The Dangers of Misinterpretation


It is just after Christmas, and once again, the season did not disappoint. Christmas is wonderful for so many reasons, it is the celebration of the birth of Christ (If you're into that kind of thing), it is a time to be with loved ones, it is a time to be selfless and charitable. It is the season of giving, and I love watching people get into that spirit. But every silver lining has its cloud and Christmas is no different. Something happens every year at Christmas which is truly twisted, but it is oh so much fun to watch. Christmas is the season to be entertained by date rape. Alright, admittedly, that is a pretty brutal statement, but the sentiment is not inaccurate (excuse the double negative). Every year at Christmas there is one song that, taken by itself, is really something of a creepy song, yet under the guise of Christmas, we manage to ignore the subject matter and call it a warm and happy Christmas song. That song: "Baby, It's Cold Outside."

Sounds crazy, I know, but try this: forget the fact that it is Christmas time. Forget the fact that this song is associated with Christmas despite the fact that it actually has nothing to do with Christmas. Forget everything you know about this song and just read the lyrics:

I really can't stay (but baby it's cold outside)
I've got to go away (but baby it's cold outside)
This evening has been (been hoping that you'd drop in)
So very nice (i'll hold your hands, they're just like ice)
My mother will start worry (beautiful whats your hurry)
My father will be pacing the floor (listen to the fireplace
roar)
So really i'd better scurry (beautiful please don't hurry)
but maybe just a half a drink more (put some records on while i
pour)
the neighbors might faint (baby it's bad out there)
say what's in this drink (no cabs to be had out there)
i wish i knew how (your eyes are like starlight now)
to break this spell (i'll take your hat, your hair looks
swell)
i ought to say "no, no, no sir" (mind if i move in closer)
at least i'm gonna say that i tried (what's the sense in hurtin' my
pride)
i really can't stay (oh baby don't hold out)
baby it's cold out side

i simply must go (but baby it's cold outside)
the answer is no (but baby it's cold outside)
your welcome has been (how lucky that you droped in)
so nice and warm (look out the window at that storm)
my sister will be suspicious (gosh your lips look delcious)
my brother will be there at the door (waves upon the tropical shore)
my maiden aunts mind is vicious (gosh your lips are delicous)
but maybe just a cigarette more (never such a blizzard
before)
i've gotta get home (but baby you'd freeze out there)
say lend me a coat (it's up to your knees out there)
you've really been grand (i thrill when you touch my hand)
but don't you see?(how can you do this thing to me?
there's bound to be talk tomorrow (think of my lifelong
sorrow)
at least there will be plenty implied (if you got namonia and
died)
i really can't stay (get over that old out)
baby it's cold
baby it's cold outside

Now, what did you learn? It is important to remember that this song has absolutely nothing to do with Christmas either in subject matter nor in the timing of its composition. This song, for all intents and purposes, is about two people on a cold night. It is about a woman who is trying to leave a man's company while he uses every excuse he can think of to keep her from leaving. No matter how many times she says she must leave, he manages to keep her from going by telling her she will be cold, she won't be able to get a cab, he offers her drinks and cigarettes, he tries to seduce her with music, he tries to take her mind off of her worried family, and he even suggests that her health will suffer if she leaves. Now, I went to college, and I thought I heard (or perhaps said) every line imaginable to keep women from leaving (to no avail mind you), but Frank Loesser has me totally beat, this is the reason you have heard of him and not me. He is the true pick-up artist, for never did I think Pneumonia would act as a tool for seduction.

Say what you will about this song. Say it is about love. Say it is about companionship. Even say the man is only looking out for the woman's well-being. But when you are finished deluding yourself, just remember that humans are animals and men are pigs (or as Loesser himself has suggested, this man is the "wolf," and the woman is the "mouse"), and the lyrics give every indication that this man is interested in one thing: nailing this woman. Likewise, the woman's lyrics give every indication that it is best if she not stay with the man despite his urging.

It is obviously preposterous and unreasonable to suggest that the result of this song is that the two end up having non-consensual sex, but we, as an audience, do not know. Maybe they fall in love, get married, have half a dozen kids, and tell a glorified story about banging in a snow storm to their friends and neighbors at dinner parties. OR, maybe they bump pelvises and then never speak again. OR, maybe she leaves. All we know is that he overtly wants her and she overtly wants to leave, and in the end, we don't know the outcome. Regardless of the outcome, we must admit that it is a little sick that couples cozy up next to a warm fire around the holidays and glorify this song. It doesn't end here either.We do this kind of thing all of the time.

Context is a powerful thing that is far too often ignored in everyday life especially as it pertains to music. Music is deceptive. There are a lot of elements in music that act as distractions from the true messages, and from time to time, we get our signals crossed and end up taking a song for the exact opposite of what it is. Example? If you have ears and have been alive since 1908, you have no doubt heard (at least the chorus to) "You Are My Sunshine."

If not, it goes something like this:

You are my sunshine
My only sunshine
You make me happy
when skies are gray
You'll never know dear
How much I love you
Oh please don't take my sunshine away

Cute right? Wrong. Despite the fact that this song appears to be a ballad for one's lover in order to express his undying love, you would only be half right. Here are the versus you may not be familiar with:

The other night dear, as I lay sleeping
I dreamed I held you in my arms
But when I awoke, dear, I was mistaken
So I hung my head and I cried.


(Chorus)


I'll always love you and make you happy,
If you will only say the same.
But if you leave me and love another,
You'll regret it all some day


(Chorus)


You told me once, dear, you really loved me
And no one else could come between.
But now you've left me and love another;
You have shattered all of my dreams:


(Chorus)


In all my dreams, dear, you seem to leave me
When I awake my poor heart pains.
So won't you come back and make me happy
I'll forgive you dear, I'll take all the blame.

So, what is largely considered a sweet expression of love from one lover to another, it is really a bit of a heart wrenching plea from one ex-lover to another. The speaker is essentially begging his former lover to come back to him because since she left him to be with someone else, he is a complete trainwreck. Didn't see that one coming did you? Why would we want to think about the song like this? Independently, the chorus is loving and uplifting, and at the end of the day, that is what we want to recall, it is easy to forget that the rest of the song is actually pretty depressing. That's the theme: remember what you want, omit what you don't.
One of the more classic instances of this phenomena was in 1984 when Ronald Reagan, not realizing it was an anti-war protest song about Vietnam Veterans, wanted Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" to be his presidential campaign song. Clearly, the Reagan camp listened to the chorus, felt that the song was, not only an upbeat feel-good song, but also purely patriotic. How could they lose? Springsteen obviously denied them use of the song, probably because 1) Springsteen is fundamentally a liberal who represents the working-class and 2) Reagan missed the point of the song completely. Reagan, like many other people, heard what he wanted and omitted the rest. What does it matter what the vast majority of the song says when the hook sounds so patriotic?

Misinterpreting popular music is no different from misinterpreting any other art form whether it be painting, theatre, dance, sculpture, or photography in that the "meaning" lies with the beholder, so there is really no such thing as a "wrong" interpretation, however, it is impossible to gain a full assessment of any form of art by ignoring certain parts of a piece and instead embracing other parts. For example. Let us take Norman Rockwell's "The Problem We All Live With". Interpretation of the entire work is completely subjective, but interpretation of a single part and applying that to the work as a whole is completely misleading, unfair, and, forgive me for saying, wrong. By treating this painting the same way the Reagan camp treated "Born in the USA," it would be possible to say it is about nothing more than a little girl walking to school, or it is about nothing more than a splattered tomato on a wall, or it is about nothing more than the suit of a US Marshall. I'm sorry to say this, but none of those things are accurate. One must take a step back and examine the work in it's entirety in order to fully assess it's "meaning."

There are many popular songs that are commonly misinterpreted: "Rainy Day Women #12 and 35," "Cocaine," "American Woman," "Norwegian Wood." I challenge you to take a step back, forget what you know or think you know, and re-examine music, and all art for that matter. If not, you may soon find yourself snuggling up on Christmas Day with your lover listening to songs about date rape.

Revolution from Rejection


Before reading the blog you must watch this clip in it's entirety.




I took some serious time away from this blog for various reasons, but as promised in my last exercise in nerdery, I said I would spend some time writing a blog about Bob Dylan. It turns out that writing about a musician that I have idolized all my life is tougher than I thought. But I digress. So what better way to talk about Dylan then to start with the video that represents everything I love about music (See above video). Let me say as a side note that in the past I have made purposeful attempts to not write using the first person tense (I, me, mine for those of you who never passed the third grade. Luckily I took it twice so I know it really well by now), but for this entry I can't really help myself as I concede openly that anything I write about Dylan or this clip is entirely my opinion and should not be taken as anything more than that. Nothing here is an argument, and nothing here is to be taken as factual (except for the historically factual details). This is all strictly opinion.


A little background (the historically factual details): For those of you living under a rock, one of the premier cornerstones in American music history happened on July 25 1965 in Newport, Rhode Island. Up until that date, Bob Dylan had been a prominent folk singer who was heavily influenced by Woody Guthrie and other early folk singers. Dylan's fame grew as he was often regarded, in the folk music world, as the voice of the young generation in the turbulent 1960's atmosphere. Every summer these folk fans and artists gathered in Newport, Rhode Island to celebrate their music.These artists, like Dylan, performed with little more than an acoustic guitar, and that is how they liked it. They did not want to be burdened with the "noise" of rock music. They liked their genre, and that was what they intended to hear exclusively at the folk festival. Dylan was among these. He was a solo artist who's performances involved only himself, an acoustic guitar, and a harmonica singing the songs that had become anthems for a generation of thinkers. That all changed on that fateful night in 1965. (Does this sound like an elementary school book report to anyone else? I have never been good at using facts to back up arguments. Just ask my ex-girlfriends)



When Dylan plugged in, he instantly changed the face of music in two significant ways: 1) he combined the poetry and protest of folk music with the raw power and energy of rock and roll thus spreading his popularity and influence to a whole new group of fans while raising the bar of rock and roll lyrics, and 2) he alienated everyone who was a fan of Dylan as a folk musician. The former point wasn't realized until much later, but the incessant booing and jeers during Dylan's Newport 1965 opener "Maggie's Farm" proved the latter point almost immediately. This alienation and rejection is something that would soon prove a reoccurring theme throughout the next few years of Dylan's stage life and would lead to the darker and more cynical Dylan made famous in DA Penebaker's classic documentary "Don't Look Back."


So what does any of this have to do with this clip of a manic live version of "Like A Rolling Stone" in Manchester, England in 1966? And how could this be something that would represent everything I love about music? The answer is quite simple to figure out. Let us explore...


There is a difference between going to see a live music show and going to a concert. Symantics? Yes. It may not sound like it, but there is a difference. Let us compare and contrast: Miley Cyrus vs. Phish. Keep in mind, no one in the history of the world has even considered comparing the two, but someone had to be the first to mix vinegar and baking soda, and just think how many elementary school science projects would have never existed had they not. I will say now that comparing Cyrus and Phish is truly unfair. I have never so much as heard a single song by Miley Cyrus (at least not knowingly), nor have I ever seen a single episode or even part of an episode of "Hannah Montana." Yet I have been listening to Phish consistently for about 15 years, own hundreds of live recordings, have seen them live several times, and applied to the college where they met (totally by coincidence... For the record I was accepted but didn't go). None-the-less, I will make the comparison anyway for my theatrical knowledge and background is all I really need for it.


Let's start with that which these two musical groups have in common...They both play music.


And now for the differences. Cyrus is a young, talented girl whose rise to fame started only a few years ago with the success of her Disney television show "Hannah Montana." She has since become a hugely popular singer for kids who still require their parent's to drive them to concerts. Phish is a group of four middle-aged musicians who have been together since the early 80's, and though they never achieved commercial success, they gained a huge nomadic following through their live performances that allowed them to tour constantly and not play to an empty seat in the later 10 or so years of their careers. Cyrus is young enough to still live at home, Phish has been playing together since before Cyrus was born. Cyrus is today's pop princess, Phish was arguably the best jam band since the Grateful Dead.


For our purposes, though, the biggest difference is that the Miley Cyrus concerts are high budget theatrical experiences with set playlists, costume changes, multimedia, and choreography that never changes though out the tour. From the day the tour begins to the day it ends, the show doesn't change, or at least not without official proposals, meetings, rehearsals, and various other stages of planning and execution. The concerts are more live theatre than they are concerts.


Phish, on the other hand, were known for performing with no setlist at all, no costume changes, no choreography (aside from trampoline choreography from time to time). They were known for never playing any songs two days in a row. Audiences knew every show would be a new experience with not only different songs, but songs that were performed differently depending on how the show evolves. There were no rules. A song that is normally 3 minutes could be 24 minutes or more and evolve in a way no one had ever considered. A setlist could be 20 songs long or it could be one continuous jam. The point is, nothing is sacred at a Phish concert. Anything can happen, and it is one of the reasons people would tour with them. Fans would travel around with them for entire tours because they knew that every show would be completely different than any other show. Phish shows were 4 guys who came on stage not knowing what would happen and just play whatever they were inspired to play for three hours each night. Often times the audience response would have a huge impact on what they played or how they played it (See the "cheesecake vocal jam" from 01-01-00, or "Harry Hood" from the Great Went including the first "glowstick war" for examples of this)


So the real difference between these two experiences is this: A Miley Cyrus show is completely pre-determined and is in no way contingent on the audience, and a Phish show is almost entirely contingent on the audience and the atmosphere. Miley Cyrus fans see Miley Cyrus perform, and Phish plays for their fans. Put another way: Phish plays to an audience, and Cyrus plays in front of an audience. Clearly I am somewhat biased, but I will in no way suggest that one is better than the other. They are just two different styles. Considering both groups put together hugely profitable tours, I think it is safe to say that both styles appeal to their target audiences.


And then there is Dylan. From what I can gather, Bob Dylan's 1966 tour of England was a hybrid of these two types of performances. He went on stage with a band that had rehearsed a setlist that was the same, or close to the same each night. There was little or no production value, just he and his band somewhat playing to an audience and somewhat playing in front of the audience. Watching the videos. I get the sense that Dylan was going to play his setlist regardless of how the audience responded, but the tone of the songs were almost entirely dependant on the audience. It was almost as if he was saying "you payed for a ticket to see me, and this is me being me. If you don't like it, no one is asking you to stay." Since the audience didn't respond well to the "plugged in Dylan," his tone grew more and more spiteful as the night went on eventually erupting into a passionate "I don't give a shit what you think" version of "Like a Rolling Stone" that just bleeds energy. It is his refusal to be booed off stage or change his sound that makes this a great clip. The disapproving audience only further fueled the passion behind his performance.


As the story goes, when Dylan was booed off stage in Newport, it deeply affected him. If you watch Scorsese's excellent documentary "No Direction Home," someone (I can't recall who offhand) tells the story of how at the end of the night at an after party Dylan was quietly sitting by himself. She approached him and asked him to dance, and his response was something along the lines of "I'd like to, but I feel like my hands are on fire." Nothing can keep Dylan down though. Clearly he wasn't going to let the initial shock affect him as he spent 1966 touring with his newly minted rock band and was booed everywhere they went. Watching the footage, he almost seemed to enjoy it. It was like he alone was picking a fight with thousands of people each night knowing that he had already won. He seemed to learn how to say "I am not doing this for you, I am doing this because it is me, and no one cares if you don't like it." It is a true reflection of that fact that Dylan rejected the idea of him being the "voice of a generation" as he had been dubbed since 1964. He just wanted to be him and not speak for anyone else. He isn't a performer or an entertainer, he is a poet to be either listened to or rejected. Either way, it doesn't affect him or his music. Nothing gained, nothing lost.


This is the reason that the clip of "Like a Rolling Stone" represents everything I love about music. It is music in it's purest form. The song exists as it's own entity. It is not written or performed for any one's particular enjoyment aside from maybe Dylan's own enjoyment. Dylan looks to be saying "This song is mine, not yours. And fuck you if you don't like it" It is not up to the performer to make a song mean something to his or her audience, it is entirely up to one's self to decide if the song speaks to them. It is also not up the the musician to do as the audience asks. The musician doesn't belong to the people, he is only made popular by the people. He is not a politician to be elected or a lump of clay to be molded. Before reaching worldwide fame, Dylan was an independent artist who made the music as it suited him, and as he grew and matured, so did his sound and his musical style. Of course his new sound wasn't going to appeal to his entire base audience, but the idea of the audience feeling betrayed by a musician is completely ridiculous. Artists can't betray anyone because they don't belong to anyone. They have no loyalty to anyone. Their only loyalty is to their own work and vision... And maybe their landlords around the first of every month.


Betrayal has no place in art. Art is merely a reflection that changes with the time. No artist should ever say "I am doing this because I think people will like it." This is what made Dylan great. Throughout his entire career, he never made music with any intention. He made music for the sake of making music and speaking his own mind, and if you don't like it, tough. Here is the great irony: Dylan became a worldwide sensation for speaking his mind in 1964, yet his audience hated him for speaking his mind in 1966. There is no doubt that when Bob Dylan plugged in, it was revolutionary, and there is also no doubt that Bob Dylan plugging in was a rejection of what he had always done. You can join the ride, or you can take off, either way he's gonna "Play it fucking loud."






***Side note: I know this blog is kind of all over the place. It has a tendency to not make any real points yet still be redundant at times. This is on purpose. I, like Dylan, make no apologies for this blog. You can take it or reject, either way it is mine, not yours. On the other hand, any writing that makes no clear point and rambles on unintelligibly constitutes as poor writing. There is no art found here, only scattered thoughts already stated by much smarter people than I. Either way, if you didn't enjoy this piece, I don't blame you.***

The Ultimate Superpower

You are presented with a predicament. Logistics aside, you are presented with the opportunity to poses one superpower and one superpower alone. It can be any superpower you want it to be, and it has unlimited potential. The rest of you would be completely unchanged, you would simply have your choice of superpower added to your repertoire. What superpower would you choose and why? More importantly how would you use it?

Superhero movies are big right now. The latest two movies to break all box office records have been Spiderman 3 in 2007 and Batman: The Dark Knight in 2008. In the last 6 years we have seen 3 Spiderman films, 2 Batman films, 2 Incredible Hulk films, 2 Superman films, 3 X-Men films, 2 Fantastic Four films, as well as other superhero films including Ironman, Hellboy, Hancock, Ghost Rider, Catwoman, etc. All with varying degrees of success. No matter how you cut it, superheroes are all the rage when it comes to film-making right now. So it begs the question: what power would you want?

I asked Tyler, the 7 year old son of my boss, today what power he would want, and after what I can only describe as a seven year old's version of a dissertation, he eventually concluded that he would want the ability to transform into anything he wanted. I'd say that was a pretty good analysis from a kid who has never seen Terminator II, but I just wonder what kinds of things he would transform into and why he would feel it necessary to transform into them. I would have asked him that follow-up, but there are only so many hours in the day and I'd like to have this essay posted by the end of this week. The great thing about 7 year olds is that for them reason has no place in logic. The main thing he wanted was to be able to emulate various other superpowers that would then be at his disposal without being in violation of the one person/one power ground rule. For example, if he had chosen the power to fly, he would then be stuck with that and only that, but by choosing transformation, he has gained the ability to transform into an airplane which would then give him the ability to fly, but then he would be also be able to transform into a submarine if he were to choose to emulate an Aquaman type character. Pretty smart thinking. I will say that he did try to pull a fast one on me by saying that by choosing transformation, he would be able to transform into "other dudes with other superpowers," but I told him that was against the rules. He disagreed with my boundaries of course, but I feel I won the debate that followed.

I would venture to say that the initial thought of most people would be the ability to fly, have super strength, or super speed, but I find three dominant problems with all of those 1) they are not very versatile 2) they have limited practical applications and 3) I can't imagine how one's life or the well-being of mankind would be significantly impacted either positively or negatively in such circumstances. The obvious joke is that in our current economic climate one wouldn't need to pay for gas to get around with the ability to fly, but I am not much for the obvious joke. Like Tyler's reasoning, if you were to choose flying, have strength, or speed, then that is what you are stuck with. All you would ever be able to do is one of those three. You would either be able to travel through the air with ease, lift or push extraordinarily heavy things, or move really fast. Certainly in one's own life there may be instances where one of those would be all you would ever need to solve all of your problems, but in the greater scheme of life I am not sure I have ever thought to myself that my life would be drastically improved by my ability to move something large.

When I was a younger I felt that the ultimate superpower would be to freeze time. I, of course, blame an episode of DuckTales for brainwashing me into this mentality. From my recollection, Huey, Dewey, Louie, and Webbigail acquired some artifact (probably a watch since there is no such thing as a cliche in children's entertainment) that could freeze time. I remember thinking that this ability could have a world of different applications both in personal and worldly fulfillment. I recall thinking (because I was small picture back then) that I would be able to stop time, go to sleep for as long as I wanted, wake-up and re-start time such that I would always be well rested, but never lose hours of the day in order to get rest. Don't get me wrong, I still think that ability alone would be worth a pound of flesh, but the older I get the more practical applications I think of. I would be able to procrastinate all I want and still never be late on a deadline. I could take as much time as I could ever need or want to work on something. Hell I could take a week long vacation whenever I wanted and never miss a single second of work. Certainly there are numerous applications for the greater good, but I am still thinking small time now. Really when it comes down to it, I'd say that to this day the ability to freeze time is probably the second best superpower imaginable.

So what is the penultimate superpower? If you ask me I say it is mind control. There is an old film from 1977, perhaps you have heard of it, called Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope in which Luke Skywalker and Obi Wan Kenobi are driving through the streets of Alderaan. When they are stopped by storm troopers who ask for the pairs' credentials, Kenobi, using a mind control technique causes the storm troopers to let them pass unchecked. In the world of popular culture, this use of mind control has come to be known as the "Jedi Mind Trick," and if it is not already, it aught to be the most sought after superpower among nerds and normal people alike. Imagine the limitless possibilities of controlling the minds of others. Don't want to pay rent this month? No problem, your landlord thinks you live rent-free. How about that girl you are afraid to ask out due to fear of rejection? Well she is ready to bear your children now. Want the day off from work? Hell, take the rest of the year off at your bosses urging. It isn't like you need money anyway what with the free rent, free food and merchandise you will acquire by simply making people think it is free for you. You can be famous if you want, you can keep others from being famous, you can do just about ANYTHING you want provided someone with a mind is at the helm.

Now think big picture. Say I wanted to end the war in Iraq right now. I could just tap into the mind of the President and his staff, alter their thinking and suddenly the troops are on their way home. But what about the eruptions of violence and the Iraqi government that will surely crumble at the immediate withdrawal of all of our troops? Fear not, I just tapped into the minds of all of the Iraqi people and their government and ended all desires for violence and corruption. While I am at it, I went ahead and made everyone in the world live in peace, erased the debts of all of the countries, and now the children of the world are gathering in the streets to join hands and sing We Shall Overcome. Oh yeah and there is a pizza on its way to my apartment...And I don't plan on paying for it.

So here is the obvious problem: mind control of this magnitude would be enormously dangerous and dishonest in the wrong hands. I believe it was Peter Parker's uncle Ben in the first Spiderman who taught us all that with great power comes great responsibility, and it turns out he was right. Imagine what would happen to world if this power got into the wrong hands. Imagine Hitler with that power, imagine Ted Kaczynski, Imagine Rush Limbaugh.

There is also this: I have a hard time understanding how to navigate my Tivo let alone the process and worldwide applications of geo-politics as it relates to conflicting regions and ideologies. That isn't to say I wouldn't want to bring and end to war-torn nations, but let's be honest, chaos theory states that a butterfly flapping its wings here can cause a typhoon in Japan, so just imagine what kind of backlash could occur by the everyman playing puppet master to the world even if his intentions are purely good.

Finally, keep this is mind: we are all affected by our own cultures. We unfortunately have a tendency to believe that the way we live is the "right" way and the way others live is sometimes considered humorous and sometimes considered abhorrent, but the truth of the matter is that no matter where someone may be from, each culture is laden with its own imperfections. Yes, even we Americans are far from living in a perfect society. The thing is, we need those imperfections, because in many ways, it is our imperfections that make us great. Sometimes it is our flaws that we love most about our culture. We need certain people to think one way and others to think another way. We need every possible viewpoint represented and given equal weight. We need a world that operates using checks and balances and a world that encourages debate and counterpoints. To alter the minds of the world and make everyone think a certain way about anything is not only the most powerful form of mental slavery, but it is representative of everything we don't want in this world. Having that power would instantly cast us into an Orwellian nightmare where there are no Winstons and there are no proles. Even if it did cause the ability to stop wars and cause the world to live in peace, could mind control really be considered anything but evil under those conditions? I will bet not. Still, it would be nice not paying rent.



***Side Note: In my entire life, I have never felt as much like a nerd as I do right now. I swore to myself that I would never talk about Star Wars in these essays. I am going to have to write about Bob Dylan next just to feel normal again.***

Famous For Being Famous

There comes a time when just about everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that we will not become hugely famous solely based on who we are as people. Who among us has not felt as though we were watching an artificial carbon copy of ourself or someone we know when we watch television or a movie? Who among us hasn't believed that a movie could be made based on our own life or a situation we have been in? This is especially true for younger people who tend to think that their life experiences are vastly more interesting than they really are. Don't believe me? Watch what happens when high schoolers get web cams (I don't recoment watching more than 30 seconds of this clip or your mind might cave in). I am as guilty of this as anyone. There is no footage of my idiotic antics on youtube, but I do maintain that my freshman year roommate is a direct descendant of Wooderson from Dazed and Confused. Certainly I would not even think to suggest that people's real life experiences are not frequently captivating (to be explained later), instead I suggest that in our own minds our stories and personalities have a tendency to be far more fascinating than they are to the outside world. This is proven everyday by two phrases "I guess you had to be there," and "and then I found five dollars." Yet despite the beautiful and universal truth that in our own minds we are fascinating and engaging enough to make millions being ourselves on television, it isn't going to happen. The rules, however, change if you have already been blessed with mild celebrity.

What comes to mind when I say Brett Michaels? How about Flavor Flav? Or Paula Abdul? We are in the middle of a cultural phenomenon in which individuals who were at one time famous have now transcended time, space, and the entertainment industry standards to become equally if not more famous just for being themselves on television. Somehow, someway, someone felt that a slew of former celebrities could breath new life into current popular culture, and somehow they managed to be right. When you think of Brett Michaels, you think of one of two things; the band Poison who achieved arena style stardom with Every Rose Has It's Thorn, or you think of him as the love interest for a bevy of half-crazed 20-somethings on VH1's Rock of Love. Flava Flav for you is either one of the members of Public Enemy, or he is the focal point on Flavor of Love. Paula Abdul? Cold Hearted Snake or 1/3 of the most influential music critics of our time on American Idol. The strange thing is, the latter would not have been possible without the former for any such celebs. In order for the formula to work effectively, one MUST have been famous years ago, been a subject of a Where Are They Now special, and then re-appeared in the spotlight as a tour de force of popular culture influence. It has been said that one can never be as popular as one's predecessor (i.e John Lennon's son Julian, Terry Bowden, or the remake of The Gong Show), but what happens when the predecessor is one's self? Some celebrities have achieved enormous fame by being themselves based on the fact that they had at one time been enormously famous for something else. We shall from here on refer to this as retroactive fame or retroactive celebrity where fame plus 10-20 years begets equal or greater fame. It would be considered a comeback except that they are not retroactively becoming famous again in their original genre. Instead they are becoming retroactively famous for being themselves outside of their original genre. The last 5-10 years have proven to us all that the world of celebrity rotates on a constant axis in which it is possible, dare I say probable, that once one has experienced and wained from celebrity status, it is only a matter of time before the entertainment world makes one full revolution to once again shower them with the light of popularity in equal or greater proportions. Science rules.

There is an age old argument in the psychological world. It stems from the question of whether or our personalities are the result of our (a) bio-genetic make-up, or (b) a reflection of one's own life experiences. You may have heard it referred to as the "nature vs. nurture" debate. The common compromise states that our personalities are the result of a mixture of both our genetic and experiential background. This is why celebrities will always be famous. Confused? And rightly so.

Fame is a peculiar beast. You never quite know when it will happen or who it will happen to, but there is one universal truth about anyone who has ever become famous: at some point, someone saw in them an undefinable quality that sets them apart from anyone and everyone else in the world. Before they formed as a rock group, Paul Hewson and David Evans were school mates. Both played guitar for their peers in the school yard, but David has remarked that Paul always managed to have a bigger gathering than him. David knew he was a better guitar player, so he could never figure out what it was about Paul that drew people's attention, but it did. This is the perfect example of the "it" factor, as it has often been referred to. Later on Paul Hewson became Bono and David Evans became The Edge in the Irish supergroup U2. Every year thousands of hopeful comedians dream of being full-time cast members on Saturday Night Live, yet only a handful of extraordinarily lucky people get the honor. Why? It. American Idol is the highest rated show on television today, and it consists of young adults performing for the nation only to have the nation decide who the winner will be. How do they decide to pick Kelly Clarkson, Ruben Studdard, and David Cook from the pack of clearly talented singers? It. How does Kevin Costner keep managing to get work despite is heinous acting? It. There is some quality about who they are that sets them apart from everyone else and which leads them into a life of fame. This is a pretty good sumation of a celebrity's nature.

What does the term "party like a rock star" mean to you? Long before it was a terrible hip-hop song by the Shop Boys, it was an uncredited phrase referring to the intensity in which musicians have fun. The standard visual is that partying like a rock star includes exorbitant amounts of drugs, alcohol, and easy, uninhibited sex with countless people. This partying usually lasts until everyone either passes out or someone dies (to limit a "rock star party" to a mere night is thinking small time). The end result being that if you are a bona fide rock star, it is automatically assumed that you have made (or destroyed) a living having a wilder time than any of us mere mortals can ever dream of. In our current culture, this type of lifestyle is not limited to musicians. Look at some other actors who have indulged in a life of excess: Drew Barrymore, Corey Feldman, Eddy Murphy, Chris Farley, John Belushi, Lindsay Lohan, and the list certainly goes on and on. For the special few who have managed to indulge this lifestyle and survive, they must certainly come away with some seriously interesting stories and experiences thus reating a well-rounded story of their life experiences.

And there you have it, statistically celebrities have an abnormally high combination of both nature and nurture, moreso than the average person. That is all it is. A single sentence that did not really need to be explained in three long-winded paragraphs.

But how does this relate to the cylindrical world of entertainment. Why do celebrities become retroactively famous once they have fallen from grace? Because fascination with celebrity does not really happen until post-celebrity, or at least until peak-celebrity. Let us examine the celebrity arch: A 16 year old boy, let's call him Dan, from small town New Jersey wants to be an actor. He is gifted and has a clear "it" factor. At age 18, moves to New York, gets an agent, appears in a number of low-budget Indy films first as an extra, then supporting characters. He finds he has a knack for being a character actor and feels he should pursue that living versus that of a leading man. Through his agent he lands a part in a Coen brother's film as Joel and Ethan are known for their portrayal of colorful characters. He is a hit, winning an Emmy nomination for best supporting actor. He is offered roles in numerous high budget films. He begins dating attractive celebrity women, going to Hollywood parties, and buying expensive houses and cars. At this point, he has "made it." The world becomes fascinated with Dan. He is on the covers of a number of supermarket tabloids obsessed with who he is dating and what kind of coffee he drinks. He is now 28. Still young enough to consider himself immortal, yet old enough and wealthy enough to be fully independent. He loves the celebrity lifestyle, but the wild parties all seem the same, and he needs a little "extra boost" to keep having fun. He drinks more than he used to. He starts snorting cocaine, first on a limited basis, then almost daily, then multiple times a day. His wallet starts to shrink, and his bar tab starts to grow. The tabloids are filled with pictures of him looking horribly wasted and distorted. He is no longer interested in being an actor because he is no longer interested in working. Calls from film producers are replaced with calls from creditors. Now he is 35 and he can't beg for a film role, and he can't afford the coke he needs to get out of bed. Right around the time his second wife leaves him he decides it is time to clean himself up. A year later Dan is completely sober and ready to start working again. By this point he has completed the full celebrity arch from discovery, through success, through self-destruction, and finally to rehabilitation. And it is through the stages of success to self-destruction that the public is fascinated with him, and it is through rehabilitation that we become truly interested in the whole of Dan's journey. He is no longer the characters he has portrayed on film, he is instead the Dan that has led a strange and horrifyingly intriguing life, and that is what the public wants to see, thus after being cast out of the public eye once he becomes embarrassing, he re-emerges as a washed up success story. Hence the cycle of celebrity. His nature made him a celebrity, but his nurture made him a retroactive celebrity. Now he is ready for a VH1 reality show. Obviously this is a grossly overly stereotyped arch, and many celebrities who become retroactively famous are not victims of the lifestyle of excess, but in some way they do go through a journey of sorts with their own peaks and valleys.

And here is the bottom line. You can't write this stuff. The true life story of a person is vastly more intriguing than anything someone can write only because when we know something to be true, we can't help but be awe-inspired provided it is actually an interesting story. This is why the film "Remember The Titans" is vastly more interesting than "Major League" or why "All The Presidents Men" is more intense than "Clear and Present Danger." When we know something to be true, we aren't burdened with the need to analyse the probabilities of plot lines. We can't say "that would never happen" during a non-fictional story because, for all we know, it did happen as it is portrayed in front of us. As movie-goers we love this because when we watch movies we desperately want to believe in the legitimacy of a story, but often times we can't help but be taken out of it. This is not an option during non-fiction movies. Despite the fact that producers and directors have a tendency to take "artistic liberties" with story, we blindly believe every moment of the film from start to finish regardless of how ridiculous it may seem. The same is true with people. Ridiculous characters are immediately thought to be complete fabrications while ridiculous people are thought to be intriguing and captivating.

As in the case of how Hollywood works, we can now construct a formula where the goal is to create a reality television program with a high level of public interest. [A(XN+YI)+E-J]/T=P where (A) is an actor, (XN) is the degree of nurtured experience where (N) is constant, (YI) is the degree of one's "It" factor where (I) is constant, (E) is working experience, (J) is current employment, (T) is time since the last employment, and (P) is public interest. Now simply plug in in various celebrities and solve for (P). Once you find someone with a high level of public interest who is desperate enough to accept your offer to be themselves, you have a new television host.

The two biggest success stories in terms of retroactive celebrity in my mind are unequivically Ellen Degeneres and Jon Stewart. Ellen Degeneres is a very funny comedian who had between 1994 and 1998 achieved a reletively high level of fame as the leading character on the sitcom "Ellen." The show is probably most remembered for an episode in 1997 where, at the shows peak, Ellen (both the show's character and Degeneres herself) publicly announced that she is a lesbian. I remember that episode being groundbreaking at the time, but is also, in some circles, considered to be the sitcom's downfall. Following the cancellation of the show, Degeneres faded from the spotlight, but kept her career afloat by appearing in several forgetable films until 2003 when she reemerged with a vengence as the voice of a dimwitted yet loveable fish named Dori in Disney's "Finding Nemo." That same year was the inagural episode of her daytime talkshow "The Ellen Degeneres Show" which has since proved to be one of the most watched talkshows of today. She started as a comedian, became a sitcom star, faded from the spotlight, and then achieved astronomical fame again as herself.

Jon Stewart, on the other hand, has a bit of a different story. Stewart, since the early 90's, had bounced around from television show to television show keeping himself known but not too well known. His career was far from lucritive, but he managed to keep himself from working at McDonalds on the side. My favorite role of his was as the "enhancement smoker" on Dave Chapelle's stoner film "Half Baked." It is tough to say he ever reach a high level of fame, but in the early 90's he was the kind of actor most people had heard of, they just couldn't think of anything noteable he had done. Then Comedy Central came calling. The original host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" was Craig Kilborn, and in 1998 Kilborn and Comedy Central had a bit of a falling out, and "The Daily Show" needed a new host. Stewart took over and achieved the kind of success story that actors dare to dream of. He has since established himself as one of the funniest, startest, and most insightful comics, satirists, and comedy producers in America today. He has since won Emmy's, Critics Circle Awards, and even Peabody Awards, as well as hosted both the 78th and 80th Academy Awards. Again, Stewart had become mildly famous for nothing noteable, disappeared (though it wasn't too tough for him), and reemerged as a powerhouse player in the entertainment world late in his career.

There is another possible reason for retroactive celebrity: Hollywood wants name recognition, but doesn't want to front a lot of money, so they land the name of a washed up celebrity who will work cheap. This is only possible because people are stupid though. No explanation necessary.

The First of it's Kind


Name for me if you could the first president of the United States. How about the first astronauts to step foot on the moon during the first lunar landing? Name for me the first music video played on MTV. Now name the first person you ever kissed, or the first person you ever slept with, or your first car. Could you do it? My guess is that for most people, you could instantly name all of these things (maybe with the exception of the first video on MTV). Now do this, name the second of all of those things. Could you do that? Maybe, but it certainly takes a bit more thought doesn't it?

When it comes to remembering tidbits of history, most of us stop after we have learned the originator. Our minds have a tendency to work that way. It is as if we think "well I know how it started, leave the rest to the pros." But not only are most of us not expected to know the runner-up in most instances, but to NOT know the pioneer is almost considered laughable or even embarrassing. So how does that work? How is it that instantaneous recollection of landmark firsts is required for social acceptance, but knowledge of that which follows makes one appear to be a freshman history major? One of the few exceptions in the history of the world is Bob Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower" as performed by Jimi Hendrix. Though even then, the Hendrix version would not exist without Dylan's.

The reason for the common mentality of "learn the first and leave the rest" is actually quite simple. Our nation, as well as all other nations are founded on discovery. Every nation that exists today was born from someone taking exactly one step farther from organized civilization than anyone before them had ever stepped, and once they do this, anyone who follows is merely repeating what has been done. Discovery of the unknown represents progress and advancement, and we tend to be cursed with the belief that anything that has not already been done is impossible. After all, if it were possible, why hasn't anyone already done it? This belief has existed through all remembered time and yet has been shattered for equally as long. Every now and then something groundbreaking happens, and it reminds us all that anything is possible regardless of how unlikely it may seem whether it be Neil Armstrong walking on the moon's surface or Lance Armstrong winning the Tour de France. Furthermore, when Americans are involved in historic events, it seems to reassert the general American attitude that we are the best at everything. Whether or not that sentiment is true is certainly subject to debate among anyone outside of the political process, media arena, or the South. In our current age when the entire surface of the earth has been visible by either first hand accounts or via satellite photos and videos, we look to more abstract ways to explore, expand, and advance. We look to medicine. We look to the political process. We look to sports. We look to technology. And yes, we look to the stars to see what we can do, where we can go, and what we will find next. In this world, to look to the future is to look to the next big discovery and therefore to the next proof of the spirit, potential and limitless imagination of mankind.

But what is it about the followers of history? What is it about the world's silver and bronze medal winners? How did "Saved By the Bell" reach such massive popularity while "Saved By the Bell The New Class" was an abysmal failure in terms of cultural impact even with Screech? What is it about those who "stand on the shoulders of geniuses" that we find so forgettable? Isn't it true that the vast potential of discoveries is not truly tapped until long after the pioneer has gone? Yes, but the difference is that anyone who was not the first is forever in debt to the first for opening the door. The pioneer makes the broader point that anything is possible even if they don't have the full ability or the foresight to uncover the full ramifications of their discovery which are in themselves limitless. What they have done is built the foundation of a world of new possibilities that were otherwise unknown, not unlike Jurassic Park. And all who follow only prove to the world that the advancements of the past were relevant. Usually more relevant than previously theorized. Thus adding power to the significance of the originator. No one could tell you the names of the engineers who finalized the production or design of the iphone or the modern energy saving fluorescent light bulbs, but anyone with a 5th grade education could tell you who Alexander Graham Bell or Thomas Edison were. Apple and GE may have developed that which currently impacts our everyday lives, but they would not exist without Bell and Edison who uncovered our potential as human beings to further explore the potential of their innovations. New advancements are not final products. Instead they are potential. Potential for the next light bulb or iphone or Hubble telescope or life saving drug or, yes, even deadly weapon. Spared no expense

Popular culture works the same way. Eminem, Jurassic 5, and William Hung may cross racial divides with their music, but they are following the paths of Elvis and Little Richard who did so long before any of them. Anyone who has ever appreciated a lusty bedroom scene on television can thank Fred and Wilma Flinstone for being the first prime time television couple to be portrayed as sleeping in the same bed. Regardless of your feelings about Pete Townsend, he is your pioneer if you like the showmanship of smashing instruments on stage. For every incarnation of popular culture, their was inevitably a first person to do it, and no matter how much you may deny it, all acts that follow are an unavoidable homage to that initial innovation.

As I write this, it is July 31st 2008, and we are in the middle of an historic presidential election that will result with landmark implications. One candidate is a cancer survivor, the other is part African-American. No matter who is elected, the United States of America will have opened yet another door of possibilities to another subset of people who would have never thought that someone like them could reach the office of the most powerful person in the world. Until now. We truly can do anything, and it just takes one person to remind us of that.

Generation 2008.0

I am a child of the 1980's. I am one of those somewhere in between generation x and generation y. I think they call us the MTV generation, as degrading as that is. We X.5ers have found ourselves in a fun conundrum. We are old enough to remember what it was like before the personal computer ran our lives, but not old enough to be nostalgic about it. Instead we had Kevin Arnold and The Wonder Years to be nostalgic for us. Despite the fact that I have been around for a great deal of it's development, electronic technology has always eluded me. In the 80's, I was busy playing with Legos when I should have been trying to convince my parents to invest in Microsoft. The long term effect is that I am currently by no means up to date on the latest technology which, in turn, means I continue to be fascinated by technology that is either out of date or obsolete. But there is one thing I have lived through and recognized the full arc of while still finding it absolutely incredible: the cellular phone.

I am currently writing this blog by using a cellular phone*. Think about that for a second. I am using a telephone to access the Internet (spellcheck tells me Internet is spelled with a capital "I," not unlike proper names. Take that to the bank) and am using the keypad to type my ramblings onto a website. Take that Alexander Graham Bell. You might have invented the phone, but can yours show you the score of the Cubs' game? I think not. One wonders if Bell had any idea that the phone would impact mankind the way that it has.

Ten years ago I, along with many other people, did not own a cell phone. 15 years ago The Internet was a novelty who's potential was still untapped, and 20 years ago having a personal computer was unheard of. And now look at us. We currently live in a time where the most desired item in the nation is fundamentally a telephone. A super-telephone that holds as many contacts as most people could ever need, stores calendars and schedules, accesses the Internet at break-neck speeds, sends and receives e-mails, text messages, pictures, voice recording, has a digital camera and a global positioning system. Oh the places technological advances will go. I am currently sitting in a theatre next to a highly sophisticated lighting console with at least 3 laptops within arm's reach and surrounded by 60 kids between the ages of 6 and 26 all of whom have cell phones, and most of whom have ipods on their person. Not to sound old, but none of these younger kids are ever going to know what it is like to be unreachable to the outside world when they leave their homes. Big brother will always be able to get it touch with them, or at least leave a message, or send a text, or an IM.

I vividly recall when my father installed his first car phone in our old Saab 900S, briefcase sized computer pack and all. I remember my families first computer and the first time I accessed the Internet via AOL. I remember when public schools banned beepers because they were thought to indicate drug dealing. I remember when the first of my friends got a cell phone and we all thought it was merely an elitist device used to call one's parents at work when it was time to be picked up from school. I remember my first cell phone; the same Nokia phone that everyone else had. Luckily you could customize yours with plastic face plates for $40 a pop.

Cell phones are a spectacular innovation. No one needs to be told how much they have changed the lives of everyone who owns one. They allow the ability for 24 hour communication no matter where you are in the world. They allow people to conduct more business in more places at more hours of the day than conventional phones, and they make the necessity of remembering phone numbers obsolete. But there is a downside: they allow the ability for 24 hour communication no matter where you are in the world. They allow people to conduct more business in more places at more hours of the day than conventional phones, and they make the necessity of remembering phone numbers obsolete. There are many more amazing innovations that are also disadvantages when it comes to phones. Cell phones are great, they really are, but people need a break sometimes. I am included in this. As I previously stated, I have never been fully up to date on technology, and for a quarter century I have never felt the need to be dialed in, but since getting a Blackberry Curve something has changed, and I keep finding myself looking for news on the release date and features on the forthcoming Blackberry Bold. This has never been a part of who I am, and as much as I like being informed, I don't like that I have come to enjoy getting informed on something that will become obsolete in a matter of months or worse, weeks or even days. I especially don't like that I have become worried that I am out of touch with the world if I don't have a phone with me. I don't like that there are three different ways to get a hold of me that all come directly to my phone, and I really don't like adding another bill to my repertoire every month. Yet at the same time, I love all those things. Well I could do without the money thing. I guess that is what they call a double-edged sword, and that is what virtually all technology is. None of it is universally good and none of it is universally evil. Instead it all has an upside with an equally prominent downside. Where we gain one level of convenience and leisure, we lose in other areas of life. Again, that is not altogether a bad thing, but sometimes it is. The only thing universally great about cell phones is that we are all learning how to touch-type really well with our thumbs... As long as we can keep them from hurting.

It seems the Fairmount Hotel and Resort backs me up.
*In the interest of full disclosure: the first draft of this blog was indeed written on a Blackberry Curve 8310, but all revisions and media attachements were made on a latop. There is no sin of ommision here.

"Hip-hop is what makes the world go around"

I don't really listen to hip-hop music, but I listen to enough to notice a single beautiful and universal truth about hip-hop that separates it from any and every other musical genre in existence: hip-hop artists are allowed to break more "rules" of music than anyone else. Hip-hop has been called many negative things. It has been called offensive, degrading, and immature. It has been said to promote violence, discrimination, and sexism, and more than one person has suggested banning it. It is probably the most attacked type of artistic expression currently available in the mass market, but you can't deny hip-hop's originality, and the more I listen to it, the more I recognize it as a unique and unlikely phenomenon which (pardon the cliche) follows its own rules. The following are my list of the top 5 elements that hip-hop manages to embrace while going against all other unspoken rules of music:

1) Sampling: I am well aware that the focus of a great deal of Hip-Hop is the lyrics, and to a lesser degree, the beats, but maybe the most prominent element in hip-hop absent from other genres is that of sampling. Hip-hop will sample everything. In my limited collection of hip-hop, I have songs that sample rock, soul, R&B, funk, and classical music, movie and television sound clips and themes, even Broadway musicals. Sampling is perfect for someone like me who doesn't listen to hip-hop very often and who subsequently knows very little about it. Much of the time I could ignore most hip-hop, but if I hear N-Trance adding a beat and rhymes on top of the BeeGee's "Staying Alive," then that is a jam I can get behind. The formula is relatively simple: find a song or a sound clip you like, loop it, boost or add a bass line and a heavy beat, and rap on top of it. Again, it is a pretty basic formula, but the key to something sounding like The Average Homeboy or NWA is all in the execution and the attitude. Anyone who has ever listened to The Sex Pistols could tell you that. There are just a few things that I am confused about in terms of sampling:

Jay-Z is one of the most respected hip-hop artists/producers in the world who no one could possible talk bad about. He is unquestionably one of the most prominent examples of the Horatio Alger's vision of the American dream. but he sampled a song from the musical "Annie," so how cool could he be?

Has P.Diddy ever actually written his own tunes, or does he just wish he was a 70's or 80's rock star?
Why don't more people know about Jedi Mind Tricks? Is it the name that turns people off? Cause I think there stuff is outstanding, but then again, what do I know? I just hear Yo-yo Ma with a beat.

2) Self-inflation: I would say that in a good 30% of the hip-hop songs I have on my computer, the artist mentions his own name or his group in the first 10-15 seconds of the song. This happens in all of my other music approximately 0% of the time. I used to love it when an artist mentions his own name. My former roommate and dear friend was a big fan of hip-hop when I was still listening to Hanson. Clearly, his goal in life, aside from trying to beat level 3 of Garma's Fate, was to get me to listen to more hip-hop, so he let me copy a bunch of his CD mixes. The greatest thing about it was I never had to look up who was singing because the artists always managed to mention their own names in the songs. For a musical genius such as myself, it is difficult for me to admit something as basic as a song's performer, but hip-hop managed to do the work for me so I could go back to waxing philosophical about songs potentially about transvestites (Lola, Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da, etc).


Hip-hop is an intensely personal art form. Personal in the respect that hip-hop has a tendency to be a statement that says "this is what I, the artist, am all about." Often times the songs are or pose to be a story of one's own life, so adding one's own name acts as a reinforcement that he or she is refering to him or her self. In a large percentage of songs, the subject matter is considered controversial at best, and by attaching one's name to the controversial subject, the artist is openly telling the audience that he/or she stands by everything they say. They make no apologies and they don't sugar-coat it for anyone. It says "think what you want, but this is what I say, and don't you forget it or who is saying it." It is like the political ads you see during election seasons ending with "I'm (fill in politician of choice) and I approve this message." Hip-hop does the same thing...Usually with a lot more profanity.

3) Criticism of peers: There are entire hip-hop songs dedicated to smack talking of one or more specific people. The extent of the East coast/West coast rivalry of the mid 1990's between Death Row Records and Bad Boy Records can be heard overtly in a number of songs by a number of artists. Or look at Eminem's career. He has managed to make a lucrative living out of either insulting other people or talking about how everyone hates yet needs him. Tupac versus Biggie, Kanye West versus 50 Cent, Canibus versus LL Cool J, Nas versus Jay-Z, and the list goes on. It is absolutely fascinating to see how hip-hop artists can literally hate each other and devote entire songs to that bitter hatred for seemingly no reason.

The hip-hop rivalries, when they don't result in violence, are fantastic, they are like Shakespearean battles with two great men filled with hubris squaring off for a fight to the death. They are Brutus and Mark Antony who's battle of words is about not only what you say, but about how you say it. It is about what rhymes you put together, what beat is behind your song, what your hook sounds like, and who you get to back you, and whoever puts together the better song or album gets the support of more people on the battlefront. Again, as long as it remains non-violent, hip-hop rivalries are the closest thing to William Shakespeare acting out the first amendment at the turn of the 21st century like a high school history class acid trip. And who wouldn't support that?

4) Names: Jay-z, Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Biggie Smalls, Busta Rhymes, Romeo, Bow Wow, Ice Cube, Ice T, Vanilla Ice, and the list goes on and on and ON. In the world of Hip-Hop, everyone has a name, and nearly all of those names are something other than birth names, but they are the names that become the names of the artists. They are more than stage names or alter-egos as in David Bowie's Ziggy Stardust days. They become the artists actual names and personas. To be fair, this does occur in other genres from time to time (Bono, The Edge, Bo Diddley, Gene Simmons, Kenny G, Bob Dylan, etc.), but not nearly to the extent that it happens in hip-hop. The phenomenon is so prominent that it is difficult to assert oneself as a serious hip-hop artist without an overtly false name. In most musical genres, songs are made by bands, bands that are made up of people. The Who is a made up name given to a band, but that band is made up of guys who's actual names are Pete Townsend and Roger Daltry, and we all know them as such. Jerry Garcia, Bob Weir, and Phil Lesh have given themselves the collective name The Grateful Dead, but when the members are solo, they are Jerry Garcia, Bob Weir, and Phil Lesh. For those fortunate enough to find success as a solo artist, they are, for the most part known by their actual birth name; Billy Joel, Kenny Chesney, or Neil Young, but in hip-hop, all the rules are broken. In a group scenerio, there is a group of artists known collectively as The Boot Camp Clik, but individually they are Buckshot, Smif-n-Wessun, Heltah Skeltah, and OGC, and chances are, unless you are pretty well dialed in or you have the time and interest to log onto wikipedia, you have no idea what their birth names are.

In the late 20th and early 21st century, hip-hop was pretty well established as the music of the streets. It represented the struggles and successes of impoverished people in this country. I recently watched the first episode of "From G's to Gents," and the first thing I noticed about it was that all of the "G's" are apparently from lower income households, have made their own living doing whatever they had to do to get by be it legal or otherwise, and they all go by names other than their birth names. I would wager that one of the prominent characteristics of living the rags to riches lifestyle is that "there is only one person who decides who I am and what I do, and that is me." You won't allow people to know you by the same name as the government because the government doesn't decide who you are. This is especially prominent since there can be hundreds of thousands of people by the same name, but there is only one Jay-Z, or Reverend Run, or Chali 2-na. Instead one must decide the name that best fits oneself.

5) Vocabulary: Would you like to know another thing hip-hop has in common with Shakespeare? Not since William Shakespeare has another form of expression added more words into our national lexicon than hip-hop, Stephen Colbert might be a close second. Examples:

crunk
n. a type of hip-hop or rap music characterized by repeated shouted catchphrases and elements typical of electronic dance music, such as prominent bass.

bling bling (uncountable)
(slang) Shiny jewelry that displays wealth, such as a diamond ring or a stylish gold necklace or bracelet.

Jiggy
(slang) Having fun, enjoying oneself totally; losing one's inhibitions, especially when dancing or performing to music.

Props
(slang) "proper respect" or "proper recognition" for another person

Shout Out
N. The act of giving an acknowledgement.
Shorty (plural shorties)
(slang, hip-hop) An attractive young female, especially: a girl who is "down", who is counted among close male friends and sometimes loose sexually; or, one's "girl", one's "boo"; or, a girl that a male does not know but wishes to meet.

The English language is extraordinarily limited, and often times, pre-established words don't express what we would like to express. The solution is easy: make something up. At the very worst, your listeners will not know what you are saying and probably not pay it much mind, and at best, your word(s) will find their way into becoming understood parts of the national lexicon. It is an extraordinary honor to create a "successful" word. It means that you have not only gotten your music and lyrics into some one's head, but you have actually changed the way a large population of people think and speak. The problem is (as is the case with "bling") is that when a hip-hop word becomes too popular and too many people begin to use it, it becomes a little embarrassing, especially for the originator. Let's be honest, when someone like Rosie O'Donnell begins to use the same lingo as Akon, it looks fine for Rosie, it doesn't look fine for Akon.

As a side-note: Hip-hop music is a part of American culture and history, like it or not, and I hate to be the one to say this, if the parents don't want their kids to listen to hip-hop, then you might consider not making a crusade out of trying to keep it out of your kids' hands. Remember when The Da Vinci Code was made into a movie? It got a lot of press. Huge populations of faithful church-goers were extremely vocal about how offensive and vile they felt the film to be. They alone caused the film to receive far more free press coverage than any professional publicists could have created. The only problem was that all of the complaints managed to neglect the fact that as far as films are concerned, The Da Vinci Code wasn't a very good one. But, as the conventional wisdom goes, any press coverage is good press coverage. The long and the short of it is that a huge population of people went to see the film just to find out what the fuss was all about. End result? a mediocre film grossed far more than it would have had the religious right kept quiet. You would have thought they might have learned after protesting the book version. Or protesting the Harry Potter series. Or protesting the film Dogma. Or protesting the film Last Temptation of Christ. Certainly I am not suggesting that people not speak their opinions, but there is one thing about kids that parents aught to keep in mind: kids will get a hold of just about anything their parents hate one way or another. If you really want your kids to keep from listening to hip-hop, you should get a hold of ever hip-hop album you can, listen to them often, listen to them loud, sing along, and, most importantly, dance to them. I can almost guarantee your kids will be so mortified that they will not go near a hip-hop record for at least the ages of 12-17.

What brilliance looks like



Simple and bold. This was the only direction that the members of Pink Floyd gave to George Hardie in 1973 to describe what they wanted the cover of their new album to be. The result? Dark Side of the Moon.

In 1967, Paul McCartney and Peter Blake discussed the idea that the new Beatles' album cover should be a shot of the band playing to a group of people in a park. This concept then ended up becoming the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

These two albums were separated by 6 years, two different designers, and two completely different bands in terms of musical styles, influences, and fan bases, and their differences are certainly reflected in their album artwork of choice. Yet, Dark Side of the Moon and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band are arguably the two most recognizable album covers of all time. So how is that possible? How can two bands as polar opposite as the Beatles and Pink Floyd yield two album covers that just about any English speaking person in the world will recognize instantly? One is simple and bold, the other brilliantly complex and inexplicable.

We can assume that their recognition can be partially explained by their popularity. Dark Side appeared on Billboard's top 200 album list for 741 consecutive weeks, it has sold approximately 40 million copies, and is easily placed on any list of greatest albums of all time.

Likewise Sgt Pepper has sold approximately 30 million copies, tops Rolling Stone's list of the Greatest Albums of All Time, and has been called "a decisive moment in the history of Western Civilization" by prominent critic Kenneth Tynan.

Clearly popularity is in their favor as just about anyone who is a fan of popular or rock music from the 1960's and 70's has owned one or both of the albums. But that can't be the only reason that the covers are so recognizable.

Look at Michael Jackson's legendary album Thriller. It is far and away the best selling album of all time worldwide with estimates of over 108 million copies sold, it became the highest selling album of all time after only a year, and a copy of it is in the library of congress as it has been deemed culturally significant. But what is the artwork? Well it is a picture of Michael Jackson in a white suit. I would venture to guess that if you subtracted the text from the picture, a large number of people would not instantly recognizing that picture as being the cover of Thriller. How about the Eagle's Greatest Hits 1971-1975. It has sold about 45 million copies world wide, and I am not even sure what the cover is. I know it is light blue and has what I think is an eagle's skull on it. Again, could you show that picture to anyone on the street and have them instantly recognize that it is the cover of one of the best selling albums ever? Probably not.

So why Dark Side and why Sgt Pepper? I hypothesize that the albums artwork speaks to an equal amount of artistic interpretation as the album itself. The Dark Side prism is simple and bold, but its "meaning" as it relates to the body of work that is Dark Side of the Moon is far from overt. AC/DC's album Back in Black is simple and bold, but it is also overt. It is an all black album with white writing that only says AC/DC Back in Black. It is very simple, and it is what it says it is. A black album by AC/DC. Nothing more, nothing less. But Dark side of the Moon is a black album with a beam of light refracting in a prism and emitting a rainbow. No dark side, and no moon. So what does it "mean?" That is the point of all of this. There is no definitive meaning. The purpose of the prism is subject to just as much debate and speculation as the meanings of Great Gig In The Sky, Any Colour You Like, Brain Damage/Eclipse, etc. One could even argue that the songs on the album are more overt in meaning than that of the album's artwork, not a small feat for a band who wrote some of the most abstract songs in history. The underlying point is that absolutely everything on Dark Side is open to interpretation, each lyric, each note, each backing narrative, the title of the album, and the cover artwork. And as every first year psych major can tell you, when you are forced to think about and interpret a piece of artwork, that piece of artwork become naturally ingrained in your mind. Thus, when the 40 million people who bought the album think about what the cover signifies, the cover art becomes etched in the minds of 40 million people. Add a bevy of foreign substances into the mix, and you've got yourself a hit. This is proof that weed increases memory.

On the other hand, Sgt Pepper follows a different road. The Beatles are the the greatest pop band in the history of the world. No other group of people have ever even come close to captivating virtually every English speaking person in the world at virtually the same time. Except maybe the guys who did the Macarena. The Beatles were the ultimate, they were in many cases, all things to all people, all at once, and they created a sound in the early 60's that would lay the groundwork for the future of music as well as be the definitive ruler by which all other music is measured for decades to come. But Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts club band was the ultimate departure. The Beatles were THE pop band, but then they threw out their entire playbook and made Sgt Pepper which was a vastly more complex, sophisticated, and artistically and culturally relevant piece of artwork than anything they had ever done up to that point. They deserted their signature sound and emerged worlds better than ever. Sgt Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band is unquestionably a milestone not just for the Beatles, but for the history of popular music, and it would go on to change how people listened to and create music forever. In my mind, there is no question as to why the cover of Sgt Pepper is so recognizable. when the greatest band in the world creates the greatest album in the world which happens to be the opposite of what made them great, but causes them to be even greater and subsequently changes the face of music forever, then you have a flow chart of insane power, and of course everyone will recognize what the album looks like. Sgt Pepper was a milestone in music the way the Apollo 11 moon landing was a milestone in mankind, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't recognize the shot of Buzz Aldrin next to the American flag on the moon's surface, even if it does look like this from time to time. To not instantly recognize Sgt Pepper immediately puts you out of touch with the rest of the world. Never mind the fact that the cover art is equally as obscure as Dark Side, never mind that no matter how long you have studied the artwork, you can still find new things about it every time you look at it, never mind that the cover is open to any and all interpretation, which is certainly all true, but its high level of recognition can almost certainly be attributed to the fact that that album is a symbol for what the world was, what the world is, and what the world would be. Or maybe I am stoned...