Friday, March 10, 2023

On The Road With Al And Ivy: A Literary Homeless Chronicle - March 2023


And every morning, perched on our stays, rows of these birds were seen; and spite of our hootings, for a long time obstinately clung to the hemp, as though they deemed our ship some drifting, uninhabited craft; a thing appointed to desolation, and therefore fit roosting-place for their homeless selves.

- Herman Melville (Moby Dick)

SOME THOUGHTS ON VAN LIFE AND NOMAD LIFE VIDEOS:

One of the topics on Tik Tok and other social media is "Van Life" and other nomad-type trips, and the contents range from helpful tips and observations to complete disconnects from reality that could only happen if the person was well financed or on a lark to become a social influencer. Many of these brief glimpses are about that kind of life when everything is going right or the kinds of obstacles that come up really are more like vacation hassles (that can seem more serious to a homeless person whose short on cash).

I won't do a formal essay; I'll just riff on the idea in general terms and not get too much into critiquing these videos and shorts. One reason is that van life is a diverse scene of which homelessness is only one subculture. That lifestyle is mainly in the recreation and travel category which really is another subject. There’s no reason to write a piece that surveys the whole scene. Plus for many of the homeless, watching a vehicle travelogue is as real as watching a Foodie cooking show or a demo of the perfectly equipped RV or Van. 

…new… 

The famous American author Jack London decided to live as a homeless person in London and write a book about it. As far as those kinds of investigations go, he probably came the closest to living that life as it was. Even so, he took the precaution of setting up a safe house, which he had to use when the effort to find shelter in bad weather failed. In other words, London had an "out." He could have  walked away at any time and, to his credit, was honest enough to state that in his book. 

The thing is, there is a huge psychological difference between being stuck there and knowing there's an out. One of my most powerful moments was realizing, "This could be my life from now on." When there's still some cash, and it's all very new, it can feel like an adventure or camping trip.

In my Vella books, On The Road With Al & Ivy: The Novel (all three), this realization will be examined in great detail. In Book 2, the character will see that he was at the same crossroad his Grandfather was at while in a concentration camp during W.W. 2; that a decision to face the present and live an unpleasant reality is the only way out of it, even if acceptance felt like surrender. In the case of the main character, that meant not neglecting the small steps that needed to be taken for survival and making he didn't hit bottom. 

The notion of “hitting bottom” is partly myth. I realized that, yes, short of death, it can always get worse. I was living in a car with my dog, but if my life descended lower into backpacking, I'd have lost Ivy and most of what I still owned. Maybe I mean that the "hitting bottom moment" is when you realize it's time to stop the slide, even if moving upwards isn't possible at first.



...time has come today...

One thing I don't see in many of the videos and shorts is the element of time and the related problems of fatigue or emotional distress that the homeless deal with. A little problem that a vacationer will deal with as an annoyance or bump in the road can feel like a disaster to people dealing with depression or mental illness.

For example, one person demonstrated an electrically heated sleeping bag and jacket, making it seem like a successful hack for sleeping in a vehicle in winter snow. As far as success, yeah, kinda, sorta, maybe...but sleeping in a vehicle even when it's only 30+ degrees is colder than you can imagine. A good sleeping bag helps, but even allowing for a heated bag or jacket, here's what can happen throughout a winter, which would be maybe two or three months, 60 to 90 days in a row.

1. Can't find a safe place to park that night. You don't dare get too comfortable.

2. Money's tight that day; you've had to choose between batteries for a heating device at today's prices, food, or gas. I'd pick batteries in a severe winter, then gas and food last. I go to bed hungry. 

3. Heating devices like these do fail. Do you have the cash to replace it that day, or is it a mail order item. Do you even have a mailbox? If not, do you know where the nearest shelter is, safe or not, as a place to retreat to? In warm weather, no big deal. We're talking about months of cold that can kill you in winter. These devices have to work every single day in weather where a few people die every year from exposure in cars if they get stranded.

4. A druggie gets pissed at you and puts a rock through one of your windows. I've seen that happen. If your insurance deductible is too high, you'll have to use precious cash to fix it ASAP in the snow. Until then, it’ll be a garbage bag or cardboard, and your car (and you) will be wet (and very cold) inside after cleaning up the mess.

Also, can you cover the motel bill if the car has to stay in the shop? 

5. Your car battery dies. No charge for a bag that uses 12V until you get a jump, run the car and waste valuable gas, and that's for a battery in good condition. If it's near it's "end of life" and doesn't hold charge well, I wouldn’t run a device off it.

The list could go on. Having lived through a few winters in the Midwest, if I had to live in a car, it'd be time to head South where snow would be the least of your problems. The margin of error when the temperature goes below zero is too tiny to try 60-90 days of it. No reputable survival expert would make it seem like a simple matter of some clever hacks.

...idiots...

There's one other element that these videos don't cover; we called them "idiots," or the party pooper or toxic types that always show up and ruin everything. A common phrase out there (in the areas I was in) was, "Things were fine until the idiots showed up."

I'll give an example from my Vella book. There was a parking lot that was known to be "quiet," and store management and police would turn a blind eye to the occasional overnight Camper if they didn't make trouble. It was a good backup when things got too rowdy in the primary place I was staying. One day a large party, called "The Caravan" in my novel, arrived and set up a large, sprawling camp right up against the side of a store. Around a dozen in vehicles slept there, and maybe another dozen came and went on bikes, many of whom were young drug runners. I'm sure you get the picture.

They caused so much trouble that the lot was closed to any homeless within a few days, and Private Security was hired to patrol and question anyone in the lot after dark. That group hit every place where the homeless stayed, and within a month, people like me had to head for another city. It wasn't just groups; it could be individuals who would show up and pull crazy stunts that the group there couldn't control and would force the cops to clear out the area. Unfortunately, nomadic life and homeless videos don't generally cover this subject for various reasons, some of those being common sense to avoid retaliation.

It's not just a homeless thing; most groups, bars, or events see this type of personality at some time or another. You may not hear about idiots in the videos, but they're there, and macho warrior ass-kicking or confronting them often doesn't work (just like in respectable life).

...getting back...

Getting back to the general subject of nomadic life, it was a way of life for most Native American tribes, migrants, settlers, hobos, and mountain men. In 2016, the homeless scene in the four main areas I inhabited wasn't just meth heads in tents pitched on the sidewalks. The scene encompassed a variety of types; RV, Van, campers, cars, to different subcultures of "backpackers" (homeless who lived out in the open, which included those who had their belongings in shopping carts).

I avoided tent cities and large camps. Those places are basically anarchies ridden with crime and often run by cliques. Plus, those can harbor bike chop shops and other illegal activities, bringing trouble.

...classes...

There were economic strata. Most of the RV'ers were retirees or had some regular income. Van, Camper, or car homeless generally had at least an irregular source of cash, and many had jobs in retail which wasn't enough to get a roof over your head in Silicon Valley. If anyone in a vehicle was a heavy drug user, it was only a matter of time before they dropped into the backpacker life.

The Backpackers were generally people hitting the end of the line, many having had a vehicle in the beginning. Some groups were ad-hoc gatherings of runaways or drug users, mainly young. If they didn't end up trafficked, they often moved on with other runaways heading north to the Pacific Northwest or south to Southern California, returned home, or entered the penal system.

Drug use wasn't a universal trip in every area. Many used it; many didn't. Those you see in homeless stories in the media are the ones who can't move away from a camera, and not all are stoned. If nobody else, at least the ones running bike chop shops in a tent city are generally straight. I went the full 13 months without taking a drink or using. It wasn't hard, because even at my lowest points, I could see what catastrophic damage meth could inflict and more to the point, it was apparent that walking around drunk or stoned was a hazardous thing to do out there.

... R.V...

Even RV'ers with fixed incomes didn't have it easy. The older vehicles could break down and be stuck for days. Some groups would have a guy who could fix the common problems, but one couple I knew had to sell theirs off and go back to living in a car when a breakdown was too expensive to fix. 

…Walmart…

As far as these Van Life videos, it reminds me of the time when the media did a stupid thing without regard for who it hurt. Not all, of course, but more than a few.

Several years ago, a story came out where Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas mentioned that he loved to travel by R.V. across the county and stay in Walmart Parking lots to save on motel bills. Countless media outlets eagerly passed on this tip, and soon afterward, cities began passing ordinances forbidding overnight camping in Walmart (and other) lots. 

This unofficial refuge had been an open secret among travelers and homeless who followed an unspoken and occasionally documented etiquette to only stay one night. Still, after the publicity, five thousand places to sleep overnight were essentially shut down, and overnight camping was criminalized in those places. Even in 2016, many businesses would try to turn a blind eye to the practice, but the now larger crowds included people who set up bbq grills, stayed until kicked out and dumped their sewage on the pavement as a screw-you to store management. Those are all things I saw out there.

...media attention...

Same with media stories on homeless camps. As a general rule, when we heard or saw such stories, that was the signal to avoid the area, as it was only a matter of time before the crackdown came. These Van Life, videos and media stories are going to happen. Tens of thousands of tents on L.A. streets can't be ignored by the media, and some good can come of social media shorts and news stories, but watching someone in a well-equipped van demonstrate hiding in a parking lot that forbids it doesn't teach much. It’s advice on how to break the law, and following it in the wrong place or time might be just a speed bump for a traveler, but for a homeless person, any legal trouble can seriously disrupt his or her life.

Many of those videos aren't in places I've been in where the vehicle could get jacked or broken into. There were at least two attempts to break into my car that I knew of, for example, in relatively safe areas.

...first hack...

The first hack I'd demonstrate if you want to live in a van for a year is how to make it look like such a piece of crap that no one would think it has anything valuable in it. The problem then would be that some might think you're a low-level dealer, and the cops would start paying attention, as would druggies who'd think you were carrying.

If you have the cash, the advice to camp in national parks is viable. However, in California, for example, most nice campsites with good facilities are nearly as expensive as motels. There was one that was very cheap but so dusty and hot that dirt bikers were mainly the ones who used it, and the descriptions of the place at night by other homeless scared me off.

...considering...

Don't just watch the videos if you want to consider Van Life. Also, get the scoop from those who tried it for a long period and either quit or will tell you the hard truth about the upside and downsides. I did 13 months out there. By the last month, I was at the end of my rope, though it might have been different if I'd ensured I was in an R.V. or Camper right from the start. However, I didn't want to stay on the road and decided never to invest in any more comfortable arrangement that could make me feel settled down. Nomadic life might be viable and worth a try, but if you do, be like Jack London and ensure there's an exit back to regular life. Otherwise, it can be a hard road back.



One final note: You may have noticed that I never give specific advice. Info from a video that's even just weeks old can be very wrong.

One good example is a short that showed a good way to park in lots that don't allow overnight camping. The problem no matter how clever the tips are, as a general rule, store management, and employees do know you're out there. Especially if others have taken similar advice and several vans and campers now are parked there with you. If an R.V. arrives to join in the fun, forget it, that's like a huge banner that will draw attention from management. Even if it doesn't stay, it'll be spotted and watched along with the other cars. 

Always assume that the influencer on video isn't the only one on that street or lot.

…camouflage…

The worst tip was immediately covering the windows to allow one to keep inside lights on and not be spotted. The idea was that it'd blend into the darkness. However, most lots are now well-lit as a safety measure, and a vehicle with covered windows will be seen and immediately flagged as a camper. Plus, for safety, you should park in lit areas and near cameras if possible, not in dark corners.

There's also a myopic view here. The influencer was focused on evading management and staff, which is wrong. Most staff aren’t obsessing about the homeless; they're busy running a business. Most of the time, you'll be flagged by a passerby or customer who'll bring it up to the manager or call the police.

Plus, if there's Security, they may not bother you but will note in their report they saw a probable homeless person in the lot, with description, time, and license plate number. Virtually all Security forces keep reports, and if there's an assault, car break-in, or robbery in that lot, the police will check those reports to see if any suspicious people were there. 

So you could end up a suspect or witness. Again, for a traveler passing through, not a huge deal. For a transient, there’s a reason why it could be a serious matter to be a witness. You can guess why.

In another place, like a hospital parking lot (which I’ve seen recommended), covering all of the windows is very dangerous as you'll lose situational awareness, as those places have a higher incidence of assault and rape due to nurses walking back to their cars at all hours. Security generally escort nurses out and will spot a covered vehicle. If you're male, you can become a suspect in the wrong place at the wrong time. If female, you'll be a convenient alternative for a rapist if no nurses are in the lot. That’s not just a scare story. I was in Security for six years when I was younger, and knew guys who worked at hospitals, and it’s a good idea to avoid using those lots to sleep in.

My point is, don't take these videos' tips and hacks at face value. Their success on camera could be sheer luck; believe me, areas where the homeless congregate can be wildly different in culture and level of safety, both of which can change instantly.

There's the old advice not to believe everything you see on the Internet. That's true for Van Life videos.



LOST IN TRANSLATION: WHY CLASSIC BOOKS CAN SEEM BORING


Suppose you published a book, and the readers demanded that it be rewritten to be more funny, sexy, or "authentic." Add to that if readers felt the work failed to capture the true flavor of the era or situation and referred people to a fan fiction version of your book that was supposedly better.


That would strike most authors as outrageous, right? However, that happens all the time with translated classics, though in a slightly different way.


I recall checking out the reviews for a particular classic and saw that people would claim that this or that translation was the best. For example, one person claimed that none of the versions was perfect, but the one by an Englishman did the best to capture the satiric intent. Another felt that a more modern edition was more readable and more faithful to the original author's intent. The book was Don Quixote by Miguel De Cervantes, and personally, I've never particularly liked the book. However, the version by Tobias Smollett came the closest to being likable (for me). One reason is that I enjoyed his original novels, which were hilarious if you liked 17th Century humor.


I also admit that my view is skewed from watching the Mister McGoo cartoon version as a child.


When perusing translations, it can feel like reading different books, particularly with the Iliad. Due to the difficulty in interpreting ancient Greek, a translator can create a non-literal interpretation due to elements like different grammatical rules or cultural bias. I could describe how the Iliad has been translated, but the best way to illustrate the point would be to show some examples. So I picked several versions and will show you how the different opening paragraphs of Homer's work look. These excerpts say the same thing but with varying approaches to interpreting the original Greek.


Iliad Translations (in no particular order):


"Achilles' wrath, to Greece the direful spring Of woes unnumber'd, heavenly goddess, sing! That wrath which hurl'd to Pluto's gloomy reign The souls of mighty chiefs untimely slain;


- Alexander Pope (1715 trans.)


"Of Peleus' son, Achilles, sing, O Muse, The vengeance, deep and deadly; whence to Greece Unnumbered ills arose; which many a soul Of mighty warriors to the viewless shades Untimely sent;


- Edward Earl of Derby (1864 trans.)


"Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans. Many a brave soul did it send hurrying down to Hades, and many a hero did it yield a prey to dogs and vultures,"


- Samuel Butler


"Sing, goddess, the anger of Peleus' son Achilleus and its devastation, which put pains thousandfold upon the Achaians, hurled in their multitudes to the house of Hades strong souls of heroes, but gave their bodies to be the delicate feasting of dogs, of all birds,"


- Richmond Lattimore (1951)


"Sing, Ο goddess, the destructive wrath of Achilles, son of Peleus, which brought countless woes upon the Greeks, and hurled many valiant souls of heroes down to Hades, and made themselves a prey to dogs and to all birds [but the will of Jove was being accomplished],"


- Theodore Alois Buckley (1873)


"Sing, MOUNTAIN GODDESS, sing through me That anger which most ruinously Inflamed Achilles, Peleus' son, And which, before the tale was done, Had glutted Hell with champions—bold, Stern spirits by the thousandfold; Ravens and dogs their corpses ate."


- Robert Graves (The Anger Of Achilles 1959)


"Alpha the prayer of Chryses sings: The army's plague: the strife of kings. Achilles' baneful wrath resound, O Goddess, that impos'd Infinite sorrows on the Greeks, and many brave souls los'd. From breasts heroic; sent them far to that invisible cave That no light comforts; and their limbs to dogs and vultures gave;"


- George Chapman (1598)


"Anger be now your song, immortal one,

Akhilleus' anger, doomed and ruinous,

that caused the Akhaians loss on bitter loss

and crowded brave souls into the undergloom,

leaving so many dead men—carrion

for dogs and birds;"


- Robert Fitzgerald (1974)


"AN ANGRY MAN—THERE IS MY STORY: THE BITTER RANCOUR of Achillês, prince of the house of Peleus, which brought a thousand troubles upon the Achaian host. Many a strong soul it sent down to Hadês, and left the heroes themselves a prey to dogs and carrion birds,"


- W.H.D. Rouse (1938)


"Rage-Goddess sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses, hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls, great fighters' souls, but made their bodies carrion, feasts for dogs and birds,"


- Robert Fagles (1990)


"I Thée beseech, O Goddesse milde, the hatefull hate to plaine,

Whereby Achilles was so wroong, and grewe in suche disdaine,

That thousandes of the Gréekish Dukes, in hard and heauie plight,

To Plutoes Courte did yéelde their soules, and gaping lay vpright,

Those sencelesse trunckes of burial voide, by them erst gaily borne,

By rauening curres, and carreine foules, in péeces to be torne.”


- Arthur Hall (1581)


 "Anger--sing, goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, that accursed anger, which brought the Greeks endless sufferings and sent the mighty sould of many warriors to Hades, leaving their bodies as carrion for the dogs and a feast for the birds;"


E.V. Rieu (1950)


As you can see, these excerpts say the same thing, but most writers can tell that most of these aren't literal translations but phrases that the translator felt expressed Homer's intent in modern English. Those who aren't used to reading classics might even think these guys are writing a new story but making sure the essential plot points are covered, which is probably true.


For example, Pope's version isn't literal, but he intended to change Homer's verses into modern poetry (for his era). Rieu intended to create a prose version as he felt it'd be more accessible to readers. Graves wanted to capture what he felt was the way the story was told back then, which was as a satire. Some of the writers reinterpreted an earlier translation, and so on.


Generally, if I find that a particular classic seems dry or (gasp) boring, my first step is to see if another translation is available. Many classics that started as non-English literature are only as good as the translator, and that can mean that one is looking for one that pleases you just as much as being true to the original author's work.


I had that problem with the Odyssey or the Tale Of Ullyses as some know it, in finding the various versions a bit dry or dull. Many people prefer it to the Iliad as the complex story appeals to modern readers. It might have struck a different chord if the story was more like Graves' assertion that the translations are bowdlerized from earlier, very rowdy folk versions.


It's plausible that the Odyssey was originally a ribald tale like Chaucer's work. Most people know "1001 The Arabian Nights" as a collection of fairy tales, but the translation by Sir Richard Burton (the explorer, not the actor) is a saucy, erotic version that makes more sense if the woman was telling the stories to distract the King who married women and executed them the next morning. Burton's bacchanalia, or romantic Hollywood love story, is technically a translation, and a reader can pick one or both.


One thing that can make a classic seem dull is if you see a movie version first. The stories in older literature often unfold at a slower pace, and films often stress action, insert values from a different culture, focus on stars, or do not even bother with being faithful to the book. For example, the movie "Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire" (and "Gladiator" which had similar plot elements and characters) is only vaguely similar to the book, which was a non-fiction history book by Edward Gibbon, whose interpretation of events was in turn considered inaccurate by some critics.


One interesting situation is where the book and movie are different but excellent. "Ben Hur" by Lew Wallace is a good example. The movie version starring Charlton Heston is considered a classic, but most who've read the book find Wallace an excellent storyteller. I say "most" because there'll always be someone who won't like it.


One classic example of the book and movie having a different interpretation is "Last Of The Mohicans" by James Fenimore Cooper. The film was a hit, and I remember one review that claimed that it modernized and breathed new life into a "hoary old book." 


As someone who loves the book so much that I've always kept a copy in my library, there are a few problems with that critic's statement:


1. The real Pathfinder was an older man who had an atavistic, almost pagan view of Christianity and had constant debates with a young preacher who wasn't in the movie. Those debates were unusually philosophical for the era. The older man was a crack shot and an experienced frontiersman who was eccentrically philosophical and entertainingly feral. He was a fascinating character.


2. The two Mohicans were, in many ways, the real heroes of the book. The father was extremely smart and proficient in hand-to-hand combat, and his son, Uncas, was dynamic and heroic. His death was a significant event. The Pathfinder character in the movie was a combination of the three, particularly Uncas, and the two Native Americans were transformed into stock sidekicks like Tonto of the Lone Ranger TV show. Add a little horniness and Braveheart-like macho, and you have the movie version in a nutshell.


3. The book was also about Mohican culture's extinction, represented by Uncas' death. Cooper did fall into the trap of having good and bad Indians, which corresponded to which tribes were allied with the British or Americans. Still, many book scenes featuring detailed conversations with or within the tribes were left out. It was very much a book about Native Americans.


Of course, that's my opinion. You might feel differently about the book and movie. However, the difference in interpretation between the movie and book examples isn't unlike the process of translation of classics. The English version can result from many factors, including the translator's command of the foreign language, what they think is the author's intent, any bias (like inserting a Christian view), how literal it should be, and the agenda.


The agenda is an essential factor. For example, the book and movie about "Spartacus," the Gladiator who led a rebellion against Rome, portrays him as a sensitive, monogamous Freedom Fighter who fought against the tyranny of Rome. The intent was to create a good versus evil tale. But, like most ancient wars, the real battle was probably brutal, as Spartacus must have understood what would happen if he lost. 


My point is that's how Spartacus was portrayed in the 60s. I'm sure the tale was told differently in that era. If one sees how the perception of Native Americans evolved from barbarians to human beings, the different attitudes in each stage would be a bias that could affect the translation of any tribal stories or philosophies.


So, if that classic book you're reading seems a little dull, it may not be the original author's fault. But, on the other hand, don't get me started on Balzac or Tolstoy; I'm not sure any translation will make me want to read those books. Sometimes, you're just not going to like the author.




ON THE ROAD WITH AL & IVY: THE NOVEL


Reprint of Episode 2: Police Manhunt And A Visit From A God


Eleven-Thirty Saturday Night

Your face presses down on dirty wood,

dodging hot lead skimming over the dance floor

very sudden like,

A lead slug can show you quick

if the preacher's right on questions

you don't want answered right now,

One scared young dude

caught in bad company

in a juke joint full of souls running drunk.

- Manuscript Excerpt from Jook (June 1986)

Gleemon Street is lit up like grand opening night at a used car lot. The levee fence looks like an eerie grey screen with a black curtain behind it. No flood light can pierce the darkness behind it.

Another patrol car skids to a stop at the edge of the grass area surrounding the entrance. The cop is there to close it off as an escape route.

There are only two ways to go. If you're camped out on the West Bank of the Slough, then there's a dirt road heading west towards the orchards that run along the bank further down. If you're on the east bank side next to the fence, it's foolish to try and go down a 20-foot slope to cross the creek bed in the dark, so you head south and cut right at the fork towards the water pump station next to Highway 152 a half mile away.

You can hop the fence into a large cabbage field that borders the next shopping center, but the cops know this and already have a car stationed there. There's no point in coming back out. If you stay in the dark, you can move faster than the police can search.

My night vision returns along with a regular pulse; it wasn't me they were looking for. There are over a dozen police cars now. Some are in the adjacent parking lot with officers on foot searching with shotguns. Others are about a hundred yards off near the access gate, sealing off the main levee road entrance. I see flashlight beams moving south into the Slough, some stopping as they begin to come across the camps.

It's a manhunt, probably another armed robbery downtown. The police will try to herd the fugitive back into the parking lots or farm fields further south. Leaving isn't a bright idea. There'd just be more cops and lights in my face, each one having to decide whether to search me or shoot. If they're looking for a suspect on foot, then I'm safer parked between two police cars than driving off and possibly running into an armed dude who needs an escape vehicle.

The search continues for half an hour. Finally, I decide it's a good time to move into the North parking lot of the store but see that several other homeless have already done so. Too many, including one I suspect is a dealer, so I head over to the other side and patiently wait out the cop there that puts me under surveillance.

There's no point in moving about; I'll keep running into police screens. The best thing to do is just act like the homeless person I am, so the window shades go up, and sure enough, that's routine looking enough to satisfy the cop, who then drives off. Only a homeless person would sack out in the middle of a dragnet.

I can't stay here. This lot section is a transit route for the druggies who come out to begin the early morning ice or ecstasy ritual of whooping and hollering, throwing off clothes, and getting into arguments with truckers and third-shift store employees out collecting carts.

As I begin to leave, a tall young-looking homeless guy comes through a break in the fence line, known around here as the south gate, walking towards me and mouthing some nonsensical words. I don't stare or do anything that could be interpreted as aggression.

The angry ones are easy to avoid, you can hear them coming, and they're already pissed off at something else. The ones that just stare and smile scare me; they're still looking for trouble. I watch as he saunters away, taking off his shirt, throwing it on a small tree, and singing some song at the top of his lungs. Molly's got his blood boiling, and he'll keep stripping until the cops pick him up.

I return to Gleemon Street and see that the squad cars are gone, so I park in the same place. I don't have a better plan anyway. Besides, after all the excitement, the area should be quiet.

I look over and see that Ivy has fallen asleep, which means no trouble. She stays wired if there's any disturbance within fifty yards. This isn't a good night to stretch out in a sleeping bag, so I curl up in the front seat and stare at the old cloth canopy starting to come down like a big brown bubble.

After a few months in the car, I've begun to hear voices, like a conference call with God, Ivy, and others speaking in and out of turn. I don't get disturbed hearing them, I've talked to myself often enough to know which one is me, but God help me the day I can no longer tell. There are a lot of people like that out there on the levee.

I carelessly open a window to let in cool air. A tall, muscular bald guy, kinda biker-like, suddenly comes to view in front, stands off about ten feet, then shows his hands and hails me, "Hello Car," in the old Wild West Style of approaching a strange camp, begins to approach slowly. That's how a stranger tells another on the street that they mean no harm. If it was an attack, it'd have come suddenly from behind.

I silently curse; it's a rookie mistake to open a window without checking, but suddenly closing it could be seen as a sign of fear or panic. You never know how a stranger will react to that. I act nonchalant, which is a safe move as it won't trigger any defensive reaction. He's probably scared, too. Even the big bulls can get humbled right quick out here. I smile and greet him with the casual air of a fellow street urchin but don't show my hands. It's better to leave a little doubt, and that makes him hesitate and stop a few feet away.

It's just a meth head still in high gear, and now comes a ten-minute speech about how harmless he is, which is good to hear from someone who looks strong enough to twist my head off. He continues with a long monologue punctuated with broad sweeping hand gestures and, at one point, pretending to run somewhere. It sounds like he's having a good night; the verbal riffing moves along like a rock and roll anthem with a great guitar solo in the middle.

I lay back in the seat, right hand discreetly covering a metal bar and pepper spray, listening to Ivy's snoring, and gazing at the stars as he drones on and on. It's stupid to use a knife out here. If I bruise his head or hands with the baton, that's the end of it. He probably wouldn't even remember how he got it. A stab wound gets reported, and we both end up in jail.

The meth must be nice and soft because he's soaring, feeling like a benevolent God, and tonight we're under his protection. The monologue slows down, and I sense it's safe to pretend to yawn and close the window. He nods and moves on, still talking, and the night becomes quiet.

I'm drifting off, beginning to dream, regret, blame, and wish for things. I'm exhausted but prepared to drive off if I see the guy coming back. He'd be coming from the rear this time and had a good look at the car and its contents. I only average three hours of sleep a night, so staying vigilant's a struggle. Sometime during that process, sleep comes, and then it's just the dreams.

This one dream comes often enough that I remember it after waking. I'm on a stage, playing music, and there's no audience, just blackness. The band members vary over time; sometimes, friends or family, strangers, the faces change. Other times I can see an audience, but I'm alone, playing this acoustic guitar with my ear pressed to the sound hole, listening to the echo. Lately, it's been with past friends with a packed audience, all in a happy mood, but I'm standing there, indifferent to it all, and there's just silence. Finally, I walk off the stage and then wake up, and for the rest of the day, the music that usually runs through my head is absent, with no desire to hear any.

A few months ago, a night like this would have made me look elsewhere for a place to sleep, but now, in the sticky hot summer of 2016, I know that this is as good a place as any, and settle down for a stay that'll last until this seam closes and it's time to scatter with the other homeless to find another crack in the wall.

END OF EPISODE

Read Episode 3


UPDATE ON ON THE ROAD WITH AL & IVY: THE ANTHOLOGY VOL. 1 (2016-2018)


I’ll be pulling this ebook off Kindle Unlimited sometime this month and will resume free distribution on other sites. The main reason, besides shifting the focus to wider readership is that this Anthology will come out as a revised version sometime this year. I’ve obtained most of the social media posts from this period and will insert edited versions into the book in chronological order. This adds the day to day observations and activities which will add continuity and many of the blog entries will make more sense in context. Also, I’ll add new commentary to make this volume feel like a chronological account of the period. Until then, it makes sense to make this version free to increase interest in the new edition.








BE SURE TO CHECK OUT THE DELTA SNAKE REVIEW ON THIS SAME SITE




Here's info on each of my Vella books:




The Quitters


https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B09PC3L6PC



I, Ivy


 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0B3RCBT4D



The Forbidden Lost Gospels Of Murgatroyde


 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0BJ2TW4P1



The Boogie Underground Think Tank: How To Survive The End Of Civilization


 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0BG6LNXTG


The Adventures Of Queen Khleopahtra: Ruler Of Egypt, Time Traveler, and Literary Detective


 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0BJC122G7


Please check out and listen to my music on Spotify, YouTube, Apple Music and other music sites. Please add any cuts you like to your playlists!






Wednesday, January 18, 2023

The Delta Snake Review: A Music And Arts Blog



Al Handa 

deltasnake@yahoo.com



CONTENTS:

From The Archive: If Music Reviews Are Purely Opinion, Do People Take Reviews Seriously? 
(Plus An Informal History Of Music Reviews)
(Originally published June 14, 2014, and revised Jan. 19, 2023)

GUITAR REVIEW: EPIPHONE LES PAUL SL MELODY MAKER

AN ANECDOTAL HISTORY OF CHEAP CHIC GUITARS

FROM THE ARCHIVE: REMASTERED RECORDINGS IN THE DIGITAL WORLD (2015)

Special Preview: Excerpt from Jook by Al Handa (Due August 2023)

From The Archive: 1996 Review Of Television’s Marquee Moon Album (revised 2023)

SPECIAL PREVIEW: Episode 3 of The Quitters on Kindle Vella



From The Archive: If Music Reviews Are Purely Opinion, Do People Take Reviews Seriously? 
(Plus An Informal History Of Music Reviews)
(Originally published June 14, 2014, and revised Jan. 19, 2023)

The answer to the above question is yes, no, maybe, and who cares.

For a new artist who has a new release out, it can be a matter of life or death to have that release reviewed. Not because an aspiring star wants a good review, though they and their label would prefer that, but that the release is mentioned at all.

People can't buy what they don't know is out there.

So as simple as it seems, that's the primary purpose of a review. It lets the buying public know this particular release is available. It's part of the buzz. Of course, the record label knows that when the consumer sees that a new release is out, they first think, is it worth my money?

Notice that I didn't say how good it is.

Most people don't really care what a critic thinks, and the problem with many critics is that they believe their job is to tell the public how good the music is.

…the blues…

I'll use the blue genre as my primary example of why the latter type of critic is useless. As the former editor and publisher of the Delta Snake Blues, the reason is that when someone sent me a letter agreeing or disagreeing with my review, it was apparent they had often already bought the record.

I started the newsletter for the same reason many create music newsletters; I was an avid fan of the music, was a serious record collector, and wanted free records. To get those, I had to be a reviewer.

When I started the newsletter in the early 80s, there weren't that many blues publications, so the blues labels gave me excellent support. They bought advertising and sent me plenty of records. So many that I eventually had to form a reviewing staff and farm them out.

One of the first things I noticed is everybody reviews records differently.

…the model…

I tended to follow a model. That is to say; there was a formula. First, you wrote a paragraph or two about the group, then briefly described their earlier recordings if they had any, then went on to explain the reviewed record and how it differed from the others or if it was similar. Then, finally, there was a section where you described whether you liked the record, but you always tried to make sure to describe the record in the context of the group's history or discography.

There are good reasons for this type of review besides making it easier for a reviewer (me) who was still learning to write. The most important reason is that the consumer could tell you weren't an industry shill who had simply reworded the press release.

Using press releases and pre-written reviews was pretty standard in early teen magazines in the 60s and 70s and made a significant comeback on the Internet. If you Google a product and read the various statements, you'll find that many of the reviews are similar, and in some cases, the writer didn't bother to change the wording of the press release.

Nice press photos accompanied many of the records and CDs that came in, and a sheet of review excerpts by others, saying such things as "his finest work in many years" or "songs that will become classic," and so on.

…nice turn of phrase…

If the review had a really nice phrase, the label or publicist would ask you if they could use it. Some of my reviews are still up on the Internet because they were positive, which is a very acceptable practice. Still, critics often would write reviews with the intent of being quotable and worthy of inclusion in the press release.

The reason was simple; critics like being famous like everybody else. They want their opinion to be respected, and America is one country with a public that's absolutely addicted to "expert" opinion.

When I began farming out the CDs, I found people reviewed releases differently. Some people flat-out told me they didn't want to write a negative review and only "emphasize the positive." Which can ignore faults a consumer would notice, like a lousy stereo mix, out-of-tune instruments, or singer that's tone deaf.

Others would want to make a mark, so they often would go heavily negative, while others read the liner notes on the back of the LP cover and sort of wrote their version of it. There were a dozen other variations of that, but it sufficed to say when I read some of the reviews as an editor, it became apparent that some were not useful to the consumer.

…wild and woolly…

The 70s were a wild and woolly time for rock record reviewers, who sometimes became caustic and flat-out insulting to many of the 60s legends. The backlash was inevitable if one knows the history of early rock critics.

In the 60s, rock journalists and writers were often very close to artists, even to the point of being friends. The artist felt that they were people who understood the new music called rock, and this affinity shows in the reviews that came out during this period.

This relationship had already begun to change by the next decade. Artists had become big stars, and the industry had become major corporations. As a result, the traditionally adversarial relationship between artists and the press had crept back in, and the scathing reviews that were part of the classical music landscape became more common in rock. 

It's swayed back and forth over the years, and one current popular review format, listing an artist's recordings from worst to best, offers the best of both worlds. One can take the gloves off on some and call others the direct word from God. Of course, that doesn't prevent readers from questioning the critic's taste or sanity, so everybody wins.

Keep in mind that what I've said is an overview, skips many subtle points, and is my own view of the evolution of 60s-70s rock criticism. 



…back on point…

Anyway, getting back to the essay, the reviewer has to be aware that they're writing for a market. If it's a review of a blues record, it's not really about evangelizing and getting people to like the blues. It's mostly going to be read by someone who is already into that music. What the listener wants to know; is it worth spending money on, what context, and "what it sounds" like? In other words, is it Chicago-style blues, folk blues, rock-influenced blues, and so on?

The reason is most of the people who buy any music will be fans, either of the group or the genre. They don't necessarily want to know whether it's good, but what it sounds like and if the group is competent. Musicianship does count. Also, does it sound like the group's last record, or have they changed direction?

Details like audio quality weren't as important in the blues, as many of us blues fans still love the reissues of the old 78s and are used to scratch noises and low-fi sound. The subject of a separate article is easily the question of whether sound quality matters (or what's good enough). There are some observations about that in the essay about remastering in this blog.

When I say the consumer's interested in what the record sounds like, it means that the fan wants to be sure it's a blues record and not music done by a rock band that decided to do blues, or if some group is calling it a blues record when it isn't. The latter happened a lot in the 80s.

…personal Q&A…

In other words, the type of review the consumer appreciates most is similar to a QA inspection report.

For starters, is the record what it the artist and publicist say it is?

Which makes sense. For example, as a teen, I was a fanatic Hot Tuna fan. I was aware that many people didn't like the group or didn't understand their fusion of country blues and psychedelia. If a reviewer thought the new album was lousy, I'd have bought it anyway. I could find myself agreeing with the critic later on if disappointed with that record, but it wasn't going to stop me from buying it. 

Plus, with any good artist, every record generally has some good stuff.

…two insights…

There are two insightful observations about reviews that two very different rock artists made.

Todd Rundgren once said that young reviewers should review new rock records. The reason is that rock 'n roll is a basic sensibility expressed differently by each generation. The youth hear an exciting new sound and energy, but the older reviewer has heard it before and tends to be cynical and critical.

I always had to guard against that when reviewing a blues record. I was familiar with blues records all way back to the 20s, so some group in the 80s doing the three thousandth version of Dust My Broom could easily be dismissed as boring or unoriginal. I had to try to listen to it with a set of "new ears," so to speak, and see that sense of discovery in the music.

Frank Zappa had the other incisive comment, which is also true, especially for genre music. He said that people often picked music as part of a range of choices that made up a lifestyle.

So if someone was really into being out of the mainstream, they made sure that their fashion sense was very different and picked music that fit their lifestyle. It didn't matter if the music was good or not. A good example is hard-core punk. That meant ratty ripped-up clothes and being into the correct type of superfast and dissonant music.

That whole concept wasn't just Frank Zappa being cynical. I was in a punk band in 1977, and what Frank said was right on target. 

…same for the blues…

Same with the blues. Particularly in the 70s and early 80s, the younger bands worked very hard to be good at the genre instead of changing or revolutionizing it. That's nothing to criticize; it was just how you wanted to play the blues. 

Though I will say that during that period, the predominant sound among the younger bands in my area was West Coast-style blues, with elements of swing, which was sometimes a turn-off to those who liked Chicago blues, so it was important in any review to identify the style of blues.

Also, the audience has various motives for wanting to hear the music or buy it. That's why every review draws both praise and criticism. Many fans can see it either as validation or criticism of their taste. So whether or not it's a bad record, unfortunately, tends to come out after purchase.

I thought my review style was good because it gave readers an idea of where the group was heading or was a warning that the group had changed its sound. 

It gave a prospective buyer a clear idea of where the music was coming from, what it sounded like, and if there was a historical context. Making sure that the review included many contexts made it informative, so at a minimum, it was entertaining to read.

If the reader enjoyed the review and found it informative, that's as far as I could take it. Even if the verdict was good or bad, I knew in most people's minds that it was something they were going to decide, not me. 

People do like to hear from other human beings what they think about something. The main thing to remember is that it's like any advice offered to a friend or stranger. That is to say; no one likes to hear a lecture

…in the digital age…

In the digital age, it's almost unnecessary to have critics. You can hear a song on iTunes and Spotify, and there's no better critic than you regarding what to spend your money on. Even if there have been cases when the critics have been right, that's a true statement. The consumer is still the best critic.

One of the most famous examples is when the Stones released Exile On Main Street in 1972. It was widely panned and hated by many critics. I still remember the very lukewarm review that Rolling Stone magazine ran.

The public disagreed, and several of the cuts became hits (or at least FM hits). So now, the general consensus is that it's probably the Stone's finest work, but the record simply was what it was; it's just that the critics didn't like it at first, and now they do. So that example tells you what a record review can or cannot be in a nutshell.

The critic was part of a system that no longer exists, which gave out only the amount of information necessary to get people to buy a record. They had to buy it to hear it all. In the digital age, there's no point in telling consumers if the song is good or bad. The digital age has brought back the old listening booth concept, where a person could hear music before buying it. 

But then, you might hear the cut and want a second opinion. In which case, this critic stands ready to help.

- Al Handa 
  January 2023




GUITAR REVIEW: EPIPHONE LES PAUL SL MELODY MAKER

The Les Paul Melody Maker has been around since the 50s and has traditionally been a student economy model, whether Gibson manufactured it (or later on by (Epiphone).

In its early configuration, the Melody Maker generally had a single P90 (or Humbucker later on) in the bridge position. As a result, the double pickup models were called Les Paul Juniors or other names.

The various models are well documented on the Internet and are interesting reading for those who wish to learn more about the Melody Maker.

However, it's worth noting that in the 60s and 70s, the original Gibson versions became famous because of artists like Leslie West of Mountain and Mick Ralphs of Bad Company, among others, who used one for recording and live performance.

The notoriety predictably put the guitar's price into expensive collector territory (with the inevitable hosanna-type praise for its miraculous vintage tone).

Fender had two student models, the Mustang and its hard-tail variant, the Duo-Sonic. The latter gained fame from its use by Patti Smith and others in the early Punk era, and the price of those went up, but in the original configuration, it remains a higher-priced model in the Squier economy line.

…credit where credit is due…

One has to give Epiphone and its parent company, Gibson, credit; they've kept the original style Melody Maker among the cheapest in the market and competitive with the multitude of cheap guitars coming out of China. 

That makes it an instrument that draws passionate raves or condemnation, and it's best to evaluate it like an Olympic gymnastics judge and throw out the highest and lowest scores. That gives a prospective buyer a reasonable middle ground of information.

I recently purchased this guitar because my current collection is all acoustic (for various reasons), but wanted an electric for fun and possible use for recording, and it had to be as cheap as possible.

I looked into the various guitars in the two-hundred price range. I saw a lot of nice models starting from about a hundred, which were Chinese copies of traditional designs which mainly enjoyed rave reviews on YouTube (which is the best place to hear how a particular axe sounds).

The problem with print and video reviews on guitar sites is that those are all too often just material taken from press releases or, in the case of YouTube, paid infomercials that many channels are eager to do for a price. Some YT reviewers have publicly alluded to the practice, but as a rule, it has stayed a dirty little secret.

I view YouTube reviews as a great way to hear how a particular guitar sounds and ignore the recommendations. In the case of electrics, it's valuable to listen to those demonstrated through the players' various types of amps and skill levels. 

…YouTube videos…

A pro can make any guitar sound great, but videos by amateurs are a better glimpse into how it might sound when you're playing it (and, of course, we assume that great things will come from your efforts).

So, the perfect choice was cheap, very cheap if possible. That meant since the construction and materials were going to be basic, it had to have an outstanding cool factor and low-cost mojo.

In the 70s, that meant finding a used guitar like the Fender Duo-Sonic (or a less desirable model like a Jazzmaster) or failures like the various Gibson models that attempted to be Fender-like or cheaper versions of the Les Paul (early specials, etc.).

That's not an option in 2023. Every model from that era is now a collector item out of my desired price range.

The main problem with the various one hundred dollar copies of classic guitars, besides the sound, was that I  do have a bit of snob in me, so a cheap copy of a Telecaster or Strat isn't appealing to someone who's played the real thing since the early 70s.

…two choices…

That left the Melody Maker or Mustang/Duo-Sonic, but the latter is a premium item even in the Squier line. There is a Mustang in the same price range as the Melody Maker, but it's a modernized version with Humbuckers that look and sound good but lose too much in translation in the eyes of an old geezer who remembers the good old days of Fender cheapies. An excellent choice for a modern player, though, and it was a close second choice.

This particular Melody caught my eye because it looks like the original but with a paint job and specs that would look good for a higher-range Fender Squier.

The tie-breaker was the maple neck and alder body with classic Melody Maker styling. The single tone and volume knobs would be familiar to any Tele player, and having controls for each pickup is a matter of taste.

The classic sunburst with P-90 pickups is available in this model line for those who like the vintage look. In my case, I've always preferred the single-color automobile look (aka Fender) and more traditional single coils. Those who love the P90 sound will like this one.

Also, the alder and maple model was part of the starter kit version. The material can be poplar or other woods when sold by itself.

Interestingly, this model has a neck scale similar to a Tele or Strat but slightly wider like a Les Paul. In other words, it's a full-size neck, making it slightly "neck heavy," though it doesn't dive for the floor like a Gibson SG. 

The best place to get this model is from a store where it can be played or from a site that states that it's been set up and has a good return policy. Mine came directly from Epiphone, which frankly isn't as reliable. The guitar could have been sitting in the warehouse for a while and needed adjustment and fretwork. 

I can do those things due to experience, but a beginner may not be able to or have a friend who can. 

…spend more…

I also decided to spend a little more and get the starter pack. My tuners (except my old school Korg from the 90s) had corroded, which modern clip tuners can do, and it saved me the trouble of getting accessories like a gig bag separately at more cost. The little amp is cute and OK for what it is.

The main reason I like Epiphones is that their guitars have nice playing necks, are constructed with good materials, and have excellent cosmetics. Electronics were sometimes mediocre in the past, but these days that's not the case.

The main thing is among the large pack of cheap guitars available these days, the brand name does mean something, and I had a good idea of what I was getting with this brand in a mail-order item.

It did need setup, but otherwise, it's highly playable, and through my small Fender amp, which was the only electric equipment still in my gear collection, it does sound a bit like a Strat.

The front pickup has a middle-position Strat sound, and the bridge is kinda Tele-like, but the Epi single coils are brighter and have a pleasant chime. That works well for future projects in an 80s New Wave bag. If I needed a purer Fender sound, then a Squier Tele or Strat could have been had for a little more money.

That's the guitar voice I'm getting, and yours will probably be different depending on the amp, pedal, or playing style. 

…further investigation…

This Melody Maker seems to have a wide range of sounds, judging from what I heard in the numerous YouTube videos, and checking those out is recommended for those interested in buying this model. Listen to it demonstrated by pros and beginners, so you hear what it'll sound like at first and what's possible with dedicated practice.

Though the experts will say that guitars like this are just a stepping stone to better models, in my essay after this review, I make the point that if you can't make pro-level sounds on a beginner guitar, then a more expensive guitar probably won't help.

In my case, it's a perfect part of a collection. In your case, it's the start of a journey and more than good enough to produce the music you hear in your head; after that, it's talent and practice.

...and I should note the ones who become pros tend to be the ones who put in the time and work hard at it. In other words, it's all in your hands, not how much the guitar costs.

Note: I rarely list specs as those are widely available in more detail online, but this a good idea here as this line has been around for decades, and the materials used can vary.

I've included a pic of the starter pack, and you can see my guitar in the ads here for my Vella book, The Quitters.

Specs:

Brand: Epiphone
Model:  Les Paul SL Melody Maker (dual single-coil config.) 
Color: Turquoise (other colors avail.)
Body Material: Alder
Neck Material: Maple
Fretboard Material Type: Granadillo
Guitar Pickup Configuration: Open coil 650SCR single-coil pickup (neck) and 700SCR single-coil pickup (bridge)
Hand Orientation: Right
Guitar Bridge System: Adjustable, intonated wrap-around "Stop Bar Combo" bridge
Controls: Single master volume and tone knobs.



AN ANECDOTAL HISTORY OF CHEAP CHIC GUITARS

The music media generally emphasizes the importance of owning premium guitars to give a player the best possible chance of success (aka make lots of cash). The only factor more important is God or Lady Luck, and in the music business, it's a good idea to have plenty of both.

It's not surprising that many icons and legends of music swear by hallowed brands such as Gibson, Fender, PRS, and others. They're paid well to do so and are effective evangelists for the Church of Premium Gear and compare well to TV Evangelists wearing thousands of dollars of gold jewelry and clothes to show that faith is well rewarded.

When people who complain about gas prices see how much a CNC-carved piece of wood with some electronics can cost, it can send them right back to Jesus to thank him for the fabulous bounty at the pumps.

The Cheap Chic trend in guitar collecting is said to have been an outgrowth of the escalation in the price for vintage name brands and legendary (but defunct) models, which is true when it is and not when it's not. The reality is that cheap guitars have always been popular, and an old Harmony guitar now worth over a grand didn't necessarily get that way because the buyer couldn't afford 50,000 for a vintage Gibson. It, more often than not, was due to a celebrity musician using it on a recording or live.

For example, Jimmy Page used an old Supro practice amp for the first Led Zeppelin album, turning that model into a collector's item. He also used an old Harmony Monterrey acoustic to play the opening for Stairway To Heaven, which also moved that pretty good economy guitar into a higher price bracket.

On the other hand, you can still get old Maybelle brand banjos pretty cheap because no one famous has played one (in recent times, that is). For example, my instrumental "It Never Rains On My Banjo," which is on YouTube, Spotify and etc., was recorded on one that only cost me 250.00 at the time. That may seem like a lot, but some vintage Gibson banjo can go for over ten grand or more.

…prevailing wisdom…

The prevailing wisdom is that one learns on beginner guitars and moves up to pro-level gear when it's time to get serious, but frankly, most players won't get that chance unless they can get pro-level sounds out of what experts say is a cheap piece of crap.

A name-brand guitar can help players reach the dizzying heights of stardom or keep them the equivalent of house poor and living on an allowance from a girlfriend. 

We at The Delta Snake Review feel their pain in the latter case.

The fact is that a lot of famous music was performed using cheap guitars, notably in blues, folk, punk, and jug band music. I'll refer readers to Google for a comprehensive list but will give examples here and there. However, one good example is the harmonica, a relatively cheap instrument (less so now, thanks to American ingenuity) that's still a significant voice in the Blues.

In the 1920s, the inexpensive "Catalog Guitar" which Sears sold and other mail-order companies moved rural musicians away from banjos and fiddles to the guitar, which at first had more of an effect on the history of recorded music than on live concerts.

The problem was that compared to a banjo or violin, the early guitars weren't very loud and were mainly popular in intimate settings like parlors or Adhoc bars like "Jook joints."

Jazz bands or orchestras played the mainstream music at the time, and until guitar makers developed louder models like the "Archtop" or in the case of Country or Hawaiian music, "resonator" types, the guitar generally remained a solo or small ensemble instrument.

What the guitar did do well was allow a solo artist or small group to play harmonically richer music and the instrument recorded well on 20s technology. 

…the  Blues…

Possibly the most famous group of early guitar players were what were later called blues artists (that term at the time referred to a type of scale or sound that most popular bands played as part of a wider repertoire). These bluesmen (I'll use the term as it's the standard label now) created a body of music that may not have been the sole origin of rock and roll, but they, indeed, were the archetype in terms of image.

Those originals played music considered so raunchy that mainstream churches condemned them and claimed they played "Devil's Music." This ostracism was so severe that Robert Johnson's famous "Hellhound On My Trail" isn't a celebration of rebellion but the haunted feelings of a man who was aware that the mainstream considered him a man doomed to Hell. 

These early musicians lived the part; they drank (most of the blind ones got that way from drinking cheap moonshine distilled using copper pipes that made the stuff poisonous), fought, talked and sang dirty lyrics, caroused, broke the law, and in short, actually lived the life that most modern rockers claim to have lived (trashing luxury hotel rooms doesn't count).

But that's a different subject; the burning question for guitar gearheads is, what guitars did they play?

Well, they all played whatever they could afford. It wasn't Gibson's because that company started building mandolins, and when they started making guitars, it was archtops mainly used in jazz bands.

It wasn't Fender because they didn't start making guitars until the 50s.

…honor roll…

The honor roll of cheap guitars includes models like Silvertone, Regal, Washburn, Stella, and Harmony. The legendary Leadbelly used a Stella twelve string, and as said earlier, the acoustic guitar opening to Led Zeppelin's Stairway To Heaven was played on a vintage Harmony.

There are various reasons for the current price of these old vintage cheapies blowing past a grand or more. Many articles cite the high cost of vintage name brands, which makes the lower-line models attractive to the average collector. Still, most of the reason is a combination of intrinsic value and the often surprising higher quality materials used to manufacture those compared to modern economy guitars.

When Jimmy Page used the old Harmony Monterrey acoustic on Stairway To Heaven, the price of that guitar shot upwards, and the critical opinion went from blase contempt to admiration for the incredible sound. That's a classic case of intrinsic value. It's not just rock star worship; it was also a case of realizing that the Harmony Monterrey was a good guitar, at least after decades of aging.

That's a key point for acoustic guitars; if the quality of the wood is good, particularly the top (the part with the hole for those who aren't familiar with acoustic guitars), then the sound improves with age. There's a technical reason, but I'll refer those who want to know to Google, where a variety of good and stupid opinions can be found, and all contain at least a grain of truth.



…in other words…

In other words, an old Harmony can sound better than a new low or medium-priced acoustic (and occasionally a high-priced one) because it was built in an era when good quality wood was cheap and plentiful. Many old economy guitars had what was called a "solid top," not plywood. This is why vintage Martin guitars are still more popular than new ones. Both are top-quality guitars but the older ones have aged wood tops.

I have an old Regal parlor, for example, and luckily got it cheap at a pawn shop because it was all beat up, and I had to spend months making it playable. It was worth my time because the wood was as good as a lower-line Gibson of the same era, and it can cost over a thousand in mint condition. It looks like Hell, but it sounds as good as some old Gibsons, and having owned a few vintage models, it sounds as good, if not better. 

Whether a modern player would agree would depend on taste, and if you prefer "X Bracing" to "Ladder Bracing," spruce top versus mahogany, etc. Such preferences and the supporting arguments are similar to those put forth when debating the relative quality of wines and Professional Sports Teams, and as such, can be ignored by the average person.

The other factor that affects vintage cheapies is a rarity. The wood might be as good or better than modern guitars, but the construction was often cheaper, with more shortcuts taken in the manufacturing process. In other words, you can still find an old Silvertone or Harmony at a low price, but it's rarely playable unless it's for slide guitar, where high-string action is preferred, and a severely bent neck isn't a problem. 

There's an old Stella in an antique store near where I live, but even at 150.00, it'd cost several times more to get it into playable condition. It does look cool as a display in the store window, though.

Another good modern example is the English band, Oasis, where the two guitarists used Epiphones for their classic recordings. Now that cheap chic is popular; one can find lists of famous guitarists who used or started recording on cheapies on Google.

I remember seeing the Silvertone guitar featured on Genesis' I Can't Dance video in stores 150.00 decades ago. Now you may have to pay over a thousand to get one. My impression of the guitar at the time was that a new Epiphone or Squier was a better value, but a Silvertone can have magic in the right hands.

I kept this essay only as technical as necessary to provide a quick survey of cheap chic. Thanks to the American genius for making anything unaffordable to the average person, it is only inexpensive in compared to vintage Fenders and Gibsons, which can command a price of over a million.

…another generation…

However, as the old economy models moved into the middle class of collecting, another generation of affordable guitars has come to enjoy the praise and contempt of modern guitarists. Having played many of the old models talked about and quite a few of the current class, I have to say what many guitarists say that I wish these newer guitars had been around in my teens. There are new Fender Squiers that play better than my old '73 Telecaster, which required extensive fretwork and a rewound pickup to play and sound decent.

How Squiers and Fenders and Epiphones and Gibsons compare is another series of articles in itself and a debate that'll never be resolved. The main thing to remember is that any information on a page about guitars will be somewhat inaccurate if the publication needs ad income from instrument manufacturers to survive.

A guitar isn't just about playing music; it's also about dreams. It's easier to sell a path to success that can be bought than to preach hard work and talent. The history of music was mainly created by artists who bought what they could afford (there weren't always credit or payment plans). If the guitar is good enough to unleash your talent, then you have all you need.

- Al Handa 
   January 2023



FROM THE ARCHIVE: REMASTERED RECORDINGS IN THE DIGITAL WORLD (2015)

One thing you saw during the CD era was the "newly remastered" album, sometimes classic, sometimes not. In many cases, that remastering was what should have been done in the first place...many of the earliest CD reissues of classic albums were simple digital transfers over to CD and sounded about as good as a decent tape copy. It was mainly to meet demand at the time. Later on, remastered recordings became another selling point in the industry's attempt to keep CD prices high, and that practice has continued into the mp3 era.

Remastering a CD makes sense...the medium can accommodate more digital information per song than the older vinyl and technically makes for better sound quality. The problem, of course, is what that information consists of. A straightforward digital transfer from the master would give you an extensive sonic range on a song, more than vinyl or anything you can think of. The closest most listeners will hear a song in its full dynamic range is at a live concert. 

The thing about digital isn't that it sounds more sterile than, say, vinyl; it's that all the information is sorta kinda maybe there pretty much exactly as the music really sounds like in a pure state. The music has traveled a long path from creation to your device or player.

In reality, there are other factors; the mix, how it's mastered (clean or louder), and of course, what you play it on. I remember reading once where Tom Petty said that they always checked the mix on a boom box, figuring that it would be one of the more common ways their LP would be played. 

…monomania…

The whole thing about mono recordings wasn't that it was superior to stereo but that it was the ideal format for AM radio, which generally came out of one channel. Also, some songs will sound better in mono simply because the musicians have played the music with a mono mix in mind. Otherwise, there are no reasons blues, which is considered a mono medium, can't sound fine in stereo or quad if properly mixed.

A good example was decades ago when Columbia accidentally released a bunch of Bruce Springsteen's "Born To Run" LPs on the west coast but with an "East Coast" mix. People complained that the music sounded flat.

Which it was.

For decades, most albums were released with a dynamic range that was equal along the whole sound spectrum. With the advent of the West Coast rock scene, a mix that emphasized low bass and high treble developed, which, to west coast ears, sounded better for rock. But listeners on the east coast preferred the flatter range mix, so Columbia released different-sounding LPs for each region. What happened was some east coast discs ended up in California. 

Another good example is Bob Marley's first significant record, which had "International" and "Jamaican" mixes. The International version had the bass toned down and extra instruments added, like guitars, to give the Western listener a more "musical" sound...but Marley insisted on having the Jamaican release done the way it was always done on the island, with a big, booming rhythm track and less on top (no guitar solos, etc.). In a sense, the international version was watering down his sound, but it also made him an international star and not a cult artist like Desmond Dekker. Interestingly, many of the old Bob Marley records have been remastered and are closer to the Jamaican mix in feel.

…back to remastering…

This brings me back to the idea of remastering. I'll admit, I'm a sucker for any new reissue that claims to remaster the original master tapes (or whatever). On the one hand, like with the Stone's reissue of "Exile On Main Street," you realize that it was better off with the older mix, but in the case of the new Sam Cooke reissues, it's a revelation.

To a certain extent, the idea of remastering is a gimmick...the constant remastering of the Beatles tracks tends to be a simple moving around of the sound, and the latest reissues, have made many of those songs sound clearer but losing some punch and drive in the process. Nevertheless, some songs, particularly the complex ones, do well with remastering. Some, like old blues 78s, certainly sound louder but often less clear, or in some cases, more clear but drier.

I mentioned Led Zeppelin in the last blog entry...Jimmy Page recently remastered many of the tracks, adding more compression and level (loudness), and that was the Mothership compilation. To younger ears, the stuff sounded punchier and, in some cases, did improve some of the songs (at least to my ears). However, to someone like me who already had the Led Zep stuff, the new mixes sounded louder, but a lot of "space" and tone was lost. 

Bonham's drums, for example, sounded best when recorded in a natural sound, as his power made the acoustic sound of the drums like thunder or something. Flattening it out and making it louder took it away from the realm of genius to that of a well-manipulated drum track that sounded almost electronic...but that's stuff only a tiny percentage of people will notice.

…acoustic blues…

I recently downloaded (legally, of course) a lot of acoustic blues, which I already had, but I wanted to upgrade my collection in terms of sound. In many of the services, like Rhapsody or iMesh, downloading the same release a few months apart can give you a different sound. Some artists' music was quieter but cleaner, and you could hear the acoustic instruments better. 

In other cases, it sounded louder but more distorted. This is incidentally the key difference between digital and vinyl-based music...the reason music on vinyl sounds "warmer" is that there are different sound frequencies in play. The sound, or signal, from a vinyl record will tend to sound more natural, as the sound waves are "rounder" or, in other words, slightly distorted...that distortion is what makes a lot of rock sound "louder." 

I often remember not liking how this or that rocker sounded, so I would transfer it to tape and jack up the recording level a bit to make it sound louder to my ears.

In more than a few digital albums, that's what "remastering" is, except for adding more compression; it's often just boosting some of the frequencies. The critical thing to remember is that a digital album is a collection of songs that, in CD format, had 40 megabytes of information or more per track, reduced to maybe 8 megabyte digital files, so you can't "remaster" that kind of track. 

You can make it sound louder, you can make it sound clearer (and sacrifice some volume), or emphasize a particular range (like more bass, etc.), but there's not enough room to bring back the original sound of the master tapes (or whatever the source was).

It's a trade-off, and on the whole, I like it...but thanks to free programs like Audacity and other sound editors, you can adjust many of these songs to your liking, which I'll discuss in a future blog entry. 

For example, I almost always edit out the extended audience cheering for an encore on live albums, and if I think a song sounds too weak, I'll boost the levels. In my opinion, the digital age hasn't always been kind to blues reissues, and knowing your way around a sound editor will help you make the blues sound like it should. 

…kbs and stuff…

It's not bad stuff to know, particularly as an artist. Being able to distribute digitally has been a godsend for the independent artist, but how the music is heard there is just as critical as it was during the CD or vinyl eras. How a song will sound released at 256kbs or 128kbs can determine whether or not that listener will like what they hear and buy the song.

Not to mention; the type of device, earphones or earbuds, Bluetooth or cable, surround sound, how the equalizer is set, broadcast quality, size, and quality of speaker, and the list could go on. The sound is affected by many different elements, especially mood and music preference. 

More on all that later; until then, just enjoy the music, don't mind this older adult talking on and on, and feel free to have a different take on the subject. Music is, after all, a matter of taste.

- Al Handa
  2015







Note: Album art direction by Tony Lane

REVIEW: TELEVISION'S MARQUEE MOON (1977)

By Al Handa (May 1996, revised 2023)

Note: This was a review I put on an old Usenet discussion board (pre-web), and it ended up on the online magazine Perfect Sound Forever and listed in the bibliography for the Television entry in Wikipedia. I've always wanted to revise it and finally got around to doing it. The edits mainly tone down some of the language and omit names where I thought the criticism was unfair, but otherwise, the piece was left pretty much as it originally appeared. 

My intent wasn't to rewrite it; even if I went a little overboard at times, I resisted the temptation to change it completely. In any case, I still feel the same way about the album. It's also about the Sex Pistols, so this review is as much about the era as the album. Read it as a tribute to the band in my opinion.

I've made comparisons in this review, which to some may appear critical of such bands as the Sex Pistols. However, the point of this piece is to highlight Television and speculate a bit on its place in music history. As such, it is an advocacy work and not intended to be a balanced look at the Punk movement.

I have to admit; Television wasn't the band that got me into "Punk". We all had our moments when that burning bush appeared. For me, it was one night while pulling a night shift at 7-11. At that time of night, I was allowed to play the store radio loud. "God Save The Queen" came over the air, and everything I'd read in Rolling Stone and other mags about Punk came to life.

To many of us, bands like the Ramones, Sex Pistols, and Clash had a magical connotation. One band, Television, was considered controversial. On the one hand, Johnny Rotten had once praised the group, saying that he liked the guitars' power. On the other hand, after seeing them live (or so he said), he said they were awful, mainly because of the long extended numbers. The name Grateful Dead was used as a pejorative to describe the group (which did not affect me, I liked the Dead).

Rotten's offhand dismissal was probably influential in England and amongst elements of the punk crowd but probably had little effect in New York City (where the band was based), other than critic Dave Marsh's apparent puzzlement over Television's high reputation.

…louder…

The Ramones were louder, the Pistols nastier, the Clash purer, Nick Lowe more clever, and Wire more violent, but Television was different. Television wasn't a band you could easily copy. There was a complexity that went against the grain of Punk at the time. You couldn't just pick up a guitar and play Marquee Moon like you could "12XU" by Wire. They were the first punk band to make a genuinely new and original sound that was highly technical. At a minimum, they were the most lyrical.

Now, don't get me wrong...I love the bands mentioned above. I'm saying that Television was DIFFERENT than anything I had heard before. The Pistols were like super-fast Mott The Hoople (great band), Ramones, a raunchy surf band, The Clash, a raw pop-reggae band, Nick Lowe, a great popster, and Wire...well, they were another bunch of geniuses who took Punk higher; but later than Television.

Without bands like Television (and Wire, actually), those bands created mainly energy, a fresh outlook, and rebellion. Their anti-intellectualism guaranteed that there'd be nothing to build on, even later on when many tried to become more than just punk bands.

Most artists are rarely inspired by "primitive" or "raw" art to create "new" music. Most may pick up a guitar to be like an Iggy, but that's more of embracing a lifestyle and pose. When artists like Alex Chilton, Television, or Captain Beefheart create new styles and approaches, that tends to inspire musicians as artists.

Edge of U2 was once quoted as saying his early guitar practice was copying Tom Verlaine's guitar licks. Most who copied the Pistols now play music that's about as alive and relevant as an oldie but goodie act at a rock and roll revival. Groups like Television inspired artists and hardcore Punk created a subculture of nostalgia (unless one considers Husker Du hardcore, then we have an exception).

…almost never was…

In a sense, "Marquee Moon" was a record that almost never was. The original sessions produced by Eno were almost unlistenable, an amateurish mess. It was rerecorded but flawed by a mix that thinned out Verlaine's voice, so it sounded like a flat screech at times, without any depth (note: a later remastered release fixed that).

However, for all its flaws, the record successfully captured the complexity of the sound and still retains punch in the drum and guitars. Back then, those of us who were fans probably didn't notice such fine details in the sound and mix.

What we did notice was from the moment "See No Evil" came pounding out of the speakers, this wasn't no ordinary "punk" band. If it had come out as Johnny Rotten had described it, like "Grateful Dead" music, it would have been off our turntables in a second. Not that the Dead weren't good, but what needed to come out of the speakers either had to be loud and fast or different enough to compel one to listen.

It was probably somewhere in-between, but my first impression was that "See No Evil" was a great guitar song with riffs and ideas that were different and freer than anything I'd heard.

What made it sound so "free" (in the jazz sense) was the interplay between static, powerful guitar by Richard Lloyd and the fluid ideas by Verlaine. More than fluid...the ideas seemed to go places where a trained musician could see Tom risking being unable to come back and ending up with a botched solo.

Verlaine seemed to resolve the ideas perfectly, yet never with the sheer ease of Jerry Garcia. So many Verlaine solos, at first listen, made you feel that a real chance was taken and that if he didn't come up with a killer idea out of nowhere, the riffs would peter out, or noodle about and never resolve.

It was more than raw talent, a sense of humor, or pure energy. Television had developed a style that rocked yet expressed freedom, like in certain jazz styles.

…noodling…

This sound would only have been superb noodling without a truly great band. The rhythm section of Fred Smith on bass and Billy Ficca on drums was excellent. They had a tight, syncopated sound, not unlike a good 50s rhythm and blues band. They rarely overplayed a song (in the studio, at least).

The other guitarist, Richard Lloyd, was Verlaine's equal in technical skill. He didn't have Verlaine's improvisational sense, but that wasn't needed. Richard's work verged on atonal or abstract noise at times yet was played in controlled bursts and patterns.

That tension in the guitar approaches is what made Television sound so different. Usually, the soloist is the one who explores atonality. Verlaine generally flew all over the place, but in a lyrical or linear sense. Lloyd's tonality and rhythm guitar sense made them "different" as a band, often leading to hard-edged riffs and abstract chordings.

In other words, normally, the soloist is the one who needs to be anchored. In Television's case, Lloyd was the guitarist who affected the tonality of the music more often than not, and Verlaine and the rhythm section were the ones who gave the ear its anchor and familiar musical elements. Listen only to Lloyd; you can hear some truly off-the-wall ideas being played.

In "See No Evil," Lloyd is soaring in the solos, but the guts of the arrangement are in the tough riffing underneath that is driving the song forward, with powerful rhythm section support. It's no wonder R.E.M. sometimes does this song as an encore, it's a classic guitar rock song.

"Venus" comes next, and is one of the most lyrical in the set. It opens with a great guitar riff. As the ballad moves along, one can hear complex and interesting ideas on both guitars that make perfect sense together (yet sound disjointed when listened to individually).

…Venus…

The Venus referred to is of DeMilo fame and does show us that detached, abstract view Verlaine often had, as opposed to a purely personal one. But, on the other hand, I wonder if it was just so personal as to be idiosyncratic. In any case, an armless statue with a boob showing isn't your typical romantic image.

"Friction" opens with an uptempo yet static guitar chord opening by Lloyd, which sounds like a Stone's riff played backward. Then, Verlaine kicks in with a descending chromatic riff, and the rhythm section chugs along with a beat that older fans might recognize as similar to Wilson Picket's "Funky Broadway."

Next comes "Marquee Moon," a nine-minute encapsulation of the group sound; an excellent chord opening on rhythm guitar, looping riffs out of left field, and a funky, rocking bass and drum part that lead into the song. It then builds and builds, and Verlaine begins to solo up into the upper neck of the guitar. 

More than a few times, you wonder if even he knows where it's all going. It finally resolves into a Stones-like chord burst (actually not unlike a good Dead jam number), then settles into a lyrical, atmospheric section. Smith and Ficca then lead us back into a reprise of the main melody.

In my mind, it's a perfect song capturing all the band was. Believe me; it sounded REAL good, blasting out of the P.A. speakers at the Mabuhay the night I heard it for the first time.

"Elevation" follows next, and was originally the first song on the second side of the album. On CD, its impact is diminished following "Moon." It's the most "dramatic" of the songs, with many stops and starts and sections built on unison riffs. It remains listenable, but it's more interesting than compelling.



Note: Back cover photo by Billy Lobo

…a Guiding Light…

"Guiding Light" is the opposite. When I first heard the song, it seemed like mere pleasantry, a nice album filler. These days it sounds more and more like a great ballad with a Dylanesque sense of timing and structure. Back then, I was just too rushed and intense to appreciate this one. Now, it's a rediscovered pleasure.

"Prove It" follows, and at first listen sounds like a reggae-ish type new wave cut (familiar enough at the time). However, time has revealed it to be quite different, and the opening guitar figure is more fifties than reggae. It chugs along like a good-bad Clash song, and the song has stood up well over the years.

The CD ends with "Torn Curtain," a dark, listless ballad in the "Tin Pan Alley" mold. It's too overdramatic at times, and although well played, it's no longer the strong ending cut it once seemed to be.

In the late 70s, few Punks had any real idea of what the music would seem like in a few years. Most simply wanted to put a 45 and become rock stars (oh, yes, they did). A few approached the whole era as an opportunity to create new music, and only the most obtuse won't see that the bands who most influenced the next generation were Television, Ramones, Wire, Clash, and Pistols (could be a much longer list).

I can only give a personal example. Two major influences made me play Punk music then: the Ramones and Sex Pistols. The idea was that you do it. Don't spend years learning it; just do it.

…Pistols at Winterland…

Seeing the Sex Pistols at Winterland (which turned out to be their last gig) would be a revelation. As I anxiously stood in line for that "sell-out" concert, the scalpers were selling tickets for only two dollars each, with the price dropping to one by show time.

Inside Winterland, the audience was mainly tourists and curiosity seekers. Most spent the concert making wise cracks and laughing at the freak show in what is now called a mosh pit. First, two local bands, the Nuns and the Avengers, did their shows and then the Pistols came on and trashed the show.

They played without a bass player, as Sid was too drunk to play and was mixed down (on the bootleg, he can be heard, and it wrecks the music), but the rest was as good as any English rock concert. Rotten even stopped to pick up some money that was thrown on the stage, then did the encore laying on his stomach, singing Iggy's "No Fun" in the most minimal performance I've ever seen. This attitude continued backstage, where I heard that they all trashed the dressing rooms, and Bill Graham wouldn't book a punk act for some time afterward.

…the point…

The point? Well, what the Pistols started died exactly when Rotten said it would, after one record. Their message was anger, honesty (relative to the music business at the time), and anti-intellectualism that excluded any concept of art. Those who buy that message still listen to hardcore which is more rigid in its aesthetic than any blues or jazz you'll ever hear. The Pistols never took them any further. In their last gig, they ensured Punk would never get into a major Bay Area venue for some years.

Then take "Marquee Moon." Just hearing that album gave me, and quite a few others, a totally different message; that the era's music had changed, and although not so apparent at the time, restored a sense of discovery and freedom that had long disappeared.

I once read that Alex Chilton's "Big Star" record only sold a few copies, but each of those who bought one went out and formed a band. I doubt Television was like that; they were too hard to imitate, for one thing. The Bangles could cover "September Gurls," maybe, but never "Marquee Moon."

They showed us that, perhaps for at least one moment, there could be something new under the sun after all. And, I should add, it couldn't have come at a better time.

- Al Handa 
   1996




Here's an update on each of my Vella books:




SPECIAL PREVIEW: THE QUITTERS - EPISODE 3 


https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B09PC3L6PC


Start of episode:


Okay, home stretch!

The last songs have the same machine gun beat, but we're not some boogie band playing the same thing all the time. The first song has the vocal line shouted low, and screamed high the next, nice dynamics, and hopefully the audience appreciates the care put into it!

Roder and Quill actually spent time working on the lyrics too! The first one, "I Need Clean Tissue" has the great line, "I'm no machine in this fucking latrine!" We debated using the word latrine in rehearsal, it seemed too much like proper English, but Roder made the excellent point that it sings better than it reads.

Jem wasn't too sure about the second song title, "Dirty Finger Pointing North," as it seemed too much like the first, but Hydie pointed out that if Roder actually takes the trouble to memorize anything, that's a good habit to encourage, so try not to ask complicated questions. We all privately think that Roder might have a butt thing going on, but maybe we don't want to know.

Hydie kicks off the final songs with a sharp 1-2-3-4 rapping on the rim of the snare drum, cutting off Roder's spoken intro. She sits in back, so can see everything, and keep track of the time. Those rim shots signal that we're running late, so get moving. We don't want to be turned into a silly looking air guitar group by the stage manager when he cuts the power.

The two songs go by fast, and it's all over, just like that, ended on one note, no drawn out finales in this place. Roder and Quill thank the crowd, who just politely clap with snarky grins on their faces. The people in the tourist section tables just sit there, eyes glazed over. Doesn't look good, and we freeze up, just standing there. The stage now feels hot and stuffy, and I feel sick with embarrassment.

Then suddenly, a tall, thin punker with a reddish mop pushes up to the front, it's Ross, the lead singer for "The Negatives," they're second on the bill. He screams "Fuck your trash, don't come back! Fuck your trash, don't come back!"

The mosh pit joins in, throwing baskets of popcorn and what looks like a dirty sock, ew, chanting "Fuck your trash, don't come back! Fuck your trash, don't come back!"

Ross could tell the crowd was hostile but many are friends, and follow his cue. The yelling wakes us up, and we flip everybody off and scream "Fuck you too!" It's lame, but there's no time to come up with something witty, and energy is what counts right now.

Roder and Ross start a shoving match, and when Quill tries to intervene, they push him to the floor and sit on his face. Wow, stinky stuff, but Quill's going the extra mile in the name of show business!

Oh wow! Jesus guy is back! He's shouting at the three tangled up on the floor, "I have returned to earth early to proclaim you are all going to burn in hell for being obscene punks practicing filthy unnatural acts!"

Quill tries to reply, but his response is muffled.

I think the holy guy's serious about Roder going to hell because the two now have each other in a headlock and have fallen off the stage. Roder pins him down and pretends to do the chocolate choo choo, yelling "False prophet!" and Jesus guy's yelling, "Sodomy is ten bucks extra!" I yell, "That's not right, you agreed to twenty, a deal's a deal!"

The stage crew rushes in to clear the stage, but Ross refuses to leave, and is dragged off of Quill by his feet, still screaming "fuck your trash, don't come back" at the top of his lungs. Such a natural showman! Quill looks relieved, I think Ross must have farted because he looks really nauseous.

Jem's just standing there, stunned by the commotion, and Hydie's already left the stage, she's always been the mature one in the group. Stew and Marly are just standing around in back with big grins on their faces, so I guess the show ain't over yet. Definitely not for Ross! He's trying to get back on stage, but two stagehands are holding him down, and Quill's jumped onto the pile. Payback for that fart!

I join in the fun and stick my ass out and wave the bird between my legs, but have to retreat when people start goosing me. Hydie comes back, grabs me by the collar and drags me off, saying "when drunk guys start grabbing ass, they won't stop, so get off now!"

Now she's really being like my big sister, dammit!

The energy in the club's infectious, and the chanting grows louder and louder. Even the tourists in the table sections are shouting and throwing popcorn! I look over and see Marly and Stew laughing their heads off.

I jump up and down, laughing, we're all laughing. We did it! We're coming back for another show!

End of episode













I, Ivy Update:


 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0B3RCBT4D


The story got off to a decent start, but I didn't notice that as it's obvious now that the daily totals on the Vella dashboard can differ or not jibe with the monthly or overall total, which have to be accurate as those numbers determine the royalty and bonus payouts. I'll be paying more attention to this one in November, as it’s being read more than I thought. The latest chapter, Ivy’s view of the efforts by a human to give her a pill should strike a familiar chord.


This is a new one, though it'll be the most familiar to blog readers. I'll be changing the format of the blog in November, and putting the Lost Gospels here will allow me to fully expand that line of humor and satire in a way that simply being a blog feature doesn't permit.




The Boogie Underground Think Tank: How To Survive The End Of Civilization Update


 https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0BG6LNXTG


This one is a revival of an old humor column I ran in my old "Delta Snake Blues News" publication in the 90s and 2000s. The slant is about survival in the upcoming hard times, but it really will be topical and cover subjects that are offbeat but relevant. The next one coming in a few days will be "How To Shop For The Perfect Expert," which obviously will be a humorous commentary on the use of experts in general.


The ebook “On The Road With Al & Ivy: The Anthology Volume 1 2016-2018 is now on Kindle Unlimited!


Please check out and listen to my music on Spotify, YouTube, Apple Music and other music sites. Please add any cuts you like to your playlists!