Heartache With Hard Work

The World Has Turned And Left Me Here – Weezer

So health care reform is going to the Supreme Court this term. What is the likely result?

To some extent, speculation about this is a fool’s game. I think it’s obvious that Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer will vote to uphold it. That is clearly what the existing precedent demands and it aligns with their political desires. Thomas and Scalia and Alito are clearly going to vote against it. So we’re really just talking about two individual people. And there’s zero chance that Roberts votes to uphold unless Kennedy has already voted that way. That is: Roberts is never going to be the deciding vote to uphold it, but he might be the 6th vote if it’s going to win anyways. On top of that, Kennedy is notoriously impossible to predict.  There is some political science work that attempts to predict this stuff, but at this stage the margin of error is quite high.

So maybe that’s the only useful thing to say.

It’s extremely difficult to make a reasonable argument that the mandate exceeds the power of Congress, given the standing precedent of things like Wickard. And the brief federalism revolution was basically shut down by Raich a few years back, so it wouldn’t just mean reversing a boatload of old precedent, it would also mean flip-flopping AGAIN on the basic question. Maybe I’m just projecting, but I have a hard time seeing Kennedy being willing to go out on that ledge.

Why am I so sure that Scalia and Alito will vote against it? After all, Scalia wrote a concurrence in Raich on the side of the national government. Well, I’m persuaded by Scott Lemieux’s point that Scalia doesn’t care about the civil remedy for domestic abuse, but is perfectly happy to let the state beat up some drug-soaked hippies. Never mind that his attempt to distinguish Raich was based on the Necessary and Proper Clause, which seems FAR more relevant here than in that case. He’ll find a way.

As for Alito, I’ve never seen much reason to think he’s got any scruples about this sort of thing. That people still insist on discussing him as if he were any kind of centrist is very confusing to me. Is there any evidence for it on anything even remotely high profile?  The article I linked to above ends with a prediction of 7-2 to uphold with Alito as the potential #7.  I will be shocked if that turns out right.

Final thought: when I posted about this two years ago, as health care was still in the run-up to passing, I dismissed the idea of the Court striking down the law as plainly absurd on its face. I still believe this to be the case…and yet here we are. So perhaps my prognostication skills are not to be trusted on this issue at all.

Ghost Towns – Radical Face
Always Gold – Radical Face

For all that I adore some of their songs, Radical Face (or really, Ben Cooper, since it’s more or less his solo project) are exceptionally frustrating. The thing that drives me crazy is the constant insistence on delivering only 85%. I say insistence, because it’s quite clear that he’s got an extremely strong sense of composition and construction. The interludes, the meanderings, the restraint – it’s all being done to a purpose. And sure, you can respect someone with such an ear for mood. But sometimes you just want him to let everything free.  this is exceeding clear on his new album The Family Tree: The Roots.

Listen to the bit around 2:10 on “A Pound of Flesh” – the wordless chorus that rises like a jet taking flight. It’s a glorious moment of awakening and joy. And sure, the loud/soft counterpoint provided by the final minute of the song is lovely in one sense. But I can’t help but feel like it also clips the wings of something that could have been truly majestic.

And then you consider the tracks that bookend it. Both are very nice, but they are almost aggressively downtrodden. Again, you can respect the way that it constructs a story. And I do mean story, because this record is imagined as just the first part of a grand three album narrative of a colonial family. And, true to life, he makes every effort to balance the joyous with the mundane, the fire with the ice.

But, but… I can appreciate the scope of the effort, I can understand the way that it produces a monumental payoff when you get to “Always Gold” near the end, when that song’s internal climax is really the climax of an entire movement. But, “Always Gold” is just so good on its own terms that it doesn’t really need that context to get the job done. In fact, yet again my complaint about this song is that it’s got four minutes of a true classic stretched out to fill six minutes. The intro is beautiful, but could certainly be thirty seconds shorter. And once things kick into gear, the acoustic plucking is perfection – especially when paired with an immaculately timed movement between tones. Until you get the bridge around three minutes, which again drags just a bit too long. Given the energy imparted by the rest of the song, having a minute lull in the middle is just a bit of a drag.

This is also the song that best demonstrates his unexpected vocal talents. In absolute terms, it’s nothing special. But when combined with lyrics evoking honest resignation, the plaintiveness is exactly what’s necessary.

I mean, what a way to start a song:

We were tight knit boys, brothers in more than name
You would kill for me, and knew that I’d do the same
And it cut me sharp, hearing you’d gone away
But everything goes away, yeah everything goes away

And for all my adulation, I haven’t even brought up the best song on the record: “Ghost Towns.” If my central concern is that the album feels contrived, manufactured by a self-aware author, this is the one song that completely breaks the mold. The impulse for restraint gives way and he simply lets thing be precisely what they demand. It’s just a wonderful piece of writing and comes to life in a way very few songs can.

But then, true to form, it’s followed by the hopelessly dull “Kin” which almost aggressively refuses to find a tune. It’s like hanging the sculpted darkness of a Caravaggio and hanging it in between the blueprints for your local 7-11. Sure, it may communicate something, but visitors are entitled to wonder if maybe the juxtaposition is really worth it.

For all that I can’t entirely endorse this record, it remains one of my favorites of the year. And I’m going to reserve final judgment until I hear the remaining two records. My basic complaint is that the atmospheric benefits provided by the dull material doesn’t provide enough of a benefit to overwhelm the lost power of the finest moments. But it’s all good enough that maybe he deserves to have the whole project be heard together. If the concept continues to develop, perhaps the gestalt really will be more than the sum of its parts. Anyways, I’m anxiously awaiting the next installment.

A Satellite, Stars and an Ocean Behind You – The Submarines
Fire – The Submarines

My one line review of the new Submarines record, Love Notes/Letter Bombs: when faced with the slogan ‘change vs. more of the same’ The Submarines are clearly a ‘more of the same’ sort of band. And that’s just fine!

My slightly longer unpacking: The Submarines’ debut album was an absolute breath of fresh air: the breakup-and-get-back-together record that was both autobiographical and performative. It was one of my favorite albums of the last decade. 2008’s Honeysuckle Weeks treaded very much on the same ground. And while the air was no longer quite so fresh, the charm and melodies were very much there.

This time around, it’s become absolutely clear that they are in for the long haul. They’ve got a style and a key, and they stick to it. And you know what, in many ways, I really respect that. I think bands are far too often committed to switching things for no reason other than a desire to prove that they’ve got something deeper going on. I don’t think there’s any shame in playing to your strengths, which in this case means dealing out ten more delicious slices of indie pop.

To the extent that there are changes, they mostly involve tapping into the New New Wave movement. But really, with a few exceptions, adding some synths doesn’t change the essentially acoustic charm. Those exceptions: their introduction about 35 seconds into the absolutely captivating “A Satellite, Stars and an Ocean Behind You” announces the genuine possibility of a different path for the band to walk on future records. And, on the other side, the stilted “Where You Are” is just a dud. There’s no two ways around that one.

Other complaints? Well, it’s not that I have any problem with Blake-driven songs – she has a wonderful voice and I can see why they have increasingly highlighted it – but I do miss having John front and center a bit more. His tracks on Declare a New State felt a tad more weighty, which provided a nice counterpoint to the tendency of her songs to drift into wispy-cloud territory. That loss means things can get just a tiny bit tedious in the middle of the record. There are lots of nice songs, but apart from the very fun “Tigers” there’s not a whole lot to distinguish things. The only real burners are at the very beginning or end.

Still, those good tracks more than make up for a slightly tepid middle. The previously mentioned “A Satellite, Stars and an Ocean Behind You” is right up there with their best tracks, as pretty as anything they’ve done, and with the same sort of energy that made “You, Me, and the Bourgeoisie” such a blast. The final track “Anymore” takes some time to find its feet, but about a minute and a half in it all starts to click. Then, when they reprise the tone of the opening minute it all makes so much more sense – like a magic eye clicking into place. And “Fire” is probably the most straightforward pop they’ve produced so far, but with the delicate touch you’d expect from them.

It’s quite possible that these two will never produce an album to match Declare a New State, but if they can churn out a fun record like this every couple years I won’t be doing any lamenting.

Love Love – Amy Macdonald
Don’t Tell Me That It’s Over – Amy Macdonald

One of my favorite records of this year isn’t even from this year. Somehow I totally missed Amy Macdonald’s most recent record, A Curious Thing, which actually came out way back in March of 2010. Macdonald is actually quite popular over in Europe, but doesn’t seem to have taken off in nearly the same way on this side of the pond.  So despite the fact that I loved her debut, I just failed to notice this one getting released.

Her style is almost aggressively straightforward. These are simple songs about love and longing, clean guitar lines, verse/chorus/verse, etc. The big themes are love, wistful reminiscence, and wry concern for the inauthenticity of fame. None of which really pushes any boundaries. She does have a lovely voice, with a thick Celtic accent, which adds some nice flavor but doesn’t fundamentally alter things. The thing is, she just does the basic stuff so well that you can’t be bothered to worry about any lack of sophistication.

Things pick right up where they left off in 2007’s This Is the Life. “Don’t Tell Me That It’s Over” is a galloping guitar-driven love song, which is sold almost entirely by her vocal performance. “No Roots” is smoky and insistent – though the quiet intro drags on just a little bit. And “An Ordinary Life” takes what could be a very trite message (the decline of authenticity that seems inevitably accompany fame) and makes it seem significant. It’s not that she offers a radically new perspective or anything – more that she seems to call attention to all those elements of life that appear universal from the outside, but which are invariably experienced in their particularity from within.

My favorite example is “Love Love,” which to my ear is almost post-ironic. See, for example, lines like: “At night I sit and cry it seems / Wondering why love is not like my dreams / Wondering why I am still here all alone.” Taken literally, it’s almost too precious to handle. And yet, she plays it straight. Or rather, she plays it like someone who desperately WANTS to still believe in the dream. The sense of melancholy reaches its apotheosis as she sighs: “And at night I wish that you were there / Touching my face and stroking my hair / Telling me things, telling me stories / Telling me you love me in all my glory.” The snob will write it off, but would be absolutely wrong. It’s a very genuine moment because, rather than in spite, of its pomposity.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t mean to jump completely into the breach in defense of this record. It’s simplicity is a major part of its charm, but it’s also a modest step back from Macdonald’s first record. That one combined this sense of passion and earnestness with a more tempered form of judgment. There’s nothing on this record that hits the pitch-perfect sense of awe you heard in “Barrowland Ballroom,” or anything that is so pure as her cover of “Caledonia.” And where the themes do match, there is something a bit more weighty about the older “Footballer’s Wife” which just doesn’t quite emerge from this record’s “An Ordinary Life.”

All that said, it’s still a mighty fine record. If it suffers marginally compared to her first one, it certainly is not a sophomore slump.

Awaiting Elemental Meltdown – The Six Parts Seven

So, Rick Perry has the debate meltdown to end all meltdowns. I still don’t think he’s down and out, but it does seem to suggest that the Mitt train is rolling along with ever-increasingly inevitability. I mean, for all the Republican primary voters seem to demand ideological conformity, it’s exceptionally hard to believe they want to stick this guy (or, god forbid, Herman Cain) up on a stage with Obama next fall.

The real thing I wanted to talk about here is the series of modest Perry defenses. Everyone has had brain freezes, after all. And it’s not like being president has anything in particular to do with the ability to memorize talking points. But while I totally recognize those points, I want to push back on the pushback.

Here’s the thing. If Perry had genuine opinions about the means for forming governmental bureaucracy, he would presumably have access to some basic set of arguments in defense of those principles. But he doesn’t. Because he has no actual opinions; he only has the window-dressing. He wants to close three departments because it sounds like the ‘take no nonsense’ sort of approach he thinks he’s supposed to embody. Sissies try to reform systems; eggheads have complicated programs; Rick Perry just cuts right through it.

But why three? Well, it would be beyond insane to just shut down every department. And only closing one is far too mainstream. Closing the Dept of Education has been a Republican bugbear for years. So you have to go beyond that. And, let’s face it, three is a pretty solid number. We love threes in American political culture. So let’s make it three.

It was incredibly obvious watching him sputter that he had just memorized the phrase “Education, Commerce, Energy” – and had no engagement with the content of what he was saying. That’s the real crime, that when the memorization broke down he had no actual content underneath that he could resort to. All he could do was stand there, grin, and say ‘oops.’

Let’s also not forget that the essence of his ‘economic plan’ is supposedly his focus on energy. That’s what he’s supposed to be a specialist in.

Transparence – Asobi Seksu
Hold Your Secrets To Your Heart – Miracle Fortress

What is the value of transparency? I was listening to the most recent episode of On the Media, and they had a debate about the Super Committee. One side argued that it was a problem for these negotiations to be going on behind closed doors. Which sounds reasonable, right? We live in a democracy after all. Why should the process of government be hidden from the people?

But let’s take a step back. What is really at stake here? The Super Committee is not some secret organization that has free reign to impose its will. Frankly, it might be better if it were. But what we’ve actually got is a small group of people who will attempt to produce a single recommendation that can get support from a majority in the House and the impossibly elusive 60 votes in the Senate. Which is to say: whatever they recommend only becomes law if it goes through the normal procedure for legislative action.

Now, if you want to call anything anti-democratic about this process, you would almost certainly be better off focusing on the supermajority requirement in the Senate. But let’s set that aside entirely.

The real question, it seems to me, has to be whether we value openness for its own sake, or if we value it as a mechanism for achieving some other good. I’m sure there are some people who simply value openness as a basic principle. But I don’t really see the point of it in that sense.

I think when most people think about openness in government what they really want is better representation. That is: they fear that secret deals will reflect embedded (special) interests, rather than representing the genuine will of the people. By exposing negotiations to sunlight and public scrutiny, the argument goes, they won’t be able to hide behind anonymity.

But there is a serious countervailing force here. Namely: public deliberation can very easily provoke worse representation. Public conversation makes it incredibly easy to assign blame. And there’s nothing people like more than assigning blame. The whole premise here is that people need to forge a compromise that won’t make anyone happy. In those circumstances, people who are angry about something are going to be far louder than people who see something as an acceptable compromise. Given that, sunshine is likely to just make deliberations pure show.

The additional factor is the timing of persuasion. Attempting to justify compromises while they are being discussed (and might not even be used) is a fool’s game. There’s nothing more aggravating to a politician than sticking your neck out, risking your built-up capital, to defend something only to have it stripped out the next day. The risk of that often means people simply won’t bother proposing the thing in the first place.

However, justifying a single bill at the end of the process is far easier. You’re not stuck defending stuff that didn’t make it. You can sell all the advantages and minimize the losses. You can work with other messaging agents to speak with the same voice. And you can credibly argue that this is a take-it-or-leave-it scenario. That’s not to say it’s EASY, but you’ve got something to work with.

There is some substantial pedigree for this. The original Constitutional Congress worked in secret, for precisely these reasons. They wanted people to feel free to express any ideas and not have to worry about their reputation. And they didn’t want arguments made during the deliberations, considered but dismissed, to resurface in the colonial versions of attack ads.

What do we want out of public deliberation? Do we want it to be public in the sense that the public gets to watch and be involved? Or do we want it to be public in the sense that the interests of the public are represented? Those certainly don’t NEED to conflict, but if they do, which matters more? To me, the latter is far more significant. If secret conversations make it easier for people to speak in the interests of the public – rather than in fear of personal electoral damage – that seems great.

None of this is to suggest that the Super-Committee is actually worth anything. The more basic problem is that the blame game on the Right has expanded to the degree that anyone in Congress who votes for any bill that raises taxes at all is going to get crucified. The filtering mechanism of the committee just provides no meaningful shield.

So the whole thing is a bit of a sham – and all the complaints about secrecy are terminally irrelevant. But I still find it interesting to think about.

Oh Holy Night – Vanessa Peters

So it’s still only October, but who says that’s too early to post a little bit of Christmas music?  The excuse is a some new songs from HWHW favorite Vanessa Peters.  Her last record was an absolute gem, one of my favorites of 2009.  And she has a new one coming out next year, which I’m quite excited about.  In the meantime, she’s tiding us over with an album of Christmas favorites: The Christmas We Hoped For.

It’s got some of your absolute standards (a beautiful version of “White Christmas,” a dulcet “Christmas Song,” and so on), combined a few more modern tracks.  One highlight on the latter front is “All That I Want” from The Weepies, which accomplishes the goal of being a good song, with the holidays merely serving as an undertone.

Still, the two real standout tracks for me are the most traditional.  First is the “What Child Is This” medley, which blends together the main theme with elements from “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen” and “We Three Kings” – all three of which are among the most powerful of the classic Christmas songs.

Second is “Oh Holy Night,” which is ushered in with the tinkling of sleigh bells, but builds toward a monumental crescendo by the end.  Performers always run a risk doing versions of this song.  It doesn’t lend itself to halfway measures; you’re looking for something fervent, not just something pretty. Peters absolutely delivers, mostly by recognizing that her voice is not well-suited to the task of conveying that kind of passion, and letting the music itself perform the crashing of the wave.

That’s a general theme on the record.  In some ways, it’s a little strange to hear Christmas songs coming from someone I so completely associate with a warm voice and music perfectly suited for long summer days.  But it works, mostly because she keeps a low key. This is not the sort of Christmas records meant to offer some virtuoso a vehicle to convey their talents; it’s simply someone playing the songs she happens to like, and doing so with the appropriate amount of joy.  Even the cases where she makes a significant change, it’s always toward mellowing out.  You can really see this on “All I Want for Christmas is You” – a song that normally drives me up the wall.  In this case, it’s re-imagined as a gentle acoustic ballad, and is very pleasant.

Belong – The Pains of Being Pure at Heart
My Terrible Friend – The Pains of Being Pure at Heart

The first record from The Pains of Being Pure at Heart was a fairly standard set of New Wave/Sarah Records tunes. Good, certainly, but nothing particularly surprising. Since then, they apparently started listening to their old Smashing Pumpkins records and were struck by a bolt of inspiration. It doesn’t really seem like it should work, but the addition of Siamese Dream-era waves of guitar noise has transformed this very fun band into something irresistible.  Belong is one of the very best records this year – in addition to being one of the best records of the 90s, fifteen years too late.

The opening title track announces their presence with a bang. Within the first few seconds the guitars take off and spectral images of the old video for “Today” (you know, the one with the ice cream truck) start to form in your mind. Then, you get the soft half of the soft/loud dynamic, which has the sort of bouncy melodies you’d expect from the band. All of which only makes the return of the guitars with the chorus all the more forceful. In fact, the moment at 1:14 might be my favorite couple seconds of music this year.

However, even with the new gauzy textures, the heart of the band remains in great indie pop music. The twee spirit remains strong in a series of songs about feelings and love and the like (‘Anne With an E’ is a reference to Anne of Green Gables, for example). It is not a record for analyzing the lyrics book in search of some deep meaning. Divorced from the context of the performance, it’s all pretty trite. But, in a way, that’s precisely what makes the record so good. The sheer naïveté, the excitement and energy, the willingness to sound foolish. You have to give yourself up to it, accept the internal logic, and you’ll find the deeper truth: the incredible thing about love is the way it can make the banal feel like magic.

For a perfect example, see ‘Only in Dreams.’ If you take a critical eye, you might notice that the melodic progression is pretty simplistic. And the lyrics are even more clichéd. But with the right perspective, the big chorus (‘even in dreams, I could not betray you’) obtains a sort of transcendence.

For something slightly closer to the carefree/sunshine sound of the first record, there’s ‘My Terrible Friend’ which has boundless energy and bounces along at about a hundred miles an hour.

The end of the record is a little weak, but such minor missteps can easily be forgiven.  Few albums this year will provide even a tenth as much joy as this one.

Don’t Blame Your Daughter (Diamonds) – The Cardigans

Herman Cain:

I don’t have facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration. Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself! It is not someone’s fault if they succeeded.

If I were a candidate for president, I don’t think I would tell people in a time of close-to-double-digit unemployment that their lack of a job is due to personal factors.

Is he saying that 10% of the country just, out of nowhere in the last few years, became lazy slobs? And if so, is that really the sort of message you want to run with?  “Hey, you useless people who just can’t seem to find a job for some unknown reason, vote for me and I’ll fix the economy!”

Yikes.

Fat Lady Skank – Gangster Fun

Christie was never going to get nominated, of course.  Not because he’s overweight (one of the more ridiculous memes of the recent cycle), but just because he had no obvious base.  It seems like every week there’s another Republican guy just about ready to emerge from their clown car, but for most part they all resist the urge.  Christie is just one among many in that respect.  And it’s to his credit, I suppose, that he was able to recognize that the general acclaim of Republican elites was not going to translate itself into any real level of support.

But the real issue here is that Christie has permanently ruined all future Sherman Statements.

Sherman Statements, of course, are definitive and absolute declarations that a potential candidate is not going to run. The classic example of such a statement being Sherman’s: “I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected.”

Such things have always been a bit overrated. There is a time-tested cat and mouse game where a candidate conceals the fact that they are running in order to save face or in order to cultivate further demand. But it’s usually been the case that such people at least make the small effort to leave a bit of doubt in their responses. You get things like “I have no intention of running” or “I am focused exclusively on my current job” or “the job is not even on my radar.”

With Christe, however, he has used virtually every variant on “I will absolutely not run” under the sun. All the while, it has been obvious that he was in fact interested. And, for the past few weeks, he DID in fact start to run. All of which created the absurdity of a news conference where he told people that he had decided not to run for president, which was simply a LESS emphatic denial than he had been offering for over a year.