22 July 2008
Written by
billconnelly1 (
)
Published on July 22nd, 2008 @ 08:42:28 pm, using 2028 words, 4 views
( Part One ) ( Part Two ) ( Part Three )
February 15, 1966
Back to the studio for more outtakes. It’s worth noting that, according to the irreplaceable Olof Bjorner, by February 15 final versions of the following Blonde on Blonde songs had been recorded: One of Us Must Know (Sooner or Later) (January 25); Fourth Time Around and Visions of Johanna (February 14); and Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands (February 15). A couple days later, Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again would be added to the list. Things are starting to come together, but it’s time to get back out on the road.
One outtake from the recording sessions:
I’ll Keep It With Mine - This is really pretty decent. The version I’m listening to is just an instrumental, but the “IKIWM” melody is so strong that you can pretty much play it in your head as you’re listening.
February 20, 1966 (Montreal - interview w/Martin Bronstein)
This is a relatively notable interview in Dylan lore…11 minutes of pure nervous energy (actually, about 9 minutes of engaged energy after 2 minutes of trying to pull Dylan out of his tired shell). He unleashes his “20 pages of vomit” line about how “Like a Rolling Stone” emerged from a long, typed rant. Plus, there are all sorts of interesting contradictions. You hear him speaking from his heart…I think (it sure sounds real when he talks about how he didn’t put “Mr. Tambourine Man” on his third album because it was still too close to him and he couldn’t let it go was pretty neat, and he sure didn’t sound like he was messing with anybody when he said he was still getting used to not being able to just go out in public). Other times, you hear him lying through his teeth (the name “Dillon” is not, I believe, anywhere on his mom’s side of the family). Intermingled between those two extremes is good old-fashioned Evasive Dylan, giving distracted answers to questions he’s probably been asked 14,000 times in the last 12 months.
February 26, 1966 (Hempstead, NY)
Within two weeks, Blonde on Blonde will be completed, but now he’s got to go back to his mostly non-BoB set. When I get a new shirt, I pretty much want to wear it immediately–I revert my 5-year old self at times. Well…needless to say, if I’d not only recorded Highway 61 in the last year, but also Blonde on Blonde, the last thing I’d want to do is play songs from before then.
(Granted, Bringing It All Back Home was only recorded about 13 months before this show, so…yeah. Prolific doesn’t even begin to describe this. He didn’t sleep for about 18 straight months, but…small price to pay for the most explosive creative, uh, explosion, ever.)
Acoustic Set
She Belongs to Me - This is not what one would call a quality recording here, but it’s somewhat listenable on the headphones. Honestly, and I know the degrading of sound quality involved here, but listening to these on the iPod, and not at a ridiculously high volume, makes this alright. If I were listening to this in my car, or on our stereo, the bad quality would be pretty unbearable, I think.
Dylan’s kind of rushing through this song at first, but he settles in with the “Bow down to her on Sunday/salute her when her birthday comes” verse, and he does a pretty striking job with it from there. And really, this is pretty deep love he’s talking about, is it not? It’s not exactly “I give her all my love/That’s all I do/And if you saw my love/You’d love her too” we’re talking about here*. It’s straight-up worship.
* - Obviously that lyric comes from The Beatles’ “And I Love Her", and just in case that comes across as mocking in any way, I love that song too.
Fourth Time Around - We replace my least-favorite song of the acoustic set ("To Ramona") with…my new least favorite song of the acoustic set. “Fourth Time Around” is quite silly, and to me the most interesting thing about it is just how much the melody borrows from The Beatles’ “Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)". Supposedly John Lennon got really paranoid that Dylan was mocking him with this song…and I completely and totally understand. Between this and the fact that the music on “Absolutely Sweet Marie” always reminds me distinctly of a Beach Boys surf song, Blonde On Blonde has always confused me by alternating between clear derivations and staggering originality.
Anyway, this performance is pretty decent considering a) I don’t love this song, and b) I know that the trifecta of acoustic perfection is approaching.
Visions of Johanna - So I’ve plowed through a few of these shows now, and one thing has surprised me a bit: I’m starting to like “Visions of Johanna” more and more. Surprising, considering I’ve always thought it was great. Listening to him eagerly playing this to a room of people hearing it for the first time, it’s hitting me a bit harder than it used to.
There are obviously some silly lines here (and it’s fun listening to the audience react to them), but…I mean, the theme of this song is no different than Kylie Minogue’s “Can’t Get You Out of My Head", and yet these are some of the most unique and creative lyrics ever written.
It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue - A big ovation follows the first line of the song, which is no big surprise I guess (though my reference point is still Live 1966, so it’s fun noting the difference between American crowds that cheer and react in the middle of songs, and British crowds that only react before and after). This is a pretty heartfelt version overall, though I must say his harp solo is all over the map. The crowd cheers for it, though…well…it ain’t all that impressive.
Desolation Row - An even bigger ovation kicks this one off. I love this song as much as anybody, but knowing the anxiety that this song creates inside of me, it certainly amuses me to think of somebody going “DESOLATION ROW! YAAAAAAAAY!!!! WOOOOOOOOOO!!!”
Pages: 1 2
Written by
billconnelly1 (
)
Published on July 22nd, 2008 @ 05:25:36 pm, using 26 words, 5 views
I prefer her gangsta rap video.
Devendra Bernhardt, if you’ve turned Natalie from cool weird to weird weird, you will pay.
21 July 2008
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on July 21st, 2008 @ 07:38:43 pm, using 909 words, 1 view
Imagine growing up in a place and time in which the good land and opportunities were being taken by people with more money, primarily because they had slave labor to increase their worth. Imagine moving regularly as a child in an area filled with whites forced to move on when those opportunities were removed. Imagine coming of age, growing to adulthood, becoming a leader in your region when that region was filled with these people and their offspring, racist and hard-pressed. What are the odds that you would overcome this upbringing, fight through the bias and prejudice, see your own need to grow and change, become the greatest President in our history?
That’s essentially what George M. Fredrickson asks in Big Enough to Be Inconsistent: Abraham Lincoln Confronts Slavery and Race, a small book or large essay, actually a set of lectures that lays out Lincoln as the remarkable human, with all those faults and possibilities, that he was. Too often the literature about Lincoln has been overly glorifying, as if he were more than human, or ridiculously judgmental, holding him to standards of today that, honestly, not that many American humans do that great a job living up to even today. What was so unique about Lincoln was his journey to self-realization and evolution as a leader and person, someone able to live up to principles without deifying himself, someone able to stand strong and yet change when reality whacked him hard. It’s not that easy to do, as most of us prove daily.
As an historian, Fredrickson, who died last February, was part of defining the reality of Lincoln for a long time now, and he has an excellent feel for that reality in his final book. He goes a little too far playing the old tired academic game of “I’ll stake out two extremes and pretend to find the truth in the middle because that will make me look reasonable,” since as his book shows, the real Lincoln lay much closer to those who honor and glorify him than to the ideologues and nincompoops who demean and disrespect him and his accomplishments. That said, though, this is a very well written book that tightly and convincingly makes the case that Lincoln managed to live up to both his dearest political principles–upholding the Constitution as best as circumstances allowed to preserve the Union and restricting and making possible the elimination of slavery, a life-long hatred.
As Fredrickson puts it, “. . . there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of Lincoln’s numerous statements, public and private, to the effect that he detested slavery and opposed it in principle. Nevertheless, as he also pointed out on many occasions, his reverence for the Constitution and the rule of law precluded any action beyond limiting slavery’s expansion. Lincoln was an ambitious politician, but it would be the height of cynicism not to take him at his word on these matters. His very success as a politician can be attributed in large part to his power in articulating these antislavery ideas and values, which he could not have done nearly so effectively had he not believed in them himself.”
Only small minds demand consistency, as hobgoblins remind us. Wise humans struggle with the winds of history and experience. Lincoln, as W.E.B. DuBois famously said, was “big enough to be inconsistent.” And Fredrickson quotes the very wise himself Frederick Douglass’ quote about Lincoln, a quote that is all that is needed to lay to rest the sputum of lesser if more credentialed minds: “Viewed from genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.”
Yes, Lincoln supported colonization as a sword for the Gordian Knot he saw threatening the future of the nation he loved. Yes, he made statements that today are unquestionably racist, although more “liberal” than his opponents of the time. Yes, he came slowly to realize the actual abilities and bravery of black Americans, the freed slaves whose fighting in Union blue arguably made their own freedom happen. But the man didn’t get stuck in his views, in his upbringing, the crowd of thought. He evolved, he improved, he realized he was wrong. It would have been nice to have had a little of that in the presidents we’ve had in my too long a lifetime, wouldn’t it?
Lincoln was a smart, talented, and, yes, ambitious man whose love of what he perceived to be the American Legacy–the provision of opportunities for low-born but able people, of all colors, to fulfill their potentials, a unique historical moment, to say the least–led his intelligence, ability, and, yes, ambition to preserve that Legacy in the face of those who would deny it for but themselves, even at the cost of blood and that all-too-overrated “getting along.” In defense of that Legacy, as the costs piled up to his dismay and heartache, he had to plumb what it meant to be human and to be what Thomas Flanagan called a “tenant of time.” What he found in those depths was the most human of American leaders to date and allowed his perspectives of others, even Negroes, to grow and evolve, as DuBois and Douglass understood. In that growth and evolution, he found his goodness. And through his goodness, he found greatness.
19 July 2008
Written by
billconnelly1 (
)
Published on July 19th, 2008 @ 02:44:35 pm, using 195 words, 2 views
Well…I didn’t plan on spending two hours of a lovely (okay, oppressively hot and humid) Saturday afternoon watching Beautiful Girls on Starz, but it happened anyway.
Let me count all the ways this movie should not be good:
- Michael Rappaport plays a major role.
- David Arquette plays at least a minor role.
- Rosie O’Donnell plays at least a minor role.
- The “hot girl” is Uma Thurman.
- The title comes from a cheesy monologue by Michael Rappaport.
- The example of the perfect female is 12.
- The “male approaching 30 and not knowing how to accept it” thing has been plenty played-out by this point.
- Mira Sorvino is insecure because of Lauren Holly? Does not compute. Never been a huge Holly fan.
- Mid-’90s slobby chic. Ugh.
- Michael Rappaport, David Arquette, and Rosie O’Donnell!!!
And yet…this movie gets better every time I watch it. Granted, I’m approaching 30 (staring it in the face, actually), but I’m accepting it just fine. That shouldn’t play a role.
Some movies are great just because they’re great. That’s the only explanation here. It’s note perfect despite itself.
And the presence of “Sweet Caroline” sure doesn’t hurt. Good times never seem so good.
17 July 2008
Written by
billconnelly1 (
)
Published on July 17th, 2008 @ 07:00:00 am, using 1681 words, 2 views
We continue on our merry way through the 1966 performances of Bob Dylan.
Part One
Part Two
Today we take a look at the February shows.
February 5, 1966 (White Plains, NY)
Acoustic Set
The audience recording of this show is rather warped and muffled at this point, but…well, it’s 42+ years old. I think it’s awesome that these recordings have survived to this point.
She Belongs to Me - One thing I worry slightly about with this ‘experiment’ is…well, the sets didn’t change very much. I love most of the songs in this acoustic set (and the electric set, for that matter), but…there are quite a few recordings here. One thing that could be interesting to hear, though, is Dylan’s shift in attitude from February through June. Having only heard the Bootleg Series show from 1966 so far, the first thing I notice on this recording is that Dylan’s not nearly as antagonistic during the acoustic set as he appeared to be on Live 1966. On Live 1966, it really did sound like Dylan had no interest in doing any of his pre-Highway 61 songs, but “She Belongs to Me” here is sweet and tender. None of the exaggerated harmonica lines or anything.
And the crowd is appreciative to say the least.
To Ramona - I’ve never really been a fan of this one. It’s fine, but it’s just not as good as about 30 other love songs from this period. He’s not trying as hard to hit the right notes on this one either.
Visions of Johanna - “This is called ‘Freeze Out’.”
The vocals perk up immediately. The crowd cracks up at the “He sure has a lot of gall” line and really cracks up at the “Jeez, I can’t find my knees” line. Which, honestly, is a pretty damn silly line. It’s fascinating to me, though, to realize that almost nobody in the audience had ever heard this song before. I can’t really imagine a pre-Johanna world.
The harmonica solo here is similar to the album version. This is, of course, because either the album version had just been recorded or was just about to be recorded.
In all, he’s really trying to show this song off, and the crowd adores it.
It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue - Speaking of adoration…wow.
Desolation Row - A trifecta of deep, perfect acoustic music. Seriously…in the history of music, how do you top Johanna -> Baby Blue -> Desolation Row?? I’ll be shocked if I get bored with these three…though being that Desolation Row is an anxiety attack set to music, it probably won’t be good for me to hear it this many times.
Dylan showboats a bit during his solo before the last verse, milking a playful strumming pattern, and the crowd responds with chuckles and appreciative applause. As long as he’s alone on stage with an acoustic guitar, he could sing the dictionary and the crowd would get into it.
Love Minus Zero/No Limit - I’ve always liked this song, though not quite as much as She Belongs to Me. Predictably, this is an enjoyable version, and predictably, the crowd can’t get enough.
Mr. Tambourine Man - He rushes through this one a bit. Either he’s trying to wrap up the set, or he’s just in a good mood and playing faster.
Electric Set (incomplete)
Tell Me Momma - The lyrics here are very different from Live 1966 performance. Either he’s still figuring them out, or he hasn’t memorized them yet. You hear a bit of chatter in the crowd. Figure that will become a pattern
Sidenote: I love this song. LOVE it. Always have. For some reason, this is the song I think of when I think of the whole “Dylan goes electric” phase. This was a song he wrote solely for live electric performances. That, and Robbie Robertson’s solo is one of my favorite solos ever. Nothing fancy, just note perfect. I can’t wait to hear how that solo developed/changed over the course of a few months. I will gush about this song with every performance I hear–you’ve been warned.
I Don’t Believe You (She Acts Like We Never Have Met) - The last recorded song from this show. I’m curious whether that’s because the recorder’s tape ran out (likely) or because they gave up because they didn’t like the electric songs (possible).
I Don’t Believe You is a song that fits perfectly into a rock structure…they did a great job with this one. You’d never know it was also a great acoustic song from Another Side. Garth Hudson, whose organ on Live 1966’s “Ballad of a Thin Man” is the creepiest, most haunting musical sound I’ve ever heard, also has a chance to shine on this one, but he doesn’t make much of the opportunity on this recording.
The song (and the set) are cut short here, as the tape limps to a warped finish. Maybe the batteries ran out?
Pages: 1 2
15 July 2008
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on July 15th, 2008 @ 07:14:14 am, using 599 words, 2 views
Being Irish in heritage, I grew up hearing “luck of the Irish” as a good thing. Then I read some Irish history. And discovered why the Irish had to develop a strong sense of humor. I made my one cross-Atlantic venture to the old homeland, kissed the Blarney Stone, visited Heaven at St. James’ Gate, and learned how to get my drink through the crowd at the bar. We went to Ireland just as the country was beginning to see the dividends of its participation in the European Union, participation that would turn the country into an economic boom area and maybe change the luck of the Irish for good, or at least for a while. The change exploded in the time since we left, mostly for the best, we think, but maybe not. Which brings up the question of luck again.
One of the foremost chroniclers of Irish luck, good and bad, is R.F. Foster, historian and very good writer and tour guide. He has a massive four century history of the nation from its early unfortunate dealings with England to 1972 to his enormous credit and now has a book of essays out bringing that book to the present. Luck & the Irish: A Brief History of Change from 1970 will give those familiar with Ireland a quick and entertaining review and those unfamiliar a great introduction and invitation to find out more. Here are three very helpful reviews, some more personal than others, and here is an excerpt from the last to whet that Irish wannabe whistle:
The transformation of Ireland in the past 20 years is one of the miracles of the modern economic age and already a subject for theses the world over. How did Europe’s basket-case economy become, almost overnight, the most successful? Those who, like me, grew up in the Ireland of the Fifties, remember barefoot children, an all-powerful Catholic Church, endless poverty and mass emigration. We also remember happier aspects too: poetry, song and a respect and knowledge of age-old culture and mythology.
It has changed, not quite utterly, but certainly beyond easy recognition. The Ireland of today is bursting with prosperity and success, with the highest income per capita in Europe, and richer even than the US. A few years ago The Economist, somewhat dubiously, ranked it number one in the world for “quality of life". Foreign investment pours in and exports of high-value-added microelectronics and pharmaceuticals pour out. Emigration has reversed, although Ireland is probably the only country in the world whose population is less today than it was a century ago.
So how did the Irish pull it off? Roy Foster’s answer is simple: they “got lucky". The boom was set off, and accompanied, by a series of what he calls “interconnected crises": scandal and corruption in government, a succession of political crises, planning blight, incompetent (and worse) leaders, and violence in the North. But it was also accompanied by the hugely successful creation of Brand Ireland, much copied by emerging countries from India to South Africa, by a low tax structure, EU money and, of course, enormous piles of foreign cash.
The cash won. But it was almost by accident. No one planned it, presided over it, chided it along or took responsibility for it. It just sort of happened – despite, rather than because of, everything those in power did to try to stop it.
As you can see, the book is good and you’ll be fortunate to get such an insightful review in such a small place. You might even consider yourself lucky. But not like the Irish.
14 July 2008
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on July 14th, 2008 @ 07:47:51 pm, using 148 words, 6 views
A rare sighting today, a really, really good piece on how reviewing blogs are displacing the pampered and crony-activated world of professional reviewing, by the Guardian. The whole piece is insightful, realistic, and properly objective, for those who worry about that. There’s a bunch of quotes from the sniffy, “smartest in the room” types who see their insulated worlds of publishing privilege going the way of the buggy, whose failures are manifest in any story about the rise of reviewing blogs. Not as much as I would have liked on the choices of book review editors whom we routinely criticize here for their agendas of either overtly partisan politics or sensationalistic “Crossfire"-driven nonsense that’s turning their reviews into ESPN talkshows and driving serious readers to sources that treat serious books seriously on their own terms. Still, a very well-written and humorous piece with that extra virtue–intelligence.
Written by
billconnelly1 (
)
Published on July 14th, 2008 @ 07:42:42 pm, using 1451 words, 869 views
To the good folks at Expecting Rain, thanks for the link!
As I mentioned a few days ago, I’m going to be slowly plodding through the Jewels & Binoculars set (in chronological order), the compilation of every 1966(ish) Dylan recording. Paul Williams and Clinton Heylin have already done this much better than I will, but…I’m not them! I’ve been looking for this set for a while, and by god I’m going to write about it!
This will likely be more boring than I realize, but I’m doing it anyway! Onward!
Pre-October 1965
My second foray into the world of the 33 1/3 series has been, predictably, the Mark Polizzotti write-up of Highway 61 Revisited. You want an easy, 150-page way to set the stage for the onslaught of 1966 posts you’re about to receive? Buy it. Polizzotti knows all the back stories and rumors from this time but communicates just enough of them without varying too far off-script. Don’t want to read 330 pages on the supposed rivalry between Dylan and Richard Farina over the Baez sisters (one in particular)? Polizzotti covers it in about 10-15, and only in regard to how it affected Highway 61. After jaunting through this easy read, you’re ready to dive into the events of 1966.
(Next up in the 33 1/3 series: either Songs in the Key of Life or OK Computer.)
October 5, 1965
(It should be noted that all of the studio dates and the songs associated with them are more or less estimates. I’m going with what was on the Jewels & Binoculars notes here.)
Fresh off of a rather triumphant October 1 show at Carnegie Hall, Dylan takes his new backing band–then called The Hawks, soon called The Band–into the studio for a test drive.
Temporary Like Achilles - First up is this future Blonde on Blonde song. The fun thing about Dylan albums is that each one has a different sound than any others (even the ’80s albums). Highway 61, my favorite album ever (Bill’s Rating: 15.83!), has a rollicking feel, heavily blues-based (thank you, Michael Bloomfield). There was more edge and treble to Blonde on Blonde. What’s funny is, even though he was recording with a different band, this one has quite a Highway 61ish feel to it. It’s slower and, honestly, less enjoyable than the future BoB version.
Jet Pilot - Rumors abound as to whether this is an early version of this song or a late version of that one…really, it’s just a groove that never finds its way. Like I said, this session was more or less a test drive with the Hawks.
Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window - One of the more vengeful and less artistic Mean Dylan Songs ("Like a Rolling Stone", “Ballad of a Thin Man” and even “Positively 4th Street” are all infinitely better), I guess this was the version that was released as a single in November. I’m unimpressed. Not surprised that it never reached higher than #58.
I Wanna Be Your Lover - This, on the other hand, is one of my favorite Dylan songs that never found its way onto an album. “I Wanna Be Your Lover", like BoB’s “I Want You", is a great concept–what seems like a cheesy pop chorus is surrounded by fun, strange, nothing-like-a-love-song verses.
Well, jumpin’ Judy can’t go no higher.
She had bullets in her eyes, and they fire.
Rasputin he’s so dignified,
He touched the back of her head an’ he died.
I understand why it didn’t make BoB–it really doesn’t offer anything different from “I Want You", and some of the rhymtes almost make it seem like “I Want You” actually emerged from “I Wanna Be Your Lover". Either way, it’s great.
The band attempted three takes of this song on 10/5. In the first few seconds of Take 1, it’s clear that the energy level in the studio has increased. There’s an attitude in the playing and singing. Take 2’s got a sick organ lick. The song’s a bit aimless, but something’s developing here. I’m disappointed when it ends. Take 3 takes on a bit less attitude, but the band’s learning the song, and you’re starting to hear the Blonde on Blonde vibe emerge.
The session ends with a nameless 4-minute instrumental. It does nothing to stand out, though it does manage to sound like about 8 Highway 61 (the build-up to the chorus is very “Like a Rolling Stone"-ish) and Blonde On Blonde songs at once.
Pages: 1 2
13 July 2008
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on July 13th, 2008 @ 07:55:00 am, using 1263 words, 16 views
This isn’t actually another reviewing review of George Lakoff’s The Political Mind. It’s filed this time under “commentary.” Is it a mark of a book’s impact that its message seems to bring out the lunacy in others. As we noted in our earlier reviewing review of a truly demented analysis of Lakoff’s work, the mark of a book only barely read or just skimmed is the review’s assertion of things the book didn’t say or, at times, the book said just the opposite. There’s another great example of that in today’s Boston Globe “review” of the book.
But before we get there, please go look at the review (don’t read it too closely or your brain may never recover) and move immediately to the very last thing printed. Oh, hell, here it is to save you the time and danger of brain damage:
James A. Peyser is a partner with NewSchools Venture Fund, a nonprofit that supports educational entrepreneurs nationally. He is a former chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Education.
Now, this is pretty overtly impressive stuff. A “partner” with a “Venture Fund” supporting “educational entrepreneurs nationally.” A former chairman of the MA Board of Education. Man, the Globe certainly avoided the NY Times disease of getting well-known partisan hacks to review their books. You can trust the Globe.
Uh . . . but, through the miracle of Google, we can find out some things about Mr. Peyser, undoubtedly a fine person and genuine human being, but who, nevertheless, maybe shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt about his ability to fairly judge the book. Turns out that he once was a proud contributor to right-wing Ben Wattenburg’s PBS show, as exec director of the Pioneer Institute at the time, a “think tank” that included the very conservative Harvey Mansfield on its board at last glance. This “Institute,” it turns out, is very similar to the formidable “NewSchools Venture Fund,” which supports vouchers and whacking public schools. You know, what Republicans do. Wondering now about that “chairman of the MA Board of Education” thing? Surely you won’t be as cynical to think that he was appointed by a Republican and acted as education advisor to failed MA Republican governor Jane Swift at one time?
So, you’re the editor of the Boston Globe Book Review and this book by a noted and outspoken Democratic academic plops on your desk trying out a provocative thesis that brains actually are malleable and affected by the messages they receive. And that the Republicans have mastered the predicably irrational messaging that is necessary to sway voters’ minds while the Democrats insist on playing with “fact” and “truth.” IOW, a book that casts doubt both on Republican authenticity and anchorage to reality and on Democratic allegiance to the hyper-rational world of market believers. Hmm, you say. This surely deserves fair public attention. To whom can I assign this interesting book? Oh, I know, a Republican advisor working against Democratic causes and messages and heavily vested in a philosophy that the book’s author effectively undermines.
Folks, that’s exactly what the Globe’s book review editor did.
Look. Lakoff can be fairly criticized. Some of the posters at Science Blogs and Mind Hacks, when not juvenilely demonstrating the pettiness and turf-protection inherent in academe when one of their own dares to get popular and to put forward ideas that don’t yet have 100% money-back guarantees, have actually made a few relevant criticisms of the book (but not nearly as many as they self-impressedly think they have). A book review editor actually interested in a fair presentation of the book and its arguments could have easily found one of these writers to do the review. But the editor didn’t. The editor picked someone who would reliably trash the book. Which means, once again, two things: newspaper book reviews have given up fair treatment of books and we the readers should seriously and determinedly let the editors know that we are giving up their work.
If (highly unlikely) these editors give a damn and would like to know what to do to regain our trust, even while pursuing their corporate political agendas and buddying up to their local establishments, here’s one suggestion. It took me about ten minutes to Google all the results on Mr. Peyser and his work and affiliations. Instead of just giving the impressive and authoritative summary of his and other reviewers’ bios, give us links to the items in the bio.
On second thought, why would we think these jokers would fairly do that either?
Pages: 1 2
10 July 2008
Written by
billconnelly1 (
)
Published on July 10th, 2008 @ 08:14:59 pm, using 165 words, 9 views
So just over halfway through 2008, I thought we’d check in on the Race for the Prize…I haven’t written nearly enough reviews here, but c’est la vie…
(That’s how you spell that, right?)
1. My Morning Jacket, Evil Urges (Bill’s Rating: 13.73)
2. The Hold Steady, Stay Positive (12.19)
3. The Black Keys, Attack and Release (11.88)
4. The Roots, Rising Down (11.18)
5. Counting Crows, Saturday Nights & Sunday Mornings (9.00)
6. Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!! (8.73)
7. Tapes ‘n Tapes, Walk It Off (8.59)
8. Marah, Angels of Destruction (8.10)
9. She and Him, Volume One (7.93)
10. Cat Power, Jukebox (7.43)
11. Frightened Rabbit, The Midnight Organ Fight (7.38)
12. The Raveonettes, Lust Lust Lust (6.88)
13. North Mississippi Allstars, Hernando (6.36)
14. Gnarls Barkley, The Odd Couple (6.35)
15. British Sea Power, Do You Like Rock Music? (6.34)
16. Stephen Malkmus, Real Emotional Trash (5.85)
17. Chatham County Line, IV (5.38)
18. Dengue Fever, Venus On Earth (5.32)
19. Del Tha Funky Homosapien, Eleventh Hour (3.32)
20. Black Mountain, In The Future (2.61)
Currently in the queue…
The Impossible Shapes, 9
Shearwater, Rock
King Khan and The Shrines, The Supreme Genius Of…
Joseph Arthur, Vagabond Skies
Adele, 19
Written by
mdconnelly (
)
Published on July 10th, 2008 @ 07:01:51 pm, using 573 words, 9 views
As I’ve mentioned here before, one of the things most intriguing and admirable about Abe Lincoln was his humanness, his recognition, despite his ambition and drive, of the old “out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.” He understood the core of people better than any other president, perhaps because he came to know his own failings and smallness better than any other president. Yes, yes, you Washington fans or hewers to FDR or Truman (notice I mention no one from my lifetime, which began with the next one), they too demonstrated the wisdom, but they didn’t go through what Lincoln did, the careful and constant reexamination of their foibles while finding the strength to go on standing for what they believed in. No other president wrote, or could have written, the Second Inaugural, which is not only one of the greatest presidential speeches ever, but also one of the grandest discussions of human place in the universe in human history, because of its context and because of the insight of the man who spoke it.
It’s interesting to speculate how much of that wisdom came from Lincoln’s disposition, his often remarked “melancholy” in spite of his great enjoyment from entertainment and story-telling. Not long ago Joshua Shenk made that melancholy, what he describes as outright depression based on his own experience of the disease, the subject of one of the more insightful books done on Abe. In Lincoln’s Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness, he takes the opportunity to explore what depression means and how, despite the odds, it may even benefit its victims, affecting their outlooks on life in ways that the chipper among us will never understand. Here’s a nice excerpt from a brief but good review of the book that it would behoove you to read in its entirety:
One of the best features of Lincoln’s Melancholy is Shenk’s ability not only to use the categories and ideas of modern psychiatry, but also to use Lincoln’s life to examine their limits. He cites the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual several times, but he also discusses a plethora of psychological theorists and memoir writers in his examination of how chronic depression can change the quality of a person’s life and how it can be possible to keep on being productive while at the same time struggling with despair. Shenk is at his best when he points out that merely seeing depression as a disease or a chemical imbalance leads us to a narrow understanding of emotions. He also brings in questions of religious belief and philosophical outlook that are normally ignored in modern psychiatric accounts of depression. This is an excellent biography that deserves a wide readership.
This book will give you a view of Lincoln that you probably never had before and show you how remarkable his own view of the world was. It took a man with “melancholy” to write that Inaugural and the Gettysburg Address, our two greatest legacies to world speechifying. For those of you with depression or a relative with it, you will get better understanding and, oddly, a bit of hope. The disease gave us the man who stood most for this country’s Legacy and what future historians will see as what the US could have been if it had followed his lead into the 21st century. You will not leave the book unmoved. Or melancholy.
09 July 2008
Written by
billconnelly1 (
)
Published on July 9th, 2008 @ 04:40:00 pm, using 1214 words, 31 views
So I’ve been digesting the digital release of The Hold Steady’s latest album, Stay Positive, for a bit now, and I had an idea for a review. But I had to wait until my good friend Michael Atchison posted his–there are no bigger fans and/or experts of The Hold Steady than those at Teenage Kicks, and I knew Atch would write a smart enough review of the album that it would either alter or significantly enhance my view of the album. Turns out it was the latter. So anyway, it just so happens that he was asked to write such a thing for the Providence Phoenix (what I have to think is the coolest name for a publication in alllllll of Rhode Island). Go read his review first, and I’ll be waiting here when I get back. Here’s a blurb (but go read the whole thing anyway).
Religion has always been a linchpin of the Hold Steady’s songs, with Catholic kids rebelling against social constraints. On Stay Positive, though, faith is personal, complicated, and even compromised, like in “Yeah Sapphire,” where Finn asks, “If I cross myself when I come would you maybe receive me,” leaping from sacred to profane in a jaw-dropping instant. But Finn has never wrestled with religion more reverently than on the melodically elegant and lyrically bruising “Lord, I’m Discouraged,” one of the band’s most arresting songs yet. When drugs ravage the girl he wants but can’t have, the narrator confesses his doubt directly to God, before finally surrendering: “I know it’s unlikely she’ll ever be mine, so I mostly just pray she don’t die,” he says, belief hanging by a thread.
…
As dark as it can be, though, the record has moments of sparkling light, like “Sequestered in Memphis,” the scorching and comic first single, anchored by Bobby Drake’s stalwart drumming, where a credulous bar-hopping business traveler hooks up with the wrong woman and winds up on the wrong side of the law. But more than tragedy, comedy, or even spiritual longing, the album’s lingering note is hope.
If ever a song epitomized the Hold Steady, it’s the full-throttle title track, an autobiographical anthem propelled by Kubler’s steady riffing and Franz Nicolay’s whiplash organ. A wet kiss to the band’s fiercely devoted fans, it’s relentlessly self-referential, a Where’s Waldo of lyrics from all three previous albums and a tip of the hat to those who have supported them along the way: “We couldn’t have even done this if it wasn’t for you!” But the song is also a call to — and an acceptance of — responsibility. Finn knows what it is for a scene to disintegrate in a cloud of drugs and dissension, and he implores himself and the fans not to let that happen, urging everyone on in his own fervently optimistic fashion: “Whoah-hoah-hoah! Whoah-hoah-hoah! We gotta stay positive!”
(Does this qualify as my own version of “Reviewing Reviewers"?)
Atch touches on the general ‘celebrating through the negative’ approach of most of the Hold Steady catalog, but there’s been an idea circulating through my head for a while.
To me, the blues genre became popular because of one simple thing–while most people can relate to positive feelings in music, everybody can, in one way or another, relate to negatives. And the best blues songs add a happy thrill to the negative feelings. From BB’s “The Thrill Is Gone” to Hooker’s “Think Twice Before You Go” to RL Burnside’s “Bad Luck and Trouble"…my favorite blues songs make me smile despite what would seem on paper to be the saddest, most negative themes possible. The ‘celebrating through the negative’ vibe is almost as much a part of the blues as any great lick or chord progression.
Two current (and quite disparate) songwriters capture that vibe more than any others right now (and I just know Hold Steady fans are going to hate the comparison I’m about to make)–the Hold Steady’s Craig Finn…and Dave Matthews. Does that make them bluesmen?
We think of blues in a very tight definition–you have to sing about hard lives (more or less), and you have to play the music the way it’s been played for 70 years. Well…while sentiment has been maintained in other genres from decade to decade, only blues (and I guess reggae) requires your music to be played a specific way (i.e. the aforementioned licks and chord progressions) to qualify.
Pages: 1 2
Permanent Link