Blog Entries [1020 - 1029]

Monday, May 2, 2016


Music Week

Music: Current count 26594 [26541] rated (+53), 422 [413] unrated (+9).

Spent first half of last week wrapping up the April Rhapsody Streamnotes column. One thing I did there was to compile a list of A/A- records in my database by the recently departed Merle Haggard and Prince. I noted that I was unable to use Rhapsody to fill in holes in my listings. Indeed, it appears that Rhapsody has none of Prince's albums online. However, I spoke too hastily regarding Haggard. Rhapsody's store is badly organized, and the old Capitol albums have reissue dates so it's not immediately clear what the chronological order is. But I finally went back and sorted that out, and blitzed through as much back catalog as I could find. The result is that the rated count this week exploded. Old country LPs are short, and I worked fast, rarely bothering with a second spin.

Also helped the record count that various aches and pains kept me from working on my sister's house all week. Not sure how much more Haggard there is to find -- none of the 1990s Curb albums are online, and I'm still missing Sing Me Back Home (1968), I Love Dixie Blues (1973), I'm Always on a Mountain When I Fall (1978), The Epic Collection (Recorded Live) (1983), duets with Bonnie Owens (1966) and Leona Williams (1983), the Strangers' instrumental albums (1969-73), scattered compilations, and bootlegs I don't care to get into. Still, this trawl doubled the number of Haggard albums in my database.

I also added Haggard's Songs I'll Always Sing (1965-74 [1977], Capitol) to my A-list. The 2-LP compilation was one of the first tastes I had of Haggard, and I thought it was definitive until the 1990 CDs came out (Capitol Collectors' Series, Rhino's More of the Best). Sometimes I'm reminded of an album that should have been in my LP-era database but I somehow missed -- I don't recall when I started keeping the list, but it was just a memory aid before 2000 or so when I started to take it more seriously.


Recommended music links:

For some reason, Mikal Gilmore's excellent Rolling Stone piece on Merle Haggard, "The Outlaw," doesn't appear to be online.

Some recommended pieces I did find:


New records rated this week:

  • Cyrille Aimée: Let's Get Lost (2016, Mack Avenue): [r]: B+(*)
  • Katy B: Honey (2016, Virgin EMI): [r]: B+(**)
  • Bill Charlap Trio: Notes From New York (2015 [2016], Impulse): [r]: B+(*)
  • Rob Clearfield: Islands (2016, Ears & Eyes): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Jeremy Cunningham Quartet: Re: Dawn (From Far) (2016, Ears & Eyes): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Orrin Evans: The Evolution of Oneself (2014 [2015], Smoke Sessions): [r]: B+(***)
  • Nick Fraser: Starer (2015 [2016], self-released): [cd]: B+(**)
  • GoGo Penguin: Man Made Object (2015 [2016], Blue Note): [r]: B+(***)
  • Sari Kessler: Do Right (2016, Ruby Street Music): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Gary Lucas' Fleischerei: Music From Max Fleischer Cartoons (2015 [2016], Cuneiform): [dl]: A-
  • The Tony Lustig Quintet: Taking Flight (2016, Bimperl): [cd]: B+(**)
  • Adam Meckler Quintet: Wonder (2015 [2016], Shifting Paradigm): [cd]: B+(**)
  • Scott Neumann/Tom Christensen: Spin Cycle (2015 [2016], Sound Footing): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Renee Rosnes: Written in the Rocks (2015 [2016], Smoke Sessions): [r]: B
  • Kendrick Scott Oracle: We Are the Drum (2015, Blue Note): [r]: B
  • Nana Simopoulos: Skins (2016, Na): [cd]: B+(**)

Old music rated this week:

  • Merle Haggard: Strangers (1965, Capitol): [r]: B+(***)
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: Swinging Doors and the Bottle Let Me Down (1966, Capitol): [r]: A-
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: I'm a Lonesome Fugitive (1967, Capitol): [r]: A-
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: Branded Man (1967, Capitol): [r]: B+(**)
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: The Legend of Bonnie & Clyde (1968, Capitol): [r]: B
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: Mama Tried (1968, Capitol): [r]: B+(**)
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: Okie From Muskogee (1969, Capitol): [r]: B
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: Pride in What I Am (1969, Capitol): [r]: A-
  • Merle Haggard: A Portrait of Merle Haggard (1969, Capitol): [r]: B+(*)
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: The Fightin' Side of Me (1970, Capitol): [r]: B+(**)
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: Hag (1971, Capitol): [r]: B+(***)
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: Someday We'll Look Back (1971, Capitol): [r]: B+(***)
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: Let Me Tell You About a Song (1972, Capitol): B+(***)
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: It's Not Love (But It's Not Bad) (1972, Capitol): [r]: B+(**)
  • Merle Haggard: Vintage Collections (1965-72 [1996], Capitol): [r]: B+(**)
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: If We Make It Through December (1974, Capitol): [r]: B+(**)
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: Merle Haggard Presents His 30th Album (1974, Capitol): [r]: A-
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: Keep Movin' On (1975, Capitol): [r]: B
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: It's All in the Movies (1976, Capitol): [r]: B+(*)
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: My Love Affair With Trains (1976, Capitol): [r]: B
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: The Roots of My Raising (1976, Capitol): [r]: B+(***)
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: A Working Man Can't Get Nowhere Today (1977, Capitol): [r]: A-
  • Merle Haggard: Ramblin' Fever (1977, MCA): [r]: B+(*)
  • Merle Haggard: My Farewell to Elvis (1977, MCA): [r]: B-
  • Merle Haggard: The Way I Am (1980, MCA): [r]: B+(**)
  • Merle Haggard: Back to the Barrooms (1980, MCA): [r]: B+(*)
  • Merle Haggard: Rainbow Stew: Live at Anaheim Stadium (1980 [1981], MCA): [r]: B+(***)
  • Merle Haggard: Big City (1981, Epic): [r]: B+(**)
  • Merle Haggard and George Jones: A Taste of Yesterday's Wine (1982, Epic): [r]: B
  • Merle Haggard: Going Where the Lonely Go (1982, Epic): [r]: B+(*)
  • Merle Haggard: That's the Way Love Goes (1983, Epic): [r]: B+(*)
  • Merle Haggard: It's All in the Game (1984, Epic): [r]: B+(*)
  • Merle Haggard: Kern River (1985, Epic): [r]: B+(*)
  • Merle Haggard: Amber Waves of Grain (1985, Epic): [r]: B-
  • Merle Haggard: A Friend in California (1986, Epic): [r]: B+(**)
  • Merle Haggard: Out Among the Stars (1986, Epic): [r]: B
  • Merle Haggard: 5:01 Blues (1989, Epic): [r]: B-


Grade changes:

  • Prince and the Revolution: Parade (1986, Warner Brothers): [lp]: [was: B+] A-
  • Tacocat: Lost Time (2016, Hardly Art): [r]: [was B+(***)] A-


Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

  • Jane Ira Bloom: Early Americans (Outline): May 13
  • Mike Bogle Trio: Live at Stoney's (MBP/Groove): May 6
  • Etienne Charles: San Jose Suite (Culture Shock): advance, June 10
  • Rhys Chatham: Pythagorean Dream (Foom)
  • Gunwale [Dave Rempis/Albert Wildeman/Ryan Packard]: Polynya (Aerophonic): June 21
  • Barry Guy: The Blue Shroud (Intakt): advance, May 25
  • Naftule's Dream: Blood (self-released)
  • Ivo Perelman/Matthew Shipp: Corpo (Leo): May 20
  • Ivo Perelman: Soul (Leo): May 20
  • Ivo Perelman/Karl Berger: The Hitchhiker (Leo): May 20
  • Ivo Perelman/Joe Morris: Blue (Leo): May 20
  • Ivo Perelman: Breaking Point (Leo): May 20
  • Dave Rempis/Joshua Abrams/Avreeayl Ra + Jim Baker: Periheleon (Aerophonic, 2CD): June 21
  • Ron Stabinsky: Free for One (Hot Cup): June 10
  • Matt Wilson's Big Happy Family: Beginning of a Memory (Palmetto): May 27

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Sunday, May 1, 2016


The Duopoly Strikes Back

If all Democrats had the same beliefs and agenda, the only real question for the primaries would be who could best represent those values in the general election. Likewise, there would be no reason for candidates who weren't successful to continue, and when they withdrew they could be counted on to fall in behind the winner. But there are vast differences between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, so even though at this point it will be impossible for Sanders to overcome Clinton's lead, Sanders' supporters still have reason to get out and vote, and Sanders has an obligation to stay in the race and represent them -- at least as long as the campaign has sufficient funds, which doesn't appear to be a problem.

Sanders' people pretty much all understand this. They can give you a list of substantive platform differences between Sanders and Clinton. Moreover, they can point out that Sanders has a long and impressive record of sticking to his positions, whereas the Clintons have a history of playing up populist themes while they're campaigning then turning around and working for special interests once elections are over. Many voters, having been lied to and screwed over repeatedly, are looking not just for policies that help them but for politicians who will defend them tenaciously.

On the other hand, Clinton's people don't quite get this, although not always for the same reasons. Under her husband, the Democratic Party was refashioned from the party of labor to the party of highly educated socially-liberal professionals and businesses. Some people made a lot of money off the Clintons (and with a clear conscience), and they see nothing untoward in their triangulations -- indeed, they form the core of her donor class. Add to that those with some form of patronage attachment to the party: for them she represents success, and a meal ticket. Then there are the settlers: the people who accept the party line that significant changes are impossible given hard realities ranging from globalization to Republicans obstructionism. That, of course, is easier to accept if those realities haven't hit you personally that hard, but the age skew between Sanders and Clinton supporters suggests that they're getting harder to ignore. Indeed, Clinton's most favorable demographic got their start in more benign economic times -- before the Clintons came to power.

Less partisan observers may have noticed that the Clintons actually had something to do with the rise of the superrich and the hollowing out of the middle class, the creation of an economy that is stagnant for all but the rich, and the cult of austerity that thrown such a wet blanket on the very possibility that "the government of the people" might actually work to the benefit of the vast majority. Indeed, Thomas Frank has argued that only a Democrat could have blunted rank-and-file opposition to allow things like NAFTA, "welfare reform," deregulating banks and financial markets, declaring "the era of big government is over," and balancing the budget to pass -- all "highlights" of Bill Clinton's presidency. Frank even argues that Democrats like Clinton may turn out to be much worse than the "lesser evil" they're often viewed on the left as.

Both political parties are necessarily coalitions of imperfectly aligned interests, some attracted positively, others negatively. Both have always crossed class lines, because money has always mattered in American politics, and increasingly so lately. As the middle class withered, both have had to find voters where they could. The GOP went for the white backlash vote, playing up religion and patriotism (war) and the "fear of falling" (as Barbara Ehrenreich put it), while using whatever power they gained to feather the coffers of the rich. That cost the Democrats large chunks of their New Deal coalition -- Baptists in the South, Catholics in the North -- while the unions declined and shifted from manufacturing to services (mostly government), which they eventually replaced with educated professionals, high-tech businesses, and anyone sufficiently terrified by the rightward march of Republicans.

Still, if we've learned anything from this year's primaries, it's that the masses who picked their party negatively have started to turn on the party leaders. We've seen this in Democratic Party with the widespread rejection of Hillary Clinton -- has any Democrat other than an incumbent president ever started with such complete control of the party, then gone on to perform so poorly? Bernie Sanders nearly upset her, running on a platform the party rulers couldn't even conceive of. And something similar happened among the Republicans, where the masses preferred Donald Trump to every proper establishment candidate (even the loathsome Ted Cruz).


I started writing this to introduce some comments on recent posts by Paul Krugman, who has been so relentless in his recent attempts to discredit Bernie Sanders that he's risking becoming an incoherent crank. For instance, see Why I Haven't Felt the Bern and Sarandonizing Economics, as well as minor digs like A Note on the Soda Tax Controversy (really? I wouldn't mind a VAT if other taxes were sufficiently progressive, but a sin tax on soda is just the sort of moral snub that makes liberals seem so overbearing, so intent on imposing their values on everyone else). The "Sarandonizing" post only mentions the actress/activist once:

The way to think about this, I'd say, is that it's the economics nerd equivalent of Susan Sarandon dismissing Hillary Clinton as "the best Republican out there." Anyone who tells you that you can't get everything you want, in economics or politics, is just evil and useless.

So Sarandon is "evil and useless" because made a joke about Hillary -- one that is built on numerous kernels of truth, from her past as a "Goldwater girl" to other traits we associate more with Republicans, like her coziness with Walmart (she's a former board member) and Goldman Sachs (that $650k speech) to her notorious hawkishness. What makes the joke effective (maybe even insidious) is the suspicion that Hillary's not really on our side -- that when push comes to shove she'll always wind up siding with the people who got the money and the power. That's certainly her track record. Why should we think that now will be any different?

For some reason, Krugman can't stand the idea that anyone on the left should have the temerity to question Clinton's leadership. She is, after all, the only person standing between civilization as we know it and the Republican Dark Ages. Still, it's not just Clinton he's getting so defensive about. It's also the authority of all those Very Serious People in the economic profession that he hasn't already lampooned himself: you know, the ones like Christy Romer and Larry Summers (and himself) who properly understand the true gospel of IS/LM. He's upset that Sanders is proposing a very serious expansion in the level of investment in infrastructure, not so much because he's against such investments as because some pro-Sanders economists have argued that the expansion will result in a level of economic growth (like 4.5%) that his own faction of economists have decided is impossible -- therefore he's repeatedly panned such analyses as equivalent to the "supply side" snake oil that right-wing ideologues like Arthur Laffer have been peddling.

When Krugman tries to explain his position, he gets slippery:

What you see, on this as on multiple issues, is the casual adoption, with no visible effort to check the premises, of a story line that sounds good. It's all about the big banks; single-payer is there for the taking if only we want it; government spending will yield huge payoffs -- not the more modest payoffs conventional Keynesian analysis suggests; Republican support will vanish if we take on corporate media.

In each case the story runs into big trouble if you do a bit of homework; if not completely wrong, it needs a lot of qualification. But the all-purpose response to anyone who raises questions is that she or he is a member of the establishment, personally corrupt, etc.. Ad hominem attacks aren't a final line of defense, they're argument #1.

I know some people think that I'm obsessing over trivial policy details, but they're missing the point. It's about an attitude, the sense that righteousness excuses you from the need for hard thinking and that any questioning of the righteous is treason to the cause. When you see Sanders supporters going over the top about "corporate whores" and such, you're not seeing a mysterious intrusion of bad behavior into an idealistic movement; you're seeing the intolerance that was always just under the surface of the movement, right from the start.

What's he trying to say here? That the left only has pie-in-the-sky visions, but can't come up with any stepwise programs to get there? (That the only "reforms" possible are cynical schemes that right-wing think tanks used to kick out, the sort of things Clinton/Obama have dusted off and presented as bipartisan?) And that the left cannot even defend their pie-in-the-sky on its merits without sinking into "ad hominem" attacks against their supposed enemies, because they're fundamentally irrational and vindictive even when they see themselves as idealistic? Or is he just talking about Sanders, who by simplifying leftist ideas into sound bites has brought out his followers latent anti-intellectualism? Or is he just saying that only professional mandarins like himself are competent to weigh in on economic matters?

There can be no doubt that social scientists have a bad history of doing "research" that winds up doing little more than advancing their prejudices. For starters, we can point to the history of race studies, since virtually every "scientific" claim to find differences has been thoroughly debunked. Economics is rife with political scams, and Krugman has slayed more than a few of them. Back when I majored in sociology, it seems like I spent most of my time identifying untoward presumptions in studies -- indeed, a common textbook at the time was How to Lie With Statistics. David Hackett Fischer wrote a whole book cataloguing Historian's Fallacies. So Krugman's warning against something real, but rejecting Sanders' programs out of hand is every bit as arbitrary. If he didn't start out with a political bone to pick, he might put some effort into refining the proposals. For instance, he's probably right that breaking up "too big to fail" banks doesn't solve the problems with "shadow banking," and he may even be right that the latter is more crucial than the former. So why not show Sanders that it's possible to come up with a plan that better achieves his goals? One reason might be he's opposed to those goals. Another is that he just doesn't like Sanders or his followers. Another is that he's committed to Hillary regardless of the issues.

I don't know which it is, but Krugman certainly fits Frank's concept of "the liberal class" -- that may be pigeonholing him a bit, but for the most part the shoe fits. His reluctance to back Sanders, much like the reluctance of similarly aged, educated, and well-heeled feminists like Gloria Steinem, smacks of class consciousness. Even if they can understand and empathize with the profound damage caused by inequality and war, they still feel that class bond with Hillary, not least because in large part they've personally never felt the costs of her mistakes.

Sure, I snuck war into that line belatedly, but that's a perilous issue to ignore with Hillary. And much like economists like Krugman are very good at rationalizing liberal compromises -- indeed, it was mostly Krugman who convince me that ACA was a pretty significant improvement even though it was far from what I wanted -- there exists a comparable body of foreign policy and security mandarins that can be counted on to rationalize all sorts of American military interventions, regardless of the track record of previous wars. I'd even say that the latter are far worse than the economists -- the latter are blinkered to alternative approaches, but the former are nothing less than obsessed with their own hegemony.

I'm reminded here of something McGeorge Bundy said, about the difference between how Kennedy and Johnson approached the challenges of war: Kennedy wanted to be smart, but Johnson wanted to be seen as tough. Both faced pressures to escalate the wars in Southeast Asia, and while Kennedy did some things there that turned out to be not so smart, Johnson made the really disastrous decisions. One might say the same things about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: he wants to be smart (but isn't always), and she wants to be seen as tough (even if that puts her in the "do stupid shit" faction). That's an analogy that doesn't bode well.


I also wanted to mention David Frum: How to Save the Republican Party, aside from begging the question of "why bother" -- we now seem to be generations removed from any form of Republican Party that that might make any sort of constructive contribution to the political system. Still, Frum's vantage point on the far right occasionally yields insights, like his observation that where the Republicans fear their base, the Democrats loathe theirs. Consider this:

The trouble is: 2016 was the year that the great American center actually did rise up against the extremism of the corrupt two-party duopoly and actually did disrupt outdated ideologies. A secular businessman who backed both parties, who denounced big money in politics, who promised to do deals and bring back jobs -- isn't that what you had in mind? No? And if, like J. Alfred Prufrock, you murmur, "That is not it at all, That is not what I meant, at all" then it's time to reckon with the fact that the great American center wasn't what you imagined it was at all either.

The people who like Michael Bloomberg are the least underrepresented people in American life. They don't always get their way -- who does? -- but it's not for lack of candidates eager to take their money and voice their views. Hillary Clinton is almost as perfect a candidate as the Davos consensus could wish, and to the extent she deviates from that consensus -- favoring somewhat higher taxes, expressing rather more skepticism about the benignity of large financial institutions -- it can be pardoned as a necessary concession to political reality.

Donald Trump spoke to genuinely underrepresented people. Concerned that the GOP was captured by theocratic Southerners? Where Republicans are most secular and supposedly most moderate -- the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic -- Trump has done best. By all indications, he'll do crushingly well in California, too. It's where Republicans are least moderate that he was most resisted: Texas, Utah, and wherever party activists gather in caucuses and conventions. That's where an Independent candidacy would be most effectively aimed.

When I first read this I reasoned that he was generalizing about both parties -- that "the center" rose up to nominate Clinton as well as Trump -- but he's really only concerned with the Republicans. Still, although Sanders is well to the left of Clinton, Sanders' supporters may well be closer to the center, certainly to the "underrepresented" masses that flocked to Trump. That the Democratic Party end of the "duopoly" was able to prevail over the uprising was mostly due to the party elites' unity behind a single candidate. The Republican elites had no such unity, partly because all of the candidates recited from the same party talking points -- or so it seemed at first.

The only issue Republicans were much divided on was immigration, where elites liked the idea of using guest workers to weaken labor markets, but a great many Republican-leaners were fantic not just in opposition to "amnesty" but to anything that would dilute white America. And that was the issue Trump captured, not by taking the most uncompromising stand possible but by expressing his stand with the most unforgivable rhetoric -- folks knew he meant it when he wouldn't take it back. Trump later proved shameless, refusing to walk back one gaffe after another, everything from quoting Mussolini to getting endorsed by David Duke. His willingness to go off message started to trouble the party nabobs, but all they seemed to be able to charge Trump with was not being a true conservative. As Frum shows, that turned out to be a toothless complaint, as nothing the GOP has been peddling has resonated less with the base than laissez-faire economics. One suspects that the real problem party bigwigs have with Trump is that he risks unselling their scams to help the rich. Indeed, one thing that makes him suspect is that he isn't under the thumb of a trusted billionaire. He is his own billionaire, which makes him less controllable -- even if he ultimately reverts to pursuing his own self-interest (like his doppelganger Berlusconi).

Frum is properly alarmed by Trump, and blames "the failings and self-seeking of Republican leaders":

Much of the old conservative message is out of date. Not all of it, but much. Yet the people who formed the conservative coalition remain. They've misplaced their faith and trust in Donald Trump. But then, it's not as if their faith and trust were honored by the party's plutocratic former leadership, either.

Frum thinks it's possible to save the party by articulating a program which actually serves the base, that returns some tangible reward for their support. I have no idea what that might look like, because I don't see anything Republicans support or believe in that offers any actual hope to anyone but the already rich.

On the other hand, one can imagine the Democratic Party flipping from Clinton to Sanders, much as they previously flipped from Grover Cleveland to William Jennings Bryan, or from Al Smith to Franklin Roosevelt. Such changes occur when conservative elites no longer have answers for real world problems. But Republicans have no answers: just homilies to "family values," and a media that stokes seething rage against their supposed enemies (pretty much everyone but the rich, and even there they manage to find enemies).


Some miscellaneous links (since this is Sunday):

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Thursday, April 28, 2016


Rhapsody Streamnotes (April 2016)

Not much to say here. Fairly typical month: four weeks, 125 records. Only nine 2015 releases, although I still don't feel like I have a handle on 2016 -- indeed, I can't say as I'm trying. Just wading through, checking out things I notice -- following my mail, plus a few trustworthy critics.

Two major deaths this past month: Merle Haggard and Prince. Tried to look them up on Rhapsody to see what I've missed, but not much from either (actually nothing from Prince, a fair amount of Haggard but it will take some effort to straighten out the order -- maybe next month). As it is I have 27 Haggard albums in the database (including two filed under Willie Nelson), and 24 from Prince -- the former include more compilations, especially drawn from the early albums, and still wind up representing a smaller share of the total. I won't list them all, but here's the A-list (sorted chronologically):

  • Merle Haggard: The Capitol Collector's Series (1966-74 [1990], Capitol): A
  • Merle Haggard and the Strangers: Serving 190 Proof (1979, MCA): A-
  • Prince: Dirty Mind (1980, Warner Bros.): A
  • Merle Haggard: More of the Best (1963-81 [1990], Rhino): A
  • Prince: 1999 (1982, Warner Bros.): A-
  • Merle Haggard: The Ultimate Collection (1966-83 [2000], Hip-O): A-
  • Prince and the Revolution: Purple Rain (1984, Warner Bros.): A
  • Merle Haggard: Live From Austin TX (1985 [2006], New West): A-
  • Prince and the Revolution: Parade (1986, Warner Bros.): A-
  • Prince: Sign of the Times (1987, Paisley Park, 2CD): A
  • Merle Haggard: The Essential Merle Haggard: The Epic Years (1981-87 [2004], Epic/Legacy): A-
  • Prince: The Hits/B-Sides (1978-93 [1993], Paisley Park, 3CD): A-
  • Prince: The Gold Experience (1995, NPG/Warner Bros.): A-
  • Merle Haggard: 40 #1 Hits (1966-96 [2004], Capitol, 2CD): A-
  • Merle Haggard: If I Could Only Fly (2000, Epitaph): A-
  • Merle Haggard: Like Never Before (2003, Hag): A-
  • Prince: Musicology (2004, NPG/Columbia): A-
  • Prince: 3121 (2006, NPG/Universal): A-
  • Merle Haggard: Hag: The Best of Merle Haggard (1966-2005 [2007], Capitol): A
  • Willie Nelson/Merle Haggard/Ray Price: Last of the Breed (2007, Lost Highway, 2CD): A-
  • Merle Haggard: Working in Tennessee (2011, Vanguard): A-
  • Willie Nelson/Merle Haggard: Django and Jimmie (2015, Legacy): A-

You might want to compare Robert Christgau's pages: compared to me, he's reviewed +14 on Haggard (-4 A-list) and +0 on Prince (+3 A-list).

I was a little more pro-active on news of the death of Ethiopian tenor saxophonist Getatchew Merkuria. I had heard him on Either/Orchestra's Live in Addis, knew that he had a well-regarded volume in Buda Musique's Éthiopiques series, and that he had a couple albums with the Dutch anarcho-punk group Ex. I was pleased to find the comp on Rhapsody, and two live albums with Ex on Bandcamp, so I tuned right into them. The Ex had also put their complete works up on Bandcamp, so I decided to fill in all the many albums I had missed, so see "Old Music" below for the rundown.

I suppose I should note that the total number of records I've run through this wringer since 2007 has topped 8000. That doesn't include the old Recycled Goods and Jazz Prospecting columns, which were done on the basis of actual CDs. I suspended those columns back in January 2014, folding the stuff I would have reviewed there into here. About one-third of the records below were reviewed from CDs (44/125, 35.2%, all jazz). What put the "Rhapsody" in "Rhapsody Streamnotes" was a (temporary) gratis subscription to the streaming service. I figured as long as I was listening I should keep notes, even if they don't amount to real reviews. That's still my practice, and a fair number of the notes that follow are far from adequate to give you a good sense of the record. Still, only so much time to go around.


Most of these are short notes/reviews based on streaming records from Rhapsody (other sources are noted in brackets). They are snap judgments based on one or two plays, accumulated since my last post along these lines, back on March 30. Past reviews and more information are available here (8045 records).


Recent Releases

Antonio Adolfo: Tropical Infinito (2016, AAM): Brazilian pianist, has a couple dozen albums since 1969, nearing 70 now. Adds a horn section here -- Jesse Sadoc on trumpet and Marcelo Martins on sax -- considers guitarist Claudio Spiewak a special guest. Two originals, two other Brazilian pieces, but starts with two Benny Golson tunes, adds one each from Oliver Nelson and Horace Silver, plus "All the Things You Are" -- not just nice but delightful. B+(***) [cd]

Africaine 808: Basar (2016, Golf Channel): Berlin-based duo, Dirk Leyers and DJ Nomad, plunder their world music samples and jack them up for the dancefloor. B+(***) [bc]

Cyrille Aimée: Let's Get Lost (2016, Mack Avenue): French jazz singer, based in New York, usually sings standards but comes up with four originals here, usually sings in English but has two songs in French and one in Spanish. Backed by guitar-bass-drums, gives it an informal feel. Title usually denotes a Chet Baker crush but here it's just another Frank Loesser-Jimmy McHugh standard. B+(*)

Ralph Alessi: Quiver (2014 [2016], ECM): Trumpet player, long struck me as a guy who stars on others' albums, now has a dozen or so albums under his own name. Quartet, with Gary Versace (piano), Drew Gress (bass), and Nasheet Waits (drums). Format focuses hard on Alessi, who doesn't disappoint. B+(***) [dl]

Katy B: Honey (2016, Virgin EMI): British pop singer Kathleen Brien, third album, enough of an established powerhouse that every song gets "featuring" help and nearly every song gets its own unique producer (Geeneus five times, but paired with someone different each time). Consistent enough that they all seem to have read the same business plan. Also that none came up with a single you're going to remember this album by. B+(**)

Nik Bärtsch's Mobile: Continuum (2015 [2016], ECM): Swiss pianist, alternates between his "zen-funk" group Ronin and this slightly more streamlined ensemble -- clarinetist Sha plays in both but is less conspicuous here, merely coloring the rhythmic figures, as do the strings. The patterns remain compelling, maybe even danceable. A- [dl]

Beauty School: Residual Ugly (2015, Humbler): Matt Chandler (bass guitar), Tom Djll (electronics + trumpet), Jacob Felix Heule (percussion + electronics) -- basically improv noise, or as they put it, "extreme extended techniques . . . with nasty homemade electronics and circuit-bent keyboards. Eleven untitled cuts, 48:01, originally released on Chrome Plus "CP-Extra" tape because that's "up to 4 decibels 'hotter' than other chrome tapes. They were proud enough of their work to send me a cassette, which I couldn't play, so I'm belatedly working off Bandcamp -- which I imagine is a good 4 dB cooler than they intended. B+(*) [bc]

Bibio: A Mineral Love (2016, Warp): Stephen Wilkinson, English, seemed more of a laptronica guy at first but is singing more, turning into a falsetto soul man, which isn't significantly distinct from false soul man. B

Big Ups: Before a Million Universes (2016, Exploding/Tough Love): Brooklyn post-hardcore group, second album, like with their first (Eighteen Hours of Static) I find their grind and growl little short of contagious. B+(***)

Bombino: Azel (2016, Partisan): Guitarist Omara Moctar, from Niger, started in Group Bombino and kept the name, left for Burkina Faso, then finally to the US, recording his 2013 album in Nashville with Dan Auerbach (Black Keys), and this one in Woodstock with Dave Longstreth (Dirty Projectors). B+(***)

Jaimeo Brown Transcendence: Work Songs (2016, Motéma): Drummer, second album, liked his first album title so much he kept it as part of his artist credit. This is built around field recordings of work songs from Mississippi to Japan. Guitarist Chris Sholar co-produced, saxophonists Jaleel Shaw (alto) and JD Allen (tenor) impress, and the keyboards fill in. B+(***)

The Ian Carey Quintet + 1: Interview Music (2015 [2016], Kabocha): Trumpet player, several albums since 2005. Sextet -- yes, there exists a more succinct term than "quintet + 1" -- includes bass clarinet (Sheldon Brown), alto sax (Kasey Knudsen), piano (Adam Shulman), bass and drums. Title piece a sprawling suite with four parts and an interlude, a fine example of postbop composition and arrangement. B+(***) [cd]

Hayes Carll: Lovers and Leavers (2016, Highway 87): Country singer-songwriter, last couple albums have had some remarkably funny songs (best ever is "She Left Me for Jesus") but the only one here with so much as a light touch is "Love Is So Easy." One problem may be that the leavers outnumber the lovers. Another may be that they all have co-authors, although Darrell Scott is most frequent. Much less disappointed on the second pass. B+(***)

Cavern of Anti-Matter: Void Beats/Invocation Trex (2016, Duophonic): Berlin-based project of keyboardist Holger Zapf and Stereolab members Tim Gane and Joe Dilworth. Too much guitar to really qualify as Krautrock, but their instrumental pieces (especially the 12:51 opener "Tardis Cymbals") are delightful, the song with vocals not bad, and the other vocal snippets not without interest. B+(***)

Bill Charlap Trio: Notes From New York (2015 [2016], Impulse): Mainstream pianist, a bit retro even, twenty albums since 1994, mostly (as here) doing standards. Trio, with Peter Washington on bass and Kenny Washington on drums, has been together a long time (at least since 2004). Expert, although it's been a while since I've found him dazzling. B+(*)

Charli XCX: Vroom Vroom (2016, Vroom Vroom, EP): Brit pop star, really liked her second album, Sucker. Four rather prickly songs, 12:18, much tease but not a lot of payoff. B+(*)

Chimurenga Renaissance: Rize Vadzimu Rize (2014, Brick Lane): Project formed by Tandal "Baba" Maraire (Shabazz Palaces) with rapper Hussein Kalonji (aka H-Bomb), borrowing liberally from Zimbabwe's signature music -- although sometimes that isn't evident. Rather, what you get is a dense, rather busy underground rap record, albeit one that aims higher. B+(*)

Chimurenga Renaissance: Girlz With Gunz (2016, Glitterbeat, EP): Eleven short cuts, 26 minutes, busier than ever. B+(*)

Rob Clearfield: Islands (2016, Ears & Eyes): Plays piano, electric piano, organ, and guitar, backed here by bass and drums. B+(*)

The Coathangers: Nosebleed Weekend (2016, Suicide Squeeze): Atlanta girl group, or punk trio if you'd prefer, fifth album, have advanced melodically and chops-wise which is only natural, but stay true to their roots. A-

Shemekia Copeland: Outskirts of Love (2015, Alligator): Blues semi-legend Johnny Copeland's daughter, seventh album since 1998. Big voice, helps to pick good songs ("Long as I Can See the Light," "Lord, Help the Poor and Needy"). B+(*)

Matt Criscuolo: The Dialogue (2016, Jazzeria): Alto saxophonist, half-dozen albums since 2001. Takes a sharp bite with the opener, and only lets up to let "featuring" guitarist Tony Purrone make his mark. Quartet with Dave Anderson on bass and Will Calhoun on drums. B+(**) [cd]

Daria: Strawberry Fields Forever: Songs by the Beatles (2016, OA2): San Francisco-based jazz singer -- AMG classifies her as "Children's Jazz" -- last name Mautner (which I learned from the credit for the one song I didn't recognize), has a handful of albums since 1998. Beatles songs have been notoriously unjazzable, so I didn't expect much, but she does come up with some novel ideas ("Can't Buy Me Love" works), even if most of them are little more than Latin percussion. B+(*) [cd]

Stephen Davis/Ralph Alessi/Kris Davis: Sugar Blade (2015, Babel): Belfast-based drummer, has previously recorded as Steve Davis or Steven Davis but perhaps switched to steer clear of American jazz drummer Steve Davis. He's mostly worked with Paul Dunmall in the past, so is used to playing fast and loose. The others, playing trumpet and piano, are better known, playing to form here, but not much more. B+(**)

Eli Degibri: Cliff Hangin' (2014 [2016], Blujazz): Israeli saxophonist (tenor and soprano), has a half-dozen albums since 2003, this a quartet with piano (Gadi Lehavi), bass (Barak Mori), and drums (Ofri Nehemya). Pretty conventional, although his tone is down right lustrous and the rhythm is mostly upbeat. Shlomo Ydov joins in on one song, playing guitar and singing -- voice and phrasing reminds me of Robert Wyatt. B+(*) [cd]

The Dynamic Les DeMerle Band: Comin' Home Baby (2014 [2016], Origin): Drummer-singer, mostly swings standards, throwing in some blues, a couple Jobims, a couple songs by Bob Dorough and David Frishberg. He opens, then wife Bonnie Eisele enters and outshines him, a shtick Louis Prima and Keely Smith pioneered. Cover shows a couple horn players but they're not in the credits -- just Johannes Bjerregaard on piano and Chris Luard on bass. B+(***) [cd]

Dressy Bessy: Kingsized (2016, Yep Roc): Denver alt/indie band, fronted by singer-guitarist Tammy Ealom, shares a guitarist with Apples in Stereo, has a half-dozen albums going back to 1999, their previous in 2008. B+(**)

Flatbush Zombies: 3001: A Laced Odyssey (2016, Glorious Dead): Brooklyn rap group, first album (after several mixtapes), a concept thang. Underground beats, not sure what else. B+(**)

Michael Formanek/Ensemble Kolossus: The Distance (2014 [2016], ECM): Bassist, over a dozen albums since 1986, composed the title piece and eight parts of "Exoskeleton" for an 18-piece New York big band -- only name I didn't recognize on the roster was that of the marimba player -- turning the conductor duties over to fellow bassist Mark Helias. A commanding group, lots of power behind the tricky compositions. B+(***) [dl]

Nick Fraser Quartet: Starer (2015 [2016], self-released): Drummer, from Canada, based in Toronto, same group as on the excellent 2013 Towns and Villages: Tony Malaby (tenor/soprano sax), Andrew Downing (cello), and Rob Clutton (double bass). Free jazz, focus seems to shift more toward the cello, with Malaby fading away. B+(**) [cd]

James Freeman: Echoes of Nature III (2016, Edgetone): Plays guitar and synthesizer, has two previous Echoes of Nature albums. Here, at least, the echoes are mostly bird sounds and some wind and rain, dotted around the unnatural sounds of Mads Tolling's violin, Yehudit's viola, and Nika Rejto's flute. B- [cd]

Matthew Fries: Parallel States (2015 [2016], Xcappa): Pianist, three previous records going back to 2001. This one is solo, all original material. B+(*)

Gambari Band: Kokuma (2016, Membran Media): Mali group, includes several relatives who formerly played in Bassekou Kouyaté's Ngoni Ba group. Finds that sweet spot in the middle of Mali's pop spectrum and gently holds sway over it. A-

Jean-Brice Godet Quartet: Mujô (2013 [2016], Fou): French, plays bass clarinet, looks like this may be his first album although he's appeared on maybe 10-12, with a couple groups, also with Joëlle Léandre. Here, with Michaël Attias (alto sax, a good match), Pascal Niggenkemper (bass), and Carlo Costa (drums). B+(***) [cd]

GoGo Penguin: Man Made Object (2015 [2016], Blue Note): Piano trio -- Chris Illingworth, Nick Blacka, Rob Turner -- , from Manchester in UK, has a couple previous albums, their last making the Mercury Award's short list, so they have some crossover appeal, more like EST than Bad Plus or Dawn of Midi, but simpler patterns, more Eno, more ambient. Could grow on you, but may still not seem like it amounts to much. B+(***)

Alex Goodman: Border Crossing (2016, OA2): Guitarist, has a previous album, wrote all the songs here but effectively turns this one over to singer Felicity Williams. B- [cd]

PJ Harvey: The Hope Six Demolition Project (2015 [2016], Vagrant): More political than ever, not that I find that especially easy to gauge. Still, mostly lacks the raw nerve of her best (and worst) records, and not as catchy as I'd like. Still, when the sax comes out (e.g., "The Ministry of Social Affairs"), I wonder if I shouldn't listen more. B+(**)

Alexander Hawkins/Evan Parker: Leaps in Leicester (2015 [2016], Clean Feed): Improv duo, piano and tenor sax, the former a young guy who can play with avant-gardists -- his group Decoy has several albums with Joe McPhee -- and other styles, the latter one of the legendary founders of European free jazz. A bit subdued, which makes the music seem less radical than it is. A- [cd]

Mayer Hawthorne: Man About Town (2016, Vagrant): If you want Motown revival, why not a white guy from Ann Arbor (given name Andrew Cohen)? Fourth album, not counting the Tuxedo duo I liked so much last year (pushed the envelope into disco). He does a pretty fair Smokey here. B+(**)

The Heliocentrics: From the Deep (2016, Now-Again): London-based jazz-funk group, name inspired by Sun Ra, best known for collaborations with exotic obscurities (Mulatu Astatke, Lloyd Miller, Orlando Julius). Those guests add various degrees of charisma which the band itself lacks, not that they can't kick up an engaging groove. B+(***)

Louis Heriveaux: Triadic Episode (2014 [2016], Hot Shoe): Pianist, trio with Curtis Lundy and Terreon Gully, looks to be his first although he has side credits going back to 1993. Three originals, one with the bassist, a couple more from the band, but mostly standards buffed up bright and shiny. B+(**) [cd]

Keefe Jackson/Jason Adasiewicz: Rows and Rows (2015 [2016], Delmark): Duets, tenor sax/bass clarinet and vibes, both established players in Chicago's avant-jazz scene. Drags a bit, as often happens in duo albums with no one pushing the pace. B+(*) [cd]

Russ Johnson: Meeting Point (2014, Relay): Trumpet player, more of a postbop player than avant but having moved to Chicago he's come up with a quartet that begs the difference: Jason Stein (bass clarinet), Anton Hatwich (bass), and Tim Daisy (drums). B+(**) [bc]

Kamaiyah: A Good Night in the Ghetto (2016, self-released): Bay Area rapper, 20 years old, first mixtape. Reads retro but has a hard edge, low budget feel, nothing frilly, plenty catchy. B+(**)

Sari Kessler: Do Right (2016, Ruby Street Music): Standards singer, first album, attracted some first-rate musicians including Nadje Noordhuis (trumpet), Houston Person (tenor sax), Ron Affif (guitar), and John di Martino (piano). B+(*) [cd]

Julie Kjaer 3: Dobbeltgaenger (2015 [2016], Clean Feed): Alto saxophonist, website bio doesn't bother with any mundane details like when and where born, where she studied, where she lives, but she does appear to have a previous Kvartet album, a group called Pierette Ensemble, and a chair in Paal Nilssen-Love's Large Unit. Elsewhere I find that she's Danish and based in London, which would put her close to her trio mates, John Edwards (bass) and Steve Noble (drums). I may soft on avant sax trios, but this hits all the right buttons. A- [cd]

La Sera: Music for Listening to Music To (2016, Polyvinyl): Fourth album by ex-Vivian Girls bassist Katy Goodman, expanded to a duo with husband Todd Wisenbaker, produced by Ryan Adams trying to span (or more accurately find a sweet spot between) "garagey pop [and] twangy country." B+(**)

Matt Lavelle's 12 Houses: Solidarity (2014 [2016], Unseen Rain): Trumpet player, one of the first places I noticed him was in William Parker's Little Huey Orchestra, and here he is returning with his own avant big band. Sixteen musicians (counting vocalist Anaïs Maviel), nothing conventional about the lineup -- Lavelle is the only brass player, the four saxes are joined by flute and bassoon; you also get violin, cello, guitar (Anders Nilsson), banjo, and vibraphone as well as piano-bass-drums. Feels like a bit too much "kitchen sink," but the revivalist closer ("Faith") is pretty rousing. B+(**) [cd]

Gary Lucas' Fleischerei: Music From Max Fleischer Cartoons (2015 [2016], Cuneiform): Max Fleischer (1883-1972) was born in Krakow, emigrated to New York when he was four, and grew up to be a pioneer in the art and technology of animated film, where his characters included Betty Boop and Popeye. Lucas is a guitarist with a checkered career since he joined Captain Beefheart in 1980, with a couple dozen albums under all sorts of names since 1991. Aside from the songs, the star here is Sarah Stiles, who gets the corniness of the jazz era perfect, then makes the switch from Boop to Olive Oyl for the Popeye-Barnacle Bill operetta finale. First-rate jazz band too: Joe Fiedler (trombone), Jeff Lederer (reeds), Michael Bates (bass), and Rob Garcia (drums). A- [dl]

Steven Lugerner: Jacknife: The Music of Jackie McLean (2015 [2016], Primary): Alto saxophonist, has several impressive albums, describes his group -- takes their name from a McLean nickname, also the title of a 1970s compilation which was my intro to the alto great -- as postbop, although the sax-trumpet-piano-bass-drums quintet is one I associate more with hard bop. But then, McLean's 1959-67 Blue Note albums practically invented postbop, moving from hard bop through avant-garde and into the synthesis postbop was founded on. Only two of six songs here were actually penned by McLean (two come from Charles Tolliver), but they all sound right, even if McLean's precise tone remains unique. B+(***) [cd]

The Tony Lustig Quintet: Taking Flight (2016, Bimperl): Originally from Detroit, now based in New York, plays baritone sax and bass clarinet. Hype sheet notes he "believes strongly in warmth and groove," and that's evident on this debut album. He does have a couple side credits with trombonist Michael Dease, who appears here, backed by piano-bass-drums. B+(**) [cd]

Roberto Magris: Need to Bring Out Love (2016, JMood): Mainstream pianist, from Italy, has quite a few albums. Trio, with Dominique Sanders on bass and Brian Steever on drums, with three vocals -- two by Julia Haile, one with Monique Danielle. B+(**) [cdr]

The Del McCoury Band: Del and Woody (2016, McCoury Music): As the cover explains, "Original lyrics of Woody Guthrie set to music by Del McCoury" -- something Wilco, Billy Bragg, the Klezmatics, and others have also done before, but the supply of worthwhile Guthrie lyrics is deep, and the bluegrass settings seem luxuriant compared to the folksinger's own recordings. You can't doubt McCoury's pedigree: he did a stint with Bill Monroe in 1963, and has run his own band (lately with two sons) since 1968. A-

Adam Meckler Quintet: Wonder (2015 [2016], Shifting Paradigm): Trumpet player from Minnesota, second album, with tenor sax (Joe Mayo on one track, Nelson Devereaux on the rest), guitar (Zacc Harris), bass and drums. Postbop, some tricks up their sleeves. B+(**) [cd]

Daniel Meron: Sky Begins (2015 [2016], Rabbit Rabbit Rabbit): Pianist-composer, leads a trio here plus vocalist, Maia Karo, also his wife. Art songs, a bit too tricky for voice, or do I mean the singer? B [cd]

Jane Monheit: The Songbook Sessions: Ella Fitzgerald (2015 [2016], Emerald City): Standards singer, close to a dozen albums since 2000, the few I've heard unimpressive, but trawling in Ella's wake gives her a wide choice of great songs, and she doesn't go for anything too obvious. Pianist Michael Kaman's group will win no prizes for swinging, but they prop her up nicely, and Nicholas Payton's trumpet is a definite plus. B+(*) [cd]

Moodymann: DJ-Kicks (2016, !K7): Detroit DJ Kenny Dixon Jr. throws together a mixtape that sounds older than it probably is, mostly because he searches out soulful vocals to go with the beats. B+(**)

Roy Nathanson: Nearness and You (2015 [2016], Clean Feed): Alto saxophonist, led the Jazz Passengers with trombonist Curtis Fowlkes since 1987, also credited with soprano and baritone sax and voice here. This is a set of duets with a revolving cast: pianists Arturo O'Farrill, Anthony Coleman, and Myra Melford; trombonists Fowlkes and Lucy Hollier; Marc Ribot on acoustic guitar. Opens with Hoagy Carmichael's "The Nearness of You," reprised four more times as "You" turns into "Ewes," "Youse," "Jews," and "You Too," with stilted but oddly touching vocals. B+(*) [cd]

Scott Neumann/Tom Christensen: Spin Cycle (2015 [2016], Sound Footing): Drums and saxophone (tenor/soprano), each has a couple albums, this one a quartet with Pete McCann on guitar and Phil Palombi on bass -- their names get smaller print on the cover. Not clear to me what this album wants to be: it is rough and noisy, sometimes rockish, sometimes avant, sometimes I know not what. B+(*) [cd]

New Zion w. Cyro: Sunshine Seas (2016, Rare Noise): That's how the cover reads. Hype sheet is more expansive: "Jamie Saft's New Zion . . . Featuring Brazilian Percussionist Cyro Baptista." Saft plays keyboards, fluffing up dub riddims which Baptista riffs on. Title track has a vocal by Vanessa Saft. All very pleasant. B+(**) [cdr]

Noertker's Moxie & the Melancholics: Curious Worlds: The Art & Imagination of David Beck (2016, Edgetone): Composed and arranged by bassist Bill Noertker. Beck, otherwise unknown to me, plays baritone sax, but evidently is also a graphic artist, the subject of a documentary this music is the soundtrack to. Pleasant in that way, with oboe and flute among the reeds but no brass. B+(*) [cd]

The Oatmeal Jazz Combo: Instant Oats (2016, LGY): Octet, founded at Stony Brook in 2009, fifth album. Trumpet, reeds, trombone, guitar, piano, bass, drums, steel pan. Postbop, jaunty over the trombone rumble. B+(*) [cd]

Phil Palombi: Detroit Lean (2015 [2016], Xcappa): Bassist, plays electric and "Scott LaFaro's Prescott bass" -- did a record in 2011 called Re: Person I Knew: A Tribute to Scott LaFaro and has published a book titled Scott LaFaro -- 15 Solo Transcriptions, but LaFaro died in 1961 so I don't see how the math works out (Palombi's credits start around 1996 when he joined Maynard Ferguson). Nice album here, interesting rhythms, better solos from pianist Matthew Fries than on his own record, some flamenco guitar by Tony Romano, and quite a few bass solos. B+(***) [cd]

Parquet Courts: Human Performance (2016, Rough Trade): Probably the alt/indie band of the decade, based on two previous albums and several EPs, evolves a bit, their sound adding traces of Pavement (the alt/indie band of the 1990s) to their Velvets motherlode. Takes longer to digest, especially since there are more ballads than burners. A-

Pet Shop Boys: Super (2016, X2): Two spins, lead song "Happiness" has yet to connect but "The Pop Kids" would fit perfectly into their 1980s best-of, and other songs already remind me of Very. Sometimes you have to step back to go forward. A-

Pierette Ensemble: Akrostik (2014, Gateway Music): Group name is saxophonist Julie Kjaer's play on "Pierrot ensemble" -- a musical ensemble comprising flute, clarinet, violin, cello, and piano, sometimes voice and/or percussion, per Arnold Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire. Kjaer handles the flutes but also plays alto sax, and Pernille Brevort fills the clarinet slot with tenor sax and bass clarinet. B+(***)

Noah Preminger: Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground (2015 [2016], self-released): Tenor saxophonist, has had an impressive run of albums since his 2008 debut, but this blues-focused quartet with Jason Palmer on trumpet has trouble getting in gear. Title song from Blind Willie Johnson, others include Blind Lemon Jefferson, Skip James, Charley Patton, Robert Johnson, and Mississippi John Hurt. B+(*) [cd]

Margo Price: Midwest Farmer's Daughter (2016, Third Man): It takes two songs for the Loretta Lynn wannabe to make it obvious. Still, not a bad affectation, and that harder-to-peg first song is also pretty good. A-

Restroy: Saturn Return (2016, Milk Factory): Group led by composers Chris Dammann (bass) and Catherine Monnes (violin), with trumpet (James Davis), tenor sax (Nick Anaya), and others split between two sessions: both have drums, one has guitar-flute, the other electronics-percussion. Moody, rather dark, like the artwork with print I cannot read. B+(*) [cd]

Eric Revis Trio: Crowded Solitudes (2015 [2016], Clean Feed): Bassist, first came to prominence in Branford Marsalis' quartet, mostly has mainstream/postbop credits but his own records have leaned more avant. Kris Davis is the pianist, and he's given her a better trio showcase than she's managed to come up with on her own. And Gerald Cleaver is the drummer -- the only trait he shares with Paul Motian is that he's become the guy who anchors all the best piano trios. A- [cd]

Rocco John Quartet: Embrace the Change (2015 [2016], Unseen Rain): Alto/soprano saxophonist, full name Rocco John Iacovone, credits Lee Konitz and Sam Rivers as teachers and learned a thing or two from them about being aggressive and obliquely tuneful. Quartet adds Rich Rosenthal (guitar), François Grillot (bass), and Tom Cabrera (drums). B+(**) [cdr]

Rent Romus/Teddy Rankin-Parker/Daniel Pearce: LiR (2014 [2016], Edgetone): Subtitled Live at Vamp followed by "Vintage - Art - Music" separated by bullets. "LiR" is a song title, and the artist names are all that's on the spine. Romus plays alto and soprano sax and various flutes (not that I noticed the latter), the others cello and drums. The sax is skechy, the cello like a bass that got out of its box. B+(***) [cd]

Renee Rosnes: Written in the Rocks (2015 [2016], Smoke Sessions): Pianist, from Saskatchewan, sixteen albums since 1989, mostly on Blue Note where she established herself as one of our top postbop pianists. Quintet, with Peter Washington (bass), Bill Stewart (drums), Steve Nelson (vibes), and Steven Wilson (flute, alto/soprano sax), a bit too much window dressing. B

Carol Saboya: Carolina (2016, AAM): Brazilian songstress, more than a dozen albums since 1999, backed by longtime collaborator Antonio Adolfo on piano plus the usual Brazilian combo with Marcelo Martins on flute. Fairly classic bossa nova, with three Jobims, Bosco, Djavan, Lobo, Pixinguinha, plus exceptionally nice readings of Sting's "Fragile" and Lennon-McCartney's "Hello Goodbye." B+(*) [cd]

Kendrick Scott Oracle: We Are the Drum (2015, Blue Note): Drummer, has three albums since 2006 under this group name, with John Ellis (sax/bass clarinet), Taylor Eigsti (piano), Michael Moreno (guitar), and Joe Sanders (bass), sophisticated postbop with no rough edges, not even a lot of drum power. Lizz Wright gets a vocal spot -- not a high point. B

Mikael Seifu: Zelalem (2016, RVNG Intl, EP): Electronica from Addis Adaba, starts with a spoken sample from the former Stokely Carmichael, picks up folk and religious traditions then soups them up into something called "Ethiopiyawi Electronic." Five cuts, 28:27. B+(*)

Nana Simopoulos: Skins (2016, Na): Greek singer-songwriter, plays guitar and bouzouki, has a half-dozen previous albums. Band members come and go, but the percussionists keep a complex beat going -- note that her website has a whole section for "Dancescores" -- and the saxes bind the worldly music back to jazz. B+(**) [cd]

Sturgill Simpson: A Sailor's Guide to Earth (2016, Atlantic): Song-oriented enough you can pitch him as country, especially with that twang in his voice, but his guitar could fill an arena, and the strings overflow a stage. Plenty of reason to think this will be treated as one of the year's important releases. I'm almost there. B+(***)

Esperanza Spalding: Emily's D+Evolution (2016, Concord): Started off as a jazz bassist, landing a plum job in Joe Lovano's Us Five group. Even early on she looked like a star, but her efforts to cash in have been fitful, and this, where her vocals swerve like Kurt Elling before the rot sat in, is no exception. B

Mavis Staples: Livin' on a High Note (2016, Anti-): Born 1939, literally grew up in one of America's premier gospel groups, took a chance on secular music (i.e., love songs) in 1969 and has had her ups and downs, much like this record. B+(**)

Starlite Motel: Awosting Falls (2014 [2016], Clean Feed): Yet another avant-noise group built around the very active Jamie Saft, credited here with Hammond organ, Whitehall organ, Moog, and lapsteel guitar. And I'm duly impressed with his contribution here, but rather annoyed by saxophonist Kristoffer Berre Alberts, whose alto and tenor seem stuck in screech mode. Ingebrigt Håker Flaten is credited with four different basses (all electric, I suspect), and drummer Gard Nilssen adds some electronics to his percussion kit. B+(*) [cd]

Steel Bridge Trio: Different Clocks (2015, Relay): Avant sax trio, started out sounding like Aram Shelton (alto sax) was in charge, but soon shifted to something softer, with Shelton switching to bass clarinet, so I wound up filing it under composer Tim Daisy's name -- a drummer, he shifts to vibraphone here, while bassist Safa Shokrai isn't much of a factor one way or the other. B+(*) [bc]

Tacocat: Lost Time (2016, Hardly Art): Seattle group, three women and a male guitarist, third album: snappy songs with punky crunch and a bit of bubblegum. A-

Yves Theiler Trio: Dance in a Triangle (2015 [2016], Musique Suisses): Pianist from Switzerland, third album for his trio -- Luca Sisera on bass, Lukas Mantel on drums -- also has a duo with Omri Ziegele and a few other appearances. B+(***) [cd]

Trio Da Paz: 30 (2011 [2016], Zoho Music): Brazilian jazz group, all big name players -- Romero Lubambo (guitar), Nilson Matta (bass), Duduka Da Fonseca (drums) -- seventh album since 1992. B+(**)

Twenty One 4tet: Live at Zaal 100 (2015 [2016], Clean Feed): Mostly Dutch avant-jazz group, with two sparring horns -- Luis Vicente's trumpet and John Dikeman's tenor sax -- backed by Wilbert De Joode on bass and Onno Govaert on drums. B+(**) [cd]

Ernie Watts Quartet: Wheel of Time (2016, Flying Dolphin): Tenor saxophonist, one of the great ballad voices of our era, although having turned 70 he seems more intent on showing he can still rip the fast ones. Backed by piano-bass-drums, no one I've ever heard of. Picture of Watts with Charlie Haden inside, adding key words to the title: "turns, but beauty remains." B+(**) [cd]

Kanye West: The Life of Pablo (2016, Def Jam/GOOD Music): Leaked as a limited time mixtape which I missed, belatedly shows up on Rhapsody -- does that mean tangible product or is that just another leak, like he's torn between artificial scarcity and artificial ubiquity. Hooked enough this won't make believers doubt his genius, or bemused admirers acclaim it. B+(***)

Steve Wiest and Phröntrange: The High Road (2016, Blujazz): Trombonist, worked for Maynard Ferguson in the 1980s, now teaches at University of Denver, artwork here photographed in what most of us know as the Front Range. Group includes guitar, bass, EWI, keyboards, drums and an engineer, with a couple strings listed as extra. First piece is, well, bold, everything clashing to great dramatic effect. Then you get some strings and "Cantaloupe Island" and other annoyances. B- [cd]

WorldService Project: For King and Country (2015 [2016], Rare Noise): British "punk-jazz" outfit, at least their third album, all songs composed by keyboardist Dave Morecroft, backed by sax, trombone, bass, and drums. I don't hear anything punk about them. Not much jazz either. More like bad '70s prog with Wagnerian flourishes, or maybe they're just nods to '80s arena rock. Johnny Rotten treated his monarch with more respect. D+ [cdr]

Christopher Zuar Orchestra: Musings (2014 [2016], Sunnyside): Composer, debut album a well-stocked big band, not listed as a player. He studied under Jim McNeely, and the album was produced by Mike Holober, whose Westchester Jazz Orchestra intersects here. Arrangements have some whimsy and verve, and the band has some star power for the solos. Jo Lawry sings some. B+(**) [cd]

Recent Reissues, Compilations, Vault Discoveries

John Abercrombie: The First Quartet (1978-80 [2015], ECM, 3CD): A major figure in jazz guitar since 1974, although it took me a long time to appreciate his silvery tone and intricate style -- a break from the fusion guitarists of the time or the bopsters of the previous generation (although I can hear Jim Hall as an influence). First albums were trios -- notably the group Gateway -- plus a solo, but he put this quartet together in 1978 and they recorded three albums, neatly boxed here, with Richie Beirach (piano), George Mraz (bass), and Peter Donald (drums). Beirach is especially fluid on the first disc (Arcade), leading more often than not. And the third (M) gets denser and richer. B+(**) [dl]

Cyrille Aimée: Cyrille Aimée and the Surreal Band (2008 [2015], Harmonic Reaction): Jazz singer, born in France (French father, mother from Dominican Republic), based in New York; seems to be her first album although I'm finding scant record of it (no AMG, no Discogs, but it is on Bandcamp). Mostly standards, backed by a hard bop quintet (plus guitar on two tracks) -- nothing particularly surreal beyond the play on her first name. B+(*)

The Jim Cullum Jazz Band/William Warfield: George Gershwin's Porgy and Bess Live (1992 [2016], Riverwalk Jazz, 2CD): This would be Jim Cullum Jr. (b. 1941), a trad jazz cornetist and the son of Jim Cullum Sr., founder of the Happy Jazz Band. Warfield (1920-2002) was a black opera singer who appeared in the 1952 revival and later State Department tours. Warfield narrates here, providing plot synopses between instrumental versions of the songs -- many famous enough you can recall the lyrics. I was turned off at first by the stereotyping -- a problem already evident at the folk opera's 1935 debut -- but the band is superb if maybe a touch reverent, like they're recasting this for History Channel. And while Warfield delves deep into dialect, the second disc concludes with an interview that puts it all in context. B+(***) [cd]

The Ex: The Ex at Bimhuis (1991-2015) (1991-2015 [2015], Ex, 2CD): Compiled from 25 years of gigs at Amsterdam's most famous jazz club, most dates building on the band's anarcho-punk songbook by adding guest musicians -- most often Dutch luminaries like Ab Baars, Wolter Wierbos, and Han Bennink, but also Ethiopian saxophonist Getatchew Merkuria and other fellow travelers like Etienne Charles, Ken Vandermark, Mats Gustafsson, and Paal Nilssen-Love. And they can shake as well as rock you -- the closing cut, "based on an Ethiopian traditional," is extraordinary. B+(***) [bc]

Ella Fitzgerald: Jazz at the Philharmonic: The Ella Fitzgerald Set (1949-54 [2016], Verve): Three sets from Norman Granz's all-star tour featuring the singer, originally compiled into a 37:11 LP in 1983, mostly expanded to 60:20 for this reissue by picking up parts of the 1949 show previously released on The Complete Jazz at the Philharmonic on Verve (1944-1949). On the first date she's backed by piano trio (Hank Jones, Ray Brown, Buddy Rich), joined on three longer wailers by Roy Eldridge, Lester Young, Flip Phillips, Charlie Parker, and a trombone. The later sets are shorter -- 2 tracks from 1953, five from 1954 when Hank Jones giving way to Raymond Tunia. The talent is huge, but the sound is far from ideal and these were really slapdash affairs. B+(*)

Awalom Gebremariam: Desdes (2007 [2016], Awesome Tapes From Africa): Singer-songwriter from Eritrea, recorded this before fleeing the troubled country to wind up in North Carolina. Traditional strings ebb and flow, carrying his chant-like vocals answered by higher pitched response, with crude percussion and what in my country are recognized as war whoops. B+(***)

Punk 45: Chaos in the City of Angels and Devils: Hollywood From X to Zero & Hardcore on the Beaches: Punk in Los Angeles 1977-81 (1977-81 [2016], Soul Jazz): Not as well known as the New York, or for that matter the Cleveland/Akron, punk scene, at least until the early 1980s when LA bands doubled down turning punk into hardcore, but I still recognize half of these bands, even if not this fondly. B+(***)

Sonny Rollins: Holding the Stage: Road Shows Vol. 4 (1979-2012 [2016], Okeh): He's 85 now, hasn't cut a new studio album since 2006 but has been touring, and the latest stuff here is recent enough that we'll be treating this as new music in the Jazz Critics Poll. As usual, he's picking things from all over his tape archive, and as usual they all fit together seamlessly because no one towers over his band more completely than the Saxophone Colossus. Details: one cut ("Disco Monk") from 1979, one from 1996, a medley from the 9/15/2001 Boston concert, half of the record from later tours (2006, 2007, 2012). Nothing essential (least of all the disco-era cut), nothing unlike what you've heard before, still no reason not to welcome these periodic reminders of his majesty. A- [cd]

The Rough Guide to Bottleneck Blues [Second Edition] (1926-40 [2016], World Music Network): First edition came out in 2005. This has different songs, repeating only eight artists, mostly because it dispenses with later devotees of the guitar style in favor of old acoustic blues, the median date 1930. B+(***)

The Rough Guide to the Blues Songsters: Reborn and Remastered (1926-35 [2015], World Music Network): Before they all got slotted as blues, many early black musicians considered themselves "songsters" -- entertainers with a broad command of the pop hits of the day (or decades). Good sampler here, many oft-repeated stories like "John Henry" and "Stackalee" and "Frankie," many less well known. A-

Soul Sok Sega: Sega Sounds From Mauritius 1973-1979 (1973-79 [2016], Strut): Mauritius is a small island east of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean, nominally part of Africa but 1200 miles off the continent's east coast. The island was uninhabited when the Dutch arrived in 1638, and was passed on to France in 1715 and Britain in 1810, gaining independence in 1968, with a current population of 1.26 million, mostly of Indian and/or African extraction (plus Europeans and Chinese), although the government stopped tracking such things in 1970. Upbeat dance tunes from the 1970s, sung in the local creole. B+(***)

Old Music

The Ex: Disturbing Domestic Peace (1980 [1994], Ex): Dutch band, first album, styled themselves as "anarcho-punk" (which I would read as punk with politics), a concept shared with the equally long-lived Mekons (although with lyrics in English and vocalist Jos Kley, aka G.W. Sok, they sound more like the early Fall), Terrie Hessels (aka Terrie Ex) on guitar, plus bass-drums. B+(**) [bc]

The Ex: History Is What's Happening (1982, Ex): Second album, twenty short songs, only three over 2:00, topped by "Who Pays" at 2:44 but they dispose of "$" in 0:56. Punk, especially G.W. Sok's snarl, but Terrie distinguishes himself as much more than a one chord wonder, and his guitar grind binds all the songs together. A- [bc]

The Ex: Tumult (1983 [1993], Ex): This is where they evolve from anarcho-punk to post-punk, mostly meanings longer songs -- five over 5:00, the extension mostly in the guitar patterns, not unlike what Wire was doing by then, but a couple songs slow down aiming for ominous, not their best move -- that would be the hard riffs. Co-produced by Jon Langford, comrade. B+(***) [bc]

The Ex: Blueprints for a Blackout (1984 [1992], Ex): Their big double-LP, a ritual milestone in the pre-CD era when bands hit their stride and produce more songs than the annual release rule can handle (or they just can't sort their shit out). Adds up to 19 songs, 66:09, so like most double-LPs of the era fits on a single CD. Band expands with a second bassist and scattered guests (including Langford on marimba, rhythmbox, and guitar), and several horns. Growth, in many respects, not least pangs. B+(*) [bc]

The Ex: Pokkeherrie (1985 [1995], Ex): Dutch title means something like "so much noise" or "awful noise" but lyrics are still all English. Sort of a back-to-basics move, the band back to guitar-bass-drums with G.W. Sok's vocals, the new drummer Katrin (Katherina Bornefeld), now second to Terrie as the longest-running band member (founding member Sok left in 2009 after 30 years). B+(***) [bc]

The Ex: 1936, the Spanish Revolution (1986, Ex, EP): Cover says "CNT" and "FAI" above the title, recognizing two anarchist trade unions that started the revolution that was overturned in 1939 by Francisco Franco's fascist movement, aided by Hitler and Mussolini. Two singles here, two songs each in Spanish and English, originally packaged with "144 pages of previously unpublished photographs taken by journalists aligned with the revolutionary forces." B+(**) [bc]

The Ex: Too Many Cowboys (1986 [1987], Ex): Originally a live double LP, another milestone (or placeholder, as the case may be), eventually squeezed onto a single 80:10 CD. No idea how much of this material is new, but it's certainly typical: sharp, harsh songs that remind you of their anarcho-punk roots and sharp, harsh guitar riffs that extend their unique sound. B+(***) [bc]

The Ex: Hands Up! You're Free (1983-86 [1988], Ex): Odds and sods -- three sets of four tracks, the first a BBC Peel Session with sax and violin, the second with Tom Greene and Jon Langford, the third with someone named John joining on vocals. The title track -- a harrangue against imperialism -- is a high point, but even with the erratic opening it's all worth listening to. A- [bc]

The Ex: Joggers & Smoggers (1989, Ex, 2CD): More sprawl, with 34 songs adding up to 92:14, the band adding "grill, birdcage, double-bass, fire-extinguisher + hammer, bamboos, piano, electric razor, dobro, spoons, human batbox, wire, glass, castanets, bow, crackle-box, cowbells, kabassa" to their basic guitar-bass-drums-vocals quartet, plus a couple dozen guests ranging from Sonic Youth's guitarists to avant-jazzers and Jeroen de Groot playing bagpipes. Could use some editing, but "Brickbat" is a choice cut, and probably not the only one. B+(*) [bc]

The Ex: Dead Fish (1989 [2004], Ex, EP): Seven cuts, 20:28, the CD including one not on the original 10-inch vinyl. Short, sharp, shocked, the sort of thing they'd been doing all decade. B+(*) [bc]

The Ex + Tom Cora: Scrabbling at the Lock (1991, Ex): Cora (1953-98) plays cello: trained in classical, avant-oriented, mostly played with avant-jazzers like Karl Berger, John Zorn, Butch Morris, and Curlew, but he rocks out here, reminding me of ELO's cello section -- at least until he shifts gears and slows them down, moving toward jazz. Also helping out is second guitarist, Andy Moor, still with the group fifteen years later. B+(***)

The Ex + Tom Cora: And the Weathermen Shrug Their Shoulders (1993, Ex): Second album with the avant-cellist, a bit more scattered but not without high points. I should probably note somewhere along here that drummer Katherina is singing more. B+(**) [bc]

The Ex: Mudbird Shivers (1995, Ex): Andy Moor partly fills departed cellist Tom Cora's shoes by playing some viola, and Han Buhrs (no cover credit) joins as "guest musician" (vocals, saxophone, mouth-harp, panlids, grater). Eleven songs average just under five minutes, their music hard and sharp as ever but more dissonant and complex -- most impressively on the closer "Hunt Hat." B+(***) [bc]

The Ex: Starters Alternators (1998, Touch & Go): Cut in Chicago with Steve Albini producing, this was the Dutch punk group's belated pitch at a US market that had thus far totally ignored them. Still, don't confuse trying to sell with selling out. Songs are hard and dense, the short one 3:44, the long one 6:27, everything else close to 5:00. And Katherina sings one in Dutch (I guess: "Nem Ugy Van Most"), but while they've always had a lot to say, they've never shown much talent for saying it memorably. B+(**) [bc]

Ex Orkest: Een Rondje Holland (2000 [2001], Ex): A special project commissioned by Holland Festival 2000, the group is expanded with extra vocalists (best known is Jaap Blonk) and a dozen mostly jazz musicians (including Michael Moore, Wolter Wierbos, Ernst Glerum, Michael Vatcher, and Roy Paci). They certainly bring up the intensity and volume, but what more isn't clear. B+(*) [bc]

The Ex: Dizzy Spells (2000 [2001], Touch & Go): This time producer Steve Albini met them in France. I still have trouble catching the lyrics -- Douglas Wolk described them as "either punning geopolitical rants [or] based on texts by obscure poets" (I recognize Eduardo Galeano) -- but the packs all the punch rants needs and more than enough rhythmic trickery. At one point it occurred to me that this is the sort of thing Gang of Four might have evolved into doing had they stuck together. A- [bc]

The Ex: 30 (1980-2006 [2009], Ex, 2CD): Aka 30 Years of the Ex, a compilation more random sampler than best-of. The group doesn't really have hits nor, despite hiring Steve Albini, have they ever made a serious bid for commercial success (nothing like the Minutemen's Project: Mersch, for instance), although I am a big fan of their 2005 compilation, Singles, Period: The Vinyl Years 1980-1990. What this monster does is chart their sonic evolution from anarcho-punk to something more industrial and/or more free-form, and it's a pretty impressive arc -- just in one play not one that I always enjoy. B+(***) [bc]

The Ex: Catch My Shoe (2010, Ex): First thing is that founding vocalist G.W. Sok quit in 2009 after 30 years, replaced here by Arnold de Boer, who doesn't have quite the same snarl or bark. Also no bassist this time, although both Terrie and Andy are also credited with baritone guitar, and Roy Paci's trumpet heats the mix up on two cuts. B+(**) [bc]

Taana Gardner: Taana Gardner (1979, West End): One-shot disco album, ending with a remix of "Work That Body" that lives up to the album's reputation. Not sure that anything else does, least of all the lead cut. Gardner cut a number of singles over the next year, including the dance floor hit "Heartbeat" (available on Larry Levan compilations), but never cut another album. B+(***)

Del McCoury & the Dixie Pals: Classic Bluegrass (1974-84 [1991], Rebel): After a brief stint with Bill Monroe, McCoury cut a record (or two?) for Arhoolie in 1968 then signed with old-timey Rebel in 1974 before moving on to folkie Rounder in 1990. This samples his four Rebel albums, mostly original tunes, so classics only in the ear of the compiler. B+(***)

Gétatchèw Mèrkurya: Éthiopiques 14: Negus of Ethiopian Sax (1972 [2003], Buda Musique): Tenor saxophonist, carved out a unique niche in the heyday of "swinging" Addis Ababa, his hypnotic groove like a snake charmer's potion. One cut, more crudely exotic, dates from the late 1950s, when he was in his 20s. After this compilation got him some attention, he became a minor celebrity, playing on notable records with Either/Orchestra and the Ex. Died April 4, 2016, aged 81. A-

Getatchew Merkuria/The Ex & Guests: Moa Anbessa (2006, Terp): Tenor saxophonist from Ethiopia, gained international fame when the French Buda Musique label reissued his 1972 album as part of their exhaustive Éthiopiques series, in particular catching the ears of the Dutch post-punk group Ex, who organized this live concert. The guests are extra horn players and bassist Colin McLean. The mix seems shaky at first, but by the end they are burning down the house. Title is Amharic for "conquering lion." A- [bc]

Getatchew Mekuria/The Ex & Friends: Y'Anbessaw Tezeta (1960-2012 [2012], Terp, 2CD): First disc was recorded over several dates from December 2011 to April 2012, on tour with extra horn players -- Xavier Charles (clarinet), Ken Vandermark (baritone sax, bass clarinet), Brodie West (alto sax), Joost Buis and Wolter Wierbos (trombones), Colin McLean (bass), and Melaku Belay (dance) -- with Mekuria recently clearing his 75th birthday. Second disc adds some historical tidbits, including a 2004 date with ICP Orchestra (no Ex), various Mekuria-Ex tours (2004, 2009, 2011), and a couple very early Mekuria tracks (one from 1960, one shortly after). The new stuff seems more earnestly reflective of Mekuria's ethio-jazz, like this was meant as his final testament -- title translates as In Memory of the Lion. The tour dates are more like the Ex + horns, not that they weren't honored to play with the saxophonist. B+(***) [bc]

Additional Consumer News:

Previous grades on artists in the old music section.

  • Steve Earle/Del McCoury Band: The Mountain (1999, E-Squared): A-
  • The Ex: Aural Guerrilla (1988, Fist Puppet): B+
  • The Ex: Singles, Period: The Vinyl Years 1980-1990 (1980-90 [2005], Ex): A-
  • The Ex: Instant (1995, Ex, 2CD): A-
  • The Ex: Turn (2004, Touch & Go, 2CD): A-
  • The Ex & Brass Unbound: Enormous Door (2013, Ex): A-
  • Del McCoury: Moneyland (2008, McCoury Music): B+(***)

Notes:

Everything streamed from Rhapsody, except as noted in brackets following the grade:

  • [cd] based on physical cd
  • [cdr] based on an advance or promo cd or cdr
  • [bc] available at bandcamp.com
  • [sc] available at soundcloud.com
  • [os] some other stream source
  • [dl] something I was able to download from the web; may be freely available, may be a bootleg someone made available, or may be a publicist promo

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016


Book Roundup

It's been about two months since my last roundup of book blurbs (Feb. 24). I started to cherry pick some important political books -- frequently noted writers like Andrew Bacevich, Thomas Frank, Jacob Hacker/Paul Pierson, Adam Hochschild, as well as Matthew Desmond's much touted Evicted -- but I wound up filling out this set of forty with the older entries in my scratch file. Almost have enough left over for a second forty, so that could come later in the week, or next week, or next month -- not clear at the moment.


Julian Assange, ed: The WikiLeaks Files: The World According to US Empire (2015, Verso): A big chunk of data from leaked US diplomatic documents in 2010-11, edited, indexed, with notes on context -- I've seen this described as an "executive summary" to an Internet-searchable cache of 2.3 million documents. People went to jail, or were otherwise harassed, to make this information public. Other people should go to jail for what it shows.

Andrew J Bacevich: America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History (2016, Random House): Vietnam veteran, conservative critic of America's imperial overreach, especially since his important The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War appeared in 2005 in the wake of Bush's ill-fated invasion of Iraq. That book helped explain why American politicians lost their fear of getting trapped in foreign quagmires. Here he moves from the toxic effects militarism has had on American civil society to the endless chain of disasters US entanglement in the Middle East has caused going back to the 1980s. Very likely another important book.

Yochai Benkler: The Penguin and the Leviathan: How Cooperation Triumphs Over Self-Interest (2011, Crown Business): Title comes from the free software ethos of Linux (with its happy penguin logo) and Hobbes' politico-philosophical landmark where the unfettered pursuit of self-interest turns into a war of all against all. It shouldn't be hard to show that cooperation is more productive -- indeed, the main thing that companies do is to build a sheltered space where workers can build together, even in a world where competition between companies can be cutthroat. Adam Smith, for instance, imagined an "invisible hand" but what he really demonstrated was the productive advantages of a division of labor. Author previously wrote The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (2006, Yale University Press).

Phyllis Bennis: Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror: A Primer (paperback, 2015, Olive Branch Press): One more in a series of short primers (Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, Ending the Iraq War, Understanding the US-Iran Crisis, Ending the US War in Afghanistan), provides the basics, the history, a firm understanding of international law, and a common sense critique of American imperial hubris. Probably quite useful, but one thing I wonder about is how the idea of ISIS elicits such a knee-jerk reaction from the American psyche: the Syrian Civil War was widely regarded as such a complete mess that US intervention would be foolish, yet as soon as you uttered the words "Islamic State" the US plunged back into war, both in Syria and Iraq, and ISIS has turned into the magic word to justify US bombing in Libya and Yemen. This reaction has proved so instantaneous and unthinking I'm not sure that even Bennis can negate it.

Ari Berman: Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America (2015, Farrar Straus and Giroux): A history of the civil rights movement, especially the struggle to pass the Voting Rights Act. The book comes shortly after said Act was gutted by the Roberts Court. Congress should have responded by extending the Act's protections to all states, especially since the Republicans discovered they do better when voter turnout is low and started passing restrictive "voter ID" laws all over the country.

Wendell Berry: Our Only World: Ten Essays (2015, Counterpoint): Kentucky tobacco farmer, poet, essayist, recently passed into his 80s, can be cranky about new technology but has great sensitivity to communal life and the natural world. Recent essay collections have tended to collect older works, so I'm not sure if the essays in this "new collection" are really new. I am sure that the old ones are very much worth your time.

Beth Buczynski: Sharing Is Good: How to Save Money, Time and Resources Through Collaborative Consumption (paperback, 2013, New Society Publishers): One thing I've come to realize is that damn near none of the things I own is in use at any given time, nor does the percentage grow much over days, week, months. I assume that's at least part of what's going on here. (I have a cousin who lives in a retirement community where the houses are tiny but nearly everything imaginable is available in shared buildings -- when I visit, it always strikes me as something of a communist paradise.) So this seems like a reasonable idea for a lower cost, higher value, sustainable future, not that I doubt the devil is in the details. Other books along these lines: Rachel Botsman: What's Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption (2010, Harper Business; paperback, 2011, Collins); Lisa Gansky: The Mesh: Why the Future of Business Is Sharing (paperback, 2012, Portfolio); Chelsea Rustrum/Gabriel Slempinski/Alexandra Liss: It's a Shareable Life: A Practical Guide on Sharing (paperback, 2014, Shareable Life); Jay Walljasper: All That We Share: How to Save the Economy, the Environment, the Internet, Democracy, Our Communities and Everything Else That Belongs to All of Us (paperback, 2010, New Press); Malcolm Harris/Neal Gorenflo, eds: Share or Die: Voices of the Get Lost Generation in the Age of Crisis (paperback, 2012, New Society Publishers).

Horace Campbell: Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya (paperback, 2013, Monthly Review Press): It's pretty clear in hindsight that the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 took a bad situation -- a civil war as Muammar Gaddafi used military force to try to suppress a popular revolt -- and turned it into chaos and who knows what? You'd think this would be cause for reflection, but the intervention came and went too fast to get onto book schedules, and since then little has been published other than the right wing's Benghazi! propaganda, so I thought I'd search out what's available. This book, very critical of NATO, was the first I found. Some others: Alison Pargeter: Libya: The Rise and Fall of Qaddafi (2012, Yale University Press); Vijay Prashad: Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (paperback, 2012, AK Press); Ethan Chorin: Exit the Colonel: The Hidden History of the Libyan Revolution (2012, Public Affairs); Maximilian Forte: Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO's War on Libya and Africa (paperback, 2012, Baraka Books); Francis A Boyle: Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade US Campaign to Terminate the Qaddafi Revolution (paperback, 2013, Clarity Press); Christopher S Chivvis: Toppling Qaddafi: Libya and the Limits of Liberal Intervention (paperback, 2013, Cambridge University Press); Hugh Roberts: The Fall of Muammar Gaddafi: NATO's War in Libya (2016, Verso).

Satyajit Das: The Age of Stagnation: Why Perpetual Growth Is Unattainable and the Global Economy Is in Peril (2016, Prometheus Books): Well, it does seem like the economies of the United States and Europe haven't bounced back from the 2008 financial meltdown like they did from previous recessions, and lately we've seen downturns in China and other "developing countries" that had fared so well in the previous decades. Das attributes all of this to the low interest "easy money" policies used to fight the recession and the overall growth of debt (especially public debt). I see this same stagnation, but I'm more inclined to attribute it to deliberate political policies protecting the issuers of all that debt while letting everyone else slide into an ever deeper mire. What makes this even more disagreeable is how neoliberals use debt as a cudgel to argue for austerity. An unspoken alternative would be to liquidate much of that debt, which would go a long ways toward reversing the increasing inequality trend (and all of its vile consequences).

Matthew Desmond: Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City (2016, Crown): Stories of tenants and landlords in poor parts of Milwaukee c. 2008-09: the struggle to meet the rent for bad housing in hard times, "a cycle of hurt that all parties -- landlord, tenant, city -- inflict on one another." Seems to be one of the more important books on American poverty in recent years.

Cynthia Enloe/Joni Seager: The Real State of America Atlas: Mapping the Myths and Truths of the United States (paperback, 2011, Penguin Press): A short (128 pp) book of maps and charts slicing and dicing the US economy and society in various ways. For instance, one map shows military deaths in Iraq by state: Texas (414) is a close second to California (468), and Oklahoma (76) is more than 50% higher than Kansas (47) (per capita would be more revealing, although it would reduce the OK/KS ratio).

Keith P Feldman: A Shadow Over Palestine: The Imperial Life of Race in America (2015, University of Minnesota Press): Takes the thesis that the US relationship to Israel belongs more to US domestic than foreign policy, and explores how US racial attitudes influence that policy. I imagine there's something to this, especially in the 1980s when Israel was one of South Africa's last close allies, but I imagine one can find less explicit evidence earlier -- especially as you don't have to go back very far to get past the taboo against explicit racism. Deeper down, both Israel and the US are colonial outposts of colonial outposts of Europe, and heirs of its crusader mythos -- Jews were long considered outsiders to all this, but one can argue that in colonizing Palestine they became "white," approximately even "Christian" (as the recently popular "Judeo-Christian" terminology shows).

Norman G Finkelstein: Method and Madness: The Hidden Story of Israel's Assaults on Gaza (paperback, 2014, OR Books): Chronicles three major assaults on Gaza since Israel dismantled its settlements in the blockaded territory: codes names Cast Lead (2008-09), Pillar of Defense (2012), and Protective Edge (2014). Finkelstein examines the logic behind these attacks, concluding they "have been designed to sabotage the possibility of a compromise peace with the Palestinians, even on terms that are favorable to [Israel]." Seems to be a collection of essays, less detailed than the book he wrote on Cast Lead: 'This Time We Went Too Far': Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion.

Ronald P Formisano: Plutocracy in America: How Increasing Inequality Destroys the Middle Class and Exploits the Poor (2015, Johns Hopkins University Press): Argues that rule by the rich (plutocracy) undermines both the poor and "the middle class" -- which I take to be a way of saying "democracy." Or as Louis Brandeis put it: "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few; we can't have both." I think inequality is a very important topic not so much because it is unfair and unjust as because it introduces all sorts of twists and distortions into how we relate to each other. Author previously wrote The Tea Party: A Brief History and For the People: American Populist Movements From the Revolution to the 1850s.

Thomas Frank: Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? (2016, Metropolitan Books): After three notable books on the rise of the right -- What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (2004), The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule (2008), and Pity the Billionaire: The Hard-Times Swindle and the Unlikely Comeback of the Right (2012) -- Frank takes a hard look at the Democrats who have aided and abetted the far right's stranglehold on politics. Given how the Republicans have gone from bad to worse without totally marginalizing themselves, this may seem to be an untimely subject to bring up, but politics is not just a game where you tote up points and celebrate the winner: it's how we as a democratic society try to cope with real problems, and that process has become perverted to a staggering degree. Frank is not the first writer on the left to notice that "liberal" leaders like Clinton and Obama often give up rather than fight for the people who elected them -- cf. Chris Hedges: The Death of the Liberal Class (2010), or for that matter the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Rose George: Ninety Percent of Everything: Inside Shipping, the Invisible Industry That Puts Clothes on Your Back, Gas in Your Car, and Food on Your Plate (paperback, 2014, Picador): One of those books on basic, everyday life, and the technology and business that makes it possible. Author previously tried this with another important topic: The Big Necessity: The Unmentionable World of Human Waste and Why It Matters (2008).

Stanley B Greenberg: America Ascendant: A Revolutionary Nation's Path to Addressing Its Deepest Problems and Leading the 21st Century (2015, Thomas Dunne): Pollster to hegemonic Democrats like Clinton and Gore, consultant to companies like Boeing and Microsoft, and all around hack reassures us that the future is rosy and won't be clouded by a Republican Party which is self-destructing as we speak. He seeks the nation "turning to Democrats to take on the country's growing challenges," continuing "the social transformations that are making the country ever more racially and culturally diverse, younger, a home to immigrants, and the metropolitan centers that foster a rising economic and cultural dynamism."

Dave Grossman/Gloria DeGaetano: Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie & Video Game Violence (1999; rev ed, paperback, 2014, Harmony): Grossman was a Lt. Col. who had second thoughts and wrote On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (1995; paperback, 1996, Back Bay Books). I don't think there is a simple relationship between witnessing violence in fictional contexts and killing (or for that matter between watching porn and sex crimes), although I also don't doubt that habituation and desensitization can lead some people to become more dangerous. And I'm particularly suspicious of video games, where the point seems to be not just to kill but to develop an automatic reflex to do so thoughtlessly. But I'd worry more about the morals conveyed by our national celebration of "the troops" and their "heroism" -- by the nearly constant practice of war by the United States over the last 75 years. That the military itself is so gung-ho on games is a bad sign, but probably has less to do with violence today than the proliferation of their other favorite toy: firearms.

Jacob S Hacker/Paul Pierson: American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America Prosper (2016, Simon & Schuster): Once upon a time Ronald Reagan told a joke -- something like "the scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" -- and some people took it as profound insight and blew it up into a nihilistic war against any and all forms of government activity, especially the kind that tries to actually help people. Hacker & Pierson have written a number of important books -- Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy (2005), The Great Risk Shift: The Assault on American Jobs, Families, Health Care, and Retirement and How You Can Fight Back (2007), Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer, and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (2010) -- and now this one, where the remind us that public investment has long been a foundation of prosperity here, and why the movement against it makes us poorer.

Adam Hochschild: Spain in Our Hearts: Americans in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939 (2016, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt): As Franco turned to Hitler and Mussolini to support his movement in Spain's civil war, many others around the world, including 2800 Americans, rallied to the cause of Spanish democracy, becoming (in the terminology of the post-WWII CIA, "premature antifascists." This tries to tell their story, while picking up a few others like George Orwell. Author has written several notable books about (mostly British) protest movements against war and colonialism, such as King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa, Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves, and To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion, 1914-1918.

Philip T Hoffman: Why Did Europe Conquer the World? (2015, Princeton University Press): Economist, sees the answer in economics, basically the relatively intense competition between late medieval European states involving nearly continuous war. Their rivalry favored whoever could advance science and technology for destructive purposes, and whoever could solve the financial problems of such military adventures. Along the way, Hoffman rejects various other theories, like those of Jared Diamond (Guns Germs and Steel, which as I recall includes similar economic arguments among others). Evidently doesn't address the obvious next question, which is why Europe made such a mess of the world it conquered. Both rise and fall, after all, are intimately related.

Jessica Hopper: The First Collection of Criticism by a Living Female Rock Critic (paperback, 2015, Featherproof Books): She mostly writes for Pitchfork, which I don't read enough to have any sense of who she is or what she likes. Pitchfork's business model is based on the ideas that bits are cheap and so are writers, so make the latter crank out plenty of the former -- always more than it takes to glaze my eyes over. Her title is provocative, and not just because Ellen Willis and Lillian Roxon are dead, or because others like Ann Powers went straight into books without bothering to gather up their numerous short pieces. Still, the main reason I mention this book is to throw in a plug for Carol Cooper's Pop Culture Considered as an Uphill Bicycle Race: Selected Critical Essays (1979-2001), which belies Hopper's title.

Philip K Howard: The Rule of Nobody: Saving America From Dead Laws and Broken Government (2014; paperback, 2015, WW Norton): Lawyer, political theorist, wrote The Death of Common Sense: How Law Is Suffocating America (1994), followed by The Collapse of the Common Good: How America's Lawsuit Culture Undermines Our Freedom (2002) and Life Without Lawyers: Liberating Americans From Too Much Law (2009). His big point -- that too many laws and regulatory rules, and lawyers and bureaucrats, has turned into a trap that has all sorts of bad effects, from inhibiting common sense to sapping freedom -- is something that we can all relate to, but still you have to wonder who benefits? For instance, lawsuits have never been the great leveler of theory, but sometimes they do manage to bring corporate abuses to an end. Howard wants to get rid of most lawsuits, which sounds laudable but not if doing so leaves us without recourse to right wrongs. It turns out that Howard is founder and chair of Common Good, a "nonpartisan, nonprofit legal reform coalition" trying to implement his recommendations. He seems to have support from members of both political parties, but most of the names mentioned in his Wikipedia page (which reads like PR) are Republicans (Jeb Bush, Alan Simpson, Mitch Daniels) and mouthpieces like David Brooks. Still, I imagine someone could rewrite Howard's books to arrive at a more progressive result -- although that may involve equalizing access to lawyers and lobbyists before cutting back on the overkill. Howard, by the way, wrote another book that is alarming and self-discrediting on the surface: The Lost Art of Drawing the Line: How Fairness Went Too Far (2001): nothing then or since suggests that we're suffering from too much fairness.

Ian Kershaw: To Hell and Back: Europe 1914-1949 (2015, Penguin): Part of a series called The Penguin History of Europe, joining the two world wars and the turbulent interwar period -- Arno Mayer called this period "the 30 years war of the 20th century." Kershaw has written several big books on the tail end of this period, including Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed the World, 1940-1941 (2007) and The End: The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler's Germany (2011). On the same time period, Heinrich August Winkler: The Age of Catastrophe: A History of the West 1914-1945 (2015, Yale University Press), even longer (1016 pp).

Peter H Lindert/Jeffrey G Williamson: Unequal Gains: American Growth and Inequality Since 1780 (2016, Princeton University Press): The authors crunch numbers for a much longer stretch of American history than anyone else has done before, and find two time stretches where inequality rose steeply: from the 1970s to today, as you damn well know by now, and from 1774 to 1860, which actually predates the legendary robber baron period of the late 19th century and the great bubble of the "roaring '20s" -- two periods where the wealth of the very richest was especially conspicuous. Meanwhile there were three periods when the wealthy took serious hits: during the Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression.

Mike Lofgren: The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government (2016, Viking): Previously wrote The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted (2012) -- no idea whether he's someone who can be trusted politically, but in a nutshell that sounds like the story of our times. Leaving aside the Republicans for the moment, one thing that has made Democrats so useless is how readily Clinton in 1993 and Obama in 2009 abandoned a great many of their campaign promises as soon as they had to face with Washington's entrenched bureaucracies -- more or less what Lofgren calls "the deep state." This especially seems to be the case with security and treasury, where new advisory jobs always seem to go to old hands. But I suspect the extraordinary influence of lobbyists and donors -- not technically part of the state, but perhaps promiscuously intertwined with it -- is at least as large. And one can throw in big media (mainstream and otherwise) which are always vigilant to police what politicians can think and say.

Branko Milanovic: Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization (2016, Belknap Press): Looks at inequality in a global context, finding that while inequality has been increasing within nations (especially the US), it has been falling among/between nations -- in large part because large developing nations like China and India have been promoting middle class incomes at the same time the US has been destroying them. A follow up to the author's The Haves and the Have-Notes: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality (2010).

Ilan Pappé, ed: Israel and South Africa: The Many Faces of Apartheid (paperback, 2015, Zed Books): Various papers on comparisons and analogies, the upshot is that Israel is becoming every bit the international pariah state South Africa's apartheid regime became. Don't know if the book gets into this, but there are significant differences. Most importantly, Israel has become almost independent of cheap Palestinian labor, whereas South Africa was literally built on cheap labor.

Susan Pedersen: The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire (2015, Oxford University Press): A history of the world from 1920-1939 as seen through the League of Nations, the international organization created in the wake of World War I to ensure world peace. It, of course, failed, largely because the great powers were still preoccupied with their imperialist and colonialist rivalries and grudges.

Richard J Perry: Killer Apes, Naked Apes & Just Plain Nasty People: The Misuse and Abuse of Science in Political Discourse (2015, Johns Hopkins University Press): "Delivers a scathing critique of determinism" -- the notion that human behavior is genetically fixed or inherently programmed, particularly for violence. The title reminds me of certain bestsellers from back in the 1960s and 1970s, although I had thought they were pretty well debunked by now.

Serhii Plokhy: The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine (2015, Basic Books): Ukraine has lately become a major flash point in the West's renovated cold war to contain and isolate Putin's Russia, so it's about time someone wrote a history of the nation itself rather than consigning it to a sidebar in the history of Russia. Of course, most of its long history is subsumed under Russia or any of a number of other invading tribes or nations -- early chapters include "The Advent of the Slavs," "Vikings on the Dnieper," "Byzantium North," and "Pax Mongolica" before there is any hint of "The Making of Ukraine."

Robert Pollin: Greening the Global Economy (2015, MIT Press): Leftist economist, I found his book Contours of Descent: US Economic Fractures and the Landscape of Global Austerity (2003) insightful. This short (176 pp) book argues that it is possible to replace fossil fuels with renewables -- indeed, it is happening -- and grow the economy as a result.

Bill Press: Buyer's Remorse: How Obama Let Progressives Down (2016, Threshold Editions): It's certainly true that "in many ways President Obama has failed to live up to either his promises or his progressive potential" -- I've often been critical both of his strategic vision and of his tactical choices -- but I (and policy-wise I'm easily to the left of Bernie Sanders) think "remorse" suggests much more disillusionment than nearly any Obama voter feels. (Remorse is more like Lyndon Johnson, who campaigned to save us from the belligerent madness of Barry Goldwater, then promptly plunged us into the Vietnam War.) So I wonder what's up here, not least because I associate the publisher with right-wing cranks (e.g., Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Oliver North).

Ray Raphael: Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past [Tenth Anniversary Edition] (2004; rev ed, paperback, 2014, New Press): Remarkable how many stories people think they know about the American Revolution have been transformed over the ages into myth -- what the author calls "cherished fabrications." Raphael has written many books aimed at broadening and deepening understanding of the period by stripping away those myths, so this is his core text, newly revised. His other books include: A People's History of the American Revolution: How Common People Shaped the Fight for Independence (2001, New Press; paperback, 2002, Harper Collins), and including Founders: The People Who Brought You a Nation (2009, New Press); Mr. President: How and Why the Founders Created a Chief Executive (2012, Knopf); and Constitutional Myths: What We Get Wrong and How to Get It Right (2013, New Press).

Eric Rauchway: The Money Makers: How Roosevelt and Keynes Ended the Depression, Defeated Fascism, and Secured a Prosperous Peace (2015, Basic Books): George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are widely regarded as sainted presidents, but in many ways Franklin Roosevelt's many accomplishments are more remarkable -- he's just never had the sort of activist beatification committee that has managed to deface vast swathes of America naming shit for Ronald Reagan. This story deserves to be retold, not least because we are still plagued by goldbuggers -- probably the single dumbest idea still held by any reputable politician in America.

Nicholas Stargardt: The German War: A Nation Under Arms, 1939-1945 (2015, Basic Books): Attempts to create a broad portrait of how the German people viewed and were engaged in the German war against Europe, notably finding that "the Wehrmacht in fact retained the staunch support of the patriotic German populace until the bitter end."

Jim Wallis: America's Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America (2016, Brazos Press): Edits a Christian evangelical magazine called Sojourners tied to a Protestant religious sect he helped found, but has steered away from "Christian conservative" politics, recently writing books that take up political themes: like God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It (2005), and Rediscovering Values: On Main Street, Wall Street, and Your Street. Here he tackles the history and legacy of racism, and appeals to end it.

Karine V Walther: Sacred Interests: The United States and the Islamic World, 1821-1921 (2015, University of North Carolina Press): Time framework extends from the Greek War of Independence (1821) to the Greco-Turkish War (1919-22) -- curiously that period skips over the Barbary Wars (1801-05) when the US first tangled with the Ottoman Empire -- "excavates the deep history of American Islamophobia, showing how negative perceptions of Islam and Muslims shaped US foreign relations from the Early Republic to the end of World War I." I imagine thee is some evidence of that, but I've long been under the opposite impression: that US foreign policy toward the Ottomans was relatively benign, and only became more consequential once the oil industry got involved.

Ellen Willis: The Essential Ellen Willis (paperback, 2014, University of Minnesota Press): A pioneering feminist polemicist who early on wrote some notable rock criticism, since her death in 2006 her daughter, Nona Willis Aronowitz, has done a fine job of collecting her various writings for posterity -- before this general collection there appeared Out of the Vinyl Deeps: Ellen Willis on Rock Music (2011), and reissues of Beginning to See the Light: Sex, Hope, and Rock-and-Roll and No More Nice Girls: Countercultural Essays (both 2012, all University of Minnesota Press paperbacks). I've never been much of a fan -- partly because she seemed to be too glib about war for a leftist, partly because of a tone I recall in her feminism, like wrapping oneself in a flag -- but I don't doubt that these books are chock full of interesting insights.

Tim Wise: Under the Affluence: Shaming the Poor, Praising the Rich and Sacrificing the Future of America (paperback, 2015, City Lights): It isn't enough for the rich to steal from the poor. They also demand that we praise the rich for their successes, and condemn for poor for their failures. Wise wrote a rather similar book in 2014: Culture of Cruelty: How America's Elite Demonize the Poor, Valorize the Rich and Jeopardize the Future. Before that he mostly wrote about racism, which works much the same way.


Recently I decided that I needn't write a full paragraph of every book worth noting, so I started building a list. Here are a few examples that may (or may not) pique your curiosity:

  • David Axelrod: Believer: My Forty Years in Politics (2015; paperback, 2016, Penguin Books)
  • Alastair Bonnett: Unruly Places: Lost Spaces, Secret Cities, and Other Inscrutable Geographies (2014, Houghton Mifflin)
  • Dan Baum: Gun Guys: A Road Trip (paperback, 2013, Vintage)
  • Gregory Clark: The Son Also Rises: Surnames and the History of Social Mobility (2014, Princeton University Press)
  • Ed Conway: The Summit: Bretton Woods, 1944: JM Keynes and the Reshaping of the Global Economy (2015, Pegasus)
  • Timothy Egan: The Immortal Irishman: The Irish Revolutionary Who Became an American Hero (2016, Houghton Mifflin)
  • Barney Frank: Frank: A Life in Politics From the Great Society to Same-Sex Marriage (2015, Farrar Straus and Giroux; paperback, 2016, Picador)
  • Lani Guinier: The Tyranny of the Meritocracy: Democratizing Higher Education in America (2015, Beacon Press)
  • Andrew Hammond: The Islamic Utopia: The Illusion of Reform in Saudi Arabia (paperback, 2012, Pluto Press)
  • Luke Harding: The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World's Most Wanted Man (paperback, 2014, Vintage)
  • Mark Kelly: The Bus on Jaffa Road: A Story of Middle East Terrorism and the Search for Justice (2014, Lyons Press)
  • Paul Rogat Loeb: The Impossible Will Take a Little While: Perseverance and Hope in Troubled Times (2004; rev ed, paperback, 2014, Basic Books)
  • Nur Masalha: The Palestinian Nakba: Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory (paperback, 2012, Zed Books)
  • David McCullough: The Wright Brothers (2015, Simon & Schuster)
  • Mark Miodownik: Stuff Matters: Exploring the Marvelous Materials That Shape Our Man-Made World (2014, Houghton Mifflin).
  • Nathaniel Philbrick: Valiant Ambition: George Washington, Benedict Arnold, and the Fate of the American Revolution (2016, Viking)
  • Douglas Rushkoff: Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus: How Growth Became the Enemy of Prosperity (2016, Portfolio)
  • Joe Sacco: Journalism (paperback, 2013, Metropolitan Books)
  • Lynne Segal: Out of Time: The Pleasures and the Perils of Ageing (paperback, 2014, Verso)
  • John Summers/Chris Lehmann/Thomas Frank, eds: No Future for You: Salvos From the Baffler (2014, MIT Press)
  • James Tracy: Dispatches Against Displacement: Field Notes From San Francisco's Housing Wars (paperback, 2014, AK Press)

I used to append a few paperback reissues of books I had previously written about, with additional blurbs, but I've tended to skip that recently. Since I've been collecting at least some, I'll list them here:

  • Reza Aslan: Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (2013; paperback, 2014, Random House)
  • Andrew J Bacevich: Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (2013, Metropolitan Books; paperback, 2014, Picador)
  • Max Blumenthal: Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel (2013; paperback, 2014, Nation Books)
  • Ian Buruma: Year Zero: A History of 1945 (2013; paperback, 2014, Penguin Books)
  • David Harvey: Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism (2014; paperback, 2015, Oxford University Press)
  • David Mirowski: Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown (2013; paperback, 2014, Verso)
  • Harvey Pekar/JT Waldman: Not the Israel My Parents Promised Me (2012, Hill & Wang; paperback, 2014, Farrar Straus and Giroux)
  • Nomi Prins: All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power (2014; paperback, 2015, Nation Books)
  • Jeremy Scahill: Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield (2013; paperback, 2014, Nation Books)
  • Orville Schell/John Delury: Wealth and Power: China's Long March to the Twenty-first Century (2013; paperback, 2014, Random House)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Monday, April 25, 2016


Music Week

Music: Current count 26541 [26515] rated (+26), 413 [418] unrated (-5).

Rated count back down. Still probably would have hit thirty had I not spent Thursday cooking dinner from China Moon Cookbook and listen to Prince's The Hits/The B-Sides instead. As you're no doubt aware, Prince died last week -- Papa Wemba too. I hadn't gotten around to looking up Prince's two records last year (turns out they're not on Rhapsody), but his two 2014 albums weren't bad, and I credit him with two A- albums in the previous decade (Musicology in 2004, 3121 in 2006). And, of course, much more earlier. Some links follow.

Expect Rhapsody Streamnotes later this week. Not a huge amount in the file, but I haven't been all that lazy either. Still, don't feel much like writing tonight, or much of anything else either. Guess that means a lazy evening of TV. What isn't self-explanatory below will be revealed soon enough.


Recommended music links:


New records rated this week:

  • Antonio Adolfo: Tropical Infinito (2016, AAM): [cd]: B+(***)
  • Nik Bärtsch's Mobile: Continuum (2015 [2016], ECM): [dl]: A-
  • Bibio: A Mineral Love (2016, Warp): [r]: B
  • The Dynamic Les DeMerle Band: Comin' Home Baby (2014 [2016], Origin): [cd]: B+(***)
  • Gambari Band: Kokuma (2016, Membran Media): [r]: A-
  • PJ Harvey: The Hope Six Demolation Project (2015 [2016], Vagrant): [r]: B+(**)
  • Louis Heriveaux: Triadic Episode (2014 [2016], Hot Shoe): [cd]: B+(**)
  • Keefe Jackson/Jason Adasiewicz: Rows and Rows (2015 [2016], Delmark): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Julie Kjaer 3: Dobbeltgaenger (2015 [2016], Clean Feed): [cd]: A-
  • The Del McCoury Band: Del and Woody (2016, McCoury Music): [r]: A-
  • The Oatmeal Jazz Combo: Instant Oats (2016, LGY): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Phil Palombi: Detroit Lean (2015 [2016], Xcappa): [cd]: B+(***)
  • Pierette Ensemble: Akrostik (2014, Gateway Music): [r]: B+(***)
  • Noah Preminger: Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground (2015 [2016], self-released): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Carol Saboya: Carolina (2016, AAM): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Yves Theiler Trio: Dance in a Triangle (2015 [2016], Musiques Suisses): [cd]: B+(***)
  • Trio Da Paz: 30 (2011 [2016], Zoho Music): [r]: B+(**)
  • WorldService Project: For King and Country (2015 [2016], Rare Noise): [cdr]: D+

Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries rated this week:

  • John Abercrombie: The First Quartet (1978-80 [2015], ECM, 3CD): [dl]: B+(**)
  • Awalom Gebremariam: Desdes (2007 [2016], Awesome Tapes From Africa): [r]: B+(***)
  • Sonny Rollins: Holding the Stage: Road Shows Vol. 4 (1979-2012 [2016], Okeh): [cd]: A-

Old music rated this week:

  • Taana Gardner: Taana Gardner (1979, West End): [r]: B+(***)
  • Del McCoury & the Dixie Pals: Classic Bluegrass (1974-84 [1991], Rebel): [r]: B+(***)


Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

  • Claudia Quintet: Super Petite (Cuneiform): June 24
  • Rob Clearfield: Islands (Ears & Eyes): June 3
  • Jeremy Cunningham Quartet: Re: Dawn (From Far) (Ears & Eyes): June 17
  • Cory Healey's Beautiful Sunshine Band: Beautiful Sunshine (Shifting Paradigm)
  • Sari Kessler: Do Right (Ruby Street Music): May 6
  • The Tony Lustig Quintet: Taking Flight (Bimperl)
  • Adam Meckler Quintet: Wonder (Shifting Paradigm): April 23

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Sunday, April 24, 2016


Weekend Roundup

The New York primaries were held last week. Hillary Clinton won a huge win with 58.0% of the vote, giving her 139 delegates to Bernie Sanders 108. On the Republican side, Donald Trump won with his first majority in a primary all year, a big one with 60.4% of the vote vs. 25.1% for John Kasich and 14.5% for that sworn enemy of "New York values" Ted Cruz. Trump got 89 delegates, Kasich 4, and Cruz 0, so this primary went a long ways to putting Trump back on track for a first ballot win at the Republican Convention. Still, it's worth noting that Trump only got 19.5% of the votes cast on Tuesday. Sanders got 28.4%, and Clinton got 39.2% -- together the Democrats got 67.7% of the total vote, a big change from earlier primaries where Republicans generally got more votes than Democrats.

I looked at 538's What Went Down in the New York Primaries, and one thing I checked was the Clinton-Sanders split by congressional district. What I found was that Clinton ran especially well in New York City, and was much stronger in districts represented by Democrats (she won 17 of 18, only losing around Albany). Sanders, on the other hand, won 5 (of 9) districts represented by Republicans, and did better than his state average in the other four (also in Democratic districts in Buffalo and Rochester, plus the 6th in Queens and the 18th in Westchester). What this suggests is that the party machine and its patronage network held firm for Clinton. Of course, one thing that helped the machine was that the primary was closed (way in advance of the vote), so independents, which Sanders has regularly won this year, often by large margins, couldn't vote.

I came out of this feeling pretty down, not so much because I expected a Sanders win -- I did think it might be closer, but knew Clinton had a lot of structural advantages there -- but because it underscored how difficult it's going to be to dislodge the Party's power structure. Sanders could win in Republican areas because he appealed especially to people deprived of power, but the Democrats so controlled New York City that the oligarchy -- especially the nabobs of Wall Street -- owned the Party. And what made matters worse for me was that while this smackdown was going on, I was reading Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?, where his big point is that the Democrats ever since Carter had courted educated professionals (following Chris Hedges, he calls them the Liberal Class), often at the expense of the workers and unions who had previously been the most effective supporters of the Democratic Party -- the net effect is that the Democrats are as much in bed with big business as the Republicans, making them preferable only in that they'll try to defend certain liberties and civil rights, and work a bit less hard at destroying the middle class. That explains the sort of marginal differentiation that is supposed to convince us that we need Clinton to save the world from Trump or Cruz, even though there is no reason to think she'll even try to do the things that need to be done to reverse the increase in inequality and the rot in practically everything else. So while the horserace watchers saw New York as the primary that virtually cinched Clinton's nomination, it looked more to me like the end of any hope for change.

Next Tuesday's primaries promise to be more of the same. Clinton is favored in Connecticut (56.2-41.3%, closest poll Clinton +6), Maryland (63.3-33.9%, closest +13), and Pennsylvania (58.9-38.2%, closest +6); I don't see any polling on Delaware and Rhode Island, but I'd expect them to be similar to Maryland and Connecticut (although there is one Delaware poll with Clinton +7, suggesting much closer than Maryland). Trump is also expected to mop up: 45.2-31.7-21.3% in Connecticut (Kasich over Cruz), 40.3-30.6-27.1% in Maryland (Kasich over Cruz), and 41.1-29.4-27.4% in Pennsylvania (Cruz over Kasich -- looks like a second straight brutal week for Cruz).

Looking further ahead, Clinton should keep on winning: 52.7-44.4% in Indiana (May 3), 56.8-41.7% in California (June 7), 51.0-41.4% in New Jersey (also June 7). Trump continues to lead in the Republican races (with Cruz getting a bit closer): 38.1-37.5-22.2% (T-C-K) in Indiana, 41.9-33.5-23.4% (T-C-K) in California, and 50.4-23.4-17.2% (T-K-C) in New Jersey.


Meanwhile I have to share the following image. Just think, with three-hundred million people in America, this is the best we can do?

Back in 1776 there were only four million people in America, yet somehow we managed to find a wide range of capable leaders. Now we find that the only possible surrogate for one Clinton is another, and that the best the opposition party can come up with is their former party pal. Hard to see any significant differences among this crowd, yet both Trump and Clinton have managed to convince most of their followers that the other is the Devil incarnate, and those followers are hysterical as expected. Still, the odds of a comparably jovial post-election photo are pretty high -- especially if Clinton wins and reverts to form, serving the billionaire class.


Some scattered links this week:

  • Gerald Friedman: Orthodox Economics Has Become a Place Where Visions Die and Hopes Are Banished: Subhed: "Why liberal economists dish out despair." Friedman was the economist who analyzed Bernie Sanders' platform and concluded that it would lead to a growth rate that the US economy hasn't seen in over fifty years. He was, in turn, attacked by economists like Christine Romer and Paul Krugman for suggesting that such growth rates were even possible. Basically, they regarded Friedman's calculations as proof that Sanders was fantasizing. (In fairness, a few economists like James Galbraith defended Friedman.) Much of interest here:

    There is, of course, a politics as well as a psychology to this economic theory. If nothing much can be done, if things are as good as they can be, it is irresponsible even to suggest to the general public that we try to do something about our economic ills. The role of economists and other policy elites (Paul Krugman is fond of the term "wonks") is to explain to the general public why they should be reconciled with stagnant incomes, and to rebuke those, like myself, who say otherwise before we raise false hopes that can only be disappointed. But this approach leaves liberals like Hillary Clinton with few policy options to offer in response to the siren call of demagogues like Donald Trump. And it makes the work of self-proclaimed "responsible" elite economists that much more pressing. They have to work even harder to persuade the public that nothing can be done to head off the challenge of Trump and other irresponsible politicians who capitalize on the electorate's appetite for change. They have to slap down critics like myself. "Responsible" elite economists have to keep the party of "good arithmetic" from overpromising at all costs.

    Were the orthodox classical economists correct, then of course their politics would follow. But what if they are wrong? What if government action could, in fact, raise growth rates or narrow disparities? What would be the expected value of a higher GDP growth rate? Would it be worth some academic debate, even if it leaked into the public realm? Might this debate even serve a socially useful function by giving voters an alternative to the xenophobic political economy of Donald Trump? Many Americans believe that government action can improve economic conditions, especially for workers, and many of these support Trump because they see him as the only candidate who is even willing to consider government action to help working Americans. These voters can look long and hard at the "responsible" Clinton platform for some policy, for any policy to raise growth rates and narrow income disparities. But they won't find it, because policy elites have closed their minds to the possibility of change.

    This reminds me that Krugman has repeatedly defended Democratic Party compromises (e.g., ACA, Dodd-Frank) as adequate and satisfactory (even if not ideal) solutions, while implying that little more can be done, and that when Sanders argues otherwise, he's out on some lark beyond anything that is economically possible. This gets me wondering whether there were any Keynesians during the 1930s, even after it had become clear that government spending was working to bring the economy out of the Great Depression, who could imagine what a radical expansion -- one aimed not just as restoring the pre-depression equilibrium but achieving a whole new level of prosperity -- might accomplish. That experiment was (perhaps unwittingly) done with the total mobilization for WWII. What Sanders is proposing goes way beyond repairing the damage done by Bush's bubble. What's lacking is political will, not the "laws of economics," and the net effect of Krugman's (and others') naysaying is to help suppress that political will.

    I don't doubt that there are long-term issues with sustaining economic growth, but it's also clear that the US economy is performing way below what it's capable of, and a crash program of public works -- not just to fix our sorely degraded infrastructure -- would make a big difference (even Krugman understands that much, although his argument doesn't go nearly as far as Sanders or Friedman). The infrastructure work would also move a huge current liability into the asset column, and would improve future productivity, but there's much more value to be gained from spending on public works. One area where Sanders may be overly optimistic is how to pay for this: it's not clear to me that simply "soaking the rich" with higher taxes will raise enough revenue (not that that's not worth doing in its own right), especially if one implements other reforms to reverse increasing inequality. Most likely we would need some sort of broad-based consumption tax (in addition to more progressive taxes on profits and estates), but that's almost a technical issue compared to the broader question of vision.

    I should also remind you of Philip Mirowski's big book, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown (2013), which is largely about how mainstream economists throttled (well, more like strangled) any serious political change following a severe crisis which pretty clearly proved that their understanding of the economy was faulty.

  • Emmett Rensin: The smug style in American liberalism: Much I agreed with here, and much that rubbed me the wrong way. I believe that good politics derives from respect for everyone, notably people who grew up differently from yourself, who consequently have different world views. However, that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't disagree with some of those world views. It's just that the ones you should reject are the ones where respect isn't reciprocal or generalizable. Many people, for instance, think they should be privileged over other groups of people, and that is a creed that is based on disrespect for the unprivileged, that cannot be generalizable. We can all, for instance, settle for equality, which is what makes it such a fundamental principle of political society. Given all this, smugness is inappropriate and often counterproductive. Yet it is pretty much impossible to engage in political discourse without at some point appearing to someone as smug. And consequently, Rensin's examples are all over the range from sensible to outrageous. There are some ideas -- the gold standard, for instance, or creationism -- that are so indefensible many of us skip past re-litigating them and resort to derision, even if that leaves the impression of smugness. Similarly there are people -- e.g., Sen. Jim Inhofe on climate change (fresh on my mind because I read a quote from him today) -- who having repeatedly clung to indefensible positions have lost the right to be taken seriously, even though such instant rejection smacks of smugness. At some point you have to realize that it's not practical to re-argue everything from first principles every time it comes up (though it is useful to be able to cite someone who has thought the issue through). Still, I don't disagree with the following:

    It is impossible, in the long run, to cleave the desire to help people from the duty to respect them. It becomes all at once too easy to decide you know best, to never hear, much less ignore, protest to the contrary.

    At present, many of those most in need of the sort of help liberals believe they can provide despise liberalism, and are despised in turn. Is it surprising that with each decade, the "help" on offer drifts even further from the help these people need?

    Even if the two could be separated, would it be worth it? What kind of political movement is predicated on openly disdaining the very people it is advocating for?

    The smug style, at bottom, is a failure of empathy. Further: It is a failure to believe that empathy has any value at all. It is the notion that anybody worthy of liberal time and attention and respect must capitulate, immediately, to the Good Facts. [ . . . ]

    The smug style did not arise by accident, and it cannot be abolished with a little self-reproach. So long as liberals cannot find common cause with the larger section of the American working class, they will search for reasons to justify that failure. They will resent them. They will find, over and over, how easy it is to justify abandoning them further. They will choose the smug style.

    One thing that Rensin has stumbled onto here is that the relationship between liberalism and the working class has been fraught with difficulty throughout American history, perhaps only bound together by accident of the egalitarian words of the Declaration of Independence and the power shifts of the New Deal. Liberalism has always focused on individuals, defined as free and equal as opposed to the old orders of aristocracy (and peasantry or slavery). As such, liberals sought to advance people one-by-one based on merit, whereas socialists sought to "level up" the working class to share in the entire nation's wealth (mostly created by the labor of the working class). As such liberals -- Chris Hedges and Thomas Frank speak of a distinct "liberal class" rooted in highly educated professionals -- have tended to accept inequities, provided that opportunities were more or less equal -- all the more so in times of increased inequality, such as ours.

    Indeed, at this point I suspect that the only thing that keeps the liberal class and the working class -- which is a pretty fair first approximation of the Clinton-Sanders contest -- from splitting the Democratic Party in two is their shared horror at the prospect of Republican rule. It will be interesting to see whether the dominant liberal faction makes any serious nods toward the white working class (with Republicans like Trump and Cruz, blacks and Latinos are pretty much locked in).

  • Yusef Munayyer: Wanted: A US Strategy in the Middle East:

    In 2006, as Israel and Hezbollah were engaged in what would be a 34­day war, the longest of any Arab­Israeli war since 1948, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reflected on the region's volatile dynamics calling them "the birth pangs of a new Middle East." She further stated, "We have to be certain that we are pushing forward to the new Middle East not back to the old one."

    Indeed, there was something new in the Middle East that Dr. Rice was observing then. For the first time, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan all seemed to align with Israel in the war and condemned Hezbollah in a very overt way. Earlier in the year, Al-Qaeda in Iraq launched the first major salvo in what became a sectarian war in Iraq when it bombed the Shi'a Al­Askari Mosque in Samarra. The Iraq war had made this regional realignment, which we have seen develop further in the years since, come into fruition.

    The invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the subsequent dismantlement of the Iraqi state had many devastating implications for the region. Perhaps most significant was the fact that it shattered any semblance of regional order in the Middle East and the long­standing modus vivendi between Riyadh and Tehran. Saddam had been a bulwark against Iran and a buffer that limited Iranian influence from reaching the Arab Gulf countries and the Levant. With Saddam gone, the US fired the starting pistol in a regional power struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Militias, insurgencies, sectarianism and bloodshed would characterize this power struggle.

    Today, more than a decade into this contest, the labor pains have subsided and a demon child called ISIS, nurtured from embryo to beast in the womb of a failed Iraqi state, has not only learned to walk but is running amok across the Middle East, North Africa and beyond.

    Munayyer's big point is that while the US thought it had all the power in the world, it had no real idea what it wanted to do with that power, and consequently wound up thrashing, unable to decide on goals, or even friends and enemies (actually, both camps tended to be defined by their opposite in ways that wound up contradicting one another). And in this context US power turned out to be far less than super (let alone hyper). Munayyer sees the 2003 invasion of Iraq as pivotal, but the 1990 war was nearly as bad, and the US had made a muddle of its strategy ever since Carter declared the Persian Gulf a "vital US interest," or Nixon looked to Saudi fundamentalism as a bulwark in the Cold War, or LBJ had no interest in brokering an end to the Arab-Israeli wars despite having friends on both sides. And all through America's Orientalists never showed the slightest interest in the welfare of the region's people, least of all their desires for free societies and modern economies.


Also, a few links for further study (briefly noted:

  • Dean Baker: Patently Absurd Logic on Budget Deficits and Debt: Time did a cover story attempting to rile up hysteria about the federal deficit again, so Baker knocks it down plank by plank -- stuff you should already know by now, but I'm flad he's also talking about patents:

    There is one other point about treating the debt as a serious measure of generational equity. Interest payments on debt are just one of the ways in which the government makes commitments for the future. When the government grants patent and copyright monopolies, it is also making commitments that carry into the future. Patent and copyright monopolies allow the holders to charge prices for the protected items that are hugely higher than the free market price. They are in effect a tax that is privately collected by drug companies, software companies, the entertainment industry and others.

    These payments are in fact enormous relative to the interest burdens that get the deficit hawks so excited. In the case of prescription drugs alone, the difference between what we pay for patent protected drugs, compared to drugs being sold at free market prices, is in the neighborhood of $360 billion a year. That's equal to 2 percent of the GDP, twice the size of the current interest burden on the public debt.

  • Jesse Eisinger: Why Haven't Bankers Been Punished? Just Read These Insider SEC Emails: Follows longtime SEC lawyer James Kidney. Ends with:

    Kidney became disillusioned. Upon retiring, in 2014, he gave an impassioned going-away speech, in which he called the SEC "an agency that polices the broken windows on the street level and rarely goes to the penthouse floors."

    In our conversations, Kidney reflected on why that might be. The oft-cited explanations -- campaign contributions and the allure of private-sector jobs to low-paid government lawyers -- have certainly played a role. But to Kidney, the driving force was something subtler. Over the course of three decades, the concept of the government as an active player had been tarnished in the minds of the public and the civil servants inside working inside the agency. In his view, regulatory capture is a psychological process in which officials become increasingly gun shy in the face of criticism from their bosses, Congress, and the industry the agency is supposed to oversee. Leads aren't pursued. Cases are never opened. Wall Street executives are not forced to explain their actions.

  • Rebecca Gordon: Exhibit One in Any Future American War Crimes Trial: Author of a new book titled American Nuremberg: The US Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes. Previously wrote Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States (2014, Oxford University Press). This excerpt focuses on the torture of Abu Zubaydah, which surely qualifies although I'd say that the decisions to invade and start decades-long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are far more serious crimes.

  • William Hartung: What a Waste, the US Military: Given all the evil that the US military perpetrates, the fact that they do such a lousy job of managing their bloated allowance ranks rather low on in my view, but it's always worth a reminder that their lack of care and foresight starts at home, well before they use it to screw up the rest of the world.

  • Matt Karp: Against Fortress Liberalism; Lily Geismer: Atari Democrats; Rick Perlstein: The Chicago School: three essays from Jacobin magazine, which we recently subscribed to. On the other hand, they also published a hatchet job by Jonah Walters on "hippie-hating hawk" Merle Haggard that totally misses the boat. (Kathleen Geier fumes here, and Eric Loomis gets down to brass tacks in a reply titled Walking on the Fighting Side of Me.)

  • David Swanson: US Wars Are Not Waged Out of Generosity or for Democracy: Interview by Mark Karlin with the author of War Is a Lie, originally written in 2010 and now out in a 2nd edition paperback (Just World Books), and founder of the World Beyond War website.

    In 2006, Republicans believed they'd have to end the wars, and Democrats were elected to congressional majorities with that mandate. Rahm Emanuel then openly told The Washington Post that the Democrats would keep the wars going for two more years in order to run "against" them again in 2008. The Democrats took the chairs of committees and proceeded to do nothing with them. And people who identified with the Democratic Party in 2007 began obsessing with the 2008 presidential election, at the expense of ending the slaughter in 2007 or 2008.

    Endless, lawless war at massive expense was clearly established as a bipartisan norm. Entire presidential debates in 2016 have passed by without a single mention of the world outside the United States. No candidate has been asked whether 54 percent of discretionary spending on militarism is too much, too little or just right. Young people have grown up in this climate and accepted in some cases -- just like most old people -- all the propaganda or at least the part that maintains that we are powerless to stop wars. Corruption by war profiteers and general cultural taboos contribute: The big environmental groups won't take on the biggest destroyer of the environment, the big civil liberties groups won't touch the biggest cause of rights violations etc. But the fact is that a massive movement against war is extremely active and broad in comparison to what the media suggests.

    For an excerpt from the new edition of War Is a Lie, see Fear of ISIS Used to Justify Continued Military Intervention in Middle East.

  • How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk: As Secretary of State, Clinton was consistently more hawkish than President Obama. Indeed, she's always been quick to resort to military force. Long story, including a possibly apocryphal story about Clinton wanting to join the Navy.

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Monday, April 18, 2016


Music Week

Music: Current count 26515 [26475] rated (+40), 418 [425] unrated (-7).

Big bump in the rated count this week -- first time in well over a month to top 30 and did so by a bunch. Had a replenished jazz queue to work through, and until I got to the Clean Feeds they didn't require a lot of attention. Also noticed on Rhapsody a clutch of new records by artists I recognize as worth checking out (Hayes Carll, The Coathangers, Mayer Hawthorne, Parquet Courts, Sturgill Simpson, plus Kanye West finally appeared). Also had Jason Gubbels' list, and a couple Christgau Expert Witness columns (one on blues and another on alt-rock -- I had already written up Parquet Courts but not Coathangers or the new Tacocat, and my endorsement of Full Communism isn't just political).

Of the eight B+(***) records below, two were Christgau A- records (Tacocat, Kanye West). I gave up on them after two or three plays, without being certain more plays wouldn't help. Same thing for the Sturgill Simpson album, possibly an even better prospect. I'm having similar indecision with the new PJ Harvey, but save that for next week.


I voted in Downbeat's annual critics poll last week. I'm not going to do a separate post on this -- I was exhausted after it took more than 24 hours to I finish the 16 pages of ballots (with 50-some questions), on top of the usual aggravations and frustrations. Still, you can scan through my worksheet if you like. I suppose I should mention that I build each year's worksheet on the last, which helps with consistency (and jogs my increasingly damaged memory) but lets me get by without giving many questions much fresh thought. And this all the more true in categories I don't have any real thoughts -- fresh or received -- on, like Composer, Arranger, or various minor instruments (e.g., I almost never notice electric bass or keyboards, so trying to come up with three names there is even harder than trying to whittle down thirty or more luminaries on acoustic bass or piano).

I will mention that my HOF pick was George Russell. Downbeat's Hall is excessively restrictive and therefore woefully underpopulated, so there is a long list of worthies to pick from (and many more not even on Downbeat's prospect list). (By contrast, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is too large, not that the judges there have picked up all who deserve a slot.) Still, Russell is a giant among the uninducted, but he never has gotten the credit he deserves. For instance, when you think of Latin-Bebop, you recall Dizzy Gillespie (not the writer of "Cubana Be Cubana Bop"). When you think of modal jazz, you come up with Miles Davis and John Coltrane (not the guy who wrote the big book that showed how it is done). When you think of jazz workshops, you get Mingus (not Russell). Most likely you can't think of anyone who pioneered electronics in jazz. Or recall that Russell was the mentor of nearly a dozen important Scandinavian (mostly Norwegian) jazz musicians who started out in the early 1970s. When Russell returned from Norway, got a job at New England Conservatory where he was one of the architects of modern jazz education. The people who vote in Downbeat's Readers Poll are never going to put all that together, but you'd think that jazz critics would know at least this much.

Of course, many do, but they have other concerns, and the competition is stiff. It took Lee Konitz 65 years to get in last year, after finishing in the top three for nearly a decade -- leapfrogged many times recently by guys who finally got voters' attention the year before by dying (2006: Jackie McLean, 2007: Andrew Hill, 2009: Freddie Hubbard, 2011: Abbey Lincoln, 2012: Paul Motian, 2013: Charlie Haden, 2014: Jim Hall; Hank Jones won in 2008 then died in 2010; the only other living musician in this stretch was Muhal Richard Abrams in 2010; Russell died in 2009, got a boost then, but not enough). I have no idea who will win this year, but Paul Bley is probably the top choice among the recently deceased, and Anthony Braxton is the obvious pick among the living (and still very active).

I decided to write two names in, not so much because they were my next picks -- these rank lists are nowhere near that precise -- as hoping that they'll be picked up in future ballots: Mal Waldron and Jimmy Rushing. Waldron (1926-2002) is most famous as Billie Holiday's pianist, but he had a brilliant career as a leader and composer, made a remarkable move from postbop to avant-garde with his later group records like The Git Go and Crowd Scene, but perhaps his best records were duos with Steve Lacy, Marion Brown, and Jackie McLean (Left Alone '86). Rushing (1901-72) was the greatest of the Kansas City blues shouters, starting with Walter Page and Bennie Moten and following Count Basie to New York, where he cut many great albums -- a personal favorite from the year before he died is the out-of-print The You and Me That Used to Be.


This has nothing to do with music, but I should note and lament the passing of Dewane Hixon (1933-2016). He was a cousin, the oldest son of my mother's slightly older sister Edith. They moved from Oklahoma to Modesto, California in 1952, so we didn't see them much -- we drove to California in 1956; Edith, with two other sons (but I think not Dewane) came through Wichita around 1958. Dewane had a job working for an aircraft dealer and came to Wichita once for some training. He had a story about beating a traffic ticket when the cop stopped him and asked to see his pilot's license -- he whipped one out. I don't remember his father, Otis Hixon, who died from something heart-related in 1967, but relatives often said that Dewane reminded them of Otis, particularly as a practical joker. Dewane settled near Phoenix, and Edith moved there. After my mother died in 2000, we drove to Phoenix to see Edith, and spent quite a bit of time with Dewane. Edith died that December, at 89, the last of eight siblings. I went back to Phoenix two more times in the next few years. Always stopped to see Dewane, tell jokes, argue politics, and reminisce. He had a delivery service business, and was still working it last I heard last year. About half my cousins on my mother's side have passed now: all are older than me, the oldest survivor 90. Even stranger to lose that generation than my aunts and uncles before them.


Let me also note that I continue to be learn things from Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal, which I quoted from in yesterday's post. The next few pages after yesterday's quote add to the list of Bill Clinton's "counter-scheduling" practices -- the crime bill, welfare reform, the "grand bargain" he was working on with Newt Gingrich to privatize a big chunk of Social Security. Frank focuses on how these acts reflect a deeper shift in the Democratic Party from a working-class base to one based on well-to-do professionals, one that may be socially liberal but cares little about inequality. Thus far -- I've gotten to be a shamefully slow reader, as well as one who can only focus for a few pages at a time, so I'm only about half-way through a short book -- he hasn't drawn out the political conclusions: e.g., how by undermining traditional Democratic groups Clinton was able to capture the party for his own personal purposes, which include fronting his wife's candidacy. But given what Frank shows, that part is pretty obvious.

In some ways I find Frank's book even more shocking than Jane Mayer's Dark Money. If it was just the Kochs and their ilk that had set out to undermine American democracy, there would be plenty of popular reaction. But when you turn the opposition over to "leaders" like the Clintons, there's no telling what they won't surrender (supposedly to defend you).


Recommended music links:


New records rated this week:

  • Hayes Carll: Lovers and Leavers (2016, Highway 87): [r]: B+(***)
  • Cavern of Anti-Matter: Void Beats/Invocation Trex (2016, Duophonic): [r]: B+(***)
  • Chimurenga Renaissance: Rize Vadzimu Rize (2014, Brick Lane): [r]: B+(*)
  • Chimurenga Renaissance: Girlz With Gunz (2016, Glitterbeat, EP): [r]: B+(*)
  • The Coathangers: Nosebleed Weekend (2016, Suicide Squeeze): [r]: A-
  • Shemekia Copeland: Outskirts of Love (2015, Alligator): [r]: B+(*)
  • Daria: Strawberry Fields Forever: Songs by the Beatles (2016, OA2): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Flatbush Zombies: 3001: A Laced Odyssey (2016, Glorious Dead): [r]: B+(**)
  • Michael Formanek/Ensemble Kolossus: The Distance (2014 [2016], ECM): [dl]: B+(***)
  • James Freeman: Echoes of Nature III (2016, Edgetone): [cd]: B-
  • Matthew Fries: Parallel States (2015 [2016], Xcappa): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Alexander Hawkins/Evan Parker: Leaps in Leicester (2015 [2016], Clean Feed): [cd]: A-
  • Jean-Brice Godet Quartet: Mujô (2013 [2016], Fou): [cd]: B+(***)
  • Mayer Hawthorne: Man About Town (2016, Vagrant): [r]: B+(**)
  • Kamaiyah: A Good Night in the Ghetto (2016, self-released): [r]: B+(**)
  • Roberto Magris: Need to Bring Out Love (2016, JMood): [cdr]: B+(**)
  • Daniel Meron: Sky Begins (2015 [2016], Rabbit Rabbit Rabbit): [cd]: B
  • Moodymann: DJ-Kicks (2016, !K7): [r]: B+(**)
  • Roy Nathanson: Nearness and You (2015 [2016], Clean Feed): [cd]: B+(*)
  • New Zion w. Cyro: Sunshine Seas (2016, Rare Noise): [cdr]: B+(**)
  • Noertker's Moxie & the Melancholics: Curious Worlds: The Art & Imagination of David Beck (2016, Edgetone): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Parquet Courts: Human Performance (2016, Rough Trade): [r]: A-
  • Restroy: Saturn Return (2016, Milk Factory): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Eric Revis Trio: Crowded Solitudes (2015 [2016], Clean Feed): [cd]: A-
  • Rent Romus/Teddy Rankin-Parker/Daniel Pearce: LiR (2014 [2016], Edgetone): [cd]: B+(***)
  • Mikael Seifu: Zelalem (2016, RVNG Intl, EP): [r]: B+(*)
  • Sturgill Simpson: A Sailor's Guide to the Earth (2016, Atlantic): [r]: B+(***)
  • Esperanza Spalding: Emily's D+Evolution (2016, Concord): [r]: B
  • Mavis Staples: Livin' on a High Note (2016, Anti-): [r]: B+(**)
  • Starlite Motel: Awosting Falls (2014 [2016], Clean Feed): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Tacocat: Lost Time (2016, Hardly Art): [r]: B+(***)
  • Twenty One 4tet: Live at Zaal 100 (2015 [2016], Clean Feed): [cd]: B+(**)
  • Kanye West: The Life of Pablo (2016, Def Jam/GOOD Music): [r]: B+(***)

Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries rated this week:

  • The Ex: The Ex at Bimhuis (1991-2015) (1991-2015 [2015], Ex, 2CD): [bc]: B+(***)
  • Ella Fitzgerald: Jazz at the Philharmonic: The Ella Fitzgerald Set (1949-54 [2016], Verve): [r]: B+(*)
  • The Rough Guide to Bottleneck Blues [Second Edition] (1926-40 [2016], World Music Network): [r]: B+(***)
  • The Rough Guide to the Blues Songsters: Reborn and Remastered (1926-35 [2015], World Music Network): [r]: A-

Old music rated this week:

  • The Ex: 30 (1980-2006 [2009], Ex, 2CD): [bc]: B+(***)
  • The Ex: Catch My Shoe (2010, Ex): [bc]: B+(**)


Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

  • Bobby Avey: Inhuman Wilderness (Inner Voice Jazz): June 24
  • The Dynamic Les DeMerle Band: Comin' Home Baby (Origin)
  • Nick Fraser: Starer (self-released): April 29
  • Alex Goodman: Border Crossing (OA2): April 15
  • Keefe Jackson/Jason Adasiewicz: Rows and Rows (Delmark)
  • Scott Neumann/Tom Christensen: Spin Cycle (Sound Footing): May 6
  • Sebastian Noelle: Shelter (Fresh Sound New Talent): advance, June 3
  • The Oatmeal Jazz Combo: Instant Oats (LGY)
  • Sonny Rollins: Holding the Stage: Road Shows Vol. 4 (1979-2012, Okeh)
  • Nana Simopoulos: Skins (Na): June 20

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Sunday, April 17, 2016


Weekend Roundup

Quickly, some scattered links this week:


  • George Monbiot: Neoliberalism -- the ideology at the root of all our problems: The term is scarcely ever used in the US, where right-wing pundits insist that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (pictured at the top) are regarded as purely conservative folk heroes. Yet the term was coined at a 1938 conference featuring Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, who used it to articulate an extreme belief in free markets in opposition to "collectivism" -- a term they felt rounded up all the evil political movements of the era: nazism, communism, and most importantly social democracy. The term soon fell out of use: in the US the ideas mostly appealed to red-baiting right wingers who preferred to call themselves "conservatives"; in Britain, the term has mostly been picked up by its opponents, since it seems to tie together both the Conservative and Liberal parties, as well as describe where the "New Labour" party faction went so terribly wrong. Of course, the same ideas infected the Democratic Party, particularly through Carter's deregulation mania, Clinton's embrace of "free trade" deals and "small government," continuing through Obama (whose signature plans, like health care reform and a "cap-and-trade" greenhouse gas market were originally hatched in neoliberal "think tanks"). Still, I wonder if it isn't too pat to catalog every instance of self-serving capitalist greed and dignify it with an innocuous ideological label. Monbiot notes that neoliberal policy directives have failed so often their underlying theories have achieved zombie status, then complains that "The left has produced no new framework of economic thought for 80 years. This is why the zombie walks." The zombie walks because the rich have rigged the system. What we need isn't another framework; it's countervaling power.

    Much quotable here; this is just a sample:

    The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public sector.

    Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.

    Monbiot has a new book, How Did We Get Into This Mess? (Verso). He also cites another interesting title, Andrew Sayer: Why We Can't Afford the Rich (Policy Press, paperback in May). Also links to Paul Verhaeghe: Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us.

  • Michael Specter: Life-Expectancy Inequality Grows in America:

    It will surprise nobody to learn that life expectancy increases with income. Coming, however, in the midst of a Presidential campaign in which the corrosive effects of income inequality have been a principal debate topic, the data and its implications for public policy are particularly striking: the richest one per cent of American men live 14.6 years longer on average than the poorest one per cent. For women, the average difference is a just over ten years.

    The gap appears to be growing fast. The researchers, led by Raj Chetty, a professor of economics at Stanford University, analyzed more than 1.4 billion federal tax returns, as well as mortality data from the Social Security Administration, from the years 2001 to 2014. In that period, the life expectancy of the richest five per cent of Americans increased by roughly three years. For the poorest five per cent, there was no increase.

  • DR Tucker: Ship of Fools: The fourth down of five straight rants about "Bernie or Bust"-ers ("who still insist that under no circumstances will they vote for the 'corporatist' Hillary Clinton if she defeats Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination"). After five paragraphs of imagining Trumpian hell, he concludes:

    The inconvenient truth is that the "Bernie or Bust" crowd is indistinguishable from right-wing fundamentalists in their loathing of compromise and their refusal to recognize that sometimes people can make bad decisions in good faith. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore are neither evil nor corrupt. Neither is Bernie Sanders, for that matter . . . but what does it say about those who only recognize morality in the latter, and malevolence in the former?

    First, he probably should have stopped at "evil" and not brought up "corrupt": if there's anything the Clintons have done consistently throughout their political careers, it's been to cozy up to moneyed interests -- be they Tyson and Walmart in Arkansas, or Goldman Sachs and Citibank in New York. Maybe it's legal for a company that was saved by billions of dollars of federal bailouts to pay you $650k for one little speech, but it's hard to say there's nothing corrupt about it. Second, are we really talking about compromises, or simply different goals? When the Clinton's concocted their health care scheme, were they backing off from a single-payer approach just enough to secure passage, or were they trying to pitch fat business opportunities to the insurance companies and HMOs? If you want an example of a compromise, take Sanders supporting Obama's ACA even though he clearly was aware of and wanted something better. I'm not saying that the Clintons don't compromise, let alone that they have no principles to compromise. But I do think it's fair to say that their principles and aims are very different from those of people who prefer Sanders. Probably very different from their own supporters too.

    It's pathetic that Tucker can't tell the difference between Sanders supporters and right-wing fundamentalists. Also that he doesn't recognize that most Sanders supporters aren't died-in-the-wool leftists. The least of Clinton's problems is that those "Bernie-or-bust"-ers will wind up voting for Jill Stein. Two much bigger problems are that Clinton won't campaign on anything that materially promises to help the lives of the voters who have been energized by Sanders' campaign and/or that she's already lost so much credibility that many people won't trust her. And again, her problem isn't with confirmed leftists, who are hypersensitive to the perils of fascism and accustomed to settling for "lesser evils." Her problem is the vast mass of Americans who can't tell the difference between the two parties, either because they're uninformed or because they're all too aware that changing the guard in Washington hasn't made any appreciable difference in their own lives.

    Worse still is Tucker's Running Up That Hill, where he urges the DNC to ban Sanders from speaking at the Democratic Convention:

    Why should Clinton genuflect to someone who a) explicitly said she doesn't have what it takes to be president, b) called for a primary challenge to the current Democratic President, and c) is not a Democrat?

    Speaking of concessions, a compelling case can be made that if Sanders suspends his campaign after losing badly in this Tuesday's New York Democratic primary, he should be excluded from speaking in any capacity at the Democratic convention. It would be rather divisive to give a prominent speaking position at that convention to someone who seems to believe that the Democratic Party has prostituted itself to economically powerful johns and contracted the social disease of "corporatism." If Sanders addressed the convention and repeated his campaign rhetoric, would he not offend convention attendees who regard certain elements of Sanders's shtick as a tone-deaf and tacky trashing of President Obama? [ . . . ] Those who are thinking dispassionately will not be offended by the exclusion of Sanders from the convention, and will understand the reasons why he wasn't invited to speak.

    Didn't the DNC try to suppress dissent (or do I mean democracy?) once before -- in 1968? As I recall, that didn't work out so well. A sane person would see the convention as an opportunity to bind the Party divided by the primaries back together, but Tucker seems to prefer laying waste to those who had challenged party orthodoxy, thereby exacerbating the split in the Party. I suppose he could point to Pat Buchanan's speech at the Republican Convention in 1992 as an example where such a concession backfired. (If you recall that speech, it's probably because Molly Ivins allowed that "it probably sounded better in the original German.") Nonetheless, I can't imagine Sanders following suit -- especially after the votes are counted -- unless Clinton follows Tucker's advice and pushes him out. And if she's that thin-skinned, she's unprepared for the job ahead.

    PS: I wouldn't have read these pieces had they not appeared in the otherwise admirable Washington Monthly blog, which Tucker has totally hijacked for his rants. Please bring back Katherine Geier.

  • Corey Rubin: Magical Realism, and other neoliberal delusions: Among many other thoughts, this on the obsolescence of the DLC political style:

    Though I'm obviously pleased if Sanders beat Clinton in the debate, it's the other two victories that are most important to me. For those of us who are Sanders supporters, the issue has never really been Hillary Clinton but always the politics that she stands for. Even if Sanders ultimately loses the nomination, the fact that this may be the last one or two election cycles in which Clinton-style politics stands a chance: that for us is the real point of this whole thing.

    I'm always uncertain whether Clinton supporters have a comparable view. While there are some, like Jonathan Chait or Paul Starr, for whom that kind of politics is substantively attractive, and who will genuinely mourn its disappearance, most of Clinton's supporters seem to be more in synch with Sanders's politics. They say they like Bernie and agree with his politics; it's just not realistic, they say, to think that the American electorate will support that.

    Which makes these liberals' attraction to Clinton all the more puzzling. If it's all pure pragmatism for you -- despite your personal support for Bernie's positions, you think only her style of politics can win in the United States -- what are you going to do, the next election cycle, when there's no one, certainly no one of her talent or skills and level of organizational support, who's able to articulate that kind of politics?

  • Daniel Larson: The Libyan War and Obama's 'Worst Mistake': When asked one of those self-flagellating questions, Obama offered that his worst mistake was "Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya." I can think of several worse ones. One was not fixing the Bush tax cuts when he had the votes to do so right after the 2008 election. (Sure, I understand that he didn't do so because raising taxes in a recession would have seemed contractionary, and because he wanted to play up his bipartisanship, and because they were due to sunset in a few years anyway, but they would have cut into the swollen deficits that caused so much alarm, in turn leading to austerity cutbacks that really were contractionary. Moreover, he could have floated tax rebates to counter the increases short-term, so they would have been neutral or better while improving the long-term outlook.) Another was pretending that the US had succeeded in Iraq when his belated withdrawal was complete, which left him open to the charge that his withdrawal turned Bush's victory into the rise of ISIS. I could come up with a few dozen more before getting into Libya, where in retrospect the intervention has come to look like a worse decision than the aftermath. As Larson puts it:

    I don't think this was Obama's biggest mistake, but it is revealing that he remains convinced that this lack of post-Gaddafi planning is worse than the far greater error of intervening in Libya in the first place. As we saw last week, this has become the self-serving rallying cry of Libyan war supporters. The only error interventionists are capable of recognizing is that of doing "too little." They can't admit that the intervention itself is a mistake without fully acknowledging their bad judgment in supporting it. [ . . . ]

    Obama knew at the time that there was absolutely no political support in the U.S. or anywhere else for a prolonged mission in Libya. Promising not to start an open-ended mission in Libya is what made the war politically viable here at home. The public would tolerate bombing for eight months and then writing off the country, but there wouldn't be similar patience for a new occupation in yet another Muslim country with the costs and casualties that would likely entail.

    It was not an oversight by the intervening governments when they left Libya to its own devices. That was part of the plan, such as it was, from the very beginning. So it is hard to take Obama seriously when he faults himself for not committing the U.S. to a larger, costlier role in Libya when he and the other allied leaders deliberately decided against doing that. They made that decision because they wanted a low-risk intervention on the cheap, and they certainly weren't prepared to make a long-term commitment to police and rebuild Libya. But they were willing to help throw the country into chaos and to destabilize the surrounding region and declare victory when the regime change they supposedly weren't seeking had been achieved.

    One last point is that the US intervention didn't end when the bombing did. Obama may not have planned for the aftermath, but the CIA blundered in anyway, which is how that Benghazi! fiasco happened.


I want to close with a fairly long quote from Thomas Frank's new book, Listen, Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? (pp. 89-91):

[Bill] Clinton's wandering political identity fascinated both his admirers and biographers, many of whom chose to explain it as a quest: Bill Clinton had to prove, to himself and the nation, that he was a genuine New Democrat. He had to grow into presidential maturity. And the way he had to do it was by somehow damaging or insulting traditional Democratic groups that represented the party's tradition of egalitarianism. Then we would know that the New Deal was really dead. Then we could be sure.

This became such a cherished idea among Clinton's campaign team that they had a catchphrase for it: "counter-scheduling." During the 1992 race, as though to compensate for his friend-of-the-little-guy economic theme, Clinton would confront and deliberately antagonize certain elements of the Democratic Party's traditional base in order to assure voters that "interest groups" would have no say in a New Democratic White House. As for those interest groups themselves, Clinton knew he could insult them with impunity. They had nowhere else to go, in the cherished logic of Democratic centralism.

The most famous target of Clinton's counter-scheduling strategy was the civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, the bête noir of centrists and the living embodiment of the poilitics the Democratic Leadership Council had set out to extinguish. At a 1992 meeting of Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, with Jackson sitting to his left, Clinton went out of his way to criticize a controversial rapper called Sister Souljah who had addressed the conference on the previous day. The exact circumstances of Clinton's insult have long been forgotten, but the fact of it has gone down in the annals of politicking as a stroke of genius, an example of the sort of thing that New Democrats should always be doing in order to discipline their party's base.

Once Clinton was in the White House, counter-scheduling mutated from a campaign tactic to a philosophy of government. At a retreat in the administration's early days, Bill's chief political adviser, Hillary Clinton, instructed White House officials how it was going to be done. As Carl Bernstein describes the scene, Hillary announced that the public must be made to understand that Bill was taking them on a "journey" and that he had a "vision" for what the administration was doing, a "story" that distinguished good from evil. The way to dramatize this story, the first lady continued (in Bernstein's telling), was to pick a fight with supporters.

You show people what you're willing to fight for, Hillary said, when you fight your friends -- by which, in this context, she clearly meant, When you make them your enemy.

NAFTA would become the first great test of this theory of the presidency, with Clinton defying not only organized labor but much of his own party in Congress. In one sense, it achieved the desired results. For New Democrats and for much of the press, NAFTA was Clinton's "finest hour," his "boldest action," an act befitting a real he-man of a president who showed he could stand up to labor and thereby assure the world that he was not a captive of traditional Democratic interests.

But there was also an important difference. NAFTA was not symbolism. With this deed, Clinton was not merely insulting an important constituency, as he had done with Jesse Jackson and Sister Souljah. With NAFTA he connived in that constituency's ruin. He assisted in the destruction of its economic power. He did his part to undermine his party's greatest ally, to ensure that labor would be too weak to organize workers from that point forward. Clinton made the problems of working people materially worse.

One effect of Clinton's NAFTA push was that the unions were unable to muster effective support for Clinton's signature health care bill. Then in 1994 the Republicans gained control of Congress and Clinton never again had to worry about the Democrats pushing some progressive reform through Congress. And by crippling the unions, Clinton was able to consolidate his control of the Democratic Party machine, something which kept Democrats weak in Congress (except for 2006-2010, when Howard Dean was Party Chairman) and set up Hillary's campaigns in 2008 and this year. (Sure, Obama beat Hillary in 2008, but welcomed her people into his team, got rid of Dean, and restored presidential crony control of the Party machinery, making Hillary a shoe-in this year -- at least until the rank-and-file weighed in.)

The bottom line here is that most people's interests should align with the Democrats -- they damn sure don't line up with the Republicans -- yet the Democrats don't get their votes, because party leaders like the Clintons, despite whatever they may promise during a campaign, cannot be trusted to support them.

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Friday, April 15, 2016


Endorsements

I started writing this up as a Weekend Roundup bullet item, but decided to let it stand [almost] on its own.

Tom Hayden: I Used to Support Bernie, but Then I Changed My Mind: The famed 1960s New Left radical, a founder of SDS, defendant at the Chicago 8/7 trial, and moderately successful California politician, explains:

I intend to vote for Hillary Clinton in the California primary for one fundamental reason. It has to do with race. My life since 1960 has been committed to the causes of African Americans, the Chicano movement, the labor movement, and freedom struggles in Vietnam, Cuba and Latin America. In the environmental movement I start from the premise of environmental justice for the poor and communities of color. My wife is a descendant of the Oglala Sioux, and my whole family is inter-racial.

What would cause me to turn my back on all those people who have shaped who I am? That would be a transgression on my personal code. I have been on too many freedom rides, too many marches, too many jail cells, and far too many gravesites to breach that trust. And I have been so tied to the women's movement that I cannot imagine scoffing at the chance to vote for a woman president. When I understood that the overwhelming consensus from those communities was for Hillary -- for instance the Congressional Black Caucus and Sacramento's Latino caucus -- that was the decisive factor for me. I am gratified with Bernie's increasing support from these communities of color, though it has appeared to be too little and too late. Bernie's campaign has had all the money in the world to invest in inner city organizing, starting 18 months ago. He chose to invest resources instead in white-majority regions at the expense of the Deep South and urban North.

I'm surprised to see Sanders depicted as having "all the money in the world," but checking Open Secrets I was even more surprised to see that he has managed to collect $139 million so far -- more than Ted Cruz ($119 million, including $52 million PAC money), still less than Hillary Clinton ($222 million, including $62 million PAC; Sanders has made a big point about not having a dark money PAC). Most of Sanders' money came in February ($42M) and March ($44M), well into the primary season. Until that happened, he was mostly dependent on volunteer efforts. I know, for instance, that he's had an active supporter group here in Wichita for over a year, and they would be pretty surprised to find he's rolling in all that money. They did, however, organize Sanders' second-largest victory margin to date -- although he's since won bigger elsewhere. As primary season unfolded, the money understandably went to critically competitive states. And Clinton, who started with (and still has) much more money, had somehow locked up the Deep South where most Democrats are black -- maybe she had made the investments Hayden charges Sanders with neglecting. (Still, isn't it interesting that a seasoned politician like Hayden sees money as the essential element in securing the loyalties of black and Latino votes? The implication is that those votes are tied to group elites in a way that approximates the old political machines.) And even more than cash, the big advantage that the Clintons brought into this election was a well-oiled patronage machine. The clearest evidence that established patronage matters is Clinton's 469-31 superdelegate lead. (Sanders' contributions have averaged $27-30, which works out to five million-plus donations though there are repeaters -- I know that my wife has donated $27 several times, probably putting her over $100 by now. Beyond her PAC money, Clinton has also gone after small donations, and claims more than one million donors. Sanders has more, "nearly two million donors" (Hillary Clinton Touts One Million Donors, While Bernie Sanders Approaches Two).

I've been somewhat mystified why Clinton enjoys such a large lead over Sanders among black voters. It's certainly not based on a sober examination of positions and issues, and I doubt if it has much to do with personal style. The best I've been able to come up with is that even with growing economic inequality and the decimation of the middle class all across America, most blacks have improved their lot, and see their solidarity with the Democratic Party as having helped them out. This isn't an unreasonable stance, and no doubt if/when Clinton wins she'll owe blacks and Latinos big time -- but she'll also owe bankers and the war industry, and in the end I suspect their investments will pay off better.

If Hayden was just a cog in the Democratic Party machine, I could see his choice: indeed, it would be as unremarkable as it's been for hundreds or thousands of Party hacks all across America. But Hayden was one of the most prominent figures in the New Left in the 1960s. One might argue that choosing Clinton over Sanders shows that he's not really much of a leftist, but more likely, I suspect, he's just proving one of the major critiques of the New Left: that it was run by people who came from privileged backgrounds and saw their role as to advocate for other people who had been denied their good fortune. That's not bad per se, but in practice shifted much of the left's focus from class to minority and identity issues like race (and sex and sexual orientation). They've done good work on all those fronts, but while they were off helping others the right smashed the unions that propped up the middle class and created vast inequality -- so much so that young people in America today have less reason to expect to live out their lives in comfort and freedom (e.g., free of debt) than any past generation for at least a century.

The upshot is that we have a guy who's spent more than fifty years working towards radical political change yet can't recognize it when it's actually happening, just because it's not coming from where he's been expecting it. The irony is that the Old Left that Hayden rejected had made the same mistake, expecting the working classes to rise up even after labor unions had won them middle-class jobs and social security, enough to buy homes (and cars, etc.) and send their kids to college and retire comfortably -- enough luxury they could even afford to look down on the less fortunate. Hayden, like much of the New Left, rebelled against the white working class as much as against the Old Left. I suspect that's because he was never of it, whereas those of us who grew up there were better able to notice when things went sour.


A few other quick links, limited to the elections. Next up is the New York primary, where 538's "projected results" favor Clinton 57.8-39.6%, although I only see one (of eight) April polls where she has that kind of margin -- 10-12% is typical. I don't expect Sanders to win, but wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be much closer. (Friends who watched here -- I didn't, but baked them some cookies -- tell me Sanders had a very good debate last night.) On the Republican side it's Trump-Kasich-Cruz: 52.9-24.4-20.4%. You'd think that Trump's first majority win plus a third-place Cruz finish would turn the post-Wisconsin punditry around, but I doubt it. (Although I see that Josh Marshall is already out front there.) Trump, by the way, is polling well ahead in the April 27 primaries (Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania) -- as is Clinton (although Connecticut is closer, and a couple of Pennsylvania polls show her lead there down to +6 or +7).

By the way, while I was not listening to the debate, I somehow imagined Hillary saying:

Well, sure, I'm for everything that Senator Sanders is for, but I can assure you that under my administration none of that will actually get done, because I expect to spend the entire four years embroiled in one stupid scandal after another. And as I'm sure you're aware, no one -- certainly not Senator Sanders -- has more experience surviving stupid scandals than I.

Meanwhile, some brief links:

  • Jeff Merkley: Why I'm Supporting Bernie Sanders: The first endorsement of Sanders by a US Senator (Merkley represents Oregon).

    I grew up in working-class Oregon. On a single income, my parents could buy a home, take a vacation and help pay for college. My father worked with his hands as a millwright and built a middle-class life for us.

    My parents believed in education and they believed in the United States. When I was young, my father took me to the grade school and told me that if I went through those doors, and worked hard, I could do just about anything because we lived in America. My dad was right.

    Years later, my family and I still live in the same working-class community I grew up in. But America has gone off track, and the outlook for the kids growing up there is a lot gloomier today than 40 years ago.

    Many middle-class Americans are working longer for less income than decades ago, even while big-ticket expenses like housing, health care and college have relentlessly pushed higher.

    It is not that America is less wealthy than 40 years ago -- quite the contrary. The problem is that our economy, both by accident and design, has become rigged to make a fortunate few very well off while leaving most Americans struggling to keep up.

    And as economic power has become more concentrated, so too has political power. Special interests, aided by their political and judicial allies, have exercised an ever-tighter grip on our political system, from the rise of unlimited, secret campaign spending to a voter suppression movement.

  • David Jameson: Bernie Sanders Has His Own Shadowy Donors -- And They're Nurses: The Open Secrets page above shows that Sanders, despite his principled opposition to PACs, does have a tiny bit of "dark money" on his side (less than 1% of Clinton). This seems to be the explanation:

    In fairness to Sanders, there are differences between a super PAC like that of National Nurses United and one like Priorities USA, a group aligned with Clinton. Most of the money in the nurses super PAC likely comes from the dues that individual workers pay to their union, in small amounts each paycheck.

    In contrast, 98 percent of the money raised by Priorities USA Action in the second half of 2015 came from donors giving $100,000 or more, as The Huffington Post recently reported. And 90 percent of its money came from donors forking over at least $1 million.

  • Dean Baker: Bernie Sanders: Enemy of the World's Poor?:

    A popular theme in the media in recent days is that the world's poor would face disaster if Bernie Sanders ended up in the White House.[1] The story is that Sanders would try to protect jobs for manufacturing workers in the United States. The loss of these jobs has been a major source of downward pressure on the wages and living standards of a large portion of the working class over the last four decades.

    While saving manufacturing jobs here may be good for U.S. workers, the media line is that by trying to block imports from the developing world, Sanders would be denying hundreds of millions of people their route out of poverty. This story may be comforting for elites in the U.S. and Senator Sanders' political opponents, but it defies basic economics and common sense.

    The article goes on to tear the argument apart. No need to repeat the critique here, but I have to ask who would even bother to credit credit this line of thinking? Are there really people who think that Americans are so well off the government should devote itself to subsidizing the world's poorer countries? And that the best way to do that is to encourage businesses to set up sweatshops abroad? Practically every poll every taken shows that the number one (and pretty much the only) government program that a huge majority of Americans want to cut is foreign aid. It doesn't happen because (a) foreign aid doesn't really amount to much, and (b) regardless of its effect on foreign countries (and their people) aid (including trade rules) benefits certain influential Americans (usually big corporations), sometimes to the detriment of other Americans (often workers, although you can equally cast the weakening of domestic labor markets as a benefit to business interests).

  • Jason Horowitz: Bernie Sanders Campaign Suspends Jewish Outreach Coordinator for Vulgar Remarks About Netanyahu: The "vulgar remarks" were in a since-deleted Facebook post during the height of Netanyahu's Gaza slaughter last year. Those offended by the comments were were a couple of bigwigs who have never uttered a remotely critical word about Israel -- which is to say people whose touch with reality is sadly compromised. This sort of thing happens all the time to all sorts of candidates, and the standard reaction is to duck rather than fight -- even when the charge is baseless it's not something the candidate personally did and it's not something he or she wants to be distracted with. (One of the more famous examples I recall was when Obama's campaign fired Samantha Power for saying something rude about Hillary Clinton. Power was eventually given a prominent job in Obama's administration, in Clinton's State Department.) Worth noting that Sanders said some things in Thursday's debate that the Israel lobbyists would have found even more troubling (if not quite so conveniently objectionable):

    In Thursday night's debate, though, Mr. Sanders advocated a critical discussion of Israel that, while popular with his young liberal base, was unlikely to please the Jewish establishment figures who had sought to hold a common line on Israel in Democratic politics. Mr. Sanders criticized Mrs. Clinton's pro-Israel orthodoxy, called the Israeli army's use of arms against Palestinians "disproportionate" and argued that "we have to say that Netanyahu is not right all of the time."

  • Charles Pierce: Bill Clinton Fundamentally Doesn't Understand What Black Lives Matter Is About:

    But this is the second election in a row in which he is turning out to be one of his wife's clumsiest surrogates. I would make the modest suggestion to him that This Is Not About You. If you want to defend your record, write another massively unreadable book. If you want someone to defend your record ably, ask your wife. She seems to know how to do it best.

    I've long wondered whether Hillary's chances of becoming president wouldn't have improved had she divorced Bill after leaving office in 2001. There are many things I don't look forward to should she win, but he is high on the list. (Of course, she could divorce him then, but I figure she figures at least he's a good earner.) Maybe when The Good Wife runs its course we'll get a tangentially related but expert opinion.

    Pierce also has a piece on Thursday's debate: We Saw Bernie Sanders' Greatest Weakness Last Night: "At leas, that's what the Clinton camp is hoping you'll believe this morning." The "weakness" was that he said something unapproved (and virtually unheard of) about the Israel-Palestinian conflict:

    As somebody who is 100% pro-Israel, in the long run -- and this is not going to be easy, God only knows, but in the long run if we are ever going to bring peace to that region which has seen so much hatred and so much war, we are going to have to treat the Palestinian people with respect and dignity.

    As Pierce put it, "In response, HRC went full pander."

  • John Judis: I am worried about Hillary Clinton again: After the debate:

    I don't understand why she can't put the Goldman, Sachs question behind her. I initially assumed that she either didn't have transcripts or that what she said was the usual milquetoast stuff politicians offer up. But her continued refusal to provide transcripts (which I now assume must exist) suggests that there must be something damning in them.

    I assume the transcripts will be anti-climactic. One's first reaction is likely to be: "Goldman Sachs is supposed to be smart about money, but they paid $650k for this?" If I was a shareholder I'd consider suing management. Maybe management could come back and explain that it wasn't just the speech they were buying, it was also a bribe. But wouldn't that make their lawyers a bit uneasy? Not to mention Clinton's lawyers. And doesn't the value of a bribe depreciate real fast when it becomes public knowledge. Perhaps better to say that part of the extraordinary value-added of a Clinton speech is its exclusivity. But why keep it exclusive unless, you know, it's some sort of, uh, favor? Judis goes on:

    I also think her refusal to answer straightforwardly questions about social security caps, carbon taxes, Libya and a $15 minimum wage makes her appear scripted at best. Like the Goldman non-answer, these kind of responses sow doubts about trust and credibility.

    For more along these lines: Anis Shivani: Half-truth Hillary finally exposed: This was the debate where Bernie Sanders changed the Democratic Party for good.

  • Aaron Bycoffe: A Huge Number of GOP Leaders Aren't Endorsing This Year: Partly because so many of the candidates they endorsed early (e.g., Marco Rubio) were rejected by the base voters, and partly because no one wants to be associated with the finalists in the GOP's race to the bottom (well, except for Chris Christie).

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Monday, April 11, 2016


Music Week

Music: Current count 26475 [26446] rated (+29), 425 [414] unrated (+11).

Count up a bit, but that's mostly because I got into a run of listening to the legendary Dutch anarcho-punk group Ex, finding virtually all of their catalog easily accessible on Bandcamp. I discovered this cache when Ethiopian saxophonist Getatchew Merkuria (or Merkurya) died and I went off looking for his old Éthiopiques volume -- one I had long hoped to listen to. I also recalled that he had done a live album with the Ex (one I thought I had heard, but evidently not), as well as an A- record with Either/Orchestra (Éthiopiques 20: Live in Addis). I've long been interested in Ex, but it hasn't been easy coming across their records. Before this binge, my ratings were:

  • The Ex: Aural Guerrilla (1988, Fist Puppet): B+
  • The Ex: Singles, Period: The Vinyl Years 1980-1990 (1980-90 [2005], Ex): A-
  • The Ex: Instant (1995, Ex, 2CD): A-
  • The Ex: Turn (2004, Touch & Go, 2CD): A-
  • The Ex & Brass Unbound: Enormous Door (2013, Ex): A-

Perhaps I should also include some jazz-oriented records that guitarist Terrie Hessels (aka Terrie Ex) has done:

  • Ab Baars/Terrie Ex: Hef (2002, Atavistic): B+
  • Lean Left: The Ex Guitars Meet Nilssen-Love/Vandermark Duo, Volume 1: (2008 [2010], Smalltown Superjazz): A- -- Terrie Ex and Andy Moor
  • Lean Left: The Ex Guitars Meet Nilssen-Love/Vandermark Duo, Volume 2 (2008 [2010], Smalltown Superjazz): B+(***)
  • Offonoff: Slap and Tickle (2009, Smalltown Superjazz): B+(*) -- group with Massimo Pupillo and Paal Nilssen-Love
  • Paal Nilssen-Love/Terrie Ex: Hurgu! (2013, PNL): B+(**)

This preoccupation with the Ex has taken up so much time (and I'm still a few records short of done) that I haven't done anything in recognition of the recent deaths of Merle Haggard and Tony Conrad. The one thought I have on Haggard is that I'll always be grateful to my old friend Harold Karabell for prodding me to look beyond Hag's "Fightin' Side" jingoism. I have 25 of his records graded in my database, which leaves me far short, especially on the early LPs, but that's still quite a few. As for Conrad, I'm looking at his Early Minimalism box still sitting on my unplayed shelf over a decade after a publicist generously sent it to me. Safe to say, he's due.

I also want to note the recent death of a non-musician here, Manfred Menking. Born in Germany (East Prussia) in 1934, he survived bombing in WWII, fled west in advance of the Soviet army in 1944. He studied to become a doctor, was offered a Fulbright scholarship to complete his pediatric residency in Ohio. In 1973 he moved to Wichita, where one of his patients was my nephew. He was devoted to peace, working with Physicians for Social Responsibility and Wichita's Peace and Social Justice Center -- where we met him shortly after moving here in 1999. He was charming, delightful, very kind. It was a pleasure to have known him.


There was an uptick of incoming mail last week. Most importantly the long-awaited package from Portugal arrived -- probably a replacement after I complained last week. Probably just a temporary blip, but with my general slowdown this is the first time in a long time I've felt behind.


I commented on a Tom Carson tweet a couple days ago. Carson responded in an email that Robert Christgau forwarded to me, part of which noted that I don't allow comments on the blog. I've been using a piece of blog software called Serendipity. It has a reasonably nice feature set, but having used it for more than a decade, I'm stuck with an older version (which I've hacked on a bit), and more importantly I've been stuck on a server that isn't up to handling the now large (and somewhat bloated) database. I tried turning comments on for a while, but I didn't get much valuable feedback, partly because people had trouble with the interface. Spambots, on the other hand, seemed to sail through, and the maintenance got to be too much. Then I ran into database performance problems, so I hacked what I called a "faux blog" in parallel to the Serendipity one, and I've been updating both for some time now. I use the latter for links I post, because it's more likely you'll be served the page, but it doesn't have some nice features, like RSS, of comments.

However, because the "faux blog" is just a collection of hand-edited web pages, I can insert comments into those pages. The only thing is that you have to email them to me, and I have to decide it's worth the trouble, and we all have to wait until I update the site (which usually happens when I have something new to post, or sometimes when I've screwed up and need to fix something fast).

So I've added Carson's letter and a rather long-winded response to my Candidate Analogies post. Not sure whether this will become standard practice or is just a one-shot. I should note that I've bumped into Carson numerous times over the years. Back in the 1970s, he submitted an unassigned review of Brian Eno's Another Green World which Voice music editor Christgau liked enough to consider running alongside the review he had assigned me to write. Carson was one of the organizers of the Christgau 60th birthday Festschrift, Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough, and he edited my piece there (A Rock & Roll Critic Is Something to Be). He also offered invaluable editing advice when I wrote a "mass letter" as the 2004 election approached -- let's see, where is that thing? Oh, here. I've only read him erratically -- a big compilation of his writings would be most welcome, or maybe several as his political writings are matched by his culture critique (he long did a TV column for Esquire) -- and he's usually not only a sharp thinker but has retained a rock critic's ear for hook lines: possibly the most radical thing I've ever read was his conclusion to an essay (which I can't find now) on 1945 pointing out that winning WWII was the worst thing that ever happened to the United States.

I should also mention his novel, Gilligan's Wake -- perhaps the only novel I've read since 2001, partly because I could imagine him writing it just for me -- or more precisely because he presented a vision of 20th century America in myriad dazzling details that I was uniquely prepared to appreciate. Perhaps too much Alger Hiss, and too kind to Bob Dole, but brilliance abounds -- one bit that seems perfect is Mary Ann's self-healing hymen, maintaining her virginity no matter how much she screws around, a knack shared with America, the only country in the world that can fuck you over while remaining as pure and innocent as ever.

I've been struggling to get anything read recently, only finishing Jane Mayer's invaluable Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right a couple days ago. I should write something about the book, which updates and deepens Max Blumenthal's 2009 book Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement That Shattered the Party while paying particular attention to the Kochs and their financial and political networks, but no telling when I'll get around to it. Meanwhile, I came across Carson's review of Daniel Schulman's Koch family bio, Sons of Wichita, so thought I'd pass it along: The Brothers Koch: Family Drama and Disdain for Democracy.


New records rated this week:

  • Africaine 808: Basar (2016, Golf Channel): [bc]: B+(***)
  • Matt Criscuolo: The Dialogue (2016, Jazzeria): [cd]: B+(**)
  • Jane Monheit: The Songbook Sessions: Ella Fitzgerald (2015 [2016], Emerald City): [cd]: B+(*)
  • Pet Shop Boys: Super (2016, X2): [r]: A-
  • Ernie Watts Quartet: Wheel of Time (2016, Flying Dolphin): [cd]: B+(**)
  • Steve Wiest and Phröntrange: The High Road (2016, Blujazz): [cd]: B-

Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries rated this week:

  • The Jim Cullum Jazz Band/William Warfield: George Gershwin's Porgy and Bess Live (1992 [2016], Riverwalk Jazz, 2CD): [cd]: B+(***)
  • Soul Sok Sega: Sega Sounds From Mauritius 1973-1979 (1973-79 [2016], Strut): [r]: B+(***)

Old music rated this week:

  • The Ex: Disturbing Domestic Peace (1980 [1992], Ex): [bc]: B+(**)
  • The Ex: History Is What's Happening (1982, Ex): [bc]: A-
  • The Ex: Tumult (1983 [1993], Ex): [bc]: B+(***)
  • The Ex: Blueprints for a Blackout (1984 [1992], Ex): [bc]: B+(*)
  • The Ex: Pokkeherrie (1985 [1995], Ex): B+(***)
  • The Ex: 1936, the Spanish Revolution (1986, Ex, EP): [bc]: B+(**)
  • The Ex: Too Many Cowboys (1986 [1987], Ex): [bc]: B+(***)
  • The Ex: Hands Up! You're Free (1983-86 [1988], Ex): [bc]: A-
  • The Ex: Joggers & Smoggers (1989, Ex, 2CD): [bc]: B+(*)
  • The Ex: Dead Fish (1989 [2004], Ex, EP): [bc]: B+(*)
  • The Ex + Tom Cora: Scrabbling at the Lock (1991, Ex): [bc]: B+(***)
  • The Ex + Tom Cora: And the Weathermen Shrug Their Shoulders (1993, Ex): [bc]: B+(**)
  • The Ex: Mudbird Shivers (1995, Ex): [bc]: B+(***)
  • The Ex: Starters Alternators (1998, Touch & Go): [bc]: B+(**)
  • Ex Orkest: Een Rondje Holland (2000 [2001], Ex): [bc]: B+(*)
  • The Ex: Dizzy Spells (2000 [2001], Touch & Go): [bc]: A-
  • Gétatchèw Mérkurya: Éthiopiques 14: Negus of Ethiopian Sax (1972 [2003], Buda Musique): [r]: A-
  • Getatchew Merkuria/The Ex & Guests: Moa Anbessa (2006, Terp): [bc]: A-
  • Getatchew Merkuria/The Ex & Friends: Y'Anbessaw Tezeta (1960-2012 [2012], Terp, 2CD): [bc]: B+(***)


Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

  • Antonio Adolfo: Tropical Infinito (AAM): May 23
  • Daria: Strawberry Fields Forever: Songs by the Beatles (OA2): April 15
  • Matthew Fries: Parallel States (Xcappa): June 3
  • Jean-Brice Godet Quartet: Mujô (Fou)
  • Alexander Hawkins/Evan Parker: Leaps in Leicester (Clean Feed)
  • Louis Heriveaux: Triadic Episode (Hot Shoe)
  • Julie Kjaer 3: Dobbeltgaenger (Clean Feed)
  • Roy Nathanson: Nearness and You (Clean Feed)
  • New Zion w. Cyro: Sunshine Seas (Rare Noise): advance, April 20
  • Phil Palombi: Detroit Lean (Xcappa): May 24
  • Noah Preminger: Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground (self-released): May 6
  • Restroy: Saturn Return (Milk Factory): May 6
  • Eric Revis Trio: Crowded Solitudes (Clean Feed)
  • Carol Saboya: Carolina (AAM): May 23
  • Starlite Motel: Awosting Falls (Clean Feed)
  • Yves Theiler Trio: Dance in a Triangle (Migros)
  • Twenty One 4tet: Live at Zaal 100 (Clean Feed)
  • WorldService Project: For King and Country (Rare Noise): advance, April 29

Ask a question, or send a comment.

prev -- next