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!"