Which was more stupid, the babbling beauty queen from South Carolina, or the networks that devoted air time to covering this important development?
Maybe they just know a natural born news anchor when they see one.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
Scrambled Gonzales
What's in a name? Here are ten anagrams for Alberto Gonzales:
Loners Bag Zealot
Zero Ballast Gone
Last Bozo General
Tarzan Lose Globe
Snob Got Real Zeal
Alas Treble Gonzo
Tarzan Be Sell Goo
Earnest Bozo Gall
Large Ozone Blast
Legal Tzar One S.O.B.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
The Return of Len Wade
Red Kelly over at "The 'B' Side" has a wonderful post on soul singer Len Wade, who has never had the recognition he deserves. Now that Len's music has been used in The Sopranos, maybe that's about to change.
I knew Len back in my Birmingham days. I think it was Bobby Mizzell who introduced me to him. I remember that he recorded a fabulous cover of Fats Domino's "Valley of Tears."
Somebody needs to get this guy back into a studio and get him booked at some blues festivals. At the very least, we need a Best of Len Wade compilation, the sooner the better.
I knew Len back in my Birmingham days. I think it was Bobby Mizzell who introduced me to him. I remember that he recorded a fabulous cover of Fats Domino's "Valley of Tears."
Somebody needs to get this guy back into a studio and get him booked at some blues festivals. At the very least, we need a Best of Len Wade compilation, the sooner the better.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Spamming the Charts
Responding to my thoughts on Elvis, Michael Neumann argues persuasively in an e-mail that the whole subject of Elvis and race is far more complex than either Peter Guralnik's op-ed or my response to it would suggest.
Most interestingly, he observes that Presley's embrace of blues took place at a time when black audiences had already begun turning away from 'old-fashioned' music, toward crooners, jazz, vocal group music and other less 'country' material.
By way of illustration, Michael notes that 'Ricky Nelson had three times as many entries into the R&B charts between 1949 and 1971 as Howlin' Wolf.'
That little bit of jaw-dropping trivia provoked me to take a peek at Amazon's best-selling CDs in the Blues category. As of this morning, here are the artists with the Top Ten 'Blues' CDs:
If they removed all the albums that have little or nothing to do with blues from the Top 100, Koko Taylor would probably jump all the way from No. 86 into the top tier, where she belongs.
Most interestingly, he observes that Presley's embrace of blues took place at a time when black audiences had already begun turning away from 'old-fashioned' music, toward crooners, jazz, vocal group music and other less 'country' material.
By way of illustration, Michael notes that 'Ricky Nelson had three times as many entries into the R&B charts between 1949 and 1971 as Howlin' Wolf.'
That little bit of jaw-dropping trivia provoked me to take a peek at Amazon's best-selling CDs in the Blues category. As of this morning, here are the artists with the Top Ten 'Blues' CDs:
- Amy Winehouse
- Joe Bonamassa
- Norah Jones
- Robben Ford
- Norah Jones
- Chrisette Michele
- O Brother, Where art Thou? (soundtrack)
- Mavis Staples
- Chris Duarte
- Robin Thicke
If they removed all the albums that have little or nothing to do with blues from the Top 100, Koko Taylor would probably jump all the way from No. 86 into the top tier, where she belongs.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Elvis and Racism: Round Two
Here's how this sort of thing usually plays out: it starts when some voices in the black community express their opinion that a prominent white figure (in this case, Elvis Presley) may be, or is, or was, a racist.
A prominent white defender (in this case, Peter Guralnik, on the op-ed page of the New York Times) then comes forward to assure us that it isn't so.
This is supposed to end the discussion.
Everyone is then invited to meditate on the good works of the accused, with particular emphasis on how black people are thought to have benefited from them.
I know the rules of the game. I just didn't feel like playing by them, when I wrote my response to Guralnik's op-ed. Consequently, I have been accused of smearing the King's memory and cordially invited by rockabilly enthusiast David "DC" Larson to "shut up."
At least Larson didn't accuse me, as another writer did, of implying that "Guralnick is OK with ax handles if Elvis' historical legacy is at stake."
Let me set a few things straight.
First, I didn't argue that "Elvis was a racist." In fact, all I had to say in my earlier piece -- about whether he was or wasn't -- was "Who cares?"
I stand by that.
Second, I didn't equate Elvis with Lee Atwater, or Peter Guralnik with Lester Maddox.
What I said was that part of Guralnik's logic -- that Presley's obvious love of black music is one indication that he couldn't have been a racist -- was flawed, in that it could apply as readily to someone as transparently bigoted as Lee Atwater.
(I suppose there is someone, somewhere, who will maintain that Atwater's dirty tricks stemmed not from bigotry in the heart but from heartless pragmatism. Again, who cares?)
I've also been charged with "guilt by association" for my comments about Elvis and the Statesmen Quartet. But it was Guralnik who associated Elvis with the Statesmen in this context, by invoking them as an example of Presley's "egalitarian" tastes.
Look: in 1964 Lester Maddox hit the roof of a black minister's car with a pick-ax handle, outside his restaurant. He later sold thousands of ax handles as "souvenirs" of his resistance to integration and "Godless Communism."
In 1971, the Statesmen were happily singing backup for Lester Maddox, on an LP called "God, Family and Country."
Six years later, according to Guralnik, they were singing at Elvis's funeral, by request.
It isn't about holding Elvis responsible for what some white gospel singers did. The point is that publicly linking themselves with a notorious race hater wasn't enough to get the Statesmen excluded from Presley's circle. What could they have done, do you suppose, that would have amounted to "going too far"?
Had Guralnik simply marked the 30th anniversary of Presley's death with a reflection on his role in opening the door and breaking down barriers, I'd wouldn't have bothered responding. Although frankly I do think the tired old meme was a bit of a stretch to begin with. It's one of those things we've heard so often, we all think it must be true.
Did Elvis really open the door for black artists? Was that ever his express intention or conscious motive? Or did he merely open the door for himself and other white artists to sing black music -- and to "sound black" -- without apology?
True, it all resulted in more opportunity for black artists, so much so that Little Richard could declare that the total effect of Elvis was "a blessing." You can give him credit for that, and for knowing the good stuff when he heard it, without trying to make him into the Frederick Douglass of modern music.
To depict Presley as some kind of great emancipator implies that artists like Chuck Berry and Fats Domino needed some white guy to set them free. One listen to "The Fat Man," and you know that Fats was already more free than Elvis would ever be, in 1949.
But Guralnik wasn't content to praise Elvis for his contributions; he had to set up a Straw Man, by whom Elvis had been "turned into a racist." That's what opened this can of worms.
If Guralnik was unaware of that Statesmen/Maddox album, it's simple: he shouldn't have been. (Did Elvis own a copy?) If he did know about it, why bring up the Statesmen in an article defending Elvis from a charge of racism? I don't know the answer; it's a pure puzzlement.
A commenter on this blog, who claims to have spoken with Guralnik recently, described him as believing that criticism of Presley in the black community is based on the following reasoning: "Elvis benefited from white racism -- that is why he was hailed as 'The King' -- so why would he not be a racist himself?" I doubt that those are Guralnik's words. I prefer to think it does him a disservice to suggest that he would stake his argument on so shallow a construction.
Others, like David "DC" Larson, in the absence of "proof," hotly attribute the charge of racism to urban legend, "slanderous myths" and a willingness to smear "the King."
To assume from the outset that the thinking behind "a view common in the African-American community" couldn't be reality-based -- that strikes me as interesting in itself.
Before leaping into full denial mode, and assuming we know why people think what they think, shouldn't we at least turn to a few representatives of the people who believe Elvis was a racist and (rather than demanding proof) say, "Can you tell us why you feel that way?" And then listen.
That the New York Times op-ed page editor should have done so -- before printing Guralnik's piece -- goes without saying.
A few more thoughts:
To give Elvis all this responsibility for racial progress and crown him "the king of rock and roll" is not unlike branding Bob Dylan "the voice of a generation," an asinine label Dylan has always had the good sense to reject. Bubba Ho-Tep was probably much closer to the truth.
Elvis himself said: "The king of rock and roll is Fats Domino." What part of that was unclear?
If the music of Elvis was really such a "socially unifying" force, I'd expect to look around and see some social unity. At least in places where his presence was felt and much of his music was made. Instead, I look at Nashville and I see one major black artist -- one! -- in a century of white singers, and no sign of another since Charlie Pride left the scene. If anybody that works down there today is embarrassed by that, they're keeping it to themselves.
And finally, if I could sit down with our rockabilly expert and Elvis defender David "DC" Larson, I'd ask him if he knows what attracted him to a genre where virtually all the artists "happen" to be white.
"Shut up," he'd probably explain.
A prominent white defender (in this case, Peter Guralnik, on the op-ed page of the New York Times) then comes forward to assure us that it isn't so.
This is supposed to end the discussion.
Everyone is then invited to meditate on the good works of the accused, with particular emphasis on how black people are thought to have benefited from them.
I know the rules of the game. I just didn't feel like playing by them, when I wrote my response to Guralnik's op-ed. Consequently, I have been accused of smearing the King's memory and cordially invited by rockabilly enthusiast David "DC" Larson to "shut up."
At least Larson didn't accuse me, as another writer did, of implying that "Guralnick is OK with ax handles if Elvis' historical legacy is at stake."
Let me set a few things straight.
First, I didn't argue that "Elvis was a racist." In fact, all I had to say in my earlier piece -- about whether he was or wasn't -- was "Who cares?"
I stand by that.
Second, I didn't equate Elvis with Lee Atwater, or Peter Guralnik with Lester Maddox.
What I said was that part of Guralnik's logic -- that Presley's obvious love of black music is one indication that he couldn't have been a racist -- was flawed, in that it could apply as readily to someone as transparently bigoted as Lee Atwater.
(I suppose there is someone, somewhere, who will maintain that Atwater's dirty tricks stemmed not from bigotry in the heart but from heartless pragmatism. Again, who cares?)
I've also been charged with "guilt by association" for my comments about Elvis and the Statesmen Quartet. But it was Guralnik who associated Elvis with the Statesmen in this context, by invoking them as an example of Presley's "egalitarian" tastes.
Look: in 1964 Lester Maddox hit the roof of a black minister's car with a pick-ax handle, outside his restaurant. He later sold thousands of ax handles as "souvenirs" of his resistance to integration and "Godless Communism."
In 1971, the Statesmen were happily singing backup for Lester Maddox, on an LP called "God, Family and Country."
Six years later, according to Guralnik, they were singing at Elvis's funeral, by request.
It isn't about holding Elvis responsible for what some white gospel singers did. The point is that publicly linking themselves with a notorious race hater wasn't enough to get the Statesmen excluded from Presley's circle. What could they have done, do you suppose, that would have amounted to "going too far"?
Had Guralnik simply marked the 30th anniversary of Presley's death with a reflection on his role in opening the door and breaking down barriers, I'd wouldn't have bothered responding. Although frankly I do think the tired old meme was a bit of a stretch to begin with. It's one of those things we've heard so often, we all think it must be true.
Did Elvis really open the door for black artists? Was that ever his express intention or conscious motive? Or did he merely open the door for himself and other white artists to sing black music -- and to "sound black" -- without apology?
True, it all resulted in more opportunity for black artists, so much so that Little Richard could declare that the total effect of Elvis was "a blessing." You can give him credit for that, and for knowing the good stuff when he heard it, without trying to make him into the Frederick Douglass of modern music.
To depict Presley as some kind of great emancipator implies that artists like Chuck Berry and Fats Domino needed some white guy to set them free. One listen to "The Fat Man," and you know that Fats was already more free than Elvis would ever be, in 1949.
But Guralnik wasn't content to praise Elvis for his contributions; he had to set up a Straw Man, by whom Elvis had been "turned into a racist." That's what opened this can of worms.
If Guralnik was unaware of that Statesmen/Maddox album, it's simple: he shouldn't have been. (Did Elvis own a copy?) If he did know about it, why bring up the Statesmen in an article defending Elvis from a charge of racism? I don't know the answer; it's a pure puzzlement.
A commenter on this blog, who claims to have spoken with Guralnik recently, described him as believing that criticism of Presley in the black community is based on the following reasoning: "Elvis benefited from white racism -- that is why he was hailed as 'The King' -- so why would he not be a racist himself?" I doubt that those are Guralnik's words. I prefer to think it does him a disservice to suggest that he would stake his argument on so shallow a construction.
Others, like David "DC" Larson, in the absence of "proof," hotly attribute the charge of racism to urban legend, "slanderous myths" and a willingness to smear "the King."
To assume from the outset that the thinking behind "a view common in the African-American community" couldn't be reality-based -- that strikes me as interesting in itself.
Before leaping into full denial mode, and assuming we know why people think what they think, shouldn't we at least turn to a few representatives of the people who believe Elvis was a racist and (rather than demanding proof) say, "Can you tell us why you feel that way?" And then listen.
That the New York Times op-ed page editor should have done so -- before printing Guralnik's piece -- goes without saying.
A few more thoughts:
To give Elvis all this responsibility for racial progress and crown him "the king of rock and roll" is not unlike branding Bob Dylan "the voice of a generation," an asinine label Dylan has always had the good sense to reject. Bubba Ho-Tep was probably much closer to the truth.
Elvis himself said: "The king of rock and roll is Fats Domino." What part of that was unclear?
If the music of Elvis was really such a "socially unifying" force, I'd expect to look around and see some social unity. At least in places where his presence was felt and much of his music was made. Instead, I look at Nashville and I see one major black artist -- one! -- in a century of white singers, and no sign of another since Charlie Pride left the scene. If anybody that works down there today is embarrassed by that, they're keeping it to themselves.
And finally, if I could sit down with our rockabilly expert and Elvis defender David "DC" Larson, I'd ask him if he knows what attracted him to a genre where virtually all the artists "happen" to be white.
"Shut up," he'd probably explain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
