I am one of those people who reacts in a way, when encountering a loss, that isn't very popular. If I walk out of a store, for example, with a tall cup of Hot Chocolate, and I trip on a crack in the pavement, and the beverage splatters on the sidewalk, my first inclination isn't to ask, "How do I recover this loss?"
There are a lot of people who would say I should go back in and explain the situation, and hope for a freebie. I wouldn't do that. I would expect to pay. Dunkies, for example, is a business, and I know they are a huge business that could swallow a loss of a few bucks, I don't feel comfortable asking.
That's basically it, really, I don't feel comfortable asking.
I think a lot about Madoff and his victims and would I, in this circumstance, feel comfortable asking. It's a really unique set of circumstances.
As complex as the entire scheme was, and continues to be, there is a very simple underlying explanation for the whole thing:
> Person A decided to invest $$ with a guy named Madoff.
> Person A wrote a big check, and gave it to Madoff.
> Madoff put that money in a series of accounts, and moved on.
> Person B also wanted to invest, and also gave Madoff an even larger sum of $$, since he seemed so nice.
> Madoff took a portion of the Person B $$, and gave it to person A as their fake gain on their investment, so to speak
> This cycle continued until it ended - and $13 billion dollars were lost to thousands of folks.
The money these people thought they had, and by no fault of their own, was really never there. There is 1 person, ostensibly, that is responsible for the loss of their initial investments. This isn't like our Social Security $$ that won't be there when I'm 65, it is something completely different, and we need to find a way to recover it. The profits all these investors thought they had - that $$ never existed. At least we know our $$ exists in a pot somewhere for Social Security, its just being overspent.
So, naturally, everyone is asking for their $$ back. But my question is, who the heck should pay them back for it? You can argue that people should just get their investments back, and I am sure this legally has been argued.
If Person A in my example before gave Madoff $3.5 million 4 years ago, but over the course of the last 4 years saw, on paper, "profits" on that investment to the tune of 2 million, I have a feeling that Person A is asking for a total of $5.5 million back. I would like to think nobody is entertaining that idea, and the 3.5 is the only amount that matters.
But again, where should this 3.5 come from? Is it cold, heartless, and irresponsible to tell them that it cannot, under any circumstance, be recovered? Why is it the responsibility of anyone else, aside from Madoff (and his wife/investements) to recover those he deceived?
How can this logically fall onto the taxpayer, who, of course it would ultimately fall back on to?
Investors were duped, and they were tricked. Is it fair to say that just tripped on a crack in the pavement? There are situations on this earth where nobody can logically be held responsible, and there are times when you have to give an "aw shucks" and move on.
I understand this is about people's life savings, and in most of the cases, I can assume, it isn't about greed, but about providing and being proud of making smart money choices. They were unfairly tricked, and I am truly sorry, but aside from the $170 billion* they are going to take from his Madoff's home and bank accounts, etc, I don't know how else to repay victims.
On a side note, can someone explain to me, or show me a justification, in which Madoff's wife gets to keep $2.5 million? I am baffled that we STILL live in a time where $2.5 million doesn't seem to mean anything to anyone. Why isn't this woman going to jail, nevermind keeping $2.5 million?
It should also be noted I am not an expert on anything, and I could be wrong about every single detail in here. I'm not a journalist, I'm just a dude watching golf on a Friday night who ate too much ice cream.
* I had the wrong total $$ amount in original post, this was edited to be correct...
Friday, June 26, 2009
..."He said one day you will see, his place in world history"...
I too want to say a few things because, as is the case with everyone's blog, whether they know it or not, I want to make sure my feelings get equal billing and I also want to ensure I have something for the HIStory books. Get it?
If you were to ask me who were the most influential/my most appreciated groups and/or solo acts that I have listened to - AND/OR - which bands/solo artists have shaped my opinions and feelings about music the most, this is what my list would look like:
1. The Beatles
2. Michael Jackson
3. Oasis
4. Juliana Hatfield
5. Madonna
I listen to other music.... Smashing Pumpkins probably has more airplay in the jukebox of my life than #'s 4 or 5, but they didn't really influence me as much. Now that I've qualified a few things, I am going to push aside all apprehension and speak about Mike.
There is no question that growing up in my era, (b. 1977-present) you couldn't escape Michael for your first 15 years of life. The firsts are many: I believe that my first real exposure to Paul McCartney was through the Michael...my first MEGA-ALBUM was when Thriller came out...The first MEGA-VIDEO was when Thriller came out. My personal excitement for the release of an album was unmatched when it came to HIStory in the Summer of 1995. I made a special trek to the mall on the release day to meet Trav to buy the CD on it's day of release.
All of those were musical firsts for me...all of those were landmarks, and the dude simply was the best. It's pretty incredible that he died so quickly, so early...
Now, on to his death, and the OTHER part of his life. I personally do not care how he died. I understand it's interesting that he may have overdosed on a variety of drugs, but I personally don't care. I also think people are in real murky waters when they start to talk about 100% of Michael's life.
As I see it, there are 2 sides to every celebrity. I use the word "Celebrity" loosely, but I do mean someone who I know simply b/c I see them on TV and/or on the Internet. Celebrities carry 2 sides, personal and public. The personal side is the one that, if given the choice, they would not have you know about that side. It doesn't always need to be dark, it could be they like kittens and valentine's day...it could be they molest children. The public one is the side that they choose to show to us, and for what they are (technically) famous for.
Michael's public persona is the one I am choosing to pay attention to. I don't have interest in the other one, and I am starting to take a really rigid stand that, as a rule, I don't care about celebrities personal lives, pretty much at all. There are weird blurred lines, like Reality TV "stars", but that's an easy one for me - If all, every single, Reality TV star disappeared, I'd be completely fine.
For those out there who are choosing to talk about Micheal as a complete person, and remember him that way, you are steering yourself in the direction that I know I personally don't want to go down. His personal indiscretions are fairly overwhelming, from a numerical standpoint. He did things in his life we all would shudder at...
But, I don't care about those things, because they aren't factoring into my decision on how I feel about Michael, they are literally non-factors. The factors that matter to me are:
> Remembering how many times I listened to Stranger in Moscow on repeat in the summer of 95.
> Thinking back about how much of an "event" it was when the video for Black and White was released.
> Trying to think about what Human Nature was written about, and what he thought about when he sang it, cuz it sounded like he cared a great deal in that song.
> Being excited driving back from Norwood when I was broke and Raybo burnt me a copy of Invincible.
> Hearing Blood on the Dance Floor about 4 years ago and thinking, "Is this Michael's best song, and I had never paid any attention to it?"
> Thinking that it was awesome that he released Dangerous in 1991, and it took 10 more years to do Invincible...what if his next double platinum album was in 2011?!?!?
My point is that reprehensible things are reprehensible. Disgusting choices made by adults technically should be met with punity, but there is nothing written that says I am responsible for cross-referencing my gut reaction to someone's music, as an example, against a list of possible transgressions in their personal life.
I am so grateful that I am being motivated to go out and listen to more Michael music, and that I hopefully will continue to do that. I am saddened about the press coverage and how quickly it has turned into a fiasco, but I have no clue why I thought it would end up differently. I don't care that he died of an overdose, I only care that he died, and so soon on the heels of my complete "hands thrown up in the air" moment about music.
Top 5 people who I won't ever talk to words on Michael's death I want to hear/read the most:
5. Janet Jackson
4. Tina Fey * But this is only b/c she seemingly was in love with him from her Tweets.
3. Howard Stern
2. Madonna
1. Cameron Crowe
If you were to ask me who were the most influential/my most appreciated groups and/or solo acts that I have listened to - AND/OR - which bands/solo artists have shaped my opinions and feelings about music the most, this is what my list would look like:
1. The Beatles
2. Michael Jackson
3. Oasis
4. Juliana Hatfield
5. Madonna
I listen to other music.... Smashing Pumpkins probably has more airplay in the jukebox of my life than #'s 4 or 5, but they didn't really influence me as much. Now that I've qualified a few things, I am going to push aside all apprehension and speak about Mike.
There is no question that growing up in my era, (b. 1977-present) you couldn't escape Michael for your first 15 years of life. The firsts are many: I believe that my first real exposure to Paul McCartney was through the Michael...my first MEGA-ALBUM was when Thriller came out...The first MEGA-VIDEO was when Thriller came out. My personal excitement for the release of an album was unmatched when it came to HIStory in the Summer of 1995. I made a special trek to the mall on the release day to meet Trav to buy the CD on it's day of release.
All of those were musical firsts for me...all of those were landmarks, and the dude simply was the best. It's pretty incredible that he died so quickly, so early...
Now, on to his death, and the OTHER part of his life. I personally do not care how he died. I understand it's interesting that he may have overdosed on a variety of drugs, but I personally don't care. I also think people are in real murky waters when they start to talk about 100% of Michael's life.
As I see it, there are 2 sides to every celebrity. I use the word "Celebrity" loosely, but I do mean someone who I know simply b/c I see them on TV and/or on the Internet. Celebrities carry 2 sides, personal and public. The personal side is the one that, if given the choice, they would not have you know about that side. It doesn't always need to be dark, it could be they like kittens and valentine's day...it could be they molest children. The public one is the side that they choose to show to us, and for what they are (technically) famous for.
Michael's public persona is the one I am choosing to pay attention to. I don't have interest in the other one, and I am starting to take a really rigid stand that, as a rule, I don't care about celebrities personal lives, pretty much at all. There are weird blurred lines, like Reality TV "stars", but that's an easy one for me - If all, every single, Reality TV star disappeared, I'd be completely fine.
For those out there who are choosing to talk about Micheal as a complete person, and remember him that way, you are steering yourself in the direction that I know I personally don't want to go down. His personal indiscretions are fairly overwhelming, from a numerical standpoint. He did things in his life we all would shudder at...
But, I don't care about those things, because they aren't factoring into my decision on how I feel about Michael, they are literally non-factors. The factors that matter to me are:
> Remembering how many times I listened to Stranger in Moscow on repeat in the summer of 95.
> Thinking back about how much of an "event" it was when the video for Black and White was released.
> Trying to think about what Human Nature was written about, and what he thought about when he sang it, cuz it sounded like he cared a great deal in that song.
> Being excited driving back from Norwood when I was broke and Raybo burnt me a copy of Invincible.
> Hearing Blood on the Dance Floor about 4 years ago and thinking, "Is this Michael's best song, and I had never paid any attention to it?"
> Thinking that it was awesome that he released Dangerous in 1991, and it took 10 more years to do Invincible...what if his next double platinum album was in 2011?!?!?
My point is that reprehensible things are reprehensible. Disgusting choices made by adults technically should be met with punity, but there is nothing written that says I am responsible for cross-referencing my gut reaction to someone's music, as an example, against a list of possible transgressions in their personal life.
I am so grateful that I am being motivated to go out and listen to more Michael music, and that I hopefully will continue to do that. I am saddened about the press coverage and how quickly it has turned into a fiasco, but I have no clue why I thought it would end up differently. I don't care that he died of an overdose, I only care that he died, and so soon on the heels of my complete "hands thrown up in the air" moment about music.
Top 5 people who I won't ever talk to words on Michael's death I want to hear/read the most:
5. Janet Jackson
4. Tina Fey * But this is only b/c she seemingly was in love with him from her Tweets.
3. Howard Stern
2. Madonna
1. Cameron Crowe
Sunday, June 14, 2009
...Palin v. Letterman...
Okay, this is insanity.
First, I am proud of Letterman for not really apologizing for his joke about Sarah Palin's daughter(s). If you don't know the story, you can easily look it up online and find out everything about it, it has been covered by all media outlets this entire week, but I wanted to weigh in.
Dave is a comedian, he is a host of a talk show. Now, I know that Late Night talk shows have been watered down to a place where real opinions, real stories, real honesty and real life is filtered through a pattern of Monologue-skit-commercial-guest-commercial-skit-commercial-music-end credits...The reality is that Dave didn't write the joke, probably read through it quickly once or twice, and had little to do with its existence on the final product - it is his job to be a late night host, he goes through the motions just like you and me and everyone does at their job...
But the good thing about a guy like Letterman is that he has been around forever, he has interviewed a great deal of people, in all walks of life, including Presidents, politicians, athletes, celebrities, etc...he has perspective on Palin, who she really is and what she stands for, maybe even more than the people on This Week.
So, again, I am proud of Dave for not apologizing for real - he gave one, but it was more of "I wish this never happened," rather than, "I am sorry."
Why am I happy about his decision? I'll explain.
The joke itself, in essence and I'm paraphrasing, went something like this: "A-Rod knocked up Sarah Palin's daughter during the 7th inning stretch."
The reality was that Palin's 14 year old Daughter was at the Yankees game, not her 18 year old Daughter Bristol, who, in fact, was the pregnant teenager during the campaign.
If you dissect the joke, there are clearly 2 targets, ARod and a Palin daughter. Letterman claims he made the joke about Bristol, and if you watch Late Night shows, which no political pundit does, clearly, you would know that the jokes always skirt the truth - they are often off the mark as far as facts go, they exaggerate, they are jokes, really. Bill Maher said last week that "Jokes are lies, that's why they are funny," and he is right. Jokes are lies. Letterman told a lie, ARod knocked up one of Palin's daughters - clearly he didn't. Once you get over the fact that it's a lie, and realize it's not based on truth, it gets easier to examine.
One of the reasons this is funny as well, is that it was also about ARod, who has been known to be promiscuous both before and after his marriage ended recently - and although there is no question about the target (Arod is clearly of age), there has been no uproar there because, most likely, ARod laughed at the joke, or at the very least, he didn't care.
So what is the uproar all about? Palin is furious that the joke was made about her 14-year old daugther. She took to the airwaves, in full force, to make sure she was seen and heard on this. She didn't issue a press release, she didn't speak through her "people", she went on Hannity, she went on Today with Matt Lauer, she did everything a celebrity would do.
Oh, but wait a minute, she is a Governor! She isn't a celebrity, she is someone who was nominated to be the Vice President of the country - and she is taking on David Letterman? Holy crap.
The reality of it all, and I don't think the press is really covering this, is that Palin chose to put her daughter Bristol through hell during the campaign - Bristol's pregnancy was clearly, and without question, used as a tool during the campaign. Bristol was an asset, and treated as one. It was horrible. This girl is 18 years old, just wants to have a baby, and instead she has to sit up on stage in front of the entire country holding hands with her 18 year old high school boyfriend, who most likely wanted to be at Pizza Hut with his friends...it was disgusting.
Palin chose to parade her kids around, her pregnant daughter around, and has essentially used her daughter as a tool since day 1. I can't remember the joke, but Bill Maher said something hilarious about how Marriage is a term that can't be used by Gay Couples...it should be saved for 2 unwitting teenagers who are forced into it by their politically greedy Mother...it was spot on.
Palin upped her profile this week, prior to the Letterman flap. The reality is that Palin has been in the news, and the behind-the-scenes facts are that the GOP are frustrated with Palin's "people", who can't seem to answer press phone calls, get out press releases, and generally aren't available for comments. Palin had a fiasco with the Republican Party in regards to a fundraiser, and my assumption is that this fiasco was the reason the Letterman writers even thought of writing a Palin joke this week.
She has chosen to put her kids in the spotlight, she has chosen to be the kind of person who puts political gain above all else, and she is the kind of person who Late Night talk shows exist for. Letterman should never back down from this, he should keep pressing because, after all, he needs ratings, and what could be better for him than this.
The last thing I want to say is that you hear both Palin haters and supporters saying that the joke was over the line (I disagree) and that if the same joke was made about Obama's daughters, there would be an uproar.
Well, yah, there would be, and there should be. You know why? Because we are human beings capable of seeing clear distinctions between related events - at least I thought we were.
1. Neither of Obama's daughters were "knocked up" during the campaign.
2. There hasn't been a disgusting side of Obama's family life like there has been in Palin's. This is clearly direction we all knew this would go. Could this have ended any differently?
3. If the joke were to be made about Malia Ann or Sasha, it would be completely out of left-field, and make no sense. Love it or hate it, you got the joke Letterman told, because the context made sense.
Palin is an asshole, there, I said it.
First, I am proud of Letterman for not really apologizing for his joke about Sarah Palin's daughter(s). If you don't know the story, you can easily look it up online and find out everything about it, it has been covered by all media outlets this entire week, but I wanted to weigh in.
Dave is a comedian, he is a host of a talk show. Now, I know that Late Night talk shows have been watered down to a place where real opinions, real stories, real honesty and real life is filtered through a pattern of Monologue-skit-commercial-guest-commercial-skit-commercial-music-end credits...The reality is that Dave didn't write the joke, probably read through it quickly once or twice, and had little to do with its existence on the final product - it is his job to be a late night host, he goes through the motions just like you and me and everyone does at their job...
But the good thing about a guy like Letterman is that he has been around forever, he has interviewed a great deal of people, in all walks of life, including Presidents, politicians, athletes, celebrities, etc...he has perspective on Palin, who she really is and what she stands for, maybe even more than the people on This Week.
So, again, I am proud of Dave for not apologizing for real - he gave one, but it was more of "I wish this never happened," rather than, "I am sorry."
Why am I happy about his decision? I'll explain.
The joke itself, in essence and I'm paraphrasing, went something like this: "A-Rod knocked up Sarah Palin's daughter during the 7th inning stretch."
The reality was that Palin's 14 year old Daughter was at the Yankees game, not her 18 year old Daughter Bristol, who, in fact, was the pregnant teenager during the campaign.
If you dissect the joke, there are clearly 2 targets, ARod and a Palin daughter. Letterman claims he made the joke about Bristol, and if you watch Late Night shows, which no political pundit does, clearly, you would know that the jokes always skirt the truth - they are often off the mark as far as facts go, they exaggerate, they are jokes, really. Bill Maher said last week that "Jokes are lies, that's why they are funny," and he is right. Jokes are lies. Letterman told a lie, ARod knocked up one of Palin's daughters - clearly he didn't. Once you get over the fact that it's a lie, and realize it's not based on truth, it gets easier to examine.
One of the reasons this is funny as well, is that it was also about ARod, who has been known to be promiscuous both before and after his marriage ended recently - and although there is no question about the target (Arod is clearly of age), there has been no uproar there because, most likely, ARod laughed at the joke, or at the very least, he didn't care.
So what is the uproar all about? Palin is furious that the joke was made about her 14-year old daugther. She took to the airwaves, in full force, to make sure she was seen and heard on this. She didn't issue a press release, she didn't speak through her "people", she went on Hannity, she went on Today with Matt Lauer, she did everything a celebrity would do.
Oh, but wait a minute, she is a Governor! She isn't a celebrity, she is someone who was nominated to be the Vice President of the country - and she is taking on David Letterman? Holy crap.
The reality of it all, and I don't think the press is really covering this, is that Palin chose to put her daughter Bristol through hell during the campaign - Bristol's pregnancy was clearly, and without question, used as a tool during the campaign. Bristol was an asset, and treated as one. It was horrible. This girl is 18 years old, just wants to have a baby, and instead she has to sit up on stage in front of the entire country holding hands with her 18 year old high school boyfriend, who most likely wanted to be at Pizza Hut with his friends...it was disgusting.
Palin chose to parade her kids around, her pregnant daughter around, and has essentially used her daughter as a tool since day 1. I can't remember the joke, but Bill Maher said something hilarious about how Marriage is a term that can't be used by Gay Couples...it should be saved for 2 unwitting teenagers who are forced into it by their politically greedy Mother...it was spot on.
Palin upped her profile this week, prior to the Letterman flap. The reality is that Palin has been in the news, and the behind-the-scenes facts are that the GOP are frustrated with Palin's "people", who can't seem to answer press phone calls, get out press releases, and generally aren't available for comments. Palin had a fiasco with the Republican Party in regards to a fundraiser, and my assumption is that this fiasco was the reason the Letterman writers even thought of writing a Palin joke this week.
She has chosen to put her kids in the spotlight, she has chosen to be the kind of person who puts political gain above all else, and she is the kind of person who Late Night talk shows exist for. Letterman should never back down from this, he should keep pressing because, after all, he needs ratings, and what could be better for him than this.
The last thing I want to say is that you hear both Palin haters and supporters saying that the joke was over the line (I disagree) and that if the same joke was made about Obama's daughters, there would be an uproar.
Well, yah, there would be, and there should be. You know why? Because we are human beings capable of seeing clear distinctions between related events - at least I thought we were.
1. Neither of Obama's daughters were "knocked up" during the campaign.
2. There hasn't been a disgusting side of Obama's family life like there has been in Palin's. This is clearly direction we all knew this would go. Could this have ended any differently?
3. If the joke were to be made about Malia Ann or Sasha, it would be completely out of left-field, and make no sense. Love it or hate it, you got the joke Letterman told, because the context made sense.
Palin is an asshole, there, I said it.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
...Music is a Joke...
I had an overwhelming urge to listen to Spacehog's 1995 #1 hit, In the Meantime earlier this week. I had a tough time finding it, I thought I once owned the album, but I didn't. Youtube blocks it for some reason, or at least I couldn't find it, but I eventually found it on Clevver.com, and from the first few notes, I was totally pumped up to hear that bass rockin'.
I realized when I listened to this song that I wouldn't be shocked, if I had never heard it before in my life, if it came out on the radio today it would again be a #1 hit on Rock Stations and mainstream. That got me thinking, is that appropriate? I don't think it is.
Lets go to an extreme, the Beatles, for example. When they released something like Help! in 1965, the title song was a #1 hit, obviously. Fast forward to FOURTEEN years later - the same amount of time that has passed from In The Meantime's original release to right now, and can you even imagine a song like Help! being #1 at that time?
The top songs in 1979 were Heart of Glass by Blondie, Gloria Gaynor's I Will Survive and Pop Muzik by M. Are you kidding me? The difference between Help! and Heart of Glass is astonishing.
I didn't pick those 2 songs to prove a point either, I started the blog with no songs to use as examples and just sorta landed on Help!, then moved on to the 1979 billboard chart. It also should be noted that both Help! and Heart of Glass are considered, by real people who know real music, to be major achievements, groundbreaking records.
So what does this all mean? I'm getting older. I'm 31 now, and music is different than it once was, and that's fine. It has evolved, its still evolving and I cannot be expected to keep up. People think that getting old is defined by age, wrinkles, bad backs, divorce, kids, grandkids, etc...It isn't. Getting old is defined by losing touch with the generations that followed you. I hear it every week from friends - we all think that all the boys out there who dress like the Jonas Bros. look like complete morons, but thats just us getting old.
When it comes to music, I do not buy new albums anymore. For the most part, I have no interest in buying any music that was released in the past 8 or 9 years, and that even includes bands I, at one time, considered to be part of my DNA. I am done buying Coldplay albums, Oasis albums, Radiohead albums. I'd probably buy a New Fountains of Wayne album, and Juliana Hatfield, but not much else.
I am getting old, that's what old people do, but I cannot get away from the fact that I feel like music hasn't evolved, at all. When a band like Spacehog, who by all measures isn't anything special in the history of music, can produce a song that will live as a contemporary rock song for nearly 15 years, that's just disgusting.
In an era where we have the most amazing national and global shifts going on - an era of multiple wars, economic collapse, global pandemics, Lebron James...we really cannot get our best musicians to produce groundbreaking and earth-shattering records?
Where is our next Thriller? Where is our next Heart of Glass? Mucho mistrust, dude, I can't take it anymore. My depths of musical despair have fallen to a new low - a place where I sorta was daydreaming the other day that maybe Mike Jackson wrote an album in 85-87ish and has had it hidden until his career is offically dead, then he'll re-release it and it'll be what we all dream for.
Musical significance is an important thing - from Elvis to the Beatles to Zeppelin to Fleetwood Mac to a host of others, we have allowed music for a long time define our generations, our cultural shifts and institutions, and really, right now, we have absolutely nothing to hang our hat on.
Our musical #1's are produced by a television show that has duped this entire country into believing there is an ounce of reality to it...You know things are horrible when a mid-80's pop sensation who danced with an animated cat on MTV, once-Laker girl, etc, is at the very heart of entire generation's music. We are so totally screwed.
Pharrell, from NERD, etc, has been applauding Susan Boyle as an example of how musical talent is making a comeback, and it's not true. Musical talent can be found in places like Broadway, and maybe will make its way into the mainstream on a show like Glee! in the fall, where real singers with talent and not so many good looks can show their wares, but aside from that there is little to no hope.
To quote Debbie, "Mucho Mistrust" in what music has to offer in the near, or distant, future.
I realized when I listened to this song that I wouldn't be shocked, if I had never heard it before in my life, if it came out on the radio today it would again be a #1 hit on Rock Stations and mainstream. That got me thinking, is that appropriate? I don't think it is.
Lets go to an extreme, the Beatles, for example. When they released something like Help! in 1965, the title song was a #1 hit, obviously. Fast forward to FOURTEEN years later - the same amount of time that has passed from In The Meantime's original release to right now, and can you even imagine a song like Help! being #1 at that time?
The top songs in 1979 were Heart of Glass by Blondie, Gloria Gaynor's I Will Survive and Pop Muzik by M. Are you kidding me? The difference between Help! and Heart of Glass is astonishing.
I didn't pick those 2 songs to prove a point either, I started the blog with no songs to use as examples and just sorta landed on Help!, then moved on to the 1979 billboard chart. It also should be noted that both Help! and Heart of Glass are considered, by real people who know real music, to be major achievements, groundbreaking records.
So what does this all mean? I'm getting older. I'm 31 now, and music is different than it once was, and that's fine. It has evolved, its still evolving and I cannot be expected to keep up. People think that getting old is defined by age, wrinkles, bad backs, divorce, kids, grandkids, etc...It isn't. Getting old is defined by losing touch with the generations that followed you. I hear it every week from friends - we all think that all the boys out there who dress like the Jonas Bros. look like complete morons, but thats just us getting old.
When it comes to music, I do not buy new albums anymore. For the most part, I have no interest in buying any music that was released in the past 8 or 9 years, and that even includes bands I, at one time, considered to be part of my DNA. I am done buying Coldplay albums, Oasis albums, Radiohead albums. I'd probably buy a New Fountains of Wayne album, and Juliana Hatfield, but not much else.
I am getting old, that's what old people do, but I cannot get away from the fact that I feel like music hasn't evolved, at all. When a band like Spacehog, who by all measures isn't anything special in the history of music, can produce a song that will live as a contemporary rock song for nearly 15 years, that's just disgusting.
In an era where we have the most amazing national and global shifts going on - an era of multiple wars, economic collapse, global pandemics, Lebron James...we really cannot get our best musicians to produce groundbreaking and earth-shattering records?
Where is our next Thriller? Where is our next Heart of Glass? Mucho mistrust, dude, I can't take it anymore. My depths of musical despair have fallen to a new low - a place where I sorta was daydreaming the other day that maybe Mike Jackson wrote an album in 85-87ish and has had it hidden until his career is offically dead, then he'll re-release it and it'll be what we all dream for.
Musical significance is an important thing - from Elvis to the Beatles to Zeppelin to Fleetwood Mac to a host of others, we have allowed music for a long time define our generations, our cultural shifts and institutions, and really, right now, we have absolutely nothing to hang our hat on.
Our musical #1's are produced by a television show that has duped this entire country into believing there is an ounce of reality to it...You know things are horrible when a mid-80's pop sensation who danced with an animated cat on MTV, once-Laker girl, etc, is at the very heart of entire generation's music. We are so totally screwed.
Pharrell, from NERD, etc, has been applauding Susan Boyle as an example of how musical talent is making a comeback, and it's not true. Musical talent can be found in places like Broadway, and maybe will make its way into the mainstream on a show like Glee! in the fall, where real singers with talent and not so many good looks can show their wares, but aside from that there is little to no hope.
To quote Debbie, "Mucho Mistrust" in what music has to offer in the near, or distant, future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)