OK, so I play a lot of weddings.  And invariably, the wedding organizers will request that the band play a number of songs at key points in the evening - the bride and groom's first dance, the bride and her father's dance, the groom and his mother's dance, and so on.

Now, I'm all for dancing at these pivotal moments to songs that are special to the dancers (e.g., a song that the bride and her father love, the bride and groom's "song" or a particular song that perfectly captures the way the bride/father, bride/groom, or groom/mother feel at this special time).  But ...

1.  There are a LOT of really maudlin, overblown, sentimental and let's face it, poorly written and tritely phrased "wedding" songs out there.  Most of them, particularly the country music ones, try to illustrate some special bond (between father and daughter, especially) that really only exists in fairy tales, greeting cards, Disney movies and 1950s TV shows.  Do you REALLY want this moment (which will be captured on film for eternity, and hopefully will be in your hearts and memories even longer) accompanied by a cheesy, forgettable Hallmark song that usually, if you listen to the lyrics carefully, is more about control and stereotypical gender roles than about true love and the commitment it takes to make a relationship (let alone a marriage) work?  How about something timeless?  At least something well written?  Not something you picked off a popular "Wedding Compilation"?  If you're going to pick something (and you have to, because these dances have to occur), if there's not a particular song that is "your" song for this moment, at least pick a great standard - like "What a Wonderful World" or "Can't Help Falling in Love" or "You Are So Beautiful".  These songs may be old and moldy, but at least they're well written, succinctly emotional and not overly sentimental, and most wedding bands can execute them passably.  Don't pick a song like "When a Man Loves a Woman", because it's not really a happy song, it's about a guy's who's miserable.  THINK about the lyrics, because they are speaking FOR YOU at this wonderful time.

2.  Speaking of lyrics, most of these songs are written in first person.  That is, they are from the point of view of the father letting go of his precious darling, the husband holding on the for the first time, the bride saying goodbye to her dear daddy or hello to her true love, etc.  Do you really want these words (and by choosing these songs to represent you at this time, you're saying these words are what you would really like to say) spoken by someone else?  In particular, so many of the father-daughter songs seem really inappropriate when sung by someone in the band who is at best an impartial, uninvolved and probably a little uninspired observer of this momentous occasion.  If you really mean these words, you ought to be singing them yourself.

3.  However, if you can't sing (and since you're dancing, it may be difficult anyway), IF you really love the song, and it really means something to you (both you and your dance partner), why would you want a cover band (who probably first listened to the song on the way to the gig) to blunder through and butcher it for your entertainment?  I know you're paying the band for live music, but isn't the importance and poignant nature of this moment worth the price of the band NOT playing one or two songs, and letting the version that touched your hearts in the first place do the talking?  I for one as a wedding band member would not be offended in the least if asked to pop in the CD or start the MP3 player.

4.  The CD or MP3 player is EXTREMELY important if your song is deep in a particular genre, especially one like country music that probably uses instrumentation, arrangements and studio overdubbing that the live band you've hired cannot possibly duplicate.  If they do better than stumble through it, it will be their own arrangement of the song, not the version that you and your dance partner (and/or wedding party) have come to know and love.  While it may be sweet that they attempted your request (like Americans visiting Paris who attempt to butcher French at a sidewalk bistro), ultimately you need to put your trust in the interpretation that speaks best to you.  It's your call, of course, either way.  But if you're going to trust the band for your soundtrack, do the right thing and give them ample opportunity (at LEAST a week, and a copy of the CD would be extraordinarily helpful) to attempt to learn the song.

Just a few thoughts from a wedding band singer whose repertoire (and vocal range) includes Elvis, Louis Armstrong, Joe Cocker, Tim McGraw, the Righteous Brothers and quite a few others but does not, and will never, include Rascal Flatts.

Pop Hymes, drummer extraordinaire, Natchitoches fishing legend and general all-around bon vivant, is fond of telling jokes, particularly ones that focus on musicians in some way. For example:

Three guitarists arrive at a studio to audition for a band. The first one is called, goes into a side room and finds the rest of the auditioning band waiting. He does his thing. When he's finished, the listening drummer shakes his said and says, "sorry, man, you've got too much loft."The first guitarist is not sure what that means, but understands the rejection. He returns to the waiting room, and signals the second guitarist to go on in. The second guitarist completes his audition, and this time, the bass player grimaces and shakes his head - "sorry, dude, too lofty." Likewise rejected, the second guitarist confusedly goes back to sit down. The third guitarist finally goes in for his audition. When he's finished, the lead singer says, "Nope. You've got desire, but your performance suffers from loft."At this point, the third guitarist goes back outside and joins the other two previous guitarists, who are waiting to see if any of them got hired. One says, "I don't know what these guys want. They said I had too much loft! What the hell is loft?"The other two guitarists describe their experiences too. None of them can figure out what "loft" is. So they decide to find out. They return together to the audition room and say, "what is loft, anyway?"The drummer shakes his head, laughing. "It's not loft. It's LOFT. Lack of F***ing Talent."

This reminds me of things my father used to say:

"You should probably sing tenor. Ten or twelve miles away."

"Why don't you take a solo? So low we can't hear it."

"You ought to be in Hollywood. The walk would do you good."

And my favorite ...

"You should be on the stage. It leaves in five minutes."

OK, so I'm now 45 years old. I've been playing music onstage since I was 8. That's 37 years in some kind of band or another, on stages of all kinds, in six different states and on at least three TV channels.

And here's the bottom line, for me.

I don't want to play in any more bar bands. As a matter of fact, I don't want to play at any venue (except as a huge personal favor to a good friend or two) where the main purpose for attending wherever the music is playing is something other than the music onstage. And that includes places that use as their marketing campaign something like "Fridays and Saturdays, live music" as if the music were some kind of gracious amenity that attendees got as a bonus. No more gigs where you show up to do something else, and there just happens to be a band playing.

I'll go one further. The audience (which we've already stipulated has to be primarily motivated by wanting to hear live music) also must be there to see me. Not accidental live music, not breezing through town and luckily catching the only live music in on that particular evening, but deliberately coming either because they know me (or have heard of me) or because the venue has specified "ME - live and in person" and is likewise excited (to some degree) about having, promoting and paying for non-anonymous performance.

I'm not so foolish as to think it must be exclusively ME. It could be me solo, me as or in a band, or even me opening for another band that folks also are interested in hearing. It's also not about the money - although if you're coming to see live music, and not just getting it included in your meal (solid or liquid) like a free dessert, you ought to be willing to pay for it. It's a privilege, not a right.

One final stipulation ... when you come to see me play, it's to hear what I WANT TO PLAY. I'm not your human jukebox.

I think that covers it. If your gig doesn't meet this criteria, don't call me.

Well, it started as a discussion about that certain part of the male hierarchy (and no, it wasn't a discussion about Viagra).  And though it started with that certain reference in mind, the thought was expanded somewhat in the retelling:

"Unless you've actually seen your Supreme Being in the flesh, ALL deity-based religions are like single-parent homes:

1.  There's definitely a parent missing.
2.  There's no noticeable sign of support from that missing parent.
3.  Anytime that missing parent does anything at all, it's a miracle."

I just purchased a printing of Rabindranath Tagore's Gitanjali (with an introduction by W.B. Yeats). It includes the following disclaimer on the title page:

"This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

Wow. Quite a caveat for the reader or monitor for the reader.

Just a couple of things:

First, at no place in this printing does it identify WHEN this book was written, except by coincidence in the Yeats' introduction, which is dated "September 1912". The publishing date says (c) 2008 Wilder Publications, and also reads "First Edition". Really! A 2008 first edition is a product of THIS time. But I know that not to be the case, so what "time" is this book really the product of? And come to think of it, have the views promulgated in this writing REALLY changed all that much, for the majority of people? Probably not.

Second, who is this warning for? What uninformed soul is likely to read this prose poem unawares?

Finally, and perhaps most puzzling, why isn't this disclaimer printed in LARGE, BOLD LETTERS on the title page of the BIBLE?

It seems a far more appropriate warning there, doesn't it?

NarcissusWorks: The Ghost Anthology:

No, it's not a real poetry collection.

No, I didn't write the one line poem attributed to me.

No, I didn't give my permission for, or seek, inclusion in this farcical volume.

But think about it. If you ARE a living poet and you WERE somehow included, it's probably one of the few, if not the ONLY time in your life that you will be included as a "poet" along with the likes of Rainier Maria Rilke, Walt Whitman, Jack Keroauc or even Ron Silliman.

This freak act of iambic penterrorism, or whatever you want to call it, has by the simple fact of random collection given you, me and everyone else on its table of contents a kind of legitimacy -- the same kind of legitimacy that we now share with 98% of historical figures, that we are referenced in print by yet another source.

In this world of screen names, false accounts, spoofed IP addresses, and other ridiculously easy ways to remain anonymous while spouting damn near anything from a virtual soapbox, maybe that's as "REAL" as it's ever going to get.

And as a parting thought ... think of the MILLIONS of folks who post what they call poetry on their websites, on poetry bulletin boards, anywhere they can get access, that their friends and readership laud with attaboys, right ons and "oh how deeps" ... folks who remind us all of watching American Idol audition outtakes (if they were for poets, instead) who WEREN'T included on this voluminous list. Why us, instead of them? Perhaps because some of us in this anthology actually ARE poets.

As a pagan, I often overhear pagan conversations where the chief topic of concern is the negative affect that evangelical Christianity has on the "free trade" of alternative religions - its nature to limit, deny, persecute and eradicate viewpoints other than its own.

I wonder, however, if the "power" of the rough 70% majority (in America, that's about how many claim to be "Christians," whether they act accordingly or not) is not greatly overestimated by my pagan colleagues.

Historically speaking, the number one enemy of Christians is usually other Christians (or in the case of the Crusades, which weren't really about religion anyway, other monotheists). The Pilgrims and Puritans who sallied forth and assailed Plymouth Rock with their austere sense of righteousness were running from persecution in Europe and England, where they were being thumb-screwed, hung, burnt and otherwise imperiled by other Christians. The separation of the church and state was originally a way to prevent a Catholic state from persecuting Protestants, or visa versa. Those brave souls (and if they're yours, they start as visionaries and end up martyrs; those on the other side generally begin as heretics and blasphemers and end as capital criminals) who question the status quo of the Christian power structure from within are usually the most likely victims of Christian persecution; there's so much to harvest there (in terms of dissention, dissembling and disavowing) that I don't think at least in recent centuries there's been enough time for them to focus on or bother with non-believers. Sure, every now and again someone will get a Cotton Mathers bee up their bonnet and worry about the devil lurking in strangers. But typically (and ironically) it's much more effective to clamp down on "your own."

Of course, that depends on who you call "your own." Particularly when you've got more churches than congregants (where I live, there may be 300 churches for 17,000 people - on any given Sunday, there are between five and forty cars in 300 different parking lots). To sing, not to sing; musical instruments vs. voices only; women clergy or no; laity preaching; dancing; drinking; wine vs. grape juice; transmigration real or symbolic; Latin vs. local; tithe vs. time; literal vs. figurative; dip vs. dunk; limbo, purgatory, bottomless pit, endless fire, consuming darkness. About the only thing they agree on is barbeque - and then the sauce is different depending on which side of town you're on. Again, from local experience, there's one denomination that has two separate facilities - one for "locals" and another for "foreigners" (i.e., those who were not born and bred in town).

How could this group of divisive, in-fighting, bickering, nit-picking and otherwise non-collective souls agree on anything - at least, once they pass out of the church's threshold and return to their completely isolated and often hypocritical lives?

Pagans: who cares what they think anyway?

"If you want to sing out, sing out." That's what I say.

I know, I know. There's that social pressure. Those potential cross-burnings. That shunning. The losing of the job, etc.

But why would you want to live in a town with that kind of thinking, anyway? Shouldn't you be looking to live among your own kind, like the Christians do? Or do you have the same level of schism with your fellow "pagans"?

I say again - if you believe in what you are, what you do will follow. If that is worth doing, then it doesn't matter who opposes it. Is living in any other way worth living?

Besides, I think it was Dan Rather who said in an interview perhaps 15 years ago that the most important question you will ever have to ask yourself is "what am I willing to die for?" Once you have that answer, the rest is pretty clear. If you're up against anyone in those sacred areas who hasn't asked themselves that question (and given themselves an honest answer), unless that's what they're fully committed to, you will emerge victorious.

Happy Independence Day.

Kris Kristofferson has a song called To Beat the Devil. If you haven't listened to the lyrics lately, they're about a recommendation from the devil on the meaninglessness of trying to change the world with your music, and Kris' response to that challenge. The Devil's argument goes like this:

"If you waste your time a-talkin' to the people who don't listen, "To the things that you are sayin', who do you think's gonna hear. "And if you should die explainin' how the things that they complain about, "Are things they could be changin', who do you think's gonna care?"

There were other lonely singers in a world turned deaf and blind,
Who were crucified for what they tried to show.
And their voices have been scattered by the swirling winds of time.
'Cos the truth remains that no-one wants to know.

Well, to be honest with you, I've felt that way a lot. There are definitely times when it seems like nobody's listening, nobody cares what I'm saying, and it wouldn't really matter much if they did.

But I tell you what: that's defeatist thinking. I used to say that in order to change the way people think, you first have to make sure they're thinking. That's a bit of a downer, too. It's a cynic's approach to life. That everything sucks. That there is inevitably a need for either bitter coating on the sugar pills, or sugar coating on the bitter pills. The cynic lives their life believing that human beings, and this must needs include themselves, are intrinsically no damned good. And what, pray tell, is the point of that? Better, I think, to retain at least a little optimism, or at least perseverance and stubborness of purpose, if you can't muster a bit of a smile, so that like Kristofferson, you can say:

And you still can hear me singin' to the people who don't listen,
To the things that I am sayin', prayin' someone's gonna hear.
And I guess I'll die explaining how the things that they complain about,
Are things they could be changin', hopin' someone's gonna care.

I was born a lonely singer, and I'm bound to die the same,
But I've got to feed the hunger in my soul.
And if I never have a nickle, I won't ever die ashamed.
'Cos I don't believe that no-one wants to know.

If we're not supposed to affect the world at all, if we really are just a moment's ripple in the ocean, then what's the frickin' point?

One of the blogs I read pretty regularly is Dave Pollard's How to Save the World. Occasionally, something he writes strikes a particularly resonant chord with me --- like his February 4th gem A Miniature Truth: Becoming Authentically Yourself.

I'll admit, some of these things I've thought and compiled myself over the years. But to see these 9 ideas strung together, in fact, dependent on each other in such a way that in order to accept one as truth, you really have to accept them all, for better or worse, in order to truly understand the implications of each, is a step I'd never taken until reading Dave's post. In summary, these truths are:

1. We do what we must, then we do what's easy, then we do what's fun.

2. Things are the way they are for a reason; if you have any hope to change something, first understand what the reason is.

3. Life's meaning, and an understanding of what needs to be done, emerges, most often, from conversation in community with people you love.

4. Community is born of necessity.

5. To get people to change, first Let Yourself Change, to become a model that shows people personally, one-to-one, a better way to live.

6. You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

7. Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

8. To be nobody-but-yourself --- in a world that is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else --- means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.

9. Our civilization is in its final century.

For more detail, please refer to Dave's blog :)

OK, so as of January 4, I've quit smoking. Roughly a 25-year, 2 pack a day habit and now it's done. No patch. No gum. No Wellbutrin XL (which my better half who also quit needed to help her over the first week). I did have a doozy of a cold, though, which qualifies somewhat as cheating --- since I tend to not smoke whenever I have a fever-cough-chest congestion condition and I get them for a week once or twice a year. This one happened to coincide with the smoking cessation date. So sue me.

I'm hoping that the non-smoking, in combination with voice strengthening exercises from Jaime Vendera, will help me recover what has for the last 8 or 9 years been a slowly increasing loss of range (about an octave and a half lost in that time).

I wonder, however, whether it in fact is the smoking that has been the primary factor, or the lack of use. I also wonder about polyps. My cousin had them and had to have them removed, and I've known several other singers who have suffered the same situation.

---
1 month 5 hours 32 minutes smoke-free
1,254 cigarettes not smoked
$238.26 saved
4 days 8 hours 30 minutes life saved