SO WHAT WAS 1960 REALLY LIKE?….I MEAN, JUST MUSICALLY SPEAKING.

“Nineteen hundred and sixty was probably the worst year that pop has been through. Everyone had gone to the moon. Elvis had been penned off in the army and came back to appal us with ballads. Little Richard had got religion. Chuck Berry was in jail. Buddy Holly was dead. Very soon, Eddie Cochran was killed in his car crash. It was a wholesale plague, a wipeout.”

(The always prone to understatement, but undeniably trenchant, Nik Cohn’s opening paragraph to the chapter titled “Rue Morgue, 1960″ in Awopbopaloobop Alopbamboom, 1970)

When Cohn wrote these words he was basically summing up what a lot of third-rate romancers–mostly male, mostly white, mostly collegiate whether or not they had yet been to college (or would ever go)–had been saying and writing since, well, 1960.

1960 sucked and blew. Well, really that whole 1958 (the fall!) to 1963 (waiting for the Beatles to save us all!) period had sucked and blown.

But 1960?

That was the worst, the nadir (good collegiate word), the pits (as the actual greasers might have put it).

1960 was spiritual death. The bottom that had to be reached some time before the resurrection (Beatlemania!…or more accurately, the highly inventive new-chord-progressions-and-the-truth music and supremely witty collective style of the Beatles demonstrated in their respective persons, since mania was a highly unstable state, particularly redolent of suspicion as it was likely to be the specific province of screaming girls, who collegians and greasers both knew could give you cooties) could properly occur.

So the story goes. Give Cohn credit. He nailed the entire ethos in a few clipped lines.

Like I said. Trenchant.

That’s what you call controlling the narrative.

Well, you know I like to put these little narratives under a microscope once in a while, so I can’t really say if it was entirely a coincidence that–having just completed a re-read of Cohn’s classic account of rock’s early years–I took the occasion of my weekend drive (itself, the occasion for laying a Mother’s Day rose on a headstone) to pull out the mighty Bear Family’s Blowing the Fuse: 31 R&B Classics That Rocked the Jukebox In 1960 for company.

Let me just say that if 1960 was the bottom of the pop barrel (as opposed to the political barrel, which really was dire in many respects) I wish we could go back there.

Bobby Bland, Jerry Butler, James Brown, Etta James, Fats Domino, Brook Benton, Ike and Tina, Gary U.S. Bonds, Jimmy Reed, Jackie Wilson, one-offs the likes of “Stay,” or “Something’s On Your Mind,” or “Let the Little Girl Dance,” or “Ooh Poo Pah Doo” (wait til the spell checker get’s hold of that one!).

And all of that’s before you get to the real kicker, which involves Howlin’ Wolf’s “Spoonful” (the only cut here that wasn’t an R&B hit, and virtually the only one that didn’t cross over to the Pop charts) running straight into the Shirelles’ “Tonight’s the Night,” followed by a teen-ager named Jimmy Charles giving a perfect imitation of the era’s white teen idols on “A Million to One” and a young woman who called herself Sugar Pie DeSanto (whose then producer/hustler husband went on to become a bank robber after they divorced–baby that was rock and roll) doing a straight cop, arrangement wise, on the Everly Brothers (who, of course, were still crossing over regularly to the R&B charts, though these sort of collections never acknowledge such things–not even when they are done by the Bear Family. The Nik Cohn’s of the world have had their effect).

1960, incidentally, was the year Cash Box, the other major trade magazine that competed with Billboard, suspended it’s R&B Chart for a time because the overlap between R&B and Pop, barely noticeable before rock and roll, was by then so great there seemed little point in keeping them separated. (Billboard would follow with a similar experiment in late 1963–that experiment lasted a bit longer than Cash Box‘s but was  nonetheless ended a little over a year later once the Beatles and the British Invasion had safely re-segregated the charts and more or less ended the post-racial dream which had caused so much panic sweat to rise from the thin, tender skin of Nik Cohn and the Future of Rock Criticism in the dread days of 1960, when black people and girls and, well, black girl people, were starting to litter up the pop charts and the hallways of the Brill Building like nobody’s business.)

Oh well. I guess one man’s “worst year that pop has been through” is another man’s extremely interesting times.

But the next time you hear that America needed the Beatles because of the Kennedy assassination or some such rigmarole (or better yet, to “rediscover” the black music which the British Invasion in fact shoved back to the sideline), just remember the carefully modulated warning later rendered by that most British of all prophets, when he said: Don’t get fooled again.

Sugar Pie DeSanto “I Want to Know” (Studio recording…Reaching the bottom no doubt.)

LET’S ALL PAUSE TO REMEMBER THAT FAINT PRAISE IS THE WORST FORM OF DAMNATION

Or, as I’ve said before…It isn’t only Elvis they say stupid stuff about:

Granted, I’m probably a little over-sensitive to the slights routinely embedded in virtually any assessment of popular singers (great or otherwise) perpetrated by industrial critics, but Noah Berlatsky may have just set a new standard for horse-assery.

In a nominal tribute to the recently deceased George Jones, he manages the following “compliments”:

“tottering glop masterpieces” (applied to “He Stopped Loving Her Today”)

“sounded like he’d just been hit in the head with a bucket every time he opened his mouth” (applied to Jones’ vocal style)

“unlistenable, cover your eyes” (applied to “The Wedding Ceremony”–we’ll leave aside why you should cover your eyes if something is “unlistenable,”–the crit-illuminati’s cleaver-to-raw-meat relationship with even the simplest language is well-established around here)

“sublimely klutzy vaudeville” (applied to “Did You Ever?”–between this and the previous, guess which qualifies as praise?)

“merging of minds into single, bickering, doofy oneness” (followup on “Did You Ever?” which is supposed to double as an overall take on Jones’ duet career with Tammy Wynette, whose voice Berlatsky actually describes as “smooth” at one point–oh, Tammy, if only you could have lived to read that!)

or, finally

“Listening to George and Tammy, it’s not hard to figure out why we’ve moved on. Theirs was a decidedly awkward, hokey take on gender…” (awkward because, as Berlatsky goes on to explain, “maybe there’s been progress”)

Progress toward what I wonder?

Berlatsky doesn’t say. Oh, he says something alright. Men and women less different now (huh?) Conversation we’ve learned how to avoid (if only!) “Gracious, clumsy inevitability” and not many left who can match either the clumsiness or the grace (as if clumsy grace had once been common-place or even, given the limits of mere human contradiction, possible.)

He says something. Always they say something these illuminati types.

Just not anything coherent.

Come to think of it, when it comes to laying on some “tottering glop” perhaps he knows of what he speaks.

What George Jones and Tammy Wynette did–individually and together–was transcend grinding poverty and closets full of personal demons of the sort that swallow thousands of people every day to mix pain, beauty and humor in ways that won’t have a sell-by date until the day we blow ourselves up (with our without God’s help) or the machines take over and the demons presumably all go away.

Suggesting that their principal value lies in vapid camp on any day, let alone on the occasion of Jones’ death, is beneath comtempt.

But, of course, if we know one thing, it’s that those who choose to act beneath contempt tend to have one abiding quality.

They never, ever rest.

 

WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT FROM CRITICS (Sixth Maxim)

Once the rumor spreads…

“Frankel notes that the year Cynthia Ann [Parker] was taken, three of America’s four best-selling novels were by James Fenimore Cooper, with captivity figuring in all; the fourth was the true story of a settler woman who, captured by the Seneca Indians, married into the tribe, had seven children and refused to rejoin white civilization.”

(Source: J. Hoberman, review of Glenn Frankel’s The Searchers: The Making of an American Legend, from New York Times, Feb. 22, 2013)

We’ll lay aside that “novels” should be books (as the quote itself admits the fourth was a nonfiction account). And I  really don’t want to drag Frankel’s book into this. I’m reading it now and it’s quite good (I’ve already turned up one nugget I plan to use in my next post about the movie). Overall the book seems a well-researched, well-written labor of love and Frankel clearly put a lot of work and care into it.

So I was just going to pass over the messy bit Hoberman cites as one of those things. We all make mistakes. But now that it’s been given the imprimatur of the paper of record, it’s worth mentioning that Hoberman’s reference does clearly demonstrate one of the dangers of what I like to call “industrial criticism.”

So here’s the relevant quote from the book under review:

“At the time of the massacre at Parker’s Fort, [the historical event that forms the basis of Frankel's book] three of the nation’s four biggest sellers were novels by Cooper–The Last of the Mohicans, The Pathfinder and The Deerslayer, all of which featured captivity as an important plot element.” (p. 35)

Since the massacre (and abduction of Cynthia Ann Parker) took place in 1836 and The Pathfinder and The Deerslayer weren’t published until 1840 and 1841 respectively, this is a somewhat dubious statement.

Again not a terribly big deal in and of itself. Perhaps Frankel really meant bestselling books of the era or “the time” (as opposed to the specific year). Perhaps there was some lapse of research or memory. Perhaps some  initially clear language was garbled at the editorial or typesetting stage. There could be any number of perfectly good explanations.

But, of course, if you do make a mistake–or at least the impression of a mistake–that’s likely to be the very thing a reviewer cites! And he’s likely to apply compound interest. (As here, where the lack of clarity and specificity implied by “the time” immediately becomes the completely counter-factual “the year.”)

Since Frankel’s book is largely about the relationship between fact and “myth” it’s a little ironic–and frankly pretty interesting–to find such a perfect example of how one soon becomes the other in America’s most prominent reviewing space. The author planted a seed. The reviewer (with hundreds of pages to choose from!) immediately homed in on it and turned it into a sapling. Pretty soon word gets around and there’s a mighty oak tree standing about, obscuring all kinds of things!

It won’t surprise me to be googling the subject five years down the line and find that it has been spun into something that is very, very far afield. What that “something” might be I won’t try to guess. For now I’m letting it be the inspiration for The Sixth Maxim:

Please do sweat the small stuff!

 

LET THE GLORIOUS ART OF NITPICKING BEGIN….

They Shoot Pictures Don’t They has released their latest roundup of the 1,000 greatest movies as judged by ALL of the various polls taken around the world. This is by far the most comprehensive effort I know of but, alas, grave injustices still abound, so I’ve made a short list of six films I really don’t think any list of a thousand should be without (PLEASE NOTE: My complaint is not with TSPDT–they just collect the data, an invaluable and no doubt monumental task. The fault, as usual, is with the professionals who overlook the obvious when compiling their lists!):

1) The T.A.M.I. Show (1964, Steve Binder) I never trust any Top Ten that doesn’t include this, the greatest concert film ever made by miles and miles. Hence, I’ve never trusted any Top Ten that has ever been compiled by a professional critics’ or directors’ poll. You can imagine what I think about it being left out of the top freaking thousand!

2) The Miracle Worker (1962, Arthur Penn) Despite Penn’s considerable presence, an actor’s movie and therefore (at least unofficially) ineligible. That’s all I can figure. And, hey, I know some exceptions are still sneaking on there. But don’t worry. The way things are trending, they should have A Streetcar Named Desire booted from this list within a year or two. I think we all know the computers will win in the end.

3) 3:10 to Yuma (1957, Delmer Daves) Speaking of actor’s movies…

4) The Long Good Friday (1980, John MacKenzie) The greatest gangster picture ever made, with two of the finest performances (by Bob Hoskins and Helen Mirren) ever caught on film–and, incidentally, that’s what they feel like…caught. It kicks the original Scarface and White Heat to pieces at the gut level, and beats the first two Godfather films rather handily as Shakespearan drama. Had it been made in America, where gangster classics are supposed to be made–and helmed by a pantheon director, the way classics of every sort are supposed to be–it would be resting comfortably in the top fifty at the very least.

5) WInchester ’73 (1950, Anthony Mann) Mann, who is certainly one of the dozen or so greatest American directors, and probably one of the top half-dozen, should have at least seven or eight on this list–most in the upper half. Instead, he barely scraped onto the list twice, and very near the bottom. Weird. Somebody should tell the world’s film critics that John Ford and Howard Hawks, incomparable and unassailable as they are, weren’t the only people in Golden Age Hollywood who made truly great films that happened to be westerns.

6) The Americanization of Emily (1966, Arthur Hiller) A writer’s movie (Paddy Chayevsky as it happens). They tend to get even less credit than actors. I mean, when you can’t make it onto a list of a thousand compiled almost entirely by liberals with a pitch-black anti-war comedy made just as the Vietnam War got going hot and heavy, (and with James Garner, Julie Andrews, James Coburn and especially Melvyn Douglas all at their very, very best) it really does make me wonder what this world is coming to!

Please do click through to the list and feel free to add your own comments here. TSPDT does a great job of breaking their lists down every which a way so it’s a feast for film buffs of every stripe.

And, oh, just one final thought:

William Wellman, William Wellman, wherefore art thou William Wellman?

I mean….not one? On a list of thousand? Seriously?

Whoo boy.

 

WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT FROM CRITICS (Fifth Maxim)

Easy pickings but it’s been a hectic couple of weeks:

“George Strait: Strait Country (MCA). Strait’s 1981 debut was the best shot of straight-ahead Texas honky-tonk since Moe Bandy came along, though he can be diffident enough as a singer that I have to wonder how long he’ll last.”

(Source: John Morthland, The Best of Country Music, 1984)

Morthland happens to be a fine critic and this quasi-reference book, published the moment before CD technology and marketing wrought massive changes in the way “albums” would be viewed over the long haul, happens to be one of the very best of its kind.

And, judging by Morthland’s writing, here and elsewhere, he probably has a sense of humor that lets him laugh at this one himself.

But no one is safe from the maxims. These days, when I can go to my CD shelf and pull down a George Strait collection titled Fifty Number Ones, this seems like item number one in the working critic’s catalog of cautionary tales…or better yet, MAXIM NUMBER FIVE:

Whenever possible, avoid speculation.

 

 

 

FOR TODAY, SOME FUN LINKS…

Noel Vera on Django Unchained (and QT generally)

 Walter Mosley on Raymond Chandler

 And, now that Kathryn Bigelow has published what is likely to be her defintiive response to the controversy surrounding Zero Dark Thirty‘s presentation of the torture state (and now that I’ve finally seen the movie), my quick two cents:

Much ado about nothing on either side. The movie isn’t clearly pro- or anti-torture. It is, I thinkpretty clearly pro-security state–as in, it accepts more or less unconditionally (as does the director’s editorial) that we need one. Given that acceptance, no moral stance is possible, here or elsewhere. Once we’ve accepted the permanent need for a security state, then we’ve accepted the “need” for torture, assassination and all the other dubious “strategies” which are the life-blood of security states in all times and places (including arresting you tomorrow, in order to find out what you know). Whether any particular itch is being scratched at this or any other moment is immaterial. The salient matter is that the barriers are down.

This isn’t a political site so I’m not here to convince anyone that they should or should not agree with my particular position on any of this, just to argue that the fierce debate surrounding this movie has been conducted on mostly spurious grounds–should or should we not torture–as opposed to serious ones–should or should we not have secret police forces in “free” societies. A movie about that subject, by a film maker as skilled as Bigelow, would be worth the heat this one has generated.

As it is, from my perspective, by far the most disorienting aspect of this very well made movie is that the Navy Seals look, act, move and speak like my nephew’s old weekend softball team.

 There might be another post in that…I’ll have to stew on it for a day or two!

 

THIS WAS PROBABLY INEVITABLE….

I should have my lengthy post on Quentin Tarantino, John Ford and other things up this weekend.

Meanwhile QT has gone the last mile of the way and joined the ranks of the persecuted.

Quentin Tarantino “I’m not your slave!”

And still, you can bet he will continue to be taken seriously.

Goodbye America!

 

WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT FROM CRITICS (Updated Quentin Tarantino edition)

I’m contemplating a lengthy post on Quentin Tarantino, John Ford and other things (as a followup to last week’s entry). Doing a bit of research I came across this little juxtaposition.

Of course I did….

“I didn’t see it [the miniseries Roots] when it first came on, but when I did I couldn’t get over how oversimplified they made everything about that time. It didn’t move me because it claimed to be something it wasn’t.”

(Quentin Tarantino, “Quentin Tarantino on Django Unchained and the Problem with ‘Roots’,” Newsweek, December 10, 2012)

“Look, I’m the perfect age for Roots. I think I was in like the seventh grade, going to a mostly black school when it came out. And I, like almost everybody else in America, was glued to the TV set for those seven or eight days that it aired.”

(Quentin Tarantino, Charlie Rose, Dec. 21, 2012)

Let us never say he fails to contain multitudes. There are other contradictions nearly as ripe, just in these two, er, journalistic exercises alone. For those with the patience to explore further, links are here and here.

I wouldn’t want to be accused of taking anything out of context.

Happy hunting!

THE HISTORY OF SPEAKING UP…

That’s the definition I gave rock and roll here (discussing a song which, just oh-by-the-way, I consider more “adult” than any broached below).

A few posts back I also mentioned Wall Street Journal critic Terry Teachout’s praise of Donald Fagen’s recent solo album as an example of another definition of rock and roll–children’s music very occasionally redeemed by the a fellow collegian.

I meant my own comment somewhat sardonically but Teachout has, sadly, doubled down in an article titled “How to Be an Aging Rocker,” which manages to be a sort of perfect summation of certain falsehoods that were born in rock’s early dawn and have been repeated with such numbing regularity–by friends and enemies alike–that they have long since achieved the force of government sponsored propaganda.

By all means read the whole thing, but the basic argument is distilled in the following sentence:

“One of the reasons why so much first- and second-generation rock n’ roll has aged so badly is that most of it was created by young people for consumption by even younger people.”

Oh, my. Here we go again.

First, let me reiterate that I’m not down on Teachout, Fagen or Steely Dan, all of whom I admire.

But goodness, talk about pulling out all the usual stops:

Aren’t you embarrassed by that stuff you listened to when you were young?

Did you know that Steely Dan used to employ honest-to-God JAZZ musicians who could really play on their albums?

Have you noticed that the Rolling Stones really suck these days?

Mind you, Terry was a serious young man. He assures us his teenage musical diet was filled with Crosby, Still & Nash and the Jefferson Airplane. I’m guessing if he had gone in for the Four Seasons and the Beach Boys (the way I did, a decade later, when it was really uncool, though not nearly as uncool as my affection for the likes of John Denver and Olivia Newton-John!), he would probably have shot himself by now.

Which would be a real shame, because when Teachout is blogging, i.e., writing in a genuinely personal way, he’s quite astute and charming.

When he’s writing for hire, alas, he is prone to bouts of moral and mental paralysis.

Thus are dubious thought processes that happen to coincide with the prevailing interests of even more dubious establishmentarianism sustained, generation by generation.

So the article–couched in the false assumption that, compared to other art forms, “rock n’ roll” has aged badly–leaps from one zone-of-safety-falsehood-disguised-as-hard-risk-taking-truth to another.

All the usual methods are deployed:

There’s the straw-man argument. To which, what can I say?

Yes, the Rolling Stones really do suck and have for a long time. Of course, band inspiration is notoriously hard to sustain–much harder than individual craft and/or genius. So why not compare Fagen to Neil Young or Van Morrison or Bruce Springsteen or late-period Bob Dylan, to name only the most obvious candidates? Maybe because, making the argument that they have spent decades making specious, “immature” music is quite a bit harder to sustain (even if, like Fagen, they may not have quite sustained the brilliance of youth)?

Well, yes, that could be it. Maybe. Or probably. Or certainly.

(That lays aside of course the argument that the Rolling Stones earned the right to suck because they once reached and sustained heights Steely Dan never even aspired to, heights far beyond mere “maturity.”…I’m laying it aside because I think that’s another argument.)

As for a statement like “Unlike the bluntly bluesy garage-band sound of the Stones, Mr. Fagen’s music is a rich-textured, harmonically oblique amalgam of rock, jazz and soul. It is, in a word, music for grown-ups.”

Even if, by chance you don’t think say “Can’t You Hear Me Knockin’” is a better “amalgam” of rock, jazz and soul, than anything Fagen has ever managed (and even if, by chance you find the attachment of the word “soul” to Fagen’s music a bit odd), you might want to consider another question or two.

Like whether the Nashville cats who played on “Heartbreak Hotel” way back when would have had any trouble keeping up with a Steely Dan session? Or whether the “country” lyricists of such immature music–or the Memphis hillbilly who turned a hot-musical-trend into a full blown cultural revolution by his manner of presenting them–had trouble comprehending Dan-style irony?

You know, way back when.

And if you know the answers to those questions (respectively, “no” and “no”)–as Teachout and oh, so many others doubtless would if they were allowed to maintain the habit of thinking for themselves all of the time instead of just some of the time–then you also know whether it’s the rock and rollers who should be embarrassed by their absence of “maturity.”

(Incidentally, if immaturity there must be, let it be as below…Sure wish we had torn down those walls. And let us also remind ourselves that somewhat different ideas of where that whole notion of an “amalgam of rock, jazz and soul” actually came from do still exist:)

Jefferson Airplane “We Can Be Together” (Live in Studio, 1970)

(And, of course, here are the Rolling Stones, being all blunt and “garage-band” sounding as they take the next-to-the-last-step to the place from whence they could not, would not, did not return:)

Rolling Stones “Moonlight Mile” (Studio recording…with unusually excellent photo montage)

 

I KNOW IT’S SHOOTING FISH IN A BARREL…

So no new Maxims or anything….But the David Thomson Infinity Proof Error Log is always gaining fresh entries. From his review of the new, Keira Knightley version of Anna Karenina (The New Republic, November 19, 2012):

“Actual age is not as important [to playing Anna] as the level of palpable experience. Garbo and Leigh were both childless when they did their Anna, but they had a weight of experience that was just beginning to edge their famous beauty with foreboding.”

Vivien Leigh, of course, had a teen-age daughter when she played Anna in 1948–had in fact departed from her real-life husband and child in a manner that was more than a little similar to Anna’s fictional experience.

Of course she did. Of course she had.

That’s why it’s called the David Thomson Infinity Proof Error Log.

Because, in a career of published writing that runs well north of ten thousand evidently unedited pages it can strike at any moment.

And it goes on forever.