Interview
with Steve Wynn, guitar, vox with Dream Syndicate, Gutterball, Danny and Dusty,
the Baseball Project, and many more.
Interview takes place over the phone on June 24, 1993.
(M)att: Do you think there is such a thing as
selling-out?
(S)teve: I think it’s a misunderstood term. I think most people who view people as
selling-out generally have no idea what they’re talking about. I think there are times when people will change
their music for financial gain, or change their music because it’s only a small
compromise for a greater return later on, and they’re usually wrong.
M: Do you feel comfortable naming anybody
you think has done that?
S: Here’s why I wouldn’t. There have been times when people have said
to me, especially early on in the Dream Syndicate, that we were
selling-out. We made an album in 1982
called The Days of Wine and Roses,
which was very popular critically in America.
It established them quite a bit.
We then went to A&M and made a record called The Medicine Show which, when it came out, we were accused of, in
this country anyway, of selling-out, of making an expensive record. At that time, things were very different than
they are not. At that time if you went
with a major label, if you had a large budget, you were automatically
selling-out. Of course now everything
from Sonic Youth to Nirvana to Butthole Surfers are on large labels with huge
budgets. But at that time that was
considered to be a selling-out thing.
And this album, The Medicine Show, was very dark, I
think much less accessible than The Days
of Wine and Roses. And a very
disturbing record about a lot of subjects that I thought hadn’t been dealt with
on records much, like arson, murder, necrophilia, you name it, it was an ugly
record.
I was consciously trying to make a
more challenging record. People said it
was selling-out. If I was to sell-out, I
would do it in a completely different way.
I wouldn’t have ten-minute songs.
But I think people have knee-jerk
reactions about what is selling-out. It
used to be, if you were an indie rocker, if you went to a major label you were
selling-out. Now of course everyone goes
to major labels.
I think the only thing that is
selling-out is if you don’t do the music you want to do. You do some other kind of music because someone
else tells you it’s a good idea. That’s
pretty much the whole definition of it.
M: Did you put out
The Days of Wine and
Roses yourself?
S: No.
It was on Slash.
M: The one I have says Ruby Records.
S: Ruby, Slash. Same company.
At that time it was an indie. Now
Slash is with Warner Bros.. Again,
accused. . .by the time we were on A&M and being accused of selling-out to
A&M, the label we’d come from was signing with Warner Bros., an even bigger
company.
It’s generally a hollow-type
thing. If you are doing anything at all
in your music because you have made compromises to some sort of big structure,
then you are selling-out.
M: When you’re thinking of an audience. .
.there’s a mass audience and then there are sub-audiences. . .
S: Right.
Zero to forty-million. And
unfortunately. . .There’s a lot of people who have very comfortable audiences. Like myself where I’ll sell between 80 and
100,000 records each time out. And for
me that’s wonderful. It means I can pay
my bills. It means I can have all the
freedom I want. I can do the records I
want. I know people will come to the
shows. It’s a good level to be at.
But a lot of people will be at a
level like that and thing, “It’s good, but I need more.” If they sell a million records then they think
they should be selling five million. If
they sell five million, they think they should be selling ten. People always want more.
It’s weird because if. . .A good
example: A band like the Knack, who sold
millions of records. And by the third
record it slipped down to maybe three or four-hundred thousand copies. They were considered failures. The band just completely lost it all and
never made a record again. I think they
made a comeback record. But they were
finished.
I don’t think all my records
combined have sold as much as their failure.
But it’s something about the perception that if you have done really
well, you have to stay there. And
there’s a certain comfort to being a cult artists because of that.
M: Cuz you can’t go down in sales?
S: No.
Because you’re not expected to reach a certain level. If I made a record next year that was really
weird and sold 1,000 copies, I could still make more records. But if somebody, if Nivana’s next record
sells 500,000 copies people are gonna be saying they’re finished. It’s a shame.
I think. . .when you say. . .is
there something you can do to reach the masses, I think you have to do what you
want to do, and let other things take care of itself.
M: When you were in the Dream Syndicate,
those were in the hardcore days of California in which there was a very
anti-industry stance among the band. As
you said, you took a lot of shit for going to Atlantic.
S: Oh, we did at the time, absolutely.
M: How were you thinking about it when
you did it?
S: At the time there was a real definite,
definite, definite difference-line drawn between indies and majors. Indies were for cool people and the majors
were for the uncool people. And it was
drawn that way. Which I didn’t buy at
the time. I didn’t feel that way at
all. Because before that, the music I’d
been into in the seventies, when the Stooges and the Velvets were on major
labels.
I personally found Slash to be more
of a dishonest, corrupt, thieving, sleazy label than A&M. I thought that A&M was actually more
honest and. . .they said what they would do and they did it. And there was entire freedom on the record.
M: Do you think major labels are in a
position where they can allow their bands more artistic freedom than an indie
might?
S: I don’t think. . .Each situation is
different. And, of course, now is a
whole different thing, too. I feel sorry
for a band like that, because they’ll be expected to live up to a certain thing
that Nirvana has established. And the
people who run labels, they see Nirvana and say, “That’s great! Now any band that has long hair and plays
electric guitars can do that.” It’s not
that easy.
I would never, and I felt this way
back then, I would never say, “Indies are this and majors are that.” And at that point in time, right then in the
early eighties, people didn’t see it that way.
There wasn’t much of a
difference. If you can make the music
you hear in your head that you want to make, and find somebody who will take it
from you when you finish the tapes and get it out to stores, then you’re happy.
I see what I do for a living as two
things. One of the things I do is I make
records. When I do that I’ve never had a
label get involved with what I’m doing, and they shouldn’t. There should be nothing in that process that has
anything to do with record labels, with radio, with press. It should just be the thing that you want to
do. That’s one of the jobs. The other job I do is I promote these things
that come out. And that’s when I have to
deal with the labels.
So for the first part of it, it
doesn’t matter whether you’re on an indie, whether you’re pressing yourself, or
you’re on a major label. You just
hopefully can do the record you want to do.
The second part of it, you’re very much at the mercy of the label.
This is interesting cuz I just got
the reissue of Badfinger Straight Up,
which I liked quite a bit when it came out.
And it’s interesting now that Big Star is getting a lot of. . .
You know about Big Star, right/ They’re getting a lot of attention right now. I was really into Big Star for a long time, I
was a big fan.
M: How old are you?
S: I’m thirty-three.
No one knew about them, they did not
get across at all. Badfinger, at the
time, was a huge hit band. They had hit
singles, they had Gold Records, they were very popular on AM radio.
Now, twenty years later, I think
that Big Star probably is more popular, they’re still playing shows. I guess Badfinger did some stuff. But they’re actually considered in retrospect
to be the better band. To have had the
more lasting impact.
When you compare the Velvets, in
’67, with a band, like, maybe, the Electric Prunes or a band like that, who
probably sold many more records and had more of a. . .but who had more of a
lasting impact?
M: Have you ever had a situation between
you and a label in which there was conflict about songs on an album?
S: Not really. I’ve been very lucky in that respect. Throughout all of the records I’ve done I
have not had much involvement. . .the closest I’ve come to that was being on Rhino
of all places. But then that was largely
because my A&R man, Gary Stewart, who had been a friend for a long time, he
was a person I talked to music with for a long time as a friend, I would play
him songs and he was like a sounding board.
But even then he would give advice, but I wouldn’t. . .
Every other record I’ve done has
been completely untouched by the label to extremes. Usually just finish them and turn them
in. It’s a very lucky thing. I think it’s flukish that I’ve had that much
freedom. I think usually it’s more of a
battle. And maybe it’s because I’ve
changed labels with almost every record.
The first record is always the honeymoon.
M: How many did you do with A&M?
S: Just Medicine Show, and then I did a record called Danny and Dusty.
M: And then the live one.
S: And the live thing, too, that
also. I don’t count that just because
with live records things are just captured.
But we did two studio records with them.
M: Were you pretty much the leader of the
Dream Syndicate?
S: I was the songwriter so I set a lot of
the tone of the band. But I definitely
wasn’t the dictator. I think by the
virtue of having written the songs and having been one of the two people who
were in the band the entire time, I guess I had some extra say and some extra.
. .I knew the direction.
But the way that Dream Syndicate
operated was very much, I would bring the songs in, and whatever happened,
happened. It wasn’t me telling anybody
what to do.
M: Why did Dream Syndicate end?
S: It came to the point where I felt we
had done everything that we could do that was interesting. It wasn’t a typical break-up. We got along very well and actually I thought
that we were making very good music at that point. But it started to feel kind of stale. And there were a lot of things I wanted to do
that I felt I couldn’t do with the band.
Which I ended up doing. My two solo
records were very different. It just
seemed like seven years was enough time to be in a band.
I like to do solo more. I’m playing in a band again now, and
remembering that I didn’t like playing in a band. I like the people in the band, I like the
record quite a bit. I’m remembering how
much I liked the opportunity to do whatever you want to do and jump from here
to there at any moment. There’s a lot
more freedom being solo.
M: Why did you decide to do a band again?
S: I didn’t decide. We just got together to jam in a barn with a
tape recorder running and made a tape that was really wonderful. And we became a band because of the
tape. The tape was just done for fun and
everyone liked the tape so much that we decided we were a band. We’re just a band in as much as we made a
record and we’ll do some shows behind it.
But we’re not really a band.
M: What label is that on?
S: Mute/Electra. Indie and major. Something that’s happening now a lot is the
indies are being taken over by majors.
And there are very few independent indies anymore. At this pint all that indies are is, for the
most part, for bands if they can’t get on a major. Cuz everybody can get on a major. There’s no kind of band that couldn’t.
The only band. . .There are bands
like Fugazi that choose not to be on a major.
And if they want to be on a major, every major would be handing them
checks with a lot of zeros. But there
are very few bands like that. Superchunk
is like that. A few bands choose not to
be on majors. But for the most part
every band can and should be on a major right now.
M: Why should they?
S: If they want to get their records out
there. There’s no reason why they
shouldn’t. But you do what you want to
do. That’s one part of the job, and you just
hope it gets out as much as it can.
Once my record is done, once it’s an
actual record and it’s in the stores, I’m as much into promoting it as is Bon
Jovi. I’ll do the interviews, I’ll go to
record stores, I’ll do radio things, I’ll do all that stuff. I want to get it out there. I very much want my record to sell a lot of
copies. I want them to get on the radio. But that’s the second part of the process. The first part is doing what you want to
do. So I think being on a major label at
this point helps you get out more.
That’s all there is to it.
M: What about someone like Steve Albini
who would say that major labels are just leeches that are taking all the money
that you deserve from making the music.
S: I have found that indie labels take
your money much more readily and pay you much more slowly and not as well. There are indie labels that are fine, but I’ve
had much better experiences with major labels.
I don’t agree with Albini as far as that goes. I think indie labels can be cool. The nice thing about indie labels is they’ll
treat you very well. Sometimes they’re
very happy to have you there. Given the
difference between being on an indie label where they love you and you get a
lot of attention, and a major label where they don’t care about you, sure, I’ll
choose the indie label. But I’d rather
be on a major label where they love you and care about you. At this point they’re much more able to get
the job done.
M: And indies are hooked up with the
majors anyway.
S: For the most part. There’s nothing indie about. . .At this point
if you’re on Matador you’re on Atlantic.
If you’re on Mute you’re on Electra.
I’m not against indie labels. I
think they’re very cool. I like
them. But I don’t believe that there’s
anything inherently good about indies or bad about majors. And when he says that they’re all leeches. .
.I don’t believe whether it’s politics, or sociology, or music companies that
say that “all people of this type are like this and all people like that are
like that.” That’s silly. It doesn’t work that way. I know people who work at major labels and
they’re big fans, and they love music.
And then there are lots of old creepy guys who, like, buy cocaine and
prostitutes for radio stations. There’s
good and bad. I know lots of indie
people, and some of the indie people hate music. Some of the indie people just want to hang
out and be cool. You can’t say there’s
one type or another type. It’s just
ridiculous. He’s right. Some major labels are leeches, some of them.
. .And a lot of these people who are signing million dollar deals right now
will be dropped so fast in two years and be broke. It will happen. But I don’t’ like saying one is good and one
is bad.
M: Do you think it did when you started?
S: No.
M: Do you think the punks were wrong,
too, as far as their ideas about the business?
S: Back then indie labels were cool
because there was a lot of music that couldn’t get on record. If you were. . .The early days of punk, all
those bands were on major labels, too.
The Pistols, the Clash, the Talking Heads, Television to Richard Hell
and the Voidoids to the Dead Boys. All
those original punk bands.
M: But what about the L.A. hardcore
scene, the early eighties?
S: Circle Jerks, Bad Religion, Black
Flag. Those were all on indies, that’s
true. SST did a lot of good things. SST made a lot of good music available. I own a lot of indie records. I’ve got no knocks against them. They’re still very useful. But right now, indie means nothing. Until two years from now when the whole glut
of. . . If it doesn’t pan-out the labels will drop all those bands and we’ll go
back to indies. And it will be useful
again.
If I was twenty years old and
starting my first band I would be happy to be on a major label. It would make sense. If I was 20 and you said to me, “Would you
prefer to have four years of fast money and a lot of buzz about you, or would
you rather have a forty-year career and be a cult artist?” No question.
I think the cult artist thing is totally happening. I think much more noble models are people
like Leonard Cohen or Townes Van Zandt, or Miles Davis or Max Roach. People that just kept going and going and
going.
Townes Van Zandt is a good
example. He’s a guy that many people in
the world have never heard of. A lot of
people have. He probably doesn’t sell
that many records. He tours a bit. When he play L.A. he plays 150 seat
clubs. But he’s been able to keep going
and trying to get better and better. That’s really cool. That’s really noble. He’s written folk and country stuff for
years. Like twenty-five years. His most famous song is “Poncho and Lefty”
which Willie Nelson did. He’s a real big
inspiration for people like Jimmy Dale Gilmore.
Or Leonard Cohen had made, maybe,
eight records in twenty-five years. Now
he’s kind of accepted as a great American treasure. But even ten years ago he made an amazing
album. You couldn’t find it in
America. Various Positions is an incredible record, and it’s still out of
print here. It’s a crime! It’s ridiculous! But the thing is, he just keeps going. He does what he does. And it’s great. I think that’s much cooler. That’s what I’d like for myself.
I guess the one thing I’d agree
with, and maybe this is what Albini meant, it would be bad if you were a young
band and just staked everything on fast success with the major labels and find
yourself out of work three years later.
But an indie isn’t going to guarantee that you’ll do any better either.
M: Would you be comfortable if one of
your albums went huge, Platinum?
S: I’d be very happy, comfortable. But let’s say, money aside, I’d almost rather
go Gold that double-Platinum, if I had the choice. Yea, if I went double-Platinum I could afford
to buy a nice house. That would be very
cool. But if you sell a lot of records,
there are certain problems that go along with that. There are going to be things, there will be
new pressures. You will be expected to
keep up a certain level. That’s tough.
M: Do you see a difference between, say,
bon Jovi and REM in the way they got to where they are?
S: Absolutely. REM did it the right way. Bon Jovi probably thinks their music is the
greatest in the world. I’m sure if Bon
Jovi could make a Captain Beefheart record they wouldn’t want to. They probably would be happier making Bon
Jovi music. But I think REM has done it
in a very cool way. And they’ve also
done it in a very real way. It’ll be
much harder for them to fail now. They
have a real good following, a lot of integrity.
But there’s probably people who se REM as sell-outs. And they’re the exact opposite. And, of course, it’s my personal taste, but
I’d rather hear REM than a band that got all their influences from Black
Sabbath. There’s nothing hip about
Soundgarden or Pearl Jam. To me that’s
music I thought was shit when I was a kid.
The only thing with REM now that
they’re selling millions and millions of copies, they have more responsibility
that goes along with that. If they want
to make a record that’s very uncommercial, they would have to. . .it would be
seen as a bold step. It would be seen as
thumbing their noses at the music industry, rather than just being seen as what
they want to do right now. It would be
seen as a statement. They’ve handled
that kind of power very well. I think U2
has also. In fact U2 is a band I’ve
never liked very much until their last record.
Partially because I think they went completely against the grain. And it worked. I think REM is very, very cool.
M: Do you think it is possible for a
young band to consciously construct a career similar to REM as opposed to a Bon
Jovi career?
S: It’s harder now. I’m glad I started when I did. Now there’s too much placed on fast return,
on things happening quickly. I think
right now there’s too much emphasis on making something happen right away. It could be tough.
There’s also. . .when REM started
and when I started, there weren’t that many people doing what you would call
now “alternative” music. There weren’t that
many people doing that kind of thing.
Whenever the new modern rock, new wave band came to town it was
exciting. There weren’t that many bands
doing it. It’s definitely harder to
stand-out now.
M: Is it possible for it to go back, or
do you think rock is stagnant?
S: I don’t know, but alternative rock is
the new corporate rock.
M: Alternative is just another category
now.
S: Right, and it’s not really
alternative. It is largely corporate
rock. It is approached the same
way. It is a part of the machine
now. Eventually the best ones will come
out and they’ll stick around and the worse ones will fade away.
Now you don’t think of U2 or Talking
Heads or REM as New Wave bands. But they
were then. Now they’re just bands. So certain ones will stick around. I don’t know who.
M: It seems to me that alternative music
now is probably not, musically, rock.
It’s probably techno or something.
S: They need another name for it. It’s weird to think now that a band would
form and want to sound like Nirvana to get rich. That’s gonna be the one thing that’s kind of
weird now.
Before, the situation was if you
wanted to make a lot of money you rehearsed for a year straight and id you best
to sound like Foreigner. And if you
wanted to keep you integrity and never play to anybody but just live like shit
you’d play music that sounded like Neil Young or the Velvets or the
Stooges. Now it’s a form of success and
it kind of blurs the issue. Because now
there are a lot of bands that sound like all the right things that have no
heart. And that’s a big problem. Ten or fifteen years ago if I would’ve saw a
review in Flipside and “These guys
sound like the Velvets, these guys sound like Robin Hitchcock” or “Soft Boys”
or “these guys sound like Big Star,” I would’ve said “I gotta check that
out. Now it means nothing. Now it means these guys have a smart manager.
That’s one frustrating thing right
now that I think will change because probably it will self-destruct just like
power pop did in the late ‘70s. And then
certain bands will stick around.
But it is a weird thing now that
bands are. . .to the point where. . .I used to play a Jazzmaster, a Fender
Jazzmaster guitar. . .I played it in the early ‘80s and, I always traded my
guitars for other guitars. And recently
I was thinking about going and getting another Jazzmaster. I went to the guitar shop and. . .they were
the cheap Fenders. They were $250 or
$300 for a Jazzmaster. Now they’re all
over $1,500, up to $2,000.
Why is this?!
They guys say it’s because Dinosaur
Jr. and Nirvana and Sonic Youth play them.
In L.A. and Hollywood that means that all these guys who five years ago
wanted to be Joe Satriani want to be Thurston Moore now. And not because they think he’s a wonderful
lead guitarist, that’s the way to make money now.
It’s a little bit disturbing. I think everyone can handle it when the way
to be a rock whore was to be like Bon Jovi, was to be like Foreigner. Now when the way to be a rock whore is to
sound like things that are really cool, it’s very confusing. Because it’s very hard to tell the difference
between a very sincere cool alternative band and a band that sounds almost
identical but isn’t a good band.
M: I think Nirvana are probably sincere
guys.
S: I think their next record is going to
be amazing.
SIDE ONE OF THE TAPE ENDS
S: . . .and I thought it was amazing, all
at the same time. I think that’s all it
was. I think it was so good, and at the
time so different and so exciting. And
of course right now if Nevermind came
out by a different band now, it wouldn’t have the same effect. At that time is was so eye opening. I remember the month or two when it first
came out is was so. . .everybody was talking about it. Not talking like, “This is a big hit”, or,
“This is gonna do something,” but, “This is a great record!” Everybody.
All kinds of people.
M: Everybody from the most alternative. .
.
S: Young to old, to people who remember
the Sex Pistols to people who had no idea.
They were all saying, “This is so great!” It was something amazing that doesn’t happen
that often. And I think that’s why it
happened. I don’t think it even had
anything to do with the record company.
It was just a weird phenomenon.
M: So that’s the good thing about popular
music is that there is something that’s not explainable.
S: And that proved it, too. I think at that point there was kind of a
felling of, “Well, what’s gonna happen now?
We’ve seen everything.” And that
really changed so many things. It’s
amazing how much that one record changed. . .
And the one negative thing about it,
probably the one thing they feel, too, is that it opened the doors for a lot of
people playing this cool music who weren’t doing it for the right reasons. And that sounds very elitist. And. . .It’s a tangent, but I think a band
like Big Star, who are great, if you read about them, they were largely in it
for the money. They were not saints,
they were not, “I’m an artist,” who had a vision. Alex Chilton was the biggest money whore
there is. I think he would’ve done any
kind of music to have a hit. Big Star’s
music was just a version of what was popular through a perverted mind, and
ended up being something very cool.
So it’s not a matter of being
elitist as much as the best music comes from the worst people. Ike Turner is a good example. He wrote amazing stuff, amazing records in
the ‘50s and ‘60s.
I think, unfortunately, there’s a
lot of stuff that’s come out of that that’s just garbage. And after awhile you go to a record store and
you hear all the new stuff and it blurs your mind after awhile. To the point where certain records. . . later
on if you hear them enough they end up being pretty good.
So I think something else will
happen that will be completely different again.
M: Do you think it’ll be rock?
S: I think the one constant thing through
all music that keeps it happening is that it has a lot of individual
personality. Whether it was Nirvana or
James Taylor. It was the sound of some
person, some voice speaking directly to you.
It think that’s been the constant.
So it’ll be that. And whether
it’s techno or folk or orchestra, it’ll have less to do with genres that it
will with personality. That’s the thing.
If Nirvana only happened because it
was punk rock, it would’ve happened years ago.
And you could say it was a matter of the times, sure it was a matter of
what was happening at that moment. Yea,
that’s fine. But it happened largely
because there was such an identifiable person and personality in that
band. Not just Kurt Cobain, the whole
sound of i9t was so direct and touched you in a way.
That’s something that only happens
occasionally. And it’s not punk rock and
it’s not grunge and it’s not guitars or long hair, it’s just a certain thing
you can’t even define. That thing will
be in the heart of any music that happens.
M: What do you think about what’s been
going on with their new album?
S: It’s what we’ve just been talking
about. The things that come with selling
4 million records. That’s the negative
thing. I don’t know enough to say, just
what I read like anybody else. But if in
fact they had to make consideration about their music based upon how popular
they are, that’s a real shame.
I’ve heard different arguments. For all I know they probably didn’t like what
came out of that studio and wanted to fix it.
If somebody said to them, “You can’t release this record or a lot of
people will be out of work,” that’s a shame.
That’s a shame to have to carry that burden.
M: Do you think that can happen?
S: I think there always is that type of
thing. I think people come to you all
the time. . .I had that happen to me even at my lower level. People saying, “This is not a good idea. You shouldn’t do this. You should do this tour, do this tour, do
this type of thing.” Sure they say those
things.
I turned in the Gutterball record
complete and people came back and told me I should take off this one song. “It doesn’t fit the record. We don’t like it on the record.”
I said, “No. What’s the point? You can skip it.”
In this case it was a very minor
argument. And it wasn’t brought up
again. But there could be that type of
thing where they say, “You gotta do this.
You gotta remix this. Do a single
here.” That type of stuff is gonna
happen.
If you’re small-time, and you go
against it, it’s not as big a deal as when a lot of people’s jobs are riding on
it. If Nirvana’s next record is a
failure, a lot of people will lose their jobs.
It’s a shame. I’m coming from a time where my musical
awakening was the ‘70s, when someone like Neil Young would follow a huge hit
like Harvest almost immediately with
a total down record, Tonight’s the Night,
and people would say, “Okay, that’s just a step in his career,” and wait for
the next record. Now there’s a lot more
pressure for everything to be right there.
There aren’t a lot of second chances anymore. Terrance Trent D’Arby, who had a huge first
record, made a second record which was pretty good that flopped. Now he has this new one, which is pretty
mainstream, but I don’t think is gonna do much.
Probably because he got his chance, he let it slip, and you don’t get
another chance. It’s a very different
world. And in a way it’s much safer to
travel the world of the cult artists, stay in a ditch, and let things go
by. And just survive.
M: At the same time, you’re not doing
that on purpose.
S: I just do what I do, and if it sells
or not sells that’s fine.
M: And your mind might change if you sold
a couple million, maybe?
S: It would have to change the way I look
at things. It couldn’t not change.
In fact, I think that whatever
Nirvana has done is because they sold 4 million records. Even if it is to make a more punk rock
inaccessible record. It means they were
affected by the sales.
I chose, after Days of Wine and Roses, because we had all this critical acclaim
and signed to a major label, I chose to make a much darker, weirder
record. That’s what I wanted to do. And I did it partially because people were so
into the first record. My feeling was at
the time, You like this?” Cuz at the
time I thought it was cool to change, to pull a major curve. So I figure, “Great, that’s how you feel
about that record, I’m gonna really surprise you now.”
That’s reacting to success. People think that it’s really bad if you get
successful and then you sell-out to make more money. But it is just as bad to be successful and
then change your art to react to being successful.
That’s pretty tough.
I do think that if a band like
Nirvana made a different record, this next record would have to be a different
record than if they hadn’t sold 4 million records last time. If the last record would’ve only sold 100,000
copies, maybe they would’ve made a much more poppy record this time.
M: Did anybody ever want to call you “Steve
Wynn and Gutterball?”
S: Not really. Though I considered making a solo record when
I first heard the tape. There’s a
sticker on the record saying what band everybody was in. Again, that’s a compromise that comes after
the record is done. I don’t mind that.
M: What other bands were they in?
S: Long Ryders, Silos, and House of
Freaks.
M: Any last comments?
S: No.
You’ve touched on some things I’m pretty passionate about. So what is this for?
M: It’s a PhD dissertation on unsigned
bands and how they go about getting signed.
There’s something magic in there somewhere concerning why a band gets
signed, why a label promotes certain bands over others, and why people even buy
certain records.
S: There’s a lot of politics in
there. One of the things I’ve always had
in my favor, like Bob Mould had in his favor, being responsible and knowing
enough about the business, knowing how things work, and having a definite idea
about what you want and how you’re going to do it. It’s amazing how much that is respected.
I also think that if you’re
delivering a record that you’ve done all yourself, showing up with the thing, “This
is my record, this is what I’d like to do, this is how I’d like to tour,” I
think they actually like that.
M: You mean taking it to the label
yourself?
S: If you can do that. The Gutterball record was a cheap enough
record that we were able to bring it finished and say, “This is a finished
record. Do you want to put it out?” That’s a great position to be in. Gutterball cost about $5,000. My last solo album cost about $90,000. I couldn’t have made that one by myself.
M: Are you going to be touring?
S: Yea.
But more around here than around there.
M: You sell a lot in Europe, right?
S: Yea.
Europe has largely paid for me to be a cult artist for the last couple
of years.
M: That’s what Rick Rizzo was saying
about Eleventh Dream Day.
S: They’ve had the same thing going. There’s a lot of people like that: Green on Red, Giant Sand, Russ Tolman, Cris
Cacavas, a bunch of people.
M: It seems like blues does that, too.
S: They like American music that more
roots type stuff, even if the roots in punk rock roots. I think it’s just an exotic thing to them.
M: There’s a lot of blues guys here in
Chicago who tour and play festivals in Europe, and her they play at small
clubs.
S: I went to a show in Norway once, there
were thousands of people there, and the band was a blues band whose claim to
fame was the bass player once played in Stevie Ray Vaughn’s band. He had no records or anything. They billed it as that: “Former bass player with Stevie Ray Vaughn.” People packed the place.
Part of it is that it’s authentic
from another place.
M: Kind of like white middle-class
college kids buying NWA records.
S: In a way it’s a similar type of thing.
M: I teach classes here and a lot of the white
kids are way into the hardcore rap stuff.
That’s where most of that rap is being sold.
S: Yea.
I read an interview with Ice-T where he says the same thing. That’s probably true.
M: Looking for the authentic black
experience.
S: It’s cheaper and easier than actually
going down. . .
M: . . .to the hood.
S: I know a lot of Europeans who are
really into coming to America and go on these trips where they go to all these
authentic music landmarks. They’ll skip
New York City, they skip the Statue of Liberty, they’ll skip Sears Tower. They’ll go straight for the clubs and
Graceland and all that.
I think it’s a way to feel in touch
with that. A band like eleventh Dream
day, or someone like myself, almost does better in Europe than somebody who
would sell a lot of records here. For
instance, the Replacements, the Dream Syndicate, and probably Eleventh Dream
Day, would always play bigger places to more people, partially because there’s
an attraction there to the American cult artists.
Jazz was the same way. Charlie Parker, who couldn’t even play here.
. .the feeling that they were actually embracing something that even American’s
didn’t get. I think it’s a little bit of
snobbery, too, but it’s snobbery I can definitely accept.
M: How does it feel to you that Americans
don’t get what you’re doing, but Europeans seem to get it?
S: I don’t have much of a problem with
it. I do well enough in America when my
records come out here. I can tour now
and then.
M: Do you make most of your money from
European sales?
S: Definitely. Given the choice of touring America and touring
Europe, I’d rather be there. Because it’s
fun. Cuz I generally have a better time
being in Paris and Amsterdam and Oslo than I do in Cleveland and Detroit and
Iowa.
M: But for some reason your songs bring
out the spirit of Cleveland and Dubuque.
S: That’s the funny thing. The records I’ve done that were most popular
in Europe were the most American.
Certain records I’ve done are more American roots type things, and those
are the ones that’ve been most popular in Europe. When I do things I think are more European,
they don’t do as well. There’s a reason
for that. They want to get the American
experience.
M: I’ve always like bands like Green on
Red, Giant Sand, Dream Syndicate, Meat Puppets.
I don’t know how they do in Europe.
S: I’m not sure. They like the bands that give you a real pure
glimpse of a certain type of class, certain type of place, a certain type of
experience, more than just a mass popular band would.
I hoped that helped out.
M: It was real good. Thank you very much. I hope you come through town sometime and I
can check out your band.
S: If I come through come up and say “Hi.”
No comments:
Post a Comment