Sunday, May 18, 2014

Songs That Are Stuck in My Head: A Project Overview

Sometimes, I get songs stuck in my head. This is not remarkable; in fact, I have only ever spoken to one human being who claimed that he did not get songs stuck in his head, and he is a pastor who is way into Judas Priest (though he cannot remember how their songs go). Metal-loving pastors aside, the human mind has a tendency to wrap itself around particular pieces of music like a motherly, protective octopus. It's pretty universal.

However, having acknowledged that I am not a unique little flower, I do believe the tenacity with which the musical part of my mind grabs onto songs or parts of songs is a bit out of the ordinary. Sometimes, a song will revolve around my brain in loops for weeks, as if my cerebral cortex is a malfunctioning tape-echo unit. The song will recede when my mind is otherwise occupied with my Very Important Day-to-Day activities (Starship Troopers isn't gonna watch itself, pal), but as soon as my mind becomes empty, there it is again, forcing me to air drum wildly in the kitchen of my empty hosue at one in the morning.

Sometimes, this is awesome, like when I got ZZ Top's "Just Got Paid" stuck in my head for two full weeks.




Go ahead. Try and listen to that song for two weeks without getting into a bar fight, winning, then throwing your arm around the guy whose ass you just kicked. It's impossible.

It's less awesome when weird or disturbing songs get their hooks in me.  I had the part from the Velvet Underground song "Venus in Furs" where Lou Reed sings "Shiny shiny....shiny boots of leather" like he's some kind of Brooklyn sex shaman stuck in my head for three days. During this period of time, I very nearly purchased a leather jacket and almost began smoking unfiltered cigarettes. Having Lou Reed's voice in your head can do that to you.



My point is, I really don't know why songs get stuck in my head. There doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to the whole deal. The catchiness of the song seems ot have nothing to do with it--sometimes it's Miley Cyrus, sometimes it's Lou Reed intoning a bunch of stuff about sex while John Cale plays creepy drones on his viola. Sometimes, I even outright hate the song. For instance, that one Mumford & Sons song where the guys in vests all go "WHOOAAAH-OHHHHHHH" in harmony at the key climactic point (oh wait, that's all of them OH SNAP SHOTS FIRED) worms its way in there sometimes, and I dislike Mumford and his offspring as much as I dislike widespread social inequality.

I am curious about this whole phenomenon. Thus, I have decided to embark upon a highly scientific quest to find the answer to this question: why do songs get stuck in our heads? My methodology is simple: whenever I get a song stuck in my head, I'm going to analyze it here. Why? Because, throughout history, untold millions of people have labored and suffered, innovated and invented, fought and died to create a modern world where it is possible for some jerk-off twenty-two year-old to sit down at a computational device that uses incredibly small integrated circuits to perform millions of complex computations every second to connect to a worldwide network of other like devices and write a blog about his opinions about stuff, and if I don't do it their sacrifices will be for nothing. 

(Just trying to situate myself within a greater historical context here, folks).

Maybe, in the process, I'll discover something important about the way music works within the human brain--the way we process it, internalize it, and come to love or hate it. Maybe, in analyzing something so closely tied to our shared humanity, I'll discover something important about the human condition.

Either that, or this whole project is a ruse designed to get the songs that are stuck in my head stuck in your head, too. Yeah, probably the second one.

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Of Donuts and Drums



          James Yancey, widely known as J Dilla, recorded his final album, Donuts, in a hospital bed. Almost as if the force of artistic endeavor was the only thing keeping his soul attached to his body, he died of complications arising from Systemic Lupus Erythematosus three days after it was released. It seemed like an anti-climactic end for Dilla; he was, after all, your favorite rapper’s favorite rapper’s favorite producer, a man whose endless capacity for sonic innovation and how-the-hell-did-he-do-that creativity placed him in rarified air with such luminaries as Hendrix and Coltrane, and whose immaculate sense of rhythm and timing put him in the company of Max Roach and Ginger Baker. He was a man whose vast contributions to music seemed to demand a grand final statement.
            Instead, he named the album after a piece of frosted fried dough with a hole in the center. Donuts doesn’t seem, well… significant enough, at least not at first. Perhaps it’s because there’s no gravelly voice speaking directly to the listener from beyond the grave, like in Johnny Cash’s posthumously-issued American recordings, or because there are no cathartic solos seeming to break free from the constraints of gravity like in Coltrane’s last records. Perhaps it’s because there are no lyrical insights about mortality and life; in fact, there are no lyrics at all except for a few ad-libs, just instrumentals that Dilla made by chopping up samples from his record collection on his Boss SP-303 sampler. Some reviewers and even more internet trolls have argued that Donuts seems like nothing more than one of the many beat tapes Dilla made throughout his career—just a collection of beats and nothing more.
            But it’s more likely that the title throws people. After Dilla’s death, his record company, Stone’s Throw, issued a statement that read: “Easy explanation: Dilla likes donuts,” presumably in a preemptive strike against anyone searching for deeper meaning in the title. But the glibness of this statement hardly seems fair. The word “donut” does not seen like a fitting capstone to an artist’s life; in fact, breakfast foods, more so than most things, seem impossibly, terribly insignificant in the face of death. The void swallows donuts the way a baleen whale swallows krill, the idea that someone would use their final earthly work to express their love for a snack that is so temporary and so high in trans fat is, to say the least, a disquieting notion. Who makes an album on their deathbed and names it after a breakfast pastry? And, more importantly, why? Aren’t there more important things than donuts?
...
As with most questions regarding music, the answer begins with the drums. Every vinyl copy of Donuts comes bearing a sticker on the shrink wrap bearing the following endorsement from Kanye West: “Jay Dee is a drum god. His drums can’t be topped.” Coming from someone as talented (and egotistical) as Mr. West, a compliment of such a religious nature carries a great deal of weight. It is also entirely accurate. Dilla’s drums are completely, utterly, irrevocably bangin.’
Dilla sampled the drums on Donuts, meaning that he used a sampler machine hooked up to a record player to grab sonic snapshots of each drum hit from the record on the turntable. Sampling is a science in and of itself. Once captured, the drum hits (think of them as a photographer’s negatives), are processed and EQ’d (much in the same way as a photographer performs color correction in his darkroom), and assigned to different pads on the sampler. Then, they are pasted together into a brand-new drumbeat by playing the different pads, creating a kind of percussive collage.
In order to understand the collage, you have to examine the individual pictures, the way Dilla’s individual drums sound by themselves, completely divorced from the context of rhythm and time. It’s as if Dilla tuned his drums to some ancient frequency sympathetic to bone marrow. They have the power to get under skin, to reverberate and ring through the rib cage all the way through the skeleton until they become a part of the body’s natural rhythm in all its polyrhythmic complexity—a second heartbeat thumping along, joining the first.
The visceral, body-moving power of Dilla’s drums is surprising, because they’re not actually that loud. Whereas some hip-hop producers EQ their snares and their kicks cartoonishly loud (all the better to make windows rattle and asses shake), Dilla keeps things subtle, and it is through this subtlety that his drums gain power. There are many threads on internet forums full of dudes arguing about how Dilla got his drum sound, and (like most people who argue on the internet) their efforts are futile because the way he found new timbres within his samples goes beyond machinery. They sound less like drums and more like brief smears of color in the sand, here one second and gone the next.
This may seem like an obvious thing to say, but sounds have the power to evoke images and feelings. Often, drum sounds evoke images of, well, drums. Not on Donuts. Let’s just foucs on the kick drum for a second. On “Workinonit,” it sounds like a four-hundred pound dude in a velour track jacket taking an uppercut to the gut from an MMA fighter. On “Geek Down” it sounds like a seven-foot tall man in a trench coat knocking at your door well after midnight. On “Hi,” it sounds like a giant blowing a kiss, and on “Bye,” it sounds like a hundred-foot wide bubble just as it breaks the surface of the ocean. On “Last Donut of the Night,” it sounds like a young man’s heart trying not to break. But more often than not, though, the sound of Dilla’s drums evokes something nameless, one of those in-between emotions that we really don’t have a name for. Dilla didn’t have to rap on Donuts, because his drums sometimes take you places words can’t.
But the thing is, drums don’t last. They’re ruthless. They hit you one moment and make your whole body vibrate, and then they’re gone, leaving you waiting in limbo like a desperate lover in the space between boom and bap, biting your nails and looking at the clock until the next swatch of color washes over you.
Dilla’s drums are not drums but brief moments of utter, ephemeral perfection. They are here and then they are gone, but in that brief window of time where the drumhead is vibrating and sending wiggling air molecules into your ear drum, everything feels right with the world. Played loud enough, they knock everything out of your head, shutting down every part of your brain except for the part of the brainstem responsible for head-nodding and the part of the cerebral cortex responsible for making you say damn, this sounds good.
In that sense, the act of hearing the individual drum sounds on Donuts is not unlike the act of, well, eating a donut. It is nearly impossible to feel anything but joy or to think about anything but donuts during the donut-consumption process. For about a minute (or, for this music critic, around twenty seconds), all is well in the world. You have to really, really, work hard at it if you want to feel hate, anger, or sadness when you have chocolate frosting on your lips.
And Dilla arranged his donuts in an artful manner, too. Unlike most hip-hop producers, Dilla did not quantize his drums on Donuts. Quantization is essentially a process that takes human error out of making music. Basically, the artist sets a tempo using a machine or software, and this tempo becomes a grid of subdivisions: eighth notes, sixteenth-notes, dotted quarters, etc. The artist plays the track, and then the quantization program takes all of the notes and lines them up perfectly against the grid of subdivisions. Everything is therefore perfect—not a note early or late. This is why most drum tracks on hip-hop songs sound so relentlessly squeaky-clean. 
By comparison, Dilla’s beats are dirty. They’re off-kilter, lilting, and highly imperfect, all on purpose. Dilla programs drums like Theolonius Monk trapped in a break-beat drummer’s body. Just like the way Monk had a habit of playing melodies where every note seemed like it was in the wrong spot until the end, where he tied it all together and made all the wrong notes seem right in retrospect, Dilla turned his quantizer off and constructed drum beats that are completely wrong but oh-so right. 
For example, peep the stuttering sixteenth note hi-hat pattern on “Last Donut of the Night,” the way it freezes for a second on the “e” of the second beat, then comes in just a hair late on the “and.” It sounds incorrect, like a fourteen year-old drummer with a really nice kit getting nervous and falling apart at a recital. Given that the bass drum sounds like a beating heart (and cops the heart’s four-four, thump-thump, thump-thump rhythm), the end effect is that the whole track sounds a little bit like a heart murmur.
But the murmur keeps going, on a loop. Unlike Monk, who (usually) tied his splay-fingered chords together somehow, Dilla just lets the wrongness ride. He never succumbs to the desire for neatness, preferring to allow the drums to keep landing in the exact same wrong spot every measure. After awhile, the brain adapts and adopts Dilla’s skewed sense of time. Wrong becomes normal and normal becomes right, and though all the imperfections, all the hiccupping hi-hats and late snares (and possibly even phone calls from doctors bearing bad news) still seem wrong, they somehow still make sense when considered as an overall groove. Eventually, once the groove takes hold, it quickly becomes apparent that Dilla isn’t even wrong at all— he just has a more intimate understanding of the no-man’s-land between sixteenth notes than we’re used to.
To hear a Dilla beat is to hear fleeting moments of perfection arranged imperfectly; thus, to hear a Dilla beat is to hear life in all of its glorious, irregular, temporary beauty.
And, sadly, Donuts is temporary, too: it has thirty-one bite-sized tracks, one for each year of Dilla’s life, and all of them are over too soon. Dilla’s beats are the kind you could listen to for hours, but none of the tracks on Donuts last longer than three minutes, and most are done in fewer than two. They’re here and gone, and before you can blink an eye all four sides of the double-LP are done and it’s over, but it’s beautiful while it lasts.
...
So, to return to the original question: “Why would anyone name their last album after a breakfast pastry?” I think the answer is that Dilla loved donuts, just like the record company said. But that’s not actually a simple answer. Life is filled with all sorts of unpleasant things: (lupus, taxes, cancer, light beer, car accidents, etc), but it’s also filled with donuts and drum breaks, those brief moments where everything is all right. So, to love donuts is not just to enjoy the taste of jelly-filled pastries but to acknowledge that however brutish and short life might seem, it will always—even in the face of death—be worthwhile. Even during rough times when pastries and snare rolls are few and far between, the few good moments still redeem all of the rough patches. They might be temporary, but hey, life is temporary. The bass drum is still gonna hit on the downbeat, even if it’s a little bit late, and things are gonna be all right—well, maybe they won’t be all right, but they’ll at least make sense—again by the next measure. Just wait for the beat to drop.

Working a Miracle on "The Miracle Worker"



            The Kalamazoo Civic Theater is brave for staging The Miracle Worker, because injecting such an oft-produced play with new life can require the director and actors to become miracle workers themselves. The story is part of American mythology--every year, thousands of schoolchildren read William Gibson’s original 1957 script in English class and see six-year-old Helen Keller overcome her deafness and blindness to learn language with the help of her fiery tutor, Anne Sullivan.  There is nothing wrong with staging a well-trodden play, but familiarity can quickly turn into contempt if the production isn’t fresh.
            Director Kristen Chesnak and her cast are mostly successful in shouldering this burden. There are hiccups: the play’s sense of humor hasn’t aged gracefully in the last fifty-seven years, and Morgan Hause’s snarky reading of James causes the character to seem nasty until an abrupt, unearned change-of-heart at the very end. Also, Annie’s brother, heard only in flashbacks, is voiced more like a hectoring brat than a sick and scared child, making him a rather grating spectral presence.
            But, the production is largely enjoyable. The most powerful performance of the day came from Sofia Cronen, the talented young actress entrusted with the role of Helen. Portraying a blind and deaf character in a believable manner is a tall order, but Miss Cronen’s mannerisms—the unseeing look in her eyes, the grunts, the way she searches the blackness with her hands—remove the need for any suspension of doubt on the part of the audience. She seems deaf, blind and dumb, inhabiting Helen Keller’s dark, wordless world so truly that, when she looked out into the audience before taking her bow, she seemed to be taking in the scene for the first time.  
            Miss Cronen is a wonderful foil to Ms. Roddis, and their chemistry is apparent throughout the production, especially when Annie and Helen tussle (Fight choreographer Zac Thompson also does an excellent job of imbuing these scenes with realism and excitement). They don’t do a perfect job of showing the development of Annie and Helen’s relationship (Annie’s declaration of love for Helen seems to come out of left-field), but they do it well enough to impart real emotional heft to the play’s climatic water pump scene, even though everyone sees it coming. It may not be particularly revelatory, but it’s fresh enough to be a pleasant cap to a pleasant Sunday at the theater.

Doing it Wrong



             There are critics, and then there is the singular Pauline Kael. Kael wrote about movies for the New Yorker from 1968 to 1991 in a style that defies categorization, mixing consumer advocacy, autobiography, and social criticism (oftentimes in the same paragraph). She revolutionized arts journalism by doing everything wrong: she wrote in a conversational tone, peppered her pieces with liberal doses of the first- and second-person, and considered objectivity to be the domain of “sapheads.” Sometimes, she devoted almost no space in her column to the movie itself, preferring to follow her own meandering train of thought wherever it took her.
            Her unique approach gained her a legion of fans, a National Book Award, and a spate of imitators known as “Paulettes.’ When it worked, it was utterly brilliant. For instance, take this excerpt from her 1976 review of the movie Sparkle: “the ‘bad girl’ is the cheapest, easiest way for the movies to deal with the woman with guts.” This is a valuable insight about the way movies reflect gender norms, and it is interesting and original enough that Kael can be forgiven for putting the movie itself aside for about four hundred words.
            But Kael also had her detractors, mainly other critics who took issue with her highly personal, subjective style. Most of them have a point—Kael’s writing is not without its flaws. In her essay, “House Critic,” Renata Adler sets out to criticize the critic, and she does make some unpleasantly vicious (but accurate) points about Kael’s work.
            Most importantly, Adler shows that Kael can downright mean. Though her wittiness sweetens her cruelty, Kael said some indefensibly vicious things over the course of her career. Was it really necessary for her to call Paul Schrader a “whore” who “doesn’t know how to turn a trick” when reviewing a movie that Schrader likely put his whole being into? This is perhaps the most pernicious part of Pauline’s legacy: that she made it cool for critics to be nasty.
            Her other failings are more forgivable. Yes, it is true that Kael has a habit of stringing together a series of buzzwords to create sentences that seem impressive but mean nothing once unpacked, such as “Hans Christian Anderson’s tear-stained The Little Mermaid is peerlessly mythic.” And yes, she also has a habit of doing things like alluding to the Faustian aspects of The Little Mermaid, then dropping the subject completely without explaining herself—a literary sleight-of-hand that gives the impression of deep thinking without the accompanying substance.
              And yet, there is always Kael’s insight at the end of her column, where she might casually postulate that The Little Mermaid is successful despite being a “stale pastry” because parents have “been imprinted with Disney-style kitsch,” forcing the reader to ponder the way art can placate across generations. To borrow one of her techniques (using the second person to bring the reader inside the critic’s mind), you overlook her detours and failings because she ends up in such an interesting place. 

A Matter of Life and Death



           

           Resurrection is a pretty heavy topic for a rock doc. After all, films about bands are usually niche movies meant for diehard fans with closets full of tour shirts. Rarely do they have such universal appeal as Jeff Howlett and Mark Covino’s A Band Called Death; then again, few are so masterfully executed, and fewer still tackle such weighty themes in such an emotionally resonant manner.
            It doesn’t hurt that Howlett and Covino have such a singularly interesting story to tell. It’s the stuff of music-nerd dreams: three black brothers (David, Bobby, and Dannis Hackney) from Detroit start a band in 1972 and proceed to invent punk rock several years before it was even a gleam in Johnny Rotten’s eye. They record a groundbreaking album, labels refuse to touch it, and the master tapes sit in Bobby’s attic for thirty years until a network of record collectors and a Huffington Post article rekindle interest in the band, resulting in a reissue and a reunion.
            Even a good story like this can be butchered by an inept teller, but Howlett and Covino do a marvelous job. They don’t gloss over the dark parts of Death’s history; in fact, they spend the majority of the film dwelling on the thirty-five years in between the band’s breakup and their reunion, showing the way the Hackneys attempted to deal with rejection and move on from the specter of Death. It is one thing for a band to break up, but it’s quite another for a band of brothers to fall apart.
            During this rough middle patch, Howlett and Covino focus their lens on the spectral presence of David Hackney, the group’s visionary guitarist, songwriter, and spiritual leader. They are sympathetic but unwavering in depicting David as a broken man who never recovers from having his genius languish unheard, showing him drift away from his brothers, descend into alcoholism, and ultimately die. Yet, David is never a pathetic figure, either: his portrait is imbued with dignity and respect, and this makes his death all the more heartbreaking. 
            But it is this painful middle that earns the film’s triumphant end, giving the viewer a real sense of cathartic joy as Death launches into one of their old tunes before an adoring audience with a photo of David hanging above Bobby’s bass amp—a band called Death resurrected, triumphing briefly over death itself.