Debate: Normally I let the resolutions wash over me, since I don’t have to work with anyone on them anymore. And normally I don’t find them particularly problematic. However, with March-April LD, I’m glad I’m not in it.
Resolved: The United States military ought to abide by the principle of non-intervention.
There is certainly an accepted principle of non-interventionism, which goes into all sorts of areas like sovereignty and R2P—Responsibility to Protect—and the like. The Enlightenment philosopher in me likes all that. I even like arguing isolationism…maybe. What I wonder about is how this resolution will actually play out in the front of the room. If one simply thinks only or intervention and realpolitik in 2026 in the USA, one might prefer to do Model UN instead for these two months. And if one were thinking historically, one might look up military intervention on Wikipedia to be met with the opening warning “Not to be confused with United States military deployments or United States involvement in regime changes," followed by a list of about seventeen and a half gazillion examples of military intervention going back to the Mayflower. My personal favorite is the so-called Banana Wars, which has its own ring to it, but which sounds even better in Spanish, Guerras bananeras. I could go around saying Guerras bananeras until the cows come home.
Obviously the point of this resolution was its theoretical side. But in today’s LD, and in today’s America, good luck with that. I mean, I would go so far as to worry that although non-intervention is a recognized term of art that implies the word foreign, in these ICE-y times… Fortunately there isn’t much debate at this point in the year, at least around here, aside from the odd qualifier. Oh, yeah, and also our State Finals. Note to LDers at NY States: there’s a lot of lay judges sitting in the back of the room. If you don’t debate for them, your Sunday in the Bronx is going to be very, very peaceful, without the interruption of elimination rounds to disturb your solace.
Listening (audit division): I am not big on cover versions of songs that do little more than imitate the original. If I want the original, I'll go listen to it. A cover version needs to be in some way a reimagining. Which isn't always easy.
Reimagining certain artists is especially difficult. In the age of artists who compose and perform the songs and are knee-deep in their arranging and production, the end result, as much as is humanly possible, is exactly what they wanted. This is very much true of the Beatles, who were, with their guru George Martin, pioneers in the recording studio (see "The Beatles Anthology" on Disney+). Recorded Beatles music was the apotheosis of Beatle music. What more could be said? So good covers of Beatles music is rare. After Joe Cocker, name two. So it becomes interesting to hear versions of Beatle songs that are reinterpretations or reimaginings or deconstructions or whatever that successfully break from the original recordings stuck in one's brain, and that challenge the canon. Different rhythms, different harmonies, radically different voicings—yes, please. I'll listen to that, out of curiosity if nothing else, but normally I would expect to be disappointed. Which brings us to the subject at hand, the album "This Bird Has Flown," from Reimagine Music in 2005. (Reimagine Music was the brainchild of a man named Jim Sampas. Jack Kerouac was his uncle. I'm sure we'll be dealing more with Sampas in the future.) this album is all of the US version of "Rubber Soul" by different artists in different ways, and I really like it. One or two of the songs I'm not a fan of, but most of it is not only enjoyable but revelatory. The takes on the music are different from the originals, thus bringing out highly different aspects of the originals that you might not have thought of previously. At the same time, you hear how amazingly good these songs are simply as songs to begin with. I mean, yeah, sure, "Rubber Soul" is on my GOAT list, but at some point one may only be listening and not hearing. Now on this album I'm hearing these songs again fresh, both in the new interpretations and the recollection of the originals that inform them. As it turns out, most of the artists on this album are new to me, and I've captured them on the queue for the future, so we'll deal with them separately when the time comes. In the meanwhile, you can do worse than checking this particular album out now.
By the way, there's apparently at least a 50th or 60th anniversary tribute album as well. Much more to look forward to!
(I was going to write something very long and tedious about this one, but after much thought, I decided against it. It was either too obvious, or too complicated. And hell, it's long and tedious enough as it is!)
No comments:
Post a Comment