The Dr. Rhythm Top 10 is music that represents talent, artistry, innovation and unique style. We encourage you to research and discover this music on your own.
Mouse over selection for more, listen to examples though Amazon below.
Classic -
U2, "The Joshua Tree "
Is there really much to say about this album? Simply classic. We chose this album due to its large number of iconic songs. U2 has a unique sound to their music, it is edgy yet sensual, and powerful but still contains elements of sensitivity.
Heavy -
Iron Maiden
, "A Matter of Life and Death "
Iron Maiden has always produced great albums. If you liked the old Iron Maiden then this album should provide plenty of the hard rock you desire with some relevant topical matter.
Rock -
Cat Stevens
, "Bhudda and the Chocolate Box."
This album has some great songs that have disappeared like, "Jesus", "Music" and "Ghost Town." Despite Rolling Stone not liking this album compared to Stevens' previous works, do not let that deter you. RS missed the point. B and the CB has depth and innovation.
Funky -
Gnarls Barkley, "St. Elsewhere."
The debut album of Gnarls Barkley. Shows great talent, innovation and creativity. We have been following Danger Mouse (one of the members of Gnarls) for a while, and he is one musician who seems to have a great musical ear. Each track is well made and expresses superb musical facility. Cee-Lo's singing is interesting and dynamic.
Experimental Rock
Frank Zappa
, "Freak Out."
If you do not already have a taste for Zappa then let this album be your first. It was one his first as well. "Help I'm a Rock!" is perhaps the best track as it shows his creative influence from mid-20th century experimental composer Edgar Varèse. The CD is a little different than the original vinyl, but either will work. Try to be open minded when listening and be sure to read the linear notes.
Soundtrack -
Asche & Spencer, "Monster's Ball."
The movie is already an award winner. The music often goes unnoticed but provides an impressive subtext for the film. It is nominally minimal music in style using the electric guitar predominantly. However, the music is well crafted and very intricate despite its simple surface. We wanted to choose a non-orchestral score this week, but in the future expect a few of the great romantic style film scores under this category.
We are definitely not experts on Brazilian music but Beto provides a refreshing approach to the Samba styles that define this country. The music grooves and shakes, but is also beautiful and alluring. It is totally in Portuguese so be certain to find a translation or sexy Brazilian national to translate.
Dubstep -
Appleblim/Shackle- ton, "Soundboy's Ashes Get Chopped Out & Snorted"
Many people have never heard of Dubstep. This album is definitely something to have if you are looking to become acquainted with this unique style. It is both dance and Jamaican Dub with a whole host of new creativity. This album is hard to find, but an internet search will most likely yield good results. If you like electronic music of any kind then this album is worth investigating.
90s New Wave - The Cure, "Galore"
Subtle, fruity, cryptic and classic. Re-live the 80s and 90s with this fun, feel-good post-punk compilation.
Ambient -
Ingram Marshall, "Alcatraz"
No matter what style of music you prefer, try this album immediately. Marshall takes inspriation from the sounds, history, visual imagery, location, etc. of the infamous prison Alcatraz. The entire album is brilliantly produced and exemplifies creativity that is unparalleled. It is absolutely fantastic and you will want to listen to every second. Make sure you are ready to listen to about an hour of music that is not rock, hip-hop, alternative, etc.etc. It will be worth it.
You may not have heard about what Congress is doing to the music industry amid the recent "stimulus" mess. New legislation is being pushed through Congress under H.R 4789 also known as the Performance Rights Act. Under this bill terrestrial radio stations would have to begin paying royalties to both songwriters and performers. In the past AM and FM radio did not have to pay the performers any royalties, just the songwriters. Under this Act that would change to a few fractions of a cent per song, per play. Currently, internet and satellite radio have to pay both performers and songwriters; essentially this bill claims that they are just leveling the market.
Now many of you may be saying, "I agree, performers deserve to be paid." OR "Those radio station fat-cats have been pocketing money from honest performers, finally justice is served." There are many musicians and their representative unions hailing the legislation as being for "working musicians." All in all on the surface it seems like a fairly decent bill.
But it is far from being decent. It is obvious that these government-people, Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in Congress Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Representatives Howard Berman (D-Calif.), Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Jane Harman (D-Calif.), John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), and Paul Hodes (D-N.H.) are not musicians.
Let us think about this for just a moment. History aside (which has shown numerous failed attempts at legislation like this), what this means is that radio stations would suddenly have to pay more to play their music. This could be anywhere from $10,000 to $10,000,000 depending on your format and market size. Most terrestrial radio stations are not ready for such drastic change in their budgets and subsequently could have to do several things:
* Fire employees
* Play less music, and more talk
* Play Public Domain music (like Stephen Foster tunes and European classical composers) if that is even an option
* Charge more for advertising (some advertisers could bail, and go towards internet radio, raise product/service prices or revert to other media)
* Change formats, like sports, Country and Western, or talk
Furthermore, smaller radio stations could go completely out of business, like Classical music and jazz stations who often do not pay high royalty fees. The royalty fall out has happened numerous times, most recently in 2003 when many internet radio stations went out of business, and small radio stations had to stop online streaming due to performance royalties and general fee increases. The government threatened higher royalties in 2007 and 2008 which put even large internet radio stations like Pandora and Rhapsody in jeopardy.
So why do we think that adding radio stations to the list is a good idea? As a performer myself, I do not care if I do not get paid directly from radio broadcasts. I have had numerous recordings played on the radio, mostly public radio and foreign radio, and never received a penny, and honestly do not need their money. Radio has always operated under the assumption that free airwaves equals free advertising for the artists. If someone hears my performance (or my group's performance) they are likely to purchase the recording. That is how performers have been paid for decades.
Working musicians will not receive any more money under this bill because radio stations are big businesses and business do not just pay more money because someone told them too. This is no different than a tax and businesses do not pay taxes, they raise prices and ultimately pass the difference to the consumer, you. That means that advertisers would have to pay radio stations more money (if the station is even still in business) which means these companies would have to increase their budgets for radio advertising, and in the end this equates to higher prices!
What the government COULD have done is to remove the performance royalties on all forms of media OR reduced the songwriters' fee and supplement it with a performance fee so that no delivery format would have to suddenly change their business plan. Why does government think they know everything? Oh yeah, it is because these lobbyists from the American Federation of Musicians, ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, etc. will make tons of money from this legislation, and these naive politicians, who have no clue about how the music industry works, listen to them because radio is the "enemy," just like the numerous other corporations that produce thousands of jobs in America for honest people.
My dear patrons, do not be fooled when government presents "feel good" legislation and other projects that show "heart-felt" empathy for everyday people. Thank you Ronald Regan for saying, "Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem..." Government needs to get their noses out our business, especially our music. And to all of you who illegally download and "steal" or freely distribute digital music, shame on you too. You are part of the reason why everyone is up in arms with copyright laws.
Performers of music are fundamentally more important than any songwriter, and their services should be valued. You can write all the songs you want, if no one wants to perform them, then you are left on the hook. Performers have all the power. BUT we do not need to milk honest businesses for more and more money just because on paper is appears, "fair."
God bless musicians for what they do, especially those that work for very little or free. Music is part of our culture and it will survive long past copyright and internet radio. Support local musicians by attending their performances, buying their CDs and visiting their websites. But do not think that the same politicians in Congress responsible for the current economic recession are going to save the music industry. Anything else is just preposterous.
In good musical health,
Dr. Rhythm
Ask the Doctor - 9.27.08 (want to ask the doctor? click here)
"To Drop a Class, or Not Drop a Class "
Dear Dr. Rhythm,
I am taking a music history class about jazz. I find that I really don't like or understand jazz and am seriously thinking about dropping the class. Do you any words to convince me not to?
AJ
----
Dear AJ,
First, I'll assume that your either are seeking or engaging in a university education. At most universities, undergraduates have to take what is commonly known as general interest/education/studies courses. These courses usually encompass a wide variety of liberal arts, science and humanities topics.
Second, I'll assume that you are taking this class as a general course for your degree. Many students ask, "Why do I need to take these boring general classes?" It is a legitimate question which many professors and administrators do not answer.
The most common answer is that in a university education it is important to cultivate a diverse and interdisciplinary education. This means even students planning to go into engineering should take courses in the arts and languages. However, despite this being a very good asset to a broad and complete education, there is another good reason to both take and be successful in these general study courses.
When you leave college you are entering a job market where you have little to no experience in the field you are pursuing. This can be your greatest asset and liability. However, these general studies courses display an important part of your ability to learn and be successful. You could be a brilliant engineer, but if you show a consistent pattern of low grades in what are suppose to be simple classes, then it is possible that an employer may find you more of a risk than an asset. Why?
The reason for this is these classes show you can learn new subjects successfully and quickly. Even once you find employment there will always be new things to learn and if you can show that you have a track record of this behavior it could give you an extra advantage over another employee. Plus, you will have the experience of learning new things fast in which you may not have been entirely interested. A valuable skill for saving time.
So do not give up and make the time invested thus far a complete waste. Plus, you may learn you actually like jazz in the end...
In good musical health,
Dr. Rhythm
--------
"My Kids' raunchy musical taste "
Dear Dr. Rhythm,
My children, ages 13 and 17, listen to a lot of raunchy hip-hop and hard rock and I am worried this music will change their behavior. How can I get them interested in other, less harmful, styles of music?
PG
----
Dear PG,
As their parent, you have every right to take away their music privileges if it does not resonate with your beliefs. There is some evidence pointing towards violent and/or sexual lyrics imposing these same types of behavior on children, however, in the end proper parenting will almost always override any negative effects of pejorative media.
Though, to directly answer your question, try teaching your children about the music you enjoy and/or give them listening exercises that involve music you find acceptable. You could try a variety of music trivia games, or show them films and documentaries about various musicians, though often these films show the negative aspects of these people's lives. You could also take them to concerts and other public performances that are inline with your values. Community Ed classes may also provide the kids some insight about the creation and fun aspects of music. Education is key and children may initially rebel, they will in the long run be thankful you spent the time and effort.
Whatever you chose, be active and very much a part of your children's listening behavior. This is probably good advice for other media your children imbue daily such as video games, television, movies and the internet. And do not be afraid to take your children's iPods away if your rules are not met. I guess this answer has become more of a parental empowerment message than a musical one, but I hope it steers your kids clear of any wrongdoing.
