It was a while before I found out about the "real" name of the group, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis. This is a key and profoundly interesting distinction. Macklemore is the rapper. He writes the lyrics and helps compose the music. He could (and by all standard practices, should) be a solo act. He chose to include Lewis, his producer, as an integral part of the group.
The Macklemore story is feel-good. I suspect that's part of the reason this album was nominated (the others being the novelty of his skin color and his socially conscious lyrics). An independent rapper, rising from the oddly mean streets of Seattle and finding an internet audience completely outside the traditional music industry (explained and pilloried on "Jimmy Iovine"). But it is Lewis's inspired production decisions that make this album great (and probably made Macklemore's career).
It's not super original - you could say a number of the beats, combinations, and innovations are derivative of Kanye's best (early) stuff. But hip-hop has always been a genre of homage (if not blatant theft). If The Heist takes home the big award, it will be a combination of the story, the lyrics, the popularity, and the production - but it wouldn't happen without the production (there's even an instrumental! on a rap album!).
I just finished reading volume 1 of Mark Lewisohn's Beatles history and I can help but appreciate how much production and management can mean to even the most talented artists. Macklemore is not the most talented, but he's a voice me may not have heard of without an amazing conglomeration of happenstance.
Everyone loves the big hits - "Can't Hold Us" is among the best fun-dance songs in recent years (and my one and half year old daughter still raises her hands for every chorus with a smile on her face). The real gems are the REAL gems - those tracks dealing with real problems and real issues. It seems even more care was put into the production and writing of songs they knew would never be widely popular.
Songs like "Wing$" and "Neon Cathedral" are just deep, fantastic - and infused with overt religious influence, which appeals to the pastor in me. I've often shouted that Christianity isn't at all about religion, but about living life well; Macklemore gets this in profound ways; I'd call them prophetic. I have no idea what his relationship to fame is, but there's clearly something at work there tapping into a larger conflict between the reality of life and the idealism of what should be that underscores religion.
Finally, I knew about "Same Love" and had heard a few clips, but not until today had I heard the whole track. I knew it was THE track from the album, even though I hadn't heard it on the radio at all, it was the nominee for all the individual song awards. I suspected some of that was the cultural hype over it's subject matter: homophobia and equality. It's a massive track. I suspect it will win a lot of awards. Grounded by a great hook (calling it a hook is probably an insult) by Mary Lambert, there is a depth of connection and importance to this track beyond even the other well done numbers. Macklemore's lyrics are as tight as anywhere, well written and, you can tell, edited with sweat and late nights.
There are some lesser tracks ("White Walls", for one). Nothing throw-away like a typical pop album, probably because Macklemore had plenty of time to put together good songs with no pressure from a label to produce. Still, it's not hit after hit and that should be emphasized (since I so greatly enthused over the parts which are so very good).
Just when you're realizing that maybe it's just a bunch of well produced but otherwise unexciting tracks, with some phenomenal bits mixed in, then Macklemore throws something like "Starting Over" at you - a deep, profoundly personal exploration of relapsing from his sobriety.
This is the first album I've reviewed that I think has a legit shot to win. They all have a shot and are all deserving in their own way, of course, but you can listen and tell who the frontrunners are going to be. I've heard Daft Punk's Random Access Memories before, several times, which is why I'm saving it for last in the review (due the day of the Grammy's) but The Heist is the first album that's making me rethink my initial position: that this award is Daft Punk's to lose. I still suspect Random Access Memories is a more fully-formed album, as it should be given Daft Punk's experience, but they've got to be worried about The Heist - and that's pretty downright amazing for an opening act.
This isn't going to be a diatribe against home schooling. We all know some people do that well and others do it poorly. It's not really against private education or charter schools or online school or any other alternative form of education. My wife was home schooled for half her education; I went to a private high school. I am all for people choosing the best course of action for their kids. I know a lot of people who have special circumstances or needs and make decisions accordingly. I don't want to disparage the choices other have made, but I wanted to lay down why we're committed to public education for our daughter.
First off, it's not because public education is great. It's not. The reason private schools and home schools and charter schools, even unschool, are so popular is because there are a often a lot better ways to educate the next generation than the way it's done in public school. That's just fact.
It's also not because my wife is a public school teacher. Although, having and supporting public schools is what keeps our family in food and clothing. My wife, while certainly not paid what she deserves for the time she puts in, is well compensated. The salary and benefits provided by the State of Delaware allow us to live comfortably. For that I'm really grateful.
For the most part, when it all comes down, we choose public schools because some kids don't have the option.
I spent some time in Kansas City, volunteering at a youth center that worked with what might be called "at risk" kids. More than anything, it gave a little peek into what had been (and maybe still is?) one of the more dysfunctional public school systems in this country. Oddly, though, their chosen method of redress, lots of charter schools, didn't seem to solve any problems. In fact, things kept getting worse.
I noticed that most every kid whose parents were in any way on the ball, were able to apply for and be admitted to a charter school of some kind. Yes, some are better than others and some are downright awful. But, over time, given the system, we could assume that the best schools would emerge and, if given enough space, could accommodate any kids whose family wanted them there.
One of the big reasons for such charter success, however, is the ability to turn kids down. Whether because of learning difficulties beyond the scope of the school, parents unwilling to be involved, or the downright lack of proper decorum from the student themselves, the really "tough" kids got funneled back into public school. Public schools that were then comprised almost entirely of students with no parental support.
I guess what it boils down to is our belief that we're (and this is the proverbial we, not just my wife and I) - we're not just responsible for the education of our own children, but for the education of all children. As unfair as it seems, we're not isolated individuals; we are necessarily interconnected.
The average cost of keeping someone in prison, even at its most favorable ratio*, is a little more than twice the cost of educating them. We pay for other people's kids one way or another.
Any large, public institution is going to have problems - and change is going to be difficult to come by. That's the nature of the beast. Public education has its own unique and often outrageous series of challenges. There are lots of good, honest, caring people who work tirelessly to improve our public education system, while also providing an alternative education for their own kids. That's an important choice and one I won't disparage in any way.
For us, though, we value having that skin in the game. I think it provides a bit more credibility to speak where speaking is needed. There's real value in true solidarity. It's easier to combat poverty if you live in the midst of it. It's more painful, for sure, but its a shared pain. And, not to bring theology into this (although I am a preacher), but if there's one thing that makes God truly worthy of worship it's God's decision to enter into our pain and suffer with us.
My daughter may not get the same depth and rigor in public school that she could get other places, but with active and involved parents, we're not really worried about her learning what she needs to learn to get into college. I'm even more excited about her being part of a flawed community that works together, for good and for ill, to try and live life well.
Our best efforts will not keep our daughter from pain and suffering - neither her's, nor others' - but we would like to instill in her the notion that there are no hopeless causes.
I recognize this post can sound like I view public schools as a terrible place in need of redemption. All things (and people) need redemption, of course. But for all its faults, there are a lot of dedicated people who give their lives to making public education the best it can be. My wife is one of those people - and she works with a lot of others.
There are lots of great public schools with great students who provide the kind of high class education that most alternatives can only dream of providing. It can be and is done well in a lot of places.
In the end, though, most people would be supportive of successful schools, those that provide a great education to everyone. In the end, though, there are kids who fall through the cracks - sometimes willfully, sometimes through no fault of their own - and we're committed to following them down those cracks and being present in any way we can.
Public education is where that happens and so it's where we need to be. We'll bring our daughter along because we want to be sure every child knows they are as important to us as she is.
*The highest average per pupil spending average I could find is around $11,500; the lowest average per inmate spending average I could find is around $25,000. Most estimates places the cost of incarceration between 7 and 10 times higher than the cost of education, but I want to be as fair as possible.
This is a children's book with the text taken from Desmond Tutu's Children of God Storybook Bible and the illustration done by Nancy Tillman, who's also done On the Night You Were Born and the favorite of my household, Wherever You Go, My Love Will Find You (I try to read it to my daughter every day).
The text is quite recognizable to anyone familiar with modern Bible translations, but is infused with the depth and whimsy of Archbishop Tutu's many years loving and struggling with and alongside the beloved people of his native South Africa. You won't find attempts to bring this children's work into the fights over evolution; Tutu's words focus on the purpose and beauty of God's creation in ways that illumine the mind and bring joy to the heart.
Tillman's illustrations are possibly her best work to date. Using her typical style and variety of mixed media, she brings out the vastness of the simple text, while also supplying art of pronounced subtlety, captivating the adult and child alike.
My daughter is only one and a half, but she enjoys the vivid pictures and will certainly only grow more fond of this book as she matures.
I really like this book and I hope these authors continue to collaborate on future projects.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze.com® book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
The real problem, as I see it, is the way we embody it.
Often it becomes intertwined with the scriptural pronouncement to "speak the truth in love." Many have argued that it's unloving to avoid pointing out sin in someone's life if you see it. The reasoning behind this is that such sin will inevitably lead to problems in the person's life and perhaps affect their eternal destiny. The other analogy is "if I saw someone walking towards the edge of a cliff, I'd let them know they were in danger."
Again, in theory, all of this makes sense. If you really feel like someone's life choices are going to hurt them, you shouldn't keep quiet about it. You also shouldn't make those objections the primary basis of communicative interaction between the two of you. I've seen plenty of people who make loving truth-telling their only means of "loving the sinner."
Sometimes we forget that there needs to be a relationship before we can speak into someone's life that way. You can't just walk up to strangers and tell them what they're doing is wrong - at least you can't do that if you also expect them to respect your opinion. Those drive by condemnations, while, I guess, morally upstanding, are (literally) practically useless.
The reason is, for there to be any real consideration, any dialog, any hope for people to change their behavior (if that's even necessary), is for people to have an understanding of how the other person thinks and what they believe.
I hear, "hate the sin; love the sinner" all the time in situations where the parties do not agree on the definition of sin.
That's sort of a key ingredient. If you're going to tell someone they should stop "sinning," it might be helpful to first check and see if they believe what they're doing is somehow sinful. For this to be a productive engagement, we have to have the same understanding of sin, the same rule of life. Is killing in war a sin? Lots of people read the same passages and come to different conclusions. It's not so easy as pointing things out. We don't always agree.
Now it's a different story if you both know something is wrong, of course. Then you're on the same team - you're both hating the sin even as one of you (and maybe both) are doing it. There's a relationship there and a real benefit to loving someone struggling to stop something they don't want to do.
That doesn't help when there's no agreement. It just makes people mad and defensive. Any chance you have of actually convincing someone of your point of view goes out the window when you call theirs wrong out of hand. Even if it is wrong. It's just bad form to say so.
I've found things are much more helpful when you speak only for yourself. "I couldn't justify doing that and here's why." Then you invite the "other" into a conversation about beliefs and perspectives and you can walk together through the thought processes that bring you to your respective conclusions.
It's a sign of respect. Not presuming to know more than someone else, especially when it's an action or belief they have.
Here's where we make the digression to post-modern conceptions of truth. The obvious retort is that truth is truth, sin is sin and there's no reason beating around the bush. You can't allow people to believe in something that's wrong. It's unloving.
I make no bones about it. I believe Truth is a person, Jesus Christ. After that, I'd say truth can be pretty relative, given the situation, since we're all just trying to figure out what to do based on our perspective on truth. Truth isn't a concept or a proposition. It's a relationship you can only approach gradually (or, in scriptural language, something you see as through a glass, dimly).
It certainly can be unloving to avoid speaking of sin in someone's life, but it's just as unloving trying to force someone to accept your definition of sin at the point of a gun, an argument, or through guilt.
Most of the time, if you've got a relationship with someone, they know where you stand on things. If they don't, it's not inappropriate to tell them. But I'm just saying, if you want to really love someone, sinner or not, let them make their own deductions about what constitutes good and bad behavior.
Speak for yourself, be open about your reasons and thought processes, genuinely seek to understand the other. And, perhaps, enter into conversations with a real commitment to change your mind, should it all of sudden make sense to do so. That's what you're asking of the other person.
And, hey, I might be totally wrong about this, but in the end, I'm quite thankful for those who've loved me despite my arrogance and uncharitable disposition. They've really shown me what it means to love the sinner.
Red is a great pop album (not a pop album that is also great music - like the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds, but a great pop album that doesn't try to be more than it is). I was a vocal critic of Swift winning Album of the Year for her second record, an over-the-top, too soon, out of place award if there ever was one. However, the nomination, and potential win, in that category of this album, is certainly deserved.
It's likely apocryphal, but I heard tell that Swedish pop music guru Max Martin made only one note on Swift's first single, "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together," adding an additional "ever" to the chorus - and for that he was rewarded with co-writer and producer credits. He may have had more to do with production than just that, but it's such attention to seemingly trivial details that make the four Martin influenced singles (the first four released from the album) so popular and omnipresent.
Swift writes her own music and she does it exceptionally well. We know Taylor Swift because she's got a preternatural gift for songwriting and has from a very early age. Most people with her talents would be cooped up in some Nashville cubicle for the rest of their lives pumping out hit after hit for others people, but Swift also happens to be a tall, leggy blond. I suspect that detracts some from the credit she deserves.
On Red, Swift's songwriting has fully matured. That's not to say she can't get even better, but her understanding of rhythm and word choice is top notch. Yes, her subject matter is pretty much what you'd expect a 22 year old rich white American girl to write about, but again, that shouldn't detract from her ability to do it very, very well.
I expect to go into these records not liking what I hear. I already had positive notions about the singles (my favorite is "I Knew You Were Trouble"), but you just don't expect to like a whole album of that kind of thing. I liked it.
There is enough pseudo country flair on the "lesser" tracks to justify at least continuing to pretend she's a pop-country artist. Credit the producers with including the right instrumentation to remind you of her roots, but not enough to pigeon hole any of the tracks.
The production and versatility (within a defined spectrum) is impressive on the album. There are some really good songs - even a catchy little love song, "Stay, Stay, Stay" that breaks the monotony of break-up tunes and sounds like something you could imagine Johnny and June doing without a lot of alterations.
There's a bone thrown to self-awareness and the fleeting nature of celebrity in "The Lucky One" that gives glimpse of perhaps a greater depth yet to come from Swift. And only one real clunker - the final track, "Begin Again" isn't at all bad, it's just so reminiscent of her past work that it seems completely out of place.
There's no real thread uniting the album, other than all the songs are Taylor Swift songs, which could be a problem for Grammy voters. That being said, this is a very good album. She may not win the award because the competition is pretty strong and they gave it to her before, but certainly Red is more deserving than Fearless ever was.
