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...