A segue back....

Since we've been on the topic of movies for a few posts, let me suggest an easy way to segue back into music (because, ultimately, I really need to start talking about Led Zeppelin) by throwing out another challenge:

Name the best musical performance in non-musical, non-concert film

This can be canned or lip-synced (as it very often is) or it can be a real live recording, but it can't be a movie about that artist or anything that is chiefly musical, and it can't be a documentary. It must be a movie where the characters wind up in a bar or a concert or whatever and see some artist perform. This is, by default, going to involve a lot of bar scenes.

This could be a real band, like the Circle Jerks playing in Repo Man, or it could be a movie-only band, like Otis Day and the Knights in Animal House. I'm going to have to rule out The Blues Brothers since that's a movie primarily about a band, just as I would pretty much rule out any Muppet movie, despite the spectacular songwriting contributions of Paul Williams and others to those brilliant soundtracks.

The key factor is really that the performance has to be a part of the story, whether primary or just incidental. It can be offhand or it can be absolutely key to the plot, but it must be a piece of the narrative. I think we should probably also rule out movies that are not primarily "musicals" but have more than two or three musical performances in them, like School of Rock – although I could watch that credit sequence over and over again and never get tired of it. As much as I know it will pain you, this would probably also exclude The Fabulous Baker Boys.

So, I've been thinking about this all morning and the one that continues to stick in my head is Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds performing "From Her to Eternity" in Wings of Desire. Something about the way it was integrated in to the movie, both in terms of visual and overall mood, really struck me when I saw it and continues to stick with me years later. So, that's my initial vote, but I'm eager to hear more examples from you.

Thank you, Mr Knowles

Ah, what an earnest fanboy you are. I think Ain't It Cool News is looking for freelancers - you should go look them up. You apparently checked your capacity for critical thought at the door of your last Rush concert, because you don't seem to be able to think sensibly about anything you admire. That may explain your inability to see Buffalo 66 for the pile of dried feces that it truly is.

I'll say it again - There Will Be Blood is a very good movie, just not a particularly pleasant one to watch. I was mostly discussing the score, since this is ostensibly a music blog, but it's clear we can't dance around the movie itself. So, I'll get my last few thoughts in here and then we can move on to something culturally relevant like Mariah Carey.

Regarding your final thought - that this was a bold, risky move - fuck that. There is nothing particularly risky in casting Daniel Day-Lewis as a scene-chewing madman. The gentleman comes with his own critical seal of approval. Casting Pauly Shore as Plainview would have been risky and bold. Todd Haynes makes bold, risky movies; Anderson mitigates his limited risk with big stars (Tom Cruise, anyone?) and pop star-penned scores (we can thank him for the resurgence of Aimee Mann, for whatever that's worth).

I think Anderson is an excellent filmmaker, and he may be one of the few true auteurs of his generation, in the sense that his movies are more reflective of his own sensibilities and (sometimes) cohesive vision than of the particular story he is telling. I do not disagree that he is able to extract good performances, though I found that blasted frog movie to be irritating and strident.

As to your previous (now deleted) assertion that he is the only one from that generation who's made anything worth shit, I might present to you Wes Anderson (another auteur, with perhaps an even more cohesive vision); Christopher Nolan (capable of making popular and interesting fare, a lá Spielberg); Hal Hartley (irritating as fuck, but a unique sensibility); the aforementioned Todd Haynes; I could go on. Tarantino may not be a convincing auteur, but you have to admit he is one hell of a cinematic DJ....

What I think PT Anderson in particular is lacking is the sort of subtlety and rhythm that a master filmmaker like Altman or Scorsese brings to any material. I wouldn't expect that from him at this point in his career, but it is important to distinguish between his "work of art" and other films, since your fanboy mindset seems to only be able to judge most movies as either "KICKASS" or "REALLY FUCKIN' KICKASS". I maintain that Anderson is almost constitutionally incapable of true subtlety, as this bit of "Guernica" shows.

The analogy to Picasso's horrific masterpiece is a good one, but it illustrates my point more directly than you might wish. If Picasso had painted nothing but Guernicas, he would have been a fringe artist like Munch or a niche painter like Bosch. Picasso's masterwork was so effective in large part because, within the body of his work, it was such a brutal departure. And even in this departure he showed nuance and abstraction.

Anderson's problem is that he wants every film he's made since Boogie Nights to take you up by the shoulders and shake you and convince you that he really means something here - he keeps making Guernicas. I think he's overcompensating, that's all. It doesn't make for an unwatchable movie, but it does place him in the company of people like Oliver Stone who sometimes take themselves too seriously. In the end, I think he wants to be Lars von Trier with a much bigger trailer.

I'd sign off with an insult, but I think I've worked enough of them in already. I look forward to your impassioned defense of Vincent Gallo's complete ouvre.

I Drink Your Milkshake.....2.0

Ok, I must apologize for the half-assed post I did for this yesterday. For some reason, it ended up reading like a fanboy review in a community college newspaper. I'm ashamed and embarrassed. Let's see if I can redeem myself.

On with the show.......

When I first saw this film, I really didn't get that Anderson was really trying to beat you over the head because he's a "serious filmmaker". Everybody has got to hate when a bro does something completely different. I gotta give credit to PTA because this was such a departure for his established Robert Altman-like style. It was a bold move to make this movie for a guy who was really only known for his hilarious take on porn....and this move paid off in spades. This movie isn't your average holiday blockbuster.....it's not even a movie, really. It's too big to be a movie. This is art. This is Anderson's "Guernica". You said something interesting yesterday about how you liked Jodorowsky's "El Topo", but that you probably couldn't watch it again and again. I agree. This movie isn't meant for repeat watchings.....and really, who would want to watch it over and over again? This film is so brutal and emotional that you would have to be like an abused woman who keeps going back to her husband for more. Yeah, yeah.....so, why did I buy the DVD then? Well, so you could borrow it and so I could have it in my collection for when I feel the need to be brutalized again.

It's a hard movie to shake because of Day-Lewis' absolutely electric performance as the oilman, Plainview. My god!!! Everytime he was on the screen, he just set it on fire! If I was an actor, I would quit and go back to waiting tables at Kerby Lane because how in the hell could you ever be that good? He is amazing and unreal in the film and it's his performance that helps elevate the film to epic heights. PTA really knows how to work with his actors. He's always been able to pull great and honest performances from his ensamble cast.....hell, even Adam Sandler in "Punch Drunk Love" was good. I have to admit that the scene from "Magnolia" when Tom Cruise is at his father's bedside has to be one of the top acting performances ever......and I hate Tom Cruise.....but, his performance made that damn film. (BTW, I like "Magnolia" a lot, except for that idiotic ending that had all of those frogs falling from the sky. Now that was a plea of someone trying to be a "serious director").

Now, on to the score.....holy crap. Was that one of the most grating and uncomfortable film scores in the history of cinema? Well, maybe except for Rick Springfield's "Hard to Hold" or really any John Singleton's movie soundtracks (that guy is a fucking hack). I realize that it was supposed to evoke an unsettling emotion from the viewer and it really did......but, damn was it interesting. You're right, there was already so much tension visually that PTA probably didn't need to add more by using this soundtrack, but it worked. When I was watching the film, I kept on thinking to myself about how relentless the score was....how it just beat you up. Think about it.....it's like if you looped the shower scene from "Psycho" over and over again. Except this time, the film is Anthony Perkins in drag and you're (the audience) Janet Leigh. We talked about John Williams' score for "Jaws" and how it became almost a separate entity with the visual. This is very similar.......it's kinda like Greenwood becomes Williams and Plainview becomes the shark. The way Williams used his famous score in "Jaws" is a perfect comparison to this film's soundtrack. Yet, when you heard the "duh duh duh duh duh duh...etc" you knew there was going to be a tense m0ment......the shark was about to attack that hot topless chick in the water. In TWBB, the movie is so tense that the soundtrack just adds to the electricity....yet, doesn't bring nothing else to it.

There are some very beautifully haunting tracks in the score as well. Greenwood's compositions are relentless, but there is also some charm to them. It's like if Danny Elfman went on a booze and drug bender and decided to just fuck with Tim Burton. I had to listen to the score on iTunes and was actually surprised that there were some tracks that were lush and minimalistic all at the same time (if that makes any sense). It's hard to remember those scores when the standout has to be the fierce brigade of tension-filled strings attacking you in your seat. You nailed it when you called the score "monochromatic" and "harsh and unforgiving". I read where most of the compositions were from an existing piece that Greenwood had done for something else......hence, the reason why he was unable to be nominated for an Oscar. I wonder what PTA was thinking when he thought this would be the perfect score for his bold movie? There is merit to the pairing of the two.......just not sure if the audience needed an extra elbow to the head? The visual is unsettling enough. The score just kicked you in the teeth when you were down.

Speaking of Greenwood......I gotta tell you, man.......I've been completely obsessed with Radiohead's "In Rainbows" album. Back when it came out, I listened to it once and thought...."ok, here's these bros trying to undo what they did best by putting out an album of jibberish and noise". I didn't like it. I couldn't understand what the hell Yorke was saying. Then I just forgot about it. I told you to keep an eye out on MHD for the "In The Basement" show where Radiohead played most of the album live in the studio. It was fucking amazing! Just to see them playing such layered music live and how they each had their own textured part to play was badass. I kinda got my respect back for them. They have been slowly losing their audience because they've been trying to do something different......out of the norm.....very much like what PTA was doing with TWBB. I've always respected artists that bucked the norm and took risks......but, with Radiohead, I think it was personal with me. I was mad at them for not giving us another "Ok Computer" or the even better "The Bends". I have to say that after repeated listenings to "In Rainbows", I think it's their most gentle and delicate album to date. It's really closer to their version of a soul record......some kind of indie RnB take. Check it out again......it's really fucking good.

With art, you sometimes don't have to get it all of the time.......you don't even have to like it. I appreciated TWBB because it was so brutal and was like a gut-punch that you didn't even see coming. PTA took a risk and I'll give him credit for it. I think what's the most shocking is that his previous movies all had some kind of heart to them.......and this one didn't have one at all. It's just a cold dark look at a sad obsessed man who wants everything and won't stop.......like you at gay bar. (I had to leave that line in there....it was too good).

Johnny Greenwood

Alright, this "hater" is going to take you to task over the Radiohead guitarist's big-picture soundtrack for There Will Be Blood. We've already debated the merits of the movie itself, which I found very good, despite Anderson's tendency to beat the viewer over the head with "this is an important movie" bluntness. I'm not sure the movie would have held together without Day-Lewis' method madness anchoring the whole thing, but as a bizarre, almost hellish, bleached-out period film, it's hard to think of anything that's tackled this kind of subject successfully in recent years without trumpeting the "revisionist" label. There Will Be Blood is truly an original work of art. Then again, I can think of quite a few John Ford movies I'd watch again before giving this one a second view. As rewarding and original as it was, this movie hurt my brain.

I blame said damage partially on the soundtrack, which screeched and caromed like a derailing train in scenes seemingly bereft of accompanying drama. It's clear that a peculiar brand of harshness was central to Anderson's portrayal of the period, and he certainly achieved that visually. Greenwood's soundtrack offered no relief – not that it absolutely must – but instead piled on the dread in a way that would make John Carpenter proud. If Anderson's filmic vision was one of sandpaper and grit, Greenwood's soundtrack felt like a nail file dragged slowly across it.

As an experiment in sinister, minimalist composition, I think the soundtrack holds some interest. Greenwood and company have trafficked in existential dread for years (somewhere along the line, they became our generation's Pink Floyd), so I guess it made sense to recruit one of the creators of a fully-realized, haunting rock sound. But I'm not sure that Greenwood's creation works particularly well for a movie, precisely because it offers no contrast with or complement to what's actually on screen. It is monochromatic, harsh and unforgiving; the violin crescendos scream at you as if a slasher is waiting around the bend. The movie beats you to a pulp, and the soundtrack comes by and kicks you in the head just to be sure.

I have no problem with atmospheric gloom (Michael Mann may be the standard bearer for that) or high musical drama (think of all those Lost cliffhangers) but both are typically leavened with something to keep you from clawing your eyes out; too much of anything, especially within the confines of a nearly three-hour period piece, can be a bad thing. Anderson used Greenwood's music sparingly – thankfully. But the sparse appearances stood out even more, calling attention to themselves like the ravings of the deranged minister.

I don't doubt that all of this was intentional – as I said, there is something about this movie (and a few others in Anderson's ouvre) that screams "LOOK AT ME, I'M SERIOUS." Maybe that's what happens when you've never surpassed the popularity of your light-hearted riff on seventies porn - you go and make really serious movies until people listen to what you have to say. Judging by the critical acclaim, Anderson was successful in finally getting people to take him goddamn seriously. I just don't think he needed a soundtrack to add another layer of misery on top of it.

What do you think?

Cornershoppe and the Rush defense

As I was walking out of Flipnotics this morning, that damn one-hit song entered my head for no apparent reason. I'm constantly amazed by the brain's ability to dredge up musical nuggets from the past (in my case a lot of bad ones, and a shitload of obscure jingles and theme songs) that often have no apparent relationship to what I've seen or heard. You, with your low-rent spirituality and Ouija-board credulity, probably reckon there is something supernatural in these coincidences. Crusty old cynics such as myself (and one hot barmaid, come to think of it) figure these things as the unpredictable workings of the subconscious. Plus, I think I must have seen a brimful of something out of the corner of my eye. Nevertheless, I am irritated at the intrusion of this music-cultural hiccup, and must now play some Sonic Youth to wash that out of my head.

You and I spoke at length about Rush the other evening, so I feel that a defense of said Canadian wank-rockers is somewhat redundant at this point, but I'll try to recall as much of the beer-hazed argument as I can. First of all, while Rush began in metal/heavy rock and eventually descended into unselfconscious wankdom, the broadest and most enjoyable swath of their career falls more or less into prog. You have to appreciate prog to really appreciate most of what Rush recorded during their heyday, and I'm not convinced that you've ever really bought into prog except for when it serves the needs of a Vincent Gallo film soundtrack.

Prog does not require wanking, but prog and wanking often seem to go together. Sometimes this wanking is appropriate - would anyone take away the roto-tom solo from Dark Side of the Moon? - and sometimes it's awful and self-indulgent (most Alex Lifeson solos). (By the way, I realize I am on shaky ground with Pink Floyd, since during that era they were as much psychedelic rock as they were prog, but fuck it; you know what I mean.) Many rock musicians who have wanted to do something "different" or forward-looking have experimented with elements of prog: Unusual time signatures; tons of time changes; non-rock instrumentation and effects, conceptual themes and lyrics, etc. Some of these artists, such as Robert Fripp, have escaped being labeled as wanks because - although a lot of their guitar work could reasonably be idenitifed as some form of wank - their spirit of experimentation and collaboration overshadows the wank characteristics of their music.

That brings us to two very important points. First, prog music is generally more enjoyable (and less prone to be considered wanky) if there is experimentation involved. Second, prog seems infinitely better if collaboration and conflict are present in the making of the music. Serious prog bands must ultimately break up not over "personal" differences but because of "musical" differences - because Tom wanted to incorporate too bloody many Middle Eastern scales or because Nigel blew the recording budget on an authentic sixteenth century brass gong because it just "had that sound." And, good prog bands must eventually break up or they turn to cheese: witness Yes and Genesis.

And thus we return to our Canadian power trio. As I mentioned the other night, I think Rush was at their best when they were their most prog and/or conceptual (witness the instrumental insanity of "La Villa Strangiato", or the sheer nutty audacity of "2112"), although they showed the capacity to produce an occasional rock hit ("Spirit of Radio", "Free Will"). Moving Pictures was really a rock record with prog elements and represents the zenith of their popular appeal, but they had abandoned experimentation and moved into tightly-crafted rock at this point (with the exception of "YYZ", which may go down as one of the most audacious wank-rock instrumentals ever).

One of my biggest problems with Rush is the band's hermetic nature. They seem to absorb nothing around them and make few references to anything other than their own sound. While a Steve Howe solo during Yes' heyday might have included licks as white-boy bluesy as anything Jimmy Page produced, everything about Rush's style seems calculated and isolated. In that sense, they are cult-like - which may explain a lot about their fan base.

The other issue is the previously mentioned conflict and collaboration. As they got suckier, Rush seemed more and more like three very talented session musicians playing pretentious rock. You never got the sense that these guys were fighting with each other (though Alex Lifeson apparently likes fighting other people in bars) to make good music.

Still, Rush made some damn interesting and sometimes enjoyable prog-rock records. I understand and appreciate the hate, but we need to trade some vintage Robert Palmer and some prime Rush ("Hemispheres" might knock you out) and see what happens. Then again, if you're like roughly 80% of the world's population, Geddy Lee's voice will always be completely intolerable, and that may be all there is to it.

BTW, isn't "self-masturbating" redundant?

"....and You're My Fact Checkin' Cuz."

Here's one for you.

There's always one band that you cannot stand. I'm not talking about this modern shit nowadays....hell, you and I couldn't even say what the hell the kids are listening to today. I'm talking about all your life, soaking in the different types of music, etc....there is one band that you just absolutely hate. That band for me is Rush. Why? Because I'm mexican and mexicans do not like this band. Why? Because we weren't the nerds that worked on scientific electrical projects who were all into home stereo systems and read Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" books. Wait a minute....I just described you.
I can appreciate Neil Peart's musicianship, but the other two are nothing to me. Every time "Tom Sawyer" comes on, I cringe. When I hear Geddy Lee's voice, it makes me want to shoot somebody. I really hate this band. They've always been just self-masturbating wankers with a decent lazer light show and horrible, horrible......horrible haircuts. If you came up to me and said "hey dude....I've got an extra ticket to go see Rush. You wanna go?" I would start choking you.

So, my friend......let's talk about the band that you can't stand and see if you have any insight to give on that shit band Rush?

The Gaunlet: Ferry vs. Palmer

I don't think you can compare the two based on the fact that they both had a predilection for fine European tailored double-breasted suits, heavily pomaded slicked back hair and gorgeous women. Ferry, ever the elegant torch singer sleaze, favored champagne and caviar and personified the greed and lust of the 1980's. His vocal style was like a smooth croon that made the pin-stripe crowd envious and the ladies melt. He was the ultimate sophisticate cad who jet-setted to the South of France for the weekend with mounds of blow, bottomless champagne glasses and a bevy of fashion models. He was untouchable.....unattainable, only meant for the rich and famous.

Palmer was the rough and dapper "blue-eyed soul" singer who seemed more comfortable in a dark dingy barroom than a high-class social affair. I would say that Palmer was more like "the poor man's Bryan Ferry" only because his delivery was more "black"....more soulful than Ferry. No one would ever hear Ferry's voice and think that he was a black man, but Palmer got that all the time. That's the definition of "blue eyed soul". I'd compare Palmer more to Boz Skaggs (now, that's a good one) because their tastes swayed more to R & B, blues and soul music. You can't deny the hits "Johnny and Mary" and "Looking For Clues", man......that's just some hot ass shit! Dude.....The Power Station? Palmer was at his peak just coming off the hugely successful "Riptide" album. Has Ferry (post-Roxy Music) ever gotten so down and dirty like that album? I think not.

So, I can see where you're coming from, because....yes, they both looked impeccable in their fine tailored suits, slicked back hair and Italian shoes standing before the mic. But, the biggest difference is while Ferry made sweet love to you, Palmer was the one who fucked the shit out of that ass.