A bit of Gospel Blues for a Sunday

This is quite nice:

A star is born

Wow! This captures what millions of people are feeling so perfectly. Oliver Anthony does folk/country in a grassroots, based, populist way that is brilliant musically, poetically and politically.

Nicki Minaj just shocked me.

I've never been a fan of Nicki Minaj's music. But I may have just become a fan of her political positions, and I am truly surprised by that turn of events. Kudos also to Tim Pool for covering this.

Just for fun

 But still real. Buddy Brown sings:

Symbolically, music's Golden Era has past

As music devolves into trash (not universally but nearly so), does it symbolize the decay of Western society?  I have argued (long ago on this blog somewhere) that musical decay is a symptom of societal devolving.  Bill Whittle and Alfonzo Rachel discuss the same idea. Roman society decayed dramatically towards the end. I'm not sure about it's music, but as I said, musical decay is a symptom of a larger problem.

Is growth always followed by decay? Is every society destined to fail? In another example of the decay, does the defund police movement provide more evidence of a descent into anarchy right before a societal collapse?  I don't believe we have come that far but if we don't turn the ship around, so to speak, it may become inevitable a lot sooner than we'd like.

Merry Christmas music

Performed by the London Symphony Orchestra.  

Merry Christmas wishes to one and all.

Friday Musical Interlude - An hour of epic space music

Some background music for your space adventure...

I never got Frank Zappa, but...

Frank Zappa has some interesting takes on how the music business suffered from allowing hippies to be in charge, and then some advice on the entrepreneurial spirit. I never got Zappa's music despite the insistent attempts from my younger brother (we were around after Zappa's heyday).  But I now appreciate his business sense.

Warning on the first video - he gets a little out there towards the end when talking about de-programming kids and then a little vulgar about safe sex (it's bleeped out) but the first two-thirds are pretty much great, and the second video is pure gold.

70's versus 2000's musical battle

Check it out, and vote for your favorite one hit wonder.

Like Music? Vote.

I have a couple of other blogs that I work on, sporadically compared to this one.  My other blog I linked to on here, the Uncool Whip, is going on hiatus for a while.  But I've decided to add a new blog that focuses on music, allowing this blog a more full focus on politics and economics and conservative values.

My new blog, Song Versus Song, however, does include voting for your song preferences.  If you like music - check it out.  If you don't, don't.  That would be your first vote.

Lovely: Re-education camps

Armed with the hopenchange slogan, the Obama administration has started to focus on the quality of education in America. It's a slam dunk to say America needs to improve it's school system because practically every American agrees on that. What's not agreed upon, is the solution required to improve education. The re-education camp approach the administration has chosen to focus on, is (1) not the most effective solution and (2) unsettling in it's implications.

The Associated Press is reporting that,

American schoolchildren need to be in class more — six days a week, at least 11 months a year — if they are to compete with students abroad, Education Secretary
Arne Duncan said Tuesday.

"Go ahead and boo me," Duncan told about 400 middle and high school students at a public school in northeast Denver.

"I fundamentally think that our school day is too short, our school week is too short and our school year is too short."

"You're competing for jobs with kids from India and China. I think schools should be open six, seven days a week; eleven, twelve months a year," he said.

That sounds good on paper, and in fact, posing as a champion of non-liberal thinking, Duncan went even further. In fact he seems positioned to disagree with much of what the liberal Democrat establishment is predicated upon.

The former Chicago schools superintendent praised Denver schools for allowing schools to apply for almost complete autonomy, which allows them to waive union contracts so teachers can stay for after-school tutoring or Saturday school.

He also applauded Denver's pay-for-performance teacher pay system, which some Democrats and teachers' groups oppose.

....

Last month, he said poor children who receive vouchers to attend private schools in the District of Columbia should be allowed to stay there, putting the Obama administration at odds with Democrats trying to end the program. Duncan talked up school choice during his Denver visit, though he didn't mention vouchers.

It all sounds very, well conservative. Why be suspicious of something that would seem to be in line with conservative goals? Because of the source of the proposals. Sure there may be things Republicans and Democrats can agree upon, but education reform was never one of them. Democrats are beholden to teachers' unions. Democrats vehemently opposed school voucher systems in the past and school choice is essentially that.

So why would an ultra-liberal Obama administration be doing this? For ulterior motives. Under the guise of bi-partisanship and reaching across the aisle to endorse a good idea from Republicans the administration has already positioned this in such a way that Republicans are trapped. They have to agree or they are obstructionist because it's an agenda item they always wanted. The only reason to oppose it now would be because they just want to scrap with President Obama on everything. And to raise concerns with particulars as they come out, would be positioned as being nit-picky. And besides, the items will get passed with or without Republican backing. Worst case for the Obama administration is that Republicans agree and Democrats balk, but he still comes out as being the bi-partisan one in this. It seems to be a no lose situation for him politically.

But it still comes back to why would the administration go off on an atypical conservative tangent? It's simple. The biggest point is more school time. More time in school means more indoctrination time. School choice and vouchers may be all well and good but the public education system will not disappear, and will still be a predominant component of the new structure. And if it's share of the game starts to slip, you'd better believe they'll use tax incentives and/or disincentives to maintain the government's share of educating your children.

It will keep the unions happy. It will mean those teachers will have more time with your children. Consequently they'll get a pay raise. They'll be happy. It means that the opportunity to teach cultural topics will be even greater. It means that government schools can add more and more garbage to the agenda because parents will now have choice.

It also means the set-up of Afro-centric and Hispanic-centric school choices. That becomes a self-fulfilling closed loop of 'education'. In other words more opportunity to indoctrinate children into liberal ideology. Yes, conservatives will opt out of the garbage-agenda schools and will see higher levels of success. But for Democrats it's a divide and conquer tactic. You keep your voters we'll keep ours and we'll see which Demographic grows faster (all the smart money is on Hispanics by the way).

If this passes while Democrats are in power it will be a rigged system you can guarantee it. This is nothing short of trying to improve Democratic electoral opportunities in the future. Republicans should be very careful with this and not sign on unless all logical pre-conditions are met. For example, which schools will be accredited as voucher acceptable? I have my fears about who decides that. Not to mention, the fact that it's quite likely the Democrats will figure out a way to do this so that it enlarges government. They're sneaky that way.

If it passes regardless of opposition, every conservative parent should immediately start investigating which school system makes sense for their children.

It should also be pointed out that being able to compete with Chinese and Indian education shouldn't require 6 days a week, 11 months a year of schooling. There's plenty of examples of so much extra crap being shoved into the curriculum that is taking away from the fundamentals of math, science, basic English, history and geography. That is the real culprit. It's a much easier fix. Get back to basics and stop teaching environmentalism, and cultural understanding (let the First Amendment right to free assembly teach that) and that sort of drivel. Music? Yes, it's good to learn but I bet China isn't teaching their children as much music as Americans. Not unless they show a talent and are herded into a music-focused school. That's the reality Mr President. (See the video here for President Obama's lilting vision on music).

Lastly, this may sound touchy-feely liberal, but it isn't, it's just common sense: children need time to be children and to have family time - it shouldn't be all government time. To bring it back to less mushy ground - if students are already spending time doing homework and attending class at the same rate as kids in the 50's, who had a much better understanding of reading, writing and arithmetic, then something other than the time factor is the problem, because the length of the school year hasn't changed too much in the last 50 years.

Musical Conservatism

Stick with me on this, even if you disagree with the song selections used for examples - there are some real lessons associated with this tangent.

When you start complaining about modern music, how its all just noise and how it used to be so much better x number of years ago a couple of things usually happen. Firstly, you suddenly realize that you are getting older and how much you are starting to sound like your father or mother.

The other thing that typically happens is that the person you are complaining to quite likely starts to see you in the same way - old, not cool, a technological Luddite and definitely not relevant in the modern age. Their eyes roll as if you are an idiot of the highest order. You are behind the times, man.

You kids keep off my lawn!

Despite the perception, there is reason to take issue with today's music and there's a lesson for conservatism associated with it. Don't tune me out as being a moralist, because that's not where I am going with this. Yes, lyrics are often more vulgar, more violent and cynical than they used to be. But that's another discussion.

At the risk of sounding like a social fossil, my point is that today's music is predominantly inferior to that of yesteryear. Most of it sucks. Not because it is a different style from the 1970's or 1990's or whenever.

How and why

The problem with today's music is that it has become too simple, too cookie-cutter and despite the number of supposed super-producers like P Diddy, not well produced. In small doses, a Britney Spears is listenable. In large doses it becomes apparent that despite the potentially catchy beats, it is largely redundant and unimaginative. Put any Pussycat Dolls song up against The Supremes or even the Go Go's and you see a drop off in inventiveness and originality. The Pussycat Dolls sound like Britney or any number of other groups and singers. But more importantly, for their sound or many others, where are the saxophones that David Bowie had? Where are the xylophones, cowbells, trumpets, strings, and other instruments that are so often overlooked today?

Where are the interesting melodies that dance around the beat in enough different directions to keep the songs from sounding ultra-repetitive like Van Morrison used to do? Where are the interesting vocal harmonies like Three Dog Night used to manage? Where are the guitar solo's that are reminiscent of Dire Strait's Sultans of Swing rather than 'speed metal'?

For that matter where are today's symphonies like Mozart or Strauss? Or even a song with different movements like Paul McCartney's Band on the Run? It's really not asking for too much.

There are some musicians out there today who don't deserve to be lumped in with my complaint - don't let me paint everything with the same brush. But they are a distinct minority. How did music degenerate to the point its at now? A number of reasons. One is volume and demand. More people demand more music and in today's instant gratification age, they demand it in bigger doses and delivered faster or with more frequency. When you deliver more you need more 'supplier' you are therefore diluting the talent level by increasing the pool.

Another reason for the decline is that the homogeneous product being offered up is what sells. The reason it sells is that it distills what some consider superfluous fluff and concentrates on the beat. Then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - originality is replaced for what sells and gets the artist, producer and recording company rich quick. In other words short term payback is valued over building a longer term quality product. Music becomes disposable. No Justin Timberlake song will ever be played 70 years from now with the frequency and appreciation of a Rolling Stones Satisfaction or even a Waiting on a Friend.

Or a Handel Symphony. In the process the public (demand side) and recording industry (supply side) are succeeding in dumbing-down the music listening public's appreciation and understanding of music. And therein lies the two lessons for conservatives.

(1) Music is analogous to the education system in that lowering the bar to the lowest common denominator instead of elevating everyone to the bar at a higher level is antithetical to real progress. Ebonics for example, is not progressive but regressive - it keeps a segment of the population from real learning.

(2) Shortsightedness in profit seeking and in problem solving leads to deeper consequences down the road. It is the lesson of General Motors, the lesson of the housing bubble, the financial crisis and the lesson of political vote buying, pork barrel spending and of massive deficit spending. Not enough people, many of ourselves as conservatives included, do not take enough of a long view.

It hurts ourselves, our families, the economy and the United States of America.