Go Ghana!

Okay, so it wasn’t meant to be for the Team U.S.A. Again.

But it was a good run and there is no doubting the positive overall impact this World Cup has had on the always tenuous place soccer holds in the American consciousness.

And we had the goal seen ’round the world (and heard: for the best call of any goal ever, check out the inimitable genius of Andres Cantor here).

And at least we didn’t get beaten by the insufferable prima donnas from Italy (they were already gone–ha!) or any of the other bullies who have tormented us on the international stage (Brazil, Germany, etc.) If we were going to bow out gracefully, who better than Ghana to show us the door? It’s more than a little unlikely that Ghana will go further, but it will be fun to root for them. Plus, how can you not get behind a country who has made such amazing music?

Back in March I encouraged anyone with adventurous ears to check out the indispensable double disc Ghana Special. It was an endless and brutal winter in and around D.C. and these discs considerably brightened the days and warmed the spirits.

The Sweet Talks, “Akampanye”:

 

K. Frimpong & His Cubanos Fiestas, “Kyenkyen Bi Adi M’Awu”:

Bokoor Band, “You Can Go”:

The Wellis Band, “Bindiga”:

The African Brothers International Band, “Yerewensa Wo Se Shirt”:

Share

Summertime is Reggae Time (Revisited)– Part One: HalleluJAH: Heart of the Congos

Great art knows no seasons. Nevertheless, some music is made for—or at least can be fully appreciated during—specific times of the year. Reggae music, which many people still believe means Bob Marley’s music, tends to get broken out only once the flip flops and hibachi grills come out of hibernation. And so, since summer can be considered in full swing with the holiday weekend coming up, the time is right to talk about reggae. Where to begin? How about with the best.

Released in 1977, Heart of the Congos is generally regarded as the greatest reggae album ever (certainly the best roots reggae album). It isn’t. It’s better. While it would be neither accurate nor fair to call this a one and done masterwork, it’s beyond dispute that the Congos never again came close to the heights they reached here. It’s okay, no one else has either.

The ‘70s were, without question, the golden age of reggae, and aside from the ubiquitous (and, let’s face it, omnipotent) Bob Marley, no single figure loomed larger during this decade than Lee “Scratch” Perry. His own albums (as the Upsetter, with the Upsetters) are more than enough to secure his legacy, but it’s his work as the Dub Shepherd—producing everyone from a baby-faced Bob Marley to the mature Max Romeo—that seals the deal for his enshrinement. Although he had more immediate commercial and critical success with Party Time (The Heptones), War Ina Babylon (Max Romeo) and especially Police & Thieves (Junior Murvin), Heart of the Congos has come to be fully appreciated as his masterpiece—and the Rosetta Stone of roots reggae. While Perry’s patented production skills are in overdrive on everything he touched circa ‘76/’77, this is the one where everything went right.

(Sidenote: these 24-odd months are a veritable embarrassment of reggae riches, considering that the albums mentioned above, as well as Culture’s Two Sevens Clash and Right Time by the Mighty Diamonds, also dropped during this time. Not only was this a high-water mark for reggae, it’s always interesting—and instructive—to consider that this unsurpassed creativity was churning out of Jamaica while, stateside, prog rock sat, constipated on the sidelines as punk and disco duked it out on the dance floor.)

Heart of the Congos is a sufficiently suitable title, but this album could very plausibly have been called Back to the Future. It is an uncanny document that in every facet—lyrically, vocally, sonically—seems to be stretching into the past even as it strains toward the future. Where virtually any reggae album of this (or really, any) time has the expected—even obligatory—shout-outs to Jah and the invocations of Rastafarianism, Heart of the Congos dives even deeper into biblical texts and—crucially—the civilization that preceded Jamaica, and everything else in the west: Africa.

Send my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the world…

This line, from “Open up the Gate” crystallizes the powerful consciousness the Congos are tapping into here: in one line they capture the essence of both the Old Testament and Repatriation—from slaves to immigrants to artists. It is spoken (quoted) as the voice of God (literally), but more, the voice of memory, summarizing the story of our time on this planet.

Virtually any song could be singled out for analysis, but the second track, “Congoman” best represents the culmination of Perry’s—and the Congos’s—vision. This song, a timeline of history invoking “songs and psalms and voices”, is an effective, almost unsettling tapestry of deep cultural roots. This might be, if one were forced to choose, Perry’s ultimate achievement: listening to what he constructed in his (by today’s standards) primitive studio is breathtaking. This track (and the entire album) remains a living testament to the more natural, (if old-fashioned, and/or out of fashion) instinctive abilities of fingers, ears, brain and especially heart. Just as the most incredible effects can be manufactured with the click of a mouse in today’s movies, the technology certainly exists to embolden a million paint-by-number producers. In other words, what Perry did does not merely epitomize ingenuity from the oldest of schools, it stands apart as an honest, utterly human artifact.

“Congoman” brings all of Perry’s innovations into play: after an undulating beat unfolds with percussion, piano and bass setting a trance-like tone, all of a sudden an overdubbed refrain (heard repeatedly throughout the song) jars the moment: all sound ceases and it’s only the voices: “Out of Africa comes the Congoman”. It is at once eerie (or, Irie) and astonishing. With one masterstroke, Perry makes the composition future-proof: it is already deconstructed on the first go round: no mash-ups or remixes (then, now) are necessary, or even possible, since the first version is already reworked as a work in progress (and make no mistake: everyone with an MC or DJ before their name sprung forth from the tradition the mighty Upsetter originated). Perry takes what would have been a stirring, melodic and beautiful song and makes it richer, messier, more complicated, and inscrutably tantalizing: he transforms a masterpiece into a miracle. As the song unfolds it establishes the deepest of grooves (naturally, most of Perry’s regular posse is on hand here, including “Sly” Dunbar on drums, Ernest Ranglin on guitar and Boris Gardiner on bass), while Cedric Myton’s falsetto blends with Roy “Ashanti” Johnson’s tenor to cast their spell of longing and redemption. Perry’s production sounds like a remix already, providing a slightly disorienting tension between the push of straight ahead riddim and the pull of the echoing voices: Gregorian chants funneled through the heart of darkness into the light—a higher place, deeply spiritual yet entirely human. It is unlike anything you’ve ever heard, yet it’s somehow, impossibly, familiar.
 

We come with our culture to enlighten the world…

Any questions?

(*Note: this is the excellent remix of “Congoman”; you must have the original version from the original album. Once you have this one in your world, you’ll realize how lacking your world was. Go get it.)

Share

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown… (One Year Later)

mj5

How do you know you’ve made an indelible impact on culture?

Here’s how.

 

Listen: this story has been told so many times it is inextricable from the history of America. F. Scott Fitzgerald infamously (and incorrectly) declared that there are no second acts in American lives, but he was writing his own epitaph at the time. Little did he know that artists, and later, politicians, would perfect the Lazarus routine to the point that it was itself an art form of sorts.

Some great American artists could not handle the hype of their success, or remained paralyzed by the prospect of following up their uncanny grand slam (think Ralph Ellison after Invisible Man for the prototype). Some artists famously flamed out in part because of the pressure or else were consumed by their own demons (insert any number of movie stars and rock gods: James Dean and Charlie Parker remain the heavyweight champs of this routine). Some artists never had a choice in the matter: what can we say about the fact that Melville received less than a little acclaim after he wrote Moby Dick (even his good friend and contemporary critical darling Nathaniel Hawthorne–to whom Melville’s masterpiece was dedicated–thought little of the book, revealing him as either an exceedingly poor judge of genius or else an insecure literary prince who could not brook the very real competition Melville presented), and the man who may be our great American author (at least of the 19th Century) died broke, unknown, and embittered.

But none of these case studies can come close to approximating the one-of-a-kind wunderkind who became the King of Pop. His story is unique and will likely remain the triumphant and ultimately tragic cultural touchstone of our times. He had already lived at least three lives before he died, each one more improbable than the last.

mj3

I will leave the career-spanning overviews and detail-oriented obituaries to the myriad individuals who are more qualified (not to mention more interested) than I to properly assess Jackon’s short and unhappy existence.

I can offer some opinions and recollections of what it was like, in real time, to witness Jackson’s awesome and irresistible trajectory. Any pronouncement, no matter how passionately proposed, is ultimately irrelevant regarding what constituted the ideal demographic for MJ’s steady rise and sluggish fall. All I can say is that I was a kid in the ’70s and I remember loving the Jackson Five songs and watching their cartoon reruns on TV. In other words, I was the ideal age to experience it, and still remember it. To assert that Michael was the all-American pop icon is both facile and also an indication of how naive and blissfully unaware people my age were to…well, too many things to count. But in MJ’s case, young fans were oblivious to the behind the scenes angst that crippled his childhood. That he was abused is undeniable and well-documented. It also scarcely scratches the surface of the pressures and pains that were inflicted upon him. Even a cursory acknowledgment of what he’d been through, before becoming a teenager, should leave the most cynical critic astonished that he was able to create the lasting work he did, as an adult.

Flash forward to 1979: Off The Wall was the ubiquitous hit record and every time you turned the radio on you heard “Rock With You” (which, incidentally, sounds every bit as fresh and funky three decades later). MJ was on top of the world. It seems fair to suggest that nobody, including the young superstar, had any idea that he was about to own the world.

Thriller, of course, changed everything. It made all that came before it prelude and everything, especially the not-so-good things, that came after an epilogue. People who weren’t around then probably can’t imagine it, but Jackson was the biggest thing in the universe circa 1983 (and into 1984). It wasn’t even close: he was as prevalent as Coca Cola or McDonalds, and it was easy to avoid him as it was to avoid breathing. If you were alive, you were aware. Like it or not.

In fact, if Thriller had not happened, people from my generation might be fondly recalling how they skated to “Don’t Stop ‘Til You Get Enough” at the roller rink. Or how great those Jackson 5 songs still sound. But, of course, Thriller happened. And we can (and will) talk about, and remember, all the songs, all the videos and the brand that Michael Jackson became during that span of commercial dominance.

But for now, I’m going to talk about the moment. You know what I mean: the performance of “Billie Jean” at the Motown 25 TV special.

I still get goosebumps every time I watch that. Now that he is gone, I’m sure each subsequent viewing (and there will be many, as I don’t expect I’ll ever tire of watching it) will be burdened with a melancholy even more profound than the one I would have felt anytime up until June 25, 2009. In other words, even before he passed on, watching a moment like this obliges one to relive one’s youth; it’s inescapable. So naturally one can’t help lamenting that loss of insouciance, of Innocence (with a capital I) and the many things time takes from us.

The previous generation had the moon landing; we had the moonwalk. That is not intended to be overly coy; I actually think I would invoke the moon landing regardless of the obvious word association. In my opinion, the few seconds that Jackson spent introducing that new dance move to the world are the defining cultural moments of my generation. In fact, I can’t readily think of anything else that enters the discussion. People have spoken about the other MJ (Michael Jordan) having played basketball better than anyone else did anything. I feel we could find other examples (Daniel Barenboim playing Beethoven piano sonatas; Flannery O’Connor writing fiction; Glenn Beck being an asshole), but I would propose that this performance is the apotheosis of what a pop star can achieve. No one, before or since, has been better at being a star, at seizing the moment, at overtaking the world by force of will and talent, quite like Michael Jackson did that evening. What is truly remarkable is not merely how incredible it was, then, but how inimitably cool and untouchable it remains, now. Everyone saw that and everyone reacted to it. It was (and is) impossible to be wholly unaffected or unmoved by what happens during those five minutes. There are probably people (perhaps lots of them) who still won’t see the art or genius (and the many layers of that genius: the song itself–a slice of irrepressible pop perfection, his dancing, and the fact that he is lip-synching it) of this moment, but it’s simply not possible to remain indifferent. You can fail to acknowledge this the way you can fail to acknowledge the Grand Canyon, as you are being pushed over the edge, eyes shut and screaming all the way down.

A confession. I was not necessarily a fan. I certainly was able to appreciate that dancing, and that song (and any male my age who attempts to deny that he desperately wanted to perfect the moonwalk is lying through the acne-glazed haze of adolescent recollection). It was a bizarre time to be a teenager: all the girls in school loved Michael Jackson and all the guys loved Jim Morrison. Oh wait, that was just me? Well, as corny as I would have considered it for any dude to have a poster of MJ, I am not particularly proud to reconsider the prominent spread of leather-clad Lizard King photos on my bedroom wall. I say this only to underscore the impact MJ had at the time: I was well tired of the non-stop hype and ceaseless radio play (seven Top 10 singles?!), and it was simply beyond human capability to separate oneself from Thriller’s impact. You may not have loved it (you may not have liked it) but I have never spoken to anyone who actually hated it. I’m sure there is someone out there, who also hates the Sistine Chapel and The Lincoln Memorial. Or Moby Dick (just kidding, sort of.)

mj1

We all know what happened next.

Icarus flew too close to the sun, and none of the bills he earned could ever break his fall.

I am also content to let the historians, the haters and the opportunistic biographers slash and snap at this detritus like piranhas in a feeding frenzy. I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest we’ll soon have more detail than we’d ever want to imagine about all the things that did (and didn’t) happen when the media cameras weren’t rolling. By the ’90s, it’s not a stretch to suggest his music took second billing to his increasingly surreal escapades.

And it’s at that point that we’ll be unable to resist the analogies. Neverland Ranch? Was Jackson the real life apotheosis of Citizen Kane? Perhaps he embodied the American tragedy implicit in the eponymous hero of Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby? For me, those two works offer the finest, and final, take on how money and memory trump success and satisfaction. A person with a troubled past can never escape the shadow forever hanging over his present. Add almost unlimited power and all bets are off. And while Michael Jackson epitomizes the eternal child in search of a childhood he never had, his tragedy is both deeper and more disturbing. As such, I believe Jackson existed as a sort of inverse Dorian Gray. Of course that antihero traded his soul for eternal youth, but the evidence of his decay was hidden on the portrait he fastidiously kept from public view. Jackson’s metamorphosis (the physical and spiritual) unfolded right in front of our often disbelieving eyes.

mj4

Ebony and ivory, anyone? This transformation was somewhat beyond Dorian Gray because it was real, and this did not represent the comparatively straightforward (and, of course, fictional) deal with the devil: this was hubris facilitated by money and modern medicine. What Jackson did to himself would have been literally unimaginable a generation earlier, and perhaps been done with a greater degree of proficiency a generation later (that, of course, is an appalling commentary on how we’re “evolving” as human beings and what we can accomplish in the name of vanity). It was unseemly, it was embarrassing, and above all, it was unfortunate that it served to nourish the insatiable tabloid zombies who live to profit from the pain of others.

But more than a little of Michael’s anguish was self-inflicted. True, he engaged in an often futile effort to find things he could not have, but he did look for them, using the muscle his money provided to plow through the world, a fragile bull in a not-so-delicate China shop. Ultimately, the only thing he broke was himself. And even at his most irresponsible (or despicable, if only a handful of the charges he successfully settled out of court were legitimate), it was difficult not to feel intense pity for this child crammed inside a King’s body. Let the myopic arbiters of taste and the more prurient amongst us declare him a fool or a freak. Let the smug quoters of scripture remind everyone that it does not profit a man to gain the world and forfeit his soul. They should be reminded that the world got to him first. I feel nothing but sorrow for his poor, fractured soul and pray that his heart, at long last, is at peace.

Share

Dog Is My Co-Pilot

Anyone who has read this blog for a while knows I am a big fan of all dogs (even the occasional poodle).

Major hat tip to Andrew Sullivan for putting this video on his site.

Blind dog playing fetch?

Is that a sick joke? A cruel animal hater’s unfunny viral video?

Neither. It is incontrovertible, life-affirming evidence of the pure soul that dogs epitomize.

Get the tissues out. This is a tear-jerker, but the tears are joyful and come from a place of incredulity: that enigmatic place that gives us answers to questions we don’t think or even try to ask.

On a whim, looking for a picture of this wonderful pup, I found that he is actually a bit of a celebrity. Check it out here, here and here.

As if Myron was not sufficient reason for celebration and another reminder of how much we can –and should– try to learn from dogs, we have his owners (Raquel and Terry Wood).

I have to say I’m not terribly surprised (although I am amazed, delighted, and inspired) that a dog who happens to have no eyes continues to live –and enjoy– life because, well, he’s a dog (which also inspires metaphysical rhetoric like what choice does an animal have? which also, of course, applies to human animals who happened to be born without sight–many of whom have contributed some of our greatest paintings, literature, and, above all, music) and this is what dogs do. The happiness they receive in proportion to the love and joy they expect or need is always humbling to the perceptive observer. I am, in a way, more appreciative of the example set by these two amazing people, who refused to let Myron be put down (as the vet advised) and have devoted the extra time and care to ensure he has a meaningful existence. The payoff, of course, is that this little miracle is also enriching their lives in ways that are easy to articulate, and quite evident in the videos here. More, Myron is able to provide –for anyone fortunate enough to recognize it– the type of meaning that we, like blind dogs chasing their tales, are too often unable to find via money and material acquisitions.

Share

Being the Ball: What We Talk About When We Talk About ‘Caddyshack’

Well…we’re waiting!

Actually, you already read this review.

You already wrote this review.

You can easily recall, now, when it occurred to you, sometime between the fifth or fifteenth (or fiftieth) viewing that everything possible to say about Caddyshack has already been said.

So you initially thought it might be advisable, if ironic, to discuss Caddyshack without invoking a single line from the movie. Eventually you realized that what we talk about when we talk about Caddyshack is…Caddyshack. Not quoting lines from Caddyshack to discuss Caddyshack, therefore, is only slightly less conceivable than going a single day without quoting (to others; to yourself) a line or three from Caddyshack. You are, of course, congenitally incapable of not quoting from Caddyshack. You are, after all, a male member of the genus Homo Sapiens (American species: Dude).

You’re no gentleman!

But you are also not a woman, so you can quote Caddyshack and you will defend Caddyshack.

Don’t worry about this one; if you miss it, we lose.

You arrived at the age, sometime between junior high and yesterday, where the lines you love so much from Caddyshack frequently sound funnier when your friends say them. Or when you say them to yourself. (It looks like a miraculous…it’s in the hole!). You may not know much, but you are fairly certain this is one unquestionable ingredient of a classic.

You’ve never stopped and thought about this, but if you ever stopped and thought about it you might think “Wait, the script is silly, the storyline is sophomoric, the acting of at least half the cast is execrable, the soundtrack features Journey and Kenny Loggins and above all, a donut with no holes is not a Danish!” Still, you would eventually come around and acknowledge that Caddyshack is not unlike the theory of relativity: you cannot understand it and you could never hope to explain it, but you are perceptive enough to concede it. Just like every other self-respecting doctor, judge or clergyman—and the loopers who rely upon their honor (your honor).

You’ll get nothing and like it!

You know: chinch bugs; manganese…a lot of people don’t even know what that is. You do, however, and even though these words are not particularly funny on the page, they are almost miraculous on the screen. Needless to say, we know they represent imperative components of any assistant greenskeeper’s knowledge base.

Nobody says those things about you as far as you know

(Cannonball coming: how to adequately appraise the climactic encounter between Carl and Ty? You appreciate that the entirety of this deranged pas de deux was improvised on the set. You appreciate even more that in real life Chevy Chase and Bill Murray could barely stand the sight of one another (the pond would be good for you…). You especially appreciate that during this scene, and pretty much all the others in the movie, most of the characters were as drunk and drugged as they (weren’t) pretending to be.)

You wonder how Harold Ramis, here in his directorial debut, measures himself against other filmmakers. A: By height.

You never forget to be grateful that Caddyshack served as the successful vehicle that made Rodney Dangerfield – at that point a known but not well-known comedian—into one of the best-loved rascals in Hollywood. First there were the epic Miller Lite commercials (remember those? Of course you do) and then the solid, if second-tier treasure Back To School. (Rest in peace, Al, and remember: country clubs and cemeteries are the biggest wastes of prime real estate.)

You still get choked up (tears in his eyes, I guess) remembering what a genius Ted Knight was, and the unbelievably good sport he proved to be for taking part in this insanity. (Rest in peace, Elihu; let’s hope you are loofering stretch marks in Heaven.)

You’re a tremendous slouch!

You still regret not winning that scholarship to St. Copious of Northern…and you make it a point to pour tributes to poor Carl Lipbaum—who died in summer school from that severe anxiety attack and you still can’t believe that your roommate, Mitch Cumstein, was night-putting with the fifteen year old daughter of the dean.

How about a Fresca?

You are not so sure about that, (who drinks Fresca now; who drank Fresca then?) but you’re damn certain that you ain’t payin’ 50 cents for no Coke.

Is this Russia?

No, so you can count on some bonus material with this 30th Anniversary Special Edition. Along with the theatrical trailer (it’s no big deal) you get Caddyshack: The 19th Hole (that’s a peach, hon), a documentary with interviews, outtakes and some candid recollections from Ty Webb himself. You don’t get a free bowl of soup, but if you buy the Blu-Ray version you also receive Caddyshack: The Inside Story (more interviews, etc.).

Go for it: you might not otherwise learn that the original screenplay revolved around the caddies, and only once big-time (non-golf playing) players came on board (Spaulding, get your foot off the boat!) did the movie…evolve. It may not seem like much, but the fortuitous embellishment provided by these…adults served to ensure that Caddyshack did not degenerate into Meatballs II (Madonna with meatballs!).

To summarize, you hope that Caddyshack has prepared you for the possibility that one day you might get tired of having fun all the time. When you die, on your death bed, you will receive total consciousness (so you got that going for you, which is nice).

You already knew that.

Gunga-Galunga.

 

Share

Two Poems for Father’s Day

Those Winter Sundays

Sundays too my father got up early

and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,

then with cracked hands that ached

from labor in the weekday weather made

banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.

I’d wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.

When the rooms were warm, he’d call,

and slowly I would rise and dress,

fearing the chronic angers of that house, 

Speaking indifferently to him,

who had driven out the cold

and polished my good shoes as well.

What did I know, what did I know

of love’s austere and lonely offices?

–Robert Hayden

Wasps

First he yelped, and then my father sprinted

the length of the tenth hole at Southern Pines

backwards, green to tee, trailing a loud plume

of wasps, slapping himself, jockey and horse.

It took more than four hundred yards before

the last vendetta wasp that had not stung

him veered off and flew back to base. We trudged

warily back to the tenth green, of course,

and putted out, then finished the back nine

while surly welts bloomed on his neck and arms.

“They’re not individuals,” he complained.

What was I to golf, or golf to me?

I played to keep my father’s company.

“They’re cells. The nest is the real animal.”

I pictured their papery cone and tried

to think what the dark surge wasps passed from each

to each inside might be except the fierce

electricity of state, or family.

–William Matthews

Share

Shipping Up To Boston

1984 was the last time it happened: Game 7 for all the marbles.

Back then I was deeply invested; now, not so much. To put it mildly, my passion for the N.B.A. has receded much like my hairline, and 26 years is a lot of receding. My inherited childhood love for the Celtics (and especially Larry Bird) is covered here. I own the deluxe Celtics DVD set and can –and do– still watch those seminal moments from my adolescent years with great enjoyment (and to this day Magic’s brilliant, unbearable “junior sky hook” in Game 4 still is metaphorical battery acid in my eyes).

If you remember the ’80s you can probably pick up what I’m putting down here (from the linked reminiscence, above):

Keep in mind, in the ’80s you were either a Lakers fan or you were a Celtics fan. There were other teams in the NBA, obviously, but for a long stretch of that great decade, it seemed like each season was an extended formality: we collectively bided our time until everyone else got out of the way and let the two teams go hammer and tong for the title.

Some things never change? Well, not really. No matter how much the media tries to hype it up, the Celtics/Lakers rivalry will never be what it was in the ’80s. It couldn’t be. The only thing comparable today is the Red Sox/Yankees, and even that has mellowed in the wake of Boston’s two world series titles this past decade.

So like I said, I’m not back on the bandwagon; I could mostly care less about the N.B.A. (although I feel it would be churlish of King James to leave Cleveland and hope for those long-suffering fans’ sakes, he does not make the mistake of his life and head for the 24/7 scrutiny that awaits him in the Big Apple. And, for the record, I think Kobe is a punk. As much as I loathed Kurt Rambis, you kind of reckon you could go have a beer with the dude; can anyone imagine Kobe having a beer with anyone? He seems like the kind of guy who can’t even have a drink with himself.)

So, in summary: do I care much about the N.B.A. these days? No. Have I been watching the finals? Yes. Do I want the Celtics to beat the Lakers? Duh.

And so: is it fortuitous synchronicity or fate that I will find myself in Boston, tonight? It has nothing to do with the Celtics. Back in the deep dark of this unending winter my boy Teddy Ballgame (Boston resident and Red Sox fanatic) admonished me to make plans to get up to Fenway in June, on June 18. Why that date? It was the night Manny Ramirez, the clown prince and prodigal son, returned to Fenway. “I’ve already got tickets,” Ted said. “Enough said,” said I. “I also have tickets for Thursday night’s game, why not just make it a double feature?”

And so it is a man returning from L.A. that will put me in Boston while the team I used to worship battles for the title, in L.A. Who cares about the whys and wherefores: I’ll be there and there is nowhere I’d rather be tonight or tomorrow night.

A quick take on Manny being Manny. The best way I can articulate what fans were fortunate enough to experience during the recent Red Sox renaissance (that he and Pedro were largely responsible for) is: Manny being Manny.

No Manny, no World Series. In ’04 or ’07. There is so much to say about this (mostly) ebullient goofball who happened to be one of the best hitters in baseball history –and I’ll look forward to saying them at some point. For now, I’ll just reiterate that despite the occasional malingering and inscrutable self-defeating silliness, he was truly a joy to watch and I genuinely relished every single at-bat. Just watching the man in the box was something to savor; not many players you can say that about. And then, there was the type of drama he was capable of producing on the field. The type of drama that mattered.

My old man asked me if I thought Manny would get cheered or jeered in his first plate appearance Friday night. I told him I predict he’ll get a long, loud standing ovation. For all the fans (uber-hardcore or pink-hatted fair-weather) who –for whatever reason– think that the way he left town or the well-documented nonsense he initiated outweighs the considerable blessings he brought to Beantown, then sit on your hands and stew in your own bile. I know I will be on my feet and saluting the dude who brought as much delight to me as any other athlete did since I was a teenage diehard who bled Celtic green.

Share

The Howling or, 100 Years of the Big Bad Wolf

Who’s afraid of the big, bad Wolf?

Plenty of people, and for good reason.

Fortunately for us, we are not sketchy record company executives or anyone else who may have unwittingly crossed his path during the Wolf’s  prime. Chester Arthur Burnett was big and he was a bad man (the same way James Brown and Charles Mingus were bad men: they knew they were geniuses and they suffered fools poorly, as geniuses are obliged –and allowed– to do). Unfortunately for us, he is gone and has been for over a quarter of a century. Indeed, he moved on to that great pack in the sky early in 1976 — a very appropriate year for this most American of blues legends. June 10, 2010 marked his centennial, and he remains an artist who cannot be imitated and whose unmistakable growl can probably never be adequately explained or understood.

Six foot, six inches. Approximately 300 pounds. Named after President Chester A. Arthur. In a class entirely by himself as a singer, performer and presence. If Muddy Waters, his friendly (and at times not-so-friendly) adversary was like an industrious bee that produces so much sweet honey, Howlin’ Wolf was a bear that crashes into the nest, snarling as he swats away the thousand wasps circling his head.

 

I never had the opportunity to watch Wolf live but it does not take too much to imagine what he looked and sounded like, particularly during the ’50s. Considering there are few, if any, more menacing and addictive singers on record; it’s at once easy and impossible to get a handle on how unsettling (and ecstatic) it would have been to sit in a small auditorium and not believe your own eyes and ears.

Along with his ace guitarist, Hubert Sumlin, Wolf made some of the most covered (if essentially uncoverable) blues classics of that era. Many lesser men took a crack at numbers like “Sitting On Top of the World”, “I Ain’t Superstitious”, “Spoonful”, “Back Door Man” and “Little Red Rooster” (think Rod Stewart, Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton and Jim Morrison, to name a handful of the more opportunistic pups). Despite how embarrassing many of these efforts sound in comparison to the original versions, most of these bright-eyed white boys were paying genuine tribute to the man they admired. And Wolf, benefitting from the publicity these bands provided as well as his own shrewd business acumen, was one of the very few blues immortals who actually earned money during his lifetime.

You read advice like this all the time (and no matter how enthusiastically I endorse a particular artist, I try to dispense it judiciously) but if you’ve ever taken someone’s word for it when they say “your life is lacking if you don’t have this” take my word for it and drop the ten bucks on this indispensable document. It’s not just that you are depriving yourself of one of the singular voices of the last century, you are actually missing an important chunk of America itself. Put another way, touchstones like “Smokestack Lightnin’” and “Sitting On Top Of The World” endure less as (merely) American songs and more as components of this country’s unique sensibility. Believe your ears because they are, in fact, even more than that.

“Sitting on Top of the World”:

“Smokestack Lightnin’”:

“Evil”:

“Back Door Man”:

“Moanin’ At Midnight”:

One more for the road, from the road:

Share

What’s It All About, Then? Part Two: Jazz, Featuring Wayne Shorter

There are not many people who have any idea what it’s like to be this cool. Even Wayne Shorter does not know, because he is too cool to stop and consider how cool he is. That’s what people like me are here for. And along with his partner in crime Herbie Hancock, Wayne Shorter has been one of the coolest dudes on the planet for more than half a century.

It was only last week, while talking about the (second) Miles Davis Quintet, i.e., the best working band to ever make music, that I had this to say about Wayne Shorter:

Wayne Shorter is, for my money, possibly the most underrated genius in any genre of music. To be sure, he gets plenty of props within jazz circles and the people who know really know. And in his wise, humble way, he is probably cool with that. But his name does not come up quickly enough, or often enough in discussions of the true masters. And aside from his considerable proficiency on the horn(s), he is also among the most distinctive and consistently satisfying composers. And while Miles, who was without peer in assembling talent, had the vision and deservedly gets the lion’s share of the credit (he was the lion, after all), a good chunk of the material on those second quintet sessions was written by Shorter. And here’s where it gets unbelievable: all through the mid-to-late ’60s –at the same time they were in The Quintet– he (as well as Hancock) was dropping epic masterpieces on the Blue Note label (think Maiden Voyage, Speak Like A Child, JuJu, Speak No Evil –for starters).

It occurs to me that while I occassionally wax ecstatic about jazz music (in general) and some of my all-time musical heroes (in particular), I have recently and with good reason invoked both the heavyweight champion John Coltrane and the man I unashamedly use words like “immortal” and ”saint” to describe, Eric Dolphy. But I realize, when it comes to sax players and accessibility, perhaps I’ve been remiss to not put Wayne Shorter at the top of the list. Not that either Coltrane or Dolphy are necessarily intimidating, but they tend to both be acquired tastes (and by acquired taste I mean once you get it, you are on board for life and you won’t be satisfied until you own everything either man ever did –even the stuff like late-period Coltrane which you may never even listen to but you still must possess, for all the right and obvious reasons).

Wayne Shorter, on the other hand, is like imported dark chocolate. Or fresh Kona coffee beans. Or a 2004 Brunello (or a 1964 Brunello for that matter). Or whatever type of car people who appreciate cars get excited about. You get the picture. Wayne Shorter is, in other words, the authentic item that aficionados savor, but whom virtually anyone with unpolluted ears can immediately appreciate. We odd and admittedly obsessed folks who really love jazz have no agenda. Really. (I’m not talking about the aesthetic prigs who have nothing good to say about anything other than the music they endorse; that is a certain type of poseur who has always been amongst us, whether the topic is music, literature, movies or wine or food or coffee or, especially these days, beer, et cetera.) All we care about is disabusing opinionated but clueless blowhards of the notion that jazz is (insert cliche here: to include “old-fashioned dance music”, “boring”, “musical masturbation”, “shrieking”, “easy listening” (!!!), “overwhelming”, et cetera) what it is or, put another way, what it is so manifestly not.

Life is too short to try and pick up something you simply can’t appreciate. But if you’re willing to give it a shot you just might be surprised. So consider this five song sampler from Wayne Shorter a win/win: if you don’t like this, you don’t like jazz; if you do like it, welcome to the rest of your life.

“Deluge”, from JuJu:

 

“Speak No Evil”, from Speak No Evil:

“502 Blues (Drinkin’ and Drivin’)”, from Adam’s Apple:

“Miyako”, from Schizophrenia:

“De Pois Do Amor, O Vazio”, from Odyssey of Iska:

Share

‘Walkabout’ Is the Rarest of Films That Will Change Your Life Again Every Time You Return to It

There are those special movies that change your life after you’ve seen them. Then there are the almost miraculous movies that stay inside you and then change your life again every time you return to them. Critically acclaimed upon its initial release in 1971, but long considered the ultimate cult classic, Nicolas Roeg’s Walkabout is receiving the well-warranted Criterion Collection treatment.

That it comes unreservedly recommended is certain; the new special edition DVD obliges the inevitable question: what makes this one of the landmark films of the last half-century? Answer: as a near perfect amalgamation of image, story and sound, Walkabout remains vital — and provocative — for its ability to present complicated questions that cannot (and need not) readily be answered. Like any memorable work of art, this movie manages to convey certain elusive insights that, upon reflection, are so obvious they seem revelatory.

Considered on its most basic terms as a deeply moving and occasionally disturbing drama that features consistently astonishing cinematography, Walkabout is entirely successful. As a subtly, almost casually polemic work, it is certain to compel just about any viewer to consider the world, and their preconceptions, in a slightly (or radically) different way. On deeper levels, the film’s refreshing lack of calculated profundity allows the arresting vistas of the Australian Outback — at once gorgeous and grim — to serve as both setting and a wordless commentary that speaks volumes.

Roeg, in his directorial debut, was the ideal champion for this material, taken from a novel by James Vance Marshall. Already an accomplished cinematographer, Roeg creates a continuous loop of scenes that pulsates with uncontrived symbolism, capturing some of the most audacious images ever to appear in a motion picture. Roeg, by trusting his eye and his environment, captures what Werner Herzog has described based on his experiences filming in the jungle: the so-called natural world is teeming with colors and humming with life, but the closer you look the more dangerous it appears.

Where Herzog uses long tracking shots (particularly the famous opening scene of Aguirre: The Wrath of God or multiple sequences in Fitzcarraldo) as an almost disarming strategy to illustrate the grandeur, Roeg pans in on the battles being waged in the wide open spaces of the desert. In either case, one quickly understands that the resplendent birds are actually shrieking in warning, not song, and that those colorful lizards are running toward prey or away from a predator. Despite our tendency to romanticize (or our historical obsession to tame) the wilderness, an unblinking assessment reveals an arena where every inch of space is occupied by an unending struggle for the inhabitants — no matter how large or small — to stay alive.

The plot of Walkabout, allegedly requiring the most succinct of screenplays (by British playwright Edward Bond, who provided what Roeg described as “a fourteen-page prose poem”), is more or less a variation on the classic coming of age parable. The action — and conflict — gets underway quickly when a teenager and her younger brother are stranded in the desert after their father abandons them in a most unsettling fashion. This scene is as surprising as it is appalling, but Roeg deftly orchestrates the turn of events so that they occur almost matter-of-factly. This would be impossible if not for the capable and perfectly cast actors, as well as an obvious comfort with and confidence in the material.

Standing in the overwhelming nowhere of the Australian Outback, the sister (Jenny Agutter) quickly comprehends that she somehow must protect her little brother (Roeg’s son Luc, credited as Lucien John) and find a way back to civilization. The camera languidly tracks their uncertain march, with scorching brightness succumbing to the moonlit chill of night. The slow panning shots of the endless landscape emphasize how helpless these children are, with neither dialogue nor sentiment. The sister encourages and cajoles her brother, careful not to acknowledge their lack of food and whether they are moving closer to safety or further into the desert.

An unexpected salvation arrives when the children encounter a native (David Gulpilil) who is undertaking his walkabout, a solitary excursion Aborigine males embark upon as the symbolic entrance into adulthood. The young man, roughly the same age as the sister, is unable to speak their language but eventually comprehends their distress. In a matter of moments we see him find water and hunt his food, an almost offhand commentary on the way he thrives in an environment that would have killed the children.

In the days that follow the children are taught — and begin imitating — techniques for survival, and a gentle, mutual bond is established. Stripped of her cultural ascendancy, the girl is at once grateful for and humbled by the Aborigine’s presence. The younger brother, less guarded and more innocent, is able to communicate without speaking, using gestures and sounds. The sister becomes increasingly cognizant of her surroundings, and a connection to the land that is much less tenuous than she could ever have imagined while ensconced in the secure routine of an urban existence.

During the course of what is presented as a typical day we see kangaroo skulls bashed in, large lizards impaled with sticks, sun-blistered skin, and amphibians devouring each other. Yet, the most disturbing sight by far — not surprisingly — is the short, sickening scene of a white man exploiting cheap labor from some natives. This ostensibly unconnected fragment functions like several similar moments where Roeg crosscuts images and action. In another, the Aborigine prepares his kill before a fire while (simultaneously) the scene is cut with a white-aproned butcher cleaving meat in a kitchen. These skillfully presented touches convey all that needs to be said without pretense or bathos.

Eventually the group finds an abandoned farmhouse, positive indication that they are in proximity to civilization. The tables subtly shift and now it is the Aborigine who seems slightly confused and out of place. In a poignant, quietly devastating scene, he observes a couple of hunters casually tracking their quarry from the safe distance of an off-road vehicle, then pumping it full of shotgun shells. The absurd juxtaposition of these camouflage-clad sportsmen and the almost-naked native is an entire commentary delivered in a sequence that lasts seconds. The lack of comprehension and the look of disenchantment etched on his face as the men drive off is an image that will stay with the viewer for a very long time.

The film’s most surreal, and strangely wonderful sequence occurs when the Aborigine, misconstruing the girl’s gratitude for love, performs a ritualistic courting dance for her. It is a scene that ends almost as quickly — and silently — as it begins, but the subsequent events will forever change both people’s lives. As the film concludes, everything is brought full circle, with a twist.

Years later, reintegrated into the city routine, the girl’s husband, back from another day at the corporate grind, enters their apartment. As he relays the office politics du jour, she is distracted by what appears to be a recurring daydream. In an alternate vision of how her life may have played out, she recalls the Aborigine who saved her life and offered his love, and envisions herself back in that world — a world that suddenly seems tranquil and inviting. It is a vision signifying the serenity — and soul — that her high-rise ocean view, and the life her choices have brought her is very obviously bereft of.

Walkabout, then, is sufficiently convincing, and satisfying, the first time one sees it, but it demands repeated viewings. The first experience offers enough twists to rivet and disorient; subsequent screenings will enable greater scrutiny (and appreciation) of the visuals, the colors and the sublime soundtrack. It requires more than one viewing to process — and register — the innumerable moments that illuminate Roeg’s genius for detail, whether it’s that awkward look the father and daughter exchange in their car, or the brother licking salt out of his sister’s hand, or a lizard scurrying out of a soda can. These moments add up to an experience that only accrues significance and resonance the more one engages with the world. Mostly, it remains an enriching example of the opportunities great art affords us in our collective quest to understand who we are and why we’re here.

As you should expect from a Criterion reissue, this latest incarnation looks and sounds spectacular: if you have never owned Walkabout on DVD, this is the type of film that justifies the expense and epitomizes the positive aspects of newer and better technology. To be certain, one does not need a big flat panel with surround-sound to fully enjoy the many charms of this particular film, but let’s face it, it’s the next best thing to seeing it in a theater.

The bonus disc contains brief and fascinating interviews with two of the stars. Agutter reminisces about her experience on the set and has nothing but positive things to say about the cast and crew. The other interview, with Luc Roeg — an industry veteran who produces films — is equally worthwhile. He discusses the unique opportunity of working with his father, and how his role was presented as an adventure in order to acquaint him with the process of acting (particularly for such a challenging on-location set).

Finally, and most intriguing, is the hour-long feature on David Gulpilil, who has enjoyed a long acting career while (literally) remaining true to his roots, balancing a life between movie sets and his family home in the bush. This documentary could easily be sold and marketed as an immensely worthwhile addition to any movie fan’s collection; that it comes packaged with the movie that introduced him to the world should elevate this edition of Walkabout to the top of your must-have list for 2010.

Share