September 30, 2020

Me and My Friends #24 - Five Ways the Chili Peppers Can Spice Things Up!

Apologies for the clickbait title. I couldn’t resist.

Are the Chili Peppers stagnant? Yes and no. Things have changed, of course; they just swapped out their guitar player…but they’ve done that before. They’ve done it with this same guy before – twice! But is the band destined to record an album, tour, then go on hiatus, over and over again until they finally pack it in?

Maybe. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. That’s what bands do. And after almost forty years they’ve had a good run.

But what else could they do? A rock band need not repeat itself ad nauseam. Weird and wonderful things could happen.

I don’t want to make it seem like I’m constantly criticising the band, or that this is some big indictment of their current state. They earned the right, a long time ago, to sit back and collect royalty cheques for the rest of their lives; anything they’ve done after about 2012 I consider an absolute bonus. They could have broken up in 1983, 1988, 1992, 1998, 2008… so I have nothing but praise for them.

This is a semi-serious what-if. And, as you’ll see, sometimes they’ve actually already done the thing I’m suggesting… in a sense.

The problem with success, is that once you achieve it, straying from that path brings you nothing but scorn. Things have to remain as they were, and there’s always more joy in what has come before than what is new and different. Rose coloured glasses and all that. The band could write Californication over and over again and 99% of the fanbase would remain happy – me, I think – included.

But let’s throw some ideas around, and see what sticks, and imagine an alternative to the norm.

---

1. Add more core musicians

The idea was thrown around a lot when John returned last year. Why fire Josh? Why couldn’t the band have both guitarists? Many RHCP songs have layered guitar parts, sometimes two different ones going the whole time. What was to stop Josh from simply stepping to the side and making room, to let John play the songs he wrote in the first place?

It wouldn’t work. The only way it could have worked is if John had specifically left on a temporary basis – if he had broken his arm – and needed a replacement who would willingly give up the spot upon his return. That wasn’t the case. John quit, Josh replaced him, and was made the lead guitar player, with an equal share in the writing, playing and everything the position entailed.

To have John return and Josh delegated to a sideman, rhythm guitarist, or even an equal partner would instantly put a kind of ranking system between them. It would imply that Josh was never a full member; that he was only filling a temporary spot. Despite what ended up happening, that wasn’t the case. Josh would have had the job until… well, until when? Who knows. Until the band broke up, perhaps.

But, hang on, we all know how well it worked back in 2007!

It did work, and quite well indeed. But what people forget is that Josh wasn’t on stage for a lot of those 2007 shows. Most of the time he was off-stage, as the majority of the songs the band play live only require one guitar. If the band had two lead guitarists in the future, what would Josh do during “Give it Away”, or “Can’t Stop”, or “Around the World”, or “Scar Tissue”?

Just hang back? Double John’s lines? Play one little line under John’s solos? No chance. It would be unfair on several levels. And so while John and Josh may have been able to work together on a new album (egos aside), the transition to a live act would derail that whole relationship, because one would inevitably be more important and more present than another.

But. Let’s assume that another guitar player – not Josh – joined the band along with John in December 2019. Someone specifically designated as the rhythm guitarist to accompany John’s lead. This type of position would get really interesting if the secondary guitar player was writing their own parts and was an actual member of the band; adding a whole other element of songwriting, a true partnership of sorts (though of course John would be the most prominent out of the two). They could also play keys, do backup vocals, and so on (they could also be a full-time keys player – forget the guitar entirely.)

This type of relationship also wouldn’t prevent them from moving off stage during the songs they weren’t needed on – it would be awkward, but that kind of understanding would be inherent in them joining the band. The fundamental RHCP sound wouldn’t change, but for a variety of songs, they’d have an extra set of hands up there – hands that had crafted the songs they were playing on. And for a stack of existing songs, they’d have a rhythm guitarist to fill out the sound. A kinder situation to all parties, and an exciting idea.

Haven’t they already done this? In a sense, you could say they have. Mauro Refosco, whom Flea had grown close to after the Amok sessions, joined the band for the majority of the I’m With You tour, and even showed up on a few Getaway tracks. His percussion is very evident on a few I’m With You songs, which translated live, and he even added to older John-era songs, such as here.

Then there was Samuel Banuelos, who played the second bass part on “Go Robot” between 2016 and 2019, who has performed with the RHCP twice as many times as Dave Navarro did. ¹ Zach Irons popping up to help with “Dosed” and “The Longest Wave” is another example. And don’t forget about Tree and his horn, or backup vocalists Rain Phoenix or Kristen Vigard, or multi-instrumentalist Chris Warren, who has contributed an enormous amount to the band’s live sound over the years.

Those are live examples. But my suggestion is built mainly around the idea that this new musician will be in-studio as well. The Chili Peppers have never had a fifth member, really, but they’ve had a number of people come close. Mauro Refosco and Danger Mouse, who co-wrote a number of songs on The Getaway, are the two prime examples of that.

But what if they really did get a fifth member? A permanent one who affected the sound of the band on record, and went on stage with them to back that up? A fun idea. But who would it be?

---

2. An album with “restrictions”

In the lead-up to the release of Stadium Arcadium, Anthony mentioned that the initial plan for the band was to make a quick album – a short, all-killer-no-filler piece that could be “enjoyed in your lunch break”. If there’s one thing you could say about the modern-day Chili Peppers, it’s that they don’t exactly have any short albums. While this is great for us, in that we get so many songs… there’s nothing wrong with brevity.

Presumably, that also implied the album itself would also sound fairly basic; fewer overdubs, less production… there would just be less. Perhaps.

While that (obviously) didn’t happen with Stadium Arcadium,² it’s interesting to imagine what kind of album they could make if they stuck to a “restriction” like that. I gather the songs that would have been on whatever the Greatest Hits sessions turned into might have been in that vein – purely because the whole thing was done so quickly – and the few things that have leaked so far suggest a pretty simple sound.

Then again, “Save the Population” has two guitar lines and a chorus of backup vocals, so who knows.

Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt have their famous Oblique Strategies deck, in which “each card offers a challenging constraint intended to help artists (particularly musicians) break creative blocks by encouraging lateral thinking.” Some of these are whiffy bullshit (“Ask your body”), but others are interesting to consider in the midst of a creative endeavour, like “Only one element of each kind” (no overdubs?), or “Use an old idea” (re-record an older song?)

There’s nothing to stop the band applying this same kind of thinking, on a more specific level, to an entire album. This new album that they’re currently writing could be one that they limit themselves in a certain way on; that experimentation could then, in turn, cultivate a different type of creativity.

This isn’t a new way of thinking to John. Take a look at the statement accompanying his forthcoming album: “for a full year before I started this record, I worked within self-imposed limitations and rules that made the music-making process as difficult as possible, programming for programming’s sake.” He repeats many of these same ideas in the recent Resident Advisor podcast interview. He doesn’t work that specific way any more, and there’s no reason for the band to make things as difficult as possible, as John seemed to, but why not impose some kind of guiding influence?

What if they had a specific deadline they had to finish the album by? What if they restricted themselves to 12 tracks? What if they did an acoustic album? What if John didn’t use a Stratocaster at all? What if every time Anthony said “California” they made him change it to something else and a million snarky tweets weren’t tweeted?

At the beginning of a recording session, the possibilities are basically endless, but what if they narrowed that view, and stuck to that – created something specifically by not doing certain things – what would happen then?

Haven’t they already done this? I suppose they have, only in the sense that circumstances have inspired and influenced them. But an influence is the opposite of a restriction, isn’t it? Is Flea having to write a lot of the music for One Hot Minute a result of a restriction, or just circumstance? Something to mull over.

---

3. Embrace Nostalgia

Ahead of the band’s performance in Rio De Janeiro on September 24, 2011, the band were asked if they planned on acknowledging, in any special way, that day’s 20th anniversary of Blood Sugar Sex Magik. I can’t quite find the interview (it’s already been ten more years!), but I distinctly remember Anthony saying that there was no chance, because that wasn’t how the band liked to operate.

John’s absence may have explained that particular decision, but the Chili Peppers have always been like this. They must move forward. They can’t look back. That’s why entire album’s-worth of music are constantly thrown away if they don’t seem current. It’s why the Greatest Hits sessions were supposedly scrapped back in 2003 – because John wasn’t doing the “arpeggio-thing” any more.

It’s why, I think, there isn’t much in the way of historical releases for the band, deluxe editions and the like – they consider it to be some sort of negative thing to stop and look back and burrow through the archives when they could be writing new songs.

But why couldn’t they celebrate the anniversary of Blood Sugar – to many, perhaps even themselves, their creative peak? Other artists do this all the time. Sonic Youth, the Koolest act on the planet, were more than willing to do so in 2007 when they performed their 1988 classic Daydream Nation in full – that wasn’t even an anniversary, it was just a celebration of a great album. And they did it more than once, touring it quite extensively in between recording new albums, proving you can do both at the same time.

There’s nothing wrong with the band embracing nostalgia and their own achievements– the old, their past – instead of turning their back on the concept entirely. Playing an old album in full at a dedicated celebration is a special kind of victory lap, and it allows them to play lesser-known tracks at the same time. It’s a way to enter a different kind of mental space, and gain a new appreciation themselves for the work they did 30 years ago.

That isn’t the only kind of “embracing” they could do. This is sadly no longer very appropriate with Jack’s death – I suppose it never was – but there was always the talk of re-recording the first album with John and Chad. Or John re-mixing By the Way so it finally sounds the way he wants. Re-recording old songs they never finished. Commissioning a bunch of dub artists to remix songs from Californication. Some of these are just spitballing, but my point is, there’s a lot that the band have already done that can inspire them going forward. You can build on an existing achievement without it being a cop-out. They’ve done a lot of good. They shouldn’t forget that.

Haven’t they already done this? Let’s be honest here – the band already rely basically entirely on their back catalogue anyway. Let’s say that whenever the RHCP play live next (warm-up shows early 2021?), it becomes immediately evident that John won’t be playing Josh-era songs.³

That means the newest song in their setlist, assuming it won’t be something from the new album (more on that below), will be fifteen years old. How is that not relying on nostalgia? What’s the difference between that and playing Blood Sugar in full? If anything, one takes a lot more effort than the other.

---

4. Play songs live early (again)

Back in the day, the Chili Peppers used to play songs live well before we heard their studio counterparts. And in the days where the internet was a little younger, there was nothing more exciting than to read about these performances, with third-hand, misheard lyrics, and loose descriptions of their instrumentation. If you were lucky, you might even hear some muddy recording of them, and have that version of it imprinted on your brain for the next few months.

The last time this happened was when the band played “21st Century”, “Readymade” and “Tell Me Baby” around a year before Stadium Arcadium came out.⁴ And then, the excitement of hearing those ripped 30 second samples from online marketplaces that circulated around two weeks before SA came out, comparing them to the live performances I knew so well was something I can’t really describe. Almost like reading a script and then seeing a movie; “oh, that’s how they did that!” I remember particularly being excited by the cowbell and the crushed kick/snare in the bridge of “Readymade”.

Of course, there’s also “Desecration Smile” – who had a whole new chorus when we finally heard it, two years after its performance at the 2004 Bridge School Benefit.

This is another interview I can’t find, but I remember Anthony saying that he didn’t like playing songs early now, because everyone had a phone and a recording device, and that meant anyone could just put that onto the internet before the album came out, and sully the intended effect. I don’t think that’s quite the same as leaking a rough mix with guide vocals. Is there more of a difference between playing a song live before and after an album comes out beyond the crowd’s reaction to it?

Playing something new and unheard is a risky move for a band, especially one with so many huge singles. There’d be nothing worse than unveiling some new piece you’re immensely proud of for it to be received with crickets. But there are interesting possibilities there. Why work on a song in private? Why not test its potential in front of an audience? How could that affect the final version?

Fans of the band Animal Collective know this all too well. In fact it’s become a tradition for that band – even as solo artists – to tour before an album is even recorded, play new songs, and let those songs develop on the stage, almost like a jam band. Their most recent show contained eight new songs out of thirteen in total. Fans come up with their own names, create their own live albums, and when the songs finally surface on an album, there are surprises galore; different lyrics, different instrumentation, different choices than what’s expected.

There was a period between 1998 and 2003 when “Bunker Hill” was a “lost” song that never surfaced on an album, and even when it did, it had different guitar part, a different bridge. I’m glad it finally came out, but isn’t that kind of… fun? That it just could have existed on bootlegs forever, in those ephemeral moments?

Haven’t they already done this? Yes…That’s the problem!

---

5. Do a Funkadelic-style bombastic, over-the-top, silly album

For a band with such heavy funk roots, I find it surprising they’ve never gone further down a Parliament/Funkadelic path. There is an obvious influence: The Electric Spanking of War Babies, Motor Booty Affair, “Supergroovalisticprosifunkstication” – these funny titles are the clear impetus for things like The Uplift Mofo Party Plan and Rockinfreakapotamus (some would say outright ripoff). But after John’s entry, that all seemed to dry up, and the band went down a different path.

Instead of short, unconnected pop songs, there’s no reason why they couldn’t stretch out and do something really weird, in the P-Funk vein – ten minute guitar solos to open an album, elements of straight comedy or horror, space-themes, huge gatefold sprawling cover art, not something built for Spotify. A concept album.

They dabbled, for sure; “Freaky Styley”, in it’s original eight minute version, wouldn’t be out of place on Cosmic Slop, and “Millionaires Against Hunger” is pretty clearly an attempt at the serious-themes-submerged-in-funk that the P-Funk crew are so celebrated for. Is “In Love Dying” the strangest song the band have recorded lately?

Anthony’s poem at the end of “Death of A Martian” – why not more of that? No need to stick to verse/chorus/verse. Sure it made them millions of dollars and millions of fans, but… why not spice things up? I think they still have it in them.

Haven’t they already done this? Freaky Styley came close. But not close enough.

---

Bonus: 6: Do a musical!

I mean, it would certainly be unexpected, that’s for sure. Some musical about a famous figure? A funky rap musical about Lyndon Johnson? Stranger things have happened. If U2 can do it, RHCP can too.

---

Some of these are bad ideas, yes. But they’re ideas all the same. I think there’s a lot that the Chili Peppers can do to stretch the boundaries of what it means to be a rock band in the year 2020, and there’s no reason to simply do the same thing over and over again.

(Whatever does happen, I can’t wait.)