It appears that my letter (posted here on 4/6/08) has stirred up some unexpected controversy. The band’s manager found my letter not in his email box, but through a Google search. This could mean a few different things. First, that the manager has made a hobby out of searching the web for posts about his band. Second, that he’s the one with the shovel and bucket, cleaning up after the horses on parade. Judging by his swift action (the first response came about 17 hours after posting my letter), I suspect that the manager has been through this before.
The band’s manager has contended that the name of the song was “F.T.U.S.V.D.,” as in, “Fuck the U.S. Visa Department.” This is a portion of my reply:
“If the band’s goal at the concert had been to criticize the USVD, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with them. But the band would not have an effect on USVD policies by making statements at a rock concert in London, England. The band could have done it more efficiently and responsibly by posting a notification on their web site to be read by fans and the press worldwide.
“However, the band did not make clear that this was their goal. Their intentions at the Shepherd’s Bush concert were simply to vent their angers and rile up the crowd. I was not alone at the concert, and my companion also only heard the words ‘Fuck the U.S.A.’ at the end of Gabriela’s visa story. Of course, the crowd was hollering belligerently by the end of her tale. Even if Gabriela had said, ‘Fuck the U.S.V.D.,’ the boisterous stage context and lack of clarity would have made it prone to unnecessary misunderstandings. Since I agree with the band about the shortcomings of the American government (I made this very clear in my letter), and I empathize with everyone working on their tour and purchasing their concert tickets, I would have applauded stage banter that unmistakably criticized the government. […]
“The point of the letter was to get clarification from the band, not only for their words that night, but also for why they would choose to take retribution in that manner. If you are insinuating that my ‘incorrect information’ holds the band in false light, there are no grounds. I am a journalist, and I hold myself to extreme ethical standards. If Gabriela’s statements were so indistinguishable as to whether they attacked the USVD or America as a whole, then there is a problem. I’m trying to eradicate the problem – as an American, world traveler, former (and possibly future) fan of Rodrigo y Gabriela, and proponent for the positive effects of music. I hope this alleviates your concerns.”
The manager claims that the same story was related to audiences around the world, but for some reason the band completely omitted the tale from their performance at Lollapalooza 2007 – less than three months after the London show.
He also says that he was at the same London show as I, and that Gabriela’s introduction gave perfect context for the song. The context was such that, when Gabriela simply told the crowd that they had recently been touring America, everyone booed loudly. Gabriela laughed at the crowd’s reaction, and continued in a manner that she knew would incite more aggressive responses.
The manager is most concerned about my allegation that Gabriela called the song “Fuck the U.S.A.” I’m saying that there’s more to be worried about than just the song title. If the manager speaks the truth, there is still a clear difference between the denotation and the connotation of what was said at the concert. If the denotation (i.e. – the direct surface meaning) was actually “Fuck the U.S.V.D.,” the connotation (i.e. – what Gabriela’s speech meant to the crowd) was still “Fuck the U.S.A.”
This was evident not only because of my heart-dropping pain, but because of the shrill yells and whistles coming from the crowd as the song started. It was probably the loudest moment of the entire show. Gabriela told the story the way she did that night because she knew that the Londoners would react that way. In other words, the manager is missing the point – but doing so at least somewhat intentionally, because he is distressed about possible backlash from the band’s partners and fans.
It took me almost a year to figure out what exactly about the events of 5/25/07 bothered me so much. Here is the primary conclusion: That night, I felt embarrassed to be an American, even though I was traveling the world in hopes of learning about other cultures and exploring the similarities between all humans. I felt like, if I had revealed my American citizenship after Gabriela’s speech, I would have been pummeled, or at least had a beer poured on my head.
I felt as though I had been grouped with the U.S. government – or the USVD, as the manager specified – as if there was no separation between that government office and me. But in actuality, I have absolutely no control over their policies concerning terrorist control. All I can do is criticize their mistakes – the same as Rodrigo y Gabriela had apparently hoped to do. In my efforts, though, I try to ensure that the only target is the government, and not anyone who is theoretically on my side. In reacting how they did, the band was no more virtuous than the USVD.
In the band’s attempted course of action, they alienated not only fans that loved their music, but also fellow global citizens who are aligned with them politically. The fact that Rodrigo y Gabriela are also global citizens – natives of Mexico living in Ireland – makes the situation even more ironic. I have spent extended time in both nations, and I celebrate their culture and natural beauty.
Frankly, this whole situation has begun to nauseate me. We should never have found ourselves in opposition. I wasn’t trying to establish that the band is anti-American. Even if the song was titled “F.T.U.S.V.D.,” what happened that night was wrong. I paid to see a concert, and for that I was victimized. Of all the aspects of this debacle, it’s most difficult to describe the actual experience of standing in that venue and witnessing what was going on. It was the most viciously angry moment that I’ve had in many, many years. The incident was so blatant that I cannot listen to the band’s music anymore, lest I’ll have flashbacks of terror.
For a short while, I even mistakenly considered that all of London was filled with insular, ignorant buffoons. “Cross-cultural misunderstanding” would be a vast understatement. Luckily, I came to the conclusion that any such thought would be just as useless as the crowd booing at the word “America.” But later on in the show, the mob booed almost as loudly at the mention of Manchester. So instead of generalizing them, maybe I’ll just consider it to be at least a small part of British culture to boo at various things mentioned during public performances.
The manager claims that Rodrigo y Gabriela’s song title was a suitable response to their tour delay. By that logic, it would have been acceptable for me to call newspapers and radio stations when I flew home last June, to immediately share the story of my experience. Instead of feeding them a sensational story, I chose not to. I waited months until I was more certain of the meaning of the incident. No matter what the manager hopes to prove, he cannot disprove the truth inherent in my experience.
Naturally, the manager will continue to argue that I heard the song title incorrectly, and attempt to spin this in favor of his camp. With that in mind, anyone who wishes can consider the original letter a formal complaint from a former fan who was extremely disappointed with the band’s conduct in a sensitive matter. I could have sought vengeance, but I didn’t. I hoped for justice, but apparently there is none to be found. Likewise, I cannot even procure comfort for my ailment.
I can only maintain my grip on the slim chance that this will not happen again. Music is supposed to be a force of unity, and a way for us to overcome the repressive nature of modern society. I wrote the letter because I expect Rothbury to be the greatest event of music culture in Michigan’s history. I want to do my part to make sure that the majority of people there have a genuine interest combining our energy to make a positive difference in the world. I have no control over Rodrigo y Gabriela’s scheduled performance at Rothbury, but I wanted to let them know that I will be in the crowd – documenting as much as possible, searching for the truth, and having the time of my life regardless of any irreverent behavior from performers. At this point, whether they take advantage of the opportunity presented by the festival, and in what manner, is completely up to them.
On May 25, 2007, I attended your concert at Shepherd’s Bush Empire in London, England. During the show, Gabriela announced that you had recently experienced trouble in obtaining work visas to tour in the United States. She explained that Mr. Sanchez had been mistaken for a terrorist, and this delayed your tour plans, resulting in some cancelled shows. You then played a song entitled “Fuck the U.S.A.,” and everyone in the venue cheered.
However, you haven’t avoided further touring in America, as is evident by your scheduled performance at the inaugural Rothbury Festival. I also saw you perform on August 5, 2007 at Lollapalooza in Chicago, IL. At that show, you thanked Chicago radio stations for their support in playing your song “Tamacun” — a song I have heard on Detroit radio as well. In fact, it seems that you’ve been building a pretty dedicated fan base in America, even though you have committed to decrying our country abroad.
I am not writing you now to seek revenge. I have battled with my anger and frustration over the past year, but I have forgiven you. Instead, I have two goals. First, I want to explain the current state of the U.S. Government, and how that is related to your unfortunate tour interruption. Second, I want to ask you for an explanation for your actions, which — given that you bashed the U.S., but then continued to play shows here — are hypocritical.
By many standards, the American governmental system has reached an all-time low of integrity, honor and accountability. George W. Bush is the latest in a long line of buffoons who have made a mockery out of the Executive Office, but he very well might be the worst. He has exemplified the anti-intellectual deterioration of our nation’s leadership. He has dismantled the separation between church and state by setting forth a decree of Christian Fundamentalism. He has initiated and sustained a war on an invisible enemy in order to secure the financial interests of himself and others in the Middle East.
There have also been extensive legislative movements to lessen our American civil liberties, including the Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act. The worst part is that most citizens aren’t even aware that these acts were passed, let alone understand their negative effects. For example, the government can now enter our homes without a warrant to search our belongings, and detain a person without trial if they are suspected of terrorist activity. Now, the federal government wants to cooperate with communication companies so they will help to spy on citizens without court approval. This compromise will alleviate the companies’ legal concerns, but leaves much room for abuse of privacy.
My point is this: AMERICANS ARE ANGRY, TOO! We are already missing the freedoms we so clearly took for granted. We are tired of being lied to by people that we should be able to trust. We, as a national community, are disgusted with the domestic conduct and foreign policy of our government. We don’t want to be the enemy of the entire world, but we haven’t known how to change things.
The Internet has helped. It is bringing people together to exchange ideas and educated ourselves in ways never before accomplished. Even music festivals like Rothbury are a product of the interconnectivity, since we’re realizing how good it feels to congregate for constructive causes, like sustainability and carbon neutrality. We’re also remembering that music is one of the strongest and most pervasive types of human culture.
If you were addressing our government alone, then I thank you and I ask that you continue to do the same — if only after refining your language. But if you were blending the American government with the American people, then I ask you to reconsider your statement. America is a beautiful place with a strong spirit and an indestructible heart, and the people here are waking up from the haze of ignorance laid over us by our leaders.
Rothbury is an opportunity for us to come together and make a positive difference in the world, by aligning our ideas and actions towards similar goals. When we assemble like this, it shows us that the things we have in common are far stronger and more real than our differences. And, most importantly, it gives us a chance to celebrate music, when we truly align with the beat of Earth’s heart.
But first, every one must admit to their mistakes and consciously choose to walk towards a better future. I ask that you clarify or apologize for what you said. Then, we’ll all meet at Rothbury with cleansed psyches and emotions, and have the biggest festival the state of Michigan has ever seen.
Sincerely,
Nick Meador
This letter was also sent to the band’s manager, press agent, and U.S. record label (ATO Records), as well as Rothbury Festival organizers.
I know exactly what Hunter S. Thompson was thinking on July 13, 1957 (coincidentally, when my father was only four months old and my mother wasn’t even born yet). That is because I have Thompson’s two-volume collection of correspondence, the first volume of which is entitled The Proud Highway. I know exactly what HST was thinking approximately 51 years ago because he typed it in a letter. Most people under the age of 20 would have a similar gut response to this idea. “A letter? What the hell is a letter? Is that the same as an email?” But if you think about it, the idea of traditional correspondence is dead. Even using a word processor on a computer, no one writes or types formal, longhand letters, prints them, seals them in an envelope, and drops them in the mailbox. It’s fasters and cheaper to send said message via electronic mail.
Getting back to the point: On July 13, 1957, HST wrote to lady friend Susan Haselden, “Actually, I am already the new Fitzgerald: I just haven’t been recognized yet.” In fact, the first sections of correspondence show an unflinching self-confidence that only breaks on a few occasions. But it makes me wonder…if I start telling people I’m the new Thompson or the new Kerouac, will they start to believe it before me?
The most important realization that I’ve read so far came on 10/17/57. Thompson wrote, “I’ve strayed from all the popular ideologies of our time. To go back – or to hesitate – would be unthinkable. And yet, in going on, I can see that I shall be permanently apart from all but a small and lonely percentage of the human race, in all but the most superficial respects.” Upon reading this, I only thought, “I know exactly what you mean.”
Now I feel like I’m the first prospector to trample California, finding gold bits with every new scoop into the river. On 10/24/57, HST wrote, “Keep in mind that the ability to create is an integral part of the makeup of man. If a lack is encountered, it lies not in the ability, but in the scope of perception of one’s own creative ability.” That sentence is slightly muddled, but he is essentially saying that most people lack the means to explore their full creative potential.
When HST arrived at a small Pennsylvania mining town after an honorable discharge from the Air Force, he was extremely unsatisfied with his crummy newspaper job. He wrote on 11/29/57, “I must, in short, rely on something else: and whether I can derive any satisfaction from that ‘something else’ will be the deciding factor in whether I stay here or not. I’m speaking of my work: not just the newspaper, but other writing I can do. If a man really wanted to bury himself, I can think of no better place to do it than in Jersey Shore.” This one is almost frightening, because it so closely mirrors my constant jabbering to [my girlfriend] about how I can’t stand grad school or my job. I read and write to stay sane.
Continuing on 12/15/57: “I have found but one advantage to living here: I am completely alone. I work for three or four hours for five days a week, and then I return to my apartment – on top of Regan’s Taproom – and either read or write. Loneliness is for people who can’t see themselves except through the eyes of their compatriots, and all evidence points to the fact that I’ve passed that stage.” I must have still been in that stage when I was in Chicago. I never feel lonely in East Lansing, but I felt extremely lonesome among six million other densely populated Chicagoans during that ill-fated 14-month stretch.
Thompson also regularly bashed the ideals behind mainstream journalism. That’s one of many recurring topics that are extremely comforting to me in my uncertain state of affairs. Parts of these letters relate to various experiences that I’ve had over the past three years. What’s most striking is HST’s grasp of vocabulary. He had his characteristic sense of diction practically straight out of high school. Of course, there’s no way for me to tell how much time he actually spent on these letters, or if he ever used a thesaurus, etc.
After being fired from the Jersey Shore Herald and moving to New York City, HST wrote on 1/6/58 that he was “untempered as yet by the revelation that all literary effort is not honest, that all editors are not literary, and that the price of perception is unemployment.” He had a way of making interesting points in seemingly simple sentences. In the same letter on his NYC job search, he wrote, “I find that I’d rather build my own figurative ladder than start at the bottom rung of the existing one.”
I can’t help but feeling that I’m unraveling a mystery that is strangely made more interesting since I know much of what happens later on, including the ending. But I’m so excited to see the intermediary steps, and interested to see how HST even remained in journalism – a profession he seemed to hate – when his true passion was fiction. After realizing that HST wasn’t actually a “doctor of journalism,” I was afraid that my fondness for his work was unfounded. I’m now being reassured that that isn’t the case.
One thing I’ve been wondering is this: Can I carry on a formal correspondence of old, even if it isn’t directed specifically at anyone, or sent through the postal service? What if I wrote letters as if I intended to send them to someone, but then just posted them on my blog? Would that be interesting to anyone, in the same way that I find these HST letters interesting?
Anyways, I’m off to read some more before bed.
Apparently Bush is rushing to secure his spot as (possibly) the worst president in American history. As reported in a New York Times article (entitled “Senate Votes to Expand Spy Powers” on 2/13/08) about two weeks ago, the U.S. Senate approved a bill that would drastically and permanently increase our government’s spying abilities. On its front, the bill is designed to help intercept dangerous foreign conversations that come through the U.S. If it were solely intended to prevent terrorists from operating withing our borders, this would be a positive concept. But that’s not the case here.
Currently, the government needs a warrant from a surveillance court to eavesdrop on private conversations. This is an expected check on the federal government’s power in a land that values civil liberties like FREE SPEECH and PRIVACY. The first major change associated with this bill would be to remove the warrant process. In essence, the government would be able to eavesdrop on whomever they choose. Then, if the surveillance court senses a problem afterwards, they can investigate. Words from 1984 are echoing in my head like a stone bouncing down the walls of a deep, dark well. DOES THIS NOT EQUATE TO BIG BROTHER?
This bill would be open to interpretation as to what “terrorist” means, and which foreign correspondence is “dangerous.” Especially because, over the past seven years, “terrorist” has meant anyone that can be targeted to benefit the Bush agenda. (Forgive me for not speculating on issues relating to 9/11. I highly recommend that you watch the many documentaries being created on the subject. Then you, too, may start to question whether those “Islamic Fundamentalists” were really that, or if they were hired and trained by the Bush Administration…).
The second major change created by the bill would be immunity for telecommunications companies. In other words, the ones supplying the phone service will not be liable for cooperating with the government’s spying program. But here arises another gray area. What if a phone company spies on someone in an instance that is not directly tied to federal investigation? Will they still be invincible to lawsuits?
Even worse, what if this type of legislation eventually extends to all communication? Email? USPS? Sparrow messenger? When does it stop? All this really amounts to is executive control over the population. After all, McCain could potentially be filling Bush’s shoes soon. So it’s convenient then that the Republican Senator from Arizona approved this bill…
On August 28, 2008, my favorite book will become a movie. Well, to call it my favorite book might not be the best word choice, since others ring in my head and heart more frequently and loudly. Chuck Palahniuk’s Choke was recommended to me in the summer of 2005 by a random acquaintance on MySpace. Up to that point, I had only heard the author’s name in reference to Fight Club, since his 1996 novel was the foundation of David Fincher’s 1999 film of the same name, starring Brad Pitt and Edward Norton.
Essentially, Choke was the fifth book that I ever read for pleasure and by my own choice. The first four were the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Kerouac’s On The Road. Having just graduated from college and cowering under the threat of the real world, I turned to Choke for shelter. And holy geze, did I need shelter. Leaving MSU inspired severe reminiscences of childbirth trauma. I found myself in a state of extreme cynicism, anger, and hopelessness. Choke was my guidebook.
So to see that Palahniuk’s 2004 novel about a medical-school-drop-out-turned-swindling-sex-addict will be made into a film made me very excited. This will only be the second time that I’ve read a book before the corresponding film came out (The LOTR trilogy was the first). To read that the film will star Sam Rockwell, Angelica Huston, and Brad Henke (who was a supporting male in Me and You and Everyone We Know, one of my new favorite movies) also made me giddy, since I can easily picture those actors in their chosen roles.
But seeing a clip from the film gives me mixed feelings. Don’t worry. I’m not some sort of book snob who wishes I had the story to myself. I think it’s one of the first great stories of this post-Y2K generation, and a direct continuation of many concepts presented in Fight Club. While I enjoyed the book Fight Club, I thought the movie adaptation was almost superior in its presentation of the plot. But in Choke, Palahniuk wrote with a very cinematic style, where the chapters even resembled scenes in a movie. I’m wondering if the film will add to the story’s value (as was the case with Fight Club) or detract from it (as is the case with most book-to-film adaptations). At least the movie was made independently, for something like $4 million.
I just watched I’m Not There, the 2007 film where six different actors play variations or segments of Bob Dylan’s life. It made me more interested in Dylan than his music alone ever did…but then again, I’ve never put much effort into listening to it. Ironically, Cate Blanchett not only had more speaking lines than the other versions, but she also achieved the deepest characterization and looked the most like the real Dylan.
My favorite line came from Ben Wishaw towards the end: “The only truly natural things are dreams, which nature cannot touch with decay.” It reminded me of the book that I’m reading right now: Life Against Death by Norman O. Brown. Brown uses the work of Freud to dissect history and human nature.
In a dream sequence, Arthur Rimbaud (one of the Dylan personas) hangs like a balloon above a fair.
In the section on art, Brown explains that art, dreams and neurosis are all connected to the unconscious. Although, art is the only one which is unrepressed. Dreams and neurosis, on the other hand, are sort of trapped. There doesn’t appear to be a way to stop yourself from dreaming about your long-lost friend, or a place you often visited as a child. And don’t get caught up on the word neurosis - the simplest definition is any major flaw that results from being an adult human. As Brown puts it, “Art seduces us into the struggle against repression. [...] Dreams and neurosis give expression to the repressed unconscious, but they do not liberate it.”
I think it’s safe to assume that Dylan is more of an artist than the majority of professional musicians in the world. And Dylan’s art was liberating to multiple generations, especially way back in the turmoil of the ’60s. Brown: “Art, if its object is to undo repressions, and if civilization is essentially repressive, is in this sense subversive of civilization.” So it is strange then that Dylan would prefer the rigid, unchanging nature of dreams. Perhaps dreams were a safe solace from the chaotic spotlight of fame.
Now I have my own blog, on my very own web site! I can’t believe I figured all this out! I even managed to put the picture of the trees and snow at Mt. Bohemia in the banner above! Don’t expect too much content any time soon. I’ll be tweaking the digital nuts and bolts for quite a while. Until then, keep an eye on the home page for continual additions.
