Author: Jim Spiegel

Posted on

An Argument Against Gay Marriage

By Jim Spiegel

One of the more divisive moral-political issues of our time is gay marriage.  Conservative Christians oppose gay marriage and are often criticized because their only reasons for doing so are biblical in nature.  This rankles some people who complain that Christians want their theological views to be the foundation for civil laws.  (Of course, the Judeo-Christian ethic is the foundation of many of our laws, but this fact seems lost on lots of folks these days.)

For a long time I was convinced that the only conclusive arguments against gay marriage are theological.  Many have proposed philosophical arguments against gay marriage—typically utilitarian in nature—but these tend to be weak, essentially useful only as supplements to arguments from Scripture.  So I set myself to the task of coming up with a strong philosophical argument (preferably non-utilitarian in nature).  I think I might have accomplished just this with an argument which essentially claims that gay marriage is unjust.  Here it is, for your perusal:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

I have shared this argument with many of my friends and colleagues, and the criticisms have consistently missed the point—suggesting, for example, that the argument assumes that the only purpose of marriage is procreation (which it does not) or that it implies a complete denial of the civil rights of homosexuals (which, again, it does not).  Still others have made the more subtle mistake of interpreting me as saying that gay marriage implies a denial of all value of heterosexual unions.  Clearly, the argument does no such thing.  The whole point of the argument concerns the special value of traditional marriage.

At any rate, the lack of strong objections has only strengthened my conviction that the argument is sound.  Now I am curious if anyone can muster a decent criticism (without lapsing into ad hominems, emotional pleas, and other fallacies).  I am also curious as to how many of you, like me, find the argument persuasive.

Posted on

My Hate-Affair with Fairs and Festivals

By Jim Spiegel

I just completed my annual trip to the James Dean Festival with my kids, and it’s wonderful to know that I won’t have to endure it again for another 365 days.  Since we live in the midst of the darned thing—two short blocks from the cacophonous midway—there is no way we can avoid taking the kids over for some rides and a bit of funnel cake, lest we face a household mutiny.  Just a few goes on the Kamikaze, Gravitron, and Tilt-a-Whirl are enough to satiate their appetites for spinning and sudden stops, then we are on our way back home to wash off the cigarette smoke and airborne grease. 

As my kids and I plodded through the sweaty mob from ride to ride, I began to compile a list of the things I despise about such festival atmospheres.  One day my children will know how much it tortures me.  But I hide it from them for now so as not to spoil their fun.  At any rate, here is my list (and please don’t share it with Bailey, Sam, Maggie, or Andrew until they are at least in middle school):

10. The ridiculously overpriced rides, midway attractions, and “food”

9. The constant drone of midway vendors, as they clamor after passersby to “take a shot” at winning a big kitschy stuffed animal

8. Thousands and thousands of feet of electrical cords.  Watch your step or you’ll roll an ankle or maybe even tear an ACL.

7. The swarms of bees and yellow jackets which feast in droves on the remnants of sugary treats and puddles of spilled beverages

6. The absurdly unhealthy food—all essentially comprised of sugar-laden fat dipped in grease.  Some of these treats, however, are hotter than others.

5. The grotesquely corpulent adults

4. The painfully self-conscious teenagers (and the not-sufficiently self-conscious ones who should be sentenced to a semester-long seminar on appropriate public display of affection)

3. Whining kids everywhere.  Not my kids, of course.  Only other peoples’ kids.

2. The random and unexpected profanity.  I can take it from the tattoo-riddled, unkempt Skydiver operator.  But from the preschool kid whose mom smiles amusedly at his casual F-bomb?

1. Elephant ears.

That’s just the top ten.  I’ll spare you the other 990. 

Now somebody please pass me the Rolaids.

Posted on

Media Hypocrisy in Ethics Investigations

By Jim Spiegel

The presidential race is approaching the home-stretch now, and the media frenzy to cover every detail of the candidates’ each and every move is becoming circus-like.  But, with as much as there is on the line, I suppose this is to be expected.  I suppose, too, that we should appreciate this fact about American politics.  Today the media is so thorough in its investigation of public figures that it is impossible to rise to national public office without having your private life exposed.  So if you aspire to work on Capitol Hill and have moral skeletons in your closet, then be prepared to see those bones hauled out into the light of day for all America to view.

It wasn’t always like this.  The extent of FDR’s health problems were held under wraps by the press, as were Kennedy’s adulterous liaisons.  But media-enabled cover-ups ended with Watergate.  Although it did not concern a personal indiscretion—it was a conspiratorial Republican plot to sabotage the Democrat political machine—this scandal created (or compounded) public suspicion toward our leaders.  Criminal corruption, we learned, really can go to the top.  Consequently, the media has been vigilant to scour every national politician and candidate for office to keep the American public informed as to their real character.  So I say good job, American media.

But there is something that bothers me, and with every new public scandal my annoyance grows.  While the media are tireless in their investigation of public figures, including the private lives of athletes and celebrities, they have immunized themselves to investigation.  In short, the media protect their own-mainly by not reporting ethical indiscretions of other journalists and reporters.  When was the last time you saw a report about a scandal involving a journalist or television news anchor?  Probably the only ones that come to your mind are those involving the Jayson Blair and Dan Rather or some other media person’s sins against their profession. That’s because this is the lone exception-the media will only “out” those whose immoral behavior undermines the media itself.  Otherwise, it appears, they are given a pass.

So as ethics scandals constantly rock the worlds of politics, business, sports, and entertainment, almost never do we hear of scandals among media personnel.  Not that we need more evidence of media bias, but this is especially exasperating because it doesn’t involve mere spinning of stories but constitutes turning a blind eye to bad behavior.  And the problem is not isolated but systemic.  Shame on you, American media.

What we need is a meta-media agency, a troupe of reporters whose special task is to investigate journalists and reporters to the same degree of rigor that other high-profile professionals are investigated.  How I’d love to see the media get a taste of their own medicine.  And how I’d love to see this effect a greater sense of fairness and discretion when it comes to media reports about personal issues that really have no place in public discussions.

Or maybe all we need is just a few courageous reporters who have the moral will to break this code of silence-to start holding their own profession to the same ethical standards to which they hold everyone else.  Now that would be historic.  Then I really could be proud of you, American media.

Posted on

Bono and Morrissey

By Jim Spiegel

Two of the stalwart acts in modern rock will release new records this February: U2 and Morrissey.  And, as usual in both cases, the pre-release hype machine is already in full-throttle months in advance.  The U2 record, to be titled No Line on the Horizon, was recorded in Morocco, France, and Dublin, Ireland.  And sources close to the band are effusive with praise about it.  Co-producer Daniel Lanois is quoted as saying “it’s one of the great, innovative records from U2.”  Well, we’ll see about that.  But one thing is for sure, the song titles of likely album tracks are intriguing.  They include: “Get Your Boots On,” “The Cedars of Lebanon,” “Moment of Surrender,” “Love is All We Have Left,” and “If I Could Live My Life Again.”

The new Morrissey album is called Years of Refusal, and was produced by Jerry Finn, who manned the board on the Moz’s 2004 comeback record You are the Quarry.  Tragically, Finn suffered a brain hemorrhage shortly after finishing the project and died August 21.  But it appears Finn’s final production effort will be a strong one, if comments from Morrissey’s band are any indication.  Like Bono, Morrissey has a knack for interesting song titles.  Probable album tracks include: “Action Man,” “I’m Throwing My Arms Around Paris,” “One Day Goodbye Will Be Farewell,” “Something is Squeezing My Skull,” “Because of My Poor Education,” “You Were Good in Your Time,” and “Mama Lay Softly on the Riverbed.”

The coincidence of these two releases is a double pleasure.  And as I anticipate them with glee, certain similarities between the two Irish-blooded songsmiths have jumped out at me.  For one thing, both Bono and Morrissey are musical connoisseurs, and not just within the rock tradition but across genres, ranging from Broadway show tunes to Indian trance music.  It is fascinating to see how two men in their late-forties have remained hungry and innovative, both lyrically and musically.  Far from being “written out,” each continues to explore interesting themes and styles with each release.

Bono and Morrissey are both well-read fellows, faithfully observing that guiding maxim for all literary artists: good writers must be good readers.  No artist creates in a vacuum, and as Bono himself has said, “every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief.”  These two have mastered the skill of artistic thievery, drawing their inspiration from great poets, novelists, and singers without lapsing into cheap, transparent imitation.

Another trait they share is strong convictions.  They have keen interests in political issues, and both are social activists regarding certain causes, such as AIDS relief in Africa in Bono’s case (cf. “Crumbs from Your Table”) and animal welfare for the Moz (cf. “Meat is Murder”).  You might say that they are very judgmental people, as perhaps all moral visionaries are, and each has been guilty of mouthing off or being too harshly critical at times.

Finally, both Bono and Morrissey have a strong sense of mortality.  Human frailty and desperation in a dangerous and confusing world are recurring themes in the work of both artists.  There is a certain sorrow which pervades their songs, though the Christian faith of Bono and the other members of U2 preserves a sense of hope in their music.  But Morrissey, no less than Bono, is on a spiritual quest—though I’m quite sure he would resist this characterization—which comes through in his music as well.  Both of them have shared their journeys with us in aesthetically pleasing ways.  And for this I am thankful.

Posted on

Big Families and the Environment

By Jim Spiegel

As a father of four kids, I am sometimes asked whether my wife and I “intended” to have “so many” children.  They say, “I don’t want to be rude, but…”  Well, the answer is yes; we did intend to have so many children.  While it is very challenging, having a large family has many benefits, both for us and, especially (we hope) for our society.  We strive to raise our kids to be thoughtful, productive Christians, who will impact culture in many positive ways.  And we hope that they, in turn, will have many kids of their own who do the same.  This is the way cultures are renewed, and we aspire to be a link in that causal chain in our own culture, which so badly needs renewal.

However, I occasionally encounter people who take a very different view of the matter.  The Earth is already overpopulated, they tell me, and having children only adds further stress to the planet.  Each kid means one more massive carbon footprint, a net loss to Earth.  Thinking themselves conscientious environmentalists, they suggest that the path my wife and I have chosen is actually irresponsible.  While these conversations rarely turn into debates, I am prepared to show my skeptical friends the flaws in their thinking.

First of all, such thinking assumes that our kids will be environmentally irresponsible, which we are working hard to prevent.  None of our lives need be a “net loss” to the planet.  In fact, if our kids turn out to be as environmentally responsible as we hope they will be, then we can expect net gains because of them.  For one thing, we practice a form of vegetarianism which has tremendous environmental benefits.  In terms of reducing greenhouse gases, abstaining from meat is one of the most significant contributions that one can make.  And we expect that our kids will likely continue this family practice into adulthood, perhaps teaching their own progeny to do the same.  On top of this, there is the potential that one of our kids will become an environmental scientist and make a profound contribution to the field.  The reasoning of my skeptical friends rules this possibility out of hand a priori.

This brings up another point which is rather exasperating.  None of the no-kids-because-of-the-environment folks I know are vegetarians.  They are so concerned about the planet that they refuse to procreate, but they refuse to do this very beneficial thing for the environment: abstain from meat.  For a while this puzzled me, but then it hit me.  The refusal to have kids and indulgence in meat have something in common-both choices are easy and convenient.  Raising kids and maintaining a vegetarian diet, on the other hand, are difficult and inconvenient.

Finally, and most disappointing from the standpoint of moral reasoning, the no-kids environmentalists are (or tend to be) guilty of one-track thinking when it comes to family planning.  By making environmental concerns the single overriding factor in their choice not to have children, they make this a moral trump card.  But even if environmental concerns did support the small family approach, why should we ignore the many other considerations which support the opposite perspective?  What about the countless ways that well-trained children can benefit society when they become adults (or even while they are still young)?  When there are so many other significant factors to take into account when doing family planning, a purely environmental approach seems narrow-minded and, well, irresponsible.  In fact, it makes me suspect that something other than environmental issues are at play here.  But, of course, this is not something I would ever say to the no-kids environmentalists.  I wouldn’t want to be rude.

Posted on

Literally

By Jim Spiegel

People abuse the English language in many ways, but I am never more bothered than when I hear the word “literally” misused.  Take a perfectly good idiomatic hyperbole like “scared to death,” for example.  Why do some folks insist on trying to add emphasis to this phrase by saying “I was literally scared to death”?  No, my friend, you were figuratively scared to death.  Had it been literal, you wouldn’t be here now.

Some of the most striking abuses occur in the context of sports.  Several years ago I was listening to an NFL playoff game involving the Pittsburgh Steelers, who were trying to mount a last-minute comeback.  As they drove down the field, the announcer declared, regarding their quarterback at the time, “Cordell Stewart is literally trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat.”  Naturally, I wondered why he would do that while playing football.  In another case, an ESPN radio commentator was discussing the poise of a particular basketball player when he said that this player “literally has ice water in his veins.”  Uh huh.  But my all-time favorite—if you can call it a “favorite”—appeared on a website advertising a student development conference.  The blurb about the keynote speaker asserted that this person’s work had “literally turned the world upside-down.”  Hmm.  Now that is impressive.

Other common linguistic mistakes, such as mispronunciations (of words like “nuclear” and “asterisk”) and confusions of terms (such as “jealous” for “envious” or “sarcastic” for “caustic”) are annoying but excusable.  However, faulty uses of “literally” are on a different level because they typically spoil a perfectly serviceable metaphor or hyperbole.  And it is even more disturbing when the offender is a professional broadcaster or academic.

So, gentle reader, I beg you to be responsible in your use of this word.  Or, if you must abuse it, please do it in private so that others won’t be corrupted by your indiscretion.  My hope is that we can put an end to this error, because if I hear the word abused again I am going to lose my mind.  Figuratively speaking, of course.

Posted on

Orbiting the True Falconer

By Jim Spiegel

Christian author and president of Ligonier Ministries R.C. Sproul tells the story of his experience as a young father visiting his daughter’s school for the first time.  Six weeks into his daughter’s first grade year at a public school in Boston, Mass., Sproul attended an open house for parents in which the principal was to explain the school’s programs and goals.  The principal proceeded to review in rigorous detail how each activity undertaken was based on the latest research in child education and how it contributed to specific aspects of the children’s development.  When they were done, the principal asked the parents if they had any questions, which at first was met with only silence and blank stares.  Finally, Sproul himself spoke up: “Sir,” he said, “I deeply appreciate all that you’ve done here, and I am overwhelmed by the amount of care and precision that has gone into the planning and execution of this curriculum.  But I do have one question.  Could you tell me what is the overarching purpose you are trying to achieve here?  In other words, what kind of child are you trying to produce and why?”  The principal looked at Sproul mutely for a several moments and then said, “I don’t know.  No one has ever asked me that question.”  To which Sproul replied:  “I respect and appreciate your being so open and honest.  But frankly, your reply terrifies me.”

Sproul’s question could, and I think should, be posed to any educator, whether those teaching first-graders or those like me, working with college students.  What kind of person are my colleagues and I (at Taylor University) hoping to produce or at least have a hand in shaping?   If we, like that principal, have no answer to Sproul’s question, then the parents of our students, too, have good reason to be worried, if not terrified.

In an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education (June 4, 2004), Vartan Gregorian argues that American higher education is suffering from a “major failure” to make sense of the unity and value of knowledge, and is degenerating into a mere job-readiness program.  Increasingly, colleges are taking what Gregorian calls the “Home Depot approach to education,” turning themselves into “academic superstores, vast collections of courses, stacked up like sinks and lumber for do-it-yourselfers to try to assemble on their own into a meaningful whole” (p. B12).  Colleges offer a vast array of general education and specialized courses but it is “devoid of…context and coherence” (ibid).  What is critically absent is any sense of what it means to be an educated or cultured person.  So Gregorian issues an urgent call for college professors and administrators to “reconstruct the unity and value of knowledge” (ibid).

Notice that Gregorian’s worry is essentially the same as Sproul’s but just on a higher educational plane.  It is interesting to note that the events recounted in Sproul’s story occurred about forty years ago.  So his daughter’s generation are today’s college professors whose lack of unifying vision Gregorian laments.  There is indeed a crisis in American higher education today, and Gregorian diagnosis it well.  But conspicuously absent from his essay is any sense of the problem’s cure.  His plea for colleges to “reconstruct the unity of knowledge” is futile unless some of us actually know how to go about doing this.

Another curious detail in Gregorian’s essay is his choice of terminology.  He does not call for a construction of the unity of knowledge but a reconstruction, which suggests that American colleges once enjoyed a unified approach to education.  So where did that go?  And how might we bring it back? Could it be that what we need is to rediscover the unifier of knowledge which we somehow lost along the way?

In the first chapter of Colossians the apostle Paul writes that by Jesus Christ “all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.  He is before all things and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:16-17).  And a little later Paul says that “in [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).  If Paul is correct-and I suspect he is-then we have found the true unifier of all knowledge, the remedy to the crisis in higher education described by Gregorian.

Many people still labor under the delusion that a “neutral” education is possible.  Their recipe: Insert soul here; add factual data of diverse kinds; increase ambient social temperature; allow to incubate for three and two-thirds years; and-boom schnitzel!–an Educated Person. As if human beings really could be completely impartial and dispassionate.  As if education was a simple matter of pouring facts into persons.  As if there was such a thing as a view from nowhere.

One of the virtues of postmodernism is its rejection of the myth of neutrality, whether regarding education or any other sphere of human activity.  There is a person-relativity to knowledge, the postmodernists tell us, and even if we cannot agree with their extreme pronouncements about relativism, we Christians should acknowledge this much.  The ultimate reality is a Person, and absolute truth is relative to that Person.  What American higher education has lost is not a “what” or “it” but He who is the source of everything and brings meaning and purpose to all human activities, from learning to laughter to lovemaking.

As regards our current crisis in higher education, as with so many things in life, to discover the cause is also to find the cure.  Once upon a time in this country all our great colleges and universities were founded on Christ.  Harvard’s motto was typical: “veritas in Christi gloriam” (truth for the glory of Christ).  Jesus was the center around which they orbited, but over time they drifted out of that orbit.  The image in Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming” comes to mind:  “Turning and turning in the widening gyre; The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.”  Jesus Christ is the true Falconer, the launching point of all knowledge and the center from which all wisdom derives.  But less and less our culture hears his call.

The loss of the unity of knowledge in higher education is a consequence of the rejection of a Christian worldview.  The only way this unity can be reconstructed is through Christian education.  The bad news is that higher education has fallen a long way, and the road to cultural redemption will be hard.  But in Christ there is always good news.  A millennium and a half ago things looked really bad for Western civilization.  Radical skepticism had prevailed in a war ravaged and disease stricken culture.  Truth and the unity of knowledge appeared as lifeless corpses.  Who would have thought the best days were yet to come for Western Civilization?

So what reconstructed the West?  What brought us out of the Dark Ages and into the light?  Was it not the gospel?  And how did the Christian worldview survive such difficult, apparently hopeless times?  It was Christian communities, an underground culture of hope, centered on Truth and devoted to the Christ who unifies all knowledge.  In short, Christianity saved Western Civilization.  I don’t know if we are heading into another dark age, as some have suggested.  But whether or not that’s so, the West needs to be redeemed again.  And if Christianity saved Western civilization once, it can happen again.  It can happen through the same underground culture of hope that pulled it off the first time.  And Christian colleges can be as pivotal as they were the first time.  The founding of the universities of Paris, Bologna, and Salerno were decisive for the advance of Christian thought in the 13th century and beyond.  Christian higher education must play a similar role in the years to come if we are to see a true redemption of Western culture.

Now, to return to Sproul’s question, my colleagues at Taylor and other Christian colleges do have an overarching purpose.  We do know the kind of person we are trying to produce-a person whose Christian worldview permeates the whole of his or her life.  By God’s grace we can still hear the falconer, and it is our job to enable our students to do so as well.  Whatever our specialties, research projects, disciplinary paradigms, or technological preoccupations, we must not forget whom we orbit.  It is he who holds all things together and “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

Posted on

A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Close

By Jim Spiegel

Recently I was chatting with someone about nutrition and I noted how factory farmed meats pose health hazards. He was skeptical and asked, “Is there any scientific evidence for that?” I replied that there are many studies which confirm this and told him that I was willing to direct him to some of these publications. But my friend smiled and shook his head, saying “You can’t trust scientific studies. You can use them to prove just about anything.” I was dumbfounded. First he demands scientific evidence for my claim, but when I oblige he tells me that he can’t accept it because science can’t be trusted! At this point I realized that I was dealing with a closed mind, so we went on to discuss other things.

I once heard someone say that aging academicians often suffer from “hardening of the categories.” After graduate school, they become locked in their theoretical paradigms and are less and less likely to explore new ideas and engage new perspectives in an open-minded way. I would say this is a universal human tendency, not just a pitfall for scholars. But it certainly is more disturbing to observe this in people who are supposed to be serious about the quest for knowledge and understanding.

I have had some colleagues over the years whose views on major issues—from ethics to politics to theology—changed very little since their college days. It occurred to me that for such a person the “wisdom of their years” is partly a sham, at least as this applies to their supposed exploration of ideas. They might be in their fifties and appear to be the mature product of decades of academic growth. But since they haven’t changed their views in thirty years, how can we call them models of serious inquiry? Their students might as well be listening to a peer.

Have you changed your view on some important issue in the last few years? I’m not talking about beliefs as basic as the existence of God or even whether you are a political liberal or conservative. But if you are a genuinely teachable person, committed to the quest for understanding and willing to consider fresh perspectives, then your mind should change from time to time on various issues. If this is not true of you, then perhaps you are experiencing “hardening of the categories” yourself.

It is understandable that those who are older should change their views less frequently than the young. After all, in most cases those who are older have already reviewed more ideas and are familiar with arguments on both sides of many issues. However, even experienced folks who are very well-travelled in the realm of ideas have not been exposed to every idea or argument. So if they are truly teachable and open-minded, there should be evidence of this in the form of a conversion to a different belief every once in a while, even concerning important issues. Otherwise, I can only conclude that they are not really open to new ideas. And this is sad. A mind is a terrible thing to close.

Posted on

Ten Best Rock Albums

By Jim Spiegel

Okay, here are my top ten albums of the rock era.  For selection criteria, see my previous post.  If you disagree with one of my picks, your opinion doesn’t count if you don’t own the record!  Do yourself a favor and pick up the ones you don’t yet own.  Not all at once, of course.  This music must be savored.

1. The Beatles, Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967) – A predictable first choice, but rightfully so. With this album, the Beatles introduced the “concept album,” established rock music as a bona fide art form, and founded or perfected at least three new genres: psychedelic rock, orchestral rock, and nostalgic chamber music rock. And all within the engineering limits of a four-track recorder. Impossible. The album would have been even stronger if the sessions’ two best songs, “Penny Lane” and “Strawberry Fields Forever,” had been included. (Instead, Capitol released them together as a stand-alone single). Classic tracks include “With a Little Help From My Friends,” Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds,” and “When I’m Sixty-Four.”

2. The Clash, London Calling (1979) – If the Beatles were, as McCartney described them, the ultimate “cabaret” band, the Clash were a close second, proving themselves just as capable to try on, and master, a wide range of styles within the rock tradition. The best album by “the only band that matters,” London Calling features an array of music styles and influences—punk, R&B, ska, and reggae. Yet somehow it is a unified piece of work, with no lulls in the 19-song sequence. Unlike the Beatles’ masterpiece, London Calling has only improved with age. The album’s most recognizable songs are “Train in Vain,” which became the band’s first U.S. top-40 hit, and the title track.

3. Bob Dylan, Blonde on Blonde (1966) – This was the final album in Dylan’s early “beat poet” period and the culmination of the most prolific and inspired era in the rock bard’s career. Despite its flaws (occasional sloppy playing and some imperfect mixes) the music always soars. The songwriting dazzles, and the energy of Dylan and his band perfectly matches the songs, which are mostly blues-based rockers. The album is loaded with all-time Dylan greats, such as “I Want You,” “Just Like a Woman,” “Absolutely Sweet Marie,” and “Leopard-Skin Pillbox Hat.”

4. The Beatles, The Beatles (a.k.a. the “White Album”) (1968) – In the summer of 1968, the Beatles sojourned to India to meditate with the Maharishi Yogi. After a few months they were disillusioned about the self-proclaimed holy man, but they returned home with a boatload of new songs and a will to return to an unadorned sound. The result was a 30-song double album which showcases the Beatles’ incomparable versatility. Styles range from blues rock (“Birthday” and “Yer Blues”) to acoustic ballads (“Blackbird” and “Julia”) to Western swing (“Rocky Raccoon”) to bluegrass (“Don’t Pass Me By”) to a 1930s-style show tune (“Honey Pie”). The album also features the controversial non-musical sound art piece, “Revolution 9.” What The Beatles lacks in unity it more than makes up for in quality of individual songs.

5. U2, The Joshua Tree (1987) – On the heels of their Unforgettable Fire album, singer Bono declared that the band had no clear tradition. This motivated them to explore American music, especially blues, country, gospel, and roots rock. Meanwhile, the band was wrestling with political issues related to Central American conflicts. These factors converged to ensure the songs U2 recorded for The Joshua Tree—only half of which appeared on the album—were focused and inspired. Producers Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois managed to create a sound that is full but also spacious, perfectly complimenting the mood and lyrical themes of the songs. Classic tracks include “With or Without You,” “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” and “Bullet the Blue Sky.”

6. Led Zeppelin, Led Zepellin IV (1971) – Although commonly referred to as Led Zepellin IV, this album really has no name. Instead, it was identified only with four cryptic symbols. The music on the record, however, is not obscure in the least but features such straightforward rock classics as “Black Dog,” “Rock and Roll,” and “Stairway to Heaven.” This album displays the talents of a great band at the height of its powers, all harnessed by the underrated producing genius of guitarist Jimmy Page.

7. Radiohead, OK Computer (1997) – At a time when we were all weary of Seattle grunge sound rip-offs and the loud-soft-loud arrangement they turned into a cliché, suddenly there appeared—not without plenty of pre-release hyperbolic praise—an album so beautiful and inspired it seemed to come from another world. (Perhaps fittingly, several of the songs reference aliens.) With their 1995 classic The Bends, Radiohead had mastered the rock genre. Now it was time to transcend it. And, boy, did they (with this album and every one they have made since). Classics include “Paranoid Android,” “Exit Music,” and “Let Down.”

8. Bob Dylan, Highway 61 Revisited (1965) – This is Dylan the beat poet singer, Allen Ginsberg with a guitar and harmonica. From the classic opening track, “Like a Rolling Stone” to the mesmerizing closer, “Desolation Row,” the album is a non-stop torrent of stream-of-consciousness lyrics, sung over a blues-rock palette. But it’s not just comic nonsense (though it is quite often that), as a prevailing theme of alienation and confusion emerges which at once typifies the mood of the mid-60s and aptly communicates the essence of the human condition. How could he have been so far ahead of his time? Answer: While other songwriters were inspired by popular songs, Dylan was inspired by great poets.

9. Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon (1973) – No album has spent more time than this one on the Billboard album charts—a total of 29 years. This is ironic, considering the fact that it is anything but a pop album. The music was highly experimental for its time, and its innovations have aged well. Lyrically, Roger Waters explores the heaviest of themes—mutability, consumerism, ethnocentrism, violence, madness, and death. Classic tracks include “Time,” “Brain Damage,” and “Money.” (As a curious aside, there is also the matter of the album’s strange synchronicity with The Wizard of OZ: http://www.everwonder.com/david/wizardofoz/. Try it out, and make of it what you will.)

10. Queen, A Night at the Opera (1975) – This amazing blend of heavy metal, quasi-folk, nostalgic ditties, and orchestral-operatic rock still defies categorization. Reported to be the most expensive album ever recorded at the time of its release, one listening reveals why. Queen laid down literally hundreds of vocal tracks, and just one section of the album’s masterpiece, “Bohemian Rhapsody,” took three weeks to record. But more impressive than the meticulous production on this album are the songs themselves—each smartly composed and arranged by one of rock’s greatest bands, each member of which sang and wrote songs.

Posted on

Twenty Best Albums of the Rock Era

By Jim Spiegel

 

Here is the first part of my list of the best albums of the rock era: 1955 to 2000.  (The top ten will appear in my next post.)  My list comports with what might be called the rock music “canon.”  As much as I could manage, I have refrained from accentuating my own stylistic predilections, which happen to be progressive rock and British pop.  My selection criteria include: 1) lyrical and musical originality, 2) historical impact, and 3) consensus of music critics.  Regarding criterion #3, I have allowed my own judgments to be heavily influenced by published lists such as those by Rolling Stone magazine and VHI.

 

 

11. The Beatles, Abbey Road (1969) – The swansong of the most important band in history.  Even while in the midst of a bitter break-up, they managed to make an album that was not only cohesive, but groundbreaking.  The second side of the album flowed continuously from song to song, inspiring the same convention in such later albums as Jethro Tull’s Thick as a Brick.  Classic tracks include “Here Comes the Sun,” Something,” and “Come Together.”

 

12. David Bowie, The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars (1972) – A concept album which tells the tale of Ziggy Stardust, a space alien rock star who comes to Earth to inspire humanity, only to self-destruct through dissipation.  Sound familiar?  But it is the album’s individual songs, not its narrative, that make it great.  It is chock-full of classic tunes, but some of the more familiar ones are “Suffragette City,” “Moonage Daydream,” “Starman,” and the title track.

 

13. Elvis Costello, This Year’s Model (1978) – After his heralded debut, My Aim is True, Elvis, the “singing dictionary,” hand picked his band, The Attractions, and this, their first album together, brims with passion and angst, beating his contemporary new wavers at their own game.  The album’s relentless energy is matched by its lyrical cleverness.  One of the best albums of the new wave era.

 

14. Jimi Hendrix, Are You Experienced?  (1967) – How does he get those sounds out of his guitar?  Is it R&B or psychadelia?  How many rules can you break and how many different rock genres can be spawned by one album?  And yet, ironically, this album is a return to the rock’s blues roots.  Classic tracks include “Purple Haze” (U.S. release), “Hey Joe,” and “The Wind Cries Mary.”

 

15. The Kinks, Muswell Hillbillies (1971) – The last of a string of great records during the Kinks’ “golden age.” Ray Davies wry wit and ingenious social commentary is at its finest, with classic tunes such as “Alcohol” and “Complicated Life.”  With the recurrent anti-technology theme, it even manages to be a concept album in an unselfconscious way.  As wonderful as this record is, one staggers at the thought of how strong it would have been if produced by someone more able than Ray Davies (with all due respect to Mr. Davies, who is one of rock’s towering figures).

 

16. REM, Automatic for the People (1992) – After ten years of resisting pressure to make a commercial album, the Athens, Georgia founders of “indie rock” finally dished it out in good measure.  The album was indeed a commercial success, but it was also an artistic breakthrough for the band, as many of the songs, such as “Nightswimming,” featured innovative arrangements, while others had surprisingly weighty personal themes, such as “Everybody Hurts”—a tragically ineffectual plea to Kurt Cobain.

 

17. The Beach Boys, Pet Sounds (1966) – The Beatles self-confessed inspiration for Sergeant Pepper, this album was itself inspired by the Beatles’ Rubber Soul.  Pet Sounds features some of Brian Wilson’s most ingeniously crafted pop tunes, including the plaintive “Wouldn’t it Be Nice,” a gorgeous cover of “Sloop John B” and “God Only Knows,” which became the first top-40 hit whose title featured the name of the deity.

 

18. U2, Achtung Baby (1991) – The last great album by Ireland’s greatest band, Achtung Baby was a surprising departure from the American-influenced sound of their previous two LPs.  Though adorned with a lot of experimental guitar work, this rarely gets in the way of the songs themselves, most of which are brilliantly crafted in their own right, including “Mysterious Ways,” “One,” and “You’re So Cruel.”

 

19. Rolling Stones, Exile on Main Street (1972) – Emerging from the shadow of the Beatles two years after the Liverpudlians split, the Stones were free to indulge their street blues roots while experimenting with other genres as the new kings of rock.  This sprawling double album is their least polished but most pure in terms of rock and roll energy.  It also features some of the best Jagger vocals, Richards’ guitar work, and Glimmer Twins songwriting in the bands’ repertoire.  Classics include “Tumbling Dice” and “Happy.”

 

20. Bruce Springsteen, Born to Run (1975) – After his first two strong, but overwritten, albums, the Boss secured manager-producer Jon Landau who refined Springsteen’s image as well as his musical vision.  Upon the album’s release, Springsteen instantly became the voice for ordinary working-class (especially blue-collar) Americans, a mantle he has proudly worn for over three decades since.  Classic tracks include “Thunder Road,” “Tenth Avenue Freeze Out” and the title track.