“She Made Opera out of Oprah”

YouTube Preview Image

When I was an undergrad, I sometimes chanced to meet up in the Student Recreation Complex weight room with a kid named Raul. Raul suffered from what I now realize was Tourette’s syndrome, snorting and jerking his head in mid-sentence before going on to complete his thoughts. Spotting him on the bench or military press felt like defusing a bomb. If he suffered an attack in mid rep, my feeble hands would be the only things keeping the weight-laden bar from his larynx or skull.

Nothing of the kind happened. After we’d known each other a few months, I worked up the nerve to congratulate Raul, in so many words, for functioning so well despite his disability. He explained — I think I’m getting this right — that the concentration required by weight training temporarily neutralized the mechanism that made him twitch. Working out had thus assumed a double importance for him: not only had it made him objectively cut, it made him feel normal.

It was in the spirit of auto-empowerment, he said, that he chose his workout music. Whereas the PA system in the weight room blasted out hair-band stuff — Poison, Mötley Crüe, Cinderella, Skid Row — Raul inspired himself (through a Sony Walkman) with “One Moment in Time,” the single Whitney Houston had recorded for the 1988 summer Olympics. I won’t swear he said, “I couldn’t have done it without Whitney,” but he gave the impression of thinking so.

Well, Whitney’s gone — dead at 48. I’m feeling the same survivor’s guilt I always feel at the passing of a celebrity to whom I’d managed to form no very strong attachment. She sang Gospel-flavored R & B, the kind of music my ears have always refused to appreciate. Or maybe the blockage is in my brain. My mother has always been a passionate fan of jazz divas like Billie and Ella. Growing up, watching in impotent rage as she invaded the sanctuary of my room to scrub the snot off my walls, I noticed she was always singing “Don’t Get Around Much Any More.” My puerile mind derived a slippery-slope argument: If you start liking big-voiced black women, you’ll start liking Bette Midler and Maria Callas. And then, one day, you’ll come home in a dress.

I found affirmation in the work of scruffy white guys with behavioral problems. To this day, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that Johnny Cash, Mike Ness and Shane McGowan aren’t three Persons — distinct, yet consubstantial — forming a single rockabilly Being. By the time Whitney introduced herself to the world with “How Will I Know,” I was already ruined for her.

For that reason I’ll humbly farm out the task of eulogizing her to others. On Saturday, Salon re-ran “Didn’t She Almost Have it All?”, an essay written in 2006 by Rebecca Traister. At the time of the piece’s initial publication, Whitney was already lost beyond recall, the photos of her home drug den too squalid even for Us Magazine to run. Her image had sustained such damage that watching her say, “I’ve got to poop a poop” on reality TV struck Traister as “refreshingly real” compared to the alibis and doublespeak she’d dealt out in her infamous interview with Diane Sawyer.

To a point, Traister cleaves to rise-and-fall-of conventions by presenting Whitney’s career as a morality tale. One of her sources, University of Wisconsin’s African-American studies department chairman Craig Werner, explains her decline in terms that might resonate with today’s conservative cultue warriors. Thanks to the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector, religious leaders’ declining influence and the war on drugs, Whitney emerged during “an extremely chaotic period in African American culture,” Werner told Traister. “Celebrity culture replaced the culture of community that had nurtured soul music and early rock ‘n’ roll,” creating “a perfect storm of how to screw up somebody’s life.”

There’s something seedy, a kind of barely concealed prurience, in the urge to reduce the complex life of a complex person to an occasion for finger wagging. Happily, Traister resists it. Unable to determine just who Whitney Houston was, and unsatisfied with speculating what she’d done to herself or what others had done to her, Traister salutes what she managed to do for the general culture. She quotes music journalist Danny Alexander to the effect that Whitney, along with Madonna, Tina Turner and Janet Jackson, “carved out a space for women to come close to dominating pop radio in the early ’90s — as not simply producers’ pawns … but serious artists demanding artistic control and respect and, in Whitney’s case in particular, with a vocal talent to rival anyone else on the radio.”

But it’s Jody Rosen who wins the Best Epitaph Award. In Slate, she writes that Whitney, “made opera out of Oprah” by codifying “late 80s therapy culture” in songs like “The Greatest Love of All.” As far as 21st-century Catholics are concerned, that — not the crack — might be the final word and the final straw. Why, I can hear the objection now: If self-esteem were estimable, then Chesterton wouldn’t have mocked it at the beginning of Orthodoxy. So there!

Okay, the call to self-healing in Whitney’s songs might not have worked for Whitney herself, but it did a thing or two for Raul. By the time we parted company, he could have cracked a walnut between his delts and his traps. If that helped him find the confidence to grab a girl and a degree, maybe start a business, I certainly won’t begrudge him it. Where were you, Matt Maher?

M.I.A. and Randall Terry: Co-Victors

There’s a strange symmetry between British singer M.I.A. and pro-life activist Randall Terry. Both have dedicated their careers, to one degree or another, to raising awareness of genocide. In her songs and videos, M.I.A. (born Maya Arulpragasam) refers to the repression of her people, Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority, at the hands of the nation’s Sinhalese majority. Terry might qualify as America’s most fervent and ubiquitous pro-life activist. After years of perfecting their respective brands of guerila chic, both struck Sunday at the Super Bowl — M.I.A. by offering her middle finger to the audience, Terry by airing a particularly graphic TV spot.

Each can claim a partial victory.

First, the lady and her finger. M.I.A. did not, as it turns out, violate any well-defined FCC regulations in flipping audiences the bird while sharing the stage with Madonna during the halftime show. Broadcast lawyer Harry Cole tells Hollywood Reporter that the agency would be more likely to come after M.I.A. for appearing to use the word shit.

Even that might not hold up. In 2010, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a strict 2001 FCC policy forbidding even “fleeting” and “non-literal” uses of profane language. Because the guidelines were “unconstitutionally vague,” they would likely have a “chilling effect” on free speech as broadcasters tried, uneasily, to interpret them, knowing that a misinterpretation could mean a hefty fine. Soon, the Supreme Court will rule on a larger question: Does its own justification for holding FCC rules to a relatively low level of scrutiny — that television is uniquely “pervasive” and accessible to children — still make sense, given the pervasiveness of cable TV and the Internet? The Court heard oral arguments from both sides this past January.

Next, the man and his video. Terry produced 30-second spots showing aborted fetuses along with the voiced-over comments: “The innocent blood of over 50 million babies cries out to God from our sewers and landfills” and “Christians who vote for Obama, knowing he promotes murder have blood on their hands.” Knowing that FCC rules entitled qualified presidential candidates “reasonable access” to the airwaves, Terry declared he was running for president as a write-in candidate. He introduced himself and his ads to TV-station managers with a letter that threatened: “If you deny me my rights as a federal candidate, you will be committing a willful violation of FCC law, and subject to FCC sanctions.”

When WMAQ, a Chicago station, rejected the ads, the FCC decided that Terry had campaigned too little in Illinois to invoke “reasonable access” rules. But television stations in four states did agree to air Terry’s ads — some during the game, some before it. Since the videos look to have been produced on someone’s laptop, Terry can’t help but realize an enormous return on his investment. Come 2016, Terry will be able to carpet-bomb America with his ads, provided he makes sure to get on the ballot in time.

It’s easy to see M.I.A. and Terry as representing opposite sides in the culture war. One affects a style described by the New York Times as “tomboy-meets-ghetto-fabulous-meets-exotic-princess”; the other compares himself to Churchill and Reagan. Be that as it may, the battle of the Super Bowl looks like a tie. Not only has NBC apologized for M.I.A., an unnamed source close to the singer has sworn she had succumbed to “an attack of adrenaline,” was “caught up in the moment” and is “terribly sorry.” Meanwhile, Terry continues to plug his videos, now armed with greater notoriety than before.

Popular music and politics have always shown a vulgar streak. (In the “Bully Song,” copyrighted in 1896, a white singer named May Irwin sang about a fatal razor fight in what would now be called Ebonics, anticipating Eminem by more than a century.) If it turns out that the FCC can no longer protect viewers from the vulgarest of each — well, we’ll just have to get used to it. For better or worse, we’ll end up developing a tune-out mechanism. Mine is already pretty robust: when I finally saw the Terry videos, long after I’d heard about them, my thought was, “That’s the nicest thing anyone’s said about Obama all week.” M.I.A.’s middle finger did nothing to shock me, nor — in FCC-friendly terms — to make me give much more of a (expletive) about the Tamils than I’d given to begin with.

At this point, it’d be silly to ask, “Which would you rather see?” American Super Bowl viewers in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Tulsa and Oklahoma City, among other markets, got see both. This modest sampler platter of jarring images may become a fixture of that most American of institutions. Call it the price of freedom.

“Hallelujah” in Alaska: Northern Christmas Lights

YouTube Preview Image

In most cases, playing Christmas music after Christmas is in even worse taste than wearing white after Labor Day. This video from Quinhagak, Alaska, demands a dispensation from that rule.

The inhabitants of this village on the Kanektok river — major industries fishing and canning, per capita income $8,127 — pull off this masterpiece by keeping it simple. They hold up signs with the words to “The Hallelujah Chorus” from Handel’s Messiah. It works: it’s funny and charming and sweet.

According to YouTube, it began as a project among the 5th graders at some school called “Kuinerrarmiut Elitnaurviat.” (I understand that’s Inuit for “Snow day? You trippin’!”) However, people from all ages appear to be taking part. As you watch, be sure to count them. According to the 2000 census, Quinhagak has 555 inhabitants. By the time the final “Hallelujah” fades out, it’s just possible you’ll have laid eyes on the face of every single Quinhagakian.

Watch, enjoy. Cheer these good people of the North. But do it quietly, for Pete’s sake. The video was meant for an audience of 200. Since it’s gone viral, YouTube reports, “the village of Quinhagak is glowing.” Any more attention, they’ll probably try “Numa Numa.”