For Meggy
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
As I move to the next square
...yes, I've been exploring Islam as a possible faith path. As I listen to lectures online for non-Muslims I find them jargonistic and I recognize that self-forced belief thing that's present in every religion.
Sometimes it seems almost OCD that people say "peace be upon him" every single time they mention the name Muhammad. It might not be, but for me, it would become that very quickly.
I'm attracted to Islam because it's a desert religion and its theology is very simple, with lots of room to move.
But no matter what, I know these things.
I won't accept OCD in my spiritual path. That means there are obstacles in Islam for me.
Five prayers a day with very specific rules, not only for the prayers, but for the washing up ahead of time.
An apparent tendency towards putting trust in conservative Muslim scholars.
The use of "fear" in relation to Allah with the immediate caveat that Allah is "merciful."
Hence, my focus has become more on Sufism, which is mystical and focuses on love. Some Sufi teachers are pretty radical.
I'm also inspired by Michael Muhammad Knight's shocked discovery, as detailed in his road-journey book "Blue Eyed Devil," that there are half-assed Muslims just like there are half-assed Catholics.
Knight is one of the 1% of Muslim converts who are white in this country. At least a couple years ago when he wrote that book. I haven't read the book...just the first chapter. It's now on my short list for reading soon.
I've got this awareness of myself, as I turn forty in a couple months, that I need to take seriously: I don't like party-line sermons. I don't like peer pressure. I need the mystical. There is no way I'd become a conservative Sunni. Even if I did become Muslim and accept the five pillars (they seem simple enough), going on the Hajj I will NOT participate in ANY WAY in the traditional animal sacrifice that takes place on that pilgrimage.
I don't think any religious scripture is literal. Even if I were to convert, there is no way I could force myself to take the Qur'an as "not to be interpreted."
The modern "conservative" take on the Sodom and Gommorah story is just as misguided as the Christian take.
I'm still a seeker, still learning, just happen to find a lot which is appealing in Islam at this moment in my life. Two most important things I know:
1. I have to be true to myself.
2. I suspect, if I did it, I would not have the support of some people who do support me now. At least not in that decision.
I have to continue trusting that God (Allah, YHWH, whatever word you want) is in some way part of what moves me. I get so angry at God so often, and that's usually when I connect him to any kind of fundamentalism or anal-retentive religiosity.
So no matter what, I must remain a free-thinker.
Feedback that one religion is "better" or "truer" or more "gay-friendly" than another will be considered irrelevant here, because it's what I DO with the religion, what I TAKE from the religion that matters. I'm a child of God, in some way, and that means I am an equal partner in the relationship. It doesn't work if both partners aren't participating in the dance. And so I trust myself, and God (that's harder than trusting myself), in whatever steps I take next. And now, I haven't quite decided what those are.
Sometimes it seems almost OCD that people say "peace be upon him" every single time they mention the name Muhammad. It might not be, but for me, it would become that very quickly.
I'm attracted to Islam because it's a desert religion and its theology is very simple, with lots of room to move.
But no matter what, I know these things.
I won't accept OCD in my spiritual path. That means there are obstacles in Islam for me.
Five prayers a day with very specific rules, not only for the prayers, but for the washing up ahead of time.
An apparent tendency towards putting trust in conservative Muslim scholars.
The use of "fear" in relation to Allah with the immediate caveat that Allah is "merciful."
Hence, my focus has become more on Sufism, which is mystical and focuses on love. Some Sufi teachers are pretty radical.
I'm also inspired by Michael Muhammad Knight's shocked discovery, as detailed in his road-journey book "Blue Eyed Devil," that there are half-assed Muslims just like there are half-assed Catholics.
Knight is one of the 1% of Muslim converts who are white in this country. At least a couple years ago when he wrote that book. I haven't read the book...just the first chapter. It's now on my short list for reading soon.
I've got this awareness of myself, as I turn forty in a couple months, that I need to take seriously: I don't like party-line sermons. I don't like peer pressure. I need the mystical. There is no way I'd become a conservative Sunni. Even if I did become Muslim and accept the five pillars (they seem simple enough), going on the Hajj I will NOT participate in ANY WAY in the traditional animal sacrifice that takes place on that pilgrimage.
I don't think any religious scripture is literal. Even if I were to convert, there is no way I could force myself to take the Qur'an as "not to be interpreted."
The modern "conservative" take on the Sodom and Gommorah story is just as misguided as the Christian take.
I'm still a seeker, still learning, just happen to find a lot which is appealing in Islam at this moment in my life. Two most important things I know:
1. I have to be true to myself.
2. I suspect, if I did it, I would not have the support of some people who do support me now. At least not in that decision.
I have to continue trusting that God (Allah, YHWH, whatever word you want) is in some way part of what moves me. I get so angry at God so often, and that's usually when I connect him to any kind of fundamentalism or anal-retentive religiosity.
So no matter what, I must remain a free-thinker.
Feedback that one religion is "better" or "truer" or more "gay-friendly" than another will be considered irrelevant here, because it's what I DO with the religion, what I TAKE from the religion that matters. I'm a child of God, in some way, and that means I am an equal partner in the relationship. It doesn't work if both partners aren't participating in the dance. And so I trust myself, and God (that's harder than trusting myself), in whatever steps I take next. And now, I haven't quite decided what those are.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
A thought about Sodom and Gomorrah
Just noticed: in my copy of the KJV bible, the Gen. story of the destruction of Sodom/Gomorrah, the commentary refers to "homosexual gang rape." Why even use the word "homosexual"?
Because it would have been gang rape of the daughters of Lot, should they have accepted the offer...they wanted the men instead.
I suppose that's why this commentary includes the word "homosexual."
I do not know Hebrew, though I do have a Torah commentary which I have not yet consulted (another note, later, perhaps), so I'll just put forth this very rough theory:
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by a volcanic eruption. The writers of this part of what became Genesis, in their ancient Jewish method of writing history (as the history of God in his interactions with his people), included their contemporary morality in with the story-telling. Though it is not clear to me in reading this passage that homosexuality was the issue for which they attributed to God in his destruction of the cities, it is clear to me that the aggressive behavior towards Lot and his people was the reason.
It is also clear to me that, to these writers anyway, the offering of the daughters by Lot would have made it "okay" for these aggressive men to have sex with them. Is this what "honor your parents" meant at the time of the writing?
Today, as such passages are used in attempts to prove a moral position against gay people, is it not more honest to look at the passages without leaving anything out? If we are to accept the notion that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexual gang rape, then we must also accept that Lot was not punished for offering his daughters to these unfriendly citizens.
Note 1: Not addressed here are matters of different Bible translations and different interpretations of this passage. I understand that many believe the wickedness of the city to be that of inhospitality. I also understand that the men (the ones they want to rape) in question might be angels, not men. I don't address this because it would make a very long note, and I merely wanted to post my thoughts on this one point of argument.
Note 2: Genesis, Chapter 19, contains the passages in question.
Note 3: I always picture this scene as an isolated incident, and therefore assume that it is but one example of the sins of these cities. I wonder how this modifies the interpretation.
Peace and all good.
(The commentary I refer to is on page 39 of "The New Student Bible, King James Version," published by Zondervan in 1992. "Notes by Philip Yancey and Tim Stafford." There are other contributors to the book as well.)
Because it would have been gang rape of the daughters of Lot, should they have accepted the offer...they wanted the men instead.
I suppose that's why this commentary includes the word "homosexual."
I do not know Hebrew, though I do have a Torah commentary which I have not yet consulted (another note, later, perhaps), so I'll just put forth this very rough theory:
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by a volcanic eruption. The writers of this part of what became Genesis, in their ancient Jewish method of writing history (as the history of God in his interactions with his people), included their contemporary morality in with the story-telling. Though it is not clear to me in reading this passage that homosexuality was the issue for which they attributed to God in his destruction of the cities, it is clear to me that the aggressive behavior towards Lot and his people was the reason.
It is also clear to me that, to these writers anyway, the offering of the daughters by Lot would have made it "okay" for these aggressive men to have sex with them. Is this what "honor your parents" meant at the time of the writing?
Today, as such passages are used in attempts to prove a moral position against gay people, is it not more honest to look at the passages without leaving anything out? If we are to accept the notion that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexual gang rape, then we must also accept that Lot was not punished for offering his daughters to these unfriendly citizens.
Note 1: Not addressed here are matters of different Bible translations and different interpretations of this passage. I understand that many believe the wickedness of the city to be that of inhospitality. I also understand that the men (the ones they want to rape) in question might be angels, not men. I don't address this because it would make a very long note, and I merely wanted to post my thoughts on this one point of argument.
Note 2: Genesis, Chapter 19, contains the passages in question.
Note 3: I always picture this scene as an isolated incident, and therefore assume that it is but one example of the sins of these cities. I wonder how this modifies the interpretation.
Peace and all good.
(The commentary I refer to is on page 39 of "The New Student Bible, King James Version," published by Zondervan in 1992. "Notes by Philip Yancey and Tim Stafford." There are other contributors to the book as well.)
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Gay Marriage - We have the right, just not the acceptance
It was suggested in the comment section of this blog entry:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/sexandgender/2203/religion_largely_absent_in_proposition_8_trial/?comments=view&cID=6131#c6131
that we might consider accepting the term "civil unions" instead of "marriage" as queer people, as long as we have all of the same rights, in order to mollify the opponents who just can't seem to get over this.
Rachel Maddow has recently pointed out on her show that the idea of gay marriage used to be considered a conservative initiative among gay activists. Heck, I remember even twenty years ago people debating whether assimilation was a good thing. Screw the straight society, we'll do our own thing. Why should we fight to be accepted? Why give them that much power?
I agree with that, to be honest. However, that's me. And at the same time, I'm kind of a mellow person nowadays. I don't have as much fire as I did when I was 21, just out of the closet, and newly angry about all that I was learning about gay history. By fire, I mean, "energy to fight." Yeah, I'm still angry, and obviously I still speak out as much as ever. But I'm also focused on other, more enriching things in my life. Vocation. Spirituality. Personal happiness. Connecting with others. Wouldn't mind a bit of romance either.
Because I've pretty much decided to coexist with the filthy masses, I want the already existent right for us to get married to be recognized legally. Every law which says we cannot get married is as unconstitutional as the Jim Crow laws, the laws against interracial marriage, and those enforcing racial segregation. It's already there. The fight is not to obtain equal rights. We must fight to get the institutions to do what they are supposed to do when we exercise those rights. It's not that we don't have the right to marriage; it's that the courts won't sign off on them. It's not that we don't have the right to sign up to be in the military; it's that they won't let us in the door if we admit who we are.
I know we're "supposed" to be friends, but frankly, we have enemies right now. They've been given power through the institutions of power-granting which exist in our country. At the very least, we can disobey them. Their behaviors are unconstitutional. The sickening irony is that we have to go to the courts, which are part of a society behaving unconstitutionally.
What do I mean by disobedience?
We get married and a queer minister signs off on it. We submit it to the state. No matter what they do or say, we claim spousal status on our tax forms. Whenever we have to declare single or married, we declare "married," on any form whatsoever.
Does this have the potential to threaten our livelihoods, to get us jailed and harassed by the law? Yes. They would do this to us unconstitutionally. We bring this to the courts over and over until they buckle or get responsible judges.
Who am I to even advocate such things? I am nobody. I don't even really advocate them. If you did it and were to suffer because of it, and I advocated it, I would feel guilty. That's my personality. So no, I'm not advocating. I wish to preserve my own happiness. It's something I might be willing to do if I met someone and fell in love and he agreed to take such actions with me. If you choose to do it, it's because you choose to do it.
Self-responsibility is the only way to live anyway, right?
I do think the current methods of fighting for gay marriage and other recognitions are fine too. They are safer and will eventually be effective, if what we currently see happening continues.
Anyway, here is the response I posted to the idea that we accept "civil unions" instead of marriage, in order to mollify the masses:
I appreciate your desire to be find a win-win, but I for one cannot get past the "separate but equal" thing. Most of us were raised in a culture - overtly or not - which repeatly emphasized (still does actually) what a huge deal marriage is to the community. When you get married, there are kudos galore; it's akin to getting pregnant, and beyond the public congratulations of something much harder, like graduating. So basically we grow up being taught that marriage is THE thing, that we'll find that "right boy" or "right girl" someday, and we'll get the rings and the fancy outfits and the cake and the dancing and the toasts and gifts and the weeping mothers and proud fathers. Then we figure out we're gay, and we slowly understand that no, we don't get that. We have to settle for civil unions. Goodie.
See, I'm not willing to sacrifice our equality to mollify anyone. I don't necessarily want a big wedding with all the trimmings, unless I find that "right guy" someday who DOES want it. With or without the trimmings, I DO want it to be called a marriage.
Peace.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/sexandgender/2203/religion_largely_absent_in_proposition_8_trial/?comments=view&cID=6131#c6131
that we might consider accepting the term "civil unions" instead of "marriage" as queer people, as long as we have all of the same rights, in order to mollify the opponents who just can't seem to get over this.
Rachel Maddow has recently pointed out on her show that the idea of gay marriage used to be considered a conservative initiative among gay activists. Heck, I remember even twenty years ago people debating whether assimilation was a good thing. Screw the straight society, we'll do our own thing. Why should we fight to be accepted? Why give them that much power?
I agree with that, to be honest. However, that's me. And at the same time, I'm kind of a mellow person nowadays. I don't have as much fire as I did when I was 21, just out of the closet, and newly angry about all that I was learning about gay history. By fire, I mean, "energy to fight." Yeah, I'm still angry, and obviously I still speak out as much as ever. But I'm also focused on other, more enriching things in my life. Vocation. Spirituality. Personal happiness. Connecting with others. Wouldn't mind a bit of romance either.
Because I've pretty much decided to coexist with the filthy masses, I want the already existent right for us to get married to be recognized legally. Every law which says we cannot get married is as unconstitutional as the Jim Crow laws, the laws against interracial marriage, and those enforcing racial segregation. It's already there. The fight is not to obtain equal rights. We must fight to get the institutions to do what they are supposed to do when we exercise those rights. It's not that we don't have the right to marriage; it's that the courts won't sign off on them. It's not that we don't have the right to sign up to be in the military; it's that they won't let us in the door if we admit who we are.
I know we're "supposed" to be friends, but frankly, we have enemies right now. They've been given power through the institutions of power-granting which exist in our country. At the very least, we can disobey them. Their behaviors are unconstitutional. The sickening irony is that we have to go to the courts, which are part of a society behaving unconstitutionally.
What do I mean by disobedience?
We get married and a queer minister signs off on it. We submit it to the state. No matter what they do or say, we claim spousal status on our tax forms. Whenever we have to declare single or married, we declare "married," on any form whatsoever.
Does this have the potential to threaten our livelihoods, to get us jailed and harassed by the law? Yes. They would do this to us unconstitutionally. We bring this to the courts over and over until they buckle or get responsible judges.
Who am I to even advocate such things? I am nobody. I don't even really advocate them. If you did it and were to suffer because of it, and I advocated it, I would feel guilty. That's my personality. So no, I'm not advocating. I wish to preserve my own happiness. It's something I might be willing to do if I met someone and fell in love and he agreed to take such actions with me. If you choose to do it, it's because you choose to do it.
Self-responsibility is the only way to live anyway, right?
I do think the current methods of fighting for gay marriage and other recognitions are fine too. They are safer and will eventually be effective, if what we currently see happening continues.
Anyway, here is the response I posted to the idea that we accept "civil unions" instead of marriage, in order to mollify the masses:
I appreciate your desire to be find a win-win, but I for one cannot get past the "separate but equal" thing. Most of us were raised in a culture - overtly or not - which repeatly emphasized (still does actually) what a huge deal marriage is to the community. When you get married, there are kudos galore; it's akin to getting pregnant, and beyond the public congratulations of something much harder, like graduating. So basically we grow up being taught that marriage is THE thing, that we'll find that "right boy" or "right girl" someday, and we'll get the rings and the fancy outfits and the cake and the dancing and the toasts and gifts and the weeping mothers and proud fathers. Then we figure out we're gay, and we slowly understand that no, we don't get that. We have to settle for civil unions. Goodie.
See, I'm not willing to sacrifice our equality to mollify anyone. I don't necessarily want a big wedding with all the trimmings, unless I find that "right guy" someday who DOES want it. With or without the trimmings, I DO want it to be called a marriage.
Peace.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Sharing vs. Debate on Haiti, Gays in Christianity, and Everything Else
Candace Chellew-Hodge writes about some Christians' discussion of whether they should the love the sinner but hate the "sin," or if they are really called to just hate both.
That's one of those discussions I've been in before. To be honest, I'm a bit bored with it. Maybe that's because I'm leaning away from being part of the aspects of religion which focus on limitations, rigidity, dogmatism. More on that in a later blog post.
Then there is Pat Robertson's much-decried statements that Haiti's earthquake was the result of an historic pact-with-the-devil which has curse that nation for many many years. Anthea Butler discusses this using points that lead me to believe that Robertson's comments connect to an outdated colonial rich-white-man's superiority delusion, and ultimately a (possibly subconscious) racism.
It's getting exhausting trying to meet people point-for-point when, frankly, the points repeat with every debate. I prefer discussion to debate.
Yes, the distinction is subtle. They may even be synonyms. I use them as different terms for convenience of communication. When I think "debate" I think of two people, each with a thesis. The goal is for each to present the best arguments for their position, to be convincing, to win. I'm not sure what you win, maybe an ego boost or admiration in the eyes of viewers. Unless my debts get paid off from this sort of debate, I just find them frustrating and energy-sucking.
A discussion, in my own use of the term here, is one wherein both parties (or more than two) are engaged in a thoughtful, honest, open mulling-of-the-issues, preferably with open-mindedness thrown in. "I have to admit that it is hard for me to discuss abortion because I have had a traumatic experience with it in the past." That's the kind of honesty that's great to have in a discussion. In a debate the retort would be something like, "then all of your arguments are suspect," or "let's use your traumatic experience to turn it around to prove my point." In a discussion, the response would be empathy, or at least a deepening engagement with the topic at hand and, even better, between the people involved.
I'm not advocating anti-logic. "I don't see how that's logical" is still a proper thing to say when someone says something. For me the defining characteristic of a good discussion is that there is no longer a final goal of "winning."
With someone going on about how different it is to hate the "sin" but not the "sinner," is there really a point in pursuing it, trying to convince him or her that it is difficult to love someone when you truly "hate" something about that person? Maybe, but one must listen first, encourage that person to really get into why they feel that way. But it's exhausting to try when it just boils down to Bible quoting and talking points. If it doesn't get down to the nitty gritty personal aspects of why someone feels the way they do, that energy is expended for little reason but to build one's rhetorical skills.
The example of Pat Robertson and his Haitian devil comment is trickier. This is based on a colonial idea of the "primitive" (in today's terms, "Third World") person, the "savage," who is not enlightened by the "one true religion," and of course proper old-European social class stratification. Vodon ("Voodoo") isn't devil-worship. It's not a religion I know much about, but the idea that it's satanic is coming from the imposition of a certain kind of Christian worldview that is pretty much irrelevant to those who do not share that worldview. It ultimately boils down to who is right and who is wrong, once again. I'm "right" because I'm "white" and my ancestors were European. Goodie. Again, while it's fun and enlightening to have a discussion about the complex issues that Robertson has raised, I don't see much fruit coming from actually debating the guy, or those who agree with him.
Bishop Spong wrote this in October of 2009: "I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone.... Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy." (The short manifesto is worth reading in its entirety.) That's where I am now on all religious debate. I'm willing to discuss (by my own definition which I described above), but if I'm asked which religion is best, or most true, or most dangerous, I'm not going to answer definitively. I will share my experience, knowledge, interpretations, even instincts, but I'm not going to try to prove me right or prove you wrong. I'm not going to waste time answering every talking point. If I make an assertion, and you ask me to defend it, I will do my best to explain why I feel that way or from where comes my conclusion. But the minute it becomes about winning a debate, I will ideally pull out. I don't care if I'm accused of something unsubstantiated, like "typical liberal can't take a debate." I've been called a "typical liberal" many times, for this reason, even if my accuser only knows one thing about me (like my stance on the war, for example). Whatever. I'd love to engage with you on why you feel the way you feel, and why I feel the way I feel. But that means listening, sharing, asking, nodding, being very present to the experience of you and me being who we are, connected as humans. Can we do that? If not, then it's time to move on, because, to steal from Spong, it's "no longer worthy of my time or energy."
No offense, but I've spent too much time playing these games. I want a boyfriend, a life's vocation, a purpose. I want to connect and mingle, not bash my head against yours.
Peace and all good
That's one of those discussions I've been in before. To be honest, I'm a bit bored with it. Maybe that's because I'm leaning away from being part of the aspects of religion which focus on limitations, rigidity, dogmatism. More on that in a later blog post.
Then there is Pat Robertson's much-decried statements that Haiti's earthquake was the result of an historic pact-with-the-devil which has curse that nation for many many years. Anthea Butler discusses this using points that lead me to believe that Robertson's comments connect to an outdated colonial rich-white-man's superiority delusion, and ultimately a (possibly subconscious) racism.
It's getting exhausting trying to meet people point-for-point when, frankly, the points repeat with every debate. I prefer discussion to debate.
Yes, the distinction is subtle. They may even be synonyms. I use them as different terms for convenience of communication. When I think "debate" I think of two people, each with a thesis. The goal is for each to present the best arguments for their position, to be convincing, to win. I'm not sure what you win, maybe an ego boost or admiration in the eyes of viewers. Unless my debts get paid off from this sort of debate, I just find them frustrating and energy-sucking.
A discussion, in my own use of the term here, is one wherein both parties (or more than two) are engaged in a thoughtful, honest, open mulling-of-the-issues, preferably with open-mindedness thrown in. "I have to admit that it is hard for me to discuss abortion because I have had a traumatic experience with it in the past." That's the kind of honesty that's great to have in a discussion. In a debate the retort would be something like, "then all of your arguments are suspect," or "let's use your traumatic experience to turn it around to prove my point." In a discussion, the response would be empathy, or at least a deepening engagement with the topic at hand and, even better, between the people involved.
I'm not advocating anti-logic. "I don't see how that's logical" is still a proper thing to say when someone says something. For me the defining characteristic of a good discussion is that there is no longer a final goal of "winning."
With someone going on about how different it is to hate the "sin" but not the "sinner," is there really a point in pursuing it, trying to convince him or her that it is difficult to love someone when you truly "hate" something about that person? Maybe, but one must listen first, encourage that person to really get into why they feel that way. But it's exhausting to try when it just boils down to Bible quoting and talking points. If it doesn't get down to the nitty gritty personal aspects of why someone feels the way they do, that energy is expended for little reason but to build one's rhetorical skills.
The example of Pat Robertson and his Haitian devil comment is trickier. This is based on a colonial idea of the "primitive" (in today's terms, "Third World") person, the "savage," who is not enlightened by the "one true religion," and of course proper old-European social class stratification. Vodon ("Voodoo") isn't devil-worship. It's not a religion I know much about, but the idea that it's satanic is coming from the imposition of a certain kind of Christian worldview that is pretty much irrelevant to those who do not share that worldview. It ultimately boils down to who is right and who is wrong, once again. I'm "right" because I'm "white" and my ancestors were European. Goodie. Again, while it's fun and enlightening to have a discussion about the complex issues that Robertson has raised, I don't see much fruit coming from actually debating the guy, or those who agree with him.
Bishop Spong wrote this in October of 2009: "I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone.... Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy." (The short manifesto is worth reading in its entirety.) That's where I am now on all religious debate. I'm willing to discuss (by my own definition which I described above), but if I'm asked which religion is best, or most true, or most dangerous, I'm not going to answer definitively. I will share my experience, knowledge, interpretations, even instincts, but I'm not going to try to prove me right or prove you wrong. I'm not going to waste time answering every talking point. If I make an assertion, and you ask me to defend it, I will do my best to explain why I feel that way or from where comes my conclusion. But the minute it becomes about winning a debate, I will ideally pull out. I don't care if I'm accused of something unsubstantiated, like "typical liberal can't take a debate." I've been called a "typical liberal" many times, for this reason, even if my accuser only knows one thing about me (like my stance on the war, for example). Whatever. I'd love to engage with you on why you feel the way you feel, and why I feel the way I feel. But that means listening, sharing, asking, nodding, being very present to the experience of you and me being who we are, connected as humans. Can we do that? If not, then it's time to move on, because, to steal from Spong, it's "no longer worthy of my time or energy."
No offense, but I've spent too much time playing these games. I want a boyfriend, a life's vocation, a purpose. I want to connect and mingle, not bash my head against yours.
Peace and all good
Friday, January 8, 2010
The continuing irrelevance the big music labels
In response to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8444854.stm
and
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2006-01-04-music-sales-main_x.htm
Getting close to the death of the big record labels, or at least the significant (and overdue) downfall of its influence on the state of the music industry, which they have abused for the past ten years or so, but not put more long-term commitment into bands that don't become megastars with their debut album, and other problems like that. If debut album sales were the only factor in label support historically, we would not have seen the rise of great bands like R.E.M. and U2, for example.
Downloads are more environmentally friendly too, though the physical product issue could be partially solved if they committed to using recycled or sustainable materials in their packaging. There would still be the carbon-releasing problems associated with shipping, of course, but I don't know how significant that really is, since the mail is being delivered regardless.
Putting those environmental issues aside, I consider this to be fair pay-back to these companies, which frankly earned their downfall. I'd like to see (ideally) the "illegal" downloads calm down and purchases increase, but maybe music shouldn't be about making millions in profits anyway. Great music is more accessible than ever because of the internet. One can discover new artists by following links in blogs, Youtube pages, Myspace, and elsewhere. The relevance of the big mega-labels is dissipating, and this is a good thing. Let them be the suppliers of the overproduced emotionless autotuned forgettable pop American Idol offshoots and copycats. But let us refrain from mourning that they are beginning to lose their ability to speak for the masses, let alone the music connoisseurs. They have their niche, and don't deserve our attention any longer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8444854.stm
and
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2006-01-04-music-sales-main_x.htm
Getting close to the death of the big record labels, or at least the significant (and overdue) downfall of its influence on the state of the music industry, which they have abused for the past ten years or so, but not put more long-term commitment into bands that don't become megastars with their debut album, and other problems like that. If debut album sales were the only factor in label support historically, we would not have seen the rise of great bands like R.E.M. and U2, for example.
Downloads are more environmentally friendly too, though the physical product issue could be partially solved if they committed to using recycled or sustainable materials in their packaging. There would still be the carbon-releasing problems associated with shipping, of course, but I don't know how significant that really is, since the mail is being delivered regardless.
Putting those environmental issues aside, I consider this to be fair pay-back to these companies, which frankly earned their downfall. I'd like to see (ideally) the "illegal" downloads calm down and purchases increase, but maybe music shouldn't be about making millions in profits anyway. Great music is more accessible than ever because of the internet. One can discover new artists by following links in blogs, Youtube pages, Myspace, and elsewhere. The relevance of the big mega-labels is dissipating, and this is a good thing. Let them be the suppliers of the overproduced emotionless autotuned forgettable pop American Idol offshoots and copycats. But let us refrain from mourning that they are beginning to lose their ability to speak for the masses, let alone the music connoisseurs. They have their niche, and don't deserve our attention any longer.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
2009 - Best Albums by Men (According to Andrew)
When I try to fit so many albums on a list, ranking starts to reach a level of absurdity.
I had about 130 or so that I chose to listen to, and I added a couple here and there as I explored...I did have to sample a lot. But I listened to enough to know what to do. But it did get to the point where it was obvious that five or six albums in a row were of equal quality...so basically, if it's on this list, I recommend it.
I disqualified "Dark Was the Night" for myself even though it is excellent...it's a compilation of various modern indie bands as part of the Red Hot series of albums which benefit AIDS groups. It's simply too hard to know how to rank it, but I DO recommend it.
Why is this list so much longer than my women's list? Put simply, there are simply more male-created artists that I am drawn to. Note though that my number 2 album is really a team effort, men and women together making music. And Matt & Kim...one of each!
Another one I missed: the live Tom Waits album, Glitter and Doom Live. I was leaving out live albums, but I noticed as I was digging up video links that the Steve Vai album was of course live. Obviously Tom Waits never really does wrong, so if I had caught the mistake earlier, I would have removed Steve's album. Anyway, both are excellent as far as live albums go.
1. Animal Collective - Merriweather Post Pavilion (the Fall Be Kind EP is fantastic too, but I'll restrict to one release)
2. The Decemberists - The Hazards of Love
3. Baroness - Blue Record
4. Bill Callahan - Sometimes I Wish We Were an Eagle
5. Mastodon - Crack the Skye
6. U2 - No Line on the Horizon
7. The Red Chord - Fed Through the Teeth Machine
8. Mos Def - The Ecstatic
9. Sonic Youth - The Eternal
10. Wolfmother - Cosmic Egg
11. Pete Doherty - Grace/Wasteland
12. Gomez - A New Tide
13. Torche - Healer/Across the Shields EP
14. Wilco - Wilco (The Album)
15. Piano Magic - Ovations
16. Matt & Kim - Grand
17. Mumford & Sons - Mumford & Sons
18. Orthodox - Sentencia
I cannot find a musical sample for you, but you can read about this Spanish Doom/Jazz band here: http://www.thesirenssound.com/2009/09/22/orthodox-sentencia/
19. Flaming Lips - Embryonic
20. Yosh - Fistful of Lies
21. Morrissey - Years of Refusal
22. Les Claypool - Of Fungi and Foe
23. Mowgli - 93
24. Sondre Lerche - Heartbeat Radio
25. NOFX - Coaster
26. Phoenix - Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix
27. Monsters of Folk - Monsters of Folk
28. Jay-Z The Blueprint 3
29. The Joint Chiefs of Math - You Are Here
(I wish there was a better video for these guys, so listen here: http://www.myspace.com/thejointchiefsofmath)
30. Causa Sui - Summer Sessions vol. 2 and 3 (not sure how to break these up...they are equally good...and volume 1 came out in 2008, and now they have all three out there as a set.)
31. Arctic Monkeys - Humbug
32. The Big Pink - A Brief History of Love
33. The Avett Brothers - I And Love And You
34. Midlake - The Courage of Others
35. El Grupo Nuevo de Omar Rodriguez Lopez - Cryptomnesia
36. Grizzly Bear - Veckatimest
Is this the creepiest video ever?
37. Mr. Scruff - Ninja Tuna
38. Mexican Institute of Sound - Soy Sauce
39. The Mountain Goats - The Life of the World to Come
40. Steve Vai - Where the Wild Things Are
41. Megadeth - Endgame
42. Bruce Springsteen - Working on a Dream
43. Moby - Wait For Me
44. Other Lives - Other Lives
45. Marduk - Wormwood
46. Tom Russell - Blood and Candle Smoke
47. Julian Casablancas - Phrazes for the Young
48. For Against - Never Been
Check it out here: http://www.myspace.com/foragainst
49. Dirty Projectors - Bitte Orca
Somehow I messed up...this should have been on my women's list. Well, enjoy it and don't complain ;-)
50. Snoop Dogg - Malice in Wonderland
51. The Who Boys - Now That's What I Call the Who Boys!
Couldn't find videos, but you can download the album for free on their website: http://www.zen8003.zen.co.uk/twic/index.html
52. Jay Brannan In Living Cover
53. Bob Dylan - Together Through Life
54. The Barcode Experiment - Yellow Ball, Glass Wall
Not the best video! Check 'em out here: http://www.myspace.com/thebarcodeexperiment
55. Bear in Heaven - Beast Rest Forth Mouth
56. Brakes - Touchdown
57. Akron/Family - Set 'Em Wild, Set 'Em Free
58. Jarvis Cocker - Further Complications
59. Girls - Album
60. John Vanderslice - Romanian Names
61. Jay Reatard - Watch Me Fall
62. Ryan Leslie - Transition
63. Napalm Death - Time Waits for No Slave
64. Gallows - Grey Britain
65. Titãs - Sacos Plásticos
66. Elvis Costello - Secret, Profane & Sugarcane
67. Eels - Hombre Lobo
68. Mama Rosin - Black Robert
69. Phish - Joy
70. Meat Puppets - Sewn Together
71. Mariachi El Bronx - Mariachi El Bronx
72. Loney, Dear - Dear John
73. Nick Cave & Warren Ellis - The Road (score)
74. Fuck Buttons - Tarot Sport
75. M. Ward - Hold Time
76. Dinosaur Jr. - Farm
77. Mudvayne - Mudvayne
78. Nox Arcana - Blackthorn Asylum
79. Isis - Wavering Radiant
80. Son O))) - Monoliths and Dimensions
You can hear one of the songs here: http://www.myspace.com/southernlordrecordings
81. Yo La Tengo - Popular Songs
82. Aerosol - Airborne
83. Vomit Heat - The Melody Haunts My Reverie EP
http://www.myspace.com/vomitheat
84. With Abandon - Maturation EP
85. Woodpigeon - Die Stadt Muzikanten
86. The Swell Season - Strict Joy
87. Church of Misery - Houses of the Unholy
88. Converge - Axe to Fall
89. Cymbals Eat Guitars - Why There Are Mountains
90. Drake - So Far Gone
91. The Prodigy - Invaders Must Die!
92. The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - Pin Points and Gin Joints
93. The Lytics - The Lytics
One I should have probably ranked higher.
94. Wild Beasts - Two Dancers
95. Candlemass - Death Magic Doom
96. Calamar Audio - Squid Fluid
http://www.myspace.com/calamaraudio
97. Brutal Truth - Evolution Through Revolution
98. Boris - Japanese Heavy Rock Hits (EP)
99. Pains of Being Pure at Heart - Pains of Being Pure at Heart
100. Mark Vidler - Tension (EP)
http://www.myspace.com/markvidlerGHP
http://www.gohomeproductions.co.uk/
101. Lamb of God - Wrath
102. The Devil's Blood - The Time of No Time Evermore
103. Adam Lambert - For Your Entertainment
104. Bad Lieutenant - Never Cry Another Tear
105. Miles Benjamin Anthony Robinson - Summer of Fear
106. Coalesce - OX
107. W.A.S.P. - Babylon
108. Hatebreed - Hatebreed
109. The Leisure Society - The Sleeper
I guess this is a re-release. I don't know much about it...
110. Bibio - Abrasion
111. Biffy Clyro - Only Revolutions
112. Crystal Method - Divided By Night
113. The Mars Volta - Octahedron
114. Anaal Nathrakh - In the Constellation of the Black Widow
115. My Dying Bride - For Lies I Sire
116. Harlem Shakes - Technicolor Health
117. Robin Thicke - Sex Therapy: The Experience
118. Revocation - Existence is Futile
119. Atlas Sound - Logos
120. Nile - Those Whom the Gods Detest
121. The Positives - Person L
122. Letting Up Despite Great Faults - Letting Up Despite Great Faults
123. Holopaw - Oh, Glory, Oh, Wilderness.
124. Amorphis - Skyforger
I had about 130 or so that I chose to listen to, and I added a couple here and there as I explored...I did have to sample a lot. But I listened to enough to know what to do. But it did get to the point where it was obvious that five or six albums in a row were of equal quality...so basically, if it's on this list, I recommend it.
I disqualified "Dark Was the Night" for myself even though it is excellent...it's a compilation of various modern indie bands as part of the Red Hot series of albums which benefit AIDS groups. It's simply too hard to know how to rank it, but I DO recommend it.
Why is this list so much longer than my women's list? Put simply, there are simply more male-created artists that I am drawn to. Note though that my number 2 album is really a team effort, men and women together making music. And Matt & Kim...one of each!
Another one I missed: the live Tom Waits album, Glitter and Doom Live. I was leaving out live albums, but I noticed as I was digging up video links that the Steve Vai album was of course live. Obviously Tom Waits never really does wrong, so if I had caught the mistake earlier, I would have removed Steve's album. Anyway, both are excellent as far as live albums go.
1. Animal Collective - Merriweather Post Pavilion (the Fall Be Kind EP is fantastic too, but I'll restrict to one release)
2. The Decemberists - The Hazards of Love
3. Baroness - Blue Record
4. Bill Callahan - Sometimes I Wish We Were an Eagle
5. Mastodon - Crack the Skye
6. U2 - No Line on the Horizon
7. The Red Chord - Fed Through the Teeth Machine
8. Mos Def - The Ecstatic
9. Sonic Youth - The Eternal
10. Wolfmother - Cosmic Egg
11. Pete Doherty - Grace/Wasteland
12. Gomez - A New Tide
13. Torche - Healer/Across the Shields EP
14. Wilco - Wilco (The Album)
15. Piano Magic - Ovations
16. Matt & Kim - Grand
17. Mumford & Sons - Mumford & Sons
18. Orthodox - Sentencia
I cannot find a musical sample for you, but you can read about this Spanish Doom/Jazz band here: http://www.thesirenssound.com/2009/09/22/orthodox-sentencia/
19. Flaming Lips - Embryonic
20. Yosh - Fistful of Lies
21. Morrissey - Years of Refusal
22. Les Claypool - Of Fungi and Foe
23. Mowgli - 93
24. Sondre Lerche - Heartbeat Radio
25. NOFX - Coaster
26. Phoenix - Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix
27. Monsters of Folk - Monsters of Folk
28. Jay-Z The Blueprint 3
29. The Joint Chiefs of Math - You Are Here
(I wish there was a better video for these guys, so listen here: http://www.myspace.com/thejointchiefsofmath)
30. Causa Sui - Summer Sessions vol. 2 and 3 (not sure how to break these up...they are equally good...and volume 1 came out in 2008, and now they have all three out there as a set.)
31. Arctic Monkeys - Humbug
32. The Big Pink - A Brief History of Love
33. The Avett Brothers - I And Love And You
34. Midlake - The Courage of Others
35. El Grupo Nuevo de Omar Rodriguez Lopez - Cryptomnesia
36. Grizzly Bear - Veckatimest
Is this the creepiest video ever?
37. Mr. Scruff - Ninja Tuna
38. Mexican Institute of Sound - Soy Sauce
39. The Mountain Goats - The Life of the World to Come
40. Steve Vai - Where the Wild Things Are
41. Megadeth - Endgame
42. Bruce Springsteen - Working on a Dream
43. Moby - Wait For Me
44. Other Lives - Other Lives
45. Marduk - Wormwood
46. Tom Russell - Blood and Candle Smoke
47. Julian Casablancas - Phrazes for the Young
48. For Against - Never Been
Check it out here: http://www.myspace.com/foragainst
49. Dirty Projectors - Bitte Orca
Somehow I messed up...this should have been on my women's list. Well, enjoy it and don't complain ;-)
50. Snoop Dogg - Malice in Wonderland
51. The Who Boys - Now That's What I Call the Who Boys!
Couldn't find videos, but you can download the album for free on their website: http://www.zen8003.zen.co.uk/twic/index.html
52. Jay Brannan In Living Cover
53. Bob Dylan - Together Through Life
54. The Barcode Experiment - Yellow Ball, Glass Wall
Not the best video! Check 'em out here: http://www.myspace.com/thebarcodeexperiment
55. Bear in Heaven - Beast Rest Forth Mouth
56. Brakes - Touchdown
57. Akron/Family - Set 'Em Wild, Set 'Em Free
58. Jarvis Cocker - Further Complications
59. Girls - Album
60. John Vanderslice - Romanian Names
61. Jay Reatard - Watch Me Fall
62. Ryan Leslie - Transition
63. Napalm Death - Time Waits for No Slave
64. Gallows - Grey Britain
65. Titãs - Sacos Plásticos
66. Elvis Costello - Secret, Profane & Sugarcane
67. Eels - Hombre Lobo
68. Mama Rosin - Black Robert
69. Phish - Joy
70. Meat Puppets - Sewn Together
71. Mariachi El Bronx - Mariachi El Bronx
72. Loney, Dear - Dear John
73. Nick Cave & Warren Ellis - The Road (score)
74. Fuck Buttons - Tarot Sport
75. M. Ward - Hold Time
76. Dinosaur Jr. - Farm
77. Mudvayne - Mudvayne
78. Nox Arcana - Blackthorn Asylum
79. Isis - Wavering Radiant
80. Son O))) - Monoliths and Dimensions
You can hear one of the songs here: http://www.myspace.com/southernlordrecordings
81. Yo La Tengo - Popular Songs
82. Aerosol - Airborne
83. Vomit Heat - The Melody Haunts My Reverie EP
http://www.myspace.com/vomitheat
84. With Abandon - Maturation EP
85. Woodpigeon - Die Stadt Muzikanten
86. The Swell Season - Strict Joy
87. Church of Misery - Houses of the Unholy
88. Converge - Axe to Fall
89. Cymbals Eat Guitars - Why There Are Mountains
90. Drake - So Far Gone
91. The Prodigy - Invaders Must Die!
92. The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - Pin Points and Gin Joints
93. The Lytics - The Lytics
One I should have probably ranked higher.
94. Wild Beasts - Two Dancers
95. Candlemass - Death Magic Doom
96. Calamar Audio - Squid Fluid
http://www.myspace.com/calamaraudio
97. Brutal Truth - Evolution Through Revolution
98. Boris - Japanese Heavy Rock Hits (EP)
99. Pains of Being Pure at Heart - Pains of Being Pure at Heart
100. Mark Vidler - Tension (EP)
http://www.myspace.com/markvidlerGHP
http://www.gohomeproductions.co.uk/
101. Lamb of God - Wrath
102. The Devil's Blood - The Time of No Time Evermore
103. Adam Lambert - For Your Entertainment
104. Bad Lieutenant - Never Cry Another Tear
105. Miles Benjamin Anthony Robinson - Summer of Fear
106. Coalesce - OX
107. W.A.S.P. - Babylon
108. Hatebreed - Hatebreed
109. The Leisure Society - The Sleeper
I guess this is a re-release. I don't know much about it...
110. Bibio - Abrasion
111. Biffy Clyro - Only Revolutions
112. Crystal Method - Divided By Night
113. The Mars Volta - Octahedron
114. Anaal Nathrakh - In the Constellation of the Black Widow
115. My Dying Bride - For Lies I Sire
116. Harlem Shakes - Technicolor Health
117. Robin Thicke - Sex Therapy: The Experience
118. Revocation - Existence is Futile
119. Atlas Sound - Logos
120. Nile - Those Whom the Gods Detest
121. The Positives - Person L
122. Letting Up Despite Great Faults - Letting Up Despite Great Faults
123. Holopaw - Oh, Glory, Oh, Wilderness.
124. Amorphis - Skyforger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
