Skip to main content

the time, ironically stuck in the 80's

i just got back from seeing morris day and the time. it was entertaining. and a bit odd. i don't think i've ever been to one of those sorta revival shows. i never saw the beach boys, or the four tops, or the monkees (even though in my childhood the monkees were better than the beatles. i had never heard the beatles, but somehow i just knew). i never quite understood the appeal of music frozen in an era, the disco revival; the 80's craze; artists who essentially say, "i'm going to make a living performing the same songs for 20 years." i don't blame them, i don't think it's wrong. if i had a couple hits i'd hit the road every couple years myself. still, it's odd.

we ran into a couple who'd been at the show at a restaurant afterwards. the man said he saw them in the 80's. i asked the question that had been in my head since the third song, "is it the same show?" his answer, "yeah, pretty much." i knew before i had asked, but i couldn't imagine. being a bit easily bored, that's just unfathomable to me. still, i understand the appeal a bit better now, the power of music perfectly preserved, like an antique, or a mint comic in plastic, and its pull on us toward a simpler time when we were too naive to realize how little we knew. i might even recommend it.

what i understand a little less is that thing that jerome beat on throughout the show. it was obviously unamplified. we couldn't hear it. could he? and if not was it just there to give him an excuse to bounce drumsticks off the floor all night? which makes me think, live hip hop shows should borrow a page from morris day and the time. instead of having all the randoms on stage not really doing anything, have them pretend to play instruments. it's more entertaining.

sharon jones and the dap kings opened. they were good. she's incredible. instead of playing their 30 year old songs, they make new songs that sound 30 years old and hot. see them if you get the chance.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-racism - Class = Status Quo: The Neoliberal Argument Against Coalition

I was approached a few months ago around the idea of collaborating to make the progressive case for reparations. I've said before that while the idea of reparations is morally appealing I don't believe in them as an immediate political project. It's not clear to me that it's possible to build a coalition around a reparative justice focused on just 13% of the population. Encouraged by a recent Twitter conversation that included economists Sandy Darrity and Darrick Hamilton where they suggested that saying reparations will never happen is cynical I've begun trying to think of them as an eventuality and lay out the steps to reaching them. Doing this has made clear that our understanding of reparations as a form of compensation to the descendants of the enslaved is not the reparative justice that we think it to be. If we were living with the kind of understanding of justice that made reparations possible we would not be a nation where war, healthcare, education, and cr

'Anti-racism', All Trap, No Honey: A Discourse About Discourse

One of the things that prevents me from writing more often is the sense that I'm just writing the same thing repeatedly from a slightly different angle. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that moral idealism substituted for material goals will not lead to justice, but is an argument against materialism. I'm a dumb person's low rent Adolph Reed Jr. translator. I'm a "class reductionist" who understands that when the discourse is reduced to just class there's nothing as important as food, water and shelter that's left out. I often find myself contending with people who insist that there is, unable to name anything. They don't understand that they're making an argument against economic redistribution, or they don't care. There are no concrete manifestations of systemic racism or any oppression that are not dealt with through economic redistribution. When people say that economic redistribution won't end racism, what they mean is that

Is Cynicism More Disqualifying Than Ignorance?

I was somewhat reluctant at the time to ascribe any specific intent to Elizabeth Warren's DNA stunt, just focusing on what it said about her political instincts. In retrospect, because of subsequent choices, I see it as craven cynicism. I get that, "I have a plan for that!" is supposed to be her new brand, but obviously, a working plan isn't a central part of that. Her brand should actually be "Pandering Cynic". I now find myself wondering if even she thinks the policy she offers will do what she says it's intended to do. I've been saying in my head that I feel irrational anger towards her, but it's actually quite rational and specific. My posting schedule has been off because I've been playing with the idea of submitting pieces for publication. I've been thinking a lot about how we talk about disparities and how the conversation is used as a cudgel against universal policy. The closest to a good faith version of this argument is