Updated band tree: An 8th derivative?! Plus the future...

Now that we're a quarter of the way through 2009, I went through and updated my "band tree" (What the hell is a band tree?) and realized that I now have a pair of 8th-derivative bands.



On top of that, I've already seen 51 (!) new or new-to-me bands so far this year through 58 (also worthy of an ! because that puts me on pace for a personal record-shattering 232) shows. I guess that would almost have to be the case when a lot of my older favorite acts that I got into in the "early days" of 2005-2006 are either playing less (TWF/WLR/The Alarmists) or are on tour more (Catchpenny/Roster McCabe/Ari Herstand).

The fact that I still go to as many (if not more) shows than I do in the past is great, but it does feel weird to think about how everything has evolved over time. Back in the day (which according to Dane Cook, by the way, was a Wednesday) I would only go to shows if a band I had already seen and was totally into was already on the bill. That's why when you look at the "originals" column in 2007 it looks so sparse.

Then again, back then there was little need to "branch out", because shows by my favorite bands were frequent and plentiful. Now, with many of those early bands taking a step back or a step away, I find myself following newer bands more often, reaching a little bit deeper into the scene to find shows when nothing obvious is happening, or even just taking a blind stab by seeing bands I have little or no connection to at my favorite venue (The Varsity, of course).

2009 has been a fun year so far, but now things get a little bit complicated. Why? Because I need to find a new job, as my old college job working at the U of M Law School is now complete. I'm really sad to leave the Law School (they were awesome to me and it was actually pretty cool), but now I need to find something post-college.

Something in graphic design and/or photography would be nice, though music photography is obviously my forté. My only worry is that, were I to go with the music photography route, would I have to move to New York or LA to be able to do it viably? I love the Twin Cities music scene and all my friends here, but my current knowledge and ability to "make it" as a self-employed person is limited at best. So I'd probably have to jump on with some publication, label, or whatever to be able to shoot bands and make a living. But is there anywhere in the Twin Cities that I could do that? At this point, I'm not entirely sure.

Money does not motivate me, but being able to make a living doing what I love (music photography) would certainly be nice. And if I can do it in the Twin Cities, that's freaking awesome. The last thing I want to do right now is start over in another town, but if someone from NY/LA were to come calling with an offer I couldn't refuse, you know I'd probably have to take it. There's no reason why I wouldn't want to have a job doing what I love if it keeps me from having to work at a job I want nothing to do with just to pay the bills.

In the end, I believe that the most important thing in life to is to be happy and make other people happy with what you do. And I've been lucky to realize, with a strong level of certainty, what exactly that is for me. Heck, I've already been doing it for the better part of 3 1/2 years. Now I just need to figure out how to pay the bills that way too...

The 7th derivative of The Profits = The Zmo Trio

No, this isn't calculus. I'm talking about a tree chart I first created last weekend to graphically represent how exactly I've managed to see so many bands through so many others.

Creating such a massive web of information was no easy task, as it took a combination of both extreme boredom from nothing else to do on a Saturday night and 7 hours of nitpickiness in Adobe Illustrator to complete this:


(click image for PDF)

What the heck does this all mean then? Let's see if I can try to explain...

Imagine it as being like a family tree of music, except you don't necessarily need two "parents" to make a "child". (You don't need genetic engineering either.)

Each column is a "derivative" (or generation if you like the family tree angle better), meaning that I first saw a particular band through another particular band (or bands) in the column to the left of it. Whichever column a band shows up in is not determined by the year I first saw them; it's determined by what bands were also on the bill when I first saw them.

Saturday, April 15th, 2006
This World Fair at Fresh Face Showcase at Myth Nightclub
Opener: White Light Riot

Thus a link between two bands means that the first time I ever saw a particular band (let's say for example White Light Riot, a 3rd derivative) was when another band I had already seen was also on the bill (in this case, This World Fair, 2nd derivative).

The far-left column lists bands that I saw "originally", meaning that I first saw them through no other bands I had seen before. It could be because it was my very beginnings in the Twin Cities music scene in 2005, getting hired to shoot a "new-to-me" band with no one else I know on the bill, a huge national act I love coming to town, winning tickets to a show, or even being bored and going to a show somewhere with the hope of seeing some good new music and/or familiar faces in the crowd. Or it could just be completely random I guess...

FYI, I saw some shows before 2005 (The Eagles, for example), it's just that I never wrote any of those down like I have since 2005. Plus my first time seeing Weird Al Yankovic was actually around 2000 or so, though the first "on the record" time I saw him was in 2007. (Weird Al is an amazing performer, you need to see his show.)

Friday, June 29th, 2007
Thrush, Catchpenny, and The Melismatics at The Uptown Bar
With: On A Sun, The Abdomen

If I first saw a band (for example, Thrush, 2nd) through multiple bands on the same bill I had already seen (in this case, Catchpenny [1st], The Melismatics [4th], and The Abdomen [2nd]), I take the highest-derivative band (Catchpenny) and link to the new band (Thrush) from that one. This is the case even if the highest-derivative band wasn't actually the band I was there to see for that show anyway, which for example was the case the very first time I saw ReadyGoes (3rd), as We Became Actors (2nd) was also on the bill.

Saturday, April 5th, 2008
Rock The Cause Presents: Rockstar! Your World! at Suburban World Theatre
With: Catchpenny, Sick of Sarah, So It Goes, Maudlin, The Limns, The Invincible Kids

If the previously-seen bands are both the same derivative, I link the new band to both of the previous ones, which is why a band like The Invincible Kids (2nd) has two left-side links to the previous column (Catchpenny and Sick of Sarah, both 1st).

Oh, and if you're really hardcore and want to be able to decipher all the connections, open the PDF in Illustrator so you can click on individual lines to see which bands are connected by them.

Remember, this only factors in the very first time I saw a band, as there have been many occasions where bands I've already seen separately wind up playing a show together later. But it's kinda cool to look back and figure out how exactly I've managed to create a set of "7th derivative" bands.

I suppose it's a testament to longevity and musical diversity (and my dorkiness for statistics) to think that I can directly link from The Zmo Trio (7th) all the way back to The Profits, who were actually the "original" original. After all, they were the first local (or in their case regionally-touring) band that got me started in exploring the Twin Cities music scene. That's the subject of a whole-nother blog though, maybe even a book if I really put my mind to it...