The title is a line from "How Little It Matters, How Little We Know" (Words & Music by Carolyn Leigh & Phillip Springer; Recorded by Frank Sinatra in 1956). The song talks about chemistry - the lab coat and bubbling liquids kind - right alongside romance. People didn't seem to think that was odd. Most people know the song "Swinging on a Star" (Words & Music by Jimmy Van Heusen; recorded by Bing Crosby in 1944, but I like Tony Bennet's version best). The song admonishes that if you don't like to go to school you may grow up to be a mule, apparently a rebuke to a whining child at the Crosby dinner table - which of course has it's own oddities to imagine now. Swinging on a Star also talks about bringing back moonbeams in a jar, a reference to the space program and the possibility of being an astronaut if you live right and make good choices. These songs, and many from this generation of songwriters and "crooners" were considered very challenging to societal norms for presenting their ideas in such a casual way. That little element of romance and that suave attitude of being upward moving in society were enough to make them seem slightly irksome to many. But they were not telling people to screw their friends, go for the bucks any way they could or live for today and nothing else.
Am I not in touch with new music enough to find more mindful thoughts in today's music? I hear way too much of the Disney output thanks to having an adolescent daughter. There is surely no good advice being doled out there. It's harmless in part, irreverent in the bad, directionless way for some parts and generally mindless for the vast part. I know pop music isn't talking about living a good life and thinking about your future mindfully. I still listen to a lot of the music of my college days. There is some intelligence in it to be sure. But it all seems soured, cynical. Any talk about the future is negative and there is no room for advice other than "get yours". That sounded more genuine at some point. But now it seems like a cop out. There are problems. There always will be. Shouldn't some portion of art discuss how to get on with life, how to live as best as one may?
Music, literature and poetry in the West has always been an odd thing. Chaucer and Shakespeare wrote to the common people of their times. Chaucer was practically a comic book writer. But they always told well rounded stories and had things to say about all aspects of life. Of course, we only know they existed because their work happened to survive. Were the "indy" playwrights, authors and musicians with this same cutting edge we'll never know? Without knowing, can we say that its more cynical now than it was before? It seems at least the most popular and enduring tales were at least well rounded. Future generations will have to puzzle over us. It seems that everything from our time and many years before will all endure. Everything has been recorded, cataloged, indexed and stored for what will be tantamount to forever compared to things prior to 1950 or so.
Of course, it's hard to ignore the role of religion in art through the ages. If all I wanted to find was some kind of advice in art, then the Christian industry in the US today could provide that by the bucketful. It was just the other day, right here in NJ not even an hour from my house, that I saw a car with so many Christian rock bumper stickers that it barely showed the brake lights. And walking from the PATH train yesterday I saw three different Christian books being advertised in the heart of midtown. And one need only visit the Met or listen to Bach to see how much religion has been in the mind of the artist since the start of recorded history in the West. But I'm looking for something else. I'm not seeking preaching. Shakespeare advising other people of his day is more on the mark. One person to another with no presumption of divine force.
What is the function of art? Does that question even make sense? If art serves nothing, then is it worthwhile? Or is art like so much else and simply needs balance to be in harmony with the world? Should there always be room for Frank Sinatra and Kurt Colbain? Has the passing of shared mores resulted in the passing of art treading on that ground as well? If it's all relative, does that mean artists can't grasp on well enough to depict any of it? I'm left feeling like it's just me - but I don't have evidence for that either. Does this amount to yelling at the wind saying "it was better in my day!" But it didn't really seem better in my day. I had more bliss, but I didn't realize what was making me happy. Youth is an elixir, to be sure. And since it's colorless, tasteless and odorless one doesn't even realize how quickly and deeply it's being drunk. It makes the cynicism seem wise and the mundane seem cool. It may also make the mindful seem boring or long-winded. C'est la art? Maybe I should ask a poet to re-write this.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Sunday, May 04, 2008
But if you want money for people with minds that hate; all I can tell you is brother try Wal*Mart aisle 8.
Politics is everywhere today. And in the chats about this party or that, this policy or that, the same ideas float by in many different forms over and over again. This is, among many other places, where I see the stunning lack of and lack of interest in the idea of a well rounded education. So few people, even those with the opportunity to have done so, benefited from a well rounded education. There is a basic lack of connecting ideas to history and history to ideology. This comes up most when people choose sides without any real knowledge of the true differences on the two or more sides in the debate they are entering.
One of the fun things in the news today is the Olympics and all the controversy about China's role as host. One of the things that people always fail to mention is that China had to fight hard to get this role. They didn't just invite the world in, they begged, cajoled and likely even bribed their way into getting people's nose into their nation. Why would they do this? There is no way they could not have predicted the strong and visceral reactions some would have. And by "they" I mean the government officials that would have petitioned the Olympic committees. The people may have been quite unaware in many cases. So if they knew the reaction, why do it?
One sub-topic for this is Tibet. I have always had many issues with the "free Tibet" clan. I do not deny that there has been wrong done by the China regime over many decades. But the story is not as simple as big bad China and little red Dali-Lama-hood. How many people know the role Xinjiang, Quinhai, Islam, Turkey and other influences in the region have played? I don't claim to understand it all, but I do know enough to say I'm not going to make simple sweeping statements because Richard Gere goes on CNN and does his holier than thou act. When looking for materials for this post I stumbled on a very interesting blog that talks a lot about these issues.
Of course, the US itself is tied to China in any number of odd and sundry ways which makes so much of this reaction so terribly absurd. China is to the US what the US is to itself 40-50 years ago. Large, polluting, self-aggrandizing, self-driven, world weary and ultimately tied to the idea that it's "their turn". But ignore the historical comparison and you have the intimate industrial and commercial bond we have. No China, no Wal*Mart. I would love to go around these protests checking tags on clothing to determine the number of people that would be naked without Chinese labor.
I'm not surprised by any of this. When you follow the connections of history and look at the ideologies driving these reactions and factions, it all fits into place. The West, which the US is likely at the forefront of these days, is driven by extreme ideas. It has been for ages. Christianity is a great example. Some people honestly seem to think that there was no religion in Europe before Christ. Or they think the religion was simply some stone age grunting around camp fires. The truth is there was rich and complex and diverse religion. But the West loves a rock star and when a good enough one comes along, they toss over everything that came before in his name. The history of the West can be partially understood as the perfection of this process through technology driving ever faster communication. Christ could never have gone platinum without Roman roads. Luther would never have been such a smash without the printing press. JFK would never have beaten "the man" without TV. Witness the pinnacle of all this: our current consumer culture. We have a new rock star being born, getting crucified and falling dead (and maybe risen on reality and late night TV) at the pace it takes the E! network to put on each night's show. Consumerism is the economic and sociological expression of a revolution addiction. Thank the Hippies (turned Regan Democrats) and their blue jeans for that. They taught the man how to sell their revolution back to them as fast as they could make it up.
So the news pumps out Richard Gere, people takes sides as they like and they get to feel smart. And then things move on to the next big flare up. People want it to move on. People want that next flare up. And now it goes so fast they only hang on for the rush. They are there in the square for the battle - and maybe some stay to declare victory. Most move to the next battle to scream and yell again, though. They are addicted to rebelling. They don't care if they see it through. Most don't even understand the forces driving it. They show up to protest for Tibet in Wal*Mart sandals. They drive 100 miles in their SUV to protest war in Iraq. They scream for abolishing government waste and control while they tap in their vote on Diebold machines. Maybe I'm silly, but I think if they had paid attention more in school, if they had learned to connect ideas together in long chains, they may see their own silliness. I don't hate them. I think they are very silly. I laugh at the absurd, not weep. Sic transit gloria mundi - but they would have had to pay attention in Latin to get that.
One of the fun things in the news today is the Olympics and all the controversy about China's role as host. One of the things that people always fail to mention is that China had to fight hard to get this role. They didn't just invite the world in, they begged, cajoled and likely even bribed their way into getting people's nose into their nation. Why would they do this? There is no way they could not have predicted the strong and visceral reactions some would have. And by "they" I mean the government officials that would have petitioned the Olympic committees. The people may have been quite unaware in many cases. So if they knew the reaction, why do it?
One sub-topic for this is Tibet. I have always had many issues with the "free Tibet" clan. I do not deny that there has been wrong done by the China regime over many decades. But the story is not as simple as big bad China and little red Dali-Lama-hood. How many people know the role Xinjiang, Quinhai, Islam, Turkey and other influences in the region have played? I don't claim to understand it all, but I do know enough to say I'm not going to make simple sweeping statements because Richard Gere goes on CNN and does his holier than thou act. When looking for materials for this post I stumbled on a very interesting blog that talks a lot about these issues.
Of course, the US itself is tied to China in any number of odd and sundry ways which makes so much of this reaction so terribly absurd. China is to the US what the US is to itself 40-50 years ago. Large, polluting, self-aggrandizing, self-driven, world weary and ultimately tied to the idea that it's "their turn". But ignore the historical comparison and you have the intimate industrial and commercial bond we have. No China, no Wal*Mart. I would love to go around these protests checking tags on clothing to determine the number of people that would be naked without Chinese labor.
I'm not surprised by any of this. When you follow the connections of history and look at the ideologies driving these reactions and factions, it all fits into place. The West, which the US is likely at the forefront of these days, is driven by extreme ideas. It has been for ages. Christianity is a great example. Some people honestly seem to think that there was no religion in Europe before Christ. Or they think the religion was simply some stone age grunting around camp fires. The truth is there was rich and complex and diverse religion. But the West loves a rock star and when a good enough one comes along, they toss over everything that came before in his name. The history of the West can be partially understood as the perfection of this process through technology driving ever faster communication. Christ could never have gone platinum without Roman roads. Luther would never have been such a smash without the printing press. JFK would never have beaten "the man" without TV. Witness the pinnacle of all this: our current consumer culture. We have a new rock star being born, getting crucified and falling dead (and maybe risen on reality and late night TV) at the pace it takes the E! network to put on each night's show. Consumerism is the economic and sociological expression of a revolution addiction. Thank the Hippies (turned Regan Democrats) and their blue jeans for that. They taught the man how to sell their revolution back to them as fast as they could make it up.
So the news pumps out Richard Gere, people takes sides as they like and they get to feel smart. And then things move on to the next big flare up. People want it to move on. People want that next flare up. And now it goes so fast they only hang on for the rush. They are there in the square for the battle - and maybe some stay to declare victory. Most move to the next battle to scream and yell again, though. They are addicted to rebelling. They don't care if they see it through. Most don't even understand the forces driving it. They show up to protest for Tibet in Wal*Mart sandals. They drive 100 miles in their SUV to protest war in Iraq. They scream for abolishing government waste and control while they tap in their vote on Diebold machines. Maybe I'm silly, but I think if they had paid attention more in school, if they had learned to connect ideas together in long chains, they may see their own silliness. I don't hate them. I think they are very silly. I laugh at the absurd, not weep. Sic transit gloria mundi - but they would have had to pay attention in Latin to get that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
