In case you didn't know, I was a guest on the Chauncey DeVega Show podcast last week. Chauncey is an old friend from my Chicago days and has really helped me out a lot by highlighting my stuff on his much more popular site. He also was instrumental in getting me to get off my butt and submit my recent piece to Jacobin.
We talked on Sunday night, when I still thought that Clinton would squeak out a victory in a tight election. I was wrong, but at least I'm happy with what I had to say about the nature of Trump's support. I come from Trump country and lived in another corner of it not long ago; I feel like I have some insight that many national journalists lack. I'm also glad that Chauncey edited my comments down to something somewhat coherent.
My conversation with Chauncey and those with others this trying week have been crucial for my sanity. As my recent Facebook experience showed me, it's a lot better to talk about these things in person rather than online. If I can recommend anything to those hurting right now it's to call your old friends and commiserate, without the artificiality of online conversation. If we are to organize and fight we need those human connections and longer discussions to figure out just what they hell we need to do. Enough with the post-mortems for now, we can't unfry things. It's time to fight, and to do that we need to draw strength from each other.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Friday, November 11, 2016
Iggy Pop, "Sister Midnight"
This has been a hard week. I feel like I have lived a lifetime since Monday. Music has been one of the few things capable of me getting through my days, and I have been leaning hard on some old chestnuts. Today I listened to a ton of Berlin-era Bowie and Iggy Pop, my mourning for the nation intertwined with my mourning for Bowie. This music has always been perfect for me in my dark times past, since it comes from Bowie and Pop both recovering from addiction and getting their lives on track after some years in the spiritual wilderness.
"Sister Midnight" is the first song on The Idiot, the first of the Berlin albums (the others being Pop's Lust for Life and Bowie's trilogy of Low, "Heroes," and Lodger.) It sets the tone perfectly with a rigid, robotically tight groove, an inspired combination of Kraftwerk and Funkadelic. The guitar, as on the rest of the album, buzzes with dread and fear. I imagine its otherworldly hum being the constant background noise in the heads of the replicants from Blade Runner. Iggy intones with his deep voice, "Calling sister midnight," which I interpret as a call for spiritual help in the midst of being consumed by darkness.
Iggy tells of his disturbing, Oedipal nightmares, asking Sister Midnight for help. He confesses that "I am a breakage inside." This is someone at the end of his tether, but oddly calm about it, as if he cannot imagine what it was ever like to be happy and normal. This is what it is like at the very pit of despair, abandoned by everyone.
Sometimes it feels good when I'm down to wallow a little in that feeling, to look into the abyss. So many dark cold nights I've spent with this song, and when those first spooky chords hit I'm able to turn inward and let get at the core of ill feelings. Tonight is no exception.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Nationalism Nationalism Nationalism (redux)
For a long time now I've been saying that Trump owes his rise to nationalism, a political force that has long been significant in American life, and is usually ignored by the punditocracy. Nationalism is powerful because it cuts across class lines, and because it cuts across ideological divides. We are now witnessing a global tidal wave of nationalism, from China to Russia to India to the UK to the United States.
Some people like to theorize that this is somehow a cry against globalist neoliberalism, but Trump will most certainly enact tax cuts and deregulation when he's president. Nationalism is also running high in China, which has perhaps benefited from globalization more than any other country. I simply do not buy the thesis that nationalism comes from economic anxiety, though I will accept that it can be a mitigating factor. The economic anxiety thesis is a kind of comfort to the Left, who can think that a leftist politics will somehow drain away nationalist agitation by improving the lives of those hurt by globalization. It won't.
American nationalism of the sort peddled by Trump is deeply rooted in white supremacy. Historically a lot of working class whites have violently enforced the color line as a way of ensuring a superior economic position. A large number of working class whites will never, ever, join in solidarity with their black or brown brethren, sad to say. They love their skin privilege way too much. When someone comes along with a leftist program, that means lifting up the black and brown poor, and white workers will not that.
Not only does nationalism elide class differences, it is endlessly self-perpetuating. There are always enemies to the nation, external and internal, that any failures can be blamed on. Any disloyalty to the Trump regime then becomes disloyalty to the nation itself. I remember after the invasion of Iraq how any criticism of the Bush administration was treated as treason. The notion that criticizing the president in time of was unseemly also helped Bush win a second term. Every time Trump will fail he will blame people in this country who are not sufficiently "American."
We are in an epoch of nationalism. Of closed minds and closed borders. Of hate and suspicion. I see America becoming much like Putin's Russia, where an already servile media will polish the image of the Great Leader. Dissenters will live in fear or exile. Criticism of the president will become criticism of the nation, and that won't be tolerated.
The Republican leadership sees Trump as the demagogue front man that will allow all of their free market wet dreams come true. He has lied and dissembled so much that I cannot even tell what he's going to do, whether he just wants to hold power or whether he has any firm beliefs about what to do with it. I do know that holding and wielding power for its own sake is at the top of his list. Woe unto us.
Some people like to theorize that this is somehow a cry against globalist neoliberalism, but Trump will most certainly enact tax cuts and deregulation when he's president. Nationalism is also running high in China, which has perhaps benefited from globalization more than any other country. I simply do not buy the thesis that nationalism comes from economic anxiety, though I will accept that it can be a mitigating factor. The economic anxiety thesis is a kind of comfort to the Left, who can think that a leftist politics will somehow drain away nationalist agitation by improving the lives of those hurt by globalization. It won't.
American nationalism of the sort peddled by Trump is deeply rooted in white supremacy. Historically a lot of working class whites have violently enforced the color line as a way of ensuring a superior economic position. A large number of working class whites will never, ever, join in solidarity with their black or brown brethren, sad to say. They love their skin privilege way too much. When someone comes along with a leftist program, that means lifting up the black and brown poor, and white workers will not that.
Not only does nationalism elide class differences, it is endlessly self-perpetuating. There are always enemies to the nation, external and internal, that any failures can be blamed on. Any disloyalty to the Trump regime then becomes disloyalty to the nation itself. I remember after the invasion of Iraq how any criticism of the Bush administration was treated as treason. The notion that criticizing the president in time of was unseemly also helped Bush win a second term. Every time Trump will fail he will blame people in this country who are not sufficiently "American."
We are in an epoch of nationalism. Of closed minds and closed borders. Of hate and suspicion. I see America becoming much like Putin's Russia, where an already servile media will polish the image of the Great Leader. Dissenters will live in fear or exile. Criticism of the president will become criticism of the nation, and that won't be tolerated.
The Republican leadership sees Trump as the demagogue front man that will allow all of their free market wet dreams come true. He has lied and dissembled so much that I cannot even tell what he's going to do, whether he just wants to hold power or whether he has any firm beliefs about what to do with it. I do know that holding and wielding power for its own sake is at the top of his list. Woe unto us.
Monday, November 7, 2016
The 16 Years (and counting) War
So tomorrow the election ends. Or at least I hope that it does. It has held a mirror up to this country, a mirror that reveals some pretty nasty things. Whoever wins, it will not break our national political deadlock, which has been in place at least ever since November 7, 2000.
That was the night that it looked like Gore edged Bush, then lost to him, and then ended with the outcome up in the air, to be decided by the Supreme Court. Up until that year someone could say there was little difference between the parties, and I would nod my head. I voted third party in both 1996 and 2000, disgusted by the Clinton administration's triangulation and its conservatism lite policies on incarceration, education, marriage equality, and the welfare state. The Bush administration would soon make it difficult to conflate the two parties.
After the 2000 election, in his only worthwhile contribution to world civilization, David Brooks talked of two Americas, one "red" and one "blue." Being a pundit, he missed (like most of his brethren) the deeper, and more disturbing reality. America, like France at the turn of the last century, was divided between those embracing modernity and those wishing to reinstall traditional society, and the reactionaries then and now would easily sacrifice democracy to get what they wanted.
Those who call themselves "real Americans" really do think that they represent the "real" country and that their opponents -enemies within- are out to destroy it. To protect the nation anything is permitted in their minds. Hence Bush won in 2000 after 1. Getting a fewer votes 2. Having a mob of Republicans shut down the recount in Florida 3. Benefitting from the Supreme Court ending the recount. In more recent years they have destroyed the Voting Rights Act and have actively worked to suppress the vote.
On the fringes the alt-right mushrooms have sprouted in the dank corners of the internet, feeding off of rhetorical feces. In an almost unbelievable coup, this faction has captured the nominee of the Republican Party. The militias, which once flourished under Clinton, vanished under Bush. Now, they are back, bigger than ever under Obama. After failing to hold the White House, the "real Americans" are even more inflamed than before, and increasingly impatient. Their allies in the Deep State have evidently tried to undermine Hillary Clinton via the FBI.
If Clinton wins, which looks likely, the 16 Years War will just keep going. The Democrats have failed and will continue to fail to gain control of the Congress and state governments. The reactionaries, seeing themselves as "real America" will man every battle station in their obstructionist fortresses. There is no end in sight, and if this election has proven anything, it is that an authoritarian demagogue is capable of subverting our system of government. Trump has been calling for voter intimidation, he has shown himself more than capable of inciting violence, and he has the police and elements of the Deep State on his side. If the election was as close as it was in 2000, I could easily see Trump as the caudillo, riding into DC on horseback/luxury jet, while law enforcement and military pave the way. Our militarized police would be more than capable of suppressing rebellion in the streets of America's cities. If Trump wins, the 16 Year War may likely end, with his opponents locked up in jail.
As I sit by the river of history tonight, watching its dark waters flow, I am having a hard time figuring out which way it is bending. We seem to be stuck in a permanent state of political war, and demographic replacement will not move fast enough to end it soon. In fact, it is the very changing demographics which are enraging the reactionaries and making them feel backed into a corner. It has to end, because the country cannot endure too much longer in this state. I fear that it may well end with a bang, and not with a whimper.
That was the night that it looked like Gore edged Bush, then lost to him, and then ended with the outcome up in the air, to be decided by the Supreme Court. Up until that year someone could say there was little difference between the parties, and I would nod my head. I voted third party in both 1996 and 2000, disgusted by the Clinton administration's triangulation and its conservatism lite policies on incarceration, education, marriage equality, and the welfare state. The Bush administration would soon make it difficult to conflate the two parties.
After the 2000 election, in his only worthwhile contribution to world civilization, David Brooks talked of two Americas, one "red" and one "blue." Being a pundit, he missed (like most of his brethren) the deeper, and more disturbing reality. America, like France at the turn of the last century, was divided between those embracing modernity and those wishing to reinstall traditional society, and the reactionaries then and now would easily sacrifice democracy to get what they wanted.
Those who call themselves "real Americans" really do think that they represent the "real" country and that their opponents -enemies within- are out to destroy it. To protect the nation anything is permitted in their minds. Hence Bush won in 2000 after 1. Getting a fewer votes 2. Having a mob of Republicans shut down the recount in Florida 3. Benefitting from the Supreme Court ending the recount. In more recent years they have destroyed the Voting Rights Act and have actively worked to suppress the vote.
On the fringes the alt-right mushrooms have sprouted in the dank corners of the internet, feeding off of rhetorical feces. In an almost unbelievable coup, this faction has captured the nominee of the Republican Party. The militias, which once flourished under Clinton, vanished under Bush. Now, they are back, bigger than ever under Obama. After failing to hold the White House, the "real Americans" are even more inflamed than before, and increasingly impatient. Their allies in the Deep State have evidently tried to undermine Hillary Clinton via the FBI.
If Clinton wins, which looks likely, the 16 Years War will just keep going. The Democrats have failed and will continue to fail to gain control of the Congress and state governments. The reactionaries, seeing themselves as "real America" will man every battle station in their obstructionist fortresses. There is no end in sight, and if this election has proven anything, it is that an authoritarian demagogue is capable of subverting our system of government. Trump has been calling for voter intimidation, he has shown himself more than capable of inciting violence, and he has the police and elements of the Deep State on his side. If the election was as close as it was in 2000, I could easily see Trump as the caudillo, riding into DC on horseback/luxury jet, while law enforcement and military pave the way. Our militarized police would be more than capable of suppressing rebellion in the streets of America's cities. If Trump wins, the 16 Year War may likely end, with his opponents locked up in jail.
As I sit by the river of history tonight, watching its dark waters flow, I am having a hard time figuring out which way it is bending. We seem to be stuck in a permanent state of political war, and demographic replacement will not move fast enough to end it soon. In fact, it is the very changing demographics which are enraging the reactionaries and making them feel backed into a corner. It has to end, because the country cannot endure too much longer in this state. I fear that it may well end with a bang, and not with a whimper.
Saturday, November 5, 2016
A Plea To My Republican Friends And Family (updated)
I understand that we differ in our politics. I understand that you may really dislike Hillary Clinton. But I beg and implore you NOT to vote for Donald Trump on Tuesday.
Although I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, I never would have asked you not to vote for McCain or Romney because as much as I disagreed with them, I at least thought they were legitimate candidates for the presidency. Look, you don't have to vote for Clinton, you can go third party if you wish. Heck, I did that in 1996 and 2000 after being disgusted by the equivocating and conservatism lite of the Clinton-Gore administration. And I am not asking you not to vote for Republicans further down the ballot, as much as I may dislike them.
Trump is a special case. This is a man who has openly inflamed hatred against immigrants and Muslims. He has introduced notions once considered outside of the pale in our politics to the mainstream. The Klan, America's oldest terrorist organization, has endorsed him, and his campaign has attracted flagrant white supremacists. He is instinctively authoritarian, and doesn't seem to have much interest in the First Amendment or the judiciary if those things can be used against him. He does not appear to have even the most basic understanding of the law and constitution. For that reason he is also massively unqualified to be president, from his childish temper tantrums to his complete lack of experience in public office to his complete ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity. He represents a danger to this country.
Although I disagree with your politics, I know you, my Republican friends and family, to be decent people. Why give your vote to a man of such indecency? Many of you are devout Christians, but here is a man who is as opposite of Christ as you could find, from his spewing of hate to his celebration of crass materialism to his bragging of sexually assaulting women. If he was just a random someone who lived in your town you'd probably really dislike him, and judge him negatively for his two divorces to boot. Anything he has said about religion and "values" has been lip service, anyway. Do you really want to be played like that? You might think that he will give you a Supreme Court justice who is anti-abortion, but he has broken every promise he has ever made. He's also floated Peter Thiel's name as a potential justice, and Thiel is someone whose moral worldview is the opposite of yours.
Some of you are in the business world. I've heard you complain of companies that use the justice system in frivolous lawsuits to shake you down for money, something Trump is known for. Would you do business with someone who has such a rash of bankruptcies? I even know one of you specifically has had business dealings with Trump and you have spoken negatively about it in years past. Are you now going to give your vote to a man that you would not trust enough to do business with? You pay your taxes, are you going to vote for a man who has skipped on his taxes, and thinks he's better than you for it?
A lot of you are women. Are you really going to go out and give your vote to a man who has a long history of treating women with disrespect? A man who seems to regard women as some lesser form of life? A man who has been credibly accused by several women of sexual assault? I know you see yourselves as strong women, why would you openly support a man who seems to have an insane hatred of strong women?
Knowing that many of you might be willing to vote for a man who appears to be against who you are as people and what you stand for, I am sad and disturbed. Just because he is the nominee of the party you vote for doesn't mean that he should automatically get your vote. Just because the likes of Rubio and Ryan have shown themselves to be abject cowards does not mean that you ought to follow their path.
You should know, last of all, that if you do vote for this man next Tuesday, I will indeed question my assumptions of your decency, morality, and strong womanhood. None of those qualities are consistent with support of Donald Trump.
Although I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, I never would have asked you not to vote for McCain or Romney because as much as I disagreed with them, I at least thought they were legitimate candidates for the presidency. Look, you don't have to vote for Clinton, you can go third party if you wish. Heck, I did that in 1996 and 2000 after being disgusted by the equivocating and conservatism lite of the Clinton-Gore administration. And I am not asking you not to vote for Republicans further down the ballot, as much as I may dislike them.
Trump is a special case. This is a man who has openly inflamed hatred against immigrants and Muslims. He has introduced notions once considered outside of the pale in our politics to the mainstream. The Klan, America's oldest terrorist organization, has endorsed him, and his campaign has attracted flagrant white supremacists. He is instinctively authoritarian, and doesn't seem to have much interest in the First Amendment or the judiciary if those things can be used against him. He does not appear to have even the most basic understanding of the law and constitution. For that reason he is also massively unqualified to be president, from his childish temper tantrums to his complete lack of experience in public office to his complete ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity. He represents a danger to this country.
Although I disagree with your politics, I know you, my Republican friends and family, to be decent people. Why give your vote to a man of such indecency? Many of you are devout Christians, but here is a man who is as opposite of Christ as you could find, from his spewing of hate to his celebration of crass materialism to his bragging of sexually assaulting women. If he was just a random someone who lived in your town you'd probably really dislike him, and judge him negatively for his two divorces to boot. Anything he has said about religion and "values" has been lip service, anyway. Do you really want to be played like that? You might think that he will give you a Supreme Court justice who is anti-abortion, but he has broken every promise he has ever made. He's also floated Peter Thiel's name as a potential justice, and Thiel is someone whose moral worldview is the opposite of yours.
Some of you are in the business world. I've heard you complain of companies that use the justice system in frivolous lawsuits to shake you down for money, something Trump is known for. Would you do business with someone who has such a rash of bankruptcies? I even know one of you specifically has had business dealings with Trump and you have spoken negatively about it in years past. Are you now going to give your vote to a man that you would not trust enough to do business with? You pay your taxes, are you going to vote for a man who has skipped on his taxes, and thinks he's better than you for it?
A lot of you are women. Are you really going to go out and give your vote to a man who has a long history of treating women with disrespect? A man who seems to regard women as some lesser form of life? A man who has been credibly accused by several women of sexual assault? I know you see yourselves as strong women, why would you openly support a man who seems to have an insane hatred of strong women?
Knowing that many of you might be willing to vote for a man who appears to be against who you are as people and what you stand for, I am sad and disturbed. Just because he is the nominee of the party you vote for doesn't mean that he should automatically get your vote. Just because the likes of Rubio and Ryan have shown themselves to be abject cowards does not mean that you ought to follow their path.
You should know, last of all, that if you do vote for this man next Tuesday, I will indeed question my assumptions of your decency, morality, and strong womanhood. None of those qualities are consistent with support of Donald Trump.
Friday, November 4, 2016
A Dozen Years In The Woodshed, Or Why Blog?
Yesterday I was elated and shocked to find out that my piece for Jacobin, "21st Century Victorians," was an editor's pick on the New York Times' mobile site. I know this makes me old fashioned, but I've long thought of the Times as my own Carnegie Hall or Madison Square Garden. If I could get published there, I'd know I'd made it. While they did not publish me, just being recognized by them gave me a huge thrill. Perhaps its getting a bout at the Garden, but on the under card, or Carnegie Hall as an opening act. I'll take it, anyway.
This all got me thinking about this blog and what it's meant to me. And yes, I am going to navel gaze for a bit, please forgive me. I started blogging way back in 2004, when my blog had the unruly title "Fugitive Streets/Jackal Tombs," which was a reference to a line from Proust and a line from Melville. Yes, I was a pretentious grad student at the time.
Blogging was the hot new thing, and it was a needed outlet. For the preceding couple of years I would often write up political rants and sent them to my friends over email. The blog let me do that, and to pretend that I was some kind of pundit or essayist. Truth by told, that had always been something I'd aspired to be.
My intellectual awakening came about in a strange way. I was in junior high, and after school I would often go to the public library and wait for my dad to get off work. (The factory where he worked in the office was just a couple of blocks away.) While the library I would raid the magazine racks. Remember, this is a time before the internet and when cable was mostly reruns and second rate trash. I spent a lot of time reading sports and music magazines, but after awhile I was picking up Time, Newsweek, The New Republic, and yes, National Review. (My politics would not be more formed until I was in high school.) I gravitated to the columns and the reviews more than the news stories. I studied the writing, and thought having a column or writing reviews would be a great job. When I was in high school in my creative writing class I tried to write some social commentary essays, but mostly stuck with poetry and short stories.
I also didn't do journalism in high school, mostly due to the tribalism of that world. I was a debater, and that was my nerd calling, not journalism (or so I thought.) There was also a very subtle but very real social class exclusivity marking the borders of the journalism club at my school.
But my desire to write commentary remained, if buried deep inside me. Debate got some of it out of me in high school and college, but I did have a friend with a very primitive website who posted some of my album reviews. I knew I was never going to be a music critic, but it was fun to play one. In grad school I would write critical essays down in notebooks, and later write up those ranty emails. Blogging was such a sweet release of all the thoughts I had and all the commentaries I wanted to write. If somebody out there in the internet void liked them, so much the better. The blogging helped me process the re-election of George W Bush, but also personal matters, like my failure of an academic career.
As those dozen years rolled on, blogging became less and less hip. Twitter took the wind out of its sails, and people started using their blogs less as spaces for writing, and more for self-promotion. Friends more adventurous than me parlayed their blogs into writing for more respectable and well-known sites. I, being the stubborn German-American Midwesterner that I am, persisted in using the same unprofessional blogspot blog and writing under a silly, culturally referential pseudonym. This blog was my comfort zone. I could just say what I wanted to say and people liked it I was happy, and if not, no big deal. I got to play at being one of those columnists and reviewers that I idolized back in junior high. Wasn't that good enough?
Well, I am glad that I took the initiative to put something out outside of my blog, and I can thank my friend Chauncey DeVega's encouragement for that. I might try to focus more of my writing on that realm, rather than in my humble little corner of the internet here. But most of what I write will still be right here. Blogging might be going the way of the 56K router, but it's been good to me. My twelve years in the woodshed have made me a better writer and thinker, and introduced me to some great folks that I never would have met otherwise. Some people garden, some people fish, some people play music, but I cast out rough essays into the internet void two or three times a week. As hobbies go, it ain't bad.
This all got me thinking about this blog and what it's meant to me. And yes, I am going to navel gaze for a bit, please forgive me. I started blogging way back in 2004, when my blog had the unruly title "Fugitive Streets/Jackal Tombs," which was a reference to a line from Proust and a line from Melville. Yes, I was a pretentious grad student at the time.
Blogging was the hot new thing, and it was a needed outlet. For the preceding couple of years I would often write up political rants and sent them to my friends over email. The blog let me do that, and to pretend that I was some kind of pundit or essayist. Truth by told, that had always been something I'd aspired to be.
My intellectual awakening came about in a strange way. I was in junior high, and after school I would often go to the public library and wait for my dad to get off work. (The factory where he worked in the office was just a couple of blocks away.) While the library I would raid the magazine racks. Remember, this is a time before the internet and when cable was mostly reruns and second rate trash. I spent a lot of time reading sports and music magazines, but after awhile I was picking up Time, Newsweek, The New Republic, and yes, National Review. (My politics would not be more formed until I was in high school.) I gravitated to the columns and the reviews more than the news stories. I studied the writing, and thought having a column or writing reviews would be a great job. When I was in high school in my creative writing class I tried to write some social commentary essays, but mostly stuck with poetry and short stories.
I also didn't do journalism in high school, mostly due to the tribalism of that world. I was a debater, and that was my nerd calling, not journalism (or so I thought.) There was also a very subtle but very real social class exclusivity marking the borders of the journalism club at my school.
But my desire to write commentary remained, if buried deep inside me. Debate got some of it out of me in high school and college, but I did have a friend with a very primitive website who posted some of my album reviews. I knew I was never going to be a music critic, but it was fun to play one. In grad school I would write critical essays down in notebooks, and later write up those ranty emails. Blogging was such a sweet release of all the thoughts I had and all the commentaries I wanted to write. If somebody out there in the internet void liked them, so much the better. The blogging helped me process the re-election of George W Bush, but also personal matters, like my failure of an academic career.
As those dozen years rolled on, blogging became less and less hip. Twitter took the wind out of its sails, and people started using their blogs less as spaces for writing, and more for self-promotion. Friends more adventurous than me parlayed their blogs into writing for more respectable and well-known sites. I, being the stubborn German-American Midwesterner that I am, persisted in using the same unprofessional blogspot blog and writing under a silly, culturally referential pseudonym. This blog was my comfort zone. I could just say what I wanted to say and people liked it I was happy, and if not, no big deal. I got to play at being one of those columnists and reviewers that I idolized back in junior high. Wasn't that good enough?
Well, I am glad that I took the initiative to put something out outside of my blog, and I can thank my friend Chauncey DeVega's encouragement for that. I might try to focus more of my writing on that realm, rather than in my humble little corner of the internet here. But most of what I write will still be right here. Blogging might be going the way of the 56K router, but it's been good to me. My twelve years in the woodshed have made me a better writer and thinker, and introduced me to some great folks that I never would have met otherwise. Some people garden, some people fish, some people play music, but I cast out rough essays into the internet void two or three times a week. As hobbies go, it ain't bad.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Billboard Top Ten November 2, 1968
For this month's installment of the Top Ten retrospective I thought I'd look back at the eve of the election of 1968, perhaps the last election year as momentous as this one. (I should add that there was a lot more going on in that year than now, so it's not an equal comparison.)
10. Cream, "White Room"
Cream was pretty much the first hard rock group, or at least the one that set the template for so much to follow. along with The Jimi Hendrix Experience. Ginger Baker's drums stomp like a Stegosaurus and Eric Clapton's guitar bludgeons out a caveman riff. While Clapton would abandon Cream's heavy psychedelic sound for the rootsier Derek and the Dominoes, Cream would beget Led Zeppelin and by extension the whole hard rock universe. At the end of the sixties, this is a clear taste of the seventies.
9. Diana Ross and the Supremes, "Love Child"
Motown finally started getting a little more topical in the late sixties, even with the Supremes, perhaps the label's most successful and mainstream act. This is full Motown pocket symphony mode, the stabbing strings insistent behind Diana Ross's breathy, fragile voice. It is a song about shame and also about a woman claiming her independence. The song's narrator refuses to have sex with her boyfriend because she does not want to give birth to a "love child," since she herself was one who grew up in a "tenement slum." It's the Supremes' first hit without the great Holland-Dozier-Holland production team, and also a sign of a new, more socially relevant Motown.
8. Johnny Nash, "Hold Me Tight"
I honestly never knew that Johnny Nash had a hit in the US before "I Can See Clearly Now." This is a sweet little rocksteady song with a Jamaican rhythm beneath Nash's smooth, sweet voice. Like the last two songs, it's a sign of things to come, as in the next decade Jamaican music would start having a major influence on the US and UK. I hear this and also realize how narrow oldies stations are in their playlists. Some wonderful songs just get left by the wayside to be forgotten.
7. Gary Puckett and the Union Gap, "Over You"
On the other hand, oldies stations in the Midwest play the shit out of Gary Puckett and the Union Gap. I wish they wouldn't. This group was responsible for a lot of overwrought, bombastic pop balladry, including "Young Girl," perhaps the creepiest song to ever hit the top ten. This is the kind of thing that The Guess Who and Bee Gees were doing a whole lot better at the time. Unlike the preceding songs, this is the sound of a kind of pop music on its way out.
6. The Turtles, "Elenore"
The Turtles as another group very firmly rooted in this period, but much more pleasant to listen to. The song has a swingy, jazzy beat and interesting vocal harmonies. It also hits on that common theme of sixties pop songs: "I love her but her parents think I'm a loser." It's a trope one almost never hears after this point in time, apart from Bruce Springsteen songs.
5. The Grass Roots, "Midnight Confessions"
It's yet another vocal pop (as opposed to rock) group. This was still an obviously popular formula in 1968, and not much afterward. The Grass Roots had a sackful of hits, but aren't remembered all that much these days. This song has the advantages of a pleading vocal and an almost freakily insistent organ sound.
4. The Crazy World of Arthur Brown, "Fire"
Ahhhh yeah! Now this is what I'm talking about. "Fire" has got to be one of the weirdest fucking songs to ever climb this high on the charts. I mean, it starts with ol' Arthur screaming "I AM THE GOD OF HELL FIRE!" Musically it's mostly just drums, a demented organ and some scratchy horns with Brown getting progressively more psychotic in his singing. A performer who took the stage in a flaming helmet, he paved the way for KISS and Alice Cooper.
3. OC Smith, "Little Green Apples"
Now this here is a strange song. It combines Burt Bacharach, southern soul, and some country music twang. It was written by Bobby Russell for country singer Roger Miller, and the song's waking up in the morning with the blues lyrics are very country. Smith's version has got a loose, funky background but with a prominent glockenspiel. It's a reminder of a time when songs existed much more independently of the artists who sang them, and that they could cross over genres much more fluidly. It's one thing about the pop music world of this time that I truly envy.
2. Mary Hopkin, "Those Were The Days"
Nobody does maudlin and sentimental like the Brits. All of the emotions they spend their days repressing come out in sappy-ass pop music. This is a song of nostalgia, of remembering old friends past. The music (produced by Paul McCartney) recalls old timey Western barrooms, even if it has its origins in a Russian folk song. The fact that this song hit so high on the charts on the eve of Nixon's election perhaps shows a strange longing for a pre-sixties past, the kind of "make America great again" nostalgia that plagues us today.
1. The Beatles, "Hey Jude"
I've heard some songs so many times that it's difficult hard to see their greatness anymore, no matter how good the song is. "Hey Jude" is one of those songs. But if I think really, really hard I can remember the 11 year old who got a Beatles comp for Christmas and would listen to this song over and over and over again, absolutely transfixed. Yes Paul McCartney made some schlock at this point in the Beatles, but he also made some real pop music magic. The melody is irresistible, but what makes the song is the powerful ascent into the fade out chorus, an ecstatic emotional outpouring like a gospel song. I get high every time I hear it, even now.
10. Cream, "White Room"
9. Diana Ross and the Supremes, "Love Child"
8. Johnny Nash, "Hold Me Tight"
7. Gary Puckett and the Union Gap, "Over You"
6. The Turtles, "Elenore"
5. The Grass Roots, "Midnight Confessions"
4. The Crazy World of Arthur Brown, "Fire"
3. OC Smith, "Little Green Apples"
2. Mary Hopkin, "Those Were The Days"
Nobody does maudlin and sentimental like the Brits. All of the emotions they spend their days repressing come out in sappy-ass pop music. This is a song of nostalgia, of remembering old friends past. The music (produced by Paul McCartney) recalls old timey Western barrooms, even if it has its origins in a Russian folk song. The fact that this song hit so high on the charts on the eve of Nixon's election perhaps shows a strange longing for a pre-sixties past, the kind of "make America great again" nostalgia that plagues us today.
1. The Beatles, "Hey Jude"
I've heard some songs so many times that it's difficult hard to see their greatness anymore, no matter how good the song is. "Hey Jude" is one of those songs. But if I think really, really hard I can remember the 11 year old who got a Beatles comp for Christmas and would listen to this song over and over and over again, absolutely transfixed. Yes Paul McCartney made some schlock at this point in the Beatles, but he also made some real pop music magic. The melody is irresistible, but what makes the song is the powerful ascent into the fade out chorus, an ecstatic emotional outpouring like a gospel song. I get high every time I hear it, even now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)