Author Archives: Pete Blum
Regards, these are. And I give my regards to Broadway. Broadway is a street I’ve never seen. New York is a city that I’ve never seen.
Oh, I’ve seen it on television, of course. But that opens a question about seeing. As if the questions up to now have not been about seeing. But regarding in the sense intended here is not just seeing, if by seeing you mean only some mysterious physiological alignment of rods, cones, and wavelengths. Wavelengths are those things that we’re supposedly “on.” Together, we are supposedly on them. “On the same wavelength.”
I’m thinking of how I see the things that I’ve never really seen. I have regard, or a regard, for a thing that I’ve never regarded in person, “in the flesh” (“Pink isn’t well, he stayed back at the hotel”). To listen in a way that makes the listening a gaze… doesn’t that mean seeing what one has never seen? Isn’t it like going somewhere that you’ve never gone?
If I tell you to give my regards, it means that I won’t be there. And it might be that my regards are just like that. They might be the regards of someone who is never there. I think that I’ve become Rael (become real?), waiting for the windshield, caught in the cage, slipping into the doktor’s waiting room, chasing the raven… But I’ve never been there, and I have not seen any of those things. My regard is from here, not from there. I’m live, but not in person.
This is not just a spatial dislocation made metaphorical. It’s more like a metaphysical mark of music. No, scratch that; not music as thing. It’s latent in any listening. Let’s not forget that listening is a verb. It seems like the doings of many verbs can be done, can be accomplished. But a verb, just insofar as it is a verb, is a doing rather than a done/accomplished. If it’s present tense, that is. And the verb ‘listening’ can be present tense even though I am not present. I have to be absent in order to send my regards. So the regard is a present-tense non-presence. And hopefully when I send it, it comes as a present (a gift).
Consider Rael’s story in this regard (ah, see what I did there?): His “problem” is that he must get his own regard, and give his own regards (to Broadway, among other places). He keeps finding himself in different places, different spaces, maybe even different worlds. He wonders at that uncanny window in the bank above the gorge, where is “home,” as opposed to just another dream. To have a regard toward home, to send one’s regards there, involves leaving home. It’s a window, so it seems like he can go back, but can he go back? Can we ever go back? Is going back just the same, in the end, as stepping into another dream?
And a possible kicker: Is finding the regard, sending the regards, ultimately seeing… is it the same as no longer regarding “the problem” as a problem?
Suppose it really is only knock and knowall.
Suppose you’ve got to get out to get in.
Hop on that misty mountain. (“And baby, baby, baby, do ya like it?”)
That we CAN like it. That would be good news. Take it, with my regards.
“Walls that no man thought would fall,
The altars of the just… crushed…
Dust in the wind”
Oh, yes. “Dust in the Wind.”
It started out this time as two thoughts. They didn’t seem to have to anything to do with each other. Thought one was “Dust in the Wind,” apropos of I-don’t-know-what. Thought two was “concept,” in relation to The Lamb. (It’s supposed to be a concept album, right? And I really do need to start posting again, right?)
I think about associations a lot, because I’ve been reading Freud. That theme has come up here before. But it’s not just some technical psychological thing. I’ll bet you’ve experienced this a lot, if you think about it. Things that aren’t associated, that you’re sure are proximate only as a matter of coincidence, end up being associated after all. Your experience is not just a big container with a lot of things in it. It’s a web that gathers things together. For Freud, this is why your dreams are so weird, as well as why you used that specific word when you misspoke, or why you forgot that particular thing. But even if you don’t know Freud, you know that feeling you get sometimes when things in your field of concern keep “hooking up” with each other, and your mind feels kind of like a cheap motel.
Thinking about “Dust in the Wind” led me back to Emerson, Lake & Palmer’s “Karn Evil 9″ (all three impressions) from Brain Salad Surgery (1973). It was when I actually began listening that I remembered how mysterious and scary the concept of the piece had seemed back then, and went “Oh yeah, concept.” Sure, it’s a bit dated now in some ways, as almost always happens with “futuristic” stuff, but it’s still easy to see why a lot of folks point to it as the pinnacle of ELP’s glory years, and why its dystopian vision might still resonate.
“Dust in the Wind” was used as a song title the year before the release of Brain Salad Surgery by Todd Rundgren on Something/Anything?, and then most famously by Kansas on 1977’s Point of Know Return. But ELP was THE band during my high school years, and the lyrical transition marked by the phrase in the Third Impression is the one that continues to echo most frequently.
But here comes the surprise connection, back through the piece to the First Impression. What jumped out this time was “THERE BEHIND THE GLASS.” BANG!! I was back in The Lamb, where we find out near the end that Rael’s New York City is behind a “window.” Though there’s no specific reference to glass, “behind the glass” took me to that window, and to the disconcerting idea that a window has two sides. In the case of “Karn Evil 9,” what is behind the glass is “a real blade of grass.” The “behind” is what is on display, the content of the exhibit. That means, of course, that we (the spectators) are in front of the glass.
In Rael’s case, what is “in front” and what is “behind” is precisely what is in question. This is foreshadowed, perhaps, even when the screen (the “wall of death”) bears down upon him, and the suggestion of glass lurks in the comparison to a windshield. What was real, in being absorbed, is now “on screen.” As the online Annotated LLDOB asks, “If what once was thought real is now a movie, is what was a movie now real?”
The window in “The Light Dies Down on Broadway” is one that Rael could presumably step through to return (again) to New York City. But think about where he stands at this point. New York is behind the glass, is it not? It’s on display, exhibited like the evils of “Karn Evil 9.” One might think that to put something on display is to glorify it, to recommend it. Many people seem to think this is what happens when something is put on the screen. We debate about the extent to which life imitates art. Are we more violent because of violence onscreen? But we might wonder also whether putting something on display might remove it from the realm of real options. How likely is it that Rael would choose to return to the world from which he has now twice departed, however strong the gravity of John’s failures as a brother?
I don’t mean to suggest that this is an “all or nothing” question, that we must decide yea or nay as if deciding on determinism or free will. I mean it, rather, as a suggestion that we reflect on the distance between screens and windows, when it comes to where “front” is. It’s a distance for which there’s not a scale or an instrument of measurement, but I hope that won’t stop us from considering it, from listening in light of it.
And it won’t gel, or congeal. It won’t finalize. It will keep the indeterminacy and ambiguity that first allowed the associations to pull me in its direction. It’s still dust in the wind. But let’s try to feel its sting on our skin a bit when it’s blowing past.
A knock at the door.
Aren’t there too many stories that begin with a knock at the door?
I open it, and see exactly what I expect to see: Me.
Now, it won’t do at all to have you confused all the way through, so let’s say that the “me” at the door is played by Gary Oldman. No, I don’t have a particular reason for that. I just like Gary Oldman. Think of him as he appeared in The Book of Eli, but wearing jeans and a t-shirt. The shirt is emblazoned with a reproduction of the front cover of The Lamb.
I (at least I’m pretty sure that I am “I” rather than “me,” but don’t think too hard about that) can be played by anyone you fancy. Whatever you do, however, please don’t envision me as Rael from that album cover.
Me (Oldman) has been looking at me blankly. I see that he’s holding five playing cards in his hand, arranged as a hand, as if he’s playing a card game. I look back, just as blankly.
Finally, he speaks. “So… What’s up?”
I know what he means, but play dumb. “Not much. What’s up with you?”
“Where the hell have you been?”
I can’t think of a good response, so I just continue looking at him.
“You haven’t posted since July.”
This time a response seems appropriate. “Yeah.” I didn’t promise it would be a good one.
He holds the cards up, and extends them slightly toward me. “You dealt, but you never finished the hand.”
“You know why.”
“Well, yeah, at first. You got all busy and distracted. But FOUR MONTHS?”
“Four months is not a long time.”
A slight smile. “We’re talking web-time here. You know damned well that you get impatient after ten minutes if no one has ‘liked’ your latest Facebook post.”
“I’ve been thinking about another post. I’ll do it soon.”
“But YOU know that isn’t all. Everyone is talking about The Lamb again! The fortieth anniversary, it’s on everyone’s radar again, and nothing from you!”
I’m back to having no response.
He sighs. “May I come in, please?”
“Sure.” I move aside to let him in, and shut the door. He drops the playing cards on the coffee table and sits heavily on the end of the sofa. I sit in a nearby overstuffed chair that does not match the sofa, and wait for him to continue. The cards are face-up, and my peripheral vision catches three Jacks.
“That’s the thing, isn’t it? If everyone else is talking about it, you lose interest.”
I shrug, and remain silent for the moment.
His tone begins to lean toward mocking. “You’re still that freaking seventies prog-hipster teen, who needs his music to be not-too-popular.”
My turn to sigh. “Yeah, probably. I’ve always had trouble with hype, even when something is very very good.” I shift a bit, and try to look subtly defiant, probably failing at it. “But that’s not all.”
He crosses his arms and tilts his head. “What else, then?”
I close my eyes. After about 15 seconds, I open them again. “All of us talk about it, or we try to. Does it amount to anything more than trying to find all sorts of fancy ways to say that we love it?”
He looks puzzled. “Of course we love it. Why not find as many ways as we can to say that?”
“But is it anything MORE than saying that in various ways?”
“Are you asking whether the things we say — the things that you write — actually mean anything more than that?”
Another pause. Much longer this time.
“If they didn’t mean more than that, why would anyone keep reading them?”
I open my mouth to respond, and begin making a sound, but then I stop, and close my mouth again. What was I going to say? That readers are dull and sheep-like, reading when there’s no substance? That readers think they find substance when there’s actually none? I eventually find my voice again. “I was thinking about my writing, as opposed to the readers’ reception of it.” That’s lame, I think.
“That was lame.” He smirks, knowing that he has voiced my thought. “Do you also suspect that The Lamb itself might have no substance?”
A feeling just a half a notch below horror. “Of course not! The problem is that it has SO MUCH substance. Inexhaustible substance!”
He uncrosses his arms, smiling now, and nods. I expect him to say something, but he just looks at me expectantly.
Okay, so I’m supposed to think about this. I do. He seems content to wait.
Inexhaustible substance, I said.
Time goes by. No one measures it, so I don’t have a clue how much.
At some point, I suddenly look over at him again, and lean forward in my chair. He is looking at something above my head, still smiling. I look up, and see a cartoon light bulb floating there. Very cheesy.
He gathers the playing cards, and stands up. “Don’t bother getting up. I’ll let myself out.”
I can’t think of anything to say, so I just watch him move toward the door. With his hand on the nob, he turns back briefly. “We can expect the next post within a few days, then?”
I look up, and the light bulb is still there.
Now, here’s a thing I normally would NOT do. (That “not” is as emphatic as you can make it.) But I’m going to do it, and I’m inviting you to do it with me. I’m doing this as my 13th look (regard) at The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway.
Yes, I’m superstitious, and that might be part of what has presented me with a sort of “block” for a while. That plus all the other personal-life stuff that you don’t care about. If I do this as number 13, and nothing comes of it, then we can just go on. But “nothing” coming of it might be just the ticket, after all. Without nothing, there might not be anything. (I’m thinking Heidegger, if you sort of know about that; if you don’t then never mind.)
I’m going to listen to it on “shuffle.”
One shuffles the cards so that the next deal will be fun. It’s not truly random, but it might as well be from our point of view (if it’s done thoroughly). If it’s not fun, feel free to call “misdeal.”
Are you in?
Air has long been understood as elementary, as an element, like earth, fire, or water. It’s what I breathe. Sometimes it’s all I need (and to love you). It is closely tied to sky, to light, to height, to the heavens, to wind, to breath and to life. I’m told that Hebrew for ‘spirit’ is also wind and breath. Tied to wind, then? To Spirit (to God?) And “to air” (the verb) is to “put out there.” Where? On the air.
“On the Air” is one of my favorite Peter Gabriel songs (from Peter Gabriel 2, aka “Scratch”). Wondering how next to look at The Lamb, I remembered it today, and then found myself thinking about air, aware of the air. I hope that I can air my awareness. “I’m putting the aerial up.”
Everyone I meet on the street
Acts as if I wasn’t there,
But they’re all going to know who I am
‘Cos I can go out on the air.
The air is atmosphere that hangs around me without ever announcing its presence, except by way either of what’s in it, or of how it changes. The air, for Rael, is often thick with content and change. Broadway is a place where “there’s always magic in the air.” But when the Lamb lies down there, it “brings a stillness to the air.”
Air is the non-solid. When the wall of death appears, it is “something solid forming in the air” Rael waits for impact, not standing, but “hovering like a fly.” Hovering in the air.
Caryl Chessman [controversially capital criminal] sniffs the air.
Two golden globes float into the room And a blaze of white light fills the air.
[Rael] writes Death off as an illusion, but notices a thick musky scent hanging in the air.
As the brothers talk themselves through their new predicament, a big black raven flies into the cave, swoops down, grabs Rael’s tube right out of his hands and carries it up into the air in his beak.
The air is foreboding. It is where there is foreshadowing of change, and where there is change. But perhaps, more subtly, the air is where there is ascent, and perhaps some kind of liberation. If that is so, it must be a liberation that is indifferent to death, if not opposed to it. In “The Light Dies Down on Broadway,” a skylight appears in the rock, through which Rael can see and hear New York City (“my home”), a window through which he may presumably step back. But is that step “back” an escape, or is it just a step into another dream? We really already know the answer if we’re paying attention. Rael’s perspective, as he makes the decision to stay and save John, is from outside the window, from above the skylight. The decision amounts to a recognition that he is now “in the open air.”
Think about how this is not a matter of leaving anything “up in the air” as we often say. Not in the air in that bad sense, anyway.
And what is it that is here being put on the air? When Gabriel sings about going out on the air, “they” are going to know who he is. “They,” who acted as if he wasn’t there. Does Rael know who he is, in the end? Do I know who he is? Do I know who I am?
Ah, here is an unexpected knot that may be worth trying to untangle: I want others to know who I am, and I put myself out on the air. Do I want to know who I am, or is it more important somehow to know where I am. Where I am could be on the air, or in the air, or maybe where I am just is what is meant by “air.” I go out on the air here, and by implication boast that I understand the “who” and “where” of which I’m writing. In the words of the Cowardly Lion in the film, The Wizard of Oz, I try to convey “that soitin air of savoir faire.” I broadcast myself, I’d like to think. Or…. Is my self, by its very nature, a broadcast?
Think about David Foster Wallace’s commencement address at Kenyon College in 2005, where he famously urged the graduating fish to keep reminding themselves: “This is water.” “This is water.”
But we could change it to: “This is air.” “This is air.”
Or, if the air is what I am in, then maybe none of this is really a matter or knowing, of savoir. Think about that (but hopefully in a way that’s not too much like wanting to know) and then listen again.
Today is the 1ooth birthday of Sun Ra, extraterrestrial jazz visionary. Check out Joel Rose’s celebration over at NPR.
One of the ways in which Immanuel Kant formulated his Categorical Imperative is this: Always treat other people as ends, never only as means. For Kant, this was THE moral imperative. Failing to follow it is failing to be a reasonable person in practical matters, which is the same as failing to be morally good. Another way to state the principle: Never treat other people as “merely instrumental.”
Yeah, I know it may be a little over the top, but I will go there.
If there’s a message that emerges from my little trilogy on “instrumental prog” (was Birzer being incurably trinitarian giving me THREE discs to reflect upon?), it is that one should never treat music as “merely instrumental.” The Aesthetic Imperative. Sure, if you want to add “especially prog,” I won’t complain. As long as you’re buying this round.
And I did save my favorite of the three for this final post; may favorite, at least, in terms of unremittingly delightful listening. That’s in no way to disparage the other two, as my prior missives should make clear. But here’s the bottom line: Ollocs rock, and they do it very very well! Their music engages the progressive sensibility, which always wants meaty repast requiring energetic mastication, with flavor that is at just the right balance between simplicity and complexity. With a two guitarist (electric and acoustic), bassist and drummer lineup, very sparingly supplemented by some lovely piano, they create rhythmic textures that one can fall into like a plush king-size bed in a luxury hotel. Life Thread (2013) flows like a river towards “Greater Seas.” Ouch! How cliché! But sprinklings of cliché can be made into something that flows far downstream from what we usually think of as the cliché.
Is it prog? Most definitely, and more. Is it metalish? Naturally, but much more. Is it reminiscent of Rush sometimes, Crimson other times… [add whoever you’d like to this litany]? Sure, but way WAY more. It shows my own biases that I often think of early to middle Wishbone Ash. But any such comparative thoughts are fleeting. They are soon brushed aside by the joy of musical creation that animates these tracks.
If the term ‘instrumental’ would lead you to expect something pedestrian, something “garden-variety,” something that is not too unpredictable, then in one sense Ollocs does meet that expectation. It’s not daringly experimental or brashly innovative, in any way that smacks the ears with an aural baseball bat. But here’s the third ass-kick. Don’t we all know what ecstasy there can be in a skilled and sophisticated foray into supposedly familiar territory? Sometimes the best music is that which can be heard at every moment as homage, but is nonetheless dancing on the shoulders of giants? Dancing, not “resting,” not simply “standing.” If I try to keep track of how many giants there are beneath the surface upon which Ollocs dance, I lose count quickly, and my head segues from critical, calculative appreciation into vigorous, “this-totally-rocks” oscillation.
If there is a “garden” within which Ollocs is “garden-variety,” it is a gloriously lush garden, and I hope you will spend some time there. You will be refreshed. And if what I’ve said here has any purchase on its elusive objects, perhaps it will deepen and widen the way in which you hear music that is “instrumental.”
There are always confessions to be made at the outset. Seldom are any of them actually made, and never are all of them made, but they are always “there.” The one that I will make right away here is that I never developed any strong liking for Echo and the Bunnymen. It’s not that I actively or particularly dislike them; it’s just that hearing their songs now and then during the 1980’s never really sparked my interest. My consciousness of “popular” (as opposed to “classical”) music in general was very spotty during the 1980’s for various reasons, or you could say “selective” if you’re open to having it sound a bit less negative or indifferent.
The confession is relevant because Poltergeist consists of original Bunnymen Will Sergeant (guitar) and Les Pattinson (bass), along with Nick Kilroe on drums. Their 2013 release, Your Mind is a Box (Let Us Fill It With Wonder) is the second “instrumental prog” disc passed on to me by Brad “I-WAS-paying-attention-in-the-80’s” Birzer. The confession is called for because I came to the disc with that perception: “Oh, this is, like, Echo and the Bunnymen without Ian McCulloch.” … Aaaand get ready for ass-kick number two.
I found a helpful quote online from Sergeant. (It appears several places, but I first found it in a blurb on amazon.com.)
We do not want to fence the project in… with vocal barbed-wire so to this end we are an instrumental band and are very happy about that.
Now, we could argue about whether or not this is too harsh. The kind of containment suggested by the metaphor of barbed-wire could have all sorts of nasty connotations. But let’s not get bogged down by considering them all. There are times when you want fences that divide clearly, that enforce division and containment, right? And there are times when, however right it may be other times, barbed-wire is the last thing you want. To give up whatever it is you are seeing (at the moment) as barbed-wire is hardly to give up division and containment in general.
Following this lead, I’m asking myself: What’s freed up when these guys decide to do without vocals, seen at least from here, now, as barbed-wire? The answer is the kick: On the one hand, a multitude of constraints remain in place; if you expect radical departure, something “free” in the sense of “free jazz,” that’s definitely not what happens. On the other hand (and nonetheless, we might say), everything is freed up! So much of the texture here remains nicely tethered to an “80’s” “poppish” feel. To say that may seem like a put-down, but I think it turns out NOT to be. It’s a revelation for me to hear this instrumental exploration of that feel, placing more emphasis than I’m used to on how broadly prog sensibilities have always been there in a lot of the supposedly “post-punk” or “new wave,” often electronics-laden music to which I paid less attention (but never no attention at all, I now see more clearly). Everything is freed up here in the sense that I can hear the pleasing resonance of those sensibilities better without the “vocal barbed-wire.”
I’m very aware, as I write this, how it may come across as “damning with faint praise.” I doubt that I can wholly avoid that impression, but I hope you will see that it is not meant as such. While it is true that Your Mind is a Box is less category-resistant than the other two instrumental albums I’m considering, it definitely hits my ear as indifference-resistant. Because the members of Poltergeist allow themselves to stretch out in quite specific ways, experimenting without being “experimental” in an in-your-face fashion, I hear this disc as a warm invitation to reconsider that era during which I was spending a lot more time with Mahler, Reich, Penderecki, Glass, Schnittke, Boulez and Zappa. Your Mind is a Box helps me to hear the elements of early prog, funneled through 7o’s Bowie, Fripp, and Eno, moderately seasoned by the legacy of Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream, that kept me watching MTV a fair amount in the 80’s (back when they were a network that played music videos). I would suggest that a major ingredient of the wonder with which Poltergeist wishes to fill our minds is the abiding presence of broadly prog influences in popular music since the 1970’s.
That Poltergeist comes across as this sort of invitation suggests two more things to me: The first thing is that referring to “vocal barbed-wire” in this context involves no particular negative reflection at all on McCulloch or any other prominent vocalists of that (or any other) era. The semantic constraints introduced by vocals are often what allows music to be profoundly accessible to so many people. But music is never only the words that are sung or the voice(s) of the singer(s); it’s much more than that even in a capella music! What one can hear (in the sense of perceiving) more clearly by listening to a delightful romp like Your Mind is a Box is how there is a danger that vocals can be barbed-wire. So the second thing is that this is another way in which the moniker “instrumental” fits this music. It can serve that aesthetically valuable end.
French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty suggested that we do not so much see a painting as we see according to it. Poltergeist give us the wonderful (in line with the intention expressed in their title) gift of music according to which we can hear other music.
So, I was talking to Brad Birzer a little while back, and he said he wanted me to listen to some recent “instrumental prog,” and to write about it for Progarchy. Well, sure! Why not?
Of course, I knew what Brad meant, but I was still rather struck that particular day by the usage of that word, ‘instrumental.’ I teach social theory and philosophy, and in that context, I’m used to the word ‘instrumental’ meaning “serving as a means toward some end or goal.” I’m also used to that meaning carrying a rather negative connotation at times, as in “merely instrumental,” meaning valuable only so far as it it a means to an end. I guess it was that sort of connotation that especially hit me when Brad used it, even though he certainly did not mean it that way. (I’m pretty sure his main agenda was to get me to listen to stuff that’s not from the 1960’s or 70’s.)
Thinking about that, the musical memories associated with the word ‘instrumental’ washed over me for the next few minutes, and I knew (even before I listened to the three CD’s Brad was sending my way) that a strange convergence of these two semantic streams was setting a particular context for my listening. I knew that I could not avoid explicit awareness of “instrumental” as descriptor for what I was hearing. So let me tell you about how that listening went in each case, and why you should listen to these discs too. Oh, sure, you may just think of what I’m doing as reviewing the three discs, if you’re more comfortable with that. But I do want you to know that I’m always hoping for something that spills out over the mundane edges of a “review.”
I considered telling you about all three in a single post. Then I wondered if that would be most friendly to the artists. But then, when I actually listened, I realized more was at stake. Because I was prepared by that funny adjective, ‘instrumental,’ what I really heard was everything that refused to be contained by it. For the sake of simplicity, let’s say that the boundaries of instrumentality, however vaguely they may have been set, were blown down/past/apart in three different ways. Hence, three parts.
I begin here in part 1 with Rafart’s The Handbook of the Acid Rider (2013). Francisco Rafart is a Chilean composer and Chapman Stick performer. I’ve heard music employing several incarnations of the Chapman Stick, and never quite known what I really thought of it. All along, I’ve had the sense that the greatest strength of the Stick is also its greatest weakness. (Duh. As if this were not generally true of strengths and weaknesses.) That strength/weakness, from what I can tell, is the precarious perch that it seems to occupy between “guitar-like” and “keyboard-like.”
I didn’t realize until I heard Rafart’s Handbook how ambivalent I must have been toward the Stick up to now. I’ve generally liked what Tony Levin has done with it, and been favorably impressed by others at times. But I guess I’ve not been excited about the instrument per se, and have not ever really purposely or systematically sought out exemplary recordings or videos.
Rafert brings my ambivalence into a harsh light, precisely by shoving it firmly but pleasantly aside! It’s not only that Francisco Rafart’s playing is outstanding. (Oh yes, it definitely is!) It’s even more the deeply satisfying musical integration of his trio (with Fernando Daza on guitars and Pablo Martinez on drums). I expected to be distracted by the effort to pick up on what comes from the Stick versus what comes from the guitar. But what I heard on Handbook is an ensemble in the best sense.
This was where my associations with the word ‘instrumental’ got their first ass-kick. I expected instruments, and I was thoroughly won over by an ensemble playing as a single joyous sound-source. The depth and supple texture of the compositions would not allow me to dwell upon distinct instruments. And this is also because I expected “songs,” or musical pieces (suggesting detachment), and I was thoroughly won over by compositions, in the fullest sense of that word. I found myself attending less to the question of when I was hearing Stick and when I was hearing guitar, and more to the experience of a unified musical event. Looking at videos after my first listen, I get a clear sense that Rafart is achieving a new level of success in making the Stick an integral part of a band.
You know those memories that I mentioned before, that washed over me and caught me off-guard? One of them is the memory of how I generally reacted as a young listener upon seeing a song referred to as an “instrumental.” When the album cover included the lyrics to other songs, but when there were no lyrics, you’d still find the name of the song printed there, followed by that lonely word (seeming lonely in this case, anyway): INSTRUMENTAL. I expected an instrumental to provide a framework within which each of the members of a band may”solo” (read: show off). Increasing exposure to a variety of jazz de-centered such expectations over time. But even jazz can often allow itself to fit into that “showing off within a supporting framework” mold. The supporting framework, in that case, would be… Yeah, you guessed it. Merely instrumental.
It is these memories and expectations that were blown away, for me, by the intricate beauty of Rafart’s music.
The Handbook of the Acid Rider bears some of the contours of several molds, but its tracks are clearly compositions. This is music that has benefited every bit as much from the explorations of Steve Reich and other contemporary composers as from progressive rock or jazz. (Also look for Francisco Rafart on YouTube for some of his “chamber music.”) But if there are molds here, they are springboards rather than constraints or blinders. When he first talked to me, Brad suggested a comparison with some of Pat Metheny’s work, and that does fit pretty well as a first approximation. One can also hear the complex rhythmic sensibilities that trace back to early prog, and — if I’m not mistaken — a healthy dose of Zappa-esque compositional deftness. But listen for how Rafart overflows these banks. Yes, I will confirm our fearless leader’s characterization of this as great “instrumental prog,” but most emphatically not as a mere means to an end, or as a mere concatenation of singular instrumental voices.
You can see videos of Rafart in action, but I recommend listening and palpating the aural textures first, adding the visuals after at least one hearing without them.
What do you get for pretending the danger’s not real?
…the valley of steel
(Pink Floyd, “Sheep,” from Animals)
You pay attention to an instance of saying, or an instance of writing (or, by extension, an instance of singing). The hardest thing to notice is quite often nothing that is there; it’s what is not there. Oh yes, an absence can definitely be a presence, but I’m not just rehearsing on that saw again. This time, I’m thinking of what’s just not there at all, and does not demand your attention by its absence. Yet noticing its absence can change things. Maybe a lot.
So, what Lamb? What Lamb lies down? Which Lamb is it?
An easy answer that I explored before: The Lamb whose Supper was Ready in 1972.
But now let’s look at our text again. If you have your liner notes, please turn with me to Isaiah chapter 53, verse 6.
What do we actually know about this Lamb? It lies down on Broadway (Duh!!).
Meanwhile from out of the steam a lamb lies down. This lamb has nothing whatsoever to do with Rael, or any other lamb – it just lies down on Broadway.
Nothing to do with Rael, even though it’s our TITLE? Nothing to do with any other lamb? Would this include the Lamb for whom Supper’s Ready? It’s really only one section of the title song that tells us much of anything more than this(and it isn’t that much):
The lamb seems right out of place,
yet the Broadway street scene
finds a focus in its face.
Somehow its lying there
brings a stillness to the air.
Though man-made light
at night is very bright,
there’s no whitewash victim,
as the neons dim, to the coat of white.
When Rael meets the Crawlers, he notes: “There is lambswool under my naked feet.”
It seems as though that’s all. I can’t find any more right now. Not explicitly there, at least. In fact, there are no more lyrical references to The Lamb after the title track, except the wool.
This especially strikes me today. The album does not provide an answer to my question: What Lamb?
Push aside (though only for now; only for this look) the strong associations of ‘lamb’ with sacrifice. It occurs to me that a lamb is a young sheep. Notice the grammar here: “It occurs to me.” It is an event that happens to me. I’m the fly again, and it’s a windshield that I didn’t see coming. It’s not that I didn’t know it, in some broad and technical sense of ‘know.’ Sure, I knew it. But it just occurred to me. And when that word, ‘sheep,’ came as part of the occurrence, a whistle blew and I heard a voice shout, “ALL CHANGE!”
Take a look at the opening section of the article on ‘sheep’ on Wikipedia. It’s right here if you click. I’ll wait….
A sheep is a ruminant mammal. Rumination. “The process typically requires regurgitation of fermented ingesta (known as cud), and chewing it again.” (Wikipedia again). As my students like to say nowadays, “I just threw up in my mouth a little,” and I need to chew some more.
So let’s ruminate a bit on sheep. This is my suggested background for our next listen. (You are listening again each time, right? No, there will not be an exam. Not besides the exam that you administer yourself.)
The title betrays my first association. “All We Like Sheep Have Gone Astray” (You thought of Handel or Bach — or both — just as quickly as the Bible, or perhaps even more quickly, right? A body which was baroquen for you? Oops, we put aside the sacrifice thing, didn’t we?) Second association in the opening epigraph: Pink Floyd’s “Sheep.” Third association: John Brunner’s 1972 novel, The Sheep Look Up (its title a reference to Milton). More upbeat, following on the reference to Bach: “Sheep May Safely Graze.”
But here’s where the wool begins to rub. Sheep suggest peace, and the protection of a shepherd. I was a lost sheep, but the shepherd found me, and it’s so good to be back with the fold again. But sheep follow. Sheep go with the herd (not unlike cattle).
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel
‘Sheep’ is plural, so there’s no ‘s’ to remove in order to make it singular. Does it ever really become singular? We think of sheep as followers in a very negative sense. They are also boring in just the right way to put us to sleep if we count them. It may be only the clothing that is sheepish, the wearer being a wolf. If the sheep is black, we don’t want it in our family (which suggests racism, as well as having three bags full of wool). If the sheep are lost, leave them alone and they’ll come home.
Where in the flock is this associative chain headed?
My experiment this time is with taking the detour via the word ‘sheep,’ but then coming back to the Lamb.
If it is a Sheep that Lies Down On Broadway, what did that shout (“ALL CHANGE!”) portend? When we know that we don’t know more than this about The Lamb, how does this change how we hear The Lamb? If the lamb that lies down is not actually singular, even though it supposedly has nothing to do with Rael or with any other lamb (the latter being singular, perhaps?), what then?
Let us listen again and see. Yes, I will be doing it with you. There will be a number of us, over the next couple of days, on at least two continents (if Progarchy stats are believable), but who’s counting? Perhaps we should also try to be aware of each other, in some way.
Don’t think of it as following. Think of it as an individual choice to explore “following.”
And don’t fall asleep. If you do, it means that you were counting rather than listening.