Just Cause

So, I realize that I am the worst blogger ever. I have really fallen off the wagon since my xanga days. That thing is still up there, by the by. It's horrifying, but an excellent look into my depressed state of mind. Anyway, an old high school friend of mine wrote a wonderful defense of Kanye West here: http://handfulodust.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/you-cant-ignore-greatness-why-do-we-hate-kanye-west/ He is an excellent writer, glad to say that I know him. So, I thought I would try and blog a bit myself. He inspired me, that's why I am writing on the music aspect of my blog for tonight. I have lots of interests and millions of opinions, and one blog could not contain all of those things--though, I would note that it feels slightly schizoid. After all, it's like different personalities: one is athlete Zaire, the other musician Zaire, another is writer Zaire and the overarching one is philosophical Zaire. I am basically a crazy person, enjoy this ride. So, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, let's get down to business: In Chase's blog, he brought up this strange standard we have for musicians that are in the mainstream. We seem to pick certain artists to scapegoat, have trouble separating the artist from their art and will laud one artist for doing something another is doing in a slightly different manner. Chase brought up the Gaga/Kanye dichotomy, and I think he is exactly right on this: Gaga is as much of an attention whore as Yeezy, but she is applauded for her antics--Yeezy is hated. I find it a bit ironic that Kanye sees himself as a superhero when he is, in fact, the chosen villain by much of our music consuming society. He is the guy people love to hate. This is not just something that happens to musicians, you see it in sports (Rodman, A-Rod, LeBron) and politics (O'Reilly etc). There seems to be some sort of deep need for us to find someone or something to really dislike. Now, I am unsure as to if this is a result of the Fall, but it is a perplexing sort of issue. This seems so ingrained that most of us cannot even enjoy greatness that slaps us in the face. I wrote a bit about this during the playoffs in regards to LeBron James. Some of the criticism there is unwarranted and blinds us to some very, very good things. That said, I think that we need to check ourselves there because we are missing a lot of things with a lot of merit. As a Catholic, I am always seeking out the beautiful in everything; it is all a part of the package. Many would disagree with me, but I echo G.K. Chesterton when I say: it is not Christianity that is oddly shaped, but our own perspectives. There is more to that, but that is not in the purview of this post. My main meaning hear is that there are so many beautiful things in the world that we ignore for the sake of these negative feelings (though, I must draw a line at the floating paper bag from "American Beauty," I mean that's kind of contrived, no?). We also do it because we do not enjoy differences. It is rather telling that the people who were once considered undesirables want the rest of the world to fall in line with them, is it not? Without focusing on any particular issue, we will quibble about most anything and we are usually trying to bring someone to our side. That, to my mind, is not necessarily wrong or unhealthy; it is just something to keep in mind. In fact, that is not even the base of the issue, the issue is this hateful reaction that we have to things we do not like. The irrational hate that fails to see ANY good in what they disagree with. I am not saying that there are not things that shouldn't be hated, I think proper sentiment is incredibly important (I'm also an ancient trapped in Millenial's body). Rather, I worry about us putting on blinders so that we do not deal with things we do not like. The blinders effect is used by people to avoid a great many things including--as Chase noted--good mainstream material. I personally do not immediately dismiss someone because they are mainstream, I just dismiss them when I notice that their songs are indistinguishable from whatever is popular. I can enjoy Bruno Mars because he works on a different wavelength. The same thing goes for Kanye and many other artists. People are missing out on some great material due to such prejudice and we only become bigots when we cannot imagine how we might have gone wrong. So, a musical bigot suffers from the same ailment as a racial one. Up until now, I was in complete agreement with Chase, but here is where I diverge: I do not think we necessarily need to separate the artists from their material. I do not know if he would agree, but I believe that some artists are completely intertwined with what they do. There are those who are just using stage personas, just extending the stage over the entire globe. But, many are just playing what seeps out of them without any particular thought to it. I would say that MJ, Prince and TTD would fall into this category. Michael described much of his music as simple gift which, as a musician, I wholly agree with. For those of us who write and perform music, the songs are somewhat given to us. We become inspired by it is like we are connected to another realm and it forces words out of our mouths, minds and through our pens. One of my earliest songs is like that. "Dancing Under Orion" is way more erotic than I thought it was after I wrote it. People have thought it was purely about the sexual aspect of a relationship, but that is not what was on my mind--eternity was foremost in my mind. I was also fixated on the notion of marriage and its meaning. That's where that song comes from and the other layers therein were not necessarily conscious choices. Some have complete control over that, but I think most writers just let it flow. They are the vessel and are always connected to the other realm. Because of this, I would say you cannot fully separate most songwriters from their work, well most of their work. If you are an artist worth your salt then you should be able to write outside of your normal comfort zone. I would say that the themes that repeatedly crop up in your work deal directly with you as a person. These songs are not necessarily diary entries, "Dirty Diana" is one such song. MJ was still a virgin (amazingly) by the time he released the album "Dangerous." "Dirty Diana" outdates that album and is about about a groupie who seduces him, something that likely did not happen. Michael is giving you an insight into his heart, he was immensely religious and it always showed through his music, though many great tracks were never properly released. Who he was came through his music, at least the parts he was most aware of and concerned with. So, if I were to look at Kanye I would say that I see most of his swagger to be mere bravado. Hip-Hop, as an artform, requires an attitude and that can be affected, if necessary. I think Kanye does that and I think that his writing shows what's most on his mind. Early on in his career it was consumed with concern over inadequacy and getting a chance to shine. Those subjects pop up frequently in his first two records. He probably developed actual confidence as he continued to do well, so perhaps things are less affected now, but the last record I heard of his still had a hint of that old Kanye in there. In the end, I think it is a mistake to separate Kanye from his music, it is as much him as any number of things. His act isn't like a Madonna or Lady Gaga, who affected other personalities, and more like an MJ or Prince, who brought you what was in their heart (check "Sign O the Times" by Prince and "Destiny" by the Jacksons (Michael cowrote most of the songs)). Kanye may be loud, but there is something beneath all the noise and you don't have to like it to realize it is good. And I've rambled enough. Night. Zaire