They must read my blog? Speaking of "satire."
I nevertheless believe, with all of my heart, that satire can and will make a comeback in our culture. No, not really.
I've been wearing a back brace for more than a week, and it's helping. Doesn't look like my car insurance is going to say yes to the surgery. My discomfort=their savings. I'm getting around much better--I can get up from a chair without going, "Aieeee!!" and I'm walking with minimal complaint from the fracture site. And I'm doing this on a reduced pain dose.
I'm maintaining my spirits pretty well, considering the sheer crumminess of being laid up and limited. You never realize how active you are until you're forced to sit. And sit. I do a lot more around this house than I realized.
And I will again. I'd guesstimate I'm halfway through this ordeal.
TCM and Chiller TV picked a fine time to fall down on their programming--in his quest for something to watch, this poor, chair-bound blogger has to contend with the former's "31 Days of Oscar" and the latter's all-day Fear Factor marathons. ("Pooooor baby!" you say? Thanks!) Pop in a DVD? I'd love to, but our VCR refuses to play them.
Mostly, Bev and the felines keep me going. This will all be over when it's done. Thanks for the continued words o' support.
Lee
78s, CAT NEWS, MERV GRIFFIN RECORDS, INCISIVE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL COMMENTARY. PLEASE NOTE THAT, DUE TO LIMITED STORAGE BANDWIDTH, MY MP3s HAVE A LIMITED SHELF LIFE--GET THEM WHILE YOU CAN! I DON'T KEEP MY MP3s (I HAVE THE ORIGINALS)--HENCE, THEY'RE NOT AROUND TO RESTORE. I AM NOT, NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE INTERNET, PAID OR OTHERWISE.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Did the Internet kill satire?
I suspect as much, but I can't prove it. The point is, satire is dead and buried, at least in the U.S. How else to explain the fact that the Christwire.org website is considered a satirical site, let alone a "really, actually, very excellent" one, to quote Rachel Maddow?
Yes, I know the site isn't for real, but it doesn't logically follow that its content constitutes satire. There is, after all--or used to be--a lot of difference between pretending and satirizing. Maybe not today.
Anyway, it seems that Rachel (or someone on her staff) read and believed a hoax piece at Christwire, which she quoted from on her show. She later apologized on air, pointing out the piece in question was actually a "brilliant piece of satire." Christwire answered with another hoax entry called "Rachel Maddow Wants a Boehner." That should help you gauge the brilliance and originality of the site.
Not to sound mean, but whoever mistook the crank Christwire post for a serious piece should be fired without delay--I mean, doesn't the very title of the site (Christwire) raise red flags? The Internet is glutted with pretend Christian-right sites of a similar "satirical" nature, on which scatological mockery of the "Borat"/WFMU variety is stuck up in the hopes that someone will fall for it--a short visit to the joint reveals that Christwire is dime a dozen, no more sophomoric or apostrophe-challenged than the next. But you'd think Rachel and/or her people would have enough Net-surfing experience to recognize this challenged genre a thousand clicks away. In fact, I'd forgive them for mistaking Christwire's story for a real one if they'd rebut the "brilliant piece of satire" stuff and admit that today's crude and stupid facsimiles thereof are an insult to the heroes of that form, from Swift to Bob and Ray.
Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann has a blog, and it's not very good. I'm a bleeding-heart liberal (sorry if you didn't know that), and I'm on Keith's wavelength, but I don't think he's much of a writer--there's more facile progressive prose to be found at Huffington Post. In fact--and God forgive me for saying such a thing--Keith's stiff and cliched sentences seem better suited to Huff's comment section. (Yes, at their worse, they're that bad.) Olbermann's a great TV personality, though, and the good news is that he's returning to that medium. There's no requirement for him to shine in every setting.
Yes, I know the site isn't for real, but it doesn't logically follow that its content constitutes satire. There is, after all--or used to be--a lot of difference between pretending and satirizing. Maybe not today.
Anyway, it seems that Rachel (or someone on her staff) read and believed a hoax piece at Christwire, which she quoted from on her show. She later apologized on air, pointing out the piece in question was actually a "brilliant piece of satire." Christwire answered with another hoax entry called "Rachel Maddow Wants a Boehner." That should help you gauge the brilliance and originality of the site.
Not to sound mean, but whoever mistook the crank Christwire post for a serious piece should be fired without delay--I mean, doesn't the very title of the site (Christwire) raise red flags? The Internet is glutted with pretend Christian-right sites of a similar "satirical" nature, on which scatological mockery of the "Borat"/WFMU variety is stuck up in the hopes that someone will fall for it--a short visit to the joint reveals that Christwire is dime a dozen, no more sophomoric or apostrophe-challenged than the next. But you'd think Rachel and/or her people would have enough Net-surfing experience to recognize this challenged genre a thousand clicks away. In fact, I'd forgive them for mistaking Christwire's story for a real one if they'd rebut the "brilliant piece of satire" stuff and admit that today's crude and stupid facsimiles thereof are an insult to the heroes of that form, from Swift to Bob and Ray.
Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann has a blog, and it's not very good. I'm a bleeding-heart liberal (sorry if you didn't know that), and I'm on Keith's wavelength, but I don't think he's much of a writer--there's more facile progressive prose to be found at Huffington Post. In fact--and God forgive me for saying such a thing--Keith's stiff and cliched sentences seem better suited to Huff's comment section. (Yes, at their worse, they're that bad.) Olbermann's a great TV personality, though, and the good news is that he's returning to that medium. There's no requirement for him to shine in every setting.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Heavy platters, light sounds
Nothing like light music issuing forth from clunky, fast-spinning platters. It runs so contrary to our concept of easy listening and "semi-Class," probably because we're led to associate such music with long-playing discs. Welcome to pre-long-playing reality.
Because I've had so very many requests--many bordering on desperate pleas--for gypsy laughing choruses performed by Welsh male choirs, I've decided to blog-premiere the Royal Mt. Ash Male Choir's The Gypsys' (sic) Chorus, from 1926. Quite helpfully, the label credits the number to the person who arranged it for BBTT (bass, baritone, first and second tenors) instead of the composer, Stephen Glover. And removes "Laughing" from the tile. This is, in fact, a laughing chorus/song which was written around the late 1840s as a number for female trio. The Gypsys' (sic) Chorus by (Bell) doesn't get us close to the info we need. Luckily, I'm persistent.
The not-nearly-as-fun flip side, Song of the Marching Men, by Henry Hadley with words by Louise Ayres Garnett, has a double copyright of 1919 and 1920. For its music, I mean. Thanks to the Internet, I was able to find and relay this incredibly fascinating information to you.
Three additional male glee/chorus sides follow, including Samuel Coleridge-Taylor's marvelous Viking Song, whose words can be found here. Very strange, very arty, superbly musical, and the live (!) 1926 recording (2500 male voices) features at least one moment at which the volume peaks and drops out, as if a limiter were in place. Manual? Automatic? The mind boggles.
Then, light Classics and a vintage Broadway number--1910's The Birth of Passion--of the type that presages the easy listening of Percy Faith, Andre Kostelanetz, and Fred Waring. I included the waltz Vienna, Vanishing Fairy City because there's no way I could justify not including a number with that title.
All ripped and restored by me. In my doped-out state, they sound fine, but don't take my word for it.
To the music: Heavy Platters, Light Sounds
PLAYLIST
THE GYPSYS' (sic) CHORUS (Glover)--Royal Mt. Ash Male Choir; Dir. by Glyndwr Richards, 1926.
SONG OF THE MARCHING MEN (Hadley)--Same.
HARK THE SOUND OF TAR-HEEL VOICES/MA LITTLE BANJO--U. of North Carolina Glee Club, 1926.
TOLL THE BELL ANGEL--Same.
VIKING SONG (Coleridge-Taylor)--Associated Glee Clubs of America, 1926.
CHLOE (SONG OF THE SWAMP)--Colonial Club Orch. (Bob Haring), 1928.
SONG OF INDIA (Arr. Whiteman)--Paul Whiteman and His O., 1926.
CHO-CHO-SAN (Puccini; Arr. Hugo Frey)--Same.
NARCISSUS (Nevin)--Victor Concert O., Rosario Bourdon, 1928.
VIENNA, VANISHING FAIRY CITY--WALTZ--Victor Schrammel O., 1923.
SONG OF INDA--St. Louis Symphony Orch., Dir. by Rudolph Ganz, 1926.
MINUET (Bolzoni)--Same.
THE BIRTH OF PASSION (Hoschna)--Prince's Orch., 1910.
TO A WILD ROSE (MacDowell-Stock)--Chicago Symphony O., Dir. by Frederick Stock, 1926.
TO A WATER-LILY (Same)--Same.
Lee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)