Dedicated to classics and hits.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

BOOK REVIEW: A Sentimental Journey and Other Writings by Laurence Sterne

A Sentimental Journey and Other Writings
 by Laurence Sterne
Oxford World's Classic Edition
p. 2003

   Sterne is best known for his Rabelaisian tour-de-force Tristam Shandy, a novel which I had the "pleasure" to struggle through for the best part of a year back in 2008.  Shandy is a sprawling, discursive comic masterpiece which has more in common with novels of the 20th century then those which followed it in the 19th.  But Sterne also wrote another, minor, classic,  A Sentimental Journey.  First published in 1768, six months before the author's death, A Sentimental Journey was one of the first "novels of sentiment and sensibility" a genre which rose and fell by the turn of the 19th century, but one which would have a decisive impact on the Brontean/Austen wave of fiction which would define the 19th century.
       Sterne's A Sentimental Journey was published three years before Henry MacKenzie's The Man of Feeling.  Man of Feeling was in instant hit, selling out within two months and being reprinted six time in the following decade.  Both novels echo the on-going debate in 18th century about the impact of modernity on the nature of man.  As G.J. Barker-Benfield persuasively argued in his book, The Culture of Sensibility, "popular novels written by men in the 1760s and 1770s were preoccupied with the meanings of sensibility for manhood...and the ambiguity we now tend to read into the novels of Laurence Stern or Mackenzie reflects this contemporary ambivalence."
       Regardless of how one interprets the underlying debate OR the role of the "novels of sentiment" in the 18th century, it's clear that these tales had an audience.  Of course, in light of the rise of female novelists in the 19th century,  I am left wondering who was buying all the copies of MacKenzie's The Man of Feeling.  Was it men, interested in getting a fix on their identity in a rapidly changing world?  Or was it largely women, interested in men who were depicted behaving in a traditionally "feminine" manner?
      Sterne's Sentimental Journey is a clear way-station on the way to MacKenzie's mincing, sobbing Man of Feeling.  Unlike MacKenzie, Sterne is a comic genius, and his book is filled with episodes of satire and wit that are sorely missing in Man of Feeling.  There is also an element of bawdiness in A Sentimental Journey that is so clearly an element of Sterne's Rabelaisian style- something lacking in MacKenzie, let alone the oft humorless novels of sentiment that were published after the turn of the century.  Blame the Victorians, or don't, it matters little.
      However it's clear to me that the "Sentimental Man" was a cultural trend with all the complexity and force of later trends like Rock and roll, and it's interesting because it was one of the FIRST such modern trends whose influence was reflected in a contemporary art form that was ITSELF just rounding into form (the novel.)  For that reason it's worth thinking about, because by learning about people then, we can learn about ourselves now.
       In conclusion I'd just like to note that like the last classic novel I read (Castle Rackrent), A Sentimental Journey clocks in at around one hundred pages- so be warned- not a great value in that regard.

Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe 900-1900

This is a Virus- it was the built up immunity to Viruses that Europeans obtained as a result of direct contact with 4000 years of civilization that gave their life forms a built in advantage over life forms in the global periphery: The Americas, Australia, the Oceanic territories. 



BOOK REVIEW
Ecological Imperialism:
 The Biological Expansion of Europe 900-1900
by Alfred W. Crosby
Cambridge University Press
p. 1986

   This book is what you call "a hit."  The edition I read was printed in 1990 and represented the fifth repress.  In fact,  Ecological Imperialism is such a hit that inspired a second, even more monstrous hit: Jared Diamond's popularization of Crosby's thesis, the execrable "GUNS, GERMS & STEEL: THE FATES OF HUMAN SOCIETIES."  I'm not positive of the direct connection because I shall not stoop to read Diamond's book, but Crosby's book could have been called "Weeds, Germs & Pigs: The Creation of Neo Europe"

     Crosby's broad topic is the manner in which a handful of European nations managed to replicate their societies in places like North America, Southern South America, Australia and New Zealand.  As an initial task he needs to make the widely recognized distinction between places where European colonization resulted in the mas or menos eradication of the native populations (those places above) vs. places where the native populations retained control (Middle East, South Asia, East Asia.)

    The main thrust of Crosby's intelligent thesis is to demonstrate the biological differences between the Old Eurasian and New American/Australian worlds in terms of biology.  Europeans were the direct heirs to four thousand years of pre-European civilization stretching back to Sumer, and with that came some distinct advantages when they eventually crossed the oceans to the New World.  Specifically, European conquerors brought the small pox virus with them (in addition to a host of other diseases).  Small Pox functioned like an advance army for the Europeans, clearing the way for them before they even arrived.  No where is this more clear then within the United States, where a little known civilization with many resemblances to the Meso-American Aztec area flourished and disappeared before Europeans even got serious about exploring the place.

  Crosby also makes good on a less obvious sub thesis having to do with why European weeds were dominant in their conquest in the New World (as much as their human counterparts) while their New World equivalents wholly failed to make their presence felt on the return trip to Europe.  Here, he notes that weeds require environmental destruction to thrive (deforestation, slash and burn agriculture, etc.) and so the type of disruption caused by European colonial efforts was precisely what was required to foment the spread of European weeds (like the dandelion, for example.)

  Throughout Ecological Imperialism, Crosby goes out of his way to downplay the importance of military technology- the fact is that in every single one of the major areas where the Europeans wiped out Indigenes, diseases led the way.  And in place where diseases did not work in favor of the Europeans, the colonial experience was either a draw (South Africa, where whites held onto power but lost the population race) or an outright failure (India, China, Japan) where Europeans failed to do anything other then put down glorified trading posts.

  As it should be clear from this summary, there was no moral or "natural" superiority of one civilization vs another, only what could be called the "luck of inheritance."  The European conquerors combined their cultural inheritance with a (native) desire for expansion.  In this way, they don't deserve credit for introducing small pox to indigenes around the world, but they certainly reaped the long term rewards.

 

Thursday, April 21, 2011

James & Donna Twin Peaks: Just You & I



        Great moment from Season 2 of Twin Peaks- now streaming on Netflix.  What a cool idea for a cover song!

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

94/9 Announces Jammy Jam Bands

Independence Jam Coastal Invasion 2011
June 5, 2011
Oceanside Pier

Mainstage:
Cold War Kids
Lykke Li
Peter Bjorn & John
Band of Skulls
Everest

Casbah Stage:
The Silent Comedy
Crocodiles
Surfer Blood
The Soft Pack
Heavy Hawaii



  Let's turn it out for the Cold War Kids, all right guys?  BUY A TICKET.


 94/9 is a local radio station.

The Strokes Won Coachella 2011


   I've been to every Coachella except the first one.  On the wall in my kitchen at home, I have a triptych of photographs taken at the second Coachella.  They show me and my friends walking through a vacant field in the early evening: literally not a soul to be seen in the background.  For those of you have been, the photograph is taken in the space between the main stage and the outdoor stage.  Can you imagine taking a similar photograph at this years Coachella.  The place swarms with humanity.  It might as well be a county fair.

   It was revealed in the week before this year's show that last years event had featured widespread fence cutting, pushing the estimated attendance from the allowable 90k to something like 110k.  That revelation jibed with my subjective experience of Coachella last year, i.e. that it was a nightmare.  However, I'm a true believer in the principle that being a "victim of success" requires no further comment because success is the object of any Coachella type rock festival.  The promoters are not scheduling the show to indulge your whimsy, my indier than thou friends, they are doing it to make the money.  Thus, any fan related hand wringing about the "state of Coachella" is simply irrelevant: Coachella: TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, that's what I say.

  I took a pass on Friday's line up, mostly due to the terrible/tired Main Stage 1-2 of Kings of Leon and Chemical Brothers.  The only thing that I can think about whenever Kings of Leon is mentioned is that awesome "Kings of Leon...Shreds" video and I don't think I could have watched their set without bursting into peals of girlish laughter.  No one needs to see that.  I did, however, monitor the twitter feed of #coachella and was tickled to see people tweeting things like "Cold War Kids are KILLING IT."  Seriously? On Friday early evening?  I don't think so, bro.  And even if they are, who TWEETS that.  Sheesh.    As for Chemical Brothers, I've seen the act on the Main Stage.  They should have been anchoring the Sahara Tent- that would have been something to see.

  Saturday I arrived at 7 PM to catch the Kills.  I left half way through the Kills to catch Wire, who were playing to a handful of performing musicians and management/label types.  As a result of some strangely cruel scheduling decision Wire went directly up against Big Audio Dynamite. Ouch.  Wire was really good though, and I recommend my readers to catch them on upcoming dates in the US.

  After Wire I camped out in the VIP for the big Animal Collective/Arcade Fire finale.  Now, I am a long time hater of both bands, but that doesn't mean I lack respect for their achievements and it was BECAUSE of their achievments that I specifically decided to watch them perform live on the Coachella main stage.  Animal Collective was simply terrible.  I think most of those in the audience would have agreed, even though the critical reaction seemed chartiable, to say the least.  Are critics scared to talk shit about Animal Collective?  Well, I'm not.  They are a terrible live band, and if they want to headilne a 40k festival more then once they need to retool the live show a smidge.  Of course they won't and they are poised to have the most triumphant indie rock summer ever, but I wanted to be on the record about their live show: it sucked, ok?

  Arcade Fire was the main headliner, and I have to say that they have a commanding stage presence that makes them a formidable main stage Coachella headliner.  Also, they deliver the catharsis in the way that only a band with a very sophisticated understanding of rock and it's audience can do.  Again, I don't like their music, so some of the impact was lost, but I can objectively say that they deliver the goods to the Main Stage Saturday night Coachella audience.

  For me, the Sunday night main stage was THE reason I agreed to go this year:  I've never seen Kanye West perform live and was genuinely excited to see the the Strokes.  Before that I watched HEALTH- who are showing a softer, more rock side to their songs and live performance; as well as Best Coast, who had this year's version of the "command performance" (and maybe Sleigh Bells, too) after having a dominating 2010.

  It was funny, HEALTH's audience was, as my wife said, "A real sausage fest." Whereas Best Coast was chock a block with young girls, singing along to the lyrics and dancing.  I dunno man, I get the bro criticism of Best Coast, but fellas- what's the number one rule of indie rock?  GO WHERE THE GIRLS ARE.  That is why I am familiar with the collective work of The Sea and the Cake and Elliott Smith, and that is why young bros should tune into Best Coast: BECAUSE GIRLS LIKE IT.  But I thought that both bands "held it down" for the LA area scene, and I was proud of/for them.

  After watching the Strokes, it was clear that they won Coachella this year.  Julian's stage patter was top notch, and the live songs sounded EXACTLY like the recordings without sounding canned- they just sounded super tight.  They played their hits like gentlemen, and they generally acted cool about being at Coachella.  Not bored, not aloof, just cool.  Isn't that how a rock band is supposed to be: Have great songs and a slightly detached stage presence?  All this running and jumping around indie bullshit masks weak songs, in my opinion. If you have hits, you get to stand still on stage and make fun of the audience, that is the deal.  In my opinion, the Strokes killed it, and it was the closest I came to feeling the communitas vibe that is my objective as an audience member.

   Kanye opened strong, but the momentum was arrested by the combination of his 808 mini set and the cumulative effect of...all that...white people...dancing... The horror...the horror.  I'm sorry- I don't mean to sound like a fuddy duddy, but is Kanye West really dance music?  Do people dance to "Power" in the club?  Personally, I'm more of a mind to quietly head bob.  The white people dancing that was happening during the Kanye set is a testament to his unifying power of an artist at the top of his game, but it made me uncomfortable on a personal level, especially since so many of West's lyrics raise questions about the very inequality that this year's Coachella EMBODIED.

   By comparison, I also caught about 20 minutes of the Duck Sauce set in the Sahara tent- which also saw a lot of dancing.  For those of you who don't know Duck Sauce have a dance hit called Barbara Striesand and the joyful poly-ethnic celebration accompanying their performance of their hit had none of the uncomfortable racial overtones of the Kanye performance.


 Oh also- can someone STOP PHARELL from showing up and ruining buzz band sets? That SHIT HAS GOT TO STOP.

 Last thing- MUMFORD AND SONS splashed out this year- they were a co-winner w/ Strokes but I'm not going to put that in the headline or write about it other then to state the fact of the matter.


Brooklyn Vegan Readers Crap on Free NYC Shows: What A Bunch of Ungrateful Pricks

   Haven't mentioned Brooklyn Vegan comment section in a few months, but I was inspired by their 33 comments crapping all over the FREE South Street Seaport shows that NYC is providing them with this Summer.  What a bunch of pricks.  Ungrateful pricks.  The Brooklyn Vegan comment section is the most consistently embarrassing aspect of indie rock today. When is Brooklyn Vegan  going to clean that shit up?  (BROOKLYN VEGAN)

Cuckoo Chaos

        It’s only a matter of time before indie-rockers Cuckoo Chaos start playing bigger venues: The band recently signed to The Windish Agency, a Chicago-based booking firm that represents big names like Animal Collective, Deerhunter and Girl Talk.Founder Tom Windish will serve as the band’s booking agent, says guitarist / vocalistJackson Milgaten. “We’re stoked!” Milgaten says. They’re currently signed to Lefse Records, a record label and management company, and they’ve recorded an album that they’ve been shopping around to different labels.  (SAN DIEGO CITY BEAT)


Cuckoo Chaos (LAST FM)
Cuckoo Chaos (MYSPACE)


   One question, why is Lefse Records shopping the record around if they are a record label?  Sounds like a lack of confidence to me, or a simple misstatement on the part of the writer- could be either/or.  GO CUCKOO CHAOS AIM FOR THE STARS!!!!


    You think Lefse Records is napping up there in Sacto?  No they are not, my friends. Lefse Records never sleeps/All to bring you the hits.  TAPE DECK MOUNTAIN???? NEED I SAY MORE?

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Why Don't People Read Ivanhoe Anymore?

SIR WALTER SCOTT


















Book Review
Ivanhoe
Sir Walter Scott
p. 1820
Oxford World's Classics Edition
p. 2008
by Ian Duncan


   For the purposes of this discussion, please assume that Sir Walter Scott was the 19th century equivalent of a George Lucas or Elton John: A certified maker of hits of the literary persuasion, and by certified I mean that the cover of Ivanhoe says by "SIR Walter Scott."  That isn't some made up bullshit 20th century knighthood either, in those days, Artists had to EARN their respect.

  Walter Scott earned his popularity by blending literary trends that were already well established (Gothic) with trends that were on the rise (Historical, Regional novels.)  He punched home the message with a smooth/"modern" awareness of novelistic conventions and a trendy setting, specifically SCOTLAND.  To the extent that a modern American has an awareness of Scotland outside of ancestry, that awareness probably owes some debt to the output of Sir Walter Scott.  For example, Scott was a huge influence on American Popular Song in the early 19th century, i.e. the beginning of the tradition of American Popular Song.

  However, Ivanhoe was a critical point in Scott's career, and it was critical in the fact that it was the exact moment when sales momentum (good) reached it's height and started to peter out AND critical momentum (bad) jumped on several stylistic choices that Scott made in an attempt to retain popular appeal.  The date of original publication, 1819, comes at the very height of Scott's popularity, but also represents the point at which his status as a contemporary novelist begins to decline.  As a work of art, Ivanhoe elicited a complex reaction, but it's status as a classic hit lasted for centuries.  That is, until,

 "The most popular novel of one of the best loved of British authors throughout the nineteenth century, in the twentieth it has come to represent the decay of an unfashionable literary monument. Today its dwindling popularity can no longer outweigh the neglect or disdain of professional readers.  According to the standard modern criticism, Ivanhoe executes the fatal turn in Scott's career from a once influential historical realism (in the novels about the making of modern Scotland) to a tinsel and tushery medievalism."

  I think one of the phenomenons of social aesthetics is the way that this book started out by being a popular hit in it's original format, and over time became recycled into different media (films, other novels) while the original artistic product became forgotten.  Specifically, I'm talking about how Ivanhoe is THE touchstone for the revival of "Robin Hood" stories.  All subsequent Robin Hood revivals derive from Ivanhoe.

   And although Ian Duncan doesn't really address it directly, the fact that Ivanhoe has a "Jewish" plot line that contains some cringingily awful stereotypes puts it squarely in the corner of questionable tasteful ethnic portrayals in the 19th century novel.  Certainly if you are going to be looking at assigning Ivanhoe or say, Rob Roy, you would pick Rob Roy because of the Scottish setting.

  Regardless of current popularity, the fact that a mere sub plot of Ivanhoe (Robin Hood) has become one of the most well re-told tales of the United Kingdom is a hardy testament to the enduring quality of this novel.  In his critical introduction, Duncan slyly alludes to Ivanhoe finding kinship with the hyper aware literary post modernism of Umberto Eco and I'd have to say that he wins the point in my book.  I did appreciate the fact that Scott just fucking plunges into the middle ages like a 19th century Hunter S. Thompson.  He is not going to get bogged down by niggling details, my friend.  He will create a heroine who is referred to as "the Jewess" and is quite literally saved from being burned at the stake for witch craft by a "Black Knight" who happens to be Richard the Lion Hearted, King of England (the Robin Hood story.)

       That actually happens in this book, and god bless us, we could use a little bit more heroism in the contemporary novel.  Part of the myth making function of "HITS" in whatever genre is that they create memorable art in the mind of the reader/listener/viewer.  If you create an artistic product that is unmemorable then you have failed, my friend.

    I'm not justifying Ivanhoe as some kind of "ripping yarn," I'm saying that the baroque accumulation of detail around the central plot is highly interesting.  Ivanhoe is not...boring, in the sense that you would expect a 500 page book from the 19th century to be.  It also incorporates the flavor of gothic without really being gothic in the sense of a (relative) absence of the supernatural.  Scott proves himself to be a rationalist in the pages of Ivanhoe, after all, the main heroine is a Jewish woman, a bold move indeed for the UK in the early 19th century.

  The ability to weave styles together is an important element of success in the artistic world of mass culture.  An artist needs to master multiple styles/idioms in order to appeal to a broad swath of the general audience.  An artist also needs to be aware of what styles appeal or WOULD APPEAL to the general audience.  The career of Walter Scott is an interesting place to review this phenomenon, as well as comparing similar concerns in the work of novelists like Charles Dickens and Jane Austen.

  Oh wait, there is a book on that: Modern Romance and Transformations of the Novel: The Gothic, Scott, Dickens (1992) written by the same guy who wrote the introduction to this book!  Coincidence?


Crocodiles & Dirty Beaches April May USA Canada 2011 Tour Dates (NOT TOGETHER)

Crocodiles on tour- call them CROCOSMILES BECAUSE OF ALL THEIR SUNNY  CALIFORNIA VIBES:


April 19th, St. Louis MO @ Billiken Club
April 20th, Chicago IL @ Lincoln Hall
April 21st, Cleveland OH @ Beachland Tavern
April 23rd, Brooklyn NY @ Music Hall of Williamsburg
April 24th, Philadelphia PA @ Kung Fu Necktie
April 25th, Washington DC @ Red Palace
April 26th, Raleigh, NC @ Kings
April 27th, Atlanta GA @ The Earl
April 28th, Birmingham AL @ The Bottletree
April 29th, New Orleans LA @ Republic
April 30th, Austin TX @ Psyche Fest at Seaholm Power Plant
May 1st, Denton TX @ Rubber Gloves





DIRTY BEACHES BADLANDS USA TOUR:



04/24 Portland, OR, Holocene                           
04/26 San Francisco, CA, Rickshaw Stop
04/27 Santa Barbara, CA, Muddy Waters
04/28 Los Angeles, CA, Echo
04/29 Phoenix, AZ, Trunk Space                        
05/01 Austin, TX, Mexitas Event Center (Austin Psych Fest)                   
05/03 Dallas, TX, City Tavern                
05/05 Oxford, MS, Cats Purring
05/06 Atlanta, GA, 529
05/08 Charlotte, NC, Snug Harbor
05/09 Washington, DC, Black Cat – Backstage
05/10 Philadelphia, PA, First Unitarian Church (Side Chapel)                   
05/12 New York City, NY, Mercury Lounge
05/13 Brooklyn, NY, Glasslands
05/14 Boston, MA, Slaughterhouse Gallery        
05/16 Montreal, QC, Casa Del Popolo
05/18 Pittsburgh, PA, Brillobox
05/19 Chicago, IL, Schubas

  I PERSONALLY ENDORSE BOTH THESE ACTS AND THEIR LIVE SHOW>>>MUST SEE/BUY TICKETS IN ADVANCE--- FOLLOW YOUR FAVORITE INDIE ACTS ON TOUR AT SO|NGKICK.COM.

Blog Archive