Jazzraptor's Prog Blog

Hi again all!

Most likely, I won't put an installment in every day. But for now, my imagination is captured, and I'll keep it going, if that's OK with the board management. (I don't want to be accused of wasting bandwidth!)

This doesn't have to be my own personal thread, btw. Any questions or observations are welcome! (Is this OK, that I do this here??)

OK. One footnote on working with Melanie Myers. All of our lyrical collaborations were not strong-form, back and forth for e-mail after e-mail until we had the perfect song. Sometimes she sent complete songs to which I would just add music. Sometimes I would send near complete lyrics to her, which she would then improve. But the best results came when we both started with just a seed, and would work together to grow the song. "Bohemian Soul" was that way. My favorite verse is the last one:

Life's a gypsy catching dreamers
as they tire of the dancing
pinched between her tapered fingers
victims dangle in her trance
and as she circles through the night
plucking souls 'til morning light
you borrow your tomorrow's strength
while you're a shadow in her hand

"Feel It When I Sting" was that way. Here's the long chorus:

When the clouds over you
challenge my view
lift the lullabies I sing
to the richest blues
to show my blackest truths
paint the midnights that you bring
your heartbeat stretches clear to me
I cut myself to watch you bleed
your cover blown to smithereens
you can be a monster inside
but you're beautiful in my eyes
'cause you feel it when I sting.

(Any song that uses the phrase "blown to smithereens" can't be all bad, right? ;) )


So the songs I was turning over to Trent were sophisticated, with intelligent lyrics. For each song (except "Lucifer's Rat". Trent wrote the music for that one, to a pre-existing Jack Foster lyric, which Trent modified) I gave Trent a demo version, a chord chart, and a lyric sheet. The chords were often complex. For instance the chords for the chorus for "The Shy Ones" start off Emin9 to Eb+7(#9) (the "+" sign means augmented 5th) to Dmi11(13) to Dbmi7(b5) to C69 . . . And Trent was loving it! He once stated that producing my music was like "pouring gasoline on a flame"! He would take the compositions home and toil to find the best interpretations. I was always pleased with the result, but almost always startled as well! "Bohemian Soul" now had a swing jazz bridge added as a solo section. (I had always envisioned that the eventual solo for Bohemian Soul would be Hendrixesque, and even considered lining up Randy Hansen to do the studio work!) The Shy Ones now had a large portion of the song in the time signature of 11/8. The bridge for the song had a Country Western feel, with harmonica (played by Jeff Curtis). The arrangements were lush and varied, with brand new instrumental sections. "Every Time You Smile", which I had produced with a latin jazz feel now was an epic symphonic work! The transformation was awesome, astonishing, and transcendent. We had created something unique -- something special.

Trent brought Robert Berry on to complete the team. He'd float Trent's sketches into new pro-Tools sessions and replace drum machines and keyboard bass lines with real drums and bass, and he often added guitar as well. Robert engineered all of the sessions, mixed the sessions, and generally fulfilled what had become Trent's vision for the songs. I was in heaven with the result.

So "The Evolution of Jazzraptor" (EoJ) was basically a singer/songwriter album produced by an established Progressive Rock producer, co-produced by another established Progressive Rock producer. The result, to my ear, was magic! I set up a web-site to sell the album, sent out a few promos to review houses, and then waited. Nothing. Just a handful of sales. Eventually some reviews came out, and the reviews were sensational! The first was published on-line at melodic.net and was by a reviewer named Kaj Roth: " . . . give this guy Jack Foster an award of anykind.......true epic music that will never die." The Progressor over at progressor.net gave the album a huge review, calling it one of the best albums of 2003.

I decided that I needed help in selling the album, and sent it off to a couple of labels. I quickly received a response from Bernard Gueffier of Musea Records, who wanted the album on his label. We struck a deal, and EoJ was re-released with a new "velociraptor" album cover in the middle of 2004. Ultimately, the album received 70 reviews or so, mostly on-line. There was only one or two bad reviews, and several reviewers listed the album as one of the best albums of 2004.

Next installment: Raptorgnosis.

quite a coup.. getting on with Musea... Great label. 

really curious to hear your stuff...


Edited by micky - August 20 2008 at 17:55

Somebody once said that what they loved about the Music Business was the Music, and what they hated about the Music Business was the Business! I think that's just about right, and I'll try to keep the conversation on Music and sidestep the Business discussion.

(So I won't tell you that soon after I re-released EoJ with Musea, I learned that Musea's advertised "world-wide distribution" had been compromised. Their American distributor had gone under, and Musea had no physical distribution in the U.S other than mail order. I won't tell you that Musea therefore gave back the U.S. territory to me, and that I lined up distribution with Bayside Distribution, a Tower Records affiliate. I won't tell you that I decided to distribute the second album -- Raptorgnosis -- first, licensing again to Musea for Europe. And I won't tell you that Bayside and Tower went under, and I lost my inventory! Not fun seeing my Raptorgnosis CDs available for next to nothing on the net. Tower Records or their receiver had clearly liquidated them to somebody, but I couldn't get phone calls returned! And it was all much more complicated than this Reader's Digest version, but . . . I won't tell you.)

What is it that makes one album better than another? Some would say that that sort of value judgement is just opinion, not fact, and inherently subjective. While there is some small merit in that view, the fact is that a value system does not take place in a vacuum. As we see in the Olympics, one judge's opinion is either confirmed or contradicted by the collective weight of the rest of the judgments. Furthermore, opinions are supported by group acceptance of values and group assessment of facts which are not completely subjective. One judge cannot say that she prefers the routine that ends with the gymnast falling on his face! And if a gymnast falls on his face, . . . hey, it's there for everybody to see.

Music isn't so rigid of course, and personal tastes enter much more strongly into the mix. Still, the subjective is definitely made . . . um, . . . less subjective by the weight of consensus.

Wow, how did that happen!? I guess I was just sitting here trying to figure out how to explain how Evolution of Jazzraptor (EoJ) is different from Raptorgnosis! It's very difficult for me to say that one album is better than the other. Yet I know that when I hear the music from those albums, I'm hearing something different than what most listeners hear. I certainly can hear the music like everyone else, but I also hear what went into making the album. And, I guess that extraneous noise, interfering with what others hear, is what makes me a biased observer!

Raptorgnosis was a very fun album to make. With EoJ, I toiled for years writing songs. The best were handed off to Trent, who toiled over arrangements and production decisions. Trent then handed off the sessions to Robert, who was the man in charge of fulfillment. By contrast, we started Raptorgnosis off by setting aside Wednesdays, when the three of us could get together at Robert's studio. I'd bring a song in, and the three of us would start working on it. Sometimes we would each pick up axes and try to find grooves. So in Mean Solar Day, for instance, in the choruses and the jams, you can hear Robert playing guitar in your left ear, while I'm jamming away in your right in real time. That sort of thing didn't happen in EoJ, which went station to station.

So both albums were collaborative. But Raptorgnosis was active collaboration with decisions being made on the spot. There were disagreements, of course, but we strove for consensus. Trent was still the Producer, and he certainly took the lead regarding how we worked, and what would happen next. But I was the one bringing songs in, and Robert had much more creative input than he had had with the first album. Together, we would weigh various melodic, rhythmic, or harmonic decisions. Someone -- Robert, Trent, or I -- might come up with a part that would complete a section. In short, we were working much more like a band than before.

How did this change affect the music? Biased observer though I am, I'll try to render an opinion. It affected it both positively and negatively. On the plus side, there is some more fluidity, more groove in places; it's a more rockin' album. Also I think my performances are stronger, because I'm becoming more used to working in the studio. Robert's increased creative input is a big plus as well, broadening the base.

On the downside, I think the core song-writing isn't quite as strong. This is for a couple of reasons. With EoJ, we picked just 6 or 7 songs from a very large backlog of songs. Of the twelve songs on Raptorgnosis, eight are new songs, with the remaining four being songs that didn't make the EoJ cut. Plus, I was stung by one criticism from a generally positive review that made the claim that I hadn't quite found my voice. So with the second album, I wanted to have some loose concept to hold the album together. I chose Gnosis, which means wisdom, understanding, or peace, with spiritual overtones. While the concept provided some cohesion, it also put some small constraint on song-writing range.

Finally, Trent's role on the first album really went to his strength. I didn't know this until later, but Trent was in a dispute with his record label when he started working on EoJ. WIth EoJ, I think he really wanted to show off his chops as a producer, since he felt his label undervalued those chops. So EoJ displays this huge stylistic range that is disconcerting for some listeners, but is an absolute joy for others. So one writer from Sea Of Tranquility reviews EoJ this way: "Like a college student who bounces around from subject to subject without picking a major, Jack Foster goes through a myriad of styles on this disc without ever settling into one. Since many of these students leave school to get jobs where they wear name tags and repeat lines like:" You want fries with that?" all day long, I would suggest to Mr Foster that he pick a style and develop it fully."   LOL!   But this was a minority opinion by far. Most people loved the musical multi-lingual fluency of Evolution of Jazzraptor. The vocabulary, all working together, was an extremely effective form of emotional communication! (Is emotional communication synonymous with music? Hmmm.)

But EoJ was history, and the three of us were trying to raise the bar with Raptorgnosis. How would people like Raptorgnosis?

Next installment: Waiting For Reviews

Edited by jazzraptor - August 21 2008 at 17:02

And I waited . . .

I was going to make you wait for one more day, just for the sake of empathy . . .

but enough's enough. And you get the idea right?



On October 11th, 2005 I received an e-mail from my publicist telling me that the first review was out and "not to worry". Uh oh. That made me worried! I went to the site -- Ground And Sky -- and read an absolutely scathing review with adjectives like "jaw-droppingly horrific", "stinker", "dumb", "boring", "really bad", "syrupy", "cold", "sterile", "calculated", "irritating", "tedious", "impotent", . . . all from an anonymous reviewer with handle "Matt P". Who the hell was this guy? Was he bearing some sort of grudge? Trent had clearly been to the site first, because he had posted a full counter-attack response in the comments section. Trent's words made me wince a tad with their vehemence. I was taught to take criticism with a smile and a nod, looking for any potential lesson. Tangle with a reviewer? The artist (or the producer) is at an immediate disadvantage, because everybody KNOWS the artist has a bias, right? Of course, . . . Trent's his own man, and he's going to do what he's going to do! (That's an understatement! My admiration for Trent Gardner is unbounded, and one of these installments perhaps, I'll spend some time discussing the man and his genius.)

The review was silly in many ways. It misidentified instruments. It called "Koan", which is a metal-tinged, hard-rocking song, with many subtle time signature changes, and featuring the synth -- a "dead ringer" for . . . Blues Traveler! Now I have nothing against Blues Traveler, but the statement is simply laughable! It's kind of like saying some Metallica song is a dead-ringer for the Dixie Chicks!   Elsewhere, he criticizes the lyrics, saying that they don't measure up to (get this) William Shakespeare! Hey, when did Shakespeare ever have a hit album? ;)

But what was worse than his many errors was the tone of the review, which was very personal. He wrote: "Jack Foster wants to make clear that he's a guy who thinks. He's a guy who feels." So Matt P. by inference was making a claim about my sincerity; According to Matt, I wanted to come off to an audience as someone who thinks and feels. But Matt doesn't know me from Adam! How can he possibly make any judgement about my personal motivations? (And why assume the worst about them, concluding superficiality?) But make them, he does; repeatedly throughout the review.

To my view, Trent's antagonistic reply didn't help matters. There's an old saying that you shouldn't pick a fight with somebody who owns an ink factory! Sure enough, a few month's later another reviewer at Ground And Sky defended the first, and referenced Trent's reply in doing so. Of all of the Raptorgnosis reviews, the two Ground and Sky reviews were by far the worst. (In fact, I don't recall another truly negative review, though honestly the vast majority of reviews were written in languages other than English, and sometimes it was difficult for me to know how the reviewer felt! Free-translations.com helps a bit.)

Which is the good news. For the most part, Raptorgnosis was met with critical acclaim. Indeed, some reviewers liked Raptorgnosis better than EoJ. Here's one from another Sea of Tranquility ("you want fries with that?") reviewer, this time Michael Popke: "Sometimes the differences between a debut record and its follow-up album are nothing short of astounding. Such is the case with RaptorGnosis, the second album from guitarist and vocalist Jack Foster III. While 2004's Jazzraptor was an unremarkable and aimless record that tried to bridge progressive rock, blues, jazz and singer/songwriter fare, RaptorGnosis emerges with greater focus and energy, concentrating on rock more than any periphery genre." He goes on to say that the album "would have made my best-of-2005 list had I experienced the pleasure of hearing it earlier". Indeed the album did make some best-of-2005 lists. (Bigbangmag.com has several reviewers that rate the album on their best-of lists.)

But that first Ground and Sky review seemed to poison the well for Raptorgnosis. Sales weren't as good for the album. Musea sold only about 400, and Muse-Wrapped sold about the same number in the U.S. before Bayside/Tower went under. (Then presumably they bulk-sold the rest to somebody, and undoubtedly this damaged Musea's sales as well.) The review continues to haunt me to this day, in a way. Google "Jack Foster iii" and of the 25,000 hits, Ground and Sky comes up third, right after jazzraptor.com and the myspace page! I congratulate the Ground and Sky webmaster on his proficient mastery of search engine technology!

Why am I telling y'all this story? Why focus on one negative review? The point of this blog is to give people a sense of what it's like to be a musician who writes, records, and distributes progressive music. After working on an album for over a year, musicians will have undoubtedly made an emotional (and financial) investment. We have no choice but to be affected by reviews. Reviews become one of the primary metrics by which we are judged. Now, I know there are a lot of reviewers on this site. Perhaps this blog will give you an idea of the importance that you have for musicians. When you write a review you therefore take on a responsibility of sorts, particularly when you weigh in with your opinion very early after a release. Trent, Robert, and I spent blood, sweat, and tears on an album. One reviewer throws the CD into his stereo, writes a careless, irresponsible review and people are affected. So if you're going to write reviews, I would ask that you take the responsibility seriously. (This could be a good discussion topic for anybody who wants to jump in. Do people here believe that a reviewer takes on a responsibility to the artist? To the potential audience of the album?)

Hi Shawn! Certainly different reviewers have different problems. There are some that know what they like or don't like, but can't analyze the music sufficiently to tell you why. But this reviewer was articulate; he writes fairly well. And he may have given readers an overall idea what the album sounds like.   I'm not sure. Four times during the review he compares the music to Rush from the 90s. I've never been a Rush fan, because subjectively, I could never get past the Geddy Lee vocals, so I'm not in a position to know if that's a valid comparison or not. But I do know that he's wrong, for instance, when he calls a trombone solo a "trumpet" solo! So the reviewer was obviously "careless". And I call him "irresponsible" as well, because he makes personal judgments that he's in no position to make. I gave one example earlier; here's another. This is what the reviewer wrote about the song "Sense of Static":

The economical "Sense of Static" — a short, aggressive, hard-swinging rock song with a (trombone ) solo — seems acceptable upon first listen. But it is totally ruined by Foster's mocking "huh?" at the song's conclusion, which seems to say "what was this weird, wild stuff that we just played? In case you were wondering, we're capable of being really edgy. But that's not why you bought this record, so we'll get back to what we were doing." This attitude is irritating on its most obvious level, but also because there is nothing particularly weird, wild or edgy about "Sense of Static:"

OK, so here's some of the lyrics to Sense of Static:

Random noise, connect the dots
turn static to forget-me-nots
The magic of the human mind
there's always something cool to find

I watch the noise for hours on end
focused outwards but seeing in
a storied pattern will soon emerge
as drops of sound and light converge

Make Sense of Static . . .

These lyrics aren't "edgy"! They're tongue-in-cheek! The song is about people's tendency to impose pattern upon that which they see or hear. We look up at the night sky and see dippers, bears, soldiers and lions . . ., and that's cool! The song's the opposite of edgy; it's a light-hearted wink at human nature. Robert wrote the music for the song to my pre-existing lyric, and added the "huh?" at the end. The three of us didn't huddle together to discuss how people might interpret this particular exclamation. Yet Matt P. somehow knows what we meant! Matt P. assigns an attitude to us which didn't exist in the first place, and then disses the song because he's irritated by the attitude! And that's just irresponsible.

He does it again at the conclusion of the review:

The whole thing seems very calculated towards targeting a particular market segment (males over 30 who still buy the latest Rush, Yes, Boston and Alan Parsons albums and are not disappointed by them). . .

Now Matt may or may not be correct that the music is similar to Rush, Yes, Boston, Alan Parsons . . . I'll let others confirm or refute that particular view. But, he's in no position to make judgments about my "calculations" of target market segment! I know for a fact that there was no such calculation! I brought in songs that I had written, and the band then refined, augmented and polished them. I didn't start off by saying to myself, "hmmm. How best to reach males over 30 who buy Rush, Yes, and Boston albums?" LOL! Where on Earth does that come from? And why should a reviewer impose these sort of inventions upon readers? Well, a responsible reviewer wouldn't. Everybody has the right to their opinion and the right to express their opinion. But with that freedom comes a responsibility.

(No takers on the topic of reviewers and responsibility? . . .

If not, . . . )

Next installment: "Tame Until Hungry".

Edited by jazzraptor - August 25 2008 at 13:57

But it's nice to get a modicum of revenge by reviewing the reviewer!

Hi Jazzraptor, why don't you upload a sample, if you didn't yet ?

well you know, you can listen to any of the songs on Mindawn for free and in full

http://www.mindawn.com/

We took a fairly long hiatus after recording Raptorgnosis. I started to really miss recording, and I felt challenged to raise the bar. So our first day back to the studio to contemplate the next album, we started with a Raptorgnosis post-mordem. The Ground And Sky review was out, and I was disappointed with how the album was doing, and I wanted to "right the course" for album number three, whatever that was to be. I took the largest chunk of blame myself, citing weaker core song-writing for the tracks. But I also thought we weren't being as creative as we could be from the perspective of musical texture and soundscape, and we tended to fall back on old habits. I told them that I thought we should experiment more, and I brought in some other CDs as examples of terrain we might explore -- a Sufjan Stevens album, among others.

In retrospect, I must have seemed very arrogant that day. Trent and Robert were both incredibly talented, and had worked with many huge names in the Progressive Rock world, from Keith Emerson, Carl Palmer, and Steve Howe to James LaBrie, John Petrucci, and Steve Walsh. They had finished two stellar albums for me, which were near flawless. If anybody was the weak link in the musical chain, it was me. In fact, I was incredibly lucky to be working with them, and I probably would not have been working with them if not for a weak, fickle music industry.

But Trent and Robert both took the post-mordem session in the spirit in which it was intended, though Trent seemed a little put out for the rest of the day. He was already a bit mad at me for not defending his response comments to Ground and Sky, and my apparent lack of appreciation must have rubbed him the wrong way. But he responded by going to work on the arrangement of "Inside My Mind", one that I had brought in at the end of the Raptorgnosis sessions. The verse had already been re-written, and the song mapped out and sketched to a Pro-Tools session. Trent took the energy from his annoyance with me to build a masterwork of arranging!

The song didn't get too much attention from the Progressive world; the song itself was too pop-oriented and light. But Trent's arrangement of the song is incredibly good, and like nothing else that he's done (that I've heard), with sensitive linear counterpoint, and very little chordal accompaniment. Every once in awhile, a friend will come and tell me that they've owned Tame Until Hungry for awhile, but just noticed how good "Inside My Mind" is. I thank them, and think to myself, "yeah, I got arrogant, Trent got pissed off, and that was the result"!