8Sided Blog

the scene celebrates itself

Shimmering & Shining with The Black Watch

by // Leave a Comment

img-0

It’s easy to get distracted by the number 23. Not only are we told it’s everywhere by thinkers as prestigious as Robert Anton Wilson and Jim Carrey, but those two digits look and feel special. How about a 23rd album? Perhaps that’s magical in some way (especially if the KLF ever got there), but to most, it just sounds like a lot of albums. Twenty-two is a lot, too, not to mention twenty-four. But I don’t want to get hung up on the 23rd album because it doesn’t matter to John Andrew Fredrick of The Black Watch. Weird Rooms is the band’s album number twenty-three, but John isn’t counting or accumulating. He’s persisting.

John may be aware of the potential baggage in musical prolificness. Quantity sometimes counterintuitively means stagnation: running in circles, repeating the comforts of an established sound or workflow, or releasing the same record ad infinitum. I can testify that this is not the case with The Black Watch. Not only does John profess an incapability of stopping rather than an effort at ‘building content,’ but also of directly reacting, in a sort of dialogue, with his preceding albums. Changing line-ups, songwriting styles, producers, and, as is the case with Weird Rooms, city locations (Austin, this time) enforce a variety of textures and execution. There’s no sameness here—The Black Watch’s twenty-third record probably sounds as fresh as 1988’s debut.

John and I planned an interview session for a long while, with my delays a glaring (to me) contrast to his musical productivity. Weird Rooms was finally the excuse to get our screens together. John is a delightful conversationalist, an obvious fan of wordplay and language (he’s also an author), and inspiringly enthusiastic about his creative work. We discussed so many things: creating music for personal satisfaction, writing from the subconscious, the unexpected perks of a Lutheran upbringing, what focusing on singles says about your band, and so much more. I tried talking to him about the number 23, but he wasn’t having it.

I mentioned how The Black Watch, and especially Weird Rooms, wears its influences on its sleeve. I likened this to a recipe in that the album’s sound takes things from different, identifiable artists without sounding directly like any of them. I suggested that that recipe includes a heaping tablespoon each of My Bloody Valentine, The Cure, and The Beatles. John agreed, adding Syd Barrett, who is probably floating around like a bay leaf. It’s a great mix of ingredients, making songs like “Gobbledegook,” “Swallowed,” and “Miles & Miles” achieve Michelin-star tastiness.1My metaphors aren’t getting any better.

And though Weird Rooms was the inspiration for our conversation, John was especially excited about The Black Watch’s next record, (tentatively?) titled Bye. “With a pun on saying goodbye and a bye in a tournament,” John explained. While John was understandably bubbling over with thoughts on this 24th effort—to him, it’s the fresh new thing, of course—I’m trying to hide my astonishment that we’re on the heels of Weird Rooms‘ release and the next album is already in the hands of a mastering engineer. At least John admitted it wasn’t a good idea to release it immediately.

But I can’t get over the as-yet-unreleased album’s title, Bye. Does John give it a double meaning because it’s a fork in the road? Is it a goodbye, as Pop Matters recently wondered? Or, as in a tournament, will it mean The Black Watch is ready to advance to the next in a long, long series of rounds? John told me he couldn’t stop, even if he wanted to, so I’m optimistically embracing the sporting option. I doubt 24 is The Black Watch’s idea of a final score.

Here’s the extended audio of my conversation with The Black Watch’s John Andrew Fredrick, with an excerpted text version below the fold. At the bottom, John answers my “What’s something you love?” inquiry with the aplomb worthy of someone with a PhD in the art of words. Dig it!

❈ CLICK FOR MORE ❈

Ströme: Back in the Future

by // 3 Comments

img-1

In Japanese folklore, you’ll find the Shinto idea of the tsukumogami, an inanimate object occupied by a spirit. The spirit becomes present in a thing over use and time — after one hundred years in the case of the tsukumogami. And the object-as-spirit remembers its treatment by a prior owner. If the object was previously abused, then the tsukumogami wrecks vengeance, even if it’s now in the hands of a different owner. I assume this works the other way around if the item was held in reverence.

I approached my conversation with the German duo Ströme with this concept in mind. The two members — Mario Schönhofer and Tobias Weber — are loud and proud gearheads who create an eclectic flavor of modern-sounding but vintage-charged electronic music on an impressive variety of classic circuit-based instruments. As you’ll hear in the interview, Ströme are not only passionate and knowledgable but also respectful and pious toward their gear. As a result, Ströme’s instruments will undoubtedly spawn good-natured tsukumogami.

But the conversation yields another twist to the possibility of historical essence within an object. For the duo’s debut full-length album, Nr. 2, Ströme managed to get ahold of the first Moog synthesizer to cross the German border. Purchased by Eberhard Schöner, founder of the first laboratory for electronic music in 1968 at Bavaria Studios, this particular Moog IIIp made appearances on recordings you might know. The Beatles’ “Here Comes The Sun?” Check. Giorgio Moroder’s “I Feel Love?” Check! And so it was that Ströme ended up with the keys to the car, so to speak, and unrestricted access to a synthesizer that assuredly has a contented tsukumogami flowing through its circuitry.

As for Ströme, the duo formed in 2015, bonded by this love of electronic music and the quirky technology that makes it. The three-song Nr. 1 was released by fabled imprint Compost Records and dutifully announced the pair’s distinctive mixture of Krautrock textures and nightclub rhythms. The third track on the EP is a recording of a live session in Leipzig, showcasing the importance of live performance to the execution of Ströme. Mario and Tobias bravely lug their phalanx of analog, modular, and often vintage music machines on tour, leading to uncompromising and sometimes unpredictable performances. 

This energy pops and fizzes throughout Nr. 2‘s 14 tracks. There are plenty of club-focused moments, but these hang alongside contemplative synth wanderings and motorik rhythm sections. Ströme ties their thread thickly to the reigning historical champions of German ‘kosmische’ music, whether we’re obviously talking about Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream or, more esoterically, in the realm of Cluster, Neu!, and Popol Vuh. As you’ll hear in the conversation, Mario and Tobias are acutely aware of their place in the lineage. And the addition of fellow vintage synth fiend Nick McCarthy (formerly of the Glaswegian band Franz Ferdinand) on a few songs emboldens rather than obscures the connection, especially on the transcendent indie-shimmer of “Stadlberg.” 

I had the pleasure of firing up Zoom with Mario and Tobias some weeks ago to speak about a variety of topics. Those subjects include previous owners of the machines we use, the challenges of analog synthesis on the road, if live bands or DJs are better at ‘feeling the crowd,’ and lots of gear talk. I mean, lots of gear talk. If you’re into vintage synthesizers then this interview is your jam. For a taste, I’ve transcribed an excerpt below where Mario and Tobias explain how Ströme got ahold of the infamous Moog IIIp in the first place. Please enjoy our entire 35-minute conversation in the handy audio player. 

❋-❋-❋-❋-❋-❋-❋-❋

MD: The album uses all this vintage gear, but it doesn’t have a nostalgic sound. I’d say it sounds quite modern. Is that intentional? Is it difficult not to fall into a trap of making things sound vintage when using this historical gear?

MS: Well, when Eberhard Schöner first gave access to the old [Moog IIIp] from 1969, we were very impressed [with its capabilities].

MD: So this was the original Moog that was used by the Beatles and has a ton of history behind it. 

MS: Yeah. We met Eberhard at a garden party. 

TW: At first, he was like, “ah, these young guys, huh?” 

MS: I asked him before we left the party, “can we just see the Moog synthesizer?” We never saw Moog that old. It’s number ‘7’ or something. He said, “yes, come on by.” In about two or three weeks, we saw the system. Eberhard switched it on, we played for a bit, and then we had a coffee. After a couple of hours, Eberhard and his wife said, “we are leaving for about a week. You can stay here. You can use the fridge; it’s full. And you can do as much with the Moog synthesizer as you want.” 

TW: That was really crazy! (laughs)

MS: Yeah, that was! We were driving home, and I was crying. It was a lifelong dream to be with this machine. I knew the sound of it since I was a kid. From Georgio Moroder’s “I Feel Love” to these kids’ TV series that Eberhard created music for. I knew this synthesizer, the sound. 

TW: This was really special. They live in an old farmhouse on a mountain with a studio that was active in the eighties …

MD: That sounds like a Conny Plank kind of situation!

MS: Yeah, it was! And, of course, we knew who Eberhard was. I knew that he bought the first Moog synthesizer in Germany. It was such an honor just to meet this guy. And when we got there, it turned out to be the greatest experience.

TW: And what’s crazy is next door to the studio was the house where Popol Vuh was living. And they bought the second Moog in Germany because they saw Eberhard’s. And he told us the guys from Tangerine Dream were coming around and checking out the Moog, and they bought it because of him. Then Eberhard was lending it to Georgio Moroder to produce all this stuff. And now the synthesizer’s in a museum.

MD: I saw that! 

MS: It was amazing. When we were recording with the old Moog, we could feel that a lot of music was made on this instrument.

img-2
img-3

TW: I’m not as keen on Moog synthesis like Mario, but when I started making sounds from it, I was thinking, “This sounds like it could be played right now in Berghain.” It’s not vintage at all. 

MS: We set up the Moog on the floor intending to do a real Krautrock week, you know. And so Tobias was wiggling knobs on the Moog, and I came into the studio, and it sounded like the most modern drum loop ever. We really thought the people in the sixties and seventies just weren’t ready for these sounds. It was like back in the future.

TW: When you play a JX-8P or something, you always have this vintage sound. But with a Moog from 1969, you just make your music. It’s so modern sounding.

MS: Since that time, I’m working nearly exclusively with the [reissued] Moog IIIp because I found out what Bob Moog intended this instrument to be. It’s a machine able to produce any kind of sound on a timestamp. It’s like you have currents saved on magnetic tape, and this machine should be able to emulate all kinds of waveforms occurring on the tape. So there are many tricks Bob Moog incorporated into this instrument. Tricks from old sound engineers. It’s unbelievable what Bob Moog invented.

MD: Does the Moog appear on most of the new album? 

MS: There are some overdubs made with the new Moog IIIp we got in 2019. But it took some time to get it to sound really good. It needs some time to burn in its circuits, you know. It’s like a new violin — it needs to be played.

MD: That’s fantastic. You definitely don’t have that feeling with the JX-8P and gear like that, 

MS: It took nearly half a year before I made its first serious recording. The machine was running 24-7 to get it in shape; to get the capacitors and everything to work properly together. And you really can hear it. But now the old Moog is in a museum and that’s a big honor for Eberhard, that his synthesizer will be shown for 200 years in the German museum and his heritage will carry on. And I’m happy with my new Moog. There’s no need for us to change.

→ Ströme’s Nr. 2 is out now on Compost Records. It’s available on Bandcamp and all the streaming places.

The Limits of Experimentation

by // Leave a Comment

The absence of a significant musical trend or cultural movement so far in the 21st century: I’ve attributed this to a lack of territorial isolation in that movements (artistic and cultural) would spring out of ‘scenes’ that existed locally but not globally. Now that we have constant connectivity, this separateness is rare, and thus so are movement shifts.

There may also be an element of technology involved, and not just in the advances of global connectivity. Technological progress has created musical trends and genres; think of the increasing number of audio multi-tracks and how that begat Sgt. Pepper’s or Pet Sounds. Or of the fuzz guitar creating psychedelia, the drum machine and sequencer creating electronic dance music, etc.

We can look to film as a guide. There’s a dramatic difference in movies produced in the ’70s versus those in the ’60s and in movies shot in the ’60s compared to those in the ’50s. Many people, especially the young, in the ’70s, would have a hard time watching ’50s movies as they seem old-fashioned. The shift in style and look is pronounced. There are aesthetic differences, too — subjects that were taboo at one time became commonplace decades later, for example — but often, technological developments that influenced the culture inspired these changes.

Think of Jean-Luc Godard and the jump cut. An editing technique that was so radical at the time of Breathless is commonplace in film and TV (and YouTube) now. Godard made it revolutionary because cinema, as a developing art form, still had areas left to explore. As time moves forward, the technology of the medium is no longer one of limitation. 

Another example is the brilliant Russian Ark, an ambitious 2002 film created in a single long camera shot. Digital filmmaking was new, and the hard drive space available to the cinematographer dictated the ‘single shot’ running time of Russian Ark. Compare this to Alfred Hitchcock’s Rope, meant to look as if it is a long, single-shot movie, but throughout, there are several sneaky cuts. The length of a roll of film limited Hitchcock as he had no access to hard drives, but this did not make Rope any less radical in its era. Now, the single-shot film is commonplace — a technique used and overused by modern filmmakers with an almost unlimited amount of digital storage space at their disposal.

Limitations of a medium breed experimentation as the artists push and explore what is possible. With limits removed, this experimentation takes other forms.

Surviving Spotify’s Future Landscape

by // 2 Comments

There’s a lot of chatter about Daniel Ek’s recent interview with Musically’s Stuart Dredge. There are more than a few nuggets to dissect, but this one is getting the most attention:

“There is a narrative fallacy here, combined with the fact that, obviously, some artists that used to do well in the past may not do well in this future landscape, where you can’t record music once every three to four years and think that’s going to be enough,” said Ek. […] “I feel, really, that the ones that aren’t doing well in streaming are predominantly people who want to release music the way it used to be released …”

As Liz Pelly has explored on The Baffler, Spotify seems intent on influencing artists to tailor their music to benefit the platform. Yes, some point out that in past decades artists used to release 1 or 2 albums every year, so what Ek proposes is nothing new. But the difference is that artists now almost solely rely on touring for income. It’s impossible for most acts to frequently take months off to record a succession of albums without dire financial risk. No doubt you’ve heard the common refrain that bands used to tour to promote album releases, and now it’s the other way around. 

PRS’s Tom Gray illustrates this using The Beatles as an example. The Beatles stopped touring to concentrate on their studio work and, to Ek’s satisfaction, released a lot more than an album every few years. It’s doubtful a 2020 Beatles could do the same. Without touring income, they would be in the hole. Here’s Tom’s take (click here to read the full thread):

Tom’s numbers get a little fudgey — studio costs and such don’t need to be that high these days — but the point stands. The Spotify age is not kind to bands that camp out in studios. (The streaming model is even crueler to those who write songs but don’t perform, but that’s a whole other harrowing tale I’ll save for another time.)

Damon Krukowski challenges Ek’s statement by looking at current Spotify earnings from his former band, Galaxie 500. Krukowski points out that the band hasn’t released anything in over 20 years so, by Ek’s reasoning, they shouldn’t do well in ‘this future landscape.’ But they get more than one million streams a month. That’s pretty good, right? God knows I wish my catalog got half those monthly streams. 

You might think those numbers put Krukowski and Galaxie 500 in the musical middle class. Instead, those streams amount to about $1250 per band member a month. Here’s Damon (click here to read the full thread):

The concern isn’t what Ek refers to as the ‘top tier’ artists. Those are doing fine. The top artists have always done fine. And, for a variety of factors, they can (for now) live off Spotify royalties and the other compounding advantages of fame and exposure. The problem is the disruption of music’s middle class. This sector relied financially for most of this century (so far) on touring. And with COVID-19 in the air, the absence of touring and the diminished value of recorded music creates a crisis. Music’s middle class was already disappearing — in 2021, it could be gone entirely.1Be sure to put a pin on the idea that this disappearing middle class is reflective of income disparity in our society at large.

That’s what this interview — and Bob Lefsetz’s defense of Spotify — glosses over. Of course, wildly successful artists, with tens or hundreds of millions of plays a month, make good money from streaming. And it’s disingenuous to imply that artists complain because they feel entitled to the same. I can confidently speak for most artists that we just want an opportunity to earn a living through our music. Opportunity is not entitlement. Even though an artist’s ‘middle class’ was always precarious, there’s very little chance now to make it work. 

The implication from Ek is — and he’s not that far off — in the eyes of Spotify, you’re either a superstar or an unknown. The insult is Ek saying that the latter position is mostly the artist’s fault because she’s a Luddite who’s not “putting the work in.”

(I’m reminded of this insightful quote from author Nancy Baym: “It’s amazing to me to see how so many careers, in music and beyond, have shifted such that it’s no longer enough to do the work. Now you have to do the work of making sure everyone is seeing that you’ve done the work.”) 

But I’m not placing all the blame on Ek, streaming, and the Napster guys who let this genie out of the bottle. All of that became inevitable as soon as the first ones-and-zeroes were digitally encoded on a compact disc. But as listeners and recording artists, we play a part by accepting the notion that Spotify is unavoidable and necessary. Yes, I believe that Spotify is not going anywhere. And I doubt they’ll change anything except notch their monthly price up a dollar or two in a few years. What it’s essential also to understand is we’re not obligated to play along. 

As concerned recording artists, we don’t necessarily need to remove our music from Spotify (though, if you do exit the platform, good on you). The key is to treat streaming as the entrance of a marketing funnel to lead potential fans to our sites and mailing lists. Let’s look at it as if it’s radio. Radio in the US egregiously doesn’t pay a royalty to performers, but performers still allow their music on the radio as it’s an entry for new listeners. But they never say, “You should only listen to my music on the radio.” 

Or as a more musically-inclined Tyler Durden might say: “The first rule of Spotify is you do not talk about Spotify.” Only post links to your site or a store like Bandcamp. Seriously — there is no reason to send your fans to Spotify. The distant hope that the company will return the favor by adding your song to one of their big playlists is a broken motivation.

As listeners, we have a responsibility, too. I frequently write about the seductive appeal of streaming — I know I can’t resist effortlessly accessing an album or band that I just learned about. But we should also support the artists we enjoy by directly purchasing their music, ordering their merchandise, and signing up for their mailing lists. It’s not that difficult, and these gestures mean a lot to the artists. And, like musical Tyler, we should spread the word by posting to our favorite artists’ websites and Bandcamp pages, not Spotify players. 

We’ll all benefit the sooner we start thinking of Spotify as an occasional sampling tool instead of a go-to listening necessity. Let’s happily hand the platform over to the ‘top tier’ with their frequent releases and domination of playlists. It’s evident from the interview that’s who Ek has in mind for his company, anyway (besides Joe Rogan, of course).