Posts
I watch Fox News.
There. I said it. It's off my chest.
Mind you, I don't watch it when there's an actual news story of any real importance; on those occasions I usually turn to CNN, because of course, strictly speaking, Fox doesn't cover news - they deliver republican propaganda under the guise of journalism. But when there's nothing going on of any particular interest, I like to sit there and just marvel at it all. The hypocrisy, the intellectual dishonesty, the glaring conservative bias they get away with calling "fair and balanced" (surely the most nakedly cynical slogan since "Arbeit Macht Frei"). I drink it in.
I assume, perhaps naively, that none of you disagrees with my analysis. Even the republicans among you. If there were a network of the same sort, proclaiming itself a source of "news" and proselytizing for democrats, I would consider it an embarrassment. There are comedy shows, such as Jon Stewart's or "The Colbert Report," that take a plainly liberal stance, and I quite enjoy them, but comedy - good comedy - I enjoy only because it makes me laugh, at the expense of whatever politics (if any). You can pretend to be objective; you can't pretend to be funny. I'm not aware of any funny conservative comedians. I can think of a handful of hopelessly unfunny conservative comedians, but no funny ones.
In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of any creative works, in any field, of any real merit, by a conservative. Maybe you could count Disneyland as a creative work... Ayn Rand's novels were unendurable, but her screenplay for The Fountainhead was truly excellent. Johnny Ramone should be counted, although he didn't actually write any of their songs (and quite a few of his privately expressed views would turn most republicans' hair white). Skunk Baxter was one hell of a guitarist, no denying that. Ted Nugent was... No; I can't think of anything actually good by him. Who else? A tiny handful of conservative actors, but I'm not sure I'd call acting "creativity" so much as a skill... Sonny Bono?
But Bill O'Reilly. My God. I mean, how does he get away with it? The easily exposed lies he spouts that no one ever questions, the stomach-churning pretense of moral rectitude, the dissimulation, the self-congratulation, the cloying flattery of his audience... I mean, I have no sympathy for child molestation (could there possibly be an easier target?), but how does Bill O'Reilly, a sexual predator, get away with declaring himself the nation's watchdog against it?
When Scott McClellan's book came out vindicating the beliefs they had so long ridiculed, scarcely a single word was uttered about its contents. That Bush had lied us into a war that has killed thousands, and that Karl Rove (a Fox employee, unsurprisingly) had revealed the identity of a covert CIA operative (punishable by death, under a law signed by Ronald Reagan), went with scarcely any mention. Every word to be heard on Fox was about Scott McClellan, and the question of which two things he could possibly be: a madman or a paid liar.
Fox News is toxic. It profits on fueling ideological hostility and disunion, it fosters ignorance and misinformation, it encourages self-satisfaction among the ignorant, it sanctions dishonesty, and provides a forum for bigots, bullies, cowards and frauds.
So why do I watch it? I don't listen to Madonna records. I don't read Harry Potter books. I don't buy LeRoy Neiman paintings. What is it about Fox News that fascinates me?
Maybe it's just because when it falls - when a tape of Bill O'Reilly sexually harassing an employee finally emerges, when someone catches Rupert Murdoch laughing at the brainlessness he relies on for an audience, when Neil Cavuto is photographed shooting heroin, or whatever it will sooner or later be - my glee will be that much greater.
But if anyone among you actually does consider Fox News "fair and balanced," do please say so; I'd be curious to hear your reasoning.
A couple of months ago, my cousin called me up saying he'd heard I'd started a music blog ("MOG," I told him; "they're called MOGS"), and asked where he could find it. I wasn't at the computer at the time, and couldn't recall the URL, so I just told him to Google "zarpex," on the assumption that - surely - there would be no other appearance of such a preposterous word.
But I got to wondering - what would he actually find with a search for that name? So I dragged the cursor into the Google box that now appears in every web browser, typed in "zarpex," and pressed the return key.
There is a "Zarpex Biosciences, Ltd." in Scotland. Fair enough. But it turned out there's another "Zarpex," in something called the Urban Dictionary (theirs has a capital Z). It's defined as: "A homo. A lover of horses. (In a very bad way.)"
Oh dear.
The name "zarpex" came from a short play my daughter was asked to write in elementary school, some time roughly ten years ago, maybe a little less. She was having trouble coming up with an ending, and asked me for help. I looked it over and recommended she go for the absurd. In the truest deus ex machina tradition, I suggested it end with the unexpected appearance of "ZARPEX THE SPACE GOD," who kills everyone. The end. Fans of Emo Phillips among you, by the way, may recognize this as a lift of his "Zorkon the Space God."
But I know it predated the Urban Dictionary entry, which is given as 2004. I don't know when Zarpex Biosciences, Ltd. was founded, but I don't really mind that one. How long would it be, I wondered, before someone Googled "zarpex"? How many might already have done so, and be looking at me askance?
It was Universalis, about a week ago, in a comment on my post about Nancy Wilson's "How Glad I Am," who announced the findings. The tone was playful and lighthearted, and it went without remark among the subsequent comments, to my relief. I wasn't so much worried that anyone would really imagine that I was sexually attracted to horses as that they might think my sense of humor so crude and vulgar as to have chosen such a name, or that it would provide a subject for mockery too easy and tempting for some to resist, like being named "Egbert" or something in third grade.
"That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet," Juliet argued. And they would, too, but they would no longer be welcomed as tokens of love if they were called "horse-@#$*&ers." What must my cousin have thought when he Googled it?
So just for the record: I didn't pick that name because I'm a fan of Zarpex Biosciences, Ltd., or because I like sex with horses. But I picked it, and I'm too proud of what I've written under it to change it. It might yield some funny wisecracks, though, so tee it up and crush it.
Oh; and isn't this a great song?
Comments
a most entertaining post, zarpex. good of you to address the name confusion, though i will admit that i wasn't aware of the horsef&*king meaning...now when I see your name i will think of horses. lovely, lovely song!
The field of electronics is one of my intellectual blind spots. I have no clue at all what anything in a recording studio is or does, or how to work it. I don't know what a motherboard is; I don't know a gigahertz from a megabyte; I have no earthly notion what "compression" really is, or a rheostat, or a crossover, or what the difference is between resistance and impedance. As a child I firmly believed that if you cut a vinyl LP of Magical Mystery Tour in half, you would find a miniaturized John, Paul, George and Ringo inside, strictly following the needle's instructions wherever it fell, including skips.
I try to cultivate friendships with the people I encounter who possess that facility, but it can sometimes be a bit difficult. The workings of their minds are so fundamentally different from my own that I sometimes think they represent - well, not a different species, but perhaps something analogous to a different gender. Their thinking is linear; mine is katabatic. I have to be careful not to obey my instinct to ask them to explain concepts I don't understand; the result is infallibly a correct, and often quite lengthy answer, composed of words which, in themselves, I understand perfectly, but which form a whole that bewilders me. As Admiral Benson said in Hot Shots! (if you'll forgive a bit of crude language), "I don't have a clue what you're talking about, Jim; not a fucking clue." I know what comes out of the speakers, I know what appears on the computer monitor - how it got there, I'm blind to.
So about fifteen years ago I was in the market for a new preamplifier. My incomprehension of their workings notwithstanding, I'm rather fussy about sound, and will happily spend a great deal of time, and travel considerable distances in hunting for satisfactory stereo components [N.B.: let me quickly add that the widespread preference, among audiophiles, for vacuum tube over solid state amplifiers is questionable; there are good and bad solid state amps, and the best ones {narrowly} beat tubes]. My quest eventually brought me to a very high-end, boutique-y concern in LA, where I listened to a preamp that I found especially gratifying. Among its attenuators and switches and God knows what all, however, I noticed one I'd never seen on any other: a big, heavy knob with only two positions, identified as "PHASE INVERTER 180˚." Foolishly, I asked what it did, and sat through five minutes of incomprehensible factuality, trying to look like I found it helpful. It ended satisfyingly, however: "Turn it," the guy said.
Whatever 180˚ phase inversion is, it's cool. The effect is difficult to explain; without the actual music changing in any definite way, it somehow creates a sort of - how can I describe it? - a kind of bump in the sound, that fills your ears almost the way pressure equalization does when you get off an airplane. It almost seems to push you, physically; the whole room seems to tilt a few degrees for an instant. If you have an opportunity, try to experience the effect some time, with a pair of good speakers. Jarring, but in a quite fascinating way.
Anyway, I left the place thinking how amazing it was that this effect had, as far as I was aware, never been used in a rock song. I meant to employ it in a VWC endeavor at one point or another, but it was like what happens to that mental list of records you've been meaning to buy when you walk into an actual record store: poof.
Well, someone finally did it. Terrific song, too. If possible, I urge you to listen to this on headphones to get the effect, and even then it's still not as powerful in recording as it is when you apply it firsthand with good equipment. But this recording is dripping with phase inversion. Phase inversion is our friend.
By the way; anyone who can hip me to an earlier example (or examples - this song is from 2006) will be rewarded with five sleek, aerodynamic zarpex-Points™.
Comments
Z, I find it hard to believe your outta touch with what goes on at the mixing board when cutting a record. Well, not that hard. That's why you pay recording staff, they have this stuff figured out already.
If I were to name an examples of 'phase shift' I would think pioneers such as Zappa 'Help I'm a Rock' through Floyd ' Astronomy Domine', Captain Beefheart, and up to the work of XTC's alter ego Dukes of Stratosphere. Jeez, don't forget about MC5, and a host of others who wanted a deeper sound that almost throws off your equilibrium.
Today this effect can be simulated (quite convincingly) by digital manipulation. Back in the day (and still is) this effect was built into mixing boards of varying quality. My semi vintage Soundtrac 4x16 has phase inversion. To rig the board it requires a knowledge about cable placement and pan.
If VWC ever gets back to the studio I recommend you find an engineer who can help you out.
Another place you can hear this shift is in your guitar effects. I have a Korg that gives me the presets 'Black' and 'Orange' Phaser. This takes the mono signal and switches it in and out of phase with the original signal. I would liken the effect to spinning in a concrete tunnel with a blindfold on. The sound hits your ears differently as you revolve.
I hope I answered any question, if not I hope I confounded you completely. I don't like traveling in the middle of the road.
You didn't get a B&O did you?
Five zarpex-Points™ to I am! "Mole from the Ministry" does indeed use phase inversion, and I couldn't thoroughly check the others you mentioned (I have a fair number of Beefheart tracks on my iTunes, but couldn't find the effect; I might have the wrong ones; likewise MC5 and "Astronomy Domine" - the fascination with which I could never understand), but you were quite right about The Dukes of Stratosphear.
Believe it or not, amigo, nothing to do with circuitry of any sort, for some reason, can be made to penetrate my skull. I can still participate usefully in matters of production, but my understanding of what I'm doing is on a purely aesthetic level; I cannot touch a dial, a slider, or anything without strings; 100% backseat driver.
For the historical record, the VWC will be back in the studio some time this summer, to record "Classic Rock" properly (at long last). We do, you'll be relieved to know, have an engineer to work with ("The night purge is in the hands of the technicians." -Samuel Beckett, Molloy).
Phase inversion may have me stumped, but for the record, phase shifting actually makes sense to me - possibly because I can picture waves more easily than electrons.
Good Lord, No. B&O? Baltimore & Ohio? Surely you can't have meant Bang & Olufsen? Easier on the eyes than the ears. Although in fairness, they did make pretty respectable turntables back in the day. Did they do a preamp with phase inversion?
Perhaps I should have appended this to my post about the Jaws score, but since we're all here, let me add that it should be a given that my opinions are subjective; that's exactly why I so seldom use phrases like "in my view," "if you ask me," "I think," etc. This is no place for half-sentiments. I do hold Francis Ford Coppola in great esteem as a filmmaker, but 75% of it is for The Conversation (one of the ten greatest movies ever made) - 15% is for The Godfather, and 10% - believe it or not - is for his last movie, which no one saw, Youth without Youth. "Majestic," I uttered to my wife as we left the theater. I always thought Apocalypse Now was a mess, and recall nothing at all about its score other than Wagner's "Flight of the Valkyries" during the helicopter attack scene. A suitable pick enough, but nothing inspired.
By the way; has a final decision been made regarding your wife's nom de roller derby?
I'm not sure I understood all that's been said above. I'm even more lost when it comes to pinpointing any particular track which uses the effect heard above. I thought Joy Division's "Atrocity Exhibition" could be one but I've checked it's not it. Talking Heads' "Sax & Violin" is close but not quite.
Anyway, all these techno-babbles really make want to learn more about that "PHASE INVERTER 180 ˚" button.
MOGs That Trust Me (8 of 55)
MOG Meter
Comments
I watch Fox News.
Is nothing sacred? I am ascared to read on.
Baby, bring that fight. I'm in your corner Z.
Do yourself a favor and check out Terri Gross's interveiw with Scott. It happened within the last week. I have never been a big fan of his, still he provided me with ammunition when I needed it.
Confirmation of 'Talking Points'. Like none of us knew that Rush was on the payroll.
Another avenue you might want to look down is Chomsky, if you haven't already.
He quotes a fella named Walter Lippmann .
Lippmann was a journalist who laid a good deal of ground work for media manipulation and modern public relations.
"Manufacturing Consent" is the cornerstone.
O'Really is a dick and the 'if it bleeds it leads' mentality of Fox (and just about any semi local news affiliate) plays us for fools.
I am so down on just about all major media. Except NPR.
Wiki actually served up a good quote.
Lippmann called the notion of a public competent to direct public affairs a "false ideal." He compared the political savvy of an average man to a theater-goer walking into a play in the middle of the third act and leaving before the last curtain.
Who knew?
Here's the thing ( and thanks for the excellent post,Z), there isn't a whole lot of news at Fox..It's almost all opinion. One thing I like about their opinion shows is that they tend to bring on the Most liberal guests. Tenured college profs from the left who can actually say radical things..Of course they get shouted down, but they do get to say radical things. Fox likes it that way, but you'd never see Cornell West on CNN.
When in comes to analysis, punditry has become ridiculous..Folks just say whatever the fuck the want. A world full of content must be created, every earthshaking event must be analyzed for long term effects instantly.
Mr. McClellan just confirmed what we already knew. We get lied to all the time. That dude is a slimy motherfucker. Speaking up now after countless thousands are dead. I bet if his publisher doesn't send his royalty check on time we'll hear about that right away.