One of the most addicting features of the new internet style of communication is the abundance of lists. No longer relegated to David Letterman, lists have become a phenomenon of sorts on message boards everywhere. I find myself strangely attracted to lists: they promise so much (20 Greatest Films about Sports-Playing Animals!!!) yet often fail to deliver the goods. I prefer lists that don't just provide the bare bones of a numerically ordered system, but delve into the reasons behind the choices.
Today, then, I provide a top ten (of sorts) with a distinct purpose behind it: to illustrate what I find pleasurable in a classic rock song. This is by no means my definitive "TOP TEN CLASIC (sic) ROCK SONGS" list; I would say it is extremely malleable (especially the bottom five or so; my top five are more definite). But, they are all songs I happen to like (enough to think of them when considering what to put on this list), and most of them have something to say about what I like in a rock song. Also, I have avoided giving more than one song by a group (otherwise the list might be entirely dominated by the Allman Brothers Band, only the greatest rock and roll group in history).
As a sort of a spoiler, I will say that generally I enjoy stripped down songs. Give me a relentless riff over a self-congratulatory solo anyday. This works with lyrics, too. Less is more. So, without further ado, here it is:
10 Classic Rock Songs That Are Good
10. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers -- Won't Back Down
As I was thinking this list over, I knew I needed to include some Tom Petty. He represents a style I like very much; his music tends to be lean and desperate. Still, it was a tough decision, because TP+tHB are a band that I listen to more for the overall effect than individual songs. Oh sure, I'll always keep the radio tuned to "Free Fallin'" if it comes on, but that's out of sentimentality as much as anything. I think my favorite Tom Petty song is probably Won't Back Down; a simple but catchy little riff and Tom and his most inspirational.
9. Styx -- Renegade
Yes, Styx. Look, don't be unduly influenced by Mr. Roboto (which is a great song in its own way); Styx brings the rock and roll. It came down to this song and Come Sail Away, which I do happen to like very much, despite its ridiculousness (or perhaps because of it). In the end, Come Sail Away is the type of rock song I generally dislike, but Styx takes it so far that it works. Renegade, however, is pure goodness. The jerky rhythm, relentless driving motion, and mangy singing are beautiful. And you cannot deny the greatness when they sing "Hangman is coming down from the gallows and I don't have very long".
8. Aerosmith -- Rag Doll
I must confess, I don't much care for Aerosmith, on the whole and for the most part (especially late period, verging on self-parody Aerosmith). But Rag Doll captures perfectly the things I do enjoy about them: an upbeat, catchy riff, a bouncy beat, some nifty guitar work, and totally ridiculous lyrics.
7. Blood, Sweat, and Tears -- Spinning Wheel
This is one awesome acid trip of a song. I generally like brass infused rock, and no one does it better than BS&T. Again, less is more; the song is fairly simple and repetitive, which makes it all the more effective when the freak out moment comes. Also, the song does a really good job of capturing the feel of a fair, particularly the creepiness of the carousel.
6. T Rex -- Bang a Gong (Get it On)
How awesome is this song? Well, the Rolling Stones felt compelled to rip T Rex off by stealing the riff from Get it On for It's Only Rock and Roll. Dirty cheaters. This song just rocks, from that famous riff to Bolan's seedy voice to the slightly ridiculous glam chorus. (Side note: does anyone know who did the cover of this song which is sometimes played on the radio? Cause that is a travesty).
5. The Edgar Winter Group -- Frankenstein
Top five time! And to usher it in, our first (and only) instrumental. If you somehow haven't heard this song, shame on you. It is delicious from start to finish, from the opening lick to the awesome drum solo which makes you wait forever and a half for the melody to re-enter. Any song that can make me like the saxophone has something right.
4. Queen -- Fat Bottomed Girls
Oh, were you expecting Bohemian Rhapsody? Look, I don't hate that song by any stretch of the imagination, but it does represent the excesses which I dislike in classic rock. FBG, on the other hand, is awesomeness distilled down to its core. It is a song you feel embarrassed to sing along with, yet you do it every time.
3. Creedence Clearwater Revival -- Fortunate Son
I consider CCR one of the best producers of pure (or simple) rock. They have little use for elaborate solos or convoluted lyrics, yet they do more in 2 minutes than many bands do in 7. Fortunate Son is one angry powder keg of a song about the illusion of the American Dream. Too bad it still gets played at patriotic events everywhere. Fogerty's steely rage almost makes me forget Centerfield.
2. The Allman Brothers Band -- Whipping Post
The Allman Brothers Band is known most for the live performances, which are epic in nature. One reason I think they were so good jamming it up for 20 minutes is that they kept their songs simple in structure, but they still contained lots of room to move around and improvise. Whipping Post is a monster song. The opening riff is perfect, the bluesey feel works so well with the subject matter, and Gregg Allman sounds like a broken heart incarnate. Flawless.
1. Led Zeppelin -- When the Levee Breaks
Screw Stairway to Heaven (for my thoughts on it please see Rhapsody, Bohemian). This is the real masterpiece from LZ 4. The boomy drumbeat, like a tribal call to war; the wailing harmonica which drags you through the mud of the Delta; Plant singing like a man with a demon inside him; the slow boil of the way the song builds on itself over the course of its 6 minutes; all these things add up to the greatest rock and roll song of all time.
So, there's my take. What are your favorite classic rock songs? Let the comments begin!
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Slummin' It
Yes, the rumors are true; I am back to posting on my blog, hopefully on a regular basis. True, I have often claimed this in the past, but my comparative abundance of free time (especially now, when I have no gainful employment to occupy my labor) should enable me to keep up relatively well. If not, keep bothering me; what I will not do from pleasure, I will do to stop from being disturbed. Now, on to the post!
On a recent date, Leslie and I had the pleasure to see the film "Slumdog Millionaire", a film by the always reliable British filmmaker Danny Boyle (most famous for 28 Days Later -- which I haven't seen -- but known to me through the family film "Millions" and the sci-fi "Sunshine", both of which I heartily recommend). We both enjoyed it immensely, and apparently enough critics agreed with us that it has been nominated for numerous Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Imagine my dismay, then, when several critics I read regularly have nothing but disdain for the film. Far be it for me to defend the Academy, whose taste I often question (Gladiator, really?), but reading criticisms of the film, it struck me that most of them stemmed from a misunderstanding of what it is trying to accomplish, of what kind of story it tells.
The criticisms I am directly addressing are along the lines of "The story feels cheap, like it doesn't earn the emotions it wants to elicit. It isn't a realistic depiction of life in the slums." et al. These criticisms would perhaps be cogent if "Slumdog Millionaire" set out to be a gritty docudrama about living in the streets of Mumbai, scraping by from day to day. Then critics would have the right to be dismayed by the happy ending, by the bright colors and overwhelming joy found withing the frame of the film. In reality, these criticisms aren't just incorrect, they miss the mark entirely. "Slumdog" clearly sets out to tell a fairy tale, and to judge it by anything other than the standards of that genre is a miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps this thesis does not seem immediately obvious. Let me present some evidence in favor of it. First, some outside evidence. Danny Boyle clearly has a fascination with the supernatural and inexplicable. I can say this with assurance because his other films reveal it. "Sunshine" and especially "Millions" (and, presumably, "28 Days Later") both have elements of the ethereal and supernatural. "Millions", with its numerous interludes involving dead saints, brings this out most clearly. Boyle is a Catholic, and as such he is more likely to be drawn to the elements of fairy tales, elements shared by the story of Christ. (Side Note: referring to the Christian narrative as a "fairy tale" in no way implies that it is false; rather it refers to shared characteristics -- some of which we shall examine in our discussion of "Slumdog". Many people, myself included, look to the similarity as evidence in favor of the truth of the gospel. But that is another post.)
Very well, Danny Boyle might be the kind of filmmaker drawn to making a fairy tale. But does "Slumdog" itself bear the marks of a fairy tale? I would strenuously argue for the affirmative. First off, there is the presence of the supernatural in the story. Now, "Slumdog" does not have the intervening divines of "Millions", but the supernatural is present regardless. This is clear from the framing device of the story, which is a multiple choice question (a la "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire") which asks how a slumdog like the hero Jamal could be poised to win 20 million rupees on a difficult gameshow like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. The potential answers include "He is a genius" and "He cheated", but the final shot of the film is the same screen, with everything fading out except for "D. It is written". (Side note: Perhaps it is a device like this which enrages the critics. "We want ambiguity," they cry, "not to be hammered over the head with the point of the story." But fairy tales have a clear point; they are not meant to sustain multiple readings. To be angry that a fairy tale gives you the point of the story is like being disappointed that a cow does not lay eggs.) Though we never see anything as direct as divine intervention take place, we may infer that the events of the film are driven forward by fate.
Furthermore, the structure of the events (not the film itself, which takes a more complicated narrative structure) fit well into the mold of a fairy tale. First, there is the humble, normal beginning. Our hero lives an average, everyday life and is consumed by normality. Of course, the Western viewer will have a hard time discerning this, since life in India is not our modus operandi. Not being an expert myself, I cannot comment on how accurate Boyle's depiction of life in the slums is, and frankly I think the point irrelevant. Jamal and his brother are shown doing the things that normal boys everywhere do. Then, suddenly, they are thrust out of that life by certain events. From this point on they embark on a fairy tale adventure. They must escape the clutches of a monster. They make their way by trickery. And, in the end, Jamal must set about seeking the freedom of his princess from the clutches of an evil man.
"Slumdog" also contains the single most significant earmark of a fairy tale, as identified by JRR Tolkien: it culminates, after many terrible things have happened to the hero, in a moment of eucatastrophe (literally, good catastrophe). There are smaller moments of eucatastrophe scattered through the film, but the big payoff at the end is nearly perfect. No, it is not in the moment of answering the final question on Millionaire, but the moment when Jamal calls his brother's cell phone and Latika, the love of his life, answers. That is the moment when everything bad is made right, and it is a thing of beauty.
I think that this is also part of what offends the critics, that a basic moral order is maintained by the story. Good is rewarded and evil punished. "But it never happens that way" is essentially a straw man argument against the film. Realism is not in view, but something which supersedes realism, the transformation of the mundane by the supernatural. This is what the best fairy tales do, and on that level "Slumdog" succeeds.
Now, I understand that some critics may not enjoy the fairy tale as a genre. In a later post I hope to defend the fairy tale from its critics, but for now I will let it slide as a difference of opinion. What is unacceptable is a critic approaching a film with no sense of genre. It would make no sense for me to negatively review "Chinatown" on the basis that there was no uplifting love story and very few laughs. Granted, nailing down "Slumdog"'s genre is a little more complicated than pegging Polanski's masterwork as a noir film, but recognition of genre must be something that a critic is able to do before he or she can accurately assess any film. That way, if a critic happens to not like fairy tales, he can give one negative marks while still acknowledging that the film succeeds or fails on its own level.
On a recent date, Leslie and I had the pleasure to see the film "Slumdog Millionaire", a film by the always reliable British filmmaker Danny Boyle (most famous for 28 Days Later -- which I haven't seen -- but known to me through the family film "Millions" and the sci-fi "Sunshine", both of which I heartily recommend). We both enjoyed it immensely, and apparently enough critics agreed with us that it has been nominated for numerous Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Imagine my dismay, then, when several critics I read regularly have nothing but disdain for the film. Far be it for me to defend the Academy, whose taste I often question (Gladiator, really?), but reading criticisms of the film, it struck me that most of them stemmed from a misunderstanding of what it is trying to accomplish, of what kind of story it tells.
The criticisms I am directly addressing are along the lines of "The story feels cheap, like it doesn't earn the emotions it wants to elicit. It isn't a realistic depiction of life in the slums." et al. These criticisms would perhaps be cogent if "Slumdog Millionaire" set out to be a gritty docudrama about living in the streets of Mumbai, scraping by from day to day. Then critics would have the right to be dismayed by the happy ending, by the bright colors and overwhelming joy found withing the frame of the film. In reality, these criticisms aren't just incorrect, they miss the mark entirely. "Slumdog" clearly sets out to tell a fairy tale, and to judge it by anything other than the standards of that genre is a miscarriage of justice.
Perhaps this thesis does not seem immediately obvious. Let me present some evidence in favor of it. First, some outside evidence. Danny Boyle clearly has a fascination with the supernatural and inexplicable. I can say this with assurance because his other films reveal it. "Sunshine" and especially "Millions" (and, presumably, "28 Days Later") both have elements of the ethereal and supernatural. "Millions", with its numerous interludes involving dead saints, brings this out most clearly. Boyle is a Catholic, and as such he is more likely to be drawn to the elements of fairy tales, elements shared by the story of Christ. (Side Note: referring to the Christian narrative as a "fairy tale" in no way implies that it is false; rather it refers to shared characteristics -- some of which we shall examine in our discussion of "Slumdog". Many people, myself included, look to the similarity as evidence in favor of the truth of the gospel. But that is another post.)
Very well, Danny Boyle might be the kind of filmmaker drawn to making a fairy tale. But does "Slumdog" itself bear the marks of a fairy tale? I would strenuously argue for the affirmative. First off, there is the presence of the supernatural in the story. Now, "Slumdog" does not have the intervening divines of "Millions", but the supernatural is present regardless. This is clear from the framing device of the story, which is a multiple choice question (a la "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire") which asks how a slumdog like the hero Jamal could be poised to win 20 million rupees on a difficult gameshow like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. The potential answers include "He is a genius" and "He cheated", but the final shot of the film is the same screen, with everything fading out except for "D. It is written". (Side note: Perhaps it is a device like this which enrages the critics. "We want ambiguity," they cry, "not to be hammered over the head with the point of the story." But fairy tales have a clear point; they are not meant to sustain multiple readings. To be angry that a fairy tale gives you the point of the story is like being disappointed that a cow does not lay eggs.) Though we never see anything as direct as divine intervention take place, we may infer that the events of the film are driven forward by fate.
Furthermore, the structure of the events (not the film itself, which takes a more complicated narrative structure) fit well into the mold of a fairy tale. First, there is the humble, normal beginning. Our hero lives an average, everyday life and is consumed by normality. Of course, the Western viewer will have a hard time discerning this, since life in India is not our modus operandi. Not being an expert myself, I cannot comment on how accurate Boyle's depiction of life in the slums is, and frankly I think the point irrelevant. Jamal and his brother are shown doing the things that normal boys everywhere do. Then, suddenly, they are thrust out of that life by certain events. From this point on they embark on a fairy tale adventure. They must escape the clutches of a monster. They make their way by trickery. And, in the end, Jamal must set about seeking the freedom of his princess from the clutches of an evil man.
"Slumdog" also contains the single most significant earmark of a fairy tale, as identified by JRR Tolkien: it culminates, after many terrible things have happened to the hero, in a moment of eucatastrophe (literally, good catastrophe). There are smaller moments of eucatastrophe scattered through the film, but the big payoff at the end is nearly perfect. No, it is not in the moment of answering the final question on Millionaire, but the moment when Jamal calls his brother's cell phone and Latika, the love of his life, answers. That is the moment when everything bad is made right, and it is a thing of beauty.
I think that this is also part of what offends the critics, that a basic moral order is maintained by the story. Good is rewarded and evil punished. "But it never happens that way" is essentially a straw man argument against the film. Realism is not in view, but something which supersedes realism, the transformation of the mundane by the supernatural. This is what the best fairy tales do, and on that level "Slumdog" succeeds.
Now, I understand that some critics may not enjoy the fairy tale as a genre. In a later post I hope to defend the fairy tale from its critics, but for now I will let it slide as a difference of opinion. What is unacceptable is a critic approaching a film with no sense of genre. It would make no sense for me to negatively review "Chinatown" on the basis that there was no uplifting love story and very few laughs. Granted, nailing down "Slumdog"'s genre is a little more complicated than pegging Polanski's masterwork as a noir film, but recognition of genre must be something that a critic is able to do before he or she can accurately assess any film. That way, if a critic happens to not like fairy tales, he can give one negative marks while still acknowledging that the film succeeds or fails on its own level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)