The Onion vs. National Tragedy

Tonight, after coming home from band practice, I opened up Facebook and found this article in my feed.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/right-to-own-handheld-device-that-shoots-deadly-me,30742/

Now, I love the Onion; it's hilarious. But this is really awful. I mean really, really awful. On so many levels to so many people from every walk of life in this country, it's offensive, beyond offensive, in poor taste and just way, way too soon.

That is what is completely brilliant about it, though — the article skewers every single stupid far-right and far-left and far-backward viewpoint that's out there about gun control and disturbing, vile attacks like the one in Connecticut today. Beyond that, it's a voice of reason in the sea of noise that spews forth from all media, but especially the Internet, every waking and non-waking second of every single day. Basically the article does its job as satire, and it does it very, very well.

I've been thinking about this horrible event (how can you not?) on and off all day today since learning about it this morning, as well as glancing at other people's reactions on Facebook throughout the day. One of the coolest things I saw today  — in a matter of hours one of my friends, musician Matt McWatters, set up a benefit show for the victims' families upstairs at Valentine's on Jan. 4. That completely blows my mind. It's so cool to be part of an amazing music scene in an amazing community here in New York's Capital Region, that regularly does stuff like that.

Then of course, there was the usual political opinions, ranging from advocates of stricter gun laws, to advocates of less restrictive gun laws, to advocates of no guns for anybody, to advocates of mandated guns for all. I'm being very polite about all this. If I wrote some of the crap I've seen and I'm sure you've seen, I wouldn't feel so good afterwards.

What the Onion article does so wonderfully is take elements of the most extreme, stereotyped viewpoints from all sides of the argument, and point out why we're in this extended mass shooting season to begin with, and why it's not improving. It does this right from the start. The headline's reference to a "handheld device that shoots deadly metal pellets," along with further references throughout the article to "piece of metal" and "mechanical object," in place of the word "gun," takes aim at rampant political correctness. It's a frequent Onion device, and it works especially well here. If we can't even talk about these things with each other as adults and call it for what it is, how are we ever going to have a real conversation about fixing the problem?

Then it stabs at the NRA crowd, challenging that the right to own guns is "completely worth any such consequences" from deadly shootings. There's a Lawrence Crane quoting the cold-dead-hands bit and other uncompromising opinions about gun ownership and Second Amendment rights and blah, blah, blah. It's not so far off from some of the most extreme opinions I've read, from the gun nuts to the illogically lovey-dovey. These opinions are unwavering, unmoving, not evolving. Basically they're dead. It's either, no gun restrictions at all, or no guns period — neither of which, realistically, are going to do good things for our society.

Again, this goes back to what is sorely needed on this and many other issues in this country — a real, honest-to-God, adult argument about these issues. Yes, an argument, and no, not a screaming match where no one is willing to compromise. Because in the end, compromise is what's going to fix this problem, or at least bring us to a better point than we are at right now.

Don't get me wrong, I have very strong opinions on gun control. It seems that people in this country can arm themselves with weapons that are beyond lethal with way too much ease. And I don't think it's destroying our rights to just maybe attach a slightly longer waiting period, and a more extensive background check, as prerequisites to gun ownership.

While I personally despise guns and would most likely never want to own one, I understand why the Second Amendment is important. You never want your government to be the only people with access to this stuff — unless "1984" sounds like a real swell time to you. That might sound paranoid, but I'd prefer it if we didn't find out the hard way. And plus, it's usually not a good idea to restrict access to something people will find ways of getting anyway, as we've seen before with Prohibition and currently, the faltering War on Drugs.

In all seriousness, I feel good about the fact that there are intelligent and reasonable people out there that have firearms and would be able to defend others in a situation where that might be feasible - say, a hostile government takeover or alien invasion. Notice the key words "intelligent" and "reasonable." And hence a need for some kind of vetting process to make sure guns are being sold to people who know how to (and more importantly, will) use them responsibly.

How do we get to the point where these arguments all converge into a responsible solution? I don't know. But the people whose jobs it is to make these decisions, more often than not, sound a lot like some of the whackos I see commenting on this Onion article on Facebook. There's no compromise, there's no reasonable arguing. Just plenty of "I'm right, you're wrong, blah, blah, blah."

So let's talk it out, kids. Let's say what's on our minds and listen to what everyone else has to say, and at the end of the day let's shake hands and hug and hang out and go to an awesome rock concert (or whatever, you get the idea). Let's be together as friends, brothers and sisters, and use our combined intelligence and strength to find a way to make this better. That's why things like the benefit show I mentioned earlier are so important. We need things to happen that actually help in some tangible way, and we need to come together around this.

Because in the end, this is all we've got, and we're all going to have to face this problem in some way eventually.

Bricks in the Wall

Part of the problem with writing concert reviews on deadline all the time is that I often find myself scrambling to write something, anything, the first thing that comes to mind, about the show I am reviewing. There’s no time to collect my thoughts and really reflect on what I have just seen and listened to.

Roger Waters’ performance of Pink Floyd’s opus “The Wall” at the Times Union Center on June 28 is a perfect example. My opinion of the show didn’t really form fully until about an hour after the final song, as I was driving home. And it seems to me, at least judging from reactions I’ve been reading on Facebook and conversations I’ve had with friends who were at the show, that my opinion is in the minority.

Visually, the show is overwhelming. The huge Wall, the floating pig with glowing eyes, the fireworks, the airplanes, the huge projections — it was a total feast for the eyes. But amidst all the eye candy, one important element — actually, the single most important element — felt sorely neglected. Strip away all the bells and whistles and flying pigs, and the performance just didn’t do anything for me.

We’re talking about an album originally created by Pink Floyd, a band whose instrumental interplay and performance acumen is legendary. From their meticulously crafted studio albums to their epic shows (such as the 1972 document “Live at Pompei”), this was a band that never slacked off when it came to both the music and the visual aspect of their performance.

So why did Rogers and his band make “The Wall” feel so hollow, so dull? For one thing, Waters doesn’t seem to be in the mood to share the spotlight with his bandmates. There were some decent players onstage (no less than three guitarists and four vocalists filled in for David Gilmour, which kind of says something about Pink Floyd’s musical acumen), but they mostly came across as faceless, playing just enough to get the song across. Waters took the spotlight entirely — at one point dueting with a video of himself on “Mother,” quipping that he hoped it didn’t seem too egotistical (I’m paraphrasing here).

Here’s the thing, it totally did. Everything about the show felt like a monument to Waters’ ego. I mean, if it wasn’t, why not get the remaining members of Floyd up there? Or why not put your band front and center, create a musical energy, play off one another, jam a bit?

The band spent half of the second set completely obscured by the giant Wall — which effectively ruined “Comfortably Numb” for me. If there was any “Wall” song that I wanted to see Waters and company really tear into, it was that song. Instead, we got Waters running around in front of the wall, while Robbie Wyckoff occasionally rose above the Wall like a floating ghost to sing Gilmour’s lines. One of the three guitarists also got to float above the Wall while playing Gilmour’s brilliant solo — a fine approximation, but an approximation, nonetheless. The best part of the show came when the Wall fell, and the band lined up with acoustic instruments to play “Outside the Wall.” This was the only time that I felt like I was watching a band play off of each other.

Like I said, everyone else seemed to love it. I get it, the show was about the visuals, totally and completely. And what a sight they were — my fumbling attempts to describe it will not do it any justice.

But here’s a hypothetical for you — take all of that away. If you were at the show, pretend that it was just a show with a rock band, led by Roger Waters, playing “The Wall.” Would that have been anywhere near as memorable?

As a society — actually, as a species — we’re conditioned to like shiny things. Diamonds are not rare or special; they’re considered valuable because they’re pretty to look at. Gold is more rare, but if it wasn’t so brilliant looking humans probably wouldn’t have fought wars over it.

You see this in modern technological advances, too. Flat screen TVs offer state-of-the-art, top-notch graphics that dazzle the eyes. Films shown in 3-D are all the rage. And the technology keeps improving in the visual spectrum — in December, the “Lord of the Rings” prequel “The Hobbit” will be the first film shown in 3-D 48 frames-per-second, instead of the usual 24.

When was the last time you heard about comparable advances in sound quality? Not delivery, mind you — we’ve had plenty of gadgets come out that make listening to music more convenient, but usually at the expense of sound quality. Audiophiles still swear by vinyl records as the highest quality delivery system for sound, and those were pretty much the way they are now in 1950. Guitarists still prefer the sound of tube-driven amplification over the more modern transistor amplifiers.

I’ve never been the most observant person — I run into walls, quite frequently in fact. Visual stimuli don’t really effect me the way they seem to effect most people. For example, I spent 10 years watching movies on a television with a screen about a foot wide, and didn’t really think anything of it. Granted, I’d hate to totally lose my vision, but if I had a choice between that and my hearing, I think I’d deal with it.

So maybe for most people, “The Wall” show was all about the visuals. I can’t help but think that it could have been about so much more.