>From: "Jeremy Midkiff"
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: manifesto of sorts
>Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 18:54:28 -0500
>
>I want to make the catchiest/HOOKIEST album ever.
>And at the same time- with all due respect to those who have
>inspired me by making pop music in the traditional Verse Chorus
>Verse Chorus Bridge Chorus paradigm, I want to repeat very few of
>these HOOKS throughout the album. And if some musical theme is
>captured in one of these HOOKS and warrants repeating, well then
>repeat it, but not within the same "song"
>Certainly we will have "songs" that are already logically realized
>as a whole. But I think that we should make every effort to take a
>sharp sword to the ends of songs that retreat to the middle of the
>song for a repeated chorus. Instead, let us listen with the same ear
>to how one of these "songs" could be married with another.
>I am not talking about a complete break with traditional pop songs.
>Let me clarify so as not to refute some of my own "songs". Let's
>just say that I am of the opinion that many of our unfinished songs
>present a perfect opportunity for collaboration in a way that we
>have never done before.
>Instead of deciding from the get go that we will record these three
>songs from Ben, these three from Bryan, and so on, let's first pick
>out the gems and work them up as a GROUP. But the songs and parts of
>songs that do not reach the level of being able to stand alone as
>"something we would want to listen to even we didn't make it"- let's
>spend some time to make them work together. It may result in hours
>of "work", yes work, that doesn't produce anything of value, but
>barring the kinds of technical obstacles we faced on the last album,
>we should be able to get the work done in the same time frame.
>As a Big Fresh member who rarely produces his songs so that they can
>become BIG FRESH songs, I obviously think this approach is the
>"right" approach. It may not be. But this way, if someone presents a
>song that everyone in the group can't get excited enough about to
>work at adding something, in production or content, then it will be
>selected against in the musical Darwinism that is a group.
>How is it done?
>Well, a large part of the creative process is and should be left up
>to chance. However, in the age of Pro-tools, who is to say that we
>can not take five parts of songs written by various members of the
>group which have a similar vibe and key- put them into one "folder"-
>and then experiment with how to cut and paste and overlap them
>together. Good parts may end up on the cutting room floor, but that
>means what remains must be GREAT. As long as the content is there
>it will work.
>Some may perceive this to be too ambitious for "pop" music, but why
>can we not make easy listening music which doesn't force the
>listeners ( a group I am a part of) to sit through a bunch of
>re-runs? Let them channel surf- if you will- through the pop
>world-mind- but don't make them have to contend with the abrasive
>differences in production on the different channels. Commercial Free
>Radio FM.
>I hope that this manifesto is abstract enough not to be restrictive,
>but concrete enough to have an idea about how to go about making
>this kind of album. I realize that great albums are not produced by
>sticking to a manifesto, so you can consider this an anti-manifesto,
>but I think it is important to share one's vision.
>In theory, praxis, sincerity, and love,
>Jeremy
>