JCHMusic Now Available At Lala!

You can now find all your fave JC Harris tracks at Lala. Something we’re workin on: When you type JCHMusic into Google, you’ll get an instant playlist of tunes in the search results–also couresy of Lala!.

The Hand Thing

A bit of an update on the state of my right hand, which has driven so much of my life the past two years.

I’ve recently had a hand surgery that involved sucking the juice out of each of my knuckles and then replacing it with a something like KY Jelly. Apparently it was, in the words of The Great Dictator Hynkel ‘far from perfect’.

Now this week I’m going into see a specialist and schedule a follow-up procedure. Since sucking didn’t work, the next step is to try cutting out the bad tissue.

I’ve had people look at me with absolute horror for why I’m allowing more invasive stuff to be done to me but the thing is: ya gotta try something. The cysts in my knuckles constrain my range of motion–making finger-picking almost impossible. Also they just plain hurt. Brushing up against anything makes me wince and putting my hand in a bucket of cold water? It doesn’t just me run for the bathroom. It makes me scream liking Ricky Ricardo singin’ Baba Lou.

So something needs to happen–even if it doesn’t improve the range of motion, some pain relief needs to occur. Soon.

I’ll keep ya posted.

Soundtracks

Since movies are a big deal to me. And scores an even bigger deal, here are some recommendations.

Now before we begin, let me tell you what I think is the measure of a great film score. A great score is one that, if you took it away, the movie would fail. Or, put another way, the movie only works with that particular score.

Patton – Jerry Goldsmith
From the opening echoed trumpets to the end Hindemith-like reverie, this one has it all: memorable themes, great orchestration and the ability to enhance the mood of every scene.

Superman – John Williams
Although I have to say that the opening to Star Wars may be the greatest opening theme since the 20th Century Fox, as a score, I much prefer Superman. The themes for individual characters are better and the credit roll is the best (and probably longest) piece of it’s time in movie history.

Schindler’s List – John Williams
Was there ever a more memorable set of themes?
BTW: If you doubt how crap music in film has begun, just look at how great it used to be–even in television. Remember ‘Lost In Space’? Check out all the music on that show by Johnny Williams. Compare that to the silliness that passes for ‘music’ on today’s shows.

The Kubrik Mashup – 2001 A Space Odyssey
Who can even imagine the opening shots in 2001 without the two Strauss pieces Also Sprach Zarathustra by Richard and then The Blue Danube by Johann. And then the Ligeti choral pieces? Has anyone ever matched pre-existing music to picture better? Well, perhaps Kubrik himself with the Bartok and Khatchaturian pieces in The Shining?

Clockwork Orange – Wendy Carlos
To date, the only certifiable masterpiece of electronic music in film. Period. How come, with all the technology we’ve developed since 1968, we can’t do any better?

Solaris – Cliff Martinez
This movie ushered in a whole raft of imitators using Hang Drums and Gamelans as atmospherics. It’s a lot like Steve Reich, but with more soul. This is mood music raised to the level of art.

Pee Wee’s Big Adventure – Danny Elfman
A score so fresh and inventive at the time that it still sounds great; even though Danny has repeated all the manic tricks over and over.

Punch Drunk Love – Jon Brion
A great example of minimalism and camp. The toy pianos and found percussion really give one a sense of the neuroses of Adam Sandler’s character and the tenuous sincerity of his love.

What Is Progressive Rock?

OK, what is it supposed to be.

Great question. I’ve heard and seen numerous ‘retrospective’ radio shows and books which try to even-handedly discuss ‘prog’. The latest, and perhaps one that really did try to be even-handed was on the Public Radio show Sound Opinions (Show #207). What prompted me to write this was that they were trying so hard to be ‘fair and balanced’ but they can’t help themselves; they just gotta emphasize the ‘camp’ aspect. And that’s not only hosed the music’s image, but even more sinister, it’s had a horrible effect on the current range of bands that claim to be ‘prog’. In other words, prog bands today are as much defined by what they are trying not to be.

Why So Serious?

As The Joker says. Most of prog over the past two decades has been progressively (no pun intended more and more serious. And hard. Part of this is because of the connections with metal. After all one of the main roots of prog was King Crimson’s 21st Century Schizoid Man. But just as big a part, IMHO, is a reaction to the ‘astral moonbeam’ excesses of prog. Kids know: we don’t live in a Listen To The Flower People world anymore.

So What Did You Think Prog Was All About?

During the Sound Opinions piece, they brought Charles Snyder–author of a book on’prog’ called The Strawberry Bricks Guide To Progressive Rock . In it he says he thinks it was three things and ya know, I think he’s right:

• Virtuosic Playing
• Virtuosic Writing
• Music That Requires Attention

I love it—especially that last one.

But the thing that I dug almost from the beginning (and that is never brought up) was that these three elements also apply to my other fave music from the era: jazz fusion. There was an equally sincere attempt at the same time to extend jazz into longer form pieces. Both genres assume that they are musics with messages that need to be digested for 20+ minutes. Yeah, like a classical piece. And that right there is the nub of the joke. When you do ‘prog’ you’re just begging to be labelled as pretentious. And (especially for Americans) there is nothing worse than being pretentious. You can only get away with it if you there’s a wink. I think that’s why Brits invented the genre—and glam and all the other genres we love that involve real spectacle.

What killed ‘prog’ wasn’t just punk (although I certainly did my part!) What also drove a nail in there, just as with fusion, was that people’s attention spans have shortened. Yeah, people jumped the shark and wrote weaker and weaker stuff with more and more empty noodling amid banks of laserium. But face it: even if the music had been front to back ripping, fewer and fewer of us nowadays can or will devote time to any form of music that demands that you really concentrate for 3 minutes. Let alone 30. This doesn’t need explanation, right? (Keeping it short! )

Real Art

You have to have real cojones to say “I will intentionally write music that demands the listener’s attention.” That what I write is “worthy”. Pretentious? The jokes just write themselves.

You want ‘pretentious’? If you go to any visual art show, you see that everyone takes themselves very seriously. For some reason it’s still OK in our culture to be a ‘serious’ visual artist. But if you try to do something ‘serious’ with an electric guitar? Fawgeddaboudit. There’s really no such thing as a ‘real’ artist in rock n’ roll… with the exception of guys like Springsteen or Dylan I suppose. Or perhaps the ‘Americana’ deal which strikes me as sort of a Rousseau kind of glorification of ‘the primitive.’ It seems that, if you want to be considered ‘deep’ in pop music? Keep it simple. If you aspire to more than that musically you instantly become, by definition, not worthy of consideration. Not authentic. At least, according to every rock critic I’ve ever read. (I think that’s why so much crap hip-hop got over; it’s so real.

Every nascent movement has more than it’s share of crap. Back in music school (400 years ago, right?) I had a counterpoint teacher who loved having us try playing pieces by unknown baroque artists. And even as a frosh, anyone could hear just how crappy these guys were as composers. I mean, my kid could tell these guys were crappy. His point was that this was the majority of music back then. We think that the whole era sounded elegant and deep like Bach? Nope. Most of it was crap. Like most ‘prog’. Like most fusion. Like most creative product of any era.

I think Mr. Snyder’s definition makes room for both ‘prog’ and ‘fusion’. Both musics came to fruition and then quickly became discredited in the ’70′s. Both were way more popular than people like to admit these days. (ELP and Yes both fought for #1 at the box office between ’73 and ’75). And the holy family of fusion: Weather Report, Mahavishnu and Return To Forever? Hell, they pretty much carried CBS records for a good while.

OK, So what is prog?

Oh yeah, back to the question. For me as an artist still flying the flag, I think that what I’m trying to make is music that:
1. Means something. That has more than one layer of meaning. It’s music and it’s poetry so it doesn’t have to be literal, but it does have to make one think as well as feel. The sound of the words matters. And the imagery matters. Great examples of this are Genesis’ Lamb Lies Down On Broadway. And also Pete Townshend’s Tommy. I’d suggest that these pieces match up with anything Sondheim ever did. Ditto the first King Crimson record.

2. Is well-crafted. If it needed just 3 chords, then it would be 3 chords. But if it required a whole orchestra and sonata form, then that’s what it needs. The craft comes in knowing which is which–and being able to pull it off. And by the way, no one hates the “ With The London Philharmonic” more than I. No matter how ‘deep’ someone like Dylan may be, at some point, there is more that can be said in music than can be expressed 3 chords of Americana. Gentle Giant’s “Power And Glory” is an amazing musical adventure–in addition to being a wonderful Watergate allegory.

3. Is well-played. You can listen to it over and over and be moved by what a real guy played. I don’t think it’s any accident that people are still buying Yes’ Yessongs and ELP’s Brain Salad Surgery. There is this power to the playing that makes a real impact. A lot of younger guys, at first listen, aren’t all that impressed because the sheer note count isn’t there as with say, Dream Theater, but the solos are memorable. You listen to them over and over and are constantly impressed with their ingenuity and structure. They ain’t just running scales. The solos and intricate bits are integral. Look at Steely Dan (yeah, they were ‘prog’). Can you imagine Aja without that Steve Gadd solo? Or the dozen or so must-learn guitar solos? Or how nuts Chuck Rainey gets on virtually every bass track? You don’t realise how tough these are to play until you try. And you don’t realise how the whole track falls apart if you take that virtuosity away. To me, without this magical backing, Donald Fagen stops being ironic and deep and becomes just another snarky guy without much of a voice.

I don’t kid myself that there all that there is a large market for what I try to do. But the above is something worth aspiring to so I keep at it. Just like a real artist.

Why Do Old Guys Always Say “Less Is More”?

When you’re young and working on yer ‘chops’ there is a tendency to roll one’s eyes when you hear a musician of a certain age start talking saying things like ‘less is more’ or ‘now I play with more taste.’ There is an unspoken feeling that all that sort of talk is a cop out and that what the guy is really saying is either:

a) My technique is hosed.

b) I could never play as well as you young whippersnappers.

Young guys often refuse to accept the idea that it really is a choice; that as one ages, one’s ideas about what constitutes good playing change. Note count no longer seems quite as important as it once was.

In my case, I admit to being guilty of a little of both a) and b). I don’t play as well as I used to–largely due to arthritis. And then there are techniques that came into common practice after got into ‘the biz’ and never concentrated on–an example would be sweep picking; I use it, but it’s not a core part of my playing.

But the thing is this: it’s not a complete cop out. My tastes did change. Or rather, they didn’t so much change as I became more particular. I came to America at the height of the fusion craze. I loved that stuff. But by the time I learned to play it well, it was already passé. Why? Well, take one of my heroes, John McLaughlin. The early Mahavishnu albums were fantastic. Now? Frankly, when John plays nowadays, it often sounds more like a magician’s trick to me than ‘music’.

Part of what I think happens is that one’s good ideas are used up early. They’re like the low hanging fruit, or the Texas oil that bubbles to the surface without much effort. I call this ‘The Beatles Iceberg Illusion’ (TBBI.) They put out 5-6 albums in their first 3 years. And most of them were fantastic. But what people don’t see is that they worked out much of that stuff for about five years before they hit it big.

As one produces, there are still good ideas to be had, but ya gotta dig a lot deeper. And most guys–even the best guys, usually don’t do that. We all tend to keep going back to the same well of licks. And we get tired of it, no matter how much we dig the guy. Back to John Mc and his magic trick. It’s a fabulous trick, don’t get me wrong, but it’s still the same trick that he performs night after night. I hear the same riffs over and over that I still love from Birds Of Fire. So I listen to Birds Of Fire.

When I hear players, I want to hear either:

a) Something really fresh or

b) A really meaningful idea

I don’t gravitate towards the same spectacular execution of stuff I’ve heard before. ‘Execution’ just doesn’t matter to me as much now because I’ve been there. And done that. But I submit that what I care about now is not much different than what I really cared about then — I want to be ‘wowed’. Now what does that may be a bit different than what wowed me then, but nevertheless the idea is the same: show me a new way to express the same feelings that all people have had since people started beating on rocks and calling it Soul Train.

Why are so few artists able to grow beyond their initial chops? Why do they seem to be welded to one vibe for their entire career (or if they do try to break out, why is it done so poorly?)

Well, that’s a rant for another day!