"Good Mourning" by India.Arie

Richard Corliss of Time Magzine once wrote: "Mourning is usually a song of celebration in a minor key." He was referring to Michael Jackson's death and actually described the world's reaction as being the opposite of this, more like a "jubilant revival meeting." Well, I like the "song of celebration in a minor key" idea because, as he said, in most cases it's true. Mourning someone's loss is a way of expressing how much they meant to us, which is really a way of celebrating their life and the time we spent with them. I'm in this frame of mind right now, so I've moved on from "Le Gibet" and am now ruminating over India.Arie's "Good Mourning."

This song is so fitting for what I need at this moment. Both through the orchestration and the lyrics, "Good Mourning" acknowledges the pain of loss as well as the optimism that healing and growth will surely ensue. The alternation between major and minor chords expertly captures the "loss is sorrowful, but redemptive" message of the song. This theme is also manifest in some of her wording, particularly when she says:

It's crazy how much I miss a simple good morning kiss.

It's crazy how much I've missed. Now it's time for me to live.

Here she connects the sentiments by initiating the lines with the same words, then places them in opposition with a simple inflection of the tense. This wordplay brilliantly captures the conflicting emotions permeating throughout the song.

"Good Mourning's" overall mood suggests the state one feels immediately after a catharsis: although the feeling is raw, there's assurance that the worst is over and that healing will now begin. Such a wonderful balm to soothe my ears as I pick up the pieces from my recent family loss.

Good mourning indeed.

Learning Patience and Understanding from "Le Gibet's" B-Flat

Lately, Maurice Ravel's "Le Gibet" has been playing in my mind incessantly. I've always liked that song, mainly for its poignancy and its quiet beauty. What marvels me most about the piece is how Ravel managed to repeat the B-flat note--allegedly 153 times--yet make it fit in with the rest of the melody no matter which direction the latter went. I never saw the song as a sad composition, but more as a reflective piece. But recently I lost my grandmother, and now I can't get the song out of my head as I reminisce about her.

I, regrettably, didn't visit my grandmother often during her final year of life. My grandmother had her good moments, but she was mostly a difficult person whose personality only worsened with age as she increasingly lashed out at those closest to her. I now realize that she was simply in pain, but at the time we didn't know the gravity of her illness so her vitriols seemed random and unjustified. My reaction, unfortunately, was to distance myself from her. Now that she's gone, I find myself reflecting only on the good times and wishing I had spent more time with her--an exercise I always engage in when it's too late.

These thoughts have been playing on an endless loop in my mind along with the B-flat in "Le Gibet." Considering the morbid themes that inspired the song, it's fitting that it would play repeatedly in my mind as I think about my grandmother. However, the song's quiet and pensive quality is the more likely explanation for its recurrence in the backdrop of my reflections on death and remorse. The pangs of regret seem to be especially hammered in by that repetitious B-flat note.

As a much needed distraction, I decided to research the eponymous poem that inspired the song. "Le Gibet" comes from the collection of poems entitled Gaspard de la Nuit. According to one source, the poem is about a person in his transition from life to death as he hangs from a gibbet while the world--personified by 4 insects--reacts in various ways, ranging from indifference and pity to exploitation and derision. The repetition of Ravel's B-flat is supposed to represent the bell that tolls in the distance while the poem's protagonist observes the entire scene.

Interestingly, the poem's author, Aloysius Bertrand, himself experienced exploitation and mercilessness at the hands of his own mother and sister. They, reportedly, would respond to his letters of affection with rabid demands for money. They even showed him little sympathy during his battle with tuberculosis which ultimately took his life at the age of 34. It's uncertain whether these experiences motivated Bertrand to write the tragic themes seen in "Le Gibet," but it's very likely.

After learning some of the background behind the song's inspiration, I now find myself reflecting, in general, on the loved ones that I (and others) have lost as well as the posthumous desire to treat them better the second time around, if only given the chance. If Bertrand's relatives had foreseen his premature death, would they have been more sympathetic towards him? It's highly doubtful. But would I have been more patient and less defensive with my grandmother had I known the extent of her anguish and her impending death? I honestly think so. Will I take this lesson forward and practice patience and understanding the next time someone--particularly an elderly person--lashes out at me? I really hope so.

Whenever a person died during medieval times, a bell was rung to ward off evil spirits. Perhaps, on a subconscious level, that's what's happening when "Le Gibet" plays in my mind: warding off the inner demons of guilt and regret as its repetitive B-flat tolls in the background. I can't really say for sure. All I can do is listen, reflect, cry, and learn.

I love you, Grandma. Thanks for teaching me, in death, a much needed lesson about life. Rest forever in peace.

Yokels, Get OUT!

If I have to wait for one more Cletis exiting the 405 to gather enough courage to merge with Wilshire traffic, I'm going to scream! There's a solid line there! You're not supposed to cross it! You're supposed to turn right and keep straight until the line breaks, THEN start making your lane changes. Don't just sit there and wait for Wilshire traffic to die down so you can make your three lane changes stress-free. I don't care how little time you have to make it to your left turn on Veteran. Grow some cajones and GET OUT OF MY WAY!

Look, I'm not an aggressive driver, but I will assert myself if I have to make three lane changes within several hundred feet. I do it all the time. In fact I got so sick of waiting for one of these namby-pambies that I went into the right lane to bypass them, which meant I had to make four lane changes instead of three. But guess what. I did it! I made all of my lane changes in time to turn left on Veteran and I did it in the pouring rain where my visibility was compromised. It may have been foolish, but I did what I had to do and I didn't back up the entire Wilshire off-ramp in the process.

I don't get it. If you're too afraid to change that many lanes in such a short time, make a right on Veteran and then do a U-turn. Or just keep straight, make your left when you can, and then back track. Do ANYTHING but sit there! Why do these people drive like they've never been to the "Big City" before? I see nothing but California license plates on these cars. Where are they from? Yuba City? Wheatland? Needles? Happy Camp (WTF!)? Some other town I had to Google because I never heard of it before? (BTW: I'd bet my life-savings the people in that last town enthusiastically refer to themselves as "Happy Campers." smdh)

Are these the same people who insist on driving slowly in the fast lane? Ugh! Now there's a class of cretins conspiring to raise my blood pressure. I don't understand the mentality of driving 40 mph in the fast lane. What would ever possess anyone to choose the fast lane of all things to take their leisurely stroll? Are they clueless about what that lane is for? Are their speedometers malfunctioning? Are they distracted by their cell phone conversation? Are they eating? Drinking? Filling out a crossword puzzle? Are they concentrating on their
executive board presentation? Are they practicing for a movie audition? Are they making sure no one holds them up even if it means holding everyone else up? Did they--for variety's sake--draw from a hat to choose which lane to drive in and the fast lane was the lucky winner? Do they want a closer view of traffic headed in the opposite direction? What is it!

And since I'm in a complaining mood, what is it with pedestrians who don't push the button to cross the street and then stand around looking perplexed when they don't get the "walk" signal? I swear, if I don't see them push the button with my own eyes, I'll always walk up there and push it myself. I don't care how closely they're standing next to the button. If I invade their space or come off as distrustful of their common sense (or lack thereof), TOUGH!
I can't just trust these people. There are too many bumpkins walking and driving around this city for me to take any chances. I just wish to God someone would clue them in and tell them if they can't function properly in an urban environment, they should make like Changing Faces and G.H.E.T.T.O.U.T.!

ARG!!!

I Don't Know about This One...

I understand the environmental motivation behind this and I'd welcome any measure that would prevent further layoffs. But I wonder if now is the time for this.

Unless I absolutely NEED to buy something in particular, I generally won't patronize a business if a parking fee is involved. Before my office moved to Westwood, I rarely did business there for that very reason. Businesses in Westwood are notorious for having difficulty staying afloat, mainly because of the expensive lease payments their owners have to pay. But I wonder if part of the blame lies with people taking their money elsewhere to avoid the concomitant $8 parking fee, like I would regularly do.

With the economy still in the red, a spontaneous drive to Baskin Robbins to buy a $5 sundae is less attractive when there's an additional $3 parking fee tacked on. The dissuasion from shopping caused by high parking fees could be mitigated, in part, by a robust public transportation infrastructure. However, public transportation--in L.A. anyway--is laughable at best. I hope this move doesn't inadvertently encumber commerce in the state even more than is already the case.

First Ammendment Rights for Corporations?

I haven't had time to research and really understand this. Proponents of this Supreme Court decision argue that corporations deserve free speech rights when it comes to campaign contributions. (I think!)

I can't say I understand how this benefits American democracy. But what I can say is how alarmed I felt when I heard this ruling could allow foreign holders of American debt (i.e. China) to have an increasing say in how things are run in this country.

I know I promised to give the NWO conspiracy theories a rest, so I'll just say this: while I'm gravely concerned about this ruling (and even a bit scared), I'm not exactly surprised.

Piracy as Pay?

So I've been listening to my friend's collection of songs from Rihanna's latest album, Rated R. I describe it that way because it seems like less of a CD and more like a collection of randomly acquired songs downloaded to the same iPod. What tipped me off was the fact that the songs are out of order and there's a mix of tracks with either explicit lyrics or censored lyrics, which wouldn't be found on the same album.

I'll give my friend the benefit of the doubt and assume she bought the songs off iTunes and simply didn't pay attention to which album she was downloading each song from (assuming both a clean and raunchy version were available at the time). At any rate, in order to get the fully intended listening experience I had to do a little research to find the correct track order and organize the Rated R "collection" accordingly.

During my research, I learned that my personal favorite "Rude Boy" had been slated as the next single to be released from the album. Interestingly, it will replace "Wait Your Turn" as the third released single, making this the second time that "Wait Your Turn" was pushed back. ("Hard" usurped it the first time, becoming the 2nd single to be released after "Russian Roulette.")

With my previous raving about "Rude Boy," it's probably no surprise that I fully support this move on the part of the record label. And apparently I'm not alone. When not listening to my friend's iPod, I tune in to the RihannaRatedR YouTube channel, where I've noticed that this song has been getting the most views (over 1.5 million as of Jan. 24 PST). "Wait Your Turn" has a much lower number (just under 600,000). This could be because there's already a video for the latter song and people are watching the video instead. However, "Wait Your Turn" is also ranked lower than "Rude Boy" when you sort by popularity in iTunes. Is this why it keeps getting pushed back? "Stupid in Love" is looking pretty popular right now too. Is it next in line?

Maybe I'm late to the party in figuring this out, but are the record labels monitoring sites like YouTube and iTunes to make their decisions on which singles to release, based on information the public is giving away for free? If so, then I guess I can't blame them for using whatever tactic they can to get an edge in the sinking ship that is the music industry. Still, when people volunteer their preferences like this, it saves the record labels from spending money on focus groups, market researchers, and other "suits" whose salaries would lower their profit margins, which seems a little like cheating to me.

So if my friend did "acquire" the tracks through unsavory means, should she be faulted for pirating their music? I, of course, would NEVER condone such a thing! Still, if people are essentially working for free to fatten the pockets of record executives and recording artists, shouldn't they get something in return besides an overpriced CD or an ephemeral download from iTunes? Just saying....

Who Will Be the Grownups?

A recent Time article described the difficulty teens are having finding employment. Today only 17% of high school students have jobs, whereas only 10 years ago, as many as 45% of teens were working. In the 1970's, 9% of the people employed in the U.S. were teenagers. Now the number has dropped to 1/3 of that value.

The main culprits are adults who, by necessity, are out-competing teens for jobs. Of course, the implicit tragedy in all of this is that adults--many with families and crippling financial obligations--are now working the lower-paying jobs without benefits that formerly went to teens. All-around it's a bad situation for everyone involved as well as for society as a whole.

The article gives interesting statistics about people's future earning potential based on the economic climate during their first job. Basically, if you started working in a rotten economy, you'd most likely earn less money than if you had started in a thriving economy. The article also explains some of the negative social consequences of teen unemployment, such as higher rates of teen pregnancies and single-parent households. The only upside to all of this is that teens are staying in school longer than ever before, either to build technical skills or to gain higher credentials. Having better-educated adults in society is the only silver lining in all of this mess. Or is it?

According to an essay from a recently published book entitled This Will Change Everything: Ideas That Will Shape the Future, extended schooling prolongs the helpless, dependent stage that humans go through as children. Author, Alison Gopnik, describes childhood as a time when flexible, limitless learning yet helplessness and dependence on caretakers occurs, whereas adulthood is when less learning, but more planning and active mastery of knowledge (as well as independence) takes place. The positive result is that all this learning may result in the Flynn Effect where we'd see an increase in absolute IQ scores across the population. But if all this learning arrests independence and the ability to plan and act on mastered knowledge, Gopnik believes there may be a negative consequence to all of this and thus ends her essay by asking, "When we are all babies forever, who will be the parents? When we're all children who will be the grown-ups?"

I'll tell you who: The trust fund babies whose parents' connections can secure them positions of influence and wealth or whose allowances can support them until they can financially support themselves. They'll become the so-called "grownups" making the decisions for the rest of us so that the gap between the have's and the have-not's can widen even further.

That's who! Isn't that how the system was designed to work?