james taylor–a legend in his own right

As a delayed 50th birthday celebration/gift, my daughters took me out last night to see James Taylor in concert (Charlotte NC). I can’t remember just how many times I’ve seen JT in concert altogether ( as many as I could get to). For sure, as the decades have passed, the show has only gotten better. Last night, JT and his Band of Legends rocked again.
 James Taylor and his Band of Legends:
 Luis Conte – percussion
 Walt Fowler – horns, keys
 Steve Gadd – drums
 Larry Goldings – piano, keyboards
 Jimmy Johnson – bass
 Michael Landau – electric guitar
 David Lasley – vocals
 Lou Marini – horns
 Kate Markowitz – vocals
 Arnold McCuller – vocals
 Andrea Zonn – vocals, fiddle

I loved hearing the old JT standards–Carolina, Mexico, Steamroller, You’ve Got A Friend, and others–but I was delighted to hear a few borrowed tunes as well, especially Midnight Hour (Wilson Pickett) and Knock on Wood (Eddie Floyd / Steve Cropper). Another really nice addition to the show was Jimmy Webb’s Wichita Lineman–which I’ve never heard sung by anyone else other than Glen Campbell. That tune took me back to the late sixties and the folk/pop/country songs of Campbell, Mac Davis, Gordon Lightfoot, and John Hartford. I loved that music back then, and I guess I still do. Hearing Wichita Lineman last night just brought it all back home to me. I don’t think anyone other than James Taylor could have done that for me. Moreover, no one other than JT could have resurrected Lineman with such grace.

The Band of Legends was tight.

Although no other pianist in the world could have replaced the late Don Grolnick, Larry Goldings is pretty darn close. And Jimmy Johnson is an amazing ensemble player who brings out the musicianship of the others with his melodic bass lines. I really enjoy enjoy his calm demeanor and groove. The legends in JT’s group come together like a family of brothers and sisters with equal talent and style. It’s pretty easy to tell that this group of musicians stick together off the stage as well as in the concert spotlight. 

The audience was legend, too.

The folks in the pavilion seats and on the lawn pretty much all looked familiar to me. It was later, after the concert, that I thought about the faces in the crowd and how the congregation was the familiar batch of ticket holders that stood in line back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s–just a little older. There were three generations of JT fans in our little band of groupies–my mom, myself, and my daughters (ages 23-70). I’d say that’s pretty significant as an indication of JT’s legend status, wouldn’t you? How many performing artists can claim such a broad and ongoing multi-generational appeal? I hope I get the chance to see James Taylor in concert on my 60th birthday. And in addition to myself, my mom and daughters, I expect my little grandson will be in line, too. 

Sweet Baby James was the birthday gift I received in 1970 when I turned 12 years old. A part of me will always associate that event as a coming of age because that LP was the cornerstone of my music career. Last night was one of the sweeter reminders of age and experience. For that, I am grateful.  JT’s ageless melody, his humble stage presence, and his kind, soft humor was just the thing to make me realize that 50 is not so bad. In fact, 50 is a sweet place to be.

Especially when you’re part of a legend.

 Read more at liveDaily

 

got reform?

Thanks to Jim Buie and Ron M. for getting me in gear here: 

Having so much faith in personal health care insurance is false security, especially when the insurance industry continues to narrow their gate of accessibility and drive up the cost of health care in general. Health insurance companies don’t absorb any losses they incur when payouts exceed premiums, deductibles, etc. They pass the cost of [your] care on to doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. and to the whole body of subscribers and members. They increase premiums making it less and less accessible to others, they dictate how much they’ll pay for services (which is usually a fraction of the actual cost), and they burden Medicare along with the ones who most need the benefits it provides. 

Having insurance or Medicare doesn’t absolve one from caring about the American health care system. I know my care cost more than I pay in for premiums, co-pays, etc. And I know that the cost of my care doesn’t just evaporate into thin air. It’s passed on and on through economic levels. Someone (you) is picking up the tab. While I feel neither “good” or “bad” about the economic consequences of the care administered to me personally, it is the bigger picture that challenges my perspective of the American health care system and its components.

Over the decades, the science of health care has advanced a lot faster than the economic forces that support it. There’s no way that the 60’s model of health insurance and medicare can support contemporary medical science. For example, if you’d had a heart attack in 1965, there would have been no heart bypass, stints, angioplasty, etc and your health insurance would not have had to payout like it would have if your heart attack had happened in 2000.

There have been plenty of adjustments in the insurance industry over the years; however, those collective adjustments in cost and policy are inadequate in contemporary health care. They cannot support the advances in medical technology, pharmaceuticals, advanced [life-saving] treatments and other procedures that maintain quality of life, etc.

What if continued stem cell R&D proves a cure for cancer resulting in a treatment that is obviously very costly? Could the insurance industry alone meet that challenge without an absolute crash? Progressive thinking would have to let go of that antiquated design of health insurance because the real value of scientific and medical advances in society is its social impact–not its economic consequences.

The question becomes one of delivery: Is it possible for one to get progressive care under a “system” designed to pay for leeches, roots, and blood-letting? While that question might sound absurd, the point is that medical science and health insurance are not in the same century. Medical science could freeze right where it is and, still, it would take decades for the insurance industry to catch up.

Political forces are another factor in the delivery of an American health care system, especially this election year. I don’t expect a drastic stopping/starting point in health care reform; however, I’m voting for the candidate who is firm on health care reform and who has the ability to to spark the difficult and lengthy reform process. I’m looking for a candidate who realizes the potential of what medical science can provide and the economy can support. I’ll support the candidate who has the vision that all the possibilities serve every American citizen–not just the ones who can pay for it.

Although I’m perfectly safe and sound in my own little health care world, I’m still for reform, and sooner better than later.

The following comes entirely from NYU’s Clincial Correlations Blog at http://www.clinicalcorrelations.org/  -and -  http://www.clinicalcorrelations.org/?cat=19 : 

John McCain (R)
This plan is similar to other Republicans’ in proposing a system of health care tax credits. In particular, a tax credit of up to $5,000 would allow families to buy health insurance, including plans from across state lines. McCain also proposes the same changes that other candidates have: insurance portability, tort reform, IT investment, and reform of Medicare reimbursement to focus on “diagnosis, prevention, and care coordination.” One point has particular relevance for our VA hospital: veterans should have “freedom to choose to carry their VA dollars to a provider that gives them the timely care at high quality and in the best location.”

The financing of his tax credits is not discussed on his web site, though the NY Times reports that “employers would no longer be allowed to deduct health care costs from their taxes under his plan.”

Hillary Clinton (D)
Clinton would require every individual to choose an insurance plan. Anyone could keep their current insurance if they were satisfied with it. Two other choices would be available: a menu of private options offering the same benefits that members of Congress receive, the other a Medicare-style public plan. Tax credits would be offered to working families to make it easier for them to afford insurance.

How would this be paid for? The details aren’t spelled out, and this is where the complications come in. (See the detailed analysis of Clinton’s plan at the blog Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review.) In particular, the Clinton plan predicts that “most savings [will] come through lowering spending due to quality and modernization.” As Robert Laszewski of the Health Care Policy blog says, this could be Clinton’s most dangerous assumption. If quality and modernization cannot ensure savings by themselves, if providers and payers cannot agree on cost-limiting measures, if more taxes on the higher brackets (i.e. the rich) will not be enough to balance the books (as Clinton assumes), what will happen to the Clinton plan?

Alongside Clinton’s individual mandate for health insurance, there are requirements for other participants in the system. Insurance companies “will end discrimination” and “ensure high value,” while “drug companies will offer fair prices”; providers will work collaboratively to deliver high-quality, affordable care; “large employers” will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage (small employers will receive a tax credit to offer coverage, or start doing so).

What “fair prices,” “high quality,” and “large employers” are supposed to mean has been a source of debate even before the first Clinton health plan. How will affordable coverage be mandated when some estimates place the cost of family health coverage at $12,000 per year? If twenty-five employees is the cutoff definition for “large business” (as the Clinton campaign has indicated), what would smaller businesses be required to provide?

Barack Obama (D)
Like Hillary Clinton’s plan, as well as those of many other Democratic candidates, Obama’s “Plan for a Healthy America” proposes universal coverage, made possible through a number of proposals. Individuals and small businesses would be able to “buy affordable health care similar to that available to federal employees” or choose from a newly created federal insurance program. A proposed National Health Insurance Exchange would allow anyone to enroll in participating private plans. Medicaid and CHIP would be expanded and employers would be obligated to finance at least part of their employees’ health coverage. The plan would make illegal discrimination by insurance companies on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

Proposed financing of his plan includes increased efficiency from investment in information technology, better management of chronic diseases, and promotion of preventive medicine. Obama is also in favor of repealing the ban on direct negotiation by the Medicare drug plan (Part D) and proposes decreased payments to private Medicare plans (which on average charge 12% more than government-run Medicare). In addition, a proposed national reinsurance plan for catastrophic coverage would decrease premiums by having government shoulder the cost of the longest and most expensive hospital stays, for example in the ICU. No dollar figures are given in his proposal.

 

on the turntable

 Long Road Out of Eden, The Eagles, released November 2007

OK. I like it. Take away a couple of the songs and I would love. Most of the  two-disc, twenty-tune release does a pretty good job of taking me back to Hotel California; but a couple of the songs definately take a detour away from my comfortable expectations.

What strikes me most and right away is the fine duo of Glenn Frey and Don Henley – two rockers approaching 60 who still have it. I always did like these two together. It’s good to hear Joe Walsh again too. Frey is definately the more lyrical songwriter. Henley’s work, on the other hand, lacks the unifying elements that make the band come together in a single voice. Perhaps, it is the political tone that just doesn’t wash. (No one want to be continuously beaten by repeated themes. At least, I don’t.) 

Altogether, the Eagles’ have landed back home again with a Long Road to Eden. I’ll be listening and waiting for more…

 

is everybody a little bit racist?

I visit Jim Buie’s blog just about every day, but this week my return visits have bumped up a notch or two. He’s got a couple of discussions going on about racism that are quite engaging:

On Being a Black Man

Clarence Thomas and the Legacy of Racism in America

The Silent Injustice of Wrongful Convictions

Everybody’s a Little Bit Racist

 

on the turntable

James Taylor, One Man Band , 2007

James Taylor doesn’t know it, but we’ve had a thing going for 35 + years. The very first LP I ever purchased was Sweet Baby James and ever since I haven’t been able to get enough of him. He is definately one “thin place” portal I can count on when my spirit needs stroking and a snuggle.

JT doesn’t have any new material on One Man Band unless you want to count the extraordinary pianist Larry Goldings. Although I always had a particular affection for Don Grolnick (until he unfortunately died in ‘96 at the young age of 48), the more I listen to Goldings the more I think he and JT are a match made in heaven. I hope he sticks around. If he does, I believe we’ll have a lot to look forward too.

Something about James Taylor has left an imprint on me through the years that assures me everything’s going to work out and be ok. It reminds me that even in the hardest of times there is still a song to be sung with a friend. I have often thought that if stranded on a deserted island in the middle of the South Pacific, I could survive with a journal and a pen, a CD player and a very long extension cord, and of course, my JT collection.

One Man Band is like an friend come to visit–a friend that’s been away for a little while but with whom you just pick up where you last left off. It has all the old favorites: Sweet Baby James, Country Road, Fire and Rain, Carolina in My Mind, You’ve Got A Friend, and others that you already know the words and chord changes to. There’s a great concert DVD that accompanies the recording so you can see JT and Larry Goldings as well as hear them. The “drum machine” is an impressive addition to the equipment too.

This recording inspires me to be quiet and listen to the sweetness of the new Taylor-Goldings ensemble. It’s the third or fourth time through that I want to be part of it myself. Long after the CD is over, I can still hear the music in my mind’s ear–just like I always have, so I guess maybe something has transferred over the years that has made me a part of it.

Finally friends, you will want to get your own copy of One Man Band because I’m not likely to let anyone (no matter how much I love you) borrow mine for a very long time.

 

music and caregiving

I’m in a rush this morning, but this editorial piece by Jim Lisk is too good to pass up. It’s about 13 women in Stanly County who are musical caregivers: 

Music, caregiving intertwined 
&
Making A Difference, Music Makers and Caregivers

 

candidate quiz

A friend turned me on to a little quiz that identifies one’s most appropriate presidential candidate. It’s definately a sham, but kind of fun. Still, I’m staying tight-lipped about my own personal results. Take the “Select a Candidate Quiz“

 

the political compass or musical chairs?

Jim Buie introduced me to The Political Compass on his blog. There’s a test to take to determine one’s own relative position on the graph. It’s interesting, but more interesting to me personally was the “Composers’ Political Compass.” As it turns out, in terms of political philosophy (and perhaps musical style), the compass points me in the direction of leftist authoritarian–which is perplexing to me as a musician and composer.

But look at the graph: Hovering pretty much south of the center left libertarian are composers I very much admire and respect: Mahler (Sym. No.2 Resurrection) Beethoven (later piano sonatas) Benjamin Britten (choral works), and especially Dvorak. Not a real huge fan of Schoenberg and Bartok, but I can sort of understand their position on the graph. I would have thought that Stravinsky (whose Rite of Spring started a riot) would have been extreme left. Wagner, too. (Every time I hear “Ride of the Valkyries” I think of Coppola’s “Apochalypse Now”–the only movie that almost made me throw up.) And where’s my absolute favorites on the graph? Where’s Debussy? Grainger and Vaughn-Williams? WHERE IS JS BACH?

Still, Schumann? Really? Although it’s been about 30 years since I’ve been in a music history class, I don’t recall Schumann being noted for anything other than his fluidly romantic piano works and his obsessive marriage to one of his young piano students. He just doesn’t strike me as a 19th-century man of political thought. Maybe he was and I just don’t recognize it.

“Anything that happens in the world affects me; politics, for example, literature, people; and I reflect about all these things in my own way — and these reflections then seek to find an outlet in music. This is also the reason for which so many of my compositions are hard to understand… ”  (Schumann in a letter to wife, Clara)

But if the Political Compass is any indication of my compositional inclinations, then maybe I am sorta, kinda like Schumann–which isn’t such a bad thing. Still, I’d rather be in a different neighborhood, maybe next door to Haydn or Bach.

Perhaps, I should take the Political Compass test again and pretend it’s musical chairs.

Hear Schumann’s Fantasy Dance (The very first Schumann work I played about 40 years ago.)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/, http://www.classical.com/, http://members.aol.com/abelard2/march.htm

 

FO editorial on SAPC

An editorial in today’s Fayetteville Observer doesn’ t offer anything new about St. Andrews v. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), but it does suggest that SAPC needs more than fundraising to facillitate lasting change in its financial plan.

The editorial is brief and to the point; however, I would have appreciated their take on SACS as well.

 

SAPC SPEAKS

In the latest update from SAPC…
“The Appeals Committee appointed by SACS notified us that our appeal to overturn its June decision has been denied. In response, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Middle District of North Carolina asking for the decision to be reversed. Federal District Court Judge Carlton Tilley has set Wednesday, Aug. 29 as the date to hear and rule on our Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Throughout this legal process, the College remains accreditated and our students are eligible to participate in all federal financial aid programs.”

My own response to SACS:
What a waste. I just read Southern Association of Colleges and School’s (SACS) public notice  on the outcome of St. Andrews Presbyterian College’s (SAPC) appeal. I see the document as little more than a perfunctory defense response in a predetermined strategy to save face. In my opinion, the document does not qualify as anything specifically relating to St. Andrews’ appeal of the SACS committee’s to revoke the school’s accreditation; instead, it speaks in defense of SACS appeals procedure and policy.

This 24 August 2007 document briefly outlines the grounds for appeal: 1) the institution (that would be SAPC) must show that the committee failed to follow procedures; and/or 2) the committee’s decision was arbitrary. It also says the burden of proof is the responsibility of the institution. In short, it states that SACS’s ”decision regarding the College’s ongoing membership was neither arbitrary or unreasonable.” It also notes that SAPC had “failed to document compliance with several of the Commission’s standards” back in June of this year.

So, excuse me for being dumb, but was this “hearing” for the benefit of SAPC or the benefit of SACS? It seems to me that SACS is more concerned with justifying their own actions rather than allowing a second look at the real issue. I believe SAPC is entitled to the benefit of re-examination, especially considering the gravity of this situation and the most recent positive developments as well as any ensuing legal action. And what about the school’s academic merit, its national rankings, and its unique and exceptional programs?What about the supporting opinions of leaders in higher education policy and organizations?

This is what Chalicechick says:
         “The administrative hearing is a farce and despite the face that the ‘Drew is in 7 million dollars worth of better shape than they were when this began, SACS is very unlikely to decide against itself.
          After that, though, we go to court and SACS has, according to an unverified but typically reliable source, NEVER won one of these things in court. “

When this is all over, I sincerely hope higher education policy makers consider what happened here and push for needed changes. On the up side, I believe SAPC can take the heat and will eventually prevail.

keep the vigil