Miscellaneous - September 2010: I Can’t Get No Hey, Hey, Hey….

  by Lisa Torem

published: 6 / 9 / 2010

intro

In 'Rock Salt Row' Lisa Torem talks with a different Pennyblackmusic writer about an issue in rock. In this issue she speaks with Sarah Johnson about the commercial nature of rock and whether spiritual matters and especially Buddhism have had any real bearing on the music industry

Two Writers Season One Historic Moment LISA “I can’t get no satisfaction, though I try and I try and I try and I try/I can’t get no…” Mick Jagger/Keith Richard “Impermanent are all created things; strive on with awareness.” Buddhist teachings. Simply stated, the infectious declaration in this song, '(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction', by the Rolling Stones' Mick Jagger and Keith Richard, became a teen-aged mantra of alienation in 1965. The song had an irresistible riff serving as an intro and throughout, and its allusions to sex and crass commercialism made music critic Paul Gambaccini state, "This song was perceived as an attack on the status quo.” It was first released as a single in the US and then as a cut on the American version of ‘Out of Our Heads’ in July. In Europe it initially only received air play on pirate radio stations due to its controversial suggestibility. Richard claims to have come up with both the catch line and the infamous riff while dreaming. He climbed out of bed to record the material and then fell back into a deep slumber. First, it was recorded on May 10, 1965, at Chess Studios, Chicago, featuring Brian Jones on blues harp. The next session took place in Hollywood’s RCA studios and a Gibson Maestro fuzz box created the resultant titillating, though disturbing tone, which Richard would have gladly pawned for a horn section. Jagger’s lyrics blasted the American society for its “useless information” and how the man on the TV rambles on about “how white my shirts can be/But he can’t be a man because he doesn’t smoke the same cigarettes as me.” But, were deeper thoughts ruminating beneath this rant? In regards to the concept of “satisfaction” is it attainable and, then, is it worth the hot pursuit at the end of the day? To begin this debate, I have decided to discuss the Noble Truths of Buddhism. The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, was a prince of the Sakya tribe of Nepal, born about 566 BC. At about 29, he abandoned his wealthy surroundings and set out to see the world. It was then that he discovered rampant suffering outside the gates. Six years of yogic training later, Buddha found himself meditating beneath a bodhi tree, as the “enlightened one.” He then unveiled "the Noble Truths". The first says that life is suffering and that this concept is realistic, not pessimistic, because pessimism is thought to assume things will go wrong. Therefore, Buddhism explains how suffering can be avoided and how true happiness can be found. The Second Noble Truth says we will suffer if we expect others to conform to our expectations, or if we don’t get what we want. Rather than struggling to get this accomplished, we can try to alleviate that sense of wanting. The Third Noble Truth says that suffering can be overcome and happiness can be attained if we give up useless craving and learn to live each day at a time thereby becoming free to help others. This is Nirvana. Therefore, no thing is permanent and everything in this world is interconnected and in constant flux. Accepting this idea of emptiness spares us the suffering caused by our egos, our attachment and our resistance to change and loss. So, were the Stones clearing the way for Nirvana by questioning whether we should seek satisfaction only to discover that this search is essentially futile? Or, was the song simply confounding the self-absorbed attitudes of that era’s youth culture? Are there additional rock songs which explore the concept of feeling short-changed sans some unattainable ingredient? Which songs blow the top off crass commercialism and lead us to a more spiritual frame of mind – one which deglorifies ego? Consider these lyrics from ‘And Your Bird Can Sing,’ by Lennon and McCartney: “When your prize possessions start to weigh you down/Look in my direction/I’ll be ‘round/I’ll be ‘round.” While we might, at first, assume they are stated by one in a romantic relationship, a deeper analysis might reveal that there is some spiritual deity overseeing this declaration. Similarly, when George Harrison sings, “Life flows on within you and without” against a dizzying blur of Indian colour, video arcades and the numbing clang of a cash register are as far from our minds as Lady Ga Ga is from Anoushka Shankar. SARAH Religion is much like music in many ways. Whereas some people turn to their faith to derive strengths, others use music to propel themselves through life. They use songs that uplift them when they need a pick-me-up and songs that provoke a sense of reflection when dealing with strong emotions. The parallels don’t end there. Many religious ceremonies use song because of the similar emotional, and some would argue spiritual, impact of music. Gospel music is one example that has eclipsed its religious roots and has been spilling into popular music for decades. When Aretha Franklin sings “The moment I wake up/Before I put on my make up/I say a little prayer for you,” she is singing of how her faith is omnipresent, within the one she loves and every aspect of life. Buddhism however, seems to be very much the silent faith. It’s built on a core of inner reflection rather than outward expression. It promotes an understanding of what is truly important and teaches that everything needed to discover this lies within our own physical being. This couldn’t be further from what rock and pop music stand for. Flick through the MTV channels if you don’t believe me. Excess, bling and “the show” are what the music on those channels is all about. While every listener will take their own meaning from a song, the rock and pop stars that write them have no claim to a Buddhist awakening. “That’s me in the corner/That’s me in the spotlight/Losing my religion. Trying to keep up with you/And I don‘t know if I can do it.” Michael Stipe, REM, ‘Losing My Religion.’ Whatever religion Stipe sings of, it’s true that to say it will not sit comfortably within the realms of fame. And this is true of none more so than Buddhism. Fame brings with it everything that Buddhism aims to rid its followers of; Ego, overindulgence and the fear of loss, which in turn drives so many talented musicians down the highway of self-destruction, rather than that of self-discovery. Jagger may have been aware of the conflicting messages within American society and the materialism it promotes. But, while he realized he would get “no satisfaction” from it, he continued to chase it and still does to this day. I’m by no means saying rock music is evil and destructive. The earlier comparison to religion still stands. Music is a religion for many people and the beauty of it is its openness. You can respond to it as you like and take what you want from it, but it has only superficial links to Buddhism. I can’t find a single example of a successful musician that practices Buddhism. Similar beliefs are found within factions of Judaism and Hinduism. Madonna subscribes to Kabbalah, while singing about being “hung up on you” and gyrating around in a leotard (and that comes from a fan of her music). George Harrison sings of Hare Krishna in the track ‘My Sweet Lord’ after travelling the world in search of spirituality, but who knows if he truly found what was lacking in his life as a member of perhaps the most successful band in the world. Therefore surely any lyrics that lend themselves to Buddhist principles are rendered void of any conviction? Or maybe the expression of such a longing for fulfillment and enlightenment from the musicians who write these songs simply proves how much the material world they find themselves in lacks these principles? Either way, Buddhism is as far from rock music as an Indian monastery is from the London 02. LISA Rock and roll does rely on a healthy diet of charismatic exuberance and brash ego. But, in response to which entertainers have found inspiration from Buddhist philosophies, I have come up with some examples. There is, of course, Herbie Hancock, but, as he is more of a jazz artist, we’ll cast him aside. But, the ‘Dream Weaver’ album, recorded by former Spooky Toothy keyboard player, Gary Wright, in the mid 70s, featured that title song, which was inspired by Eastern scriptures. The gentle songwriter had practiced meditation with the late, former Beatle Harrison. Having seen Wright perform this song twice, I find that he is anything but a flashy, arrogant, egotistical type. He smiles serenely and is immensely grounded in appearance when he takes the stage. Here is a sampling of those lyrics: “I’ve just closed my eyes again/Climbed aboard the dream weaver train/Driver take away my worries of today and leave tomorrow behind.” The second half of the chorus describes what must be a meditative state: “Fly me high through the starry skies/Maybe to an astral plane/Cross the highways of fantasy/Help me to forget today’s pain.” When Harrison composed ‘The Inner Light’, his mind had reached a divine state, and, in my opinion, there was never a grain of self-indulgence in his recording, either. Tina Turner has been a practising Buddhist for more than 25 years. “I’m glad to add my personal chants as an offering to the world and share a message of Oneness,” she exclaims when describing the BEYOND project (New Earth Records). Turner explores traditional music and original compositions of Christian prayers by Regula Curti, plus chanting and assorted readings, on this project, too. But, her spoken affirmations are completely devoid of arrogance. And, even though Turner has made the decision to pair her devout beliefs with her natural musical expertise, she still retains the capability to move others with solid rock performances. I do agree that it’s rare, Sarah, that performers will forage this deeply into similar subject matter, as, after all, it is not a recipe for sure-fire commercial success, but those that do generally garner some very loyal followers who may recognize their own personal paths. I believe, too, that it is the already commercially established artist who has written the protypical debut exploring the pitfalls of romance who finds himself ready to extract deeper meanings. But, getting back to our own primitive desires; the rapport between the performer and audience can be malleable. Once we are won over and once trust is established, we are willing to bend. Sure, we’ll always request and “want” our hits; the ones which fuelled our younger years, but as in any worthwhile relationships, we’ll applaud and appreciate the effort involved in the growth of others. If we revisit ‘Satisfaction’ we might see it as a cry for help in a world filled with insatiable quests, but we might also see it, through the looking glass, as a reminder that what we want can be altered and we can thrive and find meaning inwardly without a sense of entitlement or of feeling somehow marginalized. The deeper question, too, remains; who are we when stripped of our hobbies, vocations and roles? Are we afraid to be alone with the gray matter that lies beneath it all or are we frankly willing to witness what more exists? Many rock and roll tunes decry materialism such as ‘Taxman’ and ‘Money’. They just scratch the surface, but they still ponder: “What’s important and what do we really require?” SARAH “There isn’t much that I feel need/A solid soul/And the blood I bleed/bBut with a little girl and by my spouse/I only want a proper house,” sings Noah Lennox of the Animal Collective in the song ‘My Girls.’ For me this song is a love letter from Lennox to his wife and daughter. He is expressing that above everything what is important to him is his family and being able to keep them safe and sheltered. I don’t equate this to Buddhism, however, whether it reflects a similar understanding of its principles or not. In this light, to answer the question,‘is Buddhism present in rock music and can it lead us to a more spiritual frame of mind?’ I suppose we need to clarify what we mean by Buddhism. Do we mean Buddhism as a solid religion, all encompassing and the code by which someone lives their daily life? If we take the definitions of Buddhism outlined in the Noble Truths, then it’s difficult to see how this can be fully achieved within western society and culture. Or at least how the higher concept of Nirvana can be achieved. It’s true that many songs explore themes of escapism through breaking free of consumerism and treasuring relationships and contentment. That condemns a life of excess as the root of unhappiness. But is this really a reflection of Buddhism, or is it simply a reflection of modern Western thought, which has stolen its inspiration from various religions and schools of thought from around the globe? At the end of the day isn’t everyone striving for meaning within their lives, the decisions they have made and paths followed? Whether Buddhism holds these answers is another debate, but what is clear is that music soundtracks this journey for a huge number of people. So can music “lead us to a more spiritual frame of mind?” My argument so far has been that Buddhism is an alien concept to rock music –chalk and cheese. I stand by this, but will concede that music is a mirror and will reflect something different for every individual that looks into it. This analogy could also be applied to Harrison’s lyric. Does it really matter what he was experiencing when he wrote songs if the meaning is translated differently by every set of ears that hear them? While one person might see his declaration in ‘Taxman’ as a protest against a money driven state, another may hear a confession of simply not wanting to part with hard earned cash and, in contrast, disagreeing with a welfare state and promoting individualism. Not only would I argue that the meaning that emerges from hi-fi speakers once a song is recorded and released is subject entirely to interpretation, but the conception of the lyrics and music is also of an abstract nature. It’s likely to evolve and be manipulated to fit the culture and fashions surrounding the musician as the song evolves and is then reflected on during its lifetime. In the late 60s and early 70s people truly believed that rock music could change the world. They thought it could end wars and bring people together. The songs written during this time by bands that sprouted from the London psychedelic underground or the Haight Asbury scene reflected these beliefs and ideals. And that is what rock music is. It’s a reflection of culture rather than an absorption or promotion of that culture itself. Even if musicians believe themselves to have found spiritual awakening, it rarely lasts longer than the trends and fashions of the time and in reality derives more from their desire to find new ways to express their creativity and give their music depth and atmosphere, than a devotion to a new way of life. Rock music can ask important questions but that doesn’t mean those questions are heard by the listener. And what’s more, even if some of those questions have parallels in Buddhist teachings, does it make the question itself a sign post solely to Buddhism, or simply a reflection of the kind of questions we all ask ourselves as we wade through modern society and culture? LISA Sarah, my synapses are getting such an Olympic work-out, that I have decided to add, to our discussion, a quote from Nietsche: “He who has but two strings on his instrument-like the scholars who, in addition to the urge for knowledge, have only the religious urge, instilled by education-does not understand those who can play on more strings. It is of the essence of the higher, multi-stringed culture that it is always misinterpreted by the lower culture-as happens, for example, when art is considered a disguised form of religion.” I won’t probe into this philosopher’s qualifications regarding “higher” versus “lower” culture, as I believe that would taint the tents of our discussion, but, perhaps, the contrastive worlds of rock and a higher spiritual devotion, will always remain at odds, in the commercial sense. Spirituality probably won’t sell soap. Cat Stevens hibernated for a spot, as did Dylan. Not all fans are willing to go the mile during those journeys nor are all artists compelled to invite them along as they unravel their own spiritual convictions. And, I agree, that there are essentially elements to all world religions that intersect in a Venn diagram of sorts. Some artists, though, remain elusive. Madonna may have been spiritually influenced, but I don’t see that she has moved the rest of us with her discoveries. It seems, rather, that she has decompartmentalized those thoughts, or perhaps couldn’t arrange them into a proper rhyme scheme. Could she be setting her mantra to a mix as we speak? Have I put dear Jagger on a pedestal that wobbles? Perhaps he and Keith were quite “satisfied” with the tune being simply a witty exorcism; a rock star’s vindictive whine. Ooh, but that riff did come out of a dream. Doesn’t that count for something? In essence, we can quibble about the minor points, or just agree that music gives us a great excuse for creating a unifying religion; which we can label with any pretty name pulled out of a hat, but which doesn’t discriminate and is not inclusive; one that transcends culture, age, gender and class. A fan sings along to a favourite song and the result is not that much different than when one recites a mantra; the bliss, the sense of contentment and that impermeable sense of peace, seems very transcendental.