411 Music Fact Or Fiction 08.13.08: Week 66

Posted by Dan Haggerty on 08.13.2008

Blake Lauderback and Dan Halen get down and dirty with the tough questions of the music scene: Should Axl Rose stop wasting our time? Is Jessica Simpson’s success all about her looks? How creepy is a new Elvis duets album? Will a new queen album do well? Plus we debate talent versus the strangeness that is David Bowie and take on Lemmy Kilmister’s views of the music industry!

Greetings, salutations, and welcome to the column that makes hump-day the beginning of the home stretch to the weekend. It's time to get down and dirty by taking on the music news and classic views that make up this crazy business we love to hate and hate to love. Today we take on contemporary news with some classic views, as some music old school know-how enters Fact or Fiction stadium. First up, we have Blake Lauderback, who weekly give you not one, but two features ~ Top 5 and Ask 411Music! You know he's a class act when he's too polite to give me grief for being to busy to participate. He's opposed by the returning Dan Halen, who now lights up the review section while bringing you the great Rants & Raves every Thursday, a column he co-hosts with the wonderful Vanessa Willoughby. I'm your host, and it is my job to ask the questions, make sure there are no low blows, and… Oh hell, who am I kidding? We love the low blows here in the music section. In your face is practically the zone's mission statement. In fact, I'm fairly certain there is more bad language per capita here in the music zone than you would find in most third world countries. So keep your guard up, as we swing into another high octane journey into Music: Fact or Fiction!


Round 1!


1. Someone needs to tell Axl Rose to get the hell out of the music business and stop wasting our time.

Dan Halen: FACT x 1000 - I am so sick and tired of all the "when will it be coming out" speculation about this release. Supposedly the record is done and the label is holding it up now (if you believe the recent press statements). Fuck it, who cares? There's no way the record will live up to the hype behind it at this point. The budget has supposedly shot higher than any recording in history, eleventy thousand people have been involved, and whatever issues Axl has long ago over-shadowed this release. Will it sell when it comes out? I would imagine so due to curiosity and the aforementioned hype. Will it add to the legacy of the band? I just can't see it other than setting records for something like "longest time in production for an album", "biggest waste of time/money", or something similarly worthless. This drug-out ridiculousness flies directly in the face of what the band was originally about and even die-hard fans of the band are weary of all this. It's a running joke and IF it ever does come out, please let it bomb so badly that no one will have any interest in indulging Axl to take another couple of decades to create another one. Axl should retire but knowing how things work, will end up with a successful career in reality television.

Blake Lauderback: FACT - I don't suppose there is too much to add after the tirade of Dan, but let me see what I've got. The thing that blows me away most about this entire process is the amount of ego involved here. Why does the album have such a big deal? Why doesn't the REAL Guns and Roses reunite? Why must the elusive Chinese Democracy (A title that grows more and more ironic with every new stumbling block) have somewhere between 42 and 12,000 guest musicians on it? Because Axl either has some serious self esteem issues when it comes to his role in rock history, or he is compromising for some other area in which he is lacking. The man has allowed his ego to cause him to lose a decade's worth of his career, and ironically enough, it may have tarnished his career forever.

Score : 1 for 1


2. Sony BMG's Elvis Presley Christmas Duets is one of the saddest and creepiest cash-ins ever proposed.

Dan Halen: FACTION - That's not a misprint as I think this COULD claim that title, but is it going to be any worse than the duets that have come before it (see Natalie Cole and her father, Hank Williams Sr. and Jr., etc.)? Or how about the pillaging of the vaults of Hendrix or 2Pac? Some of these artists have put out more material since they died than when they were alive. Hell, I may actually be more worried about the upcoming Johnny Cash remix album than this. Either way, they all smack of cashing in and do nothing for the legacy of the artists involved.

Blake Lauderback: FACT - For any of you that are wondering why the heads of Presley's estate would allow this to happen, it is because the estate is in dire straights financially, and have been for quite some time now. I can understand the need for income (especially since Lisa Marie's career isn't exactly blowing up the charts), but this is beyond horrible to me. As with all of the artists that Dan mentioned, please let them rest in peace. Hearing a bunch of country hacks destroy the work of a legend like Elvis is truly disgusting to me.

[Dan has a good point, but we need a verdict for the score so I'm calling it Fiction due to the other grizzly examples he gave]

Score : 1 for 2


3. Even without Freddie Mercury, Queen recording a new album with Paul Rodgers will be a huge success.

Dan Halen: FICTION - Don't get me wrong, I think it will be semi-successful, especially overseas, where both Queen and Paul Rodgers have always had a stronghold, but huge? No. The live set they did a few years ago only hit 84th in the Billboard Top 200 chart and that was after nothing under the Queen brand had been out in years. While Rodgers brings the Free/Bad Company legacy with him and is an excellent singer, his style, for the most part, has never blended well with the older Queen material. Some songs he pulls off just fine, but the more theatrical numbers (and come on, those are what Queen is best known for) seem to fall flat with his interpretations. There is a bit of hype pushing the release of this, but advance word indicates a lot of the material sounds closer to Free - and is anyone really clamoring for that? I foresee a tour that will do decent business, especially in Japan, UK and South America, but I don't feel the die-hard fans (myself included) are accepting enough of Paul to make this a huge success.

Blake Lauderback: FICTION - Now let me start by saying that I am a HUGE Queen fan, and I really enjoy the work of Paul Rodgers as well. With that said, I don't like this idea at all. Some bands can pull off the lead singer switch after a tragic end. AC/DC springs to mind. However, to me that scenario worked because Angus Young was as much the face of the band as Bon Scott was. Could Nirvana have gone on without Kurt Cobain? No, and that is most certainly not a shot at the talent of the other two individuals. It is because Kurt was the only person that could have filled that hole (that is a Courtney Love joke waiting to happen on so many levels). So how is it fair to ask Paul Rodgers to step in and fill the shoes of Freddie Mercury, who I (and many others) consider to be the greatest front man of all time? It isn't. When the live album came out a few years back, I rushed out and picked it up immediately, and frankly, it didn't work for me. Again, that is not a knock on the other members of Queen or Rodgers himself, because they are immensely talented still, but Queen isn't Queen sans Mercury. Now, if they went the Velvet Revolver/Audioslave route and played up the fact that the boys from Queen have teamed up to create a supergroup with the powerful Paul Rodgers of Free and Bad Company called *enter band name here,* I would be completely on board. But for now, I would prefer to see them leave the legacy of Queen dead and buried along side their former front man.

Intermission Score : 2 for 3


FACT OR FICTION OPEN CHALLENGE

OK everyone. This should be fun, as there are quite a few Guns N Roses fans and detractors here. So what do you guys think? Should Axl Rose get the hell out of the music business and stop wasting our time? Or do you think the end product will be worth the journey? Sound off and let us know!

And don't forget to start with Fact or Fiction. A few great comments will get posted next week!


SWITCH!


And We're Off For Round 2!


4. Once you remove the bizarre stories from the mix, it's easy to see that David Bowie is overrated as a musician and performer.

Blake Lauderback: FICTION - I personally don't see Bowie as overrated at all. In fact, I think that it is because of his image that he is often overlooked by this generation. I think the concept of him playing an androgynous space alien is too much for the casual music fan to take on these days, which is a shame, because I think that he has had some outstanding points in his career, not to mention some classic music... "Changes," "Jean Genie," "Rebel, Rebel," "Heroes," "Space Oddity," "Suffragette City," "Ziggy Stardust..." all in all, a pretty solid list.

Dan Halen: FICTION - Bowie is not a personal fave and I've only enjoyed certain things he has done in his career, but I'd have to agree with Blake that he is overlooked a lot now. Bowie's best era was in the 70s when he seemed to reinvent himself with every album, much the same way Madonna does today. No doubt his style and music were a huge influence on any artist that considered themselves to be glam, but he also was at least partially responsible for the whole New Romantic movement of the 80s. Bowie also stretched boundaries working with Brian Eno into more progessive territory. He's not overrated and is at least as relevant if not moreso than other artists from that era that still put out product today (Stones, The Who).

Score : 3 for 4


5. Jessica Simpson's singing career can be summed up in two words: Daisy Dukes.

Blake Lauderback: FICTION - Though I will say it is certainly one of the better aspects. As far as all of the early 2000's pop singers, she was one of the more talented vocalist, including Britney Spears. She is certainly not my cup of tea to listen to, but it could be worse. As a side note, a good buddy of mine went to kindergarten with her, and he is still a little shook up about the fact that he didn't make a move on her. If you were really looking for a couple of words worth of summary for her, I nominate "chicken of the sea."

Dan Halen: FICTION - Seriously, Dan? Jessica Simpson? I thought we were friends. All joking aside, no, there are more than two words that sum up her career: "Joe Simpson" and "MTV" are some, "useless" and "pop-tart window dressing" are some more. And really, Blake, you consider Britney Spears a talented vocalist or did I misread that due to the way it was worded? Jessica does at least have some pipes on her and (so far) has managed to steer clear of the whole Britney/Winehouse trainwreck-in-the-media category, whether by luck or careful maneuvering from her dad. Her career is a joke though - now she's going to be a country singer? Why? Because she can't compete in the pop genre with the rest of the gals? Or she just realized this is what she's always wanted to do after building her career in pop? It all smacks of desperation for another fifteen minutes to me. Besides, for sheer talent, no one is going to take Christina down anytime soon.

Score : 4 for 5


6. Lemmy Kilmister hits a home run with his comments on the state of Rock & Roll: "Rock & roll's fine, because stuff isn't getting played on the radio, again. They will come up with something that the radio hasn't noticed, again, and they will definitely spark a terrible rush by the record companies to sign it all up — anything with a guitar around its neck from that city [laughs]. Like the Merseybeat, and the Nirvana thing — they went up to Seattle and signed everything that even owned a guitar, I think."

Blake Lauderback: FACT - At least I think I get what he is going for. It appears as if he is describing the cycle of rock. It seems that every 5 - 10 years the genre gets very stale and overshadowed by other genres, whether it be pop, rap, disco, or whatever. Up to this point anyway, rock has be reborn in some new form... metal, punk, grunge... etc. Then that form of rock takes center stage for a while until it becomes too saturated with copycats, and then the cycle begins again. The only thing that concerns me is, who is to say that the cycle HAS to continue, or for that matter, that emo wasn't the "resurgence?" Here's hoping that we aren't all waiting for a "musical messiah" that will never come.

Dan Halen: FICTION - Like Blake, I'm going to have to assume Lemmy is talking about cycles here. That said, no, the state of rock and roll is NOT fine, it's in a state of flux. With the advent of all the new technology, labels are NOT rushing out to sign anyone but rather waiting for product to come to them, basically finished, so they don't have to sink money into an artist. Radio is all preprogrammed as opposed to the good old days when an actual DJ decided what to play (thus Motorhead ain't on the playlist – sorry, Lemmy). Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead are releasing stuff for free, forcing Gene Simmons to threaten to NOT release any future KISS product (promise, Gene? – that would be swell). Anyone with MySpace can post and sell product online. Wal-Mart is cutting exclusive deals with AC/DC, The Eagles, etc., cutting everyone else out of the loop. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any of this is bad, but it's too unpredictable to be considered "fine" as no one knows what direction it's going or where it's going to end up. As for cycles, gone are the creative and fertile days of the 60s and 70s. Everything coming out now borrows in some form or fashion from the past and uses it as a template for creation. Couple that with the diminishing attention span of today's society and it's almost impossible for any genre to establish (or re-establish itself in the mainstream). Either way, rock and roll is not fine, but it's not sick either – let's just say it's going through growing pains and evolving. Like Dylan said, "The times they are a-changin'".

Final Score : 4 for 6

You just never no where the muse is going to take you. In last week, I asked about change in the music scene and got one or two responses. The one person who officially responded is reprinted below. He gave a good account of himself, so good job massive!

For the rest of the comment section, most of you piled up on Dragonforce. And by pile up I mean to say you ripped them a new one. Lots of good power metal suggestions came out of the debate, however. Dan Marsicano won the day with his universally loved suggestion that Dragonforce sounds like Walt Disney fucking a keyboard. I still have to laugh at that one.

A few brave souls did back the band up some and said they rocked live.

Quotable quotes:

FICTION. The problem with the question is that it fails to define "mainstream" music. If I may wax nostalgic for a moment ... ahem.

"Back in my day, if we wanted to listen to music, we had to turn on this electrified box in my mom's kitchen that we called a 'Radio'! And then if we turned some dials just the right way, Michael Jackson's 'Beat It' might play! But you had to leave your hand near the dial or it might go off. Uphill! Both ways!"

Today, "mainstream" is everywhere. No one's trapped into the radio or MTV sound to where a "musical revolution" makes a huge difference. For every act that gets airplay on Top 40 radio, there's 30 acts that you can find online, and another 80 radio stations playing DIFFERENT acts. Bands are trying out different sounds from album to album despite their success. There's no "dominant sound."

This is an amazing time to be a fan of music. It's all accessible. It's ALL mainstream.

Posted By: massive

And on those happy thoughts, we're going to call it a show. I'd like to thank Blake and Dan for coming in and brining there A-game. Great answers guys. Thank you for reading and writing in as well. You guys are part of the show now, so keep on participating and telling everyone what you think! As for me, I'm out of here so we'll see you Friday in the and we'll see you back here is seven.