Beth’s Music Moment: The Glimmer Twins and the Rise of Rock and Roll

In my previous entry, I mentioned that I was reading Keith Richards’ autobiography, Life. I am still enjoying it immensely (thanks, Darren!), and I’m on the part where The Rolling Stones have just formed, and are starting to get some local gigs.

Keith writes about running into Mick Jagger (who he knew as a schoolkid) at a train station and finding out that Mick was heavily into the kind of music that Keith liked, the blues. Keith said that whoever had the records was the one you wanted to hang out with, and Mick had ‘em. He had sources in Chicago where he was able to get records that no one else in the area could get, and the two of them spent endless hours playing the records, over and over and over, as they tried to get the sound, tried to figure out the chord changes, tried to learn the lyrics. It’s fascinating.

What struck me about much of this was Keith’s reverence for the blues and the musicians who play them. He mentions Chicago often, showing how much influence Chicago blues had on rock and roll. Keith, one of the biggest rock stars in the world, writes of these artists with the air of an awestruck teenager. (Which I find charming, and it reminds me of the time Cousin Shane and I got to see the Stones on the Steel Wheels tour. It is the one and only concert I’ve been to where I screamed like a teenager when the band took the stage. True story. I thought I was cooler than that, but I was moved.) I find it incredibly cool to read of what was essentially the birth of rock and roll, at least as we know it today. I’m not saying that the Stones invented rock and roll, not at all. It was a nascent movement at that time, and many musicians were trying to figure out their own sound. Keith writes of blues purists who felt that anything other than a black man playing an acoustic guitar with no accompaniment was most definitely NOT the blues. Even Chicago blues artists were booed when some dared to break out an electric guitar!

Perhaps there are some who find solace or superiority in being such purists, but they’re kind of missing the point. The Stones and others of the time were emulating the artists they loved and admired. The key thing in the context of which I am writing is that they built on that sound and formed their own. They weren’t ripping off the artists by stealing their music and releasing their versions of it, although they did release a few older songs as singles. (People do remakes all the time, and some are good and some are not.) They loved the roots of the songs, learned the rhythms and the key changes, and then got creative and wrote their own. Are their subsequent songs simply rehashing the old songs, stealing the sounds for their own? Yes and no. Their songs contain elements of those blues roots, include many of the same key changes, but there is no denying that they made their own sound and made their own songs. (For those of you that don’t know, the Glimmer Twins are Mick and Keith’s nickname as a songwriting pair, and also the name of their production company. Check out that link to see the list of incredible songs that they’ve written together. Blows my mind.)

Every music genre builds upon those that have come before it. After all, there are only a certain number of notes. But how do people put their own spin on it (so to speak)? How do they place their personal fingerprint on the music? What do they create on their own, after being influenced by these talented and amazing musicians? How are they inspired?

In the case of the Stones, they were motivated and inspired to create some of the most amazing rock and roll we’ve ever heard. Some will argue that the Stones are no longer making great music or relevant to the current music scene. I say, “So what?” I still love listening to stuff they released over four decades ago. Just as they loved listening to stuff that these blues musicians had released years before, and listening to those who were still making similar music. Just because something is old doesn’t make it irrelevant. The Stones are true geezers now, but they still rock like mofos.

An interesting point there, too. We’ve seen the popularity of rock and roll rise in our lifetimes. This is a fairly new phenomenon in the scheme of things. Bluesmen and other musicians make music into their ‘80s and beyond. When was the decision made that rock musicians have to quit at a certain age? The antics and the stage shows might take on a different, calmer tone (haha), but that doesn’t mean they aren’t still great musicians playing some great music. The guitar riff in "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" was recently listed as the best/most memorable riff in rock and roll. That's not too shabby, even if it was written some forty years ago.

All I know is that if I put on the Stones, there are still songs that make me dance, make me move, make me feel all rebellious and junk. Isn’t that what rock and roll is all about?

Bibliotalk

I have a couple of books to write about. I’ll write about Keith after the first one, but I wanted to have that picture lead off this entry!

One of my Christmas gifts was The Passage by Justin Cronin. Events begin in the not-too-distant future. A scientific expedition is in the jungles of South America searching for a virus that will have an almost-inconceivable impact on the human race and on aging. As so often happens with these scientific expeditions, things go horribly awry. In a government research facility in the Colorado mountains, the virus is studied, experiments are conducted, and...you guessed it...things go horribly awry there, too.

Fast forward about a hundred years, and we find a very different America. Of course, I won’t go into any details, because I have some family and friends that are currently reading this, or planning to soon. But suffice it to say that this post-apocalyptic world is very bleak indeed. There is a pretty interesting cast of characters here, and they generated quite a bit of sympathy in me. Even the bad guys had a certain “I guess you can’t really blame them” factor, because it’s hard to judge someone in such an extreme situation.

The action sequences were taut and descriptive; the suspense generated was nail-biting. The straight-up narrative is interspersed with an occasional diary entry, a technique that I always enjoy. A few nights ago, I reached that “tipping point” in a book, when you want to read non-stop so you can find out how it ends. I stayed up until 5:30 one morning reading it and finally had to stop because I was getting a little insane in the membrane. Even then, I was so fascinated by this book that I had a hard time going to sleep! I finished it the other night, and it was one of those where you say, “Awww, man!” (I won’t tell you why!) Highly recommended!

Now to Keith Richards’ autobiography, Life. After the intensity of the previous book, I needed something fun and thought I’d start this one. I’m glad I did! I’m only a couple of chapters into it, but I am charmed, charmed I tell you! First of all, he’s hilarious. His description of getting stopped in Arkansas in the early ‘70s is a riot. He writes of his family life—you can tell that he has great affection for his family—and says this about being an only child:

…you’re basically exposed to the adult world unless you create your own. The imagination comes into play then, and also things to do by yourself. Like wanking.

HA! Keith! He’s developing a love for music at a young age, and writes about his grandfather’s acoustic guitar:

Even now, to open a guitar case, when it’s an old wooden guitar, I could crawl in and close the lid.

I can already tell that I’m going to enjoy this one a lot. He writes matter-of-factly and with great humor. This guy is just...well, he’s just the incarnation of rock and roll. He seems kind of sweet, but he’s so badass, too. It reminded me of this video. I believe it’s the very first video I ever posted on my blog, and it still delights me.

Yahtzee!

Well, it didn't take long for my theory to be proven...that the mentally weak and easily manipulated will often result to childish insults and name-calling.

What's next? I'm waiting for something viciously biting and devastatingly crushing like "Nanny Nanny Poo Poo Head." Cousin Shane and I were laughing about it, and he said that when he heard about it, he thought, “Grow the fuck up!” Seriously.

[putting on my amateur psychologist hat...it's a beret, if that helps you imagine it] I believe this is called "infantilism." [exaggerated finger quotes] Such juvenile behavior is the last resort of those who don't have enough substance or enough wits about them to mount any sort of legitimate case (especially in a court of law) or actual argument.

I believe it's also what is called "projection." [more exaggerated finger quotes] One's own inadequacies and short-comings (and I DO mean short!) are projected onto the object of hate or disdain. A person feels that they are woefully inadequate and they lash out at others instead of recognizing their own weaknesses. A perfect recent example: Sarah Palin releases a video on the day of President Obama's speech about the tragedy in Tucson, and instead of talking about the victims and the tragedy of their loss and injuries, she makes it a diatribe about how SHE is the victim of media attacks, and wonders, in the words of Charlie Brown, "Why's everybody always pickin' on me?"

One more turn on the psychology carousel...I think that would be considered narcissism. [absence of exaggerated finger quotes] True narcissism, the kind that is devastating to most if not all personal relationships, the kind that can only find succor with someone who is willingly and easily manipulated.

It didn't play well in Palin's case, and it doesn't play well in real life. Rather than admitting their own culpability in the matter, it's always everyone else's fault. In Palin's case, don't blame everyone else because you have such a tin ear that you don't comprehend the mood in the country, you're such an idiot that you don't bother to research the speech that your handlers write for you, and you're so unconcerned about gunshot victims that you focus on yourself rather than them.

In real life, don't blame me for your inability to handle things in a reasonable manner, and don't blame me for the fact that you backed yourself into a corner, leaving yourself no room for negotiation. Don't blame me because you suck at money management and have squandered thousands on your hobby of the month or whatever struck your fancy at the time, rather than socking it away for what it was truly supposed to be for. Don't lash out at me because you let time slip away from you and were so desperate that you took whatever deal immediately came your way. Don't get pissed because you handled the whole thing stupidly, badly, and blinded by anger. Don't blame me for the anger of those around you; YOU are the one who fostered that anger, YOU are the one who contributed to that atmosphere of discord and hate, and YOU are the one who had the most influence and ability to change its direction. It's not my problem that people didn't want to be friends with you because of your past behavior, and it's not my problem that you have a hard time holding a job because of your current behavior. I have nothing to do with that. That would be you…all YOU.

I know this doesn't make much sense to most of you, but bear with me, and I'll get back to the usual soon. I've found that certain things I'm seeing on the national stage are mirrored in certain things I'm seeing on the personal stage, and I find both ridiculous. I said the other day that they were also boring...probably a bad choice of words. It's hard to get bored when you're called names and blamed for things over which you had no control. I guess 'tiresome' would be a better word, or as my friend Stan put it in a comment, 'predictable.' It really is utterly and completely predictable.

One final note to the name-caller. Does your wife know that you're calling me a spinner? Considering the circumstances, I really think that's highly inappropriate. And really...crackuh, please. Not only would you be way out of your league, I prefer my necks to be decidedly of the non-red variety!

A thousand words

Deception Perception

I find it interesting to see the different interpretations of various events.

Whether it's the shooting in Tucson, which political party truly cares about the country, whether or not the health care law will help or harm our country, eyewitness accounts of crimes and criminals, or just personal issues, we all have an opinion, and we all have a perception that is influenced by our own biases and prejudices, as well as those of who surround us.

I suppose it's all a fascinating psychological study for anyone who wants to explore it, but that's not my field. I enjoy reading articles about cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and downright delusion, but I'm not qualified to give an authoritative take on it. Just my opinion.

I'm always willing to cut certain people some slack. I know that much depends upon the atmosphere in which you were raised, and I know that parents can be an affirmative or a destructive influence on their kids. I know that it's hard to break away from seeing things a certain way and to question belief systems that are deep and pervasive. I know that kids can be easily manipulated, especially when in an atmosphere of emotional turmoil and blackmail. I also know that as we get older, it's harder to question authority and to question truths that we have been conditioned to believe.

It's much harder for me to forgive young adults or middle-aged people who still have the ability to question and question HARD. Those who shouldn't be so set in their ways that they have become incapable of seeing other points of view, or having any sort of reasonable discussion about issues. Those who are either so blinded by their own hatred or so mentally weak and malleable that they can be easily manipulated by others. It's not unusual to see these types resort to puerile insults and name-calling.

No matter that events are twisted to justify their own misconceptions; no matter that their own actions are ignored or minimized; no matter that despite years of insults and anger, others are still expected to not only jump when demanded to, they are expected to ask, "How high? How much?"

Welcome to Reality™. Words and behaviors have consequences, and treating people badly, with rancor and disdain, will not make them do what you want them to do. Spin it whichever way you want, but such behavior will come back to bite you. You'd think some people would have figured that out by now. Apparently not. Don't come crying to me because you screw yourself over time after time, don't give me a sob story about how everyone hates you and everyone else is horrible, and quit bitching because you backed yourself into a corner that you can't get out of. Your bad behavior and ongoing bitterness are your own problems. Your poor negotiation skills are the result of years of misdirection and mistreatment, and an inability to let go of a grudge.

It's fascinating from a psychological viewpoint. But it's also kind of pathetic. And frankly, quite boring.

Shot to the heart and you’re to blame

It's no surprise that the recent shooting in Tucson resulted in another discussion about guns and their prevalence in this country. I think this is a necessary discussion.

I've been thinking about this entry for a few days, and I've been thinking about the issue for some time now.

A little background. My Dad was a gun collector. He had a bunch of them. I mean...A LOT. I am grateful for this. He taught me how to shoot when I was in junior high school. But it wasn't just handing me a gun and telling me to point it and shoot; he taught me about gun safety, and he taught me a healthy respect for guns and for what they can do.

First and foremost? You never, ever point a gun at a person or at anything unless you intend to shoot it.

If picking up a gun to clean it or examine it, you first check to see if it's loaded. No exceptions.

If you want to keep a gun for personal protection, you'd better make damn sure that you are prepared to use it. If someone is harming you, or shows intent to harm you, it's not enough to point the gun at them and say in a trembling voice, "I have a gun." If you have that gun and you pull it on them, see the first point. Be prepared to shoot them. Know how to use the gun, know what it takes to pull the trigger, know how much it kicks, and know that if you shoot that person, you are going to be subjected to a mess on your wall and carpet that Spic 'n Span and Resolve isn't going to get out.

Does that sound harsh? It should. Guns are serious business, and they are not to be taken lightly.

I remember a few years ago, my Dad showed a young person in my family some of his guns. This young person's guardian was quite upset by this, said that she didn't want that to happen again. My Dad was doing what he did with me...teaching gun safety, teaching respect for guns. He showed this young person the type of rifle that he and his fellow soldiers carried in WWII, but the fact that this young person actually held a gun was somehow a horrible thing. I was amused when this guardian hooked up with someone who was also a gun owner. Suddenly everyone was pro-gun, pro-NRA, BANG BANG BANG! Heh heh. I guess circumstances change when you hook up! Fucking hypocrite. But I digress.

I know about guns. I know how to use them, and I know that I hope I never have to use one to harm another creature. (This is not a diatribe against hunters. There is no hunting at Nutwood, but I know that hunting keeps the deer population down, and serves as an important control in so many ecosystems that no longer have natural predators. I don't understand it, I don't participate, but I'm okay with responsible hunters. Just don't do it from a helicopter or in one of those bogus fenced-in compounds, okay? If you do that...fuck you.)

I appreciated my Dad teaching me how to use a gun and how to respect them. But I have grown increasingly disturbed by the "gun culture" in my country, in which assault rifles and extended clips are sold on a daily basis, hollow-point, armor-piercing ammunition is available, and guns can be bought at garage sales without any sort of background check whatsoever.

This is unacceptable to me. There is no reason for anyone to own an assault rifle or an extended clip unless they plan on killing a whole bunch of people in a really bloody, gory way. The images of people carrying such weapons to political rallies is chilling to me. This serves no purpose other than intimidation. I am also leery about obtaining a carry permit. In all my years of gun ownership, I never applied for a carry permit.

After Dad died, my sisters inherited some guns, and went to the shooting range. They invited me along, but I declined. I know how to use mine and don't really need to fire it. When one of my sisters told me that she was thinking about applying for a carry permit, I had some words of caution for her. I said, "If you carry it in your purse, do you think you can get to it in time? Do you really think you'll have the time to dig in your purse to get it out if someone assaults you? Do you know that it's more likely that someone assaulting you will get your gun away from you? Are you really prepared to shoot someone?" I don't know what she'll decide, but in our cowboy culture, these are questions that people often don't think about.

I participated in a discussion thread on a local station's Facebook page about this topic. The overwhelming majority said that gun laws should NOT be stricter. Here was one exchange I had (the other person's name is changed to protect the...whatever):

Me: We have very lenient gun laws, and there is no denying that our deaths per capita due to guns reflect that. Again, I am not anti-gun. But I think we've got a problem here with a certain cowboy mentality in which a robbery would be treated with a death sentence by some. Do you really want to murder someone because they want to steal your wallet? If someone were threatening to kill me or my loved ones, I wouldn't hesitate, personally. But for things? Why would anyone want to kill someone for robbing them? A response a bit out of proportion to the situation, wouldn't you say?

Keith: Beth, you are anti gun and a pacifist.Which is fine,but dont [sic] put words in peoples [sic] mouth [sic] about killing people over "things". Someday you might have to thank a "cowboy" for saving your life. I would certainly use a firearm to protect my things.I wouldnt [sic] allow the perp to go on to rob somebody else. Shooting somebody in defense of property or self isnt [sic] "murder".

Me: Keith, which part of "I'm not anti-gun" don't you understand? I am neither anti-gun, nor a pacifist. I stated both quite clearly, and stated that I would protect myself or my loved ones—or a stranger, if it came to that—if our lives were in danger. I know how to shoot, and I'm quite good at it, because my Dad taught me when I was in junior high. My point is that if we are willing to kill a person because of things rather than a threat to life, I think we've got a real problem in this country. It means that we value possessions more than a human life. Personally, I'd rather not head down that road.

On the same thread, someone wondered why anyone needs an assault rifle. The response was "It's all about freedom." DO YOU LOVE YER FREEDOMS???

I value my freedom as much as anyone, but I am very disturbed by this strange gun culture going on in this country. Check this CDC report on gun deaths as well as this International Journal of Epidemiology study on worldwide gun deaths. Our gun deaths due to homicide, suicide, and accidents are the highest of any civilized nation. This is indisputable.

I am not calling for a complete ban on guns here. Well, maybe...but I know that is not going to happen in my lifetime. But can we please stop thinking that we're all Dirty Harry and get our fingers off of the fucking trigger? Can we consider some reasonable gun laws that restrict weapons that are designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time? I honestly don't know what is the cause of this hair-trigger, kill-em-all-and-let-god-sort-em-out-later mentality.

People have said that if there were more people at that Tucson Safeway that were carrying weapons, this never would have happened. I question that. If it were harder for people like Loughner to get high-capacity clips, he might not have been able to shoot as many people as he did; and do we really want a bunch of people packing at our local grocery store? That honestly doesn't make me feel safer. Even at a Safeway. Ha. The OK Corral shootout happened a long time ago. Do we really want to return to that sort of wild west mentality?

Gunshot wounds are ugly, messy, bloody, and horrible. A head shot would be even more horrible. We're talking brains on the wall, people. That is something that will stick with you for the rest of your life...maybe your family will see it, too, and they'll remember it. Is this something that you really want to do? Do you really understand the implications of what it means to shoot a person? Do you really want to do that just because they are stealing your shit, or trespassing on your property? Do you believe that theft justifies a death sentence? Are you prepared to be judge and jury and execute that person in your home? If someone steals your purse, are you willing to shoot them for it? Do you realize that if they steal your purse, they probably got your gun, too? So now you've put a gun in the hands of a criminal.

I feel that these are legitimate questions, ones that we all need to ask ourselves. The Second Amendment was written when muskets were in use. Not high-capacity assault weapons.

I don't think that anyone is in a hurry to seriously talk about gun control right now. But I think we should.

Let this be the end of it

Like most of you, I watched with growing horror as the events of yesterday unfolded. If you've been living under a rock, a shooter visited a town hall meeting in Tucson and shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the head, as well as several others. Giffords survived, although her long term prognosis is unknown at this point. Six others did not survive, including a federal judge who had stopped by to greet her, and a 9-year-old girl who had just won the presidency of her student council and was interested in politics. The young girl was one of the "faces of hope," a child born on 9/11.

I cannot begin to convey the feeling of disgust, sadness, and outrage that I feel about this. I do not want to overly politicize this tragedy, and my heart goes out to every family member involved, and anyone who called these victims friends. But a few things need to be said.

By all accounts, the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was not right in the head. They have been unable to determine what his motivation was, or what his political philosophy might be. He's not talking to the authorities. It really doesn't matter. He's got problems, and he is going to be prosecuted for what he did.

What does matter is that the level of angry rhetoric and hatred has grown so great in the past couple of years that I and others felt that something like this was inevitable. I am not going to place all of the blame on Sarah Palin; there is no evidence that he was an ardent follower of her or others of her ilk, like Beck and Limbaugh. However, she and her special friends bear some responsibility in this, and it absolutely needs to be said.

I remember during the campaign when Palin would speak at McCain-Palin rallies, talking about how Obama was "pallin' around with terrorists," and angry crowd members would shout "Treason!" and "Kill him!" Palin laughed it off, continued to fuel the anger of these ignorant cretins. Even McCain (who will have to live the rest of his life knowing that he is the one who thrust Palin onto the national stage) had the presence of mind to tell one of the aforementioned cretins that Obama was not an Arab or any other such silly accusations. "He's a decent family man and citizen," said McCain. Palin had no such compunctions about stopping the angry mob, and in fact, has continued to egg them on since Obama took office. Even during the campaign, I remember thinking and saying, "Nothing good can come from this."

Well, now that has come true, and I am not happy at all about being the Cassandra in this particular case. It looks as though 18 people in all were shot, and six are dead.

Although I cannot place the blame directly on Palin, it appears as though she seems to comprehend on at least some sort of reptilian brain level that she does bear some culpability. Her handlers have been busy little beavers, scrubbing her online sites to remove things like this graphic. Thanks to the wonders of the Interwebz, such things never really die, and this picture is every-freakin’-where. Remember the races she was targeting? How those gun sight cross-hairs appeared on those particular races? Giffords was one of them, and expressed her concerns about this tactic. It's chilling to listen to the Congresswoman say "There are consequences." Indeed.

Also missing is Palin's tweet in which she urged "commonsense conservatives" and "lovers of America": "Don't retreat...instead, RELOAD!"

Although Loughner may not have been a direct follower of Palin, there is no doubt that Palin's violent rhetoric has contributed to what one Congressman described as a "toxic atmosphere" in our country as of late. It happens on both sides, but you'll find that the vast majority of violent, inciting speech comes from the far right. You won't find Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow pitching dehydrated food for the coming Apocalypse. There is no place in our national discourse for such shoot-em-up imagery, and we need to get back to the place where we all understand that disagreements do not need to be violent. It's one thing to feel passionate about our political views; it's quite another to continually use violent metaphors and talk about revolution and "2nd Amendment solutions." (That one belongs to bugshit crazy Sharron Angle.)

It really needs to stop here. This tragedy is a national one. Not just one of violence and death and bloodshed; it is a tragedy of our, if I may borrow one of Palin's favorite phrases, American exceptionalism. We value the freedom to speak our minds, we value that we are guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble and even protest. We value that our legislators are accessible enough that we can meet them and speak with them at town hall meetings like the one in which Giffords was participating. These are things that I value, and I know most, if not all, of my fellow Americans do also.

Ms. Palin, I put it to you that YOU are the one that doesn't understand American exceptionalism, and that you don't have the slightest grasp of how your words are endangering that. YOU are the one who is putting at risk our legislators' availability to their constituents. YOU are the one that will make people think twice about running for public office because they fear the actions of people like Loughner who are spurred on by your endless violent-speak and that of your supporters and your fellow reactionaries. You need to acknowledge that you have played a part in this current toxic atmosphere, but I doubt if you will ever bring yourself to admit any sort of culpability. Nothing is ever your fault, and you just don't have the intelligence necessary to understand that words do matter. YOUR words do matter. ALL of our words matter.

There is nothing good about this tragedy. But maybe, just maybe, it will put an end to Palin's time in the spotlight on the national political stage. That's the kind of hopey-changey thing that will work for me.