Thought Control! Wednesday, April 07, 2004

I pulled a Stalin and re-edited a very snarky post from last night to make it more civil. I don't make a habit of this, but on reflection the post was a little over the top, and hurt the point I was trying to make. Welcome to the digital age!

@ 8:25:00 AM, ,

Another Era

From Sinatra at the Sands, circa late 1960s:

Dean Martin has been stoned more often than the U.S. embassy. (applause) I don't know whether you applauded for Dean or if we should stone more embassies.

And then:

Now I guess you folks have heard or read or been told somewhere that I became fifty years old, and I'm here to tell you it's a dirty Communist lie. Direct from Hanoi, it came outta there!

@ 6:35:00 AM, ,

A Heart With No Companion Tuesday, April 06, 2004

Ron, Ron, Ron, Ron, Ron.

If you've been reading this blog for any time, you know that I adore Ron Sexsmith, a "sensitive guy with a guitar" (his words) who has a gift for spinning the homeliest cloth into lyrical gold (who else could have rhymed "wherewithal" with "seem to recall"?) and finding melodies to match. His last couple of records have seemed a little rushed, with some significant misfires on both. But, in general, they have been solid efforts.

His latest, "Retriever," on a first listen, seems to be a flat-out dud. There are some nice arrangements, reminiscent of all sorts of other records, but the lyrics are flatter than a tarmac and in some cases aggressively stupid. The love songs are wistfully alienated and the wistful-alienation songs are unlovely.

I'm prepared to give those a few more chances, and hope they grow on me. But I can't say the same for the political tunes.

We live in times
When choice is frowned upon
Afraid to even raise
Our voice in song
Or speak our minds
For fear of falling on
The wrong side of opinion
Where has freedom gone

There are so many pretensions and animadversions in that verse that I even find myself taking issue with "We live in times." If Ron hadn't made a career out of gentle earnestness, I would take it as a parody of vapid sloganeering. When choice is frowned upon? Choice to do what? And frowned upon by whom? I presume he means the choice to join dissent from U.S. policy. Who's stopping him? Clearly, whoever it is isn't trying hard enough: He put this album out, didn't he? As have countless other artists--never mind bloggers, editorialists, Academy Award winners and sundry other gulagees. (We won't even go into the fact that all he's complaining about is being "frowned upon." If he's just being frowned upon, what's the point of a protest song? Dogs and water cannons, I can see. But frowns?)

For that matter, why is Ron's "freedom" to rise up in song any less important than somebody else's "freedom" to frown at it? Does "freedom" mean everybody has to agree with you? And support you even if they don't?

What this seems to come down to is the Dixie Chicks. Remember the outcry! Radio stations pulled their songs! Where has freedom gone? The answer--in the case of La Chicks--is nowhere. Radio stations ain't the government, and can play whatever they want. Radio listeners ain't either, and are free to protest by writing letters or staging boycotts. Why is the Chicks' diss covered under "freedom," but not everybody else's? (We won't mention that the group also had the "freedom" to attract an entirely new audience, which it did in the wake of the controversy, and go on to enjoy greater success. Plus they all got naked on a national magazine. Solzhenitsyn, eat your heart out!)

Ron gives the game away later on in the song:

They're in the business of panic and control
We're in the business of the heart
And the soul

To which I can only say: Ron, I love your work. I danced to one of your songs at my wedding, and I'll keep buying your albums the day they come out. But that verse shakes my faith in your art. I can't think of a stronger insult.

The subtext is clear: The government keeps cooking up wars and threats to tighten their grip and keep you scared. But we know better--we sensitive types. I'll give him a pass on the Bush-bashing; everybody's entitled to his opinion, particularly in an election year. But as a matter of logic, Ron, I ask you: Do you really believe heart and soul are the most realistic answers to what's facing the world right now? And if they are the answer, who do you think needs to hear that more: an audience of placid bein-pensant folkies, or the people who started this war; who have committed acts of unconscionable depravity and violence to achieve their ends? (To illustrate, snarkily: I work across the street from a hole that used to be seven buildings. Somebody keeps putting up stickers reading, "AMPLIFY LOVE, DISSIPATE HATE"; to which one wag appended the graffito, "Tell it to Osama." Precisely.)

What it comes down is this: Art must be beautiful. There are plenty of songs I disagree with (from Phil Ochs's "I Ain't Marchin' Anymore" to Jimi's "If 6 Was 9") that I still love as aesthetic statements. Hearing a song as dopey as this shakes my faith that Ron can still separate verity from very dumb. If politicians can get knocked for not having enough heart and soul, surely singers can take some lumps for not using their heads.

Now, goodnight.

@ 11:38:00 PM, ,