Book Review: Wilco: Learning How to Die by Greg Kot

As the segmentation of popular musical tastes continues on into the 21st century few bands have won as much acclaim and respect than Wilco.  Despite receiving no airplay on mainstream radio their album sales have increased with each album.  Jeff Tweedy, the founder and chief songwriter for Wilco, is often mentioned among the likes of Bob Dylan and Neil Young.  Greg Kot, music critic for the Chicago Tribune, wrote Wilco: Learning How to Die, an account the band at a tumultuous time in their history. Learning How to Die is a fine book on the current state of the record business and a revealing portrait of Tweedy.

The story of Wilco begins in Bellville, Ill, a town in the middle of the Midwest.  In the 1980s High school buddies Jay Farrar and Jeff Tweedy forged a friendship based on their love of music.  Both grew up in the harsh economic realities that plagued the Midwest in 1980s (and persist into the present) and saw music as a way out.  Together they formed Uncle Tupelo in 1987 and developed a sound that blended elements of punk, country, and folk.  Their 1990 debut album, No Depression, was a collection of ragged tracks that created its own genre of "alt-country." 

 Uncle Tupelo came to prominence in the underground rock scene of the early 1990s, an era remembered for the "grunge" sound from Seattle.  Unlike Nirvana, who's themes revolved around teen angst and outrage at corporate America, Uncle Tupelo wrote honest commentaries on the realities of American life.  Their second LP, Still Feel Gone, dwelt on these themes in a more coherent set of songs.  Tracks like "Gun" and "Looking for a Way Out" captured the banality and emptiness of rural life - minus the romanticism of Bruce Springsteen and more in tone with Sherwood Anderson's novel Winesburg, Ohio. Their next album, March 16-20 1992, was a set of acoustic tracks produced by REM guitarist Peter Buck, in an even deeper examination of American roots music.  Kot goes into detail on the creative and personal tensions that befell Tweedy and Farrar during the making of their final album Anodyne (1993) when both began to write their songs separately. 

Jay Bennett and Jeff Tweedy

In 1994, Farrar dissolved Uncle Tupelo and Tweedy formed Wilco. Their first album, A.M., was a swiftly recorded set of twangy rock tunes that received a mixed reaction.  With no chance of getting played on the radio, the band toured incessantly and gradually built a fan base.  The addition of multi-instrumentalist Jay Bennett gave Tweedy a new collaborator with whom he wrote some of his best songs.  Wilco's second LP, Being There, marked a creative breakthrough, a double album that celebrated 1970s classic rock.

An ongoing theme in the book is personal travails of Tweedy as a suffering artist torn between domestic and career obligations.  After Being There, Wilco embarked on grueling tours that left Tweedy psychologically drained and plagued with migraine headaches.  Long absences from his family also took its toll - along with the usual travails of the road.  During concerts, he took on a new persona, getting confrontational with audiences that didn't take to the music.  Band members grew nervous about Tweedy's increasingly unpredictable behavior onstage.  In 1998, Wilco was asked by British folk rock artist Billy Bragg to contribute music for unpublished Woody Guthrie songs.  These recordings resulted in two albums Mermaid Avenue (1998) and the follow up Mermaid Avenue. II were well received despite recurring conflicts with Bragg.

The release of Summerteeth (1999) and Yankee Hotel Foxtrot (2002) marked new artistic heights for Wilco in the midst of conflicts with their record company and painful personnel changes.  Summerteeth was a pure pop album with some of the most haunting lyrics in recent memory.  Tweedy, worried the songs were too dark in the album's first cut, retreated to the studio with Bennett and added heavy overdubs.  Disappointing sales led their label, Reprise, to demand a more "commercial" sounding album next time around.

The last part of the book revolves around the long recording history of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, an even more experimental effort than Summerteeth.  After Reprise rejected the album the band released songs on their website and it quickly generated a buzz.  Meanwhile, Tweedy replaced drummer Ken Coomer with Glenn Kotche.  After the album's completion Bennett was also dismissed (all of which is chronicled in the Sam Jones documentary I am Trying to Break Your Heart)  Kot is critical of Tweedy's less than diplomatic handling of these changes, but this all falls to the cliches of rock band politics.  Eventually, the album was released on Nonesuch records and proved that music with substance could find an audience in an age dominated by five media companies.  Despite all the turmoil, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot is an amazing album.  Although recorded before 9/11, the dark atmosphere of the album fit the country's mood.  Tracks like "Jesus Ect"., "War on War," and "Ashes of American Flags" are filled with cryptic lyrics and a dark foreboding that hard times are ahead - with faint glimmers of hope

Fans of Wilco will enjoy this book since the author is a real fan.  Earlier, I mentioned this was an up close account in the best since of the term since it avoids going into cheap tabloid territory.  It would've been nice to learn a little more about Tweedy's songwriting process and his literary influences.  Also, Jay Farrar leaves the narrative far too soon, a figure just as compelling as Tweedy.  For insights into the current state of the record business the book is first rate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2ykHinIPg&feature=related - Wilco performs "War on War" on Late Show with David Letterman

Book Review: The Dharma Bums by Jack Kerouac

In 1957, the NY Times declared Jack Kerouac (1922-1968) the voice of his generation after the publication of On the Road.  The Dharma Bums came out the following year and failed to win the literary world over.  While similar in spirit to On the Road, The Dharma Bums is more spiritual.  By the late 1950s, Kerouac, already a legendary figure among the beats, was enamored with Buddhism.  For Kerouac, Eastern religion had the potential to inspire younger people searching for an identity in the uneasy splendor that was post war America.  Now, over fifty years after its publication, it is credited with sparking the New Age movement.

The story centers around two characters and the people they meet.  The narrator is Ray, an aspiring poet, and Japhy, a larger than life poet/Buddhist/zen master.  Japhy is based on Gary Snyder (1930-  ), a poet who lived in a Buddhist monastery and later associate of the beats.  Like Dean Moriarty in On the Road, there is an otherworldly, messianic quality to the character.  Ray is in awe of Japhy and aspires to emulate him.  For a book about Buddhism, however, we learn very little about the religion itself.  Kerouac throws out anecdotes and quotes from famous gurus, but it all feels like a joke the reader isn't in on. 

The "story" revolves around trying to find some form of meaning in the consumerist, suburbanite society that America had become.  Although both characters have a hedonistic streak, Ray's drinking eventually alienates Japhy.  This sadly mirrored the path Kerouac followed after he achieved fame.  This gives the book a melancholy vibe at the end.  But the romanticism in the story, in particular the joy and grandeur of climbing a mountain (the novel's best section) is a joy to read.  Like any Kerouac work it is an experience and although you aren't quite sure what happened - you know something happened.

Book Review: Libra by Don Delillo

Libra, by Don Delillo, is a work of fiction surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  Lee Harvey Oswald is the novel's protagonist.  Libra is not so much an attempt to set the facts straight about the assassination, but a study of how individuals influence the course of history.  Everyday there are countless numbers of amateur historians and conspiracy theorists devote their lives to making sense of what happened on that November day in Dallas.  Libra is a wild ride through conspiracies upon other conspiracies that takes the reader through a labyrinth in a search for truth of some kind.

The story is told through two separate time lines that converge in the final act.  One narrative follows Oswald at various points in his life.  The other timeline follows the conspirators as they formulate their plans.  The historical context for the plot begins with the Bay of Pigs invasion.  In April 1961, only three months into his presidency, President Kennedy approved a CIA operation to overthrow Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba.  A force of Cuban exiles were ready to lead the invasion with American air support that Kennedy decided to pull at the last minute.  The entire operation was a debacle and the military and the intelligence community never forgave Kennedy.  Cuba became an obsession with them and the primary impetus for the attempt on President Kennedy's life.  Delillo follows a renegade group within the CIA that covertly planned a failed assassination attempt and then blame it on Fidel Castro.

The novel picks in the sections that deal with Oswald.  We first meet him as a teenager living in a Bronx tenement with his mother.  A loner and often the target of bullies who mock his southern accent, he took refuge in the writings of communist revolutionaries Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky.  He blamed the capitalist system for the humiliating conditions his family had to accept.  At 17, he enlisted in the marines and an undistinguished service record.  While he was stationed in Japan he began to learn Russian and made plans to defect.  Why did Oswald enlist?  Delillo portrays him as a conscientious soldier who wanted to learn firsthand the psychology behind an oppressive system.  After wounding himself in a gun accident he was discharged. 

Upon arriving in Russia in 1959, Oswald offered his services to the Soviets.  They gave him a cool reception and suspected he was a double agent.  Nevertheless, he offered them information on America's U-2 spy program of which he knew little.  Unsure of what to do with him they set him up with a factory job in Minsk.  While, there he meets his wife and grows disillusioned with the Soviet system.  Unhappy with his social status he manages to emigrate back to the United States.  Delillo paints complex portrait of Oswald, a tendency towards violence, intelligent, a fixation with guns, and determined to accomplish something important.

Every character in the book is plagued witth paranoia.  They all believed they will change the course of history and yet all feel powerless before the forces that will determine their fate.  This contradiction is best expressed in the David Ferrie character, a hard line anti-communist and amateur astrologer (among other things).  Later in the novel he forms a bizarre friendship with Oswald and offers an analysis of the conspiracy:

Think of two parallel lines . . . One is the life of Lee Harvey Oswald.  One is the conspiracy to kill the president.  What bridges the space between them?  What makes a connection inevitable?  There is a third line.  It comes out of dreams, visions, intuitions, prayers out of the deepest layers of the self.

This sets the stage the novel's final act as the two lines begin to converge.

In my opinion this was the weakest section of the book.  Without offering plot spoilers, the scenario Delillo imagines is as plausible as any.  But it all seems superfluous since the we already know what happened, the question is how it happened.  The final fifty pages follow another oddball Jack Ruby, who would shoot Oswald three days after the killing of Kennedy.  Ruby, a Dallas nightclub owner who was outraged about the assassination took it upon himself to save the city's reputation.  Since Ruby owed thousands to the mob he was caught up in the nexus of mobsters, Cuban exiles, and the CIA - his story is an amusing coda to a very dark novel.

As a prominent post-modern writer Delillo avoids trying to offer answers about the Kennedy assassination.  Post-modernist historians argue that all works of history only exist in the historian's mind.  It is impossible to ever reconstruct a historical event.  There a few flash forwards in the story to CIA archivist in the late 1970s attempting to write the official history and overwhelming number of contradictory facts and strange coincidences left him completely lost.  From hindsight the attacks of 9/11 continue to haunt this generation, but it will never captivate people like the Kennedy conspiracy.  This was something that happened internally and our fascination may tells us more about ourselves than we care to know.

Movie Review: The Trials of Henry Kissinger

Voltaire once described history as nothing more than a tableau of crime and misfortune -  a view the 20th century proved correct.  The Trials of Henry Kissinger is a polemical documentary that argues that former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was guilty of war crimes perpetuated by the Nixon and Ford administrations.  Based on a book by the iconoclastic journalist Christopher Hitchens, the film has commentary from many former aides, journalists, and biographers.  I applaud the film's critical look at American foreign policy, but it betrays its premise because it resembles a show trial and not a fair trial.

For a time, back in the 1970s, Henry Kissinger made international diplomacy attractive.  As National Security Adviser to Richard Nixon (1969-74) and later Secretary of State to Nixon and Ford (73-77) Kissinger literally shaped American diplomacy in the 1970s.  Before becoming an international celebrity who dated young actresses he was hardly known outside academic circles.  At the age of 13, Kissinger's family, being Jewish, emigrated from Nazi Germany and settled in New York City. After serving in the Second World War Kissinger studied international relations at Harvard and became an academic star. In the 1950s and 1960s wrote a few bestseller, most famously, Limited War and Nuclear Weapons  In 1968, the president-elect Richard Nixon appointed Kissinger as his National Security Adviser. 

In 1969, Nixon and Kissinger faced a daunting set of international and domestic challenges.  The Vietnam War topped the list.  By that point the war had created a rupture between generations that flared on college campuses.  From a military standpoint, the war was in a stalemate with 100 Americans being killed every week.  Nixon accepted the fact that victory in Vietnam was hopeless.  During the 1968 campaign Nixon stayed silent on his plans for Vietnam, only reassuring the American public he was committed to peace.  Nixon and Kissinger's plans, however, extended beyond ending the war.  They wanted to build a new international balance of power that included the Soviet Union, China, Japan, Western Europe - with the United States as the fulcrum.

The foreign policy accomplishments during the Kissinger years are substantial: negotiating an end to America's involvement in Vietnam (but not the Vietnam War), the opening of China, arms control with the still terrifying Soviet Union, and shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East in the chaotic months following the 1973 Yom Kippur War.  They called it detente, policies designed to reduce Cold War tensions.  The documentary focused on three specific areas: Cambodia, Chile, and East Timor.

Cambodia.  In early 1969 the Nixon administration began clandestine bombing campaigns on Cambodia, a sovereign nation, to strike at North Vietnam's supply line.  By 1970, with the peace negotiations going nowhere, Nixon announced on television a ground invasion of Cambodia by U.S. forces.  Members of Kissinger's staff resigned over the decision and the campuses went aflame.  Forty years ago this month four students were killed by the National Guard at Kent St. University.  The Cambodian invasion ended several months later with mixed results, but left conditions favorable for radical elements to take over the government - the Khmer Rouge.  They were a radical ultra left wing faction who seized power in 1975 and forced the entire population into the countryside.  Over one million died in the genocide.  The film places the blame squarely on Kissinger for creating the conditions for the atrocities in Cambodia. 

The other areas covered, Chile and East Timor, are far more complicated.  In 1973, military coup in Chile overthrew Salvador Allende, a Marxist who the administration viewed as another Castro.  Evidence that come clearly shows the CIA played a part overthrowing Allende, aided by American companies who were threatened by the regime.  East Timor, a former colony of the Portuguese Empire, was invaded by Indonesia in 1975 and absorbed into that country (in 2002 East Timor gained its independence).  The Ford administration provided weapons to Indonesia in their brutal crackdown on East Timor.  For these crimes, should Henry Kissinger face prosecution from international courts for crimes against humanity?

These are serious charges revolve around complicated historical events.  The film view them as cut and dry cases, but the truth is far more elusive.  If the documentary is a trial as it purports to be, it is a kangaroo court.  Most of the commentary comes from journalists that dedicated their careers to attacking Nixon and Kissinger.  The only defender from the administration, former Kissinger aide Alexander Haig, seemed oblivious to the consequences of past actions.  No historian who has studied the time period appears in the film to add some balance.

In saying that, I admire Hitchens.  He is one of the great commentators writing in the English speaking world today.  His frequent appearances in television contain more wit that all the godawful commentary infesting the cable news airwaves.  In the past, Hitchens has taken on Mother Theresa, Bill Clinton, and lately all organized religion.  The mainstream media's coverage of American foreign policy is banal and we need journalists like Hitchens to bring light to certain facts.  By his standards, however, every administration since Truman should face the docket.  It is unlikely that any American will in the near future, and that hypocrisy is a problem.  But for America to have a more democratic society, more discussion on foreign policy is something desperately needed.

Review: Like a Rolling Stone: Bob Dylan at the Crossroads by Griel Marcus

In 1965, Bob Dylan wrote his greatest and most memorable song, "Like a Rolling Stone." It was his first major hit, which peaked at #2 on the billboard charts. It ran for nearly seven minutes, something unheard of at the time - or even today. The book puts the song in its historical context and asseses its continuing influence on American history. Marcus's writing takes some getting used to with its improvisational style that seems to mimic a Dylan song. Nevertheless it is a fine homage to a remarkable time period.

1965. The British Invasion had conquered the airwaves. The Beatles were at the peak of their powers. The Rolling Stones mix of blues and sarcasm gave a new edge to rock music. At the center of it all stood Bob Dylan. In early 1965 Dylan released Bringing it all Back Home, his first foray into electronic music. He then toured England where he grew continually bored playing his old material on acoustic guitar. According to Marcus, Dylan considered retiring from music to write novels. In June 1965, he assembled a amazing set of musicians and recorded "Like a Rolling Stone." The song redefined Dylan's sound and pushed the boundaries of popular music.

Marcus reflects on the song's influence on American culture and its connection to American history. He also discusses its effect on Dylan's career and how it became the song that defined him. Dylan still performs the song and is always a highlight of ongoing "Never Ending Tour." For the listener the song takes on a different meaning every time it is played. It is simultaneously an angry song about alienation, but also a celebration of freedom and liberation. Dylan fans will enjoy this book, but I would recommend listening to the classic 1965 album Highway 61 Revisited to make the book easier to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSyPHcwHHlU

First ever live performance of "Like a Rolling Stone" at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival.

Film Review: "Why We Fight"

Perhaps the great paradox of this age it that more information is available to more people than at any time in history and yet the nature of power remains a mystery. Eugene Jarecki's documentary,Why We Fight, is an attempt to understand post 9/11 foreign policy. It is on one level an examination of the military-industrial complex and on another level a critique of the American empire. The right questions are raised but it takes on a little too much - not necessarily a bad thing.

The title is a play on the Why We Fight propaganda series produced by Frank Capra during the Second World War. America's contribution defeating fascism is celebrated as the last "good war." Because every war since remains shrouded in moral ambiguity - to the "Forgotten War" in Korea (1950-53) to the Vietnam War (1965-73) all the way up to current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan - it is a relevant question. The Iraq war and reasons for the invasion are the film's primary focus. While never straying into Michael Moore Fahrenheit 9/11 territory, it is highly critical of the Bush administration (2001-09). And that may date the film somewhat since Iraq appears to be heading towards stability. Few will remember the imbroglio over weapons of mass destruction, but the film dwells on it. History will be kinder to Bush and Company, as is often the case with polarizing presidencies.

But it's all part of a much larger and complex story. Let's start with the military-industrial complex. On August 6, 1945 the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and the world changed. The use of a weapon with the ability to destroy an entire city marked the culmination of America's transformation from an industrial juggernaut to a military superpower. Historians refer to this as the birth of the National Security State, a nation on a permanent wartime footing, ready for war anytime, anywhere, or anyhow. So far for five decades America competed with Soviet Union and pushing the world to the brink the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis - that was the Cold War.

Dwight Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States, is the film's unlikely hero. Unlikely in the sense that in the 1950s Eisenhower was viewed as the incarnation of bland conformity of that decade. Cultural critics, most notably the historian Richard Hofstadter, ridiculed Eisenhower's apparent lack of intellectual curiosity in his classic book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Hindsight has proved his critics wrong on most counts. For eight years he kept the peace and negotiated an end to the Korean War. In 1957, Eisenhower ordered the 101st airborne to enforce school integration laws in Little Rock, Arkansas, a milestone in the Civil Rights Movement. In his farewell address he issued a warning about the growing ties between the military and financial establishments and their influence on congress.

Now to jump ahead to 2010. The Cold War is over. We now live in post-Cold War age and no one really understands it. At millennium's end American seemed untouchable and at the height of its power. Then came the 2000 election, 9/11 terrorist attacks, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and finally economic collapse. So, what happened?

Why We Fight blames the Neoconservatives for just about everything. To their credit, they interview prominent Neocons like Richard Perle and William Kristol to give the opposing view. So, just what do Neoconservatives believe? In a nutshell, American foreign policy must foster the spread of democracy - even through war if necessary. They were the primary advocates of the Iraq war and were later blamed for the chaotic months after the downfall of Saddam Hussein. That angle may date the film since the situation in Iraq has changed dramatically in the past five years.

Despite its somewhat biased viewpoint the film raises some pertinent questions. The viewer hears multiple viewpoints from a diverse group of people. Jarecki calls for a more informed public that is more engaged with politics as the only way to preserve democracy - and that is sound. That is preferable alternative to falling into the abyss of conspiracy theories that only confuse people by their easy answers (but I will admit they are creative). It remains unclear, however, just what the film sees as America's proper role in the world - leave everyone alone? Despite all the anti-Americanism prevalent at home and abroad, America will always have its ideals and it is troubling to imagine a world where no nation carries those values.

Movie Review: The Sorrow and the Pity

The Sorrow and the Pity (1969) is about the elusive search for the truth in the midst of history and memory. Marcel Ophuls 4 1/2 half hour documentary is about the German occupation of a French town during the Second World War. Produced in the late 1960s, The Sorrow and the Pity brings a level headed approach to the past. 

The history of France during the German occupation is tragic. The First World War (1914-18) made a wasteland of their countryside and killed off a generation of its young men. In four years of war they fought the Germans to a stalemate, with the aid of their British and American allies. In the interwar period the French built the Maginot line, a series of fortifications along the German border designed to prevent another invasion. Before its completion the Second World War began (Sept. 1 1939) and the German army and forced the French to surrender, thus beginning an occupation that lasted from June 1940-July 1944. 

After the occupation ended a mystique grew about the heroics of the French Resistance and that the majority of the French, except for a minority of "collaborators," bravely stood up to the Nazis. The reality was far more complicated. In the 1930s the French people were bitterly divided over politics between extremists on the left (communists) and right (fascists). The polarized political situation led to mass apathy and cynicism about their system - and democracy itself. The Germans installed a puppet regime based in Vichy under the leadership of Phillipe Petain (1856-1951), the French hero from the First World War, an octogenarian who was only worked a few hours a day. The film suggests a majority of the French people supported the regime and turned a blind eye to its anti-Jewish laws (the most explosive charge in the film). But many also joined the resistance.

Marcel Ophuls, the film's director, conducted several probing interviews. His long interview with a German officer of the occupation who still wore his service medals provided the occupier's viewpoint. Anthony Eden, Churchill's foreign minister, is asked difficult questions about British policy during the French downfall, most notably on the infamous attack on Mers-El-Kebir. On July 3, 1940 the British destroyed the French Mediterranean fleet to prevent the Germans from capturing it - killing 1200 French sailors during the bombing.

Ophuls most moving interview were with two French farmers who bravely fought in the resistance - their quiet dignity is the backbone of the film. They saw injustice and crimes against humanity happening around them and decided to do something about it. The Sorrow and the Pity brims with a fierce moral purpose, revealing much about human nature that can tell us much about today (the parallels with Republicans who are terrified of criticizing Trump is striking).

The Sorrow and the Pity tells us history is mess. And that's a refreshing departure in an age of the condensed, user-friendly history fed to the public by the History Channel. The textbook versions of history are no better and are usually misleading, ephemeral, and bland. In the end such an approach does a disservice to the public. Evading the complexity of the past serves no one well. A first rate documentary.