"Sport, sport, masculine sport,
Equips a young man for society.
Yes, sport turns out a jolly good sort,
It's an odd boy who doesn't like sport."
Viv Stanshall
Those of you who remember the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band will probably remember the above and chuckle nostalgically. Those of you who don't, please be assured it is ironic - not to be taken literally!
For the last few weeks the newspaper I take regularly might as well have been called The Daily Olympics. In addition to various supplements dedicated to detailed coverage of the Games, the first six or seven pages have been almost entirely devoted to stories of medal winners and statistical breakdowns of how well we are doing. Coverage on TV has been pretty much constant. In addition to this the media has been awash with celebrities and politicians pontificating about how wonderful sport is and how we can solve this country's problems by persuading our young people to take part in sport at all costs. Boris Johnson wants two hours of PE a day for all school pupils - just as he had at his Public School. Made him the man he is today apparently...
I was reading, with some interest for a while, a Facebook page devoted to debating the pros and cons of Scottish independence - but to my dismay it turned into a debate about good old sport and how we must persuade our young people to take part in sport to a much greater extent than they currently do, the implication being that most of them are couch potatoes, computer game geeks or hoodies out on the rob. Leaving aside the fact that this is plainly a false stereotype, it is also a piece of rank hypocrisy. I do not know if there is any statistical data on this subject but, from the evidence I see around me in schools, playing fields and parks, young people are much more active than their middle aged counterparts. Does anyone seriously think Boris Johnson is a fit-looking individual. (Fit meaning in good physical condition - not its modern colloquial meaning.) Lots of the individuals expressing the opinion that young people need to be more active look as if they would have trouble breaking into a trot.
But what really annoys me is the bland (and seemingly almost universal) assumption that everyone likes to watch sport; everyone supports a football team, everyone supports the athletes that are representing their country. If you dare to assert your individuality on this subject, you are regarded as an eccentric at best - a traitor by some. Well here goes! I don't care about football. I don't care which team wins on a Saturday. I didn't watch ANY of the Olympic coverage on TV and went straight to page six or seven of the newspaper. The supplements went straight into the paper recycling bin. I don't think I am terribly unfit for my age. I enjoy hill-walking and swimming but I don't want to compete with anyone. The perfect swimming session for me is one where there is no-one else in the pool. The perfect walk is one done in good company with beautiful scenery and is not timed by anyone. No-one wins or loses and there is no honour at stake.
To some people this makes me dangerously subversive. So be it. I have attended various social events over the years where I have ended up in the company of affable people I don't know very well. If it's a group of men, they invariably talk about football. I cannot count the number of times I have been asked what team I support and am no longer surprised at the incredulity my reply that I am not interested in football provokes. Of course it makes no difference as they continue to rattle on about football anyway - just as if I did not exist and, in a way, for them, I don't.
Some people love competitive sport. Some people are passionate about football, cricket, rugby, athletics - either as spectators or participants. I am quite happy for them to have all the opportunities they have to pursue this but I am not happy with the pretence that competitive sport is synonomous with fitness and good health nor do I accept "Mens Sana in Corpore Sano".
Where do the athletes who fail drug tests fit into this model? Where do the brain-damaged boxers - or those who die in the ring or on the way to hospital afterwards - fit? Good old heathy competition has led to the Rangers/Celtic divide and the sectarianism associated with it. How many fights/assaults/manslaughters have there been as a result of football supporters disagreement?
In 1945 George Orwell published an essay called The Sporting Spirit. I finish with a short quote from it.
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting."
Monday, 13 August 2012
Sunday, 20 May 2012
Words - again!
One of the ways that I supplement my income and try to stay out of the classroom is playing at weddings. One of the requirements of a wedding band is that they learn the happy couple's choice of song for the first dance. Over the years I have seen some strange choices. I could never understand the couple who chose Patsy Cline's "Crazy", for example, and, on another occasion, watched with some amusement as elderly parents attempted to join the happy couple on the floor dancing to "This Is How You Remind Me" by Nickelback.
No such problems on this occasion. The couple chose a song called "I'm Yours" by a singer called Jason Mraz. On first listen I thought he had a pleasant voice and the song, though unoriginal, was quite romantic in intent and would work as a first dance. However, once you start learning a song, you look at it more closely and flaws start to emerge. It wasn't just that the structure is messy - this is almost a given these days with commercial pop singles - they are usually hacked about to make them the right length and to include the hook(s) as often as possible. It wasn't the pointless and inappropriate addition of scat singing. No, you've guessed it, what really annoyed me was the lyric. Two examples should suffice:
"Scooch on over here
And I will nibble your ear..."
Embarrassingly twee and lacking any real romance or affection, this is a real stinker of a couplet for anyone to sing with any conviction. I wouldn't recommend saying it to your girlfriend either - she'll probably tell you to go and scooch yourself! Worse is to come, though:
"Listen to the music of the moment people dance and sing
We're just one big family
And it's our godforsaken right to be loved loved loved loved loved..."
Obviously the writer meant "god-given right" and presumably didn't realise what "godforsaken" actually meant. But what bothers me is that he didn't bother to find out, thus making a complete nonsense of what he meant to say - unless he really meant that the right to be loved (five times) is one that God would turn his back on. This is all part of what enrages me about the commercial attitude to song lyrics, which seems to be that they are not worth bothering about. The writer reached out for a cliche and found godforsaken and didn't care what it meant.
This is not new. Looking at some hugely successful pop songs we can find examples of very poor writing.
"I have never had such a feeling - such a feeling of complete and utter love..." Did the writer not consider for a moment that the phrase "complete and utter" is a cliche which is invariably followed by a pejorative term - complete and utter nonsense, complete and utter chaos, complete and utter revulsion? The comic effect gained by this is completely the opposite of what (one imagines) Chris de Burgh was striving for.
Or consider this example:
"And it seems to me you lived your life like a candle in the wind,
Never knowing who to cling to when the rain set in."
It's probably unnecessary to point out that this is from a hugely successful song but it is also a very poor piece of writing. Leaving aside the obvious observation that candles don't cling to anything, the point of the song would appear to be that Marilyn lived her life like a candle in the wind - that is the title after all and it's repeated in every chorus. If the image means anything it means that the flame (life) is constantly in danger of being blown out by the wind (misfortune/fame). But the image is never realised - instead he goes on to talk about rain "setting in" and later the candle "burning out" before "the legend ever did". ("Ever", here, adds nothing to the meaning but has been stuck in there to make the words fit the rhythm.)
Later the writer produces a line which is amazingly difficult to sing:
"All the papers had to say
Was that Marilyn was found in the nude."
Try singing this to the tune and you will see what I mean. What is really amazing is that Elton John is so talented that he manages to make a hugely successful pop song out of this drivel!
So why do I care? Why not stop girning about stuff I don't like and leave it for those who enjoy it?
The answer is simple. I love pop music, rock music, country music, blues and most forms of contemporary music. There are examples of great lyric writing in all of these genres. Take a simple - some would say cheesy - pop song like "Hit Me Baby One More Time". It's just teenage angst and lust but there is not a false step anywhere. The register is consistent and the song hits its target perfectly.
"My loneliness is killing me
(And I)
I must confess I still believe
When I'm not with you I lose my mind
Give me a sign
Hit me baby one more time"
Even better, in the same area, is:
No such problems on this occasion. The couple chose a song called "I'm Yours" by a singer called Jason Mraz. On first listen I thought he had a pleasant voice and the song, though unoriginal, was quite romantic in intent and would work as a first dance. However, once you start learning a song, you look at it more closely and flaws start to emerge. It wasn't just that the structure is messy - this is almost a given these days with commercial pop singles - they are usually hacked about to make them the right length and to include the hook(s) as often as possible. It wasn't the pointless and inappropriate addition of scat singing. No, you've guessed it, what really annoyed me was the lyric. Two examples should suffice:
"Scooch on over here
And I will nibble your ear..."
Embarrassingly twee and lacking any real romance or affection, this is a real stinker of a couplet for anyone to sing with any conviction. I wouldn't recommend saying it to your girlfriend either - she'll probably tell you to go and scooch yourself! Worse is to come, though:
"Listen to the music of the moment people dance and sing
We're just one big family
And it's our godforsaken right to be loved loved loved loved loved..."
Obviously the writer meant "god-given right" and presumably didn't realise what "godforsaken" actually meant. But what bothers me is that he didn't bother to find out, thus making a complete nonsense of what he meant to say - unless he really meant that the right to be loved (five times) is one that God would turn his back on. This is all part of what enrages me about the commercial attitude to song lyrics, which seems to be that they are not worth bothering about. The writer reached out for a cliche and found godforsaken and didn't care what it meant.
This is not new. Looking at some hugely successful pop songs we can find examples of very poor writing.
"I have never had such a feeling - such a feeling of complete and utter love..." Did the writer not consider for a moment that the phrase "complete and utter" is a cliche which is invariably followed by a pejorative term - complete and utter nonsense, complete and utter chaos, complete and utter revulsion? The comic effect gained by this is completely the opposite of what (one imagines) Chris de Burgh was striving for.
Or consider this example:
"And it seems to me you lived your life like a candle in the wind,
Never knowing who to cling to when the rain set in."
It's probably unnecessary to point out that this is from a hugely successful song but it is also a very poor piece of writing. Leaving aside the obvious observation that candles don't cling to anything, the point of the song would appear to be that Marilyn lived her life like a candle in the wind - that is the title after all and it's repeated in every chorus. If the image means anything it means that the flame (life) is constantly in danger of being blown out by the wind (misfortune/fame). But the image is never realised - instead he goes on to talk about rain "setting in" and later the candle "burning out" before "the legend ever did". ("Ever", here, adds nothing to the meaning but has been stuck in there to make the words fit the rhythm.)
Later the writer produces a line which is amazingly difficult to sing:
"All the papers had to say
Was that Marilyn was found in the nude."
Try singing this to the tune and you will see what I mean. What is really amazing is that Elton John is so talented that he manages to make a hugely successful pop song out of this drivel!
So why do I care? Why not stop girning about stuff I don't like and leave it for those who enjoy it?
The answer is simple. I love pop music, rock music, country music, blues and most forms of contemporary music. There are examples of great lyric writing in all of these genres. Take a simple - some would say cheesy - pop song like "Hit Me Baby One More Time". It's just teenage angst and lust but there is not a false step anywhere. The register is consistent and the song hits its target perfectly.
"My loneliness is killing me
(And I)
I must confess I still believe
When I'm not with you I lose my mind
Give me a sign
Hit me baby one more time"
Even better, in the same area, is:
Her boyfriend's a dick;
He brings a gun to school
and he'd simply kick
my ass if he knew the truth;
He lives on my block;
and he drives an IROC,
But he doesn't know who I am,
and he doesn't give a damn about me."
He brings a gun to school
and he'd simply kick
my ass if he knew the truth;
He lives on my block;
and he drives an IROC,
But he doesn't know who I am,
and he doesn't give a damn about me."
I have deliberately chosen examples of pop songs that are not in the singer/songwriter area to show how simple and direct writing can work in pop - but don't underestimate this writing. The atmosphere is perfectly evoked, not a word is wasted and the rhymes are quirky but right in tune with the spirit of the song. The writer of "Teenage Dirtbag" should get an award for managing, later in the song, to come up with the line "Man I feel like mould..." and making it work perfectly in the context.
When we go into other areas, the contrast is even more marked. Anything from Joni Mitchell would put the writers of "I'm Yours", "Lady in Red" and "Candle in the Wind" to shame:
"Uranium money
Is booming in the old home town now
It's putting up sleek concrete
Tearing the old landmarks down now
Paving over brave little parks
Ripping off Indian land again
How long how long
Short sighted business men
Ah nothing lasts for long
Nothing lasts for long
Nothing lasts for long"
Is booming in the old home town now
It's putting up sleek concrete
Tearing the old landmarks down now
Paving over brave little parks
Ripping off Indian land again
How long how long
Short sighted business men
Ah nothing lasts for long
Nothing lasts for long
Nothing lasts for long"
And even a modest Snow Patrol song uses imagery to much greater effect and avoids cliche:
"You're cinematic, razor sharp.
A welcome arrow through the heart
Under your skin feels like home,
Electric shocks on aching bones"
Note too that the images link - cinema - sharp - arrow - heart - skin - bones - and say something real about the physical effect of obsessive love.
The difference - the real difference - is not necessarily ability or intelligence. It's caring about the words, their effect, their meaning, their sound, their connotation. The three lyrics I attacked earlier all show the unmistakable signs of someone doing a job, hearing the ring of the cash register and not looking at their work with any artistic rigour.
It's all part of the business. I am reminded of a time when I forced myself to watch one of these modern talent shows on TV. It might have been Pop Idol - it had a panel which included Simon Cowell, Pete Waterman and others. It featured a singer from Glasgow called Darius who made something of a habit of appearing on these shows. Bear in mind that the panel had, as usual, in the course of the programme, been pontificating on everything from Big Band songs to Lennon and McCartney and professing their great love and respect for this, that and the other. Darius had not been doing well in the programme up until then but on this night he appeared with a new image and a different stage presence (basically he had managed to iron out any originality he might have possessed - always a kiss of death on these shows) and the panel all feigned amazement. Pete Waterman commented that Darius had thrown "a Spaniard in the works" much to the amusement of the others who just saw it as a foolish slip of the tongue. Not one of these "experts" including Waterman himself was aware that it was the title of John Lennon's second book. Their expertise - like that of Mraz, Taupin and De Burgh is in commercialism - not creativity.
Friday, 20 April 2012
Education, education...education?
Followers of my blog will have noticed that it has been very quiet since I went back to full time teaching for a couple of months. I must admit that I had forgotten just how tiring teaching in a secondary school is - how full on you have to be all the time. The school I was working in was a great place to work and the staff there were friendly and helpful. So were the kids in my classes for the most part. I am now in a different secondary school working three days a week and, again, the staff are supportive and most pupils are co-operative and pleasant.
If you have children at school in Scotland, you may be aware that the way they are being assessed and, to some extent taught, is changing at the present time. People who work in teaching know that this happens all the time - it feels as if you just get used to one system and one set of jargon and then "they" invent another. Right now, it's Curriculum for Excellence (CfE for short) that is driving the change. Briefly, the theory behind CfE is that the way the curriculum is taught and the structure of the curriculum determine the quality of pupil/student turned out by schools. This initiative is designed to produce pupils/students who possess key attributes called "the four capacities". These are:
Successful Learners
Confident Individuals
Responsible Citizens
Effective Contributors
At this point, like me, you may be forgiven for feeling some incredulity. If you are a secondary teacher you are probably also experiencing a desire to punch the person who thought this lot up. How on earth can anyone can believe that tinkering with the curriculum and how it is delivered (because that is what this is) can possibly effect such dramatic changes. What evidence is there that it will work? No real evidence, I'm afraid. Of course there are thousands of pages of waffle describing and supporting this, written by those who have time and leisure enough to produce spurious apologetics. There are buzzwords and phrases in plenty - "rich tasks" and "crosscutting themes" are two favourites. These pretty much mean the same as Language Across the Curriculum and similar initiatives from the 1970s - that the subjects in Secondary schools are not discrete but connected and overlapping. This earth-shattering discovery is made again and again by people who don't actually have to go into a classroom and work with kids. People who do knew it all along.
The striking thing for me is that I have been away from teaching for two and a half years and in the last two months have met teachers from different schools in different subject areas and discussed this initiative but I have not met one classroom teacher - or indeed anyone who is not in Senior Management - who believes that this is anything more than a waste of time and an expensive one at that. This is unusual. Typically teachers, like most other working people, do not welcome initiatives because they know that they mean more work for them and, when the backfires occur, the teachers will be left with the repair job. But opinions have always been varied in the past and criticisms tempered with an acceptance that things in education are not perfect and sometimes new initiatives do bring about changes for the better. The introduction of Standard Grade in the eighties, for example, took thousands of Scottish children who were previously classed as "non-certificate" and gave them a constructive curriculum with qualifications at the end of it. It was by no means perfect but it was a big improvement and, although we grumbled, most of us accepted that it was worth doing. That spirit is completely absent now. There is no grudging acceptance or cautious optimism. Amongst classroom teachers it is almost universally loathed.
Why does this matter to you? It matters because teachers do a vital job in society whether you are a pupil, a parent, an employer or just a "responsible citizen". But they are not allowed to get on with this important task because they are continually having to implement initiatives which are, to say the least, not properly thought out. Initiatives like CfE have a negative effect on education because they waste time and resources and they cause resentment and division.
In my 36 years of teaching I saw countless initiatives and was forced to adjust what I did in the classroom as a result of various reports - too many to list but here are a few that spring to mind:
The Pack Report
The Munn and Dunning Report
The Bullock Report
TVEI (Training and Vocational Educational Initiatives)
The Houghton Report
The Clegg report
Higher Still
The Howie Report
Assessment is for Learning (AifL)
The 5-14 Initiative (now being superseded by CfE)
The quantity of published material sent in to schools in my time in support of these - mostly to no good purpose - must be responsible for large scale rain forest clearances. Time and money and expertise are constantly squandered and we should all be aware of this and fight it. Teachers often get a bad press but they do one of the most important jobs in society and they should be allowed to do that job without constantly being undermined by those who should be encouraging and supporting them.
If you have children at school in Scotland, you may be aware that the way they are being assessed and, to some extent taught, is changing at the present time. People who work in teaching know that this happens all the time - it feels as if you just get used to one system and one set of jargon and then "they" invent another. Right now, it's Curriculum for Excellence (CfE for short) that is driving the change. Briefly, the theory behind CfE is that the way the curriculum is taught and the structure of the curriculum determine the quality of pupil/student turned out by schools. This initiative is designed to produce pupils/students who possess key attributes called "the four capacities". These are:
Successful Learners
Confident Individuals
Responsible Citizens
Effective Contributors
At this point, like me, you may be forgiven for feeling some incredulity. If you are a secondary teacher you are probably also experiencing a desire to punch the person who thought this lot up. How on earth can anyone can believe that tinkering with the curriculum and how it is delivered (because that is what this is) can possibly effect such dramatic changes. What evidence is there that it will work? No real evidence, I'm afraid. Of course there are thousands of pages of waffle describing and supporting this, written by those who have time and leisure enough to produce spurious apologetics. There are buzzwords and phrases in plenty - "rich tasks" and "crosscutting themes" are two favourites. These pretty much mean the same as Language Across the Curriculum and similar initiatives from the 1970s - that the subjects in Secondary schools are not discrete but connected and overlapping. This earth-shattering discovery is made again and again by people who don't actually have to go into a classroom and work with kids. People who do knew it all along.
The striking thing for me is that I have been away from teaching for two and a half years and in the last two months have met teachers from different schools in different subject areas and discussed this initiative but I have not met one classroom teacher - or indeed anyone who is not in Senior Management - who believes that this is anything more than a waste of time and an expensive one at that. This is unusual. Typically teachers, like most other working people, do not welcome initiatives because they know that they mean more work for them and, when the backfires occur, the teachers will be left with the repair job. But opinions have always been varied in the past and criticisms tempered with an acceptance that things in education are not perfect and sometimes new initiatives do bring about changes for the better. The introduction of Standard Grade in the eighties, for example, took thousands of Scottish children who were previously classed as "non-certificate" and gave them a constructive curriculum with qualifications at the end of it. It was by no means perfect but it was a big improvement and, although we grumbled, most of us accepted that it was worth doing. That spirit is completely absent now. There is no grudging acceptance or cautious optimism. Amongst classroom teachers it is almost universally loathed.
Why does this matter to you? It matters because teachers do a vital job in society whether you are a pupil, a parent, an employer or just a "responsible citizen". But they are not allowed to get on with this important task because they are continually having to implement initiatives which are, to say the least, not properly thought out. Initiatives like CfE have a negative effect on education because they waste time and resources and they cause resentment and division.
In my 36 years of teaching I saw countless initiatives and was forced to adjust what I did in the classroom as a result of various reports - too many to list but here are a few that spring to mind:
The Pack Report
The Munn and Dunning Report
The Bullock Report
TVEI (Training and Vocational Educational Initiatives)
The Houghton Report
The Clegg report
Higher Still
The Howie Report
Assessment is for Learning (AifL)
The 5-14 Initiative (now being superseded by CfE)
The quantity of published material sent in to schools in my time in support of these - mostly to no good purpose - must be responsible for large scale rain forest clearances. Time and money and expertise are constantly squandered and we should all be aware of this and fight it. Teachers often get a bad press but they do one of the most important jobs in society and they should be allowed to do that job without constantly being undermined by those who should be encouraging and supporting them.
Thursday, 9 February 2012
St Monans
A poem for my blog this time - one that I wrote a long time ago.
St Monans
An ancient stone church overlooks the bay
And guards the site of long-deserted graves.
The cold St Monans sea is always grey
And sunlight duns upon indifferent waves.
Plain wooden doors stare coldly as I pass.
The crumbling pavement rasps my tourist feet,
And curtains seem to glare behind the glass
Uncaring windows in the postcard street.
Still I return. The harbour-salted air
And soft wind in the churchyard at the sea
Breathe centuries of death and life and care
To stir a fear of homelessness in me.
I feel the rooted bones of ancient Fife
Expose the vacuum of my modern life.
I still like it after twenty-five years - it's fairly formal but was not hard to write. Like a lot of poems, once it was started, it took on a life of its own. For me it does what I wanted it to do and it still takes me back to a day wandering the streets of St Monans, visiting the old church, looking at the sea and trying to write the trouble out of my head.
St Monans
An ancient stone church overlooks the bay
And guards the site of long-deserted graves.
The cold St Monans sea is always grey
And sunlight duns upon indifferent waves.
Plain wooden doors stare coldly as I pass.
The crumbling pavement rasps my tourist feet,
And curtains seem to glare behind the glass
Uncaring windows in the postcard street.
Still I return. The harbour-salted air
And soft wind in the churchyard at the sea
Breathe centuries of death and life and care
To stir a fear of homelessness in me.
I feel the rooted bones of ancient Fife
Expose the vacuum of my modern life.
I still like it after twenty-five years - it's fairly formal but was not hard to write. Like a lot of poems, once it was started, it took on a life of its own. For me it does what I wanted it to do and it still takes me back to a day wandering the streets of St Monans, visiting the old church, looking at the sea and trying to write the trouble out of my head.
Saturday, 21 January 2012
Zappa - the importance of being Frank.
Those who know me will be surprised that it has taken me so long to get round to writing about Frank Zappa in this blog. I never met him but I did see him playing live and life was never quite the same again. He has been a lifelong inspiration and challenge to me, as I hope will become clear. At present there are five books about Zappa on my bookshelf and that is not counting magazines, articles and a pictorial history. On my computer and in my CD collection I have more music by this man than any other artist. The greatest musical challenges I have faced have been indirectly or directly posed by him. All of which begs the question - why? What is/was the importance of being Frank.
The concert I attended was in Newcastle City Halls in ( I think) 1969. The Mothers of Invention at that time consisted of:
Jimmy Carl Black - drums
Art Tripp - drums, marimba
Don Preston - keyboards
Motorhead Sherwood - baritone sax, percussion, vocals
Ian Underwood - alto sax, piano
Bunk Gardner - tenor sax
Buzz Gardner - trumpet
Roy Estrada - bass, vocals
Frank Zappa - guitar, drums, vocals
I was seventeen years old and had never seen anything quite like these freaky looking Americans and the nonchalant way they played complex musical arrangements and clowned around at the same time. Zappa himself was a brooding, chain-smoking presence who , even then, had that wry, mocking way of talking to his audience. After that concert I was very difficult to impress and, over the years that have elapsed since then, I have been at many memorable concerts but for me forty-three years later, that is still the one.
Back then in the late sixties, Zappa was something of a hero for the "counter-culture". Anti-establishment, long- haired and outspoken, with the freakiest looking band imaginable and a complete disdain for commercialism, he was a natural. But, with Frank, nothing was ever that simple. He quickly managed to fall out with the hippy orthodoxy over a number of issues. At a teach-in in the London School of Economics he managed to alienate his revolutionary audience by asking them difficult, practical questions about what to do after "the revolution" and by declaring that, "Revolution is just this year's flower-power." Even more heretical was his attitude to drugs. When all around people were turning on, tuning in and dropping out, Zappa regarded drugs as a waste of time and a wilful waste of many talented artists' lives. Looking back at the history of the era, it is difficult to contradict him. Asked by Nicky Campbell (yes honestly) in an interview about drug-taking and the pros and cons, he said, "Well, it all depends on what you want to do after you take them..."
And politics...
American politics to me ( like many of my countrymen) is difficult to follow sometimes but when Zappa declared he was a Conservative, it was hard for me to accept. How could he be so against the excesses of modern life, so critical of big business and corruption, so ready to side with the oppressed and yet be a Conservative? Isn't a Conservative always a Conservative? The answer lies in American politics, where I always thought it would. Enshrined in the constitution are various truths - all concerned with equality, freedom and the right to think for yourself. These are extremely inconvenient for politicians on the take, businessmen out to cheat ordinary people and TV evangelists trying to make money - all the people Zappa fought. As a "libertarian Conservative" he sought to fight these people by using the self-evident truths of the constitution against them - in much the same way as he cut his hair and donned a suit and tie to battle with hypocrisy and vested self-interest on American TV.
But, much as I admire the various stands he took socially and politically, the music is why he is important to me. Back in 1969 in Newcastle City Halls, he stood at the mic and said (and I still remember his exact words after all these years), "I hear that Newcastle has a reputation for having difficult audiences. Well, this is the one if you're waiting for a chance. This is a hard one to play..." We were then treated to the Mothers playing a fantastic live version of "Brown Shoes Don't Make It" This would have been not hard but impossible for most bands of the era to play live but not for the Mothers as they were then. I had worn the grooves of "Absolutely Free" album nearly flat listening to that very song and if they had made any mistakes I would have spotted them - this was seriously unusual musicianship for the time. Since those early days Zappa had various different incarnations of the Mothers before he abandoned the name (to my regret) and the sheer volume of music he put out defies description in a short piece but I said at the outset that I would try to explain why he was so important and music is the key. The first serious guitar solo I "learned" - not note-for-note but true to the spirit of the piece was "Son of Mr Green Genes" from the Hot Rats album and my own playing ability and understanding of what I was playing and why was immeasurably increased thereafter. If you haven't checked this track out, it is based on a melody from the Uncle Meat album and, for me, was far ahead of the other guitarists of the era - and this was very much the era of the guitarist.
A much maligned piece of guitar playing by Zappa, "Watermelon in Easter Hay" is another of my favourites. Many intellectual Zappa fans dislike this piece as they regard it as conventional and sentimental but they are wrong. The melodic hook is (for Frank) very accessible and emotional, hence the intellectuals' disdain, but the criticisms of this piece are wrong-headed and elitist and ignore three very important facts:
1. Its place in the narrative structure of Joe's Garage. Joe's last imaginary guitar solo ever - shouldn't really have to explain further...
2. The musical irony (so often lost on "intellectuals" who can only spot verbal irony).
3. The edge that the unusual time signature (taken at a slow tempo) gives the soloing. It's the perfect remedy for slipping into cliche - not that Zappa did much of that.
I could write about Frank Zappa and what he means to me for the next year and not be finished. However, I will mention that, as a composer, he has had the admiration and affection of those who were lucky enough to work with him, including, Pierre Boulez, Nicolas Slominsky, Kent Nagano, The Ensemble Moderne (probably the best classical orchestra in the world) and a whole host of rock giants like Terry Bozzio, Scot Thunes, Steve Vai and so on to infinity...
Finally, as I said at the beginning, I never met the man but I do so admire the dignity with which he died and the tenacity and creativity of his life. Whatever his faults - and we all have them - he was honest and true to himself, creative, talented, original - and sadly missed today.
PS - here is a link to my own version of Watermelon in Easter Hay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4gzNbJN7zE
The concert I attended was in Newcastle City Halls in ( I think) 1969. The Mothers of Invention at that time consisted of:
Jimmy Carl Black - drums
Art Tripp - drums, marimba
Don Preston - keyboards
Motorhead Sherwood - baritone sax, percussion, vocals
Ian Underwood - alto sax, piano
Bunk Gardner - tenor sax
Buzz Gardner - trumpet
Roy Estrada - bass, vocals
Frank Zappa - guitar, drums, vocals
I was seventeen years old and had never seen anything quite like these freaky looking Americans and the nonchalant way they played complex musical arrangements and clowned around at the same time. Zappa himself was a brooding, chain-smoking presence who , even then, had that wry, mocking way of talking to his audience. After that concert I was very difficult to impress and, over the years that have elapsed since then, I have been at many memorable concerts but for me forty-three years later, that is still the one.
Back then in the late sixties, Zappa was something of a hero for the "counter-culture". Anti-establishment, long- haired and outspoken, with the freakiest looking band imaginable and a complete disdain for commercialism, he was a natural. But, with Frank, nothing was ever that simple. He quickly managed to fall out with the hippy orthodoxy over a number of issues. At a teach-in in the London School of Economics he managed to alienate his revolutionary audience by asking them difficult, practical questions about what to do after "the revolution" and by declaring that, "Revolution is just this year's flower-power." Even more heretical was his attitude to drugs. When all around people were turning on, tuning in and dropping out, Zappa regarded drugs as a waste of time and a wilful waste of many talented artists' lives. Looking back at the history of the era, it is difficult to contradict him. Asked by Nicky Campbell (yes honestly) in an interview about drug-taking and the pros and cons, he said, "Well, it all depends on what you want to do after you take them..."
And politics...
American politics to me ( like many of my countrymen) is difficult to follow sometimes but when Zappa declared he was a Conservative, it was hard for me to accept. How could he be so against the excesses of modern life, so critical of big business and corruption, so ready to side with the oppressed and yet be a Conservative? Isn't a Conservative always a Conservative? The answer lies in American politics, where I always thought it would. Enshrined in the constitution are various truths - all concerned with equality, freedom and the right to think for yourself. These are extremely inconvenient for politicians on the take, businessmen out to cheat ordinary people and TV evangelists trying to make money - all the people Zappa fought. As a "libertarian Conservative" he sought to fight these people by using the self-evident truths of the constitution against them - in much the same way as he cut his hair and donned a suit and tie to battle with hypocrisy and vested self-interest on American TV.
But, much as I admire the various stands he took socially and politically, the music is why he is important to me. Back in 1969 in Newcastle City Halls, he stood at the mic and said (and I still remember his exact words after all these years), "I hear that Newcastle has a reputation for having difficult audiences. Well, this is the one if you're waiting for a chance. This is a hard one to play..." We were then treated to the Mothers playing a fantastic live version of "Brown Shoes Don't Make It" This would have been not hard but impossible for most bands of the era to play live but not for the Mothers as they were then. I had worn the grooves of "Absolutely Free" album nearly flat listening to that very song and if they had made any mistakes I would have spotted them - this was seriously unusual musicianship for the time. Since those early days Zappa had various different incarnations of the Mothers before he abandoned the name (to my regret) and the sheer volume of music he put out defies description in a short piece but I said at the outset that I would try to explain why he was so important and music is the key. The first serious guitar solo I "learned" - not note-for-note but true to the spirit of the piece was "Son of Mr Green Genes" from the Hot Rats album and my own playing ability and understanding of what I was playing and why was immeasurably increased thereafter. If you haven't checked this track out, it is based on a melody from the Uncle Meat album and, for me, was far ahead of the other guitarists of the era - and this was very much the era of the guitarist.
A much maligned piece of guitar playing by Zappa, "Watermelon in Easter Hay" is another of my favourites. Many intellectual Zappa fans dislike this piece as they regard it as conventional and sentimental but they are wrong. The melodic hook is (for Frank) very accessible and emotional, hence the intellectuals' disdain, but the criticisms of this piece are wrong-headed and elitist and ignore three very important facts:
1. Its place in the narrative structure of Joe's Garage. Joe's last imaginary guitar solo ever - shouldn't really have to explain further...
2. The musical irony (so often lost on "intellectuals" who can only spot verbal irony).
3. The edge that the unusual time signature (taken at a slow tempo) gives the soloing. It's the perfect remedy for slipping into cliche - not that Zappa did much of that.
I could write about Frank Zappa and what he means to me for the next year and not be finished. However, I will mention that, as a composer, he has had the admiration and affection of those who were lucky enough to work with him, including, Pierre Boulez, Nicolas Slominsky, Kent Nagano, The Ensemble Moderne (probably the best classical orchestra in the world) and a whole host of rock giants like Terry Bozzio, Scot Thunes, Steve Vai and so on to infinity...
Finally, as I said at the beginning, I never met the man but I do so admire the dignity with which he died and the tenacity and creativity of his life. Whatever his faults - and we all have them - he was honest and true to himself, creative, talented, original - and sadly missed today.
PS - here is a link to my own version of Watermelon in Easter Hay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4gzNbJN7zE
Monday, 16 January 2012
Cities - a poem
This is an unusual poem for me in that it is very firmly fixed in time by events in Iraq in 2003. It's also a longer poem than I usually write. A good friend and poet told me he thought it was too personal but I have always had faith in it as a poem - not always the case with me and my work. Every time I read it it takes me back to that time, those places and the huge change that was happening in my life.
Cities
The endless crowd teems in Glasgow
As I walk - half-run - down the wrong streets,
Scan the infinity of faces passing,
Looking for you hopelessly among thousands.
In memory I zoom out from my searching figure.
I vanish as the crowds become streams,
The streets rivers, that day in Glasgow a memory.
Across the world, British troops in Basra - US in Baghdad,
Unconfirmed reports of the death of Chemical Ali,
Rubble in the streets, frightened children, looters,
All the while the hawks circling above
And the eternal sound of bombs, near and far,
A constant reminder.
Paris in cold spring sunshine, Montparnasse,
Un cafe at Le Select as the peace marchers pass.
"George Bush! Assassin!
Retrait les troops US!"
I knew you could not be there
But searched for your face nonetheless,
Knew your heart was there, against the bombs,
On the side of the children and the angels.
Back in Kinning Park underground,
Knowing it was hopeless, I found my cheeks wet with tears
That had crept out and caught me unawares,
Betrayed my position to the enemy.
"Haw look! That man's greetin'..."
"Tony Blair! Terroriste!
George Bush! Assassin!
Retrait! Retrait! Retrait les troops US!"
Still I carry out security checks on the faces as they pass,
My vantage position on Montparnasse,
Knowing you will escape undetected.
The last throes of Baghdad,
Power struggle aftermath,
Looters arrested, shot,
Saddam fled, right-hand man surrenders,
Gory scenes in hospitals an afterthought in the World News.
Night in Glasgow, Buchanan Street empty
Save for a doorway sleeper and a drunk straggler.
I know you cannot be there but still I search.
Midnight in Pere Lachaise.
The dead of wars and Nazi camps,
Broken hearts and broken promises,
Are still in the quiet dark.
Monuments and sculptures stare coldly at eternity.
Overhead in Baghdad the planes circle
For eternity it seems,
And the chanting crowds are ghosts
Receding as they pass my shade
There at my post waiting for you to pass
My phantom checkpoint in in Montparnasse.
I wrote this (or rather finished it) in April 2003 but it still resonates with me each time I read it. Maybe it is too personal, as my friend said, but I don't think it is difficult or obscure. Then again, I wouldn't, would I?
Cities
The endless crowd teems in Glasgow
As I walk - half-run - down the wrong streets,
Scan the infinity of faces passing,
Looking for you hopelessly among thousands.
In memory I zoom out from my searching figure.
I vanish as the crowds become streams,
The streets rivers, that day in Glasgow a memory.
Across the world, British troops in Basra - US in Baghdad,
Unconfirmed reports of the death of Chemical Ali,
Rubble in the streets, frightened children, looters,
All the while the hawks circling above
And the eternal sound of bombs, near and far,
A constant reminder.
Paris in cold spring sunshine, Montparnasse,
Un cafe at Le Select as the peace marchers pass.
"George Bush! Assassin!
Retrait les troops US!"
I knew you could not be there
But searched for your face nonetheless,
Knew your heart was there, against the bombs,
On the side of the children and the angels.
Back in Kinning Park underground,
Knowing it was hopeless, I found my cheeks wet with tears
That had crept out and caught me unawares,
Betrayed my position to the enemy.
"Haw look! That man's greetin'..."
"Tony Blair! Terroriste!
George Bush! Assassin!
Retrait! Retrait! Retrait les troops US!"
Still I carry out security checks on the faces as they pass,
My vantage position on Montparnasse,
Knowing you will escape undetected.
The last throes of Baghdad,
Power struggle aftermath,
Looters arrested, shot,
Saddam fled, right-hand man surrenders,
Gory scenes in hospitals an afterthought in the World News.
Night in Glasgow, Buchanan Street empty
Save for a doorway sleeper and a drunk straggler.
I know you cannot be there but still I search.
Midnight in Pere Lachaise.
The dead of wars and Nazi camps,
Broken hearts and broken promises,
Are still in the quiet dark.
Monuments and sculptures stare coldly at eternity.
Overhead in Baghdad the planes circle
For eternity it seems,
And the chanting crowds are ghosts
Receding as they pass my shade
There at my post waiting for you to pass
My phantom checkpoint in in Montparnasse.
I wrote this (or rather finished it) in April 2003 but it still resonates with me each time I read it. Maybe it is too personal, as my friend said, but I don't think it is difficult or obscure. Then again, I wouldn't, would I?
Sunday, 8 January 2012
Beatles - in my life...
So much has been said and written about The Beatles that I will probably be unwittingly echoing someone's opinions(s) here but so be it. My teenage years were the sixties so my whole experience of popular music has been shaped by the group, their records and their personalities. The first record I bought was their Twist and Shout EP, so cool because, unlike a single, it had a cover with a picture of them on it. Why I and millions of others idolised them so much has been debated many times but never successfully resolved mainly because, I think, there is no one reason. Partly by coincidence and partly by design many things came together (no pun intended) to ensure that The Beatles as a phenomenon of popular music would never be equalled. Given the immense amount of documentation on this subject mentioned above, I am not going to attempt a comprehensive account of the reasons for their success. I just want to explore the main factors that made them so special for me and, I suggest, many others.
Guitars have always been special for me. I was really entranced by the echo-laden twangy sounds of the Shadows and loved the rhythmic chord work in The Everly Brothers' songs before I ever heard the Beatles. But for me the guitar parts in some Beatles songs are the key to their sonic magnetism. I had never heard anything like the quirky riff that plays behind, "Won't you please, please help me..." in Help. In fact I still haven't. The first time I heard the fade-in volume control trick, now a commonplace technique among guitarists, was on Yes It Is recorded in 1965. The opening guitar riffs in Please Please Me, I Feel Fine, Ticket to Ride and so many others are, for me at any rate, the main hooks, before even considering the songs themselves.
Then there's harmony. I mentioned The Everly Brothers in connection with guitars but that ringing sound of two (or more) voices in harmony which characterises their music is present in most Beatles songs. In many Beatles hits, the harmony involves three main voices, Lennon, McCartney and Harrison. Listening to songs like I Feel Fine and Yes It Is and the assured and masterful use of harmonies, it is astonishing that such recordings were made in relatively short times with (by modern standards) primitive recording equipment. Why harmony is so aurally attractive can no doubt be scientifically explained but it's not just a matter of the note choice and pitch: the individual attributes of the singers voices go together in a way that defies explanation. The three main voices have something which can't be reproduced artificially and the resonance of those three voices together was immensely attractive
And of course, Yin and Yang, light and dark, Lennon and McCartney... Any attempt in a short piece to fully explore this is doomed to failure but it is at the heart of the Beatles identity and greatness. When listening to She's Leaving Home, for example, McCartney's plaintive narrative, smoothly delivered, needs the sardonic counterpoint of Lennon's interjections "We never thought for ourselves, never a thought for ourselves..." as he knowingly intones the cliches that ordinary people fall into when life slaps them in the face. Emotionally it is a huge song but only because it is delivered in these two ways. It's no accident that Beatles fans tend to be McCartney or Lennon partisans. They brought such different attitudes and skills to the songs. What I value in McCartney's work is his vocal range and his ability to bring words and music to life. In Lennon's case I love the emotional tension that he brings to the songs and his use of simple melodies (sometimes one-note melodic phrases) over more complex chord changes. But the more I try to pin either of them down, the more confounded I become by contradictions, exceptions and complications. Perhaps truly wonderful things won't be pinned down.
That might have been the place to stop but you can't write about the Beatles without mentioning two others.
Ringo didn't make a substantial contribution to the songwriting or singing but he was more than a safe pair of hands behind the kit. He had great technique, the modesty to do his job without trying to grandstand and instinctive good taste that told him when not to play - a rarer gift than non-musicians might imagine. I still get a huge buzz from his fill in Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds - all two beats of it. So simple but so right.
George Martin, often referred to as "the fifth Beatle", is immensely important. Again it's tempting to oversimplify - to say he was the technician who facilitated their creativity. Of course he was. But he was so much more. The string arrangements in songs like She's Leaving Home and Eleanor Rigby are obvious examples of musical and creative input. Sergeant Pepper, arguably the most important album of the sixties, couldn't have happened without him - but I think his influence went beyond that. I think the fact that he came from a classical background and was not influenced by the fads and fashions of the time helped to ground them and focus them on music. And judging from the many documentaries about them, they did need a bit of that from time to time.
In the end, after the inevitable split and the bickering that ensued, that is what matters. The screaming girls, the jelly babies, the cuban-heeled boots and "Beatle Suits" are just fluff. The well-publicised tax wrangles and personal differences of opinion are interesting to some, but what they put on vinyl in those few years in the nineteen sixties changed the world of music and we are, to this day, indebted to them for that.
Guitars have always been special for me. I was really entranced by the echo-laden twangy sounds of the Shadows and loved the rhythmic chord work in The Everly Brothers' songs before I ever heard the Beatles. But for me the guitar parts in some Beatles songs are the key to their sonic magnetism. I had never heard anything like the quirky riff that plays behind, "Won't you please, please help me..." in Help. In fact I still haven't. The first time I heard the fade-in volume control trick, now a commonplace technique among guitarists, was on Yes It Is recorded in 1965. The opening guitar riffs in Please Please Me, I Feel Fine, Ticket to Ride and so many others are, for me at any rate, the main hooks, before even considering the songs themselves.
Then there's harmony. I mentioned The Everly Brothers in connection with guitars but that ringing sound of two (or more) voices in harmony which characterises their music is present in most Beatles songs. In many Beatles hits, the harmony involves three main voices, Lennon, McCartney and Harrison. Listening to songs like I Feel Fine and Yes It Is and the assured and masterful use of harmonies, it is astonishing that such recordings were made in relatively short times with (by modern standards) primitive recording equipment. Why harmony is so aurally attractive can no doubt be scientifically explained but it's not just a matter of the note choice and pitch: the individual attributes of the singers voices go together in a way that defies explanation. The three main voices have something which can't be reproduced artificially and the resonance of those three voices together was immensely attractive
And of course, Yin and Yang, light and dark, Lennon and McCartney... Any attempt in a short piece to fully explore this is doomed to failure but it is at the heart of the Beatles identity and greatness. When listening to She's Leaving Home, for example, McCartney's plaintive narrative, smoothly delivered, needs the sardonic counterpoint of Lennon's interjections "We never thought for ourselves, never a thought for ourselves..." as he knowingly intones the cliches that ordinary people fall into when life slaps them in the face. Emotionally it is a huge song but only because it is delivered in these two ways. It's no accident that Beatles fans tend to be McCartney or Lennon partisans. They brought such different attitudes and skills to the songs. What I value in McCartney's work is his vocal range and his ability to bring words and music to life. In Lennon's case I love the emotional tension that he brings to the songs and his use of simple melodies (sometimes one-note melodic phrases) over more complex chord changes. But the more I try to pin either of them down, the more confounded I become by contradictions, exceptions and complications. Perhaps truly wonderful things won't be pinned down.
That might have been the place to stop but you can't write about the Beatles without mentioning two others.
Ringo didn't make a substantial contribution to the songwriting or singing but he was more than a safe pair of hands behind the kit. He had great technique, the modesty to do his job without trying to grandstand and instinctive good taste that told him when not to play - a rarer gift than non-musicians might imagine. I still get a huge buzz from his fill in Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds - all two beats of it. So simple but so right.
George Martin, often referred to as "the fifth Beatle", is immensely important. Again it's tempting to oversimplify - to say he was the technician who facilitated their creativity. Of course he was. But he was so much more. The string arrangements in songs like She's Leaving Home and Eleanor Rigby are obvious examples of musical and creative input. Sergeant Pepper, arguably the most important album of the sixties, couldn't have happened without him - but I think his influence went beyond that. I think the fact that he came from a classical background and was not influenced by the fads and fashions of the time helped to ground them and focus them on music. And judging from the many documentaries about them, they did need a bit of that from time to time.
In the end, after the inevitable split and the bickering that ensued, that is what matters. The screaming girls, the jelly babies, the cuban-heeled boots and "Beatle Suits" are just fluff. The well-publicised tax wrangles and personal differences of opinion are interesting to some, but what they put on vinyl in those few years in the nineteen sixties changed the world of music and we are, to this day, indebted to them for that.
Thursday, 5 January 2012
Sopranos, Alabama 3 and wonderful Radio Bland
This year I started watching a TV series called The Sopranos. Most of you are probably way ahead of me as I have come to it very late. In fact the Guardian Guide recently referred to some elements of the last episode in one of their articles, so I am behind the times and just catching up with the earlier series on DVD. For anyone who hasn't seen it, it deals with an American-Italian organised crime boss called Tony Soprano and his associates and family. He is based in New Jersey and the legitimate front for his business is waste-management. It has impressed me so much because it is intelligent, scarily realistic and deals with character, motivation and human frailty at a much deeper level than any other series I have seen on television. The first time I watched it, though, what really struck me was the fantastic theme music over the opening credits.
"Woke up this morning, got yourself a gun..." - superb vocals with fantastic wailing harmonica and instrumentation that blurs the lines between country, blues and acid house. I thought of it as exciting and different, but quintessentially American - a new (to me) and original kind of music from the US. I found out that the band responsible was Alabama 3 and their CD, Hits and Exit Wounds is now one of my all-time favourites.
The big surprise came when I discovered that this "quintessentially American" band hail from Peckham! This has only served to increase my admiration for them as has the discovery that they have achieved great success without courting the vampires of the British Music Industry. As much as any band ever did, they invented themselves and managed to make it on talent, originality and integrity. The songs are often narratives based around the alter-egos of the band members who are, according to the latest information on Wikipedia:
"Woke up this morning, got yourself a gun..." - superb vocals with fantastic wailing harmonica and instrumentation that blurs the lines between country, blues and acid house. I thought of it as exciting and different, but quintessentially American - a new (to me) and original kind of music from the US. I found out that the band responsible was Alabama 3 and their CD, Hits and Exit Wounds is now one of my all-time favourites.
The big surprise came when I discovered that this "quintessentially American" band hail from Peckham! This has only served to increase my admiration for them as has the discovery that they have achieved great success without courting the vampires of the British Music Industry. As much as any band ever did, they invented themselves and managed to make it on talent, originality and integrity. The songs are often narratives based around the alter-egos of the band members who are, according to the latest information on Wikipedia:
- Rob Spragg AKA Larry Love: vocals
- Jake Black AKA The Very Reverend Dr. D. Wayne Love: vocals
- Simon (The Dude) Edwards AKA Sir Eddie Real: percussion, vocals
- Orlando Harrison AKA The Spirit: keyboards, keyboard bass, vocals
- Mark Sams AKA Rock Freebase: guitar, bass guitar
- Aurora Dawn: vocals
- Piers Marsh AKA Mountain of Love: programming, keyboards, harmonica
- Jonny Delafons AKA L. B. Dope: drums, percussion
- Steve Finnerty AKA LOVEPIPE: production, guitar and vocals
- Nick Reynolds AKA Harpo Strangelove: harmonica, percussion, vocals
To give you a flavour of the originality of the songs here are a couple of my favourites:
"Hello...I'm Johnny Cash" is about a man who sweeps up in a factory but in his inner life is Johnny Cash - the man in black. It's country music with a twist, irresistibly sad and funny at the same time.
"U Don't Dance to Tekno Any More" again tragedy and humour blended and some very tight playing in this story of a retreat into the world of narcotics and loneliness.
"Sad Eyed Lady of The Low Life" a great piano track and a dark and catchy chorus:
"sad eyed lady of the lowlife
come on burn a while with me
put the high life on the bonfire
let's go steal some gasoline"
Here is a band with originality, talent, humour, versatility and fantastic danceability. I listen to radio in the car - a lot. I can't listen to BBC Radio 6 Music, though, as I don't have a digital radio in my car. But I listen to Radio 1, Radio 2 and Radio 4 and various local radio stations as I buzz up and down the motorways to the South Coast from Scotland. I have never heard Alabama 3 even once on mainstream radio.
Thank God for the CD player.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)