Ask

Am I being honest and playing what I want to play? Am I nurturing my creativity and trying to develop a musical voice rather than just trying to write/play things that sound hip, new, or modern? I think those questions are more important than trying to think about how one's music fits into the really big picture, which can lead to trouble.

does this make me look fat?

Whenever their with their band, whenever anyone puts anything on the player, one of them will always ask "Dude... Why don't we play shit like this?"

Moreso, "Is what I'm doing relavent?" "Perhaps I should put down this guitar, yeah?" "How would this rate on the Pitchfork scale?"

Yes, you should make sure that what you play is what you want to play, rather than questioning whether you're making a great leap for musickind. The fact is that even if what you're doing has been done before, a)you will make it different merely by dint of it being you, not your forebears, who are making this music, and b)there is no point in making music just to break down barriers, it may be new but it probably won't sound good and you won't enjoy it at all.

That said, I do think that you should be aware of the modern world, and hopefully develop naturally an appreciation of new and interesting sounds and ideas, rather than wallowing in your idols.

Of course, if you want to be successful, I guess you should be so much of an arrogant asshole you wouldn't think of questioning yourself.

1.) Do I want to play an instrument or manipulate sounds by other means? ("Both" is an option, though not as big of one as it might seem; even in the cases where they're combined, with the possible exception of recent Radiohead, they're still perceived to be primarily one or the other.)

2.) How much do I believe in the conventional form of the pop song? (This is huge, really, for reasons of craftsmanship. In order to assemble a coherent song, it's almost necessary to decide beforehand whether you're trying to write a "pop song" -- even if you're going to slant or subvert its performance or presentation -- or whether you're trying to work outside of that structural tradition. I think this is because the conventions are there, and just "going with what comes naturally" still implies either naturally following those conventions or naturally disdaining them.)

3.) How serious am I? (This seems fundamental, in terms of there being a pretty massive distance between music that is meant to be "fun" and music that is meant to be "meaningful." I add the scare quotes because "fun" music can be very "meaningful," and vice versa -- I use the terms only to denote conventions of the two approaches, not the actual content. An example here might be a juvenile snotty punk-pop band versus a political hardcore-influenced punk-pop band, where the musical content and emotional impact could be nearly identical but the tone will not be.)

4.) How performative will this be? (Today is obviously my day of referencing earlier threads of mine. But what I mean by this is: is a focus of this music going to be someone's ability to sing or play his or her part in a way that impressive or thrilling -- or is the focus going to be my ability to construct and conceptualize the music in the first place?)

More as it comes to me.

what

and

why

Does the world really need my music or not?

'How come I haven't contacted the scintillatingly brilliant editor of Freaky Trigger for his impartial, thoughtful and scathingly honest thoughts on my work?' I think that would make a fine question myself.

What would Jesus do?

What instrument does Brian Botano play?

**Does the world really need my music or not?**

**How much do I believe in the conventional form of the pop song?**

**How serious am I?**

Oh fergodsakes! There's only one question that matters - am I going to have fun?

Am I loud enough? 8-)

Oi Ned, I got your impartial, thoughtful, and scathingly honest critique of the Brazen Hussies, remember? I've even stuck the 'pointless' comment in the press kit!

"There's only one question that matters - am I going to have fun?"

MY fun, MY music, MY gratification. But at whose expense?

Doubtless the Rolling Stones had a lot of fun, but sadly it seems hundreds of girls around the world had to cough-up a premium for their pleasure.

"Do I wear trainers?"

If your answer if "yes", please don't make music.

Yeah, don't wear trainers or else you'll never match the artistic glory that was Romo at its height.

A Cast fan! Help!

is there no better way of earning a living?

all people who don't like romo are obviously into Cast. i read it in an important tome somewhere. There is only romo and cast. Oh, and brahms.

"Should I be spending warm summer days indoors writing frightening verse to a bucktooth girl in Luxembourg?"

Seriously, Nitsuh has the right idea here. Asking yourself questions about if it's worth it, if you'll be contributing, etc. -- this is moving in the wrong direction. If the desire to make music is there it is worth exploring & needs no more justification. But asking yourself questions to help move you in a direction closer to what you're after (as Nitsuh's questions do) seems right.

At the risk of soliciting more spite and sarkiness (I'm more a fan of Saki-ness, or indeed Sake-ness), I wasn't implying that you should not wear trainers or else your music will sound like Cast.

Mind you, it's not a bad precaution, isn't it?

Enjoy your trainers. Oh, you do.

Dickon x

Going seriously Eno here, I suppose a more serious answer would be "Can I do something differently to what either I or anyone else has done before?" Of course, that takes things into the logistics of knowing what anyone else might have done (is it plagarism if I unknowingly rip off the chords for "Wonderwall" if I've never heard the song before?). I'm also presuming that Tom is asking with particular relevance to "STARTING to make music right now" (my capitals), as if the members of a new unknown band formed today and asked themselves that question. In which case... er... I refer to my current answer. There's no point repeating yourself or what someone else has done, which is why I'm sick to death of tired old Travis/Stereophonics/Coldplay stuff at the moment. It's good to have influences, but to wear them on your sleeve so obviously is bad. Which is another reason to hate Starsailor.

On another note: Starsailor and The Soft Parade... why all these bands taking late 60s Elektra related LPs for their names? Whatever next, Forever Changes?

I'm fairly sure Starsailor wear trainers, too. They sound like they do.

but when UK garage producers wear expensive Nikes, they don't sound like Cast...?

Oh my goodness, don't ask yourself so many questions! You'll never pick up an instrument. Music as a creative force exists sublimely beyond the reach of words. Although we can use words to describe both process and result, we cannot use words to define or explain either the highest reasons for music, on the one hand, or the most atomic aspects of musical creativity, on the other.

Words are best reserved for the time after you've started making music. If you want to riddle yourself with questions then, probably a helpful one is, "Do I even want to listen to this?" If you wouldn't sit down and listen to what you just did, you might have some refining to do.

Much music I do enjoy and admire has been made by people wearing trainers, I don't doubt it. I'd just rather they didn't, that's all.

Well, that would explain the 60 Ft Dolls' massive influence on hip- hop, anyway.

Dickon, what IS your problem with trainers? Mind you, I only wear mine down the gym (which means I don't wear them much). And what shoes would you recommend for good pop music?

Loafers, spats, bowling shoes, or high-heeled boots are a good start. But I do concur that it may possibly be just myself and Will Self who think this way. "But they're comfortable!" "So what? Tawdry beliefs are COMFORTABLE..." Naomi Klein style sweatshop arguments aside, for me it's a question of aesthetics. They seem to be the default shoe, unquestionable and unassailable, ultimately representing more of the same, nothing new. Well, I think it's important to question and to assail and to create something new. Which takes us back to the question at the top of this page.

How will this sell? Duh.

Am I flat? Am I sharp? Listeners across the globe would be happy if singers would ask themselves these two simple questions.

Dickon, much as I love you and your own footwear, I must seriously question your inclusion of loafers. Loafers? Pah - you'll be promoting birkenstocks next.

If you make music that sounds like you are wearing 1940s style correspondant shoes you can't go far wrong (unless you are Blue Rondo a la Turk).

The Ramones made sure they wore Keds (not Converse).

Know where your shoes are at pop kids.

I have seen Dickon's shoes, and have in FACT always thought "He has v nice shoes", altho i have also heard his records, so maybe BAD shoes = GOOD music?

Anyway, the only questions AT ALL you should ask yourself are:

1. Is it switched on? 2. Are we having fun yet? 3. Will it make GURLS/GORGEOUS FELLAS/BOTH like me more?

Actually, those are pretty much the same questions you end up asking years later... SERIOUS QUESTIONS OF VALIDITY are for when yr doing serious things i.e. recording something FOREVER in which case it is ENO AHOY! otherwise, sometimes even Radiohead play the "Summertime Blues" riff for FUN.

I've probably seen MJ Hibbert's shoes - however it is not an experience that is seared into my memory - They may have been three hole DM lace ups - but that is just a vague recollection.

HOWEVER it is a FACT that Mr Hibbert knows how to wear a shirt and that the charm and wit of his music may be reflected in his shirt- wearing ability. I think I'm on to something here. Shoes may be a useful but unreliable indicator but a man who can wear a shirt.. no, make that WEAR a shirt.. has the spark of genius at his fingertips/vocal chords. Spooky co-incidence. I recall a fairly decent band called The Shirts with a single called 'Tell me your plans' - there was also a US power pop combo called The Shoes, but I don't seem to remember what they sounded like. I think you all know what I'm trying to say here. (No it's not that Mark wears those shirts to be witty).

Anyone remember the fantastic version of Love You More that the Buzzcocks did on Revolver? They had great shirts - Mondrian goes day- glo things.. and their shoes??? Well exactly, who remembers their shoes?

How can this melody be improved?

Where's the party at? Where's my Bacardi at?

If you got those down then you're in business.

How can we intelligently obscure this melody?

i. Dr. C, Dan, and the pinefox are OTM. "where you fit in w/ [x] scene (s)" can be an utterly paralyzing train of thought. best to focus on a) fun and b) are you really trying/struggling (to have fun, be on pitch, make your melody more/less surprsing, whatever your priorites are)

ii. TWO of my absolute favorite songs from 2001 rhyme "party" with "bacardi". sometimes you just never know.

Thanks Tracer.

But the thing about the "do what makes you happy" position is that it's simultaneously responsible for both the best and the absolute worst music around -- dodgy bars the world over are full of completely wretched bands tenaciously clinging to wrong-minded ideals.

I guess my questions assume that it goes without saying that you'll do something you want to do -- I'm taking this for granted. But for a person who listens to even a relatively small range of music, "what you want to do" can encompass a whole lot of different things -- I could look through my record collection and pull out at least 200 very different albums that I'd personally be more than pleased to have made myself. So for me, anyway, the big challenge in working on music is deciding which of those 200 impulses I want to work on following. (And I'm safe in the knowledge that no matter how much I try to follow a particular path, everything I write still ends up with a completely inescapable Nitsuh-quality -- which is what makes me try to think out new paths in the first place.)

Good Lord, did I just refer to myself in the third person?

I am so very sorry.

Mitch forgives you.

I think what I'm trying to say, The Nitsuh :), is that there are plenty of 'tings I'd love to go for in the studio that I'm fairly sure would be absolutely no fun to actually play/create/do. Some people thrive on tedious busywork though which I guess is why there are so many good dance singles around i guess. Ow!

(p.s. strongly suspect that the wretched bands you mention are full of people who have INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS about what is actually fun for them - these people have BAD SEX)

Do I have brains enough to keep from getting ripped off by the scumbags that hover about the music scene like mosquitos?