kimmy

Yeah, they do cover versions when they're contestants on American Idol. They don't do cover versions once they get a record contract. Once they get a record contract, they go about singing original material (some of them quite well and quite successfully, judging from the careers that Carrie Underwood and Kelly Clarkson have had.) I'm sure you can probably find me more cover versions if you look hard enough. I'll spot you one: Celine Dion is not the first to record "The Power Of Love". It was recorded at least once before, in the 1980s by a one-hit wonder named Jennifer Rush (whose vocal puts Dion's later version to shame.) There might be cover versions from time to time, but most are genre-bending efforts where the intent might be to create something completely different from the original. (Marilyn Manson recording "Tainted Love" and "Sweet Dreams Are Made Of This". Johnny Cash recording folksy versions of "Hurt" and "Rusty Cage". Weird Al producing polka meddlies of recent hits...) Most recent attempts to take on other recent songs are marked by an effort to put an original twist on them. I don't believe this was always the case. It appears to me that once upon a time it was accepted and expected that if a song became popular, more artists would record it. I do believe there has been some sort of shift in this attitude, and that might have a bearing on the use of subsequent recordings of a song as a measure of its enduring appeal. -k

What about Colonel Khadafi's son? There's Khadafi Jr up there, helping this guy off the plane like they're besties. But here's the thing that gets me... There's two possibilities here: either Megrahi did it, or Megrahi didn't do it. Megrahi knows the truth. And so does Khadafi Jr. Libya admitted responsibility for this bombing. They acknowledged that it was their people who did it. So, either Khadafi Jr is up there treating Megrahi like a national hero because he murdered 270 people. Or, Khadafi Jr is up there treating Megrahi like a national hero because he served 8 years in prison on behalf of some other Libyan agent or agents who murdered 270 people. Either way, those chumps at the airport don't have a whole lot to cheer about. In my opinion. -k

What in the blue hell was that?! Still, sort of illustrates what I was getting at. People might do a cover of such a song for the sake of comedy or irony, but nobody is going to attempt an earnest version because they believe there would be commercial or artistic merit in it. I have heard thrash/punk versions of S&G's "Mrs Robinson" and Don Henley's "Boys of Summer" and Michael Jackson's "Smooth Criminal". Why? Probably the same reason the Sex Pistols did their own version of "I Did It My Way". I don't know what that reason might be, exactly, other than the fun of saying "we just jacked your $#^*!" -k {"...out on the road today, I saw a Black Flag sticker on a Cadillac."}

I had a similar experience while helping a friend fill out scholarship applications. I was momentarily discombobulated when she checked off a "visible minority" box. Although she is, indeed, visibly of Chinese descent, she is such a thoroughly Canadian creature that I simply never thought of her as a visible minority; seeing her put that crass little checkmark in that crass little box just felt ... odd. I find myself in agreement with Dick on this issue... "visible minority" as a euphemism for "not white" is not very progressive for a country that imagines itself to be so progressive. I see my friend's parents as exactly the kind of immigrants I hope Canada continues to bring. They have learned English to the best of their abilities, have successful careers, are enthusiastic friends to everyone they know regardless of ethnicity, and have raised a wonderful Canadian child who will be a great asset to this country. I believe that 100 years ago, my ancestors were the same sort of immigrants. -k

All of that seems perfectly reasonable to me. Another I would add is "be prepared to tolerate others." -I am reminded of a town in England where a bronze statue of a boar has been in the town square for centuries; it is the town's symbol. A couple of years ago recent immigrants to the town began petitioning for the boar to be removed on religious grounds: swine are unholy in their religion. -or, if you chose to live in a land where the native women walk about with exposed arms and ankles, don't tell them that your beliefs require them to cover themselves. That ain't gonna fly. Another I would add that's probably covered under "respect the law" but merits special mention: don't come to Canada to carry on a war from your home country. If you come to Canada and the first thing you do once you get settled is to start raising funds for the militant independence group back home, or sending luggage-bombs on airplanes packed with people heading to a country you've got a gripe with, that ain't gonna work either. -k

While not a dedicated follower of the books or the movies, I gather that Harry is not *supposed* to be particularly powerful or gifted, and that the reason he has been made the focus of all of this intrigue is a mystery to everyone (except for the evil guy with no nose.) I have not read the books, but I have heard critics complain that the movies are a pale shadow of the books. One particular comment I recall is that Rowling is so skilled with dialogue that each character has a unique speech pattern that is consistent throughout the series and which can be associated to a specific English regional dialect; by contrast most authors are only able to do 3 or 4 speech patterns at the most... the words they use might be different, but the sentence structure and pacing remain the same regardless of who's talking. (J.R.R. Tolkien has 20 different speakers at the Council of Elrond; each is unique. But Tolkien was a linguist primarily, and an author only by hobby.) I write, and I know far more about all of my characters than I have any need to write in a story. Any author does the same. I don't need to write in my story that my heroine was afraid of the dark and slept with a night-light until she was 10 years old, but I need to know that because when the lights go out and there are footsteps in the hall, I need to know how she is going to react. Rowling was asked questions about her characters, and she let her interviewer in on some details that she had in mind when she created the characters, yet had no reason to include in the book. That she had thought about the sexual orientation of a character in a story where nobody actually has sex just means that she had an understanding of the character she wanted to create. And this is just a load of crap. How have kids been "weakened" or "duped"? Rowling got millions of kids to put down their Nintendos and their Pokemon cards and pick up a book. She should probably receive some sort of medal for this. That Rowling may have been a single mother at some point is of no consequence... she's made herself a billionaire with the power of her imagination and her writing skills. If that's such a simple trick to accomplish, where's YOUR billion dollars, Oleg? I bet the entire world wouldn't scrape together more than a nickel for the collected works of Oleg Bach. -k

Something else occurred to me this afternoon. You said there have been over 75 recordings of "You Belong To Me" in the 57 years it's been released. How many recordings of "Hotel California" have been made in the 32 years since its first release? I looked this up, and learned that there have been a couple of Reggae versions, a Spanish version, a French version, a Romanian version, a Ska version, a couple of comedy versions, and a version called "Hotel Macedonia" done for a tourism bureau. It is one of the most commercially successful songs of its era... but nobody wants to do a faithful English-language recording of it. "Stairway to Heaven"? One of the most revered songs of your lifetime, with lush, evocative lyrics... but nobody wants to do a faithful English-language recording of it. Why the difference? Why are there dozens upon dozens of sincere, earnest recordings of You Belong To Me or The Tennessee Waltz, but nobody will touch Hotel California or Stairway to Heaven? I would suggest that there has been a marked shift in the perception of singers and songs. Once upon a time, many popular recordings were simply the artist of the day recording traditional songs in a traditional interpretation. Other than the vocalist and orchestration, there would be little to separate one version from the next, and one version is as legitimate as the next. And contemporary recordings of the day seem to have been treated no differently: the Jo Stafford recording of "You Belong To Me" is no less legitimate than the Patti Page version; the audience is assumed to know that neither woman created the song or has any particular claim to it other than providing a voice for the words. The song seems to have been part of the public domain from the moment it was penned. It seems as though it was not just accepted, but expected that if a song was popular, other artists would record their own versions of it in short order. At some point, far be it from me to guess at when it occurred, we arrived at a state where a song is so strongly identified with an artist that it's of little benefit for some other artist to record it. What could an artist gain by attempting to record "Stairway to Heaven"? Outrage from long-time Led Zeppelin fans, unfavorable comparisons to the original, the appearance of trying to make a buck by cashing in on a classic, accusations of not being creative enough to come up with your own stuff... who'd want any of that? (then again, taking on a work that is strongly associated with another performer is an entirely different game if the original performer is not particularly admired. A Scottish band called Travis .) -k

I've personally always suspected that it was the catchy guitar chords at the end that made the song popular, not the "classic" lyrics. (Likewise, "Hey Jude" and the "naaaa, naaaa, naaaa, na-na-na, na.") Why is the Mona Lisa ubiquitous even today, while thousands of ostensibly similar paintings are unrecognized, and thousands more probably didn't even outlive their painters? The premise that you started the thread with... proposing that the songs you'd mentioned have enduring popularity because of their lyrics... was flawed from square one, as most of the songs you mentioned haven't survived at all. The notion that they've endured in any meaningful way outside of your own living room is just a conceit. So now we're talking about one particular song-- "You Belong To Me"-- which does indeed seem to have a kind of immortality that few songs achieve. What separates that song from any of dozens of ostensibly similar songs that'll never be recorded again? I suspect that if we could come up with an answer to that question, we could be rich. -k

For me that is what bothers me most. The man himself will be soon dead. There seems to be some question as to whether he is even the real bomber. But to see this person flown home on a presidential jet, accompanied by the son of El Presidente, and greeted with a heroe's welcome by throngs of idiots, that is extremely distasteful to me. Libya seems to be acting as if this is a victory of some sort, and what kind of people would think of this as a victory? The Libyan government confessed to its role in this bombing in 2003, and yet just this one man has been held accountable, and now the country celebrates his release from prison. Does that seem right? -k

He actually asked for a source where Pat Buchanan *said* Jews will go to hell, as Guthrie claims he has heard Buchanan say. The whole argument... attempting to justify the claim made that Buchanan believes Jews should be hanged on the basis that Buchanan believes Jews are going to hell... on the basis that as a Christian he believes that Jesus is the only path to heaven... is all extremely shoddy debate. Barack Obama is also a Christian. If someone were to write "Barack Obama Believes Jews Are Going To Hell" they would be technically correct, I suppose, according to the logic presented here. They would also be pilloried for saying it, and deservedly so. -k

You seem to be advocating on behalf of the view that getting something stupid off the air is in itself a worthwhile goal, and if denouncing it as stupid isn't working then denouncing it as racist is a reasonable alternative. Is that the case? -k

Oh dear... the "yokels with guitars" comment seems to have taken on a life of its own. Seeing the thread title, and realizing the number of old-people on this board, I expected that this thread would be filled with folk-singing hippies singing about Vietnam, and was pleasantly surprised that people had brought other stuff instead. Except for Wild Bill, who brought Personally, watching that made me want to put on my steel-toed boots, grab some pepper-spray, and oppress some hippies. I suppose "Country Joe" did accomplish one thing that I'd thought was impossible. He made me feel empathy for Prime Minister Chretien. I had once said that if I ever met Jean Chretien in person, I would want to punch him. But now I think that maybe if we could spend an afternoon together pepper-spraying hippies and choking protesters, maybe we could be friends. -k

I don't disagree with the dubious value in this sort of program (I think Jon Stewart's showdown with Tucker Carlson sums up my feelings on the matter.) But here's a guy who's being run off the air because of charges of "racism", and these charges seem so vaguely argued that they're practically meaningless. Is this how the next 3 years are going to go? -k

The one sort of music I am certain will never go away is this: songs that can be played by a single performer with a portable, non-powered, instrument that leaves the player's mouth free to sing as he plays. There are obvious practicalities as to why. Songs that lend themselves to this style are more likely to survive than those that don't, I think. I have not heard anyone sitting around a campfire playing "Immigrant Song," but I have heard someone playing "Going To California." But even now, you're probably more likely to hear somebody singing Pearl Jam than Bob Dylan around the campfire or on the street corner. And... a lot of music translates really well, by the way. Recall the MTV Unplugged performances that used to be very popular. Or recall Johnny Cash turning Nine Inch Nails and Soundgarden songs into instant classics in the final years of his life. That's just one opinion. "Better" is unquantifiable. I'm reminded of the old gag where somebody is asked what kind of music they like, and respond "Both kinds... country AND western!" If you were going to play some "so-so music" from the 1960s, I'd be almost certain that you'd take out some pop tunes. If you're comparing it to the music of the past 20 years, what would you pick to compare it to? What would you consider "the so-so music of today"? Sure, and there are sea shanties that are hundreds of years old that are still around today too, but they can't be said to be a part of our culture anymore. One can go to museums and still find flint-lock pistols that are probably in fine working conditions, centuries-old garments that are in like-new condition... but the fact that they still exist is not evidence that they have enduring intrinsic value. They're just curios someone hung onto, and we can go back and look at them and see that this is what things were like once upon a time. I mentioned The Tennessee Waltz because it strikes me as the likely fate of "Hotel California" and most or all of the other songs you mentioned. The Tennessee Waltz was hugely meaningful for my grandparents, I gather. Grandpa was convinced of its enduring significance. But someone growing up today has no attachment to it at all. Probably many people my age have never heard any version of it, and few who have would bother to play it a second time. The song certainly still exists, but just as a curio. "This is music that people liked once upon a time." If The Tennessee Waltz has come to such a fate, what chance has Hotel California got? -k

I find much of today's overtly political music to be rather ... lacking. Rage Against The Machine or System Of A Down typify it... loud, angry, anti-establishment... which are all fine... but the lyrics themselves just aren't very smart. I think it's great that they have something they want to say... but if you've got something to say, it sure helps if you can say it well. I think a lot of overtly political music from most eras fails for the same reason. I can't think of anything more tedious and less edifying than "4 dead in Ohio", for example. Or any of a thousand yokels with guitars singing about how terrible war is. (War is terrible? Whoa! Really?) Or Tom Lehrer and his "razor wit". Of all the yokels with guitars singing anti-war songs, the only one I care for is Alice's Restaurant. It's unique and funny. I'm glad that people have mentioned stuff that steps outside the realm of yokels with guitars. -k {na na-na-na na, na na, na, Nixon blah blah, na na-na-na na, na na, na...}

If the government is going to be giving money to car companies willy-nilly, this seems like a reasonable way to do it. I recall reading a long time ago that a major reason for the success of Japanese automakers are Japans' domestic laws regarding automotive emissions which require inspections (every five years?) that are so stringent that even brand new cars can't pass them. Giving people money to buy cars seems like a less draconian way of generating sales for your car-companies than forcing people to unnecessarily upgrade their vehicles every 5 years using bogus emissions inspections... By the way: Canadians can get cash for their clunkers too... indirectly. The Kidney Foundation accepts donations of unwanted vehicles. They tow the vehicle, if required, and either strip it for parts and sell it for scrap metal, or return it to drivable condition and sell it. You receive a tax credit for a charitable donation, in an amount corresponding to how much financial benefit the Kidney Foundation received from the donation. -k

I gather you're trying to say "yes, our society promotes a Eurocentric image of beauty." What a terrific attitude for someone who works with young people to have! -k

You opened the thread with the supposition that these songs are classics that will endure... ...but most of them haven't. A grandparent once explained to me that The Tennessee Waltz was the greatest song of all time. I have no idea if it's true, but he told me it's been recorded by more artists and topped the charts more times than any other song. But ... heard it on the radio lately? Your generation might remember "Charlene", but (and I've said this before in other threads...) that song won't be played again unless Will Ferrell uses it for big laughs in a period-comedy. Most of the songs you mention exist only in the record collections of baby boomers. You may have these songs on in your record collection, you may even play them from time to time... but except for two of them, they've vanished from the public eye. "You Belong To Me" had vanished to the point that many people think it is a Bob Dylan original composition because it hadn't been played for years until he resurrected it. Guess what, it will vanish again. "Hotel California" remains a staple of "classic rock" radio formats, but as your generation slowly moves from "classic rock" to "golden oldies", it'll lose its appeal, and will go the way of You Belong To Me... except I doubt anybody will bother to resurrect it in 50 years. -k

But you would agree that TV and movies and magazines and "the beauty industry" push an idea of beauty that is extremely Eurocentric, right? I mean, you were complaining about that just a few messages earlier, right? You'd have to be a complete tool to disagree with that, right? -k

My point exactly. -k

I don't follow the US pundit soap operas closely enough to know what you're referring to, but all I saw in the clips that were linked to regarding these sponsor pull-outs were his commentary regarding Obama's alleged racism, as well as the "joke" about poisoning Pelosi. I don't think what Beck says is accurate... but I also don't think it's racism. And as far as I can tell, it's the charge of racism that's making sponsors leave. Whether the charge has merit or not, sponsors are afraid to be associated with somebody who is faced with this kind of accusation. Related thought... if sponsors hate racists so much, why hasn't there been a similar campaign against Lou Dobbs for his paranoid rants about Mexican immigrants, which it seems to me are a lot closer to racism than anything Beck said that I'm aware of. -k

So ... I gather this is the content that people are upset about? None of this is intelligent, and the poison thing is particularly retarded, even in jest (he was joking, right?) ...however, I'm not sure any of it really qualifies as racism. Is it racist to argue that Obama's social justice agenda is motivated by a desire for reparations? It seems to me that's sort of like saying it was religious intolerance to argue that Bush's military plans were motivated by religious dogma. I don't think what Beck is saying is intelligent, but I also don't think it's offensive. -k

You've heard the expression "pulled over for Driving While Black"? You may have been stopped for "Walking While Metis." -k

That makes sense, then. But this doesn't make sense to me. I'm still of the belief that the police have to have reason to stop you. Even if somebody phones to complain... unless the caller provides information that you're committing some sort of offense, that doesn't sound like "probable cause" to me. -k

I gathered as much, but "wandering around" isn't against the law, not on a public street anyway. Am I missing something here? -k