead?


It's a great time to be old in the music industry. No really, it is. The Billboard Top 200 albums (week of 11/3/07) showcases a number of acts who are grandparents, eating early bird dinners, or have to monitor their fiber intakes.

Here's the list: Bruce Springsteen at #1 (age 58), Santana at #8 (age 60), Eric Clapton at #20 (age 62), John Fogerty at #29 (age 62), Bob Dylan at #65 (age 66), and there are actually quite a few more that break the AARP/RIAA mold.

What does this mean, and why should anyone care? Well, in an industry that's hard-pressed to find the next big thing and hype it, here're a bunch of Grandpas showing the kiddies how it's done.

No one disputes the talents of these guys, and they've each been around for at least 40 years. Does the cast of High School Musical 2 (#7) have that same potential? And how're the tastemakers -or at least the people who claim to tell us what we like- falling short by hyping youth over talent. Or are they?

Maybe Britney and her brethren just need to advertise more to push the songs, because we aren't listening to the radio anymore. Or perhaps the labels think we're willing to accept disposable talent. If they were, wouldn't Bobby Sherman be a musical icon? Or will Classic Rock stations be playing Taylor Hicks in 10 years?

Scary stuff ...