ADAM:  I love Macklemore…but this is a pretty bad response to a pretty obvious case of ‘selling out’: http://macklemore.com/post/43688861186/wings-the-nba-all-star-game-selling-out

MATT:  disagree.

I find these statements to ring very true:

“The All Star game intro was seen by millions of people on Sunday who had no idea who we were.  My thinking was, if they liked the song they will go and listen to the full version.  Those who hear the original song in its entirety will get the core of what gives the song depth.  Some might even buy it and become real fans.  And guess what version they get?  Not the TNT chopped up edit, but the full one.”

“If you take away the consumerism cautionary core of Wings, a story still remains.  And that story is one that I’m still proud of, and it’s dope to me that it’s relatable enough for TNT to want to use it. “

“Does the NBA happen to fall under the capitalist umbrella?  Absolutely.  But it’s no different than the brands you’re currently wearing, the company that manufactured the couch that you’re sitting on or the computer/phone you’re staring into while reading this.”

I think he makes a solid argument.  Whether you or I or anyone agrees or disagrees with that argument is up to us, but I think he makes a solid ethical case.  Subversion around issues he cares about is one of his goals, but not the only goal, and I think he makes a good argument as to how this choice can serve that goal as well.

Furthermore, if subversion around the core message of the song (personal identity as related to consumerism – specifically around basketball shoes) is a primary goal, I think it’s safe to say that the NBA All-Star game is the #1 largest and most relevant audience to that potential subversion (besides maybe the Finals of both teams are major market).  It’s like the antithesis of preaching to the choir.  The audience is PERFECT, and the exact people you want to ask those questions.
How many will actually seek out the real song and be affected by it’s more-true core message?  Who knows.  But more than zero.  Which is the number it would be if the song wasn’t part of the TNT promo for the event.

ADAM:  I suppose maybe my issue comes from the tone (which is stupid, because it is typed) of it- it sounds defensive, as though no one who could have taken exception or cringed at the edit in good faith. I have no problem with the man making money, but for some reason it rubbed me rather wrong when I heard that edit specifically. I get the exposure thing, but messing with the message bugged me (as it does any time an artist I like has the message behind their song hidden in an advertisement)

MATT:  yeah, those are all valid points. Licensing is a weird thing.

I was turned way off when I first saw the promo, but TKJ and my friend Stephen brought up the subversion narrative, which combined with this statement make me feel good about it.

And I am trying to think of an analogous situation for my own music.  For the Macklemore case there are 3 factors:

-Core song message being a political statement.

-Company using it (NBA, an organization Macklemore loves and supports).

-The context it’s used (in this case being edited, glamorized, irony, etc).

Very few of my songs have a core political statement, so the 1st part of the equation is barely relevant.  So the grounds that I would NOT want someone to license my song would be if I didn’t approve of the company, or I didn’t approve of the context. But even that context wouldn’t be around the SONG content, it would be more passive.  Like, I wouldn’t want to be the soundtrack for a rape scene or something.

So in 2013 when the standards of “selling out” have shifted due to volume and necessity, it seems like the whole relevant debate around licensing and “selling out” only has any traction around bands or songs that overtly make a political statement of some kind.  In the Macklemore case, he’s arguing that even outside the money involved the issues around context were outweighed by the potential brand new audience that might seek out the correct, intended context (very easily thanks to the youtube video).  I think this is a just calculation in this case.

ADAM:  And that calculation makes sense, especially for an independent artist who wants to continue the great streak he’s on and keep his name at the forefront.

When it comes down to it what matters to us as fans isn’t important. If Ben was all right with having it used in this way then that is all that matters. In this case I’m sure both he and the NBA had to talk through the risks/rewards of using this particular song in the way they did instead of taking the easy way out and using, say, ‘Can’t Hold Us’ or ‘Make the Money’ or any other song, really. I can’t imagine he was unaware of potential backlash, but I’m also guessing he didn’t care.

Here’s how I’ve come to think of the whole thing: It doesn’t matter if a song is used in an advertisement, or if it’s heavily edited to do so- once the song is released it’s up to others how it’s taken and used and what meanings are applied, and those meanings are typically far different than the intended one. The problem becomes when the art becomes compromised at the creation stage, when that commercial opportunity becomes the reason you make something and not just something that happens far after the fact. That’s probably the best way for me to think through this, no matter the sour taste the edit and tone of the response left in my mouth.

Also, it’s not my song. I have no reason to be mad at him for making money. He can do what he damn well pleases.

MATT:  very well said.

“Bubblegum pop in indie rock or indie-folk form… That’s kind of what we’re all going for, in a way. Like, The Jackson Five with a beard.”

-Tim Wilson, Ivan & Alyosha

The Vibe versus The Song… The Vibe finds the pocket of a groove and can go forever. The Song relies on dynamics and transitions to tell a discrete story. The Vibe makes you feel something subconsciously. The Song makes you hang on every word.

Most bands, and many music fans, fall one one side or the other of this spectrum. Either extreme is impossible – neither can be successful without some of the other – but usually either The Vibe or The Song takes priority and becomes the focus of a band’s “sound.” Extremely successful careers can be built relying heavily on one over the other.

Every so often, however, there’s a band that can find a perfect balance of the two; creating songs that are compelling on all levels of experience. It’s hard as hell, taking a ton of experimentation, patience, and practice, but the results can be really special.

Seattle’s Ivan & Alyosha strives for this perfect blend of sonic vibe and careful song craft, and their upcoming album All The Times We Had (which you can preview now via NPR) hits the mark. See for yourself with the lead single “Running for Cover” below:

I had the pleasure of sitting down with lead singer Tim Wilson at Neptune Coffee in Greenwood to talk about the bands’ beginnings, transitions, and finding a home in the Seattle music scene.

MH: What is the origin story of Ivan & Alyosha?

mxnw-ivan+alyosha-1

MH: What did the transition from being a local band to a touring band look like?

mxnw-ivan+alyosha-2

MH: What makes Seattle, right now, a special place to be making music?

mxnw-ivan+alyosha-3

On genre and pop songwriting in Seattle:

mxnw-ivan+alyosha-4

MH: What advice would you give a new band, knowing all you know now?

mxnw-ivan+alyosha-5 

The big Seattle release show is Saturday, February 23 at Showbox Market (tickets) featuring MidByNorthwest favorites Kris Orlowski, The Passenger String Quartet, and Smokey Brights – presented by Artist Home and KEXP. One of my favorite moments from last year’s Doe Bay Fest was when Kris eagerly ran up to the front of the stage to dance along with Ivan & Alyosha, quickly joined by most of the rest of the crowd. Only fitting that he should help warm us up for I&A once again.

Ivan & Alyosha then hit the road for a few months – check out their tour dates (including a stop at Schubas’ in Chicago) here.

Photos by Veronica Alba – Video by Christian Sorensen Hansen

In our modern age of Spotify, YouTube, Bandcamp, iTunes, and other tools that let people easily sample new music, what is the social utility of a scathing review of a band or album, if any?

Here are my thoughts so far on the subject, but this much-longer-than-originally-intended memo is primarily to hear YOUR thoughts and get a discussion going, so after you read all this, please post your opinion in the comment section at the bottom of the page.

Let’s clarify some terms first:

By “negative album review,” I mean a review that is totally scathing or overwhelmingly negative.  Let’s say 4/10 or below, if you’re grading on a scale.  I am NOT talking about a generally positive review with some critiques – like that Pitchfork review on Father John Misty that he Twitter-rampaged about.  I’m talking about when the thesis of the review is essentially, “this music is bad.”

By “negative band profile,” I mean an article that casts a band in a negative light based solely on a qualitative assessment of their music or genre.  I am NOT talking about a news story about something offensive or controversial a band did, or even political controversy about their music (i.e. offensive lyrics).  I’m talking about when the thesis of the article is essentially “this band isn’t a good band.”

Negative live performance reviews I get to later, so if that’s on your mind please hold your horses.

Ok, let’s begin.

“Yeah? Well, that’s just, like, uh, your opinion, man…” – The Dude

“This album is crap, and you like it, so what does that say about YOU?”

An overwhelmingly negative album review is essentially saying one of two things:

1) If you have not yet listened to this, don’t bother as it’s a waste of your time for reasons X, Y, Z.

2) If you have already listened to it, and you like it, you’re wrong because of X, Y, Z.

Thing #1 used to matter.  It used to be very difficult to hear more than one or two songs on an album without putting down $15 for it.  If you had read a scathing album review by a critic whose likes and dislikes tended to align with your own, it might save you from making a purchase that you’d later regret.  I see the utility there.  But now that process is irrelevant.  You can open up Spotify and listen to the whole album yourself, make your own decisions about it, and buy or not buy the album based on that.  Why have a reviewer scare people away from listening and judging for themselves?

Meanwhile, thing #2 totally sucks.  If you like certain music, you like it, and you should continue liking it until you don’t for whatever reason.  That reason shouldn’t be (and generally isn’t) “I read a review that said it was bad for reasons X, Y, Z so now I don’t like it anymore.” I’d say only the very weak-willed and extra-impressionable actually go through that train of thought.  That character judgement is implied, however, because the subjective reviewer is pretending they have objectivity thanks to their resume or publication.  Very few reviewers ever use the first person. Instead, they speak in unqualified statements and “facts,” backed by the gravity and falsely objective reputation of the publication. It’s not just two people sitting in a room discussing the virtues and weaknesses of an album, eventually agreeing to disagree.  It’s an “authority” and an audience.  Which lead us to…

The Credibility Argument

Any press publication, whether a magazine, website, or personal blog, lives or dies by their credibility.  In most journalism, objectivity is the cornerstone of credibility – the best journalism shows all sides of an issue and reports on the good and the bad. The thing is, with music there is no objectivity. When it comes to music, credibility means something different–something more personal.

Music publications are an important resource people use to access new music.  These kinds of publications are most successful when they develop a clear voice and build trust based on their recommendations. Readers keep reading because they’ve found a commonality of taste with the writers.  For example, in addition to enjoying Heather Powell Browne’s writing style, I’ve found that most of the new music that Fuel/Friends Blog recommends is right up my alley.  Other blogs may be equally well written, but their tastes don’t match up as well with mine so I don’t follow them as closely.

Heather’s arguments about what music she doesn’t like are irrelevant to me.  It’s what she chooses to lift up and share with me that matters.  Her credibility lies in her consistent quality of writing and the value of her recommendations to me and me alone.   She’s subjective, I’m subjective, we’re both happy, and the sky has not fallen.

What if all music publications focused their energy on the music they thought was great and simply did not talk about the music they thought wan’t good?

Easy on a blog level, but where do Rolling Stone and Pitchfork fit into this?   Skipping over the conversation about the usefulness of a grading scale when it comes to music, frankly I don’t think there’s any social utility to publishing a lengthy, scathing 2.7-out-of-10 review versus not publishing anything at all.  Now, before you bring up grade inflation or say “People want to know what Rolling Stone thinks about this new release,” consider this: The bigger the publication, the more powerful their omissions.  Alternatively, they could explain at the top of the page, “Any review below 5.0/2-stars/C+ will not be written.”  Or, to be less passive-aggressive about it, there could be a list of that week’s “failing grade” releases at the bottom of the page, with their scores.  In all cases, I think they should include a Spotify link to the album and encourage readers to listen for themselves. I see no loss in their credibility if they were to do this. Plus, major publications already omit; Pitchfork doesn’t bother reviewing Jack Johnson’s latest record.  So why have the same guy who hated Mumford & Sons review The Head and the Heart?  What is gained by 412 words on why it’s a waste of perfectly good vinyl (phrased in absolutes of course)?

“No, you’re not wrong, Walter, you’re just an asshole!” – The Dude

Analogous to film or video game reviews?

As I began to consider this question more seriously, I immediately thought of the many negative review written about films and video games which I read on a daily basis.  I see negative film or video game reviews as very useful for three main reasons:

• Mainstream feature films and video games cannot be legally sampled, in their entirety, before purchase.
• Going to see a movie in the theater or purchasing and playing a video game is a significant investment of time and money. I want to be warned before I go see something or buy something that I probably won’t like – though I can usually tell if I’ll hate it based on the preview, genre, and marketing.
• There aren’t many feature films available in local theaters at any given time, thus the importance of picking the right film to go see is more significant, especially if you can only go see one movie.

None of those points apply to new recorded music.  They do apply, however, to a musician’s live show.  As such, I think that negative reviews of a live performance may provide utility… to an extent.  Maybe it’s that they have the potential to provide utility if the reviewer focuses on the right things.  All the same subjectivity of the music itself  is still there.  If a reviewer doesn’t care much for the music, that usually becomes the theme of the live review, and it makes it less useful in my eyes.  Ideally, a live review can parse out elements of the performance outside of the music itself as topics to critique – such as stage presence, engagement with the audience, technical skill, stage/space production elements, and so forth.  For example, it’s rare that you’ll catch me listening to Madonna’s greatest hits, but I saw her live a few years ago and I can tell you it was an amazing show and give many reasons to back that up.  On the other hand, if I read that a band I liked was very uncomfortable, recluse, and not engaging in a live performance, I might think twice about spending money on that show because I don’t dig that kind of passive live-music experience.  I’d be much happier at home enjoying the record, or at a different show.

Dissing a Band to make a Larger Point

Outside of explicit album reviews, negative writing about a particular band is often used as a tool to make larger, more complex points. Popular and successful bands are super interesting, especially the context of that success and the social elements connected therein.  I love reading think-pieces like that.  But much of the time, especially when the band is cast in a negative light, the fundamental assumptions at the base of the thesis are flawed or completely subjective.  Here’s an example:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2011-03-02/music/macklemore-the-head-and-the-heart/

THESIS:  “Sincerity” is a defining theme in the most popular music coming out of Seattle and it does not represent us well.

REAL THESIS:  Macklemore and THATH aren’t that good – it’s dumb and irritating that they are receiving so much national success compared to these other Seattle bands that are so much better.

BRIIING BRIIIIIING!  SUBJECTIVITY ALERT!  Name any popular and successful band in the history of pop music and I will find you plenty of people who believe in their heart that said band is overrated or just “not that good.”  Although the article attempts to use more objective criteria as proof of objective judgement, such as musical innovation, at the end of the day each of those criteria are reasons to like or not like something and it goes both ways.  There is plenty of innovative music that I love, and plenty of innovative music that I can’t stand.  At the end of the day, overall merit, “good”-ness, and deserving-of-praise-ness is completely subjective. So where does all this trash-talking get us? How does this faux-objective critique in the public forum benefit anyone? Well, it benefits the publication…

Discussion, Revenue, and Entertainment

On a corporate site with lots of daily content, snarky argument-starters seem to get a lot more comments than glowing reviews:

The Seattle Weekly article mentioned above has 86 comments.  Two recent scathing posts by the same author (1) (2)  have a few comments each.  Recent positive posts (1) (2) have one or zero comments.

More comments = more page views.

More page views = more advertisement impressions.

More impressions = more revenue.

Perhaps you could make the argument that stimulating discussion in the public sphere is a noble goal in itself.  To you, I say, “Noble sire, take thee to the YouTube comment area and return unscathed by what you doth see.” Even in more civilized forums when the core issues are subjective it just becomes a screaming match between the two (or however many) sides.

It must be said, however, that overwhelmingly negative and snarky reviews are strangely entertaining.  If you agree with the subjective opinion put forth it makes you feel vindicated and validated.  If you disagree, it riles you up.  In any case, it’s rare that it does not elicit a response in the reader, and that’s what entertainment is all about, right?  Unfortunately, without any social utility, it’s the entertainment equivalent of The Jersey Shore.

But maybe that’s just me being faux-objective and judgmental…

What did I miss and where was I full of it?  Can you think of social utility for publishing scathing reviews of albums or bands? Speak your mind in the comments below!

• Record an album
• Get played on the radio somewhere mom can hear it
• Go on tour opening for [favorite and/or personally influential national act]

Aaron Tamayo Photography

Kevin Long, one of my favorite Seattle singer/songwriters, got to do that last thing for three weeks this spring as he opened for Rocky Votolato in San Diego, Chicago, Toronto, and everywhere in between.  By the numbers, it was 16 shows in 19 days with over 5,000 miles of driving, capped off by a big show in Seattle two weeks later.  It was also Long’s first tour longer than a weekend, and his first opportunity to play with a larger act outside of his home-bases of Seattle and Spokane.

I sat down with Kevin Long a few weeks removed from the whole experience to reflect on the ups, downs, and revelations.  You can listen to the interview question-by-question below, or [download id=”9″ format=”1″].  But first, a couple of my favorite excerpts:

“I noticed that, especially with my music being generally so serious, somber, melancholy a lot of the time, [that] the days I was able to counterbalance that with good banter and good humor in between songs people ended up being much more receptive to the music.  I always have this idea of creating this really serious sort of ‘energy space’ for people to experience my show, but it works better when there’s some contrast . . . It’s not like they had to stay in the happy joke land tall the time, they were a lot more receptive to getting into the songs and the other feelings when there was some contrast.”

“When I was out there I was constantly thinking about how cool it was that the reason why I was there, the reason why I was able to afford to be in all these place was because of all the time I spent trying to write songs.”

MH: “How did the tour with Rocky come to be?”

Morgan Bleigh Photography

MH: “What were your favorite shows and the most challenging shows of the tour?”

On the changing energies of shows from night to night:

MH: “What are some challenges to touring that you didn’t expect?”

MH: “Financially and emotionally, did touring on this scale feel sustainable to you?

MH: “What was it like on a nightly basis opening for an artist that has been so influential to you, and playing to their fans?  Did such a great pairing on paper translate into a better audience for you in the way one would expect?”

MH: “How has this experience changed your perspective on being a professional musician?”

It’s Too Sunny Out Here Photography

Kevin Long’s debut album Small Town Talk is available for name-your-price download on his Bandcamp page.  Songs like “In the Nick of Time” and “Green To Grey” will stay with you for the long haul. Be sure to connect with him via Facebook and Twitter for updates on his forthcoming album, Forgiveness in the City, which was successfully kickstarted last month.

…..

…..

Dan Mangan (photo by Lori Paulson)

Perhaps the perfect example of these forces coalescing is NotesFromHome.tv – a collaborative project between photographer Dylan Preist, filmmaker Tyler Kalberg, and audio engineer Zach Varnell.  The basic premise is:

1)  Host a house show with three fantastic secret acts; selling reasonably priced tickets and packing the place to the gills.

2)  Set up high quality audio recording of the entire night and pick select songs to film.

3) Archive this audio, video, and photography online so everyone can experience it for free.

This uniquely comprehensive method embodies both creation and curation for our aural, visual, and ultimately emotional benefit.  In just a few episodes so far, they beautifully captured one-night-only performances by Dan Mangan, Cataldo, Damien Jurado, Hey Marseilles, The Head and the Heart, Kelli Schafer, Drew Grow & the Pastors’ Wives, John Vanderslice, and more.

I had the opportunity the sit down with the three founders around the time of launch to talk more about the project and their experiences with music community in the northwest.  You can listen to the interview based on my questions below, or [download id=”8″ format=”1″].

Drew Grow & the Pastors' Wives (photo by Robertsen Ashman)

MH: “What is the origin story for Notes From Home?”

MH: ” What has the response from artists been thus far?”

MH: “What does each show look like for you, in terms of logistics?”

MH: “From each of your perspectives, how would you characterize the northwest music scene?”

Cataldo (photo by Brittney Bollay)

MH ” What are some inhibitors to building community around music?”

Philosophies of records, construction, and preservation:

MH: “How has your experience in the music scene changed over time?”

MH: “What advice would you give someone going to a new city to do music?”

Please do your ears, eyes, and heart a favor: go check out notesfromhome.tv and sign up on their email list to get updates about future shows.

I have listened to this song a LOT of times and every time it just HITS a piece of pain inside of me that I still cannot articulate.  When I eventually move out of this apartment I will probably be brought back to this tiny room every time I hear this song.  That’s a whole lot of power… the power of a song to not only access feelings you can’t quite undertand but also lodge the accessing of those feelings within a particular time and space.  Take a listen to the song, follow along with the lyrics, and see if it has the same effect on you.

The Lumineers are set to release their first full length album on April 3 and hit the road a bit before on March 21.  No Chicago date, but instead a show in my hometown suburb of Evanston, IL at SPACE.   Their Seattle date sold out the Tractor, was moved to Neumos, and sold that out too.  If you go into Sonic Boom in Ballard, however, and preorder the record you get guaranteed access for their in-store performance on release day.

SLOW IT DOWN

I feel her filth in my bones
Wash off my hands till it’s gone
Your walls they’re closing in
With velvet curtains

Some love was made for the lights
Some kiss your cheek and goodnight
Lift up a red high heel
Lock up your doors with steel

You’re making noise in my street
My blinds are drawn, I can’t see
Smashed in my car window
Didn’t touch the stereo

Slow it down, Angie come back to bed
Rest your arms and rest your legs

Act like you’ve been here before
Smile less and dress up some more
Tie up your scarf real tight
These boys are out for blood tonight

Slow it down, Angie come back to bed
Rest your arms and rest your legs

And when she stood she stood tall
She’ll make a fool of you all
Don’t ask for cigarettes
She ain’t got nothing left for you

I never, she never, we never look back
That wasn’t what we were good at
And when it came to love
We were not good enough

Slow it down, Angie come back to bed
Rest your arms and rest your legs
Don’t you frown when you’re feeling like that
Only love can dig you out of this

So the logical thing would be for this to be a final, retirement post.  “Thanks for reading, but I don’t need to write this anymore.” But that doesn’t feel right to me.  I miss writing here, even if I haven’t prioritized it.  But more so, I think I am finding new reasons that writing here is important for me:

When I moved to Seattle and started this blog I was the most open I’ve ever been; open to meeting new people, getting excited about new bands, experiencing as much live music as I could.  Open to being moved.  That openness was so refreshing to me, especially the way it could manifest into pure excitement about the new music around me and the success of Seattle bands.  I was approaching the world as a novice, eager to learn and make connections.

Now I am more comfortable. I am no longer the new guy in town and my band has established itself.   Seattle is home now, but I feel much more closed off.  I feel far less open to meeting new people, making new friends and actively supporting others.   Part of that is simple fatigue after a year of meeting new people and going out all the time.  Adjusting to big changes and challenges in my personal life has surely played a role as well. Plus it’s discouraging when I don’t remember someone’s name and feel like a huge asshole.  I fear my brain may be at name/face capacity, but that’s another story entirely…

But I think it’s more than that.  Some common but ugly demons of competition, jealousy, and entitlement have started to rear their heads.

When I got here I entered the community as an eager novice with a commitment to ideals of community and a more holistic way of doing the indie band rat race.  Namely, that it didn’t have to be a rat race.  In my heart I believe that art, including pop music, is not a zero sum game.  With talent, patience, persistance, and diligence, opportunities will come and the success or merits of any other bands are irrelevant.  While of course everyone has their own opinion, bickering, talking shit, and publicly critiquing each other doesn’t really help anybody.  It isolates and divides us.  It sours us.  It’s poison.

It was much easier to keep those ideals close back then – I wasn’t emotionally invested in anyone or any projects yet.  I was just as driven and ambitious as I am now, but I knew the long term goals were pretty far away and I was achieving my short term goals and enjoying the process.  I was inspired by what was happening around me (the great music being made and the rapid visibility of the Seattle indie-folk scene) and excited about becoming a part of it.  In the future.

That future is now, and those long term goals are becoming short term goals.  I want to be in the studio or on the road more days than I’m home.  I want the countless hours of work I do on music to be self-sustaining as opposed to a second, poorly paying job.  I’ve wanted these things for 10 years but it’s only with some success, with tastes of that life, that it becomes so tantalizing and destructively frustrating.  If it were just fuel for the fire, great.  Ambitious people need fuel.  But the collatoral damage is really troubling to me.  That combo of frustration and ambition lead to really shitty consequences, such as:

– A sense of entitlement to (and an emotional requirement for) attention, praise, and status.

– Anger and cynicism toward bands and artists doing the things I want to do and living the life I want to live.

– Perpetual doubt and insecurity about being inherently good enough or talented enough to succeed.

– Getting worse, not better, at dealing with rejection. 

and here’s the WORST one:

– The inability to listen to any new music, especially highly-recommended or buzzy music, without judging my own music against it.

HOW FUCKED IS THAT?!?  Working as hard as I can to make a life for myself creating original music shouldn’t make me bad at listening to music.

If KEXP latches on to a new band and as a result they start to take off THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.  Do I want them to latch on to MY band?  Of course.  Does their latching on to another band make that less likely?  No.  Should it have any affect on my notions of KEXP as an important, unique, and vital organization?  No.  If I like the music I will hopefully be inspired by it and if I don’t I can change the channel.  But debates about WHY a band is gaining success, and especially debates about whether they SHOULD gain that success is a waste of my damn time.  It has nothing to do with me or the music I make.

I can (and do) tell myself this all the time, whenever that cynicism or jealousy starts to crop up.  But the general closed-off-ness has still been a result of all the mess above and I want to untangle myself from it.  I think that getting back into writing here on MidByNorthwest (oh yeah, that’s what this post was about…) – specifically writing about new and old music that I’m really digging – may be a way to help get myself out of that hole.

I now have so much invested here in Seattle, in every way, and I’m no longer an outsider.  I’m a participant the music scene here.  I’m a peer.  But I can and should remain a novice – open-minded and moveable.  So that’s what I’m going to do.  I may never be as good at it as someone like Adam Sharp who writes about a song that is moving him every single day, but hopefully you’ll see more content here.  More personal, less about previews or reviews, more about me and how certain bands or songs are affecting me.  It might be really boring for you, but I think it could be really great for me and the person, musician, and community member I want to be.

Come see it all happen at the wonderfully intimate Egan’s Ballard Jam House from 7-9pm this Friday, September 30.  Fittingly, this show is presented by the wonderful folks at Seattle Living Room Shows and so is sure to have that same magical vibe.  Cover is $7 and the show is 21+.

I’m not much of a Matt Nathanson fan, but I’m a big fan of Matt Ryd’s multi-layered all-inclusive YouTube videos, and this should be a good preview of the kinds of collaboration we can expect from the “XoeAndMatt” tour:

My girlfriend and I both fell in love with the record – which was a bit strange as thematically it’s one of the most crushing break-up records in recent memory – and every month or so I had a new favorite track. The songwriting and lyrics are so poignant and gripping throughout its entirety, but even more striking are the arrangements.  Frightened Rabbit completely broke down my conceptions of what lyrical music could sound like.  Complex kick-drum rhythms and soaring organ pads that, unlike most modern indie rock bands, never got in the way of the vocal or masked any lyrics or meaning.  The result is an album with both emotional and musical dynamics that interplay in an extraordinary way.  Most songs and records that you listen to incessantly put you back in that same place/time/relationship when you listen years later.  For me, Frightened Rabbit’s music cuts so deeply into pure emotions that it takes me back beyond my circumstances at the time.  It brings me into those universal emotions directly, but with a joy and energy that only Rock & Roll can provide.

Needless today I was somewhat giddy to interview Frightened Rabbit frontman Scott Hutchinson this past spring as he opened for another of my favorite songwriters in the world, Josh Ritter.  Frightened Rabbit is also the first and only non-American band I’ve interviewed which put a very interesting spin on my questions around community and transitions.  Thanks so much to Scott and Grant for being so darn nice and accommodating to a huge fanboy trying to keep it professional.  Enjoy these text excerpts and mp3 clips below, or [download id=”7″ format=”1″]

“When we first started playing we really felt we were against the tide a bit because there wasn’t much interest in our music – and maybe we were still a bit shit but I still thought the songs were worth listening to.  But the whole atmosphere in Glasgow wasn’t geared towards us – more gallery parties and a punk-disco scene – it wasn’t appropriate for us.  So then we met The Twilight Sad . . . and I heard the music and said “Hey! Fuck! Someone else is doing something that isn’t that!”  And we clung to each other for a little while because we felt a bit alone next to all of that.” – Scott Hutchinson, Frightened Rabbit

“I like the way that I used to write music, but I can’t ever get that back.  Whereby I was writing my first songs in my bedroom and such a romantic ideal attached to that, and the process is quite different now and that changes the songs.  But I’m going to accept those changing conditions as natural things and allow them to actually direct the songs as well, and that can be exciting as well as frustrating . . . but what happened is it went from a hobby to a profession.  It has changed and been a source of inspiration and frustrating, but I try to just run with it.” – Scott Hutchinson, Frightened Rabbit

MH: “What is the origin story of Frightened Rabbit and what was it like starting off in Glasgow, Scotland at that time?”

MH: “Was there a community in Glasgow that was important to the beginnings of your band?”

MH: “How has your understanding of building community around music changed from a local to international level?”

MH: “In your experience, what are some inhibitors to building good community around music?”

MH: “Your surroundings have changed so drastically since you first started writing.  From an artistic standpoint, how has that shift affected you and your writing?”

MH: “What did the jump from Glasgow to the next level look like?”

MH: “What advice would you give a fledgling band?”

Scott and the rest of Frightened Rabbit are entertaining on both Twitter and Facebook – I highly recommend connecting with them and buying their music pronto.

Photos by Jason Tang and Natalie Kardos

Last year I bought my 3-day pass the day they became available without any idea who I would go with or what bands I would see. I just figured I should be there. The end of July rolled around and the few friends I had made thus far were all out of town, so I strolled down to the festival solo. I saw some great bands, including Yeasayer, Fruit Bats, Blitzen Trapper, !!!, The Drowning Men, The Young Evils, and The Dead Weather. But as I look back on last year’s schedule I’m blown away by the bands I MISSED, especially locals, who I can no longer imagine my musical life without. How would my summer 2010 have changed if I knew to catch The Head and the Heart, Ravenna Woods, Macklemore, Fences, and Grand Hallway? Within a few months I was thoroughly versed in these wonderful local talents but it’s a trip that I was so-close-yet-so-far at the time. Ultimately the weekend was a huge catalyst for me in ways separate from the bands playing.  I met several awesome people there who have become some of my best friends in Seattle and inspired me to keep my head up at a really challenging time in my life.  Good music brings good people together – something I am now reminded of on the regular.

But [BLAH BLAH BLAH] this weekend is Block Party 2011! And this year I have a press pass! Although I’m delightfully exhausted, just getting home from from my band’s first West Coast tour (again, what a difference a year makes), I’m very excited to see some fantastic bands this weekend and doubtlessly miss out on even more that I will fall in love with 2-3 months down the road.  The more things change, the more I learn, the more I remember that I don’t know jack.  But, in any case, here are some bands I’m especially pumped to see – many for the first time:

FRIDAY:  Yarn Owl, The Head and the Heart, Yuck

SATURDAY:  The Lumineers, Seapony, Ravenna Woods, Beat Connection, The Young Evils, TV on the Radio

SUNDAY: Land of Pines, My Goodness, Virgin Islands, Campfire OK, The Cave Singers

Sound awesome right!? Tickets for the festival are still available – click here!