Hallelujah... I guess

 The recent death of Leonard Cohen has caused me to reflect on a few things.  I was reminded of something I wrote that was published by the South Bend Tribune on June 15, 2010.  I wrote:

"Over the last few months, I've discovered an alarming trend that I feel is a problem and a blight not just on our culture, but on our society as a whole. Something desperately needs to be done about it.

"I'm speaking, of course, of other artists covering Leonard Cohen's 1985 song, 'Hallelujah.'

"There’ve been many covers of it over the years and until about a year and a half ago, I even claimed I'd never heard a bad one.

"I’m a big fan of some of the artists (like Willie Nelson) and completely ambivalent to others (like Rufus Wainwright). Bon Jovi I've never really liked (although I think they've gotten better with age). Yet I enjoyed every version of 'Hallelujah' I'd heard.

"Then Il Divo came along. Not only did they butcher the song in ways that made actual butchers jealous, but they had the unmitigated audacity to do it in Italian.

"Since then it seems as though anyone with a pretty voice has taken it upon themselves to record this song, especially if it's a group of four or more classically trained male tenors.

"Because of her performance of it at the Olympics this year, k.d. lang has had a tremendous surge in record sales. Everybody thinks it's something new — which is really funny to me because she recorded it six years ago. 

"A friend and colleague recently said that only two people should be allowed to do this song: Leonard Cohen and Jeff Buckley — and Buckley is dead! Even though I do like k.d. lang's version, I'm beginning to think he's right.

"There are just too many covers of 'Hallelujah' now and, with the exception of Willie Nelson, they all seem to try to model themselves after Buckley's version.

"What's most disturbing is that the song is used in countless movie and television productions — but not Cohen's version. If this is because they can't get the rights, fine. But I strongly suspect it's because Cohen's voice isn't as pretty as Rufus Wainwright's.

"Cohen is the Canadian Bob Dylan — he writes amazing songs, yet he can't really sing. The most beautiful thing about this is that, somehow, this makes the songs even better. An almost world-weary soulfulness comes out of his voice that makes up for the lack of proficiency.

"But, then again, I'm drawn to artists that had a career before Simon Cowell was around to tell us what was 'good.'

"Most of my favorites would never make it on 'American Idol' — Cohen is one of the big ones. And 'Hallelujah' is the greatest ’80s rock power ballad ever — one that puts all the hair-metal bands of that era to shame. It's not supposed to be sung with a pretty voice. It's supposed to be ragged."

What was amazing to me was that a year prior to my writing that, Cohen himself asked artists to stop covering his song (you can read more at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/leonard-cohen-asks-for-brief-halt-to-new-covers-of-hallelujah-20090710).  Apparently no one listened to either me or the writer of the song himself.  By the end of 2010 I discovered at least two new recordings of the song —one of them by Susan Boyle who released it on her Christmas album.  A friend of mine actually told me that this was the biggest selling Christmas song in the UK.  Not a bad feat for a song that not only is not a Christmas song, but was written by a Jewish Buddist (Jewddhist?).

After Cohen's death, I posted to Facebook a plea to musicians everywhere to not record more unnecessary covers of the song.  My pleas have apparently fallen on deaf ears as I've already heard it on yet another Christmas album (to reiterate:  THIS IS NOT A CHRISTMAS SONG!!!!).  In all fairness, I'm sure that the recording was done before Cohen passed, but that's no excuse.  I made my initial plea for a moratorium on this six and a half years ago and Cohen (to reiterate:  he's the song's composer) made the same plea the year before.  If they're not going to listen to me, the least they could do is listen to the man who wrote the damn song!

You would think that after the hundredth, or even the fiftieth, recording that any artist worth their salt would think that any more covers of this song would really be white noise.  Apparently, I'm wrong on that front.  In the years since I wrote my piece for the Tribune, I would conservatively estimate that at least fifty more artists have recorded the song.

The sad thing is that, in my humble opinion, it's not even Cohen's best work.  Since his death, his 1988 song "Tower of Song" has become my new jam.  It was already one of my favourites to begin with, but it's now taken on new meaning for me since his passing (you can check out a live performance at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WirxqAn7Ck8 if you don't believe me).  After listening to his new album, You Want it Darker (a stunningly beautiful work of art), "Tower of Song" managed to bring me to tears.

Not that I expect any musicians out there to listen to me (and I'm sure those of you who know me are tired of me bitching about it), but once again I ask anyone with an ounce of musical talent to not record the song, although I'll be the first to admit to understanding the urge to do so.  If you feel compelled to cover a Leonard Cohen song--as opposed to, say, God forbid, writing and recording something new that no one has ever heard before--pick something else.  I might recommend "So Long, Marianne," "Hey, That's No Way to Say Goodbye," "Everybody Knows," "Who By Fire," or "Ain't No Cure For Love"... just to name a few.

Please, I beseech you, leave this song alone for a change.  Give its author some dignity.

Thanks, Boss!

I've been trying to figure out how to write this for fourteen years now.  It initially started as a letter.  That didn't gel quite the way I wanted it to.  I've expressed it in a couple of different ways over the years.  I've never been satisfied with the end results and I'm not sure I will be now.

I've always hated symbolism. When I was in high school and college, my English teachers tended to focus on it a lot in the stories we would read. They would ask us what the author really meant when s/he said this or that. And of course my teachers, especially in high school, gave me the impression that theirs was the only correct answer. To add insult to injury, most of the time, the authors in question were dead and couldn't defend their works. My college professors were a little better inasmuch as they allowed for other people to have their own interpretations and opinions. Honestly, though, the whole thing kind of turned me off to reading for a long time. I still contend that the best thing I read in college was Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis and that's just because I took it at face value. I refused to look at it as anything more than a great science fiction story about a guy who turns into a bug.

The one thing that symbolism did spark in me was an interest in writing my own stuff (and if you're still reading it, thank you). I was particularly proud of a poem I wrote in high school. On the surface it was about a relationship between two people, based loosely on my relationship with my best friend at the time. I won't share it here because it's a pretty bad poem. What I took pride in was the fact that if you took the last word of every line it read "There is absolutely no! symbolism in this poem whatsoever--I'm just being a smart-ass." I was also quite fond of the exclamation point after the word "no."

Somewhere along the line, I discovered that symbolism is entirely subjective, not to mention personal. What you get out of something may be completely different from what I get out of it. And both of those interpretations may have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what the author was trying to convey in the first place.

In retrospect, I may have actually discovered this around the same time I wrote that bad poem. It was during this time, that I was asked to give a report on the most recent movie I'd seen. The movie happened to be The Blues Brothers and I went into some b.s. about the religious and spiritual significance I had managed to glean from it (my English teacher liked to think she was actually teaching Sunday School). I highly doubt that's what Dan Aykroyd had in mind when he wrote the script for the film, but, after twenty-five years, I've reached the point where I actually believe my own line of b.s.

I came to the conclusion that symbolism is not something you should look for. If you are, any meaning you get out of it might ring a little hollow--at least it certainly does for me. As I said, it's subjective and personal. Instead, I think symbolism is something that should come to you organically. It could come to you gently or it could hit you upside the head like a ton of bricks.

For me, it was in the summer of 2002.  Not my best summer.  I was watching my best friend and the only woman I've ever truly loved prepare to marry someone else--for the second time in our adult lives (please refer to my post "Nice Guy Blues").  I was coming to the realization that I couldn't have her in my life without falling in love with her and I couldn't fall in love with her without getting hurt.  Frankly, I was tired of getting hurt.  I knew I had to walk out of her life as permanently as possible.  That was not the easiest thing to do given the fact that we had known each other since the age of five.

I had heard that Bruce Springsteen was releasing a new album.  It would be his first with the E Street Band since Born in the USA in 1984.  I was only beginning to realize the power of Springsteen's music (please refer to my post "Manual vs. Automatic Transmissions").  I heard the first single, "Lonesome Day," while stuck in traffic one afternoon and started to dig it immediately.  I decided I had to buy the album the day of its release.

So on July 30, 2002, I bought the deluxe edition of the Boss's new album, The Rising.  I took it home and listened to it.  I knew going in that much of the album was inspired by the tragedy that was September 11, 2001.  However, when I listened to the songs, they spoke to me in a way that had nothing to do with that horrible morning nearly a year earlier.  Most of the more somber songs seemed to sum up how I was feeling in the moment with all my personal drama.

Initially, I was just looking forward to a new album from an artist I liked, particularly when he was backed by one of the greatest bands in rock and roll history for the first time in eighteen years.  What I got was symbolism that I wasn't looking for hitting me upside the head like a ton of bricks.

The song that stands out the most to me (both personally as well as to prove my point about symbolism) is the album's closing track, "My City of Ruins."  Due to Springsteen's performance at a benefit concert after 9/11, the song came to symbolize New York after that day.  Personally, it symbolized my own broken heart in the wake of losing, quite possibly, the best friend I've ever had.  And yet, Springsteen wrote it about Asbury Park, New Jersey.  It's amazing how something can mean different things to different people.

In the intervening years, I've come to appreciate the Boss's music more than I ever had before.  After The Rising, I revisited 1978's Darkness on the Edge of Town, which became a staple in my late-night listening (and aimless driving) over the next year or so.  Every subsequent studio album he's recorded I've felt compelled to pick up the day of its release.  Each one seems to contain something that I can symbolically interpret to aid in my own current existence.  2012's "Wrecking Ball" has become something of an anthem--to the point that I actually want it played at my funeral (note:  this is "Wrecking Ball" by Bruce Springsteen--not Miley Cyrus... or Grace Slick, come to think of it).

I've just finished reading his memoir, Born To Run.  Aside from the Cubs winning the World Series, it stands for me as the only high point of an otherwise crappy year--it may even be as crappy as 2002.  While the reviews I've read seem to think he was a bit heavy-handed in his language, I have to admit that that was one of the things I loved about it.  As someone who loves language and the music of Bruce Springsteen, I can't recommend the book highly enough.

Ultimately this post (as well as its underwhelming predecessors) is meant to serve as a thank you letter to the man himself.  I doubt he will ever read this.  I'm sure he gets these sorts of things all the time.  But I want to take this opportunity to personally thank Bruce Springsteen for everything he's done over the last forty-five years.  His music (and now his literature) has meant so much to me, probably more than I can possibly explain here.  It's been a source of inspiration and a remedy for those things that make life almost unbearable.  Whenever I've been at my lowest, I can always come back to his work and feel a little better about my life and the things that trouble it.  For that I will always be grateful.

Thanks, Boss!

What the 2016 World Series Means to Me

This week has given me more than my fair share of opportunities to reflect on what it means to be a fan of the Chicago Cubs.  I've never really been a fan of sports in general.  However, the older I've gotten the more I enjoy the game of baseball and even that I've only been doing since my early- to mid-twenties.  But I've been a Cubs fan my whole life.

It's a hereditary affliction.  I get it from my dad who got it from my grandmother.  I've often said that the term "Chicago Cubs fan" is offensive and derogatory to the degree that only other Cubs fans can call each other Cubs fans.  I preferred to think of myself as a third generation "Masochistic-American."  When I told people this, I would be quick to point out that my American League team is the Cleveland Indians, which usually prompted statements along the lines of, "Boy, you really are a masochist, aren't you?"  Now it's no longer a laughing matter.

Some of the most important moments of my life, happy and sad, involve the Cubs.  When my grandmother died in 1989, my family was sitting around my grandparents' house.  It felt like a vacuum in that living room.  Someone suggested we do something.  The obvious question was what would she have done?  Someone (my aunt, I think) said that Grandma would turn on the TV and see how the Cubs were doing.  So we watched the rest of the game.  One got the impression that even they knew they had lost a fan that day.  The Atlanta Braves beat them 8-5.

At the age of 34, my father and I were asked to house- and dog-sit for my aunt while the women in our family took a trip to Holland.  Before I arrived, Dad suggested we go to a Cubs game.  I realized that this would be one of those great father/son moments that I would treasure the rest of my life and I jumped at the opportunity.  I wasn't wrong.  On 9 May, 2008, I attended my first Major League baseball game in the Friendly Confines of Wrigley Field.  I felt like a little kid walking around that place.  So much baseball history.  So much money spent on souvenirs and concessions.  Phrases like "You can't quiet The Riot" and "Fukudome is my Homie" entered my vocabulary and I became a fan of the music of Steve Goodman.  I had an amazing day with Dad that I wouldn't have traded for anything.  And to make it even better, the Cubs beat the Arizona Diamondbacks 3-1.

In the intervening years, I followed my favourite team.  I would watch as they would have a promising season only to blow it in the playoffs, if they even got there.  Dad even bought a hoodie with the Cubs logo that read "Never October."

The worst came last season.  Jon Stewart had New York Mets' pitcher Matt Harvey on his program.  I'd been a fan of Stewart's since before "The Daily Show" was even on the air.  But, as a Cubs fan, I was mildly annoyed by the fact that he was always complaining about how the Mets let him down year after year.  So I made a fake radio broadcast which I posted on YouTube.  In it, I gave him what for and pointed out that for all of his frustration and disappointment, things could be worse for him in the baseball department.  I doubt he ever saw the video.  But after the Mets swept my Cubbies in the National League Championship Series roughly six months later, I stood behind every word (you can check out what I said below.  I'm still proud of that video).

This year, however, the video, the hoodie, the term "Masochistic-American," curses involving billy goats... they're all outdated relics of a bygone era.  At about half-past midnight this past Thursday morning, the Chicago Cubs won their first World Series since 1908.  They beat, of all teams, my Cleveland Indians.

It was everything a baseball fan could hope for.  It was Game 7.  There was a lead-off home run, a three-run lead that was tied up in the eighth inning, and a rain delay before the tenth inning.  It was a nail-biter.  And in the end, the Cubs won 8-7.  Like a lot of fully grown adults, I was so excited I cried.  I cried partially because of the excitement at seeing my favourite team finally shed the image of "lovable losers," but also because Dad died in May and wasn't here to enjoy it with me.

I find it interesting that one of the last things he did was buy two large screen televisions so that he could watch the Cubs play even though he threatened every fall to stop rooting for them.  Mom and I figure the Cubs won it all because Dad was probably haunting Wrigley Field most of the season.  I remember texting my sister after they won the NLCS (I cried over that too).  She reminded me that Dad actually claimed that they would never win the World Series in his lifetime.

I've spent the last six months trying to get a handle on everything surrounding Dad's death--dealing with the house we just bought, the estate, legal hassles, even just simple mourning.  All of that was like the eighth inning.  You Cubs fans know what I'm talking about.  Aroldis Chapman took the mound with two outs already secured.  But his arm was overworked.  He couldn't throw like he had in previous games and proceeded to let the Indians tie it up.  The more superstitious and cynical among us (myself included) thought, "this is where we're finally going to choke."  We could see the wheels coming off.  But they held on into extra innings and finally managed to win.  After that, I finally got a sense that everything will eventually be okay.

Nice Guy Blues

ROYAL TENNENBAUM (Gene Hackman):  Can I say something to you, Henry?
HENRY SHERMAN (Danny Glover):  O.K. 
ROYAL:  I've always been considered an asshole for about as long as I can remember.  That's just my style.  But I'd really feel blue if I didn't think you were gonna forgive me. 
HENRY:  I don't think you're an asshole, Royal.  I just think you're kind of a son of a bitch. 
ROYAL:  Well, I really appreciate that.
--from the film The Royal Tennenbaums (written by Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson), 2001

A while back, I was asked an interesting question by a couple of female friends whose anonymity I've sworn to protect.  They asked me "Why are men jerks?"  At the time, I gave what I thought was a semi-educated, semi-scientific explanation into the male psyche (truthfully I just blamed testosterone).  But as the day progressed, the more the question gnawed at me and I realized that there were other elements involved and more questions raised.  What follows is my attempt to make sense of it (at least from a heterosexual male perspective).  I'm not saying that my conclusions are 100% correct, they are only based on my own personal observations over the last 25 years or so.

The first thing I have to do is correct two fallacies in the question itself.  First of all, men aren't jerks.  They're assholes.  And, as the film dialogue quote above hopefully pointed out, it's important to make these kinds of distinctions.  Personally, I've always found that jerks are easier to tolerate than assholes.  From least offensive to most offensive, the scale reads douchebag, jerk, dick, dickhead, prick, asshole.  It's hard for me to determine where sons of bitches fall in that spectrum--I've not met too many (nor have I met their mothers).

The second fallacy I need to correct is that not all men are assholes.  Granted, most of them are, which really sucks because it gives the rest of us a bad name.  And at the risk of sounding conceited, you read that last sentence correctly:  I do lump myself in with the minority of men who aren't assholes.  I will admit to having my moments (many of you, especially if you're related to me, I'm sure can verify this), but unlike most assholes, I can at least admit when I'm being one, which, in my book, puts me at an advantage over your everyday, run-of-the-mill, garden variety asshole.  I try not to be one as much as possible, but as my father once said about being an asshole, "sometimes it's necessary."  It's when "sometimes" becomes "all the time" that problems can arise and people can get hurt.

Which brings us to the newly revised question:  Why are most men assholes?  I do stand by my original statement that testosterone probably plays a big part in that.  But in my pondering of this question, I also realized an important truth.  Most men are assholes because they know that it will get them laid (a desire driven by testosterone).  Being an asshole, especially if you come by it naturally, is much more attractive to the opposite sex than being a "nice guy."  Those of you out there who are nice guys will probably back me up on this.  Even if you're lucky enough to be involved with, or even married to the most beautiful woman in the world (at least for you), you probably lost a lot of women in your day to complete and total assholes, am I right?

Which brings us to the much more important underlying question:  Why do otherwise intelligent women insist on dating assholes?  I asked this of my anonymous female friends (it almost sounds as if they're ashamed to admit they're my friends, doesn't it?).  While the response I got was less than satisfactory, it would appear that most nice guys have some kind of "quirky" quality (that was actually the word used) that keeps them from being attractive to most women.

Blindness (on the part of the woman) also seems to factor into the equation.  Because, let's be honest, when it comes to attracting women, assholes can put on the charm.  And the only one who doesn't see through it is the woman the asshole is trying to seduce.

Again--I'm speaking from experience here.  Most of the women I've been attracted to in my life (at least the ones I've had the courage to say something to), always went for the asshole for one reason or another.  The only time I remember losing out to a decent guy, it was only because he had an English accent.  Clearly there was no way I could compete against that (of course, what does that say about her?).

For all women who might be reading this, let me just go on record as saying that "nice guy" (or, even worse, "really nice guy") is the most backhanded compliment someone can give to a man.  It's just a euphemism for "boring."  You may as well just say, "You will never ever see me naked and I'm going to date morons and assholes and guys who treat me like shit and complain about them to you because their faults make them infinitely more interesting than you can ever hope to be."  That's what "nice guy" really means and anyone who says differently is.... well, frankly, a woman.  Sorry I cracked your code, ladies!

I know I sound somewhat bitter and resentful about this.  You know what?  I am!  I've spent the better part of my life watching women I care about (both romantically and platonically) get hurt by one asshole after another when there are plenty of decent guys out there who have to wear wristwatches because those women who are dating assholes refuse to give them the time of day.

But that's not even the worst part.  The worst part is when the newly heartbroken woman comes up to me (strictly as a friend, of course) and says something along the lines of, "Why can't I find a decent guy like you?"  And there's a small part of me that wants to suddenly become a (justified in this instance) asshole and say, "What the fuck?  I'm standing right in front of you!  You go all gushy over this downright pathetic excuse for not just a man but a human being, and when he inevitably hurts you (as I predicted he would), you say you want a guy like me?  And all the time I'm right here--and yet, I couldn't even get laid if I were an egg!"

Of course, I don't say that, because I try hard not to be an asshole (even when it's sometimes necessary).  And all I can do is put my arms around her and tell her it's not her fault and that she'll find her Prince Charming someday.  You know... a nice guy just like me... but not.

A word of warning--if any of you nice guys reading this think it's a good idea to adopt the persona of an asshole in an attempt to attract women, don't.  It doesn't work.  You have to have been born an asshole and/or work at it your whole life (with apologies to Fred "August" Campbell).  I've found that women are really only attracted to the genuine article.

And for all the ladies who insist on dating assholes, let me explain a few things to you (not that I expect you to listen, but I'm going to say it anyway).  First of all, you're not going to change him.  Again, he was likely born that way and probably worked at it his whole life.  Secondly, nice guys aren't necessarily boring.  Give one a chance.  You might be pleasantly surprised.  To reiterate, I don't expect anyone to listen to me on this, but I suppose hope springs eternal.

The Questionnaire

For years, I've enjoyed the television program "Inside the Actor's Studio."  I'm always impressed with the research that host James Lipton puts into each actor and I truly relish their responses.  I've even enjoyed those episodes featuring actors of whom I'm not particularly fond.

Like a lot of viewers, my favourite segment of the program is when Lipton asks his guests a series of questions that French television presenter Bernard Pivot asked his guests for many years.  The questionnaire itself goes back to Marcel Proust who answered such a questionnaire in 1890 (thank you, Wikipedia) and has been adapted by Pivot and Lipton in the intervening years.

The ultimate thrill for me would be to be a guest on "Inside the Actors Studio" just to be asked these questions by Mr. Lipton.  This fantasy of mine seems highly unlikely if, for no other reason, I'm not an actor.  And even if I were to drop everything tomorrow and pursue it as a profession (and don't think I haven't thought of it), by the time I paid my sufficient dues and became famous enough to be invited on the program, Mr. Lipton would either be retired or dead.

Consequently, I'm going to use this modern, everyman forum to answer those questions that I'm sure most of you have wondered about me for so long.  Please bear in mind that given my nature there may be more than one answer to some of them.

What is your favourite word?  My favourite noun is "wombat" and my favourite adjective is "groovy."  In fact I think "The Groovy Wombat" would be a great name for a bar.  I don't think I necessarily have a favourite word for any other part of speech.  They're both just so much fun to say.  Go on... try it.

What is your least favourite word?  This is a toss-up between two three-word phrases:  "fire at will" (for obvious reasons) and "really nice guy" (more on this in a later posting).

What turns you on?  There is a combination, and I don't know the proper proportions, but when mixed correctly, intelligence and a sense of humour are damn sexy!

What turns you off?  Dishonesty, deceitfulness... anything along those lines.

What sound or noise do you love?  The sound of laughter... particularly if I caused it.

What sound or noise do you hate?  I know it sounds trite, but I have to say it's fingernails on a blackboard.

What is your favourite curse word?  This is everyone's favourite question.  I've given this a lot of thought and I've realized (and this is something Russell Crowe also briefly touched on when he was on the program) that it's often not the word itself, but the emotion and the attitude we convey when we use it.  My feeling is that if you're going to curse, don't just curse--own it.  This is, admittedly, difficult to convey in print.

Two suggestions I often make are to string a bunch of them together (goddamncocksuckingassholelickingmotherfuckingturkeyassedsonofabitch!) or to make up your own (a friend of mine once coined the phrase "son of a Barbra Streisand" which is still a personal favourite).

But if I had to pick one word, I suppose it would be "asshole."  It's just a perfect insult.

What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?  Entertainer--preferably as an actor or musician.

What profession would you not like to attempt?  If the last twenty years have taught me anything, I would not like to work in retail or food service.

If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates? This may sound weird, but I don't think I would like to be greeted by God.  Sure, I'd like to meet the Almighty, but I need to know that a) my uncle fixed the automatic pearly gate opener (long story), b) Grandma has a bowl of her macaroni and cheese in a pink plastic bowl waiting for me, and c) Dad and Gramps are in the next room playing chess and I get to play the winner.  After that, God can say to me anything s/he wants to say.  One must have his priorities in order.

I hope this has in some small way given you, dear reader, an insight into my psyche (I doubt you need any more).  Given the fact that this can now be read by anyone and potentially everyone, I would invite James Lipton and/or Bernard Pivot to answer these questions.  I've always been curious about their responses.