Showing posts with label Bruce Springsteen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bruce Springsteen. Show all posts

Sunday, May 14, 2023

New Poem: CODA TO THE SILENCE OF THE BOSS

 Bruce sings My Love Will Not Let You Down 

 can’t say the same for the ticket prices

 so I learn to live with what I can’t rise above

 listening to live shows for a fraction of the cost

 paid by celebrity guest singers and well-heeled fans

 as the Jersey Man sings from a seldom-changing setlist 

 about aging, death and being the Last Man Standing

 and I remember when I paid a ticket broker’s price

 (cheaper than Dynamic Pricing today)

 to sit in the now dead Los Angeles Sports Arena

 and buy a T-shirt (since lost) with the saying

 THIS IS NOT A DARK RIDE

 this was a mere 35 years ago

Wednesday, July 27, 2022

New Poem: THE SILENCE OF THE BOSS

 say nothing

 let the plate crash on the floor

 send out the manager instead

 allow the official ticket seller 

 to wave a wand of percentages 

 >

 keep saying nothing

 not even something like:

 hey E Street Nation

 I carry a lot of band and crew around

 and we’re making up for pandemic hiatus

 >

 instead, it’s hey look over there

 watch this video of me

 playing with Jack Antonoff’s Bleachers

 forget that you can’t get online

 to buy regular price tickets

 until Dynamic Pricing kicks in

 >

 keep saying nothing

Monday, December 29, 2014

2014 List Part Two--Underwhelming Film/TV/Music of the year.

OVERRATED-TO-WILDLY-OVERRATED FILMS OF 2014:
BIRDMAN, THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL, NIGHTCRAWLER
the first is a well-acted sorrow-and-pity wankfest with jazz drum score which overinflates an interesting idea about a movie star seeking credibility on the Broadway stage;  its success is apparently due to pandering to above-it-all audience members who moan about superhero product crowding out smarter films while refusing to seek out and champion the latter; terrific monologue about two-thirds of the way through from Lindsay Duncan playing a stereotypical I-will-destroy-you critic
re GRAND BUDAPEST: Wes Anderson doing a NATIONAL LAMPOON version of 30s-era Ernst Lubitsch films few people in the audience probably saw--but partially saved by brilliant seriocomic performance from Ralph Fiennes; a big step backwards from the excellence of MOONRISE KINGDOM
as for NIGHTCRAWLER: Dan Gilroy thinks he's doing a more profound exploration of the overobvious subject matter of violent, superficial local TV news than he actually is; Jake Gyllenhaal does his best with a two-dimensional cartoon Amoral Nowhere Man, while the real acting comes from Rene Russo, Bill Paxton and Riz Ahmed
WILDLY OVERRATED BY ROLLING STONE:
HIGH HOPES--an album released by Bruce Springsteen apparently to fill a Sony/Columbia Records contractual obligation; better that Springsteen had just released his versions of the title track and "Dream Baby Dream" as what used to be known as a Double-A side single online
DISAPPOINTMENT FROM A TALENTED DIRECTOR:
Terry Gilliam's mostly-seen-on-VOD THE ZERO THEOREM best serves its viewers by making them want to see BRAZIL again
BEST COMMENT ON CABLE NEWS IN 2014:
Larry King discussing missing-plane coverage of his former employer CNN by referring to its use of the term "Breaking News" as synonym for "Breaking Supposition" and "Breaking Speculation."
MILDLY OVERRATED FILMS OF 2014:
TOP FIVE--not quite Chris Rock's GOOD MORNING VIETNAM
INHERENT VICE--Paul Thomas Anderson's latest (adapted from Thomas Pynchon's novel) is better than most of what's out there in the marketplace, but a slight slide downhill after his twin masterpieces THERE WILL BE BLOOD and THE MASTER

Friday, January 31, 2014

Dave Marsh on Pete Seeger.

RRC Extra No. 41:Dave Marsh on Pete Seeger


Please feel free to forward or post this RRC Extra widely. We only ask that you include the information that anyone can subscribe free of charge to Rock & Rap Confidential by sending their email address to rockrap@aol.com. If you ever wish to unsubscribe, just send an email with “unsubscribe” in the subject line to rockrap@aol.com.


A GOLDEN THREAD, A NEEDLE….Dave Marsh writes:  I met Pete Seeger about 40 years ago on the Clearwater, a refurbished 19th century sloop which had begun its then seemingly hopeless task of cleaning up the shores and waters of the Hudson River. Like a lot of the things that Pete got involved in, it was a hopeless task until it turned out to be common sense. 

That day, we cruised Long Island Sound, if I remember right, from Port Jefferson to Oyster Bay, which is not very far, and back, which is still not very far. It was worth every minute, and would have been if only for the chance to spend time aboard the 106 foot, single-masted Clearwater, a gorgeous vessel, stable even in Long Island Sound’s considerable chop and carrying as cargo volumes of lore and lessons about the costs of environmental neglect.

            You could  say that those early Clearwater voyages were the precursors of the present-day celebrity cruise, but with fewer celebrities. No more were needed. Pete Seeger was not only the enduring star of American folk music, he was its leading evangelist and one of the greatest singer/musicians this part of the planet has produced.  I remember Pete singing though not what songs, and some lectures about the important work of the ship and the ecology of the Sound and the Hudson River region, though not their specific content. The presentation did its best to be as folkie as a much-darned pair of wool socks, and unmistakably also an event with a star and a crew and an audience, never exactly commingled. It was also a strong, healthy political event, by which I mean that each of us left with a sense of mission and some ideas about how to execute it.

            I wasn’t there to clean up the Sound, though I was glad to be part of the movement, or to hear Pete perform, though I knew the importance of his music. I was there to write a story for Newsday, the Long Island daily. I did what you do in those situations, where you don’t know anybody and nobody knows you, which mostly means I watched and listened and took mostly the kind of sensory notes that you don’t write down on the spot.


            When we docked everyone headed for the parking lot. Pete and his wife Toshi had several bags. I introduced myself, not only because we were meant to talk for a few minutes, but as a prelude to asking if I could help carry their stuff.

            I got no further than, “Hi, I’m Dave Marsh from Newsday,” before Pete turned to me and snapped—and I mean snapped, like he was already booking me for malingering—“Grab a couple of those bags. It’s good for white collar workers to do physical labor.” Thus spoke the Harvard gentleman to the brakeman’s son who’d never owned a necktie.  And no, I didn’t come up with my usual smartass retort. He was Pete Seeger, who had changed not only my life but the world, and the alternative to silence was insulting him as much as he’d just insulted me, and…well, for once it was not in me.

That incident was one of the best lessons I ever had several times over. I learned lessons I’d chew on for, apparently, the rest of my life: The relation between stardom and shyness, between changing the 
world and retaining your self, and between trusting your perceptions and remembering not to suppose 
anything until you’ve made sure the person about whom you’ve just supposed it is not a cartoon.  

And I mean it, I’ve always been grateful because that dressing down has saved me all manner of grief, and not only in things about celebrity. The most important lesson, you see, was about recognizing a difference between loving something and liking something, even when that something is someone. A great teacher may or may not inspire great affection, and he or she may not even teach the best lessons deliberately. So it turned out that Pete and I were in many social and professional situations over the next 40 years without ever getting to know one another much and that isn’t surprising. Mainly because I didn’t learn my lesson all at once. Though I think I did learn, finally. I’ll tell you about it later. 

I respected Pete Seeger so much that my teenage self forgave him writing “Kisses Sweeter Than Wine,” which to my ears was sheer bathos, and for deriding Bob Dylan’s beautiful electric music, which to my ears was the absolute poetry of a world in chaos.

            One side of what he did was somewhat foreign to me. Years later my friend Jon Landau and I were talking about folk music one day, which inevitably came around to talking about Pete. Jon told me a story about Pete appearing at his left-wing summer camp or maybe it was Earl Robinson’s music school. I said  something I thought was appreciative and Jon stopped me cold. “You don’t understand,” he said. “He was Elvis.”

            To me, he was more like a father figure or anyhow that’s the way I made sense of him after I understood that he had many metaphoric children and was glad of it, though not always of the way that they behaved, musically or socially. (Hmmm, that is like Elvis, isn’t it?) He could be amazingly contradictory—a sign of humanity not deity. In his 1972 anthology, The Compleat Folksinger, which collects among other things many of his columns for Sing Out!, Pete wrote about a tour of Czechoslovakia he made in 1964. He was especially thrilled to go to a particular club and hear the 
groups playing guitars, which happened to be electric.


            Back home, Pete was not only immune to Beatlemania but hostile to folk-rock. Maybe it was because, as Pete said, he couldn’t hear the words due to the high volume but he should have known more about music than to use that to justify attacks on the songs themselves. I’m more inclined to think that he didn’t like “Maggie’s Farm” with the Butterfield Blues Band because of the loud absence of explicit social commentary and Pete’s acknowledged absence of feeling for post-war blues.

I am trying to reckon with the complexity of Pete Seeger as man and artist. It is not an easy road to travel, especially not today. But it never has been.

            Ten years ago, more or less, there was a panel discussion at a Folk Alliance conference that wound up in a tangle when Nora Guthrie said that Pete had refused to allow Madonna to issue a recording of “If I Had a Hammer” because she’d changed the lyric to “If I had a hammer / I’d smash your fucking head in.” (I don’t know if that’s funny. Depends on how she sang it, doesn’t it?)

Another complex folk music elder, Chris Strachwitz of Arhoolie Records, also on the panel, thought 
that Nora was responsible for the rejection and scolded her for not asking Pete to make the decision, since he would surely have supported free speech. I was the moderator and tried to help out by asking Nora if what she meant was that she had communicated a decision made by Pete himself.  She said yes. Chris began to sputter, well past the point of coherence for few seconds, and finally a single sentence burst out: “WELL...well...well...then Pete’s not God anymore!”

            He never was. He never needed to be. Like everybody else, Pete Seeger set examples good and bad. We might pause here to take notice that, though his feet were of clay, he had a remarkable ability to keep them shod. By which I mean, his transgressions may have been personal but they were very rarely public and he knew how to back down. In 1967 or so, he made a record using electric guitar—not played by him--and somewhat heavier beats. And then returned to doing what he did, as he should have. 

            Pete Seeger was such a prodigious talent, so young, that the godlike was expected of him. Born in 1919, the son of the ethnomusicologist Charles Seeger, he grew up in a left-wing household. It was the mandarin left wing: Like his father before him, Pete went to Harvard. He began his prominent performing career in 1940 on CBS Radio, alongside Lead Belly, Woody Guthrie, Burl Ives and Josh White (the show was heard only in New York because the cast was integrated) and a year later was a founder of the first important left-wing folk group, The Almanac Singers, which defined protest singing. Pete Bowers, he called himself then—he had to, as his father was currently a government employee who had been blacklisted during World War I for espousing pacifism.

            After the war, Pete formed the Weavers with Lee Hays, Fred Hellerman and Ronnie Gilbert. Their songs were not always topical, because McCarthyism had begun, but the political songs were always there and they had big hits. Thus “Kisses Sweeter than Wine,” though the Weavers also rearranged Lead Belly’s “Good Night Irene” into one of the most important hits of 1950. Seeger and Hayes were a formidable songwriting team.  Because of them,  the Weavers also produced some of the most enduring post-war protest songs, notably “If I Had a Hammer.” By 1953, they were blacklisted by broadcasters. “If you had seen us coming down the street,” Toshi Seeger, Pete’s wife, told me once, “you’d have crossed over to the other side of the block.” I looked dubious. “That’s exactly what people did,” she said.

            Toshi, at least as formidable and complicated as her husband, allowed herself the bitterness Pete never expressed. They had a lot to be bitter about. After being smeared as a Red,  Pete became an unusually uncooperative witness before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in 1955. HUAC had caused the Hollywood Ten to be imprisoned for contempt of Congress in1950. The Ten lost for standing on the First Amendment as the basis for their refusal to testify. Since then, it had become the practice to stand on the Fifth—the non-incrimination clause--rather than freedom of speech and association. Pete returned to the fundamental issue: “I am not going to answer any questions as to my association, my philosophical or religious beliefs or my political beliefs, or how I voted in any election, or any of these private affairs. I think these are very improper questions for any American to be asked, especially under such compulsion as this."

This was not god-like. It was human-- stubborn, flouting all sound advice, courageous. It was also not quite as futile as it immediately seemed.  In 1957, he was charged with contempt of Congress. In 1961, Pete was tried, convicted and sentenced to a year in prison. In 1962, he won his appeal, a landmark case in ending the blacklist. But the consequences rolled on: The Weavers reformed in 1955, but mainly as a live act. They recorded for small labels but their music could not be broadcast. Nevertheless, they played the major role in popularizing “Wimoweh (The Lion Sleeps Tonight),” “Sixteen Tons” and “Kumbaya.”

 Pete was never idle. In the Fifties, he wrote How to Play the 5 String Banjo, invented the Longneck Banjo (three additional frets made it longer than a bass guitar), popularized the 12 string guitar (he’d learned from Lead Belly), and created the brilliant “Goofing-Off Suite,” using classical themes by Bach, Beethoven, Stockhausen and Grieg alongside Berlin’s “Blue Skies” and a batch of folk tunes. When John Hammond at Columbia finally got him a major label record deal, one of the first results was “Where Have All the Flowers Gone,” probably the most beautiful antiwar melody ever composed. Pete championed the burgeoning topical song movement in the best possible way: He crammed the songs into his albums and concerts. He also took up world music, not as a stylistic synthesis, but as a collection of pieces that taken on their own terms resonated with one another, from Africa (“Wimoweh”) to Cuba (“Guantanamera”), even Europe. It was Pete who suggested that SNCC needed a singing group, and it was Toshi and Pete who befriended and cared for Bernice Johnson Reagon when the SNCC Freedom Singers broke up. He made children’s albums and live albums and thematic albums and mere collections of songs. He was instrumental in starting the Newport Folk Festival. He was on the editorial committee of Sing Out!, the Rolling Stone of the folk revival. And he played a major role (if not the central one—that credit he always gave to Guy Carawan and rightly so) in adapting and popularizing the most important song of the twentieth century, “We Shall Overcome.”

            Pete made a live album called We Shall Overcome, recorded at Carnegie Hall in 1963. It was extremely well-edited, I don’t know by whom. The running order of the album--13 songs of the 40 performed--has absolutely nothing to do with the order of the concert, but it’s more focused, gets to the point more directly and clearly than the show did. Alas, the digital version is the whole thing. ( (It’s easy to make a playlist of the original running order—the original track listing is at the Wikipedia entry for the album.)


            I heard the We Shall Overcome album at age 14, when I was the son of budding George Wallace supporters, living in an Up South town full of Ku Klux Klansmen and packs of freelance racists, and going to quietly but adamantly all-white schools. The headlines had been filled every day for the past year with Freedom Riders, pre-teens slaughtered by bombs placed in churches, nonviolent demonstrators attacked by dogs and high pressure hoses. And that was just in the South. Racial turmoil was a constant presence in southeastern Michigan, not just Detroit. The one true thing I was being told about this was that it meant the world, or a world, was coming to an end. The one set of contrary facts I held in my head was almost entirely musical, not the early songs of Bob Dylan but Motown and early soul music that insisted, obliquely but powerfully, that freedom meant everybody or it didn’t mean anything.


            Buying We Shall Overcome was more the product of exploration than rebellion. What it inspired was rebellion’s necessary partner, conviction. Most important, the conviction that there really must be a better world, somewhere, and that it was open to the likes of myself. Pete Seeger’s version of a protest album offered a vision, and the core of that vision was not so much any particular songs but the gentle persuasiveness with which he introduced them, the passion with which he laid out their origin or history or contemporary relevance and the power with which he encouraged all present to sing them. What transformed We Shall Overcome from a powerful collection to something with deep historical significance was the presence of the SNCC Freedom Singers. They lent not so much authenticity as boldness and authority to “Oh Freedom,” “If You Miss Me at the Back of the Bus,” and particularly “Keep Your Eyes on the Prize.” They made struggling for equal rights seem like something even a blossoming but isolated teenager could do.

            As Daniel Wolff pointed out to me the afternoon that we learned of Pete’s passing, he did this kind of teaching all the time. Seeger believed in singing, he believed it was good for you in all sorts of ways. He was, I recall, fond of reciting his father’s dictum that a country’s cultural health could best be ascertained by how many of its citizens sang and made music. I was just one among who knows how many—a number surely in the hundreds of thousands, maybe the tens of millions, over the sixty years or so that Pete performed—who had their lives turned if not upside down at least askew by the power of his conviction, by the contagion of his vision.

            If nothing else, Pete Seeger made me understand how far behind enemy lines I was living—he showed me the road that had to be traveled, if I really wanted to live. He did this the same way that James Baldwin and Elvis Presley and John Coltrane did it: by example, and with the same generosity and the same sense that the world was packed with a load of insurmountable cruelty and that, nevertheless, the truth was that something better had managed to survive within it. Which meant, for each of us, a choice and a chance.


            It may even be that Seeger, whose rectitude often communicated, at least to me, a whiff of the Puritanism he inherited, offered a more direct route to this not-at-all specious salvation of spirit and society than anybody else, and for the oddest reason: He thought smaller. He genuinely believed that one more singer, one more non-violent resister, one more example of gumption and love, one more song, one more guitar, was an important thing. And, this I am sure about, he genuinely believed that that was mainly what he, himself, was: One more.

            That, and nothing more meek, was why Pete Seeger eschewed the celebrity path. (Ask yourself this: If Burl Ives could become a big star looking like that, what could the young Pete Seeger have become if he’d just given over a few names?) Pete could seem innocent but you’d be a fool to believe it. He paid the price and he had seen the bill coming, too.

            If all you know about Pete Seeger is a protest singer, a rag-tag Red, a spinner of false hope, a doddering old man walking that hopeless line (but never by himself, you may have noticed), then you missed it. If all you know is the famous songs – most of which I haven’t even mentioned—you might even then not see it whole. Pete Seeger lived his life every day in the possession of what he envisioned.


There is one song that to me expresses this vision almost perfectly, maybe the greatest of all the lyrics he wrote and in the performance on his mini-box set, A Link in the Chain, possibly his greatest recorded vocal performance. It is called “O, Had I A Golden Thread.” It’s sweet in a way the hard boys, left and right, fear, as they ought to. “Far over the waters I’d reach my magic band / To every human being so they would understand.” He makes it true. He makes those who hear him want to make it truer.

             Without such a vision, the folk process that we talk about (or used to, before the scene shifted to singer-songwriters meditating on their inner lives—alas, almost never about the banality of them—and the preening cultists they attracted) isn’t worth much. But there is another question, which is whether Pete’s vision of freedom carries forward, whether it stands, whether it can be nurtured and sustained. 

            I am sure it will be and my conviction came, perhaps predictably, on  the last night of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame’s magnificent Woody Guthrie tribute in 1996. Pete already wasn’t singing very much—Arlo led the night’s final song, which you knew was going to be “This Land Is Your Land” before you ever saw a ticket. But you didn’t know that the whole cast, including many of the conference’s speakers, would be on stage leading the singing.

It had been a night of triumphs: For Ani DiFranco and the Indigo Girls, for Dave Pirner and Jimmy LaFave, Billy Bragg and Jack Elliott, Bruce Springsteen and Pete too. But the most powerful triumph was that group sing—above all for the spirit still embedded in a potential national anthem yearning for a country to become worthy of it. It floored me and really, it seemed like the moment caught everyone. John Wesley Harding and I, old friends, walked into the communal dressing room afterward, arms around each other’s shoulders, tears in our eyes.  And there was Pete, with tears in his eyes.

            I think it was the first time I’d ever truly seen him. He was pleased, I understood, not so much that the night had carried Woody and what he represented forth in such grand fashion. What I remember seeing in Pete Seeger’s  eyes was a sense of relief. He knew something that night—if I’m right—something important about not just Woody’s work, but his own. Which meant also the work of all the people he’d learned from, and all those  who’d taught them, from the slaves who came up with “O Freedom” to Mother Bloor writing the labor history Woody made into music. He knew that folks would try to carry it on, in both spirit and substance.

That linkage is the golden thread and its purpose now is weaving the garment of human survival, which was the explicit theme of Pete Seeger’s last few decades on the planet.  A rainbow design without which we cannot live. A design that shows us why and how to keep the most important thing that Pete Seeger represents alive.

            We cannot experience the full measure of what it means to lose Pete Seeger until we realize that this burden is not his to carry, anymore. Now, it’s on you. And me.

Got any bags you need carried?

(Thanks to Craig Werner, Danny Alexander, Daniel Wolff and Lee Ballinger, without whom grief might have overwhelmed coherence.)
































 


Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Saturday, June 18, 2011

RIP Clarence Clemons--The Big Man of Bruce Springsteen's E-Street Band.

Here's the official obituary from the Bruce Springsteen fanzine site Backstreets.com:
http://www.backstreets.com/clarence/

I first saw Clarence as part of the E Street Band on the Tunnel of Love tour in 1988 at the Los Angeles Sports Arena; a few months later, I saw a two-hour version of the Springsteen show as part of the Amnesty International tour at the L.A. Coliseum. 

And, since the E Street Band's regrouping in 1999, I saw him several times in concert between then and 2009.

Regrettably, I didn't take advantage of the opportunity to see Clarence last fall while in San Francisco--he made a personal appearance to sign copies of his autobiography at a bookstore near the Fisherman's Wharf area.

Farewell to one of the best tenor sax players in rock and roll history.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

NIN's Trent Reznor censored by Apple for inappropriate app.

Another musician runs afoul of corporate censorship of "objectionable" content: this time it's Trent Reznor of the band which can now be called The Grateful Dead of industrial music, Nine Inch Nails--http://pitchfork.com/news/35236-apple-rejects-nin-iphone-app-update/

Those with long memories will be reminded of Starbucks refusing to sell Bruce Springsteen's album DEVILS AND DUST a few years ago because of the visit-to-a-prostitute song "Reno."

[UPDATE 5/7/09: http://pitchfork.com/news/35275-nine-inch-nails-iphone-app-update-approved-by-apple-unchanged/]

Sunday, February 1, 2009

I'm now a member of the Bad Review Club!

It's been a banner fortnight for bad reviews of artistic output. First, Bruce Springsteen took a fair amount of flak for his latest album WORKING ON A DREAM being, in some critics' viewpoints, little more than nonessential pop music with subpar lyrics. Then, Ron Rosenbaum (a critic/essayist I used to read when he still wrote for THE NEW YORK OBSERVER) weighed in on Slate.com with an angry takedown of Billy Joel...an artist who basically said good bye to pop/rock in 1993 and surfaces only occasionally to do play-the-old-songs tours either by himself or with Elton John. Rosenbaum christens Joel as "The Worst Pop Singer Ever" here: http://www.slate.com/id/2209526/

And then, it became my turn.

G. Murray Thomas, who used to publish the NEXT poetry-reviews-and-events-calendar magazine, now is a reviewer for poetix.net. Recently, he reviewed a chapbook of mine called YELLOW TREE RED SKY. The review can be found at this link, along with deserved praise for a chapbook by Pasadena's Mary Torregrossa and a peeved, he's-coasting take on Billy Collins' recent BALLISTICS: http://poetix.net/reviews.htm

This is the first time I've experienced an in-print review of a book of mine--and if Murray had given it boundless praise, I would have written a blog column about it too.

Essentially, Murray disliked the book overall, while offering some praise for a couple of poems and meant-to-be-constructive criticism (which, whether taken or discarded, should always be welcomed by reviewees).

But it seems like one particular poem in the book caused an inflammation of discomfort in Murray. The poem is called "it's not just you" and I'll reprint it here:

it’s not just you

I read the news today, oh boy
about the lucky poetry venues
that made the grade
it made me kind of sad
to know you ushered me in
ten years ago
and are now letting me and others know
about the poetry venues
that are too highfalutin
for cheap entertainers like me
I remember a lot of poets
no longer active on the scene
(or in some cases not on the scene at all)
who were mainstays ten years ago
now even if a few of them came back
they probably wouldn’t be accepted
in the new poetic order
it’s not just you that’s making things clear to me
I’ve been told to get educated
and upgrade my craft to be taken seriously
but I like being a cheap entertainer
and committing the sin of being easy to understand
so it’s time for me to go quietly
into that gentle night
reserved for sig rumanns and margaret dumonts
declaiming into microphones

about their hot new pantoums
as the audiences go
mmm, mmm, mmmm
in approval
if it doesn’t make most hosts
and some audiences go
mmm, mmm, mmmm
it just isn’t poetry anymore

[The poem makes a brief reference to a column Murray wrote citing favorite LA/OC poetry venues: http://poetix.net/reviews_of_venues.htm ]

Now, let's print a few excerpts from the review to examine Murray's references to this poem:
Terry McCarty is up front about his ambitions for his poetry. In “it’s not just you” he states “I like being a cheap entertainer/ and committing the sin of being easy to understand.” This would seem a pretty easy ambition to live up to.

Yes, he is easy to understand. There is not a single poem here where I wondered, for even a second, what the poem was about. (With the possible exception of “shya lebuff,’ but that’s only because I’m not up on my pop culture -- who is Shya Lebuff anyway?) That’s fine. I’m not one who considers being easy to understand a sin in poetry. In fact, I believe that the audience should be given, at the very least, an understandable entrance into a poem.

However, if a poet makes being easy to understand their ultimate goal, he or she is usually in trouble. More on that in a minute.

But in all his poems, he refuses to go very deep. His poems skim across the surfaces of his subjects. Also in “its not just you,” he writes “I’ve been told to get educated/ and upgrade my craft to be taken seriously,” an option he rejects in favor of being the aforementioned “cheap entertainer.” While it would be easy to read this as mere laziness, I prefer to take him at his word —that his ambitions like somewhere other than “well-crafted” poems. But he seems to have confused depths of meaning with craft, and rejected it as well. The result is he prevents himself from even hitting his own modest goal.


If McCarty doesn’t want to make his audiences think, I guess that’s okay, But if that is the case, I do wonder why he’s writing poetry.

Philosophical differences aside, I do like the poetry of Murray's I've read and even recommend his one sold-in-regular-bookstores-and-Amazon compilation COWS ON THE FREEWAY.

[And, for some further context as to Murray's poetry ideals, here's a rave review for Milo Martin (ex-Onyx reading host) by Murray in this column from November of last year: http://poetix.net/reviews_1108.htm]

But I do take some exception to being called lazy (even if its just an inference) and having questions put to me as to "why" I'm writing poetry.

When I began going to open-mikes almost eleven years ago, there were coffeehouse and independent bookstore readings that made room for just about everything, like a variety show: "serious" literary poetry, traditional rhyme-and-meter verse, monologues, stand-up comedy, musicians, etc. etc. And Murray seems to have cast his lot with the hosts and influential poets in LA/OC that seem to think that only "serious" poetry should be allowed with the other subsets I mentioned above actively and/or tacitly discouraged.

I remember a few years ago at the Moonday reading at Village Books in Pacific Palisades when, after reading on the open-mike, Holaday Mason (a well-known L.A. literary poet) performed her five minutes. The late Anne Silver (then a Moonday co-host) spent a minute or two copiously praising Holaday for her work--and, to me, the message was ultraclear; I was too depth-free and craft-poor for such a distinguished reading. I got Ms. Silver's message--and never returned to the reading again.

Time to say it again: for poetry to flourish--particularly at a time when there will be renewed jeers over the idea of the arts being essential in a near-Depression economy--a big tent needs to be pitched.

It's not to be expected that all poetry will be to the liking of everyone--tastemakers, professional/amateur poets or civilians who prefer merely to attend.

But at some point the "poetry community" needs to stop pushing the poetry-eugenics nonsense that poems should be nothing more than gilded creations engineered to be admired for their complexity and intricacy--sort of like building a scale model of the QUEEN MARY in a Sparkletts jug or (to steal a phrase from the late Robert Mitchum) construct a replica of the Taj Mahal from matchsticks.

Otherwise, there's going to be an increase in boring, arid, intended-more-to-impress-than-enlighten-or-even-stoop-to-entertain "craft-conscious" word art which will likely go unremembered a month from now--let alone a decade or even a century.

[UPDATE 2/4/09: Here's an example of what I described in the last paragraph. One of Robert Pinsky's weekly poetry picks for SLATE: http://www.slate.com/id/2210318/]

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Regarding the Academy Award nominations.

First, here's the always-provocative Nikki Finke's article on this morning's Academy Award nominations: http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/nominations-for-81st-academy-awards-this-am/

My take on two of the most notable omissions from the list:
1. The Academy rightly judged Clint Eastwood's GRAN TORINO as just-average formula filmmaking that marked an end to Clint's run of quality pix from MYSTIC RIVER to (some will argue with me on this) CHANGELING. If Clint had truly wanted a plausible shot at a Best Actor nomination/win, he wouldn't have turned down the lead in Paul Haggis' IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH (Tommy Lee Jones gave a fine performance in the role).

2. I'm a bit annoyed at the Academy's music branch for only giving three nominees for Best Song--one of them a semi-forgettable end-credits Peter Gabriel number from WALL-E and two from SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. Nothing against SLUMDOG (which now looks like a lock for a Best Picture win), but Bruce Springsteen's low-key end-credits song for THE WRESTLER (which can be heard on his soon-t0-be-released album WORKING ON A DREAM) was too good to ignore. It appears that the Academy wants only upbeat, ennobling fare which can make for big production numbers--unfortunately.

And congratulations to the documentary branch for nominating Werner Herzog's criminally underseen Antarctica documentary feature ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD. Highly recommended as a DVD rental--get the Blu-Ray version if you can.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Bruce Springsteen and Jon Landau to release yet another Greatest Hits album--through Wal-Mart.

This probably won't get the MSNBC coverage that Barack Obama's invitation of Rick Warren to give the January 20th invocational prayer did, but here it is--Bruce Springsteen and ubermanager Jon Landau (likely with some prodding from Sony Music) will release a BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN AND THE E STREET BAND GREATEST HITS 12-song collection exclusively through Wal-Mart on January 13th [this compilation has different songs than the mid-90s GREATEST HITS]. Two weeks after that, Springsteen's new studio album WORKING ON A DREAM will "drop" in physical and online outlets everywhere.

Here's the announcement as printed on ROLLING STONE's website:
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/12/22/bruce-springsteen-plans-wal-mart-only-greatest-hits/

Is this merely a cold-blooded business decision (i.e. Sony giving Wal-Mart exclusivity over AC/DC's BLACK ICE) or an ostensibly Obama-like attempt to have dialogue with tightfisted reactionaries in hopes of a millimeter of change in their business practices? Or a blend of both?

Sidebar: For those who have long memories, about a year ago Don Henley was justifying the Wal-Mart exclusive release of the last Eagles album THE LONG ROAD OUT OF EDEN by claiming that Wal-Mart was beginning to "go green."

What will Bruce and Jon say, if anything, about this deal with Wal-Mart?

Nothing personal--just business?

Or nothing at all?

UPDATE (1/13/09): THE BOSTON HERALD has an article about the release of the Wal-Mart only GREATEST HITS: http://news.bostonherald.com/entertainment/music/general/view.bg?&articleid=1144901&format=&page=1&listingType=musi#articleFull

UPDATE (1/23/09): In this BILLBOARD article about the in-progress DARKNESS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN deluxe reissue, Jon Landau finally addresses/justifies the Wal-Mart only GREATEST HITS album: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/bruce-springsteen-prepping-darkness-reissue-1003933970.story

UPDATE (1/29/09): In a Jon Pareles profile piece set to be published in Sunday's NEW YORK TIMES, Bruce himself reconsiders the decision to release the album through Wal-Mart--and actually thanks fans for their disagreement/discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/arts/music/01pare.html?_r=1&adxnnl=...