Category: chickfactor poll question

Posted on

chickfactor poll: technology and recording

how has technology changed your recording process?

matt lorelei: I did most of the grappa record on the caltrain while commuting. guy fixsen mixed the latest lorelei record at home and we shared the files over dropbox. sure is a lot easier to get things done now. not that we move any faster because of it.

daniel handler: ask stephin, he records me.

stephin the magnetic fields: I like autotune, because it lets us use the take with the best feeling, and fix a few iffy parts. it works great on cello.

james dump/yo la tengo: everything is possible, pretty quickly.

hannah grass widow: we use garageband a lot to record our practices. it’s a pretty clear recording and it really lets us ruminate on songs throughout our process. we used to record on a walkman and I have tons of thrift store tapes full of early grass widow recordings.

the legendary jim ruiz: les paul was right after all. it’s out of the studio and into the house.

fran cannane: technology has been the cause of many years of grief leading to a dearth of recordings. we are just starting to recover and deal with this. a golden age for the cannanes coming up…

kim baxter: I’m able to spend a lot more time writing, recording, and mixing at home. I can try out ideas without worrying about how much time I’m spending. I can record 20 different guitar solos and 15 vocal harmonies on one song and not worry about being on the clock. it’s a bit of a nightmare when it comes to mixing, but totally worth it!

stephen the real tuesday weld: it made it possible.

corin tucker: I do like the immediacy of some of the current technology, being able to record something in garage band and immediate add a guitar line to it or a background vocal is quite useful. computers have really made making a record much easier, because more people have access to the recording tools.

stuart moxham: I’m currently working between the analogue stage and the full-on pro tools thing, with digital hard drives which are “musician friendly”, i.e. they operate like tape machines. the editing facilities with digital technology are such a creative tool but I’d love to have a reel to reel again for the pitch control and the 3 speeds.

andrew eggs/talk it: it’s much cheaper now.

rachel blumberg: technology has made the recording process so much more accessible. I’ve recorded in a moving van with just my laptop and a midi keyboard controller and the tiny pinhole mic.

ed shelflife: we can record a pretty great sounding record easily at home — even on an iPad. pretty happy to see the days of throwing tons of money to shady studio engineers, who end up just ruining our songs anyway, are over!

bridget st john: it’s made it daunting for me to know where I should begin to record my next album!

joe pines / foxgloves: all our records have been recorded digitally. it has made a change from recording a guitar on to a tape, then recording along with the tape in a twin cassette player, with intriguingly pathetic results.

jennifer o’connor: it hasn’t too much. I still go into the studio and record the same way I always have (whether it’s to tape or computer) I’m learning more about recording my own stuff though on my computer at home and so it might change somewhat in the future. but I think I will always want some help in that department.

ian musical chairs: I use adobe audition now which actually sounds very good. I love the sound of nice thick analog tape, but editing capabilities alone make digital recording preferable for me, and a whole lot easier on my sanity than using tape. also I can record at home and take 12 years plus to finish an album…so maybe technology’s not such a great thing after all…

gordon the fan modine: the advent of digital recording technology has made getting lost and going overboard a lot easier for me personally. not always bad. and, it has also made certain things seem to sound good when they really don’t — for a lot of people.

allen clapp: well, I’ve gone from a battery powered cassette 4-track to having limitless tracks on a computer, which is not necessarily that great of a thing. the thing that’s important is to remember that making choices in a recording is still important even though the medium no longer forces you to make those choices. having only 4 tracks meant you had to think about the priorities of your arrangements. you just have to be more intentional about those choices in a random-access digital world.

 

Posted on

chickfactor technology poll: consent and approval

don’t you think that the artist should have to consent or approve of his-her material being uploaded to youtube, spotify, soundcloud etc? why isn’t this the case?

bridget st john: YES. why isn’t this the case? I don’t think we were paying attention when – for example – youtube started up. or we didn’t even know until someone told us that our work was uploaded – and at that point what do you do? it’s hard to find phone numbers for websites. and then there is the ego which is flattered to see how many people have viewed a particular video – and in the end you rationalize it by saying it’s like having a visual business card and it might help live gigs, cd sales etc…

erin a girl called eddy: yes I do. and again, I truly believe that no one is getting paid through these outlets (certainly no one that I know) and stupifyingly, no one seems to care. all I hear is “it’s just the way the business is now” etc. independent artists are taking an incredibly passive attitude about this and I’m not quite sure why.

fran cannane: I don’t know how it works as regards money but I am constantly surprised anyone is interested so good luck to them…and it cannot do any harm that people have a chance to hear the music. I am more appalled by live concert footage. we had it good in the past! but I do not watch it for my own mental health.

hannah grass widow: I actually have no idea but recently someone told me they listened to us on spotify, so that was news to me that we were on there.

stephen the real tuesday weld: yes. youtube is owned by a company that sells advertising.

corin tucker: yes. most of us don’t have the money to pursue a legal case against youtube, but it is illegal. no, I don’t think anyone makes royalties from these.

andrew eggs/talk it: spotify is a matter between you and your record company, if you have one, or you and spotify. the other things…how can you possibly police that?

matt lorelei: the royalties from streaming services like spotify are percentages of pennies. for textilesounds I used IODA (mike slumberland does/did as well; IODA is now a part of the orchard) to have them handle the licensing and manage the collection of royalties. they handle spotify, rdio, last.fm, et. al. but amounts to very little. certainly not enough to cover the pressing of any of the records being streamed.

pete paphides: spotify is the biggest rip-off ever. 99% of artists – and I’m talking about the ones who actually sell reasonable amounts of records – couldn’t afford to buy a cheese sandwich on a week’s spotify royalties.

stephin the magnetic fields: that is beginning to happen, and will get more professionalized as the industry solidifies.

james dump/yo la tengo: we can’t all hire prince to straighten out that shit for us (although I wish we could). also, I heard dick cheney gets $100 from every youtube view and spotify play, and $150 from every internet comment.

gordon the fan modine: copyright holders do have to consent to all three of those services. the stuff that slips through on youtube and soundcloud can be stopped with a heads up to those companies. youtube and spotify pay royalties. soundcloud is a royalty-free service intended to give copyright holders an easy way to share their audio on their own behalf. some people use it differently and probably shouldn’t.

tim dagger: artists/musicians should get paid for their work.

allen clapp: you get like .007 cents per play or something like that…I get these royalty statements that say “X” song has been played XX,000 times, and you look over at the right column and there’s like 16 cents over there. I don’t really get it. I mean, every little bit helps, but when you think about these businesses building their futures on the availability of a product that costs them almost nothing, it makes you wonder who’s benefiting. I have no idea.

kim baxter: I just made 1 cent for selling a song on spotify. I took that penny straight to the candy store and bought 1/8th of a mini tootsie roll.

gail cf: it’s absolutely appalling that any old chump can upload video of a band without the band’s permission. appalling. terrible. the worst thing about the internet is that it needs to be policed and intellectual property protected. I know I sound like an old fogey but I don’t care. using other people’s content without their knowledge and consent is rude and should be illegal. as a photographer I abhor pinterest and tumblr for this reason, but youtube has hundreds of my photos up without my permission or credit too.

shaun brilldream: I have no idea, but of course they should give consent. I’m sure most would.

clarissa cf: when your work is in the world, it’s in the world. what people pay for is no longer access to the work, it’s (the suggestion of) your personal approval of their having access to the work.

jennifer o’connor: technically you do have to consent. you could spend a lot of time getting them all taken down, but I don’t really see the point. spotify pays minuscule royalties.

ian musical chairs: yes. nobody bothers fighting it unless they think it’s costing them more potential revenue than the lawyer would cost.

joe pines / foxgloves: I expect chickfactor’s views on this subject are correct. I would like to add that ‘digital culture’ is not the level playing field of universal access that is sometimes implied. people’s levels of technological capacity are variable and it is sadly possible to get left behind.

does anyone make royalties from these?

ian musical chairs: supposedly, but not enough to buy a sandwich or anything. the idea that any subscription-type service is the answer to save the failing music industry is hilariously absurd and for people who choose to ignore math.

daniel handler: someone gets paid for those ads, I hope.

stephen the real tuesday weld: hahaha.

bridget st john: yes – in my limited knowledge I know that for instance if you have a publishing company assigned to the harry fox agency and opt in to their agreement with youtube – then you will be paid a (small) amount for your work being on youtube.

Posted on

chickfactor poll question: making a living

do you believe musicians should be able to make a living from music? are you? do you have health insurance?

rachel blumberg: yes I do. there are lots of different paths to do this, though. I do have health insurance but I pay for it myself. it’s just a choice I’ve made, that it’s something I can’t notafford.

stephen the real tuesday weld: yes, the nhs.

pete paphides: not all musicians are going to make a living from music, but sure, it’s a common courtesy to show someone your appreciation for the things they make by paying them for it. until recently, I made my living from music. I still earn money from it, but I have, as they say, taken “a back seat.” there are children to chauffeur; meals to cook!

james dump/yo la tengo: yes / yes / yes.

erin a girl called eddy: yes. no. no.

stephin the magnetic fields: plenty of people should and do make a living from music, but sales of recorded music have been cut in half. I make a living, but my health insurance is always precarious.

dawn cf: YES.

daniel handler: we should live in an absolute artistic meritocracy. my insurance is from the screenwriters guild. these two sentences contradict each other.

corin tucker: yes. not really. yes our family has health insurance thankfully.

hannah grass widow: I do believe musicians should be making a living. music is so important to everyone — and no one would want to live in a world without it — but people aren’t really willing to pay artists what we deserve. our culture makes us feel like idiots for spending our time making music, as if we should get a real job. grass widow has never made a living being a band. we all have day jobs. I used to think it was so not punk to license your music, but these days I’m thinking that we wouldn’t have had that money in the first place, so if someone offered that maybe we could take that money and donate it to a cause we believe in or open an all-ages venue or something. we’re not above capitalism and we definitely need money to pay rent/eat.

ian musical chairs: In theory, it would be nice but mainstream tastes and buying habits would have to change to make the numbers work for most musicians (especially indie ones). no. yes (through my day job).

shaun brilldream: of course. but too much money = bad art.

kim baxter: yes, definitely! no, I’m not making a living from music. I do have health insurance but it’s a constant source of stress.

andrew eggs/talk it: I don’t make my living as a musician anymore. I do have health insurance.

bridget st john: that would be great – but unless we can have benefactors who want to help support us – no one owes us a living in music – as much effort as you put in determines what benefit you are able to reap, and these days it is more possible with internet and downloads and self-pressed cds and live performance it is possible. I did from 1969 to 1976 – and then found it impossible in new york and found other ways to supplement my musical income. Ironically if I chose to I believe I could work a lot more and make a living through music all these years on! from 1976 to 2011 I never had health insurance — but now at the grand age of 65 I have medicare – as imperfect as that is!

joe pines / foxgloves: making a living from music is not something I could contemplate. in my country, despite endless neoliberal inroads, we still have a universal health system which I believe is the noblest creation in our history. it is the material testament to our solidarity as a society. going to a hospital is naturally burdensome and worrying, but I can also find it inspiring.

gordon the fan modine: why certainly! I make a living from being creative. It has been nice that some years music has been the main thing I was focusing on. I do (have health insurance). I’ve been buying my own for more than a decade. It is one of the toughest things for people who don’t sign on to a mothership. individual (non group) plans are more expensive. it would seem that we should encourage entrepreneurs and micro-business owners such as musicians and artists.

jennifer o’connor: it’s very difficult to make a living playing music and whether musicians should or shouldn’t, I can’t really answer. I am making a living from music for the first time ever starting just this year. I do have health insurance but I pay too much for it and it’s not good and I’m thinking about dropping it because it’s so expensive and I feel it doesn’t even cover anything. It feels like throwing money away.

tim dagger: absolutely, I’m not a musician and I do have health insurance.

allen clapp: there have been a few years I actually made a living from music, but I always keep a foot in the day-job world (I’m a writer) because it’s too darn expensive to live in the san francisco bay area without at least some kind of a back-up plan. I do have health insurance, but I’m definitely pushing it on the dental plan. now I’m scared to go back to the dentist and discover what’s gone wrong. eek!

fran cannane: musicians can make a living from music in many ways such as teaching, playing in cover bands, selling music to be in ads, etc. to be highfalutin about it, this question is not relevant to the artist. I do not think anyone musician or not has a right to make money. it is I suppose a marketplace. if enough people get to hear your music and like it and then buy it or go to shows you may make money. if not you won’t. I note this excerpt from a philip larkin interview in paris review…

interviewer: do you think economic security an advantage to the writer?

larkin: the whole of british postwar society is based on the assumption that economic security is an advantage to everyone. certainly I like to be economically secure. but aren’t you, really, asking about work? this whole question of how a writer actually gets his money—especially a poet—is one to which there are probably as many answers as there are writers, and the next man’s answer always seems better than your own. ¶ on the one hand, you can’t live today by being a “man of letters” as easily as a hundred or seventy-five years ago, when there were so many magazines and newspapers all having to be filled. writers’ incomes, as writers, have sunk almost below the subsistence line. on the other hand, you can live by “being a writer,” or “being a poet,” if you’re prepared to join the cultural entertainment industry, and take handouts from the arts council (not that there are as many of them as there used to be) and be a “poet in residence” and all that. I suppose I could have said—it’s a bit late now—I could have had an agent, and said, look, I will do anything for six months of the year as long as I can be free to write for the other six months. some people do this, and I suppose it works for them. but I was brought up to think you had to have a job, and write in your spare time, like trollope. then, when you started earning enough money by writing, you phase the job out. but in fact I was over fifty before I could have “lived by my writing”—and then only because I had edited a big anthology—and by that time you think, well, I might as well get my pension, since I’ve gone so far.

interviewer: any regrets?

larkin: sometimes I think, everything I’ve written has been done after a day’s work, in the evening: what would it have been like if I’d written it in the morning, after a night’s sleep? was I wrong? some time ago a writer said to me—and he was a full-time writer, and a good one—“I wish I had your life. dealing with people, having colleagues. being a writer is so lonely.” everyone envies everyone else. ¶ all I can say is, having a job hasn’t been a hard price to pay for economic security. some people, I know, would sooner have the economic insecurity because they have to “feel free” before they can write. but it’s worked for me. the only thing that does strike me as odd, looking back, is that what society has been willing to pay me for is being a librarian. you get medals and prizes and honorary-this-and-thats—and flattering interviews—but if you turned round and said, right, if I’m so good, give me an index-linked permanent income equal to what I can get for being an undistinguished university administrator—well, reason would remount its throne pretty quickly.

 

Posted on

today’s 20th-anniversary poll question…

how has your record collection changed in the past 20 years?

stephen pastel: bigger, better. stricter adherence to cataloguing principles. new, old… I feel I can find it and connect it up. in a good place with this.

hannah grass widow: when I was really young, I would sometimes buy records because the album cover looked cool. maybe the band name sounded familiar but in general I took a lot of risks. I didn’t have a cool big sister or the internet. I had the radio and my local record store.

stephen the real tuesday weld: I have one now.

jeffrey honeybunch: gone back to used vinyl, which I originally pared down due to routine changes of address. have become much less preoccupied with objects in general, and am fine with just having the song on a file. totally done with CDs — too much of negative impact on the environment, and simply not that satisfying to hold in your hands.

daniel handler: it’s ballooned out of control. not being broke will do that. but the pop-to-classical ratio remains about the same, I think.

rachel blumberg: it’s gotten more eclectic. I’ve learned about so many more genres of music.

andrew eggs/talk it: I have more records now.

gaylord cf/wfmu: I have more jazz and classical LPs; not so coincidentally, that’s music I can enjoy live in venues with seats.

clarissa cf: the “things I love” section grows, and not as slowly as I’d have guessed it would at this point. the “things I can’t get anybody to take off my hands” section is completely out of control.

gordon the fan modine: I’ve never had more than a small rotating collection and now I listen to a lot of internet radio. you don’t really need much more than WFMU and RDIO these days.

fran cannane: in essence probably not much except for addition of MP3s.

james dump/yo la tengo: it’s a mess.

corin tucker: I try and only buy a few vinyl records a year that I think are classics, due to space. I still have my favorites I’ve collected on tour like x-ray spex, prince 7-inches and weird finds like that.

pete paphides: I don’t much bother with CDs anymore.

stephin the magnetic fields: I’ve given up on following both rock and disco, which I used to think of as the two poles of pop music. I have a lot more folk, and I have everything ever released on numero. their amazing eccentric soul series makes me hear the 70s in ways I couldn’t have at the time.

ian musical chairs: it’s expanded exponentially as I’ve gotten into record-dealing. I listen to a wider range of music now, though I still love a great pop song as much as ever.

dawn cf: I buy fewer 7″s.

joe pines / foxgloves: I now have 3 copies of 69 love songs: one that gail o’hara instructed me to buy in greenwich; one that I bought so the band could sign it; and one that leonard honeymoon diary gave me because he’d realized he didn’t actually like it.

jennifer o’connor: my record collection has always been in flux even when I was more of a collector, but yeah, now I have quite a range of everything from vinyl and cds to mp3s, etc. I have a hard time sometimes knowing which format to purchase a record in.

allen clapp: it became more digital over the past 10 years, but now it’s getting more analog again. I kind of forgot for a while how much fun it is to listen to music on vinyl, reel-to-reel, etc…so now I have records and jackets scattered all over my music room again..it feels wonderful. it’s still as eclectic as ever.

bridget st john: physically it is less cohesive and quite scattered = some of it is digital downloads lurking on my computer, some cds and still have some cassettes and some vinyl – I find there are fewer albums that I have bought that I want to listen and relisten to as a whole.

gene booth: chronologically ordered (almost there!); also, 1969 has grown by like two feet in the last two years. no vinyl yet in 2012.

the legendary jim ruiz: it’s just gotten a lot bigger. I love the “let’s empty the vaults” attitude taken by labels concerning ’50s and ’60s artists. want everything lulu released on decca between 1964 and 1966? no problem! I can’t imagine the lengths you could go or the money you could spend to get even most of those tracks in 1992.

tim dagger: more cds, less vinyl (though I still do buy vinyl) and I still don’t download things.

michael white: much like myself, it’s larger and has too much ballast.

shaun brilldream: just got bigger.

gail cf: it got larger, then smaller: I wish I could have my record collection (vinyl) back, all the stuff I got rid of when I moved.

 

Posted on

today’s poll question! chickfactor parties

can you recall something memorable that you’ve witnessed at a chickfactor party?

stephin the magnetic fields: james mcnew (dump) playing “sunshine, lollipops and rainbows” right after september 11. everyone was sobbing.

daniel handler: I remember my slowly realizing that lois was lois, but I think I kept pretty cool about it.

bridget st john: being completely ignorant of the aislers set’s music and briefly exchanging words backstage with a seemingly reticent linton – and then watching their set and being much affected and surprised by her powerful presence and energy – I love this band!

gaylord cf/wfmu: at the most recent chickfactor party in new york, I saw more people of color than ever in the audience.

janice cf: adrian tomine showing up for the softies set!

michael white: the aluminum group, at the 10th-anniversary soiree in new york, not so much playing a gig as performing a tag-team sit-down comedy set that happened to be broken up with some of the best love songs of the past 20 years.

clarissa cf: I once accidentally walked in on [redacted] making out with [redacted]. it was cute.

rachel blumberg: seeing both small factory and aisler’s set reunite. never imagined either might happen. both were amazing. more than memorable. I can think of something very personally memorable to me, which was when a certain person and i got love potion dumped all over us or something during the first night of the shows at the bell house. ahem.

gordon the fan modine: stephin merritt debuting a dozen or so of the 69 love songs at under acme on a uke way before the record came out. you booked that right? (yes. —editor)

jennifer o’connor: lots of things. 3 favorites include: seeing dump doing his solo  looping pedals thing for the first time, aislers set at the 10th anniversary show at fez, gail singing “fuck and run” during the cover girls set.

fran cannane: chickfactor parties are always in the wrong hemisphere but my memory is appalling so I would not recall anyway…

corin tucker: have I been to one? that one at fez? I remember mary timony on stage in braids?

dawn cf: mary timony/joan wasser (later to be policewoman) duo performance.

james dump/yo la tengo: I saw the cannanes beat and rob an audience member at a 1995 CF show at acme.

kendall mascott: I loved seeing brilliantine at the blue cabaret.

gail cf: more euphoria than anyone should be allowed to have. I have a record of them that I will someday publish. along with some footage!

tim dagger: sigh…have never been to one.

chickfactor 17 is out this fall on paper!

Posted on

chickfactor 17: sneak preview poll question!

how has music changed in the past 20 years?

allen clapp: seems like there’s more tolerance for melody now than there was 20 years ago. everything back then was so aggressive and serious! ugh. I think the world has loosened up a lot since the early 90s. thank goodness.

dawn cf: lots.

stephin the magnetic fields: the enormous changes in every genre between 1972 and 1992 are obvious. changes since ’92 are subtle (country, dance music, children’s music) to nonexistent (cabaret, rap, metal, musical theater, rock, gospel, jazz, soundtracks). In chickfactor’s core genre of cheaply made strummy rock, there hasn’t even been a new guitar effect.

gordon the fan modine: hmmm. has it?

stephen the real tuesday weld: there seems like there is an awful lot of it.

corin tucker: obviously the format has gone digital and people find new music in a different way now. there also seems to be many many more bands than there were in 1992. unfortunately there are still very few great bands.

james dump/yo la tengo: haven’t really been paying attention.

ed shelflife: more bands and less labels.

jeffrey honeybunch: everything is accessible which has its good points (josef k video’s on youtube) and bad (I can’t tell if the josef k–influenced band is new, or something old I missed out on).

michael white: it barely has; only its delivery systems have been revolutionized.

gaylord cf/wfmu: music has changed more between 1960 and 1970 than in the 42 years that follow.

shaun brilldream: we have a healthy post-oasis indie scene now. more record labels too.

andrew eggs/talk it: the 1992 music economy is unrecognizable today because it depended on narrow channels to distribute music, channels that are by and large irrelevant now.

bridget st john: It’s a more level playing field – with the will and a little wherewithal any one who chooses can make music and has a good chance to be heard.

clarissa cf: there is much less new music that is my idea of a good time, and much more that is 20-years-younger people’s idea of a good time. I’m fine with that.

fran cannane: a lot of use of the vocoder. more silly talent shows encouraging bad music. a lot more cover versions being hits perhaps?

gene booth: popular music is incredibly subtle and diverse now — thanks nirvana you really did change everything.

jennifer o’connor: the idea of what passes for a song in many cases these days is a joke.

pete paphides: it’s more freely available and, as with anything which is more freely available, its monetary value has gone down.

gail cf: the underground disappeared in the 1990s when the internet happened and maybe even before.

daniel handler: has it? I keep hearing music that I think is new and turns out to be old, or vice versa.

ian musical chairs: the mainstream has embraced an indie sound; indie bands have embraced commercials and other licensing opportunities (now the only reliable sources of income for bands). most commercial rock music is otherwise basically the same as in 1992 (grunge) and aside from the occasional interesting production job, top-40/dance music seems pretty the same too except for the overuse of auto-tune which will sound silly in a few years.

tim dagger: mp3/downloads.

joe pines / foxgloves: the sundays stopped. belle & sebastian started. I got better at writing songs, and was lucky enough to record some of them with a few tremendous people. it arguably became easier to filter out what you didn’t like. which may, come to think of it, mean that contemporary culture is even worse than I think.

 

Posted on

chickfactor poll: what is your dream gig?

what is your dream gig?

from the archive, chickfactor 16 (2005)…

greg the saturday people: I’d like to be an executive assistant.

jonathan lambchop: any gig where I’m onstage in my underwear.

lupe pipas: gal costa/stereolab/sun ra/anonymous french ye-ye session musicians/the aislers set + the lucksmiths + the frenchmen + free loan investments + vashti of course.

claudia the magnetic fields: playing in barcelona, outdoors in a medieval church courtyard at the twilight with gargoyles and swallows swooping overhead. and it really happened!

clarissa cf: I dreamt a few months ago that I just happened to go see the b.p.m. lineup of unrest—they weren’t making a big deal about being “reunited,” they just happened to be playing. it was happy. I woke up with longing in my heart. this marks me as a relic of my era, I realize.

mike alway: to begin with, it would have to be at lunchtime.

bliss blood: playing for 100 people who are listening and making $100,000.

slim kill rock stars: a captive audience.

stephen the real tuesday weld: the bar of les trois garcons with al bowlly guesting.

josh gennet: anything that (1) pays and (2) number of people you don’t know in crowd exceeds the number you do know. if they clap it’s a plus.

rebecca cf: seeing the pixies reunion tour in 2004 was, pretty much, my dream gig.

candice p: I would have liked to see the clash, dusty springfield, and al green. that would be a pretty good show.

david silver jews: csn and m: crosby stills nash and me.

joe the pines: roger mcguinn, johnny marr and neil clark: duelling 12-strings

amelia tender trap: magnetic fields supported by beat happening at la guinguette inparis. I would have queued overnight in the snow for that one.

gail cf:: I own my own nightclub which is a combination of les trois garcons and the old town bar in new york. we have concerts, parties, exhibitions, screenings, readings, and salons. I have a partner with cash so there is endless funding. we use the stage during the day for filming silly chat shows. we have a vegan cafe fully stocked with superstrong coffees, homemade ginger beer, and veuve clicquot. it’s open 24 hours with a full service bar and kitchen. we have our own shuttlebus service! I hardly have to ask anyone to play because everyone wants to play here and people call me!

tim dagger: love (circa forever changes), beach boys (circa pet sounds), nick drake (circa anything), belle and sebastian, and the modern lovers end it with “roadrunner”!!!

lisa cf: the national book award.

john phosphene: pink floyd at the ufo club, late 1966/early ’67, with syd upfront and people alternately dancing or lying on the floor.

sam brumbaugh: the left banke did a show at the london school of economics and the opening bands were bill fay and fresh maggots. any 70s eater show or anne briggs impromptu pub performance.

ld flare: any one where people can sit down comfortably. ideally in a theatre with a proscenium.

peter straub: um, the one I have right now.

alasdair the clientele: I thought it said “pig” for a minute.

louis philippe: I was there—brian wilson playing pet sounds at the festival hall in london.

aliccia slumber party: I had a dream that I was a country music singer. playing a show, on a large dark stage alone with a brilliant, beautiful, white acoustic guitar with inlaid abalone. and a head stock I didn’t recognize. it was old and haunted. I wish that would happen.

john true love always: I’d love to back up george michael in his timberlake/ flaming lips-style image remake. I am holding my breath.

james dump / yo la tengo: trouble funk, santa claus, an octopus, my 3rd grade teacher, and sherilyn fenn, but I’m stranded somewhere thousands of miles away in my underwear.

dawn cf: like a gig that happens in my dreams? I had a dream that chelsea clinton was singing antietam’s “walk away”. I have a feeling this isn’t what you are asking. gig of my dreams:

stephin the magnetic fields: walk into next room, find tuned (and self-tuning) ukulele ready to go in specially designed uke stand, discover my hearing damage is cured, play all-new set of beautiful songs I didn’t know I’d written, fronting a band such as tito puente might have led. the show is filmed, so I never have to play live again, and I don’t.

frances cannanes: I think we had it in new york one time. music went well, I was drunk enough to think I was being funny and there were lots of people there. but also in byron bay when there was no one there and also in northampton in a cellar and also in tokyo last visit on first night…I guess they just keep happening.

stephen cannanes: so many really, easy lug!, good sound, good engineer, good lineup, lots of mates, guinness rider, upstairs accommodation with a party room, recently it’s been doing three set evenings where it’s all pretty relaxed and people dance a lot, you always seem to have a good time when the crowd are getting down!

daniel handler: writing liner notes for a saint etienne album. if I say this enough perhaps it will come true.

david grubbs: it would involve people who’ve never heard me play before. old people in the first several rows, smiling. outdoors at night. cobblestones.

alistair tangents: it would be a two-night show (not a festival) with the velvets, byrds, felt and the clientele on the first night, and then fire engines, hellfire sermons, mccarthy, the wolfhounds, the playwrights and the pipettes on the second. the show would be at the silver factory, andy would be projecting his films, edie sedgewick would be dancing and billy name would be taking photos for posterity.

the legendary jim ruiz: the would-be-goods, max eider and I on a package tour of the netherlands and belgium, by bike of course.

kristian airliner: for watching? the beatles at any venue in ’63 or ’64. for the way they looked more than anything else.

jeff aden: at this point, I’d settle for a nice, high-paying show where we don’t actually have to play music. oh yeah, with chili-dogs on the rider.

 

Posted on

special poll: should you die before you get old?

the fact that this poll only has five answers per Q means I didn’t circulate it very well, but I do want your answers so please put them in the comment box below (and please don’t be anonymous, it’s no fun). today’s questions are all about whether you can be too old to rock.

1 is there a particular age when someone should stop playing pop music?
lupe pipas: probably between the age of reason and l’age d’or – ie, 40 and 60. take chantal goya as an example.
gerard matador: shortly after conception
stephen the real tuesday weld: 18
daniel handler: no. I wish there were folks in their 80s and 90s playing pop.
gail cf: I don’t think they should be allowed to start playing until they’re 25.
2 who is an example of someone who should really stop because they are too old to, uh, rock?
lupe pipas: johnny marr. he may not be old looking but I think he’s old in a deeper sense. elton john. he should just be sampled into a piano and let the kids make their own elton.
gerard matador: jascha heifetz
stephen the real tuesday weld: joss stone
daniel handler: sting, I guess. he mortifies me. I’m not sure that has anything to do with age, but he didn’t mortify me when he was young.
gail cf: anyone who signs a record deal with starbucks is clearly too out of it to rock.
3 who has flourished in “old age”? who is your “old” idol?
lupe pipas: morrissey, who will never be too old, saggy as he may get. bjork, considering she was a child star, she’s aged pretty well. vashti!
gerard matador: I’m hesistant to say. regardless of how well adjusted they might be, I don’t know anyone, old or young, who likes being called old.
stephen the real tuesday weld: john cale
daniel handler: tom waits.
gail cf: vashti.
4 which towns/artists/scenes have “old” indie audiences and which ones have “young” audiences?
lupe pipas: old: london. where are the youngsters? don’t tell me, they’re in myspace. stockholm/gothenburg young towns par excellence. they’re born with an earmarked encyclopedia of pop under both arms.
gerard matador: I really have no idea. I mean, I see young people and old people all over the place. I’m sure there’s a more interesting demographic breakdown, but I’ve never really thought about it.
stephen the real tuesday weld: guildford/the fall. dunno
daniel handler: I was just at a metric show in my hometown of san francisco and was told very sternly by two women in their 20s that my friend andy and I should stop dancing because they couldn’t see. we pointed out it was dance music and a rock club. they scowled. this made me feel old and young at the same time.
5 who is the best looking oldster in pop? the least attractive?
lupe pipas: ok, here I go repeating myself: vashti/morrissey/nana mouskouri/celia cruz (to some the ugliest woman in music, but getting to 80 is beautiful!)/john cale/bob marley. ugly: mick jagger. needs more beef, blubber would actually be nice for a change. he looks like he doesn’t eat enough. mick makes keith look like a cherub.
gerard matador: ha! see my answer to number 3. being called the best looking oldster in pop is the kinda faint praise I’m not gonna lavish on anyone I actually like.
stephen the real tuesday weld: roger waters / van morrison
gail cf: ira kaplan = pretty cute. lou reed = not. (people so full of themselves they may burst tend to look unattractive)
6 can you think of any “aging” popstars who are not mentally ill and yet are still relevant / interesting?
lupe pipas: many – let’s just think of cher for a moment…
gerard matador: depends on how you define popstar, I guess. does bob dylan count?
stephen the real tuesday weld: beck, bjork, damon albarn, cher.
daniel handler: tom waits, john fahey (oh – he’s dead), peter jefferies (is he old? I’m not sure.)
gail cf: graeme downes, where are you hiding? I know loads of relevant old people but like me they are in denial that they are old. wearing converse sneakers shaves off about a decade!
7 should 42 year olds be allowed on american idol?
lupe pipas: yeah!
gerard matador: I don’t see why not, though I’m not sure why they’d want to be.
stephen the real tuesday weld: definitely not
daniel handler: american idol should be strictly 90 and older.
gail cf: only if they’re in the aluminum group!
8 should 16 year olds be allowed inside venues?
lupe pipas: all ages!
gerard matador: as long as they promise not to fuck shit up, I don’t see why not.
stephen the real tuesday weld: I thought they were – but if they aren’t, they shouldn’t be
daniel handler: sure, but they should be required to stand in line at the bar for any 35 year old who requests it.
gail cf: only if they keep quiet!
9 how old are the youngest people with vinyl records these days?
lupe pipas: like i said above, they are swedish kids just beginning to teeth.
gerard matador: I have no idea. you might well ask how old are the youngest people who actually buy CDs.
stephen the real tuesday weld: my neice is 6 – she has a ‘pinky and perky’ record – I gave it to her
daniel handler: I believe the youth of america have switched to reel-to-reel tapes.
gail cf: toddlers whose parents ran indie labels.
10 why can’t the young write their own new songs?
lupe pipas: they’re effin lazy! and they don’t teach them how to write any more, just curse.
gerard matador: who says they can’t?
stephen the real tuesday weld: there is nothing left to say
daniel handler: who’s writing these questions, andy rooney?
gail cf: the girls from magnolia can certainly rock.
post your own answers in the comment box please!