Two old albums

Recently, I've been listening to a pair of albums that were released within a few months of each other.  When they first came out, almost 40 years ago now, I had mixed feelings about them.  Now, listening to them again after many years, they have become two of my favorites.  And the most surprising thing, especially considering the two artists, is the deep similarities between them.

Cat Stevens was coming off a creative and commercial highpoint.  His previous two albums, "Tea for the Tillerman" and "Teaser and the Firecat" would each eventually go triple platinum.  Most of the songs people remember him for, "Wild World," "Peace Train," "Moonshadow," etc., came from those two albums.

This album, released in the fall of 1972, went quickly to number 1 and stayed there for three weeks, but then slipped just as rapidly down.  I was one of the people that put it up there, and I was one of the people that was somewhat disappointed with what I heard.  The songs were more experimental, the performances more strident and emotional than we were used to from the man who sang "Morning Has Broken."

And yet, something about the album kept me coming back.  At the time I didn't like it as much as its predecessors, but I kept on getting it out and playing it.  It was as if I knew there was something there that I was missing.  The first song, "Sitting," was the only single from the album that made the top 40.  That song, I liked immediately and have been frustrated for 40 years because I've never been able to do a servicable version of it on acoustic guitar.  The second tune, "Boy with the Moon and Star," was a very pretty little ballad.  After that, it got a little too heavy, too murky for my taste.

Listening to it now, I can't believe I didn't see how good the songs were.  There's not a clunker on the whole album.  The first two songs sound just as good as they ever did.  The songwriting is more mature and consistent than much of "Tea" and "Teaser."  I cannot figure out now why "Can't Keep It In" failed as a single; it's a great song.

The one I keep coming back to now is deep in the second side (for those of you who remember vinyl record albums; you know, those big black CD's?).  It's called, "The House of Freezing Steel," and as many times as I've heard it I have no stinkin' idea what it's about.  I'm amazed that Metallica has never thought of doing a cover of it.  Whoa!  Great idea!!  Don't tell Metallica, I'm going to try and get that done myself!

"Silent Sunlight" is a beautiful ballad, of the type that Stevens is noted for.  "18th Avenue" is a multi-layered experiment that meshes three distinct movements into a relatively short song.  "O Caritas" is mostly in Greek, but you won't care; it's passionate and exotic and seals the deal with a last verse that translates the idea into English so you can enjoy it more fully.  It's the sort of album that is deep and thick and keeps pulling you in.  It's got catchy melodies that you'll hum for hours.  Songs that will get stuck in your head, and you won't mind a bit.

And the other album, in its own way, is just as good, and just as startling.

This one came out in 1973.  Most of it was written during the American tour in support of "The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars."  Sorry, I just had to type that all out.  It's a great title.  And, it was a great album, and the first one that really broke David Bowie commercially.  If anything, this follow-up was even better.  It was more rounded, more mature as a piece of songcraft, and yet more schizophrenic.  It's a roller-coaster ride between hard rock and pre-war show tunes and hits many of the buttons in between.

My very good friend, John McLaughlin, turned me on to this album when it came out, and did so again last summer when he gave me a new copy of it.  When it came out, one had to be careful in declaring themself a Bowie fan.  It made a statement.  His image overshadowed his music, which is unfortunate, because his music has always been, if not great, at least interesting.  But liking Bowie had the sad consequence of saying something about you.  You either rode with it, or suffered from it.

The two dominant players on Aladdin Sane are guitarist Mick Ronson and pianist Mike Garson.  Ronson was Bowie's main creative collaborator at the time, having come up with him from obscurity.  He was the kind of guitar player that every garage musician in the neighborhood wanted in their band.  He was no Hendrix or Clapton, but he sure could make smoke come out of the speakers.  He had exactly one sound, but it was a good one.  And, he had imagination enough that he could keep up with anything Bowie could throw at him.  Garson was already a seasoned session man and would spend the next couple of years in Bowie's band before going on to a rich, full career in and out of the studio.

The two together added a creative tension to the album as it swung back and forth between them.  Songs like "Watch That Man," "Panic in Detroit," and "Jean Genie" belonged body and soul to Ronson.  Garson ruled in songs like "Time" and "Lady Grinning Soul," jazzy tunes that sounded like they should have been sung by Liza Minnelli and Joel MacRae straight out of "Cabaret."  His tour de force was the title tune, with the most manic, maniacal piano solo ever recorded.  Worth the price of admission all by itself.

If anything, the two were at their best on songs in which they found common ground.  "The Prettiest Star" is very piano-centric, and yet Ronson adds guitar work that take it to a whole new level.  And their version of the Stones' "Let's Spend the Night Together" is a classic.  I recently read a review of the album that panned that tune, but I strongly disagree.  Garson takes the main riffs, freeing Ronson to spit fire all over it.

It's a dark, happy album; an exercise in sophisticated disconnectedness.  Spastic nihilism with a kickin' backbeat.  The album has been called inconsistent, but I think it is very consistent. 

And that brings out the chief similarity between these two albums.  They both see a world that is going to hell in a handbasket.  The difference is in their reaction to it.  Stevens looks deep inside, looking for some meaning and a way to make things better.  He hopes there's a way it can all be made to make sense.  Bowie sees it as being out of control, but refuses to give in to despair.  Instead, he strikes up the band and has another drink or anything else to make himself feel better for a moment.

Here's a challenge that I'm thinking of trying my own hand at.  I think these two albums are complimentary enough that they could be merged onto one CD.  I would be interested in seeing what order anyone reading this would put the songs in.  If anyone's interested, I'd be happy to put my own song order out there for your examination.

Anyway, I'm hoping this will give you a reason to check these two albums out.  I think you'll be glad you did.  They are both very worthwhile.

The View From Here: Introduction, pt. 2

Part 2 is a quick review of my track record of voting in the NH Primary.  One of the coolest things about being from, and living in, New Hampshire - especially if you're a political junky - is the first-in-the-nation primary.  It is ground-zero politics at its very best.  People vying to become the most powerful person on the planet have to go into little coffee shops and stand on street corners and eat rubber chicken in hotel ballrooms with average people like . . . well, me!  It don't get no better than that.

The first election I have a clear memory of was 1964.  My parents were both life-long Democrats, and Dad was very proud of the fact that his first vote was for Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  I am one of that group of people who remember where they were when they heard that President Kennedy was assassinated.  The very idea of anyone voting for Barry Goldwater in '64 was . . . just weird!  I found out later that my father-in-law's first vote was for Goldwater. 

In '68, both my parents wrote in Johnson for the primary, and voted for Humphrey in the general election.  '72 was a different kettle of fish.  I don't honestly remember who my folks backed in the primary, but they both went for Nixon in the general election . . . and I actively campaigned for McGovern.  That made for some interesting dinner conversations.

The first NH primary I ever voted in was 1976.  It was an exciting year, especially if you were a Democrat, because they could have nominated Bugs Bunny and he'd have stood a good chance against Gerald Ford.  Remember that this was the election after Watergate.  I took a long, close look at the entire field.  I really liked Frank Church and Morris Udall, but in the end went with Jimmy Carter.  You have my sincerest apologies.  It won't happen again, I promise.

By 1980 I was so disgusted with both parties that I didn't vote in the primary, and went with whoever was the Libertarian in the general election.  I don't even remember the guy's name.  Ed something, I think.  Also, I can now tell a secret I was sworn to never reveal to my father.  He was so disgusted with Carter that he voted for Reagan.  But the real secret is that my mother voted for John Anderson, the Republican who ran as a third-party candidate.

In 1984 I was living in Sacramento, California and had to watch the NH primary from afar.  I really liked Gary Hart, but agreed that he needed to quit when the whole sex scandal thing came out.  I'm sorry, scum shouldn't be President.  By the time of the California primary, it was all decided.  And, by that time, I was a Christian and was viewing things from a new perspective.  To my amazement, I found myself voting for Ronald Reagan in the general election.

By '88 I was back in NH and jumped into the primary process with a vengence.  I changed my registration from Democrat to Independent, where it has remained ever since.  I looked long and hard at the field from both parties, as there would be no incumbent on the ticket.  Believe it or not, I seriously considered voting for Jesse Jackson, but the Republican field held more fascination for me.  By this time, I was a believer in supply-side economics.

I wound up with a short list of three candidates; Pat Robertson, who most of my Christian friends wound up voting for; Pierre "Pete" DuPont, a former governor of Delaware who had some very cool ideas but couldn't get any traction; and Jack Kemp, who quite literally wrote the book on conservative economics.  I voted for Kemp, but by the general election came to really believe that the best man for the job was George H. W. Bush.  And, I think he was an excellent President.

1992 was very frustrating.  I really liked Bush as President.  Plus, after Desert Storm he looked like a shoo-in, so all the major Democrats like Mario Cuomo bowed out.  But then Pat Buchanan reared his ugly head.  I don't care, I don't like the man, never did, never will.  Everybody blames Ross Perot for the end of Bush, but I blame Buchanan.  I believe he, more than anyone else, gave us Bill Clinton.

The Republicans put out a weak field for '96 in my view.  My wife and I both wound up voting for Allen Keyes.  In my case, it was as much for the statement it made as a belief he'd make a good president.  Held my nose and voted for Bob Dole in the general election, and was pleased to also be able to finally cast a vote for Jack Kemp, even if it was for VP.  Backed Keyes again in 2000, and happily supported Bush, Jr. in the general election.  Again, as his father had, he won me over slowly as the year went by.

In '04 I missed a chance to vote in the primary for the first time in a long time, as Bush had the incumbent's chance of the nomination and no Democrat impressed me enough to jump over.  I thought 2008 was another very weak field, and I went for Rudy Giuliani.  I did vote for McCain in the general election, but more because I thought Obama would be as bad as he is than any belief that McCain would be much better.

This year, I'm still up in the air.  I'm probably 50% ready to vote for Gingrich, but may write in Herman Cain or Condi Rice at the last minute.  This is, I'm sorry, the weakest field in years.  Maybe in my lifetime.  There is absolutely nobody running that I really like.  If Romney gets the nod, I may stay home for the first time in my life.  We need a leader with a vision, and Gingrich may be the closest thing we have.  Which, to my thinking, is a damned sad state of affairs.

Then again, times like this are what makes leaders like Reagan look so good.  Let's hope there's one in training right now, gettting ready for 2020.

So now you know a lot of my history.  Boring, pointless, but don't forget where you come from.  And, if you're actually interested enough to have read this far, you might be surprised to learn that my values haven't changed a whole lot, even if my politics have.  At any rate, the introduction is over.

The View From Here: Introduction, pt. 1

This is the first part of something I've been thinking about writing for a long time.  It's a series of pieces on my basic political philosophy.  The reason for it is that many times I find that people are confused by my arguments.  They want to pigeonhole me as something, and I profess a belief or stand on an issue that goes against what they think I am.

In a nutshell, I believe there are certain basic things that everybody wants, whether they're conservative or liberal, democrat or republican, red or blue, old, young, or whatever.  These things are:

Peace
Prosperity
Equality
Freedom
Security

Liberals and Conservatives, and so on blah blah blah, all want these for themselves and promise them for society as a whole.  The disagreements come from differing views on how to achieve them.  I plan to write a piece about each of these things, and what I think it will take to achieve them on a political level.  But politics is only a small part of life, and to really understand why I believe what I believe, you have to understand the ground on which I stand to get the view I see from here.

I was about eight years old when I learned that my parents had me baptized at the United Protestant Church in Dorchester, NH.  This made me curious as to what that meant.  Not that we ever went to church very often, but my mother had an interest and occasionally, sporadically, we went.  Thinking back, I learned more about Roman armor than about God, but like I said we didn't go very often.  My father had a much more skeptical view of religion, but did not completely dismiss it.  He just wasn't scared to ask questions about it that might make a true believer uncomfortable.

So I started asking my friends whose families went to church what they knew about Christianity.  And, I have to admit, I wasn't overly impressed with what they had to say.  It seemed to me a bit simplistic.  So I began looking at other religions and systems of beliefs.  By the time I joined the Navy at 17, I was somewhere between Buddhist, Athiest, and Communist.  From there I explored the realm of the supernatural through yoga, meditation, astrology, and drugs.  Followed a lot of gurus, didn't get much in the way of results.

In my late twenties I read a novel that made quite an impression on me.  I don't remember the name of the book or the author, but it was about a young woman who was on a similar quest to mine.  She hooked up with a spirit who guided her on her spiritual quest.  She ran afoul of some other spiritist/magical types, and was surprised and pleased to learn that her spirit guide could successfully defend her against them.

I had experienced limited communication with various spirits by this time, and was a firm believer in the existence of supernatural beings.  One of my major goals was to have a positive influence on the world, and I knew that any effort on my behalf in this direction would put me on the wrong side of some powerful people.  So I knew I needed to hook up with as powerful a spirit as possible if I was going to be able to do any good.

You see, when I began my search I already had a goal in life.  I wanted to be President.  I had a number of other sub-goals, like rock star and/or race car driver/designer, or maybe journalism, but these would lead into a political career and eventually the Presidency.  Hey, if you're gonna dream, might as well dream big.

After a while, like when I got to about 20 or so, I realized that Presidents come and go, but artists are forever.  It is arguable that Elvis or the Beatles had more influence on the world than Richard Nixon or John Kennedy.  After all, the most a President could serve was eight years, but Elvis is still capable of a hit, and he's been dead for more than thirty years.  So I started playing guitar and writing music.

But I needed to have the right message, and that led me through the world of philosophy and religion, and up to the point of seeking out a powerful spirit guide.  If possible, the most powerful one of all.

And I found him!  In a most surprising place as well.  By this time I was 28 and going to college in Sacramento, California.  I met up with a few people who professed to be born-again Christians, and found them quite amusing.  One in particular, a Davis California native named Rick Nixon (perfect guy to meet when you're a political junkie) was a classmate in a Theater Arts class.  Our class went on a field trip to San Francisco to see Shakespeare's "A Midsummer's Night Dream."  We got there early, so he and I went off to get some lunch.  When we got it, he bowed his head to pray, and I thought, "Oh, boy."

I was merciless, challenging ever preconception he might have had and exposing my own prejudices.  And he was not able to answer all my challenges.  But neither did I shake his faith.  What he stood on was simple; he knew Jesus Christ, and nothing I could say or do could take that away.

So I started looking into Christianity from a new perspective, and found myself being challenged.  It was not, as I had surmised in the third grade, a simplistic bunch of rules.  It was a personal relationship with an entity known as Jesus Christ.  If what I read was true, this was that 'most powerful spirit' I had been looking for.  Only one problem; he was unwilling to simply be a guide and help me with my mission.  If I was going to have a relationship with him, he would have to be in charge.

It made me think about what I'd learned about the supernatural.  The spirits I sought connection with lived on a plane that I could not access.  I had been convinced that I was the one in control, but they were moving and acting outside of my knowledge.  It was entirely possible that they were manipulating me, and letting me believe what I wanted to believe.  At least Jesus was being honest; his way, or the highway.  If I was going to be with him, he would be the boss.

At this point, I had a choice.  I could walk away, knowing that if I ever came up against him I was guaranteed to lose.  Or, I could give up everything I had ever wanted and follow him.  It was a choice that was no choice at all.  I asked him to take over my life.  And he did.

And it's not exactly been easy.  I'm now 56, which means twice the age I was when I made my decision.  And the main thing I know is that I still have a lot to learn, and a long way to go.  My job here on this planet is to be the best example of a Christian that I can be, and I am sorry to say I've been a damned poor excuse for one too many times.  But there's nothing else worth doing in this life.  I'd rather be a simple, unknown, working class Christian than a rock star, a race car driver, or the President.

So anyway, this is my perspective on life.  Any system of government is only as good as the people living in it.  To make the country, and the world, a better place, I have to be a better person.  For that, I need enough power to overcome my worst impulses, and enough wisdom to know the way to go.  Who better to give control of my life to than God himself?

It comes down to this; God created everything and everybody, and loves his creation without reservation.  So, he is all-knowing and completely trustworthy.  Jesus Christ is the physical embodiment of God, and lived a human life to reveal himself to humanity.  The Bible is the most complete and trustworthy expression of his mind, written by a long line of people who he inspired and led.  And I trust this because I am, for lack of a better term, possessed by and in communication with the spirit - commonly known as the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost - of God.

And no, he doesn't operate me like some invisible puppeteer.  He doesn't do that with anybody, and never has.  Which is why there is so much evil in the world, because he doesn't go where he's not invited.  The significance of this to my political beliefs is that I prefer a political structure that allows me to act on God's behalf to affect the world in a positive way, along with other Christians.

And one other thing; every religion, Christian and otherwise, has built into it a concept of heaven; a perfect place, where it is possible to live a perfect life.  This heaven usually includes the things I named above; peace, prosperity, equality, freedom, and security.  Every nation on earth has been an attempt at creating something close to that heaven.  It is my belief, as an amateur student of history, that 21st-century America is the closest there's ever been to that heaven.  With all its flaws, all the corruption, all the uncertainty, have there really ever been a people as blessed as the average American?

So this series, The View From Here, will be my ideas on how this country is like, and can be more like, a perfect place where a loving God leads His people in His perfect will.  Hope you like.

Rick's Quadrennial NH Primary Voter's Guide

Hi.  This being the second time I've done this, so I guess we might as well go ahead and call it a tradition.  I'm planning on writing something soon about my own personal political philosophy, but I've kinda been doing that right along.  What this is about, is me trying to figure out who I'm going to vote for in the NH Primary.  A quick disclosure; I'm registered as an Independent, and would have no problem with taking a Democratic ballot if someone on it sufficiently moved me.  But since I lean conservative, I'm going to do my usual and take a Republican one.

I've also been giving serious thought about setting up a group of categories and tying them to a ten-point system.  That would make me vote for the person with the highest score, which might or might not be a good thing to do.  Maybe I can work that out for 2016.  Consider yourself warned.  In the meantime, I'll toss around the prototype version.

MITT ROMNEY

I've already written about him, so go back and look it up.  Don't be lazy, now.  I don't actually think he'd make a bad president, he just wouldn't make a particularly good one.  He's running on the hope that the Un-Mitt-of-the-month will keep rotating and he'll outlast them.

Remember that points system?  The two most important catagories, to my way of thinking, are Competence and Ideas.  In the first, I'd have to give him 8 out of 10.  He's probably one of the smartest, most capable candidates in the whole race.  But on ideas, I'd have to give him probably 3, and that's being generous.  His big plan for the future of the country is, "No, really, I AM a conservative."  That is, unless he gets the nomination, then he'll be whatever else anyone wants.

He said in a recent debate that his plan will create 11.5 million jobs.  He never did say which jobs, or where they'd be, or how much they'd pay.  I earnestly believe he was just making up a number.  The way to create jobs, as any Conservative will tell you, is a combination of tax cuts and easement of regulation.  This will stimulate business and there come the jobs.  But there's a lot of things that need to be done, and a lot of the Obama agenda that needs to be dismantled, and I just don't believe he'll do it.

I think he's the one Obama wants to run against.  He's the one Barack will have the best chance of beating, and if he loses, there's a good chance he can make a comeback in '16, saying "See, he didn't do anything, I'm the one with the vision."

NEWT GINGRICH

The Un-Mitt of the month, and maybe the last one.  Again, competence 8.  He could walk in the door and do the job well, without question.  He's very smart, very articulate, and a total policy wonk who knows what he thinks and how to explain it to the people in fly-over country.  He's flawed, but doesn't waste a lot of time backpedalling away from it.  Yeah, he's screwed up a few times, but if the choices become him and Obama, who ya gonna pick?

On the other side, I give him a 4 on ideas.  Once again, not a guy for big sweeping changes.  He is more likely to dismantle Obamacare, though.  Obama's campaign will be all about character, and it will have to be, because he has to keep his real ideas secret and Newt doesn't.

RON PAUL

I believe the Republican party ignores this man at its own peril.  It would be wise to focus the bright light on him and his ideas, and air them out for the public.  I think many of his supporters, if not most, back him because the party hates him without really knowing what he stands for.

First of all, he's a Libertarian, and a former Presidental candidate for the Libertarian party.  Libertarianism looks good on paper, but in reality it's borderline anarchy.  It's fine, if you feel comfortable blindly trusting big business.  One thing for sure, the economy will boom, until one or two of them decide they can make a big killing by kicking off another depression.  Remember, a super-friendly business climate was what led the Harding-Coolidge boom years into the crash 1929.  And also remember that every sudden downturn manages to somehow benefit a small handful of people.  Just like the people who are going to cash in long-term on the bursting of the housing bubble.

Secondly, his foreign policy strongly resembles that of John Foster Dulles, Dwight D. Eisenhower's Secretary of State.  His concept was called "Fortress America."  He thought we should pull completely out of Europe, Asia and Africa and concentrate on North and South America.  Let the Commies and whoever take over their half, we'll handle our half.

I know there are subtle differences, but that's essentially what Paul is suggesting.  Let the Taliban and Al Queida and whoever have Iraq, Afghanistan and wherever.  That's what will happen if we pull everybody out and "stop playing the world's policeman."  If you're cool with that, vote Paul.

Points?  Oh, yeah.  7 for competence, but minus two because he'll never get anything through congress.  And 7 for ideas, because at least he's got some.  But again, minus two, same reason.

RICK PERRY

I wish I could make a TV ad for Rick Perry.  I'd have him sitting at a big desk, talking on the phone.  Then looking in a file folder.  Then talking with a staffer that comes dashing in.  Another phone call, along with a quick but steady glance at a computer monitor on the desk.  All the while, a voice-over is reading from the US Constitution regarding the duties of the President.  It would end with something like;

"Okay, he's not the smoothest on TV."  And then, tying in to ads he's already running; "We've already got someone like that.  This is the part that guy's not good at."

He's desperate, and he's throwing out anything that pops into his head in hopes something will stick.  It's not a good sign.  If he were to behave like that as President, it would be bad for the whole country.  Especially considering that some of his ideas are totally bananas.  I actually like the idea of a part-time congress, but what congressman will vote for it?

I would give him a 6, maybe 7, for competence, because he's already running a very big state and apparently doing a pretty solid job.  And another 6 for ideas, because again, he's actually got some.  I have no doubt he'd take Obamacare apart as quick as he can, and bend heaven and earth to cut taxes and ease regs.

But that's not enough!

MICHELLE BACHMAN

Another former Un-Mitt fave.  A few months ago she was a shoo-in to take the Iowa caucus.  Now, she's third or fourth.  She's toast.  Rolling Stone ran a savage piece on her right after the Iowa straw poll she won a couple months back, and it's worth a read.  Not that I buy most of it, because Rolling Stone is aimed directly at the most sold-out corners of the left.  The piece was not there to convince any Republicans, it was there to scare people who would never vote for her in a million years into thinking she had an outside chance.  And she may have, back then, but it's gone.

She's Sarah Palin light.  She's a conservative true believer, all the way.  But now, with the pressure on, her cracks are showing.  I'm finding it instructive to see how some of these people are acting on the roller coaster.  Her "Hey!  Me!  Me!" act is one of the most distasteful.  3 for competence, because I think she'd be in way over her head in the oval office.  But 5 for ideas.  Might be a good VP choice, and the on-the-job training would be good for her.  Definitely better on TV than Dan Quayle.

RICK SANTORUM

Why is this guy still here?  He was a good Senator, but lost his seat in the '06 purge.  Another guy who could use the VP experience.  He's one of the few left that hasn't had a turn being the Un-Mitt of the hour.  His official nickname should be, "oh, him."  Competence, 5 (maybe), ideas, probably 6.  Too bad he doesn't stand a chance.  Sorry, but losing a senate seat does not qualify you for the White House.

JOHN HUNTSMAN

The answer to the musical question, "Does Mitt have a younger brother?"  Or maybe, "Whatever happened to Tim Pawlenty?"  Mitt in a cheaper suit.  Same moderate credentials, less credibility.  Governor of Utah.  If him, why not a governor of Alaska? Competence, 4; ideas, 2.

PEOPLE I WISH WOULD RUN

There are a few people I would seriously consider voting for if I knew anybody else that would, too.  See if any of these names ring any chimes for you:

Herman Cain

That's right.  I was on the verge of voting for him, and still might.  Not that I think he's the most capable man in the world to do the job, but because of the message he'd send.  I'd vote for him for that message, and if he won the whole ball of wax I wouldn't have a problem with it.  Competence, 6, ideas, 6.

Then we come to the sexual harrassment charges.  If they're true, all bets are off; he would deserve to not only be eliminated from consideration for President, he'd deserve to be strung up by his vital parts.  But if not, then he's proof of how easy it is for lies to destroy somebody.  In the media, there is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty."  I think it's telling that, now that he's out, all that seems to have gone away.  Funny, huh?

I would agree that the 9-9-9 plan has holes, but at least it's an idea.  He's another one I'd like to do an ad for, and it would be mostly like the one I'd do for Perry.  I think he could do the job, and do it pretty well.

Sarah Palin

Yeah, I know, but I believe she'd actually do the job quite well.  I think it would have been better for her to remain in the governor's mansion in Juneau, but oh, well.

Condoleeza Rice

Who?  Are you serious?  Most definitely, pilgrim.  Brilliant person.  Read her book, or any number of books about her.  Check out a book I found in a dollar store called "Hillary and Condi."  Back in '05, pundit and former Clinton staffer Dick Morris wrote a book about what he thought was going to be the '08 race.  He gives a lot of background on Condi, and I'm sold.  I was anyway.  She's very accomplished, cool as a cucumber under pressure, and is three steps ahead of everybody.  She also seems to have to ability to see things from more possible angles than anyone out there.  I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

Her record as the head of Stanford University is most telling.  She took it over when it was deeply in debt.  When she left eight years later, they were well into their biggest expansion ever AND had $14 million in the bank.  Also, she has an interesting attitude toward affirmative action.  She's for it as far as taking someone on, but against it in regards to tenure.  That means, being a minority or a woman can get you a job, but you advance completely on merit.  A good, pragmatic solution, and one I agree with.

On the whole, it's a pretty uninspiring field considering how much is at stake and how easy it should be to beat Obama.  Oh, yes, before I forget . . .

BARACK OBAMA

His name will also be on the ballot.  Not on the Republican primary ballot, but definitely on the one in the fall of '12.  He should be considered in all this.

You've probably gotten the impression that I'm not going to vote for him.  My wife, who happens to be very well informed and quite brilliant, disagrees with my assessment of him, so you might want to take it with a grain of salt.  She thinks, for the most part, that he's just in over his head and doesn't really know what he's doing.

As mentioned, I disagree.  I look at Obamacare, the national debt, the bowing to other world leaders, the fire sale to China, and I see the groundwork being laid for a unified world government.  In that world, our debt would be shared with China and everybody else.  We would be one of the movers and shakers in that world, but not the biggest one.  I think he sees it as inevitable, and he's betting everything on it.

I think he has a vision, and is building for the long haul.  It's something to think about.  I know some of you reading this would be cool with that.

I have to say, his election makes me proud of my country.  Having lived for 56 years, I've seen a lot of changes, and it truly blesses me that we could elect an African-American.  But I knew at the time he was a far-leftie, and he's done nothing to prove me wrong.  His ideas are fatally flawed, and he's a lousy president, just like I knew he'd be.  If he wins re-election, he'll have to do it with fear.  Either he has no ideas, or his ideas are so extreme he doesn't dare say them out loud.

If it's the former, then I'd have to give him a 2/2.  If the latter, 8/0.  I can't wait to read the book he writes after he returns to civilian life.

Songwriting Analysis: Tools and Materials

You may not know this, but as a New Englander, I do; a wooden covered bridge will outlast an open steel-and-concrete one.  This one, near my brother's house in Bath, has been there since 1832.  The reason that this bridge was made out of wood in the first place is, of course, there was a lot more wood available in Bath, NH 1832 than there was concrete and steel.  The idea of covering it is probably part of that whole reputation that New Englanders have for being pragmatic.  If you're going to build a damned bridge, you only want to do it once, so you might as well protect it as best you can.

In a nutshell, you use the materials you have to do the best job you can.

Writing a song is a lot like building a bridge, in certain ways.  Songwriters, especially modern ones who tend not to know so much about music theory, tend to write for the tools they have handy.  Guitar players write songs that they can play with relative ease in relation to their skills.  So do piano players, trumpet players, flautists, etc.

For guitar players who like to play close to the nut with lots of open strings, the chords most likely to appear in their songs are G, C, D, Am, and Em.  We've pretty much summed up the history of Country and Piedmont Blues right there.  If they're electric guitarists who are rockers and like to use a lot of barre chords, the most prominent keys to write in are E and A.  It's notable that both Jimi Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughn, who had big hands with long fingers, liked to play Fender Stratocasters (which have a longer, 25.5 inch scale) and played close to the nut (where the frets are further apart) and consequently wrote a lot of songs in the key of E.  This meant they didn't have to squish those big fingers together up on the fifth fret where the key of A was more accessable.  Their limitations and preferences dictated their writing style, or at least affected it.

It's the same for players of other instruments.  It's the reason that you don't hear many trumpets in bluegrass, or banjoes in be-bop.  Banjoes, mandolins, and guitars are tuned to play in keys like E, A, G, C, and D.  Trumpets and other horns are more comfortable in Bb, F, Eb and stuff like that.  I guess that explains why Miles Davis and John Coltrane never jammed with Bill Monroe and Earl Scruggs.  Shame, that.

I have been listening a lot in recent months to how piano players write their songs.  Billy Joel, Elton John, Leon Russell, Jerry Lee Lewis, Barry Manilow, Bruce Hornsby, and all of it being brought back home again with my recent acquisition of Harry Nilsson's All-Time Greatest Hits.  As a songwriting guitar player, I have found it very educational to play a lot of other people's songs, and some of the stuff I have the most fun with is songs by piano players.  I just love trying to figure out how to do an interesting version of a Billy Joel or Elton John song on the guitar.  (I guess I'd better learn a Manilow tune, because now somebody's bound to ask.)

The histories of the keyboard and the Western system of writing music are closely intertwined, to the point that both are rooted in the key of C.  On a piano, organ, or synthesizer keyboard the white keys are a C major scale.  To play in any other key, you have to use black keys.  The same with the musical staff; all the lines and spaces are notes in the C major scale, and to write any other notes requires the use of sharps and/or flats.

So the most common keys, especially for any modern pianist who doesn't have a lot of training in music theory, are C and Am, both of which can all be done on just the white keys.  After that, the key of F (or Dm) is widely used, because this only requires replacing the B with a Bb.  And, the key of G (or Em), in which the F is replaced by F#.  Then, it's the keys of Bb (or Gm) which has two flats, and D (or Bm) which has two sharps.  The physical limitations of the instrument dictate its use. 

Furthermore, any piece that involves horns will use the keys with flats instead of sharps, because most horns are tuned to Bb or Eb.  Throwing in a flute limits the choices further, because the flute it tuned to C.  So if you've got a piece written for piano, trumpet, alto sax, and flute, you have to be very careful because the four instruments are tuned to be most comfortable in C, Bb, Eb, and C again respectively.  Driving you crazy yet?  Then don't throw in a guitar!  (And if you do, make sure he brings a capo.)

What, for me, makes piano songs most interesting is how easy it is to use secondary and tertiary chords.  For those of you to whom that is confusing, it means simply this; think of chords as colors.  In the visual world, the primary colors are red, yellow, and blue.  All the other colors are mixtures of those.  Purple is made from red and blue.  Orange, red and yellow.  Green is yellow and blue.  That means that purple, orange and green are secondary colors.  Colors made of a mix of a primary and a secondary would be tertiary; quite literally, the third level.  (Go ahead and Google "Teriary colors" for some cool stuff.)

Musical chords are the same way.  The primary chords in any key are the root, the fourth, and the fifth.  So, in the key of C, your main chords are C, F, and G.  Each chord is made up of three notes; the root, third, and fifth notes.  So the F chord is made up of an F, an A, and a C.  These are actually the 4, 6, and 1 notes in the C major scale.  A secondary chord off the F would use any two of those three notes.  So instead of the F chord, you could substitute Dm (D, F, A) or Am (A, C, E).  Bdim and C would be tertiary chords of F, using one note from the F chord, and could be used to replace an F chord in a chord progression.  Got it?

What makes piano writing so cool is how easily these secondary (and tertiary) chords are accessed.  If you're holding your fingers to make a chord, all you have to do (at least in the key of C) is to hold your hand in that same position and move it to a different place on the keyboard.  Move up one key from a C chord and you're making a Dm.  One more, an Em.  Cool, eh?  Where it gets difficult is when you play in keys that require sharps or flats, because then you have to adjust at least one of the three fingers to move from a white key to a black key, or vice versa.

Simply put, the physical limitations dictate its use.

If you liked this, and want me to ramble on some more about basic music theory and songwriting, it would be my pleasure.  Thinking about writing this piece kept me up half the night anyway, so it's good to have a place to stick it.  So, if you like this and want more, just say; "Rick . . . stick it!"

Facts and Figures

Hi. Found a tool that might be useful, and thought I'd share it with you. I've just started fooling around with it myself, and it's been fascinating.

The problem is, both sides of the political aisle go on and on about taxes, federal revenue, and so forth and so on. One side says that we have to raise taxes in order to raise federal revenues, the other side says that raising taxes will actually HURT revenue flow, and that cutting them will increase it. Then you have Ron Paul, who thinks we should cut taxes until it hurts revenue and just spend a lot less.

But the politicians go on television and talk about these things as if they were privvy to secret information that no one else can know, and it's simply wrong. Taxes are paid publically, the rates are written down in black and white, anyone's tax payments can be made public and they are all the time. The information is there. It's damn well time that we took the time and made the effort to see just where our money is going.

What I'm sick to the teeth of is being treated by politicians and power-brokers as if I were stupid. We are ruled by sound bytes and slogans and are expected to salivate on command whenever certain key phrases are issued. Job creators. Top 1%. Wall Street. Main Street. We are expected to decide whether we are conservative or liberal, and then just blindly follow the leaders of the catagories without question.

Well, I don't trust any of the bastards. I think anyone with power skews the game to benefit themselves. It's human nature, and I'd probably do it if I were a billionaire. Yes, I would go in trying to do the right things, but it's inevitable that the necessity for compromise would arise and I'd begin to sell out a piece at a time.  Anyone who says they never would is kidding themselves.

One of the greatest things about this country is that we, the average folks, actually have the power available to us to level it back out. But it takes effort, and intelligence. So I've Googled "Federal Tax Revenue," and the first thing I clicked on was this:

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/

It's not an official government website. It's put together by some guy named Christopher Chantrill. He's probably got a political agenda, but I haven't yet figured out what it is. Whatever it is, most of the site seems to be facts and figures. In two clicks I got to a page that breaks down federal tax revenue for fiscal 2011, by half a dozen different catagories. There are links to past fiscal years, along with deficit figures, budget figures, and a bunch of other fascinating stuff. It looks like a good place to start finding out how much money the federal government really takes from us and what they do with it.

So if you find anything useful, feel free to put a link to it in the comments section. People, we're never going to be able to run this country right if we don't educate ourselves. The politicians have no interest in helping us, so we've got to take the initiative. I don't know about you, but I want to know what's going on. If I find anything interesting, I'll post it, but you really should look for yourselves.

Songwriter's Workshop

The Warren United Methodist Church hosted a songwriter's workshop on Saturday, Oct. 22, 2011, and I thought I should tell you about it.

In a nutshell, it would appear that everyone in attendance had a blast.  Two fellows from the Bristol UMC came, and one woman from the Tilton UMC.  It was promoted mostly through the NH-VT Methodist district, as "Songwriting from a Christian perspective," but everybody was invited.  We were hoping to get 5 or 6 people to come, but it worked out to be a good-sized group overall, giving everyone plenty of opportunity to get a word in and play several of their own songs.

Also there were three very good songwriters I invited to participate in a roundtable discussion.  There was Jim Tyrrell, from Campton, NH, who is one of those rare local musicians who's actually making music for a living.  He has several CDs out and has toured extensively.  We've played in a couple of bands together, and I have immense respect for him.  He talked a lot about a website he's a member of called Songfight.  It's a tool for exercising your "writing muscles," and he played a couple of songs he wrote for them.  Basically, they give the group a title and everyone has to write a song on that theme.  My personal favorite was "God Hates Penguins."

Sky King was also there, who is a very good friend and one of the best natural songwriters I've ever known.  He actually does have considerable knowledge and background in the nuts and bolts of music, but his songs feel so natural that you might be tempted to think of them as old, traditional songs.  "The Carpenter's Song" stood out for me.

Tod Moses rounded out the group.  Tod is from Thetford, VT but is originally from Ohio and spent about 20 years in Nashville on the edges of a big-time music career.  He learned the craft of songwriting from the pros and writes brilliant stuff himself.  His band, That Band, recently released its first CD and he's about to release his latest solo effort.

With such an A-list of writers, I began to worry that the others would feel intimidated.  I needn't have worried, as it only whetted their appetite to show their own work.  John Moore played us several songs that were very good indeed, and has a music ministry with his wife.  Some of his songs had a very classical feel to them, with very strong melodies.  Kathy Smith, the woman from Tilton, played us songs she'd written back in the 70's when she was still quite young.  It was like peeking into someone's diary; very personal and very moving.

We started in the morning with a basic class, led by me, on music and composition.  This made for a lot of give and take and made us all think about the process a little deeper.  Lunch was provided by the Green House, and it was delicious!  Thanks very much to Cheryl and Gary for the outstanding pizza.  The roundtable was after lunch, and we had some good home cooking for supper. 

The only unfortunate thing of the whole day was that nobody from town came for the pot luck supper.  It seems we were up against a supper and concert at the Wentworth church.  These things happen, I suppose, and I'm told it was a very good show.  But by the time we were done with our evening meal we were all pretty worn out, so we opted out of our own show.  This was sad, because we had held back Bob and Sue Moulton, and then nobody got to hear them play.  We'll have to correct that sometime very soon.

All in all, we had a great time, made some new friends, learned some good stuff, and are hungry to repeat the event sometime in the future.  Hopefully, we'll get the word out a little better and get a few more people involved.  It was a good experiment, and worthy of repeating.

Romney? Really?

Mitt Romney was accused in the news recently - I saw it in a guest editorial credited to the Concord Monitor in the Nashua Telegraph - of influencing Nevada's decision to change the date of their caucus to before the NH primary.  Actually, 'members of his staff' are accused.  The Romney campaign was allegedly contacted, and offered no comment so far.

I have heard it suggested that Romney, and the Republican leadership, would like to get the nominating process over with as soon as possible.  Some say no, because a protracted battle keeps it in the headlines, and therefore on people's minds.  This is possibly why Huckabee and McCain went down to the last gun fired in '08.  But the party leadership never liked McCain anyway, so they didn't mind hanging him out to dry a little while anyway.

I believe they are clearly behind Romney, and want very badly for him to be the last man standing.  He has consistently polled around 25%, usually between 20 and 30, since the '08 exit polls started handicapping the '12 race.  They know his real support will never be more than that, and they fear like death anyone stepping out of the pack and getting the rest on their bandwagon.  I don't honestly think they're worried about Cain, because he doesn't have the organization or experience to go the distance. 

But if Bachman, or Perry, or Santorum start to get traction, they could blow the rest of the second tier out of the water.  Anyone who coalesces the wandering 75% will run over Romney like a truck.  At one of the debates, somebody - maybe even Romney - said that anyone on the stage would make a better president than Obama.  I would take that a step further; anyone ELSE up there would make a better one than Romney.  Well, maybe not Huntsman.  He's Romney in a cheaper suit.

Let's face facts; is there anyone out there, anyone at all, who honestly believes that President Mitt Romney would actually change anything?  The Republican party leadership knows it is, and always will be, the minority party, and they believe they can best hold power by holding the ship of state on a steady course.  Just don't rock the boat.  Obamacare?  Well, yeah, it's bad, but it's there now.  Nothing we can do . . . since we're willing to do nothing.

Barack Obama has learned the harsh lesson that George W. Bush learned; the best way to make enemies in politics is do something.  That's the one thing I actually like about Obama; he's actually trying to do something.  I think he's got a long-term vision for the country and he's busy every day trying to lock it in.  Even he would rather see Mitt Romney than Bachman, Perry, Santorum, or Cain.  They would actually, probably, do something, and then he'd have to start over.

Here's what I'm seeing through the haze; Romney wins, then dithers for four years trying to please everybody and winds up pleasing nobody.  But he's the incumbent, so no Tea Party candidate can get the nomination.  They'll raise one hell of a stink and get it all over Romney, but he'll be the nominee again.  Obama comes back, gets nominated again, and goes on to his second term a la Grover Cleveland.  At this point, unless a miracle happens, it looks like Romney's got the nomination.  Then, unless unemployment somehow drops back to seven or eight percent, he's going to be President.  And we're set up for The Resurrection in '16.

I have a suggestion; if Romney gets the nomination . . . let Obama win.  Tea partiers, stay home on election day.  Prove once and for all that the Republican party cannot win without us.  I'm not saying I recommend this, but it's going to be in the back of my mind until things shake out.

Tea, Occupancy, and A Seat at the Table

Been watching the whole political morass with great interest.  Also been tempted a hundred times to say my peace here, but I'd probably be repeating myself.  Things are heating up, though, so thought I'd throw down and see if it stuck.

I've been watching with some interest the coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York and elsewhere.  I've also noticed a very basic similarity to the Tea Party movement, of which I consider myself a part.  You have to look past the peripheral things, though.  That includes most of the coverage.  Media from both sides of the political spectrum paint the OWS people as left-wing Socialists; Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to djinn up fear, and NPR to rally their own.  The same groups were painting all the Teabaggers as right-wingers, because they called for smaller government, lower taxes, and the Koch brothers were paying Sarah Palin big bucks to go talk to them.

But I think both movements go much deeper than this.  I think the core was revealed on Fox News the other night when they were panning the OWS crowd.  There were signs saying all kinds of different things, but the thing that caught my eye was a modified American flag, with corporate logos in place of the stars.  To me, that said it all, and that flag could just as easily have been waved at a Tea Party rally.

From the right, the Democrats seem to bend the knee mostly to labor unions and minorities.  From the left, the Republicans do the same to big business.  And to a great extent, both views are correct.  Not that there's anything wrong with labor unions, minorities, or big businesses.  Most of us work for somebody else; labor unions made it possible for the average person to do that work for a fair wage; and advocacy for minorities has gone a long way toward leveling the playing field in the most diverse culture in history.  These are all good things, and I don't think the average Democrat or Republican would disagree.

I can't help but think about how much things have changed in my own lifetime.  I can remember state Governors standing in front of their constituents promising, "Segregation now, segregation forever!"  I can also remember every three years or so the entire automobile industry being closed down by strikes, as well as airlines, etc. etc. etc.  Unemployment was always 10% and was always going to be.  Both sides won so many victories that all those things have changed.

So the Democrats present themselves as the party of minorities and the working man, but honestly, do their programs really mean progress for those groups?  When the same things have stopped having results decades ago?  Now, it's not about getting the worker a fair wage and benefits, it's about increasing Union membership.  And the Union workers make far more than anybody else, and the industries that are heavily unionized are priced out of any hope of being able to compete.  And as far as minorities go, the main argument seems to be whether or not illegal immigration is actually illegal or not.  If you think it is, then you're a racist?

It seems that anyone who gets power gets right to work abusing it.  Big business has re-written the Golden Rule to read; "He who has the gold makes the rules."  Unions have themselves become big businesses.  And if you're not a member of a minority, you're not supposed to have any rights at all.  They prop up the government from both sides and hog all the seats at the table where the decisions are made.

That is the commonality between the Tea Party and those who Occupy Wall Street; they, WE, want a seat at the table.  We want REAL solutions to all those problems, not just solutions that pad the advantages that a few already have.  We don't want to fear and hate the other side, we want to help them.  We want the Conservative Republicans to explain to the African-American and Hispanic communities how supply-side economics are advantageous to them, too.  And the Liberal Democrats should explain to the CEOs how fairness and honesty would benefit their bottom line.  It's actually true, you know.

It's not the government that needs to compromise as much as it is the Tea Partiers and the Wall Street Occupiers.  We should all get together and recognize the common ground we share.  Then, maybe, just maybe, we could get the politicians AND the media to shut the hell up and listen to US for a change.

Yes

Let’s get one thing out of the way right now; Yes is my all-time favorite band. And it’s my blog, and I’m going to write a really long appreciation of them. And here it is. So thank you very much for your time, it’s been nice to see you, and I’ll write about something interesting real soon, I promise.



Are they gone?



Good. Not that I wanted them to leave, but I did want them to know what they were in for. The rest of us, the small little clutch of us, can now get down to some Yes.



Yes is the name of a British progressive-rock, or art-rock, band whose heyday was the 1970’s. They are, amazingly, still around. You don’t get to hear much about them these days. Classic-rock radio doesn’t play much of their stuff, except their one big hit single, 1984’s “Owner of a Lonely Heart.” But if you’re a fan of prog-rock, you know of them and either love them or hate them. Either way, they are the center of the Prog universe.



Yes, The Band



Vocals – Jon Anderson, Trevor Horne

Guitar – Peter Banks, Steve Howe, Trevor Rabin, Billy Sherwood

Keyboards – Tony Kaye, Rick Wakeman, Patrick Moraz, Geoff Downes, Igor Khorishov

Drums – Bill Bruford, Alan White

Bass – Chris Squire



In the now more than 40 years of the band’s existence, the two names always associated with the band are Jon Anderson and Chris Squire. Jon is on all but one album and Chris did not participate on the two released under the ABWH name. Other than that, the band has always included both of them.



Jon has one of those unique voices. He’s not a high tenor, he’s a soprano. He’s also the chief lyricist for the group, although the others all get their turns. Especially Squire. Trevor Horne was brought in for 1980’s “Drama” after Jon and Rick Wakeman left. He went on to be a top-flight producer.



“Drama” is also the one album that Geoff Downes plays on. He and Horne were The Buggles, now most famous for having the first video ever played on MTV; Video Killed the Radio Star. Kaye and Wakeman are the only keyboardists to each be on more than one Yes album. Moraz, Downes, and Khorishov got one each. Moraz went on to play for the Moody Blues in the ‘80’s and also has many solo works. Downes went with Howe in ’82 and formed Asia, and is still leading that band. Don’t know where Khorishov is.



Peter Banks played guitar on the first two albums, but Steve Howe is the man everybody thinks of as Yes’ guitar man. The band more or less broke up around ’80 or ’81. When it reformed, Trevor Rabin took over the guitar chores. Billy Sherwood co-produced their ’96 live set, “Keys to Ascension,” and because co-guitarist with Howe for two albums following.



Bill Bruford was the original drummer, and returned for ABWH. He is widely regarded as the superior of the two, but Alan White is no slouch. Bruford went on to play for King Crimson and do a number of solo and session projects. White is an alumnus of John Lennon’s Plastic Ono Band, and also recorded and performed with George Harrison.



That leaves Squire. He has a reputation as being a bit of a flake. He’s the guy who’s always late for rehearsals and sound checks. But he is also one of the most influential bassists in the history of rock music. He’s a virtuoso musician, a dynamic performer, and a very good songwriter.



Yes, Periodically



- The Beginning (1968-1969)



Yes (1968)

Time and a Word (1969)

(Anderson, Banks, Kaye, Squire, Bruford)



Their first two albums, and their most forgettable. From the early ‘70’s to the present day, the only song from these albums that ever gets played live is the second album’s title track. It’s a pretty little tune, but most of the rest is experiments that needed a lot of help, or attempted radio songs.



- Classic Yes (1970-1980)



The Yes Album (1970)

- minus Banks, plus Howe

Fragile (1971)

- minus Kaye, plus Wakeman

Close to the Edge (1972)

YesSongs (1973)

- minus Bruford, plus White

Tales of Topographic Oceans (1973)

Relayer (1974)

- minus Wakeman, plus Moraz

Going For the One (1977)

- minus Moraz, plus Wakeman

Tormato (1978)

Drama (1980)

- minus Anderson and Wakeman, plus Horne and Downes



This is the Yes that older fans remember. The music was experimental and bombastic. Steve Howe flew his guitar over the top of everything like a hummingbird on steroids. Wakeman ruled over the world of the recently invented synthesizer like Bach on acid, and if anything Moraz was even wilder. They were four virtuoso musicians playing their asses off all the time, all in support of Anderson’s keening vocals.



With no hit singles and little if any radio airplay they packed stadiums and sold millions of records. Their compositions became longer and more daring all the time. The album cover artwork of Roger Dean became iconic, and the Dean-designed logo was everywhere. The critics hated them as much as the fans loved them.



And then, with Tormato, they stumbled. The follow-up, recorded in Paris under the working title of “The Golden Age” fell apart completely and was never finished. Squire brought in the Buggles, and mixing some of Golden Age with some of what was supposed to be the next Buggles album, Drama was put together. The revamped band was well received in Britain, but the American tour not so much. After that, they called it quits.



- The In-Between Years (1981-1983)



Classic Yes (1981)

YesShows (1982)



It’s said that Squire put together Classic Yes, a compilation that even included songs from the first two albums, and YesShows, culled from live tapes that include performances by Moraz. Wakeman embarked on a solo career that he’d begun after Fragile. Howe did some solo albums, but his real highlight was being a founding member of Asia, which became very big indeed.



Squire also teamed up with White on an abortive project that came to be known as XYZ. The ex-Yes bassist and drummer did some sessions and rehearsals with Led Zeppelin’s guitarist and vocalist, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant. This was after the breakup of that band following the death of drummer John Bonham. EX Yes and Zeppelin; get it?



The band all did their own solo albums between Relayer and Going For the One, and Anderson jumped headfirst into his new solo career. Besides recording under his own name, he teamed up with the man who was his alternative choice to Moraz for Relayer; a Greek keyboard virtuoso named Vangelis. There are a number of Jon And Vangelis albums out there, all very interesting.



- YesWest (1984-1994)



90215 (1984)

9012 Live (1985)

Big Generator (1987)

Talk (1994)

- all Anderson, Rabin, Kaye, Squire, White



Around 1983 Squire and White started working on a project they called Cinema with Trevor Rabin. Yes has always been quintessentially British, but Rabin was South African and Cinema’s base of operations was California. Squire suggested bringing in Tony Kaye to play keys, reuniting two of the original Yesmen. Kaye hardly played on the sessions, leaving most of the keyboard work to Rabin, but happily joined them on the road and cashed his checks.



The sessions were going well, but Rabin was doing most of the lead vocals and even he realized they needed someone better. Chris Squire made a cassette of the rough mixes and took them to Jon Anderson. Jon liked them and agreed to join the band, on one condition . . . that they change the name to Yes. He added some lyrics and re-recorded most of the lead vocals. The title came from the album’s Atlantic Records catalog number. The only number-1 single of the group’s career, “Owner of a Lonely Heart”, led it off.



- ABWH (1989-1991)



Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman, Howe (1989)

Union – (1991)

An Evening of Yes Music, Plus – (1994)



You will note the overlap in these two periods. At some point after Big Generator, somebody realized that there was a whole ‘nother band’s worth of ex-Yes people not playing Yes music. YesWest’s second studio album wasn’t received as well as its first and it also raised lingering tensions within the group. Anderson rang up Bruford, Wakeman and Howe and suggested they get together. Bruford allegedly only came on the condition that he receive equal credit without having to contribute any writing.



They were originally going to record and tour under the name Yes, but Squire sued, saying that he should own the name as he was the only member who’d been on every album. YesWest were horrified at the prospect of two Yes’s touring at the same time. The courts eventually ruled in favor of Anderson, essentially giving him ownership of the name.



Unfortunately for him, they had to deliver an album and book a tour faster than the courts could make their decision. So eschewing their long-standing relationship with Atlantic records, they signed with Arista as ABWH. The album and tour tickets sold well, actually outstripping those by YesWest’s Big Generator.



Further problems developed when both bands returned to the studio. It began to look like neither new album was going to be finished, so Anderson, who was singing on both, suggested they combine forces. The result was Union, with Yes swollen to 8 members. The album and subsequent tour were a big hit.



“An Evening” was released by Arista to fulfill ABWH’s contract obligations.



- The End (1995-Present)



Keys to Ascension, vol. 1 and 2 (1996)

- Anderson, Howe, Wakeman, Squire, White

Open Your Eyes (1997)

- Anderson, Howe, Sherwood, Squire, White

The Ladder (1999)

- Anderson, Howe, Sherwood, Khorishov, Squire, White

KeyStudio (2001)

- Anderson, Howe, Wakeman, Squire, White

Magnification (2002)

- Anderson, Howe, Squire, White

and various compilations, live albums, and boxed sets.



A-a-and . . . that’s about it. Yes left Atlantic after “Union” to sign with a succession of independent labels and haven’t made the album charts since. Their concerts still sell out, and most of their back catalogue is still in print, but they’re not a force any more. Plus, the members are all in their sixties now. Anderson and Wakeman have health issues that keep them from touring. The last trip of the classic lineup was in 2002, and they were great.



But Wakeman’s son, Oliver, took Dad’s place for the last trip to the states, and the leader of a British Yes tribute band took Anderson’s place. Even their website is suffering from neglect. It’s a shame that they’re just going to fade away, but there are worse things.



Yes, Categorically



The One – YesSongs



This is a live set from the tour in support of “Close To the Edge.” Bill Bruford quit the group between the recording sessions and the beginning of the tour, but still appears on a couple cuts. Alan White reportedly took the job on two days’ notice, and did a phenomenal job. It is a collection of excellent recordings of great performances of some of their best music. In most cases, better than the studio versions. If you’re going to have only one Yes album, this is the one.



The Important Ones –



The Yes Album – The one where Steve Howe joined. Peter Banks was forced out shortly after the sessions for “Time and a Word,” which upset a lot of the group’s fans. When they heard “The Yes Album,” they got over it real quick. Howe’s contributions to the songwriting are as striking as his guitar playing.



Fragile – Tony Kaye preferred organ and piano to synthesizers, which still had a lot of bugs and limitations. But the sounds were popular, and so he, too was forced out. His replacement was a former member of the Strawbs named Rick Wakeman. “Fragile” was as gigantic a leap as “The Yes Album” had been before it. Songs like “Roundabout” and “Heart of the Sunrise” are still great, but most striking were the little vignettes each member contributed. It’s like they were playing with their new toys, seeing what they could do with them.



Tales of Topographic Oceans – The first studio set with new drummer Alan White. Their compositions had been getting more and more sophisticated. With Topo, they took this to the extreme with four compositions each taking up a full album side, all turning on a central theme. The whole thing is based on an extended footnote from a Yoga book. Deep, baby, deep. This is the lynchpin of a sub-period known as The Topo Years, which ties together “Close to the Edge,” “Relayer,” and the song “Awaken” from “Going for the One.” Pilloried in the press, but at the time their best seller.



Going for the One – The return of Wakeman! It was a hugely hyped event, both as a recording and a tour. Nobody really disliked what Patrick Moraz brought to the group on “Relayer,” but Wakeman is an icon. He had fallen out with the rest of the band as much over lifestyle as music. Wakeman is a working class Brit into beef and beer, while the rest experimented with vegetarianism and drugs. He didn’t like Topo, and on that tour the rest of the band insisted on playing only the new album. So when it was over, he left. When Anderson played him rough demos of “Going,” he came back. Listen, and you’ll see why. The Squire-penned “Parallels” and Topo-inspired “Awaken” are highlights.



90125 – The first YesWest. The group was dead and gone, and then this! It came right at the peak of the ‘80’s hair-band craze, but still stood out from the pack. It sounded so different from any other Yes album, but still had Jon Anderson’s vocals on top. It was more sophisticated than anything Ratt or Poison or Def Leppard did, but tapped into that vibe. Rabin may have been a small step behind in the shred department, but had more imagination than any of his contemporaries. Their best selling album, and one of their best.



Union – The last Yes album to sell in significant numbers. A lot of serious Yes fans hate it now, but it’s really pretty good. If you know them, you can tell which songs were ABWH and which were YesWest. Even so, various players went to great lengths to play on the other group’s songs and it comes together pretty well. The tour also drew well, and there’s supposed to be a DVD that’s excellent. Now you know what to get me for Christmas.



The Other Best Albums –



Close to the Edge – The follow up to “Fragile,” this takes the promise of the former and explores it. The title track takes up all of one side, and the other side is two great tunes, “Siberian Khatru” and “And You And I.” Great stuff, and still one of my favorite albums. Anderson said at the time that the inspiration for the title track was a dream he’d had about carrying an amplifier in his arms through a forest and walking into a pool of quicksand. All three songs get excellent live treatments on “YesSongs.”



Relayer – This follows the same format as CTTE; long piece on one side (Gates of Delirium) and two shorter-but-still-long songs on the other. “Gates of Delirium” is based on Tolstoy’s “War and Peace,” in case you were wondering. Patrick Moraz proves that Rick Wakeman isn’t the only person who could play synth like a sumbich. My favorite moment is a point about ¾ of the way through “Gates,” where they’ve been soloing, then stop and Alan White takes the beat onto the snare. He pounds away and drags the beat down, and then with no apparent cue the rest of the band jumps back in. Brilliant! Take that, Bill Bruford!



The Hidden Gems –



Drama – This album, and the accompanying tour, were not as well received in the US as in England. Plus, time has softened the hearts of many a Yes fan. It’s a really good album, even if it is one of their darker ones. Up to now, the group dynamic had been that Anderson always, eventually, got his way. That, and the virtuoso competition between Howe and Wakeman had driven the music. With them gone, Squire and Howe had the chance to assert themselves. Geoff Downes proved to be a brilliant musician, even though his style is much more subtle than Wakeman’s. And while no one, Horne included, believed the former Buggle to be the superior singer, Trevor Horne stepped up to the plate and gave it his best shot. He went on to produce 90125.



ABWH – It’s striking to listen to this back to back with its immediate predecessor, YesWest’s “Big Generator.” While Generator is a fine album in its own right, it sounds heavy and cumbersome next to ABWH. The latter is light and springy, with a wide dynamic range. It’s like comparing a bulldozer to a race car. Even the much-maligned “Teakbois,” a calypso-inspired Anderson song, gets you moving.



Talk – Proof that the bulldozer could really tear it up. The last YesWest album, almost as good – and in some ways, better – than 90125. This was the product of one really great idea and one really bad one. The great one was to give Trevor Rabin free rein to do pretty much whatever he wanted. He crafted a set of really good, inventive, imaginative songs. The bad idea was to leave Atlantic records and sign with a small, independent label. I don’t know if Atlantic dropped them or if they left on their own, but Talk became one of the best albums that nobody ever heard. After the commercial success of “Union” it’s a shame that this, so much better, got ignored.



The Ladder – The story of this begins with the reunion in 1996 of the Classic Yes lineup; Anderson, Squire, Howe, White, and Wakeman. They recorded the massive 4-CD “Keys Of Ascension” project in California with producer Billy Sherwood. Most of it was live, but there were also studio sessions. More on this later.



For whatever reason, they then bid Wakeman goodbye. Sherwood had already been working on a project with Squire and White, and they invited Anderson and Howe to help finish it up. That became “Open Your Eyes.” More on THAT later.



After this, with two guitarists and no regular keyboard man, they hired a young fellow named Igor Khorishov who had worked on the “OYE” studio sessions, making the band now a 6-piece. This group went into the studio with producer Bruce Fairbrother to record “The Ladder.”



The Worst –



(These are the albums you should wait to add to your collection until you have all the others.)



“Yes” and “Time and a Word” – The first two. I’ve only got the second one currently, and have only listened to it a couple times. The first one, I’ve heard a couple times as well. They’re all right, I suppose. To be honest, if you like Yes even the worst stuff is pretty darned good. With these two, there is the promise of things to come. Their songwriting and vocal harmonies improved dramatically in the following albums. And while Peter Banks is really a fine guitarist, I’m yet to hear anyone suggest that they should have kept him and not hired Steve Howe.



Tormato – Some very good songs on this follow-up to “Going For the One. Unfortunately, the relationship between Howe and Wakeman had devolved into them trying to one-up each other, and it hurt the songs. The middle break on “Release, Release” was so weak they felt they needed to dub in crowd noise to pump it up. And yet, the album contains pieces like “Onward” and “On the Silent Wings of Freedom.” It’s really a pretty good album, unless you compare it to all the rest.



KeyStudio – The 1996 sessions for Keys to Ascension were eventually released as two two-disc sets, mostly live and each ending with a few studio pieces. These were later put together on one disc called KeyStudio. It should be a masterpiece, seeing that it’s a reunion of the Classic Yes lineup. And, among most die-hard Yes fans, it is received as such. But it’s not. It’s funny how the same group of people can hate ABWH and love this lead turkey. This might be the worst album ever released under the Yes name.



Open Your Eyes – The follow-up to Keys, this might be the most controversial album in their entire catalog. Have you ever had one of those snacks that you didn’t really care for, but kept going back for? Yeah, it wasn’t bad, maybe I’ll have one more, and the next thing you know the bowl’s empty. This album is like that.



The engineer and co-producer of Keys was a California gentleman named Billy Sherwood. He hooked up with Chris Squire and Alan White for a side project named Conspiracy, much as Trevor Rabin had for Cinema more than a decade before. The feel of the whole album is leaden, even the quiet acoustic bits. And yet there are some good melodies and fine performances. It’s just that most of the good ideas wind up in songs that feel unfinished.



The most striking thing is how simple and dead Alan White’s drum parts are. It’s hard to believe the man who recorded “Gates of Delirium” on Relayer also played on this. There’s nothing for him to do, fer cryin’ out loud!



Most fans hate this record, because it compares so badly to the rest of the catalog. But a few love it, thinking it represented a bold new direction for the band.



Magnification – So far, this is the last Yes studio album, recorded in 2001. They were without a keyboard player at this time because Igor Khorishov insisted on misbehaving on the Ladder tour. So they hooked up with an arranger they knew and tried a new idea; integrating a symphony orchestra with a rock band. Yeah, I know, not exactly a new idea, but one that arguably had never been done really well. You can trace the roots all the way back to Phil Spector. The Moody Blues’ “Days of Futures Past” and Deep Purple’s “Concerto” are probably the best-known examples.



Yes wanted to see if the seams connecting the two could be made a little smoother. Musically, it actually works pretty well. The orchestra isn’t just playing what the keyboard player would have; they actually tried to create arrangements that combined all the instruments into one unit. The tour worked out pretty well also. The charts were sent to a number of symphony orchestras around the world, and then Yes rolled into town, did a rehearsal, and then the concert. It’s captured on DVD if you’re interested.



The biggest problem is that the album is kind of sleepy. Not heavy and cumbersome like “Open Your Eyes” or “Big Generator,” but just slow. There are a few great songs, but most of it is pretty forgettable.



And this is the note that they seem to be ending on. As mentioned before, Anderson and Wakeman’s health keeps them from touring with the band. Yes is on the road as I write this, but with Howe, Squire, and White supplemented by Benoit David on vocals and Rick Wakeman’s son, Oliver on keys. They’re also playing smaller and smaller venues. In 2002 they played the Whittemore Center in Durham. This time they’re at the Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord, a hall about half as big.



Since “Magnification,” there have been a pile of live albums, DVDs, and compilations released. It’s as if they’re tying up all the loose ends before shutting off life support. There is creative output, but only as individual members. It’s like a well-skipped rock that goes and goes and goes, and will finally one day simply go ‘schlick’ and slip beneath the surface.



I’ve seen Yes live four times in all. The first was the day after my 22nd birthday, Aug. 14, 1977, at the Cumberland County Civic Center in Portland, Maine. As you might have guessed, it was a memorable evening. They were touring in support of “Going For the One,” which I consider one of their two or three best albums. It's also the tour in which Rick Wakeman returned.



A year later I saw them again, this time at the old Boston Garden. “Tormato” tour. This was the tour when they started playing in the round. They had a rotating stage that revolved once every minute. The PA was suspended over the stage, and it is the only band that ever managed to sound good in Boston Garden. This iteration is captured on the DVD, “Philadelphia 1979.”



I also saw them in 1980 in Springfield, Mass. It was the Drama tour, with Trevor Horne and Geoff Downes filling in for Jon Anderson and Rick Wakeman. Yeah, it wasn’t the same, but it was still damned good.



In 2002 my wife got me a ticket – one ticket; she wasn’t interested – to see them at the Whittemore Center. Wakeman had returned yet again, and there was talk of an album, but it’s never materialized. I went with no small bit of apprehension. We had seen the Moody Blues a couple years earlier, and while it was a very good show it was also obvious that the remaining members of the band couldn’t have done it without four or five ‘professional’ musicians supporting them.



This was not the case with Yes. There is something powerful about a band of excellent musicians at the top of their game. That power filled the hall that night. No compromises were made whatsoever. On the contrary, they breathed new life into songs that in some cases hadn’t been played live in twenty years or more. They even dug out “South Side of the Sky” from Fragile, which was impossible to perform live when it was new, and “Gates of Delirium” which Wakeman didn’t record. They played for over three hours, and it was a triumph.



I wished I had made the effort to take somebody with me. It was a glorious evening. I was struck by how many parents my age and younger were bringing their kids. They say it’s a bad sign when most of the cars in the parking lot are Volvos, but I didn’t care.



The most heart-breaking thing to me is how little respect they get outside of their own fan base these days. They are regarded as the worst offenders of an offensive era. In the ‘70’s there were hundreds of art-rock bands who dressed like Merlin the Magician and sang incomprehensible quasi-mystical words over complex music that probably owed more to Wagner and Beethoven than Bill Haley or the Beatles. If it hadn’t been for the success of YesWest, they’d probably be a trivia question now.



The fact remains that the words DID mean something, and the musicianship was without parallel in rock music. They, Yes and the others, pushed the envelope, and Yes’ music succeeded more than anybody else’s. And yet, in spite of their popularity and influence, they are not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. They seem to be as despised and derided outside of their fan base as they are worshipped within it. To me, it is the Hall’s loss.



If you’ve gotten this far, you probably deserve even more punishment. Here’s a link to a very good bio of the band on allmusic.com.



http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:difoxqr5ldfe~T1



It contradicts some of the things I’ve said, but it’s also got a couple of small inaccuracies. For instance, Jon Anderson doesn’t sing in falsetto. He doesn’t have to. His voice is really that high. Trevor Horne had to go falsetto a few times doing the older Yes material live, but he’s only human. Frankie Valli sings falsetto; Jon Anderson sings.

The Real Curse

Generations of Red Sox fans speculated that there was a curse on their beloved baseball team. The source of this curse was supposed to be Babe Ruth, who pitched for the Red Sox in the first part of his major league career but was sold to the New York Yankees and as an outfielder and hitter kicked off the century-long dynasty the Bronx Bombers enjoy to this day.

But I think I have determined the true instrument of the curse, and Sox fans will be dismayed to learn that it is one of the most beloved figures ever to don the scarlet hose. To better understand my line of thought, I need for you to formulate in your mind a quick list of the greatest players in the history of baseball. Quick, jot down the names of the ten best players you can think of. Here’s mine, right off the top of my head in the heat of the moment:

Babe Ruth
Ty Cobb
Ted Williams
Joe DiMaggio
Mickey Mantle
Jackie Robinson
Willie Mays
Hank Aaron
Cy Young
Lou Gehrig
Stan Musial
Dizzy Dean

Okay, there’s twelve of the all-time greatest, done in less than a minute. There will be some obvious names I’ve left off, but I’d be willing to bet that many of these same names showed up on your list if you have any knowledge of the game’s history. Remember, I’m talking about all-time all-stars, greatest of the great.

That means, to be honest, that Red Sox players are few and far between on this list. Let’s be frank, now, as much as we may love Yaz, Rice, Clements, Boggs, do they really belong on a list with DiMaggio and Mays? On my list, I have two. And one of them, Cy Young, was a pitcher who played with a number of teams besides the Red Sox.

That leaves one. One that played his entire career for the BoSox. And that one happened to have been born in 1918, the last year Babe Ruth wore a Red Sox uniform. And who passed from this mortal coil in 2002, the year before the ownership of the team changed hands. Which, as we all know, led to their first World Championship since . . . what year was that? And shortly, their second.

So, I hate to say it, especially as much regard as I personally have for the gentleman in question, but it’s a possibility that this gentleman . . . could be . . . may have been . . . the embodiment of the very curse he spent his career trying to overcome. It’s as if the Red Sox weren’t allowed to have a World Championship during the lifetime of the only other man to ever wear a Red Sox uniform that could be ranked on the same level as the Babe.

Of course, this is the 21st century, and I’m a grown man, AND a Christian, and I just don’t believe in curses.

Right?

And if I did, I would note that that curse must also affect the New York Yankees, the ultimate nemesis in the most storied rivalry in the history of sport. It should be noted that the Yanks never won a championship before the acquired Babe – and before the Splendid Splinter was born – and it would stand to reason that they should never win another after Teddy Ballgame passed.

But in fact they did just that in 2010. Their 27th. And if Ted Williams was the lynchpin of the curse, then that shouldn’t have been possible.

Whew. It was all just a coincidence, then.

Right?

House of the Rising Sun

I've been rediscovering a song that I have a big emotional attachment to. I've been away from it for quite a while, which is good, because I used to get terribly incensed whenever I heard The Animals' version of it.

I've talked to sources that insist the song comes from the 1890's, and was originally known as The Prostitute's Lament. Somebody told me once that it was written by Blind Lemon Jefferson, but that is unlikely. Apparently, the original author is lost in obscurity. The oldest recording of it I ever came across was on an old Best of Woody Guthrie record. The version was probably recorded in the '30's or '40's, and was about two and a half minutes long. To be honest, I don't remember much else about it.

The version that Eric Burdon (of The Animals, who gets erroneous credit for writing the song) heard was from Bob Dylan's first album. Dylan actually stole the arrangement from Dave Van Ronk, who was playing it in Greenwich Village and had planned on recording it himself until it showed up on Dylan's album. That version has eight verses. Burdon took the five he liked best, which brought it down to a better length for a single.

Burdon also changed the subject of the song from female to male. "And it's been the ruin of many a poor boy . . ." No, dammit, it wasn't. Many a boy with enough money for a good time came and went from the House of the Rising Sun, but it was poor girls for whom it was the ruination. Also, for your information, Frijid Pink did yet another arrangement of the song in 1969, that rocks the socks off the Animals' version in my humble opinion.

Here’s an interesting piece on the song from the BBC’s website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A12460772

Enjoy.