"What's Up": A really bad song retrospective

I don’t know why, but sometimes I just run out of energy or inspiration to post anything. Sometimes when I feel that I have to, I cruise the Internet to find something vaguely interesting, at least to me if to no one else. I came across a story concerning Sara Gilbert, who a few people might remember from the television sitcom Roseanne, in which she played a child character who was only just less annoying than Roseanne herself. It seems that that she was recently engaged to someone named Linda Perry. Alright, no need for snickering here; societal mores are changing, and you need to learn to roll with it.

But I’m not really interested in Gilbert, since she is still annoying. Perry, on the other hand, received some slight “notoriety” in 2011 when she accused the music of another Perry—Katy—to be lacking in “substance.” Well, that goes without saying, but on the other hand, there is a difference between “insubstantial” music that receives frequent airplay on oldies radio stations, and “substantial” music that never gets any airplay. Linda Perry (the “Perry” I will be referring to from here), is proof that the gay and lesbian community has significant “pull” in the artistic and entertainment community, so much so that “artists” with questionable talent can find an excessively sympathetic audience.

Perry is generally regarded as “overrated” by many who are not fans of hers, her reputation based mainly on her work with Pink and Christine Aguilera. She has written a “lot” of hits, although only three of her songs made the Top Ten. Perry’s lyrical concerns are on the self-absorbed side; from the Aguilera single “Beautiful,” we hear the following:

I am beautiful no matter what they say

Words can’t bring me down

I am beautiful in every single way

Yes words can’t bring me down

So don’t you bring me down today

Perry might be referring to the reaction to a certain other song of hers that is frequently placed in the top-twenty all-time worst songs ever lists, but I’ll get to that later. Perry obviously feels she is superior to you and I, if the following from “Get the Party Started”—a hit for Pink—means anything:

Making my connection as I enter the room

Everybody's chilling as I set up the groove

Pumpin' up the volume with this brand new beat

Everybody's dancing and they're dancing for me

I'm your operator, you can call anytime

I'll be your connection to the party line

Inspirational lyric: Boulevard is freakin' as I'm comin' up fast - I'll be burnin' rubber, you'll be kissin' my ass

That’s the kind of “sentiment” you can expect from someone with a chip on their shoulder, or an ax to grind. You wonder why when life has actually been quite kind to her. After all, Perry did survive that aforementioned “artistic” humiliation, thanks to her many friends and sympathizers in the business. Perry has attempted to distance herself from responsibility for “What’s Up,” which somewhat incomprehensibly became a “monster” hit (or so claims Rolling Stone) in 1993, peaking at #13 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart. This song was culled from the debut—and only—album from a group called 4 Non Blondes. This was originally intended to be an all-female band (none of whom had blonde hair—get it?), but during the recording of the album Bigger, Better, Faster, More!—talk about self-aggrandizement—producer David Tickle (best known for his work with Prince) apparently decided the group’s lead guitarist wasn’t up to the job, so she was replaced by a male guitarist who at least could pass for female if you didn’t look real close.

Perry told Rolling Stone that "I wasn't really a big fan of my band. I didn't like the record at all. 'Drifting' was the only song I loved. I did love 'What's Up?' but I hated the production. When I heard our record for the first time I cried. It didn't sound like me. It made me belligerent and a real asshole. I wanted to say, 'We're a fucking, bad-ass cool band. We're not that fluffy polished bullshit that you're listening to.' It was really difficult." Perry doth protest too much—as well as being disingenuous. Tickle’s production is what made the song commercially viable; it was Perry’s “singing” on that song and on the rest of the album that was the monstrosity. A straightforward reading of the lyrics to “What’s Up” reveals a song that isn’t particularly offensive or horrible; I can’t figure out what it is about, but then again a lot pop songs are incomprehensible fluff. Nor is the musical backing track incompetently performed; it may beat its principle “hook” half to death, but it is still “catchy.” 

The problem—for those who cringe at it like an embarrassing memory they hope no one else remembers—is that god awful singing. Perry’s lead vocal has got to be the worst ever set to cylinder, vinyl, CD or mp3—and I’m even including a Spike Jones record, which was actually meant to be bad. There is no doubt that Perry was overly self-impressed by her own chops (she does have a huge mouth), but that oddball mix of wailing, screeching and forced histrionics was the stuff of parody. The only explanation for the song becoming a “hit” was because of its curiosity value; it did catch your attention. But it didn’t take long to get past the initial fascination to realize that the song made absolutely no sense. While on paper the lyrics seemed straightforward, Perry’s reading chopped-up the lines into incomprehensible fragments, and her delivery only made the proceedings even more laughable. 

And yet Perry survived this, thanks to her friends and supporters in the business. Not that she has done anything since that people remember half as much.

Democracy was under threat in Egypt before the "coup."

I must confess that listening to, and reading, Sen. John McCain play the “elder statesman” in regard to how the U.S. should react to events in Egypt is a little too much on the pompous side, with little recognition of reality. Egypt was slowly becoming an Islamic “republic” with the strings of “democratically-elected” President Morsi being pulled by powerful clerics intent on creating a society not of freedom but of enforced conformity to one worldview. One only has to read the so-called “constitution” to know that any views that even hinted at secularism or western-style thought were forbidden. 

Meanwhile, the lead story on CNN’s website mentioned nothing of the escalating violence against the Coptic Christian community by Islamic extremists; in fact, attacks on Christians and their places of worship have increased since Morsi became president. Although Christians in Egypt have kept a low profile, they are still viewed as “infidels” by Islamic extremists who see their very existence as a threat to their rule. The Muslim Brotherhood, of course, is only the most powerful and notorious of these extremists. 

The Brotherhood has been portrayed in the media as a “legitimate” political entity, but in fact it was banned from public display for decades because of its fanatical views and history of violence, terrorism and assassination. When the Mubarak regime was overthrown, the subsequent political vacuum and chaos after the initial emasculating of the military and security forces allowed the Brotherhood to re-emerge as a “legitimate” organization. But while the forces of “reform” which were largely secular in their ideology were divided and often incoherent, the Brotherhood and its Islamic allies were bound by an unyielding sense of purpose, which unlike the secularists and their belief in “freedom of expression,” was found by many Egyptian voters—at least initially—to be the only “choice” they had at the ballot box.

There are still those in the media and politics who delude themselves into thinking that the Brotherhood themselves saw their election victories as a triumph of “democracy.” Nothing could be further from the truth; you only have to observe the rise of the Nazis to power to know how it all “works.” The Nazi party was losing votes in 1930, but in taking advantage of discontent caused by the Great Depression, they rebounded as the strongest party in 1932, although still a minority. Conservatives in the German political establishment thought that they could use and control Hitler when they offered him the chancellorship in January 1933, but he had other plans. Within months, democracy and freedom was dead in Germany, controlled by one man and one party. The Muslim Brotherhood has acted on essentially the same “principles”—using elections to gain a foothold in power, then crafting a “constitution” which reading between the lines clearly establishes a hardline Islamic state which was not yet apparent because the Brotherhood had not yet seized control of all the instruments of power, principally the military and judiciary.

Despite what you are hearing from politicians and the media, most Egyptians want the Brotherhood reigned-in, if not abolished altogether, and a true democracy established in their country. The real "coup" was underway when the Brotherhood first seized power, and what has since transpired was entirely predictable. But this is an ancient civilization whose greatest years long predated the coming of Islam, and long was an object of fascination; thus it may be surmised that its people are more worldly than many in the region. As I posted before, democracy and Islamic fundamentalism has never and will never coexist peacefully, and if the latter is permitted to decide what is or isn’t “permissible” in thought and action, than “freedom” and democracy will be dead letters soon enough.

"New school" indolence is no reason to change over 200 years of grammatically correct "old school" English

One of my favorite films (and there are a “lot” of those) is It Happened One Night, starring Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert. In an early scene, Gable’s cynical, unemployed reporter is being offered money to keep quiet about a rich heiress’ surreptitious escape from her father, hoping to elope with a “front page aviator.” Gable’s character makes the following observation:

You know, I had you pegged right from the jump—just a spoiled brat of a rich father. The only way you get anything is to buy it, isn't it? You're in a jam and all you can think of is your money. It never fails, does it? Ever hear of the word humility? No, you wouldn't. I guess it would never occur to you to just say, 'Please mister, I'm in trouble, will you help me?' No, that would bring you down off your high horse for a minute. Well, let me tell you something, maybe it will take a load off your mind. You don't have to worry about me. I'm not interested in your money or your problem. You, King Westley, your father--you're all a lot of hooey to me.

When I first saw this film in the early 1980s, I was amazed that the dialogue in a 1934 black-and-white picture could be so “modern.” I suppose I imagined that people back then used unfamiliar words and phrasings. Grammar in those days was surely what some people would call “old school.” Right?

OK, it’s not a fair comparison. We can go back to the early days of this country and find some really “old school” talk. When I was in college, I took a course in American Literature from the Colonial Period to the Civil War. In the Norton Anthology that was used as a textbook, there were a few passages from the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin; the following induced a chuckle from me, which describes an episode between Franklin and his friend, Collins: 

His drinking continu’d, about which we sometimes quarrell’d;, for, when a little intoxicated, he was very fractious. Once, in a boat on the Delaware with some other young men, he refused to row in his turn. “I will be row’d home,” says he. “We will not row you,” says I. “You must, or stay all night on the water,” says he, “just as you please.” The others said, “Let us row; what signifies it?” But, my mind being soured with his other conduct, I continu’d to refuse. So he swore he would make me row, or throw me overboard; and coming along, stepping on the thwarts, toward me, when he came up and struck at me, I clapped my hand under his crutch, and, rising, pitched him head-foremost into the river.

Except for the exclusion of the “e” in the past tense verbs and perhaps a few minor spelling changes, there is nothing here that is not understandable to modern readers, or shouldn’t be. The techniques of grammar are still recognizably “modern.” Of course, we use “headfirst” instead of “head-foremost,” but to my ears the latter term has a more appropriately amusing ring to it. Would this passage be improved if it were written in “new school” grammar that modern youth can understand? Frankly, I think it is contemptible to lower ourselves to the intellectual indolence of the willfully undereducated. 

Now, there is an “acclaimed” professor out there named  Sugata Mitra (and I mean real “out there”) who was quoted in a  British education magazine called  TES concerning his belief that children no longer need to be taught grammar and spelling, at least not by human beings. Mitra claims that kids can “learn” grammar and spelling from mobile phone “autocorrect” software during every day use. Of course, not everyone uses “autocorrect” when they are texting, and when one reads what is written on Twitter pages, it is clear that people don’t really care if their grammar or spelling is correct. In fact, people who do use proper grammar and spelling without doubt learned it by being taught it by a teacher, and practicing it on quizzes and tests. 

Mitra told a couple of DJs on a local radio station that grammar “changes” from generation to generation, and the “teaching” of grammar and spelling should reflect this, as well as incorporating new “teaching” technology. So why don’t we revisit a conversation that CNN’s Piers Morgan—he of the fatuous British accent that Americans think reflects “intelligence”—had with that expert on “new school” grammar, Rachel Jeantel. Here are some of the more intelligible excerpts:

When somebody bashes like blood people, trust me, the area I live, that's not bashing. That's just called whoop ass. You do that (shit). That's what it is.

Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every -- who's not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you have to take it -- as a parent, when you tell your child, when you see a grown person following you, run away, and all that (not to get off track, but didn’t Jeantel—whose warped version of reality may have been the real orchestrator of events when she told Trayvon Martin to “run, run, run”—tell us that a “cracka” was “new school” for cop or security guard—and not a “rapist” that a 6-1, well-muscled “gangsta” would be afraid of?). 

It might have said, what is her education, or why she kept it so honest? But people -- too honest -- you can't be too honest. You can't say cracka, nigga, all this, and the jury's so shocked what I said. And they're acting like the generation we've got now don't say that.

Well, the jury, they see their fact.  None offense to the jury, they old.  That's old school people.  We in the new school, our generation, my generation. (not my generation, thank god).

Look at the picture. There is blonde females. Imagine. Where we live, where everybody live, blondes are dumb. They say dumb things. So that's some dumb blondes.

I’ll grant Jeantel that last point, but given the extremely sympathetic audience on hand, this is likely as close to proper grammar that Jeantel has ever spoken, given that she was obviously coached in many of her answers. Despite the impression made on the media, much of what was said would clearly qualify as perjured testimony, only relevant as after-the-fact, self-serving “reflection.” But back to the point of this post: Does Jeantel’s “new school” grammar represent an “improvement” over the “old school” grammar of  a 1934 screenwriter, or one of the “founding fathers” of this country? Obviously not, nor should it be considered as such by anyone. But that hasn’t stopped some academics from “intellectualizing” the unintelligible. Take for instance this passage from a “study” written by someone named Walt Wolfram, entitled “The Grammar of Urban African American Vernacular English”:

To begin with, the use of ‘habitual’ be or be needs to be distinguished from several other uses of be, including those derived through phonological processes that affect contracted forms of will and would. In constructions such as She be there in a minute, the be comes from the loss of /l/ before a labial (she’ll be - she be) (see Edwards, other volume), whereas in a construction like If they get a DVD player they be happy, the form is derived from the loss of /d/ (they’d be - they be), since /d/ before a labial may geminate to the /b/ and then be lost in a general phonological process of degemination (e.g. good bye, goob bye - goo’bye). The difference between the phonologically derived forms, represented in (1) and (2) and the use of be in (3) is readily apparent in tag forms (1a, 2a, 3a) and negatives (2a, 2b, 3b).

(1) She be here in a minute.

a. She be here in a minute, won’t she?

b. She won’t be here in a minute.

(2) If they get a DVD player, they be happy.

a. If they get a DVD player, they be happy, wouldn’t they?

b. If they get a DVD player, they wouldn’t be happy.

(3) Sometimes they be playing tag.

a. Sometimes they be playing tag, don’t they?

b. Sometimes they don’t be playing tag.

The grammar of urban African American Vernacular English Sentence (3) illustrates the fundamental syntactic and morphological properties that distinguish be from its counterpart in other varieties of English; it does not alter its form in finite uses and takes do support in a way that is comparable to main verbs. Over the last half century, the habitual reference of be, particularly with Ving, has grammaticalized in a change that has been spreading from urban centers outward. Practically all studies of AAVE show that younger vernacular speakers use be V-ing more than older speakers (Wolfram 1969; Cukor-Avila 2001; Bailey and Maynor 1987, 1989), and that urban speakers are more likely to use it than non-urban speakers (Cukor-Avila 2001; Wolfram and Thomas 2002). It is also possible that the use of habitual be may be age-graded, and that younger speakers who use it frequently will reduce its use as they get older, since it now has a strong association with black youth culture.

I’ve read this over a few times, and I think what Wolfram is attempting to say between the intellectual contortions is that in “new school” verbiage, the “habitual” use of the word “be” is an example of how auxiliary verbs, such as “will” and “would,” are deemed intrusive in casual speech. Why is this? It is not exactly explained, but it might have something to do with the failure to learn or retain the fundamentals of “old school” grammar so that it comes easily off the tongue—not just in school, but in the home. Wolfram suggests that this is just a “temporary” thing, and that as “kids” grow older they “revert” to proper English. My personal observation is that people who speak reasonably grammatically correct English also did so as children, and those who didn’t learn to speak “correctly” as children continue so as adults, or if they do it is not without torturous effort. 

Learning proper grammar (and spelling) was considered to be the mark of an educated person in Franklin’s day, and it had its uses in certain situations:

While I was intent on improving my language, I met with an English grammar (I think it was Greenwood’s), at the end of which there were two little sketches of the arts of rhetoric and logic, the latter finishing with a specimen of a dispute in the Socratic method; and soon after I procur’d Xenophon’s Memorable Things of Socrates, wherein there are many instances of the same method. I was charm’d with it, adopted it, dropt my abrupt contradiction and positive argumentation, and put on the humble inquirer and doubter. And being then, from reading Shaftesbury and Collins, become a real doubter in many points of our religious doctrine, I found this method safest for myself and very embarrassing to those against whom I used it; therefore I took a delight in it, practis’d it continually, and grew very artful and expert in drawing people, even of superior knowledge, into concessions, the consequences of which they did not foresee, entangling them in difficulties out of which they could not extricate themselves, and so obtaining victories that neither myself nor my cause always deserved.

Of course, in some “new school” urban youth culture settings, the art of verbal disputation is more likely to be responded to with physical threat, if not always a fist, gun or knife. This no doubt has been true throughout history. In fact, let’s be completely candid here: In almost every era of human existence, there has always been an “element” of society—usually one from a “deprived” or “outside the mainstream” environment—that employed less than proper grammar. A bigger problem today may be that “gangsta” culture and “lingo” has gone “mainstream.” But the reality is unlikely to change: That the grammatically “correct” version of the language has changed little in over 200 years, and there is no good reason to change it just for the sake of educational indolence.  It is just fine the way it was—and is.

This Democrat not getting on board the Hillary "Love Train"

As some of you may have heard, two television networks—CNN and NBC—are working on programing plainly aimed at shamelessly promoting Hillary Clinton in anticipation of her presumed entry into the 2016 presidential sweepstakes. "CNN Films,” CNN fatuously proclaims, “a division of CNN Worldwide, commissioned a documentary about Hillary Clinton earlier this year. It is expected to premiere in 2014 with a theatrical run prior to airing on CNN. This documentary will be a non-fiction look at the life of a former First Lady and Secretary of State,” while NBC announced that it is putting together a “miniseries” to star Diane Lane, last seen at the tail end of a forgettable run of films. Since both of these productions are quite blatant in their attempt to sway voters’ minds in favor of Clinton, both are likely to rely heavily on fiction, and in CNN’s case, a whole roster of Clinton disciples and sycophants. 

Look, I’m a life-long Democrat, and I think the people who are heavily promoting Clinton need to be set straight on a thing or two. I didn’t vote for Clinton in the 2008 primaries, and don’t plan to in 2016 (if Washington actually reinstates primary voting). I admit I wasn’t too thrilled about Barack Obama, and was hoping that Al Gore would come to the “rescue." But left with a choice between Clinton and Obama, I chose the latter because I, like many Democrats, was put-off by the self-promoting Clinton and wanted an alternative; supporting Obama was only about “race” insofar that he personified the “change”  that many people were looking for after the disaster that was the Bush Administration (the reality of Iraq today proves that the Bush people had no clue about the sectarian problems there, and we actually had a balanced budget until the Republicans got their greedy hands on the budget and tax process). 

Clinton, however, did not represent “change” but a variation of stubbornly redundant “New Democrat” polices that were little differentiated from Republican policies. And then there was her sense of “entitlement”--that she was "owed" preferential treatment. What was she, and where would she be, without Bill and his “aura”? Where was this “experience” people kept talking about? Her handling of the 1993 health care reform process was a disaster bar none, and the Democrats subsequently lost both houses of Congress for the next 12 years. After that she was persona non grata insofar as policymaking was concerned. And this wasn’t anything “new.” When Bill Clinton lost his first reelection bid as governor of Arkansas, internal polling showed that a major reason for this was because of negative perceptions of his wife; among other things, more “traditional” voters were put-off by the fact that she referred to herself as “Hillary Rodham.” By the time he won back the governorship, Bill had a “new” wife: “Hillary Clinton.”

 As a U.S. Senator, Clinton’s own reputation was mostly fumes running on her personal conceits; during the presidential primaries, her remarks about “Hard-Working Americans, White Americans" and that bizarre crack about the RFK assassination demonstrated her lack of strength, coolness and grace under pressure. And finally there was her stint as Secretary of State. What exactly did she accomplish, other than being a traveling “rock star”? Absolutely nothing; her successor, John Kerry, has accomplished  more in six months than Clinton would have had she stayed on for eight years. Yet people are incomprehensibly fascinated by her.

And it goes without saying that I find many of her supporters personally offensive; there was Harriet Christian of "inadequate black man" infamy, and feminist Bonnie Erbe urging Obama to "step aside" even after he won the 2008 primaries, because white people (presumably like her) wouldn't vote for him.

The reality is that Clinton’s one hope in 2016 is that no other Democrat emerges who can neutralize her advantage in gender politics, which is primarily what is behind CNN’s and NBC’s efforts to promote her. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any names on the current roster that can save us from ourselves.