Raymond Scott: Cindy Electronium

Hot sounds from 1959: Cindy Electronium by Raymond Scott,  

His pioneering of electronic music was a second career for Scott who was born Harry Warnow in Brooklyn , NY in 1908.  Previously he was a composer and bandleader of jazz, under the auspices of his 7 piece band, the Raymond Scott Quintette (he preferred the sound of it to Septette).  In 1943, he sold his musical catalog to Warner Brothers. The studio's house composer Carl Stalling immortalized it thanks to frequent quotes of such Scott tunes as Powerhouse in Warner Bros. Cartoons:

Here's a seasonal tune with the Quintette, Ectoplasm, recorded in 1948 and rereleased on a Populuxe hi-fi anthology a decade later:

Canidae versus Felidae

The New Yorker periodically hosts a debate on the crucially relevant topic Dog or Cat?  To definitively settle the question (per the organizers' hype), they invite celebrities (New Yorker famous celebrities) outspoken in their preferences to represent their respective tribes.  Learning about one year's event, I was somewhat surprised to discover within myself a stake in the outcome.  I've had dogs and cats all my life.  I probably slightly if not more than slightly prefer the idea of cats myself (sorry, Argos), though of course I love my dog just fine (Sorry Blanche and Rizzo).  But truthfully, it's not so much dogs that bother me as do dog people.  I'm talking about the dog enthusiasts, who almost fetishize the animal, who advertise their fancy on their bumpers, who are stung when you forget to ask about their pet, who feed their dogs from their own mouth. What kind of sick fuck must one be to actually prefer the obsequious neediness of a dog to the mere is-ness of a cat?  Honestly, I like dogs in spite of their bullshit, not because of it.  But as usual, reading through the comments on the website announcing the contest, I realized that setting aside the cat vs dog question, what I really hate is people.

A few years ago, my brother who shares my ambivalence about the matter collaborated with me on a list of dog versus cat responses to a hypothetical opinion survey of preferences.  To give an indication of the time frame, we had a vague notion of seeing if we could create some viral email spam with it.  We both bristled at the internet phenomenon of the Lolcat who spoke a misspelled pidgin baby talk.  In our view, this was how humans spoke to cats.  Not how cats would speak to us if they deigned to fill us in on their thoughts.  Our view of cats and dogs was formed mostly from experience with them, but as for cultural influences, it had more in common with the Warner Brothers conception of them than the soulless Disney view.  A sample of some of the survey questions might give a flavor of our feelings on the matter:

 Food:

• Dogs: Cheerios 
• Cats: Pomegranates

Favorite Musical Artist:  

• Dogs: Carrie Underwood
• Cats: Bjork

Book:

• Dogs: How to Win Friends and Influence People 
• Cats: The Prince

Denomination:

• Dogs: Presbyterian 
• Cats: Zoroastrian 

Color:  

• Dogs: Beige   
• Cats: Aubergine

Movie: 

• Dogs: Titanic 
• Cats: Salo: 100 Days of Sodom

Number:

• Dogs: 1  
• Cats: e

Song from the 60s: 

• Dogs: Bend Me, Shape Me   
• Cats: Walk, Don't Run

Dance: 

• Dogs: The Jerk   
• Cats: The Twist

Transportation:  

• Dogs: Motorcycle Sidecar   
• Cats: Zeppelin

Vacation: 

• Dogs: Alaska    
• Cats: Easter Island

Religio-Political Philosophy: 

• Dogs: Antidisestablishmentarianism  
• Cats: Contra-antidisestablishmentarianism-ology

Midnight Snack:  

• Dogs: Dagwood Sandwich  
• Cat: The hamster

Returning to the New Yorker debate, to my memory, when audiences vote on the proceedings, dogs generally win.  If dogs only knew, they would be thrilled.   Cats, I'm pretty sure,  could give a shit.

Lesser Evil 2020

Unfinished ramblings:

After a year of pandemic including a spring and summer of quarantine, plus the weirdest most anticlimactic democratic primary ever, followed by freakish conventions of the two major parties, the threat of the end of feasibility of liberal influence on the supreme court for potentially decades to come, anxiety and aspersions cast on the voting process by the president himself, culminating in the recklessness and indifference of a president to a disease that his inaction has permitted to slay nearly a quarter million of his citizens and made him and his inner circle sick in a way that he seems determined to empower him, I think I have reached a sputtering stage, so this could be a month for extremely light posting, but before I ramp down, I wanted to take a moment to make an endorsement for the November presidential election.  (as long as you don't hold me to it.)

I have voted in 10 presidential elections since I first reached the age of suffrage.   I voted in 4 primaries until I went independent before Bill Clinton's second term in a state that has closed primaries, and did not re-declare as a democrat until 2016 (so I could vote for Bernie Sanders). My primary choice has never won.  As for the General Election, I'm batting .400. So I don't expect to win this time either. 

One party is actively engaged in hurting people.  The other's harm infliction is a bit less active.  One party is tromping in oversized clodhoppers down the path stomping on every ant, snake, ladybug, toad, mouse,  immigrant, poor person and child it sees.  The other is tromping more seriously, eyes straight ahead on the path of righteousness.  If it also kills everything in its wake, it's unfortunate but its intentions were good. (There are other parties whose existence seems to be just therapeutic for those who require their vote to balm them-- their harm to everything in their path is more indirect.)

Does it matter who the president is?  I've never heard a convincing argument that it doesn't, and yet it is true, of the two parties who win, one is actively trying to hurt you, the other considers your pain collateral damage toward a goal toward which it is pushing that even if it is reached you will never benefit from, but the hurt feels the same. 

If you voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary (but not if you are Bernie Sanders), you may balk at the notion of voting for the lesser evil.  If you keep voting for the lesser evil, your thinking may be, you are still voting for evil.  You are still helping the slide to the right; that is, to the side of Evil.  But the reality is, if you do not vote for the lesser evil, you will surely get the greater evil.  Vote for lesser evil.  If you live in a safe state and expect those in swing states to do the dirty work for you, vote in solidarity with them.  No matter what happens at the end of the day, come January, roll up your sleeves and get to work.    It will be easier with less evil in the air.  With the resistance retired, the work will be more productive.

Words by E.J. Dempsey (as W.R. Winspear); Art by Claude Marquet (1916)

Let me count the ways

 It's a sad sign of the state of my mental block that the above cartoon is what I feel compelled to write about but we must find inspiration where we can, mustn't we?  Is political cartooning not one side of a dialogue anyway?  I can't organize my thoughts into a coherent whole but I can list some of them.  Here follow some artless notions that the above compels in me.  "There's a lot to unpack" as the youngsters are wont to say. ^_^

• I sense some bitterness here.  Is the cartoonist okay?

• Is this a prediction?  Is there supposed to be a point?  Is it just moaning?  If it's just moaning that's okay.  I'm not sure I get the point if it's supposed to be an argument.

• This looks like it might be the artist's conception of how voting for "the lesser evil" will go. Can you imagine for a moment how it will go if "the greater evil" wins?  Is it better or worse? 

• There seems to be a suggestion that we know how things will go if Biden wins.  There's a recycled feeling to the proceedings.  Recycling will be bad. Okay.

• Who is this cartoon trying to convince?  Is it vote shaming true believing dems?  Is it an argument against voting for Biden aimed at fence-sitters and nose-holders?  I'm starting to think it could really just be moaning.

• What did the cartoonist expect?  Biden has already said nothing will fundamentally change. We already mourn that this is the best we can hope for in the next couple of weeks.  It's still a change that we hope for.

• Maybe the message is more subtle than I'm giving it credit for.  Maybe it's an entreaty to Biden himself to be better than the cynics expect him to be.  That could work!

• I suppose the point of the piece is that we all die in the end.  I can't argue with that.

• I'm trying to imagine the me in 2024 that suddenly gets the message that the cartoonist was trying to send me from 2020.  2024 me is feeling nothing.  

• Dying really showed the Democrat!  

• It's nice that the artist portrays the Democrat as caring about the dead person's vote.  From my perspective it's a problem that real-life Democrats in non-cartoon world aren't demonstrating enough concern about  non-voters.

• Why do I not feel sad about the death of the passive complaining Biden victim.  Has my heart become so hardened?