National Solo Album Month '05!

November 1, 2005 9:43 AM

November is National Solo Album Month! So, for the purposes of NaSoAlMo, what exactly is a solo album? An album of music you have written, played and recorded entirely by yourself. The shortest inarguably awesome album that a lot of people have heard is the first Ramones album, which is 29:09 long, so your solo album must be at least that long. Beyond that, its form and content are up to you. Sorry to wait until the last minute, but if you sign up today you'll still have 30 days to write and record your masterpiece!
posted by mcsweetie (52 comments total)

The seems like a good occasion for pointing out Defective Yeti's (a/k/a Shadowkeeper's) WriAShorStorWe, which seems less taxing than the other alternatives, both for creators and audience.
posted by argybarg at 9:54 AM on November 1, 2005

Hasn't American Idol taught us anything?
posted by smackfu at 10:02 AM on November 1, 2005

Hasn't American Idol taught us anything?

Does American Idol have anything to do with writing and recording your own material?
posted by joe lisboa at 10:10 AM on November 1, 2005

The shortest inarguably awesome album that a lot of people have heard is the first Ramones album, which is 29:09 long

Ahem, Slayer's Reign in Blood is 29:03 long, and is definitely awesome.
posted by driveler at 10:10 AM on November 1, 2005

from link: "The shortest inarguably awesome album that a lot of people have heard is the first Ramones album..."

That's the shortest inarguably ridiculous statement that a lot of people have read.
posted by koeselitz at 10:10 AM on November 1, 2005

"that a lot of people have heard" isl a pretty key qualification there, though, innit?
posted by joe lisboa at 10:13 AM on November 1, 2005

Wasn't there more than one Ramone? Wouldn't that make it something more than a "solo" album?
posted by flarbuse at 10:23 AM on November 1, 2005

Yeah, that Ramones assertion is the kind of dumb that undermines the rest of any proposal -- even were that proposal worth a buck, which this one ain't.

You're not talking about a solo album. You're talking about an overdubbed train wreck of different instruments played by someone with proficiency on none. That's something a musician should grow out of by junior high school.

Music is collaborative. It's supposed to require socialization. Ever heard the conversation metaphor? It stuck because it's true. Painting or poetry...do those in your basement. If you want to be a musician, you've got to go outside and make some friends.
posted by cribcage at 10:34 AM on November 1, 2005

cribcage : "Music is collaborative."

Music is music. Some is collaborative, some isn't. You don't exactly have to look at the album credits to determine if you can call the pleasant sounds coming from your speakers "music" or "solo pleasant audio signals"
posted by Bugbread at 10:45 AM on November 1, 2005

Yeah, cribcage, that's just ridiculous. Plenty of great music is created by one person.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:09 AM on November 1, 2005

Rectangles and squares. That's a pretty dumb distinction, if we're going to start arguing about what constitutes music. I have a CD by a woman named Annea Lockwood that consists of nothing but her banging on glass. Listen to David S. Ware's Live in the Netherlands and tell me whether that's music. Want to talk about Messiaen's bird calls? Rhythm, pitch, timbre. Stupid distinction. You know what I meant.
posted by cribcage at 11:12 AM on November 1, 2005

Does playing the skin flute qualify?
posted by NationalKato at 11:12 AM on November 1, 2005

Presumably, that you would prefer music to be played by more than one person? Or that playing with multiple people promotes some skills and insights that not doing so wouldn't?

That's true, but by the same measure, one could say that music is supposed to require working in multiple scales, or that it's supposed to contain multiple time signatures, or that it's supposed to involve high proficiency in multiple mallet xylophone playing, as they also provide skills and insights that not doing so wouldn't. I don't think any less of Beethoven for not incorporating Balinese song structures in his music, so I'm not sure why you would think less of a solo musician for not working with other people. And when you say "music is supposed to require socialization", it definitely comes off as implying that someone making music without socialization is not doing what they're supposed to.
posted by Bugbread at 11:20 AM on November 1, 2005

PlsStpShrtNngTtlsKThxBi
posted by chrominance at 11:36 AM on November 1, 2005

chrominance : "PlsStpShrtNngTtlsKThxBi"

N
posted by Bugbread at 11:42 AM on November 1, 2005

cribcage, I still don't know what you're trying to say. But the fact is that a great album can be created entirely by one person.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:12 PM on November 1, 2005

Cribcage: You're talking about an overdubbed train wreck of different instruments played by someone with proficiency on none.

One doesn't even need to like Prince, Todd Rundgren, Fred Frith, Lenny Kravitz, Snakefinger, Paul McCartney, or Morbid Angel to see how wrong you are, one merely needs to recognize that the instruments are played proficiently and that train wrecks are averted.

There's room for everything in music (and poetry and painting and everything else). Loud music, soft music, improvised music, composed music, algorithmic music, stochastic music, gregarious music, misanthropic music.

On a more general note, the first Fishbone record was outrageously great and barely 20 minutes. Or is that out of consideration because it was an ep? What is an ep anyway?
posted by Eothele at 12:15 PM on November 1, 2005

Eothele, EP stands for 'Extended Play.' That is, too long for a single and too short for an album.

LP, or 'Long Play,' is your typical Gramophone recording.
posted by NationalKato at 12:21 PM on November 1, 2005

What is an ep anyway?

Extended Play. It's shorter than an album and longer than a single.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:21 PM on November 1, 2005

Keep that racket down, you damn kids! I'm trying to write a novel over here!
posted by gigawhat? at 12:26 PM on November 1, 2005

Thanks, but what I'm getting at is how short can my solo album be before it's a long ep? That'd be a better way to set a time minimum than combing through the 10^bajillion albums that exist for precedent.
posted by Eothele at 12:44 PM on November 1, 2005

I was waiting patiently for someone to offer something more than a shrill, "You're wrong!" Props to Eothele for stepping to the plate -- but if those are your examples, I'm quite certain we have different ideas about which music belongs on CD, and which music belongs in a middle school talent show. (And I say that without having any idea which Paul McCartney album you're talking about.)

I've got a few thousand CDs. Examples of worthwhile solo albums include James Ulmer's Birthright, Charles Gayle's Solo in Japan, Peter Epstein's Solus, Bob Florence's Another Side, and probably about a hundred others just from my racks. Even overdubbing isn't necessarily bad: Despite healthy skepticism, Bill Evans pulled off Conversations with Myself successfully.

If you don't see the difference between those and a kid with a TASCAM overdubbing bass, drums, and a screaming guitar -- or if you think worthwhile music comes from sequencers -- that's fine; but consider there might be a reason why reasonable folks who have no musical experience instantly recognize the difference between a dropout playing coffee houses and someone with practiced craft.
posted by cribcage at 12:45 PM on November 1, 2005

cribcage : "If...you think worthwhile music comes from sequencers -- that's fine; but consider there might be a reason why reasonable folks who have no musical experience instantly recognize the difference between a dropout playing coffee houses and someone with practiced craft."

I've considered that reason, but I don't see what that has to do with worthwhile music coming out of sequencers.
posted by Bugbread at 12:48 PM on November 1, 2005

-- if you think worthwhile music comes from sequencers

the difference between a dropout playing coffee houses and someone with practiced craft.

Okay grandpa, I concede: the wax cylinder is a superior recording medium. Just stop lecturing us all already, won't ya?

Did Berklee triple their tuition for triple-necked guitar lessons, or did Guitar Center just cut your sales bonuses from October, because Jesus tapdancing, solo-album-recording Christ, there must be some explanation for so much smug bile in so little space.
posted by joe lisboa at 1:16 PM on November 1, 2005

Look, yes, most good music is made in collaboration. But let's consider:

-- Robert Johnson, Skip James, Charley Patton, Son House, Fred McDowell, any of 50 or so other solo blues musicians who produced an intensely alone form of blues that's as powerful as any played by a band;
-- Woody Guthrie, early Dylan, Uncle Dave Macon, Eck Robertson, or any of dozens of folk musicians playing on their own;
-- solo Bill Evans, Art Tatum, Thelonious Monk, etc, again playing as richly alone as most jazz combos;

or:

-- Stevie Wonder's "Living for the City" is played entirely by Stevie Wonder, as is much of Talking Book and Songs in the Key of Life.
-- Prince; same phenomenon
-- DJ Shadow's albums, despite the virtual "collaboration" with sampled musicians, are made by one guy and a sequencer + turntable.

or:

-- Beethoven's late sonatas for piano, composed by one very along deaf man.
posted by argybarg at 1:52 PM on November 1, 2005

...we have different ideas about which music belongs on CD, and which music belongs in a middle school talent show.

A cd is not a reward for an artistic achievement that is somehow quantified above a certain threshold. A cd is a tool for documenting something that you think is cool. If you think it's cool, chances are someone else will, whether you are a jazz snob or a no-talent twelve year old snot (and I hope you don't put Frith in the latter category). So my idea is that all music belongs on a cd. Even music I hate.

If you don't see the difference between those and a kid with a TASCAM overdubbing bass, drums, and a screaming guitar...

You mean the kid with a tascam that you just made up? As I read the linked site, anyone can participate, even James Blood Ulmer!

Actually a bunch of my friends and I do this for a day at a time, several times a year. You might not like the music that results, but alot of folks do, and it's really obnoxious of you to say that it's not music.
posted by Eothele at 2:11 PM on November 1, 2005

cribcage -- you've been pwn3d. Let's pray that your snobbery isn't a life long affliction.
posted by foot at 2:19 PM on November 1, 2005

-- Stevie Wonder's "Living for the City" is played entirely by Stevie Wonder, as is much of Talking Book and Songs in the Key of Life.
-- Prince; same phenomenon
-- DJ Shadow's albums, despite the virtual "collaboration" with sampled musicians, are made by one guy and a sequencer + turntable.

or:

Don't forget Todd Rundren's Something/Anything. The first album of it anyway
posted by timsteil at 2:33 PM on November 1, 2005

I dunno, Richard Thompson has recorded a ton of solo stuff that I think is quite good. Perhaps it is "collaborative" in that much of it is live? Seriously, there's a ton of music out there that's solo and great. Why am I responding to a pompous ass troll?
posted by Eekacat at 2:33 PM on November 1, 2005

are made by one guy and a sequencer + turntable

And,, very likely, ProTools and something like Ableton Live.

Also: Mike Doughty's Skittish is one of my favorite records of the 1990s -- all solo.
posted by eustacescrubb at 3:37 PM on November 1, 2005

Most of you aren't worth replying to. You're talking about Dave Matthews, and I'm talking about music. Prince? DJ Shadow? Great. Have fun. "Hackerspeak"? 219PM...yup. School's out.

Argybarg: Those are great examples. Let's talk about Bill Evans and Thelonious Monk; what do you think those two would have produced without Orrin Keepnews? Listen to Bill Evans's solo playing, and you'll hear Scott LaFaro -- even in 1980. Listen to Monk, and you'll hear...well, Monk was Monk. He was in his own world. But those records would have been sterile without Keepnews, and it wasn't because he had a bankroll.

Beethoven. Another great example. Point to the music Beethoven created on his own. He was a composer, and he composed pieces for performers. He was also an incessant revisionist. He would write; someone would play; he would revise. That's not collaboration?

John LaPorta used to tell a great story about shedding at home for weeks while recuperating from an injury. Then he hit some gig, and he discovered he had lost his rhythm. Rhythm doesn't exist in your basement with a metronome. Ever wonder why music and theater pair well, as opposed to music and painting or theater and sculpting? Drama.

Painting. Photography. These, you practice alone. But if you're an actor, or a dancer, or a musician, and you think you're going to create something worthwhile by your lonesome...you're not.
posted by cribcage at 4:02 PM on November 1, 2005

cribcage : "Ever wonder why music and theater pair well, as opposed to music and painting or theater and sculpting?"

They're both progressive as opposed to static media? Same reason music goes with light shows but not with still lights. Same reason that music would go well with a sped-up film of someone painting all by his/her lonesome, or a sculptor chiselling all by his/her self.

cribcage : "But if you're an actor, or a dancer, or a musician, and you think you're going to create something worthwhile by your lonesome...you're not."

So you've never seen a good solo show or solo dance? Hell, the best dance I've seen has all been solo.
posted by Bugbread at 4:14 PM on November 1, 2005

Hell, the best dance I've seen has all been solo.

I don't think we're talking about the same kind of dancing. ;-)
posted by cribcage at 4:22 PM on November 1, 2005

Cribcage should record 29:05 of himself lecturing an empty hall on why he's the final authority on music (collaborative or otherwise) and submit it to the project. Maybe out of pity they'd give him a ribbon for "Biggest Fucking Prick (Metaphorically, Of Course)."

But if you're an actor, or a dancer, or a musician, and you think you're going to create something worthwhile by your lonesome...you're not.

Well that settles it, then. Stevie Wonder isn't musical. Who's gonna break the news to him?

We get it: people don't appreciate your craft or vision or talent or whatever. Here's a solution: Remove the bug from your ass and write a song about how it makes you feel. I guarantee I'll dance to it. With a sequencer in each hand. Smiling.
posted by joe lisboa at 4:48 PM on November 1, 2005

You're talking about Dave Matthews, and I'm talking about music.

What is this thing "music" of which you speak? Seriously. I don't particularly like Dave Matthews, in fact I like him alot less than most of the music you've mentioned liking so far. But it sure sounds like music to me. What am I missing? Because I think you don't have an answer, and that out of sheer ego you assume that the limits of your personal taste and the limits of the musical universe must be the same.

When you're done congratulating yourself for being able to tell the difference between a jazz visionary and an adolescent puke, why not challenge yourself to learn to tell the difference between Dave Matthews, Prince, and DJ Shadow? It can be done.

But if you're an actor, or a dancer, or a musician, and you think you're going to create something worthwhile by your lonesome...you're not.

Then how is it possible that your own cd collection contains, by your estimation, around 105 worthwhile solo records?
posted by Eothele at 5:11 PM on November 1, 2005

cribcage:

Your argument seems to have reduced to just the point that music cannot be made outside of human communities. This is at once true and a bit too banal to remark on.

Yes, musicians listen to other musicians, talk to people, play their music for other people, and adjust according to the response they get. I think this is well understood. I also agree that musicians gain something from playing with each other.

Yet nothing stops a musician from setting up a recording device and a microphone and playing brilliant music all by their lonesome. Even having an engineer on hand that what you're denying does, in fact, happen: A musician can sing almost to himself, or to an chimera, or to a memory. That is, in fact, what's behind the spookiness of the Delta blues (Robert Johnson in particular), which sounds like it's resonating inside an individual's skull. It's also what makes Prince and Stevie Wonder's best music so spectral -- it comes from that intense palette of exploring their own psyches, of being entirely on their own. (There's a reason why Stevie's best album is named Innervisions.)

I'll admit that I wouldn't recommend it -- most people's basement recordings are crap. But there is great music made in isolation sometimes.
posted by argybarg at 5:50 PM on November 1, 2005

Oops: read:

Even having an engineer on hand doesn't stop what you're denying from, in fact, happening
posted by argybarg at 5:52 PM on November 1, 2005

Jesus christ. If by "solo" you mean the person is born in a concrete bunker next to a guitar and a 4-track and never meets another human being, I guess you're right. I've never heard good cave-dwelling feral child rock. But if you're going to argue that Beethoven was writing for performers...Jesus, man. Who do you think John Darnielle writes for, toasters? You don't make any sense.
Hey! Guess what! Art can be collaborative or solo! And art can be defined as "whatever anyone says it is!" I've had too many discussions with assholes like you to try and rehash the obvious.

preview: argybarg- YES
posted by 235w103 at 5:54 PM on November 1, 2005

Oh, leave poor cribcage alone. You're messing with his solo performance art piece here on the blue. I'll leave it to you to provide the appropriately scathing title.
posted by joe lisboa at 6:05 PM on November 1, 2005

I'll start with the peanut gallery. I think you meant 29:09, Joe, but I get your point. A word to the wise from a fellow who has enjoyed the guilty pleasure of a good flamewar: You want to avoid mixing profanity with hyperbole. It's like ammonia and bleach: Bad things happen. More "clever," less "frothing lunatic."

Eothele, on the other hand, was actually pretty funny. But to answer the question: The word is, "entertainment." Ever hear that line, "Everybody makes their own fun..."? Yeah.

But there is great music made in isolation sometimes.

Of course. Exceptions to every rule, etc.

No, I'm not talking about a tree falling in the forest. I mentioned James Ulmer, and someone shot back, "What about him, huh?" The answer is, Have you heard the stuff he recorded before he started working with Vernon Reid? Listen to that. Now listen to Birthright, and consider whether it's really a solo effort.

You're right, of course: There are exceptions. (Although anyone who thinks Beethoven was one of 'em...) I didn't think I had to state, "By the way, there are exceptions to this broad generalization"; I figure adults understand that, and kids like Joe will eventually go to bed. But the point was, to return to the original topic: NaNoWriMo will make you a better writer. NaSoAlMo is liable to make you a worse musician.
posted by cribcage at 6:09 PM on November 1, 2005

Yeah, I'm the "frothing lunatic." And you're an insufferably pumpous asshole. So be it. You've been pretty thoroughly humiliated and you've had ample opportunity to demonstrate your superior musical taste, so how about you slink off to bed before you make it any worse for yourself.

I mean, I'm sure the rest of us would love to hear more elliptically lectures on your deep, deep tastes and/or the appropriate rules for "flaming."

And knocking my age is funny seeing as ... oh, hold the fucking presses. You did go to Berklee! That was just a playful swipe, above, but I guess I hit a tad too close to home, now, with my lucky guess, didn't I? Ha, that actually did put a smile on my face. Something about living up (down?) to your own stereotypical behavior. Tre-fucking-mendous. See, I swore. It's okay, the kids have gone to bed, remember?

The only flaming I detect here is your unmitigated, flaming arrogance. Good luck with that jazzy speechwriting.
posted by joe lisboa at 7:10 PM on November 1, 2005

pumpous asshole - n., 1) A person so thoroughly impressed with his own opinions that he defies basic mechanical laws, 2) someone who blows smoke up their own ass.
posted by joe lisboa at 7:13 PM on November 1, 2005

See, Joe, you're making all kinds of mistakes. You've got to buckle down that profanity. Like I said, you want to aim for "clever"; so also, definitely avoid that fourth-grade "I know you are but what am I?" ("I should go to bed? No...umm...YOU should go to bed!!")

Now, I know you're eager to retort; so after you click POST COMMENT, you're going to think of something you wish you'd added. That's natural, but fight the urge to post again. Your reply might not have been perfect; but tagging it with a second post is bathetic. It takes the wind right out of your sails. You don't want to seem obsessed, do you?

Speaking of which: You read my profile? And you even clicked through to my webpage?! Whoah, fella. You don't ever want to let people online get under your skin like that. Flamewars can be good, clean fun -- but only when they stay in the thread. Once you start researching a guy's posting history and looking up his profiles on different websites...then you've become one of those people. There's nothing more pathetic than those people -- not even Trekkies, and they wear costumes.
posted by cribcage at 8:10 PM on November 1, 2005

cribcage, distinguishing music from the prattle oozing out of those of us excluded from the 99.999th percentile of jazz genius: "entertainment."

Is this your grandfather's "I'm above the lewd carnalities of popular culture" canard, or are you saying that Dave Matthews fails to entertain you? Either way, it's an awfully subjective basis on which to illegitimize other people's musical experiences.

Have you heard the stuff he recorded before he started working with Vernon Reid? Listen to that. Now listen to Birthright, and consider whether it's really a solo effort.

235w103's bunker comment bears repeating here. NaSoAlMo does not require that you sever all contact with other musicians, nor that your music bear no recognizable influence.

NaSoAlMo is liable to make you a worse musician.

If your music is limited by your misanthropy, then yes, it will make your existing problems worse. If your music is limited by inertia, procrastination, perfectionism, fear of failure, inability to pay quality sidemen, inability of quality sidemen to interpret your obtuse gestures scribbles and mumblings, gigging and jamming when you should be buckling down, or worries that someone will think your music is entertaining (or was it not entertaining- sometimes one word answers aren't as clear as you think they are), then it stands to make you a better musician. Or more precisely, it stands to enable you to give flesh to music that would otherwise have been stilborn in your head, and then those of us who like it play naked air guitar to it and be entertained/enlightened/inspired/edified or otherwise improved, and those of us who don't will still have our Annea Lockwood cd's.
posted by Eothele at 9:22 PM on November 1, 2005

I definitely think a musician should spend some time developing a singular vision for his/her own music. Otherwise it doesn't matter how many friends you have, because no one has anything original to say, and you're left with a circle jerk and a big spoogey mess. Like jazz.
posted by speicus at 10:06 PM on November 1, 2005

Did Berklee triple their tuition for triple-necked guitar lessons, or did Guitar Center just cut your sales bonuses from October, because Jesus tapdancing, solo-album-recording Christ, there must be some explanation for so much smug bile in so little space.

Ha. See, I'm a music snob, but cribcage here is just being an ass. Must you hijack the thread with such douchebaggery?

Your thesis is baseless, cribcage, and to engage it in depth would be a waste of time. Collaboration is not necessary or sufficient for good music, and I would expect that most serious musicians know that.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:20 PM on November 1, 2005

Without hearing a single note of your compositions, cribcage, I'd be willing to wager that Joey Ramone had more humanity in one of his farts than could ever be scraped from every self-absorbed masturbatory note you've ever committed to tape. But keep on attacking my spelling and proletarian diction if that makes you feel better about being such a pretentious douchebag, douchebag.

... and good luck with that jazzy speechwriting.
posted by joe lisboa at 10:26 PM on November 1, 2005

Joe Lisboa: Cribcage is right that you should aim for clever more than angry. Cribcage is (in my opinion) in the wrong about the music issue, but getting so aggressive about it just weakens your own position.

Cribcage: I dunno if you remember, but this whole thing started with a comment by yourself that links to your own homepage, where it says clearly on the first page that you graduated from Berklee. While in principle looking up somebody's homepage and scrounging for dirt makes someone one of those people, I don't think that's the case here, unless you consider someone clicking on a link you yourself put in the thread to be a quality of those people, in which case we now have a very different definition of those people. I suspect that's not the case, and that you just forgot that you linked us up in the initial phrase that started all the controversy.

Eothele: Yes. You phrased everything I was thinking 100 times better than I could have. Especially the bit about which people NaSoAlMo will hurt, and which it will help.
posted by Bugbread at 4:31 AM on November 2, 2005

cribcage, you really blew it.
posted by mcsweetie at 9:39 AM on November 2, 2005

Hmmm.

I've released two albums already but I might do this one just to get me moving again.

Also it would irritate one of my author friends who rants about people who think NaNoWriMo will help jumpstart their careers.
posted by Foosnark at 10:02 AM on November 2, 2005

Bugbread: you're right, of course. And I apologize (not to cribcage, I stand by the content of my comments if not the form) to the rest of you for taking the bait and derailing the thread. Insufferable (and unwarranted) elitism wrt aesthetics drives me insane, and I've amply demonstrated my insanity, above. Although I did get a little suspicious when cribcage repeatedly introduced Dave Matthews to the discussion -- someone's a wee bit obsessed about other people's imaginary musical taste(s), but whatever.

I think there should be a follow-up thread (metatalk? musicfilter?) for mefites who participate in this project. I think that'd be a cool record swap, personally. But what the hell do I know, right?
posted by joe lisboa at 10:33 AM on November 2, 2005

joe lisboa : "I think that'd be a cool record swap, personally. But what the hell do I know, right?"

I think if all agreed that it was a swapping of records of "aesthetically appealing intentionally created or recorded sounds, which may or may not contain music", instead of records of "music", that would be a cool idea.
posted by Bugbread at 10:54 AM on November 2, 2005