Music Lives Forever (and So Do We)

Lita Ford in concert at the McGrath Amphitheatre, Cedar Rrapids, IA. Living proof that Rock and Roll Will Never Die.

Music brings a sort of immortality, at least to those who write and perform the music. Each generation has brought its own genre of “musical rebellion” into our society and culture. The youth of the day claim the music as their own, despite protests by the older generation about the quality of the music or the lifestyles of the musicians.

When we are young and full of vigor and rebelliousness, we tend to lock onto anything that reinforces our sense that we are special, we are not going to end up like the older generation. We will be unique individuals who won't bow down to the expectations of convention. Rather, we will make our marks on society and history by following new paths, with our favorite songs being the anthems we sing along the way.

A big part of how we establish our individuality is by listening to and loving the same songs that thousands, even millions of others listen to and love to establish their individuality. Hey, we are all human, and humans are at essence social animals.

Yet those songs do establish the “us” as being somewhat unique. They become woven into our lives and our identities as surely as what we are taught in school or the things we learn from living every day with our parents. Perhaps more so, because there are times where the songs represent what we WANT our lives to be, not the reality we have to deal with. Music can offer an escape from the mortality of a life of boredom or worse, abuse. For the brief moments we listen to our favorite songs or albums, we are forever young and free and immortal.

We get to our fifties, sixties or seventies and listen to those same songs we loved in our teens, twenties or thirties and our minds are flooded with memories of our youth. Music is like that. It can set memories ablaze as few other sensory inputs can. Personally, every time I hear a given Moody Blues (my favorite group) song, images fill my mind of the first time I heard the song, or other events tied to the song in some way. Even some painful memories, soothed by the passage of time, become bittersweet when I listen to an old song that had an impact on my life.

This illusion of youth and immortality, on the part of both the musicians and their fans, is probably a big reason why many keep touring, even after their voices have lost some range and power, they can no longer prance about the stage as they used to, and they just plain look too much like grandpa or grandma to maintain the image of the musician our parents hated when we were younger.

Many of us embraced certain groups in our youth for the very reason that they represented some sort of rebellion against the staid, old culture and values that our parents and grandparents represented. We reveled in the idea that our parents hated our favorite groups, from the style of music to the way they dressed. We smiled in secret (or not so secret) joy whenever the words “I can't stand their music. Why do you even listen to them?” come from the mouths of our beleaguered mothers and fathers.

Now some of those Musical Icons of Rebellion look like the sort of people our parents would invite to dinner.

Sure, onstage they maintain the sort of persona that they did 20, 30 or even 50 years ago. But offstage, the wrinkles become more apparent, and they just can't howl at the moon like the used to. Age has caught up with them in most of their lives, except for their music. It's the fact that when we hear their songs, or see them perform, we can share in that sense of immortal, eternal youth that was part of the kernel from which their musical sensibilities arose.

Take Lita Ford as an example. When she and her fellow members of “The Runaways” hit the scene in 1975, they represented something that those in “proper society” frowned upon: hard rocking women who were not ashamed to be open about their attitude, their sexuality and their strengths. The looked the male-dominated rock scene (and society) square in the eye and said “F*** YOU”. The Runaways were scary and sexy and dangerous and reassuring all at once, letting us know that those “bad girls” were dug or were in high school and college were not the whores and misfits our parents and school principals and pastors portrayed them as.

The Runaways were women who decided to be who they were, not who others expected them to be. The rest of us realized that was a message we needed to hear and embrace in our own lives. Yes, that was the original intent of nearly every conic rock group, to declare that they were new, different and unique. Sometimes that message caught on and influenced an entire generations, and other times the uniqueness was only appreciated by a small body of fans.

Then we fast forward back to our own lives as middle aged, parents and grandparents. We realize we are the same sort of people we defied and made fun of when we were in our teens and twenties. We can watch our own kids or grand kids dig Lady Gaga and think “I can't stand her music. Why do you even listen to her?” and justify that odd sort of irony by digging out our favorite oldies and saying “Now this is REAL music.”

That, in essence, is what musical immortality and eternal youth are, immersing ourselves in an unchanging reality that for the few minutes that “Cherry Bomb” or “Nights in White Satin” or “Under Pressure” or any one of thousands of other hits is playing, WE are the young person tuning out the cries of our parents to “turn that crap down”. We are who we thought we would always be when we were young: ever the youthful, hip, rebellious types who would never end up like our parents.

That's why seeing our icons of our youth perform as though they-and us-are still in our teens or twenties is so important our psyches. Seeing Lita Ford give the same sort of show she gave 30 years ago gives credence to the idea that “you're as young as you feel”. Hearing her perform “Cherry Bomb” with the same sass and vigor she displayed 40 years ago makes people realize that just as she and others said years ago that they weren't going to change who they were to please anyone, they haven't. As Lita haughtily sang “Hello daddy, hello mom, I'm your ch-ch-ch-ch cherry bomb!” I realized once again that my parents WERE wrong about the sort of girl I should date and someday marry. Hell, they were wrong about several things that what would make my life “successful”.

It's the times that have changed. Rebellion became fashion, to become the status quo. That's what transformed the songs of Lita Ford, or The Stones, or David Bowie from that music our parents demanded we turn down to classic, musical icons which represent what is now a normal part of society. (That, and the almost ambivalent idea that yesterday's rebellious rockers invariably become mainstays, then classic acts, without ever changing who they are. That's because in the end, the money controls what a lot of musicians can or cannot do.)

So, every time we listen to an old classic, we return to that moment when it first became a part of our lives, something that identified us as who we were, and are, as individuals. That's because, even though millions of other people consider that same song a favorite, no one else had the unique moment, the individual experience that occurred when they first heard that song.

No one else reacted exactly the same way I did when I heard "Cherry Bomb" for the first time, and so I and millions of others have a one-up bond to that, and so many other songs, which has in some way had a lifelong influence. "Cherry Bomb" invited me to appreciate a certain young woman at my high school in ways I hadn't before.

That's one reason why some songs are so special, so important. They are songs which just "do it" for us and make us stop whatever we are doing and turn up the radio when they come on. It's a part of who we were, and are, being replayed for 3 minutes, and we want to enjoy that sense of immortal, eternal youth as best we can.

It's this living embodiment within the lives of everyone who hears and comes to cherish a song that results in immortality for the performer. By extension, we revisit our youth, and so we come to love the songs even more.

Our kids or grand kids may appreciate the musicians we loved when we were their age, or they may say “I can't stand her music. How can you even listen to her?”

When we hear that, we can just smile, turn up the volume, and realize that in 20 or 30 or 50 years, they will be asking the same of their kids and grand kids, quite possibly when they have dug up old recordings from the 60s and 70s and rediscovered groups that made us all feel immortal and forever young when we first heard them.

Why Some People Shouldn't Be Journalists.

There was a time when it was expected, even demanded by some news outlets, that a journalist be as thorough in his research, as exhaustive in his analysis of information gathered from that research, and as unbiased as possible in presenting what he'd found. Writing it all up in an intelligently presented format was also expected. The only exceptions were editorials and “opinion pieces” in which the writers expressed their personal views, mainly in order to attract readers. Even in “Op-Ed” articles, research and accuracy were expected.

Failure to do so meant the risk of being accused of “yellow journalism, the misreporting of news in order to promote a biased agenda. There was a time when this was frowned upon by all but the most mercenary and disreputable of news outlets. Think of the days when “The National Enquirer” or “The Star” showed up on grocery store check out line displays. Most people realized they were full of junk, some of it obviously fictitious. These “tabloids” sold well, however, and so a trend was birthed.

Times have changed. With the internet, it seems that anyone can put up a website, gather some writers of questionable integrity and ability, and start making money off of click-throughs as people naturally respond to headlines intended to attract people, whether the articles are accurate, or even related to the headline.

A recent example was several online articles scoffing at the Pentagon paying $170,000 to “see why people spill coffee”. The short articles (many of the copy/pasted from other sources) tried to come across as snarky and superior by pointing out that people spill coffee because they are clumsy. What these writers either failed to find out, didn't care about, or intentionally omitted was the study was to find out what neuro-muscular functions combined to either spill or successfully carry a full cup of coffee.

“So what?” people asked. Answer: This was a practical way to gather data that can help in the engineering of prosthetic devices and remote/robotic machines, as well as possible applications in therapy and treatment of numerous neurological or muscular disorders. A “real” journalist would have uncovered this aspect of the study, researched it, and instead of trying to get hits by reporting the negative side of it, would have announced that new research involving something as simple as carrying a cup of coffee might aid amputees, soldiers in action, and those suffering from illnesses such as Muscular Dystrophy or various palsies.

Coincidentally (or not) a similar article resurfaced about a photo of a group of high school students engrossed in their phones with a magnificent Rembrandt painting in the background. This photo was originally presented as an example of how today's young people are missing out on great things in life because they are busy with their smart phones Many people “liked” and “shared” the photo on Facebook and other social media, smugly harrumphing that they are not like that (even though there's a 65% chance they were using their own smart phones to access social media).

The problem with this interpretation of the photo is that it's completely wrong. These kids were using the museums interactive smart phone application to learn more about the paintings they were viewing. Again, some careful research and honest reporting would have presented an article citing the favorable use of smart phones in education.

I'm not even going to touch on the plethora of “news” sources which intentionally engage in “yellow journalism” and propaganda. That would take a book of several hundred pages to address. The phenomenon that leads to all these types of “journalism” consists of some common elements.

• The Money Factor. Sensationalized, biased or articles that cast a bad light on negatively viewed people or institutions generate sales, or at least hits on a web page where it's hoped people will intentionally (or through manipulation) click on ads. Websites attract sponsoring ads based on the number of page views and unique hits they can generate. So, the more they can get people to click on links to their sites, even if the link involves a misleading headline or untrue article, the more money they can make. Journalistic integrity has always clashed with the drive to make a news outlet profitable(which has always depended on advertising). Today, integrity has fallen by the wayside as our society of greed has made profit the primary motivator.
• The drive for power and influence. Publishers have always had a desire to make a mark on society and in politics. For the most part, laws regarding libel and slander helped keep print sources in check, while the Fairness Doctrine of 1949 was the FCC's attempt to address broadcast news sources. However, there have always been many clever ways to circumvent any laws or regulations intended to promote and ensure balanced, objective reporting. The time when most journalists had the personal integrity to avoid such techniques has passed, and making sure the boss is happy, even at the expense of journalistic integrity, weighs heavily on even the most “honest” of journalists.
• Give John. Q. Public what he wants. We have devolved into a society inordinately influenced by Narcissism, competitiveness and negativity. People have reached a point where they prefer to have subjective opinions reinforced no matter how much misinformation or outright lies they have to embrace to do so. In the articles cited at the beginning of this essay, the Pentagon and young people with smart phones are viewed with antagonism by a lot of people. So, the goal of the writers was to appeal to that antagonism, with any regard for accuracy or fairness being of little or no importance.

There was a time when journalists would report the news as accurately and honestly as possible. There are a few who still do so. They are men and women who will write articles they know will be unpopular with many people, but they feel what they have to say must be said. Their goal is to inform and educate, even if people don't want to be informed or educated. They are far outnumbered by hacks who cannot, with honesty, call themselves journalists in the conventional acceptance of that term.

What makes this situation even worse is some people consider their biased articles full of misinformation or omitted facts to be fair and balanced. They have allowed their own antagonism toward those of differing views, whether ideological, political, social, economic, religious etc. to determine what they view as worth reporting or not. This is “yellow journalism” at its worst, when writers forego honesty and factual reporting simply to connect with and influence those who are willfully ignorant. They're the journalistic equivalents of vultures circling above a carcass, thus helping jackals to find a putrid but easily obtained meal.

It it true that no one can be completely objective in reporting news or presenting an opinion. That's simply human nature. However, when we consider subjective, misleading or uninformed reportage to be some sort of virtue, we have done ourselves a great disservice as a nation and as a society. While truth can set people free, accepting lies as truth is a sure way into bondage.