|
|
Listener
E-mails
Okay, so I can't read all your emails on the air. Here's the full editions of some of the ones I had to cut down...
On the subject of HIDDEN FEATURES in MUSIC...
From John Daly of Cantley:
Dear Alan
I really enjoyed the show about hidden music tracks and the views your interviewees have on using them and their value. My view is quite simple. In my experience, it is fun to discover something unexpected, whether it's on a DVD or CD, in a book, at a garage sale, in a person, in a house, wherever. Sometimes it is less than stellar, sure. I leave it to the pop psychologists to define my motivations; I just think it's fun.
My story about "hidden" tracks goes way back into prehistory (1973) when the Monty Python album "Matching Tie and Handkerchief" came out. I had heard it was "three-sided" and merely thought that was a Monty Python-ism, like their "Big Red Book" that was, of course, blue. For weeks I popped it onto my turntable which had the coolest feature of automatically starting the rotation and placing the needle. I happily listened to both sides many times before, like many geeks before me, starting to learn the sketches by heart. At some point the sketch I wanted to learn was in the middle of the side, so I placed the needle by hand, and suddenly a skit I had never heard before was playing. I swear for a few moments I thought I was hallucinating, or suffering from blackouts (I had not yet discovered other mind-altering situations). I had played this record at least a dozen times and never heard this skit!
Then it dawned on me. "Three-sided" meant one groove on one side and two grooves on the other. My automatic turntable had always found the same groove, and it took my hand placement to find the other. My reaction? I was thrilled. Ever since I have enjoyed those moments of unexpected discovery, and I unabashedly create them in my life and those around me.
Great show
John Daly
From Chris Adam:
Hi Alan,
I was only thirteen years of age when I bought my first vinyl album, that of
the Beatles 'Magical Mystery Tour'.
That was keen music back in the late sixties when rock music was well on
it's way.
However, it was in 1969 when I ran out to buy the Abbey Road album when I
realized that these 'Boys from Liverpool'
were still up to 'fun and games' with their music.
This album, being so out front in the music scene at the time, had some deep
hidden messages within the sleeve and
within it's grooves.
The cut entitled 'Her Majesty' was not only the shortest Beatles song in
existence, but also had a locational problem.
Supposedly, it was originally placed in between the cuts of 'Mean Mr.
Mustard' and 'Polythene Pam', however, Paul McCartney had it taken out
because he
didn't like it's location in the album. So, one of the sound engineers then
placed it at the end of the Abbey Road 'rough edit', and it remained there.
So was this move to be a tribute to the Queen of England? I don't think so.
I believe that this was done deliberately so as to mock the importance of
the group's last song together.
Whatever occurred, I would have to say that it was done for a reason.
From Adele Mugford:
"always great to have more music from the musician/artist I love and great to
be surprised (not all bonus tracks are identified on the front of a given
album), but kind of weird when "bonus" tracks are advertised - how are they
bonus if they come on the list of album songs?
anyway, for the most part, they are great to have either way. I will just
add that I would prefer not to have a hug gap of silence between the
supposed last song and the bonus track, as in Pierre Lapointe's first album
- as a somewhat impatient person, I'd like to hear the song sooner rather
than later :) Plus, sometimes it has caught me off guard and kind of
freaked me out - complete silence for a while and then a sudden blast of
music when one least expects it.
Regardless, I wanted to say congrats on your new gig as radio host for both
Bandwidth and Fuse - so exciting!
Cheers,
Adele"
From Raul:
"I have a comment on the hidden track.
I think of hidden tracks like secret notes to someone you hope loves you and
will listen to the whole CD and find it.
Think of it as passing a cryptic note in grade school, to someone you admire,
but it has to pass through the hands of fifty kids in front of you first. Everyone's not going to
find the hidden track, and of those who do some won't understand it.
As far as embeded software on CD. I think it really hampers, artist and their methods of distribution.
I recently found Ben Harper's "Both Sides of the Gun".
Attempted to upload the album onto my MP3 player and computer, but needed to download software.
Not on my machine......so this, relegated to being played in the car.
As opposed to playing it while working out or making the mixed file on the computer while you work.
Well we love your show.
Raul
From Heather Anderson:
"Hi Alan,
First let me say that I think you're fabulous.
Now on to what I think about hidden features on CDs...
Generally, I like them. It's an extra surprise, especially when one is
a big fan of the band. When the hidden features are extra songs or
interviews or if played one's computer they may be interviews or
videos - I think it's great. However, there can be some downsides.
For example, if you just want to listen to the CD and it automatically
opens the video features (and as a result makes your computer crash)
that can be annoying. Or when there are minutes of silence between
one song and the hidden song but the songs are fused as the same
track, that makes listening on one's MP3 player irritating. I found
this for example with Counting Crow's hidden track Chelsea from their
Across a Wire-Live in New York album.
But come to think of it, the last few CDs I've purchased (Barmitzvah
Brothers, Bell Orchestre, Luke Doucette, Ember Swift, Sarah Harmer,
for example) have not noticed any hidden features or by virtue of
quickly ripping the tunes to MP3 player, I missed the hidden features.
It is true that smaller bands generally don't use hidden features?
I would argue against the inclusion of hidden tracks if they were
merely promotional stunts. For example, if they provided links to
Amazon to purchase more band material or if they brought one to the
fan site membership. But I haven't found that to be the case."
On the subject of MUSIC AWARDS...
Greetings Alan Neal & Bandwidth,
I understand that this week's theme on Bandwidth will be whether or not there should be awards.
For up-and-coming artists, I would agree that any recognition is welcome. There are a lot of very talented artists that are underacknowledged. Musicians in Canada are faced with a tremendous uphill battle as it is. Gaining attention or coverage in mainstream media is almost impossible to do without the consent of the bigwigs.
And financially, with the increased use of the internet and what not, people are adopting the mentality that they don't need to pay for music.
Awards represent certainly represent achievement, and our society seems to be obsessed with numbers. Awards do grab attention when they are presented. For example, magazines often produce top 10 lists or 50 most beautiful people or whatever to boost sales of their publication.
People will read these lists out of curiousity if nothing else.
However, these lists could be (and often are) arbitrarily compiled by any journalist based on his or her own opinion. So for that reason, this type of recognition really can't be taken that seriously.
Let us suppose that Bandwidth wished to compile a list and/or create some awards. It of course is a program dedicated to independent and emerging artists. Now to give a fair comparison of all of the artists, they would need to be judged by people who have listened to every artist that falls into the category. I would wager that the CBC receives promotional CD's by the hundreds. Is there anyone who is able to listen to absolutely every CD that is submitted? How do they find the time?
But on the issue of any kind of awards competition, let's compare it to the world of sports. The athletes train hard and develop their skills.
In the end, there is just about always something to measure their skill.
It could be a goal scored, a completion time, a measured distance of a golf ball or ultimately a win or loss. For the most part there is structure to what constitutes achievement in sports. There is little if any dispute over the outcome. Music, on the other hand, is subject to much bias and subjectivity when it is judged.
Right now there is a trend of dramatic game shows (what some people refer to as "reality shows") in which singers must compete against each other in a popularity contest of sorts. One could argue that it is entertaining as a competition, but it lacks the factors of originality,
innovation and creativity of an artist. These are fundamental traits for new music, yet they cannot be measured and therefore compared.
The fact of the matter is that there is no appropriate set of criteria to determine what makes one artists better than another. How can you measure songwriting ability of the artist, for example? Or does the song or group make me dance or groove? Or are the lyrics inspirational
(based on a reviewers own individual experiences mind you)? Has it or will it stand the test of time? Or very simply, is it cool?
Monetary awards, of course, are welcomed by any musical act. For example, one of the key turning points or "big breaks" in the career of Emm Gryner was winning the prize of the Canadian Musician magazine songwriting competition. In her case, the competition and award had a significant impact on her career.
On the other hand, there are a lot of awards that are nothing but print.
Let's say that a newspaper gives out awards for best whatever. Often, the winners will receive nothing but a mention. Having read my share of band bios, I can safely say that bands will quote any positive feedback and recognition in their promotion. I can't blame them, even if it comes off as an exaggeration of their actual achievement. The losers, however, are judged to be not as good as the winner. That's competition by definition, but should they even be compared to each other.
There are a lot of newspapers, publications, magazines, radio programs, TV programs, websites, etc. that compile their own results through various methods and give out awards. Too many awards make the concept meaningless.
Point in case, I declare this to be the best response on my block. As far as I know.
Brad Fetter, B.Sc.
Hi New Host Guy ... hope you enjoy this new gig:
No one listens to music more than another musician same for writers. No one reads more than another writer.
Weıre always listening, always absorbing, always harvesting ideas from others, always poaching new concepts. Itıs how all art reproduces itself.
We at the Kingston Jazz Society (Iım on the board) -- take notice of who wins which awards because that usually means (1) theyıre fee is likely going to increase, but it might also mean that (2) theyıre going to show up with a killin' new combination of players and arrangements.
Our Kingston audience who might have tracked the awards will know that (eg) Kevin Turcotte is HOT HOT HOT for the fifth year running and will be blowing the roof off when next through our town.
Furthermore, many musicians (not all, but most) are looking for an opportunity to collaborate with other musicians, because these spontaneous collaborations produce some extraordinary moments. But itıs in the nature of the creative experience that when two musicians sit down together a synergy occurs that could not have happened otherwise. Check out a workshop at a folk festival: synergy is their raison dıetre.
Itıs the most fun you can have with your clothes on and if you're not a musician and youıve never experienced this ... I feel sorry for you. Itıs magic.
The next time you see live music, watch for that shit-eating grin at the end
of a song. It's what happens when the sum is greater than its parts and everyone on stage had a hand in creating that moment.
Now as for me, Iım a family guy who plays gigs in Kingston so Iım not in the stream so much anymore. I donıt even have a TV, though I usually check the award results in the paper the next day. I used to play with Stan Rogers many years ago and with various other bands too. But I know from being a musician and jazz promoter here in Kingston that musicians pay attention to what other musicians are doing, and these awards facilitate that knowledge transfer function. Musicians want to know whoıs doing what and how the community is reacting to it, including what kinds of sales theyıre getting and what kinds of gigs are flowing therefrom (everyone wants to play the big venues/festivals or the soft-seat theatres depending on their style of music and performance).
Of course itıs nice to GET these awards too, cause you might be asked to perform at the awards ceremony in front of your peers and maybe even on national TV and because the respect of your peers is very motivating, energizing and satisfying. Musicians, by and large, love the company of other musicians because theyıre the only ones who really understand the experience of performing live music.
But the primary reason musicians pay attention to awards shows is to keep a finger or two on the pulse of the community of which they are a part.
Hope this helps. Good luck with your new gig.
The awards the entertainment industry rewards itself is a product with the same dangers as the sweetened trans-fats of the food industry.
Entertainment industries once changed cultures. Now like the business of religion and politics it is trying to maintain its control. They all lean heavily on the failed promises of rewards and threat of punishment.
Don McLeod
Ottawa ON
|
|
Listen
live: 
Get the latest news on Amanda!