Shit Sandwich

I was listening to a review of a cd on NPR. I don't remember who the band was (nor is it important that I remember). I do, however, remember asking myself why is it that music reviewers seem to think that the only good music is music that sounds like 80s college radio? I figured that the reviewer was probably some dude that most likely went to college in the early 1980s, and that, since that was the music that he came of age to, that he'd have some kind of natural bias towards the music that he listened to what he got high with his dormmates back in 1982. I still find that there is this kind of music snobbery that sticks to the claim that college radion is the only place where you will find music worth listening to. That's where the real music is, they claim. I can imagine that listening to college-rock sounding music becoming a refuge for someone in the early 80s. On mainstream radio, where the musical tastes of housefraus and high school track coaches dominate, the music world was all Hall and Oates, REO Speedwagon, Night Ranger, and God save us, Howard Jones. College radio, on the other hand, was where you'd find the hallowed ground that gave us The Replacements, REM and Husker Du. I bet that that NPR guy is still lamenting that REM hasn't made a record (and he probably still says "record" because we all know vinyl is better) that sounds like Murmur in over a decade. I have to admit that I have my own college radio experience. I had, like many a daydreaming underachiever, entertained the idea of spinning wax for a living. I, too, had a radio show at the local junior college. Now that was back in the 90s, when music, after hairbands and the freestyle explosion (I still like freestyle, though), was getting back to something called "quality". Listening to music wasn't supposed to be merely for enjoyment (and God forbid anyone listen to anything popular), it was supposed to be provoke thought. I was, like my music, supposed to be serious. No cockrock for me my dear, it's all Ani DiFranco and Dinosaur, jr. . I coundn't enjoy C&C Music Factory, and it was strictly forbidden to own a copy of Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em -- I was to listen only to Eric Matthews and Throwing Muses. If I felt inclined to listen on the rap tip, I could listen to KRS-One or Eric B and Rakim. Because that rap was smart. They say that the 90s are coming back. Some of those who "shaped the decade" are pulling themselves out of mothballed obscurity and dusting off their sometimes painfully out of date aggro-rock and hitting the road. No Doubt, Greenday (ok, they're still popular), Limp Bizkit, Tool, Jane's Addiction, NIN... even Creed is planning to rub themselves all over the American music listening public again (as if we missed that). By the way, before anyone gets on that "who the hell are you to talk shit" vibe, I will state right here and now that I am the most important element to the whole music industry -- the consumer. My dollar (or lack thereof) determines who stays and who goes. That's who I am. And that's why I will talk as much shit as I want to. That said, all this nostalgia, when looking backwards, makes things seem so much better than it was. That's mostly because back then we convinced ourselves that things were better than it was. We were younger. And being younger makes you the authority of cool. There's nothing more shattering of that delusion than thumbing through one's cd sollection and finding a Tonic or a Squirrel Nut Zippers cd. It's humbling By the way, when I did spin records, I played disco. Of course disco is the epitome of mainstream music. It is, to borrow a title from Depeche Mode, music for the masses. But, as it was the 90s, I was playing disco ironically. The funny thing about nostalgia is that we tend to only look back at the better things. When we do that, we ignore all the things that we once said, "thank God that's over" about. Unfortunately, this stirs in us the habit of not just looking back, but wishing for a return to the "good times". It's kind of like how people talk about the 50s. They say it was a time when things were better, simpler. Meanwhile focusing on the good and making it better than it was ignores the fact the for some people, your good old days was their bad old days. I can't imagine anyone who got beat up for drinking from the wrong drinking fountain wants to go back to those fabulous fifties. Wishing for the past to return (because back then was better than now) is almost as bad as those who not only wish for the return, but actively re-enact it (I'm not talking about Civil War re-enactments, although I think those are pretty creepy. I'm talking about things like 70s music reviews featuring people like KC of KC and the Sunshine Band (sans the Sunshine Band), and most of the guys from the Tramps. That sort of thing). Living in the past, like that, sort of becomes its own kind of experience machine. It becomes a fortress of solitude within which neither the outside world nor modern music can intrude. We may not literally be climbing into a box with electrodes attached to our brain, but drowning out the present reality while listening to Tragic Kingdom, telling myself that 'this is what good music is', is in my own way like hooking up my brain to electrodes and programming for myself a better, more good feeling reality. Actually, I'd be listening to the downward spiral, burning nag champa incense, with the lights turned down low, telling myself ' this is what good music is'. Of course, our prima facie comment is to say that my disagreement with the NPR guy is merely a difference of tastes. It is no different than if me and this guy were looking at the Mona Lisa, and he says that he sees a masterpiece while I say that my 8 year-old neighbor Dante can do better. If we scratch the surface a little deeper, to find the philosophy behind our disagreement, we may say that our argument is one of aesthetics. And this is correct. He hears the beauty of a cd that I do not. But, as Susan Sontag tells us (not just her, but plenty of others), any aesthetic judgment shuttles in a statement of ethics as well. It's soon revealed that any discussion about music, art, etc, pretty much sucks all the way around. we're either a) headed for a discussion of values, which is difficult enough, or b) we're talking aesthetics, which is even less tangible. But we can't ignore tastes. If I say that I listen to the Cure because whenever I hear the song "End", it "moves" me, I am stating that the song ilicits an emotional response from me whenever I hear it. Tastes may be a matter of emotion (never a favorite topic among philosophers), and unwinnable. That is, emotions are philosophical nonstarters. But there is something else at work besides emotions when I say that I like this or that music. When I say that I like the Cure more than I like Bauhaus (and I do), or if I say that the music of my youth is better than the music that is out now (and I do), what I am saying is that my dog is better than your dog. It's a matter of tastes, but the assertion is two-fold. It isn't just a matter of tastes. It's also a moral statement. In the popular vernacular "good" is often a matter of taste. A good wine, a good movie, even when we judge people (a good looking man or woman, "good" hair, etc), is often subjective or relative. There are people who like red wine and people who only drink white. Some people think that Super Troopers is the best movie ever made. Not everyone agrees that something is good. When we think of art (of which music is a part) we usually speak of things that we see -- paintings, sculpture, drawings, etc. We'd say that we see a beautiful painting, or a visually stunning motion picture. In questions of aesthetics, it's easier to discuss the visual. When we speak of music, good music, we are speaking in terms of beauty -- beautiful melody, a beautiful voice... St. Thomas Aquinas says "the beautiful... is that which pleases us upon being seen". Of course music is not seen (except for those people who say that the literally see colors when they hear music), but I think Aquinas' statement applies equally to music. Aquinas says that a beautiful object has unity, proportion and clarity. Something that is beautiful is a whole composed of parts. This is also true of music. A composition is comprised of parts. We can say that a song has unity, proportion and clarity. It is said that, to the degree that they are technically what music should be, Mozart's symphonies are the greatest musical compositions of all time. This is because Mozart's music has unity, proportion and clarity (to borrow Aquinas' terminology). Honestly, I'm not a fan. I like the Impressionists. For what it's worth, I'd pick Satie. But here's the problem again. Unity, proportionality, and clarity are supposed to be universal standards. But there is (still) disagreement. What about people who say that they don't like Mozart's music? What about people who say that they like a composer such as Phillip Glass? What about Yoko Ono fans? Is Aquinas guilty of pushing off his own tastes as universal standards? When I say that some band or music is good or is not good, like trying to convince someone that they're wasting their time listening to Interpol, or that they should take up listening to the Brothers Johnson, I'm not just saying that the music is good aurally pleasing. I'm alco saying that the music is good for you. Listening to the Brothers Johnson will enhance your life. Listening will make you a better person, and by extension, if everybody listened to it, we'd all be better for it. Of course, Socrates spoke of this when he said that children must be taught the right kind of education for the betterment of the city. According to Socrates ( we all know that everything that is attributed ot having been said by Socrates is really Plato's opinion, right?), the right kind of education (of which music is a part) produced the right kind of people. This, in turn, contributes to the ideal city. Socrates explains that "music" includes speech and literature (Russell says that we can expand music to include culture generally). Music, for Socrates' ideal city, serves to enhance the soul. Therefore, the music that we hear must be the right kind to foster the right traits in the individual. Music must encourage qualities such as courage and temperance. Socrates says," ... in the rearingof music is most sovereign? Because rhythm and harmony most of all insinuate themeselves into the inmost part of the soul and most vigorously lay hold of it in bringing grace with them; and they make a man graceful if he is correctly reared, if not, the opposite". Socrates goes on to say," ... the man properly reared on rhythm and harmony would have the sharpest sense for what's been left out and what isn't a fine product of nature... having the right kind of dislikes he would praise the fine things,... and receiving them into his soul, he would be reared on them and become a gentleman". For the inhabitants of Socrates' ideal city, music isn't listened to for pleasure -- it serves a greater purpose -- to make better people. For this reason, Socrates warns, music must be chosen very carefully. Music, as we know, shapes not only individuals, but can influence an entire culture. As I'm writing this, I am reminding myself that last week celebrated the 40th anniversary of Woodstock, and how the music of the "Woodstock Generation" influenced and shaped our culture (a fact that the Baby Boomers never hesitate to remind those of us who first heard of Sonny Bono when he was elected mayor of Palm Springs). Socrates says that there must be rigid censorship of all music. Music has the potential to enhance the soul, but it can also damage it. Socrates says that Homer (because of his depictions of the gods) must be banned. Music should not encourage people to fear things such as death, or encourage people to laugh too much (a baffoon lacks seriousness). Men should not hear music that makes them weak. That would mean, in our time, that any music by Rob Thomas or Keith Urban would (and should) be banned. I get the feeling that Keith Urban cries... alot. Socrates isn't wrong, exactly. When Reagan was elected in 1980, there was a push to reclaim what America had lost in the 1970s, which was, in part, due to an era of "sensitive" men, "in touch" with their "feminine" side, like Alan Alda and James Taylor setting the cultural tone for what men should be. As expected, a socially acceptable image of a weakened man led to the election of Jimmy Carter, which directly led to the taking of hostages by Iranian militants at the American embassay in Tehran in 1979. If a culture praises weak music, it will become weak. Likewise, this is why Ozzy Osborne got blamed ofr teen suicides, and Judas Priest got sued for encouraging teens to kill themselves. It's why Tupac and Marilyn Manson were blamed for corrupting the souls of the youth and encouraging bad behavior. The worry is that by listening to the wrong music, we will nurture the wrong kind of soul and becone the wrong kind of people. Any parent whose child discovered speed metal in the 80s, or gangsta rap in the 90s, or who has a pre-teen daughter who thinks that the Pussycat Dolls are the greatest thing ever, or has a son who went emo two years ago, knows this fear. As Chop Top said in Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, "music is my life". This is true. How many people arThis is whate defined by what kind of music that they listen to? Emos, goths, deadheads, metalheads, punks -- all are influenced by music. This is why we play patriotic music on the 4th of July or hymns at Christmastime. We know that Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" stirs the right kind of emotions at the end of a fireworks display. It makes us want to be better Americans. It makes us want to be better people. And this is what the NPR reviewer was saying. So the point is, is that when he says that that college radio sounding band is good music, it's almost unimportant that I actually enjoy the music that he's recommending. The point is, is no matter whether I enjoy it or not, the music is good. And even if I don't think that I benefitted at all from listening to it, I did.

Where the HELL Is Mark Goodman?!?

Try as anyone might, this Michael Jackson stuff isn't going away anytime soon. I think there's a reason. A host on radio show that I won't name (other than to say that it's an affiliate of a network that I badmouth from time to time), said that all this Michael Jackson stuff is a "distraction". Well, clutch the pearls! Duh! Is anyone really saying that it isn't? BESIDES AL SHARPTON. What I think is this: all of this hoopla isn't so meaningless as it's been dismissed by those who insist that we discuss "serious" topics. I've found that behind every act of seeming stupidity, there is an earnest attempt to make sense of something. For some people, I've observed, especially the masses collectively referred to as "fans", they aren't so much mourning the loss of a beloved cultural icon, as what they are mourning is the loss of themselves. Listening to a lot of talk radio, listening to callers led me to this conclusion. There was something that I realized that all of the callers had in common: There's an age range for whom Michael Jackson was (is) a pretty big deal -- so-called Generation X (those folks, like me, that were born between 1965 and 1981). We were the MTV Generation. The first to experience the magic and majesty of the 24-hour video channel. It was pretty awsome back then. It's especially more awsome to remember when MTV actually played music videos. The deal is, is that with many of my generation, we can relate nearly every moment of our early childhood to something we saw on MTV. A first kiss to a Duran Duran video, learning that Milton Berle had a career before he was in those Ratt videos, the value of a great pair of Hammer pants... Really. Try this one out: ask your local Gen-X'er what was the first video they saw on MTV. Make sure that you have plenty of time to spare, because the answer is bound to include such non-interesting details as rememberances of grade school dodgeball misshaps, and the halloween that I, I mean, they dressed up as Prince, and when music videos were actually filmed on video (this is kind of like those old farts who call themselves film purists who say that the only good porn was when porn was shot on film. Apparently, these people have never seen the fantastic work of Ben Dover). Anyway. For the record, the first video I saw on MTV was Bryan Adams' "Cuts Like A Knife". I've hated him ever since. For my generation, so much of our childhood memories are dominated by memories of Michael Jackson -- watching the video "Thriller", watching the Motown 25 special and seeing the Moonwalk for the first time, the Pepsi commercial, seeing Captain EO at Disneyland, that episode of The Simpsons with Michael as that fat dude who says he's Michael Jackson and sings that really sweeet birthday song to Lisa... Weird Al. I remember the first movie that ever really creeped me out as a kid was The Wiz -- co-starring Michael Jackson as the Scarecrow. The second, by the way, was The Dark Crystal. I don't know what kids Jim Henson had in mind when he made this movie, but I think that he didn't like them very much, because the only kids I would show a movie that disturbing to would be to a bunch of kids that I didn't like. I swear that's not a kids' movie. It's freakin creepy! What I think is, and why so much of our memorializing if Michael Jackson is so focused on the pre-molestation allegation Michael is because, nostalgia, in general, tends to set the past as clearer than it was. we only see the good. Back before all that he-touched-those-kids-and-we-all-know-it business, Michael was good. He was clean. You can trust your grandma and your dog with the guy (as opposed to say, someone like Prince, who you know would do any warm-blooded, breathing, female within fifty miles, if given the chance). The Michael that we grew up with is symbolic of a simpler time. Death, fortunately or unfortunately, amplifies the symbolism. Death washes away the bad, the things that we don't want to remember. I remember when Richard Nixon died. Sure, there was a lot of thank god he's dead, but there was also quite a bit of 'now that we look at it, he wasn't such a bad president' going on. The same with Reagan. I remember hearing people that hated Reagan giving him a prop or two after his death. It's because when we die, it's all over. We can forget (or at least temporarily ignore) that Michael Jackson was a more than mildly creepy guy, who looked frighteningly like Japanime (Ash from Pokemon gets my vote). We'll forget that the guy had become a joke, a punchline. He was the target of a running joke in at least two Scary Movie movies. Michael Jackson was Carrie at the prom. We'd dumped the pig's blood on his head and now we were having a good belly laugh at the freak. I figure now, when Paul Rubens dies, that we'll elevate him to the greatest commedian ever platform -- totally ignoring all that pulling his pud in a porn theater stuff. Death washes away the brutalities and unpleasantness, which is exactly what we're bombarded with every day on the internet, on the radio, and on TV. Things are so damned unpleasant out there, who wants to focus on the now? Over the past six years or so (and I'm not blaming Bush exclusively), the world has become a much more unpleasant place to live. It's really gotten much more Hobbsianesque. Life, for many people is nasty, brutish and short. When I was a kid, the Soviets were the bad guys. We were always in danger of being obliterated at any moment. Living near a military base made that possibility much more probable. There were movies like Red Dawn, Wargames, Russkies and Moscow On the Hudson, that made the point of scaring the ever-loving poop out of people as to what war with Mother Russia might be like. Sting asked if the Russians love their children, too. Frankie Goes to Hollywood told us what will happen whent two tribes go to war, Falco warned us about "Der Kommissar". But as long as war with the Reds meant mutually assured destruction, we could count that a real war was unlikely. The Russians may have been crazy, but they weren't stupid. Attack would mean suicide. (if you kill a planet, is it geocide?) But with our present-day enemies, killing themselves seems to be a part of the plan. Our enemies are everywhere, we don't know where they are. And they're always plotting against us, we're told. Dirty bombs, terrorist sleeper cells, bio weapons, IEDs, suicide bombings, religious extremism -- all a part of the daily who-hates-us-now update. This kind of everyday bad tidings makes one kind of nostalgic for a past when all we had to fear was being vaporized by crazy Ivan. We had the luxury of knowing where the Russians lived, what the looked like, and that they could be reasoned with. Today, we have enemies that jsut don't seem to be in the mood to accept the fact that we exist, let alone be open to any sort of reasoning. It's quite easy to understand why people would drown themselves in the mythos of a man who represents a good and simple past. And who better to symbolize that blissfully simple past than blissfully simple Michael Jackson? Michael liked climbing trees, for goodness sakes! Since we tie Michael Jackson to our own childhood memories, we see his end as an end of our childhood. Like Michael, our childhood is gone permanently. I'd heard the same thing go down about focusing on the trivial at the expense of the important some time ago when we weren't paying attention to what was going on in Somalia. I can't remember who said it, but who did said it on that aformentioned unnamed network. The person said that Americans were suffering from a bad case of Mogadishu-itis. All the coverage of the war and destruction was sensory overload. I think the same is going on now. I mean, think about it: we've got wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan (neither going as well as they should), Pakistan is on the brink of collapse every other week, Iran's no better, North Korea seems determined to start something, let's not forget the Israelis and the Palestinians, the economy is in the shitter, there's H1N1 (that always looks a little like the nine inch nails logo to me at first glance), global warming is worse than we ever dreamed of, not to mention all the everyday shit that goes on -- it's too much. I used to watch the same movie alot. Every day. It sucked, but I watched it. For years. I'd get home, and pop it in the DVD player (if it wasn't there already). I realized that watching that movie, as stupid as it was, was kind of like a blankey. It was a nice, warm place where I could snuggle up and not worry about the world. It made me feel good. It made me feel happy. There were days when I would watch it more than once -- just to feel better. I think that's what's going on here. Michael Jackson, however strange or distracting it may be, has become our collective blankey. Even though what we're doing is snuggling up to death. But, it's not about Michael at all. It's about how we feel. I heard Ted Koppel lamenting on NPR that all this Michael Jackson coverage (and other sensational "news") takes away from what we should be paying attention to. Does anyone know what Obama and Putin talked about? Does anyone notice that the economy is collapsing? Yes. They do. It's called multitasking. It's not that people are stupid (because people aren't), or that people don't care about what really matters. It's that we can focus on more than one thing at one time. For some people, thinking is dichotomous -- it's an either/or. You're either with the president or you're with the terrorists. You're either a lover of freedom of a lover of the New World Order. (I suppose you can guess which side they'd say that Michael Jackson fans are on). Maybe some people are incapable of of doinf this, but I know that I can appreciate the music and influence (and cultural significance) of Michael Jackson and worry about instability in the world's financial markets at the same time with the same brain. Besides, I don't see all of this as such a unnewsworthy or trivial thing as other people do. There is much to be learned from all of this. Why do we care or seem to care more about Michael Jackson than we care about what's going on in Islamabad? What does all this say about what kind of people we are? I'd say it shows that we are thoughtful. Roseanne Barr said that this Michael Jackson stuff (she probably wanted to say something a little harsher, but she was on radio and there's a FCC out there) is like an OCD. She said that it has nothing to do with reality (I'll quibble with what "reality" is later), and that the people who are upset by Michael's death and following all the coverage should "get a life". I don't doubt that there are some people who are simply lookie-loos who are enraptured by the celebrity. But I also say that, when someone offhandedly dismisses an event like this as unworthy of attention and calls those who are genuinely heartstruck "stupid", that they are the ones who are missing the point. A little bit of thinking would inform those who do not see any purpose to any of this(the haters) that this has very much to do with life. I know that watching these past two weeks, I have thought a great deal about race, gender and sexual roles (in particular as those roles relates to the representation of African-American men in popular culture), what is justice and was it served during the Jackson molestation trial?, the significance of music and celebrity and how each plays a part in what we think is the meaning of life (mine in particular), was Martin Bashir the true moral fiend (in his interview with Jackson) and did he set Michael up?... I'd say that's quite a bit of thinking squeezed from such a trivial event. So now that I'm in such a nostalgic mood, what I'm wondering about more than anything, is where the hell is Mark Goodman?