music is life, music is breath, music is us

Archive for January, 2013

Interview with Luke Joyce of fiN (opened for Muse, Incubus and Feeder.)


Hey everyone, so imagine how amped up I must be to post this interview with Luke Joyce, lead singer of the UK band fiN. These guys are awesome, and have played openings for bands such as Incubus, Feeder and Muse. Their music is sick, and Luke is a super nice guy. So here it is, the interview!


DK:Thanks for agreeing to do this. So tell me, you have supported bands like Incubus and Muse (two of my favorite present-day rock groups) on tour, how awesome/anxiety-inducing was that?

LJ:The first couple of shows and what we like to call “landmark” shows, like playing in front of 10,000 people. Those shows were the scariest but also the most exciting. Once you get into your fourth or fifth show you start to loosen up and it just becomes a hell of a lot a fun!

DK:What is the concept for your new album?

LJ:The album we are going to release this year is not really an album as such. It’s a collection of singles we decided to release but as our fan base grew they wanted to be able to own all the singles together so we’ve decided to release these as one big collection of songs.

DK:Can you explain the story behind your new single ”Life is Wasted on the Living?” It really is a beautiful and melodic track with some lyrics that could be taken in multiple ways. How did you go about writing it, both instrumentally and lyrically?

LJ:It’s a very positive song from both a lyrical and musical stand point. I wanted to get across the fact that as human beings we tend to take advantage of life a little too much. A lot of us hold too much value in things we don’t really need. I wanted to give everyone a friendly wakeup call!

DK:I read in The Guardian that you played for the Occupy London protestors. I’m an activist for Amnesty International and Greenpeace (among other organizations) myself, so I am curious to know if politics is a big part of your band/message?

LJ: I wouldn’t say politics is a big part of what we do. But it’s not something we would shy away from further down the line. I don’t like to force my views on anyone. We went down to Occupy to see what was going on. The opportunity arose for us to play a few acoustic songs so we thought it would be fun. I have to admit for a few short minutes I felt a little like Bob Dylan.

DK:How did you guys meet as a band, and when did you decide to pursue music together as a career path?

LJ: I grew up with Kerry and we spend our early teens in and out of bands. I later met Jonny and Simon through mutual friends and we just hit it off from there.

DK:Who do you consider to be your influences as a band?

LJ:To say we have a broad collection of music and influences would be an understatement. You can hear that in our music. Some of my all-time favorite bands would have to be The Smashing Pumpkins and dEUS

DK:Any venues you have as a dream to play?

LJ:We have been lucky to play most of our dream stages. It’s more of a dream to headline Glastonbury and Reading Festival!

DK:I like to ask people I interview about where they see the future of music going. Often in my blog I talk about how the current music industry is struggling and is showing signs of chaos, but simultaneously I say that there is hope. What do you think about this issue?

LJ:Nothing lasts forever. We live in a world where everyone wants things to be new. Especially bands. Bands come and go so quickly that I think you never get to hear the best record they could have made. The music industry is in deep trouble which is not a good thing for bands like us. The record industry is only putting out music by artists that they know will sell as they can’t afford to take risks. This means that bands, especially rock bands, don’t get much of a chance. Change is coming though. I can feel it.

DK:How did you guys gain a following musically? Did you play small clubs and work your way through the often difficult music scene?

LJ:We have never been part of a scene. We’ve never been the “cool” band because we don’t follow what’s trendy. This has made it hard for us. We’ve toured and played so many shows where there were just the bands watching each other. It’s tough, but it’s been a lot of fun to. We have been extremely lucky to get some great shows which have opened up the gates for us. We have gotten some great fans out of it to!

DK:What is it that you would like anyone reading this to know about your music?

LJ:We want people to be a part of what we do. Without our fans we are just another band. The music we have released is a snapshot of who we are in that moment. There is so much more to come from us and I’m really excited to share that with our fans.

DK:Anything else you guys want to say before we end this interview?

LJ:We will be releasing the collection of songs early this year so keep an eye on our websites and social media for more information.

fiN can be found at:




Systematic Musicology, An Analysis

(this post is taken from a section of a paper in which I analyze the writings of various scholars within systematic musicology. This particular post focuses on a paper written by Roger Kendall and my professor Roger Savage.-Derek)

The first paper “Systematic Musicology Past and Present” chronicles the drastic changes that systematic musicology has had to endure throughout history, as well as how the discipline is represented academically throughout the world. The major change in this paper relates to the inclusion/exclusion of various disciplines in systematic musicology, specifically due to Guido Adler’s essay “The Scope, Method, and Aim of Musicology.” Prior to this paper, the field of systematic musicology synthesized chronological histories of music with “aesthetics, music theory, pedagogy, and comparative ethnography (1).” In Adler’s view, however, systematic musicology and historical musicology must be separated for more accurate research. The authors of “Systematic Musicology Past and Present” disagree with this conclusion, however, arguing that Adler’s conclusions must be understood within the decade he inhabited. They state “Adler aligns the science of music with the dominant cultural ethos of his time by erecting a unified framework for a comprehensive science of music (1).” Dr. Kendall and Dr. Savage go on to state that a systematic musicology minus historical musicology creates a body of research that is not nearly as complete. The authors are not the sole opposition to Adler’s alteration of systematic musicology, however, as they give examples of other scholars who seek to reunify the aforementioned disciples (such as William Hutchinson and Andrew McCredie).

The remainder of “Systematic Musicology Past and Present” contains information on the various academic institutions that represent, globally, the field of systematic musicology (either implicitly or explicitly). The countries mentioned are contained mainly within the continents of Europe, Asia, and North America.  The notable idea about all of these institutions (such as University of Vienna and Seoul National University) is that the global reach of systematic musicology is evident in a vast number of intellectual and cultural contexts. The final section of “Systematic Musicology Past and Present” deals with explaining how UCLA, the institution of the authors, is contributing to the field of systematic musicology. According to Dr.’s Kendall and Savage, what sets UCLA’s program apart is that it dialogues with ethnomusicology and critical musicology as well as focuses on “acoustics, psychophysiology, and psychoacoustics (9)” via computation and other scientific methods.  As time progresses, as “Systematic Musicology Past and Present” infers, every discipline within systematic musicology (no matter which academic institutions study it) will respond to the calls of scholars to progress according to what is required at the time.