Tokyo Damage Report

music scandals

Just once in my life I’d like to see a “music scandal” that actually WAS ABOUT MUSIC.  “Miley Cyrus’ new song is all in 13 / 7 polyrhythms. . . and it’s 27 minutes long!”  “ASAP Ricky’s new song only uses a jaw harp and musical saw, nothing else!” “Lady Gaga’s new song consists entirely of samples from Youtubes of crimes used in courtroom proceedings. . .AND it’s 19 BPM.”  To me, THOSE qualify as “music scandals.”  But in our dumb media world, the more “shocking” the performer is, the more conservative and middle of the road their song is. Garun-fucking-teed.

Compare with Stravinsky: when he debuted Rites of Spring, there was a full-on riot in the classical music venue.  Like for real, old white Euro dudes in tuxedos all punching each other in the monocles, old white ladies all choking each other out with their own pearl necklaces and shit. That is a funny visual, but if you think about it, AT LEAST THEY CARED ABOUT THE MUSIC.

And isn’t it pathetic how predicatable “scandals” are? For guys:  drugs! Groupies! Arrests at Customs!  For ladies: sideboob OMG!  Makes me nostalgic for the ‘80s when you’d have a scandal like TITLE OF SONG IS A DOUBLE MEANING or  PRINCE SAID A CUSS.

Let’s face it: the entire, ritualized world of media scandals is less than 1% of ACTUAL shady  showbiz behavior, so why should the audience settle for that year after year?!? The REAL rock/showbiz scandals are the ones THEY NEVER TALK ABOUT.

 

How about a ROLLING STONE-type magazine that dealt with the REAL rock-stars of the industry:

The Crooked showbiz lawyers, bootleggers, managers, record label people. . . and the massive industry-wide organized-crime presence that makes it all possible.

Articles like: “top 10 record labels which only exist in order to launder drug profits (with full-color pie charts of where the money goes!”

Or: “Can You Match the Label (or promotion company, management company ,etc) With The “Family” of their “Secret Investor? (answers on page 95!!)”

You could have a pull-out section: real-estate ads listing foreclosed former MTV cribs.

Instead of TOP TEN HIGHEST-SELLING SONGS, you’d have TOP TEN HIGHEST-GROSSING SCAMS. Like:

“Guess Which Of Your Favorite Stars Doesn’t Own Any of Their Own Songs? (special bonus round: Guess Which Of Your Favorite Stars Didn’t WRITE Any of Their Own Songs?)”

Cult leaders! Complete with before-and-after photos (before: saffron robes, giant beard, holy pious expression. After: snorting coke off of a tax-shelter lawyer’s ass, wearing Oakleys, yelling “Can you fucking BELIEVE how much cash I got off of  Don Henley?!?!? Hey Don! Just keep chanting, buddy! Hahahaha!!! You’re almost there!!! HAHAHAAHAHAHAHA *snort*”)

Accountants:  “I not only screwed the band, but I kept it hidden from the much more expensive accountants that the record label hired to double-check on me! (Part 5 of 6)”

Drug dealers : “I Got A Yacht Named Eminem And A  Hovercraft Named DMX, And  I Can’t Even Rhyme”

Do a weekly Label Executive Irony Challenge:  Mr. “I bought controlling interest in a shotgun company with royalties I scammed from Nirvana” vs Ms. “Stealing the rights to Pink Floyd’s WE DON’T NEED NO EDUCATION paid for my daughter’s entire tuition at Harvard”. Who will win?  (Answer:  Ms. Pink Floyd, because her daughter majored in copyright law).

This Week’s 5 Most Outrageous Nuisance Lawsuits (and how much the stars settled out-of-court for!) (“Calling Kanye A ‘Tardbanger’ Bought Me This Dune Buggy!”)

“the 10 Cheapest-payola DJs . . . AND the 10 most overpriced ratings-fixers”

“the ten most mobbed-up clubs in Louisiana”.

“ten promoters that have not paid any band since 1994”

And my personal favorite category of scumbag: The sketchy relatives-of-relatives-of-relatives that crawl out the woodwork as soon as someone gets that first million. The Sketchy Relative is a huge part of showbiz folklore that never gets the attention they deserve – they always have some ridiculous business idea that “just needs a little start-up capital, garunteed double your money back.”  The funny part is, these scams are probably way more creative and original than the newly-rich Star’s music or movies or whatever!! For example: “A store where you punch chickens in the face” “like walmart but everything is made from alligators” “a line of tire-repair shops where bikini girls run a bingo game while you wait.” “FUCKING PRIME real estate on the river, dude! They’re going to run a freeway through there, build a derpity derp. Property values THROUGH THE ROOF my man! You’re lucky I’m even cutting you in on this deal!” Like, who do you think put more thought and effort into their hustle?  the scumbag  who has a “can’t miss idea for donuts with a fried egg in the middle” or the Star , writing lyrics for her new hit “Grind That Buttock (on the Dance Floor)”????

 

And it goes without saying that these articles would not be written  in a Steve-Albini-Fuck-The-Industry-Expose-Their-Fucking-LIES type way. This magazine would treat the scammers AS IF THEY WERE THE REAL ROCK STARS. Totally kissing their ass and promoting them as huge role models.  “Is it true that Stone Temple Pilots were begging you to stay even after you embezzeled all their tour money?” “How are you investing your Rhianna windfall? Any stock tips?” “Where are the offshore tax havens you’d recommend for next year?”

 

Instead of some handsome rock star surrounded by models, they photo shoot some pasty geek on the beach in his hideout in Bermuda, surrounded by spreadsheets. Total MTV CRIBS style.  “This is where the magic happens *points to stack of contracts with Page 29, Paragraph 3, Section 2a highlighted*”  “Here’s my garage with 4 cars that Sting paid for after knocking me up. Thanks, Sting!”

(insert random Gene Simmons quote where he talks like he is explaining the world to some dumb interviewer, then for contrast: insert a corresponding quote from the ACTUALLY smart guy who stole $4,000,000 of Simmons’ money while Simmons was face-down in a pile of drugs)

4 comments

Spiritual!

Spiritual:

 

It’s not a word I like. It kind of implies that we have souls.  Bullshit. When you die you go in the dirt and you’re worm food and that’s all there is to it.  But that just means you should fight HARDER in life  while you’re still alive.

 

Sure spiritual is a shitty term but the alternative is to give up without a fight, to surrender to all these Thomas friedman assholes who think that anything that can’t be quantified and ranked is worthless, that the logic of the marketplace should dominate all our moral reasoning and permeate every single area of our lives.

 

I mean, if you have a dumb job, but live in beautiful nature with a community of people who care about you and support your struggle, and then that gets taken away and you’re living in a strip mall full of dirty concrete and wendys and jiffy-lubes for mile after mile amidst a bunch of strangers who don’t give a fuck about you, and everyone blames themselves for being in debt, and fights over the crumbs. . . .that doesn’t show up on any accountant’s balance sheet. That doesn’t show up in GDP or any of the other yardsticks that The Man uses to measure success or failure. So on what basis do we all instinctively agree that one situation is better than the other?  Spiritual shit is what.  What else would you call it?

 

Living in a shithole town with no stimulation and only chain stores, living without community, fighting battles yourself just to stay afloat (while the elites are all very well coordinated against you, making deals in places you’ll never even see), that is spiritually fucked. People who have grown up knowing nothing else can’t imagine another future for themselves or if you ask them to try they say it’s gay or pussy.  Their whole imagination got killed off. Those brain cells and connections never developed when they were young. That is a sort of spiritual violence that can’t be measured but it’s real.

5 comments

ethnic and gender studies courses at universities

BOTH the pro- and the anti- factions share this unspoken assumption that ethnic/gender studies is a kind of penance. (Which is funny because the pro- people generally shudder at the oppression of organized religion and etc. )

Here’s how the unspoken assumption works: the pro- people figure, “Hey I am one of the good people (gender or ethnic minorities) so why should I have to take studies courses in OTHER PEOPLES’ stuff? Why should I do penance when I am the victim?”  Meanwhile the anti- people (men or white women) say, “I don’t want to take any ethnic/gender courses because they’ll just yell at me and make me feel bad. Why should I do penance if I’m not required to?”

 

Both miss the point.

 

These courses should be advertised to students, and taught, not as penance, but as a set of practical tools and techniques to achieve success in adult life. Just like “corporate” majors such as MBAs or programming.

 

The fact that BOTH pro- and anti- people are UNITED in face-palming after reading that, just proves how fucked up our attitudes towards ethnic/gender studies are.

 

Let me explain what I mean:

 

After you graduate, your room-mates, your boss at work, your future in-laws, your landlords, your clients at work. . . pretty much all of them at one time or another are going to be DIFFERENT FROM YOU. And they will have THE POWER TO MAKE YOUR LIFE MISERABLE. Even if you’re a white male heterosexual. This is true whether you’re working in a hipster coffee shop or a high-powered law firm. It’s true whether you’re a pottery major or a finance major. It’s true whether you’re a straight white man or a Latina lesbian.  You have to learn how to get along with different people.  You don’t have to learn every little thing about their culture or that their culture is better than your culture or whatever, but you should know enough to make small talk with them without putting your foot in your fucking mouth and jeopardizing your marriage/job/rental apartment.

 

Even if you’re a white man, you can get way farther in business if you impress your boss and clients that way.  And just because you’re a Latina lesbian, you can still inadvertently offend your future Chinese boss or your future Nigerian mother-in-law or your whatever whatever.  If you’re ignorant, you can piss them off just as much as a white man can.

 

These are practical skills. And  unlike “corporate” or “technical” skills, (or Medieval English Lit / Postmodern Art theory majors too for that mater), the skills from gender/ethnic studies  are  transferable to ALL careers.  So therefore they should be required of all students.   Maybe it’s different but when I was in college in the late ’80s (?!?) ethnic/gender studies was something you majored in. So you had 90% of the students not giving a shit, and 10% that were garunteed to have no jobs after graduation, which is a distinctly weird idea of “empowerment.”

 

One of the OTHER things that both the pro-and anti- sides tend to overlook:  since these courses are a form of technical training, you’re SUPPOSED to make mistakes. Like say you were taking math, if you wanted to get good at it, every semester you’d take harder courses, courses that you could barely barely pass, and you’d probably get like 20% of the answers wrong, even more at the beginning of the semester.  That doesn’t mean you’re a shitty mathematician, it means that you’re pushing yourself to the limits of your ability. If you’re in your third semester and still doing long division just because you’re terrified of making any mistakes, you’re not a perfectionist, you’re a fuckup and no one will hire you to do their math.

 

This seems so obvious it doesn’t even bear writing down. . . except that in gender/ethnic studies the assumptions are the opposite!

 

If you make even one mistake, you can get a reputation for being a racist/sexist/homophobe and that reputation can follow you until you graduate or drop out.  That’s not the fucking way to teach people to push their intellectual limits.  Not only that, it gives students a huge incentive to not even talk to those in different groups, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the programs should be doing!

 

In fact, at my school (University of California Santa Cruz), here is a thing that actually happened. The administration was faced with a problem: “Students of color have higher drop-out rates, which is probably because they are surrounded by whites and they don’t have a lot of role models/support from students of their same race, and subconsciously this makes them feel they don’t belong here.”

 

The administration’s solution?  “For their own good we’ll encourage them to sleep in racially segregated dormitories.” I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.

 

Another example: at UCSC there were 12 different dorm areas (‘campuses’) each with their own theme. Our campus’s theme was “multi-culturalism”.  You’d think that ours would therefore of been the most popular party-campus at UCSC:  Cinco de Mayo, St. Paddy’s day, Chinese New Year,  Russian Get Drunk Day (M-Su),  . . . but in fact, nobody from other campuses ever came to party here. Even people living here didn’t want to party here.  Because multi-culturalism was taught as a form of penance!  It wasn’t like, “Here’s a place where you can get burritos, injira, chana masala, AND won tons! At the same cafeteria! Fuck eating at MY campus, I’m gonna go to Schultz’ multi-cultural cafeteria!” it was more like, “We have 20 different flavors of EAT YOUR BROCCOLI IT IS GOOD FOR YOU.”

 

So counterproductive.

 

The measure of success of ethnic/gender studies programs should be “are the students talking and interacting with students from other groups more than when they first arrived at university?”  But all too often the training just makes you want to avoid other groups lest you offend. The penance-based, study-only-your-own-group training is not just bad from a  racist-white-male perspective, it also hinders oppressed minorities from uniting against The Man.

 

When teachers are creating ethnic/gender studies classes, Instead of thinking of “prejudice and unfairness are outrageous, so therefore how much outrage can we pack into one hour’s class?”, why not start with the goal:  “let’s combat prejudice by making the students feel comfortable and respectful talking to people in other groups EVEN OUTSIDE OF CLASS, FOR FUN.”  And then proceed to work backwards from that goal,  designing the curriculum by asking “what can we do an hour a day in class to achieve that?”

 

Maybe you’re thinking, “Well, he’s a straight white man, so naturally he wants to de-emphasize the “teach the worst atrocities of history and then assign blame” aspect of ethnic/gender studies”. “  But according to Political Correctness, in a society where straight white male is the norm, the oppressed minorities pretty much HAVE to learn to talk to people like me just as a part of growing up, but people like me don’t have to learn to talk to others (it is part of our privilege).  So when I am proposing a small-talk and discussion-with-strangers-based curicculum (however you spell it), I am  actually proposing something that will be more difficult for people like me, something where non-white-males would have a built-in advantage. And as a socially awkward nerd who can’t even get along with the white middle-class kids in my high school, I’m sure I would have been terrified of this curriculum, but I’m also pretty sure I would have emerged a better person.

 

Teachers should say, “Look, you’re going to spend fully half of class time making small talk with people you’d never talk to ordinarily. you’re going to irritate people without meaning to. You’re going to have some awkward silences. If you’re not putting your foot in your mouth once a week, then you’re still doing long division when everyone else is doing calculus. If you’re not a white male, you don’t have to practice talking to white males more than you already have to, instead you should talk to folks in groups you have never interacted with before, where you can be the insensitive one.”

 

It should be OK to fuck up provided that you learn from it.  Just like, I don’t know, every other area of education?!?  There would have to be some mechanism for kids to judge whether an “offense” was based on racial/gender ignorance/bias, or whether the “offense” was purely personal.  Actually even adults have no way to do this so maybe never mind.

 

Of course other  steps can be taken to minimize the hurt feelings before they start. Like at the beginning of the semester all the students can write down the top 10 cliché things people outside of their group say that pisses them off or patronizes them, and those can be aggregated, and the aggregated lists can simply be passed out to the students, or used as fodder for simple role-playing skits done in front of the class, etc.

 

Also probably a good idea:  role-playing skits where you pretend to be an adult in the real world, making small talk with your boss or in-law, or going out to a business dinner with a potential client, applying for a bank loan, chattering with your next-door neighbor, who is from a different group but who also has power over you.  The problem is where would you find the people to play the adult roles? You couldn’t really have your Chicano teacher play all the minority roles, and you couldn’t have the students convincingly play adult roles.  They should hire the fucking townies. Oh my god that would be traumatic!  Let’s do it!

 

While we’re at it,  let’s make “working class” one of the official groups.  Let’s get upper middle class white girls and Asians to be able to comfortably communicate with droopy-stached mechanics.  Let’s get upper-middle class theory-driven communist students to comfortably communicate with droopy-stached mechanics too.  See how that goes!  I mean if the point is to make you a well-rounded adult who can get along with all the people you have to get along with in the future, to cut down on awkwardness and unintentional patronizing/offense, of course laborers and mechanics would qualify as a group alongside the established groups.

 

Like I said before, the goal should be a sort of shallow knowledge of a dozen cultures, trying to cover the basics of small talk with future neighbors/housemates/spouses/in-laws/bosses/co-workers/landlords/work clients.  What to say, what not to say, top 10 typical awkward moments, etc. It’s also important to learn people’s culture, not just the atrocities. Not just their holidays or favorite food, but just  the WAY different groups talk, the different rhythms of conversation.

 

Most ethnic/gender conversations at my university all had to do with really heavy shit and blame for same. Again with the idea that “these courses are penance for sins.”  Of course the conversations degenerated into petty arguments that went nowhere.

 

I’m not saying we should avoid teaching the truth about horrible things white men have done/are doing. Just, have some fucking common sense. If students aren’t comfortable even making small talk with different types of people, you want to plunge them straight into the Tuskegee experiment and gang-rape?!?  Of course they’re going to wind up more divided than ever.

 

First of all, teach kids how to talk about non-controversial stuff. Let the white kids know that their future boss is going to be non-white, and what that feels like . . . and let the oppressed minority students know how easy it is to offend OTHER minorities, and what it feels like to be on that end of the equation . . . . and once everyone understands each others’ basic humanity, once you can talk about normal stuff without offending, THEN shift to the heavy stuff.  Just writing this now it seems so fucking obvious. Why is this not the way it’s done?

 

2 comments

’70s punk humor

Read more

4 comments

type two gender fouls

There’s typical “gender fouls” like “Men who don’t like sports or cars” or “women who don’t like babies or armpit shaving.”  If you’re one of these, people make you feel less than a man/woman.  But what I’ve noticed recently is there is a HIDDEN ASYMMETRY in gender fouls. A whole second level of unfairness that is hidden until now simply because there is not a word for it.  What we normally think of as “gender fouls”, are actually two different things.    There’s the normal type of gender foul like i mentioned up above. Let’s call those TYPE ONE.

For my money, though,  the more interesting gender fouls are things that mark you as a loser, a failure as a man/woman , EVEN THOUGH YOU’RE DOING SOMETHING WHICH ONLY YOUR GENDER DOES.  When you think about it, that’s pretty weird.  I guess you can resolve the contradiction by saying:  “99% of men don’t do XYZ, but 99% of people who do XYZ are men.”

 

Let’s call these activities TYPE TWO GENDER FOULS.

For example, even though collecting star wars figurines is something that only guys do, we don’t think of that as “manly” in the way that football/cars are.    (I’m not trying to make the case that Star Wars collecting is manly or awesome.  If anything, admitting that you care about sports/cars should be just as embarrassing as admitting you have a closet full of mint toys. But that’s beside the point. )

It’s hard to think clearly about TYPE TWO GENDER FOULS because it’s not symmetrical.

And by “not symmetrical”, I mean, there are plenty of women into science or role-playing games or whatever, but if you’re a woman and you’re into “geek” stuff like engineering, programming, astronomy . . . that’s a type ONE gender foul:  you’re acting too “masculine.” But if you’re a guy and into that stuff, it’s a type TWO gender foul:  it’s not masculine ENOUGH.  Makes your head hurt just thinking about it.

 

Put another way, most of what we think of as “women gender fouls” are TYPE ONE (some variation on ‘you’re doing guy stuff or not caring enough about girl stuff so you are less of a woman’). That’s why I had to write this rant, to try to give a way to think about TYPE TWO fouls. Until now there really has been no way to think about or talk about it. And even though I’m throwing down a theoretical framework for discussing it,  at the end of the day, I’m a guy and I have no idea what a female TYPE TWO might be!

So here goes my question to everyone: What’s the embarrassing stuff that meets the definition of: “99% of women don’t do XYZ but 99% of the people who do XYZ are women?”

For example, there is this stereotype that women collect shoes.  Is there any amount of shoe collecting large enough that  the woman would get made fun of like a guy with a huge collection of  comic books?  Or are shoe collections more like football and cars, where no matter how obsessive it gets it’s never a gender foul?

And being obsessed with aromatherapy or scented bath candle collecting!  Are those type two gender fouls?  I know it’s mostly women who do that, but are they seen as “less of a woman” if they get down like that?  What about living alone with 3 cats? Or just one cat?  Or reading romance novels?  Is “chick lit” OK but old-school Fabio books something you have to hide from your friends?

If you’re a woman or a guy with too many older sisters, can you help me out here? What are some good female type two gender fouls?

12 comments

THE BOGOSITY OF THE PROFESSIONAL WIPER

The HELL I just recorded a whole album in 3 weeks.

That's more music than I've made in the last 3 years combined!

Anyway it's up at bandcamp. 
Please let me know what you think!

 

10 comments

Mexico