March 28th – Lots of folk get very twitchy over what are, in
reality, detached events but they somehow feel, personally, they are somehow
connected to them; the entertainment and sports’ industries have their fair share
of such twitchy members…that came out all wrong but you know what I meant.
Folk develop an unshakeable belief that something they did and
that turned out either really well or really badly was because their left sock
was put on before the right, a sweater is worn
inside out, the strings on the guitar were changed before the last gig by that
person wearing no socks and a red sweater…at exactly 18:31 and 20 seconds…with the
yellow-handled side cutters with the broken tip; the list of so-called
unreasoned superstitions to success or failure is endless.
That’s got to be a residue from the
days of survival and surviving hasn't it? Of trying to map out cause-and-effect
through what were, back then, unknown circumstances; of us, with our limited
intellect, trying to make sense out of a world we were just discovering? Of
understanding things such as the reason you weren't attacked by a lion when you
walked along this particular track to the next settlement wasn't because you
put your fur wrap over your right shoulder rather than your left the last time
you went this way but because the lion was sleeping off a huge meal of Zebu
from the day before and so wasn’t hungry.
Typical case in point is not walking
under a ladder. I mean, OK, if there’s someone up it with a bucket and sponge,
or a hammer, or a grand piano held up there by a piece of twine then it may be
that it would be wise not to walk under it; particularly if it’s a grand piano.
But that’s not because passing under the ladder’s arch is unlucky or will bring
you bad luck, but that increasing the risk of half a ton of grand piano falling
on your head by walking under it is an unnecessary start to the day; best walk
round and run no risk at all. However, if there’s no one up the ladder then
it’s not really necessary to walk round it mainly because, by doing so, you would
venture out into the road and thereby increase your risk of and accident…a sort
of safety mechanism in reverse if you like…not because to do so would bring you
bad luck because it is…well…stupid.
That belief of ensuring protection
from bad events by copying or taking advantage of information gained was
brought to mind just recently when I discovered that, on this day in 1982,
David Crosby was arrested in San Diego whilst driving under the influence and,
aside from the loaded, unlicensed .45 calibre handgun he had in the glove-box
the police also found significant quantities of Quaaludes, cocaine and various
drug impedimenta. Now, I don’t know about you but the thought of an
ego-centric, nervous pop star filled to the gunnels with various chemicals and
in charge of a loaded .45 handgun…? The words ‘safety’ and ‘security’ aren't
the first two that come to mind. It was when he was questioned about the gun,
however, that he used the two words that intrigued me; “John Lennon” he said.
And I got to thinking.
I mean no disrespect to Mr. Crosby,
really I don’t. I’m reasonably well-versed in The Byrds career, ‘Sweetheart of
the Rodeo’ really is a seminal piece of work, and CSNY, when they weren't
shoving their individual egos up each others arses, did some excellent recordings,
‘Teach Your Children Well’ being just one of them, but there’s a level of
self-delusion going on here… isn't there? Crosby
was no John Lennon, not in the global fame and influence sense at any rate, and
yet here he was claiming that he could be the next one after Mr. Lennon.
OK, I mean, maybe Mr. Crosby, to the
annoyance of his fellow band mates, did indulge in political diatribes mid-gig
so he may well have pissed folk off, but not to the extent of them wanting him
dead surely? Or, maybe George Bush’s cohorts were more mercenary than we thought.
If you use the JFK/Martin Luther King timeline as a measure of the thinking
process then surely the next one would more likely have been someone who had greater
influence on the less controllable generation. Someone whose philosophy, habits
and place in society marked them out as a target, rather than just a musician
(yes, OK, a very good one, I’ll give you that) but just a musician who spent
the majority of their career recording, touring, being catered for at every
turn and ill-advisedly involving themselves in sincere but grandstanding
political activism whilst either spaced
out by drink or drugs or getting a new liver or spending time as a guest of the
various correctional institutions peculiar to the U.S. or scrapping with their
band mates…that that sort of person would have been fairly low on the personal Armageddon
radar of the various stalkers and
nutcases who are attracted to fame and the famous; is that unkind? Wasn't meant
to be, just IMHO.
Come to think, when the reverse
bad-luck syndrome comes up, I’m reminded of the two word reply given to a
reporter who saw the beginnings of change for women happening in a country
where civil war and violence had shaped the backdrop for that change. It seemed
that sexual equality would grow from a place where, up ‘til then, male
domination had held sway. This reporter went away for several years and
returned to find that, post hostilities, women were still walking ten paces
behind their husbands. When she asked why, in the face of all the promise, this
seeming subservience was still happening, the voice from behind the headdress
simply said;
“Land mines.”
No comments:
Post a Comment