At that time, he was still a little bit anonymous. I think he was still a bit apprehensive about whether people would accept music from him.
The crazier part of that story: on that tour, the Foos were opening for Mike Watt. Watt's band included Grohl, Pat Smear, and William Goldsmith (of the Foos), with Eddie Vedder on guitar. (His side-project Hovercraft opened the show, Vedder on drums.)
Vedder was in the van, too. This was when Pearl Jam was the biggest band on the planet. They didn't announce his involvement - word got out about a third of the way into the tour, and the rest of the shows sold out almost immediately. (Ahh, the early Internet days, where secrets could be kept for a while.)
They're also playing arenas, which makes the whole thing a weird bit of advertising.
Their first tour was in small clubs opening for Mike Watt. Rather than an arena tour, it would have been fun to see them do one of those mini-tours they did some years ago where they surprised-released tickets to tiny shows.
PS: I saw one of those shows in 1995. Ticket face value: $6.
Honestly, it seemed like they knew that people wanted to see the rock stuff rather than the pop hits. They didn't play Armageddon or "Jaded" - they did play "Cryin'" and "What It Takes" (which I don't mind), but I think that was mostly it. I was worried about the setlist, but they mostly kept within what I was hoping to see (plus some 70s stuff I didn't know at all).
I caught one of these shows recently. Honestly, given the Grammys, I thought it was going to be bad. (We bought tickets a long time ago.) But, honestly, it was a really good show. I've apparently underestimated Brad Whitford's ability as a guitarist - he tore out some riffs.
Having said that, there was something wrong with Joe Perry. I half-imagined that the Grim Reaper was working as his guitar tech. I couldn't tell if he was on something or just senile, but he was a lot of a trainwreck - missing some key guitar lines (especially "Livin' on the Edge"), and kind of all over the place on the one song he sang lead on. (I think that was the song he stopped part-way in and asked to start over.)
Their non-Kramer drummer was solid.
I kinda want to find out: how this song. Of all of the weird 80s songs out there, how did this one rise up from the grave for kids to hear it? Some rogue 80s Spotify playlist?
I remember hearing this song as a kid in the early 80s and initially dug it. Taped it off the radio around that time (on one of my first blank tapes), and quickly realized how thin the production was. (Seems like it has no bass at all, even compared to radio music of the early 80s.) Became an instant skip on that tape within weeks.
Famous quote from MTV President/Founder Tom Preston on the launch of MTV in 1981 (paraphrased):
"We had 65 videos at launch, and 35 of them were Rod Stewart."
I don't care about this band at all, but I think it's worth nothing:
One of the main reasons they were calling it the final tour was because of Mick Mars' longtime health problems. There were questions as to whether he'd even be able to finish the tour, and I got the sense that the band was trying not to draw significant attention to that fact. (I was told by a guitarist friend who I don't entirely trust that Mick was doing the guitar version of lip-syncing during the tour.)
If Mick's health is such that he's willing to stand on stage with a guitar again, it's hard for me to complain about it.
I'm not going to pay money to see it, but I'm okay with it.
I'll add a minor correction - legally, they can't stop her from performing. I think you were right all along. I thought they owned part of her publishing, but it looks like that's controlled by Sony/ATV. Sony/ATV would be the ones providing a sync license, not Big Machine.
Reading further, it's more that they're threatening to stop licensing her old masters (ie, to Netflix) if she performs those songs on TV. It's something closer to blackmail - play those songs on tv, and we'll stop doing what you want. It's really fucking weird.
You've got the law wrong here.
It's not possible to legally bar someone from playing a song live, as long as the venue has the bulk performance license from the publishing organization (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC). Forgerty could play his own songs whenever he wanted to. (If Fogerty did that, it was a protest, likely knowing that Fantasy would benefit financially from the performance, not a legal concern.) Bar bands can play Prince.
In the same thread, any band can record and release a studio cover of any song they want to, so long as they pay the statutory fee as set by the US government - that license is compulsory. Anyone can (and has) recorded Prince songs, including during his lifetime.
The problem is that the statutory rate is expensive. Most major labels refuse to allow their bands to release cover songs if they have to pay the full statutory rate for the song. So when bands said they "couldn't get permission" to cover a Prince song, it meant that Prince was unwilling to negotiate the rate, and the major label was unwilling to release the song. (It also meant that Prince was unlikely to allow the next license, which would hamper promotion of the song.)
Swift's problem is that she needs another license for the AMAs. In order to perform on television, the producer of the show needs to have a sync license for the song. There is no statutory (or compulsory) version of that - it has to be agreed to by the owner of the sound recording and by the publisher. In this case, the AMA's would own the sound recording to the performance on the show, rendering that part unnecessary, but the song's publisher would have to agree to the license for the performance to be televised. (Letterman once spent ten minutes of a Late Show talking about how he wanted his band to play an Eagles song on the show but they couldn't because the Eagles wouldn't provide a sync license for less than $250,000. CBS had previously commissioned a fake Eagles song called "Supercharger" - mimicking "Life in the Fast Lane" - that they could perform instead.)
They can stop her from performing those songs - all they have to do is deny a sync license.
For me, the big flaw in this album has always been its production. I feel like this is the spot where Brendan O'Brien started to lose his touch.
Compared to his 90s masterpieces, this album's mix just sounds incredibly fussy. Hyper-compressed and muddy, and the drums sound a little bit bizarre. Throw on Pearl Jam's "Go" (off Vs.) and then play "Down", and realize those two songs were recorded and mixed by the same people.
Having said that, this album has a few absolute gems, especially "Glide". That song got a lot of airplay on my local alt-rock station (by the station's choice), and I've always been surprised that it didn't gain more traction nationally.
I agree on Channing, but, for me, the worst recent snub was Dave Abbruzzese of Pearl Jam.
When the guy joined that band, two drummers were already gone, and the band was struggling in clubs. A year later, the band was recognized as one of the most powerful live bands on the planet, partly on the backs of their SNL and MTV performances (with him). A year after that, their second album sold almost a million copies in one week. At the time they got rid of him a year later, PJ was the biggest band on the planet.
That period is widely recognized as their most iconic as a band. I don't think they ever would have been "Pearl Jam" without him.
I'll throw another vote behind Guilt Show. Just a great bunch of catchy tunes.
I actually don't enjoy Something as much now as I did twenty years ago. I still remember how great it sounded when I threw it in the CD player in my car after buying it (at Media Play), but, nowadays, I find myself skipping a lot of the songs if they come up on shuffle. (I can't remember the last time I made it through "Ten Minutes", for example.)
That probably says more about me than about the quality of the album itself, and it's genuinely a classic of that era.
Not that it's going to matter:
I think this might actually be from Reveal (or substantially from Reveal) rather than a 2004 re-record.
The original version of this leaked as part of Reveal: Alpha back in 2001 (along with what many felt was a superior mix of "Beat a Drum"). I checked my copy of that leak against this one, and it matches so closely that I can't tell any obvious difference.
I'll correct myself - I feel like I've seen the bridge drive in another doc, but I know I've seen the Australian interview that Bix posted.
But I'm pretty sure there's an interview with Maurice where he talks about the synth bass - that Weaver had laid it down on an ARP synth as a guide when Maurice was out of the studio, but they liked it enough that they kept it in the final.
(TIL that there seem to be 45 Bee Gees documentaries.)
"like the synth-bass that Maurice Gibb overdubbed"
I'm always the correction jackass - I believe the synth bass is actually keyboardist Blue Weaver.
There's a show somewhere where they talk about making this song - and drive across the bridge - but at the moment I'm blanking on which show it was. (Maybe Behind the Music.)
NME says that neither Harris nor Webb (nor Friese-Greene) are involved.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/talk-talk-surviving-members-reunite-show-honour-mark-hollis-2533193
I'm a little bit conflicted about the lineup - and torn about having this music played live without Hollis' iconic vocals.
I really want a full version of the alternate take of "Valerie" that was seen in the Soundbreaking doc. The Dap-Kings' chukka-chukka thing is awesome there. (That doc is 100% worth the price of admission if anyone hasn't gone through it yet.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxEzVAP2-PE
They played "Divine Hammer" at CBC Music Festival last month, and it was livestreamed by CBC. They've been slowly uploading the set this week - hopefully, it'll show up soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHkch572pWc
I'm under the impression that Universal likely "owned" most of these tapes. While destroying them is a bad look, unless the artist's contract contained stipulations that the artist would retain (or in the future, obtain) those tapes, there really wouldn't be much to litigate.
The open question is whether any of those tapes were simply there for storage and actually belonged to an outside entity. Even then, insurance would likely have covered it - unless the fire was caused by Universal's (actionable) negligence, which would likely be tough to prove.
I feel like this is more like when a museum goes up in smoke. A lot of those pieces belong to other people - if something happens, it's a loss, but that's what insurance is for.
Btw - R.E.M.'s IRS material falls under the Universal umbrella, so it's not out of the question that some of their master tapes might have been in the warehouse. (They wouldn't have taken their masters to Warners with them - those early albums still belong to IRS/Universal.)
Crossed my mind a few minutes ago:
The multi-track master tapes for the Temple of the Dog album were under litigation for a long time. They were in the possession of its producer, Rick Parashar, whose brother claimed ownership after his death. Cornell and company eventually obtained them a few years ago.
When the album was re-released in 2016, it was in the form of a new mix by Brendan O'Brien using those multi-tracks. At the time, the band (via Jeff Ament) indicated that the new mix had been necessary, because the original stereo mix master tapes couldn't be located. (Their option for a remaster would have been to rip a CD copy, and they preferred doing something hi-res.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIxZFtPSEdQ
Temple of the Dog was on A&M (Universal). Odds are decent that the original stereo mix masters were in that warehouse.
In hindsight, the litigation over those tapes might have saved those masters.
"never affected the availability of the commercially released music nor impacted artists’ compensation"
This is such absurd lawyerly nonsense. "You can still buy the music, and the artists are still going to get paid."
In the other thread, I half-supported that notion, and it's true - it's not as terrible a loss as it could have been, since most of this music exists in other formats, and most artists wouldn't be in a position to use these tapes again. (For example, the Nevermind multi-tracks clearly exist in digital form - Vig used them in a ProTools rig in the Classic Albums episode about the album.) But it's legit disgusting that that's what Uni is saying - they should be contrite at this point. And it's reprehensible that they didn't inform the artists that their tapes were destroyed (and have apparently been cagey about it: "Oh, we can't find them.").
Some artists have it in their contracts that they can take control of their masters after a certain amount of time. Kinda wondering what happens now that Uni can't entirely deliver on that.
Only because I heard it a million times in middle school - back in 1989, there was a dance-pop cover by Figures on a Beach that charted (I think). I always thought it was a little bizarre that they used a sampler to do the stutter.
It seemed like there was a lot of this kind of thing in 88/89. It was weird. Catchy, tho.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr_13gCEEfc
Martin Hannett just did weird stuff in those mixes, especially with the drums. Some people love it - a lot of bands copied the style - but, to me, it's the one thing that makes those songs sound dated. (I'll admit I didn't hear anything but LWTUA until the 90s, so I'm biased by a preference for early-90s alt-rock.) I think even the band wished that the mixes sound more like their live sets. (Hannett wasn't exactly the most receptive producer.)
Unfortunately, the only song that can remixed (and has been) is the one song that really didn't need to be. LWTUA was remixed in 1995 to sound more acoustic. (I think Peter Hook likes this version.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3_C710an9w
You could have also mentioned both.
I think a lot of us prefer the MD125 version because it sounds a lot closer to how they played it live in 1996. It's more atmospheric. (The synth that grates me is the one in the left channel that pops in and out - it fits better as color in the atmospheric mix.)
The MD126 version sounds like the band was dialing it back - more in the direction to the OKNOTOK version we already have.
Having said that, any new day that we can bicker over various mixes of "Lift" is a pretty good day. :D
Most Nirvana stuff would have already been transferred to digital for the 20th anniversary releases. According to the Nevermind re-release, some of those transfers happened in 2005. This would have included the Nevermind-era multi-tracks (including the previously-unreleased songs that were newly mixed down and some b-sides that were remixed), and likely In Utero as well, since new mixes were done with Albini.
That's my takeaway here - there are probably some older acts whose works are permanently lost, but most of this stuff would have already been digitized in some other format, if maybe only the final mixes and not the multi-tracks. But most acts wouldn't have ever used those tapes again - even the more-successful heritage acts can't afford to remix their works from the original master tapes.
(I'll note that all of Joy Division's multi-track masters - with the lone exception of the final recording of "Love Will Tear Us Apart" - have been lost for 30+ years. Everything you've heard is from the master mixes. While it'd be nice to be able to remix those original albums, we haven't necessarily lost much by not being able to.)
The version of "Lift" that most people seemed to react to during the initial release (and the one I like best) is at 9:45 on MD125. The synth in the chorus is less grating.
Crazy seeing the date of the live show on this. There's a Westwood One recording that's been circulating for years that's literally from the night before (in Worcester, Mass). And it's really, really good - they were so good that year. I especially like the version of "Still Remains" on there, which is maybe the most underrated song on the album.
"Hold Me Up" was actually used in Kevin Smith's Zack and Miri Make a Porno in 2008. It's circulated in smashed-bitrate form for years - nice to finally have a clean version.
Even Billy admits "Piano Man" isn't great. He notes that it's stupid simple - the same riff over and over again.
But it's kinda the perfect song for bar people. It's about "them", and it's stupid simple.
A friend of mine used to have a band that played stupid simple music. Verse, chorus, then like five minutes of them playing the verse riff over and over again. They could play, but it was mindnumbing if you were sober (me). But they crushed it at bars. By the end of the night, even if it was the first time they'd played there, the drunken hordes would be standing on chairs cheering their asses off.
Slight tweak - it wasn't that the artists didn't release singles, it's that the American major labels didn't want to. They realized that kids would buy a $15 CD album for one song, and put the priority on that. (Singles were still massive in the UK.)
That decision directly led to the existence (and popularity) of Napster.
Holy crap, disagree. Lauryn Hill oversang the hell out of this song. There's nothing vengeful about it. It's right there in the title: killing me softly.
I can't imagine she still lives there. (That many break-ins, I wouldn't.) If anything, if it were me, I'd keep the place as a decoy home, and let it be the place that crazy assholes break into thinking I'm there.
If you listen to this song and pretend it's Michael McDonald playing "What a Fool Believes" in a lower key, it's hard to hear it as anything but an homage to that song. But it's still great, and a good example of YR.
Ironically, it's probably "Love Will Keep Us Together" by Captain and Tennille. It's not a great example of the genre, but I think they decided it had enough of the right stuff (especially a hint of a bounce) to get it on the boat.
If not that, then definitely "What a Fool Believes". YR basically bubbled under all of the disco and lite-fm pap of the era - it felt like it really took off as a "thing" around 79/80.
For most genres like that, I totally agree. "Grunge", for example - people had varying opinions of what was and wasn't grunge. (My sarcastic favorite was always that anything pre-1991 was "grunge" and anything after was "post-grunge". U-Men, Green River, yes - Pearl Jam, no.)
With Yacht Rock, though, we know who specifically coined the term and when it happened. There wasn't "yacht rock" before those guys created the web series in 2005. It was just one of those perfect ideas that made total sense to anyone familiar with the music, so it just seemed like it was always there.
While I don't always agree with their choices, I feel like those guys should get some deference when it comes to saying what is and isn't "yacht rock". I mean, they knew what they meant when they coined the term, and they did coin it.
For anyone lost:
https://www.yachtornyacht.com/
There is no single song being called "yacht rock" that pisses off the Yacht Rock guys more than this one. Short answer: no, "yacht rock" is more of a sound: big money, jazzy, smooth. This is more seafaring and low-rent naval activities.
But people think it's a jam and it has nautical themes, so it usually ends up in "yacht rock" playlists.
Comments