I just got lost in thought. It wasn’t familiar territory.

 

---

On the other hand, you have different fingers.

 

---

A day without sunshine is like, night.

 

---

Save the whales. Collect the whole set.

 

---

The music critic for the Washington Post is a young, shaven-headed, trendy-eyeglass wearing youngster named, – no joke – Josh Freedom du Lac.

We’ll forego the Arthurian sensationalist criticisms for now. But for the record, after 34 years as a musician, composer, producer and recordist, I would completely expect someone with that name and image to totally hate Country, Jazz, Pop, and Classical music. I would not be surprised if they said Country was stupid, Classical is boring, and Jazz is snobby. This attitude is nothing new.

“The Knight of Freedom” has recently written about the proliferation of patriotic and homespun lifestyle songs on the Country music charts. An otherwise normal, even insightful story, I’m afraid it didn’t make it to page 2 without turning hard left, and spitefully so.

I had read L. Brent. Bozell’s opinion piece on ‘Freedom’s’ opus, and I in turn went to check out the original to see if Brent was right.

At first, Brent seemed harsh. The article mostly quotes Country artists amiably talking about their song’s origin and message – the whole thing having a homey kind of feel, about good old fashioned American values and such.

Then, it turned subtly critical. Midway through, these artists were now under attack for attempting to divide America into ‘us and them’ by slighting urban dwellers.

Here’s where it all went ‘South’.

JFdL – But the Atkins song and others of its ilk …..are narrowcasting to a specific community: the core Country audience, whose roots aren’t exactly in America’s urban centers.

CB – Use of the term ‘narrowcasting’ adds a definite negative connotation, implying that those with roots outside of the urban US are somehow bad.

JFdL – The symbolism and prideful sentiments of the songs are intended to create a sense of belonging among people with similar backgrounds and lifestyles, or at least people who romanticize life in the rural South. (It’s not a place; it’s a state of mind.) To some listeners, though, it might sound as if the artists are closing ranks. “Some of these songs seem to fall into the ‘we’re from Real America, and you’re not’ camp,” says Peter Cooper, who covers Country music for Nashville’s daily newspaper, the Tennessean. “Seems like being divisive while the industry around you crumbles is a poor decision.”

CB – What listeners would be offended at these songs? Who would think that? What does it even mean in this context – “closing ranks”? Where’s the ‘we’re American and you’re not’ even being implied? Who are they telling this? The only way to believe this idea is by already having it – assuming Country music to be disenfranchising to urbanites.

JFdL – Atkins’s latest chart-topper, “It’s America”, is actually a more generalized celebration of nationalism via a checklist of all things Americana: a high school prom, a Springsteen song, a man on the moon, fireflies in June. But more typical of his fare is “About the South”, which is exactly that, and “In the Middle,” in which he sings of “a way of life worth fighting for”.

CB – and that’s bad – why?

JFdL – Similarly, Eric Church isn’t really aiming to be inclusive when he sings “to tell the truth, I think we’re the chosen few” in “How ‘Bout You”, a boisterous 2006 hit about redneck living.

CB – How dare he!!!

JFdL – “It’s putting the flag down, saying: ‘Here’s who we are’ “, Church says.

CB – Which rappers do in virtually every song with violent drug and sex imagery.

JFdL – Not unlike hip-hop, in other words, a genre in which artists repeatedly reference where they’re from and with whom they’re aligned as a means to establish their bona fides and, especially, connect with their tribes. (It’s also not unlike the work of Bruce Springsteen or John Mellencamp, though their small-town rock songs tend to be darker and less idealistic than the recent offerings from Music Row.)

CB – So, you admit all genres of music do this – but only Country is ‘narrowcasting’? No music on earth is more ‘narrow’ than Rap/Hip-Hop. I’ve recorded rap artists since 1987 and to date I’ve only mixed one rap song about peace – over 20 years ago.

JFdL – Says the Tennessean’s Cooper: “While these songs’ lyrics tend to celebrate the special and idiosyncratic nature of the rural South, the music itself is often as distinctive as the Applebee’s restaurant out by the interstate that runs next to so many ’small towns’ .”

CB – So, let’s slam the music itself for not being incredibly unique or complex.

Country music has always been just revved up folk tunes. Melody, harmony, and lyrics all work together to create a song about life or to tell a story. There doesn’t have to be a political agenda or social statement to validate the song. Sometimes it’s just okay to sing about home, love, and grannie’s special fried chicken.

Lots of artists make edgy, complex social statements, and amazingly, they don’t all sell millions of copies. Likewise, neither does every patriotic ‘homebound’ country song. And, believe it or not, there are millions of people in and out of urban centers who are tired of rappers swearing, bitching, and then shooting up their neighborhoods.

While the counterculture-Woodstock generation musical/political bent has not gone away, it can hardly be argued that rappers are part of it. There is no deep social or political insight coming from rap music. There is no wave of critical anthems calling for change. There are just the violent ramblings of life in the ghetto with drugs, sex, and violence being the acclaimed and embraced way of life.

So, calling Country divisive because it doesn’t cater to urbanites who would rather shoot a Country singer than listen to a song is just horribly out of whack.

Any music critic worth a nanogram of salt knows that the top 5 percent is just that – a minority of 5 percent. The vast majority of Americans listen to and embrace more music and genres than Mr. Freedom knows about. A combination of Pop, Classic Rock, Jazz, and Classical fill more people’s lives than Hip-Hop. And, again, if there is any musical genre on the planet that is ‘narrowcasting’, it is Hip-Hop/Rap. It is the most segregated, elitist music there is. It’s aimed exclusively at the young and urban, particularly disenfranchised youth.

Every genre of music has it’s own target audience and a crossover to others. If it’s bad for Country to be ‘narrowcasting’, then all music is guilty – especially Rock.

Mr. du Lac started out with an informative piece about a very healthy and non-threatening trend towards patriotism on the Country charts. An understandable development what with the world in such a state as it is.

By the end of the article, it sounds like Georgia has started handing out grey uniforms.

You have to be biased and looking for a fight to turn this kind of subject matter into an indictment of patriotism, which he, in essence, has done.

Ah, to be young, sheltered, naive and p.o.’ed about it….

---

Reference:

“Country Music Is Crazy Right Now for Artists Who Sing About Small-Town Life” / “Twang Thang: Small-Town Songs Spur Big-Time Sales”
– by Josh Freedom du Lac, Washington Post Staff Writer, The Washington Post – May 9, 2009

 

---

One last off-ice melodrama still drags on amidst the Stanley Cup Conference Finals – the fate of the Phoenix Coyotes.

While we can’t help but root for Dudley and his horse, Horse, to rush in and save the day, we’re still concerned that poor Nell is falling for Snidely’s roguish charm, and may lose the ranch. Then Whiplash would move it back east to southern Ontario.

The Coyotes attempted to file bankruptcy without the NHL’s permission, ostensibly to clear the way for yet another visit from that potential bad boy team owner – Jim Balsille.

Yes, the CEO of Blackberry is still trying to buy an ailing NHL team and move it to Hamilton, Ontario. The team would share the Toronto Maple Leafs’, Buffalo Sabres’, and Ottowa Senators’ markets, possibly taking Canadian border fans from Detroit as well.

Oh, and hockey would be gone from Phoenix.

Like it would have been gone from Nashville and Pittsburgh had Inspector Fenwick not intervened.

What bothers me is that he doesn’t just want to own a team and roll with the big boys in the pro sports game. He specifically wants to put an NHL team only in Hamilton, and he doesn’t seem to care where it comes from. His motive is either intentional competition to the Leafs, Sabres, and Sens or the sheer vanity of owning his nation’s game in his own backyard.

Isn’t it like 100 miles or so from Hamilton to Toronto? Buffalo seems pretty close, too, and then there’s the TV issues. With 3 eastern region teams to cover on CBC, someone’s going to be left out many nights.

And, of course, there’s the question of conference re-alignment. Does the Hamilton team stay in the West? Who jumps over to the Pacific to even it out? Or do they go to the East, and then what?

And what about Winnipeg, where they came from? Isn’t there any interest in bringing them back? Don’t those people have to go all the way to Calgary for games? When such large areas of Canada, including Newfoundland and the Islands, are unrepresented, what is the motivation to put a team in an area with 4 others?

I’m a Red Wing fan from Detroit living in Las Vegas, and I’ll lose a drivable NHL team if Balsille wins. But I’d gladly sacrifice it for Winnipeg. I’d still have LA in driving distance.

I’m guessing these are some of the things coming up in these negotiations. A person like Balsille could make the Coyotes work profitably just where they are, or back in Winnipeg. I have a feeling his refusal to consider this is part of the holdup.

His claim that there is an arena deal in place and more than enough fans to fill the seats even with the other teams is not unreasonable or even outlandish. We’re talking Ontario, so, yeah, there’s likely enough demand. But, with so much competition in such a small area, those assertions don’t immediately outweigh all the other factors. Ontario has hockey – with or without Balsille.

So, what about markets that don’t have it or won’t anymore if Balsille wins? What are they – chopped octopus?

If the Coyotes are sold, who knows where they would go? Winnipeg? Kansas City? Portland? Boise? Grand Forks, North Dakota? Salt Lake City Olympic Arena? There is even a rumor here about TV magnate Jerry Bruckheimer bringing the Coyotes to a Las Vegas arena that Bally’s is building.

In any case, the NHL is unlikely to approve a move to a glutted market. Large numbers of northeastern transplants live in the southwest US, and they still want hockey, though not necessarily at New York prices. Winnipeg and Phoenix share that mid-price level status. Especially under these current economic conditions, owners have to be willing to take
less at the door in return for filling the seats. This was the solution for the Jets, still untried even now as the Coyotes. It’s not the market that’s causing the problem.

Considering the cause of the team’s problem is paramount. Phoenix is not a bad hockey market, but the media in the southwest really doesn’t give hockey it’s due, and a good, well-known owner like Balsille pouring some promo cash into the Coyotes could turn that whole market around in a season. This was also never tried in Winnipeg. An owner like this
could probably have made that work, too.

Then there’s the basic issue – what makes a franchise movable? Just because the owner wants to? Because the profit margin is too low? Because they don’t want to spend money on development or promotion? Or should you just look at attendance factors?

Oh, wait – then the Islanders would have to move.

Hamilton would be fine.

May the best billionaire win.

FYI, my studio, Pegwood Arts, is running an “Artist Bailout” promotion offering a 30% discount off of any package!

Take advantage of this promotion, book a “recession session” today.
Discount applies to a variety of packages, including:

• Albums
• Demos
• Websites, etc.

For more info and to get the coupon code visit Pegwood Arts.

(The promotion runs through May 29th.)

 

---

The Lunatic Fringe in the Middle

§ 2:   Choose one – (a) (a) (a)

There are some things in life we get to choose, and some things we don’t. Well, okay, there’s a lot of things we don’t. Way more that we don’t. Okay, most of life is spent dealing with choices we didn’t make.

I am male. I did not choose that.

I am “white”. I did not choose that.

I am American. I did not choose that.

I am Italian, Irish, and a Yankee as well. All choices made for me by the circumstances of my birth. I also grew up Catholic, Democrat, and blue collar (not surprising considering my ethnic background and Great Lakes area environment). As many do, I adopted my family ways in most aspects of life. I was an altar boy. I rooted for Kennedys. I did basically whatever my folks did until I was old enough to understand and question things for myself and begin to learn which choices I could make and which I couldn’t.

Well, I couldn’t change the fact that I was a white male. I couldn’t change my height. I could change my weight and appearance (to some degree). Health is a choice we can often make. Appearance is always a choice we can make at some level.

I was raised a Catholic, like both of my parents’ families. I went to Catholic schools and played in the church sports leagues. When I got older I learned more about other faiths. At first I questioned everything, tried to read everything and understand all the other faiths. In the end, I still considered myself basically Catholic, but I have a much better understanding of the world and other religions.

The biggest choice I could make is my behavior. Everything I am, everything I want, everything I do is affected by my behavior – my attitude, and the way I treat others.

I was born in the “sexist 50s”. That does not make me sexist. Treating women badly would do it, or if I actually believed any of that sexist crap, that would do it. Also, the bible’s language tells me to include women when I say ‘man’ or ‘men’ or ‘mankind’, as well as every race. As I choose to believe the more objective truth, I don’t feel that I’m sexist. I’m cynical, because so many women seem to feel that’s impossible, but still, not sexist.

Likewise, I am not racist because I am white. I can’t look back at my ancestry and find racial atrocities to feel ashamed and guilty for. I can’t read the news without being incensed by racial issues. I can’t justify the oppression of anyone in this country. I did not choose to be American, but I can choose the way I interpret the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Maybe Washington and Jefferson had slaves, but Lincoln changed that, and I can see this as proof to me that “all men are created equal”.

I choose to view racism and the concept of racial superiority or inferiority as immature, childish jealousies and fears, not deserving of serious consideration. I can’t make people believe that. All I can do is act on my beliefs and try not to step on any toes.

That’s not easy, since I am probably the single worst demographic type in the U.S. today. Single, white, male, no kids, over 40, middle class suburban childhood. There are few that will try to believe that I am not racist, sexist, capitalist, bigoted or whatever they’re mad at or want to blame for their ills. Well, I didn’t cause those problems, and I can’t help if I’m being punished for them.

As for politics, I inherited my dad’s. I think that’s fairly common for baby boomers and their folks alike. Politics, like religion, are often rooted in family tradition and social level. In general, the rich have usually been conservative and the poor (most predictably) demanding change (liberals). Nowadays, people have more opportunity to be informed than ever, and yet many still cling to political heritages. Choosing a political position can be tough, but it is still a choice, not an inheritance. Sooner or later, everyone must learn to evaluate their choice of political sides objectively, if only to confirm their opinions. I found, in time, that I did share most of my parent’s beliefs and opinions. Over the years, they came to agree with many of my differing thoughts. I learned that they were really more middle of the road than outright Democrat. And the same went for most of our neighbors, Republicans alike. It seemed to me, early on, that both parties were so extreme, the average person had to choose whichever would help them, personally.

Traditionally Democrats have represented workers, and Republicans, the employers. It is very difficult for the voter to break the custom and vote the other party. Both parties are presented in an “only one will do” manner. I think most people would rather have all the information on an issue before they vote on it. We don’t expect that at all. We are used to the polarization of the ‘two party’ system. We expect to hear only the extreme aspects of the story from both sides. Sadly, we vote on many issues based on what will hurt us the least, not what will solve the problem best. Through all of this there remains a cynical sense of futility, the feeling that the average citizen can’t make political choices, that their vote is meaningless.

Well, my friends, wake up!!! Politics and government, behavior and integrity – all are choices that we make and unless we demand real facts and full participation in the process, we punt our rights to anyone who sees a way to profit from them.

You can choose, too. We can all choose.

 

©2000 Pegwood Arts. All Rights Reserved.
 

<<–prev   top    next–>>

Return to the beginning of the book

---

A frog goes into a bank and approaches the teller.
He can see from her nameplate that her name is Patricia Whack.
“Miss Whack, I’d like to get a $30,000 loan to take a holiday.”

Patty looks at the frog in disbelief and asks his name.
The frog says his name is Kermit Jagger, his dad is Mick Jagger,
and that it’s okay, he knows the bank manager.

Patty explains that he will need to secure the loan with some collateral.

The frog says, “Sure. I have this,” and produces a tiny porcelain elephant, about an inch tall, bright pink and perfectly formed.

Very confused, Patty explains that she’ll have to consult with the bank manager and disappears into a back office.

She finds the manager and says,
“There’s a frog called Kermit Jagger out there who claims to know you and wants to borrow $30,000, and he wants to use this as collateral.”

She holds up the tiny pink elephant.
“I mean, what in the world is this?”

The bank manager looks back at her and says…

“It’s a knickknack, Patty Whack. Give the frog a loan.
His old man’s a Rolling Stone.”

---

(You’re singing it, aren’t you?…)
 

---

There are two penguins on an iceflow.

One says to the other,
“You look like you could be wearing a tuxedo”.

The other one says,
“How do you know that I’m not?”

 

---

This is an old favorite from Garrison Keillor’s A Prairie Home Companion.

If you’ve never heard the Prairie Home Companion (on NPR), I recommend you check out
A Prairie Home Companion With Garrison Keillor (30th Anniversary Season Celebration)