Once more, into the mailbag. Participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, and Wally of The Daily Jot.
Louise writes, "You took down the Doug Henwood link!"
Jim: We took that down, Ava, C.I. and myself -- it takes three people! Ty told me over the phone that there were a number of e-mails asking why Henwood's WordPress site displayed an error message. We had no idea. We used the link, we were on the road, and got the same error message on three consecutive days. When Ava was pulling up the book discussion we did on October 7th to post it Thursday morning, I asked her to stay logged in. After it was up and C.I.'s second morning entry was up, we had a quick pow-wow and decided that Henwood, economist who writes for The Nation and hosts Behind the News on WBAI, may have decided to end his blog. Since Ty had several e-mails, we figured the best thing to do was pull it. If it starts back up (or moves elsewhere), let us know and we'll link again.
C.I.: Quickly, Behind the News airs Thursday nights from five to six pm. Henwood's also the editor of The Left Business Observer. And, of course, he's Liza Featherstone's husband.
Sammy e-mailed wondering if we knew about a "disgusting piece of trash who poses left and attacks Arundahti Roy, Naomi Klein and everyone else you could think of?"
Dona: That is "The Pooper" and, yes, we are aware of. No, we do not link to him. Ever.
Jess: He also trashes Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda and basically any woman alive. Life has apparently not been good for him.
Ava: One of his groupies actually wrote The Common Ills public account Saturday. He's the flamer who shows up on all left servlists to cup The Pooper's testicles, possibly to lick as well. He's -- the Poop-ette -- on a mission to trash Cynthia McKinney before she even decides whether or not to run for the Green Party nomination for president. C.I., Jess and I saw that e-mail and were scratching our heads over the frantic tone of his e-mail and desire to save the world from McKinney. Then we realized he was a Poop-ette. He posts multiple times at The Pooper's website and occasionally shows up at Dissident Voice as well where he plays left in the comments and, strangely, never does his required shout out to The Pooper.
Jess: The thing I loved about the Poop-ette's e-mail was he was crying about how the "MSM" won't touch his big issue with McKinney and to back himself up about his sliming of McKinney he links to . . . an article at The Washington Post. I wasn't aware that The Washington Post was no longer considered mainstream media?
Kylie e-mails in praise of this edition's book discussion which went up Thursday morning and was done October 7th. Rashid e-mailed Saturday confused by it and wondering if we were taking Sunday off and that would be our sole offering?
Ty: We'd said we would leave it alone if the authors did. When Mia e-mailed C.I. about an article on one of the authors, where he claimed there was a group who wouldn't even read the book, C.I. was going to include a brief comment on that and that would be it. Jim and Ava were on the road with C.I. and kept saying, "Include this! Add this!" to the point that it kept growing and growing. Finally, pressed for time, C.I. asked, "Do you just want to post the discussion?" Mike wrote the explanation this week, by the way, for those who need further info. If we were "the group," the author is mistaken. We read that awful book. Had Jim not been on the road, none of us are sure the discussion would have gone up. Mia had a question and C.I. was answering it and that would have been that. But Jim always wanted the discussion up and now it is. I think we're all glad. Dona did feel an introduction should have been written but (a) she wasn't consulted -- nor were Jess or I -- and (b) an intro would have just been done by Ava, C.I. and Jim and (c) Jim's point, the minute C.I. asked, "Do you just want to post the discussion?", was "YES! NOW!"
Zoe e-mailed regarding and saying she found it strange that Nyro's marriage was noted but the fact that she was a lesbian wasn't?
C.I.: The marriage was noted in terms of that was one reason she went into semi-retirement. We weren't recounting her personal life. We made no reference to her adult child. Ty and I actually brought up the issue of her sexuality after the piece was finished but before it was posted.
Ty: That was a nightmare piece. We thought it would be easy because we all love her music and we'd read a book, Dona, Jess and I, on her. It's a good book but it gets the recording and release of her last studio album . . . I don't know. The book is talking to men who worked on it. That is their impression so I won't say the book gets it "wrong." But that was not Nyro's experience. When it was being brought up, C.I. was asking us where we were getting that information. We would have taken C.I.'s word for it, but C.I. was saying, "No, no, let me pull out the journals. I'll show you." Which is what happened. We reviewed notes of three phone conversations, a note from Nyro to C.I. and a letter from Nyro to C.I. Nyro did not enjoy the recording of that album and she did not think the release was handled well.
C.I.: I need Dona to cut me off or give me a sign to wind down because I will go on long here. First, Nyro and I were not best friends. I knew her and when she was going to record again for Columbia, that was a big deal. I'd sent something, a note of encouragement and/or flowers, and that was the reconnect for us. The engineer and the producer were attempting to create the best Nyro album possible. But, like the label, they saw the best on different terms than Nyro did. She stated on the phone and in the letter that she felt her art was being ground up like sausage. That's a valid point. It's why the album sounds like she's on Prozac or has had had a lobotomy. Everything is smoothed over. From the two men's point of view, the album was supposed to attract the widest audience possible. Someone, and I'm self-editing to get this wrapped up quickly, like Carly Simon that would never happen to. She wouldn't allow it. Nor should she. Her three battles with Richard Perry in the seventies are only one example. Carly's not going to get hyped on the 'technology' because she's very aware, despite what she says, about technology. I'm not calling Carly a liar, I'm saying she's very modest. Carly Simon controls a Carly Simon recording session. As she should and as most men do but few women do.
Nyro felt she was being rushed, being smoothed over and being confused with some of the explanations offered. The latter wouldn't happen to Carly. What the two men did, and what the label wanted, was to make the most accessible Nyro to a wide audience. In doing so, they robbed her of her individuality in many instances. The live album we reference, at The Bottom Line, is Laura as she heard her music. The sound simplification came in the number of instruments primarily. But for the album in question, she felt -- and I agree -- she was being simplified in other ways. What she did live, as a money saving option, did not weaken her art or her sense of adventure. When Laura recorded for the label before the semi-retirement and when she recorded for it in the seventies and eighties, there was a sense of "don't touch" and in the studio she commanded respect. On the last studio album released before her death, that respect wasn't there. I personally don't think there was any malice. I think you had two people who wanted to take Laura Nyro to the masses. And I think there was a level, this is me speaking of my own opinions, of "She's so great, why don't people get this?" And that's what the smoothing over and blanching was about. That exists whenever an established artist who either hasn't reached blockbuster sales or hasn't had them in a while records. But a male artist, or a select group of women, can and will still control the session. Someone like Laura Nyro's never going to because it requires a willingness to fight that she really didn't have. Carly doesn't have to holler or bully. She's got a way where she's firm and everyone knows a line has been drawn and it will not be crossed. She's all for experimenting but if you're turning the song into something it's not, she won't allow it. Dona?
Dona: No, go on but explain why Carly Simon's the example you're citing.
C.I.: Because she's a positive example. There are many female artists who do end up allowing someone else to control the vision in the recording studio and they end up regretting it. Spoiled Girl is probably Carly's least favorite recording experience. I'm leaving out pre-1971 recordings. But even on Spoiled Girl, where there was a lot of pressure to 'make over' her art, if you listen today, you'll still find her songs in her own voice. And that really was a high pressure recording session, maybe more so than even the Richard Perry sessions in the seventies. But there's a line and everyone knows she won't cross it. Nyro wasn't able to draw that line and enforce it. The problem, and she feared it, was that in finally having the least adventurous album of her career, if it didn't sale, Columbia's attitude would be, "Oh well, she can never sale." And the album, as she feared, did end up being the end of her long career with the label that had spanned decades.
Ty: Just talk about producers for a second or two before we wrap up because I was repeating some of what you'd said to my boss and he said it was right on the money.
C.I.: Quickly, Richard Perry wants to make over an artist. He's the Herb Ross of music producers. That can work well with the Pointer Sisters, and did work out incredibly well for both of them, when they're attempting to figure out a new direction. But in terms of artists who have a strong sense of their own art, it doesn't work out well. Michael Douglas used to, rightly, rail against Perry's "Stoney End" single for Barbra Streisand, noting it was a note-for-note steal of Nyro's version. And Streisand's work with Perry, though it sold very well, is probably the least signature work she's ever done. It was a new genre for her and she was willing to go with his assessments more than she normally would. But with Carly Simon, you had an artist who already knew the genre and . . . I mean, Carly Simon shouldn't have to fight to get a song on an album. And of course, a big group in the nineties recorded with him early on, before they became a huge hit, and it was a disaster. He wanted to impose his vision on them, young women, and it was a disaster. Only after they moved on were they able to become a huge success. They knew what their sound should be and they were willing to move a little more towards the mainstream, the songs they were singing together like Stevie Nicks' "Wild Heart" were clear indications that they didn't want to be Paula Abdul, but there was very much a sense of, "You will do it my way." It didn't work out and they moved on to others and found the success they deserved. Nyro actually could have worked with success, with great success, with Richard Perry. With Nyro, he would have gone for bright tones but not messed with her art. I'm not trying to rag on Perry, here. But he is someone who comes in with very strong ideas and if you disagree before the recording starts, that's your sign that it's not going to work out or else you're going to battle every day in the studio.
Tony Christini e-mails to note works of fiction on the current Iraq War including his own book which he didn't mention the title of. He does note a review by Ron Jacobs of his book. And he also notes a list of plays, books and movies about the illegal war.
Jim: I'm not into fiction at all these days. I know C.I.'s attitude is if Alice Walker or Margaret Atwood write a novel, it'll be read but, otherwise, time is too short. I'm not trying to insult novelists, I'm just talking about the attitude that sums it up for C.I. and myself. I'm willing to read Christini's novel but I'll tell you right now it won't be this month. I've got too much on my plate for this month.
Elaine: I'll be happy to be one of the first of this group to read it and I know Dona probably feels the same. Just to clarify, C.I. was that way during Vietnam as well.
C.I.: Right. I don't want to escape reality by inhabiting another land. If I'm reading fiction, it really does take over, if it's good fiction. It'll pop up in my conversations, in my letters, etc. To be reading fiction right now would mean bizarro world at The Common Ills as I inhabited various characters. I agree with Jim that we can make time for it but I don't think next month. You'll have people taking off during the holidays who might want to participate so a better target date would be January. And, to be clear before a friend complains or questions, if I'm reading their own manuscripts, I'm reading as a critic not to get lost in a story.
Mike: I think January's a more realistic target date. Jess, Wally, Jim, Dona and myself are going to be coming up on end of semesters and the idea that we're going to have time to read something when we've already got so much on our reading lists is really just not going to happen. By setting January as the time, I think everyone can make it a read over the break book.
Dona: So we'll plan for including it in a discussion for January.
Ava: And just to be clear, putting it off for January isn't intended as an insult. If we thought it was of no use reading, we wouldn't be planning for it. Like Mike pointed out, some have semesters ending. For myself, C.I. and I are on the road every week talking about Iraq. We have trouble making time for watching a TV show and reading scripts for the TV commentaries each week. Our reading primarily consists of what can be of use to the discussions we're having. And that's based on the questions that pop up.
Cedric: We should also note, because none of us want to participate in another discussion that doesn't go up the way the October 7th one didn't until this edition, that if we don't like a book, we're going to say so. That's always been the case; however, now that we're using the book discussions for Iraq, we need to be especially clear on that. I'm sure the novel's written with the best of intentions but my comments during the discussion will be focused on what's on the page.
Marvin loved a joint-post from last week and wonders why no one linked to it?
Mike: I'll grab that. Betty, Cedric and Wally did a joint-post, "The press that loves Obama,"
"Sleazy press supports sleazy candidate" and "THIS JUST IN! HARD TIMES FOR BAMBI, HARD TIMES FOR THE PRESS!" They asked that no one link to it. However, I ignored them and linked to it. For why that was, why they didn't want to be linked to, I'll toss to them.
Betty: Due to the topic, Obama 'finding' the church and thinking that meant embracing homophobia, I was invited in. Like Cedric's church, my own church has worked very hard to face realities. Wally suggested to Cedric that I be invited in due to the topic. I was flattered to be asked and was going to say that and "no, thank you" because I really didn't have the time. Wally told me the topic and I said I'd make the time. We're noting that people on the left aren't calling Obama out, a lot of people on the left, not all, Margaret Kimberley's "Obama and McClurkin" is a brave exception. But I knew going in that I was going to insist that Laura Flanders be on the list.
Cedric: She's not the only one to make the list. But she had decided to publish a begging post to Obama, begging that he reconsider something. After the concert where a homophobic was invited and used the stage to express homophobia. I'm not outing Flanders when I note that she's a lesbian. She's public about that. So for her to write a begging piece to Obama and for it to be about one of his backers endorsing torture and not about his allowing homophobia to be expressed through his campaign was just disgusting.
Betty: I'm not trying to attack her. But you're not doing me any favors, Laura Flanders, by being silent on this topic. It's disgusting and when Black churches like Cedric and my own have repeatedly fought against the homophobia of some churches and the silence of some churches, we really don't need your post or column saying, "Please Barack don't let a torture supporter be part of your campaign!" That's not even news. The news was the homophobia. And not calling it out devalues the very real work so many Black churches are doing and leaves the impression, intended or not, that "Well, that's just how those churches and those people are."
Wally: And a point Ava and C.I. made later in the week is equally valid -- why is she begging to begin with? He's a candidate for president, not a little child. If you really believe that it's important that he not take the support of those who support torture, you call it out. You don't write some soft, little plea. At our site, we're calling out Obama all the time, Cedric and me. We don't do it as a plea. It was really disappointing that Flanders chose to go with that option because she's usually such a strong fighter. Cedric and I aren't doing a fan site. We're grown ups and if we're pleading during the primaries, where are we going to be in the general election and where will be if a Democrat gets elected.
Betty: But due to the inclusion of Laura Flanders, I didn't want everyone linking to it. So I made the request and we were all agreed. Why? I didn't want Rebecca, C.I., Elaine, Ruth, Kat or Mike getting e-mails asking, "How dare you!" Those were Wally, Cedric and my opinions and with some of the people e-mailing these days, even a link would have resulted in everyone getting drawn into it. We called around and made the request. Mike was on my call list and he told me upfront that he didn't care what anyone e-mailed and he was going to ignore my request.
Mike: Yeah, I said, Betty, this is the only favor you'll ever ask that I tell you "no." But I understood where it was coming from. It goes back to the whole, "They said mean things about me!" b.s. where someone runs to C.I. every day about something one of us has put up at our sites, whether C.I. has linked to it or not. We get sick of it, C.I. gets sick of it. I knew where they were coming from but I'm pretty much pissed off with the bulk of visitors stumbling across my site and don't give a damn what they think.
Dona: Ty had other e-mails but we need to wrap up. Elaine has only spoken once and Rebecca and Kat not at all. So let's give them the last words.
Kat: I'll go first. I'd said when we sat down for this that I needed to go over my review that's posting this morning at The Common Ills so I've listened but now interjected for that reason. On the topic everyone was just discussing, Wally asked me not to link and I agreed. I like Laura Flanders and there's not anyone participating who doesn't. But there's also not anyone participating who doesn't agree with the joint-post that Betty, Cedric and Wally wrote. That's pretty much it for me.
Rebecca: Elaine's waving to me. Elaine, Mike and I are all together. Like Betty, Cedric and Wally, we participate by phone and Elaine and I are always at Mike's house on the weekends. Ruth and I were talking this week about some of the nonsense and I would classify an adult on the left pleading with a candidate via a public column to be nonsense. That's any candidate and I think it goes to Wally's point. Torture isn't "please vote on Senate Resolution . . ." Torture is disgusting and illegal. You don't plead on that issue. If you're pleading in the primaries, you'll be bleeding in the general election and you'll be needing a good ass kicking after the election because you'll have a real hard time finding your way back to a strong voice.
Elaine: Last week, Rebecca wrote about how women make themselves useless. That Laura Flanders -- who has stood up successfully to Bill O'Reilly -- would write a column where she's asking Barack Obama nicely to please not let a torture supporter on board -- I believe she needs to examine his advisor Sammy Power -- is, to me, a sign of making yourself useless. Flanders is a strong woman and that column, I can only blame The Nation which is where it appeared first, is so far from strength. She's a wonderful voice but when you read something like that from a strong voice, it just causes serious concern. You start thinking, "Oh no, they're going to get Laura too!" I had agreed not to post the links when Cedric called me and then Mike told me that he was posting them despite the request. I went back and forth on it but had given my word. And excuse me, but this fantasy that Obama's better than Hillary is a delusion. I understand it because I bought into it as well. If I hadn't seen his smug face explain how withdrawal wasn't "an option" he could support and that the US needed to "win" now that they were over there, I might buy into the fantasy as well.
Dona: We are wrapping up but, and Elaine, I know this has been covered elsewhere, but for those who are just reading this one feature, explain the conversation you're referring to.
Elaine: When he ran for the Senate, I was very high on him. I was invited to a big fundraiser and C.I. would be in that area due to the logistics of the speaking tour. I'm calling it a tour -- it's the never ending End The Illegal War Tour C.I.'s been on since February 2003. So we both went and were joking about the checks we'd be writing, the maximum amount, and then in our face time, C.I. asks about the illegal war. We thought, "Anti-war candidate, this is not going to be a problem." Then he explains, the "anti-war" candidate, that he does not support withdrawal and told myself that I must have misheard. C.I. immediately went after that and as Obama repeated and clarified, I was no longer standing before an anti-war candidate. We both immediately left and the bloom was off that rose. On Friday, The New York Times pimped him as being for troop withdrawal and C.I., utilizing the transcript of the interview the report was based upon, demonstrated that Obama was not calling for troops out of Iraq. It's past time the left and the mainstream media stopped covering up for him.