Heartache With Hard Work

Shoulda Dropped Out – Gray Beast

Following up on the “suspension” of the McCain campaign…

Here’s a tip. If you’re going to take a nakedly political action under the guise of “setting aside politics and the campaign” don’t accidentally leak your talking points to the media.

I mean, come on people.

In other news, David Letterman is not happy about this turn of events:

And then there’s Sarah Palin, in a rare media sighting:

COURIC: You’ve said, quote, “John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business.” Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

PALIN: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie — that, that’s paramount. That’s more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

COURIC: But he’s been in Congress for 26 years. He’s been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

PALIN: He’s also known as the maverick though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he’s been talking about — the need to reform government.

COURIC: I’m just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?

PALIN: I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring them to you.

But…but…he’s known as the maverick. Why isn’t that enough for you people?

The rest of the interview is no better. For one thing, there’s her total inability to even formulate an opinion on a moratorium on foreclosures. But even more there’s this:

I’m inclined to agree with Steven Benen and Jesse Taylor about the latest stunt from McCain: the decision to “suspend” the campaign in order to focus on the financial crisis.

Steven Benen points out the complete absurdity of this: “Apparently, as McCain sees it, 10 days after the Wall Street crisis began, now he wants to head back to Capitol Hill to do some work. Of course, lawmakers and administration officials have been working quite a bit, but McCain, who has played no direct role in the negotiations thus far, wants to swoop in and tell everyone what they need to do.”

It’s frankly embarrassing. The crisis has been going on for a while, and McCain has so far studiously avoided saying anything concrete after his “fire the SEC chair” flub. Now he wants to step in and lend a hand. But what, exactly, does he plan to contribute? What does he think the problem is? Does he support the Paulson plan? Does he support the plan Dodd and the Democrats have put together (by, you know, actually sitting down and working for the past week)? Does he have any proposal beyond abstract “bipartisanship”?

If he has something to contribute why has he not mentioned it at any point in the last week, when he’s had the entire eyes of the world on him? He’s running for President of the United States. If he thinks he can lead on this issue than lead. And if not, get out of the way and let the people who actually know something about economics run the show.

Why make this decision now? Why, when the first debate is coming up on Friday – a debate that you’ve been hyping the importance of for months? Why, when increasingly embarrassing questions are coming out every day about the ties between Rick Davis and Fannie Mae? Why is it putting country first to suspend campaigning now, but it was totally fine to skip out on important Senate votes for virtually the entire rest of the year?

Why? Because this is a campaign of gimmicks. As Steve Benen points out, this is not a one-off situation. It is clear that this is how McCain thinks a campaign is supposed to be run, with tricks and gambits. Rather than focusing on the actual nuts and bolts of policy, you attempt ploys to capture the moment. It’s all show and no substance, and it’s terrifying to think of what it might mean for someone like this to be in the White House.

Just think back over the last month. The Palin pick is data point number one, two, and three in evidence of this strategy. But then there’s the slew of ads with ever-ratcheting up lies – presumably based on the principle that if you say something inflammatory no one will bother to pay attention to the fact-checks. Toss in this nakedly political decision to “suspend politics” and we’re entering a Twilight Zone world where down is up, left is right, and the central organizing theme of the McCain campaign to the American people is: we think you are idiots.

UPDATE: And the Obama campaign responds appropriately, pointing out that “a president should be able to multi-task” and that this is clearly a ploy. Don’t stand for this nonsense.

UPDATE #2: SurveyUSA conducts a snap-poll that suggests the American people are perfectly able to see through this little charade. Think about it. A candidate for president declares two days before the first debate that it should be suspended. And only 10% of people agree with him. You know how hard it is to find a proposal that only 10% of people will support?

So I attended my first concert as a California resident, heading up to San Francisco for the awesome Sunday lineup at the Treasure Island Music Festival. I’m not really one for concert reviews, so I’ll simply provide a few fleeting thoughts on the various bands:

I showed up just as John Vanderslice’s set was ending. However, since I saw him at a small show in Hanover just a few months ago, I don’t feel too bad about that. Next up on the list was Port O’Brien, who played a very loose, jangly folk rock set.

Next came Tokyo Police Club, with a short but sweet indie rock show – lots of two and a half minute pop songs with keyboards and guitars. Nothing out of this world, but they were good enough to convince me to actually go out and pick up a copy of Elephant Shell – something I’ve been meaning to do for awhile but had never gotten around to.

The Morning Benders were next, and while I did want to see them, it was much more important for me to stake out a place right at the front of the main stage for Okkervil River. It was a wise decision. Seeing them again only further cements in my mind the belief that they are the best band on the planet right now. A full review of their new record is coming, but for now I’ll just say that while I don’t like it as much as their past few records, it’s still likely to be among my top 5 albums of the year.

And that’s almost the most impressive thing. That they can produce a new, unique, fantastic album that blows most of the rest of the competition out of the water every year or so is frankly astonishing. It’s like they’re playing a completely different game from the rest of the bands right now.

One other thought: I wasn’t a huge fan of “A Girl in Port” last year, until I saw it live. And it completely transformed the song. I’m not usually one for believing in the idea that most songs are better live. But this one, at least, is absolutely transcendent in this context. I took a video with my dinky little camera – which results in very poor sound quality – but maybe you can still get an idea of what I’m talking about:

The next act was Fleet Foxes, who also have an album in need of review. Imagine My Morning Jacket (back when they were good) with a lot of CSNY and you’ll have a pretty good idea. Their ability to harmonize is quite impressive. Still, the one negative thing I’ll say is that occasionally the vocal work felt a big indulgent – when they would go through the same short line a dozen times or more with slight variations. In the same way that I get bored with guitar jams, I can appreciate the talent necessary for stuff like this without feeling guilty for just wanting them to get on with things. “White Winter Hymnal” was by far their best song – unsurprisingly.

The next band was Spiritualized, who were WAY WAY too loud. I was getting some food, far away from the stage and it was still impossible to have a conversation over them. They’ve actually got some songs I quite like, but most of the set was premised on the idea that loud feedback is cool, which made it difficult to hear any of the more delicate songs underneath them. Even their best song “Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Floating In Space” was very nice to hear, but still might have been just a little too intricate to be pulled off in that context.

After that was The Dodos, who I enjoyed, but didn’t leave me with a huge lasting impression.

And then there was Vampire Weekend. I have to admit I never really “got” what all the fuss was about them. But neither was I ever in the backlash camp either. They have some nice songs, and I appreciate music that makes an effort to sound smart. I’m not all that worried about any particular kind of authenticity. It’s far more important to me that the band simply enjoy making music than for them to fit any particular kind of mould. With all that in mind, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. I still can’t understand why people went so completely nuts about them, but they put on a good show. Many of the songs which always sounded a bit flat to me on the album were giving more scope and breadth here.

And, they definitely should write more songs like “Walcott.”

I was mildly curious to see Dr. Dog, but not nearly enough to sacrifice a prime position for the next main stage act: Tegan and Sara.

Now, regular readers will now how much I love them, but I was still a little bit apprehensive about how well it would translate to the environment of a big outdoor stage. Turns out there was no reason to worry: they were awesome. It helped that they played substantially more of Tegan’s songs (I enjoy Sara’s stuff fine, but the reason I’m a huge fan is really because of Tegan). And while they are the most technically proficient act in the entire world, they put a nice spin on some of the songs. And the version of “Living Room” they played was really top class.

Finally, some banter highlights.

A great, terrible joke from Tokyo Police Club:
Q: Why did the scarecrow get an award?
A: Because he was out standing in his field

Oh man, that’s some good stuff.

And somehow Tegan and Sara got on the subject of whether vampires were going to come and attack us all. Both agreed that this sounded kind of hot, and Sara in particular seemed pretty enthusiastic about becoming a vampire. So in case you were wondering, Sara Quin: into vampires.

And while I’m on the subject…can you imagine how awesome it would have been to have a Buffy episode where Tegan and Sara are vampires?

MP3s:
The Con – Tegan and Sara
Our Life Is Not a Movie or Maybe – Okkervil River
White Winter Hymnal – Fleet Foxes
Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Floating In Space – Spiritualized
Five and Dime – Port O’Brien
Juno – Tokyo Police Club
Walcott – Vampire Weekend

Parallels are endless – Starring Me

I think it’s time to officially declare 2008 the year of stunningly beautiful atmospheric dream pop. I was feeling kind of down about the generally mediocre state of new music this year, but if I can keep turning up something this good every couple days (thanks to folks like Stytzer), that’ll quickly turn around.

I know virtually nothing about Starring Me except that I could listen to this one track for hours on end. And they make music almost too pretty for words.

Anyways, give yourself a break: sit back, relax, and let this one take you into the stars…

Following up on the School of Seven Bells song I posted yesterday, here’s another track to keep you in that hazy trance of trippy ambient beats.

Eyes O’ Eyes (Brooke Waggoner remix) – Interstates

To be honest, I’m not a huge fan of Brooke Waggoner – the music is nice enough, but there are enough people doing the same sort of thing that do a little more for me. This remix, however, put together by Interstates, is the real deal. It’s simple without being simplistic and intense without being tiresome.

And I really am a total sucker for this sort of thing – the ethereal vocals weaving in and out of the little clicks and beats, all tied together by a gentle little piano line…

Kinder Words – The Mighty Mighty Bosstones

For months, all you’d hear from the lefty blogs was hand wringing about how Obama wasn’t “going on the attack,” wasn’t fighting back, and (god forbid) was tossing in the occasional comment about McCain having a genuinely touching life story before launching into the criticisms. They wanted him to get down in the muck, to fight fire with fire. You’d hear laments about the Republicans knowing how to play dirty and the Democrats being ineffectual

Now, I can understand why people were frustrated, but I think there are larger issues at work here. First and foremost, that’s just not who he is. He is not going to take the low road. And that is as it should be. There are core principles, I think, that cannot simply be brushed aside for the sake of expedience. I believe that the basic principle of truth-telling and honesty is one of them.

This is not necessarily an anti-utilitarian claim. I’m not suggesting that lying is immoral in all cases. Of course you lie to the Nazis about the Jew in the basement, and of course you lie to Victor Lazlo to protect his feelings. No, I’m talking about the way hypocrisy corrupts us, destroys that higher principle that we thought ourselves to be defending.

Think of Guantanomo. Palin in her acceptance speech mocked the Democrats’ position: “Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.” But the point here is that we don’t know they are terrorists. And the further point is that we should be better than this. We hold ourselves to a higher standard precisely because this is what separates a liberal democracy from terrorists bent on destruction. We ensure rights, we do not torture, we hold ourselves in check even when we could unleash the worst devastation.

And this is beacuse we know enough about ourselves to be aware of the demons everyone carries within them that must always be held at bay. And that’s the danger. You may believe that you can play-act as a mud-slinging hypocrite, always keeping in mind the higher purpose. But such control is fleeting. As Vonnegut warns in Mother Night “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.”

All that said, there’s clearly a case to be made for ratcheting up the pressure that need not play into the worst techniques. And this brings me to the strategic case for Obama’s strategy. Effectively, it can be summed up in board game terms as “waiting for your opponent to overstretch.” Or in poker terms as “slow playing.” Basically, Obama is keeping things cool on his side and just letting McCain dig himself deeper and deeper.

If he had struck too early, McCain would have retained all his residual credibility on questions of “honor” and his maverick status that he spent years carefully cultivating. Now, however, those bridges are starting to burn. Witness, for example, this scathing attack from Richard Cohen – who admits to being “in the tank” for McCain until now: “And so McCain lied about his lying and maybe thinks that if he wins the election, he can — as he did in South Carolina — renounce who he was and what he did and resume his old persona. It won’t work. Karl Marx got one thing right — what he said about history repeating itself. Once is tragedy, a second time is farce. John McCain is both.”

Combine both of these ideas and you get an idea about the broader Obama campaign strategy: to have faith in democracy and the American people. Now the pessimist in me can often find this difficult to accept. But in my heart I basically believe that people are good, that we can be distracted by shiny objects and stupid campaign narratives. But when the chips are down, we feel an obligation to make the best decision that we can. And when faced with one campaign that consistently emphasizes policy and the process of government and one campaign that has straight-up admitted they are trying to obfuscate issues, people will see the McCain strategy as the desparation tactic that it is. And punish them accordingly.

I don’t mean to say that this was all planned months ago, evil-genius style. It’s not like Obama knew that McCain was going to go off the rails so absolutely. But then again…it’s not really so surprising is it?

Think of it this way: one thing we know for sure about McCain is that he really, more than anything else in the world, wants to be president. He was never really so maverick as the stories made out – it was in part a ploy to try and snake the 2000 nomination. He’s admitted to lying (on the Confederate flag) to try and get votes. And his actions of the previous couple years demonstrated that he was not going to feel beholden to previous honorable stands (immigration, tax cuts, etc.) if they stood in the way of the presidency.

Further, the country is in the midst of a Blue Wave. The war is unpopular. Although the major economic crisis that just hit might have been unpredictable, the general state of the economy was unlikely to improve. Knowing that, McCain was always likely to be behind come August.

So what else was he going to do? The degree and the intensity of the of cannonball into the deep end of sleazy campaign strategies was probably unforseen, but the general strategy…certainly predictable.

So now that it’s happened, Obama gets the best of both worlds. He can drop all the “McCain is an honorable man” rhetoric, and can stop positively referencing McCain’s life story, which sends the signal of the gloves are coming off. Because he usually comes off as so measured, so reasonable, so ready to lend compliments…it doesn’t take a lot of bluster to communicate the message. The old saying holds true here, I think speak softly, and carry a big stick.

Moreover, this approach lets Obama spend the final two months on offense, but does worlds to shut down the inevitable and annoying trope the media loves to trot out: the idea that anything less than absolute lovey-dovey lets-hold-hands rhetoric violates his “new politics.”

Look, he can say in response, I’ve done my best to run a positive campaign. Look at all those times I and my surrogates went out of our way to compliment Senator McCain, to point out his heroism, his patriotism, and his honor. All I’ve ever wanted was to debate about the issues. And in response we got a campaign full of lies, disdain, and character attacks.

And this will all have the advantage of being true!

With all this in mind, I remain cautiously optimistic. I’m still a little puzzled about how McCain’s numbers have withstood the media awakening this week, but they’ve started to dip quite a bit in the last couple days. In short, we’re very close to being back to where we were before the conventions, except I think Obama is in a much stronger position going forward. The narrative that McCain lies about everything and isn’t honorable is out there, and it’s a powerful one. It’s likely to infect a lot of other stories in ways that will be difficult to predict.

Given that, I think Obama needs to use the media’s shame at being so completely besotted with the McCain narrative long after it had been debunked. That does not mean persistent character attacks or purely negative messages. The time will soon pass for ads which have the sole purpose of pointing out that McCain has sold his soul. Those are useful in this moment to help drive the story for the week. But it will soon be embedded.

Once that happens, just make this a constant subtext.

The economy: McCain claims to care about the troubles of ordinary people, but he’s really just lying to you to try and get your vote. He’ll claim to be a populist, he’ll claim to fight “special interests” and “lobbyists” but really he’ll just keep supporting the same Republican policies that have ruined our economy.

Health care: McCain says he wants to “reform” it, but we all know that’s just a fancy word for cutbacks. His plan is to give tax credits for health care, but what he won’t tell you is that this comes in the context of incentives to encourage employers to drop coverage for 20 million people, who will then face a cost that will dwarf the small credits he wants to provide. Effectively, this makes health care more expensive for those who most need it, while doing nothing to improve the quality of care.

Tax cuts: a huge percentage of people are still under the impression that if Obama wins their taxes will go up. Now, that’s true if they make over $250,000 a year. But for everyone else, they will fare better with Obama. “Senator McCain wants to sell you on a tax plan that gives huge kickbacks to the upper 1% but does nothing for ordinary people.” And then throw in a crack about him having a bridge to sell you, too. Or point out that McCain decried these very same cuts as reprehensible earlier this decade when Bush proposed them for precisely this reason. But don’t worry, Senator, you’ve still got time to decide to be against them before you were for them before you were against them.

You get the point. This is now part of the narrative. Use it, with all the sly wit that Obama has shown he can wield so deftly. Be a little snarky, but always in the context of steering the debate back to the real issues.

Connjur – School Of Seven Bells

Sometimes you hear a song and it instantly clicks. You realize that you’ve been wandering around for days in a stuffy room, and then suddenly the window opens and in bursts a fresh breeze. Your face flushes with the sensation of the cool night air. You take in a full breath and fill your lungs fit to burst. Your mind clears and your skin comes alive in anticipation…

That’s what this song did for me. Vaguely psychedelic, a hint of shoegaze, silken vocal harmonies, and a whole lot of gently insistent dream-pop. It starts out loose, free-flowing. And it slowly builds with new layers introducing themselves in slow waves – they enter, briefly become the center of attention, and then smoothly fold into the general soundscape. And when all the parts come together at around four minutes, it’s one of those rare moments of musical ecstasy where the whole world comes to life and hums around you.

I first heard of School of Seven Bells about 12 hours ago, but this is already a strong contender for song of the year in my book.

The album Alpinisms will be out in late October via Ghostly.

Start a War – The National

Alright, I give up. Clearly, I’m not capable of avoiding politics right now. As much as I’d like to keep the music portion of my life detached from the academic and political junkie portions, it’s clearly not in the cards. In my defense, I spend huge amounts of time reading this stuff and getting increasingly aggravated. It’s hard to keep myself from letting the thoughts pour out. And then, since I’ve got a blog, this is where it’s going to show up.

After all, as much as I enjoy the readership and comments this blog is really about what works for me. And this is where I’m at right now. To just blithely post music reviews while 90% of my mind is elsewhere just wouldn’t feel honest. And to me, this blog is based completely on the idea that it is an honest reflection of myself and my world.

I’m still going to post about music – no worries about that. I’ve got a backlog of 15-20 albums that deserve a review, and tons more songs on top of that. But there’s going to be dual currents here for awhile.

I know some folks would prefer I keep the politics of it. To them, I apologize. I will suggest that you grow accustomed to skipping these posts, or at the extreme simply moving on to less topical shores for the next couple months.

So anyways, I need to get something off my chest about the Palin interview and her lack of awareness of the Bush Doctrine. Since the interview was released, a small cottage industry has developed of people defending her ignorance.

So let’s get one thing straight. There’s nothing “obscure” or “confusing” about this question. It’s not an insider term. It’s one that is likely familiar to anyone with even a passing interest in US foreign policy over the last 8 years.

But let’s assume for a moment that’s it not. Even if that were the case, surely there is a difference between an average citizen and a candidate for VP on the Republican ticket. It’s not like he asked her to comment on the argument about the sustainability of unipolarity in the newest Brooks and Wohlforth book. No, he asked a very simple question about whether she agrees with the significant foreign policy choices of the incumbent administration of her own party. This is an incredibly basic and important question that ought to be a basic litmus test of whether you are even aware of the context in which American power currently operates.

Gibson was not trying to get her by springing a trick question. It’s extremely clear that he assumed (perfectly reasonably) that this was a question someone aspiring to be a heartbeat away from the most powerful job on the planet would have some opinion on.

Further, while its true that “the Bush Doctrine” does not have one single, objective definition, this should have zero relevance in this conversation. Two reasons.

First, although there has always been debate about exactly what fell under the rubric of The Bush Doctrine, generally speaking the basic principles at stake were never in doubt. The core (according to virtually everyone who has written or talked about the subject for the past six years) is the notion that the US must maintain the option of preventative warfare.

This was put into context by reference to the changing nature of international politics in an age of terrorism. It was justified by painting a picture of undeterrable states who might be pursuing WMD capabilities. And it was constantly sustained by attempting to paint a broader picture of a global war on terrorism that must never flinch, never quail. And finally, all of this was wrapped up in the idea of democracy promotion – that the US was the shining city on the hill which would spread freedom across the world, at the barrel of a gun if necessary.

But – and here’s the crucial thing – none of that is particularly unique or interesting (certainly not worthy of calling it a Doctrine – capital D) without the attempt to change the basis for justifable military force. Everyone wants to spread freedom and beat the terrorists, but only Bush decided that this goal required altering long-held firewalls regarding preemption.

International law has always accepted the legitimacy of preemptiom in particular contexts. If war is imminent, the aggressed state may legitimately strike first in order to maximize its military advantage. However, this is worlds away from the new world of the Bush Doctrine. Driven by the neo-cons, the adminstration articulated a new right to preventive war. A state no longer was obligated to demonstrate imminent war – now it was enough to simply believe that conflict was inevitable at some unspecified date. Armed with that belief, a state could attack in order to forestall that (much worse) future conflict.

This is the thread that ties together all the “elements” of the Bush Doctrine. From this perspective, terrorism is an existential threat and states who support terrorists pose a very real risk to the US even if they are taking no immediate aggressive actions. Further, lack of democracy is what enables terrorism. And more, any state we dislike who we believe to be developing WMDs becomes a legitimate target. After all, if we don’t strike now they will gain an arsenal that will deter us from striking in the future.

And so, we waged war in Iraq. And again, we bluster and fulminate against Iran, suggesting that all options must be on the table to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Put simply, we already fought one disastrous war based on this doctrine and Palin and her running mate seem plenty willing to risk another for it. The term may carry a variety of meanings, but it takes a willful blindness to pretend to not understand the central meaning here.

So that’s argument number 1 why the Palin apologists are wrong here. But second, and probably far more important: even if there is a debate, Palin clearly knew nothing about it. It’s not like she said “that’s a broad term – could you clarify which element you mean?” Instead, she reached blindly, asking if Gibson meant Bush’s “worldview” – whatever that means – and eventually settled on a super-generic defense of the idea that the US ought to seek out and kill terrorists.

The funny thing is, this answer gave us a pretty clear answer to the question – just not intentionally. By demonstrating that she approaches foreign policy purely as an ideological practice – begin with a basic worldview and don’t worry about the details. The Bush Doctrine at its core, after all, was merely a statement that the only relevant factors in international affairs are muscle and will. Josh Marshall Matt Yglesias has articulated this as the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics, basically: “They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower.”

In a nutshell, that’s the Bush Doctrine. And Palin’s answer, for all that it failed to address any of this, still told us all we needed to know. She doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is because in her worldview, knowing pesky policy details is irrelevant. As long as we don’t blink, we are guaranteed victory.

There’s just something about that late 90s Modest Mouse sound that never fails to astonish me. I mean, there’s Isaac Brock’s voice for one. But the true defining feature has to be that guitar. The way it can simply rip you to shreds (see “Teeth Like God’s Shoeshine” for example). But unlike some guitar bands who do their damage with noise, Modest Mouse were something else. Not that they couldn’t get loud. But at their most devastating, the thing that truly took you apart was the loneliness, the isolation, the spaces in between the notes. There was an artful looseness to it – it kept you from ever identifying a center.

But there’s also a curious warmth. Not the heat of passion, or anything so mundane as the comfort of a campfire on a cold night. No, this was something else entirely. Like that instant when you touch something ice cold and your nerves can’t quite distinguish it from heat. Or the way your cheeks flush in the midst of a winter storm. This is the sound of a “Trailer Trash” or the mad rush at the end of “Broke” or the moment about four and a half minutes into “Other People’s Lives” when you feel all the boundaries snap and the world shatters in flash.

Hidden somewhere in this was true understanding. I know you better than you know yourself they seemed to say. You in all your madness and confusion. This was not a comforting feeling but it was right.

Why bring all this up? In part because it wouldn’t be this blog if I didn’t lament their shift in style at least once every six months or so. And partly to lament the sheer idiosyncrasy of this sound – it’s not that others try and fail to replicate it. It’s that despite a general recognition of the genius of a Lonesome Crowded West, there are few bands out there who would even dare to try and work with these sonic textures.

And this thought is brought on by listening to Pet Ghost Project, the project of one guy: Justin Stivers, who clearly draws a great deal of inspiration from this sound. In particular, on his new record Cheer Up It’s Raining. It’s not a carbon copy by any means, but that quintessential sound, so hard to replicate, there are hints of it on this record, more than enough to entice the imagination.

You can hear it in “Celebrate Youth (over and over again)” with its loud and soft dynamics, with the staccato progression of notes that drive its final third. You can hear it in the slightly disconcerting sawing guitar interruption of the steady bass line in “Age of Automatics.” You can hear it in the scissoring riffs that close out “Tales of Stage Fright.” And so on.

None of this is to say that Pet Ghost Project is simply aping Modest Mouse. There’s a lot more going on here, including horns far more reminiscent of a Neutral Milk Hotel, a noise-core dynamic that produces songs with far more of a “wash” feel than you’d ever get from the Issaquah boys, and far more generous acoustic elements. There’s nothing at all about the acoustic dirge like “Violent Dreams” to remind you of Modest Mouse. Probably the finest song: “Producing Emotions” owes far more to Brian Wilson than Isaac Brock. Not to mention that Stivers has a far more traditionally pleasant voice, which results in a lot less snarling and a lot more melody.

A more objective review would probably draw far more from a variety of other bands to explain the rich array of sounds going on here. But for me, the experience of someone even dabbling in the same realm as those early Modest Mouse records is enough to frame the entire picture for me. That same DIY guitar impulse…it’s enough to get my heart racing just a little bit more, and that’s all you can really ask for, right?

Producing Emotions – Pet Ghost Project
Celebrate Youth (over and over again) – Pet Ghost Project

Hunter requests a post on the new Girl Talk album Feed the Animals, and in typical fashion I respond after a delay of a couple months. He comments that:

politically, i obviously sympathize with the anti-intellectual-property idea. but i also am a skeptic of the desirability of white people appropriating black voices for themselves. it’s sort of like in south park, where matt and trey make the black man say the hate crime laws are bad so that it seems less racist.

And then goes on to say that he enjoys the aesthetics of it, regardless of how you come down on the politics of the phenomenon.

In general, I’d have to agree. I feel supremely unqualified to render any kind of “serious” judgment on hip-hop questions. I simply am not familiar enough with the history, with the possible layers of meaning that completely pass me by, and with the way an artist might be playing subtly with the general tropes of the genre.

I do have to wonder if part of the reason Girl Talk is so big is because of how omnipresent all these samples are in the mind of any white, suburban child of the 80s or 90s. It’s all here: synths, Sting, “Steal My Sunshine,” “body movin'” and so on. This is stuff deeply embedded in my subconscious. And as such it couldn’t help but worm its way into my heart.

I think there’s really three different things at work. First, lots of people (I’m one of them) like hip-hop in the abstract but tend to shy away from really digging into the genre. We want stuff that’s immediately appealing. It’s a dilettante’s desire, and Girl Talk fulfills that role admirably. Even more than, say Kanye or Outkast, this is hip hop for your sweet tooth.

Second, by sampling so liberally from the tracks of our childhood he recuperates them in a way that we never really knew we were seeking. On listening, you are constantly incited to relive memories of childhood when these songs were your whole world. But unlike the sense of embarrasment such thoughts usually produce, you are free to admit that (deep down) you still love all of these hooks from the horrible pop songs of your youth. Which is not to say that you want to actually go out and listen to the full track. Instead, this lets you satisfy your guilty pleasure with permission from an artist who transcends cool. In a way, it’s the mirror image of the first effect. This is hip hop tempered by the warmth of deeply remembered melodies, and it is also bad pop music reclaimed and made cool once again.

The end result is something that is boisterous, fun, lively, and easy to digest, but which is also feels immediate. It’s all the pleasure of listening to an “oldies” station without the feeling of being left behind by your own culture. That one song can move from “96 Tears” to “Since U Been Gone” to MC Hammer to “Jessie’s Girl” and countless others imbues it with a transcendent hue.

And yet…something about it all doesn’t quite sit right with me. It’s not the politics – at least not in any explicit way. While I can see Hunter’s concern about appropriation, I don’t see it as malignant in this instance. And I’m too firmly convinced of both the inevitability and the positive effects of cultural hybridization to feel much fear in this area. Vigilance is important, but at its core I see the melding of musical styles as a good to be encouraged. Rock and roll itself as it exploded on the American scene in the 50s was nothing but the appropriation of black culture with a white face.

If Girl Talk is a continuation of that phenomenon, I think it is in a positive way. In a sense, it is here that the process reaches its true Moebius point, where the recursion becomes endless. Nirvana, Underworld, Justin Timberlake, Soulja Boy, and Dre…all of these are subsumed within a larger whole.

And the ease with which this is done is the real genius here. What could end up as an utter trainwreck instead stays light and fresh. No single genre ever establishes even a moment of prominence – sounds, techniques, styles, and all meaning bleeds from moment to moment. There is a brilliance here, an absolute artistic triumph. Every second feels new and unique, no matter how many times you listen. The way the disparate elements are tied together is unendingly impressive.

And yet, this – I think – is also where it fails for me. As much as I enjoy this record (a lot, actually) it achieves no resonance with me. The lightning fast shifts, the hyperactivity, the fact that no theme last more than 15 or 20 seconds…

All of this leaves me bewildered. And as much as I enjoy the sound, music to me has to be about substance. I don’t need it to have meaning in any kind of teleological sense. But I do need to feel like there is a depth there from which I can extract my own meaning. Or a canvas upon which my own response can be laid.

Here, though, the only thing I feel is a sense of claustrophia. The walls are closing in and the flashing lights, the endless movement…it starts to overwhelm.

The sheer artistry necessary to create this record is stunning. And I love the way it sounds. But the underlying aesthetic: the endless propulsion of cultural and musical referents detached from their context leaves me feeling just a tad uneasy. It reminds me of a George Santayana quote I’ve referenced before regarding Quentin Tarantino: “American’s love junk; it’s not the junk that bothers me, it’s the love.” I get that feeling here, too.

None of that means this isn’t a great, great album. It is, one of the best of the year. But at least for me, the inherent limitations of this style impose a ceiling on my appreciation. The best music to me always will be that which can make my heart skip a beat. That emotional core is surgically removed by Girl Talk, not on accident, but as the explicit purpose. The result is something very tasty, but ultimately it’s just empty calories. Nothing wrong with that per se but it does leave you a bit unfulfilled.

Give Me A Beat – Girl Talk