and the ground shook the world-over

i've been ripping off boards of canada slash four tet left and right lately. it's so easy--the safest form of plagiarism--deliberately translating idm and electronic compositions to six-string guitar.
i know i've said this before, but i think i'm on to something new--maybe just a new direction for me personally. i can't expect the rest of the world to care. though, i have seen similarities, in terms of this similar sort of hypnotic, rhythm-based acoustic structure to artists like the late Jack Rose--whom, i've sadly only just discovered--and his romantic contemporary, derek bailey--whom, i've also just recently uncovered.
i find that it's easier to write songs this way--it fits my style of lyrical delivery better. though, i've never been one of those people--like dylan or conor oberst--who strive to put the focus on the lyrics, with the music being secondary. for me, it's just about a feeling. i want to communicate something, artistically, sure, but i don't want the rather dull structure (read: not flashy like the horde of yngwie malmsteen imitators and dad-rocker wannabes currently populating this little slice of the midwest) to become a hindrance. i want the lyrics, the delivery to be prominent, yet buried in the mix--like the polyphonic babbling of disembodied voices you hear in yr head shortly before falling to sleep. i'm not sure if i've perfected this yet--in some cases, guess--but i'm really excited--sometimes, frustrated--by the prospect of trying.
as i've said before, though, i am and will always remain skeptical of the music industry--even when it comes to allegedly indie artists. there's a lot of homogenization--a lot of suspiciously similar artists doing suspiciously similar things, composing their songs in much the same way. perhaps it's just the flash-in-the-pan mentality currently guiding popular music at the moment, but there does seem to be a lot of crap continually being perpetuated by hype and sites like--and i'm not always an opponent of this site, as much as i ridicule it--pitchfork.com and various music blogs.
i'd list examples now of what i mean, but i feel too lazy. suffice it to say, there's been a lot of bands recently that have come out with animal names in their titles, what jim refers to as simply an extension of the neo-hippie movement. it's a little disheartening, to tell you the truth. i don't understand--with all the beauty left to exploit in the world (both externally and internally)--why anyone in their right mind would choose to romanticize a failed social movement from fifty years ago.
equally disheartening is when i see these bands--and i know i've addressed this before--they always seem to have their shit together. i mean, it's good to be prepared, but it's more than that. they sound mechanical almost--in places when they shouldn't. and i've actually talked to nikki about this--there's a moderately successful "indie" band (not that that term still stands today for what it did ten years ago) from around this area who she recently had the opportunity to work behind-the-scenes for and she admitted--somewhat sardonically--that they had, in fact, used backing tracks in presenting their material live.
so, i don't know. anytime i go to a live show anymore, i feel like i'm watching attractive robots--stepford wives with guitars. it doesn't feel real--not like the music i play. perhaps this is why they're "professionals" and i'm just an asshole with theories upon theories and theories. either way, i'm slowly becoming more and more disenchanted with the whole thing. all my interests have been commodified--stretched to their most profitable limit. i want to create something pure, but i know i have a certain audience to reach--one that mindlessly follows the next big craze propagated by the industry, itself.
it's bullshit. but, oh well.
there is originality out there. i've seen evidence of it. so, that gives me hope.