Thursday, January 11, 2007

Kat's Korner: Carly Simon, Into the Real




Kat: Carly Simon's latest collection of new songs is entitled Into White which finds her performing songs which are predominately decades old. So the question is: Why does the album feel so contemporary?

It no doubt helps that the songs are an interesting mix. Also adding assistance are some sparse arrangements and a light hand on the production.

But the thing is Into White sounds much more relevant than many albums of recent memory including Bruce Springsteen's recent tribute album to Pete Seeger.

Listening to it, I find myself remembering that "Somwhere Over The Rainbow" became the evergreen it remains to this day not due to The Wizard of Oz (wonderful movie) but because the song spoke to a war torn Europe. And not only does Carly's version make me remember that buried factoid learned many years ago, it has me grasping why.

Judy Garland's not being rivaled, let me be clear. But Carly pulls out the humanity in the songs that years of histrionic covers by the likes of Sam Harris have buried. She does something similar with the Beatles' "Blackbird" which tends to be rushed in most covers or lifeless. But there's something going on here.

You notice it in "Oh! Susanna." Do kids still sing that in schools? I remember my school days in the post-folk revival period. Eager teachers would have us singing that song and others ("The Erie Canal" was another) -- usually for six weeks before they hustled us onto square dancing. I'm doubting that they do that in schools today, but I could be wrong. (I know cuts in school funding have eliminated the opportunity for most music classes.)

I do know that seeing "Oh! Susanna" listed as track two didn't make me giddy or nostalgic for a grade where touch dancing was introduced just as most of us were starting to sprout breasts.

[I realize that line is "non-inclusive." However, considering the recent spate of 'male as universal' headlines and stories popping up in the New York Times, I've made an active decision to use the 'female as universal'.]

So there's Carly and company, offering up "Oh! Susanna" -- the tired horse that might need to be shot at this late date. They don't still send them to the glue factory, do they?

But the song works. I was listening with the remote in hand, at the ready, prepared to skip over the track, but it grabs you. I think the clue to why it works, why the album works, is most obvious in two tracks that Carly's recorded before: "her own "Love of My Life" and the Everly Brothers' "Devoted to You" (which is paired with their "All I Have to Do Is Dream" for one track).

Let's take track ten, "Devoted to You/ All I Have to Do Is Dream." The first half of the medly is the song she recorded (with then-husband James Taylor) as the 70s were winding down. You can hear that track on 1978's Boys In The Trees. It's nearly 30 years later so not many would expect it to be sung in the same exact key. A lower key would be acceptable, even understandable, all this time later. But that's not what happens.

It gets bumped up. In fact, Carly's singing in high keys throughout. She has a beautiful alto, no question. It's steady and comfortable. By straining for notes, intentionally, she's bringing an additional element to the songs and I think that may be the most important component of the album.

Diana Ross hit with the Supremes while singing in a higher key than she was used to (Holland-Dozier-Holland grasped the power her voice had when reaching). As a solo artist, there are many examples of her not wanting to record in a key she had to reach for. ("Touch Me In The Morning" may be the most famous example, but it is far from the only one.) When she slides over to RCA, from Motown, in the 80s, she's really not interested in reaching for that range. The plus is that, on some tracks, she finds a deeper voice that was quite beautiful. However, if looking at her late 80s and 90s output and wondering where the hits were, it's really only on "If We Hold On Together" that she tries for that sound.

What happens when a singer leaves their natural range and reaches? Voices can crack, it's a lot more work for the singer, but it adds an element. On this album, Into White, it brings a new quality. As Carly's demonstrated throughout the year, she's a very strong singer and her voice is a powerful instrument. But on this project, by reaching for a higher range, she brings another quality. The songs are largely a trip through American popular song history. But instead of feeling you've been overwhelmed with a revue, you're left with a feeling of discovery.

Rebecca, Elaine and I have talked about Into White a great deal (links go to some of what they've written of the album) and agree that it's a trip through the nation via popular song that seems timely and speaking today because of this quality in Carly's vocals. She sounds like she's discovering the songs and the sense of discovery or awakening in the nation has been the air (though undetected by many desk jockeys) for months and months now.

In some of the press, it's been noted that Sony wanted this album and wasn't overly keen about an album of Carly's original compositions. How sad for them (and how musically ignorant of them). But the album stands as a testament that Carly, a highly gifted songwriter (with the Oscar, Golden Globe and Grammys to prove it), is also an amazing singer. She's demonstrated that on her own songs and certainly on My Romance and Moonlight Serenade. However, she's achieved something more on this album. You already know her voice is amazing, you already know she's a wonderful singer of song. What she's done here is create a mood for the entire album. In one interview, Carole King's Tapestry was noted. I can understand that but I really think this is less a Tapestry and more of a photo album. It's photos of America's strength. Not in a Kate Smith kind of way, but the quieter moments, the moments of the people. The voice reaching for those notes reminds me of the people reaching to be more than their elected officials want (or want for them) which really works as document of where we are today in the United States.

I should note that Carly Simon shares her thoughts on each recording in the liner notes in eight page booklet inside the package. I should note that the two new songs are written by David Saw (one is co-written by Carly's son Ben Taylor). I should note that Ben and his sister Sally Taylor sing with Carly on their father's "You Can Close Your Eyes" and the blend makes the song. I should note that Teese Gold plays piano and other instruments amazingly throughout -- including piano on "You Can Close Your Eyes" and bass synth strings on "Into White" that beautifully compliments the mood Carly's vocals provide. I should note that you'll have trouble picking out your favorite songs -- not because you won't have a favorite, but because you will have many.

But what I want to note is that this is an album recorded with great care (blind luck doesn't produce something like this) and that, to slightly steal from Carly's "Forever My Love," in looking forward by looking back, Carly captures the mood of the country in a way that many have given up trying to while others struggle. It's amazing that she managed it with these songs; but she did. Into White could have sounded like a stop-over project while Carly works to convince Sony that there is a market for her own songs (a sign of how sad things are in the corporate world, that Carly has to market herself to the company she's signed with). Instead, she's managed to comment on the world today. I'm still amazed at that feat. Amazed that I listen to the album from start to finish -- even to songs I didn't expect to enjoy. The obvious ending here is some turn of phrase on her hit "Nobody Does It Better." Instead, I'll note that, all these years later, she still "knows what to do me, what it does to me." ("You Know What To Do To Me" off Hello Big Man.) At a time when many are coasting, Into White demonstrates just how pertinent she remains. Forget the New York Times non-stop "Man in the News" features, sometimes it just takes a strong woman to break through conventional truths. Carly Simon has done that yet again.









Posted by at

Other Items

An Army officer who has made national headlines for refusing to serve in Iraq will speak at 1 p.m. Saturday, Jan. 13 at the Coupeville Recreation Hall.
First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, stationed at Fort Lewis, became the Army's first commissioned officer to publicly refuse orders to fight in Iraq on the grounds that the war is illegal.
Coupeville Peace and Reconciliation is sponsoring the event. Watada will speak in Bremerton on Saturday following the appearance.
The 28-year-old Watada announced his decision to not obey orders in a June 7 video press conference. He said in the press conference that his participation in the war would make him "party to war crimes."
Watada has maintained that the war is illegal and that an order to take part in an illegal war is unlawful in itself.
The officer did not apply for a conscientious objector discharge because he is not opposed to all wars. Requests by Watada to be sent to Afghanistan have been denied. He now faces a court martial on Feb. 5 and up to four years in prison for conduct unbecoming an officer, referring to his public decrying of the war.

The above is from Paul Boring's "Army refusenik appears in Coupeville" (Washington's Whidbey News Times). Turning to Sabrina Tavernise and John F. Burns' "Promising Troops Where They Aren’t Really Wanted" in this morning's New York Times:

As President Bush challenges public opinion at home by committing more American troops, he is confronted by a paradox: an Iraqi government that does not really want them.
The Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has not publicly opposed the American troop increase, but aides to Mr. Maliki have been saying for weeks that the government is wary of the proposal. They fear that an increased American troop presence, particularly in Baghdad, will be accompanied by a more assertive American role that will conflict with the Shiite government's haste to cut back on American authority and run the war the way it wants. American troops, Shiite leaders say, should stay out of Shiite neighborhoods and focus on fighting Sunni insurgents.
"The government believes there is no need for extra troops from the American side," Haidar al-Abadi, a Parliament member and close associate of Mr. Maliki, said Wednesday. "The existing troops can do the job."

While Tavernise and Burns bring some reality to the Times, the Bobble Headed Pundit teams up with her deserving soul mate to put forth the laughable notion that now the gloves are off and no more diplomacy with Iran -- Bobble Head, when was there diplomacy? As laughable as that is, it pales in comparison to Michael Gordon's latest "War Pornograpy" (which should be labeled as such but instead the paper dubs it "Military Analysis"), "Bid to Secure Baghdad Relies on Troops and Iraqi Leaders:"

With his new plan to secure Iraq, President Bush is in effect betting that Iraqi leaders are committed to building a multisectarian state, and his strategy will stand or fall on that assumption.

With only one free hand, Gordo might not seem to have the time to peer into Bully Boy's soul but when all other beat-off fantasies fly out the window . . .

His 'plan' is not new and look for John McCain to criticize it . . . in 2008 when McCain will probably argue that 20,000 wasn't enough. It's the same old, same old from the Bully Boy. And it has nothing to do with 'multisectarian state' -- keep spinning the lies, Gordo. Such as with this:

Critics of the troop-increase plan have complained that 17,500 more troops are too few to control a capital of six million people.

Oh, is that what "critics" have said? It helps if you only surround yourself with other filth that frequents the same War Porn clubs. No, some critics have said it was too small of an increase (we noted that in the previous entry) and some critics have said that it makes no difference (will make no difference) and will only inflame tensions further and some critics have said (rightly) that the war is lost -- and Gordo, those opinions represents officers serving.


Across the Atlantic, Bully Boy's longtime poodle is unable to provide assistance. Paul Majendie and Adrian Croft (Reuters) report:

Britain, in contrast to the United States, said on Thursday it would not send more troops to Iraq and would press ahead with plans to scale back its presence in the key southern city of Basra.
"It is not our intention to send more troops at the present time," Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett told reporters.
Prime Minister Tony Blair told parliament on Wednesday that British operations aimed at preparing the handover of security in Basra to Iraqi authorities could be complete in a few weeks.
Blair's popularity has slumped over his decision to back President George W. Bush in Iraq. Blair is set to step down later this year after a decade in power. In defiance of U.S. public opinion, Bush said on Wednesday night that he is sending 21,500 extra troops to Iraq which he believes are needed to help "break the cycle of violence".
Beckett said Bush's plan showed the determination of the U.S. and Iraqi governments to deal with the security situation.
"We are under way with a process of handover as the security situation on the ground improves," she said. "We will make our ... decisions depending on the progress of those events."
But British opposition politicians criticised the U.S. plan.
"You should never reinforce failure," Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell told Sky News. Conservative foreign affairs spokesman William Hague warned that sending more U.S. troops to Baghdad could fuel insurgency.
"We would like to have seen a package ... giving greater importance to accelerating the training and equipping of the Iraqi army ... (and) an emphasis on the urgent need to find a way of re-starting the Middle East Peace Process," he said.

And Lloyd highlights Joshua Partlow's "12 Die in Attack on Shiite Pilgrims in West: More Than 70 People Slain or Found Dead in Baghdad; Two Added to U.S. Toll" (Washington Post):

Two busloads of Shiite Muslims returning from their holy pilgrimage to Mecca were gunned down Wednesday while passing through a predominantly Sunni Muslim swath of western Iraq, news services reported.
The attack on the convoy of pilgrims, who were returning to their homes in southern Iraq from the hajj in Saudi Arabia, killed 12 people and wounded 18, Iraqi state television said. Insurgents have frequently targeted travelers on the highways through the barren desert of western Iraq.
In Iraq's capital, 11 people were killed by bombings in the areas of Palestine Street, Waziriya and New Baghdad, among others, and police patrols found 60 bodies west of the Tigris River, according to Brig. Sadoun Abdul Karim of the Interior Ministry.
The U.S. military announced the deaths of two U.S. servicemen -- a soldier assigned to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Headquarters Group and a soldier with the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division -- who were involved in operations in Anbar province on Tuesday.

That's the reality on the ground and nothing Bully Boy stated in his speech gave the impression he grasped the above even slightly.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.








Posted by at

The killer awoke before dawn, he put his boots on

The U.S. military is being accused of another deliberate cover-up involving killings in Iraq. But this time, the victims are not Iraqis...they're American soldiers.
Specialist Patrick McCaffrey and First Lieutenant Andre Tyson -- both members of the California National Guard -- were killed in June 2004 while on patrol near the town of Balad, fifty miles north of Baghdad.
Military officials initially told the families that the two soldiers had been attacked and killed in an ambush by insurgents. But that story turned out to be a lie.
An Army investigation concluded in September 2005 that the two were in fact killed by members of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps -- supposed allies that the Guardsmen had been training and patrolling with. McCaffrey and Tyson's fellow soldiers had suspected this was the case all along. Instead of sharing these findings with the families, the military sat on the story - for nine months.
It was only after Nadia McCaffrey -- the mother of Specialist Patrick McCaffrey -- asked California Senator Barbara Boxer in May to pressure the Pentagon to release information about her son's death that the truth came out.
The military revealed what it knew only this week -- nearly two years to the day of the killings of McCaffrey and Tyson. An Army general briefed the families at their homes on Wednesday. The Pentagon is now being accused of a deliberate cover-up.
Senator Boxer said the case raises troubling questions and plans to raise the issue on the floor of the Senate.
She told reporters, "I think it's pretty obvious that if the American people knew that the Iraqis we train would turn on our soldiers, support for the war would erode."

The above is the introduction to Democracy Now!'s "Army Lies to Mother of Slain Guardsman for Two Years, Says Killed by Insurgents Instead of Allied Iraqi Soldiers," June 23, 2006. You can read the transcript, listen or watch. The reason we're opening with it is Bully Boy's speech. Zero in on Barbara Boxer's remark: "I think it's pretty obvious that if the American people knew that the Iraqis we train would turn on our soldiers, support for the war would erode."

Now let's turn to Bully Boy's speech from last night (New York Times transcript):

So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them, five brigades, will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

So what is he proposing? What everyone knew he would and it's the sort of the thing that got Patrick McCaffrey murdered.

Last night's speech was nothing but the usual lies from the Bully Boy.

Note how the supposed "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" was nothing but an attempt to argue for more troops, it wasn't real responsibility. And the "me" became "we" as he attempted to shift the blame for his mistakes.

The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together, and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

What do you mean "we"? It was nothing but a photo-op. People called it out in real time. We referred to here it as nothing but another wave of Operation Happy Talk. Only fools and liars believed that it was "a stunning achievement." On the photo-op, liars were proved wrong and fools should have known better.

You can walk through the entire speech that way. (Don't worry, we're not about to.) He demonstrated he (and his administration) either can't stop lying or they lack the ability to comprehend what they read which is why he distorted the James Baker Circle Jerk: "And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States." Not just a distortion but a me-me-me type statement.

Which is fitting when you grasp that this isn't a plan for success, it's a plan to prolong the war in the hopes that it can be dumped in someone else's lap. He trotted out his usual September 11th crap (when he does today in front of a military audience which can't catcall, question or boo -- the perfect show audience for a Bully Boy's whose public approval is in the toilet) . It was more scare-the-country and hope they fall for it again from the master of fear.

He also hopes that quoting the puppet of the occupation will give his non-plan credence -- we're apparently all supposed to forget that even the administration no longer trusts that al-Maliki has the will or ability to do their bidding. (See especially Stephen Hadley's memo.) There were no 'benchmarks' given though the term 'benchmark' was tossed around.

What is 'success' in Iraq? You can't measure it by anything the Bully Boy provided last night. It's a vague term and the reality is that 'success' isn't possible because the illegal war was long ago lost. So now he moves towards escalation. 20,000 more US troops sent to Iraq will not provide a 'win' and only a fool believes otherwise. (Hard liners would argue for a much higher number. War Hawks, who might embrace the nonsense, would grasp fully that 20,000 will not allow for anything to be different. Those living in the real world grasp that the war is lost and no increase, of any amount, will turn it into a 'win.')

He tried to scare the American people yet again with talk of al Qaeda and his 'answer' to al Qaeda is to send 4,000 more troops to Al-Anbar Province. That won't even make a dent and only the fools who don't grasp how many people (forget the mythical al Qaeda, how many Iraqis are in the area) will believe 4,000 will make any difference.

He brought up other nations (Syria, Iran, Lebanon, etc.) and alleged that peace was wanted when the reality was this administration has never made a serious attempt at peace in the Middle East. They've threatened and bullied, diplomacy remains a foreign concept to the administration.

As he resorted to (yet again) fear tactics and bumbled his way through twenty-plus minutes, the speech should have come with background music -- possibly "The End" by the Doors. Those paying attention grasped it was the same old same old and that there was no 'responsibility' taken by the Bully Boy, just another attempt to trick and deceive the American people.

Martha and Lloyd both note Jon Cohen's "Poll: Most Americans Opposed to Bush's Iraq Plan:
Majority of Those Surveyed Are Skeptical That Surge Would Make Victory More Likely" (Washington Post):

Most Americans oppose President Bush's call to send additional U.S. military forces to Iraq and just over a third say the new plan makes victory there more likely, an initial public rebuke of the strategy he unveiled last night in a nationally televised address.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted following the President's speech finds broad and strong opposition to his call to send about 21,500 more troops to Iraq: 61 percent oppose the force increase, with 52 percent "strongly" opposing the build-up. Thirty-six percent support the additional troops; only one-quarter of the public is strongly supportive.


Dallas asked to have this event noted. Texas members in the DFW area, this is today at noon.
The Bill of Rights Defense Committee is at least one of the organizations sponsoring the event:

SHUT DOWN GUANTANAMO !
Thursday, January 11, Noon-2:00 p.m.
Earle Cabell Federal Building
1100 Commerce St., Dallas
Five years ago, the first detainees were shackled, hooded and flown to Guantánamo Bay , Cuba . None has received a fair trial. Three have committed suicide in desperation; many others have tried to kill themselves. Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in September, barring any detainees from ever having the right to challenge their detention in court, which defies the ancient human right of habeas corpus.
On January 11, groups from around the world will mark this date of infamy, calling upon our elected officials to end the abuse and torture, restore habeas corpus, and provide a just means for detainees to either receive a fair trial or be set free.
We will demonstrate on the sidewalk across the street from the Federal Building . If possible, wear an orange jumpsuit or T-shirt. In the meanwhile, please check out information at http://www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/pdf/closegitmo.pdf, and write a letter to the Dallas Morning News.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.




Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)