Skip to main content

desert island albums


this is an old game, but i figured i'd give it a try... the premise is that you have to choose albums that you would keep with you if you were stranded on a desert island- those albums that you really couldn't live without.

i've always been a little suspicious of the concept, since it assumes that this desert island has a stereo system and a functioning power grid of some sort. (in fact, even the concept of a "desert island" is kind of weird if you think about it. deserts are not generally surrounded by water, whereas that is what defines an island. sure, australia is mostly desert, but even they have a pretty lush coastline. besides, no one really talks about being "stranded" in australia.)

and even if i were to accept this specious beginning, it seems to me that the only album i would really want with me would be one with detailed instructions on how to escape from an abandoned desert island.

nonetheless... since i can admit that it is just possible that i'm thinking too hard about the concept, it does make for sort of a fun way to pass the time and makes you think about your musical tastes and collection.

so let's try a really limited number:

pick five albums you would want with you on our strange island. you can only have five. they can come in any format (hey, if it has a sound system, we can at least make it a good one). you can choose double, triple or other multiple albums, but they count as multiples (i.e., a double album would count as two choices).

would you choose things that have particular associations?

things that you remember from your youth?

are there any that don't fit with your usual musical choices?

it's just an exercise. i'm not actually arranging for you to be dropped off on a desert island next thursday. really, i'm not.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…