16 October 2008

creatures of habitat

in last week's issue of indy.com or intake or whatever it is being called this month, the cover begged a rather interesting question. is indianapolis cool proof? naturally, as is normal for the same publishers of the star, a lack of journalistic integrity led not to an unearthing of answers, or an honest look at this question, but to merely a hipster friendly list of goods and services provided by towns that the rag deems as "cooler" than ours(what can we expect from a shit mag that employs joe shearer as a film reviwer) but, while the story inside proved to be bunk, the question on the cover was indeed a valid one and one that we here at the beer cannes have been mulling over for the last week, unable to find an angle from which to approach even the smallest beginnings of an answer.

and then this week's edition of the rival paper nuvo dropped into my lap the origins of a thesis on this particular quandry.

on its cover and within its pages, the issue presented the latest local "it" band of the moment margot and the nuclear so and so's on the verge of the release of its major label debut. to my suprise the story related seemed to offer a fairly interesting take on the question posed a week earlier.

the story relates the struggle between the band and their new benefactors at sony in coming to terms with a set list that is acceptable to both sides. margot wanted to put out one version, sony their own version. incredibly a compromise was reached and both sides got to release their own versions on specific formats(vinyl/cd/itunes)

and while this is a lovely little story of corporate compromise and all, it also seems to me a symptom of the greater problem of indianapolis' alledged "cool proof" ness in that when some entity,in this case margot,around these parts attains a certain level of cool, they automatically get thrust into this strange vortex where they begin to believe that they are much much cooler than they actually are.

i mean, who the fuck do margot and the nuclear so and so's think they are?

while they are so busy whining about how their songs need to go in this very particular order, there are literally a thousand bands around here that would kill to be in their position. good bands like red light driver and small arms fire would love to be reaping the promotional and touring benefits that come with releasing a major label album. yet all margot can do is whine and bitch about their "artistic integrity."

it makes me think about one of my favorite bands, van halen. i mean, can you picture eddie and david lee roth sitting around all mopey, wanting to release a different version of their first album because they wanted jamie's crying to come before running with the devil chronologically. no, they were just some future rock gods from pennsylvania that were ecstatic to be in a position to have their music heard beyond the region in which they lived. they got big heads much later, you know, after they had actually done something relevant.

margot pulls diva shit now, with marginal talent and an even smaller fan base because their songs are not memorable(unlike jamie's crying) so they try to pedestal themselves as true "artistes"

and that in a nutshell is something that is fundamentally flawed in this city. it's not that we are cool proof...it's that we are cool allergic. we get a little cool in our system and we can't handle it and we puff up like the mumps and blow things completely out of proportion.

when something becomes a big fish in our rather small pond, it goes straight to their head and they almost instantly become pretentious as all hell. like margot.

seriously, artists: just keep your nose to the grind and let your work speak for itself. if your shit is any good it won't matter what order it is placed in. it won't matter if some are b-sides and some are a's. if margot's songs are any good they will get out there. if the work on the album is any good, it will show through, no matter which version it is. just shut the hell up, and i might be able to take you seriously.

but as we here at the beer cannes are big big fans of humility, we can not in good faith recommend this trite bullshit. if you absolutely must drop coin on an album in the near future, buy the album by a tight little scottish outfit known as glasvegas. besides the fact that the singer croons like the new billy bragg, they strike me as the type of dudes who wouldn't bitch at their record label over whether geraldine comes before daddy's gone on the track listing because they are thankful for the oppurtunity just to get out of the hell hole that is glasgow, scotland. (or buy the red light driver album on itunes)shameless plug!

glasvegas-daddy's gone


glasvegas-geraldine(not the official video...but better)


red light driver

8 comments:

Shane M. White said...

Interesting.
This post is almost the polar opposite of how I would expect you to feel. I always saw you as someone who would fight for artist integrity, no matter the level.

If Scott Grow let someone else tell him what art he could/could not display, I would see you getting super upset if he didn't fight back for his own right to display what he wanted.

An artist is an artist, no matter what level. Sadly, I think you're just upset that its a local band - who isn't one of your close friends.

Why the hatred towards a band who wanted their artistic integrity? You complain about big Film Studios not releasing indie works. I feel like this is the same type of thing, although a big label is releasing an indie record, and the indie band just their say in the matter.

troy myers said...

indie films by definition do not take studio money. once they do they form a collaborative partnership that must be benificial for both sides.

example: if you gave me money to shoot a film about your birthday and i returned to you with a film about your brother's birthday you wouldn't be happy.

it's all about the means afforded here. it is fully within an art studio's rights to tell scott that he can't display his work, just as it is with scott to take his work elsewhere.

but when the art studio pays for scott to produce a certain work, scott has entered into a agreement to produce exactly that and it becomes the product not of scott entirely, but of the conglomeration of both scott and the studio.

if they didn't want to be put under such demands, they should have self produced.

you can't sell your soul to the devil and then whine, bitch and complain to get it back.

they made their bed, now lie in it.
don't be pussy.

and i don' complain about studios not releasing indie works, i complain because those works are not afforded the same level of accessibility.

once you sign on the dotted line, you are no longer indie, and therefore you lose some say in how your work is presented.

troy myers said...

it's like this shane...if mgm came to you tomorrow and said that they want to release reunion into theatres but that they need you to change the ending for that to happen and you agree to do so, you cannot, after the fact, bitch and moan about the ending to your film because that is the agreement to which you have entered...you have already auctioned off your artistic integrity at that point.

Shane M. White said...

I guess since none of know the exact wording of their contract - we really can't judge how Margot is reacting.

Is may or may not have been in the contract WHO got final say of track listing. Now, the Record Label probably deals with this stuff all the time, so they probably remember it being in there, but often there is clauses for the artist to have some say on certain things.

I suppose you're right, that once you sign with the devil, you're the property of the devil - but if the devil decides to do everything in their power to screw you over because you signed an unfair contract as a wide-eyed struggling artist? There's been a number of legal cases where artists have been let our of their contracts because the Artists were unfairly taken advantage of when they were young. If the record label doesn't have the artists best interests (or at least give a care about what the artist is trying to accomplish) then I believe the artist should fight back, and perhaps find another label.

I think we've all learned a lot from Billy Walsh.

Interesting side note - which Jason Maier will have to confirm: I think we went and saw this band almost ten years ago in Broad Ripple, because of our friend Nick White. Again, I might be wrong....?

Ryan Micheel said...

First, I haven't read the article. But I believe, from what I have read elsewhere is that Animal and Not Animal both have 12 songs, but only 5 of them are on both. So it's not exactly about track order. The thing I can't believe is the label let them release both versions. I realize in the end it's a gimmick that will probably result in more articles written about them which I'm sure the label is hoping will result in more album sales.

Secondly, Van Halen is exactly the type of band that would bitch about something that doesn't matter. They whined about what color of M&M's were available backstage. Eddie Van Halen is also the type of prick that lets one singer know they have been fired by showing up with another one on TV. Not to mention dropping your long time bass player to let your fifteen year old son be in the band. I realize Michael Anthony's pay to talent ratio is insane, but it's still a dick move. I like a lot of Van Halen songs but you picked the wrong group to argue about their integrity. Maybe they were different in 1978, but I doubt it.

As far as the back and forth between you and Shane, I think as far as film goes it kind of falls in the same category as final cut. As far as Shane's comment about fighting back against the label, like I said before I'm surprised they won. Labels are notorious for not liking an album and then shelving it. Giving the artist two options: a) not being released or b) having to buy the album back from the label. I believe option b happened to Aimee Mann twice.

troy myers said...

i used van halen precisely because they did become dick face divas...but like i said "after they had actually done something relevant"

as for the tracks, if you want a certain list of songs, why not just record those songs...don't record 40 songs for a 12 song album...and if you do don't complain when your label(creative consultant at best/slave driver at worst) chooses songs different from what you had in mind.

this wasn't intended to be an argument about the music industry/indieness, as those things are what they are....this was intended to show what happens when someone around our fair town gets a little noteriety.

it has a tendency to blow up their ego way past a ratio acceptable to their amount of fame. which in the end, isn't really that cool, which was the point.

Ryan Micheel said...

Margot's ego was huge way before being signed to Epic (I think they are signed to Epic). They have something like a $4000 guarantee for their shows, which was why they were a local band and their shows still ranged between $15 and $25. I realize there is 80 of them and I'm sure that is a factor, but it's still kind of ridiculous.

emilystage said...

Red Light Driver is groovin' on the People Mover...love the video!