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.

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 ....

A Thanksgiving distraction ....

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





Musicial genius, right?

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)

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.

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...

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.

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...

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 ...