As do the rivers, so must the music...

Today, in keeping with this week's music theme, I'm writing a little bit about mix tapes. It's a subject I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about over the years. There's an awful lot to think about when you get into the philosophical and aesthetic possibilities. So much so that I started putting together pamphlet on the subject, which was up to around 20 pages before I had laptop problems, and haven't been able to get to it. Someday, perhaps. I was only in chapter two, so I still had a way to go. Even so, I've been refining my theories, so when the day comes I can unleash a book on mix tapes like the world has never seen. I realize, of course, that the world has not exactly been waiting with bated breath or anything, but maybe that's simply because the definitive argument hasn't been set down yet. Ok, perhaps not.

Rather than writing about my unfinished work on the subject, though, I thought I'd explore a little my thoughts on one of the most important elements of the mix tape. The flow. Also known as the groove, the flow is right at the center of any mix tape, and I think at the center of life. What I'm talking about is something like a state of mind that manifests itself in tangible ways. In terms of the mix tape it has to do with structure and movement. There is a logical progression that you should seek to maintain. One song ends and another begins in a natural, organic way. Internalized, you seek to maintain this same fluid movement in your life.

I think a small bit of elaboration may be in order. Life is often a difficult process, and it's full of distractions, and problems that get in the way. If you always run at these and seek to overcome them with brute force you don't often make any progress, but if you allow yourself to pass by them like the river flows past rocks that disrupt it's course. That's not to say that there aren't rapids, or waterfalls, but there is an understanding that these will pass as surely as they came up. Now, in taking this principle into the realm of art you become the creator of the obstructions through which another river will flow. By your act of creation you provide the opportunity for someone else to experience something new. When you know what it is that you are attempting to do with your project you can employ obstacles to your advantage. It is clear in a novel. The use of tension and obstacles draws the reader into the story and helps them to bond with the characters they are reading about. If a book consisted of a series of uninteresting scenes where nothing ever happened it would be pointless. We read books to learn something about ourselves and the world around us. It is by representing the problems of the world in a more structured way that art can help us to understand and relate to the world and our place within it. All types of art do this. Looking at Andy Warhol's soup can we come face to face with consumerism. Watching Goodfellas we come face to face with the brutality of mob life. The mix tape, when understood, is not different.

I realize that there is a tendency to discount the mix tape as an art form, but they are innately concerned with aesthetics and composition and I have no issue including them as a form of artistic expression. I also realize that all of this looks like a tangled collection of Eastern and Western thought mixed with endless metaphor, and there's certainly a lot of truth to that. The problem is that whenever you begin to question the nature of the mix tape you must also deal with certain metaphysical issues. These are the questions that art seeks to explore, and must explore to understand art.

So where have my thoughts taken me? I spend a good amount of time looking at the transitions between songs on a mix tape. I find I prefer to make these transitions as seamless as possible, but realizing this I then seek out the dissonant. What happens if you push the boundaries? Sometimes creating an unusual break is effective. Sometimes it isn't. The thing I seem to find is that you have to be aware of what you are choosing to do. Creating a flow and then causing turbulence is interesting, but turbulence without structure is not. Or maybe it is. Maybe the next step lies in transcending structure. It's possible, but I'm not ready to do that yet. I am still in the place where rules exist, though they become more fluid as I go. An old adage tells us that you must first know the rules before you know when to break them. So I begin to experiment with the rules. I construct and then disconnected. And learn something about the process, why the rules exist and why I can move beyond them. From there its really to much of a leap to comparing the rules of one art form to another and looking for the overarching principles, or to questioning what the rules are for in the first place. This leads naturally into the question of what art is, which sits right on the doorstep of Metaphysics. I find all of these things to be connected, but as of yet I'm not able to put all of the pieces together. I tend to follow the as above so below philosophy, and thus reach the conclusion that by exploring one I am exploring both. Reflecting on life and making a mix tape become one in the same. You might want to think about that the next time someone gives you one.

I think that's about as far as I'm willing to take this tonight, but I'll probably return to it again sometime. I find it to be a interesting and largely ignored subject. Until then I'll just declare this all unresolved.

Currently listening to: South Park: Chef Aid
Currently reading: Richard Butz - How to Carve Wood
Last Netflix Movie: The Missing

Fish in a barrel...

Ok, you might think it's a little to easy to take shots at Clear Channel these days. After all, everyone else already has, including several members of congress. In fact, as a company, you've probably heard it all when you finally decide to send your CEO out to a conference to inform people that you are not, in fact, "evil". Seriously, we solemnly swear we are not evil. Well, once you've reached that stage there's not really anywhere to go but up.

I'm not going to restate the case against Clear Channel. You can check clearchannelsucks.org or anywhere else for that matter. They can tell you all the statistics on what percentage of the radio market Clear Channel owns, or what subsidiary businesses they also own, or how they're just waiting for a chance to infiltrate the TV market as well with their Gestapo tactics.

What I'd like to do instead is focus on the bigger issue. Clear Channel is the popular target, but what about Disney, or Viacom, or the other large media conglomerates? We pay a little attention to them too, but shouldn't they be up on the rack just like Clear Channel?

So what's really so bad about Clear Channel owing a huge number of radio stations, a large number of concert venues, a slew of billboards, and wanting to own local newspapers and TV stations as well? It has to do with diversity, and the free exchange of ideas. Certainly, the radio business is that, a business, and Clear Channel has every right to try and maximize their profit potential. We have, however, always recognized the problem with monopolies. Once you have one they are very difficult to break up, and you can hardly rely on a corporation to act in the best interests of the populace. The possibility of losing customers, or revenue is often the only check the general public can employ. When you take this away we become ineffectual, and lose our ability to protest a company's actions. To be fair, Clear Channel is not a Monopoly, and are kept from becoming one by the remaining FCC regulations. However, it is unwise to ignore the amazing influence they have already secured. They have the power to regulate which artists will be heard by the public, which artists will receive publicity, and even, with their purchasing of venues, which artists can perform in your town. It would be a bad career move to get on Clear Channel's bad side.

This bring me to what, I think, is most dangerous about them. It's no big secret that Clear Channel leans pretty heavily to the political right. I'd hate to think that Clear Channel would use it's marketplace clout to advance this agenda, but I wouldn't put it past them. I don't really think corporations should have a political leaning, but that's a lost cause. At the least I would like to know that field is open enough that voices from all sides would have access to an audience. I fear that in today's media this is not the case. There is little room left for outsiders, dissidents, and non-commercial fare. There was a time, within my memory, when radio was a local phenomenon, and there was a local color and personality to the stations, but as the companies grow larger and more centralized, and grow more and more interested in market research their product becomes homoginized, bland, and less and less interesting.

Where's the room for your local scene when Clear Channel comes in? What happened to the local DJ who could take requests and turn you on to something new? It's a sad state of affairs, and I don't think there's any chance of ever getting that back. As I recall it was Billy Joel who wrote, "So I learned to dance with a hand in my pants, I rub my neck and I write 'em a check, and they go their merry way," and that was before deregulation. Imagine it now.

When you think about it, most of the movies you see, TV shows you watch, and Music you listen to are under the control of a few people who would fit around a poker table. That's an awful lot of influence on our lives, and I guarantee that the music they're listening to isn't particularly good. Still, we play into their hands. We go and see their movies. We watch their TV programs. We listen to the music they want us to. Is it because they now have the power to research what we really want and cater to that, or are we just too lazy to find the alternative. I suspect it's the latter. There is a lot of good music still out there, a lot of good foreign and independent films, and some local stations we should patronize before they're gone.

Here in Albuquerque Clear Channel owns at least nine stations including, ironically, Radio Free Santa Fe. They also own the Journal Pavilion, out most popular concert venue. I drive by their local office nearly every day. I drive by their billboards all over town. The one thing I don't do is listen to their programming. You can do what you like, of course. Forcing people to believe a particular idea is exactly what I'm warning against. It's your choice, but if we're not careful and don't start supporting the alternatives we may as well just well just go buy the t-shirt and get it over with now.

All in all, it makes you wonder who the fish in the barrel are. Us or Them.

Currently listening to: Pulp Fiction Soundtrack
Currently reading: Richard Butz - How to Carve Wood
Last Netflix movie: The Missing

Are you into vinyl...

I know I was slacking last week. I didn't really have that much to say. Actually I was intending to do what I've got in mind for this week, but I didn't get the first step done, so I had to postpone. We're doing music all week, and to start it off I took a trip to Charley's Records and Tapes, one of the few places in town, other than thrift stores, where you can still buy records and tapes. Records are round (usually) pieces of vinyl covered with very small grooves. When you run a needle along these grooves and amplify the signal you hear the sounds which were pressed into the vinyl. Ok, so many of you knew that, but you can never be certain any more. Kids these days, you know...

So, Charley's is a great little store. I prefer it to Krazy Kat, because the atmosphere is so much better. It's actually just down the road from where Title Wave Books used to be at Pennsylvania and Menaul. I was really only going to check it out and buy an album to use for my Tuesday music segment, but 70$ later I wound up with quite a few more things. They have a large selection of used LP's (those are the large 12 inch records) and 45's (the 7 inch ones with the big holes. Ok, I'll stop now) both new and used. They even have one of the Beatles' butcher cover albums, if you're willing to spend some serious cash. I found a large box of Zappa albums, Moby Grape, the Stones, Floyd, all kinds of things. In the 45 bins there are just as many great, or at the least unusual things as well.

They also have a large collection of used cassettes, which is really unusual to find these days. I prefer records to tapes, but it's still an interesting collection to look through. As you might expect they carry CD's as well, though it's a little bit of a duck shoot as to what you'll find. You never know. You'll probably find major albums, but maybe not. They did have one of the largest collections of The Damned I've ever seen, though. You just have to look. It's definitely not like Hastings, or any of the large music stores that have 5000 copies of the new Green Day album, but nothing by the Flying Burrito Brothers. I actually found a couple there, which was a bit shocking. By the way, as a note to whoever's in charge of re-releases...Look, Gram Parsons just got a re-release of his solo work, how about the Burrito Bros. I'm thinking Guilded Palace of Sin. Come on. Rhino, I'm looking at you.

Anyway, when I'm looking for something specific I still use Amazon, but when I'm just out looking for anything, Charley's is the way to go. I actually found a copy of "Stars" in the 45 bin. "Stars" is the heavy metal "We are the World" type song produced by Ronnie James Dio in the 80's. How can you help but buy that one. You should really hear it if you haven't. It's God awful, a definite keeper.

Another interesting thing about Charley's is that there's a Soda Fountain connected to the record shop, I've never ordered anything there, since I've always spent everything I have at the record store first, but you might be differently inclined.

The only real problem I have with almost any small record store is the employees. They're always a touch on the condescending side, but Charley's isn't nearly as bad as Wherehouse Music for that. Charley, himself, is actually a really nice guy. So, to recap...tons of new and used records, bin after bin of 45's, a sizeable collection of tapes, a lot of varied and unpredictable CD's (including some amazing bootlegs), a few DVD's, some posters, incense and other oddities and a soda fountain. All in all, I think it's the best music store Albuquerque has to offer. If you're in town, or just haven't been there in a while, check it out. As for the rest of this musical week. Tomorrow's rant tackles the big one...Clear Channel, some various musical thoughs on mix tapes on Monday, and Tuesday a review of Genesis - The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, one of the albums I bought at Charley's this weekend.

Currently listening to: Malcolm X Motion Picture Soundtrack
Currently Reading: Richard Butz - How to Carve Wood
Last Netflix Movie: The Missing

Because Tsunami Books sounds stupid...

There are quite a few used book stores in Albuquerque. There are even quite a few good used book stores in Albuquerque. One of my favorites is Title Wave Books. Snide comments from geologists who point out that "tidal wave" is a misnomer aside, it's a great little store, which until recently has been on Menaul a little east of Pennsylvania. Apparently, it's going to be moving to a new location to Eubank and Constitution. I hope its still a nice place once they get settled in. Although there are other comparable stores around town, I've always liked the atmosphere at Title Wave, so I thought I'd mention it before it moves.

Over the years I've spent quite a few hours browsing there, and somehow never fail to leave without more books than I can afford, or have time to read, for that matter. In fact, I purchased the copy of The Innocents Abroad that I'm reading now there. They have a webpage you can check out, but the search doesn't seem to do justice to what they have, which is almost anything you could want. They even have card you get stamped once for every five dollars you spend. When you collect one hundred dollars worth of stamps you get a ten dollar discount on your next purchase. I've filled three, I think, so far. I actually have one that's full, so I'll probably go in and check on it once they're done moving. With any luck it will still be a place of great variety and good atmosphere, free of a coffee shop, and unconcerned about e-mailing me coupons I don't really want. If not, well, it couldn't last forever.

Currently Listening to: Frank Zappa - The Yellow Shark
Currently Rading: Mark Twain - The Innocents Abroad (they're into the Holy Land now)
Last Netflix Movie: The Missing (a truly awful movie)

And Zappa said...Let there be Hot Rats

To get right to the point, Frank Zappa is odd. Definitely odd. Actually, Zappa is a pretty interesting figure in the music world. You won't find one of his early albums poorly rated, despite the fact that they will range from a kind of free-form noise exploration to structured bouts of scathing satire to goofy doo-wop pieces, often over a matter of several minutes. He tends to be regarded as one of those people you have to like in order to actually appreciate music. The problem is that it's all very dense and hard to get into. His catalog is so large you wouldn't even have an idea of where to begin, and if you picked at random you might very well wind up listening to 23 minutes of dialogue from a film and walk away for good.

I started trying to get into Zappa in high school...no, I think it must have been my Freshman year of college, and made the error of going right for Strictly Commercial, which is a greatest hits collection of sorts. As Zappa didn't have that many hits, and those he did have tend toward the "Valley Girl" type of accessible comedy numbers, you can learn Strictly Commercial by heart and still have no conception of his work. This is probably complicated again by the fact that Zappa is a formidable pop craftsman, and when he wants to will put out what should really be top 10 singles. Strictly Commercial is full of these pop gems. Needless to say, when you encounter a full on Frank Zappa album, as I did when I bought Freak Out!, you are virtually unprepared.

So when it comes down to it, I'm still a little unresolved on the whole Zappa issue. I have trouble dealing with the sprawling, epic, exploratory works, but I recognize his accomplishments as a composer and as a guitar player. What I really prefer, though, is when he focuses a bit more, and puts together an album like Hot Rats. It's a jazz-rock album, without getting lost in it. A lot of jazz-rock comes out sounding like Miles Davis, or the Mahavishnu Orchestra, but on Hot Rats Zappa's unusual melodic voice, though restrained, remains distinct. Somewhere around the middle of track 2 it always hits me. I'm listening to something amazing.

The album starts with "Peaches En Regalia" one of Zappa's most instantly recognizable instrumental pieces, and a very tightly composed song. I'd probably like it more if it weren't so well known, but that's really a small problem. Besides, by the time "Willie the Pimp" starts who could really care.

"Willy the Pimp" is sung by none other than Captain Beefheart, and combines a dirty blues sound, with a howling violin lead and an amazing guitar solo. It's probably one of my favorite Zappa tracks ever. Why this never appears on his hits albums I will never know.

"Son of Mr. Green Genes" is another lengthy guitar venture, but with Zappa that doesn't really mean the guitar always holds the foreground. There's a lot of instruments playing here, weaving together, but the guitar is usually responsible for bringing the fire. Interestingly, this song also spawned the urban legend that Frank Zappa was related to Hugh Brannum, who played Mr. Greenjeans on Captain Kangaroo.

"Little Umbrellas" is a little like "Peaches En Regalia", but more sprawling. It's another tight jazzy number. Not exactly filler, but not one of the albums high moments.

"The Gumbo Variations" is the longest and most abstract song on the album, but still maintains a good deal of structure. It's a sprawling mass of horns and guitars, that's sometimes dissonant, but most of the time remains compelling.

"It Must Be a Camel", the last track on the album, merges a light jazz piano sound with some distinctively Zappa-esque elements. The result is slightly more unusual than many of the earlier songs, but is still among the most accessible of Zappa oeuvre.

The snow outside is really beginning to swirl around. It's makes me glad I'm inside with a warm cup of coffee. Somehow this album seems fitting for the occasion.

Currently listening to: Frank Zappa - Hot Rats
Currently reading: Mark Twain - The Innocents Abroad
Last Netflix Movie: This used to change - Dawn of the Dead

Just another Monday. Manic? Who can say...

It's Monday and I can do whatever I want. I'm too tired to do anything, so I give you "The 2AM Maintenance Haiku":

Oh no! The Water!
Broken pipe within the wall
Where is maintenance?

Tomorrow is music day. I'm thinking something Zappa. Come back then.

Currently listening to: Yes - An Evening of Yes Music Plus
Currently Reading: Mark Twain - The Innocents Abroad
Last Netflix Movie: Dawn of the Dead

Chaucerian irony...What a crock.

As you can tell from yesterday's post, I've been reading Mark Twain's The Innocents Abroad recently. It's an unusual book to say the least, and I will get to how it connects to Chaucerian irony in a moment. Let's begin, though with Chaucerian irony itself.

Let's start by calling irony, at least some irony as the art of saying one thing while meaning something else. Chaucerian irony could be considered the art of saying something, but meaning something that is not there at all, though it is clearly implied. This, of course, is the light definition. Really it tends to be re-defined to suit the needs of whoever is writing about it. You can see from the definition, though, that's it gives you a lot of leeway in terms of interpretation. Now, I'm not actually suggesting that Chaucerian irony doesn't exist. I think it's pretty clear that a lot of what Chaucer says is intended to be taken tongue in cheek, but I draw the line at suggesting that Chaucer is implying something by not implying it. Why even refer to the text at all if you're going to make such claims. I might suggest that since Chaucer pointedly avoids reference to cars that he must have been advocating their use as pilgrimage transports. Never mind that cars were not around at the time; he's clearly avoiding them.

Ok, this example is clearly facetious, but similar, questionable statements are made of Chaucer all the time. Let me change direction a little a point to a larger problem that the idea of Chaucerian irony is involved with. Chaucer wrote a very long time ago. Or, for Medievalists, around the late part of the 14th century. It's pretty clear to most people that, as a species, our views of society, our philosophy, and our way of life are vastly, vastly different than those of people in Chaucer's day. It wasn't all that long ago that issues like equality across lines of gender or race were considered unimportant. There is still a tendency, even in this world we call "modern" to treat people differently based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, and any number of other factors, not excluding gender and race.

Still, we have made progress and openly racist or sexist statements tend to offend our sensibilities. So what do we do, as a people, when we come across certain "unacceptable" ideas in the works of our great writers. What do we say when Chaucer slights a woman for her independence? Or how about when Shakespeare makes some rather crude racial comments?
We have a tendency to, for lack of a better phrase, throw the baby out with the bathwater. We seem incapable of recognizing that there could be something worthwhile in the work of a person we consider to be immoral. Let's suggest, hypothetically, that there is something wonderful contained in the writings of Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf. I guarantee you would never hear anything about it. If I were to suggest there were something worth reading I would be vilified. I haven't read it, so I can't really say, but I'll give you a few reasonable examples. Recently we've seen the work of Michelangelo re-evaluated by certain people because of the "taint" of homosexuality. We've also seen the work of Thomas Jefferson criticized because of his relationships with slaves that he owned. Picasso for his womanizing,Gandhi for his treatment of his wife, Shakespeare for his reported drug use. There's a pretty long list. It is not my intent to comment on the morality of any of these issues. Nearly all of us can agree that slavery is wrong, that spousal abuse is wrong, but that's not really the point. The point is that we tend to either whitewash over the sins of those we respect or write them off for their failure to conform to twenty-first century conceptions of morality.

Chaucer, who was clearly not a twenty-first century man, can hardly be criticized for that. He is a representative of the time from which he came, and his work must be evaluated as such. There is a distinct tendency, for instance, to suggest that Chaucer was portraying the Wife of Bath as a positive figure. He isn't. She's loud, brash, obnoxious, and independent. These are not qualities Chaucer is likely to be suggesting are favorable. If there's an element of irony in his description of her, it probably comes about in drawing her in a reasonably favorable light, while subtly attacking her. I don't have a problem with looking at here character in a more "modern" way and noting how our perceptions of women and their roles have changed since the 14th century, or thinking about how a modern businesswoman might receive a similar treatment if Chaucer were writing about her. The standards have changed. Most of us no longer have a Medieval conception of women. Chaucer could not have had anything else. Even if he were the most forward thinking man of his age, he wouldn't even come close to having anything approaching a modern view of women. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just the way that ideas evolve over time. Today we praise Heloise for her strength and dedication. Peter Abelard criticized her for the same thing in the 12th century.

What I'm getting at is that often this idea of irony is just a cover we can use to cover up the "flaws' we find in our artistic cannon. It does us no good, and actually makes me wonder how far we've actually come. Why are we so threatened by the past? I don't really know. I realize that not everyone is guilty of this. There are quite a few papers on Chaucerian irony that are well worth reading, but also quite a few that are probably not. You just have to be careful to question anyone's interpretation, especially those who seem to be putting their own agenda into the mouths of historical figures. Which brings me to Mark Twain.

Mark Twain is a bit of a touchy figure. In such a racially charged culture, you couldn't pay me enough to teach one of his books in a school today. It's just a minefield waiting to go off. However, this is what makes books like Huckleberry Finn such an interesting book to read, and such a relevant book to discuss. The book I'm reading now though is a little different. The Innocents Abroad is a recording of Twain's travels in Europe and the Middle East in the year 1867. It's a pretty lengthy record, full of all kinds of observations, reflections, encounters, and comments. Some of which have a ring of modernity, some which sound dated, but most of them sound distinctively American. The back of the book will tell you that Twain is actually telling the story of his journey through the voice of a character sharing his name but not necessarily his views. "His naive Westerner is a blustering pretender to sophistication, a too-quick convert to culture. Turning the coin, the ruins of antiquity appear but a shadow of their heralded glory; the scenery of Europe and the holy Land dwarfs in contrast to the splendor of a Western landscape." (Signet Classic edition 1966) it is certainly not unlikely that the central figure of the book is intended to be more that a direct representation of Twain himself. However, to suggest that the jingoist language of the book does not come at all from Twain's personal bias, seems to me unlikely. His criticisms are pointed, yes, but so, in places is his wonder and awe.

As I mentioned before Twain is a interesting person. We often take his anti-slavery stance as an indication of his modernity. I would point out, however, that being against the enslavement of a group of people does not imply belief in equality. We tend to ascribe him that trait as well, but I'm not certain it's warranted. After all, there was a good hundred years or more between the end of slavery and the beginning of the Civil Rights movement. It was not a simple transition. To modernize Twain is to put him more than 60 years ahead of his time, a tricky proposition at best. So what can we say about his hews of Europe and the Middle East? There is, undoubtedly some satire here, probably on both sides. Americans at the time would probably have had many similar reactions to other countries. We still have many of them today. Twain is probably pointing out the inconsistencies between the American vision of Europe and the reality. These are visions he probably shared and expectations he saw dispelled first-hand. There's probably a lot of Twain in his character. He may be coloring his perceptions to added effect, but he is there. The subtle racism, elitism, and jingoism that are passive in the story probably reflect views of the time he unconsciously shares.

So yes, we need to account for satire, and irony, but they're not excuses. We can't recreate the past. We can't invent voices to tell us what we want to hear. To do so is self-deceptive, and accomplishes nothing. It's better for us to recognize the differences, to study them. We can see how far we have come, and how far we've yet to go. It would be a better use of our time than applying another coat of whitewash to hide what offends us.

Currently listening to: The Yardbirds - Ultimate
Currently reading: Mark Twain - The Innocents Abroad
Last Netflix Movie: yet again Dawn of the Dead

Once upon a time...

I mentioned once that in Albuquerque things seem to come and go all the time. Today I'm going to reminisce a little about one of the great lost places in town.

Not so long ago, or perhaps 6 years ago not a Tuesday night would go by and not find a group of my friends at the New Chinatown. As far a Chinese restaurants go this was about the best. I can't really say much about their buffet, or their menu, because we seldom ordered more than appetizers, but their bar was amazing.

I believe it was called the Tiki Room, but who can really say anymore. It was certainly done in the style of a Tiki lounge. A few times a week, Tuesday being one of those days, Freddie Baker, a Hawaiian lounge singer would play, and we'd go down, order frozen drinks with little umbrellas, and listen to Freddie play songs like "Blue Hawaii" and "Tiny Bubbles", and dream about opening up a similar place on an island somewhere.

There is nothing like an island oasis in the middle of a desert, and this place was perfect. So much so that you had a culture shock at the door when you decided to go home. I will always fondly remember sitting there for hours ordering Piña Coladas and Mai Tais, and waiting for the waitress to go up front and swing balls on strings around her head while Freddie pounded out island rhythms on a hollow log. It's only a shame they weren't on fire.

Well, the years have rolled by and most of those friends have moved out of town. New Chinatown was turned into something called Mr. K's Chinese Buffet a year or so ago, and I haven't been able to bring myself to go in and see if the lounge remained intact. I can't imagine that it did, and I don't really want proof. I'd rather believe that somewhere three times a week Freddie is still playing "Tiny Bubbles" while people order icy drinks in the middle of a desert.

Currently Listening to: XTC - Nonesuch
Currently Reading: Mark Twain - The Innocents Abroad
Last Netflix Movie: Dawn of the Dead (no comment)

This week in music: Innervisions

I didn't really plan anything for this week, so I thought I'd do something a little different. Since I happen to have the Stevie Wonder album Innervisions with me, and I've been meaning to listen to it for a while, I thought I'd do that and make some comments on what I do when reviewing an album I don't know that well. So here goes...

I like to give it a few play throughs to get a feel for it and to see what jumps out at me. I'm in the middle of the first now. My initial reaction is how varied the album is. Coming from Motown records, which tends to have, especially around this time, a pretty distinctive sound, the range of genres here is pretty impressive. I'm hearing some Jazz and rock influence, the hints of the synthesizer movement to come, and, of course, some R&B and Soul as well. Just not as much as I would have expected. Oh...here it is the bassline of Golden Lady is definitely Motown.

Also, while I'm doing the first playthrough I like to read the artist's profile on allmusic.com. It helps me to listen to the album not only sonically, but to place it in respect to their development. That way I can get a better feel for the artist and the process as well as the end result. I usually hold off on reading the album review until I've developed my own ideas about the album to avoid prejudicing myself one way or the other. I tend to be more careful about that with "classic" albums, because they already have that stigma Also when you let someone tell you what you're hearing you might miss something else. Better, I think, to try to absorb yourself first and then you can read other reviews more critically.

Ok, first play is over. Hmm...there's a lot to this album. A lot of sounds and styles. There are some great instrumental sections, and some places where he really lays down some serious funk. The synthesizers sound a bit dated in places, but, oddly, not as dated as a lot of 80's synth sounds. I mentioned that there are a lot of genres represented here, but it's not choppy. There's a little bit of everything in each song, so they kind of flow across the album. Sometime one style becomes more dominant, but eventually it recedes and a new one rises to the front. It's like a sonic liquid swirling around. There is definitely an explosive creative force here.

This is borne out by the Allmusic Guide artist biography. It describes Stevie as a genre bending genius, and places Innervisions right in the middle of his most creative period. It also mentions his fight to break free from the control of Motown and forge his own sound, which probably accounts for why it shows less influence from the Motown school than I had expected to hear.

I'm nearly through the second playthrough of the album now, and I'm hearing a few new things, probably in light of his biography. There are some piano parts which have an almost classical quality, so it's not surprising that he did study classical composition for a while. He also has a voice which defies category. He certainly fits well within the R&B sound, but wouldn't sound out of place on the pop charts, and he clearly had many crossover hits which prove this to be so. The Allmusic Guide album review doesn't really add much more to the picture other than to point out that "He's Mistra Know-It-All" is about Richard Nixon.

Alright. I'm going into play three now, and I'll read through the lyric sheet and focus a little more on the songwriting. He's got a gift for loose rhythmic words that rhyme or choose not to rhyme in an uncontrived way. I'm not sure at this point that I would consider this a concept album, though. Allmusic calls it as such, but it doesn't really work for me. There are certainly unifying themes that run through the songs, and they're most definitely not placed on the album randomly. Still, there's not really any attempt to forge a coherent story, more a series of thoughts and images which form, together, a picture of the world. I really like the way the Red Hot Chili Peppers covered "Higher Ground". I think the punk-ish group chant chorus really worked well. Strange I never noticed it's a song about reincarnation before. The Latin grooves of "Don't You Worry 'Bout A Thing" are seriously infectious.

I've been through the album three times now and I'm going into the fourth and now I'm ready to take my notes track by track.

Stevie Wonder - Innervisions (Motown 1973)

1) Too High: Has a light jazzy quality. A little repetitive melodically, but is broken up by harmonica solo, and strong dynamics. Vocals are loose and fluid, with a groovy almost scatish quality.

2) Visions: Almost a hallucination. Very light and airy. Carried by an arpaggiated acoustic guitar part. It comes bubbling up from under "Too High" like a moment of clarity, or a lucid dream of safety. As the song ends the tougher rock/R&B strains of "Living For the City" bring reality back to bear. The phrasing is as fragile as it's placement between these more aggressive pieces.

3) Living For The City: This has the feel of early Rock and Roll mixed with a little James Brown soul. The synths are a little heavy for me, but not too distracting. This one starts off very simple, and then builds in intensity telling the story of a young boy in Mississippi struggling under the burden of race and planning to move to New York to make a better place for himself. At this point it takes a rather abrupt turn into a sound poem with some dialogue pieces that catapult the main character into the problems of the city and then returns to the main theme, but in a much more angry reprise. Despite this harshness in tone the words clearly call for hope.

4) Golden Lady: Starts with light piano and a distinctively Motown inspired bassline. This is pretty clearly a more romantic song than any so far, but surrounded as it is with songs of hope this is really not so different. It's a little sentimental, but forgivably so.

5) Higher Ground: A seriously funky tune. Deep funk with a complicated rhythmic base. I really like the sound in the chorus. This is another song of hope, I think. Maybe we can get it right next time.

6) Jesus children of America: There's still some funk here, but a soulful R&B sound has move to the fore. The backing vocals are very Gospel. It's actually reminds me of the Beatles' "Come Together" in tone. This is probably the other part of the redemption intimated in "Higher Ground". Ends a bit abruptly.

7) All In Love is Fair: More than anything else on this album I think this one relies most on the words to carry it. That's not to say that the music is boring in any way. In fact, I actually really like the simplicity of the piano part. It's very haunting and creates an interesting tension, but the lyrics about giving away love, only to wish you hadn't later are quite poignant.

8) Don't You Worry 'Bout A Thing: Tight Latin grooves on this one. The chorus is very catchy. This is a great place on the album to put this little pick me up, which reinforces the "Everything will get better" felling that moves through the album.

9) He's Mistra Know-It-All: If I were writing a song about Nixon it wouldn't be nearly this pleasant, but I'm angrier at Nixon than Stevie seems to be. This really says bemused rather than angry and that's ok too.


That's pretty much it. I'm now familiar enough with the album to write about it, and I've got some notes to help me remember things I would want to say, or would jog my memory of how it all sounded if I looked back at them a year from now. If I were going to put this up here I would typically just synthesize all this into a less rambling form and leave it at that. I don't think I really need to revisit everything again though. I'll leave with this. Overall, I think this album has aged pretty well. It's hard to really think of it as revolutionary because so many people have taken so much from it over the last 30 years. But there's a rawness here that remains, and a twisted mass of anger and hope that really holds this together. Musically, it's very strong. I tend to be a bit critical of early, or even modern synths, but that's just a personal thing. I'd put it around 4.5/5 stars, but I'm sure those who were more into this style of music would go 5/5.

Currently listening to: Innervisions - Stevie Wonder (duh)
Currently reading:
Last Netflix Movie: Yet again Dawn of the Dead

The big three...

A word first, on this random day of thoughts, about my new addition of current listening, reading, Netflix closing. The way I figure it, in the end the person who will get the most out of reading this blog is me. That's not to say that there wouldn't be anything of interest for someone else who wanted to read it, but I'm really the only one who would have an interest in everything here. The movies that we see, or the books that we read, and albums that we play are often more representative of who we are at a particular point in our lives than anything else. Certainly, the music I listen to now I vastly different than what I was listening to five years ago. Books and movies are often the same. I am interested to see what sort of pattern develops if I look back in a few years at all of these entries. Besides, I'm often interested in hearing what other people are listening to or reading, so maybe someone else will be too.

On a similar not I just finished Isaac Asimov's I, Robot yesterday, and got to thinking. The book is actually pretty good. I liked each story on an individual basis. They were interesting psychological vignettes, and each one turned on an unusual aspect of how the three rules which govern robot behavior would work in practice. I've got to say that the one where the robot wanders around in circles was hilarious.

My problem with the book, however, came from the rules themselves. For those who have not read the book, or seen the movie (which has nothing to do with the book) the three rules are:

1) No robot may cause harm to a human or allow harm to come to a human through inaction.
2) Robots must obey commands given to them by humans unless it violates rule 1
3) A robot must take action to preserve itself from injury unless to do so would violate rules 1 or 2

In the book they mention that these rules were created to pacify people who were concerned/afraid of the robots taking over, or of losing control over them. The problem, however, and I think it's pretty obvious, is that these rules virtually ensure that happening. To think that these rules would have helped to placate anyone is ridiculous.

Here are the problems. First the definition of harm seems to be rather loose. By rule 1 I would expect robots to be chasing people around taking their cigarettes, forcing them out of their cars, putting an end to professional sports and numerous other things. All of these things are dangerous. All of them cause harm, yet people chose to do them anyway. Every time you drive your car you are in immediate peril and could be dead in a fraction of a second. A robot programmed with rule 1 could not allow you to do those things because they would be allowing you to harm yourself by their inaction. Additionally, by rule 2 you would not be able to order them to leave you alone because your order would be outweighed by rule 1.

Here's another problem that Asimov even touched on in a few of the stories. a robot is able to perform certain tasks much more accurately and capably than people. Some of these are tasks which humans depend on having performed correctly. Since the robot knows that left to humans there could be problems leading to harm. The robot then decides that the most disastrous outcome for humanity would be the loss of itself. Thus rule 1 means the robot will act toward its own preservation above anything else. This effect would probably be enhanced by rule 3 giving it an instinct for self-preservation already.

The logical problems with the rules are pretty clear, so the question I couldn't get past while reading was how anyone would accept these rules as a solution to the possible robot problem. They pretty clearly ensure the eventual takeover of everything by well intentioned robots, and the transition of humans into caretakers of the machines which watch over them. I don't know about you but if I were handed these rules as my safeguard against robotic domination I wouldn't take it too well. To be fair to Asimov this eventuality was part of the book, but I found the shock evinced by the human characters at these outcomes questionable. They should have figured that out long before the first robot came off the line.

Currently listening to: Another Joyous Occasion - Widespread Panic
Curently reading: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart presents America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction
Last Netflix movie: Still Dawn of the Dead. What can I say.

So much to do, so little time...

Hmm...missed the music post after all. I really meant to get to it, but there's just so much stuff to do. Missed the Albuquerque post too, so I'm back to the day of ranting. Well, let's play a little catch-up.

Music: I don't really have the time today to launch into a full blown music post, so here are a few things I've been listening to recently that I like: Trouble - Ray LaMontagne, Nebraska - Bruce Springsteen, Tracy Chapman - Tracy Chapman, Raindogs - Tom Waits, The Who Sings My Generation - The Who. I think they're all worth a listen. The first three are pretty mellow, but the other two are more upbeat. The only one that is particularly new is Ray LaMontagne. It's been out about a year or so.

Albuquerque: This week the Gin Mill. It's a cool little bar/tavern place in the Far North center. The food is ok, the price is good. It's one of the few smoking permitted places in town, and I like the atmosphere. It's the thing I like about Albuquerque this week.

Rant day: Suffice it to say that if I had the time this week to complain about not having enough time to get everything done, or about everyone making demands on my time I would put that in here, but, of course, I don't so I'll have to leave it at that, but I've got an awful lot to say on the subject. Well, that's not much of a rant, but really to spend the time ranting about it would really make it worse, so I won't bother.

Currently listening to: Live at the Isle of Wight - The Who
Currently reading: Not sure yet just finished I, Robot - Isaac Asimov
Last Netflix movie: Still Dawn of the Dead. I told you I haven't had much time recently.