I've always felt like a good word to describe myself is "eccentric" but throughout my life I've found that the majority of people seem to favor "geek" or "nerd". I'm not entirely sure who is correct in this instance. Is it "geeky" to love literature that's specifically written and targeted toward teenage girls or adult women? Is it "nerdy" to have a passion for boy bands AND punk rock? Does my love of the band Hanson make me a nerd? Am I geek for putting Tabasco on almost everything that I eat? Admittedly, I do posses a large number of more "traditional" geek qualities (a love of comic books, passion for literature, a fondness for anything involving aliens, etc.) but I feel like these things only add to my unique eccentricities.
I don't doubt that there are bland people out there, but I genuinely believe that every person is a patch in the quilt and every patch is different. Would you really describe a beautiful handmade piece of unique art, like a patchwork quilt, with arbitrary labels for every individual scrap used in it's making? Personally, I would pour over it, looking at all the pieces and wondering about each of their stories. Maybe that's my personality though. Perhaps there are people who step back and look at the mismatched monstrosity and think that it's ugly.
I realize that I've asked more questions than I've answered at this point, but that's really the point of this. I want to know about people. It's the reason I sit in a library or a cafe and read when I could just as easily do it in my apartment. I like to watch people and wonder about their stories.
Who am I? I'm 22 years old, very liberal in my beliefs, more than a little effeminate, and I love my family more than anything in the world. I've been diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder, severe depression, and a serious anxiety disorder. I've been living with this since I was 6 years old. I love music with a passion and I'm not very good at playing but that doesn't stop me from trying. I love Mexican food, comic books, literature of any kind, and writing.
I could go on forever because one word does not and can not contain me just like it can't contain you. If anyone cares enough to read this I'd like you to tell me about you. Who are you? I genuinely want to know.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Why Twilight is NOT Hurting Anyone.
In this blog I will attempt to highlight various arguments against Twilight and why they are wrong. First, let me state for the purpose of getting stereotypes and prejudices out of everyone's head: I am male, straight, married, 23 years old, and about to have a daughter. I do not fall into this book's target market so I think it's safe to say that I'm not some hormone addled teenage girl mindlessly trying to defend Twilight. Unlike many of the people who feel the need to scream about how terrible Twilight is for society, though, I have actually read all four of the books.
Argument #1: But... but... she's a MORMON!! and she's trying to shove her religion down everyone's throat!
This one makes me the most upset out of any of them. It's not just wrong, it's right down bigoted. I've heard two different versions of this argument.
The first being that Edward Cullen is essentially a direct transposition of Joseph Smith Jr. (the founder of Mormonism). This MAY be true, if you Google an image of him. He's a pretty plain looking white guy with a square jaw, as is Edward. This could also mean that Edward Cullen is a direct transposition of Paul Walker or Christopher Reeves or any number of plain looking white guys with square jaws. This proves nothing and is not a reason to hate a character or, for that matter, a woman who writes books that a lot of people happen to enjoy.
The other "Mormon" argument that I've heard is the idea that the "werewolves" are revealed to have the uncontrollable ability to "imprint" on someone and this is somehow secretly an effort to make young girls think that polygamy is okay. This is so unbelievably ridiculous that I can barely even bring myself to talk about it rationally. I'll give it a try though... In the series when the werewolves "imprint" they see a woman that they then become attached to. They're completely head over heels for them and essentially "destined" to be with them. If you ask me, that seems to play more to the ideals of "love at first sight" and "destined lovers" that have been staples in literature for centuries.
Now the most important part... if she IS attempting to insert her religion into these books... SO WHAT? The Chronicles of Narnia are one giant advertisement for the Christian faith. The message is pervasive and intentional. They are some of the most loved books in literature. Why does her putting snapshots of what she believes into her writing make her any worse? I'll tell you why: because she isn't Christian. People who make this argument are flat out bigoted, whether they chose to admit it or not.
Argument #2: Bella is a blank slate of a character with no personality who is designed so that girls can project themselves onto her.
This is PARTLY true. Bella IS designed so that the reader can project themselves onto her. Again I say: so what? This has been a literary device since Shakespeare and Greek mythology. Hell, in mythology they would actually name characters Everyman! It's a valid literary tool.
Some people may argue that just because a character is designed as an extension of the reader/audience doesn't mean they should be devoid of character and personality. For example, in the television series LOST, the character Hurley is pretty much designed to say what the audience is thinking. This does not mean he's a blank slate, on the contrary he has a lot of personality. I would argue that the character of Isabella Swan also has personality. Like I mentioned before, I HAVE read the books and I can tell you that she has a passion for classic literature (specifically Jane Austen and Shakespeare), she listens to classical music (her love of Claude Debussy is a large plot point), she's extremely uncoordinated and clumsy making her not a big fan of sports or dancing, she's very good at cooking because she was raised by a mother who wasn't, I could literally go on forever. Is she the most INTERESTING person in the world? No. She's not an eccentric character in the least and she likes ordinary things, but those things ARE her personality. I'm sure that you could find a lot of people similar to her.
The bulk of people who use this argument have ONLY seen the film version of the books and are basing this assessment on Kristen Stewart's acting. Kristen Stewart is a pretty bland actress, I'm not sure if it was the script, the directing, or if it was just her, but the way she portrays the character and the way the script was written is in no way a representation of her character in the books.
Argument #3: They're poorly written.
I've seen worse.
Argument #4: They reinforce negative gender stereotypes and depict abusive relationships as good.
This is the biggie. The one that I've seen most frequently. I'm going to have to tackle this is a few key parts.
The ways that this argument has some validity is seen in books two and three.
In book two (New Moon) Edward leaves Bella because he's afraid that exposing her to the supernatural world is threatening her life. After he leaves, she essentially falls to pieces because she NEEDS him. Having this sort of attachment to someone, true love or not, is NOT healthy. I concede all of this. If you read the book the way I did though, it isn't portrayed as good. She looses a lot of her friends and everyone essentially hates her for the way that she's acting. Just because the character is acting this way does not mean that it's being portrayed as positive. I give young adult women WAY more credit than the book's critics seem to, but I'll get to that in a minute.
The second way you see this argument as being valid is in book three (Eclipse). Edward essentially forbids Bella from seeing her friend Jacob (who is a werewolf) because he says that it isn't safe. For several chapters he goes to extreme links to keep this apart. This is controlling and borderline abusive. It is wrong. Again, I will concede all of this. What you have to do is, again, take the piece as a whole. Eventually Edward admits that what he's doing is wrong. He admits he wasn't trying to protect her, but was acting out of jealousy and backs down. Now while a lot of you may be saying "so it's teaching young women that if an abuser apologizes than it's okay?" To which I say: sort of. If a man is inclined to PHYSICALLY abuse a woman, there's pretty much no changing that. It's an unfixable character defect. But if you can say that you've never acted irrationally out of anger or jealousy, then you are either a saint or a God damn liar. Should he not be entitled to redemption if he admits he's wrong and changes his ways?
The final point to be made is regarding the "out dated gender roles" argument. Throughout the entire series Bella is portrayed as the damsel in distress who needs a man to save her. This is not a positive portrayal of women, I admit, but the difference in this case is that Edward IS a lot more powerful than she is and HAS the ability to protect her. Additionally, she expresses her disdain at having to be rescued and how much she hates being the damsel in distress multiple times throughout the series, so it isn't as if she's accepting it. MOST IMPORTANTLY: The series ends on a note of triumph for Bella. She becomes a vampire and is more powerful and in control than any of the the others. If you ask me, this is a positive message.
The thing that sticks in my throat about this assertion is that it assumes that all young women are idiots. I don't believe this to be the case. I think that when the average girl reads the portions of Eclipse where Edward is being controlling they, like me, are angry with him. I believe that when they read the scenes depicting Bella, delirious with misery because she got dumped, they are as annoyed with her as I was. I mean I don't doubt that there are young women who read it and think "Yes! I want a man who's going to control me!" but I doubt that the book has as much to do with that as other aspects. Teenagers are smarter than they're given credit for.
In Closing:
Do I think that Twilight is the greatest series that has ever been written? No. Do I believe that it has it's problems (particularly Stephanie Meyer's abuse of adjectives)? Yes. Do I believe that this SERIES OF STORIES is actively HURTING anyone? No, I do not.
Argument #1: But... but... she's a MORMON!! and she's trying to shove her religion down everyone's throat!
This one makes me the most upset out of any of them. It's not just wrong, it's right down bigoted. I've heard two different versions of this argument.
The first being that Edward Cullen is essentially a direct transposition of Joseph Smith Jr. (the founder of Mormonism). This MAY be true, if you Google an image of him. He's a pretty plain looking white guy with a square jaw, as is Edward. This could also mean that Edward Cullen is a direct transposition of Paul Walker or Christopher Reeves or any number of plain looking white guys with square jaws. This proves nothing and is not a reason to hate a character or, for that matter, a woman who writes books that a lot of people happen to enjoy.
The other "Mormon" argument that I've heard is the idea that the "werewolves" are revealed to have the uncontrollable ability to "imprint" on someone and this is somehow secretly an effort to make young girls think that polygamy is okay. This is so unbelievably ridiculous that I can barely even bring myself to talk about it rationally. I'll give it a try though... In the series when the werewolves "imprint" they see a woman that they then become attached to. They're completely head over heels for them and essentially "destined" to be with them. If you ask me, that seems to play more to the ideals of "love at first sight" and "destined lovers" that have been staples in literature for centuries.
Now the most important part... if she IS attempting to insert her religion into these books... SO WHAT? The Chronicles of Narnia are one giant advertisement for the Christian faith. The message is pervasive and intentional. They are some of the most loved books in literature. Why does her putting snapshots of what she believes into her writing make her any worse? I'll tell you why: because she isn't Christian. People who make this argument are flat out bigoted, whether they chose to admit it or not.
Argument #2: Bella is a blank slate of a character with no personality who is designed so that girls can project themselves onto her.
This is PARTLY true. Bella IS designed so that the reader can project themselves onto her. Again I say: so what? This has been a literary device since Shakespeare and Greek mythology. Hell, in mythology they would actually name characters Everyman! It's a valid literary tool.
Some people may argue that just because a character is designed as an extension of the reader/audience doesn't mean they should be devoid of character and personality. For example, in the television series LOST, the character Hurley is pretty much designed to say what the audience is thinking. This does not mean he's a blank slate, on the contrary he has a lot of personality. I would argue that the character of Isabella Swan also has personality. Like I mentioned before, I HAVE read the books and I can tell you that she has a passion for classic literature (specifically Jane Austen and Shakespeare), she listens to classical music (her love of Claude Debussy is a large plot point), she's extremely uncoordinated and clumsy making her not a big fan of sports or dancing, she's very good at cooking because she was raised by a mother who wasn't, I could literally go on forever. Is she the most INTERESTING person in the world? No. She's not an eccentric character in the least and she likes ordinary things, but those things ARE her personality. I'm sure that you could find a lot of people similar to her.
The bulk of people who use this argument have ONLY seen the film version of the books and are basing this assessment on Kristen Stewart's acting. Kristen Stewart is a pretty bland actress, I'm not sure if it was the script, the directing, or if it was just her, but the way she portrays the character and the way the script was written is in no way a representation of her character in the books.
Argument #3: They're poorly written.
I've seen worse.
Argument #4: They reinforce negative gender stereotypes and depict abusive relationships as good.
This is the biggie. The one that I've seen most frequently. I'm going to have to tackle this is a few key parts.
The ways that this argument has some validity is seen in books two and three.
In book two (New Moon) Edward leaves Bella because he's afraid that exposing her to the supernatural world is threatening her life. After he leaves, she essentially falls to pieces because she NEEDS him. Having this sort of attachment to someone, true love or not, is NOT healthy. I concede all of this. If you read the book the way I did though, it isn't portrayed as good. She looses a lot of her friends and everyone essentially hates her for the way that she's acting. Just because the character is acting this way does not mean that it's being portrayed as positive. I give young adult women WAY more credit than the book's critics seem to, but I'll get to that in a minute.
The second way you see this argument as being valid is in book three (Eclipse). Edward essentially forbids Bella from seeing her friend Jacob (who is a werewolf) because he says that it isn't safe. For several chapters he goes to extreme links to keep this apart. This is controlling and borderline abusive. It is wrong. Again, I will concede all of this. What you have to do is, again, take the piece as a whole. Eventually Edward admits that what he's doing is wrong. He admits he wasn't trying to protect her, but was acting out of jealousy and backs down. Now while a lot of you may be saying "so it's teaching young women that if an abuser apologizes than it's okay?" To which I say: sort of. If a man is inclined to PHYSICALLY abuse a woman, there's pretty much no changing that. It's an unfixable character defect. But if you can say that you've never acted irrationally out of anger or jealousy, then you are either a saint or a God damn liar. Should he not be entitled to redemption if he admits he's wrong and changes his ways?
The final point to be made is regarding the "out dated gender roles" argument. Throughout the entire series Bella is portrayed as the damsel in distress who needs a man to save her. This is not a positive portrayal of women, I admit, but the difference in this case is that Edward IS a lot more powerful than she is and HAS the ability to protect her. Additionally, she expresses her disdain at having to be rescued and how much she hates being the damsel in distress multiple times throughout the series, so it isn't as if she's accepting it. MOST IMPORTANTLY: The series ends on a note of triumph for Bella. She becomes a vampire and is more powerful and in control than any of the the others. If you ask me, this is a positive message.
The thing that sticks in my throat about this assertion is that it assumes that all young women are idiots. I don't believe this to be the case. I think that when the average girl reads the portions of Eclipse where Edward is being controlling they, like me, are angry with him. I believe that when they read the scenes depicting Bella, delirious with misery because she got dumped, they are as annoyed with her as I was. I mean I don't doubt that there are young women who read it and think "Yes! I want a man who's going to control me!" but I doubt that the book has as much to do with that as other aspects. Teenagers are smarter than they're given credit for.
In Closing:
Do I think that Twilight is the greatest series that has ever been written? No. Do I believe that it has it's problems (particularly Stephanie Meyer's abuse of adjectives)? Yes. Do I believe that this SERIES OF STORIES is actively HURTING anyone? No, I do not.
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Midas Touch
As a card carrying geek, I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about and speculating on the nature of super powers. Which would I like to have? Which would I not like to have? What are the limitations of abilities granted to heroes in comics and film? These are among the things that clutter the space in my head that would otherwise be occupied by math, science, and other useful skills.
The other day I found myself thinking about a discussion I saw somewhere. A reporter asked an interview subject a fluff question that was along the lines of "If you could have any super power, what would it be and why?" and the person said that they would love to have the ability to touch any book and immediately know it's entire contents.
Something about this stuck with me (only this part obviously, since I don't remember a single other detail from the interview) and it made me wonder about the nature of that power. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed like it would be terrible. I mean, I can see the benefits of being able to touch a text book and know it's contents, but the only way I can see this ability being worth it, is if it were controllable. If not, it would be more like a Midas touch, in my opinion.
The ability to simply touch a work of fiction and know the whole story would destroy the pleasure of reading. I don't think that I'm alone in feeling like the joy of a good book is in the slow burn, the cup of coffee you drink while you're reading, the gradual unfolding of events... to simply know the story isn't the same as having read it, even if you do know every single word.
Such are the musings of a man with entirely too much time on his hands.
The other day I found myself thinking about a discussion I saw somewhere. A reporter asked an interview subject a fluff question that was along the lines of "If you could have any super power, what would it be and why?" and the person said that they would love to have the ability to touch any book and immediately know it's entire contents.
Something about this stuck with me (only this part obviously, since I don't remember a single other detail from the interview) and it made me wonder about the nature of that power. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed like it would be terrible. I mean, I can see the benefits of being able to touch a text book and know it's contents, but the only way I can see this ability being worth it, is if it were controllable. If not, it would be more like a Midas touch, in my opinion.
The ability to simply touch a work of fiction and know the whole story would destroy the pleasure of reading. I don't think that I'm alone in feeling like the joy of a good book is in the slow burn, the cup of coffee you drink while you're reading, the gradual unfolding of events... to simply know the story isn't the same as having read it, even if you do know every single word.
Such are the musings of a man with entirely too much time on his hands.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Front of Resistance - Reclaim Your Mind EP
What is punk rock? I've spent a lot of years listening to a lot of music and going to hundreds of shows in houses, halls, and holes in the wall and to be perfectly honest, I couldn't tell you. It's cliched to say, but punk is probably the only musical genre that is completely subjective. You can ask five different people to define it and you'd get five different definitions (and one of them would probably punch you in the face because that's a really stupid question). I can only tell you what it means to me personally and that is: complete and utter fearlessness combined with a willingness to play anywhere just for the fun of it and an unparalleled passion for lyricism and music. If you meet those criteria, then you're punk enough for me.
So what is a punk band to me? The Front of Resistance embody what I feel punk should be if not necessarily what it currently is. This band have more guts as artists and musicians than I've seen in almost anyone else. Their ability to write songs in whatever genre seems to strike their fancy with no regard for developing a uniform sound and conforming to one niche is refreshing and exciting to listen to. You literally have no idea what you're going to get from one song to the next and it makes listening to their music genuinely fun.
Their lo-fi recordings demonstrate a gritty, beautiful sound that you would associate with the early 7 inch records from the DC hardcore scene in the 80's. There's a little Minor Threat and Rites of Spring, a lot of Against Me! and Anti-Flag, and even a healthy spoonful of Dashboard and The Get up Kids in almost all of their songs off their first EP as a full band (Reclaim Your Mind).
On the disc's opener "Help Me Fly" you can hear a great dynamic in the vocals between singers Amirit and Ron. On this song you hear the guitar playing the rhythm and the keyboard taking the leads, and at first I thought that I was hearing them set up a trend for their sound but I was wrong. On the very next song "Maybe Someday", a track that sounds a lot like Rancid in their ska days with Justin Sane singing, the guitar takes over and you can hear Ron's surprising chops as a lead guitarist.
All of the songs on the EP lace their varying melodies and style with the one common denominator; passionate and often politically charged lyrics. "Don't Think to Much" sounds like an old Get Up Kids tune with heart wrenching and passionate lyrics that almost shock you to hear delivered so intensely. The dueling piano and guitar solo in this song is a perfect illustration of the band's sounds colliding. "Outside Point of View" and "The Felt Presence of Direct Experience" both have their trademark lyricism with very different approaches. "Outside Point of View" has a very melodic, old school punk sound with some screaming and gang vocals. "The Felt Presence..." is an all acoustic affair with really soft, sweet vocals from Ron that hearken the sound of Bright Eyes or
Neil Young.
Keep your eyes on these guys.
http://www.myspace.com/frontofresistance
So what is a punk band to me? The Front of Resistance embody what I feel punk should be if not necessarily what it currently is. This band have more guts as artists and musicians than I've seen in almost anyone else. Their ability to write songs in whatever genre seems to strike their fancy with no regard for developing a uniform sound and conforming to one niche is refreshing and exciting to listen to. You literally have no idea what you're going to get from one song to the next and it makes listening to their music genuinely fun.
Their lo-fi recordings demonstrate a gritty, beautiful sound that you would associate with the early 7 inch records from the DC hardcore scene in the 80's. There's a little Minor Threat and Rites of Spring, a lot of Against Me! and Anti-Flag, and even a healthy spoonful of Dashboard and The Get up Kids in almost all of their songs off their first EP as a full band (Reclaim Your Mind).
On the disc's opener "Help Me Fly" you can hear a great dynamic in the vocals between singers Amirit and Ron. On this song you hear the guitar playing the rhythm and the keyboard taking the leads, and at first I thought that I was hearing them set up a trend for their sound but I was wrong. On the very next song "Maybe Someday", a track that sounds a lot like Rancid in their ska days with Justin Sane singing, the guitar takes over and you can hear Ron's surprising chops as a lead guitarist.
All of the songs on the EP lace their varying melodies and style with the one common denominator; passionate and often politically charged lyrics. "Don't Think to Much" sounds like an old Get Up Kids tune with heart wrenching and passionate lyrics that almost shock you to hear delivered so intensely. The dueling piano and guitar solo in this song is a perfect illustration of the band's sounds colliding. "Outside Point of View" and "The Felt Presence of Direct Experience" both have their trademark lyricism with very different approaches. "Outside Point of View" has a very melodic, old school punk sound with some screaming and gang vocals. "The Felt Presence..." is an all acoustic affair with really soft, sweet vocals from Ron that hearken the sound of Bright Eyes or
Neil Young.Keep your eyes on these guys.
http://www.myspace.com/frontofresistance
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Devin Lima & the Cadbury Diesel
Let me just state something for the record: I have no problem with a lack of originality. If you
can write a great pop song using a tried and true formula, then my hat is off to you. That being
said, when I do come across originality in music I'm especially impressed because it's so difficult
to be different in today's music culture.
Devin Lima & the Cadbury Diesel's "Mozart Popart" is one of the most unique pieces of art I've
beheld in a long time. It blends equal parts R&B, Rock, and Europop to form one of the most
original sounds I've ever heard. There's even tinges of hip-hop laced in between the
lines.
Lima has an incredible voice but that's only a small part of what makes up his total package. He
has an incredible grasp of melody, lyricism, and an amazing backing band in the Cadbury Diesel.
This is one of the best records I've heard, probably, all year.
Just so we're clear, I'm aware that Lima was formerly in boy-band, LFO. While they were fun,
"Mozart Popart" is a work of pop genius. Just give this album a spin, if you don’t like it...well...
then you’re dumb.
can write a great pop song using a tried and true formula, then my hat is off to you. That being
said, when I do come across originality in music I'm especially impressed because it's so difficult
to be different in today's music culture.
Devin Lima & the Cadbury Diesel's "Mozart Popart" is one of the most unique pieces of art I've
beheld in a long time. It blends equal parts R&B, Rock, and Europop to form one of the most
original sounds I've ever heard. There's even tinges of hip-hop laced in between the
lines.
Lima has an incredible voice but that's only a small part of what makes up his total package. He
has an incredible grasp of melody, lyricism, and an amazing backing band in the Cadbury Diesel.
This is one of the best records I've heard, probably, all year.
Just so we're clear, I'm aware that Lima was formerly in boy-band, LFO. While they were fun,
"Mozart Popart" is a work of pop genius. Just give this album a spin, if you don’t like it...well...
then you’re dumb.
http://www.myspace.com/devilima
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Destroy Nate Allen "Take It Easy"
Sometimes in life you make a friend that enters and leaves your life with little fanfare but that ephemeral visit leaves a mark so profound that you know you’ll never forget them. To me that friend is Nate Allen. A few months ago, Allen was in the midst of his six-month tour of the United States. He stopped by Flint, Michigan, where I was living at the time, to play some shows with a friend and mentor of mine, Jason Guitarstring. I had the privilege of playing a show with Allen and seeing him play live twice. Both shows were light-years beyond any live performance I’d ever seen.
The way that Allen performs his music is so visceral and honest that it completely disarms the listener. You watch him sing from a place in his gut that seems to produce the perfect solution of passion and candor and you can’t help but soak in every word he sings. Allen tells stories in his songs and he makes them not only his own but everyone in the room’s whether it’s him singing them in person or his voice filtering out of your stereo speakers.
When he was in Michigan, Allen told the story about how his newest album, “Take It Easy” came to fruition. After a show he played in Indiana, not to long before he arrived in Michigan, a gentleman approached Allen and offered to record him that night. Allen explained that it was midnight and he was already running on an unhealthy shortage of sleep, but something made him agree to the gentleman’s offer. In his words “I thought it would be an opportunity to make a new friend and a new memory.” He went on to describe the sessions as being almost miraculous. The outcome, “Take It Easy”, is 11 tracks of music in its purest form. Allen blends elements of folk, rock, punk, and gospel to form his own unique sound. His gritty, melodic low tenor guides you through the tracks like the chapters of a book, each one revealing more about the protagonist as the story progresses.
Certain tracks stand out, like the brilliantly written “Arizona”, an apparent opus to the road. Other stand outs are “Glad Tidings” and “Stand By Me” both of which are double time numbers that have a distinctive feel to them that makes them addictively catchy. The tracks that really leave their mark, though, are ones like “Ambulance”, “On With the Show”, and “Let’s Get Together” that are slow burning folk songs that have a very soulful quality. They’re very profound and delivered in a fassion that drips with emotion but still with an incredible pop sensibility.
Nate Allen is an artist’s artist. He is the purest form of musicianship I’ve ever seen and I truly believe that his music is that of a lyrical intellect beyond his years. His album is free for download on him website, http://www.destroynateallen.com and I recommend getting it.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Empty Orchestra
By: Travis Valentine
As someone who has always loved listening to music and yammering on about it for days, I know that I’ve found a special group when it’s difficult for me to start talking about them or to tell someone about them. Empty Orchestra are the sort of musicians that you, simply from hearing or seeing them, have such an enormous amount of respect for that you can’t possibly explain how amazing they are. Stephen Wisniewski and his revolving cast of Flint music legends form a sound so eclectic and powerful that the cerebral hit of the beautifully potent lyrics and the soul wrenching musicianship are a one-two punch that will make almost anyone an instant fan.
The thing that first attracted me to Empty Orchestra was lead singer and songwriter, Stephen Wisniewski’s unusual voice and singing style, and moreover the fact that this particular voice was coming out of such a small guy. I’d heard his previous/other band Lingua Franca play live twice and own their split 7 inch with The Conquer Worm, and though Stephen’s voice was still powerful and made use of his unusual phrasing, it was no where near the gruff, visceral bellow that inhabits the voice part of Empty Orchestra. Stephen can go from the howl of a 70 year old bluegrass singer in a dive bar somewhere in Mississippi to a soft baritone, gently crooning an eerie tale at the drop of a hat and it’s only one of dozens of factors that make Empty Orchestra such a strong group of musicians.
The band’s new full length and second CD is called “Here Lies… Empty Orchestra”. The tracks on it blend elements of folk, rock, alt-country, and bluegrass with a grace that’s beyond their years. There is a very soulful quality to the record as well that gives you that gritty, deep soul sound with traces of rhythm and blues. Songs like “World on a String” have a dirty bluegrass quality with Stephen channeling the earthy croon of a 70 year-old man sitting in a smoky bar somewhere in the deep south. There really isn’t a song on the record that doesn’t stand out. The day after going to their CD release in Flint I was driving to Lansing with my wife, listening to the CD and every song I’d say “Turn it up, I love this one.” Tracks like “This Heart is a Monster” tell stories that keep you listening to every word as you follow the intricate musicianship through it’s various twists and turns. There’s a few more stripped down songs on the album (“Like Pianos”, “Lonesome”) as well that show you a more soulful, emotional side to the songwriting. If anything can be said of Stephen’s singing it’s that he has range. His ability to go from zero to sixty in three seconds flat is as admirable as his writing.
The final characteristic of this record that I’d like to draw attention to is the beautiful production. An enormous amount of credit should be given to Mark Michalik not only for his drumming but for his ability to record a beautifully glossy recording.
htttp://www.myspace.com/emptyorchestra
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)