Five Before Chaos

Ya know, with as important as music is to me, I don’t really blog about it so much. Well, today’s the day. As I mentioned before, I tend to be an old fart when it comes to music, with most of my stuff being pre-1977. Jazz and funk primarily with all the spaces in between, and a peculiar love of progressive rock, that European fossil that was a mixture of rock, classical and jazz influences.

A bit of background… in the early 70′s there was a lot of interesting things going on in the European rock scene, aside from the obvious Pink Floyd/Led Zeppelin thing. Bands such as Yes, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Italy’s PFM and such were taking rock out on a limb, with extended compositions (15+ minutes), classical influences, abstract lyricism, complex melodies, many changing time signatures, tempos and styles, and musicianship that tended to be a lot higher than the average rock and roller. This came to be known as ‘progressive rock’, which, I might add, bears no resemblance to progressive political movements, or the Vermont Progressive Party, for that matter.

Now lemme state that prog rock, as I’ll call it, ain’t for everybody. It has a certain geek factor, zero hip factor, I don’t know too many women who dig it, and you almost certainly can’t dance to it. It’s not about the usual sex/drugs/good times thing, either, although personally I can’t think of a more stimulating sound when under the influence of certain psychoactive substances. Most of the time I don’t know what the lyrics are about, I just treat them as another instrument in the mix. It usually requires a bit of an attention span to get into. It is very European sounding, drawing from the rich musical traditions from the continent (although there were a few half-asssed American attempts, such as Kansas and Styx, nothing worth mentioning or listening to, IMHO). It’s almost never funky (as in funk, that other favorite and completely opposite genre of mine).

As the genre went on, it kind of overreached in the pretentiousness factor, where one started to get the impression it was becoming more about showing off musical chops and less about making interesting music, kinda similar to what happened with the whole jazz fusion genre at the same time. It’s safe to say that prog rock was definitely one of those things that the whole punk movement reacted to, and as the 70′s came to a close, most prog rock bands started sounding quite ridiculous, and either folded, or streamlined and toned down their sounds. In the 80′s many of them simply sold out (such as Yes and Genesis), and had huge commercial successes playing really shitty music.

One band that didn’t make it into the 80′s that you may not know about is Gentle Giant. They have remained more of a cult following, having never achieved the commercial successes of Yes or Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. And having a listen to thier music will show you why.

Gentle Giant was formed in 1970 by the Schulman brothers, Derek, Ray and Phil. From the Wikipedia Gentle Giant entry:

Gentle Giant was a British band considered to be one of the most original progressive rock bands of the 1970s. Inspired by old philosophers, personal events, and the works of François Rabelais, the group’s stated purpose was to “expand the frontiers of contemporary popular music at the risk of becoming very unpopular.”

Having a listen to Gentle Giant is quite the experience. Amongst the band members, they could play over 40 instruments (quite well, too), from the typical rock instrumentation as well as classical and jazz instrumentation. The earlier albums were often waaaay out there, not the easiest thing to hum along to. Sometimes you’d hear odd vocal counterpoint, as in the tune ‘Knots’ (see first video below), other times medieval minstrel music mixed in with Hammond organ, is in ‘On Reflection’, from the ‘Free Hand’ album.

GG cashed it in before the 80′s got into full swing. After some great albums in the early and mid- 70′s, they made the abysmal ‘Giant For a Day’ album in 1978, a plodding mishmosh of a blatant attempt to go mainstream. Didn’t work. They had a return to form of sorts, with the ‘Interview’ album, and ended with the toned-down but ok album “Civilian”. Thankfully GG spared us the crappy love ballads, arena rock and bad haircuts that Yes delivered to us in the 80′s. I don’t think GG would have had that in them. Too much integrity, perhaps.

So, where to start with GG? I would start with the accessible-yet-interesting ‘Free Hand’. If you dig that, follow it up with ‘Octopus’, ‘In a Glass House’, and then ‘The Power and the Glory’. If you make it that far, you’ll probably figure out what else to listen to or avoid after that. Avoid ‘Giant for a Day’ at all costs.

So, let me now draw your attention to the follwing GG vids below. The first is the unusual ‘Knots’ from the Octopus album. The second is ‘The Advent of Panurge’, also from Octopus. The third, probably the most accessible of the three, is ‘Funny Ways’, from thier 1970 self-titled debut. Like I said, this stuff ain’t for everyone, but try to check out all three just to get an idea. Enjoy.

Gentle Giant – Knots

From the Octopus album

Gentle Giant – Advent of Panurge

from the Octopus album

Gentle Giant-Funny Ways

from the 1970 self-titled debut album

I’m noticing lately that I’m starting to get a lot of links from my fellow Vermont bloggers. Good. I’d like to welcome you all, and please draw your attention to the links at the left, other fellow VT bloggers. Chances are you know them already, but if not, show ‘em some love. Thanks for stopping by.

(This piece isn’t intended to give anymore unworthy attention to the JonBenet case, it’s more to point out how easily people are swayed by bullshit, especially when it involves a ‘psychic’.Since I started writing this piece, it turns out the Karr guy wasn’t the killer after all, which just bolsters the case I make even more.)

Now, although I don’t have a T.V., the impression I’ve been getting is that this JonBenet horseshit is dominating the airwaves, keeping the country even dumber. Unfortunately, we’re in a time in our nation when critical thinking and focus on the real issues are more important than ever. Oh well.

Anyways, like most sane people, I couldn’t give a rat’s patoot about the DeadChildBeautyQueenDiversion. I’ve been ignoring it as much as possible, but one thing that caught my attention was how a psychic supposedly aided in an accurate police sketch. Now, not to get into a rant, but I’m not really a believer in psychics. I know all about cold reading/ignoring misses and remembering hits, and all the other tricks of the trade. So of course, my B.S. meter went off when hearing about it, but soon forgot about it.

So, it turns out that that so called ‘accurate police sketch’ is hardly accurate at all. Joe Nickell, a skeptic over at CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal) deconstructs the falsehood, and by doing a serious analysis and comparison of the figures, shows hardly any resemblace at all, in his ‘Shame on Shamus Sham’. If you check out the piece, you’ll first off see that the police sketch really doesn’t resemble Karr at all, it just looks like yet another generic white guy. Here’s more from Nickell:

“In addition to the envisioned portrait, Allison predicted the killer would have “connections” to Germany and Georgia, and gave additional details. However, just as a New Jersey police captain had said of her other “cases,” Allison’s predictions “were difficult to verify when initially given.” Allison followed the formula utilized by other reputed psychic sleuths: take advantage of the publicity engendered by a high-profile case, and make numerous pronouncements, such that-when the true facts are subsequently established-the statements can be interpreted accordingly. (For example, “water” can later be identified with a nearby stream, lake, water tower, etc.) This clever technique of after-the-fact matching is called retrofitting, and it has fooled even seasoned detectives.”

It also makes me wonder of the power of the media and suggestion. They tell us it looks like the guy, it obviously doesn’t, yet because it plants the nugget that it does in our minds, we tend to believe it anyways (kind of like the idea that Dubya is just another cowboy). I didn’t use the images because of permissions, but if you look at the site, you can see in Nickell’s ‘forensic caricaturing’, that the suspect and the drawing look nothing like each other.

As I noted, turns out he wasn’t the guy. More importantly Aravosis points out all of the things the press neglected while covering this oh-so-not important story.

Got a few hours to kill before going down to Hartford to go see Steely Dan. Yeah, I’m only 35 but as far as music goes, I’m pretty much an old fart. I’d have to say less than 25% of my music collection was recorded after 1980, hell, make that 1975.

Anyways, it’s time to take a look at the GOP stooge that is vying for Bernie’s old seat, Adj. General Martha Rainville. Now, the purpose of this is mostly to let you know that as much as the VT GOP would like you to believe Martha’s not some backwater Neanderthal Repub (like most of the ones now), a closer look at her shows she is really just another Bush Republican. See, it seems that the strategy the GOP tries time and time again is to avoid talking about issues unless absolutely necessary, because they know that they are nowhere near what traditional VT Repubs, such as the venerable George Aiken, were.

So, lets have a look, shall we? You can look at the bio stuff on her site, I’m going to look at where she stands on the issues, both from the material on her website, and through a Democratic press release graciously forwarded to me from Odum, over at Green Mountain Daily.

A cursory glance on her issues page shows 16 issues, from the Iraq war to No Child Left Behind. Conspicuously absent are two that seem to be quite important to Vermonters, the environment, and gender equality issues. Her energy policy has me quite confused. She mentions often about conservation and weaning us off of fossil fuels numerous times, but still is pushing the ‘increasing domestic production’ option, which to me, is no longer a viable option. There are many people in this country that simply think the answer to our energy problems is drilling our way out of it. Rainville is enabling this short-sighted thinking, and that mentality is also what is pushing for drilling in ANWR and other pristine, formerly-off-limits places. Granted, there are some good points to her energy plan, such as increased conservation, and the use of flex-fuel or hybrid government vehicles. There’s nothing about ending oil subsidies, nothing about increasing fuel mileage standards, nothing about increasing subsidies for solar, biomass and wind technologies.

On other things such as abortion, she supports parental-notification, and is opposed to the Republican buzzword ‘partial-birth abortion’. She supports line-item veto, which, considering we have a president that just ignores parts of the law he doesn’t agree with, seems kind of unnecesary(anything that gives an already power-obsessed executive branch more power is not a good thing).

On tax cuts, she’s taken the words right form the Bush book:
“As a fiscal conservative, I believe that taxpayers spend their hard earned money better than the government. Tax cuts stimulate the economy, promote strong economic growth and create new jobs.”
No surprises there, still playing the thoroughly discredited trickle-down theory.

Same on jobs, more form the tired old Repub playbook that’s running this country into the ground: “cut taxes, reduce regulatory burdens and reform our legal system”. Yep, damn trial lawyers and regulations… She offers nothing new on healthcare reform either, and I suspect that she believes the ‘market’, you know the one that has done such a great job so far with it, just needs a few reforms here and there and it will be ok. Screw universal healthcare.

Now to be fair, she supports a raise in the federal minimum wage, has called for diplomacy when dealing with Iran, is against the Federal Livestock ID system (a big issue in VT), and is in support of some sort of ethics reform. So basically, she’s not a far right lunatic. But, ultimately, what I find so discomforting about her is her position on Iraq. Like all of the assholes pushing the ‘stay the course’ vibe, she ties Iraq into the GOP ‘war on terror’ talking point, and what’s worse, she sees the failure in Iraq as primarily a failure of our government to communicate:
“A very important element has been missing, and that is good communication on what’s going on there… It’s very difficult for citizens to have an accurate perspective of the war of our successes… Part of that is, I believe, the fault of all of those involved for not communicating more openly with Americans, or not telling the story of what’s going on in Iraq.”
So basically, we’re losing the war because we’re not getting the right spin on those 30 or 40 Iraqis killed every day due to sectarian violence and the 2600+ Americans who have died for the lie. Ok. Feel better?

Apparently, Rainville uses this same illogic to explain away the miserable failure known as the Bush Administration:
“I think his weakness all along has been communicating with people. I wish so much that he would tell more of the good news that’s there. There are some positive things happening… We tend to hear the bad news which is a function of how we cover news. I think the help to the Iraqi people that the war has given – I think that needs to be better understood. Those stories get lost, and I think it’s important for our nation as a whole to understand all that’s going in so that we can judge the strengths and weaknesses better of our president or our congress or our foreign policy.”

So what does that mean, Bush needs to lie better? Needs to hide his imbicilic IQ better? Sorry, Martha, that dog won’t hunt. Blame the liberal media? That is soooooo 2002.

So where am I getting at with all this? Well, in case you haven’t noticed, one-party GOP rule has been an unmitigated disaster for this country. It’s been polarizing, and morally bankrupt. It needs to end, now. Bush needs his power checked, in a serious way. And the thing you need to remember, no matter how much Martha Rainville (or Rich Tarrant, whom I’ll get to shortly) wants you to think they are ‘independent’ and ‘moderate’, they are still members of, and will be contributing to the numbers and power of the party responsible for screwing this country up so royally. A vote for a Repub on the national ticket means a continuace of bad foreign policy. Of no accountability. Of divisive domestic agendas that do nothing to make the average person’s life better, nor us better as a society as a whole. Party really does matter in this election, folks. Now I know there is a lot of talk about the lackluster candidacy of Peter Welch, and it is increasingly getting harder to hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils, as we had to for Kerry. But you know damn well Welch is not going to be another rubber stamp for Bushco. Rainville and Tarrant will, no matter how hard they try to convince you otherwise. Rainville: wrong for Vermont. So there.

Also, be sure to check out Philip Baruth’s excellent piece on Martha over at VT Daily Briefing, called ‘What is Rainville Republicanism, Daddy?’

This is what a Republican getting his ass kicked looks like. Enjoy.

(AFP/Paul J. Richards)

Now, I’m not much for photoanalysis… the one to go to for that would be BAGNews Notes. However, I had to take a shot after seeing this photo from the Big Dipshit’s press conference a few days ago. It made me go through the Nixon archives trying to find something similar for a comparison but I couldn’t find anything. It doesn’t inspire any confidence nor pity.

What do you see here? What’s with the glare? The unbelievable discomfort? Or is it anger? Is it the look of a pouty kid who just had a toy taken away? The scariest one of all is it that I think it’s the look of a man who really, truly realizes how he is so in over his head, so unbelievably unable to address the problems that he’s created in a cohesive, intelligent way and that he finally realizes that the American public has finally caught on to that fact as well. Or maybe it’s just gas.

Ok, time for a long overdue film review. This time, it’s Sergio Corbucci’s Django, from 1966. Of the nearly 600 westerns that European film companies made between 1960 and 1975, Django tends to get mentioned quite a lot. It followed shortly on the heels of Sergio Leone’s Fistful of Dollars, and was quite a success.

The plot is about a quiet, mysterious gunslinger (as is usually the case) named Django, who is introduced to us while dragging a coffin behind him into the muddy streets of a town. The town is stuck between a rivalry of some red-hooded racist types and outlaw Mexican revolutionaries. We later learn that the head of the racists was somehow responsible for the death of Django’s wife. In similar fashion to Fistful of Dollars, Django is able to play the two gangs against each other to get some gold. Turns out that the coffin he’s dragging around has a big ‘ol Gatling gun in it, which he is miraculously able to use while carrying it around. It ends with Django getting his hands nearly destroyed yet still facing down the main baddie in the town cemetery.

So there’s the synopsis, now the commentary. Although nowhere near as good a film as the Leone films, there are some good things to be had in Django. First off, this is the film that made Franco Nero (in the title role) a huge European star. He’s got the good looks and charisma to pull it off. His character has the moral ambiguity so prevalent in these films; he does the right thing when it serves him well. Nero was so popular that, after this film hit it big, when his other films were released across Europe, they would somehow find a way to put ‘Django’ in the title (at least in Germany). There are over 30 unofficial sequels using the Django name, most of which don’t even have a character in the film named Django. There’s W Django, A Few Dollars for Django, Django – Il Bastardo, Django – Kill! If You Live, Shoot!, and so on. This, apparently was nothing new in Italian cinema; have a big hit and all of a sudden, there’s a hundred more like it with a similar name. Nero only actually played the character of Django once more, in the 80′s flick, Django Rides Again.

The sets are designed by Carlo Simi, who did the sets for the Leone fims, and as ususal, they look great. Dirty, dingy, run down, and quite realistic. There is no place in the movie that you could see yourself wanting to be. All of the streets in the town are covered in tons of mud, there’s no picture perfect anything here. The acting was so-so, as in most of these movies. The soundtrack by Luis Bacalov is unremarkable, yet fitting. The Blue Underground release that I watched was taken from a recently found master print of the film. With the exception of an occasional anomaly due to the ravages of time, the restoration process looks fantastic, although the soundtrack is still in mono. And one more important thing if you get this film… watch it with English subtitles and the original Italian language track (with Nero’s voice). The English overdub is awful and corny, and the Italian dialogue is much better, too.

Another thing that Django is known for is its violence. It recieved a ’18′ rating in Italy and was banned by the BBC for 25 years because of the violence. By today’s standards, it’s pretty tame, except for the scene in which a spy is captured and his ear is sliced off and put in his mouth. Quentin Tarantino lifted this scene for Reservoir Dogs. It is said that Corbucci ‘forgot’ to remove that scene when requested by the censors, hence the 18 rating.

Overall, it was okay but if you’re getting into the genre I’d put it on your ‘must-see’ list, if only for the historical context. One thing that I’m discovering as I explore this genre further is that other than the Sergio Leone westerns, most of them, although some have their merits, aren’t really more than B grade films. Fred Thom’s review of this film over at Plume-noire.com, sums it up:
“Except for Sergio Leone films, the genre wholly belongs to the B series, of which Django is the figurehead.”

I’m ok with that, though. It’s a hell of a lot more entertaining to me than Godzilla or women-in-prison movies.

If you like this, please click below and visit my spaghetti western site, where you’ll find more reviews and other great stuff.