A View From Germany

So, back in 2015 I was interviewed for ZDFinfo, which is a German public television outlet, for a documentary they were making about Twitter. It was aired as a special program entitled, Twitter: Revolution in 140 Zeichen? (Twitter: Revolution in 140 Characters?). The film was broadcast on March 21st, 2016, which was the 10th anniversary of the launch of Twitter.

So, yeah, ok, it's taken a long time to get around to it here on Blog Time Passing, but there were some technical issues that are not worth going into, and anyway, better late than never, right?

So, anyway, what I did was to edit together my four brief segments on the film to make one YouTube video that's about 2 1/2 minutes long. As most of what I have to say is inaudible because of the German translator's voiceover, I offer this to you as something of an amusement. You can hear some of my comments, though, and it's possible to get some sense of what's being said in German as well.

I should note that, while the documentary is somewhat celebratory, it does make room for critical views such as my own. One reason for the positive outlook of the film is that it was made before all the concern about Russian interference in elections was well known, and at a time when it looked like Trump did not have a chance to win the Republican nomination, let along the presidency (I knew otherwise, but that never came up). 

Much of the documentary looked back on Obama's use of Twitter, and did so in a favorable context. My criticisms echoed what I had written in Amazing Ourselves to Death, published back in 2014, and are about the negative effects of the medium, regardless of the political positions and ideologies of the users.

So, now, here's the video, for what it's worth:






I used the title, A View From Germany, for this post to echo a blog post I published back in 2015, A View From Japan. That featured a similar video, drawn from interviews for a Japanese public TV special on the history of broadcasting, on the occasion of their own 90th anniversary. Those excerpts are similar in the presence of a voiceover, while also providing a rare glimpse into the chaos of my office.

What is 'Medium' & Why is It the Message?

Back in April, I posted one of the outcomes of my visit to Saint Mary's College of California in March of last year: If Not A Then E (Studio Version), featuring a video that was produced there based on my PowerPoint presentation, with my recorded voiceover.

So, as part of my visit, which by the way was as a Roy E. and Patricia Disney Forum Fellow, I also delivered a public lecture, entitled "What We Mean By 'Medium' (And Why it is the Message)". It's similar to talks I've given before, and after, but the addition of PowerPoint makes a bit a different than some. And of course, there's also the introduction given by my good friend and fellow media ecologist, Ed Tywoniak, Professor of Communication at Saint Mary's. And a Q&A that followed, those are always unique forms of improvisation.

So anyway, for whatever it may be worth, here's the recording of my address, recorded in beautiful Moraga, California, on March 14th of 2017.





We also did an interview while I was out there, and maybe I'll share that as well in a future post. Maybe. We'll just have to see... 

If Not A Then E (Studio Version)

So previously here on Blog Time Passing I posted my 2013 Keynote Address to the Media Ecology Association, a version of a talk I had first given at an Institute of General Semantics symposium. If you somehow missed it, here's the link: My MEA Keynote (If Not A Then E).

That address, "If Not A, Then E," includes a creative use of PowerPoint, at least I think so, and in fact that was a key element of the talk. The recording of the keynote captures much of the visual presentation in the background, but not all of it. And the PowerPoint is the main point, visually speaking, you don't really need to look at me at all, you just need to hear me talk.

As a live event, that recording also includes my friend Thom Gencarelli introducing me, and the question and answer session that followed.

My friend Ed Tywoniak liked the address so much that he said he wanted to produce a video version. It took a few years to get around to it, but a little over a year ago, March of 2017, he had me over to his school, Saint Mary's College of California, as a Disney Forum Fellow (that's the Roy E. and Patricia Disney Forum), and one of the goals was to convert the PowerPoint to video, with me doing the voiceover.

There were some challenges in making the conversion. You would think it would be easy enough, but there tends to be a loss of visual definition or quality in making the transfer from PowerPoint to video. To avoid that, this version does not include some of the transitions which were part of the overall aesthetic of the presentation. Still and all, Ed's students, Ryan Moran and Sean Wagner, did an outstanding job in putting together the video, setting up the sound recording, and putting it all together. 

The end result comes in at 28 minutes, as there is no one introducing me as a speaker, and no Q&A session. And here it is:





I'll share some other videos that came out of my visit another time. For now, this is me, signing off, from here on E-world.

Bob Dylan, Nobel Laureate

So, I've shared in some previous posts the programs that I've run as president of the New York Society for General Semantics, and hey, just click on the old link to check out the website I set up for the NYSGS, and while you're there, you can subscribe for updates (you don't have to be local to do so), and avail yourself of some of the resources I made available.

And over here on Blog Time Passing, I also shared Political Talk & Political Drama Part 1: Election 2016 and Political Talk & Political Drama Part 2, and My Language Poetry. Well, it's time for the next installment.

On November 30, we held a panel discussion and debate on the topic of Bob Dylan being awarded the 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature. The idea for the panel came from my friend and colleague, Thom Gencarelli. You see, back during some down time at the 2016 New York State Communication Association conference (Thom and I both being past presidents of that organization), we got into a discussion and a bit of an argument (which is to say a difference of opinion, nothing at all heated) about whether Dylan deserved the Nobel Prize or not. My view was, shall we say skeptical, his view was much more positive. And I went so far as to say that, from a literary standpoint, I believe that a century from now, Leonard Cohen will be better remembered than Dylan.

I hasten to add that I would certainly cede the high ground to Thom when it comes to music, as he's a gifted singer, songwriter, guitar player, and band leader, the name of his band being Blue Race, check them out on iHeartRadio, SoundCloud, and wherever music is sold online, I highly recommend them.

🔵 🔴 🔵 🔴 🔵 🔴 🔵 🔴 🔵 🔴 🔵 🔴 🔵 🔴 🔵 🔴 🔵 🔴

Anyway, I wouldn't question Dylan's significance for popular music and popular culture, but this is the Nobel Prize for literature that we're talking about, and that's a horse of another color. So, our discussion and disagreement became the basis of the last NYSGS program for 2016, and here is the write up for it:

Music-Lyrics-Poetry-Language:

A Conversation about Bob Dylan

and his 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature

On Thursday, October 13, 2016, the Swedish Academy announced that it had awarded Bob Dylan its Nobel Prize in Literature “for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition.” While Dylan’s lack of acknowledgment and acceptance of the award until two weeks later raised controversy, this paled in comparison to the controversy raised right away as pundits in the professional media and across social media weighed in: He deserves it. He doesn’t deserve it. Popular songs aren’t literature. Lyrics aren’t poetry. If the Academy’s prize for literature is expanded to include popular song, is Dylan the only deserving songwriter? Is he the most deserving? Et cetera.

This roundtable discussion seeks to address, make sense of, and try to come to some conclusions with respect to all of this ruckus. The participants will consider questions including: What is the relationship of lyrics to poetry? What is the symbiotic relationship between lyrics and music in popular song? Is poetry literature? Are popular songs literature? What is the meaning and significance of the Nobel Prize, or any award for that matter? What is the significance of Bob Dylan? What is the literary value of his lyrics? What is so new and distinctive about his “poetic expressions” and use of language? And is everything important about Dylan and his contribution simply a matter of language?

Finally… does he deserve it?

Panel participants:

Thom Gencarelli, Professor of Communication, Manhattan College
Callie Gallo, English Department Teaching Fellow, Fordham University
Sal Fallica, Professor of Media Ecology, New York University
Lance Strate, NYSGS President & Professor of Communication & Media Studies, Fordham University

Thom served as moderator as well as panelist for the session, which featured a wide-ranging discussion that included multiple intersections with the discipline of general semantics. Thom is also the co-editor, with Brian Cogan, of an anthology entitled Baby Boomers and Popular Culture, and interestingly enough, Sal Fallica wrote one of the chapters, focusing on Dylan and awards ceremonies! (I also have a chapter in the volume, mine is on science fiction film and TV).

🔴 🔵 🔴 🔵 🔴 🔵 🔴 🔵  🔴 🔵 🔴 🔵 🔴 🔵 🔴 🔵

Callie Gallo, who is working on her doctorate in English literature at Fordham University, and has an interest in media ecology, helped to provide a fresh perspective to the program. And she wrote a very nice guest blog post on her experience for Hook & Eye, subtitled Fast Feminism, Slow Academe, which in the About the Blog blurb says the following:

Hook & Eye is an intervention and an invitation: we write about the realities of being women working in the Canadian university system. We muse about everything from gender inequities and how tenure works, to finding unfrumpy winter boots, decent childcare, and managing life’s minutiae. Ambitious? Obviously. We’re women in the academy.

Anyway, Callie's post is entitled, The Perks of Saying Yes in Grad School, and it's worth a read, so why don't you click on the old link, open up a new window, and check it out. It's okay, I'll wait until you're done, and you can meet me back here.

You made it back! Well done! So now, let me just note that our program was written up in an NYSGS blog post, and is also available on an NYSGS resource page, but of course, it's all right here as well, including the video recording which was uploaded to YouTube under the title of Music Lyrics Poetry Language: A Conversation About Bob Dylan & His Nobel Prize. And you know, you can watch it on YouTube, via the NYSGS channel, but yes yes yes, you can also watch it right here.

I should add that, unfortunately, I didn't have a volunteer to hold the iPad this was recorded on, to keep faces in the frame. And it wasn't too much of a problem as long as we were seated, as we were for most of the session. But it does begin with my introduction, followed by Thom's, both delivered while we were standing, so the first few minutes of the video is not the most flattering, let alone not being at all professional. But the sound quality is good, and once we were done with the intros and sat down, everything looked fine, aside from the fact that a little bit of the shelf the iPad was sitting on is visible on the bottom left part of the frame. But anyway, for better or worse, here it is:





So, what do you think? Click here for a list of all of the Nobel Prizes in Literature awarded since 1901. Does Bob Dylan belong on this list? Or is this, in its own way, a weird example of celebrity logic that parallels having a reality television star as president?

Political Talk & Political Drama Part 2

So, my previous post, Political Talk & Political Drama Part 1: Election 2016, was about the first panel discussion hosted by the New York Society for General Semantics back on September 9th. And by popular demand, we held a second program on the same subject after the televised debates were over, on October 26th. The panel, "Political Talk and Political Drama Part 2," was again held at The Players, the historic club over in Gramercy Park in Manhattan. This time around, the participants on the program were...

Terence P. Moran, Professor of Media Ecology, New York University

Sal Fallica, Professor of Media Ecology, New York University

Robin Levenson, Professor of Communication  Studies, LaGuardia Community College

and once again moderated by yours truly, NYSGS President and Professor of Communication and Media Studies, Fordham University, Lance Strate

And while the first panel was great, this one was, in many ways, even better. More talk this time, and less drama. But once again, don't take my word for it, you be the judge, because again we recorded the conversation on video and published it on YouTube, and you can watch it there, or right here:






So now, we're all set in advance of Election Day, and prepared for whatever new reality we may be faced with on the day after.

I'll post more on NYSGS later on, but for now, again, please feel free to check out all of the resources available on the New York Society for General Semantics site. And you can subscribe for updates, you don't have to be a New Yorker, or anywhere nearby.

Happy Purim!

Tomorrow evening is the holiday of Purim, a minor holiday on the Hebrew calendar, often described as the Jewish mardi gras. I wrote about it in a previous post, My Purim Spiel, so you can read more about it there, if you care to.

In that previous post, I also mentioned how one of the traditional ways of celebrating Purim is to put on a Purim spiel, a play based on the biblical Book of Esther, which in turn is the basis of the Purim holiday. Purim spiels usually are humorous, loose adaptations that might include parodies of popular songs, movies, TV, Broadway shows, etc.

And in that previous post, I mentioned that I had written a Purim spiel, my first, which was performed last year at Congregation Adas Emuno in Leonia. The title of the spiel is The Schnook of Esther, and we have since made it available to read online. You can click on the link to see a PDF of the spiel. (There's also a note about how anyone wishing to perform the play can do so, all we ask for is a donation to the Adas Emuno Social Action Fund. Most congregations purchase their spiels in this way, although usually without the opportunity to read them first.)

So, in celebration of Purim, you can read the spiel, and also read along with the admittedly amateurish performance we put on last year, twice, actually. The first version was also included in my previous post, but I'll include it here as well:





And here's the second version:





And just in case you're in the neighborhood, you can stop by Congregation Adas Emuno in Leonia to see my new spiel, Shalom Shushan, performed tomorrow night, Wednesday, March 23rd. Here's a link with all the info: Purim Time! And I hope to share the new spiel here on Blog Time Passing before too long. Until then, Happy Purim!

Onward, Squire

The sort of music that Chris Squire and Yes are usually associated with is complex and often bombastic. Not hard rock, mind you, but as progressive rock, it's still rock, music with a lot of energy to it. But Yes has also produced some lovely soft pieces, soaring, celestial, and romantic.

My first post in this series, Yes, Squire, featured the song "Heart of the Sunrise" from their most celebrated album, Fragile, and that song incorporates both hard and soft parts. The other songs I've posted, "Starship Trooper" in Yes Again, Squire, "On the Silent Wings of Freedom" in Squire's (Not So) Silent Wings, and "Tempus Fugit" in Yes, Tempus Fugit, Squire (not the most creative titles for these posts, I know, sorry about that), have all been on the hard side. This time around will be different.

"Onward" appears on the same album as "On the Silent Wings of Freedom," Tormato, released in 1978, and it was written by Squire alone, rather than being the usual collaborative work that most Yes compositions are. It's a short piece, only a little over 4 minutes long. And Squire's bass playing is simple, restrained, a slow rising and falling, rather than the elaborate, loud and fast-moving lead of the other songs. According to the Wikipedia entry on the song, "Onward" is "a very direct love song from Chris Squire to his then wife, Nikki Squire." Squire also contributes backing vocals behind Jon Anderson's lead.

The video, Onward by Yes, is once again a product of vzqk50HD Productions, who are responsible for the choice of images that accompany the music.







And here are the lyrics:

Contained in everything I do
There's a love I feel for you
Proclaimed in everything I write
You're the light, burning brightly

Onward through the night
Onward through the night
Onward through the night of my life

Displayed in all the things I see
There's a love you show to me
Portrayed in all the things you say
You're the day leading the way

Onward through the night
Onward through the night
Onward through the night of my life

Onward through the night
Onward through the night
Onward through the night of my life

 
The Wikipedia entry also notes that the orchestral arrangement on this song was done by Andrew Pryce Jackman, who played keyboards in the band that Squire played in before he formed Yes, called The Syn. Jackman also did the orchestral arrangement on another song on Tormato, "Madrigal," and worked and performed on Squire's 1975 solo album, Fish Out of Water. This wasn't the first time Yes incorporated symphonic backing on their albums, as their second album, Time and a Word released in 1970, made use of a studio orchestra on every song. Nor would it be the last time, as an orchestra was also used in lieu of a keyboardist on their 19th album, Magnification, released in 2001.

But you can search through their entire discography, and you would be hard pressed to find a composition more beautiful than Chris Squire's "Onward" and, given his recent passing, I don't think you could find a better tribute to remember him by.

A View From Japan

So, back in February I was contacted by representatives from NHK Broadcasting, Japan's version of the BBC (as opposed to our own less prominent form of public television, PBS), asking my views on the role that television and cable news has played in the political divides that many feel are plaguing the United States. Here is the response I sent them, for what it's worth:

This is something I've written about in the book I published last year, Amazing Ourselves to Death: Neil Postman's Brave New World Revisited. So let me start by noting that there is a fundamental similarity among all forms of televised news that has to do with the inherent biases of the television medium, which place a great premium on visual images over ideas and coherent, logical explanations, discussions, and arguments, which favor personalities over processes, which turn journalism into a type of performance, and therefore favors dramatic and/or entertaining content, which favor immediacy and rapid turnover over contextualization and sustained inquiry and exposition, and short sound bites and segments over extended analysis. Audiences or "eyeballs" are a concern for TV news in ways that exceed the concerns of most other media, and unless the program or channel works within the biases of the medium, they will not have much of an audience, which means you can have a channel like C-SPAN that does not follow the bias of television, but you have to be willing to forgo a significant audience.

When CNN came on the scene, it was enough of a distinction to have a channel devoted to news 24/7, so nothing more was needed. But with the addition of FOX and MSNBC, further differentiation became useful as a form of branding. FOX in particular was able to capture conservative audiences and deliver them as a product to advertisers who were willing to pay for that particular kind of audience, and they were especially successful at coupling a conservative orientation with entertaining formats and content. MSNBC has been trying to do the same thing on the liberal side, with much less success, which may say something about the differences between the way that liberals get their news (from multiple sources) as opposed to conservatives. On the other hand, Jon Stewart's recent announcement has led to many references to him as a journalist, not a comedian, so there are some interesting twists to all this.

Anyway, the answer to your first question is yes, in general, as sources proliferate and compete, they will seek different niches in order to survive and hopefully thrive. Specialization of this sort happened with radio and magazines after television became the dominant medium in the post war period. As I've indicated, we can get into more complexities if we go further into it, but that's the basic point.

When most Americans tuned into the evening news on only one of three networks, and each one did their utmost to avoid any appearance of political bias or favoritism, trying to attract the largest possible general audience, there was a greater sense of unity in the US generally, at least in regard to the facts of what was going on in the country and the world, although opinions about events and policies were very divided. Again, if you want to get more complicated, there was a divide between older generations that relied more on print journalism, which was more specialized and polarized, and the younger generation that grew up with TV news. But it is certainly the case that today's cable news networks have contributed mightily to polarization, by presenting news that is immediately skewed towards a particular political bias, by almost entirely abandoning any effort to be objective in presenting the news, and in allowing partisans to only tune in to their brand of news, creating silos so that citizens no longer share the same news environment. In effect, we live in different worlds.

So that was that, but then they asked if they could come up to Fordham University and interview me on the subject, and of course I said that would be fine, and when they got to my office, I suggested we film in a nearby conference room because it would be a lot neater than my messy office, but they said they wanted to film in my office, so I said, okay.

So, now, the program they were working on was called The 90-Year Anniversary of NHK Broadcasting: Looking Back on the History of Broadcasting and Exploring the Future, and it aired in Japan on March 21, 2015. The folks from NHK were kind enough to send me a recording of the program, which was rather long, and which included a couple of clips from my interview somewhere in the middle of it all.

Since the program was quite lengthy, I extracted the segment with my two clips in it, and uploaded it to YouTube as NHK Japan Clip. So here it is, but before you watch it, let me warn you that it is entirely in Japanese, so unless you know the language, the interest in it is entirely visual. And I should also confess that when I first saw it, I had to laugh, on two accounts. 

First, you remember that I mentioned that my office is messy. Well, you probably don't realize how messy it is. You probably can't imagine how messy it is. You probably can imagine that I never thought they would include the view of it that they did include here. And let me just say, in my defense, that I would really love to straighten up, and I do try to do so every so often. In fact, it's neater now than it was back during the school  year. It's just that so much stuff comes at me, one thing after another, that I never seem to have time to just stop and make everything perfectly neat and organized. Well anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Now, see if you can guess the other thing about this clip that made me laugh...





Yes, it was the fact that they overdubbed my voice with a Japanese translation. I have to say that that sort of thing has never happened to me before. It is, to say the least, disconcerting. But also pretty funny.

So, all in all, I was glad to be of service on behalf of Japanese public television, and it certainly was an interesting experience. But, as my friend and colleague Mike Plugh, who is well versed in Japanese culture, explained to me, the Japanese audience upon seeing this will have said to themselves, so this is what an American professor's office look like! And so, to my colleagues, who are all much neater than I am, I offer my apologies.

An Amazing Lecture

All right, all right, you can call it false advertising, misleading labeling, hyperbole or just plain exaggeration, but hey, I couldn't resist giving this post an amazing title. Of course you know that over a year ago, in spring of 2014, my book, Amazing Ourselves to Death: Neil Postman's Brave New World Revisited was published by Peter Lang. And of course you already have your copy, but just in case you don't (and remember, it also makes a great gift for the intellectually minded, and also is the perfect choice for course adoptions):

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •  • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

And last year when I wrote my first post about the book, entitled, appropriately enough, Amazing Ourselves to Death, I explained how, when I was first approached about writing a book that follows up on the classic work by Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death, I already had the perfect title for it, having used for a public lecture I gave at Medaille College on November 6th, 2007.

Going back to the first nine months of Blog Time Passing, I posted an announcement about the lecture on November 1st, 2007, in an entry called Shuffling Off to Buffalo (which is where Medaille College is located). The lecture was recorded at the time, and I finally got around to uploading the video onto YouTube. You can watch it over there on my own personal channel, the video's called Amazing Ourselves to Death 2007, or right here on my blog of record:





And to give a little more background, I was invited to give the talk by Medaille College's professor of philosophy Gerald Erion. Jerry is a fine media ecology scholar in his own right, and as he explained it to me, Medaille has its incoming first year students all read the same book before beginning their first semester, and that book was Amusing Ourselves to Death. And that was why they wanted me to come up to Buffalo and give a talk about the book and its author. 

 In addition to, and prior to giving the big lecture, I also met with a group of the students for an informal conversation about Neil Postman:

And that's how it all began. An amazing lecture laid the groundwork for an amazing book, and I use amazing here not to make any claims about the quality of either one, but rather to recognize how amazing it all is, doing the lecture back in 2007, never at all really thinking about turning it into a book several years later (I was first contacted by Peter Lang and subsequently contracted by them in 2011). 

Anyway, I think the lecture still stands up on its own, I hope you like it, and if you do, that it motivates you to get a copy of the book, if you haven't got one already!


 

A Little Thunder

So, as you may recall from my previous post, Thunderation!, or through other channels, I published a book of poetry earlier this year entitled Thunder at Darwin Station. And hey, if you haven't bought a copy yet, what are you waiting for?

Well, I have had a couple of occasions to do some readings from the collection, one of them being at a variety program at the Players Club in Manhattan back in March. My friend John Rovito was also present. John is the founder and artistic director of the Poets & Actors Company, a group he started up via the social media site LinkedIn, (originally under the name of SlamDogs), a group that also puts on live performance events. John was kind enough to make me one of about a dozen featured artists on the group's site, and you can sample excerpts from Thunder at Darwin Station on my page over there.

And, when I did my readings at the Players, John made a video recording of one of them, and it appears on another page on his site, and over on Vimeo where it was uploaded. And now here:




Lance Strate at The Players Club from John Rovito on Vimeo.
Poet Lance Strate performs "Thunder at Darwin Station" at the Players Club in NYC.


So, yeah, my name's spelled the wrong way on the subtitle in the video, that happens sometimes. And to be honest, this was not my best performance of the piece, but then again, it's the only one so far to be recorded, so there you have it. And if you'd like some more of it, or just want to do something nice, here you go:





Hey, it's worth it just for the cover art! The poetry, well, it's an acquired taste (so why not go ahead an acquire it?)!

Yes, Tempus Fugit, Squire

So, it seems altogether appropriate to do a post on a song called "Tempus Fugit" here of Blog Time Passing. And while time does indeed fly, and it seems to do so whether we are in fact having fun or not, this song seems especially timely right now, as it is generally acknowledged as one of the many songs recorded by the progressive rock band Yes that best showcases the extraordinary bass guitar work of the late Chris Squire.

So let's get right to it, with the video portion again a product of vzqk50HD Productions:





And let's get those lyrics in here as well:

Born in the night
She would run like a leopard
That freaks at the sight
Of a mind close beside herself
And the nearer I came
How the country would change
She was using the landscape
To hide herself.

More in the mind
Than the body this feeling
A sense at the end
Of a circular line
That is drawn at an angle
I see when I'm with you
To navigate waters and finally answer to-yes.

If you were there you would want to be near me
Innocence, you could hold all the materials
And though nothing would really be living
It would shock Your fall into landing light
In the north sky time flies fast to the morning
The cold of the dawn it meant nothing to us
You were keeping your best situation
An answer to-yes

(Yes, Yes) And the moment I see you
(Yes, Yes) It's so good to be near you
(Yes, Yes) And the feeling you give me
(Yes, Yes) Makes me want to be with you
(Yes, Yes) From the moment you tell me—yes

If you could see all the roads I have travelled
Towards some unusable last equilibrium
Run like an athlete and die like a dead beaten speed-freak
An answer to all of your answers to-yes

In the north sky time flies faster than morning
The cold of the dawn it meant nothing to us
You were keeping your best situation
An answer to Yes

(Yes, Yes) And the moment I see you
(Yes, Yes) It's so good to be near you
(Yes, Yes) And the feeling you give me
(Yes, Yes) Makes me want to be with you
(Yes, Yes) If we wait for an answer
(Yes, Yes) Will the silence be broken
(Yes, Yes) Should we wait for an answer
(Yes, Yes) Do we leave it unspoken

(Yes Yes Yes Yes . . .)

Squire's bass in "Tempus Fugit" dominates most of the song. And while this is another example of his attempt to turn the bass into a lead instrument, there is no question that it is also the driving force behind the song's rhythm. The song appears on the group's 10th studio album, Drama, released in 1980.

Drama stands, in many ways, as an aberration in the band's history. Following the mixed reception that their previous album, Tormato, received in 1978, two fifths of the band left due to creative differences. The departure of keyboard player Rick Wakeman was seen as unfortunate, having been regarded as the best to have filled that role. But a Yes album without Wakeman was entirely conceivable, and the record made prior to his joining the band, none other than The Yes Album, is generally considered one of their 3 best. After all, Wakeman didn't join the group until their 4th album, Fragile, played on the next two, left the group and was replaced on their 7th album, Relayer, and returned to the group for the next two.  

But singer Jon Anderson had also left the group, and Anderson was a founding member of Yes, and the lead vocalist on all of their previous albums. As the voice of the band, he more than anyone else represented the band's identity, and fans had a great deal of difficulty accepting his absence. 

Perhaps an analogy can be made between a band's lead singer and the sound of our own voices. For individuals, losing their voice temporarily can be highly frustrating, and losing it permanently can be traumatic. Truly so, I mean this without hyperbole or exaggeration. We take the sound of our own voices for granted, but they are much more a part of our identity than the way we look. We may look in the mirror a couple of times each day, maybe less, maybe a bit more depending on how much your looks matter in your profession, or to you personally. But our looks are not with us to the same degree as the sound of our own voices can be. Even when we're not talking, we can still hear our voices as we think, and what is thinking but talking to ourselves silently? If it's too noisy, we say, I can't hear myself think. We never refer to being unable to see ourselves think, and we don't imagine our faces, or bodies, when we're caught up in the act of thinking.

So there is a severe psychological trauma that individuals experience if they lose their ability to speak forever, say due to a laryngectomy (surgical removal of the larynx), often necessitated by cancer of the larynx brought on by smoking or drinking. It may follow, then, in a more modest way, for a band like Yes who had recorded and performed for many years with only one singer taking the lead, that that singer became intrinsic to the group's identity, and his loss difficult to accept, at least for the fans, because fans in some way derive their identity from the object of their enthusiasm.

Another problem was that the replacement of two key members took many fans by surprise, either when they purchased their copy of Drama, or when they saw the group in concert. Nowadays, such changes in personnel would be amply broadcast via the internet and social media, which would have provided the opportunity for feedforward, and perhaps a change in plans. At the very least, there would have been more of a chance to break the news gradually, rather than having the experience that many fans had of going to see Yes in concert, expecting to hear Anderson's voice, and getting someone else instead, along with a substitute on the keyboards.

So who replaced Wakeman and Anderson? It was Geoff Downes on keyboards, and Trevor Horn on lead vocals. Both had previously been members of a new wave band called The Buggles. It was considered at odd combination, insofar as new wave, as a more mainstream evolution of punk rock, was seen as a reaction against the excesses of progressive rock, and therefore almost almost diametrically opposed to all that progressive rock was about. Punk and new wave emphasized shorter songs, getting back to the older idea of the 3-4 minute single that fit into the 45 rpm format and was aimed at the Top 40 charts, and relied on more down to earth, often prosaic, sometimes ironic lyrics, less cosmic and preachy, more angry and rebellious, etc. But I hasten to add that at least some of new wave was similar to progressive in being alternative and experimental, intellectual, and reflecting an interest in technology, science, and science fiction. 

So the arrival of Downes and Horn was not at all absurd, and it certainly was not forced on their part, or on the part of remaining Yes members Squire, guitarist Steve Howe, and drummer Alan White. And just in case you're asking, who in the world are or were The Buggles, well, here's their best known song:





Some video, huh? A real tribute to mid-20th century media transitions. And as you may well know, when the cable channel MTV was launched in 1981, this was the first music video that they played (and for those who don't know, MTV originally was devoted almost entirely to playing music videos). The song itself had been included on the first album by The Buggles, The Age of Plastic, released in 1979. If you're not familiar with it, I'd recommend it, and here it is, as a matter of fact:






This video includes 3 bonus tracks not on the original album, which consisted of 8 songs divided evenly on the 2 sides of the record, "Living in the Plastic Age," Video Killed the Radio Star," "Kid Dynamo," and "I Love You (Miss Robot)" on side 1, and "Clean, Clean," "Elstree," "Astroboy (And the Proles on Parade)," and "Johnny on the Monorail" on side 2.

So, anyway, as you might imagine, I like what The Buggles did here especially for their use of media ecological and science fiction themes. I find the music enjoyable, and not entirely inconsistent with the progressive rock approach of Yes. But when it comes to singing, Horn's voice is significantly lower than Anderson's, and while he tried to raise it up higher when he joined Yes, he just wasn't able, and it no doubt caused quite a bit of strain on his vocal cords. Perhaps that had something to do with Horn switching roles from performer or producer, a career change that resulted in quite a bit of success, not the least working with the next version of Yes.



The point being that Drama was an aberration because the band broke up in 1981, so there were no subsequent Yes-Buggle albums made. At least not until 30 years later, in 2011, when Yes released another album without Jon Anderson, who was replaced by Benoît David, while Geoff Downes returned to play keyboards. This time, Anderson's absence was not by his own choice, but due to illness. And once again it was controversial, among the fans, as it was three decades before, but this time also because Anderson argued that he had recovered sufficiently. Downes has remained with Yes as they released their last album with Squire, appropriately titled Heaven and Earth, in 2014, with Jon Davidson as lead singer.

So, more than a little actual drama associated with the release of Drama. And returning to "Tempus Fugit" I'd say that it was not only Anderson's voice that was missed, but also his lyrics. Anderson had a certain way with lyrics that made them cryptic, a cool medium in the tradition of Symbolist poetry (as Marshall McLuhan would say), modernist in that sense as opposed to the postmodernist sensibility of The Age of Plastic. Postmodern self-reference and self-reflexivity can be seen in the repetition of yes and yes, yes in the lyrics of "Tempus Fugit," something Anderson would never do. And while that sort of thing became commonplace in rap and hip hop, it went against the loftier sentiments associated with progressive rock.

Simply put, "Tempus Fugit" is not one of my favorites, and in my view, not one of the best songs Yes recorded, which is to say that it is a good song, just not outstanding. It is certainly an interesting piece, a product of an interesting period in their history. And without a doubt, it is very good instrumentally, and on the power of the bass line alone, a memorable composition, one of the best examples of why Squire was in a league of his own as a bass guitarist. Oh, and by the way, the previous posts in this series are Yes, Squire, Yes Again, Squire, and Squire's (Not So) Silent Wings, in case you missed any of them and want to catch up. 

Together Again at Tech-Mex

So, while I was in Mexico City this past March to to give a series of lectures at Universidad Panamericana, as I mentioned in my recent post, My Panamericana Visit, I also had a chance to see my friends and fellow media ecology enthusiasts, Octavio Islas, and Fernando Gutiérrez. 

And I was quite happy to learn that Fernando has moved up in the world, and is now Director (equivalent of Dean) of the División de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades (School of Social Sciences and Humanities) at the Santa Fe Campus (a section of Mexico City that is home to many business headquarters, kind of their high tech center) of Technológico de Monterry (Monterrey Tech). 

Congratulations, Fernando!

 
So, I had a chance to visit his campus, and give a guest lecture to one of his new media classes, an enjoyable experience. The students were all bright and attentive, and there were also several faculty members present. And I suppose that's how my little presentation to the class wound up on Twitter:

RT @AndresRBG7: Today we have @LanceStrate in @Tec_Santa_Fe thanks to @fer_gut He'll be talking about #mediaecology pic.twitter.com/TmggOtSJnd

— Lance Strate (@LanceStrate) March 17, 2015

 
Of course I spoke about media ecology, and the Media Ecology Association:

RT @fer_gut: With @LanceStrate one of the founders of the Media Ecology Association #mediaecology @Tec_Santa_Fe pic.twitter.com/WZpriJ1fcD

— Lance Strate (@LanceStrate) March 17, 2015

But I talked about media ecology especially in regard to the study of new media:

RT @AndresRBG7: "We remade the world" @LanceStrate in @tecdemty @tecsantafe with @fer_gut pic.twitter.com/R37nSqEjvF

— Lance Strate (@LanceStrate) March 17, 2015

And speaking of new media, this also gave me the opportunity to try out embedding tweets in a blog post, something I had not had the opportunity to experiment with before. Funny to see that little 15 second video, which really is mostly medium, very little message:

RT @AndresRBG7: "We remade the world" @LanceStrate in @tecdemty @tecsantafe with @fer_gut pic.twitter.com/R37nSqEjvF

— Lance Strate (@LanceStrate) March 17, 2015

And also more than a little self-reflexive, in that it is a video of me showing the class another video (while I'm talking over and about it). And in case you're curious about the video I was showing, it was one I included in my 2011 post, The Choral Village. The video, by composer Eric Whitacre, wonderfully illustrates the potential of new media for collaborations that would not otherwise be possible, while also exemplifying the dematerialization accomplished by electronic media, the disembodiment that we experience, or what McLuhan referred to as being discarnate and angelic, as well as what Sherry Turkle so aptly summarized as being alone together.

But what was truly marvelous about my Mexico City trip was the opportunity to be together together. Nothing can quite take its place.