Ok so I'm a nerd/geek/whatever you want to call it and I've recently discovered a love for comics in general, and webcomics in particular. One of my favorite ones, Least I Could Do has a news feed that either the writer or the artist will post to regularly. (linking things with words is FUN)
There is something vaguely music related coming. Wait for it.
Anyhow, he wrote this big long post about meeting deadlines, which I read because hey! What the hell? And it turns out there was kind of a profound, helpful idea in it.
He talks about not being in a creative mood and how that affects finishing projects and meeting deadlines, and his way of combating it. I'll spare the details, but basically he just starts working on something else that is also creative in nature to get his juices flowing and then returns to the original project.
Now, as the guy who has started a song in July and finished it in October (with no progress twixt the points), this idea seemed bloody BRILLIANT. So I've been writing this new song for acoustic, which is depressing, which is not surprising because most songs I write are depressing. Moving on.
I tried it tonight; my friend Cait and I are doing a narrative style blog, set in a post-apocalyptic world in which we each write from the perspective of our characters. It's a really fun way of writing, because neither of us knows what's going to happen next. Anyhow, I was writing this new song, and I've hit a wall at this one part; I have no idea where to go next. So I thought "hey, I'll try the Lar Desouza method" and I wrote a new post to further the story. Then I returned to the song and even though I didn't come up with any lyrics, part of me felt that progress was made. So I don't know; thus far I don't have any tangible proof that this method works, but I'm gonna try it out and see if it's a good habit to get into.
\m/,
Brian
PS: Don't click this. Seriously.
PPS: I wasn't lying. Linking is awesome.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Gear. Does the gear make the musician or does the musician make the gear?
There's nothing more akin to whipping it out and producing measuring tape in the music world than talking about your gear. It almost seems like an instant way to gain cred as a guitarist when you start talking about your soundboard setup and what kind of amp you're running through and yada yada yada blah blah blah.
Granted, I love talking tech about guitar.
My point is, there are some shitty ass guitar players out there running on the best equipment, using the best patch cords, the better to clearly and crisply amplify their sucktitude. Gear doesn't make a bad guitarist good...but does it make a good guitarist better?
I've been playing for long enough that I'd like to classify myself as a good guitarist; I don't think I could blow anyone's mind with my riffs, but they're catchy and I can play them consistently. However, my "gear" consists of the following:
1. My guitar.
2. My Boss DS-1 distortion pedal (A gift from Dom. Thanks bro!)
3. My various patch chords.
4. My amp.
...
5. My MAGIC FINGAS!
I'm a decent guitarist, but could I be classified as better if I threw in a noise suppressor, equalizer, wah, flanger etc etc.?
That's a problem I have with really effects-y gear. Take...Slash, for example. GREAT GUITARIST, no one will argue. But listen to one of his guitar solos and mentally extract the wah from them. I'll wait for you to get back. (Personally, I chose "Slither" by Velvet Revolver but I'm sure there are much better examples)
*whistles*
See? He's so used to leaning on the wah that alot of his solos are wah filler; now imagine a Slash guitar solo made up of all the non-wah filler parts.
It's ok, I had a guitargasm too.
Now, take an absolute dick but amazing guitarist, Yngwie Malmsteen. My favorite video clip of him playing is on the G3 Live in Denver DVD, in between Steve Vai(wanker)'s set and his. He's just sitting on a couch, using an old Marshall tube amp, his guitar plugged right into it, no pedals, just straight amp distortion, tearin' up some arpeggios like the flabby, past-his-prime guitar god he is. And it's AWESOME.
However, measuring myself to Yngwie is like trying to measure my yearly income against Bill Gates, or my personal level of social ostracism to that of Pauly Shore. And the rough, crackly sound of unassisted distortion suits Yngwie's style; I don't know that it suits mine.
Basically, thanks to a very gear-driven conversation I had earlier, I want to acquire a noise suppresion pedal. I'd like to hear the deep chugging of Zweihander on my Peavey Valveking without the annoying buzz. But pedals are expensive, and I'm not rolling in dough at the moment.
PITY PARTY AND EVERYONE IS INVITED.
Conclusion for Brian: I don't wanna get effects pedals so much as pedals which will take some of the suck out of my sound.
\m/,
Brian
Granted, I love talking tech about guitar.
My point is, there are some shitty ass guitar players out there running on the best equipment, using the best patch cords, the better to clearly and crisply amplify their sucktitude. Gear doesn't make a bad guitarist good...but does it make a good guitarist better?
I've been playing for long enough that I'd like to classify myself as a good guitarist; I don't think I could blow anyone's mind with my riffs, but they're catchy and I can play them consistently. However, my "gear" consists of the following:
1. My guitar.
2. My Boss DS-1 distortion pedal (A gift from Dom. Thanks bro!)
3. My various patch chords.
4. My amp.
...
5. My MAGIC FINGAS!
I'm a decent guitarist, but could I be classified as better if I threw in a noise suppressor, equalizer, wah, flanger etc etc.?
That's a problem I have with really effects-y gear. Take...Slash, for example. GREAT GUITARIST, no one will argue. But listen to one of his guitar solos and mentally extract the wah from them. I'll wait for you to get back. (Personally, I chose "Slither" by Velvet Revolver but I'm sure there are much better examples)
*whistles*
See? He's so used to leaning on the wah that alot of his solos are wah filler; now imagine a Slash guitar solo made up of all the non-wah filler parts.
It's ok, I had a guitargasm too.
Now, take an absolute dick but amazing guitarist, Yngwie Malmsteen. My favorite video clip of him playing is on the G3 Live in Denver DVD, in between Steve Vai(wanker)'s set and his. He's just sitting on a couch, using an old Marshall tube amp, his guitar plugged right into it, no pedals, just straight amp distortion, tearin' up some arpeggios like the flabby, past-his-prime guitar god he is. And it's AWESOME.
However, measuring myself to Yngwie is like trying to measure my yearly income against Bill Gates, or my personal level of social ostracism to that of Pauly Shore. And the rough, crackly sound of unassisted distortion suits Yngwie's style; I don't know that it suits mine.
Basically, thanks to a very gear-driven conversation I had earlier, I want to acquire a noise suppresion pedal. I'd like to hear the deep chugging of Zweihander on my Peavey Valveking without the annoying buzz. But pedals are expensive, and I'm not rolling in dough at the moment.
PITY PARTY AND EVERYONE IS INVITED.
Conclusion for Brian: I don't wanna get effects pedals so much as pedals which will take some of the suck out of my sound.
\m/,
Brian
Monday, December 22, 2008
Zweihander.
I bought a totally badassin' electric guitar. I shouldn't have, but life is short, and it is sexy.
That's pretty much all.
\m/,
Brian
PS: It's a Jackson. *drool*
PPS: I named it Zweihander after a German two-handed longsword.
*drool*
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Acoustic or metal? ... No, that's not a serious question. Also, "Icarus Drowning" lyrics
SO
I finished writing a new song on Sunday wiv the aid of a friend, and debuted it with the accompaniment of my friend Paddy at the Open Mic which he and I host Monday nights at the Bomber. It's called "Icarus Drowning", and here's the lyrics:
Chivalry escapes me because of who I am
Honor still flays me because of my actions
And in this cities night sky I see
The darkness between the lights
Show me snow I see cold
Show me a river I see no reason to care
For if the water keeps flowing on
What will be there? And it's gone where?
I used to see diamonds, now I just see ice
I used to feel pleasure, now I just think vice
I used to think sacrifice instead of pain
I used to love to stand in the rain
Every fire has turned to ashes
Every light has gone out
What happens when you find out everything passes
You whisper though you meant to shout
So they thought I was special
Well I guess they were wrong
You can only use those wings
For so long
Fly too high and they melt
Too low and you drown
Stitch a life together with wax
And find that it doesn't last
Though you may fly for a while
And that little peace your short escape brings
Only reminds you that you don't have wings
I could have flown so high
Instead the water rushes below,
But there's no room for sorrow
Frigid ocean hits my face,
Thought and emotion are erased
Frostbite my heart begins to kiss,
But until that moment this is bliss
I welcome into my mind,
That beautiful nothing that leaves all behind
*guitar solo*
Then from "Every fire..." to "...though you meant to shout", then
I wanna see diamonds, instead of ice
I wanna feel pleasure without thinking of vice
I wanna break the surface again
I wanna love to stand in the rain.
So that's pretty cool. And the music I wrote for it is different than what I usually do acoustically, which makes me wonder: can I easily switch over this song to electric?
I've seen the reverse done enough; a band has a sweetass metal/hardrock song, and then they try to convert it to acoustic and end up losing most of the energy (see also, any Three Days Grace acoustic set). What I wonder is, does the same hold true for taking an acoustic song and flipping it over?
Besides thinking of the classics that have been given this treatment and thrived, most notably Eric Clapton's acoustic "Layla", which has this feeling of sincerity not present in the original electric song, I've encountered such effects closer to home. A local band called Union of Lanters(R.I.P., unfortunately, but wish the boys well in their future solo careers), had this awesome song called "Don Quixote", of which an electric version was available on their myspace, but which I had only ever heard acoustically live. The electric version was good, but it lacked alot of the charm of the acoustic version.
However, I'm wondering if these rules don't apply to my acoustic stuff. "Icarus Drowning" has a bunch of moments in it where, whilst it was written and performed on acoustic, I can hear the distortion kicking in, and the drums and bass picking it up in my head. Because my main method of thinking musically is "rock", I tend to write songs that fit well on electric on acoustic. However, I wanna take it up a step from being a hardrock song. I wanna kick this bitch into metal.
So that raises all sorts of questions: do I keep the quiet feel for the intro, or do I have it be an explosive song right from the start? Do I have to write in new parts to give it that extra little kick in my mind from "meh...rock" to "YEAH, metal....bitch"? I've done this with songs before, the whole translating them from acoustic to electric and vice versa, and I've found that what it comes down to is this: you can't play a song both acoustically and electrically and expect it to be the same song. Acoustic has a charm and intimacy that's unique to it; electric has the raw power to blast out unadulterated emotion, but not so much on the subtle textures.
Ah, music. So deliciously varied and complicated. If it was a food I would eat it every day.
I might add more to this later, but my brain just ran out of words.
\m/,
Brian
I finished writing a new song on Sunday wiv the aid of a friend, and debuted it with the accompaniment of my friend Paddy at the Open Mic which he and I host Monday nights at the Bomber. It's called "Icarus Drowning", and here's the lyrics:
Chivalry escapes me because of who I am
Honor still flays me because of my actions
And in this cities night sky I see
The darkness between the lights
Show me snow I see cold
Show me a river I see no reason to care
For if the water keeps flowing on
What will be there? And it's gone where?
I used to see diamonds, now I just see ice
I used to feel pleasure, now I just think vice
I used to think sacrifice instead of pain
I used to love to stand in the rain
Every fire has turned to ashes
Every light has gone out
What happens when you find out everything passes
You whisper though you meant to shout
So they thought I was special
Well I guess they were wrong
You can only use those wings
For so long
Fly too high and they melt
Too low and you drown
Stitch a life together with wax
And find that it doesn't last
Though you may fly for a while
And that little peace your short escape brings
Only reminds you that you don't have wings
I could have flown so high
Instead the water rushes below,
But there's no room for sorrow
Frigid ocean hits my face,
Thought and emotion are erased
Frostbite my heart begins to kiss,
But until that moment this is bliss
I welcome into my mind,
That beautiful nothing that leaves all behind
*guitar solo*
Then from "Every fire..." to "...though you meant to shout", then
I wanna see diamonds, instead of ice
I wanna feel pleasure without thinking of vice
I wanna break the surface again
I wanna love to stand in the rain.
So that's pretty cool. And the music I wrote for it is different than what I usually do acoustically, which makes me wonder: can I easily switch over this song to electric?
I've seen the reverse done enough; a band has a sweetass metal/hardrock song, and then they try to convert it to acoustic and end up losing most of the energy (see also, any Three Days Grace acoustic set). What I wonder is, does the same hold true for taking an acoustic song and flipping it over?
Besides thinking of the classics that have been given this treatment and thrived, most notably Eric Clapton's acoustic "Layla", which has this feeling of sincerity not present in the original electric song, I've encountered such effects closer to home. A local band called Union of Lanters(R.I.P., unfortunately, but wish the boys well in their future solo careers), had this awesome song called "Don Quixote", of which an electric version was available on their myspace, but which I had only ever heard acoustically live. The electric version was good, but it lacked alot of the charm of the acoustic version.
However, I'm wondering if these rules don't apply to my acoustic stuff. "Icarus Drowning" has a bunch of moments in it where, whilst it was written and performed on acoustic, I can hear the distortion kicking in, and the drums and bass picking it up in my head. Because my main method of thinking musically is "rock", I tend to write songs that fit well on electric on acoustic. However, I wanna take it up a step from being a hardrock song. I wanna kick this bitch into metal.
So that raises all sorts of questions: do I keep the quiet feel for the intro, or do I have it be an explosive song right from the start? Do I have to write in new parts to give it that extra little kick in my mind from "meh...rock" to "YEAH, metal....bitch"? I've done this with songs before, the whole translating them from acoustic to electric and vice versa, and I've found that what it comes down to is this: you can't play a song both acoustically and electrically and expect it to be the same song. Acoustic has a charm and intimacy that's unique to it; electric has the raw power to blast out unadulterated emotion, but not so much on the subtle textures.
Ah, music. So deliciously varied and complicated. If it was a food I would eat it every day.
I might add more to this later, but my brain just ran out of words.
\m/,
Brian
Monday, August 25, 2008
METAL...it comes from hell. Or does it? Maybe it's just music, fucktard.
So, I was at a kegger the other night, and me and this dude got to talking about music, a frequent happening with me, anywhere. Anyway, I knew he was a metalhead, so I said how if I had to pick out any modern form of music that was closest to classical, I'd pick metal, just because of the unique arrangements and such. He agreed in the case of symphonic black metal, but concluded his statement with the sentence: "And everyone hates metalcore". At which point I objected, and hence started the discussion that inspired this writing.
I'm really sick of hypocrisy in music, especially extreme, "rebellious" forms of music. The whole "we're non-conformists because we conform to this extreme music's ideology" bullshit really gets under my skin. I think that the idea of metal, when it started, was "Fuck you, mainstream. We're not going to write music that prescribes to a set formula of songwriting. We're gonna do our own thing." And they did.
And it was awesome.
But now it seems metal is in a place where "metalheads" aren't willing to admit it's metal if the artists do what they want with the music instead of trying to keep themselves confined in a certain set of rules and song formulas. Which is exactly what metal was trying to get out of when it first appeared on the scene.
...
Enter metalcore; the argument aforementioned dude used (if I can remember correctly) was that metalcore wasn't real metal because it didn't stay true to the ideology of satanic black metal. I don't think metal should be defined by any particular ideology; it's an extreme form of music.
Which brings me to another point: what's with ultra-sub-classification of music? I mean, trying to make music fit into a box is one thing; making an excel spreadsheet with attached diagrams and a legend for quick reference is quite another. Any musician that seriously starts describing their genre using more than three words should be greeted by a swift kick to the face, followed by raucous laughter. I do understand the desire to classify music for convenience; but like I said, you should only need three or less words to describe it. If you want to get specific about a band using words...don't. Just tell your audience to go listen to said bands music. Not complicated at all and it accomplishes what you were trying to do as a fan, which is getting people to listen to your favorite band's music. CRAZINESS.
I once had someone describe some trance music as "psy-trance-electro-happyhardcore-fusion", so after kicking them in the face I realized I didn't have to listen to the artist anyway because I'd already read the book.
Plus most black metal sucks ass anyway. Just kidding!
\m/,
Brian
I'm really sick of hypocrisy in music, especially extreme, "rebellious" forms of music. The whole "we're non-conformists because we conform to this extreme music's ideology" bullshit really gets under my skin. I think that the idea of metal, when it started, was "Fuck you, mainstream. We're not going to write music that prescribes to a set formula of songwriting. We're gonna do our own thing." And they did.
And it was awesome.
But now it seems metal is in a place where "metalheads" aren't willing to admit it's metal if the artists do what they want with the music instead of trying to keep themselves confined in a certain set of rules and song formulas. Which is exactly what metal was trying to get out of when it first appeared on the scene.
...
Enter metalcore; the argument aforementioned dude used (if I can remember correctly) was that metalcore wasn't real metal because it didn't stay true to the ideology of satanic black metal. I don't think metal should be defined by any particular ideology; it's an extreme form of music.
Which brings me to another point: what's with ultra-sub-classification of music? I mean, trying to make music fit into a box is one thing; making an excel spreadsheet with attached diagrams and a legend for quick reference is quite another. Any musician that seriously starts describing their genre using more than three words should be greeted by a swift kick to the face, followed by raucous laughter. I do understand the desire to classify music for convenience; but like I said, you should only need three or less words to describe it. If you want to get specific about a band using words...don't. Just tell your audience to go listen to said bands music. Not complicated at all and it accomplishes what you were trying to do as a fan, which is getting people to listen to your favorite band's music. CRAZINESS.
I once had someone describe some trance music as "psy-trance-electro-happyhardcore-fusion", so after kicking them in the face I realized I didn't have to listen to the artist anyway because I'd already read the book.
Plus most black metal sucks ass anyway. Just kidding!
\m/,
Brian
Monday, August 18, 2008
Late ramblings-hopefully not too incoherent.
So, a decent amount of stuff has happened in my life lately that I've been forced from my relatively care-free outlook into something a little more introspective.
I've been thinking how the whole aspired-to rockstar lifestyle applies to other aspects of my life: i.e. relationships. Part of me wants to be able to live that rockstar fantasy of being able to just sort of do whatever I want when it comes to girls, but who I am contradicts that. I was raised on respect for women and emotional responsibility, and through that developed a love of chivalry and the desire to live my life like that. It's a curious contradiction.
So many times, I find myself in situations that force me to decide which Brian I want to listen to: the rockstar Brian whose impulsive and does what feels good, or the chivalrous Brian who won't do something avoidable if it's gonna hurt other people. I feel that the answer, as usual, doesn't lie in either of the extremes but somewhere right in the middle, favorite haunt of the truth. (ASIDE: I believe in absolute truth.) The obvious answer to give is that the whole rockstar/chivalric knight personas each have their moment; it depends on the situation and other parties involved. However, something just feels missing from this solution.
I can't help but think that part of the appeal of the rockstar fantasy is living in a world without consequences, where no one expects you to do anything but act on impulse and essentially just satisfy your whims. However, living in such a world would be detrimental to the music I write; I always write what I feel, and it would lack depth if there were no consequences for my actions. Because I write from emotion, *SCREECHING HALT*
I would like to take this moment to assure everyone that I do not like or write emo music, except satirically. There's a different between writing a sad song and an emo song; a distinction which is starting to get lost in the modern music scene. Besides, emo is lame and not metal, and I'm manly and awesome.
*RESUME* Now I've lost track. Meh; was worth it. Manly AND awesome. *kills a swarm of angry bees with pure testosterone*
I think consequences are important to the emotions we feel. *NOTE: the following is purely hypothetical* Say I'm in a "romantic situation" with girl Z. Girl Z likes me and wants a relationship, but I, being the carefree rockstar that stereotype demands I be, am just looking for a bedwarmer for the evening. Now, in the world I live in now, if I followed through with the bumping of nasties, the consequence would be leading her on, and therefore hurting her when I told her that I wasn't looking for anything other than a squeeze. I'd feel like a piece of shit covered in douche-sauce. Ok, I just had a mental image of what douche-sauce would look/taste like and shall now be mentally scarred for the rest of my life. Back on topic.
In the world without consequence, she would understand perfectly that I didn't want a relationship, but be perfectly down for a tumble in the sheets. Here there's no consequences so I don't feel any emotion other than satiation. As odd as it may seem, the second scenario is completely repulsive to me.
Having to make choices, even about things I don't wanna think about, is something that I highly value, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. The need to restrain impulsiveness when it's going to cause pain is one of the things that makes one noble, a mon avis. As much as the hedonist, consequenceless rockstar stereotype lifestyle appeals to me, I don't think that's an aspect of it I want. Or at least not much.
I can't deny a taste here and there might be a little fun.
I mean, what?
*cough*
\m/,
Brian
I've been thinking how the whole aspired-to rockstar lifestyle applies to other aspects of my life: i.e. relationships. Part of me wants to be able to live that rockstar fantasy of being able to just sort of do whatever I want when it comes to girls, but who I am contradicts that. I was raised on respect for women and emotional responsibility, and through that developed a love of chivalry and the desire to live my life like that. It's a curious contradiction.
So many times, I find myself in situations that force me to decide which Brian I want to listen to: the rockstar Brian whose impulsive and does what feels good, or the chivalrous Brian who won't do something avoidable if it's gonna hurt other people. I feel that the answer, as usual, doesn't lie in either of the extremes but somewhere right in the middle, favorite haunt of the truth. (ASIDE: I believe in absolute truth.) The obvious answer to give is that the whole rockstar/chivalric knight personas each have their moment; it depends on the situation and other parties involved. However, something just feels missing from this solution.
I can't help but think that part of the appeal of the rockstar fantasy is living in a world without consequences, where no one expects you to do anything but act on impulse and essentially just satisfy your whims. However, living in such a world would be detrimental to the music I write; I always write what I feel, and it would lack depth if there were no consequences for my actions. Because I write from emotion, *SCREECHING HALT*
I would like to take this moment to assure everyone that I do not like or write emo music, except satirically. There's a different between writing a sad song and an emo song; a distinction which is starting to get lost in the modern music scene. Besides, emo is lame and not metal, and I'm manly and awesome.
*RESUME* Now I've lost track. Meh; was worth it. Manly AND awesome. *kills a swarm of angry bees with pure testosterone*
I think consequences are important to the emotions we feel. *NOTE: the following is purely hypothetical* Say I'm in a "romantic situation" with girl Z. Girl Z likes me and wants a relationship, but I, being the carefree rockstar that stereotype demands I be, am just looking for a bedwarmer for the evening. Now, in the world I live in now, if I followed through with the bumping of nasties, the consequence would be leading her on, and therefore hurting her when I told her that I wasn't looking for anything other than a squeeze. I'd feel like a piece of shit covered in douche-sauce. Ok, I just had a mental image of what douche-sauce would look/taste like and shall now be mentally scarred for the rest of my life. Back on topic.
In the world without consequence, she would understand perfectly that I didn't want a relationship, but be perfectly down for a tumble in the sheets. Here there's no consequences so I don't feel any emotion other than satiation. As odd as it may seem, the second scenario is completely repulsive to me.
Having to make choices, even about things I don't wanna think about, is something that I highly value, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. The need to restrain impulsiveness when it's going to cause pain is one of the things that makes one noble, a mon avis. As much as the hedonist, consequenceless rockstar stereotype lifestyle appeals to me, I don't think that's an aspect of it I want. Or at least not much.
I can't deny a taste here and there might be a little fun.
I mean, what?
*cough*
\m/,
Brian
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
MY FIRST POST EVAR!
GREETINGS TO THEE, VASTNESS OF THE INTERNETS!
No, this entire thing won't be in caps. So I've done it. I've joined the scores of people who write down what they're thinking for the entertainment of complete strangers. Fortunately I'm not a shy person, so I think I'll fit right in. The reason I named this blog "Reaching for the Dream" is that it's always been my dream to make a career doing what I loved: playing metal guitar and singin' my heart out. I'm in a band called d'Archangel, in which one of my best friends Dom, who plays a mean lead, and can roar like a lion, is my counterpart.
I think we make a good team.
However, there is, at the moment, just the two of us. A drummer and bassist are required, no matter how awesome two guitarist/vocalists just going nuts would be.
Nonetheless, that's not what this blog is about. Basically, I just decided to create this to keep the internetz aware of my progress towards said goal. And also to rant about shit I think about music in general. (As an aside, I like this "Katy Perry" person-she's different, which is more than can be said about most pop.) Ever since I first got passionate about playing/listening to music, it's all I've really wanted to do as a career. I mean, I love the arts in general; I've done some acting, and stage-fighting is super cool, but my heart lies in music. It's always been the balm with which I've soothed the wounds life has given me; seriously, there's never been anything that's bugged me that writing a song hasn't helped with.
Aside from playing metal guitar, I do enjoy playing acoustic. Considering Dom lives 2 hours away, most of the gigs I've been doing have been my solo acoustic stuff, some of which you can find here:
www.myspace.com/lupehomme
Honestly, I can't wait until Dom moves into town so we can start up d'Archangel for real. I really wanna do this rockstar thing; I'm hoping that my drive will be enough.
\m/,
Brian
No, this entire thing won't be in caps. So I've done it. I've joined the scores of people who write down what they're thinking for the entertainment of complete strangers. Fortunately I'm not a shy person, so I think I'll fit right in. The reason I named this blog "Reaching for the Dream" is that it's always been my dream to make a career doing what I loved: playing metal guitar and singin' my heart out. I'm in a band called d'Archangel, in which one of my best friends Dom, who plays a mean lead, and can roar like a lion, is my counterpart.
I think we make a good team.
However, there is, at the moment, just the two of us. A drummer and bassist are required, no matter how awesome two guitarist/vocalists just going nuts would be.
Nonetheless, that's not what this blog is about. Basically, I just decided to create this to keep the internetz aware of my progress towards said goal. And also to rant about shit I think about music in general. (As an aside, I like this "Katy Perry" person-she's different, which is more than can be said about most pop.) Ever since I first got passionate about playing/listening to music, it's all I've really wanted to do as a career. I mean, I love the arts in general; I've done some acting, and stage-fighting is super cool, but my heart lies in music. It's always been the balm with which I've soothed the wounds life has given me; seriously, there's never been anything that's bugged me that writing a song hasn't helped with.
Aside from playing metal guitar, I do enjoy playing acoustic. Considering Dom lives 2 hours away, most of the gigs I've been doing have been my solo acoustic stuff, some of which you can find here:
www.myspace.com/lupehomme
Honestly, I can't wait until Dom moves into town so we can start up d'Archangel for real. I really wanna do this rockstar thing; I'm hoping that my drive will be enough.
\m/,
Brian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
