Interview With a Music Icon — Alan Parsons

When I told my musician friends about my Alan Parsons interview, it solidified my eternal bragging rights. In fact, they insisted that I watch the documentary for the making of Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon, the legendary album that Parsons engineered. His iconic career as a producer and engineer spans four decades. To date, Parsons has sold millions of records and earned 11 Grammy nominations. He kindly took the time to answer a few of my questions. Enjoy!

The music industry has significantly changed since you entered the business. Do you think it will ever recover?

Clearly the established artists have suffered. The consumer doesn’t really understand that copyright holders have to get paid. Youtube is the biggest culprit. But up-and-coming artists love it because they have a chance to get exposed for nothing. And although record sales have declined, people will always pay to see a band play live. As long as there are live shows, people will see them. But I’m really worried about recording music.

Have the changes also paved the way for less talented stars?

There’s a tendency for people to think that because the technology has become so accessible. Anyone can make a half-decent record on a laptop. But in the end, the real talent will come through. And that’s always been the case.

You’re known for some high-profile concept albums. With the ability to individually purchase songs, is the concept album dead?

People don’t seem to be interested in listening to 40 minutes of music anymore. They want a three minute clip. It gives instant gratification. The reality is that probably one or two of the songs on an album will get picked up by other outlets. It’s lamentable that people aren’t picking up an album, turning the lights down, and enjoying it. But you still have to sequence an album. And people still expect me to make conceptual music. That’s what I do best.

With your level of experience, is it possible to listen to music from a layman’s perspective?

I’m very much a layman when it comes to listening to music. I rarely listen to other people’s music on my studio stereo. I listen to most of it in my car. If I do have the occasion to listen to someone else’s record under studio conditions, then I might be more analytical. I might be quizzical or jealous. But I’m most likely to play stuff I really like in the studio.

Do you have a preference for analog over digital recording?

Digital recording is young. We are already using video recorders to make movies, so why not use digital recorders to make an analog sound? We just haven’t found the right parameters and technology to exactly emulate analog. But we are getting closer every day.

While working as an engineer in the beginning of your career, did you know that you ultimately wanted to be a producer?

It was always a goal. I didn’t know when I left school that I would be a producer, but as soon as I got the job at Abbey Road, I had my sights set on production. I learned from watching other producers and engineers at work. I saw who had the magic touch and who didn’t, and it helped me learn from the mistakes and strengths of others.

When you work on high-profile projects like Dark Side of the Moon and Abbey Road, does your inner fanboy disrupt your objective outlook?

I think being a fan of the music has a value. I take no credit for the creative input on The Beatles though. I was too young and too green. But I was the ultimate Beatles fan. I was in 7th heaven. It was incredible.

If you could duplicate that experience now, would you approach it differently?

Not at all. I still work on instinct. I’m essentially rather selfish. I’m pursuing things that I think work. That’s not to say that I won’t team up with others. I enjoy the spirit of collaboration. But in terms of whether I work differently now, no. I’ve always worked the same way.

I have to ask you this, because my musician friends have discussed it extensively. You’ve obviously heard the controversy about Lady Antebellum’s “Need You Now” being a rip-off of your song, “Eye in the Sky.”

I have heard of that controversy, yes. And I have absolutely no comment.

Fair enough. And speaking of controversy, I’ve read a few interviews where you’ve addressed Dave Gilmour’s comments about your contribution to Pink Floyd. Have you ever had a personal conversation with him about it?

We only worked together during that period. So no, we’ve never had that conversation. The opinions of the band have occasionally been dismissive about my contribution and occasionally been very complimentary. To me, it doesn’t really matter what they think. I know what I contributed.

Tell me about your upcoming project with Jake Shimabukuro.

Jake is touring as we speak. What I like about the album is it’s a combination of unaccompanied solo, Jake playing with a rhythm section, and Jake playing with an orchestra. It was an idea I put forward. I thought he’d be incredible playing live with an orchestra.

What motivates your decision to choose a project?

In the past it was a matter of convenience and finance. But I would not get involved in something that didn’t have some merit. I’m not about to suddenly make a hip hop album because it pays well. I’ve got to be into the style of the music and to feel that I can offer the artist something as his or her producer.

Do you have any upcoming projects you’re excited about?

We are in the process of fundraising for an Anglo-Greek band called Electric Litany, and I’m hoping we will be recording their new album by the end of this year.

Demi Lovato Ruins Jennel Garcia — Creates Her Clone

If you’re pondering the purpose of the X Factor’s mentors, look no further than the two videos below, where you’ll see Demi Lovato’s failed attempt at transforming Jennel Garcia into a pop-star. Instead of strengthening her look, she stripped away her magic and created a clone of herself. Watch below for her audition and her latest performance. You’ll see that she began as Pat Benetar inspired and ended as a Demi duplicate.


Khloe Kardashian Makes X Factor Debut — How’d She Do?

20121101-114426.jpgKhloe Kardashian made her X Factor debut last night, and The Dishmaster gives the official seal of approval. Sure she’s unseasoned, has no sense of fashion, and seemed slightly uncomfortable reading the teleprompter. But she’s likable, and I give her an A for effort. She also seemed less like a robot than Mario Lopez, which I enjoyed. I have to also give her major props for successfully harassing Demi Lovato to give clarification on her ridiculously ambiguous comment. Moving forward though, I’d like to declare a national emergency on all Kardashian fashion. Those girls just can’t dress themselves. JUST-SAY-NO-TO-BODY-CON.

MacKenzie Bourg Advances on The Voice — ONE STEP CLOSER

Since I’ve maintained fromt he beggining of The Voice that MacKenzie Bourg is the only contestant with a chance to have a career outside of this dead-end talent show, I was pleased to see that Cee Lo got it right by choosing him to advance past the battle rounds. Watch him since “Good Time.”

Nick Jonas Writes Wedding Bells for Miley Cyrus? — Young Love Triumphs

As someone who has never looked back on exes for fear of the a pillar of salt, I always enjoy the vicarious glimpse of songwriters pining for former flames. And it’s particularly enjoyable when it’s the man who pines, considering I rarely hear about that in real life. Such is the case for Nick Jonas, whose new song, “Wedding Bells” may or may not be about Miley Cyrus’ engagement. When asked if she thinks it’s about her, Cyrus simply said, “It’s pretty blatant.” Listen below to a rough recording.

Lance Armstrong Steps Down — Did He Dope? — A Summary of USADA’s Findings

20121017-100734.jpgThe United States Anti-Doping Agency’s 202-page report entitled, “reasoned decision,” charging Lance Armstrong with running “the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen” has caused a media firestorm. The report found “conclusive” and “undeniable” proof that Armstrong not only doped extensively throughout most of his professional career — particularly when he rode to seven straight Tour de France victories from 1999-2005 — but also supplied the banned drugs and pressured his teammates to stay on a doping program.

Although publicly maintaining his innocence, Armstrong — who has never tested positive for any performance-enhancing substances — decided not to fight the USADA charges. In August, six months after federal prosecutors announced that a grand jury had finished considering the matter (and levied no criminal charges), he withdrew from USADA’s arbitration process. Because he withdrew from the arbitration, the agency banned him from Olympic sports for life and stripped him of his record seven Tour victories. By way of contrast, five cyclists who cut a deal each accepted six-month suspensions after giving statements in the investigation.

The French Cycling Federation supports the USADA decision, stating that Armstrong’s refusal to contest the accusations “sounds like an admission of his guilt” (the Federation also wants reimbursement of Armstrong’s prizes obtained during the Tour de France and other competitions – to the tune of 2.95 million Euros). Similarly, the president of the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) believes that Armstrong’s decision not to appeal the USADA’s decision indicates that there is “substance” to the charges. The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the ruling body which oversees the Tour de France, has yet to ratify the USADA findings, but since Armstrong has given up the fight I can’t think of any reason why they would not do so.

As I perused the report itself – which is readily available on a USADA website – it struck me that it contained a fair amount of hyperbole and colorful quotes (for the media’s convenience, perhaps). “It was not enough that his teammates give maximum effort on the bike, he also required that they adhere to the doping program outlined for them or be replaced,” USADA said in its report. “He was not just a part of the doping culture on his team, he enforced and reinforced it.” Chilling.

In a statement accompanying the report, USADA — an NGO started back in 1999 — ensured that it conducted a fair and thorough investigation, and that it was unaffected by outside pressure or celebrity status. Though I have no reason for doubt, I can’t help but think that Lance Armstrong is the biggest fish that USADA will ever have the opportunity to fry. And it seems that they did not hold back on their own spin, value judgments, and eloquent vilification of the long-admired (formerly admired?) sports hero.

But that’s just the report, let’s talk about the evidence it was based on. I was both happy and somewhat surprised to see that all the of evidence — over 1000 pages, as the USADA is quick to point out — was available online. This accessibility struck me as either the height of transparency or the depths of public smearing in a case that is not only subject to appeal but that is being actively challenged by at least three team members implicated in the twisted tale.

Notwithstanding my qualms with USADA’s mode of presentation, the voluminous evidence is overwhelmingly damning — especially because Armstrong is not challenging it. USADA found 26 witnesses to help explain the elaborate doping scheme purportedly used by Armstrong and the US Postal Service team; this included sworn statements from 11 of Armstrong’s former teammates, six of whom have never had any public dispute with him.

The USADA report confirms many stories we have heard before and, as a whole, paints a vivid picture of the doping culture that dominated Armstrong’s team during his Tour winning streak; riders said they felt that they needed to dope to stay at the top of the sport and stay on the team.

His former teammates talked about consuming vials of testosterone oil during races and even blood-doping (a process whereby blood is extracted, filled with enhancement drugs, and then transfused back into the cyclist). By way of example, teammate Tyler Hamilton stated that, during the 1999 Tour, the team was using EPO, a hormone that induces red blood cell production, every three or four days; pre-loaded syringes were injected quickly and then discarded by a team doctor. For the 2000 Tour, Hamilton, Armstrong, and other riders allegedly took a private jet to start a blood-doping regimen, a new process they used to avoid detection at a time when there was heightened scrutiny of all riders.

In addition to the witness statements, the USADA investigation also uncovered a paper trail, including $200,000 in payments from Armstrong to Italian doctor Michele Ferrari, a sought-after trainer of the time who was notorious for dealing in EPO.

UCI has only a few weeks to decide whether it will ratify the USADA’s decision. And the director of the Tour de France has declared that if UCI does ratify, there will be no replacement winner named for years 1999 through 2005; some speculate that that is because it now looks like everyone was doping, and no one deserves the win.

And then there are the team members who have not given up, who are challenging USADA’s report at an arbitration hearing . One of them is Armstrong’s former manager, Johan Bruyneel, and he has good reason. The report pegged him as the focal point of the doping programs in Armstrong’s teams through 2010. I am very curious to see how he fares; if he wins that would certainly add a whole new level to this ordeal.

As it stands, I think that Armstrong doped, and I think he probably went to great lengths to cover it up. Even though he may have had sound reasons for declining to challenge the USADA report, it strikes me as a suspicious — and Un-American — to cop-out. He is certainly not without resources and, to me, it seems like has a lot to lose. He is a legend largely because of his wins. Why would he give them up without a fight?

Update: In the wake of the USADA report, Armstrong stepped down as chairman of the Lance Armstrong Foundation (LIVESTRONG), and Nike terminated its contract with armstrong. It is a sad day in history.

Movie Review: Argo

20121015-143026.jpgWritten by Dan O’Connell, Contributing Writer

In the early days of the Iran Hostage crisis, six Americans in the Iranian Embassy escape to the Canadian Ambassador’s house, and CIA Operative Tony Mendez (Affleck) comes up with the only feasible plan to get them out. He plans to enter the country under the pretense of being a Canadian filmmaker scouting locations for a Hollywood film, and he’ll have the hostages pose as his movie staff. Once there, he’ll take them out as a team. His stateside helpers include: members of the CIA (Cranston, most notably), a gruff veteran producer (Arkin, signing on as a fake producer to make the story more believable) and a cheerful makeup artist (Goodman, who also helps to sell the Hollywood ruse). Once Mendez enters Iran, the problems arise. It’s not nearly as easy as it seems, and the story unfolds in one of the most suspenseful films in history.

Affleck’s winning streak as a director continues, armed with great performances, terrific dialogue, outstanding music cues (Van Halen’s “Dance the Night Away” for the win), and the best late 70s period design since “Boogie Nights” — right down to the Warner Bros. logo that opens the movie (a KILLER touch). Though I wasn’t thrilled with Affleck’s decision to underplay his role, by the third act it’s irrelevant. This film is an easy contender
for multiple Oscars.

RATING: 5 DISHES

Playback Kills It With “Rich Girl” — Will Simon Cowell Win X Factor?

This group astounded me, and I hate boy bands. You can see Simon Cowell smirking during their performance at all the money he’s about to make while simultaneously patting himself on the back for being a genius. As for Marc Anthony’s disinterest, all I can say is he’s a performer and not an A&R executive — and it shows. Watch their performance below.

Interview: Hey Marseilles — ‘Lines We Trace’

Photo by: Hayley Young

I’m always looking for records that I can listen to in their entirety. While this might seem like an easy task, you’d be surprised. And Hey Marseilles’ first album, To Travels and Trunks, met this very difficult standard. It’s clear the band knows their sound, and it’s consistent from beginning to end. It also puts me in a happy place, a task also difficult to achieve. The Seattle-based band, fronted by Matt Bishop, has seven members, a number that slowly grew from the original two (Bishop and Nick Ward) who met in college. They released their first record in 2008, and then re-released it two years later. And based on the new song off their second record, “Hold Your Head,” I anticipate great things. The record, entitled Lines We Trace, will be released on in February 2013. Read my interview with Matt Bishop below.

Your music has a European influence. Was that always your sound?

It slowly evolved. Our motivation isn’t [about] trying to capture a European sound as much as it is trying to do something eclectic and dynamic. [That sound] slipped into our first record because the music we were inspired by was very much European. But it wasn’t intentional.

Why did you re-release the first record, To Travels and Trunks?

It was about trying to get exposure for that record on a level beyond Seattle. We released it out of the back of our cars and sold it to our friends at shows. We felt that if we had the potential to get as strong of a reception elsewhere as we did in Seattle, it was worth re-releasing it.

Was there any particular moment when you realized that your hard work was paying off?

I wouldn’t say it was one specific moment. We’ve been a slow burn. We’ve been together for about six years and we’re now going on our first truly national tour. We’ve been slowly reaching [our] aspirations.

Are you ever surprised by an audience’s response to one of your songs over another?

I’m surprised when an audience responds at all [laughs]. Sometimes I can see the audience [sing along] to certain words. It’s awesome and humbling.

I read that some of your band members disagreed on your band’s name, and the majority won out. Do you vote on all band disagreements?

There’s always a discussion. But it’s helpful that there’s an odd number of people in our band so it’s kind of like the Supreme Court. We’re pretty egalitarian.

Why the time span between your first record and your upcoming record?

We’ve been writing our upcoming record for a year and a half. There were moments when we thought we were done and then we went back. We want to be intentional about releasing a record we are proud of, and we’ve finally gotten to that point.

I know you have a day job in addition to being in a band. Are you the coolest guy at your job?

I don’t know about that [laughs]. It’s gratifying that people at my job are supportive. But it’s also really frustrating to balance two different mindsets. It’s not easy. But with the release of our next record, I’m stepping away from it. I’m looking forward to solely focusing on music. We’ll see how that goes.

I read a funny story about you that I have to ask you about. Is it true you stole instruments from your school’s marching band?

There was a period where we used a sousaphone that we procured from the University of Washington’s marching band room. We returned it though and nobody knew. Not too many people [use] the sousaphone.

You’ve said that your study of poetry hinders your song-writing ability. I would assume it would be the opposite.

The rhythm and musicality of poetry is entirely dependent on the words and how they are spoken. When you’re writing lyrics for music, you have to depend on the musicality of the melody. I’ll easily write something and then have to step back and decide if it works well in the context of music instead of how it’s written on a page or how it’s spoken.

Does the songwriting process ever create friction with your bandmates if they want to go a different direction?

I’ve been lucky. They kind of let me have full control over the lyrics, so I have a lot of autonomy. But most of the collective work is on the music.

Does your new record have a different sound than your first record?

It’s much more mature. The strength of our musicianship has improved. I think it’s a good reflection of where we are at in our lives.

Watch below to see Hey Marseilles’ video for ‘Hold Your Head.’

“Hold Your Head” by Hey Marseilles from Look Sessions on Vimeo.