New BLOG (23 April 2008)
I've started a blog, after checking out Julia Sweeney's website and liking how the official site melded into the blog (and loving what she writes). I'll use it to try to keep up with the many things inside and outside of my shrinking head (and keep YOU up with things, if there is a YOU out there). Rather than having to keep updating each website and MySpace page with newer content, I'll just link to the blog, where I will write about anything (closed minds beware!). http://joelpelletier.blogspot.com

Tribute Bands - Real Music? (13 August 2007)
In December 2007 I joined a tribute band, The Who Show (more info on my music page). I began getting the itch to play live LOUD rock music again in mid-2006, having semi-retired from live original performing more than a year before to make room for the touring I was doing with my American Fundamentalists painting. Truth be told, I was also worn out from all of the logistical nightmares involved with singlehandedly promoting, booking, carting around and setting up a seven-piece band with a string quartet, with all the extra mics, headphones and other gear required to pull it off in club environments, only to be so tired by the time of downbeat that it was hard to pout out for the three people in the room who actually showed up to listen.

In committing to get back into live playing, I decided I wanted to play cover music, not original music, but being so difficult to please there were few bands or repertoire I wanted to learn and perform. I first joined a 1960's cover band, armed with a new $200 Chinese-made Beatles/Hofner-style bass that played and sounded incredible. A half dozen rehearsals and one free party gig later, both the band and I seemed to mutually lose interest in each other. I think I was a bit TOO intense for them...

So, if not a themed "cover band," then the only way I could limit the music I was playing to music I truly LOVED was to form or join a "tribute band." Tribute bands specialize in ONE band's music, usually limited to classic bands with large, popular repertoire (although interestingly enough, I have since seen and heard of tribute bands of almost any band, even current bands with only a couple of minor hits - but I guess these guys are simply TRUE fans who want to play this music). One of the key selling points of a Tribute band is that they already HAVE a name and fan base nationally and even internationally, and (most) the songs being covered are worldwide classic hits. Some bands simply show up in street clothes and play their version of the bands tunes, along with other similar cover tunes from other artists; others try to duplicate the SOUND as accurately as possible; and others tre to go the whole visual route as well, attempting to faithfully reproduce an athentic concert experience looking and sounding like the original band as much as possible (with gear, costume, wigs, etc).

The bands whose music I wanted to perform had to have both great songs (to me) and great bass parts. In college I was in a RUSH tribute band for 4 years, absorbing Getty Lee's playing and (the best I could) vocal style (while also performing progressive music from Yes, The Police, Led Zeppelin, King Crimson and our own fairly indulgent and totally forgettable original material). We never tried to look like the band, only to pull off the same sound with the same three piece lineup as the band we admired, with varied results.

In 2006, the only bands I thought I would be interested in performing this intensely would be Yes, Led Zeppelin or The Who. I checked out a local Led Zeppelin tribute band live, who performed searingly loud although fairly inauthentic (for the rhythm section, at least) versions of mostly ROCKER Zep songs, which appealed to the crowd, but not to me (for me, Zeppelin will always be a highly progressive and musically sophisticated band with incredible musicians and a screaming singer with a voice more interesting AS a musical instrument than the lyrics that framed it). What I was really interested in doing was a BRUFORD-era YES tribute, where musicianship trumped look (and most probably a female lead singer would do a much better job than a small one-in-a-billion soprano man like Jon Anderson). I bought a Rickenbacker bass, something I had always wanted to play, and started learning much of Chris Squire's bass parts from that era. After two monthas of searching in vain for a Bruford-style drummer, I was starting to get a bit frustrated.

I then found an ad for a WHO tribute band. John Entwistle, along with Lee and Squire, were the bassists I studied and copied in my teens when I first started playing and making my own electric basses (including an over-the-top "Flinstone-style" bass with a huge head, influenced by a bass John played in the TOMMY movie). Entwistle's style, tone and bass technique is something I had absorbed decades ago. I called and offered to audition - a few months later I got the call, got a cheap Epiphone Thunderbird bass to show my commitment, and learned a half dozen Who tunes. The rest (so far) is history...

As I was preparing for the audition, I was reminded of how I felt auditioning for cover bands many years ago, and how I never really liked them much just hearing them (and was a bit embarrassed performing with most of them, although when I was actually DOING it I could usually blot this out and just concentrate on the bass parts). I wondered how I REALLY felt about the whole "tribute band" thing. Can it be a serious way to make music, or are they just cover band clowns appealing to a very narrow musical subculture? Except for a few bands that no longer exist (Beatles, Led Zeppelin, etc), most tribute bands are actually trying to glom on to an established fan base of an actual, current existing band. Most tribute bands that I have seen don't come even close to matching any of the musical sound, power or authenticity of the original band.

Here's a few things I have realized since really getting into this thing:

1. Most ALL bands are cover bands, including most original bands, who make their living performing hits sometimes created decades ago with mostly different musicians
2. Most all musicians make their living playing OTHER people's music; it's what they put into it that helps top make it uniquely their own
3. ALL musicians and performers wear costumes onstage; some are wearing their "street costume" that fits into the current definition of "cool", at least for their genre/social/economic group, but most musicians wear uniforms from matching suits to tuxes to coat and tails. I recently accidentally attended a "Casual Friday's" night at the LA Philharmonic, and actually hated all the different clothing the orchestra wore, feeling that it took away from the visual unity of the ensemble.
4. Most all original bands attempt to SOUND like an established, successful band in order to get that record deal (many times I have been advised by managers and record company people to "pick a band and write songs like them" to get a publishing or record a deal). This is how the music business works - they are afraid of something truly different, and only sign unique and ground-breaking bands after they have had so much indie success that they can no longer ignore their financial potential
5. Anything can be ART if you take it to the highest level, and if you take it seriously enough, then it IS serious

While shooting a live promo video in June 2007, the director Jeff Stein, who was personal friends with the original THE WHO, and directed their only film documentary, 1979's THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT. Jeff told me that when he saw me walking onto the stage in my full costume, plugging in a bass and playing John's bass parts, he was actually creeped out how much I BECAME John Entwistle.

What more could I ask for - if I can SCARE true WHO fans into thinking John has come back to life, then it's truly fun.

Morals vs. Ethics (16 January 2007)
A recent website article entitled The Lie Of Moral Atheism blogger Bill Wilson continus the timeless canard that without god there can be no morality OR ethics. This is exactly the subject of a planned painting for quite a while now (see it larger here), and have spent some time thinking about this issue over the last few years. I could not resist sending Bill my two cents, but although I'm sure his commentary will remain live for quite some time (as will this common view across the planet), I doubt my response will ever be posted there, so I post it here:

Bill,

In your article about the SCA and Arlene-Marie, it seems you confuse morals with ethics, and claim that only persons of faith can have either. Morals is based on a punishment concept, where God commands certain laws or actions, which men are supposed to follow without question or pay the consequences (in this life in the Old Testament, or in the next life in the New Testament). Ethics is based on consensus amongst men and women, rules agreed upon because they enable us to live our lives with each other here on this earth, regardless of each person's, family's or country's religious beliefs.

Your morality can inform or guide your ethical decisions, but morality is a personal thing between you and your God, and cannot (and should not) be forced on others.

By claiming that there can be no ethics without the fear of God's punishment, you deny 7000 years of human civilization, politics, arts, philosophy and ethics.

Ethics, because of it's ability to evolve with human civilization, supercedes morality, especially when morality is is rooted in ancient laws and practices. Contemporary ethics concludes that it is wrong to execute a woman because she commits adultery (note recent cases in Ethiopia), even though, according to Leviticus and other religious texts, it is moral.

As for Arlene-Marie, no one is perfect, and she corrected her statement. Ask Rev. Haggard about perfection in morality. Ethics says he did nothing "wrong" to us or his congregation, only (perhaps) to his wife and family - and himself - by lying about his true nature for so long. It is ethical to conclude that this is a matter between him and his family, and none of our business.

Which, interestingly enough for a very moralistic community, seems to be exactly how the issue is being handled.

Remodernism and Stuckism (21 August 2006)
I recently discovered the existence of an Art movement called Remodernism (also referred to as Struckism). Wiki has a few postings sbout this: Remodernism, Stuckism, Stuckism in America. Here's Wiki's intro to Remodernism:

"Remodernism is a term promulgated by Billy Childish and Charles Thomson, in an attempt to introduce a period of new spirituality into art, culture and society to replace Postmodernism, which they accused of being bankrupt and cynical. Its premise is that the potential of the Modernist vision has not been fulfilled, that its development has been in the wrong direction and that this vision needs to be reclaimed, redefined and redeveloped. It advocates the search for truth, knowledge and meaning, and challenges formalism. The ideas were announced in a manifesto "Remodernism"."

It turns out there are some LA Stuckists, who have seen my American Fundamementalists painting when it was on display in a gallery in North Hollywood in 2004. We are in general agreement regarding "contemporary art", which remonds me of the "tonalist/atonalist" arguments back in my music school days. I was and am firmly in the "tonalist" camp, and in the "figurative/non-figurative" debate also find myself firmly in the former. We have been emaling back and forth, I have been accepted as a "member" (along with links and an image of my work at their site), and they have also reposted my "Art in the 21st Century" essay on thier blog. Although I prefer the term Remodernist, I look forward to meeting and hanging with some of these LA-area painters, and perhaps doing a group show in the future.

Here's a note I sent to them:

I have recently (in the last 2 years) re-entered the art world after a couple of decades concentrating on music. I have completed a very large work that is critical of current American politics, religion, economics and (by it's existence) modern "art." What I have discovered is:

1. The ART BUSINESS is worse than the MUSIC BUSINESS
2. Being much smaller than the MUSIC BUSINESS, the ART BUSINESS is even more inbred and set in it's own status quo of small galleries, local and international museums
3. POSTER ART is in the position to destroy real "art" just as non-representational and nihilist art (because it celebrates mind-numbing simplicity and art as graphic design)
4. The greatest French word of all is BANAL, which describes so much of what is American culture, as well as "modern/postmodern" art

Aesthetic vs. Divine Experience (18 August 2006)
In a recent TruthDig posting Sam Harris, bestselling author of "The End of Faith" delivers a scathing review of "The Language of God," a new book by Human Genome Project head Francis Collins that attempts to demonstrate a harmony between science and evangelical Christianity. Sam writes: "According to Collins, belief in the God of Abraham is the most rational response to the data of physics and biology, while "of all the possible worldviews, atheism is the least rational." Taken at face value, these claims suggest that "The Language of God" will mark an unprecedented breakthrough in the history of ideas... Collins describes the moment that he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ:
"On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains... the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.
If this account of field research seems a little thin, don't worry-a recent profile of Collins in Time magazine offers supplementary data. Here, we learn that the waterfall was frozen in three streams, which put the good doctor in mind of the Trinity..."

I posted the following comment:

So Mr. Collins had a profound and overwhelming Aesthetic experience in the woods, and because his training was in science and not the arts, he could only interpret this as divine.

Many non-theists are science-types for the obvious reason that REASON appeals to their personality and worldview. But sometimes it seems many in the "Humanist" community (scientists/freethinkers/atheists/agnostics) forget that the term Humanist implies all of humanities and the human condition, especially the intangible and immeasurable sensual activities of the Arts. There is no contradistinction between demanding a rational worldview and standing in awe of extreme beauty, sensual and intellectual ecstasy. This, in fact, is what makes life worth living and so wonderful. Belief in a deity, imaginary friends or other childish notions is not required to appreciate the real "magic" that exists in our lives, from art to food to orgasm.

As a musician and artist, I have always been aware of the line that must be walked between technical proficiency and inspired interpretation. Without both, there is no music, no art. Life is like that as well - reason balanced with intuition, intellect with ecstasy. We don't need gods and mysticism to explain this, we just need to look at ourselves.

Mr. Collins needs to take some art appreciation classes, eat a nice piece of chocolate or drink a glass of fine wine and get over himself. (JP)

My First Trip to Disney Hall (February 2004)
In January 2004 I had a chance to attend my first concert at the new Walt Disney Hall in Los Angeles. Zubin Metha was in town to conduct the Los Angeles Philharmonic in Beethoven's 9th. Hmmm, hearing one of the world's great conductors conducting the GREATEST piece of music EVER written, performed by one of the world's premier orchestras in the newest (and rumoured to be one of the finest) concert halls in the world. Well... OK...

Of course, the first night I got there I waited over an hour in the stand-by line, hoping for a Thirsday night ticket to this sold-out concert. No such luck, but I was able to buy a $68 ticket for the next evening, so at least I didn't have to rush down there on a Friday worrying about even getting in.

I did arrive early enough the next evening to hear the start of a dry-as-toast pre-concert lecture, then walk the grounds outside of the hall. Lots of interesting metallic geometric shapes, but not sure what it had to do with music, art, or even the structure of the building. My first impressions of the inside of the building, before they let us in the hall itself, was lots of en=mpty, wasted hall space. it's as if they were so proud of the architecture that they wanted to show off every square foot of blank wall, which coould be MUCH better used showcasing art or something, like an organic West Coast Guggenheim. Oh, and the ugliest carpet I have ever seen...

The inside of the hall (EXCEPT for the carpet) is visually magnificent. But that meant nothing after the orchestra started the first movement. The opening chords of the 9th are still able to bring tears to my eyes (a pleasant reminder of why I love this music). As for the acoustics, I thought I KNEW this score, but I heard things in Beethoven's 9th that I never noticed before, thanks to the clarity of the wind section. I was sitting in the side with the ass end of the flute fireing right at my head, so the flute parts were a bit loud, but the balance was overall incredible, especially since I was on the side rather than in front. I look forward to attending other programs in the future form different parts of the room, reaquianting my ear to whatstrings REALLY sound like (as opposed to harsh and overly-pumped up low end regularly heard in recordings).

Art and the 21st Century (25 January 2004)
What is Art (with a capitol "A") and the Artist in this 21st Century? Jacques Barzun (in "From Dawn to Decadence") suggests that the Western culture has run its course. There's nothing left, and the proof is that Art today is all recycle and homage. No new ideas anymore.

I fear he may be right. 500 years was a pretty good run...

But is an artist only someone who thinks up something new? Is "new," unique," "different" or "cutting edge" all that matters? Maybe that's the trap Art fell into in the 20th Century; faster and faster rule breaking, burning through genres, techniques and scandals in a desperate Blitzkrieg of "newness" until there was nothing new left. J.S. Bach was dogged by this most of his life, and was only resurrected as a master decades after his death (during his lifetime his sons were considered the great ones, and he an old fashioned stick-in-the-mud).

Then there's the whole career/success/money thing. Can I call myself an artist if I don't pay the bills with my art? Amateur artists used to be thought of in high regard, but we're in America, and successful people are rich people (even if they don't admit to being rich - ever tried to raise a family on $500k/yr?). At the risk of admitting I've seen Howard Stern on cable a few times, I once heard him remark to a woman that her 40-something boyfriend must be a loser because he has not made a name for himself in his field. Rely on Howard to express the consensus of today's society.

I'm inclined to think that Art is a verb, not a noun. The act of creating is just that. The first spark of an idea, the working out of the structure and tone, strategizing the executing of the piece, to the actual creation and culmination - all of this is ACTION (so much so that, for me, the final creation of the piece is the most laborious and least interesting). The final physical work is simply the byproduct of the Artist's efforts. The design folks on HGTV who regularly create "art" for peoples walls' (other than their own, mind you) do as much to debase the term as any of the avant guarde deconstructionists of the latter 20th Century. Like the word "genius," which really should be reserved for a handful per century (like Einstein or Stravinsky). Art is something that comes from obsession, individuality and necessity. It's not about making something new, but about seeing something old in a new way, and working out the best way to communicate this in the way that is most truthful to the Artist.

And if everyone is a unique combination of experiences, then real truth guarantees uniqueness. The completed work is just "product" to the Art world, something to buy and sell. Maybe this is what keeps me from churning out "stuff." I really don't want any part of that. I just want to keep making things, which continue to help me understand a bit more about who I really am.

Or, I want to understand just exactly who (or what) I am, so I continue to make "stuff." It's just that, for me, stuff can be anything - a song, a painting, a house, a car. That's my "Art." The act of planning and creating a carport, or overcoming the technical and aesthetic challenges of a Hindemith sonata, force me to make choices and overcome challenges. In doing so I find out a bit more about myself.

Put any term or title on me you want. What I am is what I do. I make things.