Letur-Lefr and all things Frusciante...

Guitar hero and artistic integrity...

My last blog post discussed how I was concerned about the way cinema lacked creativity and innovation, and how many films seem to be pretty homogenised in mainstream cinema. It's obvious for all to see that most art forms are controlled by corporate companies in order to come up with money-spinning products, and the music industry is no different.

However, last week, I regained hope in individualism with the release of Letur-Lefr, an EP released by former Red Hot Chili Peppers guitar player John Frusciante. Anyone with ears would be familiar with John's work with the Chilis, and his incredible skills on a guitar. However, unless you're a real music enthusiast, or indeed a fan of this great man's work, I wouldn't be too surprised if his solo output hadn't hit your radar. Unlike an album released by his former band, where a new Red Hot Chili Peppers album is heralded by a cover on Rolling Stone, Q Magazine and copious other music papers, websites and channels, John Frusciante's solo albums aren't given the fanfare of a Stadium Arcadium etc. This is for several reasons I can only assume, in that when you're not involved in the biggest band in the world, your stock with the press isn't quite as large as before. Secondly, when one keeps such a low profile as John Frusciante does in the celebrity culture world we live in, there are no major tabloid scoops, press or interviews to go along with release.

The fact that us Frusciante fans got an EP this year was indeed a pleasant surprise. After 2009's epic The Empyrean, John had kept a relatively low profile. The 2009 album was indeed such an epic piece of art, it did leave me wondering how, or indeed if, John would bother following it up. How do you follow something of such magnitude and beauty?

Well, it would seem that releasing an EP, that precedes a full length LP consisting of Acid House influenced electronic beats is the way to follow up a colossal guitar album. Once again, not quite what the world expects. But then again, you have to forfeit any expectations when it comes to this man. Nothing could or should surprise anyone about this man.

In a world where musicians consistently plough the same furrows, we are accustomed to artists staying within safe boundaries, releasing an album identical to the previous one, and then touring it to cash in. With Frusciante however, this isn't the case. Despite his mainstream success and critical acclaim, John turned his back not once but twice on the Chilis twice to work on his solo material. His early solo output was unique, and somewhat noncommercial. Recorded on a four track, Niandra Lades and Usually Just  A T-Shirt was John trying to make "interesting music" which he felt didn't exist anymore. The resulting album is experimental to say the least, and  as "unsellable" as it may be to the masses, it is some of the most honest music you could listen to. Conventional musical structures are abandoned for a more Avant Garde approach, with lo-fi production values giving it a raw, intimate quality. It is a little unsettling and perhaps reflects the turmoil that was going on in his life at the time, but there is a beauty in the depths of John's despair which makes it compelling listening.



It dawned on me that the real quality in music, and in particular John's music, is it's honesty. It's unflinching, uncompromising, and brutally truthful, and is a complete reflection of the man himself. Whether that be John suffering from addiction and substance dependency, or a camaraderie with three other talented musicians who bring out a fun side to his music, it's all there. Anyone who listens to The Empyrean should be astounded by not only the quality of songs, but the lyrics are an insight into the depth of an artists' mind- and show what a deep man created them.

This brings me to his current output, which is an incredible leap from what anyone could have predicted. The archetypal guitar hero releasing an album, essentially lacking guitars. People may scoff at this, but I cannot help but respect what he has done here. John literally has no care what people think, and whether or not people like the musical evolution he has taken, something he has admitted to those he has collaborated with, according to interviews. To me, this is the ultimate integrity of an artist. His work is not a commodity to be bought and sold, but something that is a true expression of the person. If people enjoy what they hear, that is brilliant. If not, never mind. You can tell that Letur-Lefr is the work of someone who has enjoyed learning a new instrument, and completely immersing themselves in new musical territory.

Frusciante's musical views are unquestionably selfless. As a complete scholar, and consequently master of the guitar, he professes in interviews that technical ability is over-rated, and that simple techniques on the guitar are often more than sufficient when creating sounds. Anyone who listens to his Californication era output can testify to this- nothing obscenely flash, yet the sparse notes are structured and effective. That said, being such a well rounded musician, when we are treated to a virtuoso moment or a face melting solo, it is equally as moving. Not because it is there to "show off," but because it is placed there to represent an emotion, feeling or play a small part in a larger picture.

This is what makes John Frusciante's work so appealing to me, it is almost the purest form of art available. I'm not naive enough to believe that John doesn't enjoy the benefits that years of commercial success has gained him, but I do respect the fact that he doesn't simply "go through the motions." I could imagine that it would have been very easy to carry on in the Chilis, making records half-heartedly, as many people would have done, but the fact he left to make music that pleased him is a comforting thought. It shows there are people unblemished by commercialism, where needs are satiated at the request of a record company. If rumours are true that he has stockpiled hundreds, or thousands of songs depending on the storyteller, that is an exciting prospect for fans of his music.

So Letur-Lefr is a representation of John's current status as a musician, a "one man band" that he deemed himself to be in a recent statement to accompany the new EP. This venture into electronic music isn't entirely new territory, as his 2004 collaboration with Josh Klinghoffer on the album A Sphere In The Heart Of Silence demonstrated his love of electronic music. However, this new EP and his next LP PBX Funicular Intaglio Zone are certainly not the guitar based wizardry one would expect from the man. But, as a listener, you can feel the one common theme in John's work throughout the songs, raw emotion. Be it electronic melodies, his guttural and emotive cries and vocals, or the sparse guitar parts that litter the songs, you can sense the emotional feel he applies to the songs he works on- something that he can somehow transcend across the instrument or musical genre.

So, in a world where musicians or artists 'sell out' or commercialise their products at the request of A+R men, it is a huge relief to me that there is still someone standing alone making music for themselves, not to cash in or jump onto the latest trend. This record is a little bit left field, and is essentially an artist testing untested waters, not because they have been told to by their record company, or trying to find a new sound, simply because they wish to. I genuinely believe that John wouldn't be too fussed whether or not anyone really listens to the record, or even enjoys it. It just so happens that the music is fantastic, and I'm sure anyone who gives it a spin will realise what an incredible piece of work it is.

Letur-Lefr is available now.
PBX Funicular Intaglio Zone is available from September.

Will cinema ever be original again?

So last night, I like many others eagerly trotted along to see the new Batman film at the cinema. I'm pretty sure that anyone who has seen it can wholeheartedly agree what a fantastic film it is, with all the ingredients anyone could want from an action film - danger, excitement, violence, breath taking set pieces - all in all a triumph for Mr Nolan, who has once again flexed his muscles as a top notch director of the summer blockbuster.

However, something struck me as I sat in the dark, about three quarters of the way through the film. I actually knew how the film was going to end. No, I'm not psychic, or a genius, or anything like that, and I imagine ninety nine percent of people reading this blog have had the exact same experience. I just knew what was going to happen. Now, I won't spoil the film for anyone yet to enjoy it, but the film follows what you would describe as the conventional Hollywood narrative, I guess. This wasn't the thing that bothered me, however. Sure, I enjoyed the experience, but it struck me that this movie is going to be the biggest selling thing for quite some time, and all it is, is essentially a re-telling of the same old narrative device.

Every genre has it's own set of narrative 'rules,' be it in a Rom-Com, a horror film, or a biopic. All forms have a clear set of rules that happen, and demonstrate something that we the audience expect to see when watching the film.

Take the "Disney Formula" of storytelling, which I think we can agree, applies pretty much to most blockbuster/family film. Hero/heroine is sat at home, when life changing experience happens to them. They resist it at first, test out their powers, become competent and set out on a big adventure. Things go well to start with, but then the villian/obstacle steps in the way, things go wrong, allies betray you, and things get bad. As bad as they can, to an impossible, inescapable pit of bad (something that is not just metaphorically seen in The Dark Knight Rises). Then, shock horror, the central character finds strength from somewhere, be it an inner strength, or the help of friends who they thought had long since abandoned them, and with this new found strength, evil is overcome. People live happily ever after. Yay. Tears all around. Obviously some films deviate slightly from this structure, we may have a nice twist somewhere, some unexpected endings involving sacrafice or selflessness, but the narrative above can be applied to the overwhelming majority of mainstream cinema. Harry Potter, Spiderman, Star Wars, Lord of The Rings, every Disney film since nineteen fifty-something...all the same.

This isn't me getting on my high horse and complaining, because I'm the first to admit that I enjoy a lot of the aforementioned films, and taking them for what they are- an enjoyable couple of hours entertainment. Also, this isn't a form of cultural snobbery, as I've said, I am a fan myself. But, as human beings, what makes us actually want to watch, what is essentially the same story played out time after time with different characters? Why are films so formulaic, and more importantly, why do we lap them up, unchallenged? Why don't we get bored of watching the same thing over and over again?

I suppose humans are creatures of habit. We like routine. We get up, go to work, come home, eat chips, go to bed. And repeat. Routine and the expected, these are the things people enjoy. I imagine that people like the fact that they can go to the cinema, and engage with a film without having to actually think about it- if you fell asleep for ten minutes in Batman, you'd wake up and still have a pretty good idea what was going on, because you can apply all the cultural conventions that you've learned from your previous engagements with a film. It's safe, you know what you're going to get, you can leave the cinema unchallenged, happy in the knowledge things went the way you thought and knew they would.

From the film industries point of view, the reasons for them making these kind of movies is obvious. The clue is in the phrase 'film industry.' It is an industry based around making money, and lots of it at that. Why on earth would they change the approach to storytelling, when it makes shed loads of cash? From watching the trailers before The Dark Knight Rises, it is obvious they have no imminent intention to change either. The friends I was with pointed out that they couldn't believe the five trailers beforehand were advertising films based on comics, sequels, or re-boots of existing franchises. When they know people will flock to see Batman, why not give the public more of what they want, and make lots of money at the same time? Are there actually no original ideas for scripts than literally stealing storylines from comic books (Superman), television shows(The Sweeney), or sequels (half of Hollywood)? As Paul Weller once said, 'The public wants what the public gets...'

I still feel that in honesty, cinemas' strength lies in it's ability to tell a story. To me, the storytelling in film in the nineteen fifties and sixties is unsurpassed. The quality of the narrative in, say, a film noir movie, is just as good, if not better than anything that is scripted today- the only thing that has changed is the special effects, which can decieve people into believing they are watching a better product than they actually are. Because of the visual limitations of effects in early cinema, I feel this meant writers were far more creative than todays scriptwriters. Scenes had to be filled with great dialogue, gripping stories, cliffhangers, ala Hitchcock. Nowadays, a child could have scripted the majority of a film, but because of the stunning visual effects and CGI, the audience is far too distracted to even notice how formulaic and shoddy a script is.

An interesting theory is that of Theodore Adorno, from the Frankfurt School. He claimed that the world, many decades ago, was about a Culture Industry, and his theory in a nutshell, stated that every type of art form was basically stealing from previous generations, meaning that nothing could ever be original again, as after the nineteen fifties, everything had had been 'done.' Despite being a pretty pessimistic theory, in many ways, he was correct. In music for example, there are only so many chord progressions and notes in a musical scale to use, meaning that the limits had been discovered, and any song is essentially a re-hash of a previous one. The same does apply with film. I'm aware of the fact there are only so many ways to tell a story, and I don't expect a revolutionary way of telling a tale to immerse from nowhere, as we've been telling the same stories since we were cavemen painting on a wall.

Obviously there is an amount of generalisation in what I've said, as there are some very clever storytellers and filmakers out there who have a sparkle of originality in their art form. There will always be pioneers, be it in the independent film sector, mainstream cinema, or art house, but predominantly, the films that bring in the most revenue will always be the most formulaic.There are without doubt revolutionary pieces of art house film out there, and a lot of European cinema is far more innovative than anything Hollywood comes up with.

I've got to say though, I do highly recommend watching The Dark Knight Rises, as it is an epic, great peice of cinema. This isn't written in any way to attack what is a well directed action film. There are some stunning setpieces and visual effects that really are aesthetically pleasing, but that aside, it just essentially another superhero film.

I do really look forward to the day that we can see a summer blockbuster hit that just thinks slightly outside the box, something that strikes a slightly different chord with audience than what we've seen before. Or until the audience gets bored with being fed the same old same old. Until then, I'll just sit with my popcorn and enjoy the show with everyone else.