By Carolyn Keogh

Although NYU student Alex Craig and high school pal Ian Drennan (who attends the School of the Museum of Fine Arts) began their musical project Big Troubles in July of 2009, they have been gaining a bunch of buzz in their few short months of existence. With a debut 7’’ LP released on Blackburn Recordings this past January and a trip out west to South by Southwest (SXSW) and Mexico this March, Big Troubles’ presence in the blogosphere has blossomed fast. “We did start our band this past summer,” Craig wrote in an e-mail, “but we’ve been friends since early High School and have played on and off since then.” According to Craig, a majority of their recent renown stems from the influx of exposure facilitated by the Internet. “15 years ago probably no one would have known about us this early on – but the World Wide Web works in mysterious ways.”

Mysterious ways indeed. There is no question that the Internet has provided a forum for bloggers to write about this duo hailing from Ridgewood, New Jersey. With a propensity for ear-numbing reverb and a sound suggesting classic alternative rock, Big Troubles is often categorized by bloggers as a “fuzzy alt. rock band” with a “woozy” sound – whatever that may mean. Though the band has been gaining coverage within the world of music blogs and online music journalism, including some coverage in Pitchfork, the words used to describe Big Troubles just do not seem to do the band, or its influences, much justice. According to Craig, Drennan and himself are not too bothered by the frequent comparisons to bands like Guided by Voices and My Bloody Valentine found on many music blogs. “I’m glad people pickup on bands like GBV or MBV as our reference points,” Craig wrote, “rather than thinking we are influenced by a newer crop of ‘lo-fi’ bands.” According to Craig, despite their similarities with other emerging bands who record low-fidelity alternative rock music, the band actually draws a good amount of inspiration from early ‘90’s bands, such as The Lilys and Swirlies, to name a few.

And these inspirations make perfect sense as Big Troubles’ sound is reminiscent of the “shoegaze” sub-genre that emerged during the late ‘80’s and early ‘90’s. Characterized by indistinguishable vocals and noisy guitar riffs, some of Big Troubles’ tracks (Freudian Slip being one of the most well-known) are evocative of “shoegaze” alternative rock. Like many of the bands that ushered in the sub-genre, Big Troubles amplifies their guitars during live shows like you would not believe. Cranking up the volume seems to be a Big Troubles trademark. “We have always loved super loud live bands,” Craig explained. But recently, in an effort to balance their sound, the two have been turning down the amps slightly. “Just a little though,” Craig reassured.

On March 18th and 19th, the band will be bringing their very slightly softer sound to Austin, Texas, home of the South by Southwest music and film festival. “Some of our friends throwing unofficial showcases down there asked us to join them and we gladly obliged,” Craig wrote. From there they are headed to MtyMx, an art and music festival that is the brainchild of New York music maven Todd P (www.toddpnyc.com). The festival is being held in Monterrey, Mexico on March 20th, 21st and 22nd and includes performances by Andrew WK, Liars, and No Age, as well as a number of Mexican bands. Although this is the first time Big Troubles will be playing on the West Coast and outside the U.S., they are more concerned with playing their music well and having a good time than gaining exposure. “More than anything I think we’re looking forward to the experience of traveling down and hanging out there,” Craig wrote. Yet, in the last line of his e-mail, he expressed some concerns about sounding “okay” since their distance, with Drennan attending school in Boston and Craig stationed here in New York, makes practicing difficult. Ah, the perils of balancing college and an up and coming “fuzzy alt. rock band.”

While Big Troubles will be playing outside New York until April, you can certainly hear some of their music on their Myspace, www.myspace.com/inbigtroubles, and order their LP on www.blackburnrecs.blogspot.com.

It’s no surprise that hearing names like Elvis, The Beatles, or David Bowie bring certain melodies to mind. But in a time when an image helps many musicians propel to stardom, memorable songs and choruses do not stand alone. The legacy of many music icons lies not only in their music, but in their persona. Before his white, sparkly suits Elvis had his thrusting pelvis. Before their shaggy beards, the Beatles had their mop hair-dos. And before marrying Iman, Bowie had androgyny down to a tee. Throughout these musicians’ careers, their image played a role almost as paramount as their sound.

With the exhibit, “Who Shot Rock ‘n’ Roll: A Photographic History, 1955 – Present,” which ran from October 30, 2009 to January 30, 2010, the Brooklyn Museum examined the inextricable link between rock and roll and photography. The collection of music videos, concert photos and portraits on display proposed that since its beginnings, the way rock music looks has been almost as important as the way it sounds. Through a collection of famous music iconography, like photos of Mick Jagger, Tina Turner and Michael Jackson, the exhibit showed how integral photographs have been throughout the formation and continuation of rock and roll culture.

Organized into six sections, including ones entitled “Starting Out” and “Fans and the Crowd,” the exhibit pointed out the importance of photographs and video in many musicians’ rise to fame. In fact, the first piece on view in the exhibit was a video of Elvis singing and shaking those infamous hips. Taken by William “Red” Robertson in 1955, the video footage showed how very much music may owe to the pictures and video that put famous musicians on the map.

But besides widely seen photographs and famous footage of rock icons, never-before seen photos were also on view; such as one of Amy Winehouse laying in bed on her wedding night. Photographs like these revealed another aspect of music and photography’s relationship: the intimacy shared by many performers and photographers. An intimate photo of Paul McCartney taken by Linda McCartney was on display next to an impromptu shot of Madonna on the streets of New York.

Although the exhibit ended in January, intimate photographs like these can still be seen in the book, Who Shot Rock ‘n’ Roll: A Photography History, 1955 – Present, written and compiled by Gail Buckland. The book was published in late October and was the origin of the exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum. Buckland, historian and author, served as a guest curator of the museum’s display; which showed some of the 250 photographs that are included in her book. The book touches upon the same central concept as the exhibit: imagery and photography’s undeniable importance in creating the culture and legacy of rock and roll.

Chrissie Hynde, lead singer of the new wave band The Pretenders, once said in regards to rock n’ roll, “It’s not just the music – there’s music and there’s attitude and there’s the image.” The Brooklyn Museum’s “Who Shot Rock ‘n’ Roll” addressed this notion that in rock n’ roll, maybe it is not just about the music.

This past November, Glass’ most recent opera, “Kepler,” brought the scientific achievements of famous astronomer Johannes Kepler to life during its stint at the Brooklyn Academy of Music from the 18th to the 21st. The opera, which premiered at the Upper Austrian State Theatre on September 20th, takes the audience through the tribulations Kepler faced in discovering the existence of elliptical orbits, living through the Thirty Years War, and struggling with his dual identity as theologian and astronomer.

Much like the subject of Glass’ 18th opera, entitled “Galileo Galilei,” Kepler grappled with the question of religion’s place among his scientific findings. This dilemma is the main focus of Glass’ opera but fails to yield any true conflict. Kepler never speaks out against the church nor is he punished for his findings. Instead, the audience has to sit through an operatic description of Kepler’s theories of geometry, elliptical orbits, scientific method and finally, the wonders of the dodecahedron. All of which Martin Achrainer, as Kepler, sings with gusto. Unfortunately in “Kepler,” for the most part, no amount of gusto can prevent monotony.

Because the opera is entirely based on biographical elements, perhaps the boredom is derived from Kepler’s own life. Not speaking out against the scientifically repressive church and affirming astronomy as way to worship God resulted in a pretty pious life but creates a pretty dull opera. The most exciting aspect of the opera is when Kepler becomes threatened by the violence of the Thirty Years War. As an emotional Kepler, Achrainer sings out to the audience about his fear of being burned to death. The opera never trails far from history as even this theatrical segment uses Kepler’s own words to communicate the looming danger of war.

In fact, lyricist Martina Winkel, used the words and writings of Kepler (with additions from the Book of Genesis) to compose the entire libretto, or text on which the opera is based. Although this bestows the opera with unquestionable historical accuracy, it also makes for some pretty strange arias. In Act 2, Kepler sings about all the scientists who hate him and lists the names of his adversaries. In contrast to the act’s dramatic score, this lengthy and candid list was actually met with laughter on the part of some audience members. Although Glass’ opera is entirely composed of historical facts, a verbatim list of Kepler’s enemies just comes across as silly.

With a fairly monotonous plot and underwhelming arias, the strength of “Kepler” lies in the music. The Bruckner Orchester Linz, conducted by Dennis Russell Davies, played Philip Glass’ score gracefully and with skill. Although the details of Kepler’s life became uninteresting after the first act, Glass’ score, with whirling flutes and exceedingly rhythmic percussion, was nothing short of captivating.