Rock epic of the month: "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" (Iron Butterfly) 1968

Rock epics of the month is a series of posts where I'll look back on classic examples of what I think is the greatest excess of rock and roll - the rock epic.

Some of you are thinking, 'It had to happen.' Some of you are thinking, 'Couldn't he have avoided this one?' Some of you are thinking, 'It took him long enough.' And some of you are thinking, 'This is just too obvious.'

To which I say, 'Der,' 'No he couldn't have,' 'I was getting around to it,' and 'Sod off you wankers. And the horses you rode in on.'

Yes. The classic Iron Butterfly song, or I. Ron Butterfly song, if you really want, was a drug-addled hoot when it was released back in the day, and it's still one incredibly silly and indulgent piece today.

Heavy metal, as we now know it didn't really come into being until the power metal bands of the late seventies and early eighties. But it's history is shrouded in all sorts of stories.

Some say it started with The Who when Pete Townshend went berzerk with a series of windmill power chords. Still others like to cite The Kinks' classic rifforama from 'You Really Got Me'.

Some say it was white boys playing the blues loudly, such as the early work of Jimmy Page or Eric Clapton in the Yardbirds. Others again like to cite the work of Jimi Hendrix, Cream (which also featured Clapton) and even The Doors.

And then there are the pure psychedelicists, who will go straight to the louder end of the psychedelic spectrum to where acts like Steppenwolf, Blue Cheer and Iron Butterfly sat.

Whatever, we all know where it went from here. There was the Led Zeppelin faction, with their fairies at the bottom of the garden and bustles in your hedgerows. There was the Black Sabbath faction, with all Tony Iommi's riffing and Ozzy Osbourne's internal demons. There was Deep Purple's work, which partly paved the way for prog rock. And there was the totally out there amped up post-psych of Blue Öyster Cult and the totally pedestrian musical stylings of Grand Funk Railroad.

But Iron Butterfly will always be remembered for this, the one tune that everyone remembers them for - a tune that clocks in at 17:05, and the title track off their second album.

'In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida' was so long that it took up the entire length of side B. The name of the tune apparently comes from a drunken conversation that singer and keyboardist Doug Ingle had with drummer Ron Bushy where Bushy wrote down what he thought Ingle had said, and thus the tune was no longer titled 'In The Garden Of Eden' any more.

The band, completed at this stage by Eric Brann on guitars and Lee Dorman on bass, recorded this monster epic as a jam in the studio where everyone has their moment.

It starts off with the signature horror-movie organ at the start, before launching into the main riff, which, to 1968 society, must have seemed like one of the heaviest things imaginable. The tune only really strays from the main riff in a couple of spots, mainly during the choruses, but also a bit during the breakdown in the middle. Dorman manages to stay in the groove most of the way through without sounding too bored.

It eventually re-assembles itself to come back for another verse and chorus near the end, but by this stage, you're either thanking the gods of rock and roll, or falling asleep.

The breakdown itself is truly epic, and longer than the rest of the tune: There's more than one organ solo. And more than one guitar solo. And even a drum solo. This is one tune that will have you punching the air and giggling as you play it loud to annoy the hell out of your girlfriend, or cringing in a corner hoping that no one catches you listening to it.

There simply is no middle ground here. It's either monumentally offensive and stupid, or it's a glorious slab of medium-octane rock that you can air organ to.

Iron Butterfly did nothing else of note.

Boney M, incidentally, covered this tune. And like everything else that Boney M did, it too, was utter rubbish.

This tune comes in two parts, with some visuals, which are pretty boring, so you might prefer just to listen.

Part 1 ends just after the drum solo, and Part 2 picks up with the second (or is it the third?) organ solo.

Enjoy, or not.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Open source woo

Congratulations go this week to Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, who has accepted the post of the president of JREF. A more worthy person would be hard to name, considering that the outgoing president is James Randi himself. Randi will stay on as founder and chairman.

I've been staying right out of the whole ridiculousness surrounding "The One", a talent show screening on Australian TV which aims to further the career of the most convincing bullshit artists psychics that go up in front of the cameras. Personally, I found the whole discussion around this show rather refreshing, in an Australian kind of way: The standard joke seemed to be, "Won't they already know the winner if they're truly psychic?"

Never mind that this kinda misrepresents what psychics actually claim to do. For example, a clairaudient doesn't normally claim to be able to see into the future, unless they're Sylvia Browne.

Plus it also removes part of the fun. Watching these con artists psychics going at each other in the hope of winning has been, at least in the snippets that I've seen, hilarious.

I haven't actually been watching it, mostly because it's on on Monday nights when I've been out of the house.

However, I have been reading the week by week updates in SWIFT, and I can tell you that it's actually quite impressive the attention that the JREF have been giving it, although to be honest, Richard Saunders, the token skeptic on the judging panel is quite well known around skeptical circles, both within Australia and abroad. And you know, from what I've seen, Saunders is both erudite and charismatic, has a sense of humour and appears to be approachable. If perhaps a little too quiet to nail a regular spot on TV as a "celeb".

The other judge is a lady by the name of Stacey Demarco who from what I can tell is a stereotypical, credulous, shoot-ones-mouth-off, cliché-spouting, doggerel-delivering, card-carrying woo merchant and certifiable loon. Demarco is smack bang on course to get her fifteen minutes of fame, and calls herself a 'metaphysician'.

You know, before I saw this festering pustule of a TV show, I'd never heard of such occupations as 'medical intuitives'. Nor had I head the term 'psychometry' used outside of recruitment. But now, I'm convinced.

Convinced that people will believe absolutely anything.

After this week's SWIFT, I somehow found myself directed to a site where Saunders was interviewed by someone for a podcast named Lia Ramses where she attempts the Galileo Gambit, invokes Dean Radin's work, and comes out with this:

Soon, the topic of conversation turns to "The One" and after some banter, in which Richard reminds the listeners that the failure rate of contestants exceeded 90%, Ramses asks Richard how he thinks She found the "lost boy" in episode one, given that he doesn't believe she used remote viewing. Richard gives the only logical answer "she went in the right direction and there the little boy was". It's got to be hard to dispute that kind of logic given that no other "psychic" contestant went in that direction and only one other found the boy, after covering most of the available area within the time limit.

(Thanks to Thinking is Real)

After having a bit of a read, I found myself looking around the Ghost Radio site and found a seething wasp's nest of woo. I'm not sure what was more frightening - that fact that the owners of this site believe anything, or that I now have evidence that suggests that there are simply no bounds to human gullibility.

Crop circles, crystal skulls, homeopathy, reiki, there really isn't anything that won't sell. Gullibility is way hip, and there doesn't appear to be anything that you or I can do about it. Particularly in light of the (frankly frightening) revelation that while Richard Saunders will continue to be known as the "the skeptic", Stacey Demarco is guaranteed a spot on the celebrity C-list for the rest of her life.

In order to test my new hypothesis, I dreamed up a great test: Why not build a mill to create the silliest woo imaginable, and then see if it sells?

I think that those of us who are only even slightly creative could come up with some absolute whoppers.

I see this project as having three parts:

1. A wiki or an online forum where the most insane woo ideas can be kicked around until they're ready to be sold to the general public.


2. A website where the "phony" woo (OK, you come up with a better adjective) can then be sold to paying punters.


3. After selling the woo, and covering expenses, any profits left over (and I'm fairly convinced there will be) can be donated to a charity to be nominated. I vote JREF, myself.

In order to preserve the element of surprise, the wiki/online forum should ideally be password protected and users should join by invitation only. Although I do like the open source thing where absolutely anyone can modify an idea, but this kinda kills off the surprise thing.

The wiki/online forum should be able to cover stuff like design and feedback right through to production and logistics.

The website, on the other hand, should be littered with all sorts of disclaimers, so that if a potential buyer goes deaf, dumb and blind, they should still be able to know that "this product has not been scientifically tested" and "we cannot vouch for the accuracy of our claims" etc. After all, we shouldn't be leaving ourselves open to claims of hypocrisy or unethical behaviour.

(I may be a hypocrite, but I sure as hell don't speak for anyone else who may wish to join this worthy cause.)

The products should be kinda cool, though. I know more people who buy decks of tarot cards for the pretty pictures than because they're into tarot readings.

They would also have to be funny.

Lastly, the website should have a clever name - one that if you think about a little, makes it crystal clear that there is mischief afoot.

Oh, and there should be an awards night where the most ludicrous idea gets presented with something like a golden dowsing rod. Or something.

I think that this is a sensational idea. Who's in, and how do we get this underway?

Is this wrong?

Ohmigawd! I suddenly have respect for Paris Hilton. Should I be immediately shot?

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

Devo at Festival Hall Melbourne 31 July 2008

OK, so on Thursday night I went and saw Devo at Festival Hall, otherwise known as Festering Hole. I had a great time.

For those who don't know, Devo are my favourite band ever, and for those who do, you're probably sick of hearing about it. But having never seen Devo live before, I didn't really know what to expect.

I got into Devo quite young - I suppose that to a kid in second grade, a band wearing red hats that look like flowerpots (yes, I know that they're called "energy domes") is sensational - but it was only when I reached university age that I suddenly put two and two together on some of the songs. Particularly the really snigger-worthy ones such as "Uncontrollable urge" and even "Girl u want". Or even the single-entendre of "Penetration in the centrefold".

And having not been to a gig at Festival Hall for close to 10 years (yes, it's been that long) I suppose that I had forgotten exactly how loud the PA in there actually is.

We tried to get there early enough to catch Eddy Current Suppression Ring but sadly we missed them. It's a pity - I hear that they did a great set.

Next up was Regurgitator, who are always good live. And even though they mixed up their set to include old and new, they chose to concentrate quite a lot on their second album, Unit. Not really surprising, given that Unit was so incredibly 80s sounding. The all-white Abba look was strikingly effective as well.

Devo came out and ripped into "Good thing" after a short spiel by General Boy, and a few snippets from their back catalog of music videos. It was pretty good.

I suppose that I was expecting something more synth heavy, and something more approaching a greatest hits package, but what I wasn't prepared for was the sheer volume of the gig. It was brutally fucking loud. They also managed to get the more synthy songs out of the way early so that Jerry could pick up his bass and Bob #2 could transfer to guitar and just spend the rest of the set rocking out.

But anyway, in as best an order as what I remember, here are as many tunes as what I can remember they played:

• That's good
• Peek-a-boo
• Girl u want
• Whip it
• Going under
• Smart patrol/Mr DNA
• Uncontrollable urge
• Secret agent man
• (I can't get no) Satisfaction
• Gut feeling/Slap your mammy
• Jocko homo
• Blockhead
• Mongoloid
• Devo corporate anthem
• Freedom of choice
• Beautiful world

I was most surprised that their cover of "Secret agent man", as well as "Uncontrollable urge" and "Going under" got played. And they worked quite well.

Sadly, though, they chose to close with "Beautiful world" with Booji Boy on lead vocals, which didn't really work. I admit that they needed a Booji Boy slot for completeness, but it should have been a different tune. "Beautiful world" is probably the most sarcastic song ever written, and maybe it occasionally needs Booji Boy to accentuate the sarcasm in some parts of the world. But the Australian sense of humour is largely rooted in sarcasm so handing this to Booji Boy to do might have been a little over the top.

But you know the best part of this gig - no mosh pit!

Anyway, it's two days after the gig and I still have a ringing in my ears. So I must have enjoyed it.

Here's a few videos of the gig as posted to YouTube:

1. Collage of various tunes (sound quality OK)

Includes bits of "Uncontrollable urge", "Mongoloid", "Jocko homo", "Devo corporate anthem", "Freedom of choice" and "Beautiful world"

2. "Whip it" (sound quality passable)

3. "Going under" (sound quality barely rateable)

4. "Mongoloid" (sound quality rubbish)

5. "Girl u want" (sound quality not much better)

Hope that you enjoyed this.

Wizardry? WTF?

Finally proof that the world is completely rooted, in the Australian usage of the word.

This from Florida, via FoxNews.com (don't ask):

A Florida teacher may have to pull an unemployment check out of his hat after performing magic in front of students, according to reports.

Jim Piculas said he made a toothpick disappear and reappear in front of students at the Rushe Middle School in Land 'O Lakes, Fla., Local6.com reported. He said he later got a call from the supervisor of teachers, saying he had been accused of wizardry.

"I get a call the middle of the day from head of supervisor of substitute teachers. He says, 'Jim, we have a huge issue. You can't take any more assignments. You need to come in right away,'" he told Local6.com.

Piculas said he’s concerned the incident may prevent him from being considered for future jobs.

Fortunately, there are magicians out there who are sympathetic.

Clearly bored

I'm waiting for something to download, and I see that Tom and Akusai have had a crack at an old one that Bronze Dog did. So I might as well. Have fun, and join in if you're game.

Accent: Supposedly a type of Australian accent known as "ocker". FSM knows that I do try to be well spoken.

Booze: Rather enjoying this Pale Ale renaissance that Australia is going through at the moment. KitKat gave me one called Crackenback for my birthday - I give it 4 stars - very nice with a lovely fragrant hoppy aroma.

Chore I hate: Vacuuming the house. Going to get one of those robo vacuum thingies as soon as I can.

Dog or Cat: Cat. I like dogs, but cats clean up after themselves and don't need baths.

Essential Electronics: My computer(s), my Eee PC, and that's pretty much it since my Sony Walkman got lost down the back of the sofa. OK, maybe MP3 players can be too small.

Favorite Cologne: I liked Activist by The Body Shop. Then they stopped selling it in Australia. Now I've got XY by Hugo Boss. But technically these are Eau de Toilettes, not colognes.

Gold or Silver: Gold. You better believe it, although I'm rather liking oil at the moment.

Hometown: Currently, Melbourne VIC, but I grew up in Sydney NSW.

Insomnia: Negative. But I wish that I voluntarily went to sleep earlier.

Job title: Blogger, Freeloader and Minister. Oh and I have some day job in industry superannuation as well.

Kids: Too young, too poor and too immature.

Living arrangements: A three bedroom unit with my wife and (currently) our friend from the sticks who is in town working at Honda.

Most admirable traits: Standing up for one's personal ethics.

Not going to cop to: Surely this could be phrased better? I have no idea what this one is asking.

Overnight hospital stays: Broken arm, 1985. I was boogie boarding at the time and got dumped by a freak wave.

Phobias: Snakes and crocodiles. Actually, reptiles generally gross me out.

Quote: Primary school poetry: "We had fun, fun, fun, picking boogies in the sun. When the sun got hot, our boogies turned to snot."

Religion: Pretty much quality Australian Pale Ale at the moment. And the Sydney Swans Football Club.

Siblings: Two sisters, both younger, one in Sydney NSW and one in Carson City NV. She's married to my brother-in-law who is originally from somewhere in Indiana. Shit! I know this one. It might be Bloomington. My other brother-in-law is the brother of Ms Dikkii, and he lives in a place called Funkytown.

Time I wake up: Usually after I've hit the snooze button seven or eight times.

Unusual talent or skill: I do this pen-flicking thing that drives people insane.

Vegetable I love: Peas, nuked with butter and pepper. Carrots, steamed with honey.

Worst habit: I'm not putting this one in.

X-rays: Chest, teeth, foot, arm. I think that's it.

Yummy foods I make: I'm told that my chili con carne is pretty good. Personally, I don't think I've got it right, yet.

Zodiac sign: Crux Australis.

Choppa's vegemite challenge

I don't normally post stuff this wrong, but I thought I'd make an exception in this case.

This guy is looking at certain heart failure for sure - for the benefit of my non-Australian readers, Vegemite is a concentrated yeast extract made by Kraft with more salt than the Mediterranean in each jar. It's normally spread on toast or sandwiches quite thinly.

You've been warned. I felt a little sick at the end of this.

Keysar Trad on polygamy

Keysar Trad is an interesting fellow. He's mainly been in the news as an apologist for the controversial former (Sunni) Grand Mufti of Australia, Taj El Din al-Hilaly and currently occupies the president's position in the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia.

Trad was in the news recently after writing this article for Crikey where he discusses opening a dialogue to begin the long road towards polygamous marriages.

This blogger notes that Trad is on the record as having discussed such a union with his wife. Of course, the question that doesn't appear to have been posed by the media to date is about the extent of the conversation that took place.

After thinking about this, I have to conclude that Trad does have a point. What consenting married couples do is really not society's place to say. People should, if they want and if their existing and/or prospective spouse(s) consent, be able to have multiple spouses.

I can really only think of a few reasons as to why such unions shouldn't be permitted:

1. Taxation

Our current tax laws cater, rightly or wrongly, towards singles and married couples, not married trios, quartets and other combinations. This is a potential minefield of confusion that needs to be sorted out before we can consider taxation of polygamous unions. But I don't think that it's insurmountable.

2. Social Security

Likewise welfare laws are not really friendly towards polygamous unions. I think that this may be harder than taxation to sort out, but again, I don't think that this is beyond repair.

3. Estate planning

If memory serves me correctly, estate planning has nasty little bits in it where, for example, wills get rendered null and void by marriage, in most states and territories, anyway. This would be the same for remarriage as well, I suppose, but take this example: A wife has a will in place, but then the husband marries another woman. Does this render the first wife's will ineffective?

4. Divorce

I think that this could be the messiest of the lot. Imagine that in our above example, the wife then divorces her husband. Does this mean that the second wife also has to divorce him? If not, then is the second wife divorcing the first wife? And after sorting this out, how do the property and child custody arrangements work?

5. Superannuation

This has complications as well. I thought of family law splits and contribution splitting, but these seem a dodder compared to spouse superannuation offsets and what happens in the event of a member dying who just happens to be in a polygamous relationship.

---

Anyway, these are just a few of the issues that need to be thought of before polygamy can be allowed. I don't believe that these are the kinds of thing that we can't fix, but it should be pointed out that there would be a whole stack of work involved in them.

The easiest thing to do would be to abolish marriage outright, and just lock everything under the laws covering de facto relationships that exist in each state and territory, but this is probably not an option.

The absolute last reason that we should be considering is religious considerations for or against marriage, which have been discussed to death.

So the question that the media have not asked Trad regarding his wife's position is this: What was Trad's answer when his wife asked him if he was comfortable with her having multiple husbands?

It's difficult to take Trad seriously when you know that he is most certainly not comfortable. Or even that such a question might not have been posed by Mrs Trad. Does anyone know if Trad is on the record regarding this very question?

Rock epic of the month: "We Carry On" (Portishead) 2008

Rock epics of the month is a series of posts where I'll look back on classic examples of what I think is the greatest excess of rock and roll - the rock epic.

I'm going to go for something relatively recent here this month. Portishead have just released their third proper longplayer (not counting the live one) and it is currently getting a serious workout whenever I can get the chance to listen to it.

Portishead formed as the second part of a holy trinity of what became known as the Bristol Trip Hop Scene, after Massive Attack and they released their first album, Dummy at about the same time as former Massive Attack alumnus Tricky released his first solo record.

The Bristol trip hop scene really was just a lazy media's way of describing the fact that (a) these musicians did, in fact come from Bristol, and (b) they were attempting a laid back and somewhat trippy take on Hip Hop.

Up until this point, hip hop was largely an unfamiliar genre to the Brits. During the time that hip hop went through the somewhat huge Gangster Rap and G-Funk phases in the States, the Brits were more into the rave scene which was dominated by electronic music genres such as House and later, various Techno sub-genres.

At about this time, the Brits were getting thoroughly confused by the first wave of what went on to be called Drum 'n Bass, and it occurred to some (notably in Bristol) that this hip hop stuff that the Yanks were getting into might be worth giving a second glance to.

Massive Attack released their devastatingly influential Blue Lines album, and suddenly it was game on.

Portishead were formed by Beth Gibbons (vocals), Adrian Utley (guitars) and Geoff Barrow (everything else) in 1991. Barrow had done some work for Massive Attack and Tricky, Gibbons had sung in various things around town and Utley was a known jazz axe-slinger for hire.

And where American hip hop was, at the time, dominated by the g-funk coming out of Dr Dre's stable such as Snoop "Doggy" Dogg and Warren G, Portishead's first album, Dummy, released in 1994 mined its samples from decidedly un-funky sources such as old movie soundtracks and Serge Gainsbourg.

Their eponymous second album, Portishead followed in 1997 and then they began a huge lay-off where the members worked on other stuff - Barrow moved to Sydney and did a tonne of work in the Australian hip hop scene amongst other things.

It took until 2008 for their Third album to come out, which featured sounds that were quite a bit harsher than what they had worked with in the past.

I've chosen to do "We Carry On" this month, because, at 6:27, its a true epic, and, quite frankly, it rocks.

It's one that likes a bit of a groove, and it's one that is a real grower. Utley's guitar is about as angular and primal as Portishead get - someone said to me that it's a bit reminiscent of Will Sargent's work with Echo and the Bunnymen - they could be right. I reckon that there's a bit of post-OK Computer Radiohead in there as well.

This video is a gem of Portishead performing this live on Jools Holland's show on UK TV. I love the pained way that Gibbons delivers the vocals, together with Utley and another guitarist fairly fanging away on their guitars towards the end of this. Barrow looks like he's having fun on the drums during this, too.

Hope that you like it - I did.

The art empire strikes back

One of the things that we learnt from the recent Bill Henson controversy is that there appears to be an orthodox position that artists assume on the the whole "What is an acceptable image?" thing.

That position has been characterised with a great deal of effort by artists in saying, "There has to be exploitation," for an image to be deemed unacceptable.

So what happened this week? A magazine called Art Monthly Australia has run a cover with a nude 6 year old girl on the front. Ostensibly to make a point about the Bill Henson controversy.

I'll be the first to admit, folks, that this country, and perhaps a lot of the western world is a smidge hysterical when it comes to pornography involving children. I don't actually believe that the connection between child pornography and paedophile behaviour will ever be found.

And the requirement for a nude photo to be exploitative in order for it to be porn is so goddamn subjective, I'm actually concerned about pretty much all artistic behaviour at this point.

Having said all that, doesn't it appear to the average onlooker that a 6 year old (she's now 11) has been exploited in order to make a point?

Doesn't this mean that Art Monthly Australia has crossed the line with a flying leap and is therefore guilty of child exploitation?

More to the point, given that this photo was made by the child's mother, doesn't this make her complicit in child exploitation?

After all that, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd has waded in after spotting a way to appeal to the lowest common denominator by exploiting our anti-child pornography hysteria. Is he guilty of exploitation by milking this in the theatre of public opinion?

(My 2c: We thoroughly deserve exploitation over this)

Last but not least, in The Age today, the artist's husband (who just happens to be an art critic at The Age) has weighed in and criticised the PM for speaking out on something that he doesn't know any thing about, namely art.

This is all fucked for the following reasons:

1. The guy is a major art critic for a major Australian daily newspaper. Therefore, venturing any opinion, explicit or implied in his wife's work has a conflict of interest. He simply cannot occupy the aggrieved husband's position and therefore has to keep his mouth shut.

2. His comparison of this fiasco to the greenhouse effect is quite possibly the worst hyperbole ever by an artist:

"It's interesting that if the Prime Minister comments on, say the greenhouse effect, he gets expert advice first," Monah (sic) University Associate Professor [Robert] Nelson said. "I would like to know which art expert advised him on this."

3. "I would like to know which art expert advised him on this." An ad-hominem attack is not beneath this guy, even though he's an art critic and a university professor. Furthermore, if he's comfortable implying that the PM is a philistine, then what hope is there for the rest of us art consumers?

4. Nelson wears many hats during this which doesn't help. Hiding behind his academic one does him no favours, although Margaret Cook of The Age should take most of the blame for this. Attempting an argument from authority is a somewhat ham-fisted approach, n'est-ce pas?

5. Dissecting the above quote further, we now have evidence that the arts world, or at least the visual arts world, sees the consumer as an inconvenience. The performing arts do not. Theirs is a world where the consumer is king, whereas in the world of visual arts, the consumer is treated pretty shabbily when the artist refuses to consider their own audience.

6. Further to 5, as an arts consumer, I frankly (by and large) don't care about the artist's intention. I'm concerned with how visually appealing an image is. What's lost on Associate Professor Nelson is that most art consumers feel exactly the same way. And some of us are sick of being dictated to by those who think that they know better.

If there was ever any more evidence required that artists have lost touch with the rest of us, it is this. Ironically, it is on an issue where the rest of us have lost all sense of perspective (I speak of society generally) and become hysterical over the merest suggestion of someone getting their rocks off on kiddie nudity.