Pop-Ambiguity

“I have climbed highest mountain / I have run through the fields / Only to be with you”
“I still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For”, U2

For years I have contemplated what I still see as one of the greatest three-song sequences on any rock album: the first three songs on U2’s 1987 release The Joshua Tree (“Where the Streets Have No Name”; “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For”; and “With or Without You”). Love them or hate them (and I suspect once most of us get past any U2 antipathy created by the last decade there will be more love), these songs are immediately recognizable and eminently successful.

(The other great three-song sequence is from the Pixies’ Surfer Rosa. I’ll be happy to hear some other candidates. As an aside The Joshua Tree is an underrated lovemaking album; slow, gentle and melodic, it was always useful for creating a relaxing atmosphere…)

What I have contemplated is what makes these songs successful. It is true that the instrumentation is iconoclastic—the Edge’s guitar is unlike anything else at the time; the rhythm section creates a driving beat that is moving but not subsuming; Brian Eno’s production choices are almost otherworldly. Bono’s vocals are at their best—he is not the most technically brilliant singer, but his voice is like a force of nature,: when it works, it is beautiful and unrivaled.

 

But these elements aren’t sufficient for the latter half of the album where the political “Two Americas” theme is most prominent. (The songs tend to lose musical structure even as the lyrical content gets more specific.) Instead, what makes these early melodies and their instrumentation successful, I suspect, are the lyrics.

Like most of the songs I end up liking (think of selections from They Might Be Giants and the Pixies), the lyrics on these three songs refuse disambiguation. But, unlike some of the nonsense-at-first-glance that you find with those other bands, U2’s opening three songs seem to make sense almost readily. What I mean by this is that each song presents a narrative with only a few details needed to be supplied.

William Empson, a literary critic, famously identified Seven Types of Ambiguity and in doing so claimed ambiguity as an essential characteristic of literature (and, by extension, all art). Empson’s ambiguity is where different interpretations of a phrase or text can be made without willfully misreading it. Such moments constitute a type of puzzle that indicates conflicts within the work’s creator.

 

Empson’s focus on the ‘puzzle’ and the ‘conflict’ should rightly be expanded to the audience (since I don’t think we can ever know anything about the author’s mind at all). Ambiguity is an effective artistic device because it invites the audience to participate in the creation of meaning; it embraces the mind of the listener/reader and allows for the perpetual re-creation of meaning.

 

(As an aside, I think that this sense of ambiguity is what makes the emotional tone of U2 not “Emo”, to continue an earlier discussion. Emo tends to be over-contextualized; it prizes the experience of the artist and the evocation of the particular over the universal. This is not, however, altogether alienating—particular and specific moments can elicit identification from listeners too, see our posts on Wilco’s “Passenger Side”).

U2’s ambiguous lyrics in these first three songs are especially effective because they tap into two universals: faith and romantic love. In each song there is a tension (felt by critics as well) regarding  central meanings—“Where the Streets Have No Name” seems to introduce the themes that will dominate the first part of this album. It starts with a heart-felt protest (“I wanna run, I want to hide / I wanna tear down the walls / that hold me inside”).

Such protest, however, is only provisional—it occurs in a nameless place with nameless streets—in a no-place where these actions will never happen. This personal protest slowly develops, however, when, after the chorus, Bono shifts to the first-person plural, a ‘we’ that turns out to be problematic as he turns to address the ‘you’  (“We’re still building, then burning down love / burning down love, and when I go there / I go there with you, it’s all I can do”). The song continues to lament the breakdown of some type of relationship (“our love turns to rust”) but it is never clear what kind of love this is.


The uncertainty expands in the second song: “I still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” starts out by sounding like a paean to a failed romance. The “You” of the first verse could be a love interest, but by the final verses it seems clear that the song is about faith (“I believe in the kingdom come…You broke the bonds and you / loosed the chains / carried the cross / of my shame”). But, this could still be a love song cast in religious tones.

The reason this works both ways is that the song is about what is lacking—about the missing piece we cannot find, the homecoming that we all yearn for. The overlapping of romantic and religious tones evokes an uncertainty in the singer, an ambiguity of desire, that taps into a universal human need—the desire for the ineffable, the undiscoverable, and the utterly necessary. In its disambiguated form, the song is about this ‘lack’, but that it can be taken in many ways contributes to its success as a piece of art.

 

(Perhaps this is also why these songs work so well in the bedroom. What else is lovemaking but an attempt to make up for a sense of absence, in postmodern jargon, to fill up the ‘lack’?)

 

Similarly, the third song in the sequence, “With or Without You” centers around an unidentified second-person. It seems that the “you” is a lover or friend, but the religious language imbues the song with doubt (“See the stone set in your eyes / See the thorn twist in your side / I wait for you”). The song, like the first three, is more about the speaker than his addressee. The ambiguity of the lyrics reflects an assumed ambivalence on the singer’s part: that he will persist without or without the addressee can be nothing more than a pose. By claiming as much, he points to his need.

 

These three songs are about absence and as such embrace with their language essential universals of faith and love—these themes can be combined in innumerable ways by the audience to the same effect. It is the absence of directed meaning and the essential invitation to inhabit the songs that makes them successful. The music supports this—its ambient openness, almost the sense of a clouded open plain, allows the lyrics to echo and hang while still pulsing as time moves along.

So, I ask you, brother, to listen to these songs again and see if I make any sense at all. Great poetry and art, I believe along with Empson, invites the creation of meaning through the deployment of different types of ambiguity. This universalizing type is part of what I think makes U2 successful. If I am right, I have solved a puzzle by setting up puzzles in its place. And, maybe, I have come to understand music a bit better. Or, maybe not. You be my judge.


Crimes against Humanity: Clear Channel

 

During a recent exchange with the good Historian over Twitter, I learned that the flagship alternative rock station of Boston MA, WFNX, has been sold to the media conglomerate Clear Channel. While much of WFNX’s ‘identity’ (its catalogue, call letters, etc.) will remain the property of the local media company Boston Phoenix, it is a sad day when one of the better radio stations in the country goes the way of the evil empire.

Why is Clear Channel Evil? First, let’s be clear about what Clear Channel is: it is a media corporation that not only includes billboards (sight pollution) and hundreds of radio stations across the country (noise pollution), but it has also dabbled in television, live events and news. Its modus operandi is to buy a station, strip it down to bare bones, and deliver one of its common formats like Kiss or Magic or some other anodyne and boring fare.

Clear Channel, described by some as the ‘Enron’ of Media monopolies, just shouldn’t exist. Let’s start with that crime.  When the FCC was established to govern radio waves (and eventually television, broadband, etc.) the intention was to distribute licenses so that no one group had a monopoly over access to the air waves. This is about the freedom of the press, the freedom of expression, and in the internet age, the freedom of assembly. Should any one group or man (or even a few groups) corner the market, then minority groups, especially the poor and politically disenfranchised, would lose access to not just free expression but a right to choose news and entertainment outlets.

The heady deregulation of the 1990s (moved for by the lobbyists who work for these firms), that very political maelstrom that provided the condition for the housing and credit crises, allowed companies like Clear Channel to explode onto the national (and international) stage—dominating some local markets, but expanding cleverly so that their influence was diffuse enough to skirt the now lax FCC laws.

If Clear Channel does not have a clear monopoly over expression in some localities, it has a de facto one because it has claimed and silenced the most interesting outlets. But, given that this conglomerate is working within the boundaries of the law (if not the spirit), there is additional (albeit not illegal) grounds for outrage.

Corporations like Clear Channel—as the scandal with Murdoch’s media group in the UK and the political activities of Fox here in the US show—have only one true interest, and that is the bottom line, profit for owners and shareholders. That’s it. Any other claims are mere window dressing.

In order to garner maximum profit from scalability, radio outlets across the nation carry the same morning shows, the same pre-approved playlists, and the same general formats. Now, this has eased the syndication of some popular shows (Tavis Smiley, Howard Stern before satellite, Rush Limbaugh) at the price of local voices (which may or may not be more interesting). The effect is the same as national television and internet outlets: the boundaries of our national cultures are blurring.

Nowhere is this more evident than on the bland and even blander radio dial where an adult contemporary or hip-hop station in New England will play roughly the same music as that in the Southwest. To devil’s advocates, I admit, there is some advantage in a shared national culture. But, we must be wary of the cost. Local voices are heard less on the radio. New, interesting, and local acts don’t have a chance to be heard by those who actually live around them.

Such corporate scaling has had a ‘knock-on’ effect (as the British would call it). Where we don’t find Clear Channel we find stations like Magic and Kiss and their hip-hop and country counterparts, we find slimmer imitators like  Jack FM  and Bob FM  that have no real DJs most of the day and play the same slate of ‘the best’ and ‘most popular’ songs. Sure, the stations may be safe, but how and where do you hear something new or different.

Thus, Clear Channel is part not only of the homogenizing of our radio culture and the silencing of local music, but it is also an influence on the ‘dumbing’ down of American music—executives do not like to take risks with their playlists. Only hits get played—leading to a bit of a conundrum: if only hits get played, where do they come from?

(Perhaps we can blame media complicity on the inexplicable financial success of American Idol artists. Perhaps Kelly Clarkson is talented, but if we had other options, would we listen to her songs and buy her albums.)

How do the executives make decisions? My brother thinks that we probably have a thousand quiet Payola  situations (especially when it comes to the ubiquity of a mediocre band like Foo Fighters). While I think this is probably likely, I suspect that there is far less conspiracy and more general ass-covering and job-protection. If Kelly Clarkson sells one album and people keep the stations on, why not play it safe and play her next single until we all give in and settle for it?

Why don’t we hear Mates of State, the Pixies, They Might Be Giants, or Jose Gonzalez on the radio? Because they are unknown quantities who don’t fill stadia. This is musical programming through regression to the mean—the equivalent of the agribusinesses who threaten biodiversity and poison our environment and food chain with pesticides and antibiotics all for the sake of a higher profit margin. We get cheaper food (and radio); we are complicit too.

Clear Channel is not just guilty of crimes against good taste, of aesthetic crimes that homogenize us and threaten to rob our communities and ourselves of our identities, by monopolizing the airwaves and limiting local engagement and access to public assembly in the broadest sense, conglomerates like Clear Channel both prevent the citizenry from becoming fully and well informed and from participating in politics to our fullest capacity. In simple terms, Clear Channel and the system that allows it to function undermines our collective democracy and threatens our constitutional rights.

What can we do? First, avoid Clear Channel outlets. Listen to independent and college stations; the company has already gone bankrupt once. Elect state and federal representatives who don’t blindly deregulate as if bowing to some righteous idol. Vote with the radio dial. Give money and time to public broadcasting. Start your own station online. Support the listeners of WFNX and sign this petition

Sooner or later, Clear Channel may come for us all (or at least our radiostations)

Watch my Garden Grow

In a post not-too-long ago, my brother compiled a song-list for gardening. I think a lot of us have such informal sound tracks—sometimes we make them on purpose with iTunes playlists, or, in the old days, a mix-tape. Music is so elemental and visceral that it easily cleaves to our daily lives; in addition, our steady modern diet of television and movies all set to finely selected soundtracks conditionsus to hear musical accompaniment for everything.

Or something like that.

The reason my brother’s post is worth going back to (other than the fact that it is fascinating and his list is pretty great) is also connected to what music does for us and to us: it makes us remember. But the kind of memory my brother talked about doesn’t come from music alone, it comes from working the land where my father put his hands, from turning the soil my father toiled over, and from tending the plants my father left behind him.

See, my post is about how my brother’s relationship to the land my father left us is a metaphor for his grief and the way he is honoring my father’s memory. My gardening music and my abandonment of the land is equally metaphorical. We have both been set adrift by our grief; our reactions have trapped us in turn. I’ll have a list of gardening music too.

Song 1: Rogue Wave: “Publish My Love”—a song I could not get enough of when I first got my own property. I can still recall pulling weeds in the rain with my headphones tucked under a hooded sweatshirt.

Let’s start with something unnerving. A few months before my father died, he gave a group of books to his only grandchild at the time, my daughter. Among them was a book entitled The Farmer, perhaps selected in remembrance of a book I loved when I was a toddler called Farmer Jones. Inside the book, my father wrote “You come from farmers. And always remember—you sow what you reap. Sow what you reap.”

What my father wrote

I didn’t find this epigraph until my father was a year gone. And when I did, I immediately started weeping. Never mind that we have long been crap farmers or that my father mysteriously  (or mistakenly) reversed the phrase “reap what you sow”). All I could think of was what he was thinking when he wrote that less than two months before he died. Did he have regrets? Did he know more than we did?

Song 2: Feist, “Mushaboom”—another song that I brought with me from NYC. I always loved the simple life evoked by the singer, the small house, children, the quiet. My wife and I bought and gutted a foreclosed house and did everything we could together from painting, to tile, to refinishing cabinets. The outside was mine alone.

 

My father and mother bought several acres of mixed woods—white pine, some scotch pine, birches in the front, a sprinkling of old apple trees, lilac bushes and some poplars near the road—and spent years taming it and creating a lawn. While he left most of the trees, my father was tireless in clearing scrub and fashioning gardens at my mother’s whims. His creations weren’t perfect, but they absorbed his sweat, his energy, his life.

When I was young, my father and mother grew vegetables in the back yard of our old house.  I still remember picking green beans from the garden and shelling peas. To this day I cannot snap into a fresh green bean without remembering the walk up the hill, the smell of the old irish setter, and the cold, dark colors of my family’s first home.

Song 3: John Denver’s “The Garden Song”. I think I learned this song from my mother; I know I sang it in kindergarten and I am pretty sure my father knew the words. I often sing the first few lines for my children now. My eyes never fail to water.

I live in one of those ridiculous suburbs that have green lawn rules and where the local HOA can fine you if your yard is not up to community standards. The threat of fines wasn’t what made me want to make my yard look good, however.  Every time I looked at my lawn, I could hear my father telling me to take pride in what I owned. I knew how to plant, water, weed, prune, build stone walls, care for trees, prepare garden beds from scratch—I knew all these things because I had done them with my father.

Even during the summer my daughter was born, I was out in triple-digit temperatures mowing, edging, weeding and watering my lawn because I knew when my father came to visit he’d tell me where I needed to re-seed, where I needed to aerate, because he’d tell me to take pride in what I own. Now, let me be clear, even if I had let it all go to weeds, my father would merely make a joke of it. But he took yardwork so seriously that I couldn’t imagine not doing so.

Song 4: Bon Iver, “Skinny Love”—in my last year of serious yardwork, I fell in love with this song. It’s haunting falsetto vocals, and distancing, alienating feel, almost made me feel cool under the hot sun.

The summer after my father died was the driest in generations. It cost more to water the lawn than it did to pay HOA fines. But this is not why I stopped working on the yard. I couldn’t handle it. When the lawnmower wouldn’t work, I fixed it the way my father would; when the soil needed aeration, I tried to do it myself and failed, unlike my father. Every time I put on the gardening shoes and looked at the dry dirt edged with green and browns that only comes from long afternoons in the garden, I thought of those afternoons I spent as a child watching my father in the yard and then, later, helping him.

And I couldn’t handle it. I selfishly thought of all the hours he spent in the yard and not with his children. Then, I thought of all the energy he expelled for something that suddenly seemed to superficial and silly. I told my wife that I had too much work to do; I told my neighbors that it was unethical to water in a drought; I told myself I had to spend more time with my daughter before a new child arrived.

But the truth was, I think I only worked on my yard because I wanted my father to be proud of me.

And now? My brother lightly (and not so lightly) mocks me because I have hired someone to do it for me. Unlike my father, I don’t get any pleasure from working this land. Even though I own it, I feel like a temporary visitor. I know I will sell this property; I will never leave it to my children. This place, and this world, I am just passing through. I cannot bear to garden here, because every plant that dies and every one that blooms reminds me of what is coming and what has gone. I cannot garden anymore, for now, because my father’s voice still echoes.

Sow what you reap?

Song 5: Micah P. Hinson “Yard of Blonde Girls”—imagine if people grew like flowers? This song has one of the best ‘builds’ of any song I have heard in a while. Hinson knows his crescendo.

My brother tends the land my father works and it is both a statement of his love for my parents and a metaphor for how we tend the memory of those we lose. He tries to keep everything my father planted, but time changes it—what he can, he makes better; what he cannot improve, he casts aside.

I ignore the land I own because my father never touched it. I tend his memories elsewhere, trying like my brother to cast aside what is of no use, and to bring to health whatever my father planted—my brother, myself, my sister, my children.

Inch by inch, row by row. My father made his garden grow.

On the Radio: The Musical Chimera

The goat head breathes fire!

In Ancient Greek myth the terrible Chimera—part lion, serpent and fire-breathing goat—represents the degeneration of the offspring of the earth and the type of marginal monster mankind needs heroes to kill. By destroying such beasts in stories, early man, in part, assuaged his own fears of the unknown and tamed the world around him.

(we even get a nice adjective from this that is not commonly used in English: chimerical, “fantastic or imaginary”; perhaps even “unnatural”).

Modern science, however, uses the term to describe a creature made from the parts of distinct species. For us, disturbingly or not, the threats to the order of things come not from the earth itself but from our own ‘unnatural’ meddling. (Although I am not so sure that scientists use this term pejoratively, as we might expect.)

Why am I thinking of the Chimera? Well, as I have mentioned, I have been listening to the radio a good deal thanks to the demands of parenthood. Now, recently, I wrested the control of the station from my wife and children (well, from my children who can’t articulate what station they want to listen to; my wife isn’t in the car when I do this…) and returned to my adolescent roots: the local independent alternative rock station.

Now, local alternative independent rock stations are really not all that different from one state to another (unless they are college stations, a topic for another post) : they all tend to play the same ‘classic’ alt-rock songs from the 90’s, they all play too many Foo Fighters tracks (a rant for a later date), and they all play the latest alt-rock hits. So, as a result, my brother and I can live 3000 miles apart and hear the same songs every day by listening to our ‘local’ and ‘independent’ rock stations.

Where is the Chimera, you ask? One song that I cannot escape is Fun’s “We Are Young”. I don’t want to tear the song down—it is actually quite catchy, appealing content-wise, and not hard to listen to. After hearing it, I find myself humming it as I walk from house to car or even in bed when the baby won’t sleep (and when I feel far from young).

The problem with the song is that I feel like it is not one song, but two. The first verse and the last bit sound like something from a David Gray or Mumford & Sons. The middle part sounds like a discarded AWOLnation track or a glam-rock anthem from the 1980’s. The two parts just don’t go together at all. They are so ill-fit  as to make the pairing unnatural, chimerical. (Now, this may be intentional (to create a jarring feeling, to wake the addressee into thinking about fleeting youth and to “gather rosebuds” while we may) but I suspect it is not).

Or so I thought. I decided to embark upon an experiment to test the case. It was simple and fast. I tricked my wife into listening to the radio station that was more than likely to play “We Are Young” every hour. When it came on, I let my wife listen for a few seconds and then turned the volume down. Then I asked her, do you know that “We are young song” (and I sang her the chorus). She did. I told her the song I just turned down was the first part of that song. She swore at me . I turned it up and waited for transition. Typically, laconically, my wife said: “that’s stupid”.

I am not sure I agree with that, but I do wonder about the effect on the audience of the contrast. Cynically, I suspect that the chorus was written first and the rest of the song just thrown around it. (Which is, incidentally, the way I feel about Maroon 5’s highly chimerical “This Love”). But even if that is the case, should we care if part of the song is so good?

In the case of Maroon 5, I think the contrast between the parts makes this creature completely monstrous and the song unlistenable. For Fun’s “We Are Young”, the more I hear it, the more the less beastly it seams

PS: Although I am not the biggest fun of the type of a cappella that plagues small college campuses, I actually like this version of the song a lot:

Airline Music

I hate flying. I really do. There’s something wholly unnatural and weird about being in a pressurized tube at 38, 000 feet that occasionally shakes everywhere when you hit turbulence. I know I have mentioned multiple times that the Elder J and I grew up in the sticks, but this doesn’t mean I haven’t traveled. I have flown all over the country and to Europe, semi-regularly since I was very young but I still hate flying. It never changes.

Once I turned 21, I would get drunk when I flew to numb the stress I felt but I quickly learned that this also is not the best plan. Well, its fun for a little bit, but hangovers seem to hasten at high altitudes or I spend way too much money on Jim Beam Black nips and snack plates as free food on a flight has gone the way of the dodo.

Continue reading

The Worst Concert Ever

“Why should I change? He’s the one who sucks.” Michael Bolton (Office Space)


While many of our comments on and anecdotes about music have to do with music merely as sound, as the score for charged moments in our lives or the cue to dial up vivid memories, music also surrounds us in tactile and physical ways. The Younger J and I have, at different points in our lives, attended many and varied concerts (and too few together). Seeing an artist live and as part of a community of listeners can drastically change the way you engage with music. The live performance returns music to the breathing pulse of the living from the frozen state of recorded sound.

Continue reading

Songs of the Year—1994 Geek Rock Comes out

You say I only hear what I want to.
You say I talk so all the time so.
And I thought what I felt was simple,
and I thought that I don’t belong,
and now that I am leaving,
now I know that I did something wrong ’cause I missed you.
-Lisa Loeb

Songs of the Year: “Stay” Lisa Loeb; “I Should Be Allowed to Think,” They might Be Giants
Runners-up: “Better Man”, Pearl Jam; “Animal”, Nine Inch Nails
Honorable Mention: “21st Century Digital Boy”, Bad Religion; “All Apologies”, Nirvana

1994 was the year that, for however brief a moment, cardigan sweaters were cool. Thick-rimmed glasses were no longer tokens of an embarrassing limitation but rather a sign of honor from a glorious Geekdom. Green Day were geeky punks. Weezer sang a song about 12 sided die.

1994 saw the release of albums that surprised and stuck around. I still remember the furious onslaught of the The Lead Singer as he tried to persuade me to love Green Day’s Dookie by enumerating everyone he knew (who was cool) who liked it. He should have known that this was the wrong tack to take with me. Contrarian I was.

The list of great albums that came out in 1994 is long, but a few highlights include: Nine Inch Nails’ Downward Spiral, Weezer’s Blue Album, Ill Communication by the Beastie Boys, Stranger than Fiction, Bad Religion, Definitely Maybe, Oasis, Ready to Die, Notorious B. I.G., Ruby Vroom, Soul Coughing. Tracks from these CDs would dominate the world for the next few years. But not me. Not yet.

Continue reading

Unreal Shows

Unreal(istic) Live Shows

To complete a trilogy of entries on live music, I want to write about some shows I was not able to attend because of not being alive. I won’t wax poetic on about how music in my generation isn’t as cool and all that(….but it isn’t). Maybe it’s because it actually it isn’t as cool or more aptly, there hasn’t been the time to create the mythology around the music. Oh yeah, and I cannot forget the fact that the bands of today are alive and generally still perform while all of these bands do not or can not. We all want what we can’t have.

The first show I will never be able to see is easy: Hank Williams Senior, sometime in the mid 1940’s and with a good pedal steel guitar player. Old timey honky-tonk music may be the music closest to my heart for a myriad of reasons that warrant their own entry. But, to sum it all up, I think that type of music is as real as it gets and Hank is the godfather of it all.

Continue reading

Album Review: Mates of State, Team Boo

That Crazy Circus Music

You can wait all night 
I’ll never stop complaining 
As I look into those eyes, I can’t behave 
‘Cause this song’s not right 
It’s the legend that you’re after 
I’m occluded ’round the clock a central shame  from “Whiner’s Bio”, Mates of State

Several years ago, soon after the discovery of what I have called the musical treasure trove (over 20 gigs of music, from classics I should have known to recent popular and independent music), I embarked upon a rigorous musical education program. Every day on my subway ride I would listen to three albums on shuffle; I would listen to each song for its own virtue. Then, if the songs struck me enough, I would listen to an album straight through.

On a day when I was trying to figure out if I liked Le Tigre (I don’t really, screw “my metrocard” and when I was trying to figure out why the magical gnome who introduce me to this treasure was so convinced I would love Interpol, I serendipitously mixed one part Le Tigre with one part Micah P. Hinson and one part Mates of State.

Continue reading

Songs of the Year 1993

Songs of the Year—1993

Songs of the Year: 4 Non Blondes “Whats up?”, Blind Melon “No rain”, and Radiohead “Creep”
Honorable Mention” Meat Loaf “I would do anything for love (But I won’t do that)”

I started writing these songs of the year entries backwards from 1995 and found that this year is when my remembrances begin to wane (but I can jog them via Wikipedia). This is the year that Prince became a symbol which I remember coming on the nightly news. I had no idea who Prince was anyway at age 9 so I don’t remember being too bothered by it.

Continue reading