Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Dancing About Architecture

On the Chalkhills list, someone posted the following:
Here's an idea: Let's talk about music. Can we observe
one and only one rule?: There is no "right" or "wrong"
to questions of musical taste.
Below is my response. which I posted last night.

All right, I'll bite. This is a question that has interested me for years.

I respectfully disagree.

I think there is such a thing as good music and bad music, and that these values exist outside my subjectivity. I believe that the more you know about the technical aspects of music, the more likely you are to possess the language to express criticism -- that is, describe exactly why a piece of music is good or bad. Quite a few -- indeed, probably all -- "my-band-rocks-your-band-sucks" arguments arise from pure inarticulacy and nothing more.

Many (but of course not all) qualities by which we judge music have a certain measure of objectivity. These include, but are not limited to, originality, compositional excellence, and skill in execution. (Go ahead; try it: Think of a piece of music you love, and one you hate. I bet the one you love succeeds on some combination of these criteria, and the one you hate fails.)

To apply an extreme example, if you regard with unironic admiration the self-deluded goobers that they trot out for laffs in the early stages of American Idol, you are exhibiting an inability to discriminate good music from bad. (As the father of a 14-year-old girl who loves some of the awfulest, most cynically exploitative Disney teenybopper garbage, and who utterly refuses to listen to anything else with any sympathy, I know from what I'm talking about. My own flesh and blood, for all love!)

Now, you will answer me back, Must I like all music that is original, skillfully composed, and played well? Must I dislike all music that is unoriginal, cliched, or incompetently performed?

Of course not! Chopin, to grab an example out of the air, does nothing for me. And I love the Shaggs. I freely grant that there is a highly emotional (that is, subjective) component to one's admiration or disregard for a particular music: William Hung rocked! But not because he was a good singer by any empirical measurement. We judge music by many criteria that have nothing to do with music -- such as the artist's attractiveness, political stance, sense of humor, and so forth. I'd urge everyone to try to strip away those nonmusical criteria before getting into arguments about taste. Most of the arguments will stop exactly at that point at which you decide what you're *really* arguing about.

Here's the crux of the biscuit: Because I've made a lifelong study of it (a casual one, to be sure), I know enough about music to recognize the qualities in Chopin's music that make others regard his works highly. We can't argue about Chopin's lack of emotional appeal to me personally, but we can judge such quantifiable things as compositional excellence, his place in musical history, and the skill it takes to perform his music well -- if we have in common the language to express it. Otherwise, it's "Chopin sucks/No he doesn't."

It would be very wrong of me to say "If you like Chopin, you've got bad taste." That's a pointless subjective judgment. But it would be equally wrong to, say, give a good review of an incompetent performance of a Nocturne because the pianist has a nice ass.

("Anna Maria de la Callipygia's performance of Etude op.10 in C Major at Alice Tully Hall was only slightly marred by the performer's audible breaking of wind, the omission of three entire pages of music (accompanied by a 45-second pause to "find [her] place again") and her incessant singing along at the top of her voice in what appeared to be adenoidal Medieval French. But great googly-moogly, the caboose on that honey! Hommina-hommina-hommina A-WOOOOO!")

I loathe the often-cited maxim "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." It is absolute fucking balderdash -- and a cowardly surrender. With the proper vocabulary, a great deal of careful thought, and a refusal to resort to distracting metaphor, music can be described and criticized accurately and well.

Monday, April 09, 2007

A Tinny Little Sputnik

This is crossposted, in somewhat edited form, at NewCritics. Below is the unedited transcript.

Andy PartridgeAndy Partridge, founding genius of popcraft masters XTC, has reunited with his old bandmate Barry Andrews, the leading light of Shriekback, and that band's drummer, Martyn Barker, to create a double-CD album of entirely improvised music. "Monstrance" was released in the U.S., on Partridge's label APE, yesterday.

The phrase "entirely improvised music" may possibly glaze over a few eyes, but I can attest that this record is accessible, very listenable, and not at all the sort of self-indulgent junk that often passes under that rubric. The music ranges from long, but entirely coherent, pieces to shorter, less trance-y, more riff-based tunes.

The real delight in "Monstrance" is how clearly it is possible to hear musicians thinking. It's rather like looking over a landscape painter's shoulder as the painting is being first outlined and then filled in: You can hear the decisions being made in a group context. Partridge compares the process to a "thrilling" conversation, and listening to "Monstrance" gives us a fly-on-the-wall's view of the erudite musical chat among three very fine musicians.

Andy very kindly agreed to let me bounce some questions about the album off him, and about his musical life in general.

As you read the interview, you might enjoy a full track from the album at Andy's label's website: Listen to "I Lovely Cosmonaut" Thirty-second samples from all the tracks are also available at the iTunes Store.

You can also watch a video of the improvisational process at work, from the same source: Watch the video of "Winterwerk"

And of course, no one will be even slightly upset if you should decide to buy your very own copy of Monstrance.

Monstrance, the band

Monstrance -- or "mons-trance" -- there's a bit of a naughty pun in that title, isn't there?

Umm, not intentionally, no. Barry wanted to call it something like "Happy Monsters." And for ages, we thought we were going to call the band "Ut" not realizing there was already a band called "Ut." That was quite a blow when we found that out, our little world caved in, because we were convinced that was a perfect name for us. I didn't quite like "Happy Monsters" and so I suggested "Monstrance," which, as you know, is a -- I kind of liked the mischievous thing of -- a monstrance is a clear receptacle in which a holy relic, or a relic for veneration is displayed. I thought, well, that's the CD case with the disk in it. So it was a sort of naughty thing of, yeah you can venerate our holy relic! So he was pleased because it had a sort of monster-y word as the title, and I kind of liked the sort of facetious, yeah, "eat our shit," a holy relic for you to worship. Or not, as the case may be.

Funnily enough, one site, I don't know whether it's Amazon or not, had "Other Links," and the only other link they put up was a page for a company that sold church equipment -- I'm not joking! And you can go and buy a Monstrance if you want! A real one!

What does it look like?

Well, they're usually gaudy and see-through, so you can see the supposed bit of the True Cross -- which if they put all the pieces of True Cross together around the world, the True Cross would be like nine miles by six miles!

And who's to say it isn't?

And the Holy Tea-Towel of Turin! [Laughs]

Now, Barry Andrews -- you parted ways in, what, 1978?


Errrrr, yyyyyeah! I think it was '78. Late '78 or exceedingly early '79. '78 I think -- God, who can remember back then? I mean, humankind wasn't even properly formed! We were still evolving! But sure, he wandered off then, took his Krumar electric organ and Lawrence piano with him.

And how did you come to work with him again?

I saw him a few times since then. The first time I saw him again, somebody brought him into a TV studio where I was hosting some show, and they said, "Who would you want to interview?" and I said "Well, I'd love to see Barry Andrews" -- not thinking they would bring him in, and they found him and brought him in. Then, after that, because we had to sort of reunite live on air, it wasn't so difficult, I guess. And then I started to see him in the street here [Swindon], because he lived in London but he would come back here to visit his mother. And then his father died, and he came back here a bit more to see his mother. I would see him in the street, and I would say to him, "Do you fancy doing this improv project?" based on, loosely on -- this was about ten years ago -- loosely on the idea that Russia had invented rock-and-roll, an they were beaming it down to earth from a tinny little Sputnik and we were all hearing it under our bedclothes at night on crystal sets. Then he said, "Sure, I'll go with that!" And nothing more was said. And then he caught me up a year or so ago, and said, "Would you play on my Shriekback album?" And I said, "Yeah, I'd love to!" And I played on that. And he said, "Do you still want to do that improvised thing?" And I said "I'd really love to do that," and so it was just a case of "Let's do it!" There was no kind of planning or anything, it was just Let's see if it's gonna work.

After one day, we thought Hmm, this could be good! So we took two further days when we could get some space in the studio.

And Martyn Barker was in on this from the beginning as well?

Sure, I said to Barry, "Do you know a great drummer who can improvise really well?" Because I didn't want to involve anyone who couldn't improvise. I mean, I know some good players, but they're not improvisers. And he said "Yeah, the old Shriekback drummer, Martyn Barker, is great, he'd love to do it, he comes really highly recommended." And you know what, he was perfect. He was really in there with very, very tasteful playing.

Yeah, you can really hear the improvisational spirit in his playing.

His drum kit was recorded with four microphones, nothing more! All the drums and all the percussion are just four microphones. It was all the studio had! It was like, we can't use any more because we haven't got the tracks!

Where did you record it?


Because we couldn't spend a lot of money in case it was a terrible failure, Barry said, maybe I can get us into the Swindon New College, which is, you know, a college, and they've got a beautiful little studio in there -- for the kids, for Chrissakes! And they let us have it dirt cheap, the only price I had to pay was my hearing!

Oh -- this was when you damaged your ears?

No, it was actually the last day of mixing that my ears were damaged. I was just being overdramatic. [Laughs]

I've heard you talk at length about the relationship between music and architecture. How does that work when you're doing improvisation?


I think that improvisation is nothing like architecture. I think that songwriting and well-constructed, balanced music is very close to architecture, but I think improvised music is closer to conversation. With three players all talking to each other , you find a rhythm, you find the spaces and you find the subject matter -- it's like a three-way conversation, three people in a conversation, all shooting good points to each other -- "Oh, that's interesting, did you know dah-dah-dah..." I find it's very much like a thrilling conversation. I don't think it's very related to architecture, but I do think that good song structure and good, how shall we say, not necessarily classical music, but sort of well-thought-out instrumental or vocal music is very akin to architecture. This is much more conversational. Another thing it might be, imagine three people making a clay sculpture simultaneously, with no plans what it's going to be. So you're all squeezing and pushing and prodding, and a kind of an ant-like social conscience comes in or something. You find the best bits are when you're all tuned to the same wavelength, all squeezing and pulling and making something very gorgeously abstract that you never knew you were going to make. It's almost as if you're communicating in a different way.

I heard exactly what you're taking about in "I Lovely Cosmonaut," somewhere around nine minutes, you can hear everybody go, Oh, yes -- this! simultaneously.

Yeah. And there were no edits in that -- in fact there are very few edits in all these things. Very few. Mostly what you hear, all these pieces, are how they fell out. When they break down and end, that's when we felt it should break down and end. When we change gear, that's when we all felt we should change gear. I don't think anyone was leaping in the air going "Now, you bastard!" The successful pieces were where we clicked into a higher place.

When you were talking about architecture, you were skirting around a question that I had intended to ask you. There seem to be two extremes to your musical personality. There's the Andy Partridge who can knock off three "Mayor of Simpleton"s before breakfast, and then there's the Andy Partridge that we got to meet more fully in the "Fuzzy Warbles" series, the experimental, aleatory Andy...

Yeah, he doesn't get to come out in public much! He was there right from the start! You know, there are things on "Monstrance" that wouldn't be out of place on the "Takeaway" album, and vice versa. The twin tracks of my musical upbringing are straight-songs-with-funny-noises-attached -- and that means novelty songs, which then mutated later, in the Sixties, to psychedelic music, which is still pretty much straight songs with novelty noises attached -- or show tunes, that worked in that thread as well, because the only decent thing on British radio when I was growing up was either show tunes or novelty songs, pretty straight-up songs with sped-up voices or too much reverb or a section would break down and there'd be some talking or a little backward something or crazy sounds... I loved all that stuff as a kid, and when I got into my teens and psychedelia hit, really psychedelic music is novelty music, it's the same thing! It had sped-up voices, and too much reverb, and echo, and backwards stuff. So just substitute novelty records for psychedelic music, and it's just the same thing, really.

And then, in my teens, I started experimenting with tape recorders -- before I could play an instrument, I got into -- I think I know how I got into it -- what you would term musique concrete first of all, although I didn't know they did it by chopping up little bits of tape -- I would experiment for hours with my tape recorder, and be recording me hitting things and putting the backwards, or turning them at different speeds, or hitting stuff from the kitchen and making it feed back, then punching in other sounds. So it was like making primitive musique concrete as an early teen. I loved all that experimentational side of it.

And then in my later teens, a friend of mine called Michael Taylor -- everyone called him Spud, I've no idea why, if you're called Spud your name is usually Murphy -- he was a couple of years older than me, and he had a really eclectic musical taste, and a weird taste in literature. He would get me to read Burroughs' books, William Burroughs, or he would recommend Genet or, or, just really out-there literature stuff... And then he would come around and he'd bring Albert Ayler albums, or Hans Benninck records, or Sonny Rollins or John Coltrane, or Alice Coltrane, you know, the more out-there stuff -- Pharaoh Saunders, that sort of stuff. First of all, I didn't like that kind of thing, because I thought, ohhh, I don't know if I can get into this, I kinda like my own experiments because I'm in control of them, and I don't know if I can take to anyone else's. And then suddenly, the coin dropped and I really got into it in a huge way. And so the other rail of my musical railway was added in... And so I had one rail that was pretty straight songs with novelty noises attached, and the really out-there experimental end of jazz, as far as you can go...

Great segue... I brought to "Monstrance" a preconception that it was going to be like free jazz, when it was described to me as an improvisational album. I've always found free jazz to be rather monochromatic in the sense of not too many changes of texture....

Yeah, free jazz to me is very little conversation going on, it's everyone shouting. And I find with more of a conversational state of mind -- not everyone can do it, you know? And out of the eight hours' worth of recording that we did, we really had to throw away about six and a half hours, because it just wasn't up to scratch. So not everyone can do it, and even the people who can do it can't always do it. It's so elusive.

Monstrance CD art

I was surprised when I listened to it at the variety of textures and timbres that you achieved. Parts of this records are very trance-y, very spacy, and other parts of it you can dance to!

Sure! I don't know why -- I don't know why either of those, it just seemed to be the way that the clay was getting squeezed, and if you go with it.... Just the slightest noise can send it spinning off in another direction. That's what conversations do -- you can put one word into a conversation, and suddenly Bang! and the conversation goes off in a right angle somewhere...

Which is why I'm sitting here amused at that thought because I'm trying to interview you!

And you're also there in a ballet tutu and [laughs] a Robert Mugabe Fun-Mask!

One thing I noticed about the way these improvisations seem to work, is that one player, and it's not always the same player, takes a rhythmic, repetitive pattern, it might be you, it might be Martyn on drums, and the other two provide the swirling textures around it...

Well, kind of combinations of all sorts of things. For example, the opening four minutes of "I Lovely Cosmonaut" there is an unspoken rhythm, where nobody states it, and all the little bloops and all the volume-control things on the guitar, or the little scrapes and bumps and stuff from the drums, they all skirt around, trying hard not to fall in the holes in this cheese, you know, the holes are kind of rhythmic, Nobody was playing the rhythm, but you can feel this rhythm in it, which generally congeals to a more staged rhythm later on.

That's what I was talking about at around nine minutes, when you hear everyone just kick in...


And nobody jumped in the air, or there wasn't an edit made there or anything like that, it just happened. Or, say, for example, the last track, "Priapple," where for about two-thirds of it I play these two chords, these two sort of wah-wah chords [demonstrates vocally] -- I'm the only one regarding the rhythm, and it seems as if Martyn and Barry are sort of attacking me, like two beasts, and I'm trying to keep on that path of walking up that mountain, and that's what creates the tension, that lonely pilgrim with his two chords keeping at it going up that mountain, and these evil demons making terrible noises coming at me! And for me, that's how that one works, it's the sort of stolidity of "I'm gonna get to the top of that mountain, I'm not gonna deviate from my rhythm," and yet the drums and keyboards are doing their best to attack me... And that's how that one works.

Now, something like "Torturetainment" works because Martyn and myself are in quite a strong rhythm, like you say you could dance to, and then Barry sounds like he's doing the most evil dentistry ever, over the top of that, and that basically comes to a massive conclusion where you can't torture any more, and either the person dies or they stop the torture -- and then you have a sort of sublime second half where Barry just drones, and I play these delicate little pieces on the guitar over the top of it. There's lots of ways of -- oh, God, I'm gonna sound like a seminar on how to improvise! -- there's lots of ways of achieving that conversation... We're not always creating a rhythm -- not all of us all the time are creating a rhythm, if you see what I mean. One person can be while the others are doing something else. Two people can be, one can be doing something else. I don't know if there's any important part where we're all creating rhythmic things.

That brings up a good question: Did you have no preconceived notion of what these things would sound like when you sat down to play?


No, we never -- maybe foolishly, maybe we should have done! -- we never discussed anything like sort of atmospheres or anything, we never sat down and said "Okay, let's do one that's gentle," or "Let's do one where the first half is loud and the second half is quiet." There was nothing like that... We never even spoke of keys -- or very rarely. I think one of the pieces that we did we actually said "OK, let's try something in C." And we ended up not even using it. All the pieces that we used, there was no discussion of keys; it was a case of "Is he rolling in there, in the control room? OK, he's rolling, go!" And we just let the music dictate totally. As I say, there was no jumping in the air to say "OK, stop, you bastards," or "Change!" It was totally a musical conversation.

And when it worked, it worked. And when it didn't, we threw it out. I don't know if an hour and a half out of eight hours is a good percentage for improvised music. I don't know how much music Miles Davis threw away. Dave Gregory bought me the "Cellar Door Sessions" for Christmas; it's like six CDs, and I've got to be honest, not a lot of it works. But the bits that do work, really, really work. Those are the bits that they chopped out to make -- was it "Bitches' Brew"? Or "Live/Evil"? I don't remember which album it was that they diced it up to become.... But there's an awful lot of "The Cellar Door Sessions" that don't work. That's the nature of improvised music. When it all clicks, it's -- sheesh! -- it's kind of god-like, but when it doesn't click, it's just monkeys wandering around in the mire!

Monstrance at the Swindon New College

I think my favorite piece -- I gotta say, I love this record, by the way -- I think my favorite piece has been "Chain Gang," which reminds me of some of the more sedate parts of the late Captain Beefheart, "Ice Cream for Crow" or "Doc at the Radar Station."

Right -- probably my guitar tone. It's just a kind of twangorous tone. For some reason, my hand just fell onto a little rhythm thing, I wasn't even thinking about it, it just happened to go in 7/4 time. And Martyn was -- because we never discussed it -- he just kind of started something up in 4/4 time. The tension is this, you know, this -- whatever it is that resolves itself every 28 bars or whatever, it never rests, because he's basically playing fours, I'm basically playing sevens, and it never rests. The two rhythms are constantly looking for each other, there's this seesawing searching going on, guitar looking for the drums, the drums looking for the guitar. They very rarely come together, but it's that continuous chase that makes it exciting. And then over the top, Barry is really just commenting on the chase, like a mother saying "Come on, catch him up, now you tag him," you know...

That's one of the straighter -- actually, my favorite pieces on the disks are the longer ones that actually go on a journey. The shorter ones, which possibly a little more groove-based, I still like them, which is why they're in there, but my real favorites are "Cosmonaut" and "Priapple," the ones that go on a long journey and keep mutating into something else.

I noticed in "Pagoda Tailfin," you're doing something that you've done before, which is to use your delay unit as a musical instrument. There's a point, I don't remember how far in, where you start playing a rhythmic thing, and you've got it set on a very long delay -- I don't know if you actually played with the delay or not --

What you hear is, any effects that we applied are really an amplification of any effects we're using on the floor. So, I was playing through a Pod, and I would dial up a long delay. And then in the mix, what we did, "Oh, let's make it sound a little more stereo," so what we did was actually put exactly the same delay on it again, and then pan it over on the other side, so the guitar has an element of stereo about it. So all those reverbs and echoes were basically happening from the floor.

Yes, so it's me tangling myself, you know, knitting a cats'-cradle of live guitar and echoed guitar.

Yeah, and what's fun for the listener is to hear you not only create that, but to almost be inside your head as you realize that that cats' cradle is possible...

Yeah, you have to really listen out when you're playing with such a long delay, because you're walking on very spiky ground! If you stumble, and play something awfully wrong, awfully not conversational to the other instruments, it's gonna get repeated...and...repeated...! [Laughs] It's like you let a fart escape -- it's not gonna be just one fart, they're gonna be really loud, and lots of them, and then all over again, and all over again... So you have to be very careful when you're playing live with a delay! [Laughs] Hey, it makes you want to play the album!

Do you know, I don't think, apart from mixing it, I don't think I've heard it on headphones since it was mixed. I've had a bit of a phobia about headphones since then -- and you can't blame me -- but I really ought to play it on headphones and get back into the sort of 3-D space of it. It was created in a very small studio, and I'm stood about three feet away from the drums, with my amp behind me, and Barry's stood about three feet in front of the drums, with his keyboard stuff in front of him, so it was all very intimate, you know? There's no separation, you could just put up the drum mikes and you'd hear all the other instruments perfectly. It sort of mixed itself.

That's interesting... There's a real conversation going on between your right and left ears when you hear it in headphones.


Oh yeah -- well certainly on that track, because the copy of the delay that we put on in the mix is the same as the copy that was live; it's panned on the other side, so anything seems to pull through your head every time the guitar hits, it sort of pulls through your head, if you see what I mean.

For being made in a small, student studio, it sounds really good.

Yeah, it's a tiny studio. The studio is pretty small, but we actually only used one little half of it, because we wanted to be close to each other, to make sure there was utmost communication; should somebody play something you don't want to think "Oh, I'm not hearing it correctly." I never played with headphones -- I don't think any of us played with headphones; we just played listening to each other because we were all in such a small radius.

Do you intend to carry on with this project? Will there be more Monstrance?


Oh, I'd love to, yeah! I guess to some extent, it's depending on if we make our money back -- or if I make my money back. It didn't cost too much money to actually record and mix, but the mastering was expensive because we wanted to take it to a good mastering studio, I guess to compensate for the rather cheap studio that we did it in. And of course there's no bass, so you've got to go careful mixing and mastering so it doesn't sound too light and powerless. So I guess really the money was spent on mastering and the sleeve art , getting my concept made up by Andrew Swainson, and then advertising and getting these things produced. I guess if we make money back, if we don't lose money doing this, that'll be nature's way of saying "Do you know, you should do some more!"

Really, I have a fantasy that this will kind of allow me to escape the beautiful gilded prison of song for a bit. Because I think I need to. I think I've kind of built a prison for myself with songwriting. And personally, I'm in a very unusual mental place where I'm finding it difficult to imagine writing better stuff than the material that came out on "Apple Venus." So it's almost as if I've taken my one rail of my musical influence as far as I can, so maybe I should take the other rail as far as I can.

As I say, it's nothing new. People are going to think [sneering tone] "Ah, he's trying something different," you know. But this experimental side has always been there, from early teens, and like I say, a lot of the records I really liked were not a million miles away from what I'm doing on "Monstrance."

And in the interest of making that money back, where can one acquire this album?


Well, it actually gets a domestic release in the United States on the seventh! [of April].

And it will be distributed to retail stores?

Yeah, dammit! We have Ryko/Warner's distribution power behind us, so you should be able to get it in stores, and if you can't find it in a store, don't go in that store again because they obviously have no taste! Go immediately to ape.uk.net! Actually the whole APE catalog is coming out in the States on the seventh.

Oh, that's great news!

Yeah, it's the first distribution deal we've ever had in the States. I'm excited, because it'll double the market, and double the amount of people that'll get to hear the APE label, and hopefully make some money for us, because right now it's losing money, and it would be nice if it made some money, because I can't afford to keep throwing money at projects that I really believe in if we don't sell enough to cover the cost of manufacturing them. We want to become a label where people see the APE logo and they say "I know that's gonna be good stuff on there!"

Friday, April 06, 2007

It's Nice to Be Wanted, I Suppose...

I'm being pursued by a headhunter for Microsoft.

I haven't actually spoken with him yet -- it's been importunate emails, invitations to connect on LinkedIn (that is not a way to win points with me) and, this morning, a voice-mail message that I have no intention of returning.

The idea of packing up the family at this point in our lives -- kids just about to enter high school, with Betty set to attend a very good private school we've just found out she's been accepted at -- is utterly laughable. Seattle. As if! And leave Jingo Acres...! Sorry, Chuck. Not gonna happen.

And us as Macintoshed-up a family as exists. If Apple called, I might have some trouble living with myself. But not Microsoft.

I suppose I should take it as a sign that things are looking up in my profession (user-interface design)....
Viva Seattle-Tacoma,
Viva-viva Sea-Tac!
Viva-viva-viva-viva-viva Sea-Tac!
They've got the best computers and coffee and smack!

Further on Those Sixteenth Notes

According to Geoff Emerick, the sound-engineer who sat in on many of the Beatles' sessions, and who witnessed the recording of "A Hard Day's Night," George Harrison was a pretty lousy guitar player. Here's from his (utterly wonderful) book, Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Beatles, cowritten with Howard Massey, and raved about by Bobby Lightfoot here:
Then we were ready to attack Harrison's solo. George must have been having a bad day...because he was having real difficulty nailing it. After some discussion about having Paul play the part instead (McCartney was a fine guitarist himself and seemed always ready to jump in and show up his younger bandmate), George Martin finally decided to instead employ the same "wound-up piano" technique he had done the year previous on the song "Misery." I was told to roll the tape at half speed while George [Martin] went down into the studio and doubled the guitar solo on an out-of-tune upright piano. Both parts had to be played simultaneously because there was only one track [left on the tape; the other three had been taken up with the original take, plus double-tracked vocals, an acoustic rhythm guitar, cowbell and bongos], and it was fascinating watching the two Georges -- Harrison and Martin -- working side by side in the studio, foreheads furrowed in concentration as they played the rhythmically complex solo in tight unison on their respective instruments.
Emerick is rather scathing on Harrison's often lugubrious guitar playing on other recordings too, and says that sessions would grind to a halt when it came time to record the guitar solos. Describing the session for Harrison's own song, "Taxman," he says,
There was a bit of tension on that session, though, because George had a great deal of trouble playing the solo -- in fact, he couldn't even do a proper job of it when we slowed the tape down to half speed.

After a couple of hours watching him struggle, both Paul and George Martin started becoming quite frustrated -- this was, after all, a Harrison song and therefore not something anyone was prepared to spend a whole lot of time on. So George Martin went into the studio and, as diplomatically as possible, announced that he wanted Paul to have a go at the solo instead. I could see from the look on Harrison's face that he didn't like the idea one bit, but he reluctantly agreed and proceeded to disappear for a couple of hours.... Paul's solo was stunning in its ferocity -- his guitar playing had a fire and an energy that his younger bandmate's rarely matched -- and was accomplished in just a take or two.
As I'm as expert a name-dropper as anyone besides my excellent friend Paul Newman, I'm pleased to report I've had an email conversation with Dave Gregory, the former lead guitarist and keyboardist of XTC and no stranger to a Rickenbacker 360-12 himself. Here's what he said about That Chord:
More significant is your re-appraisal of the opening chord. I now realise that for the best part of 30 years I have been playing it wrongly! You are correct, [Neddie] - there is no 'F' in the chord. However, I must disagree slightly with your published diagram and refer you back to "Beatles: The Complete Scores" because for once, I do believe they've got this one right.

The instrumentation I think is correct comprises 2 Rickenbacker 12-string parts and a high bass note. There is no piano or snare drum, as some have suggested, which came as another surprise to me after all these years!

Rick part one plays (low to high) (muted Es), open As, open Ds, open Gs, Cs at fret 1 on B-strings and Gs at fret 3 on high E-strings.

Rick part two plays a barre of Gsus4 at fret 3. Bass plays a D either at fret 12 of D-string or fret 7 of G-string.

What sounds like a snare drum creating the attack is actually the Altec compressor slamming in to attenuate the initial impact, only to slowly release the decaying chord, magically exposing those wayward overtones in the process. Try doing that with a plug-in!
I'm particularly tickled that he says he's been playing it wrong, as one of XTC's early hits, "This Is Pop," quite self-consciously quoted the chord... Says Dave,
We used the Andy Summers "Walking On The Moon" shape, of course. Or rather, Summers used Andy [Partridge's]'s...
Not a whole lot of love lost between those two rivals....

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

What Is Sexy?


Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue?

Yawn. Supermodels writhing in the surf. Bleah.

Victoria's Secret Catalog?

Tfoo! Blow-dried, Photoshopped steel-bellied airheads in ridiculous lingerie that would look awful on anybody who's not a steel-bellied airhead with legs six feet long and a waist the girth of a pencil.

But when the Land's End Spring Swimsuit Catalog hits the Jingo mailbox?

Spread the beach-towel and break out the hand-lotion... That publication, my friends, is sexy.

It's simple, really: I can actually imagine having a conversation with these women. And really enjoying it.



Dude, they're selling to women.



Well, yes, exactly! They're selling swimsuits to women -- women who are self-conscious about their imperfect bodies -- and the swimsuits are designed to mask those imperfections: low thigh-openings, high necklines, underwires, panels to "control" bellies that may have borne children. The models are lovely women, but lovely in a way that a female shopper might actually realistically aspire to. No heavy makeup, no gigantic bolt-on hooties, just women who happen to be particularly attractive, wearing swimsuits. Unthreatening. Real.

I find that unbearably sexy.

They're also slightly on the older side, which I find in my encroaching dotage to be a major
plus. They exude intelligence and experience. They might actually take my Dadaist sense of humor and give as good as they get. I hate it when, after a nonsequitur joke, a woman looks at me like I've just crawled out from under a rock. High-school was one long, nightmarish series of girls looking at me slantendicular and always saying exactly the same thing: "God, you're so weird!"



It's precisely the imperfections that are so intriguing. The smaller breasts, the wider hips, the thicker waists -- these are in fact the very things that make me imagine them to be actual human beings rather than fluffed and Photoshopped wank-objects.

I understand I'm being trite, toeing the feminist party line. You just want to talk. Yeah, right.

No -- I'm trying to be honest. I can't get exited about an image of a sexy woman unless I can also imagine that the woman would be real enough -- human enough -- to hold an actual conversation with me. The Land's End catalog, aimed as it is at women insecure about their bodies, presents to me images of women who are unthreatening to other women. This woman-to-woman appeal, I think, is the key: I need an idealized image of female sexuality that is acceptable to actual living, breathing, menstruating, micturating, defecating, farting, spider-veined, small-breasted, square-assed, potbellied, thunder-thighed women who think that getting sand in the intimate bits of their swimsuits is funny.

Is that so weird?

Friday, March 30, 2007

An Oral Disquisition on Polymorphous Perversity


From an interview with Andy Partridge at MAGNET, where he's the current Featured Artist:

...Right, although the nearest I could get was my rubber shark story. That was my notorious way of not being unfaithful when I was on tour.

Come again?

It was the best blow job I ever had! I bought it at a Woolworth’s in Melbourne, Australia, on tour. I was thinking, “How am I gonna be good?” I had an afternoon off, wandering around, and was amazed that they had a load of stuff in this store that you just couldn’t get anymore, like a time capsule or something. I saw this soft, rubber shark about a foot long and I thought, “Wow, if I stuck my dick in that, it’d feel really good, and I could be faithful and not tempted by all these women now that I’m married!” So I thought, “I’m gonna buy this rubber shark and fuck it!” I bought the shark, and it felt great. You’d get some suction going, a vacuum effect, just terrific. I used to wedge it under a cushion or a chair and I’d fuck this rubber shark. My suitcase was full at the time, so I had to buy an extra box to take it around. I had this blue fiber-board suitcase, and I’d keep this rubber shark in there. I remember going through New Zealand with it and the customs agent asking me, “What’s in the case, mate?” And I said, “Well, it’s a rubber shark.” “Wise guy.” Then he’d open it up and it’d be a rubber shark! It was great.

Did it have a name, this shark?

Not really a name. Sharky. [Laughs] Although after a while that stopped because then I’d think of Feargal Sharkey, and the last thing—literally—you want to be thinking of when you’re blowing your wad is the lead singer of the Undertones.



This is all the more amusing because I've lined up an interview with this guy next week. Stay tuned...

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Those Terrible Triplets Sixteenth Notes

I did a bit of research preparing for my previous post about the song "A Hard Day's Night," and now I think I've uncovered something pretty strange:

I don't believe George Harrison played the solo on "A Hard Day's Night" on a Rickenbacker 360-12. I think it's quite possible -- likely, even -- that George Harrison didn't play that solo at all -- or at least not by himself, and not without resort to studio jiggery-pokery.

My first piece of evidence, entirely circumstantial, I admit, is this. The version recorded live at the BBC, which you can find on "The Beatles at the BBC," has one of the funniest edits I've ever heard: when the lads get to the solo, the BBC simply edits in the solo from the record. No attempt to hide it or anything -- I guess they thought it wouldn't be remarked by the unsophisticated audience listening over the radio.

Here it is:

The BBC Edit.

So why wouldn't they use the solo as George played it? Maybe because he clammed it so badly --repeatedly, because it wasn't a true live broadcast and George could have taken as many mulligans as he needed -- that it was unusable.

Mark Lewisohn, in The Complete Beatles Chronicle (a true anal-retentive fan's book -- a recounting of every day of the Beatles' career) says that on Tuesday, 14 July 1964, the Beatles recorded "A Hard Day's Night" for radio broadcast at the Beeb; "because they had trouble playing the instrumental middle eight the EMI disc [i.e., the record we know and love] was dubbed in here."

I'd say that was a pretty good evidence of repeated Harrisonian clams, wouldn't you?

The song was in their live repertoire for the summer tour of 1964, and Harrison does a pretty workmanlike job on the solo on the "Live at the Hollywood Bowl" set recorded 23 August, so I'm guessing that he worked very hard to perfect it before the tour started.

I will say this: That solo is not easy to play -- and I'm a pretty fair guitar player. The first phrase is rudimentary, but those triplets sixteenth notes in the second phrase are very hard to play crisply -- and on the "Hollywood Bowl" version (which I have only on cassette, curses curses) the triplets are still far from perfect.

Now, as to the solo on the record:

Ian MacDonald, in Revolution in the Head, says that it was recorded at half-speed an octave lower -- but this is clearly impossible because the guitar is being played on its lowest strings; you can't play an octave lower.

Wikipedia theorizes that it wasn't a guitar at all, but George Martin playing a harpsichord. I don't buy this one either, because there's a very clear slide up two frets on the sixth note of the solo -- impossible with any keyboard.

But Wikipedia does get one thing right, and this is the most damning detail: the paired notes in the solo are two octaves apart, not one, as the 12-string guitar is tuned.

This hints very strongly that the thing was played by two guitars, or by one guitar and a harpsichord, or by a solo harpsichord, and perhaps at half-speed. But not a Rick 12-string.

My last piece of evidence is Take One from the 16 April, 1964, session. This comes from the "Anthology, Volume 1":

A Hard Day's Night, Take 1.

That's...just...awful, isn't it....

In his defense, this is really not an attempt at a guitar solo -- he's really not trying on this one. It's a placeholder: "Guitar Solo Goes Here." But the bones of the solo are there: You can hear him take two stabs at those triplets, quick notes and doing very badly both times. (I'm telling you, they're a bitch to play.) But you're never going to convince me that Harrison got from that terrible attempt to the version on the record in three hours, which is how long it took them to get to Take 9, the released take.

The thing that I really can't get over is how completely different the timbre of the guitar is between the Take 1 and the released recording. Listen to Take 9 now -- the released version:

A Hard Day's Night, Take 9

Does that guitar sound anything even remotely like the guitar in Take 1? Even taking into account careful equalization and compression, how does a 12-string guitar go from having its paired strings one octave apart (Take 1) to having them two octaves apart (in Take 9)?

No, I'll never be convinced that George Harrison stood in Studio Two at the EMI Studios on 16 April 1964 and played those notes.

A Reason to Go On Living: That Chord

(#2 in a series -- crossposted at NewCritics)

Recently, a dear friend lent me a guitar he wasn't using.

Not just any guitar. He lent me a Rickenbacker 360-12:

Rickenbacker 360-12


You can be forgiven if the words "Rickenbacker 360-12" don't send shivers up your spine. Guitar fetishes quickly grow tiresome to the uninitiated, and it's hilarious to me that adult men (I've never met a truly committed gearhead of the female persuasion) can be led to believe that ownership of one ax or another will automatically confer on the owner the mojo, the swagger, of the rock star who made it famous. Two minutes spent with Musician's Friend catalog sales-copy will show how silly gearheads can be.

But this -- this is a Rickenbacker 360-12, man! It played that chord!

What chord?

That chord, man! You gotta know the one I mean!

That chord!



Rickenbacker 360-12, another viewIn our overstimulated time, our computerized, synthesized, digitized, 500-channels-and-nothing-worth watching time, when even the word radical has been drained of its meaning, it's impossible -- we're so burnt! -- to know how brain-meltingly radical, how charged with promise, how laden with possibility, was that one overtone-soaked BLANNNNNG when it was first heard in 1964. Think about it: Was there ever a single noise, a single sonorous crashing KLANNNNG, that more totally changed everything that anyone knew? It was so...so...so... modern! But like all harbingers of change, this single electric crash, joyously, orgasmically received by its audience, was not unambiguously benign.

You could get badly lost -- and many, many people did indeed get lost -- in the universes that that one monstrous chord opens. Those overtones -- those ululating frequencies bashing violently against each other as the chord decays -- scream an unmistakable warning of twisted confusion dead ahead. When did the Sixties begin? Was it when Oswald's bullet hit Kennedy's cranium? When Johnson proffered the Great Society? When troop levels rose in Vietnam? I submit my own candidate for your consideration: That chord.



Like almost everything about that decade, that chord still sows dissension. The Sixties will forever be fought over; the chief, nearly defining characteristic of that decade's history is the hellish ambiguity of the changes it wrought. I confess my own ambivalence over things that I once considered unarguably positive; I can't help but intuit that I might have loathed the self-congratulation of the Woodstock Notion, or the gibbering stupidity of someone under the impression that an idea conceived on LSD deserves particular validity. I have, I suppose, grown up to that extent.

The iconic noise of that chord, as I say, is still fought over. Nothing that large, that explosively clangorous, can be pinned down and defined. Those attempting to do so will find themselves at odds with others in the field -- as this page at Wikipedia will attest. At that page, I count five musicologists -- at least three known to me as excellent scholars of the Beatles' musical output -- who cannot actually agree about the component notes or the harmonic function of that chord! In researching this post, I've found that even the magisterial Ian MacDonald, in my opinion the best and most sympathetic critic of the Beatles' recorded work, gets the component notes of the chord quite wrong, as do the authors of The Beatles: The Complete Scores (and not for the first time!).

What can we say about something so huge and yet so strangely ambiguous, both in composition and in meaning? What is it even possible to say? Best just to let the thing reverberate around in your head, speaking for itself. And speak it will.

Now hand me that guitar!

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

I'd Love Me For It

This afternoon, I managed to lock myself out of the building at work. I'd stepped out to my truck in the parking lot to fetch something (it was ensconced comfortably in the Handicapped spot -- thanks, Medical Science!). When I tried the front door I realized I'd left my little magnetic key-card in my jacket pocket back at my desk.

There is a little subterfuge one can employ in this situation, but it involves walking about 100 yards to the parking garage and waiting for someone to use that door. For a man in my sore condition, this is not a minor undertaking.

I did what any red-blooded man in my situation would do: I screwed up my eyes, threw my head violently backward and then forward, and uttered one single extremely obscene syllable.

As I eructed this syllable from my mouth, a small pool of saliva went along with it. I'm not talking about a droplet or two, I mean a good quarter-teaspoon's worth. I really hadn't been anticipating cursing with such ferocity, and I didn't rearrange the buccal contents in anticipation. Clumsy of me, I know. With the accompanying vehement forward head-fling, the small blob (gobbet? loogie? lunger?) of spit splashed rather forcefully directly into my left eye.

Yes, that's right. I'd actually managed to spit in my own eye.

Ruefully wiping the goo out of my eye and off my nose with a sleeve, and gratefully noting that I hadn't been observed by anyone, I realized I'd actually been lucky, in a way. There are worse bodily fluids you can accidentally slosh into your own peepers.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Because I'm a Lazy Git...

...And because I'm swamped at work, y'all can just watch The Coolest Man in Rock-n-Roll History instead.



Or I'll entertain your candidates for C.M.I.R-n-R.H in Comments. But be warned, you're gonna have to search long and hard (oooh! That's what she said!) to find somebody cooler than Bo Diddley.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Memphis, Tennessee

Lord almighty, how fast they grow!

Young Freddie Jingo, aged 13 going on approximately 24, contributes the rhythm guitar to this loose little studio jam on Chuck Berry's "Memphis, Tennessee," one of my most favorite songs of all time. He's playing the sweet little Squier Strat we gave him for Christmas, and we knocked out his part in a couple of hours. I tried to get him to sing an Everly Brothers–style harmony vocal, but he wasn't having any of it. Singing, apparently, is for buttmunches.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you for the very first time ever on the international stage, Freddie Jingo!

Memphis, Tennessee (pops).

(Freddie's on the left of your radio dial.)

You can keep your Dylans and your Springsteens and your Davieses; for my money the premiere rock lyricist is Chuck Berry. In four brief verses in this tune, a simple one-sided telephone conversation, he sketches an entire short story, a whole open-ended drama. His genius in this song is to fool our conventional expectations of a narrative like this one; we believe, because we've heard hundreds of other love-songs, that the Marie he's trying to call is an absent girlfriend. Only through details dropped through the lyric do we find out the truth of who Marie really is, and why Chuck needs to speak to her so badly.

The telling details are revealed slowly. First we get the fact that our caller's living with his uncle (who writes phone messages "on the wall"! -- what kind of house does he run?). Then the delicious, nutty, and wonderfully comedic description of the physical location of Marie's house in Memphis -- as though knowing that Marie lives "on the south side, high up on a ridge" is going to help the operator find the phone number. Picture the desperation of this poor man -- it's both hilarious and quite sad.

Next, we get the detail that "we were pulled apart because her Mom did not agree"; since we're still laboring under the delusion that this is a conventional love song, it's still possible that this is a Romeo-and-Juliet situation, that cruel parents disapprove of the liaison and have acted to forbid it.

Then Chuck hits us with the kicker, "Marie is only six years old!" and suddenly the entire song has to be reevaluated. We realize that the Mom who "did not agree" is a divorced wife, that Chuck's so completely estranged from her that he doesn't even know her phone number in Memphis, he's living with his uncle in the sort of hovel where nobody cares if you write on the walls, and in his loneliness and desperation he's pouring out his heart to a completely anonymous telephone operator who is extremely unlikely to be able to help him -- or even care.

It's perhaps the saddest little rock-n-roll shuffle ever written.

Chuck Berry: Here's to you, man.

And to you, Freddie. I hope there's lots more of these in the future. Maybe I'll even convince you you're not a buttmunch if you sing.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Thoughts on St. Patrick's Day

"Ireland is a great country. It is called the Emerald Isle. The metropolitan government, after centuries of strangling it, has laid it waste. It's now an untilled field. The government has sowed hunger, syphilis, superstition, and alcoholism there; puritans, Jesuits, and bigots have sprung up.

"Proverbially and by nature our peasants walk in their sleep, closely resembling fakirs in their froglike and renunciatory sterility. I think they are the one people who, when they are hungry, eat symbolically. Do you know what it means to eat symbolically? I'll clear it up for you in no time; the peasant family, a big roomful of them, sit around a rustic table as if it were an altar. In the middle of the table, suspended on a string from the ceiling, is a herring which could feed the lot of them. The headman arms himself with a potato. Then with it he makes the sign of the cross (my Tuscan friends say 'He makes the big cross') high up on the back of the fish instead of just rubbing it as any hypocrite would do. This is the signal, and after him, hieratically, each member of the family performs this same trick so that at the end the members, that is to say the diners, find themselves contemplating a potato in their hands, and the herring, if it doesn't get eaten by the cat, or rot, is destined to be mummified for posterity. This dish is called the indicated herring. The peasants are gluttons for it, and stuff their bellies full."

– from James Joyce’s course material, used while teaching English to Berlitz students in Trieste, in 1906. From Richard Ellman’s James Joyce, p. 217.

Friday, March 16, 2007

A Reason to Go On Living

(Cross-posted at NewCritics)

Brett as HolmesIt was with a hearty whinny of joy that I stumbled quite by accident recently upon a rebroadcast on The Biography Channel of "The Adventure of the Empty House," one of the Sherlock Holmes series made by Granada Television between 1984 and 1994. The prospect of spending even the merest hour with Jeremy Brett's unspeakably wonderful portrayal of the great detective was a delicious one, and when, through the magic of TiVo, I discovered that the whole series was being rebroadcast, I mashed the "Season Pass" button, poured myself a glass of medicinal brandy (the Seven-Percent Solution being no longer an avenue of pleasure open to me), lit a fire in the grate and prepared to bask in the glow of Brett's portrayal -- an unalloyed pleasure I had missed for a decade.

The intervening years had done nothing to dim Brett's light. He is magnificent.

When, as a stripling of twelve summers, I first came across the Sherlock Holmes stories, my first impression of Holmes was this was one hurting mamma-jamma. Those miraculous feats of near-psychic deduction near the beginning of many of the stories, where Holmes divines a visitor's profession, marital status, and military service within three minutes of his entry in the room, seemed to me to speak of a rather tortured soul -- who would ever want to be cursed with such acute powers, if they came attended by such heartache?

Brett's Holmes is a marvelously twitchy bundle of neuroses, a clearly tormented man. The episode I happened upon is (as any fule kno) the triumphant return of Holmes to London after the absence occasioned by his encounter with Professor Moriarty at the Reichenbach Falls; Watson (played with consummate aplomb by Edward Hardwicke) has believed Holmes to be dead for three years. What struck one about their reunion was both the tenderness of the affection between the two men -- evinced by Brett with brilliantly acted fleeting moments of warmth breaking through his otherwise austere face -- but also a deep sadness at Holmes' imprisonment inside his genius, which leaves him strangely immune to ordinary human happiness.

It's perhaps difficult to see through the filter of 100 years, but Holmes would have been seen by his contemporary audience as a profoundly eccentric man. Brett understands this to the core of his actor's soul, and imbues Holmes' every movement with revealing quirks. When interested by a new development, he doesn't merely sit in a chair, he leaps into it with feline quickness, folds his legs under himself, and glares with attention. When a sofa blocks his path to Watson, he flings himself onto his knees on the cushions, leans over the back, and continues talking -- a caprice perhaps forgivable in a child, but terribly gauche in a Victorian gentleman.

Yet in other ways, he is urbanity itself. He wears the proper clothes for the occasion and location (the archetypal deerstalker cap and Inverness cape being ridiculous on a gentleman in the city). His diction is perfect. His manners are, if brusque, never misdirected. He gives an ineluctable impression of a man steeped in, yet immune to, the infinite variety of human evil. Tiny movements of the muscles of his face betray compassion, empathy, identity with the plight of his supplicants, the blameless victims of fortune (except, of course, when they're not). He often tests Watson's patience by withholding information, but it's a measure of both Watson's trust and Holmes' gentlemanliness that the relationship survives without recrimination.

I detested the Basil Rathbone Holmes films. Rathbone himself was not to blame; his Holmes was as good as the script could allow. What I hated was the fact that the filmmakers didn't trust their audience to follow Conan Doyle's plots or his dialog, and revised both to the point of complete unrecognizability. It was a point of some pride in my youth that I could (admittedly, with some difficulty) track with Doyle's late-Victorian prose; the howling 1940's anachronisms that would emit from Rathbone's mouth made me cringe. Holmes fighting Nazis, for all love!

Of course, editing the Holmes canon down to a one-hour television format necessitates some telescoping and elisions, but the job done by director John Hawkesworth and his team of writers is skilled and sympathetic. At no time have I been irritated by the redactions to Doyle's immortal stories. I now keep my well-worn copy of the Complete Stories on the coffee table in the den, and amuse myself by following along in the text as the show plays. I'm fascinated by the differences between the two, the decisions the writers made in trying to keep faith with Doyle's blueprints. I followed with great interest during "The Adventure of the Naval Treaty"; a speech by Holmes that begins, "There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion," marks, as far as I remember, the only time that Holmes ever seriously discusses God except in passing, or ever conflates mystery with Mystery. Doyle's version of the dialog fizzles a bit -- it opens a parenthesis in the story that has no real corresponding closing parenthesis. The Hawkesworth passage ends with a bang, leaving no doubt as to the subtext under discussion; Brett's Holmes replaces the rose that has sparked his reverie in its vase and pronounces with great import, "...and I am no magician!" It is, by God, an improvement, and I'll fight anyone who says it ain't.

It's a monumental shame that Brett died in 1994, before the whole Holmes canon could be completed. But Brett's Holmes will forever be the definitive one in my mind. He is precisely the character that Arthur Conan Doyle wrote, the man who enslaved this twelve-year-old boy forever.

Friday, March 09, 2007

I Can Never Remember: Is It Libel or Slander if You Do It in a Blog?

  • Michael Burgess, of 2348 Pine Meadows Drive in Bethesda, MD, a low-ranking aide to Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), personally rounded up 400,000 Jews, Gypsies, Communists and homosexuals at gunpoint and delivered them to the Nazi occupiers of Holland in 1941. Mr. Burgess now claims that he was not yet born in 1941, but has so far failed to produce his birth certificate.

  • Angelina Rodriguez, of 456 Palatine Terrace in Racine, WI, regularly beats her dog Zip, a Rhodesian Ridgeback, with a leather strap she hides in a toolchest in the garage. The dog is despondent over Ms. Rodriguez' frequent capricious and sudden reversals of opinion that he is a "good dog" or a "bad dog." Zip has not urinated on the carpet in over three years, although he does occasionally dig in the azalea bed.

  • Jimmy Twistleton, a six-year-old boy living at 12 Overton Road in Charing Cross in the United Kingdom, is a frequent bedwetter. His parents, Bob and Lila, who regularly practice anal sex, are pondering giving him up for adoption, but doubt anyone would take in a "stupid leaky little git like that."

  • José Maria Pérez de Galindo, of 77 Calle de los Leones in Montevideo, Uruguay, will blow anybody for cigarette money.

  • Abdi Abdullah bin Hossein, of 14 Kafr Hanut Road in Port Said, Egypt, is a gun-runner for Al-Qaeda. He is also a coprophile.

  • Jeanne d'Amboise, of 11 Rue de la Paix in Lyons, France, divorced mother of Charles, 12, and Angelique, 10: Had her.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

This I Believe

I believe that the only honorable option left us in this evil old world is to stand onstage on Ted Mack's Amateur Hour Alan Freed's "The Big Beat" in 1956 with Bry[l]creemed hair, bowtie, zoot jacket with velvet lapels, white bucks, whanging on a dreadnought guitar, legs spread, back foot beating a frantic tattoo on the floor while you howl "Lonesome Train."

I also believe that all our voices should come equipped with 1956-vintage slapback reverb. From birth.

Ladies and gentlemen, Johnny Burnette and the Rock and Roll Trio!



Jesus Christ, look at that geezer with the Tele! (Paul Burlison, if Wikipedia is to be believed; Johnny's brother Dorsey is on bass) He's HUGE! As far as I can tell that's a standard-sized Fender Telecaster (probably worth as much as my house, if it still exists). It looks like a goddamned ukelele on the guy!

(Wow: Apparently, Burlison accidentally discovered amp distortion in 1956 when he dropped his Fender Deluxe and a tube came loose...)

A Note on Branding

Damn. I just thought of the greatest name for a blog ever:

Shemp the Penman.

You want it, it's yours.

(Update: That wacky Kevin Wolf!)

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

A Joke That Will Be Understood By Approximately Four People

It's really funny how many Kenyon people find their way to these Friendly Confines. An old pal, an alum, nudged me in the ribs recently about Walker's Pond (a popular off-campus destination for class-skippers, dopers and trysting couples), and up pops another, somewhat more mysterious, entity with a comment that clearly also betrayed an intimate familiarity with that dear old mud-puddle.

It's occurred to me:

I am become the Host of Lords!

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Metro Section, p. B04

Buried deep inside this morning's WashPost Metro section was a rather unprepossessing little piece, tucked up next to the obituaries and the local-crime roundup:
Expert on Soviet Intelligence Shot in Adelphi

...Paul Joyal, 53, was shot Thursday, four days after he alleged in a television broadcast that the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin was involved in the fatal poisoning of a former KGB agent in London.

Law enforcement sources and sources close to Joyal, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case, said the motive for the shooting was unclear. But several sources confirmed that FBI investigators are looking into the incident because of Joyal's background as an intelligence expert and his comments about the Alexander Litvinenko case....
So let's see, here... Two mysterious men walk up to a man who just happens have been interviewed on "Dateline" this past Sunday saying that "A message has been communicated to anyone who wants to speak out against the Kremlin: 'If you do, no matter who you are, where you are, we will find you, and we will silence you -- in the most horrible way possible.' " The men shoot him in the nuts and disappear. The police are unwilling to part with any informative detail.

And the Washington Post plays it on page B4 of the Metro section.

I suppose it could have been just a random mugging. Nobody slipped any Polonium into Joyal's Rice Crispies, or carved portentous Cyrillic warnings into his bleeding flesh, but what do you think the odds are of getting "randomly" shot within a week of your appearance on "Dateline" in which you accuse Vladimir Putin of murder?

I think this one bears watching, don't you?
Call a lawyer,
Paranoia!
Let me will my ass to you forevermore!
(BTW, as of the article's date, Joyal is in critical condition at "a hospital.")

Later Edit (Monday, March 5): It turns out Joyal was robbed of his wallet and briefcase in the course of the attack, which, according to the Post (which has now elevated the story to p. 1 of the Metro section), "supports the theory that he was shot during a robbery rather than in retaliation for public criticism of the Kremlin, according to two sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing."

While I'm prepared to concede that this attack may actually have been a mindbendingly unlikely coincidence, I don't think that the fact that his effects were stolen proves anything one way or the other. I can quite easily imagine that the attackers' marching orders included the instruction, "And remyember, mek it look like a muggingk..."

The newer Post piece includes one sentence that's a real insight in to the Editorial Mindset: "Joyal was shot hours after meeting with a former KGB general, Oleg Kalugin, near the Spy Museum in Washington." It's a fascinating combination of the possibly relevant with the shriekingly immaterial: "Met with a former KGB general" -- a potentially useful fact, combined with "near the Spy Museum," a detail that's plainly included purely for the purpose of titillation. Other public places "near the Spy Museum" that might have been mentioned include the MCI Arena (thus inserting the all-important Basketball and Hockey Factor into the equation) and (frisson!) Chinatown, which would have suggested the involvement of Jake Giddes and/or the Tongs.

Come to think of it, the office of the Washington Post itself is only a few blocks away from the Spy Museum...

At any rate, this story is just deliciously weird.

Update to the Update (Tuesday, March 6): Joyal's son says his father's wallet wasn't stolen after all. Down the rabbit hole we go!

Thursday, March 01, 2007

So Happy It's Thursday

I've come to a stark realization: Postoperative Vicodin and my usual brand of thoughtful, carefully composed, measured, closely reasoned blogging...

Don't mix!

My powerful brain has turned, I find, into something with all the intellectual acuity and initiative of a bowl of six-day-old vanilla pudding. By way of illustration: It just took me fourteen minutes to come up with that lame-assed simile.

Physically, I improve daily. I can now walk short distances without a cane or a crutch, climb stairs foot-over-foot, and lift seven and a half whole pounds on the Nautilus machine using only the muscles of my thigh. (My preoperative record was a still impressive four pounds.)

I've come to the regrettable realization that my burgeoning career as a barnstorming professional pole-vaulter will have to go into cold storage until a great deal more healing has taken place, but this sad fact is more than offset by the fact that I'm stoned to the gills most of the time. Hey ho: God never closes a door without opening a window, dig? Which is good, because Jesus Christ has that deity got some evil farts.

Was going to say something else, but can't remember what it was. See? See?

Oh, yeah, I remember. A certain Dartmouth/Columbia Biz grad who just waved his little fucking magic wand and erased, nullified, annihilated, liquidated, obliterated (see note at DESTROY, 511.3) the product of the last fourteen months of my professional life needs to be Extraordinarily Renditioned to Turkmenistan and sliced into small pieces by an angry mob of Capuchin monkeys armed with plastic sporks. Fuck you, you piss-stained little MBA twat. Fuck you and your fucking sleek turtleneck sweaters and your $900 camelhair jackets and your fucking mousse-tousled, highlighted coiffure and your fucking BlackBerry and your ugly children and your frigid, neurotic courtesan -- here's a little food for thought, you revolting little business-school dog-turd: Are you really convinced she loves you for who you are?

There. Enough of that, eh? Let's just conclude that the Executive Class and I aren't going to grow old together and leave it at that.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capital

I have many friends who work in the advertising industry. Individually, these are bright, funny, engaging and thoughtful people -- they'd have to be; they wouldn't be my friends otherwise.

That's individually. Collectively, they (and, it must be said, the journalists who cover them) are stupider than a fucking box of hair.

Monday, February 19, 2007

The Double-Edged Sword of Hipster Eyewear

I have a pair of hipster glasses that I nearly never wear. They're tiny little wireframe things, the lenses a very rounded-off octagonal shape, not much bigger than my eyes themselves.

I bought them in the early Aughts, when my hair was longish, and I tended toward laziness in the shaving department. I labored under the apprehension that they gave me something of a Benjamin Franklin aura, suggesting an aging eighteenth-century rakehell with an eye for a well-turned calf, a nose for scientific discovery, and well-honed skill for putting the latter in service to the former. I pictured myself in a Paris salon circa 1780, fascinating the throngs with "To Anacreon in Heav'n" on the Glass Armonica and setting the ladies a-twitter with my Leyden Jar, administering mild electric shocks to the naughty bits.

Funny, what a pair of glasses can do.

The Ben Franklin delusion was shattered when I submitted to a haircut a few months later. I tend to go all-in on haircuts, never trusting a mere trim to preserve the spirit of the coiffure. Far too many times have I allowed some black-clad fashionista to have his or her way with my locks, only to cringe at the asymmetrical horror that glared balefully at me from the mirror upon scissors-down. No, far better to crop the whole thing down to the scalp, leaving a bit of fun on top, and then let the mess grow out to shoulder length again. Thus is happiness preserved -- and, haircuts reduced to one or (at most) two a year, the savings are substantial. A penny saved being, after all, as my patron saint of eyewear once observed, a penny earned.

But donning my hipster glasses after one such shearing was an awful revelation. My eighteenth-century lothario was gone. In his place there sat instead a policy wonk, the second-string Washington figure that haunts the periphery of the Sunday gabfests waiting to fill in for an ailing Charles Krauthammer or Fred Barnes. I looked like the sort of bowtied academic twat who sits in a well-appointed office at the American Enterprise Institute and comes up with justifications for disgustingly amoral policies, for the failure of which neither he nor anyone in his miserable profession will never be held accountable: Numbers supporting an Iraq Surge? Possible deaths of five hundred US troops and uncounted thousands of Iraqi civilians? For the purpose of quelling virtually universal home-front dissatisfaction with the miserable progress of your war of choice against the wrong enemy? Coming right up, sir! Next Tuesday sound about right?

The glasses, needless to say, came off immediately. On went the contact lenses I keep in reserve.

This morning, however, on a whim, I put them on again. A certain satisfying post-operative shagginess has set in, hair beginning to tickle the collar, salt-and-pepper beard filling in. Given a few more weeks of hirsuteness, it begins to seem possible that Monsieur Franklin just might make a comeback at the salon. Attendez-bien, mesdames!

Friday, February 16, 2007

Does Sarcasm Belong in Music?

I've heard some artists speak of of the act of creation as a compulsion. "I had this thing inside me, and I had to let it out!" you'll hear them say, as if making a piece of art were an impulse of a degree of urgency similar to that of taking a good, but deferred, growler.

It matters not whether the art be good or bad. I imagine a similar impulse moved the authors of both Rodin's Gates of Hell and any random Hummel figurine. Inspiration strikes, the materials are produced, and woe betide any man who stands in Art's way.

In my case, I nearly never feel this compulsion. To me, the act of reaching over for my guitar and strumming a few chords is almost always motivated from something far closer to boredom than to hunger. Perhaps this is what stands between me and true artistry, I don't know.

This piece isn't so much as compulsion as an exorcism. "Somethin' Stupid" (the Frank and Nancy Sinatra version) came on an episode of "The Simpsons" one evening. I guarantee I hadn't heard the song since approximately 1974 (it superseded The Turtles "Happy Together" at the Number One spot in 1967, if you can believe that), but all it took was that one verse of it on "The Simpsons" to burrow the sleazy motherfucker deep, deep, deep into my brain. When I came out from under general anesthesia after my hip-replacement operation, guess what was there waiting for me...? That's how badly the miserable thing was dug in there.

As the ineffable Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) said during House debate on the Iraq Surge, quoting Robert Frost, "The best way out is always through." With this wise thought in mind, I set about expunging the mildly sleazy "Somethin' Stupid" by absolutely slathering on the sleaziest possible of musical touches. The cha-cha-cha beat has always struck me as sleazy to the point of risibility, and so on it came. What more Muzak move can there be than to follow a sung phrase with the same phrase played in octaves on a piano? Throw it in! A Nelson Riddle orchestral passage to break up the monotony? Check! Herb-Alpert glissando trumpets? Check! Passing tones relegated to the Mighty Marimba? Where else?

So brilliantine up your hair, throw a rose between your teeth, swallow those icky thoughts about a father-daughter singing duo belting out,
The time is right
Your perfume fills my head
The stars get red
And oh the nights so blue
And then I go and spoil it all
By saying something stupid
Like "I love you"
and let's dance!

Play "Somethin' Stupid" (pops).

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Got Your Back, Amanda

I haven't felt the need to comment on l'affair Marcotte as yet; Blogwars are not my usual beat, and usually the whole thing looks from this lofty angle like a massive jocks-versus-nerds namecalling contest. Something best avoided.

However, it now appears that the Pandagon blog has been brought down, whether by DNS attacks or something less nefarious I don't know, and Amanda has seen the need to publish a redirect page (hard link here) on which she reproduces and comments on some of the lovely, lovely mail she's been getting since Bill Donohoe, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, set her in his sights.

For bigotry, I'll remind you. Donohoe accused Amanda of bigotry. Please bear that in mind as you read what Donohoe's flying monkeys hurl at her.

Here, then, is the main body of Amanda's redirect page. I'd urge my bloggy friends to show your support for her right to speech -- and, for that matter, for John Edwards' right to employ her -- by reproducing this. They can't shut us all down.




[Amanda's words full measure; her interloctors are indented.]

Granted, I don't think criticizing the church for policies that hurt families and even get people killed is a "sin", but my letter writers do. But I thought I'd bring up this story for two reasons. One, I've always been impressed by the subtext of the story. I suspect, strongly, that this story is part of the reason that Christianity was so attractive to women in its early days, because this sort of random misogynist scapegoating is all too real in a patriarchy, and this story must have touched a lot of women at the time, who would be impressed with Jesus' unwillingness to play into such misogyny. In fact, from everything I understand, much of the history of Christian misogyny is one 2,000 year long backlash against early female power in the church.

I'm also impressed by how so many people who claim to follow Jesus have basic reading comprehension problems when they regard this story. (Not all---for instance, some fellow Pandagonians take their faith seriously enough to read the Bible and try to follow its precepts.) From my mailbag:

I pray that I had some small part to play in your "resigning" from the Edwards campaign you libelous fraud!

That's from a Vivian Thomas, who also wants me to know that I'm a worthless hag.

Catholics are concerned about killing unborn children, you stupid bitch. Chop away if it suits you, but we don't have to accept that as moral. That's why it's called a religion. Look into it.

Frankly, if I were a churchy person, this "Look into it" thing would insult me, since R.R. from Tallahassee, FL is all but saying that religion is his excuse to declare his misogyny "moral" so he doesn't actually have to think and decide what his morality is for himself.

Amanda,
after reading your vile screed against Catholics and the Holy Spirit, I just had to see what you looked like. (I envisioned you eyebrow-less, with no visible pupils, and a blank, dead stare.) I see I was correct about the blank, dead stare, but other than that you're not too bad. I then thought maybe you were mad at God (and by proxy Catholics) for making you ugly, but now I'm figuring you're just mad at him for making you a woman.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Never Too Late

Blue Girl and the Skimmer put a lot of work into this video, but owing to some tragic last-minute sna-foo-age, it didn't get posted during her Grammy Live-Blog last night. But, dammit, it's a mighty fine vid, and you should watch it now. Twice.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

I Hate the Fuckin' Grammys...

...More than you could possibly know.

The idea of forcing myself to watch the spectacle of an entire industry as worm-eaten, mold-encrusted and pus-riddled as Big Music sucking its own vile, boil-strewn cock fills me with an unimaginable nausea. To even add one two-zillionth of a Nielsen point to such an exercise in rank, naked cynicism is a moral failing of Rumsfeldian proportion.

So, naturally, I'll be kibitzing along with Blue Girl's live-blog of this disgusting, death-affirming Nuremberg Rally for everything that is wrong with humanity -- that's tomorrow evening at NewCritics, starting at 7:30.

Plus, there's the Police Reunion. That should be amusing. Oh -- and the traditional segment in the third hour when they throw an actual, live human baby into a cage full of starved pit-bulls. I always enjoy that.

I just hope BlueGirl and the gang don't mind a brief quote or two from the Book of Revelation -- just to keep their feet on the ground, y'unnerstan'....