Steve Scott's "This Sad Music" as a Meditation

Many years ago as a young pup writer, I was music reviewer for Cornerstone magazine. And I reviewed many, many albums which I might or might not have liked that well. There were only a few, maybe as many as four or five, which I still today believe stand the test.

One of those came in 1982 or 1983, an intriguing looking album entitled "Love in the Western World." (Yes, the title was borrowed from Denis de Rougemont's book of that name.) Exit Records in California, an ultimately ill-fated label, nonetheless gave us such bands as the 77s, Vector, Charlie Peacock, and Steve Scott, the odd Brit responsible for LitWW. Scott, a sort of mix of Os Guinness and Lou Reed with a side order of Japan and existentialism / Lamentations thrown in, had created an album guaranteed not to sell in the cheesy contemporary Christian marketplace. In fact, CCM magazine at the time panned it as a disaster. (Intriguingly, Larry Norman's Solid Rock label had a Scott album recorded, but never apparently released it. But that's another story...)

I listened to "Love in the Western World," was awed by the lyrics as well as Scott's wierd musical sensibilities (he's backed by the 77s), and panned CCM mag while pumping "Love in the Western World" as an absolute gem. The starkly haunting musical / lyrical marriage of his unique new wave / spoken word sensibilities and an almost grimly realistic view of human agony, touched me deeply.

One song in particular, "This Sad Music," still best signifies to me Steve Scott's complete originality. (I may dedicate another blog entry to "Safety in Numbers," my close second-place Scott offering from LitWW.) I've looked now and again to see if the song's lyrics are on line. Apparently, they are not. So, I finally have typed them in myself while listening (hopefully accurately).

Here's the thing, though... I would like anyone else who remembers this album or lyric to please read the lyrics below and tell me what they got out of it. As I have listened, some 25 years after it was written and recorded, I find "This Sad Music" as riveting, painful, and troubling as it was to me way back when.

What I most noticed as I listened recently was the compassion -- an element so central to the work that it left me wondering how I'd missed it. I guess we all get a little more fragile, sad of heart, and so (prayerfully and hopefully) more aware of compassion / empathy when we see it than perhaps we were before such lessons came our way. Or, perhaps I speak only personally. Whatever... here is the lyrical portion of "This Sad Music" from the superlative album (now on CD w/ additional "live" cuts). I have formatted it in a manner which attempts to communicate a little of its aural impact, but will change or even delete it if Steve yells at me.

-=-

This Sad Music

The whales are dying now,
hurling themselves upon the beaches
black dice reckoned under the sun's watchful gaze

There's sweat on the preacher's brow
as he talks about damnation.
The whales are in love with no one
They wanted to die without explanation

He mops his brow and quotes Malcolm Muggeridge
on - quote -
"the collapse of western civilization"
- end quote -
and the book he waves in the air
is as black as whaleskin

He urges people to "make their decision"
and the whales have made their decision

An awful silence surrounds them
Like a ruined castle they lie
still, passive, beyond explanations

Beads of sweat on the preacher's brow
like small clear animals clinging to a rock face
or like tiny transparent whales
flinging themselves from the boiling seas of his eyes
into a slow, certain dying

The sad music in their brains, a piper's lament
from that old castle in the mist-thickened night

"FIFTEEN THOUSAND CINEMAS ACROSS THIS LAND,
DEPICTING EVERY SEXUAL ACT KNOWN TO
THE HUMAN IMAGINATION!" shouts the preacher

His voice is a door slamming shut
the sea's noise is a vast intake of breath
a gesture in a room to break the silence
now the whales have broken the silence

They are the color of the preacher's harsh words

The white foam rushes to embrace them
like mother and father
The whales do not want to know, and now

There are people sprawled on the beaches
chained together by "HUMAN IMAGINATION"
All the music has bled out of them,
drained from the ends of their fingers
splashed from the loudspeakers of their wallets

And at the end of the service, people walk forward
Perhaps it is "the collapse of western civilization"
that moves them
or the sad music of their slow, certain dying
that guides their feet

And at the end of this poem
a strange light comes off the bodies of the whales
gathering up the shadows like driftwood
and splashing them against the far walls

you would think the shadows would make
the words there hard to read
However, I find it's at a time like this
I see the writing clearest of all

(c) Steve Scott 1983

Thoughts, anyone? Meditations?


More on Steve Scott:
Wikipedia entry on Mr. Scott (a.k.a., "The Duke of Drone")

I will attempt to review a book of Steve's soon, and should have done it in tandem with this. But one must write when the muse strikes what the muse would have one write.

Love in the western world Steve Scott This Sad Music Exit Records

First Democratic Debate Shows Candidate Strength

There have rarely been as many strong candidates for one party's presidential nomination as the Democrats have this election cycle. The MSNBC-broadcast debate between (alphabetically) Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kusinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson. Sure, the names that lead the pack, Clinton, Obama, and maybe Edwards, look to be building their lead as opposed to the rest of the field. But what surprised me -- aside from the fantastic entertainment value of Mike Gravel (and he did say some true stuff regarding "politics as usual") -- was how unified the field was. It will be interesting to see how that unity does as the campaign wears on, considering that (after all) the candidates are trying to defeat one another while not being so mean about it that they leave potential Dem voters sick of the whole thing.

For this bluechristian, I found the big plus to be their relentless focus on Bush's stubborn, ill-advised, and lethal (for Americans and Iraqis) policies in Iraq and the so-called "war on terror."

The big minus? It is unavoidable, of course, but the chest-thumping by everyone (except Kucinich and Gravel) about how they'd be so willing to be manly men about pursing lethal means in response to any "terrorism" on American soil. Even my man Obama's worst moment was the one where he, too, joined the overall fray to be sufficiently warlike to achieve manhood. I groan.

My second beef? The Dems on abortion sound like a broken record. Once again, a complete lack of imagination on their part collectively. Heck, as Feminists for Life observed recently, a technological advance that allowed a pregnant woman to very early on become "unpregnant" yet also created an artificial womb-like environment to safegard the human fetus in question would completely reshape the abortion controversy. Pro-lifers -- the ones at least that, like their pro-choice counterparts, are without imagination -- would probably refuse to recognize the fact, much as many among them also fail to realize the fact of global warming. But pro-choicers, those who (quite properly!) often also promote solar energy, wind power, and other alternatives to the nasty petroleum / carbon nexus, seem completely unable to leave their "womens' choice equals legalized infanticide" box. Come on, people! As I say, a complete failure of imagination.

My third beef? This was provoked by MSNBC's commentators blabbing after the debate. I am SICK of hearing how Hillary Clinton comes off "sharply" in comparison to the other (MALE!) candidates. We have a serious double-standard here, folks. If she was a man, who would call her "sharp"? No one. What sexist idiocy. She has to play along of course, and the MSNBC commentators graded her performance sufficiently behaved "until near the end." Look, if someone wants to compare Obama's ease, communication skills, and overall "presence" to Hillary, fair enough. I think he is a magnificent orator as well as very fast on his feet. Hillary is also quick, but without that startling -- even to someone who as a Chicagoan is somewhat used to him -- Obama articulation. But lay off the sexism. Really.

It's early. And we'll soon get a look at the Republican crew, who I suspect will take a page from the Democratic playbook to target the Dems instead of one another...

barack obama, Democratic Presidential debate, hillary clinton, evangelical liberal, blue christian, Jon Trott

The Chicago Reader on Helen Shiller

Sorry, if all politics is local, I sure make sure my readers keep up with Uptown, Chicago's. After responding to Helen Shiller's March 2007 aldermanic opponent (James Cappleman) just yesterday, I today ran across in the pile of trash on my desk the March 30 Chicago Reader. An article there, "Helen's Voters: Democracy at work in the 46th Ward," pretty much said what I tried to say in my response to Mr. Cappleman regarding his loss to Helen in the election. There is a predictable (if painful) history here of a class struggle:

At the risk of generating dozens of screechy e-mails, I think it all comes down to good old-fashioned class warfare. Shiller’s made it clear there will always be a place for the poor in Uptown and some people can’t abide that. She says her cause is justice; her foes say she keeps the poor in Uptown so she can control their votes. “Shiller’s main motive was that she was building a political power base which included as many winos as she could drag to the voting booth,” columnist Mike Royko once wrote.

Funny, but not really fair: in a city notorious for its corruption, neither Shiller nor anyone in her organization has ever been indicted, much less convicted, for the sort of illegal electioneering alluded to by Royko. She’s not a lawyer; she doesn’t run an insurance or real estate business on the side. Clearly she’s not in politics to make money, although it looks as though her son, Brendan Shiller, is carrying on that great Chicago tradition in which the relatives of powerful politicians become zoning lawyers.

Some of the animosity against her is a remnant of the culture wars of the 1960s and 1970s. Born and raised in New York City and educated at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Shiller came to Uptown in the early 70s as part of a vanguard of shaggy-haired radicals looking to change the world. Within a few years she and her comrades had created the Heart of Uptown Coalition, which oversaw health and legal clinics, distributed clothes and meals to the poor, and freaked out older white residents by aligning itself with the Black Panthers. In 1977 the group officially moved into local politics by running Shiller for alderman. In those days the ward was controlled by hard-nosed Democratic operatives who’d started in politics under the first Mayor Daley and were not about to let this crowd take over without a fight. She lost by 1,000 votes.

I’ve witnessed eight 46th Ward aldermanic campaigns since then, and though Shiller has won every one since 1987, when she ousted incumbent Jerry Orbach by 498 votes, they’ve all been pretty much the same.

Imaginarium at Cornerstone Festival 2007

Really, I'm just posting this because of the awesome Undead Elvis artwork. But you might want to check out the program as well as have your mind blown by the home page. 'Nuff said.

SmuloSpace Interviews Trott

John Smulo, a co-conspirator with John Morehead, Philip Johnson, and myself on the Sacred Tribes Journal website, decided for reasons wholly his own to interview me. The results of that interview, in three parts, can be perused on his Smulo Space. I talk about the usual bla bla -- life in community, sex and feminism, and my past investigative reporting on the frenzy surrounding so-called "Satanic Ritual Abuse," Mike Warnke, Lauren Stratford, and all that jazz.

An after-election response to me from former aldermanic candidate James Cappleman, and my response back

I was surprised, though not unpleasantly, when former political candidate James Cappleman posted a comment last week to one of a handful of posts I did on the 46th Aldermanic elections here in Chicago. His post in turn led to me writing one of my interminably long responses, long enough that I'm posting it as a front pager instead of a comment. Background: Mr. Cappleman challenged incumbent Helen Shiller in the March elections, and lost. As the election progressed I, as someone who finds in Alderman Shiller the rarest of commodities (a politician with integrity), did give her challenger and supporters a fairly hard time. The election, for the majority of those voting for both candidates, had as subtext the class struggle between more wealthy, invested interests vs. those struggling to make ends meet.

Again, here is what James wrote (along with the contested article itself as well as about 20 other comments). My response to his comments follows:

== + ==

James, I am glad to see you responding to my post here, but sad you couldn’t have responded during the election. Nonetheless, thanks again for posting. Allow me to initially respond to your concerns. After I do that, I’ll try to add some comments reflecting more on what lies ahead for our 46thWard, and Uptown in particular, than focusing on the election now behind us.
I honestly don’t think we’ll get anywhere meaningful by debating as if the election is still underway. Nor, probably, will we get anywhere debating my opinion about your platform and presentation vs. yours. You write that I accused you of being a “fan” of George Bush. I did not. I did suggest that your presentation on PBS Channel 11 as well as your comments in the debate with Helen Shiller at Uptown’s Disney Magnet School offered a rhetorically heavy and content-light approach quite similar to President Bush’s.

What was offered instead seemed to be mostly an assault on Ms. Shiller rooted in character assassination, coupled with your own insistence that, unlike her, you would be a good alderman.
This failed to impress me. Again, that was my take, and I’m the first to admit my perspective is only that of one very limited human being. But can we move on to greener pastures? You list five points, which I will attempt to respond to in what will probably be too long for many and not long (explanatory enough) for others:

First you say: "I am a liberal Democrat." Perhaps you are on many issues. But somehow, on the set of issues consistently facing Uptown (and I’m talking as someone who’s lived here for the past 30 years) you have drawn around you a group of very conservative-leaning (one might even say reactionary) folks on key issues for our community. If a politician’s appeal can be known through his followers, then I would have to say you don’t appear at all progressive on the interlinked issues of homeless, housing, and poverty. Nor did I personally detect anything progressive in your platform on these subjects. You signaled you'd worked with the homeless, which I applaud. But you also seemed highly resistant to more low-income and affordable housing being built in Uptown, a fact reflected by your hostility toward the Wilson Yards low-income housing component engineered by Helen Shiller.

What I suggest, if you want the votes of progressives in the Ward (should Helen not run again), is to interview folks ward-wide about the history of what many call -- fairly accurately -- a “class war” in our Uptown. A growing number of folks would love to see this class war resolved, but I don’t think anyone will respond to rhetoric alone. You would need a platform filled with very specific, well-informed, and worked out plans to actually CREATE low income housing, more jobs for the very p