The title of this post is a quote from one of the comments in a blog post I was reading earlier this morning following the passing of Pete Seeger. That quote pretty much sums it up, I think. He cared about people, he cared about this planet we all share, and he tried to teach us, using the universal language of music, how to live together.
He established a real trend among many musicians with his activism, and I find it funny that there are people out there that like to berate musicians for taking a stand on things (actually, it seems that those who make the loudest noise about it are on the right, even though they have their poster children that speak out about certain causes - but, ironically, they are often causes that are not in the best interests of society as a whole). I can't say that my particular political views are linked directly to Pete - I knew some songs he had written, but they had been covered by other artists when I became aware of them. But from what I know of him, we think a lot alike in many respects.
Frankly, some of today's performers could probably take a lesson or two from Mr. Pete Seeger. I could be wrong, but I don't see the likes of Miley, Justin, or Kanye having the level of social consciousness I see in performers like CSNY, Jackson Brown, Bruce Springsteen, Willie Nelson, Bono, Peter Gabriel, Roger Waters, and so many others from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. And these artists that I "grew up" with continue doing these things to this day. I'm not saying that these younger performers aren't involved in social causes, but they do not seem to be as obvious from where I sit - and, in my opinion, that's a problem.
"It troubled him, it troubled him deeply, that technology was so advanced, that our emotional state was so inadequate to cope that, with the push of a button, in a fit of rage, we could wipe ourselves off the face of the Earth. And he really wanted to fix that, and always felt like he failed." - Tao RodrÃguez-Seeger (Pete's grandson)
Thank you, Mr. Seeger, for working to make the world a better place. We've got a long way to go, but we're a little closer to the goal because of you.
I recently saw several episodes of the TV series "The Tudors" on BBC-America, a program in which the producers certainly took some liberties with the facts (it's labeled as "historical fiction"). But it prompted me to finally download an audiobook that had been on my wish list for quite some time, The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty (G.J.Meyer). As I was listening last night, I came upon a section that really caught my attention, mainly because I was so surprised to see that, even back in the 16th Century, theologians (and kings, obviously) were picking and choosing which sections of the Old Testament actually apply. Not unlike what they do today. I transcribed the relevant section from Chapter 2 where the author is discussing Henry's attempts in the 1520s to get his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled:
There were problems, moreover, with the biblical passage to which Henry attached so much importance: "If a man takes his brother's wife, they shall be childless." One of the mentors of Henry's youth, the learned and revered John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, pointed out that nothing in these words indicates that they refer to a dead brother's wife. On the contrary, a reader's natural inclination might be to assume the opposite. As for the warning about childlessness, nothing could be more obvious than that Henry and Catherine had a living child, Princess Mary. Henry, clutching at straws, suggested that a mistake had been made when Leviticus was translated from Greek into Latin, so that the word liberis ("children") had been incorrectly substituted for filius ("sons"). In an age when all educated people shared a knowledge of Latin, and no one could have claimed to be a theologian without mastering it, this argument got him nowhere, having no basis in fact. Leviticus was, in any case, a peculiar foundation upon which to construct arguments about how Englishmen were supposed to conduct themselves in the 16th century. It included many rules, some of them intended for Hebrew priests, to which no one paid the least attention. Instruction in the proper way of killing chickens, for example, along with prohibitions against eating of rabbits, and the incorrect trimming of hair and beards. The church had long taken it as settled that the relevance of Leviticus did not reach far beyond the time, place, and people for which it had been written.
Even worse for Henry's case, Leviticus was directly contradicted by another Old Testament passage, one from a book written later and, therefore, arguably preemptive. Deuteronomy 25:5-7 declared it to not only be permissible, but obligatory, for a man to marry the childless widow of his dead brother: "He shall go in unto her and take her to him to wife." Failure to do this would mean that the dead brother was "put out of Israel," a deplorable fate, and therefore severe punishment was prescribed for those who did not comply. The straw that Henry clutched this time was the notion that the kind of marriage prescribed by Deuteronomy had been a mere ceremonial matter, and that in any case the Jews themselves had abandoned such practices many centuries before. About this, too, he was proved wrong.
The point, I suppose, that I'm trying to make is there is so much worthy of our skepticism in the OT, this being but one example. Not eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12, Deuteronomy 14:9-10) is another silly thing in there, along with the interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 today by those busy bodies who are trying to stop same-sex marriage (Yes, I know what it says, but I say if you want to follow a literal interpretation of Lev 18:22, you better stop eating shrimp, oysters, lobster, etc., because that prohibition is in there, too. You CANNOT pick and choose this stuff without me labeling you a hypocrite.)
I think the most important sentence in the paragraphs quoted above is this one: The church had long taken it as settled that the relevance of Leviticus did not reach far beyond the time, place, and people for which it had been written. If Pope Clement VII chose to ignore parts of Leviticus in the 16th Century, we should probably do likewise with ALL of it here in the 21st.
*(Truth be told, I had an Anglican vicar tell me over 30 years ago that most of the Old Testament was a collection of (allegorical) tribal stories. Some years later this idea was reinforced when I read The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (Neil Asher Silberman, Israel Finkelstein) - bottom line to be taken away from the book is that the archaeology in that region simply does not support most of the OT stories [and it doesn't take but a couple of minutes searching the internet to learn that, for example, the Noah's Ark story was a rewrite of a portion of the Mesopotamian poem Epic of Gilgamesh - can't believe they're making a new movie about Noah . . . why bother?).]
Went with a friend over to Cedar City for some shopping (and a trip to the vet for Ginger - nothing serious) today and one of the stops was at the health/nutrition store. While I was waiting for Charlene to complete her purchase, I was whistling along with Beethoven's 6th as it was playing on the store's sound system. The clerk made a comment about my familiarity with the piece (or something along those lines) and I made the off-the-cuff statement (have no idea where it came from or why) that "Beethoven is a good choice if you can't listen to King Crimson." The clerk, who was probably in her mid-30s, lights up and says "I saw King Crimson back in the 90s in Las Vegas."
Now how cool is that???!!! There's someone else in southern Utah that truly appreciates GREAT music!
(I would also learn that, while away at college, her mother put all of her vinyl in a non-air conditioned storage unit, ruining all of her records, including King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, and many others. :-( )
And now, for your listening pleasure, some live King Crimson from 1994 & 1995: Robert Fripp (guitar), Adrian Belew (vocals/guitar), Tony Levin (bass/Chapman Stick), Bill Bruford (drums/percussion), Pat Mastelotto (drums/percussion), Trey Gunn (background vocals/Stick).
Progressive Rock - for when you really want to listen to and appreciate the music!!!
Everyone who knows me well, knows that I am politically liberal. That's not to say that aren't some conservative ideals I agree with, just that there is nothing in today's "conservative" platform I find agreeable. When I talk conservatism, I am talking about old school Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower or Theodore Roosevelt. Let's face it, most of the conservative politicians (I cannot call these modern pretenders Republicans - they do NOT represent historical Republican ideals in any way shape or form) in the U.S. are a bunch of nuts. And so are the conservative commentators. Right near the top of that list are nut jobs like Glenn Beck.
I refuse to link there, but Beck's The Blaze website has an article about how (ZOMG!) the President and his family did not attend any Christmas services while on vacation in Hawaii last week. Okay, so they only attend church occasionally, the family may have their reasons, and it really is not our place to judge them because of that.
Why "hypocrisy" in the title?
Let's look at the big picture: Bush II's church attendance was almost exclusively limited to private services in the chapel at Camp David. President Clinton's family, on the other hand, attended church publicly almost every Sunday during his two terms. Bush I, an Episcopalian, was not affiliated with any Washington, D.C. church according to several sources I found. How about Saint Ronnie Reagan*, worshiped by the new conservatives as maybe the best president ever? Well, he never attended church while he was in office. Meanwhile, his predecessor Jimmy Carter not only attended church in Virginia, he even taught Sunday school.
At the end of the day it appears that, even though our current president doesn't attend regularly (about 20 times over his first term+), the Democratic presidents seem to have a much better attendance record than their Republican counterparts. So maybe God's Own Party really isn't . . .
Dear Glenn Beck: Stuff a sock in your pie hole, you lying blowhard.
Oh, don't want to forget to mention that on Christmas Day 2013 the President spent part of his day visiting with U.S. military men and women in Hawaii. You know, those same members of the military modern conservatives seem to care about when they're serving, but love to take away their benefits once they become veterans.
*In 2012 there were many complaints from conservative commentators about the fact that O hadn't visited Israel yet (he did go in 2013). Guess how many times St. Ronnie visited that country during his two terms? That's right, a big fat goose egg.
. . . and do this thing correctly. Because the people (Rolling Stone Magazine, basically) who run the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame are clearly in some distant, fog-shrouded world of their own. Sure, they've inducted many artists who, without question, deserve to be there, but there are a few you could argue probably shouldn't be - or least shouldn't be in there ahead of some who should have been inducted long ago. And other crazy stuff, like the fact Brian Epstein is only just now making it as an inductee in the non-performers category (class of 2014). Hello RRHOF!!! He probably should have been brought in the same year, or shortly thereafter, as The Beatles, for crying out loud . . .
So here are the basic rules for performers, directly from the Hall's website:
Artists become eligible for induction 25 years after the release of their first record. Criteria include the influence and significance of the artists’ contributions to the development and perpetuation of rock and roll.
The Foundation's nominating committee selects nominees each year in the Performer category. Ballots are then sent to an international voting body of more than 600 artists, historians and members of the music industry.
So let's take a few moments and look at a couple of examples. Deep Purple has been eligible for something like 21 years, and they have been nominated twice; Metallica was inducted in 2009 in their first or second year of eligibility. With lineup changes both bands have been around for years, Deep Purple forming in 1968 while Metallica formed in 1981, and each have sold over 100 million records. Now remember the rule above about "influence and significance of the artists' contributions?" I can almost guarantee that the two lead guitarists who have played with Metallica, at some point in their learning process, just had to learn that very famous riff from Deep Purple's "Smoke on the Water." And to this day it is a riff a lot of guitarists still want to learn when they start playing electric guitar. If that one riff from Richie Blackmore isn't an "influence on the development and perpetuation of rock and roll," I just don't know how else to define it. Though I don't have any evidence, I'd also be willing to bet that when the guys in Metallica were starting out playing in cover bands, they probably banged out a little Deep Purple along the way. Metallica in the Rock and Roll Hall before Deep Purple? The clear verdict can only be a emphatic "No!"
The Moody Blues have been recording and performing since 1967, have 13 top 40 hits, and have sold tens of millions of records. They have been eligible for the RRHOF for 25 years and have yet to be nominated. Not even once. Blondie, on the other hand, has sold about half as many records and were inducted in 2006 on their first nomination after just four years of eligibility. Yes, that Blondie, the same new wave/punk band whose biggest hit was . . . a disco tune called "Heart of Glass"???!!! This kind of crap simply does not make sense. Who is doing the thinking in Cleveland?
In: The Ramones, The Clash, Elvis Costello and the Attractions, The Sex Pistols, Beastie Boys, Run DMC, Public Enemy, Guns 'n Roses (WTF?), Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Stooges (someone's idea of a joke?), KISS.
NOT In: Jethro Tull, The Cars, Emerson Lake and Palmer, The Doobie Brothers, Jan & Dean, The Monkees, King Crimson, Yes, Steppenwolf, Roxy Music, Warren Zevon, Jim Croce, Bad Company, Chicago, and so many others who are are just as - if not more - deserving than some who are already in the Hall.
Seriously, a show of hands: How many of you have heard of Jethro Tull, but have not heard of The Stooges (and no, we're not talking Larry, Moe, and Curly Joe here)?
I'm not saying that some of the "ins" shouldn't be there, it's the glaring lack of respect shown by the nominating committee to performers who have long, productive histories, and have had a clear impact on rock music in general.
And what of my beloved prog?
Outside of Genesis, Rush, and Pink Floyd, Progressive Rock is otherwise completely ignored by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (one could make a strong case that Genesis, though the induction included Peter Gabriel, were brought in largely because of what they accomplished after PG left the band and they took on a more pop-oriented style). Keith Emerson (Emerson Lake and Palmer) probably had more to do with the popularization of music synthesizers than any other rock artist. From about 1973 to 1977, with the exception of Led Zeppelin, no band on the planet sold more concert tickets worldwide than ELP (19 years of eligibility, not a sniff from the nominating committee). Steve Howe from Yes was the first guitarist retired from Guitar Player Magazine's readers poll for the "Year's Best Guitarist" because he won so many times consecutively, and, of course, the band filled arenas worldwide for many years (one nomination in 20 years). There are bands like King Crimson that have been around since the 60s, have sold lots of records and concert tickets, and, while Robert Fripp may not be a household name, most rock guitarists know him to be one of the best. Compared to Punk and New Wave, genres that are all but dead these days, Prog Rock continues with many legendary artists still performing and new bands being formed. But Prog has NEVER gotten any respect from Rolling Stone (I wouldn't be terribly surprised if most of the nominating committee members think "Prog" is the Czech capital . . . )
And what is it with Rap and Hip Hop artists in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? I realize they are extremely popular forms of music, but are those genres, by definition, "Rock?" Do we consider them an offshoot of R&B or Soul?
Truth be told, after perusing the list of inductees, I have decided that the name should be changed to either "The Pop Music Hall of Fame" or "The Rock and Rhythm & Blues Hall of Fame." Those names would be a more accurate reflection of what the current hall represents. Because right now it is a hodge-podge of performers from different genres placed in the hall by a misguided nominating committee . . .
I am calling this "Part 1" because there will be more things like this that come along that I will be more than happy to share. In this case it is Bill-O the Clown, but Cryin' Glenn, Princess Sarah of Wasilla, and others of there ilk will almost certainly provide plenty of fodder.
Below you will find a clip from last week where Bill-O the Clown was on one of those rants he's been on since, oh, about 2005 I think. Let's get this clear right here and now: THERE IS NO (SO-CALLED) "WAR ON CHRISTMAS!" If you think there is, get it out of your head right now . . . PERMANENTLY. People were saying "Happy Holidays" 50 years ago when I was a kid and nobody made a damned fuss about it then.
But the real point of this post is to share with you the irony in what happens at the end of Bill-O's rant and Fox News Channel goes to break. Immediately after The Clown's mindless rant what do we see?
A still from FNC wishing their viewers . . .
wait for it . . . .
Happy Holidays!
This guy is so full of crap - why do so many Americans buy into his (very tired) shtick?
I am amazed at the number of people who have actually come out in support of that goofball. Though in terms of overall percentage of the population it's probably not that great, just the usual random noise from a small number of extremists on the religious right, a (thankfully) dwindling portion of the U.S. electorate (a recently released poll, the third in the last year or so with similar results, shows that religious belief, in particular Christianity, in the U.S. is in steady decline*, though lagging behind most of the rest of the free world).
First and foremost, this is NOT about religious freedom, nor is it about Daddy Duck's First Amendment rights being infringed upon. No one is stopping him from being able to worship and believe whatever he chooses and, as this article shows (and probably many others if one were to search), his First Amendment rights have NOT been infringed upon.
The one thing I troubling about this kind of noise coming from the religious right is the fact that, while they just LOVE to quote Leviticus when it comes to the issue about homosexuality, they fail to pay heed to any of the other COMPLETE NONSENSE that can be found there. The classic example, of course, is Leviticus 11:9-12, but you're also told not to eat shrimp, lobster, and other shellfish - it's "an abomination unto you" - in Deuteronomy 14:9-10. When you're ready to swear off eating shrimp and lobster (and for you Daddy Duck, no more crawdads out of that swamp!), then we can talk about the other abominations. And, of course, best to stay away from bacon (Lev 11:7) or burn in Hell! Bottom line: Daddy Duck is a racist, homophobic pig who was suspended from a TV show for making racist homophobic comments. A&E would almost certainly have suspended him for making those same statements REGARDLESS of his religious orientation. I'm done with that idiot now. *There's an organization called The Clergy Project here in the U.S. that, while just under 600 members, has nearly tripled in size in little more than a year. I first learned about it from an op-ed back in 2011 or 2012 in either the Washington Post or the New York Times (too lazy to go look now). The authors of that piece, though clearly stating it was not a scientific survey, estimate that between 30% and 40% of ALL clergy in the U.S. are either agnostic or atheist. Think about that for a moment - it means there is a roughly 1 in 3 chance that the person preaching to you on Sunday does NOT believe what they are saying. And, in almost all cases when people leave the clergy, their stated reasons for their change of heart is because they started really reading the Bible in depth. And the membership is coming from just about every different Christian faith - Pentecostal, Baptist, LDS, Catholic, you name it. Food for thought . . .
