“I would like to see the sky machine on every corner instead of the Coke machine. We need more skies than Coke.” – Yoko Ono, 1966.
Growing up the daughter of proud, British baby-boomer parents, the name Yoko Ono was not exactly revered in my household. In fact, she was considered a weird, controlling creature that somehow brainwashed John Lennon and systematically broke up the Beatles—the greatest rock and roll band of all time (according to my father). It wasn’t until art school that I began to learn who Ono really was and why she is considered one of the most iconic and mythological people in contemporary society.
Yoko Ono has been in the public eye for over 50 years, and she has been viewed as a muse, destroyer, widow, mother and artist. Granted, the fact that she is a household name is due largely to her late husband’s fame and legacy. However many are not aware of the her own accomplishments, innovations and her impact on the contemporary art world, beginning before her much publicized marriage and continuing until today.
Yoko Ono was born in Japan in 1933 to wealthy parents. Her family experienced much hardship during the Second World War, surviving the great fire bombings of Tokyo in 1945. They lost everything and were forced to beg and barter for food, which Ono credits as being the inspiration behind her imaginary/instructional art works or, as she refers to them, “paintings for the mind.”
After the war her family settled outside New York City, where Ono studied at the prestigious Sarah Lawrence College. In New York she began visiting galleries and art “happenings” (a form of performance-art involving the participation of both artist and audience), and these experiences inspired her own emerging work. In the early 1960s Ono was closely associated with the Fluxis movement, which was more a state of mind than a style of art. Members valued social goals over aesthetic goals and their main aim was to upset bourgeois (ie: middle-class or materialistic) routines of art and life.
The Fluxus incorporated influences from Dadaist theory, a school that originated in Europe after the First World War when founding artists Marcel Duchamp, Man Ray and Jean Arp felt they could no longer trust reason and the established order of things. The intent of Dada artists was to denounce all previous attitudes and perceptions and to shock the audience. Similar to Dada and often described as anti-art, the Fluxis used mixed-media, mail art, actions and happenings to promote a new culture of performance-based, audience-interactive, and non-commodifiable art.
One of the most iconic pieces of performance art, and the one for which she is most renowned, is Yoko Ono’s “Cut Piece” (c. 1964). Performed on several occasions and in a variety of venues, “Cut Piece” featured Ono alone on a stage, dressed in a black garment. Volunteering audience members were given scissors and invited to cut pieces from her dress. Like most performance-based artists, Ono could not have had a set purpose when she performed this work—or if she did it would be pointless—because it depended on the audience/viewer response and action.
For the most part, people were at first hesitant to come on stage, but as they lost their inhibitions participants began to cut bigger and bigger pieces of cloth until the dress was left in shreds (in one performance a young male actually cut off her undergarments).
Depending on where she performed “Cut Piece,” Ono received a different reaction. In Japan the audience was shy and hesitant. In London they became so violent security had to intervene. But even if no one had come forth to snip the dress, the performance would still have made a statement.
This is the strongest, most encompassing element of Ono’s catalogue as a whole: its participatory aspect. Everything she has done has been dependent on her audience or viewer. Her book Grapefruit is an excellent example of this. It contains instructions on how to perform her various imaginary pieces, such as “Painting to be constructed in your head,” and “Conversation piece.” In one of my personal favourites, “Painting for the wind,” the reader is instructed to “cut a hole in a bag filled with seeds and place the bag wherever there is wind” (1961, summer).
It is impossible to discuss Yoko Ono’s work without mentioning her late-husband and collaborator, John Lennon. After their extremely public romance and marriage, Ono found she was somewhat shunned or distanced by the contemporary arts community. But the couple decided to exploit their massive profile to forward their social agenda for peace. On their honeymoon, the two staged a “Bed-in for Peace” in Montreal, knowing the media would eagerly cover something so curious and provocative. John articulated his understanding of the potential of modern media very well; he knew that whatever he and Yoko did would end up in the papers.
“We decided,” he said, “to use the space we would occupy…with a commercial for peace and also for a theatrical event.” Life as art with social goals: very Fluxis.
After Lennon’s devastating assassination in 1980, Ono continued to manage his estate and advocate for world peace, eventually getting back to conceptual art in large galleries. Most recently she has exhibited and performed commemorative shows in honour of the 40th anniversary of “Cut Piece.”
In the movie “Imagine: John Lennon,” Lennon describes how he met his wife: “Yoko was having an art show at the Indica Gallery…I went down the night before the opening. The first thing that was in the gallery was a white step ladder and a painting on the ceiling and a spy glass hanging down. I walked up this ladder and I picked up the spy glass and in tiny little writing it just said, ‘Yes’…” Lennon also once referred to his wife as the world’s “most famous unknown artist. Everybody knows her name but nobody knows what she does.” For the Silo,Eve Yantha.
For further contemplation:
Imagine: John Lennon- A startling film derived from over 200 hours of John’s own film and video footage, as well as stills & heretofore unpublished music from John and Yoko’s personal collection. (1988)
Grapefruit: A Book of Instruction and Drawing by Yoko Ono (c. 1964; 1970)
I had reason to visit and work at Abbey Road Studio in London, and it still seems surreal!! My colleague Jayson Tomlin, Gary Katz (producer of Steely Dan), and myself were there to do testing and evaluation of some new technologies we’ve been working on for broadcast and consumer applications.
We spent a full day working in one of the mix-down studios, along with members of the BBC, Scotland Yard, Abbey Road, David Perreau, Felix Konrad, and some of Gary’s record producer ‘buddies”…Hugh Padgham (Genesis, Rush, Phil Collins, Police, Sting, XTC), and Elliott Randall (studio guitarist for Steely Dan).
Frank with Hugh Padgham (left) and Gary Katz (right)
Our connection with Gary has enabled us to connect with key members of the music production world, which in turn has enabled us to further evolve technologies for broadcast, and soon the consumer markets. Our work at Abbey Road was another step along this process, and it raised the bar for us, on what is expected of our products.
Frank on the steps of Abbey Road Studios
Being able to set foot into the building and studio where the Beatles recorded and produced all of their material was breathtaking. I’ll never forget, as we were wrapping up the events for the day, the studio engineer, whom we were working with, said “hey guys come with me, two is now open!” In my mind I’m thinking “this is where all the ‘magic’ happened.” So, off we went, and sure enough we walk into studio #2, and it’s still pretty much the same as if John, Paul, George, and Ringo were there the day before. Getting chills—again—as I write this!!
Jayson Tomlin and others take in Studio #2
Probably the most gratifying moment that day was towards the end. Hugh Padgham had been listening to some tech I’d developed, and told me how he’d done work with the late George Martin. His comment was how he had a good sense about how George produced the Beatles, and could we apply my ‘gizmo’ to their music.
Abbey Road Cafeteria
So…in the building they recorded the album Abbey Road, we added some treatment to the song “Golden Slumbers.” Together, all of us were in awe to hear the Beatles music, with some treatment from our efforts, done at Abbey Road!
Tape deck used in the recording of Sgt. Pepper’s
There’s a skylight in the ceiling of the studio we were working in. While listening, I looked upward through the skylight, and thought, “if Mr. Martin, Mr. Lennon, and Mr. Harrison are listening, my hope is you won’t feel I let you down.” I felt a tear trickle down upon having this thought. Quite possibly one of the coolest occurrences in this boy’s life!!
Frank between pianos used for the Beatles’ “Get Back” and John Lennon’s “Imagine”
Modestly, it was reassuring when each of our well-known music industry guests gave us the “thumbs up’ for our efforts. Further indication of how our little organization keeps growing and raising the bar! In closing, my sincere thanks to Jayson Tomlin, Gary Katz, Hugh Padgham, Andrew Scheps, and Elliott Randall for your feedback and friendship!!
Recording mixer used to record Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon
Although we live in the richest and most advanced society the world has ever known, many of us say we need more money in order to be happy, notes best-selling business book author Doug Vermeeren.
“Even some of those in the top percentile of earners often feel like they don’t have enough money,” says Vermeeren, (www.DouglasVermeeren.com), an international speaker who consults with celebrities, business executives and professional athletes.
“The math is simple: More money does not equal more happiness. It’s our attitude toward money, not the amount, that influences our happiness the most.”
Happiness researchers Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton, professors at the Harvard Business School, recently published research indicating that it’s not money that makes people happy, nor the things people buy with it. Rather, it’s the experiences one has that ultimately account for happiness.
“How you experience your money on a day-to-day basis is what matters,” Vermeeren says. “If the software running in your brain is constantly reinforcing the message, ‘it’s not enough,’ then that is likely how you will see yourself and experience your life – as ‘not enough.’ ”
The world’s richest city- is it Tokyo or Dubai? The top ranking seems up for grabs and changes from year to year.
Harvard’s Happiness researcher Elizabeth Dunn
Vermeeren reviews the three fallacies of abundance as it relates to happiness:
• We are all entitled to a certain amount of wealth: The feeling that we deserve or are owed a certain amount of wealth will always make us unhappy with whatever we have. While we are entitled to certain human rights, those do not include a winning lottery ticket. In reality, we are not owed any amount of abundance and, in fact, should count ourselves lucky if we’re able to meet our basic needs; many in the world are not. More of us, however, would be happier simply appreciating what we have.
• The result of our labors is money: Money is a means to an end, not an end in itself. This can be a challenge to keep in mind since so much of our lives are spent in the pursuit of money. We work and go to school to support ourselves and our families. We see things we want, and we know we need more money for them. Study after study shows, however, that what really makes us happy is what we do and who we do it with, and not how much money we spend.
• We’ll be happiest when we finally reach our goal: We are happiest when we are progressing toward a goal. When we lose sight of our goal, veer off the path toward our goal, and even achieve our goal, we’re less happy. Rather than setting one goal and deciding you will be happy when you meet it, you’ll be most happy if you continually set goals and relish your journey toward them.
Doug Vermeeren is an internationally renowned public speaker, author, movie producer and director. His life coaching strategies help those from all walks of life, with clients including business executives, celebrities, professional athletes and more. Throughout the last decade, Vermeeren has conducted extensive first hand research into the lives of more than 400 of the world’s top contemporary achievers, making him a sought-after commentator on news outlets including ABC, FOX, CNN and more. He has written three titles contributing to Guerilla Marketing, the best-selling business series in publishing, which is included reading in the Harvard Business School.
His documentaries include the award-winning film, The Opus, which has been published by Random House as a book in 23 countries. Vermeeren’s latest film, The Gratitude Experiment , has received critical acclaim. For the Silo, Ginny Grimsley.
Is it ethical for media streaming companies, such as Spotify, to take advantage of IP loopholes, which are known to negatively impact artist revenues?
Values:
>Balance & Fairness
>Legal Values
Loyalties:
a. Duty to service
b. Duty to subscribers
c. Duty to shareholders
d. Duty to Intellectual Property
e. Duty to Art & Commerce
Principles:
Aristotle’s Mean: “Moral virtue is a middle state determined by practical wisdom.” Virtuous people will arrive at a fair and reasonable agreement for the legitimate claims of both sides somewhere in the middle of two extreme claims.The two sides must negotiate a compromise in good faith. “Generally speaking,in extremely complicated situations with layers of ambiguity and uncertainty, Aristotle’s principle has the most intellectual appeal.”
BASIC CONCEPT:
Negotiated compromise.
>>Streaming Media Company
For the Purpose of analyzing an isolated streaming media company, Spotify will be examined through the lens of the potter box. Spotify is a streaming service with cross-platform availability that specializes in music, and generates income from its 20 million premium and 75 million free users, respectively. Spotify boasts an extensive catalogue for free and for a nominal fee. Spotify’s extensive catalogue is made possible due to established agreements between various record labels and media companies. Agreements that are known to negatively affect artists, while benefiting both Spotify & Record labels, plague the music industry. Payout deals between Spotify and record companies range from royalty payout to equity deals.
Spotify does not want to make adjustments to the model of its free service, because if their users are not able to find it on Spotify, they will utilize other streaming services such as youtube, which is likely to have the content. They have identified this free offering as being their driving force for getting new subscribers to the service. New subscribers that turn into increased revenue for record labels, as 70% of revenue from $10 per month subscriptions and advertisements are paid to record labels, artists, and song publishers.
>>Artists—Influence: Art/Media Creators
The Artists on Spotify collectively stream over 30 million songs across 58 different markets. Despite collectively making up a heart from which Spotify thrives, Artists receive 6.8% of streaming revenue, the smallest share of the pie.
Artists receive 10.9% of the post tax payout between artists, labels, and songwriters/publishers. Many artists including Adele, Taylor Swift, the Beatles, and Coldplay have opted for keeping music off of Spotify.
Spotify does not have direct agreements with most artists. The streaming company has agreements with labels, whom are responsible for not only securing licenses to music, but to are also responsible for payouts to artists. So essentially, Spotify pays labels, and the label is empowered with payout to artists. The problem is not that Spotify refuses to fairly pay for royalties; it is the trickling down of payment from labels to the respective artists. Spotify has wholesale access to music catalogues from record labels, which makes it hard to fairly split royalty payments amongst artists that are under contractual agreements with respective label.
Even with leaked contract between Spotify and Sony Music available, it is still unclear how much of payouts to record labels actually get to the hands of the artist. It is clear that Sony Music is getting a hefty payout annually, but the question is still whether or not these hefty payouts are passed on to the artists.
>>Major Record Companies
The music catalogue on Spotify is mostly populated by content from major record labels that include Sony Music, Universal Music Group, EMI, Warner Music, Merlin, and The Orchard. Self-published artists as well as artists from independent labels also help makeup Spotify’s catalogue.
Record companies have begun to further question Spotify’s free model since Taylor Swift and other artists have proactively opposed Spotify’s extensive free offerings to users. Streaming consumers of music increased by 54% between 2013 and 2014 according to the Nielsen SoundScan. Major record companies are often made better deals, which disproportionately disadvantage independent artists and labels.
Executives at major record label such as Universal Music and Warner Music have made statements about the extensive free offering of its licensed music is not sustainable long-term. It was suggested that there needs to be a more clear differentiation between content available to free and premium users. Bjork has suggested that Spotify should not allow access for certain content right when it comes out, but should allow for content to go through certain rounds of monetization before ending up on Spotify, similar to Netflix’s rollout method for its content. Major record labels are currently in the process of renegotiating agreements, and are mostly pushing for adjustments to free service offered.
Their goal is to have the “freemium” model disappear as time persists.
What is the current policy?
A legal agreement between Sony, the second largest record company in the world, and Spotify recently leaked, which further intensifies questions about fair payouts for artists. The contract confirmed that major record companies benefit from the success of the streaming service Spotify. The contract details advance payments of over $40 million, with a $9 million advertising credit. Sony has declined to comment on the leaked contract, as it was illegally obtained. Labels routinely keep advances for themselves according to an industry insider.
The leaked contract detailed agreements between Sony Music and Spotify, but not between Sony Music and artists. Such fruits of private agreements don’t necessarily trickle down to the artist, because in most cases they are not even aware of an under the table deal unless a leak has occurred. Unstated under the table deals are not ethical, because artists do not benefit from funds received on account of their intellectual property. The International Music Managers Forum urges European and American authorities alike to use the Sony leak as an example of why more transparence is necessary.
Artists are not being fairly compensated for use of their intellectual property.
Streaming companies have established a revenue arrangement with major Record Companies that often does not favor artists. The obvious shortfalls with existing policy include the lack of transparency when it comes to agreements between record labels and Spotify. There are no systems of checks and balances for ensuring that labels adequately and fairly share Spotify revenue with artists. There needs to be a streamlined system that puts everything on the table in clear view, for fair agreements between artists, label, and streaming company to be arrived at. Current policy also allows Spotify to take up to 15% off the top from revenue generated from ad sales.
What needs to be changed?
Spotify seems to be fairly paying for royalties, but the flow of cash does not always get to the artists. Substitute apps; try to compete with Spotify, by challenging the freemium model. Other apps such as Tidal aim to provide audience with exclusive content that they won’t find anywhere else. The problem is that apps such as Tidal market themselves as a music-streaming app by the artists for the artists. Nowhere in that equation is the interest of the average potential consumer considered. Artists may receive more money per stream, but the service is double the price of Spotify. Record companies, and artists alike, are moving away from Spotify’s freemium model. The digitization of music is not the problem, as most artists and labels generally trust certain digital services such as itunes, because it translates into revenue for artists with no veil or strings attached. Extensive free offerings seem to be the major issue that involved parties have with Spotify, but it is the only thing that drives traffic according to Spotify. The freemium offerings need to be changed in some way, but in a way that is non-disruptive to Spotify’s commerce. Since Spotify pays its fair share of royalties, a more streamlined agreement between record labels and artists should be established and transparent, as should deals made between Spotify and record labels.
Major record labels need to stop double dipping. Not only do they receive cash advances & royalties, but they also benefit from Spotify’s overall revenue stream as they have equity in Spotify of up to 18%. Billboard magazine interviewed two dozen record executives and they agreed that they were confused as to what Spotify was replacing, whether being a substitute for sales or piracy. Examples of setting limitations of the freemium service have showed signs of slowing down subscription growth rate. Spotify has stated that if artists are not fairly compensated from stream revenue, then it is a result of recording contracts and or label accounting practices. Some major record labels are fine with Spotify using their music to build business, because of their equity; they are looking ahead for profit from a future IPO. The artists would not benefit in the same manner, despite their content being the driving force for the app in the first place.
Click me! Future Art Sound
Scenarios
In a time of changing platforms and distribution methods, consumer trends has undoubtedly been in transition. The radio still accounts for an estimated 35% of music consumption, followed by CD consumption at 20%, free streaming at 19%, and paid streaming at 1%. Multichannel consumers, mostly millennia’s, account for 66% of music consumers. A multichannel consumer may pay for a streaming subscription, and make a physical and/or a virtual music purchase. The most common multichannel consumption combination is free streaming coupled with CD listening which accounts for 49% of multichannel listeners, followed by free streaming coupled with music downloads which accounts for 44%. Millennia’s are also known to engage in both free streaming and downloading.
Evidence
During the first quarter of 2014, Pharrell Williams garnered 43 million Pandora streams, which only paid him $2,700 as a songwriter. A statement from Pandora indicates that all rights holders were paid upwards of $150,000 within the first 3 months, and that the real issue is the financial dispute between labels and publishers. Pandora also indicated in the statement that labels are free to split royalties between themselves and artists, however they see fit. Clearly there needs to be more transparency for the cash flow between streaming company, label, and the artist.
Spotify returns 70% of its revenue to rights holders, with information about each artist to aid in the royalty split process. Streaming companies are engaged in fair due diligence where payment of royalties are concerned. The evidence is as follows:
Actionable Policy
The music industry needs a streamlined agreement between streaming companies, record labels, publishers, and artists. It is imperative that there is increased transparency, especially where cash flow is concerned. Artists should be able to see all cash and data exchanged between streaming company and label. Royalty holders need to publicly split funds amongst themselves and artists. Record labels need to be accountable to both their artists and streaming company, because an artist that feels swindled can create bad blood between the artist and the label and/or the artist and streaming company.
Recommendation
>>Actionable
1. Artists are cut into equity deals based on audience pull to streaming service per qtr
>>Streaming Services should provide analytics with specific data to aid audience pull observation for given artists
2.Major Labels are transparent with cash flow of compensation from Streaming Companies
Is it ethical for media streaming companies, such as Spotify, to take advantage of IP loopholes, which are known to negatively impact artist revenues?
Judgment:
It is ethical for streaming services to take advantage of IP loopholes, which are known to negatively impact artist revenues. Music platform are changing, and as such, better agreements need to be drafted to complement this change. Streaming companies have shown the numbers, and they are paying for royalties, which is essentially paying for the use of the music in their catalogue. Music streaming is an emerging market, which record companies themselves are invested in. The common mode of music monetization is moving away from CD sales, and that is undeniable. Music downloads take up a lot of data, so streaming is the most practical way for consumers to enjoy their music.
The freemium model of Spotify should not be eliminated, but it should certainly be reconsidered, or at least limited in music access. Premium, new, and sought after music should not be as accessible as music that has already exited the promotion stage. Their needs to be some sort of compromise between record labels and Spotify, to better differentiate between premium content and freemium content. Spotify does not want to compromise the availability of its music on either platform, and labels reserve right to pull any of their artists from Spotify as they wish. Spotify should do a better job differentiating free content from premium content, it’s only fair. Spotify should not compromise to the point that it becomes impractical, but should compromise in a way that is cost-effective for all parties. If this were to be attained, streaming companies, record labels, and artists would be happy, circumventing social dilemma. Jordan Muthra The New School University, M.A., Media Studies, Graduate Student
Okay we know…technically the web has been around since the 1960’s (Arpanet) and we’ve been browsing the online world via BBS services since 1989 on an ‘old’ Atari 1020ST and land line, but for most of us the world wide web as we know it- complete with browsers and search engines turned 25 years old this week. CP
Mountain View, CA Some of us remember what the world was like before the web and have seen how much it’s changed things. Many younger people today have never known a world without the web.
Which are you? Choose the statement below that applies to you — then share it along with your memories of how the web has affected your life.
There’s no better way to celebrate the web’s 25th birthday than by sharing on the web how much it’s meant to all of our lives. More coming soon. For the Silo, Derek Slater /Google.
I’ve never particularly been a Beatle’s fan. I like some of their songs. I like a number of them very much, but if I was asked the now proverbial question, “The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?” I would probably say, Oh, I don’t know, maybe The Who? The body of work of Mark Knopfler. Massive Attack were massive for me.
But I was not a child of the sixties, “an age of assassins,” John B. Lee writes in his poignant and powerfully executed preface, when “[o]ur childhood martyred almost all the heroes that we’d had.” John F. Kennedy. Robert F. Kennedy. Martin Luther King (Malcolm X, not mentioned but later, yes). “The list is overlong,” Lee says. “It will not end.” I understand more fully than ever these life-shattering moments, for Americans and Canadians alike; for so many Across the Universe . Into this near death of hope came The Beatles. The Beatles came to America, came on a Sunday night in January 1964 to The Ed Sullivan show and, and as Lee exclaims with no exclamation mark, “sang my life awake.”
It’s not a perfect looking book. Yet as I read, the grainy cover photo (by an unknown photographer) of four dapper mop-tops fishing out the window of their Seattle hotel—they literally weren’t allowed to leave—starts to resonate. It’s imperfection could be viewed as integral, evoking a time in music when moments of “perfect imperfection,” as Michael Shatte calls them in his essay, were more common in pop; “happy accidents” which would not be tolerated in this era of hyper-produced top-forty songs, when singers voices are routinely, digitally “auto-tuned” in the studio, and we get used to being disappointed when we hear them live. Then there’s lip-synching. I don’t need to go on. There is great music being made by great musicians right now. But that’s not what we’re here to talk about. This is about a particular moment in pop-music history, in cultural history, and many of the moments that followed.
The book is selected and edited by John B. Lee, a Canadian poet and writer who has published more than fifty books and received over 70 prestigious awards for his work. If you haven’t heard of him don’t feel too bad. He tells me openly there is little money in poetry, reminding me it’s not about that anyway. If it was it probably wouldn’t be poetry.
If you haven’t read him it might be time to start: his verse and prose catch the beauty of rural life, farm life, family life, hockey, human sexuality—life. Just Google him. He’s from home, you know. Right around here, right around me, the Poet Laureate of Brantford, Ontario and Norfolk County, home as well to Alexander Graham Bell and Wayne Gretzky, a poet of sport. Like McEnroe was one of the poets of my youth, making tennis beautiful, thrilling, creative; revolutionary. How I tried to emulate him…
Window Fishingis about a time of Revolution, evolutions in culture, and about growing up in the thick of it all. I wasn’t here yet, but as I read this book I learn. It is a literary volume. The cover photo and torn ticket stub on the back page are its only images. Or are they? Because black words on white paper are also images. And the book’s words, artistically rendered, conjure images as well as ideas. It is poetry, and prose poetry, and personal essays; fine writing by a collection of fine writers.
I learn that for most of the men, who were boys then, pubescent, the Beatles were all about music: musical discovery, even ecstasy. And style too. There was style.
For the women who write about the phenomenon of Beatlemania, there was music too. Absolutely. But there was something else. Something profound: the awakening of sexuality. Even a kind of love. Suddenly I understand all the screaming and crying, the fainting. For emerging, young (straight) women, the Beatles were more than musical. They were also beautiful. Sexy. As Susan Whelehan puts it in her essay: “John. He was mine and I was his…I was going to be his FOREVER. And I am.”
While many parents of the day may have dismissed The Fab Four at first as a silly “boy-band,” we might say now, shaking their longish (for the time), round hair-cuts—singing “Ooooo!” and “Yeah Yeah Yeah!”—fact is from the beginning The Beatles were always at the very least competent,andobviously compelling, musicians. Writes Honey Novick in her probing, poetic essay: “You could actually dance to their music.” And we know they became more and more sophisticated as they progressed through their careers, eventually making challenging, often satisfying real art-music, the way Radiohead did for me in my 20’s.
All this beautiful literature about The Beatles and the 1960’s has inspired me to listen, finally, seriously, to the music. Even if you thought, at the time, “Yeah Yeah Yeah” was just bubblegum for kids, consider the lyrics. One friend to another: “You think you lost your love/Well I saw her yesterday. She says it’s you she’s thinkin’ of/And she told me what to say: She says she loves you.” She loves you man. Yeah! (Yeah! Yeah!). What more is there to celebrate? Ecstatically.
If you were there, or if you want to learn, or if you care about music or culture or the 1960’s or just literature, embrace the “perfect imperfection” of this unique and potent book. Some of the poems made me close my eyes and shut the pages. To savour, digest. Bruce Meyer made me cry. I was 8 years old when Lennon was shot. Assassinated. It made no impact on me then. I wasn’t really there yet. The book put me there, as close as I can ever come. For the Silo, Alan Gibson.
