picture the crowd in its underwear

yeah yeah, the 2007 State of the Union was mostly an unrealistic exercise in hot air blowing and political posturing. i get that. but i'm not here to bust dubya's chops or anyone else in washington for that matter. i'll leave that to the truly political blogs.

instead, what i offer you is the everyman point-of-view. to me, this speech sounded the way they always do: let's get every american a job; let's solve health care; let's cure AIDS in africa; let's talk tough to rogue nations; let's eliminate the use of fossil fuels; the time is now to teach every american student to read; no new taxes; balance the budget! cheaper fast food! robots in every household! better movies from hollywood! free massages for every american! two girls for every guy! (each statement followed by absurd durations of applause from the audience).

as bush talked about his dream agenda, it dawned on me that the moniker "state of the union" means little to nothing. there's nothing really necessary about this annual speech. it serves no practical purpose. the phrase: the state of our union is strong is often heard, but seemingly loosely argued.

and the thing is, i really would like to hear an honest speech about the state of our union. summing up the state - or health - of our country might be tricky. be isn't it possible? it wouldn't have to be a drab numerical breakdown of unemployment figures, murder rates, literacy scores and so on. just do three things: 1.) put things into perspective; 2.) set a succinct strategy for the current major challenges we face; 3.) inspire us. also, like going to the symphony, disallow any applause until the show is over. that'll reduce 10 or 15 minutes easily. shoot to keep it around 25-30 minutes. and that's all you have to do.

but these things will never happen. and so i must now dispense blame.

i could chose to blame the president, but he's too obvious a target. anyways, W is just following the pattern that's already been paved for him by previous administrations. dubya didn't invent the stale notion of the SotU. so i can't blame him for anything other than not having the guts or desire or vision to change the format.

rather than pinning all the blame on the president (whoever it might be), wouldn't it make more sense to blame the guys who actually write the speeches?


a few interesting notes about this SotU ritual. Did you know it's a constitutional requirement of the president to deliver this speech? Did you know it was modeled after the monarch's Speech of the Throne in the UK? Did you know Thomas Jefferson typed his SotU and had a clerk read it to congress, and he did this because he found the pomp and circumstance to be too monarchical? oh but that ol' scoundrel woodrow wilson brought back the big show in 1913.

here's where it gets more interesting. in the 1920's, calvin coolidge delivers the first SotU over the radio for all america to hear live. now i ask you, is it coincidence that coolidge is said to be the first president to have an official speechwriter? therefore, did mass media kill the notion of a self-expressive commander-in-chief?

i'd love to go back to the days of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Washington's Inaugural, but those days of candid thoughtfulness are clearly gone. too many media members listening all the time, searching for gaffes. fine.

so then, to the speechwriters: be brave! try taking a risk for once in your lives. stop cutting and pasting empty rhetoric from the archives. drop all the needless sentences. get to the point! just tell us in plain language what the state of the union actually is. that's it. that's all you have to do.

buy buy love

welcome back. i hope everyone had a pleasant holiday. mine was just fine, thank you. i bought good presents, received a few nice things, turned a year older, experienced the new year in an ER because of a friend, and overall felt the "magic of the season."

but let's get back to business.

among all the nice things i received was an album entitled simply, Love. it's by a band called The Beatles.

and let me tell you something. it's very, very good.
















what i'd like to do today is explain to you what this album actually is. because it seems to me that people aren't really sure what to make of this. "another compilation? is that really necessary?" that was my first reaction, and i know i'm not the only one.

then i read a review over at Slant. it gave Love five stars and i was confused. how could a compilation receive five stars? i went on and read and learned. although i wasn't completely illuminated, i came to understand the basic premise: Love wasn't a compilation at all. it was more of a remix or reworking or something like that. songs were being blended into other songs and the results were good. this was enough for me to express my interest, and thusly, i received it as a gift.

and then i was in my car driving some long distance. i decided this was the perfect time to crack open the cd. slowly, carefully, i undressed it of that protective cellophane. then i removed that crisp disc from its home and slipped it into the stereo.

it began silently. i turned up the volume to see if i was missing anything. but nothing was happening. i waited.





















and then!

it starts with the cool a capella notes of "Ahhh ahhh." BECAUSE. Because the world is round and all that. only voices like on the anthology. no instruments. and the pauses - oh, those pauses! - pauses between each line of the song. this is an epic beginning from the start! it is a signal that something great is about to happen, as it lays the groundwork with that calm-before-the storm, gentile sound. it is like the start of the 1812 overture. no seriously.

and then the action is afoot. a wall of sound fades-in from the distance, some mixture of familiar Beatles' sounds, now blending to create a new unique sound all its own. as it takes full crescendo Paul's familiar "get back" becomes the song, but with new energy not found on the "Let It Be" cut. honestly, "get back" has never been among the great Beatles songs. not in my mind, anyways.

but on LOVE it's undeniable. it has the energy of a concert version along with the clarity of a brand new song. and that's reason #3 to buy LOVE. every song sounds brand new, like they just recorded it. it's akin to watching Star Wars in THX for the first time. the sound quality alone makes this a worthy addition to any Beatle fan's catalog.

the truly fascinating aspect to LOVE, though, is absolutely in the way songs are blended together to create, in essence, the feeling of having new Beatles songs. imagine taking "being for the benefit of mr. kite" and attaching the end of "she's so heavy" to it. that is accomplished on LOVE with - can i say great? - with Great success. and of course henry the horse dances the WALTZ --> BOOM! guitars blaze in, mixed with the psychedelic /carousel chimes of mr. kite.

i understand that none of that probably made sense. but i had to try to explain. you see, LOVE isn't a remix so much as a collage of Beatles' sounds, flowing from one song to the next often without seams. it's the singing from "within you without you" over the wicked music of "tomorrow never knows." it's an acoustic start of "blackbird" that leads into "yesterday." it's "all you need is love" with the final notes of "goodnight" at the end, with sound bites of the band concluding a studio session. it's "strawberry fields" as if john started it alone and was slowly joined by the band.

it is perhaps the greatest mix tape of all time. longtime Beatles producer george martin created this with his son, and together they have pieced together these familiar, comfortable songs to fashion something of a Beatles symphony.

LOVE is to be martin's final work for the iconic band that he's been with for so long. and with this effort, it's as though martin is saying goodbye to a band, to music, and to a time he loved to be apart of. and the joy for the listener is to hear how intimately martin knows this music. that he's able to smash it to pieces and rebuild it into something wholly satisfying is a credit to his amazing expertise as a producer. and it stands as a testament to his relationship with John, Paul, George and Ringo. he not only knew these guys. he was one of them.

***

the need for this essay is almost unnecessary at this point. the word is quickly spreading about LOVE with places like borders, starbucks and all the like spinning it non-stop. so i know this might have a short shelf life. but i just needed to express how stunning it is for myself. it reminded me, again, how much i love the Beatles. i feel lucky just to be alive to experience this work, simply called LOVE, which must now be considered the coda of the fab four's catalog. if it all started with "she loves you" and their big break on ed sullivan, then LOVE is the conclusion to all that. trust me when i say: it's not to be missed.