The (Very Late, Sorry.) First 2014 Installment of What Does Mike V Think Of... And a New Video!

Vinyl vs CDs vs Digital

It's been too long since we last checked in with The Everymen's Mike V to get his opinion on a pressing issue of the day. I saw an opportunity when another friend of mine (OK. It was Gentleman Jim Norton.) posted what he knew would be a polarizing (Imagine!) Facebook status stating his position on the Vinyl / CD / Digital Debate. The Everymen have a new record, Givin' Up On Free Jazz, coming this month; so I thought it was a good time to ask Mike about his thoughts on the relative merits of different formats.

Read on to get Mike's position on this very, very important issue; and when you're done, you can watch The Everymen's latest video for Free Jazz single "Spain."

CDM: A few of my friends got into a big debate on Facebook the other day about the merits of vinyl over CDs, CDs over vinyl, both over MP3s, and vice versa. Neil Young has that Pono thing coming out which will supposedly, according to him, be way better than any other MP3 player because you'll be able to buy lossless audio from the Pono Store and listen to it on his device. Record Store Day just came and went a couple of weeks ago, and you've got a new record of your own on the way.

What are your own thoughts on the whole format debate and does that affect your decision on how to release your own records? In what formats will Givn' Up on Free Jazz be available?

MVM: Bah. Listen to what you like to listen to. Dig this. Most faux-waxophiles will tell you that they love the warmth of vinyl. They'll tell you that the CD sounds too digitized and mechanical. Which is true. Vinyl certainly tends to sound more warm, more full. But something else that's true is that most people don't have stereo systems that are high-end enough to tell the goddamn difference. Don't tell me that you love the warmth of the vinyl that spins on your novelty Crosley turntable that you got at Urban Outfitters. I can guarantee you that the CD player in our van sounds a whole lot better.

The debate is all wrong, if you ask me (which you have). It's not vinyl versus CD or digital. It's more about what you're listening ON that defines your listening experience. Pono could somehow be fucking Crazy Horse playing live inside your little pocket, but as long as you're listening on shitty little headphones, it won't sound half as good as a CD with decent equalization coming through a nice set of speakers which are set the perfect distance apart (seven feet apart, eighteen inches from the wall in the instance of my living room).

Having said all that, I prefer vinyl; but it's got nothing to do with the sound. My hi-fi isn't NEARLY hi-end enough to make that distinction. I've got a nice little Stanton table with a very run of the mill JVC amp pushing some EXTREMELY nice Bowers & Wilkins speakers (a birthday present from the best girlfriend ever). My speaker cables could absolutely be upgraded, and my cartridge is probably a few months past its prime. So my listening set up is hardly ideal. I can't (nor will I ever) say that it's the sound, the warmth and the low end that drives me to pick vinyl as my medium of choice.

For me it's all about the ritual. The removal of the dustcover from the record, the sleeve from the jacket, the record from the sleeve, placing the sleeve back in the jacket, the dustcover back over the sleeve, placing the plate on the turntable, pressing play, giving one good swipe with my dustbrush, dropping the needle, sitting back and enjoying, flipping the record and then repeating the entire process in reverse. I love the fact that if you turn your amp off and put your ear REAL close to the needle, you can hear the songs emanating from the vinyl. I love the fact that records -- much like an electric guitar -- are simply the amplification of real sound, as opposed to the digital recreation of those sounds. I love the fact that it's much more inviting to sit around with friends and some wine and listen to records than it is to crowd around a computer and listen to MP3s with some pals. It can be a communal thing where, at other times, it can be a solitary thing. But either way, it's still your process, which you've defined and refined over years of listening to music. And that's why I love it.

Traditionally, I've only put out vinyl and sold digital albums and EPs because that's traditionally been my audience -- people like me who don't care if you're selling CDs. They want that 7" or that 10" or that LP. But now our audience is (thankfully) growing, so we have to give people as many opportunities to buy our albums as we can. Which means CDs and digital along with LPs.

I feel like CDs are dying. Reel to reel, 8 tracks, cassette tapes, they all came and went, just as mp3s someday will. CDs are on their way out the door and some of my more in-the-know friends have for years claimed that 2014-2015 would be the years that the CD officially dies. Our new album will be available on LP, CD, digital and all streaming services if for no other reason than I want people to have every opportunity to buy our music. If there's one dude out there who really wants Givin' Up On Free Jazz on CD, then I'm happy as hell that we're providing it for him.

Best of 2013 Installment of "What Does Mike V Think Of...?"

Year-End Lists

Starting next week, we're into full holiday high gear. It's been a fun year here at CoolDad Music. I've heard some great stuff, seen some great shows, and met some really fantastic people. I'll be putting together at least one year-end post of my own, but I'm going to try and get a few more perspectives on the year up here as things wind down.

Before getting started, I decided I'd get Mike V's take on the whole concept of year-end lists. He has some opinions as you might expect, and -- Bonus! -- he even threw in his own list of top albums of 2013.

Mike and The Everymen have been great friends of the blog throughout the year and have been taking a well-deserved sort of mini break as they get ready for 2014. With their second full-length LP in the can and a newly-signed record deal, though, I'm sure they'll be coming back stronger than ever.

CDM: We're coming to the end of the year, so that means -- probably any day now -- we'll start to see everybody's year-end lists for albums, songs, whatever. NME will put out something deliberately annoying and unbelievable. Rolling Stone will include a bunch of records that nobody under the age of -- well, my age -- will have even heard of. P4K will drag their list out over the course of a week or more. What do you think of year-end lists?

MV: I think -- like with anything in today's hyper-circuit of content -- setting yourself apart and, unfortunately, getting those clicks is as just as important as the content itself. So maybe it is up to the NME to do something completely fucking stupid (such as claiming that The Strokes debut is THE FOURTH FUCKING GREATEST RECORD EVER FUCKING MADE) or Pitchfork to roll out their list over days and weeks or The Rolling Stone... well... actually The Rolling Stone list is about as relevant as T.J. Hooker.

Since most people practice in the same general circles and most common-minded outlets will generally be publishing somewhat similar lists, people have to do something to set themselves apart from one another. So what can you do, right? You can come up with some scheme to make your list stand out from the rest. In the end, it is what it is I guess.

As for the lists themselves, I've always loved year-end lists if they proved interesting, a little different and have opened my eyes to something new. But who really wants to read the same fucking year-end list over and over again (looking at you Pitchfork, Consequence Of Sound, Stereogum, et al)? When the holidays start to roll around, I tend to troll metal boards, hardcore and punk sites, and experimental destinations for year-end stuff. I could probably tell you what Pitchfork's top 25 are right now, so why not go out of my comfort zone and find that black metal record I never knew I needed, ya know? I'm not on those sites every day, so having that filter makes getting those outsider goodies that much easier. On the negative side, of course, year-end lists always give me a sense of which outlets I should probably just stop reading. Example: The Rolling Stone proving to you time and time again just how fucking out of touch they are by lauding Katy Perry, Kings Of Leon and Sting to no fucking end.

But of course there is no better year-end list than that of your music loving pals. We used to make each other mixtapes. Now we just send each other links. Might as well make each other lists. Ask a pal what his favorite records of the year are. He might just open your eyes to something even Pitchfork hasn't heard about yet.

Having said that, here is ol' Mikey's Best Of 2013 list... in no specific order.

Yo La Tengo - Fade (Matador)
Marnie Stern - The Chronicles Of Marnia (Kill Rock Stars)
Rhye - Woman (Loma Vista)
Anna Calvi - One Breath (Domino)
Charles Waters Quartet - Chroma Colossus: 13 Visions Of The City (Amish)
Washed Out - Paracosm (Sub Pop)
The Brooklyn What - Hot Wine (self-released)
Potty Mouth - Hell Bent (Old Flame)
King Khan And The Shrines - Idle No More (Merge)
Joel RL Phelps & The Downer Trio - Gala (12XU)
Queens Of The Stone Age - …Like Clockwork (Matador)
Brother JT - The Sveltness Of Boogitude (Thrill Jockey)
Stephen Malkmus And Friends - Ege Bamyasi Record Store Day Exclusive (Matador)
Ovlov - Am (self-released)

What Does Mike V Think of... ...the Marketing Blitz?

Reflektor

It's "Arcade Fire Day." Like Daft Punk and, to a lesser extent, Vampire Weekend before them, Arcade Fire and their people have done everything they possibly can to make sure that Reflektor is on the mind of the record-buying public.

I've been a big fan of Arcade Fire over the years, but I have to admit that the Reflektor marketing campaign has been getting on my nerves. That's mostly my problem, obviously. Everyone's got a right to make a living and to promote their product, right?

Our friend Mike V of The Everymen has a bit of a history on the business side of selling records, so I thought I'd ask him what he thinks of all the pre-release hype around Reflektor. He makes some good points, especially about the balancing act that big bands need to perform when selling to "tried and true" fans (like me) as well as new listeners.

On another, very important, note, The Everymen are playing their final area date of the year TONIGHT at Mercury Lounge. They'll be joined by Life Eaters, and all proceeds from the event go to the fight against MS. Go check them out if you can and support a good cause.

CDM: Arcade Fire's new album , Reflektor, is out today. In the run-up to the release we've been absolutely deluged with pre-release activities. There were mysterious Reflektor Instagram and Twitter accounts. I even saw folks fanning themselves with Reflektor fans at FYF, weeks before we ever even heard a single. What do you think of the pseudo-guerilla and other types of marketing that characterize the modern album release cycle?

MV: Innovative marketing tactics have ALWAYS been a component of the record business. From the trading cards, obnoxious merchandise and television specials of the past to today's crazed environment of hidden teasers, easter eggs and campaign rollouts which take longer to execute than the making of the album itself, thinking outside of the proverbial box to get as many eyes on a new record as possible is hardly new. But I think we have reached a possible (hopeful) critical mass of pre-release hype generation.

While a perfectly crafted marketing campaign can do wonders for an album, record companies must walk the fine line of just right and massively overdone. It really is just that simple to cross the line from the perceived ubiquity that all record labels strive to achieve in the days, weeks and months leading up to an album's street date to "ENOUGH WITH THIS FUCKING RECORD" and I think a lot of it has to do with the status and size of the band.

For me, those moments that are manufactured work perfectly when the band/artist in question is juuuuuust about to break into a new level. Try these overcooked stunts on a band no one really knows yet and it's just a waste of time, money and brain power because most people might not know that Weaselden* is a band - and not say a clothing line or a skate shop or whatever the fuck else people advertise. Weaselden should just be out playing shows, building their fan base and selling records on a face-to-face level, because that's where they're at in their career.

Do this with a band that's too big and you run the risk of most certainly alienating a lot of the band's tried and true fans. It's an ugly feeling when you see the band you discovered while they were still playing at Mercury Lounge shilling BS on cable television. But you still have to tell people that the band has a record coming, no? So that's that. Arcade Fire could have sent out a Tweet this Monday saying that their album drops the next morning and I'm sure they'd sell just as many copies as they will behind this absurd Reflektor campaign. The biggest bands in the world don't need all of that ramping up hype. In a way they simply just need to put a record out (see also: Radiohead In Rainbows)

Of course this all begs the eternal question (posed initially by Socrates, I believe) of exactly how much a turd can be polished.

When I see these huge, worldwide marketing campaigns the first thought that pops into my cynical mind is usually, "Well this album probably isn't very good if they're selling it THIS hard." Because despite what has become an en vogue idea, most records sell or tank based on the merit of their music. Sure there are some records that sell WAY more than they should, but we'll chalk that up to the musical narrowmindedness of the pop-loving public. And, as always, there are plenty of records that should have sold a whole lot more than they have because they are just that good. But justice will never be served. Taylor Swift will always be a multimillion seller and no one will ever really appreciate Yank Crime** the way it should be appreciated. But in the end it is the music contained on that disc or that plate of wax or that file of 0s and 1s that will determine the inherent value of whatever garbage you listen to. No one will ever remember the street team chalking campaign or the hashtag promotion or the bonus tote bag you got if you purchased the album at an independent retailer. But they will remember if your album sucks.

IN CONCLUSION!!!

As a very wise record man once told me, "Why bother with all of this stupid shit when we have a really. fucking. good record?"

Good day, sirs.

*Weaselden is one of my thousands of fake bands. We're a psychedelic polkapop power trio. We fucking rip.

**If you don't know this album go now and listen, my child. You can thank me later.
   
editor's note: I tried to be as contrary and anti-hype as I possibly could, but dammit if I don't think that Reflektor is pretty good. - CDM
 

Time for Another Installment of: What Does Mike V Think of...

...Music Festivals

It's a rainy Friday, so that means I'm feeling particularly lazy. I did manage to cobble together a review of the excellent upcoming album from London's Shopping, which you can check out over at Speak Into My Good Eye. After that, though, I'm kind of spent. That makes it a perfect day to turn things over to Mike V.

This weekend is weekend number 2 of the Austin City Limits Festival. The CBGB Music and Film Festival is, right this minute, in its second year in New York with CMJ following closely on its heels.

The Everymen have played a few festivals in their time, so I decided to ask frontman Mike V his opinion on the whole festival thing. See what he has to say about making a living as a band and the corporate dystopia in our future.

CDM: Z. Cole Smith of DIIV said earlier this year that SXSW was a "glorified corporate networking event" and "bullshit." You've played -- and been well-received at -- a few festivals this year. What do you think of music festivals as a band? As a music fan?

MV: Well, before I get into anything I have to point out that you should probably take anything that Zachary Cole Smith says with a pretty decent grain of salt. One cursory glance over this completely asinine Pitchfork interview (and his subsequent actions) prove that much.

Having said that, he is right on this point. It is a corporate shitshow. Vans this and Converse that. Doritos, Fader, Vice, Coca-Cola... fuck. Even Goo Goo Clusters had their own day party this year (which is awesome because Goo Goo Clusters fucking RULE). But that's the name of the game these days. And it ain't just in music. It's everywhere. No longer to do we have Comiskey Park, Shea Stadium, Cleveland Municipal or even Giants fucking Stadium. Now we have the M&T Bank Stadium, The Mercedes-Benz Superdome, Papa John's Cardinal Stadium, and -- of course -- MetLife Stadium (much to the Jets chagrin, I'm sure). Corporations are so deeply ingrained in our culture that, one day, we might actually be listening to commercial jingles as radio entertainment (SEE: Demolition Man) or wearing shirts adorned with Reese's Pieces and Clorox logos (SEE: Idiocracy).

But back to SXSW. There has to be some sort of conflicting ideology when a "punk" or "indie" band (sarcastic quotations) are playing inside of a fucking giant Doritos vending machine. There has to be some sort of disconnect when a DIY or die band is playing a show sponsored by Spotify. And there is. There is a major disconnect when a band you saw play in a basement last summer is now main support at a major sponsored party. But what's the easiest way to bridge a disconnect? Cold fucking cash.

Would I want The Everymen to be the face of Mountain Dew? No. Would I take $10,000 to play a forty five minute set at the Mountain Dew / Goodyear Tires / Rdio / Stay Free Maxi day party? Absofuckinglutely. Some bands use these "money shows," as they're called, to finance entire tours or albums; and so long as the artist in question has no moral or ideological opposition to the sponsor, then no one should chastise them for taking the money and running. We're all trying to make a living here, and until you have that fat stack of cash on your table (and maybe rent to pay back home or even a family to support, say), you should hold your fucking tongue about corporate sponsorships. Don't like the corporate presence at SXSW? Play the show. Take the money, and then find yourself a basement show to play for the real kids out there. Or just play the basement show. Collect your gas money and head on out.

So to put it more plainly, I have no problem with these greedy corporate fucks. And I have even less of a problem if they wanna give me a few grand to play my guitar for less than an hour. I was gonna do that for free anyway.

What Does Mike V Think Of... (Warning: Sports-related Post)

Mike V and his dad

...The Giants' 0-4 Start

My parents moved us to New Jersey from Brooklyn in 1975. I guess for my first few years in New Jersey, I still felt like a New Yorker. So much so that, when the New York Giants moved from New York to New Jersey in 1976 and continued to refer to themselves as "New York," I developed a strong dislike for them. When my beloved Jets made the same move from Shea Stadium in 1984, I justified my continued dislike for the Giants by the fact that the Jets had to play in a stadium called "Giants Stadium."

Well, in the years since the Giants' move to New Jersey, I've witnessed four Giants' Super Bowl victories (one that ruined the Patriots' undefeated regular season, which was cool with me) and four Jets' AFC Championship Game losses. It's been a struggle.

Today, with the first quarter of the NFL season complete and the Jets sitting at a solidly mediocre 2-2, the Giants are an extremely disappointing 0-4. I couldn't resist, therefore, giving Mike V of The Everymen -- one of the biggest Giant fans I know -- a chance to vent his frustration.

He vents, but he also makes some good points about what it means to be a fan.

CDM: What do you think of the Giants' 0-4 start?

MV: Last week, as I sat in the stands at Charlotte's Bank Of America Stadium, proudly festooned in my Giants hat and Victor Cruz jersey, ignoring the taunts of the meager Panthers fan base (meaning the stadium was half full and half of that half was Giants fans), watching the Giants get absolutely embarrassed by what is, on paper, a lesser team in their sparkly silver and neon blue, I came to a realization. Maybe it's not bad breaks or injuries. Maybe it's not something that can be fixed. Maybe these Giants just suck. It's a harsh thing to accept as, whether or not they've made the playoffs, won the division, finished above .500, etc. the GMen haven't just flat out sucked since the Ray Handley/Dan Reeves era. I'm talking Dave Brown. I'm talking Jarrod Bunch. I'm talking Danny fucking Kanell.

The Giants of the aughts, while never dominant, were always one or two breaks away from something special. If those breaks rolled their way, they were on their way to success, be it Super Bowl appearances (and wins, ahem) or just playoff runs. But today, now, sitting at 0-4, arguably the worst team in the NFL, the Giants can't blame bad breaks or an injury plagued preseason. They can only blame themselves. They can only come to their own realization that, maybe, they just are not that good.

They can't run. They can't block. They can't pressure the QB. They can't cover. They made a very mediocre Cam Newton look like the superhero he claims to be. They have a top five quarterback playing like a rookie because his line can't hold a block for more than a second and a half. They have three tight ends who couldn't complete a single block for David Wilson to convert on 3rd and 1. They CAN'T CONVERT ON THIRD DOWN (1-13 against the Chiefs I believe was the stat line). They can't get off the field when defending a 3rd down. They have some of the worst offensive play calling I've ever seen. Kevin Gilbride seems to be throwing darts at a board: 3rd and 15. Draw play. 3rd and 1. Deep to Cruz. Coughlin is too stubborn to realize that he needs to let David Wilson learn from his mistakes and become the special player he truly can be. It's not like they have anything to lose. Perry Fewell can't figure out how to get JPP or Justin Tuck to the quarterback. Steve Weatherford can't punt the ball out of bounds. I COULD FUCKING GO ON!

Two Super Bowls in five years can do a lot of things, most of them good. But what's bad about having such nigh-unparalleled success (four Super Bowls, five NFC Championships, two SBs in five years, the greatest upset of all time) is the scoundrels, the fair weather fans that it brings out of the woodwork.

Now I do believe that the Giants have one of the strongest and most loyal and true fan bases in the NFL, however there will always be fair weather fans. There will always be people who wanna party in the salad days, but couldn't care less in the dark days. And seasons like this are for those people. Seasons like this are when we see who still watches every snap of every game, even when the idea of a winning season is long gone. Seasons like this remind us why we love the Giants so much. It's easy to root for a winner. But it's better to root for a loser.

So even if the Giants go 0-16 this year I'll sit, for the next 13 weeks, Giants hat and Cruz jersey, screaming at the TV. Screaming at Coughlin to give Wilson the fucking ball. Screaming at Gilbride to be less predictable. Screaming at someone to protect our billion dollar quarterback. But knowing full well that this to shall pass, because the Giants are always just one break from turning it around.

And I'll remember that it could be worse: I could be a Jets fan.

What Does Mike V Think Of...

...The 1990s Revival

In this installment of "What Does Mike V Think Of...," I ask The Everymen frontman his opinion on the recent revival of the sounds of the 1990s.

I was in my twenties during the 90s, so they represent an important time in music for me. As a result, I find myself having to be careful in determining whether I like some new sounds because they're good or because they remind me of the past. Mike does have a way of putting things into perspective.

CDM: I think it's safe to say that we're in the midst of a 1990s revival. There's a big movement going on the lo-fi side of things; and at the rockier end, bands are drawing on influences like Dinosaur Jr, My Bloody Valentine, Smashing Pumpkins, and -- especially -- early Weezer. It seems like there is some new, shoegaze, grunge, or sludge (all usually adding "-pop") band popping up every day.

So, what do you think of the 1990s revival? What do you think of nostalgia in music, in general?

MV: In the same way that I'm wary of reunions (Find a new fucking band to like, man. There are so many out there. And they could probably use the money more than Kevin Shields.) I'm always very wary of trend revivalists. It speaks to a certain malaise of its creators, but most importantly the music has no room to evolve. Music evolves because of people thinking outside of the box and people pushing limits and testing boundaries. Elvis becomes The Beatles. The Beatles become Led Zeppelin. Zep becomes Television. Television becomes The Pixies. The Pixies become Nirvana and on and on and on and you get the idea. But if people are out there, creating a style of music that has already lived out its shelf life, then what more could they possibly do to further that genre? Probably not much. We already know exactly where punk rock ends. And that's ok because there are myriad reasons genres come and go. It's the beautiful life cycle of music. It's a living thing and to be kept alive it needs to adapt. So maybe I'm just saying that, in a way, trend revivalists are killing music. Maybe I don't know what the fuck I'm saying. But maybe I do.

I think -- other than that whole disastrous glam revival of the early-aughts (SEE ALSO, but avoid at all costs: The Darkness, Jet, Velvet Revolver) which I wholeheartedly consider the worst thing to happen to music since Otis's plane went down -- that this 90s fuzz nostalgia is fucking lame. It just rings so incredibly false and hollow, and what is most egregious is the complete lack of songcraft in this new fuzzy generation. Pavement could write the fuck out of a song. Dino Jr could write the fuck out of a song. MBV and Eric's Trip could write the fuck out of a song. The fuzz and the lo-fi nature of the recordings was a reflection of where these bands and labels found themselves at the time. Surely you recently saw Nirvana's first contract make the net rounds. $600 from Sub Pop. Six hundred dollars. You can't make In Utero for six hundred dollars. But you can make Bleach. And while those sonics may have been an artistic choice to some extent, they were more a reflection of the environmental constraints that forced bands like Archers Of Loaf to make Icky Mettle sound like Icky Mettle. So this new batch of post-SST slackers are taking their cues from that seminal time in rock history, and dressing up their mediocre tunes in walls of fuzz and scuzz, but most of them are forgetting to take the time to write the goddamned songs.

So, while I do get some kicks from some of those fuzzy revivalists (actually pretty much just Milk Music), I really can't wait for it to be the new 2000s again. The world could use another Interpol. But hopefully not another Darkness.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks, again, Mike.

To Mike's mention of Milk Music, I'll add California X and Waxahatchee, among others, as some 1990s-influenced acts who are really bringing the songs along with the sounds.

The 2012 album, Hot Cakes, by The Darkness is available now in all the usual places.

New Feature: What Does Mike V Think Of...

"Applause" vs "Roar"

The Everymen are always busy. They recently released a great EP of Jonathan Richman covers called Hey Who Wrote These Songs? They're putting the finishing touches on the full-length follow-up to 2012's New Jersey Hardcore, and they maintain a relentless touring schedule that will see them doing a live performance of The Mario Opera (Yes. That's a rock opera based on Super Mario Brothers.) this Saturday at Joe's Pub.

The Everymen's leader, Mike V, is one of our friends here at CoolDad Music and a man with opinions. One need only check out the in-depth interview he did with me for Speak Into My Good Eye to realize that Mike is not afraid to take a stand on something.

I thought, therefore, that it would be fun to get Mike's opinions on some of the pressing issues of the day, musical or otherwise. Mike graciously took some time from his busy schedule to participate. For our first installment, I decided to go with something musical.

I should say that, while Mike V and I agree on a great many things, all I did was ask the question. Mike V's opinions are all his very own.

CDM: I know you're a Katy Perry fan. Both she and Lady Gaga released singles from their upcoming, sure to be huge, albums recently. They're battling it out (along with Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus) for chart supremacy. Lady Gaga even went so far as to announce a contest via Twitter encouraging her fans to purchase the single. The prize is a trip to meet her at London's iTunes Festival:

"The 2 fans w the most purchase/gift screenshots, radio requests, 'Applause' selfies/video, will fly international to meet me+watch the show!"

So, very simply, "Applause" vs "Roar." Discuss.

MV: In the past few years I've warmed a bit to Lady Gaga. I still think she's an idiot (but my opinion doesn't carry much weight so who cares) who has pretty good tunes and the most benign voice on earth. In other words, she's a 21st century Madonna.

Much like Madge she's all style, no substance with a crack team writing good tunes for her. And -- most importantly -- she really can't sing either. Her brash image is really what's made her.

But I can't take seriously any major artist on a major label selling albums at major retailers who try and retain some sort of artistic, political or genuine stance (*cough* Rage Against The Machine *cough*). You're a pop star and you're a creation of a marketing machine that's trying to sell as many records as humanly possible. And you know what, that's fine. Accept it. Own it. That's why I love Katy Perry. And Kelly Clarkson. And Christina Aguilera. They don't try to pose and they don't try to pretend and they don't play punk rock dress up (*cough* P!nk *cough*). They realize that they're more of a commodity than they are an artist. And they own it. And that is far more real than any protest song Zach De La Rocha's ever written.

Katy Perry, on the other hand, is a genuine talent. Girl can shake the walls with that voice and I'll take true talent and craft over stunty zaniness any day.

But you asked me about the songs so let's get to the songs.

"Applause." It's not really a song. That's not really a chorus. And that's what pop songs are about, right? Hooks. Choruses. Singing along. Right? "Applause" is just kind of a drone with words and a stupid video reminding us, yet again, that Lady Gaga is such a freak. You can do better, Gaga. You've done better.

Katy's kind of in the same boat here. Um. Whatever. This hook sucks shit. Not to mention that it's about 12 bars long. So yea. Kind of snoozy. It makes me wonder: Are people even trying anymore? Between this and the fucking remake of Red Dawn I feel like we as a creative species have just given up. But then I listen to the new Queens Of The Stone Age record. And I am calmed.

But I guess that's it this year, huh? This is the year pop music abandoned hooks. From the great songs (that Bruno Mars jam) to the sorely overhyped ones ("Blurred Lines." Which, by the way, I'm surprised that no one's pointed out is a fucking blatant rip off of "Sexy Back." That song ruled.), most pop music of this past year is completely and remarkably devoid of the hooks that make pop tunes so great. I guess we'll have to wait until next year for another "Crazy" or whatever.

So it's a push. Both of these songs fucking suck. If you need me I'll be listening to "Firework."

_________________________________________________________________________________

So there you have it. Watch this space for future installments of "What Does Mike V Think Of..."

Thanks, Mike.