When it comes to the Middle East, and Israel Palestine, there are few writers who are more controversial right now than Peter Beinart. His new book, the Crisis of Zionism, has either elicted vitriol and praise among Israel/Palestine writers' circles. Even if one opposes Beinart's theses or approaches to make Israel a better liberal democracy, the book is still an important read. Yet, this week, Beinart published an article regarding the current crisis in Syria where President Bashar Al-Assad is killing his own people.
In an article forthe Daily Beast, Beinart claims "Let me be clear: I’m not proposing that we try to kill Assad," but rather asserts that "Given how far America has moved in that direction in recent years, trying to assassinate Bashar al-Assad doesn’t seem radical at all." However, throughout the article, Beinart displays a misunderstanding of America's history of assassinations.
First, Beinart explains "the United States has made it pretty clear—especially under President Obama—that we are willing to kill in order to stop regimes from butchering their own people." To assert his point, Beinart points to Kosovo, Serbia, and Libya and the fact that all of those instances the United States was willing to intervene. However, Beinart misses a crucial point; while the US did intervene, in none of those cases, did the United States kill the actual leaders of these movements.
Slobodan Milosevic, who was an instigator in the Kosovo and Bosnian conflicts was put on trial for his actions and died whilst awaiting trial. Libyan strongman Moammar Qaddafi was not killed by the Americans but rather was executed by a group of rebels and even then there was controversy, with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a vocal critic of Qaddafi, saying the action discredited the legitimate desires of the Libyan people. In those instances, the US took on a supporting role, and committing an assasination would be taking a front seat role because by killing the leader, one becomes directly responsible for ensuring there is future leadership.
He continues in claiming that because the United States is willing to kill terrorists, they should be willing to kill heads of state. Yet Beinart's analogy is flawed. Whether the drone strikes or targeted assassinations are justified or even constitutional is besides the point-at least for this blog post; they are not committed against foreign heads of state but rather a group of terrorist thugs. Other than dealing with the ire of Pakistani or Afghan heads of state and the civilian casualties, there is no need to prop up a new provisional temporary person to take the place of these leaders, like there would be with killing Assad.
This point is proven by Beinart's further misreading of history when he says that the United States has lead coups that caused the deaths of heads of state, such as Salvador Allende in Chile, Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, as if these were all successful examples to point to. Yet what Beinart fails to mention is that all of these instances led to extreme difficulties for the civilian populations and Beinart shows a bit of intellectual carelessness by using the freshly-ended Iraq War as an example.
Furthermore, there is a great degree of hypocrisy in this claim. In it, he says "Fine, you say, but there’s an executive order against assassinating heads of state. That’s true, but we don’t exactly abide by it." Yet, with this Machiavellian statement, Beinart completely ruins any moral authority to preach the thesis behind the Crisis of Zionism, which urges Israel to live up to the democratic values as conceived by David Ben-Gurion, Theodor Herzl and Stephen Wise. In addition, in an interview with CBS' the Early Show, Beinart distinctly stated "Pro-American is what is in line with the principles of our constitution and declaration of independence not what our government does." If Beinart uses executives flouting laws to justify killing heads of state, how can he expect to hold Israel accountable to its own democratic ideals?
Monday, June 11, 2012
Friday, July 16, 2010
The Case for Cutting Military Spending
On January 17, 1961, President Dwight David Eisenhower, the thirty-fourth President of the United States and the respected general of World War II, gave his farewell address to the nation. In his address, Eisenhower was ending his career in public service and made some remarks about the future of this nation, particularly of the growing industry of solely building armaments. He claimed, "this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience," and that it encompassed all aspects of American life. Eisenhower saw that this new mindset came out of the Cold War but also insisted that it was something that must have a close eye kept on it, saying "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
Almost fifty years after President Eisenhower spoke of the dangers of the military industrial complex and twenty-one years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States is now crippled by the very thing that pragmatic general had warned us of. In 2010, the Department of Defense released its budget is $663.8 billion, which is an increase from the $513.3 billion that was used in 2009. Next year, that number is expected to increase to over $700 billion, making the amount of discretionary spending for the Department of Defense for the year of 2011, more costly than the 2008 bailout of AIG, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs.
Like the bailout, the United States has become the personal ATM for armament companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing to build an excessive amount of arms. Meanwhile currently, our country's education budget is at $63.7 billion, only ten percent of the whole Defense Department spending. This week on Capitol Hill, there is a debate over extending unemployment benefits, and if the unemployment rate stays at the rate than it is, then the bill should only cost $8.5 billion, little over one percent of the Defense Department's budget. As a result currently, the country is facing a deblitating deficit of $1 trillion.
There are some who say that it is an absolutely necessity to continue indiscretionary military spending and while it is true that there is a need to maintain our security, most other countries spend only a fraction of what the United States Spends. Case in point, Britain, who has the second most powerful military in the world and is the closest ally of the United States, spends only 5.8% towards the Ministry of Defence. Meanwhile Russia, perhaps the only true existential threat to the United States of America, spends the equivalent of only $46.8 billion. As for North Korea, Iran and other countries presented to be an existential threat, combined they make up little more than one percent of the entire military spending of the world.
By cutting the Defense budget, even if by only shaving off the first $100 billion, the United States can help to offset the crippling debt that so many deficit hawks in Congress and in the Tea Party worry about. In addition if the budget is slashed in half, the United States would still have more arms than Russia and Britain combined and afford to create a system of community service where college students can spend two years performing community service, joining the military, Americorps or the Peace Corps to help pay for their education as well as have an instilled sense of duty to improving their country.
Currently, the US is facing an economic crisis in ways that it has never faced before. With a dwindling Middle Class, many families find it harder to own a home, save for retirement and send their children to college. In addition, the crippling cost of the military industrial complex engorges our deficit higher than any health care program or financial recovery ever could. Meanwhile, with no significant infrastructure, there is little to export to pay for our insatiable need to consume. However, by reasonably scaling back our military spending, the United States can work to move towards securing its future from foreign invaders or the domestic terrorism of generational theft.
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12652
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm
Almost fifty years after President Eisenhower spoke of the dangers of the military industrial complex and twenty-one years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States is now crippled by the very thing that pragmatic general had warned us of. In 2010, the Department of Defense released its budget is $663.8 billion, which is an increase from the $513.3 billion that was used in 2009. Next year, that number is expected to increase to over $700 billion, making the amount of discretionary spending for the Department of Defense for the year of 2011, more costly than the 2008 bailout of AIG, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs.
Like the bailout, the United States has become the personal ATM for armament companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing to build an excessive amount of arms. Meanwhile currently, our country's education budget is at $63.7 billion, only ten percent of the whole Defense Department spending. This week on Capitol Hill, there is a debate over extending unemployment benefits, and if the unemployment rate stays at the rate than it is, then the bill should only cost $8.5 billion, little over one percent of the Defense Department's budget. As a result currently, the country is facing a deblitating deficit of $1 trillion.
There are some who say that it is an absolutely necessity to continue indiscretionary military spending and while it is true that there is a need to maintain our security, most other countries spend only a fraction of what the United States Spends. Case in point, Britain, who has the second most powerful military in the world and is the closest ally of the United States, spends only 5.8% towards the Ministry of Defence. Meanwhile Russia, perhaps the only true existential threat to the United States of America, spends the equivalent of only $46.8 billion. As for North Korea, Iran and other countries presented to be an existential threat, combined they make up little more than one percent of the entire military spending of the world.
By cutting the Defense budget, even if by only shaving off the first $100 billion, the United States can help to offset the crippling debt that so many deficit hawks in Congress and in the Tea Party worry about. In addition if the budget is slashed in half, the United States would still have more arms than Russia and Britain combined and afford to create a system of community service where college students can spend two years performing community service, joining the military, Americorps or the Peace Corps to help pay for their education as well as have an instilled sense of duty to improving their country.
Currently, the US is facing an economic crisis in ways that it has never faced before. With a dwindling Middle Class, many families find it harder to own a home, save for retirement and send their children to college. In addition, the crippling cost of the military industrial complex engorges our deficit higher than any health care program or financial recovery ever could. Meanwhile, with no significant infrastructure, there is little to export to pay for our insatiable need to consume. However, by reasonably scaling back our military spending, the United States can work to move towards securing its future from foreign invaders or the domestic terrorism of generational theft.
http://www.defense.gov/rel
http://www2.ed.gov/about/o
http://www.globalsecurity.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
In order to create a more perfect union
"We the People, in order to create a more perfect union..." Those are the words that open the Constitution of the United States America, perhaps the greatest experiment in democracy since those of the Roman Republic and Ancient Athens. After months of furious debates, the delegates who came representing each of the states in the union came to ratify this document predicated by these eleven words in hopes of forging a new political experiment; the likes of which had never been seen before and, while imitated by many other nations, has never been replicated.
However, it is easy to forget that when the Constitution was ratified that the political debates surrounding it were not absolved and that they would be buried along with the buckets of sweat that dropped onto the floor of Independence Hall that scorching Philadelphia summer. In fact, one could make the argument that with the ratification of the Constitution, the floodgates for political debate were opened. Federalists were concerned that the interests of the individual states would supersede the needs of the newborn nation. Meanwhile the anti-Federalists, who would later be referred to as the Jeffersonian Democrats, were concerned about the interest of the common men and that the Constitution dictated too much on behalf of issues pertaining to government and not on the rights of the average citizen. Then there was the issue of slavery. Northern journeymen were concerned that slavery would subvert their trades by creating an inexpensive labor force to conduct their industry. Meanwhile, Southern farmers were afraid that by abolishing slaves, their businesses like plantation farming of tobacco and cotton would go belly up as well as violate not only their right to property but also their culture.
Despite all of these misgivings about the intricate details of the Constitution, the delegates decided to ratify the document nonetheless. The chief reason being was that as Benjamin Franklin said, "I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." The Framers knew that will all of their preconceived notions and personal self interests that they could not possibly create a perfect document to govern their land. However, overall they knew that the Constitution and the laws that it entails, are not stone tablets that are infallible that must be strictly adhered to. Rather, the Constitution was an imperfect document, that must continue to be hemmed and altered. This is why their document had those words "in order to create a more perfect union;" they themselves could not perfect the union, but that future generations would work to create a more perfect union.
Indeed, there would be alterations to the constitution that would fix the problems initially posed to the Framers. Shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress would pass the Constitution's first ten amendments, which became known as the Bill of Rights, which included basic liberties such as freedom of religion and due process. The issue of slavery would be solved with the 13th and 14th amendment and with the 15th Amendment, America insured that no matter what race a man had, they had the right to have a voice in our democracy.
As the Union grew, so did our ability to graft in other people into the political process, such as women and youth with the nineteenth and twenty-sixth, respectively. The nation's continued tirelessly to create not only a free society but also a just and equal society for all Americans. Like Franklin, we freely declare, "it is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others." We understand that at times, this nation has not been perfect and there are still many ways where we are still imperfect. However, our ability to improve ourselves that makes America great; that drive to "create a more perfect union."
However, it is easy to forget that when the Constitution was ratified that the political debates surrounding it were not absolved and that they would be buried along with the buckets of sweat that dropped onto the floor of Independence Hall that scorching Philadelphia summer. In fact, one could make the argument that with the ratification of the Constitution, the floodgates for political debate were opened. Federalists were concerned that the interests of the individual states would supersede the needs of the newborn nation. Meanwhile the anti-Federalists, who would later be referred to as the Jeffersonian Democrats, were concerned about the interest of the common men and that the Constitution dictated too much on behalf of issues pertaining to government and not on the rights of the average citizen. Then there was the issue of slavery. Northern journeymen were concerned that slavery would subvert their trades by creating an inexpensive labor force to conduct their industry. Meanwhile, Southern farmers were afraid that by abolishing slaves, their businesses like plantation farming of tobacco and cotton would go belly up as well as violate not only their right to property but also their culture.
Despite all of these misgivings about the intricate details of the Constitution, the delegates decided to ratify the document nonetheless. The chief reason being was that as Benjamin Franklin said, "I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." The Framers knew that will all of their preconceived notions and personal self interests that they could not possibly create a perfect document to govern their land. However, overall they knew that the Constitution and the laws that it entails, are not stone tablets that are infallible that must be strictly adhered to. Rather, the Constitution was an imperfect document, that must continue to be hemmed and altered. This is why their document had those words "in order to create a more perfect union;" they themselves could not perfect the union, but that future generations would work to create a more perfect union.
Indeed, there would be alterations to the constitution that would fix the problems initially posed to the Framers. Shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress would pass the Constitution's first ten amendments, which became known as the Bill of Rights, which included basic liberties such as freedom of religion and due process. The issue of slavery would be solved with the 13th and 14th amendment and with the 15th Amendment, America insured that no matter what race a man had, they had the right to have a voice in our democracy.
As the Union grew, so did our ability to graft in other people into the political process, such as women and youth with the nineteenth and twenty-sixth, respectively. The nation's continued tirelessly to create not only a free society but also a just and equal society for all Americans. Like Franklin, we freely declare, "it is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others." We understand that at times, this nation has not been perfect and there are still many ways where we are still imperfect. However, our ability to improve ourselves that makes America great; that drive to "create a more perfect union."
Saturday, June 26, 2010
General McChrystal's dismissal glosses over the real issue
This past week, the mainstream media went abuzz when a Rolling Stone profile of Commanding General of Afghanistan Stanley McChrystal was released that had disparaging comments about many civilian leaders. In the article, McChrystal claimed President Barack Obama was detached from operations in Afghanistan, was quoted as saying Vice President Joe Biden can "bite me" and called National Security Advisor and Four Star Marine General James Jones was a "clown." McChrystal was dismissed less than forty-eight hours after the article was released and was replaced by CENTCOM leader and former hea of Iraqi forces General David Petraeus, who has been elevated to something of hero status since his successful surge tactic in Iraq.
However, while many reporters were reporting about McChrystal's ousting, what most media outlets failed to recognize was that for a large part, Petraeus desired strategy is the same counter-insurgency strategy that McChrystal has used during his tenure as General. Both Petraeus and McChrystal are proponents of counter-insurgency, and in fact, Petraeus co-wrote the Counter Insurgency Field Manual. Petraeus used to a large effect in Iraq and for the most part reaped great successes through the tactic.
Yet, there is a great difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. First and foremost, the main division amongst Iraqis is the fact that most Iraqis are Shia but the overthrown government and military was Sunni. The goal was to get Sunnis and Shias to overcome their religious differences and unite to create a proper Democratic government.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the main division in Afghanistan is not religious beliefs; a majority of the nation is Sunni. Rather, the main difference amongst the people of Afghanistan is ethnicity and there are four main ethnic groups in Afghanistan. There are the Tajiks who descend from the steppes of Indo-Europe; have the same ancestors as Persians and speak Farsi. There are Turks, who migrated mainly in one of two eras, during the Ghaznavid era from 900-1100 AD and during the 20th Century before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Then there are the Hazaras, who are considered to be descended from Genghis Khan's Mongols and in many ways have the most distinctive features to a non-Afghan. Finally, there are the Pashtuns, who are native to Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan, are thought to be descended from the people who fought Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the British and the Soviets. The Pashtuns also make up a large part of the Taliban.
Most of these ethnic groups have been in conflict with each other for centuries on end and for some, there is over a thousand years worth of conflict in Afghanistan. The mountainous terrain of Afghanistan permits these differing peoples to live separate from each other and as a result, most of them would prefer to stay in their valleys and live autonomously from any form of centralized society. Therefore, it does not matter who is invading their valleys, whether it be Persians, or Arabs or Shi'ites or Americans; all that does matter is the fact that they feel their way of life is being intruded upon.
This nepotism is a large obstacle for the strategy of Counter-insurgency, which is completely contingent on "winning the hearts and minds" of the people, as General Petraeus been quoted as saying. When there is conflict between the various ethnic groups, it is virtually impossible to be able to win the approval of all of the people.
This is largely the reason why many Afghans prefer to rule of the Taliban over the occupation of American soldiers. While the Taliban has oppressed the people for years and has subjugated women, they are still one of them and for better or worse have been feeding and housing them and putting them in a sort of arrested development with secularism. They are at least familiar with the Taliban. Furthermore, as the drone bombings continue in Afghanistan, it tips the average Afghan's sentiment towards the anti-Western rhetoric of groups like the Taliban.
Furthermore, the Taliban is not the key enemy of the United States. The Taliban had very little involvement in 9/11. In his book the Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright explains that many in the Taliban were in fact concerned when Osama Bin Laden and his group al-Qaeda traveled to Afghanistan and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar began allying with him. Their alliance has always been a tentative one and they had almost no hand in planning the actual terrorist attacks on 9/11; the reason we began a war in Afghanistan in the first place was because that is where we believed al-Qaeda was hiding. Yet now that it is revealed that less than 100 members of al-Qaeda are in Afghanistan and most are in Pakistan, the question must be asked, why is the US occupying Afghanistan?
In the end, it seems like America is in a horrible predicament when it comes to Afghanistan. Three weeks ago, the War in Afghanistan became the longest war in Afghanistan, surpassing the Vietnam War. In many ways, America faces the same crisis that it faced in Vietnam; the US is in a war not with a national force but rather with a stateless faction that will perpetually terrorize US forces. On one hand, America can choose to stay in Afghanistan and ride out the stalemate for hundreds of years or it will walk out without a victory or defeat and therefore give the Taliban and al-Qaeda exactly what they desire.
However, while many reporters were reporting about McChrystal's ousting, what most media outlets failed to recognize was that for a large part, Petraeus desired strategy is the same counter-insurgency strategy that McChrystal has used during his tenure as General. Both Petraeus and McChrystal are proponents of counter-insurgency, and in fact, Petraeus co-wrote the Counter Insurgency Field Manual. Petraeus used to a large effect in Iraq and for the most part reaped great successes through the tactic.
Yet, there is a great difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. First and foremost, the main division amongst Iraqis is the fact that most Iraqis are Shia but the overthrown government and military was Sunni. The goal was to get Sunnis and Shias to overcome their religious differences and unite to create a proper Democratic government.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the main division in Afghanistan is not religious beliefs; a majority of the nation is Sunni. Rather, the main difference amongst the people of Afghanistan is ethnicity and there are four main ethnic groups in Afghanistan. There are the Tajiks who descend from the steppes of Indo-Europe; have the same ancestors as Persians and speak Farsi. There are Turks, who migrated mainly in one of two eras, during the Ghaznavid era from 900-1100 AD and during the 20th Century before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Then there are the Hazaras, who are considered to be descended from Genghis Khan's Mongols and in many ways have the most distinctive features to a non-Afghan. Finally, there are the Pashtuns, who are native to Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan, are thought to be descended from the people who fought Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the British and the Soviets. The Pashtuns also make up a large part of the Taliban.
Most of these ethnic groups have been in conflict with each other for centuries on end and for some, there is over a thousand years worth of conflict in Afghanistan. The mountainous terrain of Afghanistan permits these differing peoples to live separate from each other and as a result, most of them would prefer to stay in their valleys and live autonomously from any form of centralized society. Therefore, it does not matter who is invading their valleys, whether it be Persians, or Arabs or Shi'ites or Americans; all that does matter is the fact that they feel their way of life is being intruded upon.
This nepotism is a large obstacle for the strategy of Counter-insurgency, which is completely contingent on "winning the hearts and minds" of the people, as General Petraeus been quoted as saying. When there is conflict between the various ethnic groups, it is virtually impossible to be able to win the approval of all of the people.
This is largely the reason why many Afghans prefer to rule of the Taliban over the occupation of American soldiers. While the Taliban has oppressed the people for years and has subjugated women, they are still one of them and for better or worse have been feeding and housing them and putting them in a sort of arrested development with secularism. They are at least familiar with the Taliban. Furthermore, as the drone bombings continue in Afghanistan, it tips the average Afghan's sentiment towards the anti-Western rhetoric of groups like the Taliban.
Furthermore, the Taliban is not the key enemy of the United States. The Taliban had very little involvement in 9/11. In his book the Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright explains that many in the Taliban were in fact concerned when Osama Bin Laden and his group al-Qaeda traveled to Afghanistan and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar began allying with him. Their alliance has always been a tentative one and they had almost no hand in planning the actual terrorist attacks on 9/11; the reason we began a war in Afghanistan in the first place was because that is where we believed al-Qaeda was hiding. Yet now that it is revealed that less than 100 members of al-Qaeda are in Afghanistan and most are in Pakistan, the question must be asked, why is the US occupying Afghanistan?
In the end, it seems like America is in a horrible predicament when it comes to Afghanistan. Three weeks ago, the War in Afghanistan became the longest war in Afghanistan, surpassing the Vietnam War. In many ways, America faces the same crisis that it faced in Vietnam; the US is in a war not with a national force but rather with a stateless faction that will perpetually terrorize US forces. On one hand, America can choose to stay in Afghanistan and ride out the stalemate for hundreds of years or it will walk out without a victory or defeat and therefore give the Taliban and al-Qaeda exactly what they desire.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Charlie Crist is a symptom of an Even bigger problem for the GOP
On April 28th, news broke that Florida Governor and current Senate Candidate Charlie Crist would be leaving the Republican Party and running for Senate as an Independent. The story is on the heels of very poor performance by Crist, which has him trailing in the race for Senate against far-right firebrand and former Florida Speaker of the House Marco Rubio. Crist has been repeatedly slagged by the GOP base for his support for the Obama Administration's Economic Recovery plan, as well as his noted criticism of offshore drilling in Florida, a gulf state.
Consequently, Crist, not a man known for getting into a fray-he notably kept silent as Florida Attorney General during the Terry Schiavo case-has been in a fight for the very future of his career in politics. In a poll conducted last week, Rubio was seen as leading the race with 37%, with Crist at 30% and Democratic Congressman Kendrick Meek at 22%. In a nationally televised debate with Rubio, Crist was seen floundering and reduced to mudslinging. All of this culminated in Crist leaving the Republican party and running as an Independent.
The response to Crist's switch has not surprisingly vile. Many members of the GOP who endorsed Crist have renegged their support and supported Rubio. The local GOP even put out a newsletter demanding none of their members vote for Crist. John Cornyn, head of the Republican Senatorial Campaign committee has asked that Crist return the campaign funds given to him by the GOP. In essence, Crist was driven out by an angry mob and told never to come back.
However, Crist's political banishment is not an isolated case. Ironically enough, on April 28th of last year, longtime champion of the moderates in the Republican Party, Arlen Specter, announced he would leave the Republican Party to become a Democrat after it was announced that Pat Toomey, a member of the ultra-conservative interest group the Club for Growth, would be running to the right of Specter in the 2010 senate race. Like Crist, Specter's main crime was support of Obama's Economic Recovery Act and given the dubious title from the Club for Growth of "Comrade of the Week" despite his unabashed support of the Iraq War and gun rights.
In addition, many stalwarts of the Republican Party are facing challenges from the growing far right fringe of the party. Utah Senator Bob Bennett, one of the most conservative members of the Senate is facing multiple challengers from the far right. Even John McCain, the Arizona Senator who was the Republican Party's Nominee for President in the 2008 election, is facing a challenger from the right in disgraced former Arizona Congressman JD Hayworth.
As a result, many GOP Senators that typically would work together with Democrats on issues like energy and financial reform have been forced to say no to virtually everything proposed in Congress for fear that they will become subject to the rage of the Tea Partiers and 9/12ers. This shift to the right in the Republican party is slowly turning the GOP into an ideological party that will not be able to win nationwide elections.
In a recent poll, it was revealed that the biggest voting bloc in America is now independent voters who are disillusioned with both parties. They do not necessarily want to have higher taxes or more intervention from the left, but also do not want government completely out of their business lives and make America into a theocracy as some on the far right want it to be. While the Democratic party has increasingly moved to the center over the course of the past fifteen years, the GOP has become an ideological party that only caters to the beliefs of only a small fraction of Americans.
Furthermore this purge is clearly un-Republican. Case in point, the RNC recently put out litmus test called the Reagan Purity Test, which was named after the principle that Reagan once stated where if someone agreed with Reagan 8/10 times they were on his side. Members who received less than 8/10 would not receive support. However, if Ronald Reagan himself had taken the test he would have failed the test miserably. Reagan famously cut and ran from the Middle East after Marines were killed in Lebanon, raised taxes 11 times during his Presidency and signed the Brady Bill for Gun Control. If the GOP continues this purge, they risk going the way of the Whigs, and the Federalists; only a fringe group of lunatics meeting in basements, hoping for a revival of their ideas that will never come.
Consequently, Crist, not a man known for getting into a fray-he notably kept silent as Florida Attorney General during the Terry Schiavo case-has been in a fight for the very future of his career in politics. In a poll conducted last week, Rubio was seen as leading the race with 37%, with Crist at 30% and Democratic Congressman Kendrick Meek at 22%. In a nationally televised debate with Rubio, Crist was seen floundering and reduced to mudslinging. All of this culminated in Crist leaving the Republican party and running as an Independent.
The response to Crist's switch has not surprisingly vile. Many members of the GOP who endorsed Crist have renegged their support and supported Rubio. The local GOP even put out a newsletter demanding none of their members vote for Crist. John Cornyn, head of the Republican Senatorial Campaign committee has asked that Crist return the campaign funds given to him by the GOP. In essence, Crist was driven out by an angry mob and told never to come back.
However, Crist's political banishment is not an isolated case. Ironically enough, on April 28th of last year, longtime champion of the moderates in the Republican Party, Arlen Specter, announced he would leave the Republican Party to become a Democrat after it was announced that Pat Toomey, a member of the ultra-conservative interest group the Club for Growth, would be running to the right of Specter in the 2010 senate race. Like Crist, Specter's main crime was support of Obama's Economic Recovery Act and given the dubious title from the Club for Growth of "Comrade of the Week" despite his unabashed support of the Iraq War and gun rights.
In addition, many stalwarts of the Republican Party are facing challenges from the growing far right fringe of the party. Utah Senator Bob Bennett, one of the most conservative members of the Senate is facing multiple challengers from the far right. Even John McCain, the Arizona Senator who was the Republican Party's Nominee for President in the 2008 election, is facing a challenger from the right in disgraced former Arizona Congressman JD Hayworth.
As a result, many GOP Senators that typically would work together with Democrats on issues like energy and financial reform have been forced to say no to virtually everything proposed in Congress for fear that they will become subject to the rage of the Tea Partiers and 9/12ers. This shift to the right in the Republican party is slowly turning the GOP into an ideological party that will not be able to win nationwide elections.
In a recent poll, it was revealed that the biggest voting bloc in America is now independent voters who are disillusioned with both parties. They do not necessarily want to have higher taxes or more intervention from the left, but also do not want government completely out of their business lives and make America into a theocracy as some on the far right want it to be. While the Democratic party has increasingly moved to the center over the course of the past fifteen years, the GOP has become an ideological party that only caters to the beliefs of only a small fraction of Americans.
Furthermore this purge is clearly un-Republican. Case in point, the RNC recently put out litmus test called the Reagan Purity Test, which was named after the principle that Reagan once stated where if someone agreed with Reagan 8/10 times they were on his side. Members who received less than 8/10 would not receive support. However, if Ronald Reagan himself had taken the test he would have failed the test miserably. Reagan famously cut and ran from the Middle East after Marines were killed in Lebanon, raised taxes 11 times during his Presidency and signed the Brady Bill for Gun Control. If the GOP continues this purge, they risk going the way of the Whigs, and the Federalists; only a fringe group of lunatics meeting in basements, hoping for a revival of their ideas that will never come.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Jeff Beck brings an Orchestra and Keeps Guitarists' Jaws on the Floor
As the battle for the California Governorship rages between Meg Whitman and her billion dollar advertising schtick and the painfully low key campaign of Jerry Brown, the state of California was treated to a different kind of Guv'nor on April 17th, as Jeff Beck took to the stage at the Nokia Theater. Beck is currently on tour in promotion of his wonderful new album, Emotion and Commotion, where he teams his guitar fireworks with a 64-piece orchestra to create his first studio record in seven years. To perform the material from the new record, Beck has taken a full string, horn and percussion section in tow with him. When needed, a light shines on the orhestra and conductor. When their time is done, the lights go off and are only on Beck, bassist Rhonda, Smith, keyboardist Jason Rebello, and drummer Narada Michael Walden.
For many years, Jeff has been labeled a grumpy Englishman with a volatile temperament that has often prevented him from enjoying great success; he famously broke up the first incarnation of the Jeff Beck Group on the eve of Woodstock, quite possibly missing the opportunity to receive the adulation that peers like Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page and Jimi Hendrix would later receive. A noted perfectionist, many of his partnerships with other musicians have ended acriminously.
However, in recent years, Beck has been enjoying himself and as a result, he has been reaping greater results. A few years ago, he hired manager Harvey Goldsmith and has been having astronomical success. In 2007, he was featured at Eric Clapton's Crossroads Guitar Festival and put on a memorable 11 song set that was captured on DVD. He put out the phenomenal Live at Ronnie Scott's CD/DVD in 2008, which earned him a Grammy for his instrumental version of the Beatles' "A Day in the Life." In 2009, he was inducted by childhood friend, Led Zeppelin founder, and fellow Yardbird, Jimmy Page into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for his solo efforts(he had previously been inducted, along with Page, Eric Clapton and others as a member of the Yardbirds) and put on a memorable set and closed out the ceremony by jamming with Page, Rolling Stone guitarist Ron Wood, Flea, Joe Perry, and Metallica on the Yardbirds classic "Train Kept A 'Rollin." Later that summer, he finally buried the hatchet with fellow British guitar legend Eric Clapton for legendary sets in Tokyo, Japan which led to a mini tour with Clapton in England, New York City and Toronto.
This night, Beck was seen as someone who had nothing to prove to anyone but himself. After an impressive set by Zappa Plays Zappa-a band that features Dweezil son of absurdist composer Frank Zappa playing his father's material-Beck strutted out on the stage in a sleeveless button-up with flames, John Lennon Glasses, White Space boots and purple-striped sweats, toting his legendary white Fender Stratocaster. The entire audience had their jaws agape as Beck opened with "Stratus."
Throughout each song, drummer Walden, a new addition to the band, made sure his presence was known. Aptly dressed in an attire slightly resembled a sushi chef, he proceded to chop of the rhythm and pummel through Beck's riffing and giving a firm grounding to the improvisation going on with the rest of the band. Bassist Rhonda Smith, another new addition, proved her proweress on the four string with slapping bass solos and melodic lines that weaved in and out of the melodies of the song, as well as providing stellar vocals with Walden on Sly and the Family Stone's "I Want to Take you Higher" and on her own, morphing Muddy Water's "Rollin' and Tumblin'" from a Delta Blues rollicker to a dark, hoodoo tinged dirge, aided by robotic vocals by Rebello, proving that in scarity and in the right place, auto-tune does not make you want to shoot yourself.
The real players to keep your eye on however, were the orchestra. On songs like "Corpus Christi Carol" and "Somewhere over the Rainbow" the orchestra provides beautiful atmospheres, allowing Jeff to mimic the vocal lines, by way of manipulating his guitar's whammy bar and volume knobs. Where most guitarists keep their volume knobs on ten, Jeff uses his to create crescendos and swelling sounds, giving his licks a vocal feel and where other guitarists use the whammy bar solely for guitar theatrics, Beck uses it to add extra vibrato to the notes. When coupled with a full orchestra, Beck's guitar turns from a crying maiden to a powerful operatic singer, capable of tenor to baritone.
This does not diminish Jeff's abilities when playing solely with his band however. On songs like "Space Boogie" and my personal favorite "Big Block" Jeff's guitar attacks like Andrew Jackson at Horseshoe Bend, destroying everything in its path. Other places, he is capable of playing his guitar with absolute grace such as his version of Curtis Mayfield's "People Get Ready," all the while looking so cool, even when he dropped his slide on the song "Angel (Footsteps)."
Beck closed out his initial set with his aforementioned Grammy-winning arrangement of the Beatles "A Day in the Life." This was the only case of the orchestra performing a song not on the new album, as when Beck initially recorded the song, he did so with a full orchestra, per the request of Beatles producer Sir George Martin. On this song, Beck is able to perfectly affectate the tenderness in John Lennon's voice on the Sgt. Pepper classic as well as the violence of the climax in the middle, and when aided by the orchestra, becomes a guitar wizard. By the end of the song, there was not a person sitting in their seat; everyone was applauding or roaring with adulation.
For the encore Beck returned with Rebello playing guitar and Beck pulling out the classic black Les Paul seen on the cover sleeve his bestselling LP, Blow by Blow. He did so, he said in honor of late guitar innovator Les Paul, who died this past August. Beck had become close friends with Les over the years and Beck actually inducted him into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988. Earlier this year, Beck performed with Imelda May, who appears on his new album, for a righteous version of the Les Paul/Mary Ford chestnut "How High the Moon." Here, Beck reprised that performance. Beck was faithful to the original, not deviating from Les' spaghetti string lines. It was a memorable moment because it reminded people that Jeff is a musician just like anyone else and he has heroes and people he looked up to; it gave this seemingly non-human guitar warrior a shade of humanity.
For the closer, Beck and the orchestra performed "Nessun Dorma" from Turnadot. Here, Beck flowed with the orchestra and followed the peaks and valleys. However, by the end, he would not be denied and there he stood, at 65 years old, soaring high above every other guitarist; a monument to the beauty of the six string. At the end, during the applause, Beck said "I have nothing left." If that is the case, he can certainly walk away from this set with a sense of pride.
For many years, Jeff has been labeled a grumpy Englishman with a volatile temperament that has often prevented him from enjoying great success; he famously broke up the first incarnation of the Jeff Beck Group on the eve of Woodstock, quite possibly missing the opportunity to receive the adulation that peers like Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page and Jimi Hendrix would later receive. A noted perfectionist, many of his partnerships with other musicians have ended acriminously.
However, in recent years, Beck has been enjoying himself and as a result, he has been reaping greater results. A few years ago, he hired manager Harvey Goldsmith and has been having astronomical success. In 2007, he was featured at Eric Clapton's Crossroads Guitar Festival and put on a memorable 11 song set that was captured on DVD. He put out the phenomenal Live at Ronnie Scott's CD/DVD in 2008, which earned him a Grammy for his instrumental version of the Beatles' "A Day in the Life." In 2009, he was inducted by childhood friend, Led Zeppelin founder, and fellow Yardbird, Jimmy Page into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for his solo efforts(he had previously been inducted, along with Page, Eric Clapton and others as a member of the Yardbirds) and put on a memorable set and closed out the ceremony by jamming with Page, Rolling Stone guitarist Ron Wood, Flea, Joe Perry, and Metallica on the Yardbirds classic "Train Kept A 'Rollin." Later that summer, he finally buried the hatchet with fellow British guitar legend Eric Clapton for legendary sets in Tokyo, Japan which led to a mini tour with Clapton in England, New York City and Toronto.
This night, Beck was seen as someone who had nothing to prove to anyone but himself. After an impressive set by Zappa Plays Zappa-a band that features Dweezil son of absurdist composer Frank Zappa playing his father's material-Beck strutted out on the stage in a sleeveless button-up with flames, John Lennon Glasses, White Space boots and purple-striped sweats, toting his legendary white Fender Stratocaster. The entire audience had their jaws agape as Beck opened with "Stratus."
Throughout each song, drummer Walden, a new addition to the band, made sure his presence was known. Aptly dressed in an attire slightly resembled a sushi chef, he proceded to chop of the rhythm and pummel through Beck's riffing and giving a firm grounding to the improvisation going on with the rest of the band. Bassist Rhonda Smith, another new addition, proved her proweress on the four string with slapping bass solos and melodic lines that weaved in and out of the melodies of the song, as well as providing stellar vocals with Walden on Sly and the Family Stone's "I Want to Take you Higher" and on her own, morphing Muddy Water's "Rollin' and Tumblin'" from a Delta Blues rollicker to a dark, hoodoo tinged dirge, aided by robotic vocals by Rebello, proving that in scarity and in the right place, auto-tune does not make you want to shoot yourself.
The real players to keep your eye on however, were the orchestra. On songs like "Corpus Christi Carol" and "Somewhere over the Rainbow" the orchestra provides beautiful atmospheres, allowing Jeff to mimic the vocal lines, by way of manipulating his guitar's whammy bar and volume knobs. Where most guitarists keep their volume knobs on ten, Jeff uses his to create crescendos and swelling sounds, giving his licks a vocal feel and where other guitarists use the whammy bar solely for guitar theatrics, Beck uses it to add extra vibrato to the notes. When coupled with a full orchestra, Beck's guitar turns from a crying maiden to a powerful operatic singer, capable of tenor to baritone.
This does not diminish Jeff's abilities when playing solely with his band however. On songs like "Space Boogie" and my personal favorite "Big Block" Jeff's guitar attacks like Andrew Jackson at Horseshoe Bend, destroying everything in its path. Other places, he is capable of playing his guitar with absolute grace such as his version of Curtis Mayfield's "People Get Ready," all the while looking so cool, even when he dropped his slide on the song "Angel (Footsteps)."
Beck closed out his initial set with his aforementioned Grammy-winning arrangement of the Beatles "A Day in the Life." This was the only case of the orchestra performing a song not on the new album, as when Beck initially recorded the song, he did so with a full orchestra, per the request of Beatles producer Sir George Martin. On this song, Beck is able to perfectly affectate the tenderness in John Lennon's voice on the Sgt. Pepper classic as well as the violence of the climax in the middle, and when aided by the orchestra, becomes a guitar wizard. By the end of the song, there was not a person sitting in their seat; everyone was applauding or roaring with adulation.
For the encore Beck returned with Rebello playing guitar and Beck pulling out the classic black Les Paul seen on the cover sleeve his bestselling LP, Blow by Blow. He did so, he said in honor of late guitar innovator Les Paul, who died this past August. Beck had become close friends with Les over the years and Beck actually inducted him into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988. Earlier this year, Beck performed with Imelda May, who appears on his new album, for a righteous version of the Les Paul/Mary Ford chestnut "How High the Moon." Here, Beck reprised that performance. Beck was faithful to the original, not deviating from Les' spaghetti string lines. It was a memorable moment because it reminded people that Jeff is a musician just like anyone else and he has heroes and people he looked up to; it gave this seemingly non-human guitar warrior a shade of humanity.
For the closer, Beck and the orchestra performed "Nessun Dorma" from Turnadot. Here, Beck flowed with the orchestra and followed the peaks and valleys. However, by the end, he would not be denied and there he stood, at 65 years old, soaring high above every other guitarist; a monument to the beauty of the six string. At the end, during the applause, Beck said "I have nothing left." If that is the case, he can certainly walk away from this set with a sense of pride.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Review of Emotion & Commotion
Ask anybody to name a famous guitar player from the 1960s-70s Big Bang of Rock and Roll you will likely hear a few familiar names. You will either hear somebody talk about the bluesy explosion of notes that was Eric Clapton in the Bluesbreakers and Cream, or you will hear someone ramble on about the Black Magik conjured by Jimmy Page in Led Zeppelin, both of whom got their start in British Blues-rockers the Yardbirds. However, if you ask a guitarist to name one of the greats from that era and it is very likely they will name Jeff Beck.
When Eric Clapton quit the Yardbirds over his objection to their decidedly more commercial direction, it was Jeff Beck who filled in and turned the Yardbirds from a cover band into one of the most influential bands of that era. After leaving, he teamed up with future chart topper Rod Stewart and future Rolling Stone, Ron Wood to form the Jeff Beck Group, a band that many consider one of the first heavy metal groups. However, after two albums, Beck had grown tired of the band and began dabbling in more unconventional styles, blending blues with fusion, Indian, Bulgarian folk and electronica. and over the years he has put out instrumental records as well as collaborating with Stevie Wonder, ZZ Top, Imogen Heap and Luciano Pavarotti. He has just enough fame to sustain himself, but enough anonymity to maintain his integrity.
If there is one compliment that is relished on Jeff the most it is that he makes his guitar "sing," in that most of his albums are instrumental yet he is able to emote so much that nobody really misses the vocals; he never wanks like say Yngwie Malmsteen. On Emotion and Commotion, we catch Jeff's ten fingers and six strings singing better than they ever have. Here, Geoff supplements his phenomenal touring band of drummer Vinnie Colaiuta, Bassist Tal Wilkenfeld and keyboardist Jason Rebello with a 64-piece orchestra.
Whenever rock musicians decide to use orchestras, it is always a high wire act; the results are either wonderfully profound or insipidly pretentious. However, with Jeff, instead of using the orchestra to be a bed for him to lay his guitar riffs on, he instead chooses to flow with the orchestra. He is the soloist in his pieces but never drowns out the beauty of the strings or the horns. On the opener, "Corpus Christi Carol"-written by another famous Jeff, Buckley-the orchestra becomes the band on the original vocal while Jeff turns makes his guitar convey all of the glory of the original. On "Somewhere over the Rainbow," a song that is covered so often it can make even the biggest fan vomit, Jeff uses the whammy bar of his Stratocaster create the bounce in Judy Garland's original vocal performance.
Jeff also finds time to perform bits his own Jeff-ness. On "Hammerhead," Jeff proves you can make an orchestra really groove, as he goes on an the warpath in a violent Hendrixian fury, brutalizing his guitar until it begs for mercy. On "Never Alone," Jeff dabbles in Africana, having the rhythm section use shakers to create a tribal sound while he uses his guitar to make sounds of chanting. On "Serene," a jazzier number, Jeff lowers the volume but far from tones it down. He plays clever runs that would make John McLaughlin grin and lets bassist Tal Wilkenfeld, a 24 year old Australian woman with enough talent to keep Beck on his toes, take her own blistering solo.
While Jeff has proven over the years that he does not need a singer, whenever he does collaborate with one, fireworks are bound to happen. On the song "Lilac Wine," he teams up with Irish singer Imelda May for a hauntingly beautiful introspection. The song goes back and forth from minor to major to create the feeling of fluctuating emotions. In between May's lines of self reflection, Jeff plays beautifully fingerpicked lines that cacade over the orchestra's flourishes. Elsewhere, Jeff joins forces with British soul songstress, Joss Stone. Stone famously sang on a cover of Curtis Mayfield's "People Get Ready" with Beck during his weeklong stint at Ronnie Scott's Jazz Club, which can be seen on Live at Ronnie Scott's. Here they reprise their partnership on the violent screed "There's no Other Me," where Stone tugs at her vocal chords and spars with Beck's wailing guitars over a dub beat. But the hallmark of their collaboration comes when they cover the Screamin' Jay Hawkins/Nina Simone classic "I've Put a Spell on You." Beck and Stone capture all of the bayou hoodoo of the original on this track, and you can imagine Stone dressed as a gypsy with a crystal ball, and Beck puts on his best Albert King impersonation with his fills.
The gems of the whole album by far though are the versions of "Nessun Dorma" from the opera Turnadot and "Elegy for Dunkirk" from the film Atonement. On "Elegy," Beck uses Olivia safe for a duet while using the volume knob on his Stratocaster to make his guitar crescendo and descend, giving it a violin-like quality. On "Nessun Dorma," he starts out quietly, but as the song progresses, he weaves in and out of the orchestra, changing with the mood to culminate in a beautiful burst of ecstasy by the end of the song.
In rock's pantheon, good guitar players are a dime a dozen and many great guitarists fall off the face of the earth. However, Jeff Beck has proven that one can take the road less traveled and have a sustainable, long lasting career. He will probably never have the fame that his contemporaries have enjoyed but he has something that few in today's modern business can lay claim to: integrity; and that has led to him receiving the adulation and respect of his peers.
When Eric Clapton quit the Yardbirds over his objection to their decidedly more commercial direction, it was Jeff Beck who filled in and turned the Yardbirds from a cover band into one of the most influential bands of that era. After leaving, he teamed up with future chart topper Rod Stewart and future Rolling Stone, Ron Wood to form the Jeff Beck Group, a band that many consider one of the first heavy metal groups. However, after two albums, Beck had grown tired of the band and began dabbling in more unconventional styles, blending blues with fusion, Indian, Bulgarian folk and electronica. and over the years he has put out instrumental records as well as collaborating with Stevie Wonder, ZZ Top, Imogen Heap and Luciano Pavarotti. He has just enough fame to sustain himself, but enough anonymity to maintain his integrity.
If there is one compliment that is relished on Jeff the most it is that he makes his guitar "sing," in that most of his albums are instrumental yet he is able to emote so much that nobody really misses the vocals; he never wanks like say Yngwie Malmsteen. On Emotion and Commotion, we catch Jeff's ten fingers and six strings singing better than they ever have. Here, Geoff supplements his phenomenal touring band of drummer Vinnie Colaiuta, Bassist Tal Wilkenfeld and keyboardist Jason Rebello with a 64-piece orchestra.
Whenever rock musicians decide to use orchestras, it is always a high wire act; the results are either wonderfully profound or insipidly pretentious. However, with Jeff, instead of using the orchestra to be a bed for him to lay his guitar riffs on, he instead chooses to flow with the orchestra. He is the soloist in his pieces but never drowns out the beauty of the strings or the horns. On the opener, "Corpus Christi Carol"-written by another famous Jeff, Buckley-the orchestra becomes the band on the original vocal while Jeff turns makes his guitar convey all of the glory of the original. On "Somewhere over the Rainbow," a song that is covered so often it can make even the biggest fan vomit, Jeff uses the whammy bar of his Stratocaster create the bounce in Judy Garland's original vocal performance.
Jeff also finds time to perform bits his own Jeff-ness. On "Hammerhead," Jeff proves you can make an orchestra really groove, as he goes on an the warpath in a violent Hendrixian fury, brutalizing his guitar until it begs for mercy. On "Never Alone," Jeff dabbles in Africana, having the rhythm section use shakers to create a tribal sound while he uses his guitar to make sounds of chanting. On "Serene," a jazzier number, Jeff lowers the volume but far from tones it down. He plays clever runs that would make John McLaughlin grin and lets bassist Tal Wilkenfeld, a 24 year old Australian woman with enough talent to keep Beck on his toes, take her own blistering solo.
While Jeff has proven over the years that he does not need a singer, whenever he does collaborate with one, fireworks are bound to happen. On the song "Lilac Wine," he teams up with Irish singer Imelda May for a hauntingly beautiful introspection. The song goes back and forth from minor to major to create the feeling of fluctuating emotions. In between May's lines of self reflection, Jeff plays beautifully fingerpicked lines that cacade over the orchestra's flourishes. Elsewhere, Jeff joins forces with British soul songstress, Joss Stone. Stone famously sang on a cover of Curtis Mayfield's "People Get Ready" with Beck during his weeklong stint at Ronnie Scott's Jazz Club, which can be seen on Live at Ronnie Scott's. Here they reprise their partnership on the violent screed "There's no Other Me," where Stone tugs at her vocal chords and spars with Beck's wailing guitars over a dub beat. But the hallmark of their collaboration comes when they cover the Screamin' Jay Hawkins/Nina Simone classic "I've Put a Spell on You." Beck and Stone capture all of the bayou hoodoo of the original on this track, and you can imagine Stone dressed as a gypsy with a crystal ball, and Beck puts on his best Albert King impersonation with his fills.
The gems of the whole album by far though are the versions of "Nessun Dorma" from the opera Turnadot and "Elegy for Dunkirk" from the film Atonement. On "Elegy," Beck uses Olivia safe for a duet while using the volume knob on his Stratocaster to make his guitar crescendo and descend, giving it a violin-like quality. On "Nessun Dorma," he starts out quietly, but as the song progresses, he weaves in and out of the orchestra, changing with the mood to culminate in a beautiful burst of ecstasy by the end of the song.
In rock's pantheon, good guitar players are a dime a dozen and many great guitarists fall off the face of the earth. However, Jeff Beck has proven that one can take the road less traveled and have a sustainable, long lasting career. He will probably never have the fame that his contemporaries have enjoyed but he has something that few in today's modern business can lay claim to: integrity; and that has led to him receiving the adulation and respect of his peers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
