Thoughts and Ramblings

]]> Thu, 28 Oct 2010 06:20:00 GMT 314D8879300878865A13507181158B94 One thing a man can be proud of...his mustache. http://adamtaylormusic.com/blog.cfm?feature=1388679&postid=528990 There are two things that will unite the entire world, I swear. Not world peace, not world hunger, not the cure for aids. The two things are: a.) the fact that everybody in the world thinks that they are an above average driver b.) facial hair I live with two other men, on Lemon Street in Lancaster...we've aptly named our apartment "Lemon Party" after that...thing on the internet (google at your own risk, you've been warned). Anyway, I noticed the amount of "facial-hair-worship" that occours in our household and decided to take some pictures... this is a painting a did in high school, it sits above our couch.   Why are we so proud of our facial hair? Maybe because it's a false sense of massculinity...I buy that, I'm okay with that. But really, go up to any man with facial and ask him if he's proud of it, he'll tell you "hell yeah!" and if he doesn't, he's trying to appear modest. Men don't take pride in their haircuts?   I've always wanted to have a show, or a party, or a showparty, and to call it the "Stache Bash" If you have a mustache, you get in for 3 bucks or something. There will be a facepainting booth for the women and children, of course.   Bonus 'stache photo: This one pretty much sums up three men living together--A cheap beer logo, a playboy centerfold, and..."OMG"  
The two things are:
a.) the fact that everybody in the world thinks that they are an above average driver
b.) facial hair

I live with two other men, on Lemon Street in Lancaster...we've aptly named our apartment "Lemon Party" after that...thing on the internet (google at your own risk, you've been warned). Anyway, I noticed the amount of "facial-hair-worship" that occours in our household and decided to take some pictures...

this is a painting a did in high school, it sits above our couch.

Why are we so proud of our facial hair? Maybe because it's a false sense of massculinity...I buy that, I'm okay with that. But really, go up to any man with facial and ask him if he's proud of it, he'll tell you "hell yeah!" and if he doesn't, he's trying to appear modest. Men don't take pride in their haircuts?

I've always wanted to have a show, or a party, or a showparty, and to call it the "Stache Bash" If you have a mustache, you get in for 3 bucks or something. There will be a facepainting booth for the women and children, of course.

Bonus 'stache photo: This one pretty much sums up three men living together--A cheap beer logo, a playboy centerfold, and..."OMG"

]]> Tue, 26 Oct 2010 01:14:59 GMT 008D6A2E132EAF18FD57C7FF3FAD57AF "Why do you play music?" http://adamtaylormusic.com/blog.cfm?feature=1388679&postid=382014 I HATE this question, yet, every other interview I've ever done asks it. To me, it seems like an elementary question that almost always has some variation of the same answer; "I like playing music" "I was brought up in a musical family" "it's the only thing I know how to do well" etc. For me, the answer is all of the above. The most common and sensible reason for why anyone plays music is because playing music is FUN. While these answers are all true, I think there has a be a better answer to the question. Motivational speaker and marketing guru, Simon Sinek explains that "People don't buy WHAT you do, they buy WHY you do it" (Watch him give his TED lecture <a target="_new" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA">here) Which brings ME back to the original question, "why do you play music?" and more importantly "why should I care?" I think I've found the answer as to WHY. I have an insatiable passion for aesthetics. I'm a sucker for pretty things, neat things, things worthy of talking about. From the elegance of quantum theory to the beautiful harmonies on any Beatles record -- I love that elegance, but more importantly, SHARING that elegance and DISCUSSING it. The feeling of experiencing something beautiful, be it a Beatles record, a Christopher Nolan movie, or quantum theory, is only rivaled by the feeling of having a passionate discussion about it. And that's why I create music, it brings passionate people together to create meaningful social experiences with like minded people, whether you're singing the song in the car with all your friends or discussing the elegance of the lyrics or arrangement over a few cigarettes, it brings us all together. I HATE this question, yet, every other interview I've ever done asks it. To me, it seems like an elementary question that almost always has some variation of the same answer; "I like playing music" "I was brought up in a musical family" "it's the only thing I know how to do well" etc.

For me, the answer is all of the above. The most common and sensible reason for why anyone plays music is because playing music is FUN.

While these answers are all true, I think there has a be a better answer to the question.

Motivational speaker and marketing guru, Simon Sinek explains that "People don't buy WHAT you do, they buy WHY you do it" (Watch him give his TED lecture here)

Which brings ME back to the original question, "why do you play music?" and more importantly "why should I care?" I think I've found the answer as to WHY.

I have an insatiable passion for aesthetics. I'm a sucker for pretty things, neat things, things worthy of talking about. From the elegance of quantum theory to the beautiful harmonies on any Beatles record -- I love that elegance, but more importantly, SHARING that elegance and DISCUSSING it.

The feeling of experiencing something beautiful, be it a Beatles record, a Christopher Nolan movie, or quantum theory, is only rivaled by the feeling of having a passionate discussion about it.

And that's why I create music, it brings passionate people together to create meaningful social experiences with like minded people, whether you're singing the song in the car with all your friends or discussing the elegance of the lyrics or arrangement over a few cigarettes, it brings us all together.
]]> Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:35:00 GMT 71AA69745CC040170BA60BB9FAE17A65 "Three minutes, Thirty seconds, and Generation ADD" http://adamtaylormusic.com/blog.cfm?feature=1388679&postid=354115 I just left a diner--about a twenty minute drive. If you know me, the two things that get my brain rolling are coffee and a car drive. I had recently burned a mixed CD; something I don't do too often. I can't stand iPods. I think there is something beautiful in the limitation of "you can ONLY listen to what you have in the car." With an mp3 player, it's all to easy to listen to a minute, two minutes of a song and skip on the one of thousand songs that will entertain you for the next minute, two minutes. I grew up on Jimi Hendrix, I threw two of his hits on the CD, right in a row, "Crosstown Traffic" and "Voodoo Child." It reminded me of something I've always thought about songs. A song does two things for me. It either takes me on a journey--some new place--or it illuminates exactly where I am. "Crosstown Traffic" doesn't noodle with a lot of guitar like other Hendrix songs. It has a typical pop song structure (verse, chorus, verse, chorus, some assemblage of bridge and two or more choruses at the end). "Voodoo Child" is the exact opposite--obscure and epic. Crosstown is one big, simple, relatable metaphor. It's two minutes and fourteen seconds long and when the song fades out, you miss it instantly. This type of song illuminates right where you are in life. You listen to it and you think "I know a person JUST like this!" It's short and sweet. "Voodoo Child" on the other hand is five minutes and thirteen seconds, and when you're finished that, you feel almost as if you've awoken from a dream. It takes you on a journey. I've found that every song I'm heavily drawn to does one of those two things. Go look at the Beatles' catalog. Almost every song is either two, two and half minutes long or incredibly lengthy. This makes me ask myself, why is 3:30 the "perfect" song length? When a song is like that, I usually drift off around the second chorus, my mind wanders as if it was about to take the 5 minute plus journey, but suddenly the song ends and I'm left almost confused. "Did I like that? I feel like I missed half the song, and not in the good way." If my mind is going to wander, I want it to go for a walk, not step into the kitchen and forget why it went in there. My question to you is, what are some of your favorite songs like this? The short songs that you can listen to on repeat, and the long songs that take you elsewhere. I'll go first Short: "Anthony by Nickel Creek Long: "Cygnus Vismund Cygnus" by The Mars Volta.
I had recently burned a mixed CD; something I don't do too often. I can't stand iPods. I think there is something beautiful in the limitation of "you can ONLY listen to what you have in the car." With an mp3 player, it's all to easy to listen to a minute, two minutes of a song and skip on the one of thousand songs that will entertain you for the next minute, two minutes.

I grew up on Jimi Hendrix, I threw two of his hits on the CD, right in a row, "Crosstown Traffic" and "Voodoo Child." It reminded me of something I've always thought about songs. A song does two things for me. It either takes me on a journey--some new place--or it illuminates exactly where I am.

"Crosstown Traffic" doesn't noodle with a lot of guitar like other Hendrix songs. It has a typical pop song structure (verse, chorus, verse, chorus, some assemblage of bridge and two or more choruses at the end). "Voodoo Child" is the exact opposite--obscure and epic. Crosstown is one big, simple, relatable metaphor. It's two minutes and fourteen seconds long and when the song fades out, you miss it instantly. This type of song illuminates right where you are in life. You listen to it and you think "I know a person JUST like this!" It's short and sweet.

"Voodoo Child" on the other hand is five minutes and thirteen seconds, and when you're finished that, you feel almost as if you've awoken from a dream. It takes you on a journey.

I've found that every song I'm heavily drawn to does one of those two things. Go look at the Beatles' catalog. Almost every song is either two, two and half minutes long or incredibly lengthy.

This makes me ask myself, why is 3:30 the "perfect" song length? When a song is like that, I usually drift off around the second chorus, my mind wanders as if it was about to take the 5 minute plus journey, but suddenly the song ends and I'm left almost confused. "Did I like that? I feel like I missed half the song, and not in the good way."

If my mind is going to wander, I want it to go for a walk, not step into the kitchen and forget why it went in there.

My question to you is, what are some of your favorite songs like this? The short songs that you can listen to on repeat, and the long songs that take you elsewhere. I'll go first

Short: "Anthony by Nickel Creek
Long: "Cygnus Vismund Cygnus" by The Mars Volta.

]]> Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:47:10 GMT FCACF8D4D179DA3FD39A76258E6F46B6 "Fail, fail again, fail better" -Samuel Beckett. http://adamtaylormusic.com/blog.cfm?feature=1388679&postid=315660  I've had a lot of advice. When you start anything new, everybody has their advice. For me, the biggest piece of advice came from my brother. He always told me "Never be afraid to suck. And if you do suck, suck the best." It sounds counterintuitive, but it's magical. If you stand on stage and worry if you're good or not, you'll stand there, uninspired, and fail. You might play all the notes right, but that's not why people go see live music. I went to see my favorite band two years ago, Radiohead. They were flawless; I was disappointed. I want to see humans on stage. At the very most, humans doing something inhuman. But this isn't about music. You have to be willing to suck to be amazing. People who are 'good' are just following the rules. You have an idea, you know it's great, you feel it, but no one understands it. The sooner you're more comfortable with failure, the sooner you'll succeed. You won't be remembered for playing by the rules. The person who doesn't make mistakes is unlikely to make anything. So, this is my call to action for you: Go suck the best you can, you might be great.
It sounds counterintuitive, but it's magical. If you stand on stage and worry if you're good or not, you'll stand there, uninspired, and fail. You might play all the notes right, but that's not why people go see live music.

I went to see my favorite band two years ago, Radiohead. They were flawless; I was disappointed. I want to see humans on stage. At the very most, humans doing something inhuman. But this isn't about music.

You have to be willing to suck to be amazing. People who are 'good' are just following the rules. You have an idea, you know it's great, you feel it, but no one understands it. The sooner you're more comfortable with failure, the sooner you'll succeed.

You won't be remembered for playing by the rules. The person who doesn't make mistakes is unlikely to make anything.

So, this is my call to action for you: Go suck the best you can, you might be great.
]]> Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:24:57 GMT 9E4334A65B3D857ED35901CFFE81C029 My music and the "singer/songwriter" stigma http://adamtaylormusic.com/blog.cfm?feature=1388679&postid=254908 So, just to rant a little... (I'm looking for excuses to type now that my keyboard is fixed) I wanted to take a little time to talk about "Play the Piano Drunk" and the stigma that commonly follows "singer/songwriters" As of late, I've been receiving a lot of comments passing my music off as "simple strummy singer/songwriter pop tunes." That's great and all, considering all I ever wanted to make was simple pop songs, but I think a lot of the experimental factors about my album get overlooked because of this "singer/songwriter" stigma. One of my favorite tracks on the album is the last, "Story of the Sea-Green Sky" Admitted, the lyrics are no opus, as Chris Thile of Nickel Creek fame once said, "Never let an adolescent write a song from an inanimate object's perspective." The track is one of my favorites because it starts out as a strummy, saccharin, up beat, folk song, but as the song progresses, it turns into a Dr. Dre like hip-hop groove (Dre is a large influence of my, believe it or not). My favorite part is that there are actually TWO drumsets in this section. If you pan your speakers, you'll find the hip hop drum set on one side, and the pitter-patter folk beat on the other. I don't know of any folk artists doing this, not to mention the super-spacey megaphone vocals in the background, coupled with the a-tonal double-time ending. NONE of that is characteristic with the John Mayer-esque stigma of a singer/songwriter. Another favorite of mine is the Box series. It's a pain to play live, and was hard to capture in the studio, but the three part song boasts, MULTIPLE key and tempo changes. Pt. I modulates to G to introduce Pt. II, with a tempo change as well. Pt. II goes from G to Em and THEN to A, with another tempo change. Pt. III then modulates from A to C back to A and then resolves at D in the end. All in all, that's three tempo changes and FIVE key changes. Not to mention the theremin track we spent HOURS tracking (that weird spacey noise in Pt. I that sounds like a violin/trumpet) Eat THAT, James Blunt. Elvis has subliminal, reversed and stretched out vocals in the beginning. 12:51 is a complete 180 from the original Strokes version. And Painting Leprosy begins with a dynamic, compression defying intro. Not to mention a COMPLETE stop in the middle of the song (You'd never hear that on the radio). The point of this is not to blow my own horn, but to let you in on some of my favorite parts of the EP, and to hopefully defer myself from the "singer/songwriter" stigma that seems to haunt every dude with an acoustic guitar. I mean, shit, I just want some super cool hipster indie points, right?
I wanted to take a little time to talk about "Play the Piano Drunk" and the stigma that commonly follows "singer/songwriters"

As of late, I've been receiving a lot of comments passing my music off as "simple strummy singer/songwriter pop tunes." That's great and all, considering all I ever wanted to make was simple pop songs, but I think a lot of the experimental factors about my album get overlooked because of this "singer/songwriter" stigma.

One of my favorite tracks on the album is the last, "Story of the Sea-Green Sky"
Admitted, the lyrics are no opus, as Chris Thile of Nickel Creek fame once said, "Never let an adolescent write a song from an inanimate object's perspective." The track is one of my favorites because it starts out as a strummy, saccharin, up beat, folk song, but as the song progresses, it turns into a Dr. Dre like hip-hop groove (Dre is a large influence of my, believe it or not). My favorite part is that there are actually TWO drumsets in this section. If you pan your speakers, you'll find the hip hop drum set on one side, and the pitter-patter folk beat on the other. I don't know of any folk artists doing this, not to mention the super-spacey megaphone vocals in the background, coupled with the a-tonal double-time ending. NONE of that is characteristic with the John Mayer-esque stigma of a singer/songwriter.

Another favorite of mine is the Box series. It's a pain to play live, and was hard to capture in the studio, but the three part song boasts, MULTIPLE key and tempo changes.

Pt. I modulates to G to introduce Pt. II, with a tempo change as well. Pt. II goes from G to Em and THEN to A, with another tempo change. Pt. III then modulates from A to C back to A and then resolves at D in the end. All in all, that's three tempo changes and FIVE key changes. Not to mention the theremin track we spent HOURS tracking (that weird spacey noise in Pt. I that sounds like a violin/trumpet) Eat THAT, James Blunt.

Elvis has subliminal, reversed and stretched out vocals in the beginning. 12:51 is a complete 180 from the original Strokes version. And Painting Leprosy begins with a dynamic, compression defying intro. Not to mention a COMPLETE stop in the middle of the song (You'd never hear that on the radio).

The point of this is not to blow my own horn, but to let you in on some of my favorite parts of the EP, and to hopefully defer myself from the "singer/songwriter" stigma that seems to haunt every dude with an acoustic guitar.

I mean, shit, I just want some super cool hipster indie points, right?
]]> Sun, 25 Apr 2010 07:58:58 GMT EA7C53165BACFBB7BCF9DE99564F2F12 How Equal Temperment Ruined Harmony and Why You Should Care http://adamtaylormusic.com/blog.cfm?feature=1388679&postid=254907 So, this is a ultra nerdy blog post. I want to make it as easy to understand and as non-esoteric as possible. Where as this piece is more for a music-savvy audience, I hope that maybe some of you can take something from this. Forgive me! Most musicians learn their instruments, the 12 notes, and play them accordingly. If I was to tell every day musician that D# and Eb are ACTUALLY two different notes, they immediately disagree. It comes to a surprise that there IS a difference between a D# and Eb, a C# and a Db and etc etc etc Let's start basic. Sound is a wave, duh. Each note, as we know it, corresponds to a frequency. The common "starting place," if you will, is the frequency of 440 Hz. 440hz is an A note. This is usually where one begins to tune a piano. With every "note" there are multiple "overtones" that sounds simultaneously with the fundamental note, much like in the English language, an overtone is the suggestion that comes along with a word. So, with A440, the overtones would be 880 hz (2x the fundamental), 1320 hz (3x), 1760 hz (4x) and etc. An octave BELOW A440 would simply be 440hz divided by two--220hz, and an octave ABOVE would be 880 hz. OKAY, so hopefully we all understand THAT. Now, on to the real shit. The modern way to tune a piano is a system called "equal temperament." What this basically means is that each note has equal space between it, like a pie cut into 12 equal slices. When we tune a piano this way, it means that we can play it in any key our heart would desire. BUT, is this the CORRECT way? Not according to NATURE. So, we have our A440, with the overtones of 880, 1320, and 1760. Most people would tune their piano in a sequence of an interval we call a "fifth." A fifth is simply five scale notes above the starting point. In the scale of A, it would be E (1= A 2= B 3= C# 4= D 5=E etc etc). So generally, the next note I would tune would be an E. E, according to equal temperament, is the frequency 329.63 Hz. The overtones that make up an E would be 329.63 (1x), 659.26 (2x), 988.88 (3x), and 1318.51 (4x) and etc. We notice that the 3rd overtone of A (1320) is VERY close to the 4th overtone of E (1318.51). This is the reason that A and E sound so HARMONIOUS, so GOOD together. But wouldn't it sound better if we tuned them BOTH to 1320? YES! The waves would line up more accurately and, in effect, sound even MORE harmonious. We would have to then tune the E to 330hz instead of 329.63 hz. Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, everyone did NOT play the some 12 notes as we know them today. They utilized both a MINOR semitone (a semitone is a half step, the difference between A and Bb or E and F) and a MAJOR semitone. A major semitone is obviously larger than a minor semitone. C to C# is a minor semitone (according to Bach's tuning) and C# to D is a major semitone. On the contrary, D to Db is a minor semitone DOWN, making Db actually slightly HIGHER pitched than C#, two note commonly believed to be the same. SO, why does this all matter? Well, when Bach wrote a C# instead of a Db, he actually wanted you to play the REAL fucking C#. It MAKES a difference. This is what separates a GREAT orchestra from a GOOD orchestra. The notes IN BETWEEN. Because stringed instruments (not fretted, but stringed) can play these notes in between, they can more effectively play these lost notes. THIS is the LOST LANGUAGE of music! Bach would temper his piano into these more harmonically correct temperaments. This is why certain happy or upbeat pieces were commonly written in one key, where as sad songs were commonly written in another. To an equal tempered piano, it wouldn't make any difference, but to a tempered piano, the key of E might have been WAY more dissonant than say they key of Bb. When I learnt this stuff, it actually ANGERED me! Not only are things like "auto-tone" atrocious sounding, but they are actually ACTUALLY harmonically INCORRECT. It is actually UNNATURAL to tune your voice! It doesn't take a genius to understand that tuning your vocal is unnatural, but it actually disagrees with the physical laws of harmony and sound. In conclusion, the things we are taught aren't always correct. Some of you might not be upset that you were taught a slightly altered definition of "harmony," but I am. What else have we been taught that might not be all so true? WALL OF TEXT, -a. P.S. this is all unedited, sorry if there are any mistakes P.S.S. this is not just ejaculation of knowledge, but really something I care about. P.S.S.S. If you liked this, buy this book: http://www.amazon.com/How-Equal-Temperament-Ruined-Harmony/dp/0393334201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239684877&sr=8-1
Most musicians learn their instruments, the 12 notes, and play them accordingly. If I was to tell every day musician that D# and Eb are ACTUALLY two different notes, they immediately disagree. It comes to a surprise that there IS a difference between a D# and Eb, a C# and a Db and etc etc etc

Let's start basic. Sound is a wave, duh. Each note, as we know it, corresponds to a frequency. The common "starting place," if you will, is the frequency of 440 Hz. 440hz is an A note. This is usually where one begins to tune a piano.

With every "note" there are multiple "overtones" that sounds simultaneously with the fundamental note, much like in the English language, an overtone is the suggestion that comes along with a word. So, with A440, the overtones would be 880 hz (2x the fundamental), 1320 hz (3x), 1760 hz (4x) and etc. An octave BELOW A440 would simply be 440hz divided by two--220hz, and an octave ABOVE would be 880 hz.

OKAY, so hopefully we all understand THAT. Now, on to the real shit.
The modern way to tune a piano is a system called "equal temperament." What this basically means is that each note has equal space between it, like a pie cut into 12 equal slices. When we tune a piano this way, it means that we can play it in any key our heart would desire. BUT, is this the CORRECT way? Not according to NATURE.

So, we have our A440, with the overtones of 880, 1320, and 1760. Most people would tune their piano in a sequence of an interval we call a "fifth." A fifth is simply five scale notes above the starting point. In the scale of A, it would be E (1= A 2= B 3= C# 4= D 5=E etc etc). So generally, the next note I would tune would be an E.

E, according to equal temperament, is the frequency 329.63 Hz. The overtones that make up an E would be 329.63 (1x), 659.26 (2x), 988.88 (3x), and 1318.51 (4x) and etc. We notice that the 3rd overtone of A (1320) is VERY close to the 4th overtone of E (1318.51). This is the reason that A and E sound so HARMONIOUS, so GOOD together. But wouldn't it sound better if we tuned them BOTH to 1320? YES! The waves would line up more accurately and, in effect, sound even MORE harmonious. We would have to then tune the E to 330hz instead of 329.63 hz.

Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, everyone did NOT play the some 12 notes as we know them today. They utilized both a MINOR semitone (a semitone is a half step, the difference between A and Bb or E and F) and a MAJOR semitone. A major semitone is obviously larger than a minor semitone. C to C# is a minor semitone (according to Bach's tuning) and C# to D is a major semitone. On the contrary, D to Db is a minor semitone DOWN, making Db actually slightly HIGHER pitched than C#, two note commonly believed to be the same.

SO, why does this all matter? Well, when Bach wrote a C# instead of a Db, he actually wanted you to play the REAL fucking C#. It MAKES a difference. This is what separates a GREAT orchestra from a GOOD orchestra. The notes IN BETWEEN. Because stringed instruments (not fretted, but stringed) can play these notes in between, they can more effectively play these lost notes.

THIS is the LOST LANGUAGE of music! Bach would temper his piano into these more harmonically correct temperaments. This is why certain happy or upbeat pieces were commonly written in one key, where as sad songs were commonly written in another. To an equal tempered piano, it wouldn't make any difference, but to a tempered piano, the key of E might have been WAY more dissonant than say they key of Bb.

When I learnt this stuff, it actually ANGERED me! Not only are things like "auto-tone" atrocious sounding, but they are actually ACTUALLY harmonically INCORRECT. It is actually UNNATURAL to tune your voice! It doesn't take a genius to understand that tuning your vocal is unnatural, but it actually disagrees with the physical laws of harmony and sound.

In conclusion, the things we are taught aren't always correct. Some of you might not be upset that you were taught a slightly altered definition of "harmony," but I am. What else have we been taught that might not be all so true?

WALL OF TEXT,
-a.

P.S.
this is all unedited, sorry if there are any mistakes
P.S.S.
this is not just ejaculation of knowledge, but really something I care about.
P.S.S.S.
If you liked this, buy this book:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Equal-Temperament-Ruined-Harmony/dp/0393334201/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239684877&sr=8-1
]]> Sun, 25 Apr 2010 07:47:55 GMT 16FE4B5CEB21E711F48704240ADC1307