Music and Mediocrity

After suggestions from some friends on Farcebook I'm going to write about touch at some point in the near future. Meanwhile, here's a rant while I'm taking time to think about it.

I feel I should apologise first. I've got a touch of 'flu, I'm feeling bloody awful and consequently somewhat grouchy and my chavette neighbour annoyed me this morning with her "musical taste".

Music
I love music. Even before I learned how to play myself (which wasn't until I was well past 30) I was incredibly sensitive to music. Music could raise me to heights almost as exalted as those brought by religion, love and sex.
A particular rendition of Nessun Dorma (from Puccini's Turandot, an otherwise dull opera) once reduced me to a quivering wreck. I'm not exaggerating here: I was shaking all over, covered in cold sweat, crying, unable to breathe and my heart-rate had almost doubled. I thought I was going to die there and then!

It's not just Classical either. In fact I listen to a relatively small amount of Classical music
Here are a few examples to explain my meaning:
When I hear The Sisters of Mercy play Alice, I find it difficult not to dance. Kate Bush's Breathing makes me horny (which I'm sure it isn't supposed to do!) as does Leather by Tori Amos. Sing by the Dresden Dolls makes me exultant for the future of the human race but Tomorrow Belongs to Me from the musical, Cabaret makes me want to hide behind the sofa and try not to wee myself.

I'm sure you get the picture. But there's music and there's music.
This morning my neighbour put some music on. It was what is now called R&B. It sounded EXACTLY the same as every other song labelled R&B. Not similar, exactly the same. It was as if someone had created a worksheet entitled, "This is How you Create an R&B Hit" and followed it to the letter, ticking every box on the way. Sara suggested you can get instructions like you could for a Mills & Boon novel.
Actually, I find the term R&B offensive for this type of music. In the 60's Rhythm and Blues musicians included such radical world leaders as the Rolling Stones and Janis Joplin, nowadays it's TLC and R Kelly.
I'd recommend listening to Destiny's Child singing Say My Name (if you can stand it) immediately followed by Janis Joplin singing Piece of my Heart to understand how much the genre has changed.

Mediocrity
I'm picking on modern R&B because it was what my neighbour played, but it's not the disease - just a symptom.
I'm probably coming across by now as some sour middle-aged git who thinks that all music created after 1987 is crap compared to the real stuff from my youth and, if I'm brutally honest, there's a temptation to think like that. Thinking a little more deeply though, shows it to be untrue.
When I was 15 the fashionable and popular music (ie. the stuff that sold) was made by Lionel Richie and Sheena Easton, the stuff I liked was by David Bowie and Japan. What's the difference?

The difference is that the music which sold best was the music which was meant to sell best. Punk and independent labels began because major label executives would not take on artists who couldn't guarantee a specific amount of sales. They knew what would appeal to the mass of the population. It had to be ordinary, bland, homogenized and, above-all, profitable.
It's always been like this since the invention of recorded music, because music is a profitable business. It actually became a virtue in the 80's to provide bland-but-saleable pop aimed to make money and the Hit Factory of Stock, Aitken and Waterman were experts. They gave us Kylie, Rick Astley and Sonia (the bastards!)

There will always be interesting and experimental music made by people who care about music and there will always be bland cash-cows for those using music for making a fast buck. What bothers me is that they do it really, really well. They've realised an unpleasant secret - people are predictable, thoughtless and mentally lazy. People are crap!

Crap!
It's a conclusion I came to quite some time ago. Most people are crap! It's actually quite an upsetting thought for me and it's taken some getting used to because I genuinely believe that the Human Being is one step below a God and capable of reaching two steps higher:

What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason. How infinite in faculty. In form and movement how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. I apprehension, how like a God!
(Apologies for any misquotes - I wrote that from memory)

Yet, when I look out of my window I'm not looking at potential gods. Mostly I'm looking at barely alive, transparent zombies without thought, or depth. Without even the realization that they are alive. They wear uniforms so that they don't appear different, they watch the same television programmes and listen to the same bland, ordinary and shallow music because they have made themselves incapable of depth, thought or the realization of being truly alive.
AND - those who create this music, this television, these newspapers, bloody well love it that way!

Social Control (again!)
We live in a society which relies on conformity, which even categorizes non-conformist behaviour so it can be controlled. Human blandness, laziness and lack-of-thought are essential to the system in which we live. It's all about money and the ability to make it by predicting the behaviour of human beings.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Perhaps it's just an impotent rant because I'm feeling rough. Perhaps Lyall Watson was right when he theorised that the human race produces only 5% of special people, and the rest are destined to be ordinary, but I'm damned if I want to believe it.

Dear Reader, YOU ARE A FUCKING GOD! At least in potential!
Don't let them tell you any different.

Love,
Seán

Scary Sexuality?

I'm afraid things have been a little busy here at Dionysian Towers, so please accept my heartfelt apologies for this little hiatus. Normal service will be resumed as soon as I've worked out what normal actually is.
Some of my more eagle-eyed friends may have also noticed that this blog now has an "adult" setting. Basically this is because I don't want Google to wag its virtual finger in my direction when I post nude pictures or, as I'm about to do now, write about SEX!

YES! I SAID SEX!
Really, I mean sexuality rather than actual sex. Sex is a lot more fun to do than to write about. Sexuality, on the other hand, should be thought, spoken and written about as often as possible.

The inspiration for this came from my number-one son who, upon hearing that I could sew better than my wife, said, "How gay are you?". Okay, he was just making a joke but there's a very obvious implication there - that sewing is "gay". I recently found out that my late uncle's father worked as a jobbing tailor in the East End of London in the 1930's. He was a happily married, respectable Jewish man and any unlikely questions about his sexuality would hardly have had anything to do with his ability to sew.

We are coming back here to a particular bugbear of mine, the categorisation of human beings. Stereotypes make us less than what we really are - human.

Gay?
We tend to define a person by their sexuality. In truth we define people in many ways, one of the biggest being by their job, but sexuality is seen as a somehow important one. There are precedents, of course, which allow for certain positive generalisations: the lumping of people into "gay" and "straight" gave the world an identifiable group who managed to successfully campaign for the legalisation of homosexual sex. How much, though, of this definition can be said to be true?

I have a friend - let's call him P - who is definitely and obviously GAY (the capital letters are deliberate). He comes across as thoroughly camp - he works as a hairdresser, has perfect nails and calls everybody "darling". He even used to do a drag act many years ago. His boyfriend (and also his ex-) is quite definitely not obviously gay. You would have to ask if you saw them together.

The question is, therefore, how can we define any person as gay in any other way than by the fact that their preferred sexual pleasures are taken with someone of the same gender? There's no correlation to lifestyle apart from sexuality. If P slept with a woman, would that make him a better or worse hairdresser? Would another gay friend, S, be a better or worse prison guard if he was straight? Indeed, can he sew?

Straight?
At a recent Pagan camp a talk was to be given by Mr RH. My friend T asked his girlfriend who this was because he couldn't remember. She described RH thusly: "You know. The one you fancy!"
The thing is, T is "straight". As far as I know he has only ever has had sexual relations with women. But does it make him a better or worse driver, electrician, boyfriend because he considers another man as good-looking and charismatic? Interestingly, RH is generally rather popular with women, but very masculine men seem to hate him on sight!

Some people have described me as bisexual because I consider myself open-minded. I'm affectionate with my close friends regardless of gender and choose not to use a sexual label for myself ("Human, Pagan, Seán. Those are all the categories I need, thanks!"). Yet, I am very obviously happily married to a woman - and we have three children. What, then, would be the difference should I indulge in a bisexual act? Would my vegetables grow any faster? Could I play my flute any better? I doubt it.

I also have two female friends who are both very happily in heterosexual relationships. They don't normally find other women attractive - although they appreciate good looks when they see them just like anybody else. Yet they are strongly attracted to each other, especially when alcohol has knocked a few barriers out of the way. Does this make them lesbians? It might, but who cares? Does it make them better or worse parents?

Queer?
Human sexuality is as rich, diverse and complex as any other human trait - there is no such thing as normal with which to compare. Homo-, hetero-, bi-, are all labels for acts, not people. Some people love the opposite gender, others their own. Some people love being tied up and whipped, some people love multiple partners, some people love enormously fat people. It's even possible for one's tastes to change over the years. In the end we're all queer, because there are none of us who are normal. Is it scary to be queer?

What is scary is the deliberate definition of "normal" into a very strict and limited group of behaviours. The monotheistic religions are particularly responsible for this as a form of social control. Sadly, they have given us groups who believe that they can "cure" homosexuality. Don't believe me? Read this.
In certain cultures different types of sexuality have been considered "normal", consider Classical Greece as a pretty obvious example.

Being Different is Necessary!
The human race evolves not just physically, but also culturally. Sexuality is one of our strongest driving forces after the needs for food, shelter and the security of the tribe. A friend of mine (who may write about this himself yet) considers homo- and other non-breeding sexualities as natural results of over-population. I think they are natural results of our tendencies towards civilisation and social interaction. The Shaman/Witchdoctor/Priest of the tribe is the strange one, and quite rightly so.
There's a rather wonderful book by Stan Gooch called The Dream Culture of the Neanderthals. Yes - I too thought it would be hilarious, but it's actually pretty good. Here's what he says about homosexuality:

. . the priesthood has always been a refuge for types of homosexual and lesbian, as also for other kinds of sexual "deviance" - ie. sexual, presexual, or asexual behaviours whose aim is not the production of children. . . the homosexual/lesbian and androgynous human being has made a significant contribution to the evolution of religion. . .

I would suggest that non-breeding sexualities - which would normally die out as a behaviour pattern amongst most evolving creatures - are necessary to the evolution of both the individual human and human culture as a whole. Therefore (assuming the rule of An it harm none. . .) they should be encouraged. Those who stand for "normality" and simple categorisation are actually standing against the natural evolution of the human race. From this point of view, we need more queers!

Can we be define sewing as "gay" then? I suppose it depends whose trousers they are!

Love (in all its forms),
Seán

An Odd Thought.

Just a thought, bit of a radar blip.

Yesterday was Fathers' Day.
I don't believe in Fathers' Day. It's a con to make money for the card and present manufacturers. Remember the Simpsons? -

"No, no, no. It's got to be something warm and fuzzy, like Love Day only not so lame" . . .

"Happy Love Day everybody!"

That's how I see Fathers' Day.

So yesterday I gave my Dad a card I bought for him. He doesn't really believe in Fathers' Day either.
My kids gave me cards they'd made and some vegan chocolate, which I accepted and enjoyed.

So
On a scale of 1 - 10, just precisely how brainwashed, controlled and thoroughly duped am I?
Happy Love Day everybody!

Love (and a deeply exasperated sigh),
Seán