If only everything were modular...

With a price tag of "only" ¥8000 and a one-drink minimum - bringing the grand total to ¥8500 - and 5 or so openers, it was pretty much a no-brainer to see Daft Punk at Makuhari Messe in Chiba two weeks ago. I'm not a big fan of dance music and even less interested in going to dance events, but with all the talk of the LED pyramid and the incredible set they played circulating since their 2006 Coachella set, I would definitely suffer through 3 hours on the train to see the show.

Before going to the show, I actually did get a chance to listen to Daft Punk's set at Coachella from 2006. Without the grandeur of the pyramid and the light show keeping me in a trance, what stood out to me was how the set was more or less completely modular - instead of playing songs straight through with possibly a few alterations, each and every song had been torn apart and reconstucted with their entire catalog functioning as a source from which they drew bits and pieces. Song structures changed, the effects on certain parts changed, the superimposition of melodies and harmonies upon one another changed. Every song, melody, and beat was recontextualized.

The show was exactly as I expected, except for running around the venue - really just a massive convention center - looking for a coatroom that I had heard they had the night before. But a band that I've had on my Shuffle for the last week reminded me of Daft Punk's style of arranging songs for live shows and that show two weeks ago.

When I saw the Wrens in July 2005 at the Triple Rock Social Club in Minneapolis, I was completely surprised at what an incredible performance they put on. I had been a big fan of the band since I got The Meadowlands back in the fall of 2003, so I expected a rehashing of that album and a few other songs I wouldn't know with the average excitement and spontaneity that comes with the territory of playing live. Dodging these expectations the Wrens, like Daft Punk, completely recontextualized their songs. Instead of culling together pieces of different songs to create new arrangements, the Wrens simply created new instrumental parts practically to the point where all that the performed songs had in common with their album versions were key melodies, most of them being the vocals.

So what I love and respect about this approach to a live show is that the band put a hell of a lot of effort into putting together their show. It's not taking their albums on the road and playing songs from them straight down with no variation. Considering that it's pretty difficult for bands these days to make a lot of money off of selling albums and other recordings, I'm surprised that there aren't a lot more bands that make the music in their live shows so unique.

Looking back on these two live acts that completely alter the album version of their songs, it's probably for the best anyway that the Wrens and Daft Punk keep busy in this way. The Wrens haven't released an album since The Meadowlands in fall 2003, and their album before that, Secaucus, came out in 1996. Daft Punk's last studio record, Human After All is from early 2005 and their previous album Discovery was released in 2001. That means the Wrens are on a one studio album about every five years clip, and Daft Punk is on a slightly more productive one studio album every four years pace. In all, ignoring the Wrens' legal problems that kept them from releasing the Meadowlands any earlier, these are two bands who don't stick to the industry standard of a new album every two years. I would be ecstatic if a band that does release a new album every two years reimagines their songs for live shows like the Wrens and Daft Punk, but as things stand I'll take these two groups who make up for their sparsely released studio albums with an exciting live show over unimaginatively performed songs any day.

Who can steal music and who can't

Isolated a bit from American pop culture by living in a small Japanese city, I only just found out about the big gossip surrounding Avril Lavigne and how she lifted the main hook from her single "Girlfriend" from the Rubinoos 1979 song "Boyfriend". And from listening to Sound Opinions to Sound Opinions this weekend, I learned that she pretty much copied the first 20 seconds of another of her songs from Peaches' "I'm the Kinda". But then later, I started to wonder what makes the kind of copying that Avril Lavigne is doing worse than the copying that great musicians do all the time.

This weekend, I got my hands on M.I.A.'s new record, "Kala", and in the first listen through noticed two songs that copied other bands' hits. First, there's "$20" where the lyrics in the chorus are exactly those from the Pixies' "Where is My Mind?". Here, the melody isn't so much as changed as it is melded into the atmosphere and style of the song. The second one took me a little longer to pinpoint, but the backing tracks for "Paper Planes" takes its chords and rhythm from part of The Clash's "Straight to Hell" with only small instrumental differences so it can all fit in with M.I.A.'s style. And these two examples are from only the first listen. There are probably a few more on "Kala" that I don`t know about.

When I first heard these songs, I thought these were clever references to and interpretations of songs I really liked. I had no reason to be angry or disappointed in the way people have been towards Avril over how she copied the Rubinoos. And I have a feeling no one else will be pissed-off at her for this.

M.I.A. plays music (let`s call it global hip-hop) that has its roots in sampling and borrowing ideas from past songs. Avril`s music can be best termed mall-punk, which has been diluted down from punk, which has it`s roots in 1960s rock. Not only that, but she plays music in a typical rock band context, reinforcing her connection to rock's earlier traditions. Unfortunately for all of us, that makes it possible for people to make rockist interpretations (creativity has to be 100% original or you shouldn't take credit for it) of songwriting.

But the most noticable difference between M.I.A. and Avril Lavigne is how upfront M.I.A is when she uses other people`s creative ideas. "Where is My Mind" and "Straight to Hell" are both well-known songs from well-known bands. Most people who listen to her music will recognize these songs referenced on "Kala". Avril on the other hand tried to take ideas stealthily from lesser-known bands. On top of that, she denies having ever heard of the Rubinoos. And the reason that she`s circling the wagons like this is because of the restrictions placed on her by her chosen genre`s roots and traditions. Again the rockist attitude in all of us says that she`s a fraud if she admits to using other musician`s creative ideas. M.I.A., safe in a hip-hop based genre, can however flaunt whatever outside creative ideas she wants.

I think it was one of my old bandmates who would mention every now and again a quote along the lines of, "Good songwriters copy songs. Great songwriters steal songs." So by that logic, Avril should be considered by all to be an outstanding musician, but somehow she's not. I don`t disagree at all with that saying, but this whole incident shows how great songwriters are great because they contribute new ideas to old songs. The only thing Avril brings to her female counterpart to the Rubinoos' "Boyfriend" is a slick pop production. On the other hand, M.I.A. significantly flattens the melody of "Where is My Mind" so that it fits with her vocal style in "$20", which puts a greater focus on rapping than Black Francis` ever did. Here M.I.A. puts the Pixies in an entirely new context and breathes greater life into an already popular song. The modern pop production that Avril used in "Girlfriend" adds only marginally at best to the creative elements already present in the Rubinoos` "Boyfriend".

The one thing the world can thank Avril Lavigne for is how she introduced a new generation, myself included, to the Rubinoos. The one thing I truly resent about this situation though is how when I introduce music to people, I don`t get paid. When Avril (and let`s not forget her songwriting team and everyone else who profits from her music - they should be villified too) does it, she gets paid obscene amounts of money.