Name:
Email:
Subscribe Unsubscribe
Email:
Subscribe Unsubscribe
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Meet the Bass Player
November 2nd, 2003 -- The Bios section is now 33% larger, thanks to non-slacker Isaac Calvage sending me his info. He likes to switch between third-person and first-person, but I'm assuming that's just his style and not a gross stylistic error. It would be 66% larger if non non-slacker Nathan Haun would check his email more often than he gets tetnus booster shots, but that may be asking too much. Anyway, what Isaac's bio won't tell you is that he is one of the main reasons this band exists. He downloaded my songs off of my MP3.com page (now owned by the French!) and soon after commenced bugging me twice weekly about being in a band with him and playing those songs. That, coupled with my trip down to Atlanta to watch my friend Nathan Woody's band, and tripled (troupled?) with my long-time desire to be in a band again formed a nexus of desire against which I found myself utterly helpless. So shortly thereafter the KGPT was formed. I've also started, and promptly ended, a new and successful career as clothing model. My wife has been selling everything she can get her hands on, and her hands recently got on my old cap and gown. This is the picture that netted us forty-five dollars on ebay. Forty-five dollars, that's enough for a flash pot. Keith |
|
Songwriting 101
November 10th, 2003 -- It's amazing how varied the approaches towards writing songs are. There are numerous books to read and classes to take that will teach even dummies how to write great hit songs about the eyes of tigers. For me, I think songs are fundamentally two things, music and literature, packaged as one. This is actually fairly common among the arts -- opera is the melding of music, literature, dance, visual art, and drama with an emphasis on the music, while cinema is really all of the same elements with more of an emphasis on the drama. The emphasis is really what defines which is which, which could also be said of songwriting. The only problem is that we don't have two different words for the songwriters who focus on the music and the songwriters who focus on the lyrics. I guess the ideal would seem to be a songwriter who could do both equally well, but I'm not so sure. In most ways the quality of a song really depends on the preferences of the listener, and I'm constantly amazed that some people like certain bands, but other people are just as baffled as to why I like other bands. However, I truly believe that music can be objectively better or worse, that a song can be greater or lesser than another song, and I think the criteria really lies in how well a song accomplishes the only objective goal that any song has -- to make money. Wait, no, I mean -- to acheive its own goals. If a song is designed to be a critical smash and instead becomes a hit with the fans then it can honestly be called a failure. However, if a song's intent lies in getting a lot of fans to realize how achy one's heart is, to the point that it might get breaky, and then teach them a fun little dance where you hold on to your large belt buckle and holler a little bit, then you can call this songwriter an objective success. The main reason I say this is because my first album is mostly filled with epic songs about death, duty, adultery, guilt, fear, Jesus, etc., and I wanted to go in a different direction with these newer songs. I'm trying to write songs that are fun, that are catchy, that will be interesting live, and won't make you have to shake you're head in shame at the realization that you're dancing to a song about letting dogs out or big butts or, ideally, about dogs with big butts. Songs like that can serve a useful purpose, but to me the stupidity has always been an inhibitor to my enjoyment of them. In other words, think of our music as the freak-out music for the non-freak-out generation. Keith |
|
Out with Old . . .
November 10th, 2003 -- Well, it had to be done, but I hated doing it. Matt Carter, a friend of mine for more than a decade, asked if he could be in the band, so I asked Nathan if he wouldn't mind. Nathan graciously agreed, so the KGPT now has an average age of 22.333333 as opposed to 19.66666666. Nathan, you've been great. Thanks. Update -- November 13th, 2003 Nathan took the news well, but when I saw him yesterday he was wearing a shirt that said (and no, I'm not making this up) "I was the drummer for the Keith Groover Power Trio". He said he's going to wear it to all of our shows. Oh, he also finally got around to sending his bio, so I'll put it here for posterity's sake: Well what can I say except that I'm 16, definitely the young guy of the group. I've been playin' drums for about 4 years, and guitar for about 3. I can also play the piano if need be. That pretty much concludes the instruments. Major musical influences: Keith Groover, Pedro the Lion, I've been known to listen to a little Kellar Williams, phish, weezer, and saves the day too. I guess that's it for me. Later. Keith |
|
Jam Band -- the Anti-Song.
November 18th, 2003 -- When I was in high school, I was in a band called Dr. Rhubarb. The group was comprised of Joshua Wolter on drums, Daniel Yusi on guitar, Jason Atkins on keyboards, and Tommy Gunn, aka "Keith Groover", on bass. I think Daniel was the one that got us all together, and I remember the first couple of songs we played were classic rock fare like "Simple Man" by Lynard Skynard and "Funk 49" by, um, I know it was one of Joe Walsh's side projects. Then I heard A Picture of Nectar by Phish. I don't know if it was the contrast to other bands of the time (Pearl Jam, Bush, Nirvana, etc.) or what, but I loved that album. I started reading articles about them, finding interviews, doing everything I could to see what made them tick. They did these funny little exercises where they got into a circle and would try to play the exact opposite of what the guy next to them was playing and make it sound good. The lead singer wrote atonal fugues and they made up entire musicals about imaginary lands and they would do these non-groove oriented jams that would last for upwards of an hour at their concerts. It was everything that Seattle bands weren't, and I couldn't get enough of it. A lot of you out there only know Phish as the crappy Grateful Dead imitation that is the band of choice of soon-to-be dropped out college students, but back then I saw them as a musician's band, a band that couldn't care less about what was popular, that did what they did because they loved music. I think that was the main thing I liked about them, now that I think about it. I got the sense that they didn't play music for money, fame, drugs, or girls, but because they loved music. Anyway, as a result of that influence, and my influence on the rest of Dr. Rhubarb, we started to gravitate towards the whole jam band genre. The funny thing is that I hated, hate, and will likely continue hating, all other jam bands. Widespread Panic, the Grateful Dead, I think they're all boring and lifeless (there's one very important exception to this rule that I'll talk about shortly.) Regardless, we decided that improv would be an important part of our life as a band. In some ways it was like many jazz groups, in that songs were really just a skeleton form to hang improvisations upon, a secondary priority after the all-important jam. It was fun to play, and it really helped me listen to the other people in the band, and it forced me to be creative in my bass lines. However, I can't really say that we made a lot of good music. We could build up a guitar solo climax like nobody else, but there was always something lacking. I figured out what that something was when I went to go see a little band called the Allman Brothers. I had never really liked their stuff on the radio. It just seemed too hickish to me. However, for some reason, I went and saw them live and was blown away. Their music had a solidity and a quality to it that Phish's seemed to lack, and the difference was really those "songs" that I had been so dismissive of before. In Dr. Rhubarb, I wrote songs because I wanted to setup a great jam session, and after the Allman Brothers I realized that it's best to write a great song first, and if it's a good setup for a guitar solo or something, great, if not, that's great too. Keith A little side note -- when I went to college I joined what was probably the weirdest hybrid band I've ever been in, a punk/jam band called Daisy Glaze. Don't ask, it was terrible. |
|
Something Bland
November 24th, 2003 -- I read this on Something Awful today. He's talking about this guy. From Crime II Christ Recordz (thanks renton) - Even though it supposedly encompasses all normal genres of music, Christian music is absolutely the most bland and idiotic crap available on the market. From the numbingly inoffensive tunes warbled out by Andy Griffith, almost hilarious in their absolute s***tines, to the slick and sucky rhymes of Christian superstars like Amy Grant and DC Talk, all contemporary Christian music is horrible. Fans of hardcore rap and hip hop music, feel left out no longer because Bishop OG Freeze is on the scene with his new album "My Testimony"! Look at this statement -- "all contemporary Christian music is horrible." Okay, a couple of things: First, it would be really easy for me to say that this guy is simply ignorant and is defining "Christian Music" as "all terrible music that has happened to have been made by Christians." After all, it's pretty hard to find someone that all at one time hates everything done by U2, Stevie Wonder, DMX, Johnny Cash, Moby, Megadeth, Bob Dylan, Run DMC or any of a thousand other musicians that describe themselves, in some way, as Christians. You might be thinking "but hey, I saw a picture of Johnny Cash giving the finger once and DMX cusses on his records." You might notice I said that they are "Christians", not "Jesus". They are all imperfect and flawed, many of them deeply, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they at least identify themselves as Christians (or, as in Moby's case, "a big fan of Jesus", whatever that means.) For the record, Hitler identified himself as a Christian as well, so it's an imperfect marker, but probably the best we have. Second, why is the label of "contemporary Christian music" given to some but not others? The obvious answer is because that's how they label themselves. You don't see U2 labeling itself as a Christian band, but you do see Audio Adrenaline doing just that. Why is that? I hate to be cynical (don't laugh, everyone-who-knows-me), but I honestly think it comes down to marketing. Bands that identify themselves as a Christian band have a guaranteed market that they might not have if they were secular. The secular market is huge, and as a result there are literally tens of thousands of bands out there that are trying to make it big in that market. The Christian market is much smaller, and a band has a better chance of getting noticed as a result. It's kind of like trying to win Miss Pumpkintown Festival versus trying to win Miss Universe (my bet's on Miss Earth, by the way. [I know, it's an old joke. By the way, what comes after brackets? {These things, maybe?}]) The problem is that you don't see Miss Universe coming to the Pumpkintown Fest to try to beat "Darlene from around the holler", because there's just no reason for her to bother. She probably at one time started out in just those kinds of pageants, but she's gone on to to bigger and better things, so she no longer identifies herself as "Miss Plucky Peach '97" but as "Miss Universe." This is exactly why, once a band starts getting big enough, be they P.O.D., Sixpence None the Richer, Evanescence, or Pedro the Lion, they start to distance themselves from Christian music. As a result, many of the best bands from the Christian community are no longer identified as being part of "Christian music", and inaccurate stereotypes like the one above develops. Keith |
