Friday, June 27, 2008

Freedom to Read

One of the great things about living in a democracy is that we all have the freedom to worship (or not in my case) and to think.

I buy and sell CDs, Books, and Zippos on Amazon and Ebay. Until recently I did not have any ethical concerns about doing this.

However, if I had copies of any of the books that were available legally in the 70s or 80s such as 'Kill Without Joy', 'Silent Death', or 'The Anarchist's Arsenal' would I be acting ethically to by selling them? Would anyone who bought them be breaking the law? people have been prosecuted, and found guilty, after down loading 'material capable of aiding terrorists' from the Internet.

I am uncomfortable with this law. When did reading become a crime? Is there a list of acceptable and unacceptable books? Is the decision as to what is acceptable made on a case by case basis? Does that mean that a white, middle class, middle aged male may own a book but a working class, Asian, young male may not?

I freely admit that I owned these books and looked at the Anarchist's Cookbook on the web in the 80s. However, I did not kill or injure anyone, or use any of the material for criminal acts. I bought the books because they were, well, interesting. (I also doubt whether much of the contents is correct. How would I know? I never tried to make Ricin, but I would not follow the instructions contained on a web site). If I owned them now would that be illegal? Should anyone who currently owns copies of these books burn them? That would bring back memories of intolerance and bigotry.

There are classes of material that I am happy to have banned. The obvious example is child pornography. Child pornography is rightly banned. The basis for banning it should be because of the exploitation of the children photographed. The point is that child exploitation is wrong and illegal. Viewing such material encourages and condones a dreadful and illegal act. Racist material is also wrong and I am happy for that to be also banned.

Knowledge is power. There should be no limit placed on it. There should be limits placed on actions. The planning or conducting terrorist acts is where the illegality should rest. Anyone planning to commit terrorist attacks should be prosecuted. The prosecution should have to show their intentions in terms of plans and actions, not their reading habits alone.

I fear that our freedoms are being restricted, in the name of freedom. It seems to me that there has been little public debate about the price we have to pay for our freedoms. There are people who want to restrict our freedoms and use terrorism as their weapon. What I can not decide is whether they are winning.

Monday, June 16, 2008

There Are Worse Things Than Listening to Dolly Parton.

I was watching Euro 2008 on the TV. During the advert break there was an advert for DP’s latest release and Jane said ‘There are worse things than listening to Dolly Parton’. There was a silence, she looked at me and said ‘Did I say that out loud?’ Naturally, being a caring new man I offered euthanasia, or more alcohol.

However she is right.

Garth Brookes springs to mind.

Frank Zappa said that no music is bad music – he obviously never listened to C&W. I have a good friend who loves C&W but he listens to old C&W. He listens to what is effectively country blues and folk. I have no problem with that. I like quite a lot of it. The music talks about real issues, there are no dogs dying in the sunset, it is real music by real people. I have a similar feeling about R&B. R&B used to stand for Rhythm and Blues, now it stands for some music that is not rock, not folk. By the 1970s, the term rhythm and blues was being used as a blanket term to describe soul and funk. In the 2000s, the term R&B refers to contemporary R&B, which is a modern version of soul and funk-influenced pop music that originated as disco faded from popularity. R&B is not ‘pop’ it is, should be, real music for real people.

In other words, R&B is not was it was. R&B just like C&W has sunk to a level where the terms have no meaning. What would Etta James’ classification be? What of Woody? They would be too feisty for today’s classifications. Today, both C&W and R&B have lost their meaning, it is not just me being an old fart. Marketing has taken over reality. The same is happening to the Blues, and real rock. The objective today is to sell CDs. The marketing men want to sell ‘product’ I reject any idea that real music is product. Go and see any local band that plays in your local pub. They may well play sub standard blues rock, or worse, another recycled version of Freebird (a local problem).. At least these people are doing it live.

I play guitar, but so badly that it is painful. Even if I could play like Buddy Guy I would not have the guts to stand up on a Friday or Saturday night and put my limited talents in front of people. All praise to them. Live music (with the exceptions of new C&W or Irish folk played by people from Manchester) is one of the great things in my life. Please support it. They are better people than we are, well, they have more front. Perhaps, just perhaps, they may turn out to be the next Wreckless Eric. There is no higher praise.

What Makes a Good Song?

Some time ago I was going to write a piece for my website (realrockandblues.com) about good songwriters. I abandoned it when I became bogged down trying to define ‘a good song’. The trouble is that a good song can be good in-spite of the lyrics, melody, or any of the fundamentals. Some songs, particularly rock blues, have a basic format which serves them well, making the quality of the lyric writing less important. The lyrics merge into the overall sound and can often be ignored as words. The sound of the singer becomes another instrument in the overall mix.

When trying to dissect what makes a good song the quality of the lyric writing is less important than many believe. If you concentrate on the quality of the lyric writing the question quickly becomes is songwriter ‘A’ a better poet than songwriter ‘B’? There is some merit in asking this question but it misses the point about good songs. Why are some people able to create good songs while others produce pap?

I have no doubt hat Dylan is a good songwriter (and poet). Some of his lyrics are sublime. ‘You don’t have to be a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows’ is a line that works on more than one level. It has both a political and natural interpretation. His facility with words is, has been, impressive. However, that is not to say that all his songs are good, or even average. Leonard Cohen is a great poet. His songs? Well, when I was 17 and consumed by teenage angst, worrying about some girl, dreaming of things to come, angry at the state of the world, yes, they were great songs. Now, they are just turgid, to me. I am sure that there are some people who still like them, mainly teenagers wracked with angst etc.? Whether a song is good depends as much on the listener as anything else. However, that is another debate.

I began writing this on Saturday and today is Sunday. The Sunday Times has a review of an Aimee Mann release that said ‘If the stars were awarded purely for song writing, you would be reading a four star review right now. Aimee Mann’s standards rarely drop. The problem with @#%&*! Smiles, however, is that most of the songs are lost in bland and unchallenging arrangements….’ This is a professional critic confusing the quality of the poetry with the quality of the songs. The lyric is only part of the whole, bland arrangements can destroy potentially good songs.

No one would ever accuse the Glimmer Twins, Willie Dixon, Robert Johnson, Wreckless, T V Smith et al of being great poets. They did all make wonderful and evocative songs that have stood the test of time.

Good songs depend on making an emotional connection. They also depend on making a difference to the listener, a lasting difference. That is why blue moon and June songs do not do it for me. I want more. I do not want bland, unchallenging arrangements. If the lyrics are out in front of the mix I do not want humdrum. Neither do I want the sense that I am supposed to be in awe of the songwriter’s word craft. For me Chuck Berry’s ‘Coffee coloured cadillac’ beats all David Grey’s cleverness everytime.

What do I want from a song? Melody? Not necessarily. A driving beat? Sometimes. Clever lyrics? Not often. Give me something that grabs my attention. Something that keeps me guessing, starts me thinking, and is honest. I want a song or a piece of music to expand my experience, to change me.