This could be a good time! We’re now engaging with the world in ways we never have before– that’s right, with a new blog and a new forum. We did have a message board several years ago, but it only lasted a short while as we ended up losing the war to spam. I do remember it being fun while it lasted, though. There were quite a few witty, insightful and knowledgeable folks who contributed to the lively banter which was always present in our small virtual community.
By the way, I do not wish to discourage anyone who doesn’t think that they’re witty/insightful/knowledgeable (but who really is) from writing here and, by the same token, I do not wish to encourage anyone who thinks that they’re witty/insightful/knowledgeable (but who really isn’t) to write here. Unfortunately, I will have failed just now, by definition, to encourage those of whom I had wished to encourage, and to discourage those of whom I had wished to discourage. Respectively! Well, dammit, it’s not the first losing battle we’ve taken on and it certainly won’t be the… Hey! Speaking of “losing battles,” I should mention right up front that I don’t really have the expertise in the realm of message boards to make any kind of prediction as to whether or not we will once again become inundated with spam (I’d like to point out something here which you’ve surely already noticed, and that’s my tendency to use the words “I” and “we” alternately and seemingly haphazardly. Just to clarify, when I use the word “I” it refers to “me,” and when I used the word “we” it refers to “us.” We hope that clears things up for you.), nor am I well-versed enough in the matters of human nature to forecast the likelihood of our humble little forum being attacked by mean-spirited trolls who always seem to have an endless supply of hours in the day in which to bum everyone’s world. And I do not possess enough self-awareness to promise with any confidence that this blog will not be filled with a bunch of long-winded, irrelevant drivel. In any case, I embark upon this new phase of social intercourse with a fair amount of optimism that we will be able to play a persistent role as catalyst to an ongoing discourse on… uh, whatever interests anyone keen on inhabiting (or even casually grazing up against) the world of CHEER-ACCIDENT.
Oh! I had better hurry up and mention Phil Collins! Somebody who “knows these things” recently informed me that if I wrote “Phil Collins” and “CHEER-ACCIDENT” in the same sentence, search engines everywhere would blow their gaskets as people flocked to our website to find out more about the prog-drummer-turned-outrageously-successful-pop-star, subsequently leading to a discussion which would reside perfectly within that intersection between “difficult” and “accessible,” a point on the musical map we like to think we inhabit.
This web enthusiast/search engine scholar/friend of mine had initially brought up Phil Collins in a flippant and dismissive manner, but I found myself coming to Phil’s rescue: “You know, he’s a damn good drummer.” More often than not, in fact, I’ve defended Mr. Collins in the past two decades. Here’s the standard spiel I’ve been boring my friends with over the years: “From 1971 to 1980, Phil Collins could do no wrong. I mean, come on: He drummed on three of the four (really great) early Eno rock records; he was a founding member of the blistering British fusion band, Brand X, who really were quite inventive when they started out (note Percy Jones’ highly idiosyncratic bass playing, for instance); and, of course, he drums on most of the early Gabriel-era Genesis albums (which kept getting better and better right up until Gabriel’s departure… and, actually, the first few post-Gabriel albums, in which Collins sings and drums, are very good as well). Granted, he gets a lot of flak for “ruining” Genesis, turning them into a vapid, commercial hit-making machine, but, before that, he also saved them from becoming a ponderous, grooveless, “symphonic rock” band by bringing R&B, soul, and “Bonhamisms” into a group that could have otherwise easily succumbed to English stuffiness. (There are plenty of people who believe that that was the case anyhow, but they’re wrong!)
Additionally, it would be dishonest for me to not point out that Phil Collins had a huge, personal influence on my own drumming… right up there with Chris Cutler (who I’m positive will be thrilled– gentleman, start your search engines– to have been mentioned in THAT very same sentence). Perhaps more importantly, though, I think Phil influenced me simply in terms of what to do vs. what not to do. Ensuring that a tricky passage in 9/8, with a wailing synthesizer solo soaring over the top, still grooves in a way that would make James Brown proud: Yeah, do that! Allowing yourself to get chewed up by the machinery of commercialism and losing sight of why you started playing music in the first place: Awwwww, don’t do that!
Okay, that last bit was a bit presumptive (I don’t know what Phil Collins “lost sight of”), and I don’t mean to judge (he did a perfectly fine job of being Phil Collins), I’m just saying that when the scale tips that far toward the mainstream, it doesn’t look like very much fun. From 1964 to 1970, The Beatles managed to artfully straddle that line between innovation and accessibility. In our own way, in a much different world (and maybe on a slightly smaller scale!), that’s what CHEER-ACCIDENT has been attempting to do. We’ve seen a lot of bands we like come and go, and there’s a fairly common trajectory which goes like this: Start out naive, improve, arrive at a point of excellence, become over-refined, sell out, the end. We don’t want to do that. We would rather continuously “sell out” by playing pop music, while simultaneously maintaining the edge of contrariness/experimentalism as these two “poles” inform each other (really, this is a false dichotomy– it’s more of a continuum, but shouldn’t I be getting to sleep soon?). In other words, we are working against linearity, always pushing toward the center and moving away from the center at the same time. I’ve been typing for far too long (this was going to be whimsical at one point), and I’m not even sure what I’ve started to say toward the end here (maybe it will make sense to me when I wake up tomorrow… or maybe Scott Rutledge will have taken over), but… In terms of maintaining and nurturing our freedom to scurry back and forth between the “avant” world and the “pop” world, I gotta say: So far, so good!
I meant to leave my comment here but your billions of words squished it out. Oh and fix the placement of the info field labels above, they are in the wrong spots. But other than that the site is impressive in appearance, content and overall functionality. Kinda like me 🙂
and the clock is 5 hours fast which must mean something
Are you “shimmy mammal shimmy” Cindy? Here’s hoping…..
I was hoping she was the “Cindy Tells Me” Cindy.
Perhaps she can be both?
Been searching on this new wonderful cheer-accident website for like 20 minutes now but i still can’t find those nude pics you mentionned….damn i can’t find them….! Oops, i’m not being quite witty here,sorry, except maybe if you consider the fact that i’ve typed the words nude and cheer-accident in the same sentence…. ..
The clock being five hours ahead is for Ghislain’s benefit. He lives in France. His exact location is actually SEVEN hours ahead of us here in Chicago, but he’s about two hours short of being witty so it all works out in the end.
Hey Thymme. Sorry I didn’t come to the rescue sooner to make some sense of your late night ramblings. To tell you the truth, all this stuff about continuums and linearity is too broad and abstract to tackle at the moment, but I think I know where you were going.
What I would like to clear up though is your use of the term “pop music.” What I believe you are calling “pop music” has more to do with an aesthetic than a strategy for selling out. It refers to a type of song craft, which is based in the pop music of the 60s, a la Brian Wilson, The Beatles, Burt Bacharach, etc.
There are many artists following in this pop tradition today, and yet most of them do this without any expectation of fame or fortune. Just because someone writes pop songs does not mean that they are selling out, and in fact, this may be a way to ensure their status as a true outside, winning them the accolades of hipsters and critics alike.
Well, Scott, I’m still floundering over here in waters of near-freezing temperatures (unsure of how long I can maintain my grip on this flotation device), so I hope a good rescuing, particularly in regards to the abstractions of “linearity” and “continuum,” is still forthcoming. Come on, Scotty! What are we paying you for, anyway? In your next response, I expect lots of words about labyrinths and whatnot, alongside myriad Deleuze, Guattari and Foucault references.
In my final paragraph, where I definitely bit off more than I could chew, it was not my intention to conflate “pop” and “commercial,” hence the quotes around “selling out.” While your point regarding the distinction between pop music as an aesthetic vs. strategies to sell out was well-stated, there still exists a phenomenon in the life of a band (and the career of an individual) wherein there is a tendency to refine yourself up to the point at which you arrive at “what you’re good at” and then proceed to “milk” that phase “until the cows come home.” This hanging out in one area tends to lead to a saturation point of ideas. I’m a fan of “the middle period,” where you’ve made it past the point of crudeness, and you’ve found various of means of working which you can draw upon with a high level of competency, but you’ve not lost the excitement of discovery.
Hey Thymme
I point anyone with prejorative words about Phil Collins to ‘The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway’, surely some of the most thunderous drumming ever recorded by Englishmen.
That was the first ‘real’ rock concert I attended, in 1975 – afterwards when I was exiting the auditorium I noticed this little Peurto Rican kid, walking out with one of Phil’s drum heads under his arm. Named Rael, presumably.
I like Brand X too. ‘Moroccan Roll’
Hmmmm… didn’t Phil Collins produce “Babies Shouldn’t Smoke”?
I wish I had a Rael story like that… Nice! And, really, all of the ’70s Brand X albums are worthwhile (otherwise I would have been lying about Phil doing no wrong from 1971 to 1980). And, yeah, he did produce “Babies,” but that was in the ’90s, so I can’t vouch for its non-wrongness.
I would agree that “rescue” was too strong of a word, but it did seem like you needed a little assistance at the time, and by the way, I was summoned. When I see the bat signal in the sky I respond.
Up till that point I was totally with you in your argument about the career trajectory of many artists (Phil Collins being the perfect example to illustrate this point). But at the end you were running out of steam, and on top of this had bitten off more than you could chew. I was a afraid that you might choke to death, and thus may have overreacted in my attempts to perform the Heimlich maneuver on you. Hope I didn’t break any ribs.
Your argument about Phil Collins isn’t so much about pop music vs. serious music, but is focused more on his selling out, and getting “chewed up by the machinery of commercialism.” I just don’t think you made a fine enough distinction between pop music and serious music, and at the end you blurred this distinction a bit more.
I wanted to make this distinction out of respect for pop music. There is an implication in your argument that pop music is synonymous with selling out. I noticed the quotes around “selling out,” but I think this idea of pop music as a sort of artistic compromise, as a way of pandering to a mass audience still taints your argument as a whole.
The reason I thought it was important to clear this up is that at the end you brought this argument to bear on the band (Cheer-Accident that is), and I didn’t want people to get the impression that the pop music which we write has any other intention than being great music. Of course it would be nice if people liked this music, and purchased it with their hard earned money. We are always trying to build our audience, but we do this the old fashioned way, by creating music which serious listeners would want to hear.
Unfortunately, there isn’t much serious listening going on in the mainstream culture, and so why would anyone who loves music waste their time. Mainstream aspirations are for people who want fame and fortune. The reason The Beatles could straddle the divide between pop music and the avant-garde is that the culture itself was able to straddle this divide, but alas this no longer seems to be the case.
As for terms such as “continuum,” or “linearity,” I can only comment on these terms in relation to how they are used, and I thought your usage was a bit faulty, something which I assume you also felt at the time, which is why you summoned me in the first place.
Sorry I didn’t get around to mentioning labyrinths. Maybe we’ll leave that for a separate post.
Anyway, back to Phil Collins. I used to be one of those people who took every opportunity to bash Mr. Collins for the direction his career had taken, and even blamed him for ruining one of my favorite bands. I used to disdainfully refer to later Genesis as Phil Genesis. But there was a point at which I realized that I do not own Phil Collins, and was simply grateful for everything he had contributed to music.
This is a strange phenomenon, and gets at the fanaticism at the root of the term “fan.” It was always deeply disappointing to me when artists didn’t perform up to my expectations, and I used to feel personally hurt. I don’t invest myself as much in the career of the artist as I used to, and because of this am able to listening the music for what it is, good or bad.
First of all, it’s good to see everyone mentioning Phil Collins in their responses; this is shaping up quite nicely.
Secondly…
Scott: None taken! And no ribs broken. “Rescue” was not too strong of a word– it was a funny word– and I did, indeed, summon you. It’s just that I wanted you to pick up where I left off, to tease out some of the ideas present in that final paragraph, to which sleep deprivation was denying me access to further exploration in that particular moment. Additionally, I thought you would be inclined to “take it somewhere” that I’d never take it. In any moment. Instead you shined a spotlight on an argument I wasn’t even making. Granted, I was the one who initially muddied the waters by referring to two completely different usages of “pop” in one paragraph without bothering to make a distinction (pop as an aesthetic, pop as a contrivance in order to acquire fame and fortune), but few people reading this blog will doubt the seriousness and sincerity with which CHEER-ACCIDENT has always treated its pop side. I think it could be said that we’ve put as much energy and focus on a good melody as we have on, say, getting the perfect sound out of a vacuum cleaner.
As I decidedly get myself further into dead horsey-flogging, I must once again point out that those quotes around “selling out” cannot be overstated, nor would it be a good idea to ignore the word “continuously” which preceded that phrase, because that it is really the point I was making: That we’ve been doing it all along. Our pop aesthetic has, from day one, existed right alongside whatever other avenue we’ve pursued, and therein lies (maybe?) the interest. I’ve always liked a little experimentation with my pop… and a little pop with my experimentation. The willingness to experiment with pop and approach experimentation with, at least peripherally, an eye toward an audience is, in fact, treating the music (and, for that matter, the listener) with the utmost respect. Let the various strains commingle and inform on another. I don’t want to take “any of this” for granted, which is one way to give a shot at maintaining health in any kind of relationship.
And speaking of…
I loved reading your personal account regarding the performer/fanaticism relationship. This is territory I’m very interested in (one of the reasons that “King Of Comedy is quite possibly my favorite Scorsese film), and it is fascinating how, just because someone “did some things that you liked at one point,” you, therefore, have some sort of “rights” to them. Peter Hammill illustrates this point very well (in “Energy Vampires”) with the line: “Excuse me while I suck your blood, excuse me while I phone you, I’ve got every one of your records, man, doesn’t that mean that I own you?”
Before I go, I’d like to point out that we really do the same thing to our friends. I did it here as I “summoned you” and then got (playfully, I hope it was clear) annoyed that you weren’t “the Scotty I requested.”
“Come on, I attended this concert to hear ‘Supper’s Ready’ and you gave me ‘Follow You, Follow Me’!”
I understood that that was not the argument you were making, but I thought the terms needed some clarification. I don’t think this clarification was necessary for people who are already aware of the band (especially those who would put the time into reading our message board), but there are also new people coming on board, and they are just getting to know Cheer-Accident.
By arguing over what may seem to be trivial minutiae, I think this gives people a sense of how seriously we take what we do, and the amount of thought that goes into the details of the work. It is all part of the process. There is no distinction between one’s work and one’s life. The idea of “working shit out,” is a recurring theme in the songs, and I think this shows that what we do to get through life is itself a kind of art (there is a Foucault quote which would be appropriate here, but I do not have the time to look it up right now).
I agree that “continuously” was important to convey that we have always been writing pop music, that it isn’t some career move designed to win a larger audience. And I was glad that you made the “You got chocolate in my peanut butter” argument. Sometimes things go good together in a way that you may not have expected.
This brings me to a point which I did not get to earlier, and that is to take exception to your use of the terms “poles” and “continuum.” It isn’t like you enter one world which is pop music, and take some ideas, and then scurry over to the world of serious music to try them out in a new context. We live in a world where Stravinsky and Brian Wilson coexist.
I don’t believe the band makes distinctions between these musics in the first place, and yet there is an acknowledgement that these musics are the result of separate cultural developments, which each have their own set of practices and values. We can recognize the differences between things without acknowledging the boundaries which separate them.
I took the summonsed in good humor, and replied in kind. I like to goad you on, because I always get something worthwhile in return. I think this is a large part of our relationship. We aren’t always civil, and this allows us to get beyond the boring formalities of proper social interaction.
It’s all in fun, and yet it is all taken very seriously.
So far we have Phil Collins, Cheer-Accident, Peter Hammill, Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari all in the same post. Let’s sit back while those search engines blow their gaskets. I hope our website doesn’t crash before people get a chance to purchase our latest CD (that’s No Ifs, Ands Or Dogs, now out on Cuneiform Records, available at participating retailers everywhere).
Retailers? 🙂
Hey Jeffy. Remember when we used to ride our stegosauruses down to the tar pits and throw rocks at the struggling sabre tooth tigers, then head over to the retail store for a little refreshment? Those were the days.
First of all, everything on mainstream radio in the 80s utterly deserves to be referenced in a flippant and dismissive manner. In much the same way that the drum performances of one Phil Collins “deserved” to be presented/produced into gated, bloated, compressed and unlistenable impulses seemingly designed to pierce the humid air of innumerable Reagan-era teen hangouts, shopping arenas and proms, fired with only modest speaker power at the receding childhoods of today’s tuition- and child-support payment-avoiding middle-aged. That Mr. Collins inspired a trillion air-drummers to pop their collars and enmoisten their hindquarters in sudden arrhythmic elbows-akimbo homage is nothing to be proud of; to the contrary, it is a cultural atrocity on par with high fructose corn syrup. I do not “love this part”, is what I’m trying to say.
Is this my problem? Probably. It’s not impossible that Genesis can be listened to without the intervening filtration of his later work, and that such listening may be in fact rewarded rather than inspire a rapid twist of the volume knob in the devil’s direction. Like UFO sightings, I presume it happens sometimes as reported. It’s just that most of the time when I look to strange forms in the sky, the thing I see floating there is actually floating in my own eyeball. I will be fooled again.
Lookie here: The subject of my anonymous shout-out/raison d’etre for this blog has morphed into an actual human being! With an actual face! Hi Rob!!!
Thank you for (once again) reducing me to (“gated/bloated/compressed/unlistenable”) bursts of laughter.
Furthermore, I’d like to express my appreciation for your courageous “spelling out” of the more disdainful aspects of Mr. Collins. Although we all alluded to this rather unseemly period in the history of music, you’re the only one who really “went there.”
Since we’re now on the subject of Phil Collins’ “later work,”
please allow me to share with you this frequent recurrence that took place in various cars I drove in the ’90s…
Okay. So both Genesis’ and Phil Collins’ output had been growing more and more vapid (and more and more interchangeable) with each release which followed their (in my opinion, still palatable) early ’80s recordings. By the time “Invisible Touch” came out in 1986, I was wondering just how far they could stray from anything resembling musical substance. How much further could they fall from the heights of their glorious ’70s material? It must have become a sort of challenge for them at some point– but I can assure you: They were up for it! Amazing… By the early ’90s I’d almost forgotten that these English Gentleman had ever taken part in something which had brought me any sort of enjoyment. I found that I wasn’t even able to make it through a Phil Collins song. My right hand would impulsively reach for the dial after just a few seconds. It got to the point where I couldn’t even stop my hand from doing that, even when I (out of some vague nostalgia-induced curiosity) told myself to make sure and listen to his newest song “just because.” I made a game out of it. I told myself, “All right, I’m going to listen to the next Genesis/Phil Collins song that comes on the radio in its entirety, just to prove to myself that I can do it.” It was really difficult! Turning the dial had become second nature by that point.
Anyway, I honestly don’t remember if I ever “won” that game. I don’t remember much about my relationship with the radio in the early ’90s. That wasn’t a happy period for us.
I gotta run, but thanks a lot, Rob, for luring me into a bit of Collins/Genesis trashing. Now I feel compelled to reiterate my original statement that Phil could “do no wrong” from 1971 to 1980. Let us not lose sight of that, people! I should also point out that there is one thing worse than “mainstream radio in the ’80s,” and that would have to be: Mainstream radio now!
Two points come to mind – one requires no props whatsoever – but the second does require the reader to purchase “No Ifs, Ands or Dogs” so I’ll give each of you a few moments here…
First off, in reference to ‘now’, doesn’t “mainstream radio” imply that there is presently any other kind?
Secondly, (does everyone have their copies ready?), can you actually justify that drum fill in the middle of “Cynical Girl”?
I suppose if a third point was to made, although I agree with your premise about Mr. Collins between ’71 and ’80 (and would also like to point out that he did some fine work on the first two Robert Plant albums in the 80’s) – how does one rationally deal with that whole live ‘tambourine’ routine? Was he trying to warn us?
Hope you can clear this up!
I found that Foucault quote.
“What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become something which is related only to objects and not to individuals, or to life. That art is something which is specialized or which is done by experts who are artists. But couldn’t everyone’s life become a work of art? Why should the lamp or the house be an art object, but not our life?”
1a. Well, you highlight my disdain for “now” by pointing out that there really isn’t anything outside of mainstream radio.
1b. There are still some college radio stations that are hanging in there, and are, in fact, as good as they were several decades ago.
2a. Now am I supposed to be justifying the drum fill in “Cynical Girl” or should I be waiting for someone else to justify it?
2b. I’m a little reticent to discuss that drum fill; I’m kinda hoping that “nobody will notice” and that it’ll just kinda blow over, for I have a fear that Warmowski will skewer me three decades from now with “no, I do not ‘love this part.'”
3a. In retrospect, I suppose Phil’s tambourine antics could have served as some sort of warning, although I really didn’t see them as such at the time. In all honesty, I found them to be borderline endearing.
3b. Thanks for reminding me of Phil’s drumming on the first two Plant albums. Yes! Excellent work there!
3c. And, actually, the song “Easy Lover” is pretty great. I know this because I heard it as recently as two months ago.
4. So then would a whole lot of folks “like this” Foucault quote on Facebook?
Hi Joe
I’m not a whole lot of folks, but I’d “like” the Foucault quote on Facebook. And the first time I heard “Baby’s on Fire” was thanks to a mainstream radio station in LA.