i've never considered myself a "highly principled person." well, i think i'm minimally principled to the point where i wouldn't violate any of the ten commandments (ok, maybe some of the more contentious ones. . .), but i don't run around spouting off exhortations like some of my more conservative neighbors. still, one issue i do tend to harp on is the importance of being intelligent and mindful of the art one consumes. that means, for example, reading interviews and lyric sheets to ensure that my favorite artists don't hold worldviews radically different from mine. furthermore, i have this rule about never paying full price for any cd issued by one of the big five major labels. (as a brief aside, i'll list 'em for anyone who doesn't know: bmg, emi, sony, universal, and warner. all other "major" labels such as elektra, interscope and atlantic are affiliated with one of the aforementioned).

i don't often listen to the majors' output simply because i don't usually like the music they deem fit for mass consumption. i never pay them directly for two reasons: one, their business plan fucks with the art in a way it shouldn't and two, they pocket an obscene amount of the revenue from unit sales. y'see, a major label is an enterprise and like any capitalistic venture worth its salt, it follows certain rules which often end up screwing the consumer. slowly ratcheting up the price of a new cd to upwards of $20 just cuz they can is just one example. but i think what i object to most strongly is the following process, which tends to cycle through about every three to five years or so. a single act, revolutionary for the mainstream (but almost never true innovators) takes the industry by surprise and begins to move large numbers of units. each label rushes to sign "the next [whoever]" and before ya know it, the racks at tower and virgin are flooded with substandard, derivative product. i could list a zillion "firestarters," as i like to call them, but i'll give you just three from the early 90s: nirvana, dr. dre, and green day. and even if most of the third-rate bandwagoners weren't mediocre at best, the process still stifles diversity in major label rosters. finally, have you ever wondered where your $19.99 goes? somewhere between the cost of production, videos and the privilege of being on a major label lies the artist's 12-14% cut. that sounds pretty good until you recall that the label keeps all of the artists' royalties until they've earned enough to pay off the advance money they used to make the record/tour/live off of. most bands are lucky to break even, let alone turn a profit.

so i can't with a clear conscience pay a major label for music. what i do instead is find the record used or just pirate it. i do pay for most minor label stuff, because they tend not to screw the artist as much, although there are exceptions. i support the few major label artists i do enjoy in other ways, such as attending their live shows and buying their swag direct. i was in a local cd store today with my mom, and she bought a cd priced at something like $18.98. i fed her a condensed version of the above spiel, but i don't think it sank in. oh well. . . i hope at least a few of y'all out there will decide to wield your economic vote a little more judiciously if you weren't previously aware of the above info. and for those of you already doing so, i salute you.

lately i've been rediscovering several forgotten classics that i somehow managed not to appropriate when they were current. i say "forgotten" because many of these titles are inexplicably out of print (while others are quite understandably out of print). on the one hand, it's pretty obvious why whoever's in charge of restocking major label units would pass over the one-shot releases of bands like spoon, the dismemberment plan, and my bloody valentine. however, it's damn inexcusable that well-regarded minor label releases such as smart went crazy's con art and braid's frame and canvas should languish in unreplenished obscurity. this unfortunate fact of life notwithstanding, the diligent disc-hunter can still find decent used copies of these and other rare records on various used-music sites; my current fave is half.com.

right now, i can't stop playing frame and canvas, which seems to have been recently restocked after a couple years of nonexistence. it really is one of the best distillations of everything that rocked about jawbox, merged with some promise-ring style vox. also, a series of sneaks is worth ferreting out, as it takes the best of pixies-ish songstructure and combines it with some kinks and gang of four to, once more, rock my world. also, britt daniel's low yet well-implemented voice gives me a bit of hope for my own tuneless bass drone. speaking of which, i'm almost done with another song! now doesn't that sound familiar. . .

i'll be back in california in two weeks, and hopefully nick and i will begin working on putting a group together. something about that proclaimation doesn't quite sit well with me though. . . i spose we'll just have to see, now won't we?

pop quiz, hotshot: and this time we're going GRE-style. this one's an analogy, so let's see how much attention you've been paying:

GANG OF FOUR:EX-MODELS::

a) THE CLASH:BIG AUDIO DYNAMITE
b) STIFF LITTLE FINGERS:GREEN DAY
c) BLINK 182:SUM 41
d) THE PIXIES:NIRVANA
e) JAWBREAKER:JAWBOX

if you chose d), well, it's backpatting time, cuz that's the answer we were looking for. the pixies were a huge influence on nirvana, but the latter band took their inspiration and expanded upon it, thus creating an indisputably singular corpus of music. in keeping with the kaplan method, let's look at the other choices. a) is merely famous-influential-band:post-breakup-band-which-is-almost-never-anywhere-near-as-good-as-earlier-band. the stiff little fingers were indeed a significant influence on green day, as noted in high fidelity, but i'll be damned if you can tell me any way in which gd has expanded on slf's basic three-chordery. the first half of c) is an example of a major-label experiment which paid off, so the second half is one of the many similar-sounding knockoffs signed in the ensuing spate of copycat contracts. the two bands of e) just have similar-sounding names, but they did tour together once.

the ex-models are from new york. but they play what's termed dc-style rock even though it originated in england. so in more ways than one i'd say they're all over the map, but their latest effort other mathematics is a concise distillation of everything i enjoy about angular shard-rock. i call it that because its practitioners take sharp, unrefined pieces of guitar, bass, drums and rhythm itself to create a quirky, unpredictable totality that i just adore. of course, gang of four invented shard-rock in 1979 with their debut album entertainment!, and the all music guide review of that album is quick to note its far-reaching influence on today's music. the ex-models do a far superior job than most of their peers in showcasing the best of what g4 had to offer, speeding up the tempo and adding shades of 60's garage and surf-rock. it's loud, the shards come in spades, the vocalist sounds like remain in light-era david byrne, and there's not a bum track in the bunch. buy it, order it, steal it; just obtain it and prepare to convulse.

a large slab of gratitude goes out to r. w., somewhere in cyberspace, who recently expressed his attentive fandom of me in the guestbook. i recently completed tablatures for three of my songs (infinity av, hater, threnode 1), but did you want anything specific? and to anyone else who wants tab for my stuff, i'd be happy to email it directly to you. i'm deathly afraid of being surreptitiously plagiarized, but i figure anyone who asks me for my tab isn't going to take it to the bank.

check out the official wolf 359 listener's guide.