Posted in February 2012

Resonance and Richard Jackson’s Associative Vigor

Richard Jackson’s latest collection of poems, Resonance, was quietly released from The Ashland Poetry Press in 2010. Why “quietly”? It’s not that poetry collections, as a rule, generally get a lot of fanfare. It’s just that for someone with Jackson’s writing, teaching, and humanitarian achievements and honors being as numerous and distinctive as, dare I say, anyone in the English-speaking world, one might think he’d garner a little more attention. Not that he needs it, or seeks it. He just goes on developing a passion in generations of undergraduate students at UT-C, running the twice-annual Meacham Writers’ Workshop (as the late great William Matthews called it, “The Rick Jackson Pro Am”), taking writing students on an annual international, cross-cultural trip, and, oh yeah, writing.

I suppose the idea is to let the verse speak for itself. What a concept! In a day and age in which the effluvia of self-promotion has become more important to being read than actually writing outstanding content, what we get is far too much forgettable material. Resonance contains what its title suggests it does.

While my first thought was that resonance means something that lasts, or endures, something that resonates, when I looked it up, I found numerous definitions. In physics, resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate at a greater amplitude at some frequencies than at others. Another definition of resonance, in noun form, is a synchronous gravitational relationship of two celestial bodies (as moons) that orbit a third (as a planet) which can be expressed as a simple ratio of their orbital periods. Also, in music, a : the intensification and enriching of a musical tone by supplementary vibration b : a quality imparted to voiced sounds by vibration in anatomical resonating chambers or cavities (as the mouth or the nasal cavity) c : a quality of richness or variety d : a quality of evoking response.

Years ago, when I first came across his award-winning collection Heartwall I knew immediately I was in the hands of a master, and that I’d seen nothing else quite like it. Having come out of a writing program only two hours south of where Richard Jackson has resided and taught for well over 30 years now, I was also surprised I’d not heard of him. Part of the “quiet” release of his latest collection comes as no surprise. This is a poet who, it would seem, is not comfortable with the self-promotion that so many writers (and artists of all kinds) are increasingly expected to do. Clearly, he wants the work to speak for itself. It does. Perhaps, though, it’s too bad that more people aren’t aware?

David Wojahn writes, “It’s the combination of soulfulness, intellectual rigor, and a courtly, almost Petrarchian ardor for the beloved that has always fueled Richard Jackson’s poetry. They are also poems of dazzling associative vigor–funny, elegiac, and political by turns. I wish that more of our poets possessed his big heart and breadth…” This is not hyperbole.

Richard Jackson’s poetry is anything but quiet. It’s broad and expansive. What do I mean? Historically, linguistically, with its pull toward current politics and human rights, and a constant perspective-making with his cosmic (and scientific) tropes, this is the kind of verse that literally takes us out of ourselves. The non-linear, discursive quality of the associations he draws upon feel free, energetic and exciting in the dream-like way that such writing urges–and it always ends up taking you somewhere. In fact, that’s one of the important aspects of how Jackson teaches a workshop. He begins by asking his students, “Where does the poem begin, and where does it take us?”

And where does a beginning that infuses the micro/macro-cosmic like this set us up take us?

“It’s because the earth continues to wobble on its axis / that we continue to stumble down the streets of the heart.”

Jackson seems keenly aware of his voice’s style and voice with poems like, “Why I Digress So.” He begins,

“It’s only when we don’t know where we’re going / said Oscar Wilde, that we can ever find our way.”

Readers may have to put together the reason “why” he digresses the way he does, but surely it would seem that he does so to find his way. In “Fines Double in Work Zone,” he begins,

“Reading a bad poem is like having a bad dream: You can’t / ask for your money back.”

Ironically enough, such effusive, associational writing comes across as so casual and possibly “random,” that it looks easy. It’s actually very difficult to write this way and maintain “tension.” Most verse-composers are urged to hone their words to the minimum so they carry as much meaning and tension as possible. Good advice for the vast majority. After a very short while “casual writing” becomes just that, which means it becomes empty rhetoric. Few voices can move toward the effusive end of the continuum like Pablo Neruda or Walt Whitman. Mark Halliday frequently achieves it. Richard Jackson makes the most of it. Even for all this, however, he is conscious enough of his style and possibly its limitations that he is not above a self-parody as he performs in ‘Fines Double’ from the point-of-view of a reviewer (who ends up more like a curmudgeonly critic).

The cover and the promotional pageantry may not get you to grab this book, but his verse and reputation stands alone–and on its own–and I couldn’t recommend a book of contemporary verse more highly.

Tagged , , , , , ,

The Fear of the Countless Others

No matter how progressive people think they are, we’re generally afraid of change. Okay, that part is understood. We fear the unknown and all that. But my question today has to do with digital media and the great fear and resistance to it.

Do we fear the sheer amount of those we’re confronted with when it comes to the availability of material through the online and digital world?

Of course I understand that we can always go to a library or a bookstore and see the sheer volume of material and possibly feel the same way. But for some reason, I don’t think it works the same way. Here’s why. Libraries and bookstores aren’t as current. It’s understood you’re walking through a “history” of material as much as what’s current.

Maybe we’re intimidated by the sheer immensity of data from the digital world. For instance, for $19.95 (I’m not kidding) I was able instantaneously to “whisper” 12 of Jose Saramago’s novels to my little Kindle. Other than the final novel published posthumously (Cain), that was the genius Portuguese author’s entire body of work. Forget the price. Forget the availability. Just think of the implications. Have you ever gone to a bookstore, used or one with the clean and stimulating Starbuck’s smell of a Barnes and Noble, and purchased 12 novels (say, even 10!) by the same author? Not only are we swallowed up as readers, but we see before us how our content is swallowed up in microchips.

Not only that, but it seems like we’re swallowed up by having less means to distinguish ourselves from each other now. It used to be so simple, right? Get published by such-and-such press really meant something. But it’s becoming less obvious who’s really writing the best material now and how to identify them. Greatness used to mean you were on top of others in a fairly clear hierarchy. Will it be harder to identify talent now? Harder to find those gems? Harder to rise to the top from sheer skill?

The national creative writing conference, AWP, begins this week and each attending writer will be faced with thousands and thousands of other writers. Isn’t it enough that we live our lives hearing about the “sheer amount” of submissions that literary agents, publishers big and small, and magazines and journals of all shapes and sizes, that we spend our time perpetually getting off “the slush pile”? We all want to be the 1% let in through the gate. Why? Because we’re special. Not only that, but we spent a lot of time on this stuff. Sacrificed!

What happens, though, when we really do throw open the gates to the other 99% protesting on the other side of our elite resting place? More importantly, how we will ever make a name for ourselves? How will anyone be remembered for all time like…T.S. Eliot? Or if someone is, how will it be anything other than random chance and pure luck?

Well, to that I do have an answer. It already is.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Does Brainstorming Really Work?

I’ve always loved it. This whole idea of team everything and working together creatively in a non-judgmental way. But what if the evidence proved that collective brainstorming really doesn’t work? The idea of brainstorming, which actually began with the publication of  in 1948, Your Creative Power by Alex Osborn, is like religion in a lot of work places. And you can see why. When the idea is to go for as many ideas as possible, for quantity over quality, for not critiquing or censoring anything so that everyone will talk and feel like they’re contributing, you’ll naturally have a more engaged and happier work force.

In a recent New Yorker article, Jonah Lehrer, argues that brainstorming is a myth, and quotes Keith Sawyer, a psychologist at Washington University, who summarizes the science:

“Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas.”

Is it true, then, that we really work better on our own as compared to those who gather to brainstorm? Not exactly. It’s just that not all brainstorms are created equal.

It’s not that group work is all bad and the new turn should be to send everyone back to their rooms until further notice. It’s that there is a fundamental fallacy behind the notion that even the merest hint of criticism kills the “delicate flower” (as Osborn once called it) of the creative impulse. In fact, recent research demonstrates that while it is good for a group to feel free to be wide open to all ideas, the best work comes from those who also debate and even criticize others’ ideas. Dissent stimulates ideas.

You know what this makes me think of? Writing and reading book reviews. After graduate school and years of workshops I had a deep aversion, a kind of pendulum swing over-reaction to anything that smacked of the “critical” or the chin-thrusting fastidiousness of an elitist snob or judge. Then, Gerry LaFemina asked me to write an in-depth review for Review Revue, a newspaper-styled format which evaluated and discussed contemporary poetry. For some reason, the timing was right I guess, by virtue of reading analysis of other poetry I felt an intellectual hunger and an emotional creative drive. In other words, I was creatively stimulated doing what is considered a non-creative task, the reading and evaluation of others’ work. I realized the act of reviewing is a kind of collective communal act in which one puts one’s own (hopefully informed) opinions in the public sphere for the mutual benefit of driving the art.

It’s not like all creative brainstorming doesn’t come back and evaluate the effectiveness of what the open-ended creative sessions yielded, but studies indicate by a wide margin that when the creativity is developed within the context of specific, controlled measures of creativity and debate, that the time is used more effectively. Criticism can wake us up to new ideas because it forces us to move below the surface of predictability and consider alternative perspectives. Essentially, it wakes up our minds.

Tagged , , , ,

Climate Change or La Nina? Who Cares. A Plague is Coming.

We can get our share of snow here in what is called the midsouth. Last year, Hamilton County used up every one of its snow days and then some. This didn’t seem to matter to the school board, though. They still let school out as previously scheduled. (I’m not bitter, though. Just think of all that extra parent-child bonding!) Last year about this time I was lifting up the enormous head of a pirate snowman that would take six weeks to fully melt.

This winter we’ve had an hour’s worth of a flurry one morning and that’s it. Today, a high of 71. So what’s the deal?

Not that I miss the snow so much. It’s just that you know you may be in trouble when you walk out on your back deck in mid-February and a healthy-size housefly resting beside your door actually speaks. “Just wait till my friends join me and see if you can keep us outside!” this one says. “And when the mosquitoes join the cause, your summer will be officially miserable!”

Ordinarily, this might be upsetting. This week, though, you’ve been thrown into outbursts of violent sneezes in rapid succession. “Achoo” doesn’t really do justice to whatever allergen (ragweed? pine pollen?) is tripping your sinuses.  AH-BLEWEY! AYE-CARUMBA! might be a little closer. You rub your itchy eyes, tearing up, and head back inside for a tissue as if you hadn’t heard the fly with your own ears.

If snow hadn’t buried your town several times over last year, you might call it “Global Warming,” even though that’s no longer politically correct. Much more appropriate to call it “Climate Change.” Or, when all else fails, blame it on El Nino or La Nina. I’ve been hearing La Nina this year. I don’t know. I never was too good at science.

What are the advantages? Well, it’s not cold. You can start your garden two months early, which means heirloom tomatoes in May? What else? The blooms start earlier? You start mowing your lawn in March?

I know how to count my blessings. When the summer hits, however, I may want to heed this little bluebottle fly’s warning and head somewhere north to avoid the coming plague.

Tagged , , , ,

What Can Authors and Publishers Learn from the Music Industry?

May you live in interesting times is a phrase popularly purported to be an ancient Chinese curse. For the publishing and music industries, it might not be too much to say that times have never been more interesting since the beginning of the printed word itself (a la Gutenberg) and the invention of the electric guitar. Perhaps it’s not so ironic that Project Gutenberg claims to be the first producer of free ebooks? However you view it, change is happening extremely fast. The times are “interesting,” and for a good number of professionals this is a curse. For most, though, it’s a boon.

Still, it’s not clear how the democratization of either the print or music industries can best be used to benefit the vast majority for whom the gates have been thrown wide open. For the past two or three years, however, as I began to put my toe back in the music pond and actually started considering how to promote One Shoe Untied’s music, I’ve been working on this very issue. (It’s beside the point the band didn’t work out.)

Here’s my question:

Why is it considered cool/innovative/grassroots for a band to “start their own label,” but for a writer, it’s still considered “minor leagues”?

In some ways the path to publication as a novelist sounds simple enough. You break through with a literary agent, get published by a New York publisher (one of the Big 6), and PRESTO, you’ve made it. By some estimates, the Big 6 still own distribution spots in about 80% of the brick-and-mortar booksellers stalls. Does it matter that it doesn’t sell well? Yes and no. Mostly yes of course. But there are ways around a substandard first showing, especially if one continues to simply write well. With the hardest part out of the way, breaking through in the first place, it’s not like you’re blackballed because you didn’t hit the bestseller list. On the other hand, for someone like me, a “debut novelist of literary fiction” (yikes!), whose narrative takes place more or less in the course of an hour, few literary agents are going to swing the gates open if for no other reason than it doesn’t exactly smack of bestseller status to a Big 6 publisher (an understatement to be sure). So, Atticus Books and I are trying something new, something we’d like to see as innovative. Lately, however, especially with a national writers’ conference coming up rapidly (AWP), I’ve been worried about how my approach will be viewed in the eyes of the literary community.

The breakdown of the major recording companies had to deal with the breakdown first, and it’s been well-documented that they made massive mistakes. While iTunes has certainly figured out a lot about how to maximize their opportunity to profit from recording artists, the truth is people still widely torrent whatever it is they can’t or don’t want to pay for. While the development of ebook readers has helped the publishing industry avoid gaffes such as hunting down purported offenders instead of seeing the very clear writing on the wall and realizing new ways to monetize opportunities, why are attitudes so slow to change about the means and methods of publishing?

What can publishers and the creators of publishing content (writers!) learn from what’s happened (and continues to) in the music industry? Wilco’s latest release, The Whole Love, was produced through their very own label and they even decided to sing about it in one song (see video). I wonder if it’s not just publishers and distributors who need to “get with the times,” but authors and writers themselves. If I believe in my work, if I can be the best promoter of my material, if I stand to make far higher royalties on my own, and if I can distribute my material by ebook to the world in (more or less) an instant, why is this not being utterly embraced?

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

All in a Friday Night at JJs: Christabel and the Jons, Ashley and the X’s, Stagolee

When they get the sound right in the oddly-shaped rectangular venue at JJ’s–as each band did on Friday night–you get the makings of a magical night. While it may not be the premier spot for acts in Chattanooga that it once was, JJ’s Bohemia serves an important niche for the music scene. For Friday night’s line-up, each band shared the distinction of featuring a female lead vocalist. And I will say, in each case, the singers had such strong voices–and presences–they lifted the music to an even higher level of quality, especially when you consider that in a venue such as JJ’s, subtlety can be difficult to achieve.

Stagolee, a seasoned, indie-rock, blues-based band started off the night. They began as a duo in Starkville, Mississippi, but are currently based out of Nashville. They balance an eclectic mix of genres, at times sounding like an indie pop rock band, at others folk rock–and everything in between these apparent distances. As the opening act, they really laid down it down. We all knew this was not going to be amateur night.

Ashley and the Xs are a Chattanoooga-based band who’ve recently added my very own brother, John Prevost, as a bassist to their own distinctive mix. Actually, John brings a custom-made electric, eight-string guitar to the mix (three of the eight strings correlate to a standard bass, the A, D, and G strings). It brings all the bass you need, and more importantly also offers the possibilities of bass-like chordal structures, which give the music an extra dimension and natural sophistication. Besides the obvious strength of Ashley’s performance and vocal quality, in a lot of ways the band centers around the metronomic-precision of Dan Walker on the drums. In spite of this being the first time the band has played out in several months, and with the recent addition of a fifth member, they more than held their own between the two touring acts from Knoxville and Nashville between them.

It was my own loss that I was out back for most of Christabel and the Jons. When you have three bands, as JJ’s often does, and when the first act doesn’t begin until, what? 10:30? sometimes it can become an endurance race to hang in there. When I did come back in, I witnessed an especially distinctive, impressive act who look like they’re on a quest for greater things yet, and there’s not reason to think they won’t. If the upright bass and accordion aren’t enough to catch your attention, the semi-hollow Gibson guitar is sure to resonate. An original act, I hear they’ve already done a commercial for Apple.

What a night. If JJ’s can keep bringing in such seasoned talent, and perhaps shifting back the opening acts and pretending we’re on Central Time Zone, they’re sure to keep bringing the crowds.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Jack White is Coming to Town. So Why Do I Have the Blues?

Why? Well, it started out like any ordinary teacher-student-conference Friday “holiday” morning. I had my almost-three-year old Lennyn all day. My boys would be out at 11:30. No big deal. Daddy day. I just accept the fact that I won’t be getting much writing done. Go to the grocery store. Explore a playground. Maybe have a popsicle. Maybe color in a Mickey Mouse coloring book. Jack White tickets are going on sale at 1:00 for a March 10 show here at Track 29? Got it covered. My buddies Erik Schmidt and Reuben Summerlin are aiming to get 4 each. My brother John and Randy Gibson are going to get all they can. Brian Carisch too. One way or another, I’m golden.

Then, one by one, my best laid plans “gang aft aglee,” as Robert Burns once famously said. Erik and Reuben never get access at all. John and Randy break through once. Enough to get 4 tickets–for them and their life partners. Same deal with Carisch and company. Oh, and I received this litany of bad news as Lennyn wept for 45 minutes over coloring Minnie Mouse’s right shoe outside the lines. There was no fixing the mistake, and there was no assuaging or redirecting her grief.

Where does that leave me? With the blues.

Frankly, I deserve to be one of the 1,000 who get to go to this show, and I shouldn’t have to pay a scalper $183 (the current cheapest rate) to do so. For one, I am the one who wrote a poem about the person who parades around as Jack White, which was not only published at The Huffington Post, but also became the first poem for my chapbook collection, White-Feathered Bodies (and for inquiring minds, can be easily accessed here on Scribd).

I’ve been a part of the glorifying-bandwagon. I’ve watched It Might Get Loud, the movie with the Edge and Jimmy Page and Jack White. I’ve seen him on that DVD playing under the Black Pool lights in the UK, which was the inspiration for my poem. Come on, man! I should get in free! No, Jack White should pay me to go to his show, and he should have me read my poem to open the set.

So why did it feel so good when two of my friends asked what the big deal was? One said only in Chattanooga would a guy who’s best days were in circa 2002 have a run on tickets in 2012. Another wrote,

All you just did was save money.  Now you can come over to my house and I will play the same five blues licks over and over really loud while [my daughter] bangs a trash can lid. I will also turn up the heat, blow pot smoke in your face, and sell you my Fat Tires for $5 a pop . . . and then it will be the exact same thing as seeing Jack White at Track 29. I feel like the Black Keys fully occupied the space that was created by the White Stripes.  It sounds silly, but it’s true.

It was only a short-lived satisfaction. I don’t really believe either one of them. First, Jack White has re-invented himself and grown into the thin air of rock god stardom over the past ten years. He’s miles away from his origins as The White Stripes guy. He’s also just a hell of a performer, and there is no way this will be anything other than an amazing show.

And I will be at home watching the first season of Lost or something. Why? Because I am that far behind, and because there will be no assuaging or re-directing my grief.

Tagged , , , , ,

For the Love of a Typewriter: Our Love/Hate Relationship with Social Media

It’s a double-edged sword this social media stuff isn’t it? We really can’t do without it. Not only because we have this kind of fetish for being connected, but it’s just such a powerful tool–literally transforming the world. It’s also a lot of fun, right? Not always fun. Facebook can be a bore and Twitter sometimes feels like everyone is patting themselves on the back for tweeting every 10 minutes (I understand there’s an app for that), with few actually reading.

But, yesterday, as I was reading about Jennifer Egan’s candid discussion from last week about her apprehension of social media, something that had been rattling around in my subconscious surfaced. Here’s one sound-byte:

“Who cares that we can connect?” she said. “What’s the big deal? I think Facebook is colossally dull. I think it’s like everyone coming to live in a huge Soviet apartment block, [in] which everyone’s cell looks exactly the same.”

The power of this little computer-thing that I now type from is its own downfall, at least for one like me who needs to lose himself in his own narrative. Of course it’s beyond amazing that anytime there’s anything you need to know while writing the novel, simply click your browser button, Google the term you need–BOOM!–47 articles plus images of everything you want to know about your given subject. Isn’t that actually a great advantage for a novelist? In a sense, you could almost say that the flow of one’s narrative shouldn’t suffer “old-fashioned” interruptions because you can just incorporate what you need to know seamlessly into your day’s writing. But we all know that somehow it just doesn’t work out that way. There’s a reason why they call it “hyper” links.

You can get lost in the maze of links just from Wikipedia. You can hit the radio. You may feel compelled to check your two email accounts just to make sure everything is okay out there. And here you are reading my blog, wondering what you might do with it. Should you “Like” it (yes!)? Should you bother to comment, link it to Facebook or Twitter? What’s in it for you? Will I now read your blog? Are we all just running in circles clinging to the illusion of connection? See how I get carried away? Maybe all I’m really doing is maximizing my capacity for ADD. So, here’s the question: What about inventing “the new typewriter”?

I’m serious. What about creating an instrument that typed as smoothly as my MacBook, but felt like an instrument at its purest, its singularity? No distractions. Just you and your disconnected, simple machine. It could be huge.

Now, all you have to do is launch it with a massive social media campaign.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

This is Your Brain: This is Your Brain on Writing

No one is going to argue that you should write your next narrative through the fine tip of your Bic Ultralite (or by pencil, as Shelby Foote did). Unless of course it might be a fun experiment to see what new directions you move in (or to generate a media campaign and set yourself apart!). Also, please let the record show that brain research and science is an emerging field, intended to teach us about ourselves, not establish creeds or ultimatums about what is “truly” most effective.

When I taught at Dalton State College, a colleague, Leslie Harrelson, said she tells her students that brain research shows the difference in brain activity between what’s going on when one is writing by hand as compared to someone who’s writing on a keyboard is like the difference between “flying over Dalton at night and flying over Los Angeles.” Of course, she’s trying to get them to freewrite and generate ideas (in and out of class). Up until now, I’ve felt like I understood this research from my own anecdotal experience. Lately, though, the more I write on the keypad, the more I feel the flow of my thoughts very directly from thought to expression.

So, if you’re wondering why this topic keeps coming up lately, it’s because there is emerging data that clearly suggests the brain functions differently when physically forming letters by writing than it does through the swifter medium of punching the digits. Virtually all of it, however, focuses on brain development, education, memory and ideas, and the implications for the digitized world children are growing up in. Oh, and don’t worry, if you want your child to learn how to develop their handwriting skilz, there’s an app for that, as discussed in this video.

Not so much on the implications for writers. See if you can find some.

I’m a lifelong journaler. For the better part of a decade now, I’ve stuck with the uniformity of my black Moleskin notebooks, writing everything from poem drafts, to novel ideas, to song lyrics and other random jottings. I suppose we can see a pretty clear link to the value of handwriting from the current brain research for the kind of writer that seeks to “plumb the depths” of his or her memory, as well as for generating ideas. Virtually every writing textbook discusses different ways of composing and drafting, concluding with “Do whatever works.” Well, yeah.

Lately, though, I’ve increasingly found the keyboard so fluid, so immediate. My thoughts can transpose almost instantaneously onto the page. Am I missing out on ideas and imaginative connections I might otherwise have had? Have I just reached some comfort level, some “brain” milestone of development? Am I not using both sides of my brain when I use both hands to type?

What works for you?

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Defamiliarizing the Beatles: Revolver (1966)

1966? Wow. I’ve always pretty much just “liked” The Beatles, which is why I’ve lived in such ignorance about one of the highest ranked rock albums of all time, I guess. But recently, I’ve “discovered” something in Revolver, the band’s seventh album, that is as innovative as it gets for any album. In fact, it would lead to a virtual endless opening of doors for musicians afterwards. Pretty heady stuff for a rock album recorded in the middle of 1966.

In terms of classic, famous, Brit-rock invasion bands, I’ve never been all that excited about The Rolling Stones or The Who. I loved Led Zeppelin, and appreciated The Beatles. Okay, but Zeppelin didn’t produce their first album until early 1969. In ’66 there were essentially three different ways of using music as a vehicle: the profound bard, the street punk, the sound sculptor. The Beatles were definitely the sound sculptors, and the polar opposite of, say, a politically conscious Dylan, generally removed from the ideological and social struggles of the time.

As a casual listener, here’s what’s always stood out to me about The Beatles’ music (followed by a BUT).

(1) Great songwriters. But their famous pieces were inescapable and culturally ubiquitous. Sometimes they were even a little…cheesy? Light?

(2) Prolific. Yes, they catalog hundreds of songs but there are so many castoffs, and so many two-minute ditties, you begin to cherry-pick the albums looking for the two or three famous pieces. (And Zeppelin gets all the credit as the makers of “the concept album”).

(3) Distinctive sound. But you don’t expect things like hot improv guitar, or really innovation. And if you do think of innovation you probably think material from ‘Sgt. Peppers’, which followed Revolver and has more famous material (“Lucy in the Sky of Diamonds,” “Little Help from My Friends”).

What Lennon is doing with the guitar melodies and background jangling sound, reminds me of what Peter Buck maximized for 30 years with R.E.M. (“And Your Bird Can Sing” and “Dr. Robert”). Lennon also demonstrates what you do as a guitarist when you aren’t a great soloist. You play cool riffs and harmonize the melodies. The day of the guitar solo has burned out and faded away for probably about the past two decades. Bands like Cake have since perfected the precision riff.

And McCartney’s motown-inspired “Got to Get You Into My Life” reminds me of Neil Diamond (okay, not so innovative there).  But even this relatively unheralded song signaled a major prelude to the 70s with the band orchestration and fade-out. And check out those horns! Some wild, eccentric sound-sculpting here for sure! And all in two-and-a-half minutes.

But have you heard of “Tomorrow Never Knows”? This is the song that truly blows me away. Way ahead of its time. I would go so far as to say you wouldn’t know the difference between it and a given song produced today. What a way to conclude an album. The song begins, “Turn off your mind and look downstream…it is not dying” and concludes with the repeated phrase “…in the beginning.” It was a beginning. Pioneering more than subtle sounds, but an explosion of experimental and psychedelic music to follow for decades. It includes such groundbreaking techniques as reverse guitar, processed vocals and looped tape effects. Musically, it’s drone-like, with a strongly syncopated, repetitive drum-beat played over a single chord. Lennon’s processed lead vocal was another innovation. Always seeking ways to enhance or alter the sound of his voice, Lennon told EMI engineer Geoff Emerick that he wanted to sound like he was the Dalai Lama singing from the top of a high mountain. The end result is an ethereal, filtered quality. Just amazing.

Of course there are the homages, and the specific, direct attempts to recreate a “Beatles-influenced” song, such as Wilco’s “Hummingbird” from A Ghost is Born CD (who themselves are now considered to be “boundary-pushing”). And there are bands like The Jayhawks who have a natural harmony that can at times, and at their best (say, the 1995 Tomorrow the Green Grass CD), sound reminiscent of that distinctive Beatles harmony. But I’m pretty excited by my de-familiarized listening to The Beatles and how they laid claim to so many distinctive sounds for, well, the rest of rock n’ roll history when it comes down to it.

Does this sound like 1966?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,972 other followers