“The Yoko Ono of Jazz”

 This week, an old, ugly, misogynist, racist, character smear reared its ugly head (as so much vile, misogynist, racist slime does these days) when Dominic Green, music critic of the Weekly Standard, wrote: “The story goes that Coltrane was using LSD after 1965. If so, then the overreach and incoherence of his final music, and his mingling with admiring but inferior talents like Alice Coltrane, the Yoko Ono of jazz, suggest that Coltrane might be the sixties’ first and foremost acid casualty, flailing out rather than flaming out, the peak of his late style already behind him.”

Despite the welcome and robust rebuke Green has received online, this view, that “Alice Coltrane is the Yoko Ono of jazz” and that she is an “inferior talent” is not new. When Wynton Marsalis put together a celebration at Lincoln Center of Coltrane’s 80th birthday in 2006, he not only excluded any post A Love Supreme music (the music, with which Alice was most intimately involved), but relegated her concert to a side performance. Ben Ratliff, the great commentator on Coltrane’s music, was judicious in his comments at the time: “As far as Coltrane’s later work — mid-1965 to 1967 (when he died) — that music is alive from within and mysterious from without, and perhaps it’s better celebrated by other musicians anyway. (The accompanying list of highlights includes other concerts, including one by his widow, Alice Coltrane, that might do the job.) But let’s not get hung up on this issue.”

This hatred towards Alice Coltrane, her music and her relationship with John, had reached a crescendo in 1972 with the release of the album Infinty. On that album, Alice overdubbed her own orchestral arrangements over unreleased recordings of her husband’s playing. Though the outrage most music critics exhibited at the time was the re-contextualization of Coltrane’s playing (something akin to colorizing black and white films), it was also the “eastern” spirituality, the “feminine” strings, the squelching of the fire music that were also often cited.
    

What I find interesting about Green’s use of the “Alice Coltrane is the Yoko Ono of jazz” is that I grew up and developed musical taste somewhere between the controversy surrounding the release of Infinity and the 80th birthday tribute. My taste in music really developed in the 1990s, during a boom in CD reissues. I was in a position to actually compare Alice Coltrane and Yoko Ono’s music respectively because Journey in Satchidananda and Yoko Ono: Plastic Ono Band were both reissued on cd in 1997 and I bought both when they came out. I think it’s safe to say that Alice Coltrane’s music and Yoko Ono’s music don’t have very much in common (or as much in common as Johns Coltrane and Lennon have to each other). I loved both cds very much, and understood each as a radical, alternative path for their respective chosen genres: jazz and rock. 

Moreover, even if their music doesn’t share much in common, it is clear that both musicians were greatly respected by their peers: Ornette Coleman frequently collaborated with both Alice Coltrane and Yoko Ono (he appears on the bonus tracks of the Plastic Ono Band cd). Finally, as was pointed out by many musicians in magazines like the Wire during the 1990s, Alice Coltrane and Yoko Ono’s musical influence was/is widespread, with many younger musicians collaborating with Ono on her 90s albums, and musicians as widely diverse as Paul Weller, Nick Cave and Sunn0))) singing the praises of Alice Coltrane and naming songs/pieces after her and her work.
    

But, of course, Green doesn’t ask you to compare their work, their relationship with their life partners, or their subsequent influence on music. He just asks you to nod in assent and recognize the opportunistic succubus for what she is. He would probably protest this characterization and sugar-coat it as something more along the lines of “these poor geniuses (Johns Coltrane and Lennon), if only they weren’t so blinded by love and clouded by acid, they would have recognized how talentless these women are.” It’s a kinder, gentler form of misogyny, but it is still bald enough on its face that most people called it out on social media.
    

Green’s column comes just weeks after David Crosby (who is an odious person, lacking any meaningful friends at this point) responded to new songs by Yoko Ono by tweeting: “She may well be a very nice person but She cannot sing , write , or play, at all ...I was offended by her demanding to be taken as seriously as John ...pretension to artistic standing she did not deserve.” In a sense, Crosby is basically saying the same thing as Green only about the other person in the analogy. The reactions on social media couldn’t have been different. Many people came to Alice Coltrane’s defense when Green called her the Yoko Ono of jazz, and then subsequently came to Yoko Ono’s defense as well. The minute anyone on David Crosby’s social media page attempted to simply point out facts, i.e. Yoko Ono had an artistic career BEFORE she met Lennon, and that HE met HER at one of HER shows, someone was there to respond with how talentless she is, or how much money she’s made since Lennon’s death. 

It is not surprising at all that jazz fans would come to the defense of Alice Coltrane, not only because jazz has a longer history of embracing many musical forms (if not being known for gender diversity), but because many of the people defending her online seem to be my age and younger. I imagine many of them either grew up with the cd reissues that I did (and therefore didn’t have to simply go with the received notions older siblings and parents passed down), or grew up in the age of YouTube and Spotify, where they can hear these albums in multiple contexts. Also, younger jazz musicians have embraced the larger, technicolor, worldly, yet spiritual approach to jazz that Alice used as her palette (Kamasi Washington comes most readily to mind).
    

Yet, Crosby’s timeline demonstrates how deep rooted the misogyny against female musicians can be in our society, especially among the baby boomers and the culture surrounding their music. If, in the current generation of jazz musicians and fans, such disparaging of Alice Coltrane can be called out for the misogyny it is, clearly misogyny among boomer classic rock fans can still be couched in terms of talent, technique and creativity.  Green can get away with the shorthand of “the Yoko Ono of jazz” only because David Crosby and others had already laid the groundwork of the talentless, minority wife of a more famous guy.
   

“With a faith at the size of a seed enough to be redeemed”

“The messiah will come only when his is no longer necessary; he will come only on the day after his arrival [….]” -Franz Kafka

Introduction

It’s arguable that there has always been a “messianic” complex within rap music. Since it’s inception at the end of the 1970s, MCs have claimed the mantel of “the greatest”, or, alternately, the one who will save the music from those who speak falsely in its name. As hip hop ascended in its popularity and cultural influence, leading to its infamy among certain segments of the population, MCs increasingly saw themselves as persecuted in a messianic fashion, often using the most ignominious language of the church to describe their ordeals. Perhaps most infamously, Chuck D., lead MC of the group Public Enemy, in their 1990 track “Welcome to the Terrordome,” chastises the “so-called chosen” as “frozen” and argues “they [the chosen] got me like Jesus.” The messianic complex of the MC reached its zenith, perhaps, with the figure of 2Pac Shakur, who was shot and killed in 1996. A posthumous album, The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory, featured a crucified 2Pac suggesting that he was a martyr within the culture at large. Despite the shooting initially being ascribed to a west coast gang related retaliation, 2pac’s death, in the subsequent years, has taken on almost mythic proportions, with theories abounding that the FBI might have been involved, as well as theories that, like Jesus, 2pac might still be alive having arisen from death.

Although the deification of 2pac seemingly fits with the longer inter-rap tradition (if not larger aesthetic tradition) of the genius who must be sacrificed for his art, his death transpires so that the art—all the way up to the son, Kendrick Lamar—may live, the cultural critic Michael Eric Dyson sees something else in the conflagration of 2pac and Jesus: 

Upon deeper reflection, Tupac’s Black Jesus might have more to do with the 

actual Jesus, the real Jesus, the Jesus of history, than the one whose crucified body bears the marks of his misappropriations and mischaracterizations, and whose resurrected body suffers under the weight of two millennia of historical

accretions and theological distortions. Black Jesus is the Jesus of deep, dark 

history, the God of the underside […] the God who literally got beat down and hung up, the God who died a painful, shameful death, subject to capital 

punishment under political authority and attack, but who came back, and keeps coming back, in the form and flesh we least expect. 

Both 2pac’s thematization of the Black Jesus figure in the posthumous track “Black Jesus” and his ultimate death, weather falsely or not, at the hands of “political authority” is a political act that speaks to a longer tradition of the “black Jesus” within African-American culture. 

In recent years, this figure, the “black Jesus” or, more appropriately, the “black Messiah” has resurfaced as a trope within the culture of rap and R&B. The three albums under consideration, Yeezus, Black Messiah and To Pimp a Butterfly all engage with this figure and with the thematics of redemption in general. West’s album makes this connection explicit with its title (albeit interpolating it into his own nickname), D’Angelo reinvigorates its political efficacy with his album, and Lamar lays out the afterlife (literally by conjuring up 2pac as the estimated prophet at the end of the album) of its tradition.

The Messiah

I don’t come to this topic well-versed in the history of the black Messiah. My interest in the figure comes from the intersection of my research on conceptions of Judaic Messianism in the 20th century thought and my love of hip hop. As these albums were being released, and as the news events of 2014 were unfolding, I was writing a chapter, in an unrelated book project, on the debate between the Jewish theologians Gershom Scholem and Jacob Taubes regarding messianic Judaism. Scholem’s thesis, developed in the essay “Towards an Understanding of the Messianic Idea in Judaism” (from which this essay gets its title), argues that while messianism in Judaism “always maintained a concept of redemption as an event which takes place publicly, on the stage of history and within the community,” messianism in Christianity “conceives of redemption as an event in the spiritual and unseen realm […] which need not correspond to anything outside.” Scholem’s critique of the Jewish messianic idea, therefore, leads to “endless powerlessness,” something “preliminary,” concluding that while “there is something grand about living in hope […] at the same time there is something profoundly unreal about it.” In his indictment of the messianic idea, Scholem argues that it “compelled a life lived in deferment, in which nothing can be done definitively, nothing can be irrevocably accomplished.” Taubes, in his direct response to Scholem’s essay many decades later, argues against its pessimistic conclusions: “It is not the messianic idea that subjugated us to ‘a life lived in deferment.’ Every endeavor to actualize the messianic idea was an attempt to jump into history, however mythically derailed the attempt may have been.” 

Although this inter-Jewish dialogue with regard to the messianic idea would seem to have little to say to the “black Jesus” or the “black Messiah,” Scholem’s initial desire to map out the interiority/exteriority along the Christian/Jewish axis does broaden the scope of the essay’s applicability. The notion of the “black Messiah” complicates the interiority/exteriority distinction Scholem makes. Wilson Jeremiah Moses’ book Black Messiahs and Uncle Toms offers a definition of messianism as follows: “the perception of a person or a group, by itself or by others, as having a manifest destiny or a God-given role to assert the providential goals of history and to bring about the kingdom of God on earth.” Because Moses is interested in both the religious and secular versions of the messianic idea, black messianism affords the flexibility to play with the concept outside of traditional boundaries. Moses argues that “[n]o group of Americans have had more deeply rooted or more stubbornly maintained messianic tradition than black Americans […] This is singular because, unlike the other subgroups in society who have seen themselves as messianic, black Americans have not had a common religion. They have nonetheless been able to maintain a distinct messianic tradition despite differences in class culture and regional background.” In that sense, black Messianism, according to Moses, mirrors more closely 

Scholem’s argument of Jewish messianism, which plays out on the stage of history and within the community. Yet, there is a theological difference insofar as the Jewish messiah still remains a religiously redemptive force that speaks of the fulfillment of laws. And, since a portion of the African-American community still identifies itself as Christian, there is, one would assume, an aspect of the African-American community that would fall under Scholem’s rubric of an interior messianism. 

Moses’ study seems relevant in the analysis of these records not only because of his concentration on black messianism but, because, Moses is interested in mapping out the “literary and historical” dynamics of the myth rather than in the theological efficacy and actuality of the black messiah. This allows for a dynamism which encompasses both “real” historical figures such as Nat Turner, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X but literary figures such as Uncle Tom and Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man. This mode of analysis is useful for discussing the three albums in question since, the various concepts of messianism and redemption that feature in their music, first and foremost, have a political and secular focus. 

Yeezus

When Kanye West entitled his 2013 record Yeezus it seemed like a cynical joke: the latest in a long line of rappers crowning themselves the second coming. Kanye’s nickname has always been “Yeezy”—a nickname given to him by Jay-Z—and the album title conflates his nick name with Jesus. At the listening party for the album, however, Kanye elaborated on the origin of the title: “Simply put: West was my slave name and Yeezus is my god name.” Whether or not one wants to think that might be the most cynical move of all—using the Nation of Islam’s removal of the slave name to give himself the most exalted new one—Kanye clearly wants to mark the title of his album as a continuation of political history. Of course, this isn’t the first time that Kanye had explicitly gone political. His first exposure on a national stage, beyond the music world who had already embraced him after the release of The College Dropout (2004), was a nationally televised segment in a concert for the victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In his rambling comments,  West compares  the lack of response to the African-American victims of Katrina with the media’s representation of the event, his own culpability in contributing to the culture of consumerism before helping members of his own community (his self-condemnation echoes George W. Bush’s now (in)famous address after 9/11 that Americans should go out and shop), and the war in Iraq.  After his co-presenter, the comedian Mike Meyers, discusses the loss of “the spirit of the people of Southern Louisiana and Mississippi”, Kanye West looks straight into the camera and utters the sentence for which he is still somewhat famous: “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Again, it’s entirely possible to understand Kanye’s statement as part of a larger, cynical strategy to become a known commodity through shock (something for which he would become increasingly famous). What’s fascinating, however,  is both the distant echoes and contemporary realities of political undercurrents that run through his public life and work. For someone who is mocked (even by the current president!) as a “jackass,” it seems that his understanding of contemporary politics, refracted through the prism of mass-media culture, is part of his work. 

To this end, it is significant he concludes his 2010 album, My Dark Twisted Fantasy, with an unexpurgated section of Gil Scott-Heron’s “Comment #1,” an overtly political poem critiquing American hegemonic ideology, concluding with the repeated phrase “who will survive in America?” It’s a curious ending to Kanye’s album, an album which, throughout most of it, Kanye seems more interested in discussing his own fame and relationships then discussing politics per se. More fascinating still is that he concludes his album with a voice that is not his, rather, it is Gil Scott-Heron’s, a complex artist in his own right who emerged, originally, as a spoken-word musician (it’s worth noting that in his first solo hit, “Through the Wire,” Kanye compares his own style not with “coke and birds” but with “spoken word”) firmly rooted in the Black Power movement of the late 60s. In the original song, the parts not sampled by Kanye, Gil Scott-Heron dedicates “Comment #1” to the “Rainbow conspiracy” of The Students For A Democratic Society, The Black Panthers and the Young Lords. In Gil Scott-Heron’s original track, the possibility of this coalition is called into question due to the class and racial differences that exist between the various groups. 

You could make the argument that Yeezus is the answer to the question posed on the final track My Dark Twisted Fantasy: living “upside-down”, only a messiah-like figure could save us from the “rapist known as freedom, free-DOOM”. But if it seemed easier to imagine in Heron’s time a messianic figure emerging from any of the “Rainbow Conspiracy,” even if Scott-Heron seems to have no illusions regarding said conspiracy,  then who will redeem America  in 2013? Thus, the ambivalent messiah in Yeezus emerges, willing to portray himself as confused and materialistic, far away from the spiritual but always hinting at the political. What’s important about Kanye’s statement regarding the album title is not his own self-aggrandizement, rather that he would remind everyone that as long as we adhere to the slave name we will remain slaves (even if the “new slaves” no longer quite resemble the old). 

If there is a theme that marks Yeezus’ redemption of the world, it is that the world seems beyond redemption. Or, rather, that redemption as it was imagined by the Gil Scott-Heron’s of the world, a revolution that will not be televised, won’t even be not-televised. It simply will cease to exist. One of the more controversial songs on Yeezus is “Blood On the Leaves,” which samples Nina Simone’s recording of “Strange Fruit,” the powerful civil rights song that Billy Holiday originally made famous. People were offended by Kanye’s use of the sample: that a song ostensibly about a previous relationship would use such a politically charged song as a backdrop. Not only that, but that the version of the song Kanye used is sung by Nina Simone, an artist who, like Gil Scott-Heron, was profoundly effected by the black power movement of the late 60s and early 70s. In Yeezus the personal collapses into the political and the suggestion is that redemption, at once playing out on the stage of recognizable political struggle, now moves into the inter-personal and, perhaps most problematically, the economic.

“Blood On the Leaves” isn’t the first reference to “Strange Fruit” on the album, that comes in “New Slaves”. “New Slaves” begins with an image from this earlier period of civil rights struggle, an artifact, a fading photograph, that begins only slightly after “Strange Fruit” leaves off: “My momma was raised in the era when/ Clean water was only served to the fairer skin.” But now West lives in a different time: You see it's broke nigga racism/ That’s that ‘Don't touch anything in the store’/ And it's rich nigga racism/ That’s that ‘Come in, please buy more’ […] Used to only be niggas, now everybody playin’/ Spendin' everything on Alexander Wang/ New Slaves.” Just as West bates his listeners by equating a failed relationship with lynchings in the south, he now equates hyper-capitalism and consumerism with a new slavery for blacks with disposable incomes: hardly the redeemer that will save the meek of the earth. Yet, by the end of the song, he places his own slavish affluence against a more systemic problem: “Meanwhile the DEA/ Teamed up with the CCA/ They tryna lock niggas up/ They tryna make new slaves/ See that’s that privately owned prison/ Get your piece today” If Yeezus/Kanye is trying highlight the real new slaves of racist late capital, then what is his solution for fighting against this system? “They prolly all in the Hamptons/ Braggin’ ‘bout what they made/ Fuck you and your Hampton spouse/ Came on her Hampton blouse/ And in her Hampton mouth.” Hardly a solution for reforming the CCA but it suggests that the new politics of redemption won’t come from a figure of the outside who is “yet without sin”. Based on this problematic lyric, the redeemer may come directly from an old racist stereotype itself: the sexually depraved former slave who will rape “our” white women. Although he received a lot of flack for these lyrics, the assumptive violence which lies underneath West’s evocation of the racist stereotype fails to die: as I write this essay Dylan Rood killed nine people in the A.M.E. Emanuel Church, allegedly telling the congregants as he killed them: “I have to do it. You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. You have to go.”

Although such uses of a racist tradition hardly seems redemptive, the music offers a redemptive moment. The most striking musical moment on the album, of which there are many, comes at the end of the aforementioned “New Slaves”. Out of the minimal electronic track (disruptive, verging on the avant-garde) comes, at the end, a completely different kind of music, a completely different kind of song: a hard rock sample from the Hungarian rock band Omega plays while West and the singer Frank Ocean proclaim: “I won’t end this high, not this time again/ So long, so long, you cannot survive/ And I’m not dyin’ and I can’t lose/ I can’t lose, no, I can’t lost/ Cause I can’t leave it to you/ So let’s get too high, get too high again […]” “High” here can mean a number of different things: there is the obvious connotation of getting high (with the additional “too high” echoing the first track off of Stevie Wonder’s Innervisions, where the main character, a girl who is never named, continuously gets “too high” to avoid the world around her) but it can also be understood as a commentary on the music itself: whereas most of the track is content to stay in the low end of things (low end theory) the outro modulates up and “ends high”. West seems to admonish it/himself for ending what is ultimately an aggressive indictment of the slavery/imprisonment pipeline on a “high” note (literally…that guitar solo keeps reaching for the highest register possible). It reminds me of something John Berger recently wrote in Harper’s: “A song fills the present, while it hopes to reach a listening ear in some future somewhere.” 

We are now listening to this song in 2015 after Ferguson, after #blacklivesmatter and, what might resonate most for this song, #icantbreathe. All of these statements come after Yeezus, although we can’t un-hear their resonance today. “I’m not dying”, “I can’t lose” and “not this time” seems, to us, to be slogans on signs, chants heard during the mass marches that have sprung up over the last year or so. So, despite the darkness, this is ultimately a song of hope. A messianic hope that “you” (here read as the system that produces the new slaves) cannot survive and the “I” (Kanye, Frank Ocean, black men, Kendrick Lamar who will name his single of 2014 “i”) can’t lose, won’t die and, certainly, won’t leave it to you. West doesn’t leave the track with his and Frank Ocean’s vocals (like “Who Will Survive in America” West wants to leave the last word to others), he ends it with a vocal sample from Omega in Hungarian. And I will leave my discussion of Yeezus  with a translation of its final, surprising words: “One day the sun, too tired to shine/ Slept in the deep, green sombre lake/ And in the darkness, the world did fail/ Until she came, for all our sake.”

Black Messiah

If Kanye West reimagines the messiah as Yeezus, the materialist messiah that can only redeem from the stalls of the money lenders, D’Angelo and the Vanguard return to the traditional notion of the messiah—albeit a black messiah. The album was originally supposed to be released in 2015, but after the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner in Staten Island, D’Anglo decided to release the album before the end of the year, thus commenting on real events as they are unfolding. The redemptive politics that D’Angelo describes on the album, echo the traditional civil rights and post-civil rights struggles that haunt Kanye’s record in the sampled figures of Gil Scott Heron and Nina Simone. Kanye’s Yeezus is a singular messianic figure that replaces the slave name only to point out the slavery of consumerism; D’Angelo’s Black Messiah is the collective struggle towards redemption. The cultural critic Nelson George provides a definition for the album title in the liner notes: “It’s [the album title] about people rising up in Ferguson and in Egypt and in Occupy Wall Street and in every place where a community has had enough and decides to make change happen. It’s not about praising one charismatic leader but celebrating thousands of them […] Black Messiah is not one man. It’s a feeling that collectively, we are all that leader.” This is reflected in the album cover artwork: a photograph of people holding up their hands in fists. There is no context for the photo: it could be a photograph from 1968 or it could be a photograph from 2014. That’s the point. Until the world is redeemed there will always be a need for the (black) Messiah. 

This seems to place D’Angelo’s record back in the realm of 2Pac’s “Black Jesus,” as opposed to West’s “Yeezus”. As Michael Eric Dyson explains in his essay “Searching for Black Jesus”: “When the divine intersects human identity, a transformative energy is unleashed that redeems finitude and furnishes the human project with unshakable purpose [….]” D’Angleo, unlike 2Pac, decides to name his album Black Messiah rather than Black Jesus. The lack of denomination in the title suggests a universalizing of the “transformative energy” that Dyson speaks of, and that Nelson George makes explicit in his liner notes. In contrast to Yeezus, the redemptive power of Black Messiah, is still firmly political in a traditional sense: marching, on the ground, with bodies in the fight. The “blood on the leaves” of this struggle will be as likely to  come from the bodies of present in the streets, as well as the blood of those who are invisible behind institutional walls. 

The two songs on the album that make its politics most explicit are “1000 Deaths” and “The Charade”. Although D’Angelo had been working on this record for almost a decade before it was released, the song titles seem like possible hashtags themselves, slogans passing across your Twitter feed. The first, “1000 Deaths” begins with a sample from a former Nation of Islam spokesman, and New Black Panther party leader Khalid Abdul Muhammad. His presence links contemporary struggles with the struggles of the past, a past that seemed past on Yeezus, where the old (er) struggles were replaced by the “new slavery” of capitalism. On D’Angelo’s record the same wars are being fought time and time again. “Jesus, the black revolutionary Messiah […] the devil talked about a New World Order. The devil talked about giving Jesus all of this world out there, if Jesus would just seek an alliance with him, if he would just bow down to him.” The sample betrays the difference between the two messages: Yeezus fools himself into thinking that he can survive in America by imitating the very actions that had been sold to him, infiltrate, and then show them at their game (or worse). Black Messiah still imagines redemption outside of this system in struggle and solidarity. The second sample is from Fred Hampton, the deputy chairman of the Black Panther Party: ”Black people need some peace, white people need some peace and we are going to have to fight, we’re going to have to struggle we’re going to have to struggle relentlessly to bring about some peace because the people that we’re asking for peace, they’re a bunch of megalomanic war-mongers, and they don’t even understand what peace means.” The sample surprisingly, given its source, speaks of a shared inter-racial need for peace against the true enemy: the military-industrial complex. The two samples form a genealogy of the moment we are in: the marches in Ferguson mirror the marches in the late 80s and early 90s (the period from which Khalid Abdul Muhammad’s speech was given), which mirror the struggles of the late 60s. Adding the “war mongers” to the critique allows another layer of meaning: the endless wars of the last two decades that have drained resources and bodies from the African American community and beyond. 

Musically, the track recalls the force and murk of Sly and the Family Stone’s classic record There’s A Riot Going On. That album pessimistically mapped out the disillusionment felt at the end of the 1960s into the 1970s, as protest movements morphed into an inward-turning narcissism. However, D’Angelo and the Vanguard turn that murk into a battle cry: “I been a witness to this game for ages/ And if I stare death in the face, no time to waste.” Later: “Yahweh, Yehushua/ He don’t want no coward soldier/ Aaah stick in the golden sand/ Musta dina hearda ma prayer/ I receive everything that it means/ And wield it victoriously/ Aha, and cast out all the wickedness/ (When they) send me over the hill/ I was born to kill/ Send me over the hill.” The chorus concludes with a paraphrase from Shakespeare’s Julius Caeser: “Because a coward dies a thousand times/ But a soldier only dies just once.” The connection to Sly Stone’s ambivalence is juxtaposed in the speech from Fred Hampton that begins the track: to achieve peace we must wage war. Yet, ambivalence in terms does not translate to ambivalence in political motives and it is the living (at the end of the day) who must wage war to achieve peace, even if, as D’Angelo’s lyrics make clear: “I [We] been a witness to this game for ages.” 

This sentiment is echoed in the following track “The Charade.” Sly Stone murk has been traded for Prince-like clarity, indeed the song sounds like something that might have fit well on Prince’s mid-80s political masterpiece Sign O’ the Times. The main target of “The Charade” seems to be the media, a “virtual [hive] mind fucks in streams.” Uplifted by political movements that have grown over recent years, the “Twitter” revolutions mentioned by George in his liner notes (Ferguson, Egypt and the Occupy movements), D’Angelo sings: “With a faith at the size of a seed enough to be redeemed/ Relegated to savages bound by the way of the deceivers/ So anchors be sure that you’re sure we ain’t no amateurs.” George and D’Anglo universalize the struggle to reveal “at the end of the day, the charade,” offering the seed of redemption. The song “The Charade,” however, racializes the struggle nonetheless: the “savages” who, it is repeated throughout the song, get “only […] outlined in chalk” are the members of the black community whose motives are constantly questioned (most often far more violently than the motives of white, Occupy protesters) by “the media” and “anchors.” What might connect Black Messiah with Yeezus is the understanding that redemption comes not in spite of the over mediation of the resistance, but is concomitant with the “fuck stream” of the media itself. 

To Pimp A Butterfly

The absent center of both Yeezus and Black Messiah is the first black president Barak Obama. Although the right seems to have a monopoly is defaming the president as a black messiah (at least viewed as one by the dupes who elected him to office), nevertheless there is a way, at least on the political level, the election of the first black president should have  produced some kind of political redemption. That the murder of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, among countless others, could have taken place during the Obama presidency seems both shocking and sadly inevitable. That one expected something  to change with his election is one of the central points of Kendrick Lamar’s dense, difficult To Pimp A Butterfly. 

The White House looms in the background of the album cover artwork. Like D’Angelo, Lamar uses black and white, with the image of the White House scratched and distorted as if it were an older photograph (much like the timelessness of the photograph on the cover of D’Angelo’s record) but this time a mass, another mass, of bodies occupy the foreground: roughly a dozen young African-American men, shirtless, with requisite (per the media’s representation) blunts, and stacks of money. The image plays on the old joke: what if there were a black man in the White House? The joke of the first black president. The joke, told by some of the greatest black comedians of the last several decades, either plays upon the idea that the first black president will barely be able to “pass” as white before giving himself away by, to paraphrase Dave Chapelle, “getting real.” This getting real can either be reflected in language and/or demeanor, leading to the (unspoken) reality that white America would never allow it. Of course, we do have a black president, so this begs the question how does the reality of a black president match up with the culture’s assumptions beforehand? This is Lamar’s cover: although there is a black man sitting in the White House, the black men in front of the White House are the “real” version of the joke. They not only represent the actual black president(s) that we (someday) will have, they also are stand-ins for Barack Obama’s “black male America” which he routinely evokes with which to either sympathize or criticize. 

Tracks two through four on the album, “For Free?” through “Institutionalized”, thematize the idea of “the king”—with Lamar playing the role of the king. The first, a jazz-infused spoken work performance, plays like a 21st century version of Otis Redding and Carla Thomas’ “Tramp” with the female voice admonishing the male for not being “shit”. It ends with her voice telling Lamar “you ain’t no king” which immediately goes into the second of the three tracks “King Kunta”. The title refers to the character of Kunta Kinte from Alex Haley’s novel Roots, with the reference of “cut the legs off him” a reference to the plantation owner cutting of Kinte’s foot so that he won’t run off the plantation. Though Kinte was not a king, Lamar re-imagines him (and himself) as a king: “from a peasant to a prince to a motherfuckin’ king.” As with many rappers before him, Lamar imagines himself as the savior of rap, in contrast to the rappers who are plagiarists (“a rapper with a ghost writer”) or self-destructive (“everybody’s suicidal, they ain’t even need my help”). Fascinatingly, what gives Lamar his power is “the yams”, a reference that winds its way from Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man all the way back to the African culture that birthed the character of Kunte Kinte. This trope will lead to the fellow compatriots who also “got the yams”: Richard Prior and Bill Clinton. 

Why these two? Pryor is often considered the greatest African-American comic and, perhaps, the greatest comic period. More specifically, Pryor, in a televised skit from the late 70s, played the first black president. The skit takes place during a white house press briefing, starting out as a typical, boring press briefing that slowly reveals the “black president” for who he is, becoming more belligerent to the white journalists and revealing his affinity with the militant black journalists in the group. The whole skit ends with a white journalist asking the black president about “his mamma” before Pryor runs to go off and fight him. This image of the black President unable to control his “blackness” will be repeated twenty years later in a stand-up routine by Cedric the Entertainer in the film the Kings of Comedy who, in the voice of a spectator who has just witnessed a press conference in which the black president, again, fights a white journalist, states “the president fight too much…that’s why I don’t go nowhere with him!” This is why the idea of the “black president” seemed impossible in a white dominated society: the black man who would be president couldn’t control his true nature as violent black male. 

It’s ironic that Cedric the Entertainer’s routine makes reference to the Monica Lewinsky scandal that nearly ended Bill Clinton’s presidency (as in a black president would never stand to have white journalists talk about his public life that openly, in front of his family, friends, etc.) Lamar makes reference to this scandal (“the yam…manipulated Bill Clinton with desires”), however his appearance in “King Kunte” contains another layer. In a now famous piece in the New Yorker, Toni Morrison suggested that: “white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.” The label of Bill Clinton being the first “black president” stuck, so much so that even Clinton himself commented on it stating, to Jimmy Kimmel, that he “love[s] being called the first black president.” 

Of course, it’s hard to read Morrison’s piece after Obama’s election. Lamar is aware of this: from the cover of his album to the concerns of the lyrics. “King Kunta”  moves into “Institutionalized” wherein Lamar sing/raps: “If I was the president/ I’d pay my mama’s rent/ Free my homies and then/ Bulletproof my Chevy doors/ Lay in the White House and get high, Lord/ Who ever thought?” This is Richard Pryor and Cedric’s black president: when he finally gets in the White House (still marked by the linguistic wish fulfillment “If I was…”) thinks only of his own community and family, is marked by the violence of the inner city and ends up lazy and high inside the White House. In Lamar’s verses he is a walking stereotype, but ends up in reality (“who ever thought?”) The title of the track has a double edged meaning: Institutionalized refers to the incarceration of young African-American males (“I’m trapped inside the ghetto and I ain’t proud to admit it”; “Institutionalized, I could still kill me a nigger” and “Free my homies”) but it also refers to the ascendency of the “real” black president to the institution of power. It’s worth remembering that Obama’s main slogan in the 2008 presidential campaign was “Change” and “Change We Can Believe In”. In an ironic, mocking deflation of Obama’s political rhetoric, Lamar changes his voice for the chorus to an older, grandmother figure who admonishes: “Shit don’t change until you get up and wash your ass nigger.” As this chorus suggests, the song, coming after the previous two, is the nagging doubts that remain after one is installed as “king” (even if he is elected president). That young African-American men still are “institutionalized” at a much higher rate than ever before, suggests that the change the Obama presidency promised (specifically to the African-American community) has not yet arrived. 

Lamar ends the album with an imagined conversation between himself and another messianic figure in contemporary culture, the aforementioned 2pac Shakur. Shakur on the album plays the counterpoint to the unspoken figure of the black president. Whereas the president, represented by the White House on the cover and hinted at in the lyrics to “Institutionalized”, is the figure of unfulfilled potential, the continued institutionalization of the African American populace despite the black president’s arrival and institutional power, it is 2pac who is allowed to speak. At the end of “Mortal Man” Kendrick asks 2pac (whose responses are taken from a twenty year old interview conducted for a Swedish radio show) what he thinks the future holds for Lamar’s generation. 2pac responds: “[n]ext time it’s a riot there’s gonna be, like, uh, bloodshed for real.” And, making the apocalyptic prophecy even more explicit, Tupac goes on to say: “It’s gonna be murder, you know what I’m saying, it’s gonna be like Nat Turner, 1831, up in this muthafucka.” The bifurcation of the messianic idea continues anew with the black president essentially telling the African community: I have arrived, I live in the White House but you, like the throng of African American men on Lamar’s album cover, will continue to wait outside. The evocation of Turner makes the tension of institutional politics and redemptive violence explicit. 2pac, like the apocalyptic messianists that have always, in the words of Jacob Taubes, attempted to “jump into history”, imagines the arrival through apocalypse. 

Yet, 2Pac doesn’t have the final word on the album. Instead Lamar reads a spoken word piece, attributed to a friend of his, which describes, in his own words, “his world”.  In this piece, the caterpillar is set against the butterfly: the caterpillar is “prisoner to the streets that conceived it” whereas the butterfly “represents the talent, the thoughtfulness, and the beauty” within the caterpillar. Although the metaphor traverses much with regard to the themes of the album, it can also be grafted onto the ongoing messianic discourse found within these three albums: if the butterfly is the final arrival of what the caterpillar “ought” to be, then the caterpillar represents the  “faulty” consciousness of what gets left behind. The butterfly might best be represented by Kanye West’s Yeezus—the messianic insect, which emerges fully formed within the culture “pimping” to his own benefit (reality shows, sneaker brands, indulging in the logical of consumptive capitalism as a way to liberate oneself) and the caterpillar is represented by D’Angelo’s Black Messiah—fighting the struggle both outside and inside, adhering to an older form of resentment that marks him as the soldier fighting the “good fight."

 Lamar, younger than both West and D’Angelo, concludes with a reconciliation, much like the attempted reconciliation between the black president and the revolutionary: “Finally free, the butterfly sheds light on situations that the caterpillar never considered, ending the internal struggle/ Although the butterfly and caterpillar are completely different, they are one and the same.” This is not much different from the ending of Spike Lee’s Do The Right Thing where the photograph of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X shaking hands we’ve seen throughout the film is shown with two quotations from the men: the former predictably admonishing violence as a method of achieving racial justice and the later arguing that violence as a means of self-defense is justified. Yet, Lee’s film was made at a time when the thought of a black president would have been the material for comedians. Now that the black president has arrived—a political form of messianism in which racial reconciliation is imagined because whites too have voted for a black president—seemingly there is no need for redemption. The long arc of justice (let’s not forget that in Judaism the messiah was often imagined carrying a sword) has been reached. But what about 2Pac? Lamar asks for his response to the caterpillar/butterfly analogy, but gets no response. If the messiah will come when he is no longer needed, as Kafka’s quotation which serves as an epigraph for the essay says, then 2Pac’s silence proves we’re still living in the hope of his arrival.

The “In” Sound from Way “Out”

According to the Nielson company, vinyl sales hit an all-time low in 1993. Less than half a million vinyl units were sold in that year and few then current releases were even pressed onto vinyl. Although independent record labels continued to release vinyl records, vinyl as a medium seemed to be experiencing its obsolescence. And yet, that medium, in all its seeming obsolescence, is staring back at us from the cover of Transient Random-Noise Bursts With Announcements: a close-up of a tone arm, cartridge and needle playing along a record, sitting on a turn table.

This is long before the recent resurgence of vinyl. So, the question is: what did this album cover mean in 1993? It’s original reception seems completely inscrutable now. And, yet, I was there. I bought the album on cd in 1993 and must have experienced the cover as no more than an homage to a (then) soon dead artifact. I remember listening to the cd that year and wondering, in the middle of “Golden Ball” with its reproduced vinyl slips and skips, what those slips and skips would sound like on record—whether or not one could reproduce those sounds on record—as if hip hop hadn’t already taught all of us that the sound of vinyl as vinyl could be reproduced on vinyl. 

If this album cover had been released at any point in the last ten to fifteen years it might be understood as a form of vinyl fetishism. But did the average listener to Transient Random-Noise Bursts in 1993 know that he/she was supposed to fetishize vinyl? Some obviously did. The band did. In 1993 Stereolab released a limited-edition vinyl copy of the record pressed on sparkling gold vinyl. The vinyl was warped and most copies were returned but the acknowledgement of the vinyl as special object—after all, a fetish, before all sexual connotations, is an object imbued with certain magical properties—already existed in the life and history of the record. 

But the fetishism extends beyond the object itself, it extends beyond the appearance of the record, turntable, tone-arm and stylus on the cover, since the cover is a reference to another record. The cover, and some of the samples inside, are from a 1969 test record pressed by a Hi-Fi magazine in the UK. The back cover also mimics the test record’s layout with one side of the upper half announcing “About This Record” while the other side promises “Technical Data”—the former listing the lyrics and the later providing the band members, producers, etc. There are two headers above that information done in hi-fi record rhetoric (i.e. “hi-fi is the convenient tag we use when we mean the art and science of hi-fidelity!”) and an announcement for the label itself: “for people who desire the finest in sound…always demand: Duophonic Ultra High Frequency Disks!”

The ironic tone, the gentile mocking of a pseudo-scientific discourse surrounding high fidelity, is a reference to a bygone era when, in the post-war boom, people had enough disposable income to spend on high end stereos with test records meant to do things like “confirm secure tracking” and “test the acceptability of equipment noise.” (both of these examples come from Transient Random-Noise Bursts). Think for a moment about a culture that purchased records without music, rather with “sounds” meant to balance and stabilize audio equipment. The obsession with this type of record—and the era of which it is a symptom—reached some kind of apotheosis in the mid-90s with actual cd reissues of what was labeled as “bachelor pad music” (as artifacts, not as test records themselves) and bands either purposely titling their records after actual records of the time (a la Stereolab) like Nation of Ulysses’ Raymond Scott-referencing “Soothing Sounds for Baby” all the way up to and including REM’s “New Adventures in Hi-Fi.” (when I saw REM during the Monster tour in 1995, Michael Stipe introduced “Losing My Religion”—by far their biggest hit—as “an obscure song off of Equivel’s soundtrack to Journey Into Fear” Juan Esquivel being one of the leading auteurs of this type of stereo test record/bachelor pad music hybrid). But in 1993 this fetish didn’t have a name yet…in many respects Stereolab—whose name already references a stereo test record—was creating this fetish. The point of this book is to ask why they did it. 

“Retrieve the past, Like a prayer, Bringing it back, Into the light, What was yesterday, Will reform today, To retrieve, Lost life, Lost loves, Retrieve, Lost words, Ideas, Overcome, Unconscious, Made conscious, Out of the darkness, Into consciousness, Made conscious, Out of the darkness, Into…”-“Pause”

Transient Random Noise-Bursts With Announcements is an album haunted by the past, yet, as the lyrics of “Pause” suggest, it is haunted by a past that “will reform today.” As the vinyl object faced its own obsolescence, as most of the instruments used by the group on the record (“vox organ”, “moog”, “farfisa”) were being replaced by midi patches and computer programs that could replicate those sounds (and improve upon them), and as the musical styles echoed in the bachelor pad, bossa nova, le yipe yipe sound had been subsumed by a history that privileged first the “authentic” voice of rock and then the “authentic” reaction to rock in punk (whose basic structure and ideology could be traced up through early 90s grunge), Stereolab set out to create an eulogy for an increasingly obsolete world. 

Yet, the irony of this very story, the story told by this record, is that this pre-fetishization would go on to, in a sense, become a type of marker of taste and knowledge that would come to dominate the last 20 years of music—from the aforementioned renewed interest in hi-fi records, to the sampling of easy listening, French pop, electronic music in independent rock, hip-hop, etc., Stereolab’s record casts a long shadow.

Yet, the influence of Transient Random Noise-Bursts goes beyond music. It’s constant references to other things (artwork, music, styles, etc.) creates a kind of archive wherein one can discover these past relics. It’s no coincidence that one of the very first websites I ever visited was a Stereolab fan site back in 1994. Here, fans would gather together to figure out all of the musical references in the songs as well as the visual and titular references as well. 

The obsessive collecting mindset that clearly is already apparent in the artwork and music of the record would come to be the dominant form of listening and music consumption in the decades after—what Simon Reynold’s in his book Retromania would call, somewhat dismissively, “record collection rock”. Indeed, there are moments in the last two decades of music, including Stereolab’s own catalogue, where the influence of the past has turned into a pastiche of sounds and styles in the present. 

However, that hadn’t yet been codified when Transient Random-Noise Bursts with Announcements came out: there wasn’t a place where styles from different ages could be archived, researched and then tried on. Instead, on Transient Random-Noise Bursts, Stereolab attempt to “reform today” by recovering the obsolete moments of the past before they are forgotten. In this way, Stereolab’s record may, in its original intention, actually be a rejoinder to Reynold’s highly influential thesis in Retromania that we are a culture obsessed with our own nostalgia for the past.

“Look at our symbols/they are alive/they move, evolve/and then they die.” -“Wow and Flutter”

Stereolab’s first releases, singles, eps and one album, “Peng”, all featured variations on the same cover: a cartoon illustration of “Cliff”, a comic of a figure in authority who eventually bumps you off, the good bourgeois spectator. Although the comic is Swiss, it echoes many of the same concerns of the French Situationists, whose writings, graffiti and films were highly influential upon the uprising in Paris during May of 1968.  In their original inception, the Situationists saw themselves as an antidote to the modern spectacle of post-war capitalist society. One of their projects, articulated in a 1963 text by intellectual “leader” Guy Debord, was to bring the art of the past “into play in life and to reestablish priorities,” or, as a Situationist text from 1967 underscores, “past creativity must be freed from the forms into which it has been ossified and brought back to life.” 

This is the project of Transient Random-Noise Bursts: to free the forms of past creativity and bring them back to life. Yet two questions remain for Stereolab’s project: 1) it remains imperative, if we aren’t to simply agree with Reynolds that Stereolab are symptomatic of a “nostalgia industry”, that we historicize Stereolab’s project. That is to say, Stereolab’s record is symptomatic not of the malaise that Reynolds attempts to diagnose but right before that moment…the “end of history” as it has been described in short-hand. To this end, a much better analytical work for reading the album might be Joshua Clover’s book 1989, which attempts to read the events of 1989, “watching the world wake up from history”, through the pop music of the time. 1993 is not that far away from 1989, and, if we consider that Stereolab’s earliest recordings date from 1990, then the loss and transformation that takes place in and around 1989 informs Stereolab’s aesthetic project. 

The second question then has to do with object choice: if this rupture offers the opportunity to re-evaluate history anew, then why do Stereolab select the more arcane and banal artifacts to reanimate this engagement with the past? Here we return to the initial discussion of vinyl obsolescence. In his 1925 essay “Dream Kitsch” the German philosopher and cultural critic Walter Benjamin argues: “technology consigns the outer image of things to a long farewell […] It is then that the hand retrieves this outer cast […] and, even as they are slipping away, makes contact with familiar contours. It catches hold of objects a their most threadbare and timeworn point.” Though Benjamin was describing another history-defining turn, from the late 19th to early 20th centuries, his injunction: “When we reach for the banal, we take hold of the good along with it—the good that is there (open your eyes) right before you” could be Stereolab’s aesthetic program. 

This doesn’t just simply “flip the script” and create a new canon, it creates an eruption in the flow of time and understanding—much like the moments on the record when, in the middle of “I’m Going Out of My Way” or “Pause” or “Jenny Ondioline” a voice, a recording, a numbers’ station from the past emerges and disrupts and takes hold. 

“That what is exciting/The challenge, it’s the new nation/But the tensions have to be created, there’s no doubt.” -“Jenny Ondioline” 

However, what Reynold’s book teaches us is that there is a risk in this process: indeed, Stereolab did (either wittingly or unwittingly) create an “alternative” canon: one of the things that decorated my dorm room wall was an interview with the band in chickfactor magazine wherein they offered a list of “records they cannot live without”, which included then impossible-to-find records by Silver Apples, Neu, Faust and Electric Eels. And, as Stereolab grew in recognition (they never were popular), the tracks that more explicitly referenced earlier bands (“Jenny Ondioline” and Neu, “Metronomic Underground” and Can) were offered up as evidence that the band was artistically bankrupt, and a growing suspicion (which would extend to many of their cohorts—thus seemingly legitimizing Reynold’s “record collecting rock” tag) that music was beginning to cannibalize itself rather than innovate. 

However, this record comes before all this. It’s a moment before the creation of new canons and the ossification of cultural artifacts. It’s a pause in the sonic shape of a lock-groove lullaby of dream kitsch. 

Pirate Nina

“This is a show tune, but the show hasn’t been written for it yet.” -Nina Simone, “Mississippi Goddamn” 

A great aside from a great song, but maybe the show had been written already? I ask this question because the same album that has Simone’s definitive reading of THAT song, the song that both broke her carrier, and, possibly, broke her as a person (the person that could no longer be a simple “entertainer’ but couldn’t find a place in a racist society that wanted her to simply be an “entertainer”) comes a couple of songs after a show tune that HAD been written for a show, even if that show was, in reality, a piece of agitprop political theater written in Weimar Germany in the late 1920s. “Pirate Jenny” comes from the Threepenny Opera, and Simone’s version of it is THE version of the song. It is the version I show my intro to German Studies class every time I teach Brecht’s play. I show it to them not because it gives them insight into the culture of Brecht’s time, but because it, more than Lotte Lenya’s original version of the song, proves Brecht right: epic theater isn’t meant to embalm a time or place for the reader or viewer, nor is it simply meant to lull the spectator into a somnambulism of entertainment,  but is meant to mobilize the viewer into something that looks like political reflection and action. 

My students have no experience of the working class in Germany during the 1920s. To them it might as well be as relevant as the plebs of the Roman empire, the slaves of Egypt or the beggars of John Gay’s opera. But Nina Simone, though few of my students are aware of her and her music (that just might be rectified by the recent Netflix documentary “What Happened, Miss Simone?”), performs something in that song that we as Americans live in the way we live with air and water: the long history of racism and slavery. Simone transports the titular character of the song from an imagined German port town to South Carolina, where the figure of a pirate queen among the citizens seems more implausible than a pirate queen among the German sea merchants. The original Pirate Jenny seemed a fanciful character—and Brecht, ever the dialectician, can’t decide whether Pirate Jenny’s revenge is either liberation or the worst form of false consciousness. Someday I’ll show them who’s boss! I’ll have my revenge on these men who take me for granted! This is what the exploited worker says every day of her life. Equally applicable to Marx as to Trump. The song, in the original play, is a story that Polly, the love interest of Macheath and daughter to the beggar king Peachum, relates to Mac’s band of criminals on her wedding night. The whole wedding night is played as farce: a bourgeois wedding in the middle of a horse stable. Polly insists on having her chaiselongue like any respectable woman of society, even as her husband is being hunted for pimping and murder. 

Outside of the play’s context, Simone’s performance is simply related as the story of Pirate Jenny. Many years after the original recording, Simone will introduce the song thus: “this is the story of Jenny in a flop house in Germany. We have transported Jenny to a flop house in South Carolina. And Jenny has decided to kill everybody this night. Everybody who has come to that flop house and then she is going home.” The context couldn’t be more different: in Brecht’s original Jenny’s story is related through the character of Polly as a kind of pantomime: the audience never believes that Jenny is really a pirate queen intent on getting her revenge on the men who have exploited her labor at the flop house. Simone doesn’t care about the context. Hell, she doesn’t really give a fuck whether or not Jenny IS a pirate queen. The most important point is that Jenny will kill everyone this night. Pirate queen or not. And it is in this re-interpretation of the song that reveals something Brecht was afraid to make manifest through his multiple layers of storytelling and distancing: the distance between a flop house in Germany and South Carolina is the difference (or is it the final, dialectical conflagration) of race and class. By the time Simone sings the song at the Montreal Jazz Festival in 1992 the bitterness of years spent in exile suffering from fatigue has warn the voice and the message: Simone perhaps has already come to embody the Jenny figure: the last pirate queen standing, threatening the white patrons of the flop house with a death sentence that will never come. 

But, goddamn indeed, what can the listener make of the younger Simone singing this song in 1964 after the marches and church bombings? She’s about to introduce “Mississippi Goddamn” a few songs later. As so many have pointed out, only a woman could get away with such radically political songs sung openly in public. And so, when Simone whispers in Pirate Jenny “kill them now, or later?” its not the wishful thinking of some barmaid in Germany but the first insurrection of an artist who, a mere few years later, will ask an audience in Harlem “are you ready to kill if necessary? Is your mind ready? Is your body ready? […] are you ready to smash white things? Burn buildings if necessary?”

What happens to artists who dare to ask such violent questions in public? It’s no coincidence that both Brecht and Simone ended up in exile, although Brecht would be given the option of Hollywood and, eventually, be given his own theater in East Germany—where the speaking  of such violent truths became the founding myth of the state itself. Of course, by the time those truths had been codified into state sanctioned myths, they obfuscated other violent acts that couldn’t be spoken. And to the material conditions that enabled THOSE myths, Brecht remained silent. This isn’t to condemn Brecht, no one knows what sort of comforts would have awaited even Pirate Jenny had she been allowed to return home. But Simone never enjoyed Brecht’s status as a state sanctioned artist: she played jazz festivals to well ensconced audiences who were either too reverential or bored to care for such ugly truths. But, regardless of where Simone allowed Pirate Jenny to tell her tale of revenge and (mass) murder, when she translates Jenny’s rather sarcastic “whoops” at the end with the southern black woman’s “that’ll learn ya!”, anyone listening can rest assured that they’ve been properly schooled.