In “Eating the Dinosaur,” Chuck Klosterman writes that the world’s cultural memory is expanding. For evidence, he points out that in Back To The Future, Marty from 1985 calls Johnny B. Goode an oldie before playing it for a bunch of 1955 teenagers. Johnny B. Goode came out in 1958, 27 years before Back To The Future came out. Billie Jean came out in 1983, but nobody’s calling it an oldie. (Not to be confused with the capital ‘O’ Oldies section of 50s rock in some record stores).
Maybe the cultural memory is expanding because of technology, longer lifespans, etc., I don’t know. I’m bringing this up because I went to a music student showcase yesterday and heard a 14-year-old play the Blink-182 song Dammit, which came out in 1997, when the singer covering it was 1 or 2 years old. The kid was really into playing this song; it seemed like an emotional experience for him. He was relating to Dammit the way kids born in 1983 related to it when it was new and they were 14.
That kid rocking out to Dammit would be like me, at age 14, earnestly rocking out to Wang Chung, Tiffany, Huey Lewis or any of the other hits of 1987.
Two fun asides:
When I was 14, Dammit was 2-years-old and completely old and uncool.
Tiffany and Billy Idol both had hits in 1987 with covers of Tommy James songs that were hits 19 and 20 years prior. That’d be like someone today having a hit with a Nirvana or Pixies cover. While today’s hitmakers probably still dig those acts, why would a band release a single of I Bleed, when the Pixies are still playing it live? Also, the Pixies still playing live and drawing big crowds of hipsters is like if Tommy James toured through the 80s and had thousands of teenagers lining up to watch him rock out to Hanky Panky.
Color Me Badd had a hit in 1991, and the biggest influence they’ve had on this generation’s culture is as the inspiration for the “Dick in a Box” skit. So maybe this new generation (my generation) is faster to idolize or mock the ‘oldies’ of modern times.
When Mike Judge was on Fresh Air in August, Terry Gross asked him how he came up with voices for King of the Hill characters. She called Boomhauer’s stream-of-consciousness blurts “A postmodern mumble.” I laughed at the description, but when I watched a rerun of King of the Hill later, I almost saw where Gross was coming from.
King of the Hill might be a postmodern cartoon. It’s humor usually comes from depicting mundane situations with such accuracy that they seem ridiculous. It’s almost like the writers spend half of every episode denying they’re making a cartoon. Some scenes play so straight they’re almost documentary. Boomhauer’s voice is one of the silliest on the show, but it’s not the funniest to me. Characters on the show that talk like normal people, with normal names like Jimmy Whichard who say normal things are funny because they’re characters on the show. And the show is a cartoon.
But King of the Hill might not be postmodern. Saying it is would over-philosophize the show and–in many ways–undermine the writers’ comedic chops. They’re being funny, and if the pursuit of humor leads to a show that can be philosophical, I’d give more credit to the writers for achieving their goal of comedy than for being (possibly) inadvertently po-mo.
The aggressive dryness turns some people off from King of the Hill. I have friends who say it’s too close to home and others who say it’s just not funny enough for them to watch. I can understand what they mean, and I can’t fault them for not liking the show’s style. The only criticism that really bothers me comes from those who say King of the Hill pushes right-wing ideas.
I’m not generally interested in knowing if people are liberals or conservatives, but the political approach to King of the Hill irks me because I just don’t think the show is politically conservative. People who think otherwise generally point out that Hank is the show’s protagonist, and he’s a conservative. Having a Reaganite come out on top in every episode might seem like a way to champion conservatism, but it’s not too often that Hank ‘wins’ at the end of the episode. The story arc usually leads Hank to a conflict with someone socially or politically opposed to him–government workers, psychologists, environmentalists–and ends with a resolution that does little to change the show’s canon. Hank at the end of the episode seems just like Hank at the beginning of the episode. He doesn’t die and he doesn’t dramatically change his life. Even if Hank reaches a happy resolution at the end of the show, it’s rarely because he defeats the antagonists. There’s always a compromise on Hank’s part.
For example, in one episode, Peggy and Hank fight over her role in the family. Frustrated with Hank’s apparent rebuke of her freedom, Peggy starts hanging around with feminist folk singers. She learns to play guitar and writes a song about a female turtle who is stuck in her shell. It’s an obvious metaphor for the Hills’ domestic life, and Peggy’s new friends love it. When Peggy performs the song at a guitar student showcase, she sees Hank in the back of the crowd, having come to terms with Peggy’s independence. She changes the song’s lyrics mid-performance, and ends up being ostracized by her new friends for singing about loving her husband. It might seem like Hank’s lifestyle won the day in this episode, but without his ability to compromise, the conflict wouldn’t have been resolved. The episode doesn’t undermine Peggy’s point of view, it shows the necessity of open-mindedness. Hank was stubborn and Peggy’s logic and passion made him change. Similarly, Peggy retreated from her position, and the episode showed the benefits of finding a medium between two comfort zones. If King of the Hill is pushing ideas, it’s pushing centrism here.
In another episode, Peggy is assigned to substitute teach a sex-ed class. At first, Hank refuses to accept that his son Bobby is going to learn reproductive health in school, let alone from Peggy. Hank can’t draw himself to discuss sex with his son, and he tells his wife she is forbidden from teaching the class. Peggy persists and Hank refuses to sign Bobby’s permission slip for the class. When the sex-ed day comes, Bobby goes with Hank to work. In Hank’s office, Bobby repeats a few of his dad’s arguments, and Hank realizes the necessity for sex-ed and appreciates Peggy’s bravery for teaching the class. He takes Bobby to school, where Bobby is the only student with permission to take the class. At that point, the Hills seem like the most logical family in Arlen, even though they’re raging liberals, comparatively.
The last, and possibly best, example comes from guest-star Chris Rock. In an early episode, Rock plays a comedian named Booda Sack who teaches Hank’s traffic school course. Hank doesn’t like Booda Sack’s abrasive or racially-charged jokes and ends up getting Booda Sack fired. Meanwhile, Bobby idolizes the comic and takes his own turn at abrasive and racially-charged humor. Booda Sack lets Bobby try out the act at the comedy club. When Hank finds out, he rushes to the club and stops Bobby in the middle of an unintentionally offensive stand-up set. When the crowd turns on them both, Booda Sack comes to the duo’s defense, and gives the audience a lecture about freedom of speech. The episode ends with Hank getting Booda Sack a job at Strickland Propane, where they trade “Your mama” jokes.
This episode highlights two of the ways Hank compromises in the show. First, he accepts that people like what Booda Sack does, so his own opposition to it doesn’t matter. He even lightens up enough to give it a try, taking a huge step out of his comfort zone. Second, Hank realizes that he can’t raise Bobby the way he wants to, and copes with it. He wants the best for Bobby, and accepts that he doesn’t know what that is. He knows that Bobby won’t be like him, and he gradually becomes okay with that. He changes his values to make peace with himself and the world around him. He isn’t trying to change the world, but just go along with it. That’s not political.
With almost every conflict in King of the Hill, the only resolution is rational compromise. The show doesn’t advocate one point of view–it champions the ability to change. No one in the show ever gets what they want, and they always end up happy. King of the Hill isn’t liberal or conservative…it’s moderate, and apolitically so. It doesn’t want to tell you what to think, it wants you to stop thinking you’re right.
It might seem like nonpartisan centrism is a boring thing to promote in a cartoon, but King of the Hill is boring. It’s boring on purpose, and that’s what makes it funny. So if the writers decide to extoll a political principle, it seems obvious that they would push for the belief that would be funniest in context. For a prime-time Fox cartoon sitcom that followed The Simpsons–and later preceded Family Guy–to champion social compromise is hilarious. It’s so funny that it seems possible the writers don’t want to espouse any philosophy, but are just going for laughs in the most unsuspected way. After all, they’re making a cartoon, and if that’s a postmodern way to make a cartoon, so be it, it’s also a funny way to make a cartoon.
In 2000, Hank went to a political rally and was so let down by George W. Bush’s clammy handshake that he considered not voting at all in the election. He eventually cast a ballot, but did’t say who he’d voted for. Whether he gave up his belief in the Republican Party and voted for Gore or whether he abandoned his image of presidents as tough, hard-gripped leaders and voted for Bush doesn’t matter. It made for a funny 22 minutes.
Regret – I didn’t make anybest of lists for 2009, and even if I had kept them to myself, it would have been nice to chronicle something. I do have a few favorites of the decade, including Sea Change, Royal Tenenbaums, Assassination Vacation, Radiolab, Age of Persuasion, Breaking Bad and Arrested Development.
Only in moderation – I’m studying cocktails and mixology, hoping to create a signature drink for myself. I’m pretty good with Manhattans, Black Russians and Lime Rickeys.
And if I’m making drinks – I should become a better cook. I’m not horrible, but my repertoire is limited to a few soups, spaghetti squash and other vegetable sides.
Looking back to 2009 - I read a few articles and a book on Carl Jung. I’m looking to explore him further, but I think I need to study his influences and contemporaries before going deeper.
I was ogling a friend’s new camera last night when I set my first New Year’s Resolution. I’m going to take a picture every day. I’ve always liked looking at other people’s photo-a-day projects, and I’m hoping to make something other people will enjoy seeing, too.
I’ve set a few rules for myself:
Each photo has to be at least a little thoughtful: no quick snapshots before bed.
No staging photos. If I want to go out to take pictures, fine, but no regular photo hunts or sessions for the daily shots.
Each photo should say something about the day it was taken–what I did, how I felt, etc.
I’ll use any camera I can for the pictures: either my iPhone, point-and-shoot Nikon or larger Sony.
So, here’s the Flickr album where I’ll post photos. I may not post one photo every day, but I’ll try to stay as current as possible.
And here is the first photo. It’s a set of party sunglasses in my building’s laundry room.
Years ago, when I was programming music for my college radio station, I came up with an idea for a radio music show. The show would be a block of songs that all have an obscure theme or bizarre cliche. I never made this show, but I still put together themed playlists whenever I get a good idea. Some of my favorites are:
Songs that start with countoffs
Songs that start with countoffs that aren’t in 4/4 time
Rock songs in 3/4 time
Songs with drum tracks in reverse
Songs released before 9/11 with singers calling themselves terrorists
Songs about writing songs
Songs with references to bands playing other songs
Songs with false starts: the band starts playing, stops, acknowledges a mistake, and starts over.
Songs that mention sodas that aren’t name-brand (Orange Crush alone gets 4 or 5 shout-outs)
Songs about train accidents
This last list, combined with a recent revisit of the Robert Moses biography got me working on songs about public transportation in cities. There are so many New York singers who mention the subway that I decided to exclude passing references (Dylan’s “Girls” who “Whisper of escapades out on the D train”) to subways or buses. I kept songs with public transportation references that are crucial to the plot or overall tune. (For example, Cloud Room’s Hey Now Now made the list. Itisn’t about riding the bus, but a bus figures into the title reference in the chorus. “Hey now now/we’re going downtown/we’ll take the bus there/pay the bus fare.” I kept it on the list.)
Two of the standouts, though, take a stand against some part of public transit. They’re also both parodies.
The first is Charlie on the MTA. While the folk tradition allows borrowed melodies, this song reworks The Ship That Never Returned to take a jab at Boston’s complicated MTA schedule and payment rules. The last verse is a direct political appeal, too.
Here’s Brian Dewan singing it:
The second song is a more outright parody. It’s Dave Van Ronk’s Georgie on the IRT. This is a parody of Engine 143 — a violent train death song popularized by The Carter Family.
This exploration into song themesled to a fascination with pre-rock songs that address municipal concerns. Brian Dewan (who performed Charlie on the MTA in the video above) started an archiving project of sorts for these songs a few years ago. His album Words of Wisdom is a collection of largely-forgotton parlor ditties from before 1950. One of the tracks, Civil War, is about a fight over sewer lines in a small town.
So the purpose of this post is…
To point out an interested trend in popular music.
To ask: Does anyone know of any other sources for songs like this?
To also ask: Are there any other sources for music sorted by theme online? (Yes, I’m aware of Bob Dylan’s satellite radio show)
While this is a toy, I think it’s worthwhile to imagine a future without physical print media. I think Steven Johnson would agree that while it’s fine great to read, it isn’t anti-intellectual to favor other forms of mental stimulation.
This is a post about paying for text online. This is just one, kind of fantastical, idea. In general, I like free content the way it is now. I just want better UIs.
Now…let’s start with this video:
Yes, the tablet looks amazing, but I’m more excited about the fact that Time Inc. made this video. I’ve heard rumors of iTunes-like stores for magazines and I love the idea. I think some publishers could learn a lot from the music industry’s digital failures.
I love reading books. I love reading magazines. I think e-book readers are grand, but I want a good design. Typography, layouts, color. These are important to me in magazines. (Books on e-ink…great! But they can’t really be shared yet. By the way, which one of you readers has my copy of Breakfast of Champions?)
But back to the online marketplace. Why stop at magazines in iTunes? Why not sell individual articles (and related interactive content) for a lower price, but make some pieces only available with a whole magazine purchase? (Like with certain tracks on iTunes) Why not sell short stories from collections one at a time? I use Eucalyptus for the iPhone to read short stories and essays and I’d pay to read something outside of the public domain…I just don’t want to have to buy a whole book or magazine for one or two pieces.
I think selling magazines this way makes sense for writers. Publications could accept more freelance pieces and have some store-only stories. Quality content costs money, but there are inherent savings in a format like the one featured above. How much is spent on printing and distribution and how much would have to be spent on a qualified production staff? Maybe an a la carte model for publications will lead to a new pay structure for contributors. (I’m hoping this will somehow lead to a writer-centric market.)
Now there is the fact that text is free from so many sources online. For magazines that normally put content online for a period of time, switching to a pay model will be difficult, if not impossible. Perhaps archives for non-subscribers (a-la The New Yorker or Harpers) would work. Or maybe these publications will have to offer something more than the text for the money.
But maybe there’s a concern among publishers that no one will buy a whole magazine if they can get the best parts for free. To this, I say Tough. CDs and cassettes made it too easy for labels to wrap filler around singles and mark up the price. Online distribution has helped revive a great medium with a/b sides, and the web could do the same thing for short stories, essays and long-form reporting that isnt already available for free. Micro-payments dont make much sense without something more being offered.
And if a publication is worried about individuals picking and choosing, why not step up the whole magazine? If an issue can offer a good enough experience all-around, I’ll go buy it, even if I can get the individual stories online for free. A publisher and editor should strive to have a package that people want to hold on to. The layouts should be well-done. The articles should be in the right order. It’s a production and too often publishers seem to forget this. Get out the size-wheels and Pantone swatches…or learn to use their digital equivalents.
The magazine in the video looks like a complicated multimedia production. But then again, so did some of the best websites and blogs 10 years ago. A digital format for magazines could democratize the industry. I was interactive editor of my school magazine, and we put out a print and multimedia issue with a part-time staff of 15 students. A group of dedicated professionals (or aspiring professionals) could do the same thing, only faster and better. Plus there would be a revenue stream through the iTunes-esque store.
I don’t think this model will work for newspapers. I already mentioned micro-payments and consistently free content as reasons why a conversion might be difficult, so I won’t go further into this. Plus, what do I know?
The McSweeney’s iPhone application shows that small publishing houses can create quality multimedia around quality text. McSweeney’s is at an advantage, here, though, in that the paid features they offer were never previously available for free. I think people are still interested in reading something that isnt a book or a few paragraphs, but there arent many curators of fine essays and short stories in the digital realm. I know something like a tablet magazine will take years to develop and become ubiquitous, but in the meantime, I’ll keep hitting refresh on the video.
Linda says this month’s eight isn’t really eight. It’s just a bunch of requests for information. That’s true. I’m trying to get away from anything that’s too much of an endorsement and have a looser style with the monthly eight. I’m not sure what I really want from the monthly eight, but I think I’m getting close.
But it can’t all be funny – I’m reading Among the Thugs. It’s a disturbing account of the soccer riots caused by Manchester United’s supporters in the late 80s and early 90s. I’m eager to read an academic book on crowd theory. Any recommendations?
Speaking of soccer – There’s a European cup coming up…do any Louisville-based readers know of any bars or restaurants that show the games?
Back to number 3 – This is my final request for a recommendation: Can anyone suggest a good overview of certain prominent psychological theories? I’m specifically seeking introductions to Jung and Freud.
No, I’m not trying to become a star of pop psychology – But what’s wrong with storing some extra knowledge for winter?
If I could just say a few words - I’d be a much better public speaker. I made a short announcement to a large crowd last week. I was nervous, even though I talk to thousands of people every day…through the radio.
If you’re going by a theater – A certain stop-motion movie about animals is pretty great.
In another episode, Peggy is assigned to substitute teach a sex-ed class. At first, Hank refuses to accept that his son Bobby is going to learn reproductive health in school, let alone from Peggy. Hank can’t draw himself to discuss sex with his son, and he tells his wife she is forbidden from teaching the class. Peggy persists and Hank refuses to sign Bobby’s permission slip for the class. When the sex-ed day comes, Bobby goes with Hank to work. In Hank’s office, Bobby repeats a few of his dad’s arguments, and Hank realizes the necessity for sex-ed and appreciates Peggy’s bravery for teaching the class. He takes Bobby to school, where Bobby is the only student with permission to take the class. At that point, the Hills seem like the most logical family in Arlen, even though they’re raging liberals, comparatively.
