I am so Blind (Faith).

After the Clapton/Winwood show at Madison Square Garden last night, my mind was immediately whirring with prose and rants with which to fill my blog. So, I'll write what I had originally planned, and then follow it up with what I've come to learn in the 12 hours since I plotted my initial post.

Oh, and in case you were wondering (because who wouldn't?) here is last night's setlist:
Had To Cry Today / Low Down / Forever Man / Them Changes / Sleeping In The Ground / Presence Of The Lord / Glad>Well Alright / Double Trouble / Pearly Queen / Tell The Truth / No Face / After Midnight / Split Decision / Ramblin On My Mind (Clapton solo acoustic) / Georgia On My Mind (Winwood solo Hammond B3) / Little Wing / Voodoo Chile / Can't Find My Way Home / Cocaine / Encore: Mr. Fantasy

It's hard for me to have seen Eric Clapton at MSG twice now, and not constantly compare the two performances. Yes, it was lovely to see Steve Winwood on stage with him and, yes, Clapton tears up some NASTY guitar solos. And by some, I mean for about ten minutes during each song. And I loved every minute of that. It's true, too, that Winwood hasn't lost a step vocally or keyboardally, and that his rendition of 'Georgia On My Mind' was breathtakingly sincere.

Oh, and yes, it was probably one of the highlights of my life to have seen Clapton play the Derek and the Dominoes cover of Jimi Hendrix's 'Little Wing' (see post from December)...and 'Voodoo Chile' was 15 minutes of pure bliss.

Given all of these positives, you'll be shocked to learn that the post I was planning at 11:00pm last night was one railing Clapton and Winwood for several reasons. They are as follows:

Song Choice - Aside from the obvious standouts (Cocaine, aforementioned Hendrix covers, After Midnight), I was very disappointed with the amount of standard 12-bar blues that was going on. I love to play it, I love to hear it, but in an arena with 20,000 people the energy just wasn't there until Clapton was ripping a solo (frequently). I could've definitely gone for some 'Sunshine Of Your Love' or 'Crossroads' (which he played the night before). Maybe Layla? I know it's selfish and he's probably played those tunes at least sixteen hundred times, but those old rockin' tunes really bring the house down! All I'm saying is, in 2004 when I saw Clapton with Robert Randolph (more on this later) my face was blown off by the entire show. Hard blues, slow blues...all types of blues. But in 2008, we had a bunch of midtempo tunes (including the lackluster encore, 'Mr. Fantasy') that kept the energy at a steady 7+ instead of the 9-10 that is expected of a Clapton show.

Musician Choice - I have been spoiled. I've seen some of the best guitarists play with some of the best drummers in the best venues. Having seen Clapton play with Randolph at MSG four years ago, I can safely say that Clapton is capable of using his smooth and make-it-look-easy hand to keep a capacity crowd up and moving for close to three hours. He is stoic, and his facial contortions don't come close to matching those of some other guitarists. He sways in place, his hand flying up and down the fretboard, his chinless face tilted with eyes closed toward the rafters and banners of the great Knicks and Rangers, and while his guitar wails and wails some of the most impressive notes ever uttered, he seems unphased by it all, as though his status as one of the greatest guitarists ever, and the roar of tens-of-thousands of screaming fans (who range from pimply teens to geriatric Hippies) are left beneath him as he launches himself to heights only known by late-greats like Hendrix, Allman or Vaughn. It's as if, in order to maintain his earth shifting and epic virtuosity, he must appear as nonchalant as possible.

But Winwood and Clapton made for a sleepy pair. Winwood does not have the guitar chops to play next to Clapton, and was simply dwarfed by the prodigious and entertaining solos that he laid down. He does, of course, have the organ/piano/vocal chops to play with him, but during those moments they could have really used another guitarist.

The bassist and keyboardist, Willie Weeks and Chris Stainton, respectively, were outstanding. Stainton was given only one solo during the two-plus hour set, and he used it impressively to bring 'Cocaine' to a climax that only seemed possible if flowing from Clapton's guitar. Weeks spent the majority of the night in the shadow of drummer Ian Thomas (much, much more on him in a minute), but really held the rhythm section together.

My biggest complaint about the musician choice is not so much the fact that Ian Thomas got the call, because he was more than sufficient, but more about the fact that Steve Gadd, Clapton's drummer for more than 30 years, was passed over. For those of you who don't know, which I assume is most of you, Gadd is a legendary contemporary drummer who revolutionized the way rock drummers play. The chance to see him play, which I've had on several previous occasions, is one that I was looking forward to having again last night. I'm sure Gadd wasn't snubbed by Clapton like Johnny Greenwood was by The Academy, but if I'm Eric Clapton planning a three-night MSG stint, I will make sure that Steve Gadd is behind that kit.

This ends the intended post from the hours of 11:00pm 2/26/2008 to 11:00am 2/27/2008.

Thus begins my retraction:

Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood were in a band together in the late 1960s called Blind Faith (with Ginger Baker and Ric Grech). As foolish as this is going to sound, I didn't have sight of this last night. I did no preparation for the show by listening to the one and only Blind Faith album, aptly titled Blind Faith. At one point before the show, my dad even turned to me and said, "You know, I think I still have that Blind Faith album," and I still wasn't able to put it all together and realize that Clapton and Winwood were not just randomly taking the stage together. Instead, they were reuniting after almost 40 years apart.

How could I have been so blind? I'm sure that I knew that Blind Faith existed, but I am ashamed to say that I didn't even consider it last night. This makes completely illegitimate my complaints about both song choice and, at least in part, musician choice. If I had been familiar with my material, I'm sure I would have been positively ecstatic to be party to the four-decades-in-the-making Blind Faith revival.

My problem last night was all about expectations. I expected Gadd, but got Ian Thomas. I was looking for a Robert Randolph, but was dealt a Steve Winwood. I even thought I'd be hearing some Cream and maybe even some Reptile, but I should have been listening for Blind Faith. It's amazing how some background can change your perceptions, and I experienced that twice in the last 12 hours. After learning that Ian Thomas isn't a noname at all, but a very up-and-coming British drummer, and that Winwood and Clapton have almost a half-century of history together, I am much more accepting of those aspects of last night's concert to which I was initially vehemently opposed. Having acquired this new information and gained this new perspective, I am happy to set aside my harsh judgments in favor of appreciation for the fact that last night, I witnessed music history.

iPurgatory

Lately I have been utterly overwhelmed by the vastness that has become my music collection. And, thanks to a certain roommate who has music o' plenty as well, it is ever-growing. To add to that, Pitchfork Media reviews thousands of new albums and I read one every day. When I'm interested, I (illegally) download it and give it a shot. I'd say, on average, I acquire two new albums every week.

This is the biggest problem with our generation and the digital music era for me: over-access (similar to and also resulting in over-excess). We all suffer from this deep-seated boredom that results from overstimulation which has, in turn, resulted from our infinite and immediate access to information and entertainment and virtually (and digitally) anything else we could want to get our hands on. My iTunes has over 16 days of music in it. SIXTEEN DAYS. I could let my music play continuously in my room for 2 weeks and I still wouldn't have gotten through my entire library of music. So, simply from a time perspective, there is no way that I have listened to or will ever listen to all of the music that I own at this point (or next week when I get two more albums).

The task of handling my music becomes even more daunting when one considers that out of approximately 30 gigabytes of music, I can only fit a measly 18+ on my iPod. That means that every time I get one of these new and mysterious Pitchfork-recommended albums, I have to remove one from my iPod in order to give it listening time. And, with my current rate of turnover, I am removing two albums from my iPod every week! How am I supposed to get a solid rotation of music into my life when my library is constantly shifting and my choices are being ceaselessly upended?

The answer is a simple one: Get a smaller iPod. Or...Get a bigger iPod. Or...carry "Compact Discs" around with a "Walkman" in order to limit my listening capacity to one album at a time. But that isn't the point...the point is this:

Like never before, I find myself unable to answer the question "What type of music do you listen to?" At one point I had developed the witty response of, "Anything that I can hear more than once and still feel like I'm listening for the first time." That's a great answer. The problem is, nowadays, with my 4,000 or so songs, oftentimes I am listening to songs for the first time. So now, my answer is something like "Oh, you know...everything." Or, even better, just a simple "Radiohead." Is that what I've become? A one-band man? I mean, we all know I love Radiohead an uncomfortable amount, but I wouldn't dream of saying that it's the only thing I listen to or the way I define my musical tastes. One time, I even had the audacity to say "John Mayer," as if that would either a) make me look cool b) encompass the types of music that I like or c) make me feel good about the fact that I answered "John Mayer" to the question "What type of music do you like?". And I guess that's the problem...I listen to a ton of music -- hours every day -- but I don't listen to a whole lot of anything in particular anymore. What used to make me such an educated listener, namely my eclectic taste and my open mind, are exactly the same aspects of my music-listening-self that have led me to the music purgatory in which I currently reside and suffer.

I used to go through "phases" of listening. You know the type...from sophomore year of high school until sophomore year of college I had my Dave Matthew Band phase. From the earliest age possible until now I have been in both my Billy Joel and Beatles phases. When I first started downloading music and expanding my ever-eclectic collection, phases were still an option. Bright Eyes was one of the first and last phases to start in the digital age (for me, at least), and it's one that I'm not entirely out of yet. But I haven't had a new phase since Bright Eyes, and that was just after the DMB phase ended three years ago.

Over the past few days I've resolved to at least stop shuffling the 3,500 songs that can fit onto my iPod. After all, we know how unreliable the "shuffle" feature can actually be. I only have 10 Madonna songs out of over THREE THOUSAND and somehow, miraculously by chance, the iPod manages to play three in a row on shuffle?! Yeah, that's fair. Now, you might ask, "Why keep Madonna on your iPod or even in your iTunes if you have such disdain for her existence?" And to that I have no good answer, but one that perfectly explains why I got into this predicament in the first place. It is simply a compulsion of mine to collect music and not get rid of it under most conceivable circumstances given the fact that I have over 120 Gigs of available space on my computer.

So, in an effort to rectify my iPod's secret agenda to play only the songs that it somehow knows I am not willing to listen to that I keep on my iPod for no reason anyway, I have ceased shuffling and taken up the task of choosing my own music. I am only on Day 2 of this experiment, but so far I seem to be doing well(ish). Yesterday on the way to work I tried (upon a Pitchfork recommendation) "Heretic Pride" by The Mountain Goats (2008). I enjoyed every song, though it was boring at times. After work I went with the lighthearted 2004 album "Twentysomething" by Jamie Cullum, and today I tried a new one (from Pitchfork, of course): "Boxer" by The National. So far so good.

It's still a struggle, though, every time I go to that vast and intimidating "Artists" list and scroll through the masses. And each trip through Artistsland means a subsequent trip through Albumsland, and inevitably leaves me trapped in the musical wasteland that is my own, personal, iPurgatory.

Back to Music: A Liberty DeVitto Story

After my brief foray into politics, I'm back on the music train. Two weeks ago I went to a "friends and family" concert at The Cutting Room (see several previous posts). Thanks to the Genslers, my Dad and I were able to get in to see the New York City Hit Squad, which is comprised of various musicians from the 70s getting together and covering blues tunes.

Most importantly, the drummer for NYCHS is none other than Liberty DeVitto. Liberty drummed with Billy Joel for...oh, I don't know...about 30 YEARS. I first saw him when I was about 7, then a few more times over the next few years, and though I wasn't a drummer then I remembered his setup and used it as a model for my own when the time came. In this way, Liberty really was the most influential drummer for me during my formidable first years of learning.

Let me preface the rest of this story by saying that one of the main reasons I had even wanted to see NYCHS was because it promised a chance to see the man himself up close and personal. As we sat in the lobby of the bar eating dinner, I looked up and who do I see standing across the room? You guessed it...the man himself, up close and personal. I almost shat myself. I felt like a teenage girl from 1998 at a Hanson concert. Or a Backstreet Boys concert. Or a...well, you get the point.

So, I excitedly choked my way through dinner and we made our way into the concert lounge. The show kicked off with a nasty little blues tune, and Liberty was...well...he was...not that great. His 57 year old body seemed to need some time to warm up. At first it was a great shock and disappointment to me. The wind was abruptly sucked out of my sails. I turned to my Dad with a pained look, and he knew what I was thinking.

"He probably just needs some time to warm up," he told me comfortingly.

Maybe, I thought. I kept my mind open. I didn't want to see my first drumming idol torn down before my very eyes. So I waited. And waited. And finally, about five songs into the set, he came out of his shell. It was a New Orleans backbeat groove, and he just started rockin' the shit. I mean he was really all over the place. In a good way.

He kept rockin' for about 2 more hours. The songs were about as old as the guys on stage, but it didn't matter. It really was impressive how well the harmonies worked, and how instantaneously these guys seem to just fit together despite their admitted lack of practice.

After the show was over and we were on our way out, I saw Liberty leave the stage. I had my window of opportunity...my palms were sweating and I let out a meek little yelp that drew some sympathetic laughter from my Dad. And there I stood, facing the first drummer I ever revered.

I put out my hand, and said in one long burst, "Hi, Mr. DeVitto. I'm Jake and IsawyouforthefirsttimewhenIwas7... andwhenIgotmyfirstdrumsetImodelleditafteryours," took a breath, "and it's a real honor to meet you."

"Nice to meet you, Jake. Are you still playing? Do you play out at all?"

"Oh, yes, Mr. DeVitto. I'm in a few bands and we play in the city as often as we can. I usually come here every Monday night for the open jam. You should come sometime!" (The leader of the jam, you may remember, is Richie Cannata, Billy Joel's saxophonist during Liberty's days with the band.)

"Richie's Jam? Yeah, I've been a few times, but not recently. Well, keep practicing!" He left me with a humble smile.

The disappointment of the first few songs was eons behind me as my mouth hung open with disbelief and privilege. I turned again to my Dad, with eyes open as wide as my mouth, and managed to whisper solemnly, "I just met Liberty DeVitto."

Awestruck, I sauntered out of the bar and into the cold New York night.

Frontrunner

Does it make me a frontrunner if I all of a sudden throw my support behind Barack Obama?

Oh...it does?

I don't care.

A Stereo Sun Goes To Washington (A Special Election 2008 Edition)

Could there have been a worse time for the worst president in our nation's history to be in power? Terrorism and disease at home and around the world, genocide and poverty worsening worldwide by the day, and climate change becoming more apparent with every passing season. Leave it to W. to deal completely ineffectively with these issues. I mean, could the world have picked a worse time to have this guy lead the charge for change? A man who is staunchly against anyone who is not a) white b) Christian c) American d) straight and e) all of the above. A man who still doesn't know that it's only 100 degrees year-round in Crawford, Texas because he has barely ever left the ranch. And, most depressingly, a man who has managed to take the the opportunity for American to become a world innovator and leader in the fight against the milieu of detriments wreaking havoc in "developing nations," and turn it into an embarrassment, make our country a feared laughingstock, and alienate us from virtually every one of our ostracized allies.

Well loyal readers and friends, after months of being an "undecided" voting citizen -- and even some consideration of abstention from voting -- I have come to a consensus with myself that is sure to stick for at least a week. But seriously, I've done my research this time, and since the Savior John Kerry isn't running this time for me to blindly throw my support behind (and what a shame), I had to pick a new champion for the Democratic party.

Could it be Hillary Clinton? Well, since it's the first name that I mentioned it's safe to say that it's not her, but let me tell you why. Not only has she spent her entire senate career in the pocket of major corporate contributors and lobbyist, but she defends this position and does not claim that she will cease her moneymongering. In fact, she says that these corporations represent her constituency (or at least her wealthiest and fewest constituents) so she will continue, even in the presidency, to act on their behalf. In 2003 when it was up to the senate to stop President Bush and Cockbag Cheney from invading Iraq, Clinton was part of the bloc of Democrats that voted in favor of allowing military action with few limits and no timetable for reevaluation. And, I hate to get personal, but I doubt the moral character of a woman who unequivocally stays with a husband (albeit the President) that cheats on her numerous times, gets caught numerous times, lies publicly about it numerous times, and then gets caught in his lies numerous times. (I love Bill Clinton as much as the next faithful Democrat, and he is an admirable humanitarian and activist, but he was (is?) a shitty and mean husband...doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see him back in that office, though). Oh, and...doesn't she just sound like she is constantly condescending you? If Bush represents the common idiot, she represents the elitist asshole that is addicted to the double-talk (a.k.a. Parsing) that is second in the ruination of this country's media only to the "I cannot recall"s of the Bush Administration. For example, from the debate on October 30, Senator Clinton says:

On Iraq:
1. "I stand for ending the war in Iraq, and bringing our troops home."
2. "We're going to have troops remaining there guarding our embassy, a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission against Al Qaeda in Iraq."

On Social Security:
1. "With respect to social security, I do have a plan." (Note: she did not elaborate)
2. "I am not advocating any specific fix until I am approaching fiscal responsibility."

On Immigration (specifically the plan to give illegal immigrants in New York the right to drivers licenses):
1. "I would not say it should be done, but I recognize why Gov. Spitzer is trying to do it."
2. "It makes a lot of sense. What is the Governor supposed to do?"
3. "Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No."

So, as you can plainly see, it is virtually impossible to know enough about what Senator Clinton truly intends to do if she becomes president to have faith in her ability to lead.

Could it be Bill Richardson? Aside from the fact that the state he runs (sorry New Mexico) has been 49th in the nation in education for at least the past 3 years and was named the “dumbest” state for three years in a row (2002-2004) in one national ranking...wait there is no aside from that fact. It's enough to rule him out.



The golden boy...Barak Obama? Critics say he's inexperienced and undeserving of this nation's highest post, but many said the same about Kennedy. And between the Bay of Pigs and the nuclear standoff with Russia they may have been right about him. Obama is a compelling option. He is fiery, charismatic, Black, speaks eloquently, and has great policy ideas. He is pro civil union, pro-choice, and has a comprehensive universal healthcare plan. Did Obama vote to allow us into Iraq? No chance. Would I be satisfied with Obama? Absolutely. Would I be more satisfied with him having about...say...8 years more experience? Without a doubt. Also, any man who threatens military action in Pakistan at this point in America's history needs a serious psychological evaluation.

It seems to me that there is only one viable candidate left to talk about, and that would be Mr. John Edwards (www.johnedwards.com). Over the past few weeks I've been reading through the candidate's websites and have left each one completely disenfranchised. My hopes for this election were dwindling, and between the Corporate-Clinton and the naive Obama I was ready to tune out for good.

Of course, it is hard to know whom to trust. It seems like the last thing this country needs is another Southern-drawl, smiling, nodding, sweet-talking, pompous ass. A woman or African-American may just be the catalyst for the change we so desperately need. Does Edwards sound phony? Is he constantly blowing smoke up my ass? To be honest, it does sound like it at times. But his voting record speaks for itself (except for that little Iraq vote...oops). John Edwards has NEVER accepted money from a PAC (lobbyist) or corporation with a wish-list. He has a 100% record with Planned Parenthood, an original and effective universal healthcare plan (copied by Hillary Clinton months later), supports the separation of Church and State, believes in equal rights for people of all sexual orientations in civilian and military life, supports troop reduction and withdrawal within 1 year, and has plans to significantly reduce carbon emissions EVEN IN LARGE CORPORATIONS by 2010. Overall, his decades of legislative (unfortunately not executive) experience will be wisely used in guiding his effective governance of our country.

I have been searching for the perfect candidate, and I now realize that there is no such thing. However, John Edwards is the only candidate that makes me feel like I will not be voting for the lesser of two evils. He stands for something important, and is willing to work to mend America's broken image and repair our fracture place in the global community.

Still, though...I really wish Al Gore were running.

Christmas Music: More Like...ChristmASS Music

Let me set the scene:

2007 years ago, a little babyJesus was born in a manger in Bethlehem. Three Kings were guided by a star to visit him with gifts because, of course, they knew he was the savior of the human race. (Note: 2007 years later, the human race is still far from saved...but that is for another day.) This is the story of Christmas as we all know it. Then, although we take a 30 year break from his life, a 30-year-old babyJesus has undergone a spiritual transformation, and the rest is history.

But what happened in those 30 years? Did babyJesus have a psychotic break and start believing he was the son of God? (Happy Hanukkah, by the way.) Did he go into a cave in the desert and shroom or take peyote for 12 days straight, only to come out having heard the voice of the Lord, his father? More importantly, did that voice tell him that 2007 years later his peaceful teachings and claims of saviorhood would be twisted and contorted into the worst form of musical torture ever imagined?

Now, those of you who know me will remember this side of me from such episodes as "Jake Doubts His Faith" and "Jake Becomes an Athiest," or even more recent ones such as "Jake Searches for Spiritual Answers" and "Jake Learns to Meditate." If you've known me for more than 5 years, you may even remember a time in my life in which I may have been considered sarcastic, cynical, and even bitingly hilarious. For the remainder of this post, I will slip back (in fact, I already have) into that frame of mind. There will be little intellectual musical conversation, if any at all, and I will rant and rant about how bitter I am about how God/babyJesus-awful Christmas music is.

(Another note: I truly despise all holiday music, including but not limited to Adam Sandler's "Hanukkah Song," but this post is dedicated to the most popular of holiday musics: that which is composed and recorded for and about Christmas.)

There are some bands, namely the Trans Siberian Orchestra, one John Lennon song, and one Dave Matthews Band song that is never played on the radio, that lend credence to the feelings that Christmas music is at all worthwhile. However, I hardly think that two songs can overturn almost a century of tortuous whining about little drummer boys and holy and/or silent nights. This was all much more of a problem for me when I had to drive to school every morning without a CD player in my car or be a three-year-old running errands with a mother who doesn't mind Christmas music at all. Nowadays, I use the ole iPod or Pandora and am able to avoid the entire month of December on the radio. Sure, I go to Duane Reade and the bank and the grocery store and get immediately bombarded with holiday spirit. And for those 10 minutes, I want to hurt everyone in the store. Luckily the sound of jingling sleigh bells can hardly be heard at all over the full volume of my headphones.

I think the worst part about Christmas music is that it is neverchanging. I don't know how many times I have heard Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band cover "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," but I can tell you that on any given radio station that is owned by ClearChannel it is played at least twice an hour. I simply don't understand how people aren't sick of the same songs year in and year out. I heard a Josh Groban version of "Oh, Holy Night" the other day in the doctor's office and I nearly walked out. How many times does some oversinging, overhyped trendy artist have to cover Christmas songs before the act loses its novelty? For God's sake, even NSync had a Christmas album.

It's as if the state of the music industry weren't bad enough already...instead of giving a month over to talented new artists, radio stations dedicate 11 of 12 months to Beyonce, Chingy (sorry, bro), Fall Out Boy, etc. and 1/12 to the same Christmas music as last year, the year before that, and back and back until 1985 (probably before, but I can only attest to the past 22.5 years).

Maybe it's not Christmas music that bothers me...maybe it's just the dumbness with which everyone seems to fit right into the status quo that enjoys what Christmas and its subsequent style of generic, repetitive, mind-numbing music represent. As one wise sage (Douglas V. Bermingham) puts it, "You seem to be saying that Christmas bothers you because it's the apex of our cultural year. it is a time of the greatest consumption of everything (extended out as long as possible). As for the music end of it, it promotes idle drifting back to a time when everyone in the country was, for lack of a better word, brainwashed into associating happiness with presents, presents and presents...and i think we should get some peyote."

Now with Streaming Audio!

Along the right section of the blog, at the bottom, you'll now see a little mp3 player. I'll change the song frequently, and for now it is playing "Little Wing" by Jimi Hendrix, in honor of my last post. Enjoy!