411 Music Fact Or Fiction 05.07.08: Week 55
Posted by Dan Haggerty on 05.07.2008
Mikey MiGo and James Palm take to the airwaves to call out the fact and fiction for the music you love to hate! Is the good ship Amy Winehouse finally hitting that iceberg? Would a free album from Metallica make up for Napster? Just how many drugs do you need to “get” Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”? Is it now or never for Stone Temple Pilots? All this and more, plus the B-52’s is your video question of the week!
Greetings and salutations ladies and generals, and welcome back the Music Zone's foray into Fact or Fiction, the column where we look at the music industry and ask the tough questions no one else in the business has the guts to consider. Hey – Someone needs to be the voice of the fans, and 411Mania is your hookup!
First up is a man making his debut to this column as he is part of the new breed entering the Music Zone family, he's reviewing the albums you will be listening tomorrow, James Palm! In the other studio is long time contributor and columnist extraordinaire, let alone this is certainly not his first dance in Fact or Fiction, you know him asThe Savage Animal, Mikey MiGo!
As for me, I'm here to ask the questions, moderate the game, and keep score – Even though nobody pays attention to the score. That's right; no one cares about the score. Basically, the score is Kevin Federline…
It's Music, its news, and we're 411Mania, so you're getting real views. This is week Fifty-Five of Fact or Fiction: Music and it starts now!
Round 1!
"Maybe I could appear
In an episode of CSI…"
1. Attention all passengers, please head to the nearest emergency exit because the S.S. Amy Winehouse is on its way to hitting a massive iceberg…
James Palm: Fact - Normally I would propose that the goodship Winehouse crashed into said iceberg long ago. But in this case I fear the real collision is still to come. This woman has made an unbelievably spectacular fall from the ranks of regular society. Winehouse's debut album Frank was a blip on the radar compared to Back to Black. It was not because Winehouse got better; Winehouse transformed into a totally different person. Of course, she had some outside help; namely her drug dealer, her hairstylist and her tattooist. Nothing pushes album sales like countless appearances in every newspaper in England , albeit looking like a tramp. When I was in London briefly last year, not a day went by without reading about Winehouse in the papers. It became both nauseating and embarrassing. Society doesn't want to see this girl get clean. I don't like to be superstitious, but an ugly feeling in my stomach tells me that Hendrix, Joplin and Morrison may yet have to welcome another to their clubroom. After all, she's only 25.
Mikey MiGo: Fact - Was she really just called S.S. Winehouse? She's a human being. We're forgetting that despite her being under the public eye, she's still a normal person with normal problems. If you don't know someone; or at least know someone who does; that's gone through crazy drug problems then I'm pretty sure you're sheltered and needs to get out more. Okay, as true as what I just said is, I'm really joking. Screw that if she was a professional wrestler she'd be "The English Trainwreck" Amy Winehouse. If she were a Nine Inch Nails' album she'd be "The Downward Spira". If she were grunge musician she'd be Kurt Cobain. Maybe she should get on a random network sitcom for a few appearances and people will automatically forgive her for being a waste of life. It did work for Brit, so why not her counterpart across the pond?
Score :1 for 1
2. Metallica would make amends for the Napster fiasco if they did give their next album away for free.
James Palm: Fiction - Metallica will never be able to make amends for how they treated their fans during their worldwide raid on Napster. Just like some people will never forgive the band for cutting their hair. Or for recording "Mama Said". In fact, both "Load" and "ReLoad" are unforgivable. I digress. What Metallica, and more accurately Lars and James did, was ridiculous. They felt they were being robbed of album sales through the freedom of the internet, and so they deemed anyone who used Napster as the enemy, alienating many of the very fans that helped them become so rich in the first place. If the band do indeed make it possible to obtain their new album for free, it would be an obvious pitch to those same fans they lost in at the turn of the century, the marketing equivalent of a desperate ex-girlfriend, the one who broke your heart, turning up on your doorstep with a six-pack, horny as the depths of hell. You might take that shag, but ultimately, you'll still remember that terrible thing she did to you. Regardless of how Metallica chose to distribute their new album, I doubt I'll pick it up, even if it is free.
Mikey MiGo: Fiction - This has to be one of the most hypocritical moves of all time. Metallica was all hard up and got a lot of their fans in trouble with the whole Napster situation. This was almost around ten years ago and a lot has changed. Technology has taken us into a whole new world, music is being distributed in new ways, and many artists have adapted and worked with the modernization of music and the internet. On the other hand, Metallica is still an overrated hunk of shit. They have about as many known singles as Limp Bizkit or a Kid Rock, but because of their first few albums got over as being ripped off of by grittier and less commercial bands they are considered icons. Give me a break. Even if there is a few catchy metal songs released that gets them a dozen new fans it's pointless. Metallica should just tour and cater to their fans like a Grateful Dead or Dave Matthews Band does. I don't think anyone else really cares. I agree with Mr. Palm, picking this up would be a waste of my time. No interest! Fail! Burn! "Tupac" backwards!Berried!
Score :2 for 2
3. You can't afford enough drugs to understand Pink Floyd's movie "The Wall".
James Palm: Fiction - I don't subscribe to the theory that you need a lot of drugs to enjoy Pink Floyd. For mine, you need but one; marijuana. If you drop, you tend to forget most of your night. However a controlled burn is the perfect accompaniment to your cinematic experience. A few hits in, and you can't get over the fact that Bob Geldof is playing a man named Pink. Despite the various stereotypes, I believe that weed actually makes you smarter, and someday I'll prove it. My study could centre on this film, as only with the lightning pace of a stoned brain can you even begin to comprehend the various levels of symbolism and ideology present within Roger Waters' tripped out tribute to his own tripped out existence. Drugs can contribute to your level of understanding, but the one thing you need most of all is the original album the film visualised. If you truly want to understand The Wall, listen to the album when high. And enjoy.
Mikey MiGo: Fiction - This is a rather personal question. What business is it of anyone as to what drugs I can or cannot afford. I know for a fact that I can afford enough drugs to not only understand, but also enjoy this epic movie. Mr. Palm's assessments on the use of marijuana and The Wall is pretty much dead on. You really don't have to "drop" as he proclaimed it. You could easily eat some shrooms. A few years back when I was more "experimental", I shroomed while watching The Warriors. This movie has a similar effect of "whoa!" and really deep thinking. At the same time, I can remember a night I rolled and watched this and that was just as intense. I'd think it'd be safe to say that most drugs will give you a different perspective and you'll take someone different away from the film. Even without drugs a good stiff drink will subdue you enough to give you an "experience" that's unrivaled.
Intermission Score :3 for 3
OK everyone… You know the lyrics!
SWITCH!
Round 2!
4. Clive Davis was an essential part of the success of not only Sony BMG, but many popular singers/groups and will be missed.
Mikey MiGo:Fact. If you take a quick glance at Mr. Davis's resume and list of accolades you'd easily understand the importance he has had on pop music and modern music in general. If you actually take a deeper look than a glance you'd actually realize that he is without a doubt one of the most important music business figures in the entire history of music. That's not an overstatement or an exaggeration. I'm only a fan of a few artists he's help bring up, but to deny the impact the Davis roster has had would be insulting to anyone's intelligence. He's going to be missed, but at this stage in the game the formula and ideology he's put in place isn't going anywhere.
James Palm:Fiction - Clive Davis is no putz. He's been in charge of some of the biggest music companies in the history of recorded music, and overseen the signatures of many similarly impressive acts. But for all his taste and savvy, Clive Davis did not go into the studio, take a lot of drugs and emerge with The Wall. Pink Floyd did that (see that, that's a callback. I think I'm obsessed with them). Davis liked what he heard, and decided Colombia would distribute the album. I agree with everything Mikey said, and I respect the career Davis has had. This question just destroyed my brain, so much so that I spent more time than is probably necessary debating whether I would go with ‘Fact' or ‘Fiction'. Looking at his recent track record, perhaps at age 76 it was a good time for Clive Davis to pass the torch.
Score :3 for 4
5. It's the right time and place for a Stone Temple Pilots reunion tour and new album.
Is the time now?
Mikey MiGo:Fact. - "Army of Anyone" didn't do shit for the non-Weiland members of the band. Despite what a lot of music snobs say, Velvet Revolver had some great music and was a needed band for the time it was around. Does this compare in the least bit to what STP brought to the table? Not a chance. I'm bias as hell because I love STP. Their music was a great alternative to the alternative during the end of the grunge era. I'm wishing I'd be able to attend one of their upcoming reunion shows and look forward to any and all new music. I wasn't huge on their last album "Shangri-La", but other than that I've not really been disappointed. I'm sure I'm not alone on this. This is not a normal "reunion" of washed up bands trying to reclaim glory before they're wearing adult depends. These guys can and hopefully still will continue to rock as they did in the 90s.
James Palm:Fact - Only because this year will be the last year Scott Weiland, and by proxy Stone Temple Pilots, maintain an ounce of relevance. Velvet Revolver was doing fine, obviously Weiland couldn't handle the fact that there were other great musicians in the band, and so he decided to shift back into familiar territory. STP had some great licks, but they were never going to be a double-decade band. I don't want to sound like I'm calling them ‘dated', but playing Guitar Hero II was the first time I listened to STP since about 2002. I'm not insulting the band or their fans, though. That would be hypocritical, as I'm personally awaiting the new My Bloody Valentine album with the same level of excitement, and plenty more people hate that band.
Score :4 for 5
Video Fact or Fiction!
6. 33% Commentary + 33% pop + 33% WTF = B-52s in any era…
Mikey MiGo:Fact. - While I'd slightly change the math problem above, those are easily the main three ingredients that make up B-52s. I think I'd probably go with 50% commentary, 25% pop and 25% WTF. It's hard to deny that they're a great pop band. Their music is bouncy, energetic, and easy to dance around to. Nonetheless, if you look deeper than the tongue-in-cheek humor you'll find a pretty deeper point of view. I'm not a huge fan of their work, but it still shouldn't go unappreciated and respected.
James Palm:Fiction - I'm no fancy scientist, but I utilize a different formula: Novelty divided by nostalgia multiplied by the current level of irony in the music industry = B-52's in any era. I can admit that "Love Shack" was the first song of theirs I heard. However, when I later saw an early live performance of "Rock Lobster", I was confused. I had no idea what happened between those many years. The B-52's had a great kitschy post-punk sound on their early hits, but throughout the 80's the band was unable to follow through on their success and hit the mainstream like their fellow Georgians REM. Until "Love Shack", of course. I'm not sure I see the deep social commentary in "I got me a car/It seats about twenty/So come along/And bring your jukebox money" either. Or perhaps you actually need more drugs to listen to the B-52's than you do for Pink Floyd.
Final Score :4 for 6
From The Archives - Classic 411Music Fact Or Fiction!
We're going back to Week 41 4. Live Nation entering the concert ticket business should provide some much need competition to help reduce prices.
Dan Marsicano:Fact: - God, I hope so. Ticketmaster has always been hit and miss for me. I remember getting tickets for a Dream Theater concert last summer at PNC Bank Arts Center in Holmdel, NJ, that were about 20 rows back. I was excited, because those are decent seats. Imagine my surprise when I go back and try it again for concerts that fall under their jurisdiction. This will take business away from Ticketmaste, just to see how many seats have been sold, and finding tickets for the second row. Yeah, the second fucking row! Thanks Ticketmaster for screwing me over. So, I hope Live Nation will bring some competition to the ticket business, as a little friendly competition never hurt anyone.
Ben Czajkowski:Fact. - Oh. Sweet. Mother. Of. God…Competition. That's what's going to drive down the cost of tickets. Knock on wood. What causes me to seethe the most is that Ticketmaster charges exorbitant service charges on top of an already bloated ticket price. Their process is shitty enough, as it is. Unfortunately, I can see this ticket race's impact going either way: Live Nation is either going to help or hurt this cause. Because I am the jaded cynic, I will believe that LN will increase the prices r; in return, TM will just jack up their prices to compensate for the lack of business. Or rainbows and kittens will appear and I won't have to mortgage my first house to see shitty bands.
All right then, a big thanks to James and Mikey for participating this week and dishing out the tough answers; also, a big thanks to you, the music fan for making us part of your week. I'm out of here, so we'll see you this Friday in the The Mosh Pit and we'll see you back here is seven!
Metallica never ripped off any other bands. Not realizing Master of Puppets is a
classic album no matter how you slice it, is a complete display of musical
ignorance. sure they havent done anything great lately. that doesnt mean they
didnt pave the road for most metal bands after them. and im sure their new
album will bring them back to a new musical limelight. Metallica FTW
Posted By: Jope99 (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 01:37 AM
I wish everyone would get off Metallica-they made the music, they invested their
time, effort and talent into making it. Why shouldn't they get paid. If you go
into an art gallery and steal a painting or go into the shop and steal a print,
you are guilty of theft and hopefully get arrested and thrown into prison with a
large, friendly roommate with tattoos on his face. How is stealing music from
the internet different. As for trying to get people arrested-why shouldn't
they? If you went out and got mugged for your wallet, would you go to the
police? I certainly hope so. Oh wait, there's a small chance that the mudder
might give you back some of your chance when you go crazy from the trauma and
are living on the street-so it's ok for him to mug you, right? Extreme and
maybe a little inaccurate examples, but the basic premise still holds true. If
you are a fan or support of someone, you don't steal from them. I like the
Bengals, therefore I go out and buy the jerseys, rather than stealing it from
the PBS shop.
Posted By: TempusFugit365 (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 05:09 AM
Eeesh people!
Metallica had been ripping off other bands since the beginning. When they
started, they had a few "originals" and mostly covers of NWOBHM bands
that people in LA had never heard of; which although they didn't specifically
say "these are cover songs" they also didn't say they were originals.
Deception by omission.
They continued to use Mustaine's riffs for over 3 years after he was kicked
out, and rumors abounded that Load and Reload sucked because they finally ran
out of Cliff Burton riffs and jams.
Their biggest hit, and the song that BROKE them with mainstream fans was a riff
stolen from a Bay Area band called Excel, that had written the riff 4 years
earlier (check out The Jokes on You" CD)
Yes, Master of Puppets WAS a great album. It was also released 22 years ago.
Hell, The Black Album was pretty good, and that was released 17 years ago. I
wore those albums out when I was 20. They don't hold up as well, at least in my
opinion. I'll listen to Reign in Blood or Peace Sells & Holy Wars much more
than I'll listen to Master of Puppets (which could be considered Ride the
Lightning II, see metal column on here from last week)
Lastly, the issue with them making money is more based on their attitude change
over the years. They made their whole career in the beginning by being the love
of underground tape traders, ie people who dubbed the albums and gave them to
friends. Not buying the stuff, trading. They also encouraged the trading of
bootleg recordings, and went so far as to release a whole VHS of bootleg
performances, ala The Dead. They said they would never do a video, or cater to
MTV. Then they start morphing into this corporate entity; videos, sucking MTV's
ass, appearing on every awards show as the token "metal" band,
dressing in Italian suits, Lars building up a post-modern art collection and
marrying Danish Supermodels, spending upwards of 30 hours of studio time just
working on the sound of a kick-drum, James cutting out early of band rehearsal
so he can take his daughter to ballet class, Sweater wearing “Band
Psychologists" who say things like "shame spirals are hurting you
Lars, have you really ever gotten over Cliff's death?"
Who the HELL can relate to most of these things (other than ballet lessons for
your daughter), and if you do, you probably aren't the type that is kicking
back and listening to Metallica.
The band lost ALL credibility when they did that Icon show, and pretended that
they were happy to see bands like Sum 41, Avril Lavigne, and Korn perform their
songs. Hell, maybe they WERE happy about that, which makes all this even worse!
Their time has come and gone; they will spend the rest of their career like the
Rolling Stones, touring ever other year, to people that remember the good ol’
days, as their CD’s become increasing irrelevant.
Posted By: Krunchy (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 08:34 AM
I don't understand the hate for Metallica for their reactions to Napster.
Napster allowed people to illegally download copyrighted music and everyone who
did so was in violation of federal law, includig me. I just never romanticized
what I did: I was violating the law and I knew it. I had friends that were all
on this "oh, music should be free for everyone" and so on and so
forth. Yeah, buddy, but if the musicians aren't getting paid, they quit
producing. And if Metallica wanted to sue people, including me, for stealing
their music, then that was the risk we were taking.
Posted By: Matt (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 09:42 AM
I agree, Metallica is overrated and really if I wanted to listen to wannabe
heavy metal bands, there are others, who are better, to select from.
Posted By: ML2 (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 09:47 AM
To me, it isn't the Napster controversey: After all, bands deserve to get paid
for their music. Sure, Lars was being a really big dick about it when he could
easily have justified it not for themselves, but for the hundreds and thousands
of up and coming bands that are lucky to make 1/1,000th of what Metallica
makes. The logic was there
It wasn't the crap non-metal openers they've had in the recent batch of tours,
because I can understand with trying to keep up with the times to keep
attracting and retaining the younger audience.
ANd it wasn't the image change of the mid 90's. Yes it looked pretty gay, but
then again so did half of the hair metal bands of the 80's and I still enjoyed
their music.
It wasn't the Load/Reload albums, which both had their moments, and would have
been a true powerhouse if they cut down the filler and made one super album.
No, for me it was St Anger, which ranks as one of the most unlistenable pieces
of shit by any band ever. Not because the songs themselves were bad (although
most of them were medicore at best), but because the production was beyond
hideous--making AJFA production seem frickign brilliant by comparison.
With that being said, I still respect what Metallica has meant to the industry
and to metal in general. Their first five albums were amzing in their own way,
with Puppets being a true classic by just about anyone's definition. ANd they
are still a solid band live, that at least had the balls to go out with diverse
setlists for most nigths on the Anger tour. While not quite as unpredictable as
Dream Theater, you knew when you saw Metallica in 2004, you were not going to
get the same show twice--and they still put everything they have into their
live show. THis is why I still enjoy them and why I'll be glad to see them yet
agian.
Posted By: Michael L (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Metallica should call their new album Ride the Puppets ... the hardcore fans'll
be like, "yeeeah, best of both worlds." Ride the Puppets, book it!
Posted By: daniel (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Metallica have always been hacks and like the article states, I will never
forget listening to Lars whine on and on in front of Congress about Metallica
fans not paying him enough for his overrated drumwork.
Out of the hundreds of shows I have scene, the Act that most resembles Spinal
Tap was Metallica on the Lolapollooza (Sic.) tour in Kasas City. Hatfield's
stud stance with the Flying V was hilarious. The various solos all sucked. I
don't even think free works for me, I would need a refund on that concert
ticket I bought as well.
The Admiral.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynuts (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 03:13 PM
Before I became a born again Christian, i was a hardcore pothead and would have
agreed 100% about drugs and Pink Floyd. Now I realize that to believe drugs
that adversely affect perception make things better is just plain wrong. Have
you ever heard of people say they drive better after drinking? We know that is
ridiculous.
This is really no different.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 03:34 PM
Whatever, drugs are a good way to experience an album. Why not drop and listen?
Toke up and try to make sense of it? Pink Floyd sucks no matter what drug
you're on. You might as well get stoned to listen to that drivel.
Posted By: Satan (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 05:22 PM
Right now I am feeling the wonderful effects of kidney stones. I took a couple
10/mg Percocets and they kicked in right at the Pinkfloyd question and I have
to admit being in this state of mind really helped out with reading the rest of
the questions but more over reading the after comments. Also listening to the
ride the lightning album Ok I forgot where I was going with this. but I feel
good!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted By: Guest#6872 (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 05:52 PM
I love how music "fans" whine. Metallica worked and they should be
paid. It doesn't matter if they're rich or not. They get paid through CD sales,
ticket sales, etc.
But "fans" want to whine because they have to pay for something.
Boo hoo hoo.
Fans also whine when CD prices go up. They whine when concerts sell out and
they end up buying their tickets from scalpers at 3 to 5 times the price. They
whine because the fee to get into a club is higher than usual to see a hot
band.
They whine because it's money that they have to dig out of their pockets. But,
when the shoe is on the other foot, those same whiners want to be able to
snatch money out of other people's pockets. They want to be able to get
something for nothing and screw over the people who worked to make the music in
the first place.
I'll make an offer to all you whiners out there who get upset about Metallica
or anyone else telling you that you have to pay cash if you want what they
worked to create. You believe in something for nothing? Come and mow my 4 acres
of lawn on a hot summer's day this year. I'll be more than happy to pay you for
your work what you think you should pay for music.
NOTHING AT ALL.
Then you can go somewhere and whine about that too.
Posted By: JJChandler (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Bands make money from cd sales? Don't tell the bands that-they'll want their
money.
For most, they make $.02 for every cd sold. They make their real money from
touring.
Metallica just happens to have a better contract then most- making them
greedy... not fighting for the common artist as they suggested.
Posted By: guest (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 12:49 AM
guest (Guest),
You'll note that I listed cd sales as one item amongst others and not as a
stand alone item. And one of the things I actually listed by name was ticket
sales. That covers touring. Thanks for playing.
Oh, and what dictionary do you own? I've looked through most of mine and I just
can't seem to find a single one that lists any definition of 'greedy' as wanting
to be paid fully for the work you've done and not wanting people to rip you off
or to steal from you.
You can try and justify it, excuse it and rationalize it all you want by
calling them greedy, claiming that they've made too much money already, talking
about how they acted like jerks about it or anything else that you want to try
and come up with, but the simple fact is that it doesn't change the simple
facts. And the simple facts are when you take something that was meant to be
for sale and don't pay for it you are engaging in theft. You are stealing.
Even if someone is too dull witted to understand that, they should be able to
figure it out when the legal owner of the item in question says that you must
pay for the items that you are taking or you are not entitled to them. If you
keep stealing from them after that point then you deserve to get arrested and
what ever else happens to you after that.
Posted By: JJChandler (Registered) on May 08, 2008 at 08:50 PM
