Thursday, June 28, 2007

Ozzy After Sabbath


I suppose this is the appropriate complement to “Sabbath After Ozzy”.  I’ve been listening to Black Rain, the newest Ozzy album, and despite its surprisingly cheap and unimpressive packaging (no jewel case or insert) I was pleasantly surprised with its quality.

 Ozzy’s career after Sabbath – aside from the brief reunions with Sabbath – can be divided into three periods, easily corresponding to the guitarist he picked.  The drummers and bassists have come and gone (including Geezer Butler at one point).  But it’s the guitarists who really make their mark.  Ozzy doesn’t play ANY instrument and relies on real musicians (!) to help him out, though he has developed considerably as a singer and lyricist.

 1.  Randy Rhoads.  This includes his first two albums, Blizzard of Ozz and Diary of a Madman.  As we know by now, Randy died in that freak airplane accident – the tour bus driver was an amateur pilot and took Randy and a friend up for a spin...and killed them all in a kamikaze attack on the tour bus itself.  Anyhow.
            Randy was NOT a Black Sabbath fan – he considered himself MUCH better than Tony Iommi (right there he lost me).  He added the pretentious classical music elements.  I do like his albums, particularly the songs  “Mother Earth (Revelation)” and “Diary of a Madman” but I can do without “Flying High Again” for the umpteenth time.  Randy was an excellent guitarist, but I think his talent is overstated these days into legend status simply due to the fact that he died so young in the freak accident.

 2.  Jake E. Lee.  Another good guitarist – whose fame suffered because he simply left the band and wasn’t killed in a freak accident.  The two albums with him, Bark At The Moon and Ultimate Sin, are not bad at all, but largely forgotten.  These are, however, typical 80s metal.   Weeding out the 80s filler would result in one decent album.

 3.  Zakk Wylde.  I do like Zakk.  From No Rest For The Wicked to Black Rain, Wylde undoubtedly rips. His masterpiece is “No More Tears”.  Unlike Randy, Wylde DOES worship at Tony’s altar and does a fairly good job of covering the Sabbath songs, especially since he’s not reluctantly going through the motions.  I suppose he overdoes the “bearded biker redneck” image with Black Label Society, but I’ll take that if he still puts some balls into Ozzy’s albums.  They do tend to repeat each other fairly often in a familiar formula, so it’s difficult not to get tired of them, but all the same, I do like them.

 4. Brad Gillis.  The first Ozzy album I ever heard was Speak of the Devil, which is probably an odd one to begin with: it’s a live album of ALL Black Sabbath songs at a time at which he already had two albums worth of solo material with Randy Rhoads.  My buddy Phil had bought it at the PX and was crazy about it, particularly “War Pigs.”  The story was that Jet Records, run by Sharon Arden>>>Osbourne’s father, insisted on a live album immediately after Randy’s death.  Rather than tastelessly spit out the live Randy material they did have then (which later was released as Ozzy-Randy Tribute) they simply played a one-off show with Brad Gillis playing nothing but Sabbath songs.  On the remaining dates of the “Diary of a Madman” tour, Gillis did play the Rhoads material. 

            Gillis did a respectable job, though he didn’t particularly put much effort into faithfully reproducing Tony’s solos.  The best that can be said is that Gillis had a terrific guitar tone.  Ozzy screams, “this album’s for you people, man!” and I have to wonder who he’s referring to. 

            But at the time I didn’t connect Ozzy with Black Sabbath.  On the school bus I’d listen to the album on my Walkman (remember those?) and the older kids would ask what I was listening to.  “Hey, these are BLACK SABBATH songs!”  Now this dopey, clueless 13 year old finally had a clue.  Sure enough, I went to FNAC (the huge record store in Paris) and flipped through the Black Sabbath vinyl (remember vinyl?) and sure enough saw.. OZZY OSBOURNE listed on the albums!  And hey, look!  It’s those songs!  D’OH!

            So we asked for Black Sabbath albums for Christmas, and guess what we got?  Born Again and The Mob Rules!  (Sigh).  I ended up getting the Ozzy albums after school, passing through FNAC and spending my leftover lunch money on pairs: Black Sabbath/Paranoid, Master of Reality/Vol 4, Sabbath, Bloody Sabbath/Sabotage, and Technical Ecstasy/Never Say Die.  But as crazy and stupid as it sounds, I have BRAD GILLIS (and my buddy Phil) to thank for getting me into Black Sabbath.

 Ozzy vs. Sabbath.  As I noted earlier, Sabbath since Ozzy has had its ups and downs.  Heaven and Hell, The Mob Rules vs. TYR and Forbidden.  Ozzy’s material has never been as dark as Sabbath’s: at one point Rick Rubin – producer of Slayer and Danzig – was brought in as a producer, and Zakk Wylde remarked that it was “as if the sheet music was being faxed to us directly from Satan.” Ozzy concurred, saying, “if I wanted to do that kind of music, I’d do it with Sabbath.”  Ozzy’s material is more lighthearted, the overall philosophy being, “it’s a crazy, fucked-up world out there, but there is still some hope.” 

            Relative to such bands as Slayer and Megadeth, or any of these death metal bands with “cookie monster” vocals, Ozzy is certainly much more polished and accessible.  You can understand the lyrics!  But it’s still METAL.  The 16 year old girl who says “like, you know” every other word and listens to Beyonce and 50 Cent, the skinny VW-driving REM fan, the 30-something soccer mom, are never going to bang their head to any of Ozzy’s material.  It’s not nearly pop-oriented enough to appeal to people who wouldn’t otherwise listen to “heavy metal”, and the crowd at an Ozzy or Ozzfest concert is the same 90% male demographic you’d find at a Slayer or Anthrax show.

 Sharon Osbourne & “The Osbournes”.  I never really watched the show that much.  To me Ozzy is a singer – and most importantly the singer for Black Sabbath.  Watching him at home without Tony, Geezer & Bill is not particularly worthwhile (why weren’t THEY ever on the show??).  He was likeable and adorable, bewildered by his own wealth (I suppose his mind is still in the slums of Birmingham even if his body is in L.A.) and forever baffled by such things as remote controls and poo-ing pets.  It got old rather quickly.  I won’t comment on Jack or Kelly, as they have no real connection with Ozzy’s solo career.

            I don’t have a problem with Sharon Osbourne.  She saved Ozzy’s ass from alcoholic suicide, salvaged his career, and believed in him when he didn’t even believe in himself (a heavy metal June Carter to the heavy metal Johnny Cash).  She deserves every penny of his wealth - seeing to it that HE gets what he needs and doesn’t get screwed.  If she throws her weight around, amen.  I wasn’t keen on the slew of crappy bands opening for Sabbath/Ozzy on the Ozzfests, but at least we got Sabbath and Ozzy – and a few good bands like Iron Maiden – compared to the Lollapalooza tours.  (Where’s the stoner rock festival, man?  Come on!).  Metal fans seem to see her with the same hatred and loathing Rush Limbaugh has for Hillary Clinton, but I don’t think Sharon Osbourne deserves it anymore than Hillary does. 

 There we go.  Ozzy has aquitted himself well since Sabbath, thanks to Sharon.  Just when I thought he might be getting into a rut, Black Rain has restored my faith in his ability to entertain me.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Charles Manson and "Helter Skelter"


On two brutal nights in August, 1969, Charles Manson’s “family” took the lives of seven innocent people.  Ultimately his “family” was brought to justice and convicted of those murders, thanks to sharp L.A. prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi.  In his book Helter Skelter, Bugliosi describes how these murders happened, who was behind it, and how he succeeded at making sure they did not “beat the rap”.

 The topic has come up various times, so I thought I’d shine light on it from various different angles, with a comprehensive, original twist, at least in this context.

 Manson’s Background.  Born November 12, 1934 in Cincinnati, Ohio.  He came from a broken childhood and never knew his father.  He committed his first armed robbery at age 13.  Over the years he would be in and out of prison so often that by age 32 he had been in prison 17 of those years.  He was released in 1967 and found his way to Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco.  From there he began to assemble his Family, later moving to the Los Angeles area.  With the release of the Beatles’ White Album in late 1968, his philosophy of “Helter Skelter” began.

 Manson’s Music Career.  Such as it was.  He was an aspiring folk rock musician, but could not succeed at getting anyone to take him seriously.  Most of those who dealt with him, including Terry Melcher and Dennis Wilson, thought he had too much intensity and too little talent. 

1.         He made a demo, known as Lie: The Love and Terror Cult (recorded one year before the murders).  I’ve listened to this, and it sounds pretty much like... Led Zeppelin III.

2.         Charlie Manson’s Good Time Gospel Hour, recorded in prison in 1982.  I haven’t heard this one. The name itself reflects Manson’s twisted sense of humor.

3.         One song of his, “Cease to Exist”, from the Lie demo, survives as “Never Learn Not To Love” on the Beach Boys album 20/20 (credited to Dennis Wilson; Manson himself does not appear on this).  This was released about a month after the Lie demo was recorded.  The Beach Boys version is considerably better produced than the stripped down folk sound of the original.  It was also released by the Beach Boys as a B-side to a single, which did poorly, so Dennis Wilson used this failure – of a tune which had been considerably spruced up and issued in the name of an established rock band – to attempt to persuade Manson that his original material was not commercially viable.

4.          A cover of “Look at Your Game Girl” (also from the Lie demo), is hidden at the end of “I Don’t Care About You” on Guns N’Roses’ cover album The Spaghetti Incident?.   Unlike “Never Learn Not to Love”, this version is extremely faithful to the stripped down, bare bones original – especially odd since the rest of the GN’R album is loud, obnoxious punk covers like “Attitude” (Misfits) and “Hair of the Dog” (Nazareth).  For some time Axl was appearing in public in a Manson shirt; I’m unclear as to his motive, but by all accounts Mr. Rose  has some serious mental problems of his own.  Certainly anyone claiming Manson as a role model gives us reason to doubt their judgment; and even to use his likeness simply for notoriety is tasteless and in poor judgment.

 Manson’s Philosophy.  What was “Helter Skelter”?  Manson believed the Beatles were communicating with him through lyrics, including The White Album, and the song “Helter Skelter” in particular.  The album is a double album of studio material, somewhat inconsistent in quality yet the source of such classics as “Back In The U.S.S.R.”, “While My Guitar Gently Weeps”, and “Rocky Raccoon.”  [I actually listened to “Back in the U.S.S.R.” in a hotel room in 1983 with my buddies on a school trip to Kiev, the USSR.]  He also believed that “Revolution #9” actually referred to “Revelation #9” (from the Bible), which mentions a “fifth angel”, who Manson believed was himself, the other 4 being John, Paul, George and Ringo.  (Apparently neither Stuart Sutcliffe nor George Martin, the two with the strongest claims to be “fifth Beatles”, ranked higher than Manson, who had never even met the Beatles.)
            Manson believed that a black vs. white race war, which he called “Helter Skelter”, was imminent.  To instigate this, he orchestrated the murders on August 9 and 10, 1969, hoping that targeting affluent whites and smearing “PIG” on the walls would convince everyone that blacks were behind the killings, inciting whites to rise against the blacks and start the war (he also hoped to “teach the blacks” how to do this by example).  During this war Manson and his family would hide in a “bottomless pit” in the Death Valley desert.  The blacks would eventually win, but find themselves unable to run the country on their own, having been told by “whitey” what to do for so long.  They would seek out the remaining, surviving whites...the Manson Family.  Manson himself, however, would put the blacks back in their place and tell them to go back and pick cotton. THIS was Manson’s “master plan” and the motive behind the Tate and LaBianca murders. 
            As you can see, Manson was extremely racist - in private he referred to blacks by the n- word - and sexist – he believed women were good for sex and having babies, and that was it. 

 The Victims.  Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger, Voytek Frykowski, Steven Parent (“the Tate murders”, August 9, 1969), Leno LaBianca & Rosemary Labianca (“the LaBianca murders”, 8/10/69).  Gary Hinman, Donald “Shorty” Shea, John Philip “Zero” Haught, and attorney Ronald Hughes are also considered victims of the “Family.”  Manson himself also attempted to kill Bernard “Lotsapoppa” Crowe, leaving him for dead, but Crowe survived.  In addition, there are several as-yet unsolved murders for which the Family is suspected but no definite proof exists. 
            Tate was a modestly successful actress, married to Roman Polanski, the famous movie director.  Sebring was an extremely popular hair stylist to the stars, who dated models and actresses, and Tate’s former boyfriend.  Folger was the heiress to the coffee fortune, and Frykowski was not really anyone special, just Folger’s boyfriend and a friend of Polanski’s from Poland.  Leno LaBianca was an owner of a grocery store chain; Rosemary was his wife.
            The victims were completely unknown to the killers; the killers were simply told to go to the houses and kill whoever was there.  Manson himself, though, had been to the Tate residence before.  He did not know Tate or the other victims personally, though he had some idea who they were.  Terry Melcher, a record producer, had turned down Manson’s efforts to get a recording contract; he was the prior tenant of Tate’s residence.  It’s not hard to imagine Manson has having ordered the residents of 10050 Cielo Drive murdered under the belief that Melcher was one of them.  In any case they were all Hollywood entertainment types who had “denied him” the musical career he sought.

 The Perpetrators.  Charles Manson, Charles “Tex” Watson, Susan Atkins (aka “Sadie Glutz”, the name “Sadie” taken from the Beatles song, from the White Album, “Sexy Sadie”), Patricia Krenwinkel (“Katie”), Leslie Van Houten, and Linda Kasabian.  Atkins had originally confessed to the murders to two cellmates of hers, and testified to the grand jury for the indictments, but eventually recanted on Manson’s orders.  Kasabian, however, was willing to testify at trial.  She had, in fact, waited in the car on both nights but witnessed several elements of the murders up close, notably Parent being shot point blank in his Rambler by Watson, and Frykowski and Folger emerging from the residence, still alive, barely, only to be killed anyway by Watson and the others.
            What happened to the killers? Manson himself is still in prison, consistently denied parole as he’s still crazy and dangerous.  He, Atkins, Krenwinkel and Van Houten all received death sentences, which were commuted to life imprisonment when California abolished the death penalty.   The three girls appear to have renounced Manson (eventually).  Of his entire family, the only one who still supports him is Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, most infamous for her unsuccessful attempt to assassinate President Gerald Ford on September 5, 1975. (She shot at him with a .45 automatic but had neglected to rack the slide beforehand, so the chamber was empty and the trigger simply went “click” when she pulled it.)

 Parallels with Adolf Hiter.  Both Manson and Hitler were aspiring – and frustrated - artists.  Hitler was rejected from the various art and architecture academies in Vienna, nor were his watercolors particularly good sellers (they’re in more demand now simply due to his later notoriety than they ever were when he was actually trying to sell them himself).  Manson wanted to be a folk singer, but couldn’t convince anyone to give him a shot.
            They both were fairly unimpressive in size and beauty, but had a phenomenal amount of charisma.  The reaction of followers, both in the Nazi Party and in the Family, to their leaders were remarkably similar.  Each had the ability to persuade followers that (A) he cared about them, (B) he could sense their most basic needs, (C) his commands should be followed without question.  Both leaders were able to evoke steadfast loyalty, devotion and blind obedience, even to the point of being able to order his followers to murder complete strangers.   They were also vegetarians, staunch animal lovers who were nonetheless ruthless with regard to the lives of human beings.
            These similarities were not lost on Manson, who admired Hitler and considered him a “tuned-in” dude with the right ideas.
            On the other hand, Hitler was somewhat of a dull prude.  Not only a vegetarian, he didn’t drink alcohol or party, and wasn’t promiscuous.  He was very serious and didn’t have much of a sense of humor.  He doesn’t give the impression of being fun to be around, his idea of a conversation being a long-winded tirade against some enemy, real or imagined. 
            His intensity was hatred, while Manson maintained a sense of humor.  During trial he would casually “rap” with the prosecutor (unheard of for ANY criminal defendant to do this, much less one on trial for murder and facing the death penalty) and even sent him 4 letters from prison over the years.  He also applied for a gasoline credit card – from jail.  In addition he was bisexual – prison reports before 1967 show various homosexual offenses – and promiscuous among the female “Family” members.

 LSD.  The press at the time locked onto the fact that Manson and his Family were heavy users of LSD.  Even the famous pictures of him show his pupils dilated, well into a trip.  All of his girls admitted they had taken hundreds of trips, no longer bragging but simply stating the facts.
           Yet on the night of the of murders, all of the perpetrators were stone cold sober.  No LSD, no marijuana, no alcohol were involved.   Bugliosi brought this out at trial.  He also brought out, from the experts who testified, that there was no evidence that any murders had been committed by anyone else under the influence of LSD, and that likewise there is no evidence that even heavy LSD use causes brain damage.  The Manson girls, interviewed recently, were all intelligent and articulate.  Of course, under the influence itself, many of these people were incoherent and “off on another planet”, but once back into normal sanity the users exhibit no signs of lasting mental incapacity due to the drug. 

 Movies.  I watched two movies somewhat related to this.  First was “Valley of the Dolls”, a Sharon Tate film.  She plays Jennifer North, an aspiring actress with a surplus of beauty, average intelligence, and almost no talent except to take her clothes off for raunchy French “art” films.  The second was “Helter Skelter”, which pretty much follows Bugliosi’s book, with the major exception of focusing on Linda Kasabian instead of Vincent Bugliosi.  Jeremy Davies does a spectacular job as Manson.  In fact, 3 years before he had extensively studied Manson’s language, dialogue and interviews and perfected the ability to recreate the man even to the point of being able to ad-lib dialogue using Manson’s own words.

 Manson then and now.  The Charles Manson of 1970 was arrogant, cocky, self-confident.  Criminal defendants rarely speak to their prosecutors, even to spit venom at their adversaries.  Yet Manson would casually “rap” with Bugliosi, even admitting that he attempted to murder Bernard “Lotsapoppa” Crowe.  It’s not hard to believe that the cocky, arrogant, charismatic man who would easily converse with the man committed to seeing to it not only that he was convicted of murder, but also received the death penalty, could also easily seduce and hypnotize a whole harem of insecure, shy hippie girls to the point of getting them to murder complete strangers.
            A far more recent interview with Dianne Sawyer shows a completely different Manson.  He no longer has the easy self-confident arrogance, the conviction that he could impose his reality upon those around him.  He still denies responsibility for the murders, but no longer seems to believe that he could convince even Dianne Sawyer of this.  It was like he knew he was guilty and knew everyone else knew it too.  He wasn’t even slick enough to refer to her as “Dianne” or “Ms. Sawyer”, instead he simply called her “woman.” 
            The question becomes, then, is Manson STILL a threat?  Could he be safely released into society?  I think the answer is NO.  Although the Manson girls have since disavowed and renounced their allegiance and compulsion to Manson – and appear to be sincere – this only happened because they were isolated from him and forbidden to meet directly with him.  Only by separating them could the spell be broken.  And even if these girls are sincere and would never rejoin “the Family”, surely there is no shortage of new idiots, Manson Family – The Next Generation, who would eagerly join up with him and do his bidding.  Provided with a new slew of groupies and willing slaves, Manson might well regain his “game” and start all over again.  That’s a risk we can’t take.  Certainly the parole board in 1967 screwed up big time, releasing him against his own wishes and unleashing this crazy maniac on an unsuspecting California.  The current boards do NOT want to make that mistake again.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

TOOL and Concerts


On Friday, June 8, 2007, I saw Tool in concert at the 1st Mariner Arena in Baltimore, formerly known as the Baltimore Arena.  They played for two hours with no encore, and pretty much played the songs as they are on the albums, with over half the set from their newest (and in my opinion best) album 10,000 Days: Jambi, Stinkfist, Forty-Six and 2, Schism, Rosetta Stoned, Flood, Wings 1&2, Lateralus, and Vicarious.  9 songs in two hours = 13 minutes a song!  Since the running time for the studio versions of the songs comes up to less than an hour and a half, some of the songs were obviously extended.  I had to endure Friday rush hour traffic, including a substantial detour off 95 North, and the venue was NOT air conditioned, which the hot, humid June weather made quite noticeable.

 I’m not going to claim that I didn’t enjoy the show, because I did.  These guys are talented musicians and I like their music.  And they focused on the album of theirs which I like the most.  But it prompted me to consider certain things.

 This was concert 134 for me, since October 1984.  Tool was clearly worthwhile as I had never seen them before and had no idea what to expect – even though I’ve known of this band since 1992 when their first album, Undertow, came out, and their first single, “Sober” dominated the airwaves and MTV.  I don’t know why I ignored them for so long, as I liked “Sober” and hadn’t heard anything by them that I didn’t like.  I guess I just never got around to getting into them, and it took Maynard’s “we’re not worthy” worshipping at the altar of King Crimson to get me to pay attention to them. 

  OK, so seeing Tool was a good idea.  But why bother going to a concert at all?  Just to see the band play?  Why is that important?   You can hear the music at home – any song you want, not just the greatest hits the band wants to shove down our throats tour after tour (“the fans demand it”, they claim.  Which fans?  They never asked ME).  Maybe because seeing a band play live gives you an experience you don’t get at home.  Every band claims to be great live, but they clearly differ in this.

 At one extreme are bands like Rush, who go onstage and play every song, note-for-note, exactly as it is on the album, with no improvisation, no jamming, and no unexpected gems popping out.  Alex and Geddy pretty much stay on their sides of the stage and play.  Neil gets his drum solo, though I find drum solos so dull that as far as I’m concerned, they don’t really count as “improvisation”.  More like “cure for insomnia.”   A reviewer made similar remarks about Boston, noting that from a distance, for all we knew these were cardboard cutouts of the band members; he wished Tom Scholz would sneeze or bend over to tie his shoelace so we could see it was a real, living human being up there.  For bands like this, there doesn’t appear to be any dramatic improvement over simply staying at home and listening to whatever album you want to hear – especially older ones they never play live!!! – such that you should feel compelled to pay $60 for a ticket, endure the crowds and parking lots, and see them again for the xth time. 

 At the other extreme is the Grateful Dead, where every night was a different set, they frequently played covers, and often had guest musicians – and you could expect a jam.  Moreover, they might play a familiar song in a different way, faster, slower, heavier, etc.  Even so, a Dead concert had a format you could count on: two sets divided by an intermission, with “drums/space” in the second set, a de facto second intermission as most of us don’t really care to watch Mickey and Bill square off against each other yet again.   But here again, you’re getting something completely different than what you could expect at home.  I don’t have an entire stadium parking lot of stoned hippies, selling dope and clever Calvin & Hobbes toke-off vs. Bart Simpson t-shirts at my apartment!  Somewhat more of an incentive to get off your butt and over to RFK, Nissan Pavilion, or Merriweather.

 In the middle are bands like AC/DC, Deep Purple, and Blue Oyster Cult.  You can expect certain songs are going to be in the set, but they leave room for jams and you get an experience you don’t get by simply sitting at home listening to the music on your stereo.  Ian Gillan talks alot during the show, though much of what he says doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense; his introductions to songs are somewhat obtuse.  Eric Bloom can usually be counted on to make a few clever offhand remarks.  In this regard, Jethro Tull are probably one of the better bands: Ian Anderson not only jumps around with his flute, far more spry than you would imagine a man his age would be, but also very clever and witty with the onstage chat.  He’s one singer where you DON’T think to yourself, “shut the fuck up and play more music!”

 Concert Crap. One element I could do without are these “call and response” sections.  Metallica, Judas Priest, and Iron Maiden are worst at this.  15 minutes of “seek and....” “SEEK AND DESTROY!!!” “Very good!  Again!”  which could have been 2-3 songs.  Thanks!  I came to hear music, not to scream lyrics I’ve known for years at a band who also know them (or do they need 10,000 screaming idiots to remind them?).  MOSHING is another idiocy.  Whoever came up with that concept deserves a lobotomy, though I wonder if it would really make much of a difference.  Then there are these “food court druids”, especially at metal shows (Marilyn Manson comes to mind).  You know the type.  They can’t simply wear a t-shirt and jeans; they have to dye their hair black, white, purple, or other weird colors, have some tattoos and piercings, and wear some sort of really outlandish outfit (e.g. those black trench coats or fishnet stockings) and you can tell they take themselves SOOOO seriously.  It’s a whole IMAGE and PERSONA they’re cultivating.  Anyone wearing KISS makeup – or anything close to the full costume – at a KISS show definitely qualifies (has anyone ever seen anyone pretending to be Eric Carr or Vinnie Vincent?).  What are you, a General in the KISS Army?  Give me a break.  Finally, there’s the complete asshole who can only enjoy himself if he gets totally tanked and yells, screams, bumps into people, and makes a complete ass of himself; his “concert experience” consists of ruining it for everyone else around him.  At least potheads and Deadheads don’t do this.  Moshing at a Dead show?  I don’t think so.

 Venues.  I’ve gone to a fair amount of shows at clubs, which are an amazingly good deal.  Several times cheaper than a stadium show and no bad seats in the place – none of this business of paying $80 for a seat up in section 30,000,000 where you need the Hubble Telescope to see the band, AND the sound quality totally sucks.  Plus at the club shows the band frequently hangs around to sign autographs with the 30 fans it has left.  Good luck trying to meet Mick or Keith at the stadium concert.  Finally, you’re not stuck in a huge parking lot, breathing that fragrant aroma of carbon monoxide, for an hour trying to get out.  The trick is to show up in between the last (completely incompetent) opening act and the headliner.  Woo hoo!

 T-shirts.  When we were younger we’d eagerly snap up as many as we could.  We didn’t have many, so we wanted to accumulate a collection.  As years went by, and we can’t wear the Judas Priest or Metallica shirt at the office (and we have 3-4 of each anyway) AND the prices went up, it got to the point where you look and go, “do any of these $35 shirts reach out and blow me? Otherwise forget it.”

 I still go to concerts.  But I no longer have the youthful enthusiasm, unlimited energy, and clueless tolerance for inane bullshit and idiocy that I had when I was 15.   Life goes on. “Plus ça change, plus c’est le meme chose.”

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Che Guevara


Yet again I noticed someone on the street wearing a Che Guevara shirt. I had to wonder: what relevance does he have today, and what is the big deal anyway?

 Here are the most important facts regarding him:

1.         Born in Argentina, June 28, 1928.  Real name Ernesto Guevara de la Serna.  His nickname “Che” comes from his affectation of peppering his talk with “che”, a phrase meaning, “man” or “pal” and used often by South Americans.

2.         Toured South America in 1951 – the so-called “Motorcycle Diaries” reflect this voyage.  He also figures in the recent movie “Lost City”, which deals with not only the 1959 revolution but also much of the events in Cuba after that.  However, it does not focus on Guevara himself. 

3.         A medical student with asthma, he became a revolutionary.  He had no formal military training – the Argentine government exempted him from conscription because of his asthma.  Keeping this in mind, he was a modestly competent guerilla leader.

4.         The only successful revolution with which he is associated, and with which he admittedly had a major role, was the Cuban revolution in 1959.  He was highly placed within the Cuban government under Castro, but his actual role in the regime amounted to little more than summary executions of various political enemies.   As is so often the case, Marxist revolutionaries are fairly capable of overthrowing timid dictators like Batista but equally incompetent at successfully running a country once they take over.

5.         He left Cuba in 1965, tried, unsuccessfully to incite rebellion in the Congo, then tried, again unsuccessfully, to incite rebellion in Bolivia.

6.         He was tracked down and killed in October 1967 by Bolivian soldiers trained by the US Special Forces.  Various mementos, recovered by Rodriguez, the CIA operative who helped find him, are proudly displayed at Langley.

 So when you boil it all down, Che Guevara’s biggest and most important “legacy”, if you can call it that, is communist Cuba.  However, this seems to ignore an even larger and more important figure – obviously Fidel Castro himself.  Who led the rebellion?  Castro.  Who dealt with Krushchev?  Castro.  Who ran the country, all the way up to the present day?  Castro.  Who kept the country a going concern even after Soviet aid dried up following the fall of the Soviet Union? Castro.  Guevara left the country in 1965 and  hadn’t done a whole lot until that point anyway.  And as noted above, he was unsuccessful at the two subsequent revolutions he was involved with.
 As of today, Cuba is a poor, crappy country, second only to Haiti in poverty.  The Castro apologists blame the US for this; we embargo Cuba yet trade with Vietnam and China.  Ah...but we’re not refusing to TRADE with Cuba, we’re refusing to EXPLOIT Cuba.  Since, as they claim, the United States invariably unfairly exploits any country with which it conducts trade, Cuba should be prosperous and thriving without the yoke of Yankee imperialism upon its neck (and things are much worse for the Chinese and Vietnamese since “Tio Sam” became welcome there once again...right?).  How can we hurt Cuba if we’re not doing anything to it?  “Yankee go home”?  Fine, we went home.  So what’s the problem? 
 None of this, of course, is Guevara’s fault.  He left the country in 1965 and died in 1967.  Any success or failure of Cuba since then is the full responsibility of Fidel Castro.  So why is it Che Guevara on the t-shirts, and not Castro?