Los Angeles TNDY 401T : Activity

Anderson lecture

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:30:41 GMT

It is strange how we all seem to pick up (or not) similar things. I found my attention wondering for much of this lecture as well. I almost felt like she was there trying to work out her own frustration, rather than present an argument. I too was a little shocked to hear about the overt support (and success) for the film "The Klansmen." I agree with Yaeri that Anderson didn't really "prove" her thesis that blacks had been politically active and significant long before the 60s. What really got me was when she said that, I think it was the 2000 election, blacks made up 7% of the city. Maybe its me, but I found that number to be way lower than I imagined.

Anderson Lecture

Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:22:42 GMT

Perhaps I just had a short attention span that night, but I have to agree with Yaeri that this was not one of the better lectures of the semester. However, Anderson did bring to light racist moments that were quite hard to digest like the President of the United States endorsing the film ‘The Klansmen’ and the reception it received in Hollywood. It was interesting that she acknowledged that the LA Riots in the early 90’s were in fact riots because of their unorganized nature as opposed to ‘uprisings’ or other more PC or genteel terms that have tried to replace ‘riots’. Her information on Biddy Mason was interesting and I would like to learn more about her.

Bradford and Smith

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:13:39 GMT

The Smith and Bradford lectures let me down as far as getting a deeper look into THE American musical gift to the world. However, I loved to hear Bradford talk about his life experiences. That is what stood out to me with these two lectures. Being an historian and love stories, especially when they come from an elderly person that has been in the thick of it, so to speak so I could have listened to Bradford all night. His talk gave us a great look into race and place in America in the South and Southwest during the 20^th century. I found it fascinating to hear about how he and his family were treated because they were “black.” The most intriguing of these stories was about the subtleties and pervasiveness of racism in American during the first half of the 20^th century. It was the little tale about when his mother and brother were allowed to eat in a restaurant and he and his step dad were not because they were too dark.

Race always has been and always will be (it seems) an issue in America. Bradford and those of his generation are a great source of oral, social and cultural history that shows how race has shaped modern America.

Smith and Bradford's Jam Session

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:41:02 GMT

Being a (sometimes) jazz musician I was really looking forward to this lecture. When I first entered college, I did so under jazz bass scholarships. My high school band director was very much so a "jazzer," and he instilled in many of us an inherent dis-trust of classical music/musicians. I believed, for a long time, that these musicians obviously couldn't think for themselves, and so they just repeated what a bunch of dead European guys had to say a long time ago. When I actually arrived at college, I learned that I couldn't major in "jazz bass," but that I would have to major on an instrument in the "classical" sphere (much like the story Bradford relayed about his stuidents experience at the school that shall remain nameless...Indiana). I viewed this as simply another hoop that needed to be jumped through, so I did it. But I did it, initially, with a lot of animosity, with an almost tongue-in-cheek studiousness.

As Bradford said, it is common for jazz musicians to refer to classical music as "legit" music (thereby infering that the other types of music were "ill-legit"). It is funny that he sounded so upset when he said it because the jazz musicians are the only ones who use that lingo. I read portions of Miles Davis' autobiography a while back and alot of the things that he said were reiterated by Bradford. Davis had a very "ify" view of white jazz musicians. Ironically Davis' three top-selling (and most influential) albums were collaborations with white musicians-- Birth of the Cool (1957) included an all-white band (except for Davis), Kind of Blue (1959) featured white pianist Bill Evans (and his arranging style) prominently, and Bitches Brew (1969) included a white (and Euorpean!) bassist and guitaist, Dave Holland and John McLaughlin, and a white pianist, Chick Corea. In his book he voiced the opinion that these albums successes had nothing to do, really, with the fact these were his most groundbreaking efforts and that they were clearly his best performances, but, instead their success was due primarily to the presence of white players! I thought Bradford's term "jazz-like" was interesting. He didn't really give any objective criteria for what makes something jazz or jazz-like.

I hope I am not coming off as sounding condescending. I have enormous respect and admiration for Bradford. I have always been fascinated by Ornette Coleman's music, and I never knew that we had a former bandmate of his roaming around Claremont. I guess the thing I notice more and more about jazz and classical music is the generational gap that seems to be there. It may be true that 20-30 years ago (when most of the current professors were gigging) that jazz musicians didn't get the respect they deserved from the public or from academia, but I really feel that that is totally gone now. There are still a lot of jazz musicians with big chips on their shoulders, but most of them are older or inherited it from their teachers. To be quite frank, both classical and jazz music have become almost irrelevent in regard to mainstream America. The audiences for these two genres is growing smaller and smaller. Ironically, our universities and conservatories are pumping more musicians trained in these two genres (usually only one) than ever before! Sometimes I wonder waht all of these folks (myself included) are going to do when they realize that their music is dying...

Personally, I think that our classification system (classical, rap, jazz, alternative, etc) is going to break down pretty soon. If you look at a typical teenager's iPod there doesn't seem to be any regard for these classifications. You will see kids listening to Red Hot Chili Peppers, Snoop Dogg, and Carrie Underwood one after the other, without breaking a sweat. You won't see classical or jazz though. Maybe we will end up with two categories "not-cool" (comprising classical and jazz, mostly) and "cool" (comprising most everything else) musics! :)

Sorry that I get so long-winded sometimes...I was riveted by Bradford's talk. I wish there had been more time! I just can't help but make observatins based on my background. Thanks for indulging me. Congrats if you actually made it this far!

Villa and Wild Lectures

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:15:11 GMT

These two lectures were not that intriguing to me for some reason. They both were fairly dull presenters and they both seemed to know their topic but I didn’t get the feeling that they felt it (“lived it”). I guess it could be me but they did very little to further my thinking on LA.

The one thing that did come out these talks that I thought was important is the idea and emphasis on perception. It is through perception that we see our past, present and future. Many times perception is a lot more important that reality especially, in how we see and approach it.

What brought that to mind was Villa talking about how whites viewed the Mexicans and how the Mexicans viewed themselves. Views (perceptions) go a long way in creating a defining a culture. I think this topic is something to mull over.

Villa and Wild

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:27:41 GMT

The thing that caught my ear the most was Villa's comment on how in Los Angeles' early days, people thought that L.A. would be free of all the problems caused by excessive immigration in the big cities of the east. Considering the climate in the area today, this seems like they must have been talking about a completely different city. When Wild taked about integration, he made it seem like that was impossible, or undesireable. I am not sure ho I feel about that--I'm still rolling it over in my head.--I guess assimilation was the word Wild use.

Avila and Gottlieb

Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:36:37 GMT

I am a little mixed in my reaction to last week's lecture. I guess that is because both of the messages were a mix of pessimism and optimism. It is sad to think that the majority of Americans are acted upon, rather than acting themselves, in regard to art and entertainment. At the same time there is a certain amount of democracy to it "popular (or mass)" culture.

I am not a scientist, but like Joel said in class, I am a little hesitant to trust Gottlieb's statement that Mira Loma is the fifth most polluted area in the world. It certainly is bad, but I am a little suspicioous that he (or those he was quoting) are tweaking the statistics a little.

It is interesting that we talk so much about the city's water acquisition, as this really is central to a city's growth potential. There is actually a geographic/meterological line stretching across the continent (North to South) somewhere around Wichita, Kansas. The majority of the places West of this line cannot support agriculture on almost any scale without irrigation. There is simply not enough rainfall in the (in the areas flat enough to cultivate) West of this line, including most of California. So, of course these cities are forced, if they are going to exist, to get the water from somewhere else. The Pacific Northwest is, obviously, an exception to this, but this principle holds true most everywhere else. Sometimes I wonder what Los Angeles (and the rest of Southern California) would be like if all of the corrupt water acquisition hadn't taken place...don't get me worng, I am not, in any way, saying that what happened was right or justified!

Avila and Gottlieb Lectures

Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:03:05 GMT

I keep saying this each week. But, I’ll be damned if it isn’t true. This was my favorite night of lectures so far. They just keep getting better and better. Oddly enough these two men are involved in two of the fields of history that I study the most: Popular Culture and Activism. As incongruous as it may sound, these are two of the main fields that I am studying in my program.

Avila’s lecture on Mass (Popular) Culture was really fascinating to me. His studies on the commodification and administration of movies, water, cars, housing, and food to the American masses provide a very important insight into what we are. In saying what we are, I mean our role in society. And our foremost role in a capitalistic society is as a consumer. And the largest question right now for intellectuals and your average American right now is: Does what you own, own you? And is this good or bad?

Gottlieb’s lecture on reinvention was just a gratifying to me. And his questions of How does a place reinvent itself? Can it? Should it? And Where does one start? are extreme important to us as we are living in a time of seeming chaos wanting to find a way that is better for all. Of course we are the same as Americans have always been. Americans all ways feel this way, due how mercurial democracy is and how it is carried out?

I was very pleased to see a man as experienced as Gottlieb be so hopeful. His quote from Antonio Gramschi (“One must have the pessimism of the intellect and the optimism of the will”) was very encouraging and empowering. That attitude is very important in a world of constant change. You need to have and keep the above in mind if you want to make a difference.

Where in the world is L.A.?

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:44:50 GMT

The thing I enjoyed most about Sonenshein's presentation was how down to earth he was about everything! I have also, always found it kind of curious how confused people get over which city they call home. My mom grew up in Woodland Hills (in the western part of "The Valley"), but never realized that she actually lived in Los Angeles city limits. Curiously, however, she lived outside the boundaries of LAUSD, and so was bused to her High School in Agoura (outside the city limits). I know that I have overheard people saying that they wish they could vote in L.A. city elections, but they can't because they live in Northridge. What is even curiouser is the amount of "movers and shakers" who live in Santa Monica, not in Los Angeles. Especially curious is when these Santa Monicans criticize the "suburbanites" who inhabit the San Gabriel Valley for their commuter related pollution and traffic, yet they, themselves, often commute the 15 miles eastward to downtown (or beyond). I can definitely understand why there have desires to secede, but, as Sonenshein pointed out, the city, technically, owns the infrastructure, so seceding creates a huge problem...It seems that this problem stems partially from what Michael Dear kept pointing out: that Los Angeles isn't (and never really was) the traditional, centrally oriented city.

Grassroots Democracy in LA

Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:38:25 GMT

Democracy is a messy, chaotic and sometimes abortive process. What is important to remember is that democracy is ALWAYS a work in progress and this movement of change (progress) cannot stop. We have to keep moving adapting, changing, and evolving. Democracy can never be stagnant if it is to survive. Dr. Sonenshein did a great job of showing how LA has always been and still is this work in progress; that even though many people say that “there are no politics in LA” there is democracy churning away in Southern California.

It is important to remember that democracy is about failure and success. LA has not always been successful but no place has. It seems to be growing and learning from its mistakes. At least it seems to be through Sonenshein’s eyes.

Two of his ideas were of a particular fascination to me. The first idea is how LA has always been a nonpartisan place. The second idea is how LA is hard to govern because it looks more like a monster or a Rorschach blot than a real city.

This idea of an entire region being nonpartisan in such a devotee American culture is fascinating to me. LA, as far as I have been able to find, in trying to let “the people” and not the parties run the city stands alone. This idea of “the people” through out most of its modern history has been white people with money; so we can’t pat ourselves on the back to hard. However, this idea has huge amounts of promise, and that tends to be what we the people have to build on.

The second idea of the oddity of the size and shape of the city relates to the first idea in that is hard to realize a dream/idea with poor organization. And LA is poorly organized. It was slapped together in a very haphazard manner. Sonenshein and the City’s new policies of neighborhoods with the possibility of this leading to “self governing Boroughs” could very possibly lead to a better LA and more Democracy for the people of LA.

Depression

Tue, 08 May 2007 00:51:19 GMT

Nervous Breakdown

Tue, 08 May 2007 00:45:58 GMT

Tue, 08 May 2007 00:40:47 GMT

Tue, 08 May 2007 00:39:25 GMT

Tue, 08 May 2007 00:39:11 GMT

Tue, 08 May 2007 00:38:32 GMT

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 16:58:32 GMT