"My Funny Valentine"

If you listen to any swing music, its quite likely you've heard "My Funny Valentine", a song written by Rodgers and Hart for the Broadway show "Babes in Arms". I'd certainly heard it many times - to give you a sense of perspective, its appeared on literally more than 1300 jazz, swing and pop albums. The Ella version here is a favorite of mine, but for a little variety, try Angela McCluskey, Miles Davis and John Coltrane, or even Bjork. Honestly, pretty much whatever kind of music you like, there's probably SOMEONE who's covered My Funny Valentine. Heavy Metal... well, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised.

The first time I heard this song, myself, it was because we were playing it for jazz band in high school, and I was in LOVE with it. The tune on its own, the chord progression is utterly heartbreaking, filled this terrible longing - if it hadn't been so cheesed so many times by so many people, I think it would still appeal to many people's teenage hearts (to say nothing of adult).

But, we played an instrumental. So, being already a big fan of The Ella, I HAD to go find the song sung by... well, someone. So I did, and I was SO dissapointed.

It isn't that Ella performs it badly (although I have to confess that I have a version of this song in my head, that I've never heard anyone perform). She does it beautifully. So does, say, Barbara Streisand. But... the lyrics?

My funny valentine
Sweet comic valentine
You make me smile with my heart
Your looks are laughable
Unphotographable
Yet you're my favourite work of art

Is your figure less than greek
Is your mouth a little weak
When you open it to speak
Are you smart? 

But don't change a hair for me
Not if you care for me
Stay little valentine stay
Each day is valentines day

They're lovely lyrics, quirky, silly, clever, funny. Not heartbreaking. They felt like they should be a fun little jaunty tune. Something you'd sing with a wink. Something like, say, 'A Fine Romance', or 'Ain't Nobody's Business'.

So, here's the story as to why.

Lorenz Hart, the lyricist of My Funny Valentine, is one of the great show tune writers of the first half of the century, right up there with Cole Porter, say, or Oscar Hammerstein. He wrote a whole row of my favorites - if I had to recommend one, it would probably be Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered.

Actually I'm cheating a bit - Bewitched is definitely one of my favorites, but it also helps tell a little story. The beginning of the lyrics has a little trick in it that reminded me, when I first heard it, of Valentine: "Love is not a new sensation/I've done pretty well I think,/But this halfpint imitation/Put me on the brink." Two songs, now, where the lovesick singer croons over the physical shortcomings of the lover? Sure, Gershwin wrote lyrics like "Though he may not be the man some girls think of as handsome, to my heart he carries the key," but that sounds, if anything, a bit defensive, not bemusedly indulgent.

Hart was, is it turns out, an unattractive man - I don't say this to denigrate him, but to paraphrase him. Hart was frequently voluble about his own unattractiveness. Between his ugliness, I'd suggest his lack of self-confidence, and the fact that he was a homosexual in the 40's and 50's, Hart was alone his entire life, and his popular image was of a runty, ugly-faced man continuously wreathed in cigar smoke and the scent of alcohol.

If he had been a cynic about all of this, he would have been the sort of amusing sexless character you see in old movies of the 40's - take, for example, the rival bar owner who buys Rick's at the end of Casablanca. But, the man wrote love songs for a living, and by most accounts, believed every word of them. He was a hopeless romantic, a born lover with no one to love - or at least noone to love him back. Hart was a tremendously lonely man, and suffered from frequent bouts of crippling depression - this same was likely the source of that continual stink of alcohol.

The story of My Funny Valentine comes in here. One night, heart-broken, lonely, and miserable, Hart went into his bathroom, and stared in the mirror. He looked long and hard at the face he felt like a foreigner inside of, and tried desperately to imagine, to conceive of the possiblity, of someone looking him straight in the face, and being in love with him. Then, he wrote what someone who loved him might say to him, what a love song would sound like, if it was sung to him.

The result was My Funny Valentine. Rodgers wrote the music for it, knowing full well where the song had come from. And the song appeared on Broadway, and became an instant hit, a song full of longing, yes, but not hte longing of the singer: the longing of the listener.

Six years later, heartbroken by the death of his mother, Hart got pneumonia, his body broken by heavy binge drinking. He was found alone in a hotel room, when he didn't show up for several days to the musical he was helping to write. He died a few days later in a hospital, and was buried in Queens.

And that's the story.

Read More......

Why GLBT Issues are Important to Me (NSFW, many trigger words)

(Please note, this is a very ugly post, please navigate away if you're not okay with that)















fag - faggot - nancy - sissy - queen - dyke - homo - poof - poove - pouf - bulldyke - batty boy - bulldagger - Pansy - chicken - fruit - fairy - sprite - auntie - invert - bent - nance - pantywaist - ottoman - milksop - tabby - dam - cocksucker - cuntsucker - pussylicker - cuntlicker - dick licker - ass pirate - ass master - buttfucker - butt slut - pervert - Shirley - Judy - Dorothy - lesbo - shitpacker - fudgepacker - shit dicker - pussy-pop

Read the whole list again, out loud. Read it in the voice the words are said in. Look at your partner, lover, spouse, mother, sibling and read it again. Look at yourself in the mirror, read it again. Now, don't say anything, but close your eyes, and concentrate on that little spot just above your belly that feels sick at things that are ugly and wrong. Concentrate on how it feels. Read the list again.

That's why I support GLBT issues.

Read More......

Deconstructing the Kiss-In in Salt Lake City

What an interesting news story! I have to admit, I have a mix of odd bias on this issue - on the one hand, my wonderful parents, and the majority of folks I'm related too, are vigorously Mormon. I grew up in the Church myself, and am not one of those people who holds a deep hatred of the faith, now. The church and I do not agree, but I have the ability to be amicable on the subject. On the other hand, my beautiful wife is bisexual, and even apart from that, I have strong feelings about the rights of LGBT groups. The subject is a challenging one - but challenging isn't necessarily bad. IT strikes me as the sort of story that can help people understand each other on this subject, the sort of story where diametrically opposed groups can understand with the needs of the other group are.

So, here's the thing. The original incident itself is, on a gut level, difficult to comment on. Honestly, as USA Today's religion reporter mentions in her piece, it seems entirely possible that both the church and the couple could have handled things better. The church kicked people off of an open square, for a light peck on the lips, and the couple reacted by swearing and stomping. So, apart from the emotional reaction, here, what are the rights of each of the parties involved?

Not being a lawyer, of course, I would say submit to you, reader, that the constitution, if it cannot support laws against sodomy, would seem to not to be able to create a double standard for public affection behaviours, either - if President Monson and his wife held hands walking down a public street and he pecked her on the cheek, I imagine they wouldn't be arrested. As such, it seems clear to me that we can't legally prohibit the same public behaviour between, say, George Takei and his husband.

But, from a legal standpoint, there's a wrench in all this: the land that the two men were standing on when they kissed was private property, owned by the Church. An organization has the right to apply certain standards to what can and cannot be done on private land - just not public land. If I held a barbecue in my yard, I think I ought to have the right to apply rules to how said barbecue progresses - for instance, while it is legal for someone to carry beer down the sidewalk in front of my house, I don't want them to bring it into my yard. I personally disagree strongly with the opinions of the Mormon church in this particular matter, but to paraphrase Voltaire, I will defend to the death their right to have them. I think it would be appropriate legally (morally being beyond the bounds of this conversation, because I don't imagine the two sides will agree on morals) for the Mormon church to ask someone to leave if the kissed inside a Mormon chapel, just as I think it would be appropriate to ask somebody holding 'God Hates Fags' signs to leave a Gay bar.

That being said, there is three problems I can see for the Church's position on this. First of all, even a private location cannot have complete control over what is and is not permissable within it. They must, for instance, make it reasonably clear what is and is not allowed within the space, and I'm not sure there's a sign around Main Street Plaza that says "No Boys Kissing Boys." One might reasonably suppose that the Church would prefer homosexuals not to kiss on their property, but then, the church doesn't kick people out for, say, wearing sleeveless dresses. It is possible to imagine that a homosexual couple might assume that, because the Church has opened up the grounds as a public forum of sorts, that they wouldn't dictate the morals of individual visitors.

Secondly, there is the location itself. From what I can tell of research, Main Street Plaza is not just the grounds of the temple itself - inside the fence, as it were - it is an open area beside said fenced grounds. See for instance this map or this image/ The area would seem to be, more or less, a public thoroughfare that for some odd reason is owned by a private institution. What reason? Well, apparently, the church gave the city some land to build a community center on, and was given this land in return - given, again, an open thoroughfare. The whole deal makes me a little squeamish, and I am apparently not the only one. The church has apparently banned protesting on the site. Now, on the one hand, I can understand this - understand, that this is the main entry to a very personal site for many Mormons, and (having visited the place myself) some of the protestors are none too pleasant about their protests, hassling wedding parties for instance who are enroute to the temple. But, to some degree, one is left wondering, first of all, if the city can, in good faith, sell a public thoroughfare off under normal circumstances, and second, if an organization as implicitly political as the Mormon church, who after all are explicitly involved in certain political issues, ought to be allowed to shut down a site of legitimate social protest - imagine, for example, if the United States government sold the National Mall to a private contractor, who banned protests afterwards.

Finally, from a practical standpoint, there are different layers of private in private property. Imagine, for instance, if the church developed a racist position, and banned black people from walking through the Plaza - or more analagously, said black people could walk through, as long as they didn't hold hands or kiss. Would this be legal? That's a difficult question. Should it be legal? I don't think it should. If a church is openly racist and wishes to ban people from their services, I can accept that - I think they're wrong, but again, I defend to the death their right to be wrong. But a public, unfenced thoroughfare through the heart of a major American city? I'm just not sure that's the same thing. After all, if a bus company is privately owned, they still shouldn't be allowed to force blacks to ride the back of the bus. Now, the question will arise, as it always does, whether there is some substantive difference between blacks as a group and homosexuals as a group. A homosexual can abstain from sex, but a black person can't abstain from having dark skin, after all, right? But, even if one accepts such a position (which I personally don't) - what if black people COULD flip a switch and be white? Would we want to legalize banning them when they choose to wear black skin? Or would we allow a ban on, say, people who dye their hair?

Given the sceptre for the day, what would I suggest? I think both sides have a perfectly valid right to attention in this issue. I think that the church has a right to it's privacy, and to enforce certain reasonable standards within it's own walls - but only within it's own walls. I do not think two gay people should legally be allowed to kiss inside Temple Square itself, for instance, if the church makes it clear that they don't wish such behaviour. However, when the church purchased the Plaza, I would submit that they also purchased the precedent of said plaza as a public thoroughfare, and while they can make reasonable restrictions in order to beautify and market the place (I believe it was changed to a pedestrian only walkway, which I can accept), they cant' be allowed to restrict any fundamental rights of indivudals - rights of speech, rights of assembly, rights of religion, etc. Homosexuals, on the other hand, have no right to antagonize Mormons. The street cannot simply be a convenient place to piss off the owners. But, there should be a right to have assemblies, and right to the quiet, everyday self-expression that is reasonable for people to have.

I'd be interested to see what other people think?

Read More......

Proposition 8

I don't know, there's not much more I can say about this issue. My wife wrote a passionate posting earlier on this issue. I don't speak as she does, I don't understand things in the same way, usually, but I do agree. There's not much I could offer really additionally, as far as convincing people to change their minds, one way or the other. The whole thing feels just like bigotry against, say, Muslims, or, dare I say, Mormons. I don't understand it, even when I was in the church, and believing as hard as I could, I still didn't. We live in a world with so much pain, and hurt - right or wrong, is this the most important issue, the one we need to galvanize around? It's important that we not let people who live together and love each other get married, if that's what they belive is right? Homosexuality isn't an issue - it's a reality. Why do good-hearted people have to be seperated over all of this? And the worst of it, is these commercials, about teaching gay marriage in schools. It's an arguable point, I guess, although all the educational groups have pretty much come out and said that they will not be required to teach gay marriage under this law. I guess you could argue that someone particularly militant on the other side of the fence might use this as an excuse. But that's just it - this 'other side of the fence' politics is what's killing us, now, and these commercials, funded partly from tithing, money that is set aside to do the work of God in the Church's teachings, is going to fund commercials that pander to the worst sort of reactionary fear in people. They don't appeal to men's better selves, they scare people into agreeing, and that's not the sort of politics Christ would ever have practiced. I can understand disagreement, I can understand fundamental disagreement, I can't understand Christ-sanctioned, divinely appointed mudslinging. Not too long ago I stopped going to Church. AT the time, it was a painful, personal decision, one that troubled me, because the Church teaches a lot of beautiful things. MY experience in the Nauvoo and San Antonio temples is one of the most beautiful things I have experienced. But, I cannot, in good conscience, even consider the possibility that I might one day return to this, it's gone for me now. I don't know, I've never known what is and isn't true, in all but the most fumbling of ways. But, I cannot talk myself into this one - if God wants me to serve a cause best served by deceit, fear, and hatred, then God wants someone else, I suppose - I cannot reconcile my little timid soul to it, I guess, and if that's what it takes, I'll consign myself to whatever lesser gifts God sets aside for those who are only willing to do what their hearts say is good. I feel, I suppose, like I can finally understand the quote by Brigham Young, where he says he felt sick and confused when he first heard the revelation on plural marriage. If this was a spiritual test for me, I am content with failing it. It's a difficult feeling, knowing either that you must question any feeling of revelation you ever had, assume God doesn't exist, or believe that he's not particularly nice. Anyway, much love to everyone on both sides of this issue, I hope nobody feels attacked or hurt, but sometimes things must be said, I guess. Please, on the one side nobody post any 'you're a satan-spawned demon' comments, and on the other, nobody post 'yeah, religion sucks, and all theists are total numbskulls.' Neither does your feelings credit. Honest thoughts and feelings are, as always, more than welcome, but I'm no dispenser of wisdom, so no guarantees I can offer anything useful back. With what little voice I can offer, and with little potency, since I don't think I know anyone in California, I encourage you to vote against Proposition 8. Just let people be. I hope the tone of this came out write, it's sad, not grouchy.

Read More......