With the recent passing of singer Donna Summer, I was compelled to reflect, with a sense of sadness and nostalgia, about the many great vocal talents we have lost in recent years. In addition to Summer, a few others of particular note include: Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson and Luther Vandross.
Each of these iconic singers possessed a truly unique vocal style that not only created phenomenal music, but had a profound impact on popular culture and music history. Their musical legacies will undoubtedly live on for decades and generations to come.
As the anointed “Queen of Disco,” Summer’s distinctive sound helped define an entire genre of music that was popular in the ‘70s. The long-haired songstress, who scored many memorable hit songs, clearly left her mark.
Jackson, as the well-earned “King of Pop,” was a music sensation like no other. Along with his groundbreaking dance moves, he delivered a string of hit songs, dynamic stage performances and spectacular music videos that still reverberate across the contemporary music scene.
Houston, arguably one of the most gifted female vocalists of our generation, leaves behind a treasure trove of great songs with her trademark powerful voice. Her rendition of “I Will Always Love You” was a vocal triumph, easily ranking among the greatest hits of all time.
And Vandross was a modern crooner extraordinaire. His soulful voice and impressive range set a new standard for male vocal excellence. His songs were melodic and lyrically rich. Not many of today’s male singers can match his strength as an R&B vocalist.
Contrast the enduring greatness of these talented industry titans with the pre-packaged, studio enhanced and mediocre singers we hear today. Will anyone be talking about the musical significance of Beyoncé, Justin Bieber or Rihanna decades from now? Are their tunes destined to become “old-school” favorites that future generations of music lovers will be listening to – not likely?
And then there are all the wannabe instant-fame seekers who made their way onto the music scene via “American Idol,” “American’s Got Talent” and other TV talent shows that promote the notion of overnight stardom at the expense of honing great talent through years of hard work and artistic dedication to one’s craft. As a result, much of today’s music is more about image than substance; and market packaging as opposed to genuine talent.
Rest assured, the vocal talents of Summer, Jackson, Houston and Vandross weren‘t manufactured in recording studios. As true singers, each were just as vocally strong on CD as they were in live performance. But what further sets them apart from their industry contemporaries is that the scope of their influence goes beyond being the fad of the moment. Their music evokes memories of significant times and places in pop culture history, transporting listeners back to cherished periods growing up.
For those who came of age in the ‘70s, hearing a song by Summer probably takes them back to the sounds, colorful fashions and imagery unique to that cultural period. Likewise, for those of us who grew up as teens in the ‘80s, we witnessed the Jackson phenomenon first hand. The experience was akin to our generation’s “Beatles” moment.
And speaking of great moments, I’m heading to the Los Angeles Greek Theater in July to hear two luminaries of the music industry: Natalie Cole and Gladys Knight. As these classy singers grace the crowd with their amazing vocal talent, I’ll be thinking about their respective rich musical legacies and those of the great singers who are now gone but not forgotten.
Summer, Houston, Jackson and Vandross all left an indelible mark on music history. As new industry trends and artists come and go, their music will live on for future artists and music fans to appreciate.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Sunday, May 20, 2012
GOP Should Stop Playing Extremist Politics
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who will face voters next month in a recall election recently assessed his fate by suggesting that political courage would suffer defeat if he were to lose. Nice spin governor, but the position Walker finds himself in was the result of his own political extremism, not courageous leadership.
In deciding to pass a law to strip most public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights as a means curb the rising cost of pensions and other benefits for public employees, Walker and fellow Republicans chose the most controversial course of action. As a result, they provoked the ire of voters who believe they went too far. Ohio voters recently rebelled against a similar anti-union law passed by a GOP governor by overwhelmingly repealing it at the ballot box.
Of course, in both cases, there were other less extreme solutions available, such as trimming benefits and requiring public employees to pay a higher percentage of their healthcare and pension costs, concessions many public unions had already agreed to make.
So why weren’t these more sensible and modest solutions seized upon by Republicans? Well, to answer the question you have to examine conservative political philosophy, which too often tends to see issues in black and white as opposed to shades of gray. Conservatives seem to perceive moderation as weakness, and strive to define themselves in a way that’s unquestionably distinct from their Democratic counterparts. Essentially, the GOP has become politically invested in always trying to position itself at polar opposites to Democratic or more liberal positions on similar issues. Whatever the Democrats favor, Republicans reactively have to oppose.
When political parties become too entrenched in a partisan “our way or the highway” approach to governing, it can invariably lead to extreme positions on issues that eschew more common sense solutions to problems. In such instances, holding the party line for partisan political reasons trump sensible compromise. Fortunately, when voters feel such political overreach is afoot, they rightly revolt against the extremist tactics, forcing politicians to re-examine their positions. That’s the reality that humbled Ohio Gov. John Kasich when he acknowledged the following after voters repealed that state‘s collective bargaining law:
“It's clear the people have spoken. I heard their voices. I understand their decision. And frankly, I respect what the people have to say in an effort like this. And as a result of that, it requires me to take a deep breath and to spend some time to reflect on what happened here.”
Such is the predicament Walker now find himself in as possible eviction from office looms next month. Walker wants to portray himself as a principled political hero who stood up to organized labor to make tough fiscal choices for his state. That distortion of reality might have an ounce of credibility had he not acted in his political party’s self-interest by blatantly excluding police and firefighter unions from the collective bargaining law restrictions. Both union groups tend to support Republicans candidates.
If Walker really wanted to demonstrate political courage, he should have resisted his party’s partisan lurch to the extreme right and charted a more sensible moderate course with the unions. So despite Walker’s claims to the contrary, the cause of political courage will more than survive if he is recalled from office, so long as other leaders have the courage to not follow his bad example.
In deciding to pass a law to strip most public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights as a means curb the rising cost of pensions and other benefits for public employees, Walker and fellow Republicans chose the most controversial course of action. As a result, they provoked the ire of voters who believe they went too far. Ohio voters recently rebelled against a similar anti-union law passed by a GOP governor by overwhelmingly repealing it at the ballot box.
Of course, in both cases, there were other less extreme solutions available, such as trimming benefits and requiring public employees to pay a higher percentage of their healthcare and pension costs, concessions many public unions had already agreed to make.
So why weren’t these more sensible and modest solutions seized upon by Republicans? Well, to answer the question you have to examine conservative political philosophy, which too often tends to see issues in black and white as opposed to shades of gray. Conservatives seem to perceive moderation as weakness, and strive to define themselves in a way that’s unquestionably distinct from their Democratic counterparts. Essentially, the GOP has become politically invested in always trying to position itself at polar opposites to Democratic or more liberal positions on similar issues. Whatever the Democrats favor, Republicans reactively have to oppose.
When political parties become too entrenched in a partisan “our way or the highway” approach to governing, it can invariably lead to extreme positions on issues that eschew more common sense solutions to problems. In such instances, holding the party line for partisan political reasons trump sensible compromise. Fortunately, when voters feel such political overreach is afoot, they rightly revolt against the extremist tactics, forcing politicians to re-examine their positions. That’s the reality that humbled Ohio Gov. John Kasich when he acknowledged the following after voters repealed that state‘s collective bargaining law:
“It's clear the people have spoken. I heard their voices. I understand their decision. And frankly, I respect what the people have to say in an effort like this. And as a result of that, it requires me to take a deep breath and to spend some time to reflect on what happened here.”
Such is the predicament Walker now find himself in as possible eviction from office looms next month. Walker wants to portray himself as a principled political hero who stood up to organized labor to make tough fiscal choices for his state. That distortion of reality might have an ounce of credibility had he not acted in his political party’s self-interest by blatantly excluding police and firefighter unions from the collective bargaining law restrictions. Both union groups tend to support Republicans candidates.
If Walker really wanted to demonstrate political courage, he should have resisted his party’s partisan lurch to the extreme right and charted a more sensible moderate course with the unions. So despite Walker’s claims to the contrary, the cause of political courage will more than survive if he is recalled from office, so long as other leaders have the courage to not follow his bad example.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Obama's Not So Courageous Gay Marriage Stand
The gay community is justly ecstatic about President Obama’s recent decision, after years of straddling the fence, to fully endorse same-sex marriage. Some have even called the president’s decision courageous. Well, while the president deserves credit for finally “evolving” on the issue, I would hold off on awarding him any gold stars for political courage.
In ultimately reaching the conclusion to support same-sex marriage, the president essentially followed public opinion, which had been increasingly trending in favor of gay marriage since the mid ‘90s. According to a recent Gallup Poll, support now stands at 50 percent, which is up from less than 30 percent in 1996. Among young adults (18 - 34) support for gay marriage today is as high as 70 percent.
In the face of such a tectonic shift in public attitudes, the president was presented with a more auspicious environment in which to now take a firm stand on a controversial issue at minimum political risk. That’s hardly an act of bold political courage. In essence, the public led on the issue, and Obama tentatively followed safely behind.
Yes, same-sex marriage has been a hard fought and emotionally charged social issue that was fraught with great political peril, so taking an affirmative stand was far from easy. But championing a cause with civil rights, social equality and constitutional equal protection implications requires strong leadership, whatever the risks. Besides, when has demonstrating leadership on polarizing issues ever been easy?
Politicians display real political courage when they are willing to stake a position on unpopular issues, in spite of the apparent political risks, something too few have the guts to do in today’s poll-driven environment.
That said, we can still applaud Obama for the watershed moment in history his decision on same-sex marriage represents. While his endorsement has no direct effect on laws currently banning gay marriage in many states, it does offer an unambiguous federal government position should the issue come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
So yes, laud Obama’s affirmative evolution on marriage equality for gay Americans; but let’s not pretend political courage got him there.
In ultimately reaching the conclusion to support same-sex marriage, the president essentially followed public opinion, which had been increasingly trending in favor of gay marriage since the mid ‘90s. According to a recent Gallup Poll, support now stands at 50 percent, which is up from less than 30 percent in 1996. Among young adults (18 - 34) support for gay marriage today is as high as 70 percent.
In the face of such a tectonic shift in public attitudes, the president was presented with a more auspicious environment in which to now take a firm stand on a controversial issue at minimum political risk. That’s hardly an act of bold political courage. In essence, the public led on the issue, and Obama tentatively followed safely behind.
Yes, same-sex marriage has been a hard fought and emotionally charged social issue that was fraught with great political peril, so taking an affirmative stand was far from easy. But championing a cause with civil rights, social equality and constitutional equal protection implications requires strong leadership, whatever the risks. Besides, when has demonstrating leadership on polarizing issues ever been easy?
Politicians display real political courage when they are willing to stake a position on unpopular issues, in spite of the apparent political risks, something too few have the guts to do in today’s poll-driven environment.
That said, we can still applaud Obama for the watershed moment in history his decision on same-sex marriage represents. While his endorsement has no direct effect on laws currently banning gay marriage in many states, it does offer an unambiguous federal government position should the issue come before the U.S. Supreme Court.
So yes, laud Obama’s affirmative evolution on marriage equality for gay Americans; but let’s not pretend political courage got him there.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Partisan “Team” Mentality Undermines Responsible Governance
Rick Santorum’s comment during the recent GOP debate in Arizona in which he said, “sometimes you take one for the team,” in defense of his support for the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind legislation, which he now regrets, was both surprisingly honest and troubling.
Santorum, a supposed advocate of locally controlled education, even admitted that his support for the law went against his own principles. Of course Santorum is not alone in demonstrating such hypocritical political behavior; he was simply honest or foolish enough to express it verbally.
Politicians in both political parties willingly endorse initiatives advanced by the president when he’s a member their party even if they don‘t agree with the measure. I have no doubt that had a Democratic president proposed No Child Left Behind, Santorum would have had no difficulty finding reasons to vociferously condemn and demonize it, thereby avoiding any cognitive dissonance between his political beliefs and legislative actions.
His actions and those of many others in Washington reflect a childish “team mentality” that pervades our politics. Instead of objectively questioning or debating the merits of proposed laws, politicians mindlessly line up along partisan lines out of some misplaced ideological loyalty to prop up the president and their party.
Newsflash, the US Congress isn‘t a team sport. While leaders clearly represent distinct regional interests, they still have to work collectively for the common good of the nation as a whole. But partisan cheerleading, which too frequently guides decision making in Washington, undermines this core responsibility of national leadership.
Santorum’s honest gaffe, may have cost him his chance to grab the GOP presidential nomination from the presumptive nominee Mitt Romney, but it offered insight voters need to be mindful of in choosing who to support for president. Do they want a partisan team player or a leader who understands our collective national interest?
Santorum, a supposed advocate of locally controlled education, even admitted that his support for the law went against his own principles. Of course Santorum is not alone in demonstrating such hypocritical political behavior; he was simply honest or foolish enough to express it verbally.
Politicians in both political parties willingly endorse initiatives advanced by the president when he’s a member their party even if they don‘t agree with the measure. I have no doubt that had a Democratic president proposed No Child Left Behind, Santorum would have had no difficulty finding reasons to vociferously condemn and demonize it, thereby avoiding any cognitive dissonance between his political beliefs and legislative actions.
His actions and those of many others in Washington reflect a childish “team mentality” that pervades our politics. Instead of objectively questioning or debating the merits of proposed laws, politicians mindlessly line up along partisan lines out of some misplaced ideological loyalty to prop up the president and their party.
Newsflash, the US Congress isn‘t a team sport. While leaders clearly represent distinct regional interests, they still have to work collectively for the common good of the nation as a whole. But partisan cheerleading, which too frequently guides decision making in Washington, undermines this core responsibility of national leadership.
Santorum’s honest gaffe, may have cost him his chance to grab the GOP presidential nomination from the presumptive nominee Mitt Romney, but it offered insight voters need to be mindful of in choosing who to support for president. Do they want a partisan team player or a leader who understands our collective national interest?
Monday, February 20, 2012
On Gay Marriage, GOP Must Distinguish Personal Beliefs from Civil Freedoms
In the wake of the recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down Proposition 8 (the California same-sex marriage ban) as unconstitutional, conservatives are once again making claims of “judicial activism.“ Such hollow claims have become a familiar refrain from conservatives in response to major court rulings on which they disagree. They seem to believe that the role of the judiciary is to simply rubber stamp whatever the majority wants, whether it runs afoul of constitutional principles or not. Keep in mind that it took a major court ruling in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education) that struck down racial segregation, an immoral apartheid system in which the majority found perfectly acceptable.
The GOP, most notably its Christian conservative base, holds to the moralistic claim that preventing same-sex marriage is about protecting the institution of marriage, which has been historically defined as a union between man and woman. Christian conservatives also view homosexuality as a sin and want no part, as they see it, in advancing a homosexual agenda.
In fairness, one can reasonably respect that people may hold differing views on matters of morality, homosexuality in particular. But the greater issue isn’t about divergent views on the morality of homosexuality; it’s about a seeming lack of understanding for the distinction between personal moral views and civil freedoms. In a pluralistic society where citizens are afforded great democratic liberties and freedoms, individuals have the right to make choices that may not conform to the strongly held personal or religious beliefs of some. For example, heterosexuals who engage in pre-marital sex or indulge in pornography are behaviors people of faith would clearly deem unacceptable, and some have made condemnatory public pronouncements to that effect.
But voicing strong disapproval of adult behavior is one thing; attempting to pass laws to prevent them from doing it is another. The simple reality is that we live in a free society where people must often tolerate behavioral choices they may find objectionable. Moral disapproval, even if voiced by a majority of citizens, doesn’t trump the virtue of free choice. Republicans, too busy pandering to the narrow interest of the Christian Right for electoral support, either don’t get this fundamental concept, or they choose to willfully disregard it. Either position is disturbing and unacceptable, especially for a party that is seldom shy about proclaiming the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it embodies.
Sadly, the GOP’s anti-gay rhetoric frequently contradicts those virtues. One of the most offensive examples comes from South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a prominent Christian conservative who openly espouses the belief that gay individuals shouldn’t be allowed to be teachers. Not only are such views abhorrent, but to be held by someone in a position of leadership in the 21st Century is truly disgraceful. Unfortunately, his extreme views and other like them too often find comfortable refuge in a political party that in 2012 still deems it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Issues of equality and equal protection under the law aren’t matters that need to be polled to gauge public sentiment. Our collective duty to treat people with deserved respect, fairness and dignity -- regardless of skin color, gender or sexual orientation -- isn’t a matter that should ever be subject to political calculation or electoral strategy. It’s about doing what is morally right and Constitutionally just, whether one personally agrees with it or not.
The GOP, most notably its Christian conservative base, holds to the moralistic claim that preventing same-sex marriage is about protecting the institution of marriage, which has been historically defined as a union between man and woman. Christian conservatives also view homosexuality as a sin and want no part, as they see it, in advancing a homosexual agenda.
In fairness, one can reasonably respect that people may hold differing views on matters of morality, homosexuality in particular. But the greater issue isn’t about divergent views on the morality of homosexuality; it’s about a seeming lack of understanding for the distinction between personal moral views and civil freedoms. In a pluralistic society where citizens are afforded great democratic liberties and freedoms, individuals have the right to make choices that may not conform to the strongly held personal or religious beliefs of some. For example, heterosexuals who engage in pre-marital sex or indulge in pornography are behaviors people of faith would clearly deem unacceptable, and some have made condemnatory public pronouncements to that effect.
But voicing strong disapproval of adult behavior is one thing; attempting to pass laws to prevent them from doing it is another. The simple reality is that we live in a free society where people must often tolerate behavioral choices they may find objectionable. Moral disapproval, even if voiced by a majority of citizens, doesn’t trump the virtue of free choice. Republicans, too busy pandering to the narrow interest of the Christian Right for electoral support, either don’t get this fundamental concept, or they choose to willfully disregard it. Either position is disturbing and unacceptable, especially for a party that is seldom shy about proclaiming the virtues of the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it embodies.
Sadly, the GOP’s anti-gay rhetoric frequently contradicts those virtues. One of the most offensive examples comes from South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a prominent Christian conservative who openly espouses the belief that gay individuals shouldn’t be allowed to be teachers. Not only are such views abhorrent, but to be held by someone in a position of leadership in the 21st Century is truly disgraceful. Unfortunately, his extreme views and other like them too often find comfortable refuge in a political party that in 2012 still deems it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Issues of equality and equal protection under the law aren’t matters that need to be polled to gauge public sentiment. Our collective duty to treat people with deserved respect, fairness and dignity -- regardless of skin color, gender or sexual orientation -- isn’t a matter that should ever be subject to political calculation or electoral strategy. It’s about doing what is morally right and Constitutionally just, whether one personally agrees with it or not.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)