Paying Tribute to Those Who Pay Terrific Tribute

Note: This article references and praises--but doesn't explicitly rate--performances by:

The Cheetles - Beatles tribute
Phil Angotti & bandmates - Zombies tribute
w/ Tommi Zender
27 Live, Evanston, IL
February 15, 2014

My Fair Audrey:
Celebrating Audrey Hepburn,
a musical tribute
by Hilary Ann Feldman
with Beckie Menzie
Glenview Public Library
February 16, 2014

My thoughts on "Tribute Artists" aren't completely clear.

Especially to me.

While I admire anyone who has the talent and courage to perform in front of others, and appreciate everyone who has ever enjoyably entertained me--from rock bands who pack football stadiums to buskers who go largely ignored on subway platforms--I would generally say that I prefer the "real thing."

But what is the "real thing?"

And at least in a rock 'n roll realm, but also in terms of Broadway musicals that nowadays often feature existing pop songs, how much of it still exists?

While I have seen--and greatly enjoyed--Chicago's terrific Tributosaurus on several occasions, and likewise the excellent Beatles tribute group American English, I don't think I've ever paid more than $20 at a local bar to see a "tribute act." Most have been in the province of local summer festivals or other such free/cheap venues.

So though I've heard great things about The Musical Box--which covers early Genesis--and the Australian Pink Floyd Show, both which seem to play theater-sized venues for substantive admission, I tend to reserve my $30 & up concert expenditures for the "real thing."

But then, how many "jukebox musicals" have I seen, with talented vocalists singing tunes by ABBA, the Four Seasons, Buddy Holly, Billy Joel, Michael Jackson, Hank Williams, Woody Guthrie, etc., etc.?

Aren't those essentially tribute acts?

And it's not like even in a stage musical featuring original music, the actors are singing songs they've created. Nor are most classical and jazz artists I see.

So why do I perceive something a bit less artistically pure about a band of talented musicians performing songs by the "Fab Four" than I do about an orchestra performing music by Beethoven, Bach, Mozart and Brahms? Or a local theater group performing West Side Story or Hello, Dolly?

Certainly, one could argue that most veteran rock acts--many whom I do pay considerable money to see--are only paying tribute to their former selves.

In the coming months, I will attend concerts by Barry Gibb, Ringo Starr and Billy Joel, none likely to sing songs any more recent than 20 years old, with most dating back much further.

So while I believe originality is a key element of much great artistry, how much of it still exists in rock and other realms?

Call me a relic who still cherishes three chords and the truth, but the truth is that there is no popular musical artist under the age of 30 that I knowingly want to see live, and very few of any age that I would look forward to seeing for a first time.

With so many of the rockers that I love--from Bruce Springsteen to Paul McCartney to the Rolling Stones and many more--at risk of retiring or expiring in the not-so-distant future, and others long extinct, it seems that if I want to continue hearing live music I like for the next (let's hope) 40 years, I not only better accept tribute acts, but embrace them.

Perhaps for much more than the $10 I paid to see an absolutely superlative tribute show at 27 Live in Evanston on Saturday night.

After an enjoyable set by local singer-songwriter Tommi Zender of presumably mostly original (or at least not well-known) material, I heard a Zombies cover band led by Phil Angotti followed by a really terrific Beatles setlist by the Cheetles.

Though I've heard Angotti's name for years (here's his AllMusic.com bio), I had never seen him, though I should note that he did come onstage to perform a couple of his own songs with Zender.

But I was tremendously impressed by how well he and 3 bandmates--whose names I can't cite--handled the Zombies' terrific catalog under the moniker Beechwood Park (a Zombies song they didn't play).

Ironically, only about 18 months ago, I--along with my friend Dave and sister Allison, who also accompanied me on Saturday with our friend Bob--saw the actual Zombies (with original members Colin Blunstone and Rod Argent) at Viper Alley in Lincolnshire, a club not all that much larger than 27 Live.

But I love their music and with Angotti emulating Blunstone's vocals well, supported by great harmonies and impressive musicianship, it was a pleasure to hear them run through early Zombie singles like "She's Not There," "Tell Her No," "I Love You," "Leave Me Be," their cover of Gershwin's "Summertime" and a quartet of songs from the masterful Odessey and Oracle: "Care of Cell 44," "Maybe After She's Gone," "Friends of Mine" and "Time of the Season."

As I said to my pals, if the show ended there, my $10 would have been well worth it.

But while I have never been disappointed by American English and have seen at least a handful of other Beatle tribute bands over the years, I was as impressed as I could be by the Cheetles.

Opening with "Taxman" and hitting other Revolver album cuts like "She Said She Said," "Doctor Robert," "I Want To Tell You," the 7-piece band actually enriched my acute appreciation of the Beatles by mining their catalog so deeply.

Although the Cheetles gloriously romped through early Beatle gems--"All My Loving," "From Me to You," "She Loves You," "I Wanna Hold Your Hand"--in the middle of their nearly 2-hour set, even cooler was their jarring juxtaposition of the latter with "Happiness is a Warm Gun."

Many of their choices caught me by pleasant surprise, including "Nowhere Man," "Hold Me Tight," "Tell Me Why," "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," "This Boy," "Lovely Rita" and encores of "Getting Better" and "You Never Give Me Your Money."

Although unlike American English and other such groups, the Cheetles didn't dress like the Beatles, adorn wigs or run through the greatest hits in roughly chronological order, for hardcore Beatlemaniacs--as most in the rather full room assuredly were, even those of us who didn't get up and dance--they were about as good a "tribute act" as one could want, from the songs they sang to the way they sounded.

While she seems more predominantly a cabaret singer who performs various types of shows--including one coming up this weekend in Arlington Heights--I was also tremendously impressed by the "tribute act" Hilary Ann Feldman performed Sunday afternoon at the Glenview Public Library.

Given that Audrey Hepburn only starred in two musicals to my knowledge--Funny Face and My Fair Lady--I wasn't sure what to expect going into My Fair Audrey: Celebrating Audrey Hepburn, a Musical Tribute.

And while she has some nice credits, including in New York, London and Los Angeles, it wasn't Feldman's name that brought me--and presumably most others--to the GPL, but Hepburn's.

But after instantly showcasing a delightful voice on "Funny Face," Feldman--accompanied by pianist Beckie Menzie--delivered a program that went far beyond a mere medley of show tunes associated with its subject.

Feldman essentially took the audience through a live hourlong documentary of Hepburn's life, interspersing songs more for their topicality than familiarity--and shone all the more for it.

Beyond My Fair Lady's "Wouldn't It Be Loverly" and "I Could Have Danced All Night," and "Moon River," which Audrey famously sang in Breakfast at Tiffany's, I really didn't recognize most of Feldman and Menzie's musical selections. So I may be wrong on some titles and can't cite the sources, with some possibly being originals. (Note: Thanks to some nice feedback from Feldman, I was able to correct some things I had wrong.)

But I was engrossed by learning about Hepburn's early life in Nazi-occupied Holland, which left her ill and malnourished, and how her lifelong commitment to UNICEF--for whom she would serve as a special ambassador in her final years--began with the aid she and her family received following liberation of the Netherlands.

Feldman shared how she was largely unfamiliar with Hepburn's film oeuvre prior to planning the performance--I honestly don't know if it is a regular showcase or was a first-time act for her--but was more so drawn to Hepburn's humanitarian mission.

Working without any accompanying visuals--I thought a few slides depicting Audrey at various stages might have been nice, if not truly necessary--Feldman didn't extensively run through Hepburn's filmography but did spend several minutes explaining the hubbub surrounding her participation in My Fair Lady.

After noting that Hepburn initially deferred to Julie Andrews as deserving the part of Eliza Doolittle, took the role only when it was clear the producers didn't want Andrews and was told she would do her own singing only to have Marni Nixon's voice substituted despite Audrey having arduously trained for months, Feldman smartly ran through "Just You Wait," substituting the (movie production-related) names of Jack Warner, Alan Lerner and Andre Previn for that of Henry Higgins.

This segment also featured a song titled "Vibrato," which had quite clever lyrics about one's limited vocal abilities. It was written previously by Menzie and another collaborator, Cheri Coons, but it fit the presentation perfectly and was a definite highlight.

Feldman also broached on Audrey's marriages, family and flirtatiousness ("I Love Men"), her work with UNICEF which took her to some of the most dangerous and emotionally-devastating places on Earth ("Beautiful City") and her refusal to act in The Diary of Anne Frank because it hit too close to home, given that both she and Frank were both born in 1929 and grew up in war-torn Holland.

This anecdote was accompanied by a song about having Hollywood aspirations--"Hollywood"--which actually quoted lines from The Diary of Anne Frank book.

While Feldman's songs--and her singing--were excellent, paralleling her comment that Hepburn's greatest role was that of humanitarian, her informative and heartfelt narrative was just as good if not better. I loved her summing up Hepburn by extolling Audrey's embodiment & embrace of this Dutch saying:

"Don't fret, it will happen differently anyway."

All in all, the performance had far more biographical insight and emotional heft than some--OK, me--may have suspected, and reiterated--albeit in a different context--what I had again discovered the night before:

There is nothing wrong with a great tribute act.

While this may seem easy to say given my limited outlay, the truth is that the $10 I spent on the Cheetles + "Zombies" provided more holistic entertainment satisfaction than The Beatles LOVE recently did for more than $100 in Las Vegas.

And even as a free library program, Hilary Ann Feldman's My Fair Audrey was genuinely far better than more than a few big budget musicals I've seen in downtown Chicago, on Broadway and in London's West End.

And thus, I feel it only appropriate to pay tribute.

Powerful Commentary of 'Tribes' is Well-Heard, Though Steppenwolf Run Can No Longer Be Seen -- Chicago Theater Review

Theater Review

Tribes
A play by Nina Raine
Steppenwolf Theatre, Chicago
Run ended
@@@@

I can't recommend that you go see the production of Tribes at Chicago's typically terrific Steppenwolf Theatre.

This isn't to imply that I didn't like Nina Raine's thought-providing play, which weaves a variety of themes around a hyper-literate British family whose three grown children include a deaf son, portrayed by an actor who is hearing-impaired.

While the family--and particularly patriarch Christopher (the always excellent Francis Guinan)--is so self-righteously smug as to make the drama acutely off-putting early on, in its entirety Tribes is quite estimable and worthwhile.

But while I was intrigued enough by Chris Jones' stellar Tribune review to want to see Tribes since it opened in mid-December, a variety of conflicts--including the malice of Mother Nature--precluded me from getting to it until Saturday...the last day of its run.

So I am not being derisive when I say that I can't recommend that you see it at Steppenwolf, just factual.

Hence, there isn't much need to prolong this review. But as the relatively recently hatched Tribes--it debuted in London in late 2010--is likely to wander its way through local theaters around the world for the foreseeable future, I will suggest that while it may be a bit shy of a masterpiece or "must see," for a reasonable price the play should be worth anyone's while.

Particularly if you can see it with the type of scenery that Steppenwolf employed (a multi-level house reminiscent of the theater's premiere of August: Osage County) and a terrific cast, as was the case here.

Though it felt a bit strange to hear Guinan adopt a British accent to play a character that felt like a more educated and snootier version of Archie Bunker, the erstwhile Steppenwolf ensemble member pulled off a challenging role. Another ensemble member, Molly Regan, was also very good, if a bit too shrill at times for my tastes.

And first-rate were all four actors playing the next generation, with Daniel (Steve Haggard), Ruth (Helen Sadler) and Billy (Garrett Zuercher at the performance I saw) being grown children who have returned to live at the family's home while struggling with a sense of place, purpose, parental approval and their own particular issues.

Billy is deaf and has been raised to lip-read and speak, rather than use sign-language. While the play begins with just the family members profanely and profusely berating each other, it gets much more interesting when Billy falls in love with Sylvia (wonderfully played by ensemble Alana Arenas), the daughter of deaf parents who has been gradually losing her own hearing.

Though the family--particularly Christopher--never references Sylvia being black, they nonetheless demonstrate their "tribalism," bigotry and intolerance by ruthlessly deriding her use of sign-language, which Billy chooses to adopt.

With hopes that some may get a chance to see Tribes, outside Chicago or somewhere down the road, I won't go further into storyline specifics. But with my take on it aided by a post-show discussion, despite the ugliness--if not outright malevolence--of Christopher's character, I came to appreciate the way Tribes broaches on family dynamics, struggles of grown children to find their way in the world and the use of language (including among those who use non-verbal communication).

And with impressive work by Garrett Zuercher, a deaf actor playing the role handled by John McGinty for most of the run (the latter is pictured with Arenas in the photo at right), Tribes does a great job of individualizing those who are hard of hearing.

I can't say I've ever given much consideration to the differences in perspective between those who were born deaf versus those who lose their hearing, or how, why and to what effect some sign and some don't. But the play smartly informs how there are varying levels of hierarchy and acceptance within the "deaf community," with clear similarities to other groups of people with certain similarities but many more unique differences.

So if you have seen Tribes, I would be happy to discuss it. And if you didn't catch it at Steppenwolf, while I don't think you need to kick yourself, there is an argument to be made--and this show is full of them--for at some point appreciating what it has to say.

Appreciating the Beauty of Unity at Frank Lloyd Wright's Majestic Temple in Oak Park

I have long loved the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright and have availed myself of many opportunities to see, tour and/or photograph it.

This fascination with FLW is more robustly explained in a post from last year featuring photographs of homes Wright designed along Forest Avenue in Oak Park, IL, so I'll keep this post light in exposition.

Although I had toured Wright's Unity Temple (website) in the past, it has been quite awhile. So after a meeting in Oak Park the other day, I happily dropped in for a guided tour.

Led by a volunteer docent named Carole, the tour--which covered the building's social hall and other areas before leading into the glorious sanctuary--was quite worthwhile, and along with much else, delighted me through a somewhat odd collision of two of my greatest creative heroes.

While giving a variety of insights within the sanctuary, seemingly out of nowhere Carole asked if we--me and the other tour guest, who was an actual architectural historian in Chicago for a convention--knew who Bruce Springsteen was.

Rather than responding that I knew every lyric of every song on every album and had seen him live 43 times, I simply said yes. To which she said that his drummer--"Max Weinberg!" I exhorted--was a big architecture buff and had made a point of getting out to Oak Park to see Unity Temple the last time the band was in Chicago (presumably September 2012).

And that not only had he toured the masterpiece, but noting the ongoing restoration project and fundraising drive, Max had donated a pair of prime Springsteen tickets that were auctioned off and raised $4,000.

Pretty cool. As of course, is Unity Temple, which the photo gallery below should illustrate. But even if you're not in town for a convention or sold out rock concerts, it's well-worth the $15 admission fee to see it for yourself. (Those who love Frank Lloyd Wright may also want to see posts including photos of the Robie House and the Park Inn Hotel in Mason City, Iowa, where I stayed for a night last year.)

 

Celebrating Our Bassist Instincts: Program of Mingus Music Delights (for Low Dough) at NU -- Chicago Jazz Review

Jazz Review

Northwestern University Jazz Orchestra

The Music of Charles Mingus

featuring conductor Victor Goines

and guest trumpeter Ryan Kisor

Pick-Staiger Concert Hall

February 12, 2014

Excellent (no star rating)

What can $6 get you these days?

A Big Mac value meal at McDonald's?

A grande latte at Starbucks?

A small tub of popcorn at a movie?

How about 90 minutes of sublime jazz music, composed by the legendary double bassist Charles Mingus and performed by 20+ Northwestern students--whose combined education costs over $1 million annually--abetted by an acclaimed guest trumpeter and conducted by Victor Goines, one of the world's most esteemed jazz musicians and director of NU's Jazz Studies program?

To my admittedly non-expert ears, the NU Jazz Orchestra's renditions of Mingus classics like "Sue's Changes," "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat," "Ecclusiastics," "Haitian Fight Song," "Moanin'" and others were absolutely superb and delightful. I couldn't have wanted the performance to be any better.

I won't bother with an official star rating, as these were students--excepting guest trumpeter Ryan Kisor--and not only do I lack the need & wherewithal to judge them, but the Mingus program they played was a one & done concert, so it's not like I can recommend you go see it.

But for just $6, my friend Ken and I certainly enjoyed @@@@@ worth of value.

And I write this brief review not just to commend all the musicians I heard--along with Kisor, notable standouts included Nathan Zaporski on alto sax, Roy McGrath on tenor sax, Michael Jones on lead trumpet and Alex Warshawsky covering the Mingus parts on double bass--but to suggest how easy, inexpensive, comfortable and enriching it can be to attend live music and arts performances of many kinds.

Mind you, I go to performances at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Lyric Opera, Harris Theater, Goodman, Steppenwolf, Broadway in Chicago and elsewhere for relatively little money--and find them all worthwhile.

And heck, Ken and I recently went to see the Patricia Barber Quartet at the Green Mill for just a $7 cover charge and free parking.

The late, great Charles Mingus

But even if professional performances, or those at high-profile venues, are a bit beyond your budget--or you're hesitant to try something you're not sure you'll like--local colleges and community arts organizations offer a plethora of opportunities to see quality shows & concerts for, well, no more than a McDonald's Value Meal.

I could say I'm lucky to live within 15 minutes of Northwestern University, long one of the world's premier institutions and a leader in theater and music curricula, whose students have to be quite amazing just to get in.

But when I used to live across the street from College of DuPage, I took in some nice performances there. I've attended shows at Northeastern Illinois University, Loyola University, University of Chicago, Lake Forest College, Wheaton College, North Central College, Roosevelt University, my alma mater Northern Illinois University and elsewhere. 

Without even looking, I'm sure I could easily find something worthwhile to see--probably just this week--at DePaul, Columbia College, UIC, Oakton Community College and probably any other institute of higher learning, here or anywhere.

At times, colleges will host visiting performers, which may cost more than $6 but usually still be a relative bargain. But many student performances--in classical, jazz, opera, theater, dance and more--are free or dirt cheap, despite being held in attractive halls with free parking typically quite plentiful nearby (as is the case at NU). 

Heck, as I was writing this, I just agreed to go with my mom to see a production of the great musical Cabaret tomorrow night at Northwestern. So in reiterating my kudos to the Northwestern University Jazz Orchestra for their terrific take on the great Charles Mingus, I end this by suggesting you venture out to a performing arts center or even just recital hall at a local college sometime soon, for less money & effort than you may imagine and more enjoyment than you may envision.

For as Sally Bowles sings in Cabaret:

"What good is sitting alone in your room, come hear the music play."

The Chicago Dining World Tour: Even Without the Chicken, Chicago's Provides Good-for-the-Soul Food

Chicago's Home of Chicken & Waffles

Soul Food

2424 W. Dempster, Evanston

847.733.9800

Website
(locations also in Chicago and Oak Park)

What I ate: Fried Catfish, Waffle

Soul Food might not seem quite parallel with the international ethnic cuisines I've sampled as part of my Chicago Dining World Tour, but I felt its cultural flavors were among those I should explore.

Actually re-explore, as while living in L.A.'s San Fernando Valley in the early 90s, I went several times to a small soul food restaurant that I believe was on Sepulveda south of Ventura Blvd. in Sherman Oaks. (Anyone out there remember it?)

I know I had macaroni, cornbread and probably rib tips, and think I also tried collard greens and grits.

Though I have regularly enjoyed barbecue--and for that matter, macaroni and cornbread--I don't know that I've since frequented any other soul food restaurants, at least not identified as such. Although Dixie Kitchen, whose Evanston location I love and featured as my Cajun "Sethnic" entry, likely has many menu similarities.

But when I searched for Soul Food on Yelp, anywhere in the vicinity of my Skokie home, the top and most acutely relevant listing, was for Chicago's Home of Chicken and Waffles.

They have three Chicagoland locations, in Bronzeville, Oak Park and the newest being on Dempster just east of McCormick in Evanston, about 10 minutes from where I live.

My mom and I went there one evening and were instantly impressed by how beautifully appointed the restaurant is; though the vibe was casual, the decor could easily be that of an upscale steakhouse.

And just in terms of semantics, based on the menu logo and other signage, it seems that the restaurant's name may more properly be conveyed as CHICAGO'S -- Home of Chicken and Waffles.

Prior to going, I was not aware of the connection between chicken and waffles, nor why they would be featured on the menu of a soul food restaurant. But in telling an African-American colleague about my dinner, she said she'd heard the culinary curiosity came from the frequent late night (or early morning) food cravings of blues and jazz musicians, some whom desired "dinner food" (e.g. chicken), some who preferred breakfast (waffles) and others who would opt for both at the same time.

Sounds logical.

And yet, at about 7:30pm, my mom, who has never played a note of blues or jazz in her life, enjoyed her combination of fried chicken and a waffle, labeled Monique's Love. (The chicken breast could have instead been accompanied by potato salad or french fries.)

I love waffles but am allergic to poultry, so no chicken for me. But accompanying my waffle with another soul food staple, I ordered The Darnell, which provided two pieces of fried catfish alongside.

I should note that I could have opted for the catfish grilled, with fries or potato salad in lieu of the waffle. I would have liked to sample Chicago's grits, collard greens, yams and other sides that were available with their Dinners and Soul Food Special Combos, but neither of these groupings include a waffle option.

Yet what I had was delicious...and plentiful. I even brought one of the pieces of catfish home for a second meal, along with a quadrant of my mom's waffle.

So no need for peach cobbler, sweet potato pie or any other of the enticing desserts, which also include a fried waffle.

Chicago's Home of Chicken and Waffles--at least the one in Evanston--is considerably more plush than the soul food place I recall in Sherman Oaks, CA, if not as homespun. That one doesn't seem to exist anymore, but now I have good memories of a place much closer to my current home.

And especially with live jazz on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, I'll make a "note" of going back to Chicago's.

It Was 50 Years Ago Today, The Beatles Taught the World to Play: The Impact of Their First Appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show

(Note: This piece was started on Feb. 9, 2014, but revised & completed on Feb. 10.)

February 9, 1964 is one of the most important dates of my life.

Even if I wouldn't be born for another 4-1/2 years.

While I certainly can be prone to hyperbole, especially in the case of creative heroes, and I won't pretend that I can appreciate the impact with the same acuity of those who saw it as it happened, it is hard to overstate how musically, culturally and historically significant the Beatles' first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show--50 years ago today--was.

I have the entire show on DVD--commercials and all--and watched it again on Sunday night, along with the CBS Special, The Beatles: The Night That Changed America, which was only sporadically great, but featured Paul and Ringo playing together at the end. The show was worthwhile, but was more a celebration of The Beatles in full and not the specific explosion fueled by their first Sullivan appearance.

Though I have watched the show before, and seen clips from it countless times, even in viewing it at 7:00pm on February 9th, 2014, I realize that I could really never know the novelty of witnessing it, largely or completely uninitiated, as it occurred, live, at 7pm (Central Time) on February 9, 1964.

Still, I think calling it "The Night That Changed America," as CBS does, actually sells it short.

My perception, secondhand as it may be, is that that night changed the world.

I will do my best to explain why via specific reasons below, aided by numerous articles on the topic and insights I sought from friends.

While the two are inextricably linked, in some ways that can't, shouldn't and won't be divorced, trying to explain "why the Beatles on Ed Sullivan changed the world" isn't the same as "Why the Beatles changed the world."

Though I've long considered February 9, 1964 (and the 7th, when they arrived in America to screaming throngs at JFK Airport in New York and conducted a brilliant news conference) as the demarcation of Beatlemania--and even, connotatively, "The Sixties"--that Sullivan show was far from the genesis of The Beatles.

I'll defer to Wikipedia and untold billions of other words for the Beatles' biography, but the band's origins date to 1957. While the "Fab Four" weren't locked into history until mid-1962, when Ringo Starr became their drummer, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and early bandmates had--as The Beatles--played hundreds of shows in their hometown of Liverpool, England and in Hamburg, Germany between 1960-62.

By 1963, they were humongous stars in England, topping the British charts with "Please Please Me," "From Me to You" and "She Loves You."

And before they hit CBS-TV Studio 50 in New York, they had already written, recorded and (in most cases, at least in the UK) released "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," "All My Loving," "I Saw Her Standing There" and "Can't Buy Me Love," along with many other now classic songs.

Though its ascent was rapid, in January 1964, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" became the #1 song in America, a couple weeks before the boys got to New York. 

So it's not like being introduced to America via Ed Sullivan is what made the Beatles great, or what even "got them on their way." The unbridled creative ambition that led them from mastering cover versions of songs by heroes like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly and myriad others to writing their own songs to constantly expanding their songwriting capabilities to only recording original material was already well underway, and this artistic thirst would lead to considerable greater invention after 1964 (including using recording studio techniques as part of their musical creation, creating the "album as art form" with Rubber Soul, etc.).

And February 9, 1964 wasn't even the first time the Beatles were seen on American TV. CBS had done a news feature on them in late 1963--initially the morning of November 22, 1963, but as that was the day President Kennedy was assassinated, again on December 10, the latter leading to the initial U.S. airing of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand"--and on his popular NBC show, Jack Paar had shown a clip of The Beatles performing, about a month prior to the historic Sullivan show.

So the Ed Sullivan Show--a television staple since 1948 that was regularly watched 50 million people each Sunday night--didn't represent the start of the Beatles, and even in America, their first appearance on it and two more that February, was only the beginning of the greatest rock music legacy in history.

So why did it--and does it still--matter so much?

(Disclaimer: Some of the following is simplified or technically overstated for the sake of space, and it's also possible I'm just wrong about some stuff. Feel free to correct me.)

1. The show was watched by a then-record 73 million people in the United States, proportionally--approx. 38% of the population--still the largest audience for a scheduled program. At the time, there were only 3 networks (CBS, NBC, ABC), no cable and very few multi-TV households. So while much has been made, correctly and echoed below, about the Beatles' effect on "youth culture," their watershed moment was decidedly cross-generational.

2. Much of pop culture, and particularly pop music, was rather tepid before the Beatles appeared. Please see my disclaimer before you take this completely literally, for I know there were many great movies, television shows, stage works, etc., prior to 1964. And yes, just in the pop/rock realm, there had already been several greats such as Elvis, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, the Beach Boys, the Four Seasons, Motown groups and many others creating songs that still hold up well today. Not to mention that Bob Dylan had already made the scene with other folk stars. But take a look at the top songs of 1963. While there are a number of iconic artists and songs, there are also many by people that probably weren't quite seen as hip, even then. And Ed Sullivan's variety show featured all sorts of acts that I imagine many people now, and likely younger folks then, would consider rather tame, perhaps even lame. Heck, after the Beatles essentially opened the Feb. 9 show, they were followed by a guy, Fred Kaps, who did an old card trick and something involving a salt shaker. There was also a performance by the Broadway cast of Oliver, which include future Monkee, Davy Jones, and a funny routine by Frank Gorshin. These were the highlights, and other acts that night--Tessie O'Shea (a large woman singing with a banjo), McCall & Brill (a comedy duo whose remembrances of the night are worthwhile) and Wells & the Four Fays (an acrobatic troupe that closed the show)--probably all the more made The Beatles seem like martians, both to young viewers and older ones.

3. The songs they sang were terrific. This is certainly an opinion, but I still love hearing "All My Loving," "She Loves You," "I Saw Her Standing There" and "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," along with their cover of "Till There Was You" from The Music Man. And while I am not a musician and can't cite music theory, enough trusted sources have noted how novel the Beatles' songwriting was, even early on. Though it seems simple, the chord structures and choices are supposedly rather complex, and certainly unique at the time.

4. It wasn't really about hype, but the Beatles were even better than it. In retrospect, it may seem that Beatlemania was the result of a publicity machine, but throughout 1963 as the Beatles were selling millions of records in England, Capitol Records--the American subsidiary of EMI--repeated refused to release any songs in the U.S. The first DJ to play "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" had to have a copy brought to him by a stewardess who had visited Britain. It exploded because people who heard it, loved it, and while some degree of frenzy briefly preceded the Ed Sullivan appearance, much of the reason it still matters is because the Beatles were the real deal.

5. Relatively few Americans had previously seen a rock band, a group not from America or even a band logo. While several had backing bands, most of the rock 'n roll pioneers were solo acts. The Four Seasons was more of a "vocal group," and to a degree, so were The Beach Boys. Nobody from England or anywhere else had made much of a dent in America. And if (m)any prior rock acts--such as at the local sock hop--had a band logo emblazoned on the bass drum, I'm not aware of it.

6. Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, Billy Joel, Ozzy Osbourne, Gene Simmons and myriad other musicians have traced their inspiration to seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. See this article.

7. The British Invasion was spawned. Once the Beatles broke in America, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, Herman's Hermits, Dave Clark Five, The Who, The Zombies and many more would follow. Although several of these British bands' origins precede February 9, 1964, awareness of them in the United States certainly didn't.

8. America was in a malaise after the JFK assassination. I've read sensible commentary about how this is overstated, that the screaming teens at the airport, in the Ed Sullivan audience and throughout the country weren't still in a funk. But I had asked a co-worker old enough to remember and he validated that there was a palpable sorrow following the President's murder, and that the Beatles provided something of an acute antidote.

9. Fashion, and hair, changed. It's a bit hard for me to believe, but as their initial American news conference attests, one of the most noteworthy things about the Beatles to the press--and presumably the public--was the length of their hair. Everything you can envision about the 60s and hippies with long hair came after February 9, 1964 and not before it.

10. The seeds of uprising were sown. A friend of mine, Susan Doll, wrote the book Elvis for Dummies and in it shares how in the '50s, for the first time, teens claimed musical heroes distinct from their parents'. So the Beatles didn't establish the idea of an American youth culture, but Doll suggests (to me) that The Beatles "ignited and brought together a new generation that would tie rock music to the politics of the counterculture."

This meshes with the thoughts of my friend Ken, who said that "once young people found a common music, they found a common voice. Four years later that voice would shout 'Hell, no, we won't go.' For the first time in U.S. history, a generation of young American men refused to fight a war."

I should also note here that while great rock 'n roll music existed in America before the Beatles arrived, the genre was already in a down slope, if not outright doldrums. In 1962, Decca Records in England rejected The Beatles, saying "guitar groups are on the way out."

So as my friend Brad succinctly puts it, beginning by being seen by 73 million people on Feb. 9--they also appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show the following two Sundays:

"The Beatles made rock 'n roll permanent."

Also, early 1964 coincided with the first Baby Boomers coming of age. This might explain why the Beatles made even more of a sonic boom than Elvis had.

11. The frenzied hysteria seemingly surpassed anything before, or since. Here I'm talking about the high-pitched shrieking of teenage girls at the show's taping--beyond that which accompanied Elvis' Ed Sullivan appearances and teen idols since, from Duran Duran to New Kids on the Block to N'Sync, etc.--and which may, as others have suggested, have had sexual undertones that would further define how "The Sixties" differed from "The Fifties."

But I also mean that, while I have seen and noted a few televised musical mega-moments--Michael Jackson doing "Billie Jean" on Motown 25, The Clash on Fridays, LiveAid, highlighted for me by Queen and the Led Zeppelin reunion, Nirvana's first appearance on Saturday Night Live--I don't think any of these quite captured, or changed, the zeitgeist like the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. Perhaps because of the degree to which the Fab Four had already changed it.

Summing up, I'll reference an article by Fred Kaplan on Slate.com that was actually written to commemorate the 40th anniversary of that memorable night. Providing some of the insights and information I used above, he wrote:

"The timing of the Beatles was perfect. 1964 marked the emergence of the Baby Boomers as a social force—and the Beatles were the vehicle for their ascendance as a cultural force. What records were the No. 1 hits on the pop charts before the Beatles took over the slot and stayed there for years to come? Bobby Vinton’s “There! I’ve Said It Again,” the Singing Nun’s “Dominique,” and Dale & Grace’s “I’m Leaving It Up to You.” The Beatles changed the charts forever. You can draw a line in the historical sands of popular culture at 1964. A lot of pop music that came after that point still sounds modern today. Almost all the pop music that came before that point sounds ancient. 

On Feb. 9, 1964, The Ed Sullivan Show was the stage on which this change was dramatized."

"How Can There Be Global Warming When It's So Friggin' Cold?"

Link to Rolling Stone article. My graphic uses photo by: NASA/NOAA GOES Project, Dennis Chesters

Quite admittedly, I am an environmentalist in spirit much more than in action.

Or perhaps, "inaction" best describes it.

Sure, I make a point of recycling, even though my condo complex doesn't have recycling bins.

And I try to make sensible choices in my use of water, energy, paper and gasoline, even if I rarely go out of my way to do so.

But certainly, I am far from an environment activist or scientist, and won't pretend to offer any knowledge, insight or even chagrin about global warming, climate change and related subjects that doesn't come from cursory internet perusal of what others--presumably inordinately more informed, but who can be certain?--have written on these subjects.

Temperature reading from Jan. 27, 2014
in the Chicago area

Below, I will provide some links to articles that may merit the attention of those wishing--like me--to better understand these important topics, but if you take issue with any of the science or even opinions contained within, contact the authors, not me.

All I will say with complete personal conviction is that there appears to be enough evidence--candidly, much of it too dense for me to readily grasp--about global warming, greenhouse gases, diminishing Arctic sea ice and more, to suggest that calamitous effects could be possible within the lifetimes of those alive today.

I am not predicting anything. I am not looking to debate anyone. And I believe skeptics are actually beneficial.

But I think it behooves us all to pay attention.

And to give those who have devoted their lives to studying these dense topics at least some credence, credit and a forum more worthy than {pick your favorite superficial and vapid quasi-celebrity to disdain here}.

Although I often identify with the stated--but not always proven--positions of the "Left," "Liberals" and "Democrats," I prefer not to label myself any of the above. And while there are certainly opinions offered by the proverbial "other side" that I find noxious, I even more so abhor the polarized categorizing of individuals as though we are simply a nation of Red and Blue rock'em, sock'em robots.

There is nothing wrong with disagreement--short of the kind that promotes acute bigotry and intolerance--and I feel we should have more respectful discussion and debate, whether in Congress or on Facebook. And often, we should be as critical about those on our "own side" as on the opposite.

I say this here because what has caught my attention lately concerning climate change--other than the seeming contradiction (but likely causal relationship) between global warming and the preponderance of bone-chilling temperatures, which I'll get to shortly--have been two articles by Rolling Stone which have been rather condemning of President Obama, or at least what has happened under his watch.

Illustration for Rolling Stone by Victor Juhasz; no infringement intended

This is notable because I'm not aware of any major, mainstream publication that has more staunchly supported--and even glorified--Barack Obama than Rolling Stone.

I have long been a subscriber for the music features and record reviews, and--even if I've agreed with much of it--I have often found their overt political slant a bit much. (The inherent castigation of the Obama administration for doing virtually nothing to stem Wall St. chicanery, found in the terrific financial reporting of Matt Taibbi, notwithstanding.)

Both of the recent Rolling Stone pieces to which I refer were authored by Tim Dickinson. One, from which I culled the statistics in the graphic at top, is titled 27 Shocking Numbers That Reveal the True State of the Nation.

The other article, How the U.S. Exports Global Warming, details how although the U.S. has seemingly made impressive strides on the environmental front during Obama's time in office, much of it has been hypocritically undermined by a policy of exporting energy sources known to have horribly damaging effects (i.e. "dirty energy").

Dickinson writes:

"Even as our nation is pivoting toward a more sustainable energy future, America's oil and coal corporations are racing to position the country as the planet's dirty-energy dealer – supplying the developing world with cut-rate, high-polluting, climate-damaging fuels. Much like tobacco companies did in the 1990s – when new taxes, regulations and rising consumer awareness undercut domestic demand – Big Carbon is turning to lucrative new markets in booming Asian economies where regulations are looser. Worse, the White House has quietly championed this dirty-energy trade.

"The Obama administration wants to be seen as a climate leader, but there is no source of fossil fuel that it is prepared to leave in the ground," says Lorne Stockman, research director for Oil Change International. "Coal, gas, refinery products – crude oil is the last frontier on this. You want it? We're going to export it."

Clearly, I've gotten to it rather circuitously, but a point I'm trying to make is this:

I think "global warming"--used as shorthand for a variety of related topics--is hugely important and demands the attention, and action (unfortunately, I don't know what to suggest on a micro or macro level beyond that which is part & parcel of our broken & co-opted political structure) of anyone who cares about life-threatening issues potentially to be faced by our children and grandchildren, if not ourselves.

I understand there are many who dismiss the effects of global warming, or just don't care, but if Rolling Stone is willing to condemn Obama about it, perhaps the skeptics can open their minds to the possibility that there could be enormously detrimental truths.

Which brings me to the inanity of people wondering--beyond the odd attempt at frozen-nose-hair humor--how there can possibly be "global warming" when this continues to be the coldest winter many in Chicago (and far beyond) can remember.

Even just on a layman level, it has struck me that while there has always been inclement weather--sometimes devastatingly so--it seems that over the past decade or so we've seen myriad extreme weather events, either more commonly or more cataclysmically than "back in the day."

Between horrible disasters such as killer hurricanes, tornadoes and typhoons, or just the observation that in summertime Chicago it seems either to never rain or do so in end-of-the-world torrents, I can't help but perceive this weather extremism is something beyond coincidental.

So I just kind of assume there may be something other than a once-in-a-lifetime fluke to the staggering stretch of sub-zero temperatures we've experienced. 

Cartoon by Tim Eagan, copyright 2014. From Cagle.com.

And getting scientific a bit beyond my skis, while many have uttered the phrase "polar vortex" as though it in itself explains the frightful frigidity in our midst, here too there is something to consider beyond "OMG, it's just too damn cold."

(As a brief, perhaps unnecessarily snarky aside, it seems the social media age has wrought a much heightened sense of importance regarding "what is happening to me, right now" and consequential obliviousness to much else. This doesn't aid the appreciation of topics of more worldly importance or demanding deeper consideration.)

The scientific research behind this seems still to be in its infancy, so I certainly don't offer it as fact--and can't quickly and lucidly even explain it--but it appears that global warming has greatly diminished the amount of Arctic sea ice, which had served as something of a buffer for past polar vortexes.

Read this Time article by Bryan Walsh for much greater clarity--as well as the sources cited below and others--but rather than laughing about how global warming and brutal cold must be contradictory, perhaps at least consider the possibility that it may well be causal.

Could it be that freezing your ass off and giving heed to warnings about climate change could be... well, bundled?

---
Some articles/websites on this topics beyond those cited above:

How Global Warming Can Make Cold Snaps Even Worse by Eric Holthaus on Quartz (qz.com)

2013 Was Either the 4th or the 7th Hottest Year Ever. Either Way, It's Warming Up by Stephen Lacey on TakePart.com

Global CO2 Levels Reach Highest Levels for 800,000 Years by ClickGreen staff on ClickGreen.co.uk

SkepticalScience.com

Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide data from Earth System Research Laboratory

Nature Bats Last blog by Professor Guy McPherson