Don't Let The Medium Kill The Meaning

Good one, Tim.

Not so long ago, listening to music, or experiencing any kind of art, required an investment - some kind of effort on the part of the audience that connected them more deeply to the artist. These days, much less of an investment is required. Do we value art less as a result? It's tough to say exactly how much less, but I believe that this is definitely the case.

Let me put it this way. After driving 20 minutes to go see a play, you've invested something, and therefore will make more effort to process and get value out of the art you witness. However, when you can instantly access a particular piece of art, there's no initial investment, so you're not going to really try to get inside the head of the artist and figure out what they are trying to say. Your subconscious is going to assume that what is easy to access should also be quickly accessible.

The effort of going out and buying a CD, dropping $40 on a rare record, learning the piano so you can play that one song by your favorite band - every effort you make to seek out a particular song or type of music makes you more a part of it. It's against our nature to walk away from something we've already invested some kind of time, energy or money in; we're more inclined to try to salvage it, to mine it more deeply for value.

Just be careful you don't mine too deep.

For instance, if you spend $15 buying an album at the store, and upon your first listen find that you profoundly dislike it, you are going to spend a lot more time trying to prove to yourself that you aren't an idiot who got duped into buying a bad album. You're going to listen to it until you either start to actually enjoy it or decide that it really is beyond all hope. However, an album you download for free, you're going to delete and, for the most part, forget about.

Artists are keenly aware of the culture into which they are releasing their art, and I think what we've seen over the last couple years in response to the lack of audience investment is an increase in accessibility and a drop in depth. However, the lack of audience investment is largely a result of the nature of the technology with which they access music.

Well, if all of this is true, what should we do? Should we shun the promise of portable music players and online streaming? I don't think so. Really, my main purpose in writing this article was simply to bring attention to the way the medium with which we access music changes the way we perceive it. I recommend a solid four hours of uninterrupted reflective meditation on the themes presented in this article. But why should you listen to me? It's not like you paid anything to read this.

"All My Potential" by In Bloom

All my shoes

"All My Potential" is an apt title for Portland-based pop-punk band In Bloom's debut EP. The 6-song collection runs a total of 16 minutes and presents a well-rounded picture of the group's sound. It's certainly an enticing, if brief, listen - the songs are all energetic, uptempo rockers with well-thought-out lyrics and arrangements.

However, "All My Potential" feels more like a hint of things to come than a self-contained, finished work. The dynamic arc that usually gives albums their shape is noticeably missing, replaced with a balls-to-the-wall approach that finds In Bloom giving 110% on every track. A single acoustic song would have gone a long way in giving the EP more of album feel, but instead we have to settle for a couple of tacked-on acoustic outros.

Quick! Before someone notices!

Front and center is vocalist/guitarist Tim Reed's voice, which fits right in with the band's pop-punk sound. Overdubbed harmonies fill out the songs nicely, though in some places additional guitar counterlines could have accomplished the same purpose.

The best track on the album is "Wear & Tear", which, through intelligent use of dynamics, builds to an inevitable-seeming climax that satisfyingly sums up the song. This is in contrast to tracks like "You Sew Me Up", which, while well-written, never quite hit the same sort of climax.

"Don't Let Me Go" is something of the oddball track on the EP, with unusual chord changes and some strange structural choices. It's a positive sign that In Bloom is willing to experiment with such things so early in their career. I hope that their next effort takes inspiration from this track as well as the more straightforward ones.

All in all, In Bloom's first effort is a positive, upbeat collection of well-written songs. It's certainly worth checking out, but I'm even more excited for what's coming next.

On Singing Live

It's funny how much credit we give to artists nowadays who can sing live. Before the invention and proliferation of recording technology, all singing, in fact, all music, was live. A singer who couldn't sing live wasn't a singer.

However, there are definitely singers today who can't sing their studio-recorded songs live. Some can't even come close. So, what happened?

The first and most obvious explanation is that actual vocal talent is currently being ignored in favor of aspects such as image and marketability. While this may be somewhat true, it is hard to believe that there are not individuals who possess adequate amounts of both vocal talent and marketability; these people would logically be chosen before those with good image and less talent.

When complaining about the consistency of a singer, we often forget that inconsistent methods of singing can result in interesting and novel sounds. Popular culture has largely rejected "classical" methods of singing, preferring timbres that startle and surprise them. While someone with a run-of-the-mill good voice is pleasant to listen to, it's not enough to convince the public to buy their albums. There has to be some special quality to it, something that we've never heard before.

So, where are all of the good singers? Well, there are still plenty around, but the sound of a well-supported, balanced vocal tone is old news to the world of pop music. We prefer novelty: harsh, undisciplined screaming run through massive amounts of compression or exuberant, amateurish vocalizations made consistent through the use of pitch correction software. Even singers today who can achieve some level of consistency employ questionable techniques, often tightening up to hit certain pitches rather than shifting registers.

So, next time you complain about a particular artist's lack of ability in live performance, remember what the recording sounded like - that's the timbre that their inconsistent technique makes possible.

WARNING: may also lead to gratuitous "you sing it!" moments in live performances.

"What The Hell" by Avril Lavigne

...did you put in my HAIR?!?!

Avril Lavigne has gone pure pop. Not the guitar-driven, punk-pop of "Sk8ter Boi", or even the half-pop half-rock of "Girlfriend", but pure, electronic dance pop. It's not a terribly surprising move for Lavigne, who hasn't had a major mainstream hit since the aforementioned "Girlfriend" (2007); she needs a real chart-topper to put her back in the public eye.

Plan B: whale costume.

So, when you need a hit, who do you call? That's right: Max Martin. Lavigne brings her fair share of singing and songwriting talent to the table, but Martin's contributions are what set this track apart from the pack. From the catchy opening organ riff to the massively hooky pre-chorus, his nuanced arrangement is what gives this song its momentum.

Lyrically, "What The Hell" is well summarized by its chorus, in which Lavigne states plainly, "all I want is to mess around". With this in mind, the remainder of the lyrics explore tried and true pop music subjects such as infidelity in relationships and not caring about what other people think. While this approach could have come across as formulaic and clichéd, Lavigne sells the song's premise with her exuberant vocal delivery.

Overall, "What The Hell" is a solid comeback single. If this doesn't get Avril Lavigne back to the top of the pop world, I don't know what would.

Actually, never mind.

"The Time (Dirty Bit)" by The Black Eyed Peas

Ironically, the Black Eyed Peas were late to the cover shoot

"The Time (Dirty Bit)" is based around the chorus hook from "(I've Had) The Time of My Life", the theme song of 1987 film Dirty Dancing. The track gets a club-ready treatment with a four-on-the-floor beat and handful of rap verses.

While the hook is well-chosen, the synth-enhanced rap verses don't line up quite right with its sentiments. The Black Eyed Peas are known for re-contextualizing samples and making them work in new songs, but in this case the difference is too severe: the chorus is a nostalgic, melodic love song, the verses a braggadocio-laden rap-style club stomper.

That said, my main problem with this song is that it lacks the dynamic journey found in previous singles "Imma Be", "I Gotta Feelin" and "Boom Boom Pow". After the second chorus, you've pretty much heard every trick the song has to offer, save for some yawn-inducing beat-slicing that occurs in the final chorus. The Black Eyed Peas can do and have done better.

All in all, this song is much less game-changing than any of the singles from their previous album, The E.N.D. . It's not terrible, but it's disappointing to see such a great hook get such lackluster treatment.

Patrick Swayze is displeased

"Right Thru Me" by Nicki Minaj

When headlice dream

The hype surrounding Nicki Minaj is incredible. She's released 4 singles, had a top 20 hit, contributed guest rap verses to 10 different other artists' singles and performed at the VMA awards, all without releasing a major label album. In the past year, she's gone from acclaimed underground rapper to A-list star.

Is the hype legitimate? Well, Minaj is a talented rapper, and it's been a while since the rap scene has seen such a promising female star. This alone allows her to stand out in an industry full of male rappers and female pop singers. However, only the quality of her upcoming album and future singles will determine conclusively whether or not all of this excitement was worth it.

The future, however, is difficult to predict.

"Right Thru Me" is based on a sample from Joe Satriani's 80's cornball guitar ballad "Always With Me, Always With You". Minaj tries to bring her tough attitude to what is clearly intended to be a happy, cheesy song, with mixed results. For the most part, the verses allow Minaj to display her skillful lyricism, and feature effective wordplay. The choruses, on the other hand, feel cliched and mismatched.

Overall, this song feels like an inferior version of Minaj's previous single "Your Love". It has its positive moments, and Minaj has talent as a rapper, but her songs haven't given her ample opportunity to show it yet. Hopefully, this will change in the near future.

"We R Who We R" by Ke$ha

And she is who she is.

When Ke$ha burst onto the scene last year, her "sing-talk" gimmick and annoyingly catchy party songs catapulted her straight to the top of the charts. The question now is whether this same gimmick will continue to impress the general public. Apparently, the answer is yes ("We R Who We R" debuted at number 1).

What about what's underneath the gimmick, though? Personally, I can put up with Ke$ha's bizarre style if the underlying song is well-written and interesting. Previous hits "Tik Tok" and "Your Love Is My Drug" had some muscle as songs, not just as Ke$ha-delivery vehicles.

Sadly, "We R Who We R" is no match for such company, instead falling more towards the "generic party song" category. The worst part of it is the bridge, which consists entirely of the words "DJ, turn it up" repeated multiple times.

"WHAT DID YOU SAY? I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

All in all, "We R Who We R" is a step backwards, not only for the English language but also for Ke$ha's artistic credibility. She really needs to figure out a new gimmick, or at least write some better songs.