Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 18 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Radio On returning to FF roots
Published Monday, May 5, 2008
While most young bands start out in the garage, musicians from the Minneapolis-based band, Radio On — Dan Olson, Ryan Carlson and Justin Retzlaff — began their music careers rehearsing in the wooded areas of Fergus Falls.
That was during their school days at Fergus Falls High School. Now living in Minneapolis and performing throughout the country, they’ve come a long way from their rugged roots.
After graduation, their band began to grow. With the help of two female vocalists; Amanda Ellig and Berit Olson, and a temporary drummer, their band, Radio On, made their mark on the local music scene. Two years later, the band moved down to Minneapolis, where they met drummer; Pete Jelsma, and guitarist; Martin Mueller.
During the past two years, Radio On has taken their act national, touring in Cincinnati, Pennsylvania, Chicago and Iowa. Their most faithful followers reside in Minneapolis. The band’s residency position at Minneapolis hotspot 400 Club—which has hosted the likes of R.E.M.— has provided a venue where college kids and city types alike can catch their act every week.
Olson describes their music as, “reminiscent of the late 60’s with an early 70s feel —and a little theater.”
They’v recently hired Fergus Falls native, Carl Carpenter, as their booking manager. Carpenter, who just returned from an internship with an English booking company, is taking hold of the promotion and scheduling duties for the band. They’re expecting a big summer, with shows and festivals throughout Minnesota, Montana, Oregon and Washington.
But before they head out for the season, they’ll perform for friends and family in Fergus Falls.
“We heard Center for the Arts has amazing acoustics and there are alot of people in town that we don’t get to see much,” Olson said. “We thought it would be fun to bring it back to the hometown before we hit the road this summer.”
Beyond the summer, the band hopes to expand their following and secure a European tour. They would also like to turn their passion into a career, where going to work everyday will mean doing what they love; writing and performing music. To date, they have released two albums; Stallion’s Final Romance and The Lovespread.
Radio On can be seen at A Center for the Arts on May 10 at 7:30 p.m.
Tickets are $7 in advance for adults, $10 at the door. Student tickets are $5.
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by otterfan (anonymous) on May 5, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe the name is ryan carlson not ryan olson.
Posted by melindakay (anonymous) on May 5, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps Ryan Carlson and Dan Olson have morphed into one being - like Bennifer and TomKat.
BTW - temporary drummer = stupid way of saying Brady Krueger.
Posted by notryanolson (anonymous) on May 5, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dan Olson is the man to which the quotes in the piece should be attributed. The temporary drummer mentioned is actually Andrew Bartelson. Brady Krueger was the original drummer in Radio On and also the man responsible for the drums on Stallion's Final Romance.
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Weren't some of these guys in Soap Box in the late 90's?
I think it's funny how being a "musician" these days means that you need to look and act like one too. You should really smoke (at least occassionaly), you need to wear trendy clothes (at least most of the time), and you should probably be sporting a pair of sunglasses too. There, go get 'em tiger!
Posted by HoldenCaulfield (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
and your point is....(AmyO)
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on May 9, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not sure. Just my opinion on seeing how these guys have changed I guess. But hey, everyone changes, right? And Dan does state in the article that "theater" is a significant part of their “music.” Guess it's probably all part of the play. Or the "act," if you will.
Don't get me wrong, I love Radio On. The guys are great, they play some good tunes, and I think it's great they're taking a shot at doing what they love. I wish them all the best. I guess I just think it’s kind of sad that in today’s pop culture one has to fit the mold of a "rocker" or a "musician" in order to be "successful" at it.
Posted by melindakay (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think one has to fit that mold... I think it is a deliberate choice some people make. There are other bands who purposely do not fit that mold, and they can also reach tremendous success.
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can? Sure they "can." But most don't. Unless they make that deliberate choice to become what they think they want to be and what they think others want them to be. And even then, chances are pretty slim. The funny part is even the ones that "purposely do not fit the mold," as you claim, are usually an exact replica of the mold itself. You have the punks with all different colors of hair and their ripped up clothes in order to be "different," yet they all look the same. You have the heavy metal people with their tattoos and piercings in order to be unique and individualistic, yet get them all together, and you just have a bunch of ink and hardware. Then you have the rockers with their unkept hair (but not too unkempt) and trendy clothes (but not too trendy) in order to tell society "I'm different. I'm a musician." It's all done in an effort to fit in with one another, while at the same time let everyone else know "I'm not like you." Simply put, the effort to not be "main stream" in today's society just sends you down another stream where everyone else just like you is currently thinking, doing, and saying the exact same things you are. I guess I just wish people could forget about the water and start worrying about the air.
Posted by ginger_ale1 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AmyO:
As friends of Ryan, Dan and Justin I can assure you that they have not, as you insist "changed" as individuals. They are still, and have always been, three great guys. While their band has changed, they have definitely evolved as musicians. Yet to insist that they are in any way trying to become something that they are not is ridiculous.
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ginger, I feel as though you are attempting to attribute words to my posts that simply are not there. I have never said that any of the people you mentioned were not "great guys." In fact, I believe I clearly stated my opinion to the contrary when I said "The guys are great..."(May 9, 2008 at 1:32 p.m.) And for you to suggest that they (or anyone for that matter) have NOT changed over the course of the past decade is what is ridiculous. As I said in that same earlier post "everyone changes" (again, May 9, 2008 at 1:32 p.m.), even you. Most importantly I certainly never said that any of the people you mentioned are "trying to become something that they are not." All I said was that often times, indeed most of the time, people make a "deliberate decision" (as melindakay put it) to become that which they think they want to be, or that which they think others want them to be or expect them to be. And in fact, we all do this to a certain extent. I mean, if you’re going to an Otter’s game, you would probably be likely to wear some maroon and gold to let people know why you’re there even if you don’t wear maroon and gold during your everyday life. It’s just much more pronounced and apparent when it comes to musicians or people who are really "into" a certain type of music. It just all seems so cliché at some point to me. Again, please don't take my point of view as a personal affront on the members of this particular band. #1. It's not and it is not meant to be. #2. I wouldn't want my posts removed for violating the rules. ;)
I'll be done now since it's probably a matter of time before other people stop by and decide to simply make up derogatory comments about people and accuse me of saying or writing them.
Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 13, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think you're trying to "threaten or defame" anyone, and I feel as if this is something worth discussing. But when it comes right down to it, in our society, don't we all have to "look the part?" if your cable guy showed up in sandals without a shirt, you wouldn't trust him to put in your cable. If the band you came to watch rock showed up in well tailored suits, you would probably not expect that band to rock as hard, and it would actually be made more difficult due to the restrictiveness of a suit coat. "standard" rock attire has changed throughout the ages, and there is always someone looking to push extremes. From Elton John and his flashy getups, to the Beatles and their mop tops, to glam rock of the eighties, and even the punks. But keep in mind that things are not always as they seem. Punks have been known to don a sport coat, and even the most revered, powerful people in the world probably wear sweat pants every now and then.
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I understand what you're saying Sam and you have a point. But, to me, the difference is most people are "required" to look the part, especially when it comes to their work environment. i.e. I must look and act professional when I go to work or else I will be fired. Or the cable guy must be fully clothed when he enters someones house or else he will likely get fired. When it comes to music, people are not required to look or act any certain way. They choose to. As you said "there is always someone looking to push extremes." Decades ago people like Elton John and his "flashy getups" were the extreme, but today "flashy getups" (though maybe not in the Elton John sense) seem to be the standard, if not a requirement, of being perceived as a musician. The "extreme" these days seems to be the guy or girl who looks like your average joe or jane who somehow, miraculously, against all odds, get recognized for their talent and their incredible music as opposed to their "flashy getups" or their on-stage antics. However, that's not to say that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.
Posted by notryanolson (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AmyO, I feel like I've lost your point through all of your messages. could you summarize? I guess the points I've caught are that Radio On dresses trendy, smokes, and wears sunglasses. That sounds like every girl I know (and some guys). ;) -thats a wink and a smile. How often do you get out and see bands? My experience has been that people are aware of the cliche and do whatever they can to break it and be original. I've seen bands that wear suits, a band that wears cargo shorts, sports jerseys, hats and sandals, I know a band that dresses up like ninjas, etc. Doesn't being aware of the cliche and trying not to follow it become cliche at some point as well? What then?
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmm. Where to start? Summarize? I guess, in summary, I wish music were more about music and less about image. For the record, I have no idea if anyone in Radio On smokes. I get out and see bands pretty often. Not as much as I used to or would like to. Lately I've been getting out to see a lot more bluegrass and folk music, I think partially because of the minimalist approach to a lot of the music and the general lack of the kind of things I've been talking about. Mostly cause I like the music though. ; )
Does being aware of the cliché and trying not to follow it become cliché at some point? I don't know. I guess it could. I agree that “people are aware of the cliché and do whatever they can to break it and be original.” But I guess my point is if the music is original, I mean truly original, there would seem to be less of a need for the musicians’ outfits to be. Wouldn’t you agree?
In my opinion, having any type of a dress "theme" for a band is pretty dumb. Does that make it cliché? Not necessarily. But here again, it just seems like so much time and energy goes into thinking about and creating an image for the musicians (dressing as ninjas?), when to me, truly great music is what creates the images for the audience, not what the people playing it look like.
Hope that helps! And again, this is just my personal opinion. I know plenty of people who would be pretty upset if they paid $75 to go see Metallica and all they did was stand on stage and play their songs. These days, it seems the spectacle or the “theater,” as Dan puts it, is just as much a part of the music as the music itself. Blame Pete Townshend, I guess. ; )
Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 14, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
unfortunately theatrics have become part of the game. The Metallica example stands out perfectly, in that people don't just want to see the band perform their songs... they want to be entertained. Also, sometimes playing the same songs over and over again gets a little boring, but bringing a little showmanship into play can sure make it interesting from an on stage perspective. I don't think anyone is to blame however, and considering other forms of "showmanship" through the ages used to entertain the masses, the Romans for example, sunglasses and cigarettes seem pretty tame... at least in my book.
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Very true, Sam. I, however, will continue to blame Pete Townshend. ; )
Also, bringing up "Roman" forms of entertainment is an interesting twist to this discussion. Especially when you consider such "musical" acts as Marilyn Manson and his on-stage antics. Or a certain Ozzy Osborne concert in 1982 which involved a live bat...
Is our society really that "tame" in comparison?
Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 16, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By comparison, biting the head off a bat seems much more tame than throwing the Christians out to the lions. But anyone that's been to a Gwar show would certainly argue that we're not that tame. The sheer amount of artificial bodily fluids would be enough to make Ozzy or Mr. Manson blush. I think some of our worst societal problems are not in independent music, with the guys just trying to look and sound cool and maybe knock out some sort of living from their own music, but the microscope that the "pop stars" are under. When you look at how American society has a tendency to become obsessed with "the next big thing" until they've gone through the wringer and then the next "next big thing" will come and replace them... Of course that's after the 24 hour news networks have driven the last person into the ground, and we watched unfold it in wonderful 24 hour a day unending news. And all with plenty of commentary and opinion interjected in.
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on May 19, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"By comparison, biting the head off a bat seems much more tame than throwing the Christians out to the lions."
I understand why you would believe this. One is killing a bat. The other is killing a person. But when you think about the method of the killing, that is where I would have to disagree with your statement. One is a person killing an innocent animal in an unnatural way for the fun of it and to entertain. The other is basically a different method of execution for what we know in today's society as corporal punishment. As far as the method of execution, sure it was done for entertainment, but in this case it is basically a lion doing what it naturally does as a lion... killing and eating. I'm not so sure it's as cut-and-dry as you'd like to believe. Now the only differences are that we use chemicals instead of lions and the amount of people watching or witnessing the execution is significantly less.
"I think some of our worst societal problems are not in independent music, with the guys just trying to look and sound cool and maybe knock out some sort of living from their own music, but the microscope that the "pop stars" are under."
So you're saying the "problem" is a result of the microscope as opposed to a result of what is under it? Here again, I think I would have to disagree. "Pop stars" do not do drugs, go out all night dancing and partying, trash hotel rooms or get in fights or shootouts with rival "pop stars" because people and paparazzi are watching them at all times. People and paparazzi are watching them at all times because they do all those things. The egg definitely comes before the chicken in this particular situation.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)