| Interview with antiGUY. |
 |
 |
|
anti anti anti. Hit Read More for the interview and money saving coupons!  tinfoil.music: Thanks for taking some time to answer some of the questions that were on absolutly nobodies minds! antiGUY: Don't be so hard on yourself! I read tinfoil and believe me the suits at the RIAA, MPAA etc don't consider you a nobody. A thorn in the side, a threat to their vital interests maybe, but not a nobody. I'm sure their lobbyists are right now trying to bribe Canadian politicians to pass a law that would put you out of business and the Royal Mounted Police will be at your doorstep in no time. tm: Tell us a little more about antiMusic. We see that it was started back in the dark-ages of the internet, 1998, but what prompted the creation of antiMusic? aG: antiMusic was inspired by bad music. Keavin (Wiggins) started Rocknworld.com in 1998 with a vision to expose cool yet underrated music. Then sometime in late 98 or early 99, a bunch of us were out seeing some local bands destroy Orange County's music legacy with rap-rock and numetal (one of the bands was Zebrahead if I remember right. Remember them? I didn't think so.) After the show we went to a local Denny's like dive called Norms which used to have the absolute best pizza (except the night they substituted pizza sauce for ketchup). Where was I? Oh yeah, we were eating and BSing about how absolutely bad these bands were and Brian, who was the original assistant editor of Rocknworld, suggested that Keavin or somebody review these terrible bands to warn people how bad they were and Keavin said something along the lines that Rocknworld was about promoting good music not trashing the bad stuff. We got into a bit of debate about the value of warning the unsuspecting public about the damage to their psyche that some of this music would cause and someone tossed out that Keavin should start a site called badmusic.com or sucksass.com and few dozen other choice names. He laughed it off but a few months later he decided to start a new site that would fill that request. I like to think my nickname inspired the name antiMusic since my friends have called me antiguy for ages because of my love of counter-pointing in discussions, but Keavin claims it was inspired by a line in some book on the Grammy Awards. Something about assholes like Streisand started them because they thought rock n' roll was anti-music. I know the truth and now tinfoil readers do as well. I was robbed! Anyway, that was the original intention but it quickly grew beyond that negative focus and as time went on antiMusic became the dominant site out of all of the ones that sprang up afterwards. Plus it's easier to tell people antimusic.com in a conversation then having to spell out rocknworld since most people toss an 'i' in there and wind up on a site that is very un-rockin' in a folk kind of way. aG: You get free tickets and swag? When the hell did that happen? I always get these notices on CDs that say they are the property of X record company and must be returned upon demand and if I share them online they will hunt down my first born and boil them in oil and sue my great-grandmother (who doesn't even have a PC!) The funniest thing is I've probably kept only a couple dozen of the CDs I've received from this gig over the years. I used to give them away to friends but a couple years ago Keavin started giving excess CDs to an organization that sends them to the troops over in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I figured that was a good place for them. If the troops do not like them, they can always use them to torture the enemy.
tm: In the years you've been with antiMusic you have seen alot of things come and go. What are some of the highlights and lowlights you've seen? aG: That's a loaded question. Not many highlights unfortunately. I've seen the industry accelerate their self imposed downward spiral over the past decade. When you allow bean-counters to dictate the direction of art, you will always end up with the lowest common denominator. Just look at TV and what I call shitcoms. The music industry has become so much of a follow the leader and repackager that there are no leaders left and any band that could come along and shake things up like Guns N Roses and Nirvana did would never have a prayer of doing so under today's music industry business model of "sign, release and drop". It's really sad. The big irony is that we are now in an age where far more is possible. Bands can (and a few are) using new technology to reach fans directly. Podcasts, the internet etc. But every step of the way the big labels have tried to stop progress that in the end would benefit them. In the States, they are now trying to talk some Senators into passing a new copyright act that would basically outlaw podcasts (if I read the information correctly.) That's just insane. I love podcasts myself, its cool hearing other people that love music doing their own thing and playing the stuff they love, instead of tuning into the radio for a preprogrammed hour of the same stale songs that would never get on the air if program directors picked songs based on merit instead of other influences (hookers and blow?). Since our politicians can be bought really easily, I would imagine this sham law will be passed to the detriment of music fans and musicians. The industry is historically retarded when it comes to new technology, they have a tremendous promotional tool at their disposal and they fight it every step of the way. For example: Some labels want websites to actually pay them to link to their videos. Aren't they called promotional videos? What's next having magazines and website pay a royalty fee every time they mention an artist's name? The industry was against long playing records, they were against cassettes, again against compact discs and are now against the internet, podcasts and satellite radio. But you can't fight progress and iTunes shows that mp3s really are the new singles format and can succeed. People will pay a buck for a song, but most won't pay $8 for a lame CD single with two to four songs. The major labels should do more to embrace progress than fight it because they may be writing their own death warrant if they continue their bullheaded ways. I hope that happens. Long enough answer for you? Highlights: I would say the same things the industry is fighting and how the internet brought the music back to the people and everyday music fans like you and me can get out there and talk to thousands of people about what we love and hate about bands and the industry AND PEOPLE CAN TALK BACK!
As to these silly guesses at who I am, I don't know where people come up with this stuff. Does it really matter? Was KISS more interesting with make-up or without? The truth wouldn't shock anyone, just bore them. But thanks for the Bret Michaels one, that's funny one. I've actually never met him, but if I ever do I'll be sure to tell him that you started it and he can come after you [Oh thanks, prick! - Tin]. For the record I have a much better voice! tm: You seem to have a problem with just about all rap music after 1995 (but really, who doesn't?) Was there any specific person or event that prompted this? aG: Nothing specific. I say 1995 arbitrarily, but it probably goes back further than that with Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer. I see rap as being in its hair metal phase right now. Metal started out with having something to say but once the big labels got involved it devolved into the retarded banal garbage like "Girls, Girls, Girls" and "Cherry Pie". While "Rapper's Delight" didn't have anything important to say, rappers like Ice T came out and tried to carry a message with their music. I still listen to "Power" and he really did have a message, a positive one about staying off of drugs, but pick any popular rap song today and all you hear is lame boasting about all the money they are making off of stupid people buying their crap, their bling, gold teeth or "crunk". 50 Cent or Lil' Jon rapping about "crunk" or "bling" is about as deep as Taime Downe (Faster Pussycat) singing about lifting a girl's number off of a bathroom wall. There is nothing wrong with frivolous lyrics and having fun as long as the music is good enough to carry it, but in both cases (modern rap and hair metal) the music matches the insipid lyrics. Someone once joked on antiMusic that rap is an acronym for Retards Attempting Poetry. I agree with that when you're talking about the current crop of so called "artists". tm: Did you think back when this all started that you would still be doing this in 2006? Were you hoping that you would have a gaggle of groupies by now? aG: To be honest, I didn't really think about it. I was just having fun writing about things I love and hate. I'm not nearly as involved as I was in the past, work and life keep me from contributing like I used to, but I'm happy to see all of the people at antiMusic now that are more than filling the tiny void my absence may have created. I doubt many people miss me as a result, or even noticed that I'm not around that much. tm: You have a day job that takes up a lot of your time. You're newly married (I'm really, really sorry) as well, so why do you keep doing this? Surely it's not for the readers undying love and endless stream of hatemail. aG: Like I said in the previous question, I'm not that involved any more but when I do write something now it usually because I feel strongly about it either way. I guess I'm childlike when it comes to music because I do care deeply about it while most people when they reach 30 are more worried about real life problems. I tried my luck as a musician but it didn't pan out so writing about music is a pretty decent substitute. And thank Lemmy I'm not alone. I see others on antiMusic and sites like tinfoil that appear to be doing it for the same reason I have. So ask yourself why do you do it? The answer would probably be pretty close to mine. I'll pass on your condolences to antiGIRL. For the record (if she reads this) it's been a blast so far, but probably because I'm on the road so much of the time working. tm: Last question. Who would win in a fight between Jani Lane and Mark Slaughter? aG: No competition at all. Just take Mark's last name into account. (I always thought it should be slaughter by castration. I mean, how does he hit those notes?) I see it playing out like this: Mark would first blind Jani with hairspray and then wrap his spandex around his neck. It wouldn't take much force, considering that Jani would most likely be in his permanent falling down drunk state. Jani wouldn't and couldn't put up much of fight and would be quickly slaughtered and Mark would yell over his dead drunk corpse "Who's the down boy now?" But the real question is; who in 2006 would care?
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites          Add your comment
|
||||||||||||
