"Let's Impeach the President" works more effectively than it should, but Dr BLT has a better song.
I've been groovin' on a couple of pretty good protest type songs. Let's start with the first, and actually better, of these, from a guy named Bruce Thiessen aka Dr BLT. Hearing the big publicity run-up about Neil Young's Bush-bashing record, BLT offered a preemptive strike – kind of like the U.S. in Iraq. It's a point of pride that he beat Neil to market with "Neil Young (Have You Forgotten?)".…
Article comments
26 - Al Barger
"Rubberneck has visited" Should I be alarmed?
27 - Martin Lav
Al,
You must be delusional because that's not the way I see it at all. I'm a centrist by nature and pride myself on my objectivity, however, I am human and can become somewhat of a conspiracist at times. I mentioned previously that Dr. BLT posted on a Neil Young fan website, which I thought was proof of his profiteering ways. But then again, his song actually has Neils name in it....so point made and I rest my case. As far as your apparent unflappable appreciate for his work, I may be wrongly jumping to conclusion....I'll claim guilt. As far as your review of Neils work, there are 19 bad things you say about his work and 2 backhanded compliments. Don't leave the ditch now and head for the middle lane Al, when you obviously trashed Neils song based on your political views. Be honest.
28 - Martin Lav
AL...LOOK AT THIS REVIEW AND LOOK WHO'S DONE ALL THE POSTINGS ON THIS GUYS REVIEW....YOU'RE BELOVED DR. BLT....
April 28, 2006
Neil Young: 'Living With War'
When I wrote the other day about the current cultural climate seeming just right for a topical album from Bruce Springsteen, I clearly should have been writing about Neil Young.
Young wrote and recorded "Living With War" in just two weeks earlier this year, and it's a scathing, poignant and overwhelmingly passionate anti-war statement. These 10 songs (streaming here and available through digital retailers Tuesday) rock harder than anything he's done in ages " it's loud, lean and visceral rock 'n' roll, with growly guitars all tangled up in Young's twangy, nasal vocals.
His pointed lyrics land with the force of kidney punches, but he avoids the strident monotony of 2003's "Greendale" concept album, even when he rips Bush for "hijacking our religion and using it to get elected" on "Let's Impeach the President." He sounds angry at times, but mostly he sounds sad. "I live with war every day," Young sings mournfully on the title track.
Whether you support the war in Iraq or not, there's been a sense over the past few years that questioning what we're doing there, and especially how we got there, is unpatriotic. That's a load of tepid dog vomit, of course, and "Living With War" shows why: Young, a Canadian by birth, shows here it's possible to love the notion of America and the things this nation stands for without buying into the propaganda put forth by its leaders. Sure, he advocates impeaching Bush, but he sounds almost awed on "Flags of Freedom" when he sings about families crying at the sight of their brave children in uniform on their way to battle. As he watches the "flags of freedom flyin'," though, he can't help but wonder about the people for whom we are ostensibly building democracy, asking: "Do you think that you believe in yours more than they do theirs somehow?"
That's not seditious. On the contrary, it's thoughtful and realistic " two traits our leaders haven't always shown during the Iraqi expedition. Young's album won't be easy for everyone to hear, but it's a vital addition to what should be an ongoing discussion about what we're doing where, and why.
April 28, 2006 in Music | Permalink
Comments
All I have to say is this:
Neil Young (Have you Forgotten)
words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006
Perhaps this will jog your memory:
United 93
words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006
or this:
Let's Roll (written, recorded and air prior to Neil Young's Let's Roll)
words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006
and for those of you who think I lack sympathy for old Neil, I wrote this for him after his father passed away:
Fathers Day Song of Sympathy for Neil Young
words and music by Dr. BLT (c)2006
http://www.drblt.com/music/Fathers
DayYoung.mp3
No hard feelings, Neil, as Dave Mason once said in a song: "There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy. It's only you and me and we just disagree."
www.drblt.
29 - Martin Lav
Extreme credit for the review on post #28
Goes to: Eric R. Danton | Sound Check
30 - Al Barger
OK Martin, BLT added comments and links to a comments thread. That's what they're there for. And your point is?
I'll note that the actual review isn't anything at all to do with music other than maybe one sentence, but just saying yes to the NY politics.
31 - Martin Lav
My point is that he "trolls" around anything Neil Young and makes money off of his back, even while he's stabbing it....
The review above is not important as everyone is entitled to an opinion, however, as I've mentioned before taken in the context that this is a WAR PROTEST ALBUM, I believe this apparently liberal media type was enthusiastically supporting the urgent delivery of this album, based on his own feelings of the urgent nature of our peril. Just as urgently as you feel the need to stand firm with your beliefs and your review showed that loud and clear. I have no problem with that at all, but to coyly claim that you are judging solely the composition of the music and the simplicity of the songcraft, I believe could be/should be considered just as disingenuous as the above critics viewpoint, or for mine for that matter.
At least I'm honest about it.
32 - Al Barger
Brother Martin, come now. You look the least wee bit silly as the defender of the big multi-platinum establishment corporate rock star Neil Young bitching repeatedly about the financial venality of an unknown guy who's giving his answer song away for free. How bizarre is that?
And I do judge largely by musical criteria. As music, I don't hold Young's silly politics against the record, but the shoddiness of the execution. I'm just saying there's no way that this nonsense lyric about Bush owning a baseball team was worthy of the author of "Ohio."
On the other hand, I did give Neil a reasonably good review here. And if you write "London Calling," I won't care if you're a commie, you'll make a couple of capitalist bucks off ol Al for creating an all-time jam.
33 - Martin Lav
Al,
I point this out solely to add ammunition to my subjectivity to find more fault with this guy that you say: "has just flat out wrote Neil Young". Again this guy who in your expert, 'objective' opinion apparently outdid Neil, is unabashedly making money off Neils name, his websites et al....Since you claim to barely know the man who "seems like a nice enough fellow" and are not being paid by him to promote his trash, then I feel it is my duty to inform you that Dr. BLT maybe using you as he using so many others. If you are unknowing pawn in the good Dr.'s publicity machine then you ought to demand fair restitution for your services. Good luck.
As far as Neils lyrics about Bush's baseball team or whatever else he wrote about in this song, again....I don't think Neil needs any validation for his writing skills from the likes of some unknown blogger. Besides if you looked at the link on Glen Boyd's website to the CNN interview, then you would know that Neil more than adequately explained the reason for the simple and direct lyrics.
Anyway he got most people talking/debating this war which was his intent anyway. With the exception of you, Mr. Al Barger, music critic, non-political, just sticking to the lyrics, musical composition and blah blah blah.....
Transparently pathetic
34 - awake
i tried listening to the blt song. painful. sounds like a retread from the ferris bueller soundtrack.
the neil young song is, take or leave it, a neil young song. most people know by now whether they're liable to like that, review or no.
also, i got the impression that neil young was pointing out the irony that bush and company are making a bigger deal of the steroids issue than the real issues. thus the sarcastic "thank god." i'm not sure how anyone, especially someone making a living as a man of letters could think he is actually saying
"we should impeach the president because they're using steroids in professional baseball, and George Bush used to OWN a baseball team." no offense, but that reveals a lot about the critic's competence.
as far as well-crafted rock songs, there used to be a band that made them. they were called "styx" and they sucked. people who could do better with just 3 chords knocked them out. i'm always amused when critics want to have it both ways, raising their fist to the punk revolution, then knocking acts because their songs aren't complex enough.
35 - Al Barger
Awake, you're just being hateful to BLT with that "painful" stuff. Did you really feel his pain? It's broadly in Neil Young style. Do you find Neil Young painful to listen to?
Now perhaps I misunderstand about Neil and the steroids. Maybe Neil was just so sloppy about making his supposed point that he failed to explain himself. My interpretation seems like the obvious one though, based on what's actually in the song. Perhaps if he took more than 10 minutes writing a song he'd be able to make himself more clear. Also, I've never seen Bush carrying on about steroids, so there'd be no basis for that.
I would definitely take prime Styx over anything Neil Young has done in the last 20 years. They weren't particularly the most arousedly passionate, but they took the time to actually write a song and put it together right. People will still be listening to "Come Sail Away" long years after this Neil Young album is long forgotten
Plus, you're setting up a false dichotomy between passion and craft. I enjoy the rock and roll Pentecostal fire of punk rock, but most of that three chord stuff has nothing to it, and is of little lasting value. But there's no reason why you can't have passion AND skill, which would get you, say, Elvis Costello.
36 - zingzing
that blt song is definitely painful to listen to. i had to go at it a good three times just to make it through, and it wasn't because of the politics, which get by on a laugh. it's fucking awful, al, and that's pretty obvious.
as for styx... um yeah. keep em. the fact that your styx review has a link leading to the smiths as "far worse" is... indicitive of your tastes. beatles, yes (they're universal)... but styx?
you should probably look into this "cheap nihilism" of the sex pistols a bit more before you judge it. do you really understand what went on behind it? do you really fall into the "sex pistols couldn't play for shit" crowd? have you really listened to the album? ever gone beyond the sex pistols to pil? or even beyond nevermind the bollocks to the great rock n roll swindle? hmm?
costello has his good points (before 1982), but he also represents the rather poppy side of a movement that went much further and deeper... i would suggest you take your interest in costello and look at other stuff of the time, because you will find that the sex pistols certainly influenced an incredible amount of very good music. if you want to see passion, craft and politics colliding, british and american post-punk is the place to look.
37 - Al Barger
Really Zing, you act as if I wouldn't be familiar with the Sex Pistols. I've only been listening to Bollocks for a quarter century. They actually had some good songs there, but they didn't have the chops or mental stability to go anywhere with it.
No, the Sex Pistols could not play for crap. They managed to focus their minds and play against their limits enough to make one good record, but don't kid yourself that these guys are any kind of serious musicians. Pearl Jam bores me, but at least those guys are competent to play their instruments.
Plus, that nihilistic crap is not deep and profound. It's NOT meaningful, or reflecting any special understanding of the world or human experience. The constant misery and hostility bore me after anything past their one album. There's nowhere for it to go. Just go out and shoot yourself and be done with it, if you're that goddam miserable.
FU, FU, FU!!!! does not constitute profundity. The Swindle stuff was just scraps, though the Sid Vicious suicide note "My Way" is somewhat memorable. PiL didn't even have the passion of the Sex Pistols' nihilism. It was just crappy professional product that Lydon did to make a boring living. I'd rather listen to the Dixie Chicks.
I understand people liking some Elvis Costello records or styles better than others, but dismissing him post 1982 is ridiculous. That's just saying that you wouldn't know a real song if it bit you in the ass.
Yes, Styx was FAR better than the Smiths, song for song. The Smiths were better at expressing self-pity, which seems to appeal to a lot of people. However, Styx wrote much more memorable songs. Plus, prime Styx had a lot more heart and soul than whiny-ass Morissey.
Zing, I'm all in favor of you as a human being, but you don't seem to have much understanding or appreciation of good music. If you think that BLT is "painful" to listen to and Elvis Costello sucks, but the Smiths and PiL are "deep," then you're just out to lunch.
38 - zingzing
okay, first, you need to listen to EARLY pil. their first three albums. there you will find what i am talking about. after keith levene (the jimi hendrix of post-punk) left in 1981, they were not the same. "meaning behind the moaning," if you please.
second, listen to the smiths again. some of their songs are about self-pity, sure, but the majority are not, and the guitarist is amazing. you are falling for the myth of morrissey. his detractors created the myth. "vicar in a tutu" is about self-pity? "some girls are bigger than others?" "ask?" "panic?" please...
third, the sex pistols could play just fine, and their nihilism was expressing certain social conditions in stark terms--learn your history and don't dismiss something out of hand. no, they weren't traditionally trained musicians, but they certainly had chops in the studio.
fourth, i like early costello. i pointed that out. i just can't sit through his later albums waiting for the couple of good songs. i haven't the time. give me quality, or fuck off.
and fifth, i never said the smiths were deep. i find them poetic lyrically and musically, and one of many bands where the surface is a facade to throw off the general public. pil, on the other hand, is--and i'm talking about sound here--one of the handful of truly amazing bands to come out of rock n roll. listen to metal box, then get back to me.
39 - Al Barger
Zing, I listened to that crappy PiL stuff when it was current. Tried to like it. But there wasn't much there.
I don't know what planet you're from to say that the Sex Pistols could play. They were purely technically incompetent. By that, I don't mean simply that they lacked conservatory training, or even just that they couldn't read sheet music. By the way, is learning to actually read musical notation to much to expect of a professional musician?
Don't even come talking to me about needing to learn history to understand the Sex Pistols. Puh-lease. You need to know history to fully appreciate Shakespeare. You don't need a history degree to get "I am an anti-Christ."
The Smiths just suck. Apparently, they suck in a way that appeals to the suckingness in some people. Personally, I'd be inclined to navigate away from dwelling on whatever kind of feelings would cause one to like this sound.
But that doesn't come up for me, for starters because there was very little memorable about the craft of their crappy songs. Is there a hook on a Smiths record somewhere, and I just missed it?
40 - zingzing
if you don't like early pil, then you don't like it--but don't tell me the sound wasn't something completely alien. i think it's fantastic, the absurdly deep bass, the chordless guitars swirling and biting into each other, the mixture of disco and dirge in the drums... and lydon's voice, careening from high to low, excstacy to scream... all over structures that ignore traditional patterns for solid, yet fluid repitition.
if you haven't listened to "anarchy" and "gstq" recently, you may not have noticed the huge amount of guitar lines interweaving to create that racket. steve jones knew how to play and how to put things together so that it sounded both monolithic and impressionistic.
as for your question, i don't think it is at all necessary for musicians to be able to read notation. the beatles couldn't. and you like the beatles. btw-glen matlock could read music. so there goes that theory.
don't reduce lydon's lyrics to one-liners. that's no way to think about it. where did punk come from? why was there anger? how did such a liberal bunch of people come up with obviously conservative music as the path to a better future? how much was pose? did they or did they not start a musical revolution in england? what do you know of english politics of the time?
as for the smiths... have you heard the guitarist? he is full of "hooks." ten or twelve a song. the man was a master melodicist and could create fantastic textures on his guitar. depending on your point of view, moz's voice is either a hook or a smelly fish carcass, but marr's guitars are some undeniable gold.
41 - Martin Lav
Awake,
Your comments are right on. Appreciate your point of view and not only because it's exactly like mine, but because it's true. This Al Barger critic is obviously to enamored with his supposed expertise on musical talents and lyrics that he can't even hear Neils message much less read yours. It's obvious the lyrics about the baseball team and steriods is sarcasm and any fool could see that or understand it if they weren't blinded by their political leanings to the point that they can't even give an honest review. Also, as you will see on this trail of messages and once again our esteemed critic estoles the virtues of the SANDWICH, while discounting Neil entirely. One would think that the SANDWICH will probably name his next song:
I Love My Blogcritic
42 - Smurphy
You're clearly a man of some intleigence, simply to be capable of using a computer for long enough to type this. But sir, how in the name of God you could possibly beleive some of the B.S. you've spouted off there-in, it is completely beyond me.
First of all, BLT's song is lyrically comparable to The Itsy Bitsy Spider, while Neil Young's full album, while not by any means his best musical work is easily on par with Pearl Jam, and dising Pearl Jam in a reply will be futile, as I am never going to look at this thread again.
Furthermore, the muical aspect of BLT's release is slow, difficult to understand, even when compared to Neil, and lacking any real point, much less backing one up, as the combined album Living With War does in a very elequent way.
I think you've completely missed the point of Young's entire album, and I think you've done so while at the same time vastly overrating that putrid scum bellowed out by BLT.
To compare his kind of low brow songwriting to that of Neil Young takes either a pair of utterly massive balls, or else the mind of a common rodent.
I'd suggest a few things for you Mr. Barger.
#1. Get a different job, as both a collumest and a musical critic you suck.
#2. Sit down with all of the lyrics from Living With War, and google the subjects Neil discusses, and tell me you don't agree that everything he sings of warrants, promotes, or evidences either the impeachement of George Walker Bush, or the peaceful recovery of our fine nation from the villinus rule of that idiot's devious regime.
[Personal attack deleted]
43 - Martin Lav
Finally someone else that sees this trash for what it is while seeing the brilliance of Neils new record. Point is being made in that it is still being talked about or as Neil says "there needs to be a debate about this".
Oh and by the way Neil has the SANDWICH's song posted to his website www.neilyoung.com.
Smurphy, the booger is on the take
44 - Jeremy
BLT is really lame. I agree that some of the lyrics on Neil's record need work. But for an album that was made in 9 days, it got it's point across. And that after all is the point.
Check out flow's song Drugs Against War for some refreshing lyrics and an even fresher outlook.