“Either be hot or cold. If you are lukewarm, the Lord will spew you forth from his mouth.” — The Killer

“There is more of the Devil and of salvation — of the power of the eternal idea of those forces — implicit in that kicking than in all their crying unto heaven combined. And in this age of safe sex and rock ‘n roll, the fire in that power seems hotter than ever before.” — Nick Tosches on a Jerry Lee Lewis box set

It’s his birthday today. Jerry Lee Lewis was – until he died in 2022 – The Last Man Standing (one of his final album titles) from the first mass-produced rock ‘n roll generation. Little Richard went in 2020. Both deaths really rocked me. The final thread … first Little Richard, then Jerry Lee … the world suddenly seemed so much less interesting, vital.

When I heard the news he died, I immediately thought of this song, written by country-music song-writer-machine Ray Griff and recorded by Jerry Lee Lewis in 1972:

To answer your question, Jerry Lee:

Nobody.

Nobody’s gonna play that ol’ piano after you’re gone.

There are so many great clips of Jerry Lee Lewis in his heyday, or even recently, and there are a few black-and-white clips of him performing making it clear how radical and out-there and frightening he really was. He made Elvis look tame. And that’s saying a lot.

Here he is in 1957, his first appearance on the Steve Allen Show, which was also his introduction to the national public.

Just one year before, Steve Allen put Elvis in a tuxedo for Elvis’ first appearance on the show, and made him sing “Hound Dog” to an actual – terrified – hound dog. This “skit” completely misses the point of the whole song, of course, and was an attempt to make Elvis palatable to middle America, as well as having a laugh at Elvis’ expense: “Tee hee, look at the hillbilly in a tux.” Allen tried his best to neuter Elvis. But that was 1956. Just one year later, Elvis’ impact opened the door for what was to come. 1957 was a whole different story.

Steve Allen succumbed to the inevitable. He lets Jerry Lee Lewis do his thing. He doesn’t make Jerry Lee Lewis sing “Whole Lotta Shakin’ Going On” while making him, say, stagger around the stage with bottles and plates falling off of a fake set. He just introduces him, and gets out of the way. Good thing too.

Jerry Lee Lewis’ performance here is one of the most explosive things to ever happen on national television (the Beatles’ appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show doesn’t even come close.) When he kicks the chair out of the way to stand up, you think he’s going to jump through the screen right at you. (Steve Allen tossed the chair back out onstage.)

“It was that belief in the sinfulness of his own music, the sinfulness of himself, that set the music aflame with the frenzy of wickedness and the blackness of doom. Like his cousin Jimmy Lee Swaggart, he was a man for whom life had no meaning without the torments of hell.” — Nick Tosches

Here’s another clip, a live TV performance on UK television from 1964 – this was during Jerry Lee’s wilderness years, when he couldn’t get a job in AmericaIt shows Jerry Lee Lewis surrounded by kids – kids he has put into a frenzied trance – their hands reach out to touch him, they need to touch him … is he real? Can I have some of whatever it is he has? He takes them on a journey: he is in total command of the situation. Watch how they explode – and then subside – and explode again – depending on the cues he gives them.

What we’re seeing there is not a concert. It is a pagan ritual.

But the clip below, of a duet with Tom Jones in 1969, singing a rock ‘n’ roll medley, is one of my all-time favorites. It satisfies on multiple levels: their communication, their joy in performing, their support of one another’s awesomeness without ceding their own power.

This is good old-fashioned entertainment. Entertainers willing to just BE in front of us. Simply BE. They are full enough to handle it, full enough with fantastic talent and presence to be more than enough, just as they are.

It’s hard to do what they’re doing here. If it were easy, more people would do it. You have to know what it is to be a performer. You have to have come up in a world where you can ONLY rely on your talent. You have to have started out playing in barns and church picnics and county fairs in the middle of the day with a lot of other shit going on all around you, cows walking by, ferris wheels in the background, whatever, etc. No sounds and lights to cue the crowd that it’s time to listen to you. You had to MAKE them listen.

What we see here is the result of years of performing in front of live audiences. Years of experience. They know who they are. They know why they are there. They need us, but they need each other more. That’s confidence.

And so we in the audience get to relax. They are not demanding our attention by giving us something over-produced and in-your-face, a spectacle meant to “wow” us. They don’t need any of that.

They rely on each other, and themselves, and the joy of the music they are singing.

I don’t need to worry about them. They’ve got this.

With all of his albums, there’s very little that’s cursory, phony, or lazy. I am not sure if I have all of it, but I have most of it, and none of it gets old, or becomes less fresh with repeat listening. It doesn’t feel like a throwback, you don’t have to adjust your context to get into the music. It still leaps out at you from the speakers, claws bared. There were many different phases. The first reckoning, with the merging of boogie-woogie, country and rhythm and blues – ignited by his piano playing which is out of this world. Sam Phillips always said that of all the Sun Records artists, including Elvis, the two most brilliant on the roster – brilliant to an otherworldly degree – were Howlin’ Wolf and Jerry Lee Lewis. Elvis himself said he would trade his singing voice if he could play the piano like Jerry Lee Lewis did.

Then of course came Jerry Lee Lewis’ extremely rapid fall from grace, the result of his marriage to his 13-year-old cousin. He was on tour in England when the news broke, causing a firestorm of controversy, and he basically had to flee the country. When he returned to America his career was over. Untouchable. (This was one of the benefits of a Colonel Parker-type figure. Colonel Parker had many flaws but he knew how to control the press, how to manage publicity. The tight rein he held over Elvis was constricting to Elvis but it protected him. Jerry Lee Lewis had no such protection.) Then came a lengthy period for Jerry Lee Lewis out in the wilderness. He continued to tour, in smaller venues, and mostly in Europe. Eventually, Jerry Lee Lewis started going back to his country roots, coming out with a series of country music albums catapulting him to the top of the country charts. And the notoriously socially conservative Nashville embraced him (perhaps reluctantly, but numbers don’t lie: JLL’s sales spoke volumes). It was an unbelievable and unforeseen resurrection of a demonized figure. And since then he became an institution. Amazingly, his work was never compromised throughout. You can always hear HIM, and always feel the Jerry Lee Lewis fingerprint.

During his time in the wilderness, he played a show at the Star Club in Hamburg. It was 1964. It’s a miracle, but the show was recorded – and the sound quality is out of this WORLD. Clear as a bell. The Star Club became legendary because it was there that the Beatles really cut their teeth and got a taste of the worldwide frenzy that was to come. They played three gigs at the Star Club over the course of 1962, and the crowds went apeshit. Those shows were recorded, too. The club had a good set-up for recording, placing the microphones close to the instruments – so it almost feels like a studio recording – but the club was small enough that the crowds come across on recordings as a visceral entity, you feel like you’re in the room. So, two years after the Beatles shows, Jerry Lee Lewis – a relic himself – after the initial promise of the 1950s – played a gig there. The whole thing was recorded, and an album was put out but it was only available in Europe. For decades.

I am not alone in saying this: Jerry Lee Lewis: Live at the Star Club is one of the greatest live albums ever made. Rolling Stone wrote:

Live At The Star Club, Hamburg is not an album, it’s a crime scene.

He is there to MURDER the crowd. And he does. And they love it. There’s a moment during the album when the crowd starts to chant, “JER-RY. JER-RY. JER-RY. JER-RY.” It’s so ferocious and insistent it sounds like a battle cry, a political rally, some frightening display of love and adoration ready to trample anything in its way. And Jerry Lee Lewis? He blasts the ROOF off that joint. If you have not heard the album, not sure what you’re waiting for.

Any list of “great concert films” that doesn’t include Live at the Star Club is not a serious list.

Here’s the opener of the show, “Mean Woman Blues”:

A couple years ago, I went to the Play It Loud exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum, an exhibit showing the instruments of rock ‘n roll legends. At the entrance to the exhibit was Jerry Lee Lewis’ gold-painted piano, straight from his home.

AND LASTLY: my post about the brief moment when Jerry Lee Lewis played Iago in a rock ‘n roll adaptation of Othello, and yes, there’s audio from one of the rehearsals. It’s astonishing.

“That boy, that fourteen-year-old boy up there, sat there, rocking, howling a song that was about nothing but getting drunk and fucking up, and all the people there started howling along with him, loving it. For that boy, that fourteen-year-old boy up there, was making the sort of music that most folks had only heard in conjunction with the Holy Ghost, but the boy wasn’t singing about any Holy Ghost. He was singing something he had taken from the blacks, from the juke-joint blacks, but he had changed what he had taken, not so much the way someone might paint a stolen pickup to hide his theft, but rather the way that Uncle Lee had changed those cattle into horses: changed it by pure, unholy audacity. And he had changed it into something that shook those whitefolk, something that would hae shaken Leroy Lewis and Old Man Lewis before him. And he was doing it, that boy was not old enough to shave, right out in the open, in broad daylight. And as he was doing it, Lloyd Paul was running among the crowd with a felt hat in his hand, and people were putting coins into the hat. When Jerry Lee quit playing, Lloyd Paul gave him what was in his hat – almost thirteen dollars. Jerry Lee and Elmo lugged that great jangling mass of copper and silver home in a sack and poured it on the table before Marnie, and they grinned and laughed through their noses like highway thieves as they beheld it: hosanna.” — Nick Tosches, Hellfire: The Jerry Lee Lewis Story

Posted in Music, On This Day | Tagged , , | 11 Comments

Substack: Interview with Jeremy Richey about Sylvia Kristel

Today is Sylvia Kristel’s birthday, the Dutch actress mostly known for the notoriously soft-core Emmanuelle (1974)- but she did a lot more and worked with some of the greatest directors and actors of her era (70s). In his book about Kristel, Richey lays out why she’s been saddled with an unfair and incorrect (and sexist) reputation and why her legacy is due for some serious re-evaluation. We discussed this in an interview I did with him in 2022 – re-posted on Substack.

Posted in Actors, Movies | Tagged | Leave a comment

R.I.P. Maggie Smith

I’m sometimes inconsistent in my tributes here but it doesn’t mean I don’t have thoughts about those I didn’t write about! James Earl Jones died on September 9 and I didn’t write anything here because I was in Scotland and not there for pleasure, although it was all very fun, of course. But I had just an afternoon of free time (where I went to Elvis Shakespeare. Not the castle. Not a museum. lol). James Earl Jones was a massive figure in American theatre and film and I feel so damn lucky that I actually saw him on Broadway, in Fences no less. He was a giant. And now, another giant has left us. Dame Maggie Smith.

Whatever I say here cannot compete with my friend Dan Callahan’s superb tribute over on Ebert. I so needed to read that today as I scrolled through social media, reading all the tributes. He knows her and her way of working and her response to life (a NEGATIVE response) better than anyone. He devoted a chapter to Smith in his amazing book The Art of American Screen Acting (I interviewed him about it here). Please read Dan’s tribute. He gets it on a deep ACTOR level.

I wrote this a while back but I will share it today. Maggie Smith’s performance of Alan Bennett’s 49-minute monologue called Bed Among the Lentils is one of the best performances I have ever seen. Period.

It is done direct to camera and is an astonishing piece of work. As I watched, time stood still. I feel like I didn’t even blink. I couldn’t breathe. The character’s misery and bitterness was stultifying. Crucially, and this is a very Maggie Smith “fingerprint” (if such a dazzlingly versatile actress can have a fingerprint), there is a total lack of catharsis. Maggie Smith was TOUGH. There is no leakage for her own/the audience’s comfort. Near the very end, there’s a tiny glimmer of her sense of loss. It’s just a glimpse, though. The character wouldn’t give you the satisfaction of seeing more than that.

Smith, with her impeccable technique, gives you just a tiny glimpse of the character’s interior world, and you, the audience member, are wrecked. She shows a little bit of what’s there, and you feel ALL of it. This is what total control looks like. Amateurs are not capable of what Smith does here, with text, subtext, gesture (the moment above with the water glass), backstory (even if not expressed), vocal technique – everything. And yet you don’t feel the control. Her control/technique is invisible. You don’t “see the work”. Smith is like De Niro in that way. Pacino in The Godfather. The character isn’t expressive. Therefore the actor isn’t either. The work has been done so you can feel all this STUFF going on inside, but none of it actually comes out. If Smith had lost control of her technique and broken down into stormy sobs during the monologue, allowing herself to express the underlying emotion, it would be a very different experience. Strangely, catharses sometimes alienate audiences. The actor feels so much there’s little room left for the audience to feel.

Civilians (and this includes many critics) are too impressed by the presence of tears, mistaking visible tears for excellent acting. This reminds me of a story my friend Shelagh told me years ago. Shelagh was in an acting class and a girl was up there doing a monologue, and my GOD she was feeling things. You could see her emotions from the space station. Credulous critics are bowled over by tears because it seems like a magical ability to produce actual tears in a make-believe situation. But it’s not magic. The sobbing student finished the scene and after a long pause the teacher said, “You were feeling everything and I am …. curiously unmoved.”

In Bed Among the Lentils, the character is a very unreliable narrator. The only emotion visible to the naked eye is a coiled contempt swimming in a sea of existential boredom. This toxic brew is the only thing she allows others to see … but then … over the course of the monologue, her rigid facade starts to (very subtly) disintegrate. Only once does she let you see what her public persona is hiding. We may have perceived it all along, misery emanates off her in waves, but the character will be damned if she lets you see any of it.

When the feeling rises in her like a volcano, surprising her as well as us, it’s shattering.

The acting here is literally world-class. It’s never been done better.

Posted in Actors, Movies, RIP, Theatre | Tagged | 2 Comments

Review: Amber Alert (2024)

A re-make – sort of – of the 2012 film, directed by the same person. It has its good points, but then gets a little dumb. I reviewed for Ebert.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“Sunlight on a broken column.” — T.S. Eliot

It’s T.S. Eliot’s birthday.

Poets like William Carlos Williams and Hart Crane both said that they needed to forcibly divorce themselves from Eliot’s influence in order to be able to write. His language and influence had that strong a pull. Too much pull. His voice, his way, became THE way. (Interestingly enough, Eliot felt that way about Joyce’s Ulysses, published in 1922, same year as The Waste Land. Eliot said about Ulysses: “I wish for my own sake that I hadn’t read it.”)

I went through an Eliot phase in high school, mainly because my drama class had gone to see Cats in New York (I love how culture works, especially with young people: EVERYTHING gets in), and also we had had to read “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” in English class: this all happened around the same time, and there was something about his descriptions (the yellow fog and I loved the part about the yellow smoke rubbing its back against the window panes) that I really liked. I was very into adjectives back then, and maybe one day I will write about my whole “adjective thing” because it took a truly obsessive form (I had to break myself of the habit, which lasted well into adulthood) and I’m not sure what it was all about. Perhaps it was part of my obsession in capturing beauty, because I knew beauty was not built to last. Eliot’s work was rich with adjectives. I kept lists. I was afraid I would forget.

Eliot had a struggle committing to be a poet. His parents thought it was a waste of energy, and they wanted him to have a “real” job. For a while he kept up the pretense, studying philosophy, going for his dissertation, but all the while, poetry was growing in him.

So guess who entered the picture around this time?

Ezra Pound. What a shock.

Pound read early drafts of Prufrock and browbeat Harriet Monroe (editor of Poetry) to publish it. Monroe didn’t want to at first. Pound tried again. And again. Until finally she caved in 1915.

This is why Ezra Pound was such an important figure (fascism and treason and anti-Semitism notwithstanding). He was a ferocious ADVOCATE of other writers, especially writers who were doing something new, who were changing the rules.

More – much more – on T.S. Eliot after the jump.

Continue reading

Posted in Books, On This Day, writers | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 22 Comments

“Our humour is armour… a shield used to deflect doom and gloom.” — John Lynch on Irish-ness

It’s the birthday of the fine Irish actor John Lynch. He hails from Northern Island (County Armagh), and made a very striking debut in Cal, based on the novel by Bernard MacLaverty, a novel of “the Troubles”. Lynch plays a young IRA member who becomes romantically involved with the widow of a man killed by his unit (Cal was “the driver”). Helen Mirren plays the widow. This Irish film is dark, gloomy, moody, and excellent. My father loved the book and the movie, and it was through his recommendation I came to both, and it was how I was introduced to John Lynch.


Helen Mirren, John Lynch, “Cal”

He has gone on to have an excellent career. (His sister Susan is also a wonderful actress.) I loved him recently in the mini-series The Fall – a Belfast-centric serial killer murder mystery – with Gillian Anderson. His character’s “arc” is drastic: we witness his steep descent into the bad habits he thought he gave up, a tormented man throbbing with shame and passion and rage. I also loved him in Some Mother’s Son, directed by Helen Mirren, where he played Bobby Sands, the de facto leader of the hunger strikes in Ireland in the early ’80s (my family was THERE at the time. I was young but I was intensely aware of what was happening and it was SO upsetting and I didn’t understand why someone didn’t stop these men from dying.) I saw the movie in the theatre, and now I own it on DVD, but for a long time it was hard to find and it doesn’t get much play.


John Lynch, Jacqueline McKenzie, “Angel Baby”

The only thing I’ve written involving him – and it’s a big one – was a piece for my Film Comment column (RIP) about 1995’s Angel Baby, directed by Michael Rymer and starring Lynch and Jacqueline McKenzie. My friend Rebecca and I went to go see it at the Angelica when it came out. We were riveted. We were devastated by the end. We could barely speak.

Both Lynch and McKenzie give performances as good as it gets. This film remains criminally hard to find and/or see. Many people haven’t even heard of it. It was a critical success, an arthouse hit. It was only the mid-90s. What has happened to collective cultural memory? It wasn’t THAT long ago.

Keep your eyes peeled for this one. Again: Here’s a link to the piece I wrote.

 
 
Thank you so much for stopping by. If you like what I do, and if you feel inclined to support my work, here’s a link to my Venmo account. And I’ve launched a Substack, Sheila Variations 2.0, if you’d like to subscribe.

Posted in Actors, Movies, On This Day | Tagged | 10 Comments

“Paper, tobacco, food, and a little whiskey.” — William Faulkner on his writing requirements

“The writer’s only responsibility is to his art. He will be completely ruthless if he is a good one. He has a dream. It anguishes him so much he must get rid of it. He has no peace until then. Everything goes by the board: honor, pride, decency, security, happiness, all, to get the book written. If a writer has to rob his mother, he will not hesitate; the ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ is worth any number of old ladies.” — William Faulkner

Faulkner wasn’t fucking around.

It’s his birthday today.

While I haven’t written here about Faulkner’s books, I did write about the film adaptation of Faulkner’s 1940 story “Tomorrow”, starring pre-fame Robert Duvall (it was my Dad’s favorite Duvall performance. He referenced it to me before I had even seen it. Dad only saw it once, and it stuck in his mind all those years.)

Faulkner was a great interview. His Paris Review is fantastic and rich. A couple quotes:

On Moby-Dick:

“Writers have always drawn, and always will draw, upon the allegories of moral consciousness, for the reason that the allegories are matchless – the three men in Moby-Dick, who represent the trinity of conscience: knowing nothing, knowing but not caring, knowing and caring.”

On the writers and books he loves:

“The books I read are the ones I knew and loved when I was a young man and to which I return as you do to old friends: the Old Testament, Dickens, Conrad, Cervantes, Don Quixote – I read that every year, as some do the Bible. Flaubert, Balzac – he created an intact world of his own, a bloodstream running through twenty books – Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Shakespeare. I read Melville occasionally and, of the poets, Marlowe, Campion, Jonson, Herrick, Donne, Keats, and Shelley. I still read Housman. I’ve read these books so often that I don’t always begin at page one and read on to the end. I just read one scene, or about one character, just as you’d meet and talk to a friend for a few minutes.”

On Ulysses (Faulkner’s first-response is one of my favorite quotes about the book):

You should approach Joyce’s Ulysses as the illiterate Baptist preacher approaches the Old Testament: with faith.

And finally: Faulkner’s Nobel Prize speech. It’s a doozy. He bought his first dress suit for the ceremony. It was a big deal that he even showed, that he left Oxford, Mississippi at all. 1950. Important to consider the context. The bombs had been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki just 5 years before. The horror of what was unleashed was fresh. Humanity faced extinction. Faulkner, one of the bleakest writers who ever lived, spoke about “the end of man” and where he stood on that urgent issue.

Stockholm, 10 December 1950
“The agony and the sweat”

I feel that this award was not made to me as a man, but to my work — a life’s work in the agony and sweat of the human spirit, not for glory and least of all for profit, but to create out of the materials of the human spirit something which did not exist before. So this award is only mine in trust. It will not be difficult to find a dedication for the money part of it commensurate with the purpose and significance of its origin. But I would like to do the same with the acclaim too, by using this moment as a pinnacle from which I might be listened to by the young men and women already dedicated to the same anguish and travail, among whom is already that one who will someday stand here where I am standing.

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: when will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat.

He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed — love and honour and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labours under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope, and, worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grive on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.

Until he relearns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man. I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simplyl because he will endure; that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endue: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet’s the writer’s, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honour and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet’s voice need not merely be the record of man; it can be one of the props, the pillars, to help him endure and prevail.

 
 
Thank you so much for stopping by. If you like what I do, and if you feel inclined to support my work, here’s a link to my Venmo account. And I’ve launched a Substack, Sheila Variations 2.0, if you’d like to subscribe.

Posted in Books, Movies, On This Day, writers | Tagged , | 7 Comments

“Cut out all these exclamation points. An exclamation point is like laughing at your own joke.” — F. Scott Fitzgerald

f-scott-fitzgerald-an-american-icon-1

So you see that old libel that we were cynics and skeptics was nonsense from the beginning. On the contrary we were the great believers.

F. Scott Fitzgerald, “My Generation”

It’s his birthday today.

First off, here’s a piece I wrote for Bright Wall Dark Room about Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby, which focuses a lot on Fitzgerald’s original work, its intentions and mood: Riotous Excursions: Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby. That had been percolating for a long long time. I had been so frustrated by the critical response to that movie. The people calling the movie “over the top” can’t have understood the book. Anyway, I was happy to finally lay down my case about it.

Fitzgerald was a writer I liked right away, even though I was forced to read his stuff at 14 or 15. I credit my love to my 10th grade teacher, Mr. Crothers. His love of The Great Gatsby permeated his lectures, his enthusiasm was infectious.

F. Scott Fitzgerald (or Francis Scott Key Fitzgerald) was born in St. Paul Minnesota in 1896. He went to Princeton, and afterwards joined the army. Somewhere in those early years, he sold his first story and was only 23 years old he wrote and published his first novel: This Side of Paradise. It was a smash hit, a zeitgeist book, and Fitzgerald was hailed as the co-creator/author of the Jazz Age, the man who described it, explained it as it was happening. Fitzgerald was seen early as THE voice of his era and his generation.

cp091

He may have seemed glamorous, urbane, desirable, but this was the man who wrote: “What people are ashamed of usually makes a good story.” He knew all about that.

More, much more, after the jump:

Continue reading

Posted in Books, On This Day, writers | Tagged , , | 20 Comments

Happy Birthday, “Blind” Lemon Jefferson

MI0000290496

“Although he was supposed to be completely blind, I still believe he could see a little bit. If he couldn’t, he darn sure could feel his way ’round — the old wolf!” – blues singer Victoria Spivey on Texas bluesman “Blind” Lemon Jefferson

He was blind but people who knew him thought he could probably see. “He could shoot the head off a chicken …” said one guy.

Born in 1893, he got his start playing on street corners in Dallas, and helped create the vibrant culture of what is now called “Texas Blues”. These things were local before radio, but the same thing was happening in regional pockets around the country. He then traveled around the Mississippi Delta, playing in whatever joint that would have him. (Legend has it T-Bone Walker was his guide, and he paid him in guitar lessons.) He and the legendary Lead Belly were friends, and they toured together. Lead Belly said, “The women would come running, Lord have mercy. They’d hug and kiss us so much we could hardly play.” Lead Belly wrote a song in tribute to Jefferson called the “Blind Lemon Blues”:

A talent scout heard him somewhere along the way, and brought him up to Chicago to record a couple of songs. That “couple” turned into 100+ songs. These songs cast a long shadow. His first song on Paramount Records was 1926’s “Got the Blues” and it was a hit:

One of his songs – “Match Box Blues” – somehow resurfaced, in another form, maybe subconsciously, in a Carl Perkins song. You couldn’t easily access music, of course, in the 1940s. You had to catch a note, a chord change, on the fly – and make sure to remember it. Maybe you saw someone playing an old blues song in a bar, or on a street corner, and you had no idea what the song was, and when you came back to the hotel room you wrote your own version, or you tried to match the version in your memory. But Blind Lemon was clearly if not THE source than an important source of everything that was to follow over the next 40, 50 years, which is pretty wild.

Another example of this is Jefferson’s 1927 “Black Snake Moan”. Listen closely and you can hear Arthur Crudup’s “That’s All Right”. Elvis, of course, knew Crudup’s song, and recorded it at Sun in 1954, and it became his first hit.

Jefferson was famous on a national level (unheard of for bluesmen of the era who mostly toiled in obscurity in their own particular region. It would take Alan Lomax in the 30s/40s seeking out all those guys, many of whom were still alive, and it would take British Invasion guys like The Rolling Stones whose early career paid tribute to rhythm and blues. Lomax put them all on tape. We have a record of them now. Suddenly dudes living in shacks in the Delta were playing folk festivals all around the country and the world.)

Unfortunately, Jefferson didn’t live long enough to experience that. He died at the young age of 36, an event cloaked in mystery. His dead body was found on the street on Chicago after a harsh snowstorm. People thought he might have had royalty money in his pocket and someone robbed him. Nobody really knows though.

His most famous song has the heart-stopping title “See That My Grave Is Kept Clean.”

Those are the words on his gravestone in Wortham, Texas.

Fans raised the money for the stone.

 
 
Thank you so much for stopping by. If you like what I do, and if you feel inclined to support my work, here’s a link to my Venmo account. And I’ve launched a Substack, Sheila Variations 2.0, if you’d like to subscribe.

Posted in Music, On This Day | 4 Comments

“I couldn’t accept the possibility that the life of the woman would not, or could not, be named in the poetry of my own nation.” — Eavan Boland

“I began to know that I had to bring the poem I’d learned to write near to the life I was starting to live. And that if anything had to yield in that process, it was the poem not the life.” — Eavan Boland

Pioneering Irish poet Eavan Boland died in 2020 at the age of 75. Today is her birthday.

Irish literature is clogged with big names. You always know who you are up against if you’re a writer. You have to “take on” Yeats. You have to “take on” Joyce. There are giants like Patrick Kavanagh to wrestle with. You have to carve out your own space. You have to get those other guys out of the way, just in order to have the confidence to continue.

“Guys” is right. While there have always been Irish women writers, more often than not, Irish women are the subject of the literature, rather than the creators. Historically, it’s a macho field. (That’s changed and THEN some. Some of the best books I’ve read in the last 10 years have been by Irish writers who happen to be women. They’re kicking ass.)

More on Eavan Boland after the jump:

Continue reading

Posted in Books, On This Day, writers | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment