Q: What’s with the “Alternate | Acoustic | Blues & Roots” tag?

A: I spent a lot of time working on the sound and style of the music for The Roadhouse Regulars- to find something that reflected the story being told by the album, something that could be reproduced in, and reflected, a live setting, something that was uniquely raw, earthy and strong and something that had a simplicity to it. The music evolved in that direction and I think the finished album reflects that.

But then I had to find a tag to try and capture that succinctly.

When music is pitched to radio stations, put up on online platforms or promoted in almost any sphere- it needs to be categorised. And when people search for music- they need and use a relatively finite set of tags.

Unfortunately though, despite the immense diversity in music, there are remarkably few (typically 15-20) primary genres to choose from and not many more “secondary” genres. So I ended up picking a few of the genres that best captured the core of my sound and style and strung them together-  Alternate | Acoustic | Blues & Roots.

At first I called it “Heavy Roots” rather than “Blues and Roots” but “Heavy Roots” is not something you’ll find as a genre anywhere and despite that being probably a better tag- “Blues & Roots” was the closest acknowledged tag for me. So I think Alternate | Acoustic | Blues & Roots captures the style of my music best, within the constraints of the typical genres available.

Q: Let’s knock of the easiest tag first then- “Acoustic”?

A: I wanted to work with natural sounds and ones that I could reproduce in a live setting so the music is dominated heavily by purely acoustic- unamplified & unmodified- instruments. Primarily acoustic guitars and drums closely followed by harmonica and piano- all recorded acoustically and as naturally as possible. There is some pedal steel and bass guitar on a couple of tracks, but the acoustic core remains and gives rise to the raw sound of many of the tracks.

Q: Next- Blues & Roots then- Blues first?

A: To me, blues as a genre has become increasingly narrow and it doesn’t take many hours of listening to a Spotify blues playlist to realise it’s a very homogenous genre and my music certainly as a whole doesn’t fit within that homogenous lump. Sure I use 12-bars in some of music (“Love on Fire”) and the harmonica gets a good run- but I don’t have a resonator guitar on open tuning doing the same old same old and I don’t have an old man rusty voice to match. But out of the “primary” genres available- blues remains the closest match. A common thread amongst blues though, which my music related to, is the lyrical thread. Stories of life- struggle, hope, waywardness, loss, at times relief and overall- humanity.

Q: And so “Roots” is a secondary genre?

A: For my music I’d say it’s the primary genre but often roots music is more often secondary genre or paired with blues at the outset.

Roots as a genre in itself seems to be incredibly diverse though- far more diverse than what you’d find within blues. If you’re digging through roots music playlists you’ll typically here quite a few distinct styles. Reggae is one and that leaves me stumped. Folk is another that is often lumped within roots. Singer/songwriter music is similarly lumped into the roots bucket. Then there’s anything with banjos and piano accordions. Roots to me to often seems the dumping ground for “all other styles”. But for me- roots is about music that is simplified, raw and stripped back instrumentally and has an inherent lyric authenticity and meaningful connection to the soul.

Q: A lastly “alternate”?

A: My music is definitely and inarguably acoustic. Lyrically- it’s firmly in the blues tradition. And in terms of its raw earthiness- I consider it roots. But there are aspects of my music which are outside of that- hence “alternate”.  Acoustic music, for example, is rarely assumed to have heavy rock drums. Cajons or shakers dominate. I wanted to maintain the strength and rhythm of my music despite it being acoustic and so the drums are what you’d normally find in rock- a long way from “unplugged acoustic” productions. My songs are lyrically “blues” and the use of harmonica maintains a blues sound but the chordal structure and composition of the songs is closer to rock than blues and so in that sense my music again is in the “alt blues” world to some extent. And similarly with roots- my songs have a tempo and rhythm that is often very different to laid back roots music- regardless of it being reggae, folk, alt-country or some other orphan genre residing in the roots bucket. And so although my music has strong roots elements- it’s raw earthiness and authenticity- it’s alternate to its companions. And so with all of that- Alternate Acoustic Blues & Roots seemed to capture my music in the most meaningful way.

Q: So it’s a pragmatic solution to the lack of meaningful genres?

A: I always find it amazing that there are so few genres within which to categorise your music. When music is put up on various online services or with labels or pitched to radio, there’s maybe 15 max 20 genres to put your music in. Amazing. Do you think any self respecting “adult film producer” would be happy with so few genres to work with?!? Yet for music- it’s fine. Like so many other artists- my music is influenced and has shades of rock, blues, country, folk, singer/songwriter, blues and more styles. How can any one style be used to describe a song let alone and album or artist. It would be like giving a whisky connoisseur only two dozen words to choose from to describe Scotland’s finest.

Q: Putting the label aside- what elements define your music?

A: Lyrically- my songs are songs of a journeyman and they tell a story. Although it’s semi-autobiographical, I think it’s a story that people can relate to- if not now, then in the past and failing that- most definitely in the future. The themes are many of the big ones- sex, religion & death- and many of the every day ones- rebellion, risk, waywardness, reflection, loss, sorrow. Big, blue and troubling.

Structurally- in terms of composition- the palette is remarkably simple and has its roots in hard rock songs. The tonic, the minor third, the fourth and the minor seventh are the primary tools with progressions that are no strangers to rock. Guitar riffs also have their place and echo the riff driven rock of the 70’s. In fact, many of the songs will sound like stripped back versions of 70’s hard rock and blues songs but without the guitar solos, without the driving bass, without big harmonies or backing vocals and without the Marshall stacks. This to me is where the “roots” aspect comes through in a major way.

Musically- in terms of instrumentation and production- again the palette is remarkably simple. Two acoustic guitars and rock drums. Often when people do covers of big rock songs- they get “folked”. Thin jangly acoustic guitars with an egg shaker and wispy vocals. To me, that often does a huge disservice to the original songs as it loses their inherent strength. So when I went to strip back these powerful songs- I chose to keep the rock drums. And I chose to use two acoustic guitars with one, or even both, played in a hard heavy style. And a very deliberate decision was also made- leaving out the bass guitar.

The absence of the bass guitar (on most of the tracks) to me is a major factor in my sound. Normally- the bass does two things. IT hooks in with the drums (the kick drum) to be the “oooom” to the “b” of the kick drum. It carries on that rhythm from the drum, smooths it, fills it out and importantly tightens the sound by taking the loose reverberation of the drums out of the mix. Hearing a kick drum without the bass- leaves a looseness and a messiness of the skins reverberating. The second thing the bass does is it occupies all the low end frequencies- 150hz-300hz- which of course electric guitars don’t naturally have. Acoustic guitars on the other hand- have beautifully rich and strong bottom ends down in the frequency range and when the bass is in the mix, the depth and richness of the acoustic guitars is lost- leaving the all too jingly jangly acoustic guitar sound. The other factor, is that the acoustic guitars have quite a strong rhythm to them, as do the drums, and when the bass was in the mix filling in those rhythmic holes- the rhythmic strength was washed out.

We experimented with the bass for quite a time but I found that whenever the bass was in the mix- regardless of the level- the whole music started sounding too easy, too smooth, too familiar. When we took it out- the sound was raw, strong and had an unfinished edge to it that fitted with the roots nature.

Q: That’s defining your music in “internet terms” but what artists do you think your music relates to- either in sound or origins?

A: In terms of origins- and primary influences- the biggest influence was an obscure album called “Backed In Black: An AC/DC Tribute” which was acoustic versions of AC/DC songs. The guitars used on those were big and strong and in their simplicity, managed to capture the strength of those hard rock songs. But the vocals were folky female vocals and the drums were replaced with shakers. Nevertheless, it inspired me to write songs that were strong enough to be carried, and maintaining their core, when reduced to just acoustic guitar with no screaming solos or Marshall stacks on 11. So that album was probably the biggest influence on sound and composition.

I have quite a bit of trouble though finding other artists who I could say my music sounds like- not through lack of effort in my search though I have to say. Bands like The Black Keys and The Backsliders come to mind in that they use similar instrumentation- in particular the lack of a bass guitar, the use of full kit for the drums and guitar. The main difference being I’ve stuck with acoustic, rather than electric, guitars. From what I can tell, it’s totally unique to use acoustic guitars- playing them in a heavy rock manner- accompanied by a full kit and no bass.