As promised, I am posting the comments I submitted. But as they are particular to me, I found another articulate but briefer comment to share as a sample. Those who wish to submit a comment may adapt from or use one of these samples. Or you may simply fill out the HRC form and submit that. I am finally trying to post a simple easy to follow one page guide. You can post as anonymous rather than use your name. First the comments, then the links. The deadline is November 9. I urge all to consider submitting a comment.
My comment:
I commend HHS for its
Proposed Rule to implement Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and
urge its adoption. I specifically concur with the proposal's
prohibition of discrimination based on gender status, gender
nonconformity, or against persons who identify as transgender or
transitioning.
With respect to discrimination based on sexual
orientation, I commend HHS for its commitment to address this important
issue as much as I recognize the barriers presented by case law to date
and the omission of any specific reference to sexual orientation
discrimination in the ACA.
I urge OCR to continue to follow case
law, to track if possible instances or documentation of sexual
orientation discrimination, and to consider publishing a guidance for
covered entities on best practices for ensuring nondiscriminatory
services and treatment for persons who identify as lesbian, gay, or
bisexual.
Ultimately, I believe the issue of discrimination based
on sexual orientation is best addressed universally once and for all by
adding the term sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I
believe that objections to this are not as strong as in prior decades
and civil rights advocates for many covered bases of discrimination are
more cooperative and aligned than ever. Perhaps HHS could could consult
with DOJ for DOJ/Civil Rights Division to consider convening a
conference of a broad range of civil rights advocates to consider
proposing legislation that would do just that and could result in
advocates working together to achieve a common goal.
Getting back
to the ACA, the current state of case law and federal legislation
regarding religious exemptions is beyond my understanding. I would
simply urge that HHS adopt the strongest possible language to prohibit
religious-based exemptions from prohibitions of discriminatory denial of
and access to treatment and health care services.
In my
experience of many years as an EOS for OCR, now retired, I saw much
evidence of discrimination against gays and transgenders that OCR could
not address. I am aware of even more through the personal experience of
friends, acquaintances and community members throughout my life. Only
yesterday I learned through social media of a friend's experience as a
health care provider at a private non profit federally funded health
clinic in Fresno. She had to demonstrate to other employees how to
treat and serve with respect and dignity a patient seeking Hormone
Replacement Therapy from the initial interaction of inquiring how or by
which name the patient wished to be addressed through interactions with
varying service providers at this clinic. Fortunately, this employee
was aware of how to provide nondiscriminatory access and treatment to
this patient but so many providers lack this capability. Another comment from anonymous I found brief, succinct and to the point, a good example:
As a person of deep faith who believes that all of us no matter our
sexual orientation or gender identity are beloved and deserve access to
quality healthcare, and, as an OUT gay man for the past 33 years, I am
writing in support of the Department of Health and Human Services Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking on Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and
Activities.
I applaud the Department for establishing that the
prohibition on sex discrimination in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care
Act includes discrimination based on gender identity. Additionally I
urge the Department to prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation in the final rule. Further, I urge the department to refrain
from including a religious exemption in the final rule-to include such
an exemption is not only unnecessary, but could do significant harm.
The
rule of law is the most advanced method of self-government humankind
has developed throughout history to avoid mob rule or the kingdom of the
individual, each for self, power to the strongest, most armed richest.
It's not perfect, it's complex and it's evolving.
As explained
above, when a law is passed an agency in the executive branch is
required to enforce it as written by issuing regulations for clarity.
The proposed rule discussed herein is Section 1557 of the Affordable
Care Act. Section 1557 is the first federal civil rights law that bars
sex discrimination in federally funded health care, As I explained
above, case law has established that sex discrimination covers gender
identify and nonconformity. The ACA however does not explicitly
prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. HHS must enforce
what exists, no more no less. HRC is asserting that sex discrimination
also covers discrimination based on sexual orientation. Despite its
assertion, that is an open question at best. I searched but could not
find any information on this matter explaining the basis for its
assertion on its web site. All I have to go on in trying to understand
their assertion is the request for comments I linked.
Therein,
HRC states: "Numerous federal courts and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
have determined that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
is sex discrimination under federal law." However, I can find no basis
for that statement on its site or elsewhere, it simply provides no
documentation to support its assertion. Perhaps it thinks it too
complicated too understand. HRC correctly asserts that unless HHS
determines that sex discrimination covers sexual orientation, the ACA
does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The fact
is the ACA does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation;
to include such a basis would violate the Constitutional doctrine of
separation of powers in effect for over 200 years. Congress has the
authority to pass legislation in the ACA or separately prohibiting
sexual orientation discrimination without which federal agencies cannot
prohibit it unless Courts find otherwise.
HHS, however, is
so concerned with discrimination based on sexual orientation that it
addresses the matter in the proposed rule despite no explicit provision
in the law as follows:
"The proposed rule makes clear HHS’s commitment, as a matter of policy,
to banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and requests
comment on how a final rule can incorporate the most robust set of
protections against discrimination supported by the courts on an ongoing
basis.
As a matter of policy, we support banning discrimination in health
programs and activities not only on the bases identified previously, but
also on the basis of sexual orientation. Current law is mixed on
whether existing Federal nondiscrimination laws prohibit discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation as a part of their prohibitions of
sex discrimination. To date, no Federal appellate court has concluded
that Title IX's prohibition of discrimination “on the basis of sex”—or
Federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination more generally—prohibits
sexual orientation discrimination, and some appellate courts previously
reached the opposite conclusion. (22)
However, a recent EEOC
decision concluded that Title VII's prohibition of discrimination “on
the basis of sex” precludes sexual orientation discrimination because
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily involves
sex-based considerations. The EEOC relied on several theories to reach
this conclusion: A plain interpretation of the term “sex” in the
statutory language, an associational theory of discrimination based on
“sex,” and the gender-stereotype theory announced in Price Waterhouse.
(23) The EEOC's decision cited several district court decisions that
similarly concluded that sex discrimination included sexual orientation
discrimination, using these theories. (24) The EEOC also analyzed and
called into question the appellate decisions that have concluded that
sexual orientation discrimination is not covered under Title VII. The
EEOC decision applies to workplace conditions, as well as hiring,
firing, and promotion decisions, and is one of several recent
developments in the law that have resulted in additional protections for
lesbian and gay individuals against discrimination. (25)
The
final rule should reflect the current state of nondiscrimination law,
including with respect to prohibited bases of discrimination. We seek
comment on the best way of ensuring that this rule includes the most
robust set of protections supported by the courts on an ongoing basis."
Legal experts can disagree with the assessment expressed above by HHS and HRC as is its right has chosen to do so. After again reading OCR's position as stated above, I see that EEOC has determined that sex discrimination precludes discrimination based on sexual orientation. But OCR states that no Federal appellate court has issued a decision consistent with that EEOC decision and states that as a matter of Constitutional principles, OCR cannot assert that sex discrimination covers sexual orientation discrimination.
Another
area addressed in the proposed rule is the principle of religious
exemption. Due to recent Supreme Court rulings and other legislation, I
find the status of case law in this matter too confusing for me to
contemplate. All I know is no service provider should ever be able to
deny services or discriminate due to religious beliefs. The proposed
rule has language finessing a fine line between compliance with existing
case law without upholding it while asserting that religious exemptions
so should not be allowed.
So what does this all mean? I concludes as follows:
Everyone
should submit comments either through HRC or directly to HHS on the 3
issues of some controversy in the proposed rule, the more the better,
you know the bigots will be submitting their comments:
1) Concurring with the Rule as written to prohibit discrimination based on gender status or nonconformity;
2)
Expressing objection to discrimination based on sexual orientation -
while HHS is unlikely to include explicit prohibitions, your comments
are documented and count and can be used to show Congress the widespread
support for passing laws to prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation;
3) Expressing objections to allow religious exemptions for health care service providers.
So
why did I take so long to state something so simple - because I was
puzzled by HRC's assertion and wanted to determine its validity and
basis for myself, because I wanted to educate anyone interested in the
history of discrimination in health care and the current state of case
law regarding discrimination against gays and transgenders, and to
explain why discrimination against transgenders is prohibited before
discrimination based on sexual orientation but not to defend the lack of
laws prohibiting discrimination
During my last presentation prior to
retirement, I was as surprised as I was pleased to discuss OCR's
authority to enforce provisions of the ACA prohibiting discrimination
against transgenders in the provision of health care services, and that
those who believed they had experienced such discrimination could file a
complaint with OCR, even if I wouldn't be around to investigate it and
issue findings, and before an audience of health providers that included
staff and clients who are transgender or gender nonconforming.
For those who have read this far, after you have submitted your
comments, with elections approaching, you can ask candidates for office
in your district or state whether they would vote in favor of amending
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include the basis of sexual orientation
to once and for all prohibit discrimination against lesbians and gays
throughout the United States in employment, housing, health care, public
accommodations and all other areas with one simple amendment.
Links:
Fact Sheet: Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities Proposed Rule Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/nprmsummary.html
FAQs - Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/nprmprqas.html
Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities - Proposed Rule: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=HHS-OCR-2015-0006-0001
Recently 2 distinct postings on FB brought my attention
back to my career enforcing Federal laws prohibiting discrimination in
health care and human services on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, age, and disability, including HIV status or alleged risk
status. These laws were passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(and related case law with respect to HIV as a disability). Enforcement
of laws, especially with respect to civil rights, are dispersed among
the many federal agencies, each having jurisdiction over its subject
matter or fundees. Specifically I worked for the US Department of
Health Education and Welfare and its successor agency the US Department
of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (HHS/OCR -
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/office/index.html
Discrimination in the provision of health services has a long tawdry appalling history in the Unites States. The book "Health Care Divided, Race and Healing a Nation” by David Barton Smith, thoroughly covers that history prior to 1964 and perhaps beyond as well. I am not going to go back quite that far.
The
first FB item that got my attention was a posting from a health care
worker (and also member of a royal court) discussing her experience in
showing other staff how to treat a person going through gender
transitioning with dignity and respect at a private non-profit health
care clinic. The other item was a link to the advocacy organization
Human Rights Campaign Fund soliciting comments to HHS/OCR regarding a
proposed regulation the drafting of which started as my career was
ending. I will discuss that period and my thoughts, which may slightly
diverge from the HRCF's view, in a moment. But first to demonstrate the
importance of this issue and of the greatest number of people possible
submitting comments on your view of nondiscriminatory access to health
care services for all and the proposed regulation I am including the
link to the proposed HRCF comments and form right here. You don't have
to read what I think; you can stop and fill out your opinion now.
Comments
are due by November 9, 2015. Briefly, when Congress passes and the
President signs a law, the appropriate federal agency issues specific
regulations to enforce the law. Once the agency drafts the proposed
regulation, it is published in the Federal Register so the public may
view and comment on it. After the comment deadline, real people in DC
read each and every comment, summarize and categorize them, determine
whether to amend or change any part of the proposal, then the Department
publishes the final regulation in the Federal Register along with a
summary of the comments, and the reasons for any changes made or
considered and rejected. Then the Department begins enforcement. It is
a lengthy process. But your comment is read and each one is
significant, especially if many present a common view, such as the HRCF
is urging. At the end of this article, I am going to post links to the
proposed regulation, Qs and As, FAQs, TA information, and links to other
documents or information you may find of interest on OCR's site.
Since
my view and understanding of case law is based on my experience and
informs my view of comments that I am considering, I want to provide
some historical background first. This is also necessary because as you
will see there is a tremendous and unexpected irony that I myself faced
at the end of my career and addressed in my very last public
presentation on OCR's enforcement of regulations prohibiting
discrimination and OCR's complaint process to an advocacy organization
transitioning to a health services provider consistent with the reforms
authorized by the Affordable Care Act - an organization staffed in part
by and whose primary mission is to serve Asian-Pacific
Islander-Americans with or at risk for HIV/AIDS including persons
identifying as gay or gender nonconforming or transgender. it is a
question I had to face that HRCF's notice directly raises - how did we
get to this point where discrimination based on gender status or
nonconformity is prohibited but discrimination based on sexual
orientation is not?
Way back when I first started, I hoped that
before I retired Congress would pass and OCR would be authorized to
enforce laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
For a while it did not seem to be an unrealistic expectation. Support
for gay rights was increasing and far more bipartisan than it is today.
It seemed that with each session of Congress passage of the proposed
Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) seemed a little closer. Then
life interrupted. I became involved in issues relating to HIV related
discrimination, achieving national expertise within OCR and for awhile
speaking at conferences around the country. Eventually someone wondered
why an agency with 10 regional offices had only one guy who could speak
on the issue. Advocates in Region IX where I worked were marveling
that OCR was issuing violation findings on complaints they filed while
advocates in many other regions were marveling that OCR was issuing
findings of compliance. Training was in order and after another 2 or 3
years of struggle completed so that each regional office could address
HIV discrimination with competent expertise and my national touring days
were over.
I wrote a lot more on my experience in OCR
that is posted elsewhere on my blog mostly on the "Career" page but also
the "Politics and Government Page" that is not directly relevant to
discuss here. Eventually as I became more informed and got to know more
legal experts and advocates I realized ENDA did not cover the provision
of services. And its support was actually decreasing among Republicans
and passage looked more and more distant. Although I understand more
now how it occurred, i remain like many of you shocked that same sex
marriage has been legalized before discrimination has been prohibited.
And what is the value of sanctioned marriage if it results in losing
employment and/or housing? And as i have been doing since I could talk,
i started asking lots and lots of questions in particular about why
advocates were seeking new laws to prohibit discrimination based on
sexual orientation, which would have to be passed to cover employment,
access to services, and public accommodations across a broad range of
areas, rather than simply amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
include sexual orientation.
Turns out civil rights
advocates did not want to equate discrimination based on race with
discrimination based on sexual orientation. Now that's a loaded issue I
am not going to get bogged down in with the exception of some broadly
agreed upon caveats - gay people as a class were not enslaved by the
majority nor were subject to mass and regular lynching. I especially do
not want to discuss "passing" either with respect to light skinned
Blacks or gender conforming gays. But the other caveat is that
discrimination is wrong and must be prohibited in all instances
consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. I
don't think it's necessary to discuss or agree on much more than that.
Now as I see it, ENDA is on life support. And tremendous progress has
been made in achieving coalitions and common ground among traditional
civil rights advocates representing persons of color and persons who are
gay, lesbian, or gender non-conforming or transgender. Some LGBT
advocates, and I am in strong agreement with them, believe we should
drop ENDA and work on amending The Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include
sexual orientation. That would be simplest, most effective, and most
fair, and most consistent with Constitutional values. Some traditional
civil rights advocates may object, but I believe it will come down to a
generational divide and those objecting may risk losing their office.
The time has come to amend the CRA.
Now what of
discrimination regarding gender conformity and status? Certainly I
would not object to including it as well in the CRA and so do many
others. But just as unexpected as legalization of same sex marriage
have been advances on this issue in widely accepted case law. Over the
past number of years, Federal courts have issued rulings that have been
widely accepted finding that the term sex when applied to discrimination
incorporates gender status and nonconformity. Rather than objecting,
the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the US
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division have concurred with such
findings. So today it can be said that Federal law prohibits
discrimination against persons identifying as transgender. So whether
it is necessary to include gender status in an amended CRA is an open question.
Now
what of sexual orientation - is that also incorporated within the
definition of sex discrimination. Therein lies the controversy. HRCF
seems to assert that courts have ruled that it does. I am not aware
that they have. And if they have, does CRA need to be amended or ENDA
adopted? Why aren't Federal agencies such as EEOC and DOJ presently
forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation. Having relieved
my brain of the above and developed my thoughts to this point, I need to
take a break and informed by my review of the above, read again what
HRCF, says what the law states, what the regs say and all the background
info on OCR's site. I will return with my conclusion in Part 2, which
will discuss whether Affordable Care Act and case law cover sexual
orientation and the affect thereof on the proposed regulations.
A while ago I blogged about a new playlist I put together of songs that
both these great vocalists recorded. While the arrangements mood and
intonation often differed I found it fascinating to listen to and
reflective of my knowledge that they both were on record stating that
each influenced the other. And now along comes this terrific piece in
the NYT that documents their interaction and communication more than I
ever knew or imagined. As an old fan of Billie and a new fan of
Frankie, whose recordings I have been recently exploring (not many
vocalists left I have yet to explore) nothing I have read recently has
excited warmed and stimulated me as much as this piece. Below is my
real time commenting, the link to the article and the full essay as
published in the New York Times.
A favorite tidbit is she called him "Frankie". 'I told him certain notes at the end he could bend.
... Bending those notes — that’s all I helped Frankie with.’’ Those
notes that Holiday told him to bend — they bent toward the boudoir."
‘It is Billie Holiday ... who was, and still remains, the greatest
single musical influence on me,’’ he said in 1958." I love this reference to "cunning" as follows: "Her approach to rhythm was cunning. She
meandered around the beat, slyly elongating and truncating syllables,
gliding down for a landing in surprising places. Sinatra was captivated
by the third song she ever recorded,
‘‘I Wished on the Moon,’’ a stock-standard Tin Pan Alley ballad that
Holiday, with deft tugs at the melody, transforms into something deeper:
a celebration of ecstatic new romance tinged with the melancholy
awareness that love fades." The following had me channeling Lauren Hill -
"that thing, that thing that ... " "As for Sinatra, even as a tyro — a
babyfaced 25-year-old fronting Tommy Dorsey’s band in a bow tie too big
for his string-bean frame — the throb in his song was unmistakable." Oh
yeah " that throb that throb that ..." Perchance does it reveal my 'youth" to
inquire what the f is a tyro? 2 Brilliant observations: "Of course, the message of Holiday and
Sinatra wasn’t just sex. It was pain. To put the matter in genre terms:
Both Holiday and Sinatra were torch singers. In Sinatra’s case, this was
a novelty. Torch singing had traditionally been women’s work, but his
records made the case that a bruiser in a fedora could love as hard,
could hurt as bad, as any dame." and Sinatra
is often celebrated as the swaggering Rat-Packer, Holiday as a tragic
balladeer. Yet it’s Holiday’s music that percolates with greater joie de
vivre, and Sinatra’s that scrapes darker depths. Here's
what I was trying to say in my earlier piece, only more observant
articulate nuanced and savvy: "One of my favorite parlor
games is to listen to the singers’ versions of the same songs: to hear
the hay that they both made of ‘‘All of Me’’ or ‘‘Day In, Day Out,’’ to
observe their different angles of attack on ‘‘Night and Day’’ —
Holiday’s playful and insouciant, Sinatra’s grand, booming, brooding.
Then there are those moments when the two giants directly address one
other. Sinatra was the acolyte, but the flow of influence reversed on
Holiday’s lavishly orchestrated ‘‘Lady in Satin’’ (1958), an homage to
Sinatra’s Capitol Records concept albums. Holiday made the connection
explicit by opening the LP with a tremulous version of ‘‘I’m a Fool to
Want You,’’ Sinatra’s signature torch song, co-written by the man
himself. A few years later, Sinatra answered back on a recording of the
standard ‘‘Yesterdays,’’ a Holiday staple. At the 1:11 mark of that
song, Sinatra sings the word ‘‘then,’’ unleashing a dramatically low and
rumbling descending vocal line. Keen-eared listeners picked it up right
away: This was Ol’ Blue Eyes doing his Billie Holiday impression. A
century after their births, Holiday and Sinatra are still talking to
each other. What a privilege it is to listen in."
Frank Sinatra and Billie Holiday: They Did It Their Way
More than just contemporaries, Frank Sinatra and Billie Holiday were mutual admirers who pushed each other musically.Credit
From left: Donaldson Collection/Getty Images; Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images
They
were linked by more than just the coincidence of their birth year. We
associate Holiday and Sinatra with other muses and collaborators — she
with the saxophonist Lester Young, he with the arranger Nelson Riddle —
but throughout their careers, the singers exerted a powerful pull on one
another. Their paths crossed early. Sinatra first saw Holiday perform
sometime in the late ’30s; he became an instant devotee. In 1944,
Holiday told columnist Earl Wilson that she’d offered Sinatra advice on
his singing. ‘‘I told him certain notes at the end he could bend. ...
Bending those notes — that’s all I helped Frankie with.’’ Sinatra made
no secret of his debt to Holiday: ‘‘It is Billie Holiday ... who was,
and still remains, the greatest single musical influence on me,’’ he
said in 1958. In ‘‘Mr. S: My Life with Frank Sinatra,’’ from 2003,
George Jacobs, the singer’s former valet, writes that Sinatra visited
Holiday in her New York City hospital room in July 1959, shortly before
her death from drug and alcohol-related liver and heart disease. When
Holiday died, Sinatra holed up in his penthouse for two days, weeping,
drinking and playing her records.
The
Holiday-Sinatra bond, in other words, was a classic relationship of
guru and disciple. Certainly, Holiday was the more precocious of the
two. She began singing in Harlem jazz clubs at age 16 and cut her first
records as an 18-year-old in 1933. By the time she returned to the
studio in 1935, she was a revelation — neither the white balladeers who
dominated the Hit Parade nor the black blues queens from whose ranks she
emerged provided a precedent for her. By traditional measures, she
didn’t have much of an instrument. Her voice was small and slight. She
delivered songs in a midrange drawl that cracked and creaked when she
ventured north and south — a bit shrill in the upper register, a touch
hoarse on the low end. Yet the result was inviting and beguiling. Like a
cool enveloping mist, it was a sound to get lost in."
Her
approach to rhythm was cunning. She meandered around the beat, slyly
elongating and truncating syllables, gliding down for a landing in
surprising places. Sinatra was captivated by the third song she ever
recorded, ‘‘I Wished on the Moon,’’
a stock-standard Tin Pan Alley ballad that Holiday, with deft tugs at
the melody, transforms into something deeper: a celebration of ecstatic
new romance tinged with the melancholy awareness that love fades.
Sinatra signing an autograph for Holiday in the 1940s.
On
that record, as on so many others, you can hear Holiday batting bedroom
eyes. She was a beautiful woman, but it was her husky voice, and the
knowledge of earthly pleasures that it conveyed, that made her a sex
symbol. As for Sinatra, even as a tyro — a babyfaced 25-year-old
fronting Tommy Dorsey’s band in a bow tie too big for his string-bean
frame — the throb in his song was unmistakable. From Holiday, he’d
learned that, ideally, musical seduction was a subtle art. His come-ons
were staked on telling details: minute vocal shading, delicately dabbed
colors, the teasing extra half-beat pause before the headlong plunge
into the chorus. Those notes that Holiday told him to bend — they bent
toward the boudoir.
Of
course, the message of Holiday and Sinatra wasn’t just sex. It was
pain. To put the matter in genre terms: Both Holiday and Sinatra were
torch singers. In Sinatra’s case, this was a novelty. Torch singing had
traditionally been women’s work, but his records made the case that a
bruiser in a fedora could love as hard, could hurt as bad, as any dame.
He proclaimed himself an ‘‘18-karat manic depressive,’’ and you could
hear it even in up-tempo songs like his tumultuous 1956 version of ‘‘I’ve Got You Under My Skin’’:
the singer gusting from ecstasy to despair and back again, along the
crests and crashes of Riddle’s orchestrations. His ballads cut even
deeper. On albums like ‘‘In the Wee Small Hours,’’ Sinatra cast himself
as a noir gumshoe, pursuing an insoluble case: ‘‘What is this thing
called love? ... Who can solve its mystery?’’ Holiday played a more
traditional role. In ‘‘My Man,’’ ‘‘Don’t Explain’’
and other torch ballads, she was the bruised diva, doomed to
masochistic love with callous men. But there was more: a spirit of
resiliency and unflappable cool in the face of cruelty you could detect
in all her music, from the most standard pop-jazz genre fare to the
anti-lynching anthem ‘‘Strange Fruit.’’ In Holiday’s hands, a torch song was also a protest song.
The
fates of the two singers can stand as a parable about race in
20th-century America. Holiday was an adored cult artist who never
reached superstardom during her lifetime. When she died, at age 44, she
had 70 cents in her bank account. She spent her last days in Manhattan’s
Metropolitan Hospital under police guard; she’d been placed under
arrest in her hospital bed, on drug possession charges. Sinatra outlived
his hero by 39 years. He released dozens of albums, including a few of
the best ever made, and a handful of duds, too. He was feted by
presidents and died a multimillionaire.
Today,
Holiday and Sinatra are so shrouded in myth it can be hard to see them
clearly. But when you listen to their records, the clouds part.
Frequently, you find them playing against type. Sinatra is often
celebrated as the swaggering Rat-Packer, Holiday as a tragic balladeer.
Yet it’s Holiday’s music that percolates with greater joie de vivre, and
Sinatra’s that scrapes darker depths. One of my favorite parlor games
is to listen to the singers’ versions of the same songs: to hear the hay
that they both made of ‘‘All of Me’’ or ‘‘Day In, Day Out,’’ to observe
their different angles of attack on ‘‘Night and Day’’ — Holiday’s
playful and insouciant, Sinatra’s grand, booming, brooding. Then there
are those moments when the two giants directly address one other.
Sinatra was the acolyte, but the flow of influence reversed on Holiday’s
lavishly orchestrated ‘‘Lady in Satin’’ (1958), an homage to Sinatra’s
Capitol Records concept albums. Holiday made the connection explicit by
opening the LP with a tremulous version of ‘‘I’m a Fool to Want You,’’
Sinatra’s signature torch song, co-written by the man himself. A few
years later, Sinatra answered back on a recording of the standard
‘‘Yesterdays,’’ a Holiday staple. At the 1:11 mark of that song, Sinatra
sings the word ‘‘then,’’ unleashing a dramatically low and rumbling
descending vocal line. Keen-eared listeners picked it up right away:
This was Ol’ Blue Eyes doing his Billie Holiday impression. A century
after their births, Holiday and Sinatra are still talking to each other.
What a privilege it is to listen in.
A version of this article appears in print on October 25, 2015, on page M2132 of T Magazine with the headline: They Did It Their Way
The New York Times recently celebrated its historic accomplishment of achieving 1 million digital subscribers, including me, by asking for reader feedback. At the link, is the column from the NYT Public Editor to which I responded below.
You asked for it, you'll get it! But
before I start on what's wrong, I'll tell you what's right and why I
care. And before that, a little about me. I fled LA County ASAP for
Berkeley at 18, then San Francisco, which for a time seemed like Oz. I
spent 38 years working for the Federal government, most of them
enforcing civil rights laws for US Dept HEW then Health & Human
Services, Office for Civil Rights, returning to city of LA to help open
OCR's first and only Field Office in LA during the glory years of govt
service aka the Clinton Administration under the leadership of the most
brilliant and devoted genius in govt service, now the Sec of Labor, Tom
Perez. Eventually I bought a house, retired, and started writing
liberated from govt editors but not from my penchant for gratuitous
comments, run on sentences, or needlessly long comments.
I
am devoted to the NYT because, other than possibly The New Yorker,
published weekly, there is no better written media journal anywhere.
Your closest competitors mere ghosts of their former selves, the LA
Times deteriorated into not much more than a tabloid without corporate
support or the resources to allow the few journalists left to conduct
the minimum amount of research necessary to complete an article, and the
Washington Post chasing it downward as quickly as it can. I rarely
read the sports pages, but even there when I find something of interest I
find quality writing. Someday someone needs to beatify and bestow
deserved sainthood on perhaps the best writer and critic in journalism
anywhere, Stephen Holden. No one writes better.
I smirked
as I read your lead in this column thinking to myself surely your editor
is a self absorbed jerk masquerading as a considerate editor only
concerned with pleasing readers rather than increasing corporate profit
but indeed I feel more and more often a cog in the corporate drive to
make more and more money. And I do understand that profit is necessary
to publish the high quality publication I love. And perhaps as some
have said I am not like anyone else so my views lie outside the core of
reader sentiment and that's OK too. I subscribe to and read the digital
edition as if it were the printed edition. Maybe I am old fashioned. I
look through the articles - my favorite starting point is Today's Paper
- and choose from there which article to read when in what order. I
have the impression you would like to eliminate that link. Of course I
check the main page site for more updated news. But - and every other
newspaper is worse at this - I resent feeling like the NYT thinks I am
an idiot unable to navigate through your sections to find the articles I
find of interest, rather than what some unseen viral presence seems to
want me to read. And granted as I did not grow up with this technology I
am not as savvy as others but even i can find my way around a web
site. It seems like I can't even read one sentence of an article when
up pops demands to read this, go here, go there, and I just want to
scream for gosh sake leave me the heck alone and let me finish reading
what I started. I may or may not choose your viral ghost's selection
next. But I can find what I want. And if NYT is making a profit at
getting readers to accept your suggestion of a "new" way to read the
publication, or wish to subscribe to additional features for behind the
scenes materials, go for it, but without me.
I don't want a new way to
read a newspaper. Nor am I looking for more to read. I prefer not to
spend 24/7 with my eyes glued to a computer, tablet, cell phone, ad
nauseam, I like to have time to spend interacting with real people in
real time. I fear the next generation will be unable to communicate
with other people directly or even write, but that is not for me to
worry about. And I will grant that I am not so self absorbed to think
that you can remove all these annoying popups just for me while
maintaining them for readers that provide NYT with income. But in part
this is because you have given me the opportunity to gripe and I have
been wanting to complain about all this for a long time, petty as it may
seem.
Perhaps more substantively, i find the absence of
women from the top ranks of editors to the number of reporters slants
and demeans coverage of women leaders, Hillary Clinton in particular.
And those few you have delight in skewering other women. Wouldn't it be
interesting if her editor told Maureen Dowd to refrain from writing one
more column about Clintons or Bushes for 6 months - a year? Do you
think she could still produce a weekly column some readers would find of
interest? Fine if she hates Hillary so much but her demeaning
condescending tone reeks of upper class snobbery.
On the news pages -
twice now I have seen a similar headline - "Hillary says she opposes
pipeline" and another I have forgotten. Really have you ever said that
when a male politician announces a decision or position. I am sure your
editor will excuse it by saying the word "says" is shorter than
"announces" but it reeks of a negative condescending demeaning tone that
questions her sincerity unfairly. If you all think she is
opportunistic, publish a column about it on the opinion pages. Why
can't you just publish "Clinton opposes pipeline"? Succinct, brief and
accurate.
Now on to your celebrity or perhaps performing
artists' interviews. You already got deservedly raked over the coals
for the Taye Diggs interview so I don't need to pile on. I'll give 2
examples of what I see as backsliding. The recent interview with Aretha
Franklin regarding her performance for the Pope. Does NYT employ that
interviewer? A more insulting interview lacking in even one worthy
question of substance I have never read. It is only due to her stature
and maturity that she did not throw a fit worthy of Nicki Minaj and
throw him out. For example, "Aretha, why did you choose to sing Amazing
Grace for the Pope?" Really? You are expecting "When A Man Loves A
Woman" or "Freeway of Love"? It's like Wolf Blitzer asking the military
this morning "how dangerous would it be if terrorists acquire nuclear
weapons?" Ask a 3 year old; these people have more important things to
do. Compare it to her interview published at Philly.com for an
interesting interview of substance with merely an overlay of puffery.
Of
course, I mention the feature on Nicki just published today and about
to compete with your Taye Diggs feature for reader reaction. I have
nothing to add to the comments of Nicki and the interviewer at the end.
But my observation is to wonder if you go through that article, how
much of it included actual quotes from Nicki Minaj spoken during that
interview rather than from other sources? A paragraph's worth, if
that? The interviewer actually seems to me a fairly good writer with
legitimate ideas worth exploring, in a creative essay. She could have
written a commentary on the subjects she wished to explore regarding the
role of women in rap, the evolution of rap, feminism, misogyny,
relationships with male paramours, friends, and/or peers who are
performing artists. But that is different than an in depth
interview lacking in questions that engage the interviewee sufficiently
to result in an article or interview worthy of publication.
Thoughtful interview with actor praised by all for performance in film
failing at box office that "Vanity Fair called the movie "terribly
offensive, and offensively terrible," while The Times said it
"shortchanges [the] pivotal gay rights moment." Many on social media
added their thoughts using the trash can emoji to express their disdain.
I agree with the critics; it's a travesty and abomination and more
detailed comments I posted elsewhere. But the actor makes a point here
that reflects my thinking after reading the immense number of comments
on the film's FB page and the queerty web site: discussion of the events
portrayed and the status of gay and transgender's in today's society is
sorely needed.
More
from the article reflecting my point of view and the poor box office:
By featuring the fictional character as the main instigator of the riots
— though most accepted accounts attribute that role to drag queens,
street kids and transgender women of color — online backlash accused the film of erasing an already marginalized minority within the LGBT community.
An
online petition calling for a boycott of the picture seems to have had
an effect, with "Stonewall" pulling in only $112,414 in its first
weekend. That's an average of $871 per screen of the 129 screens in its
limited release, according to box-office figures."
so many comments - really it's overwhelming - on the FB page of of
the new stonewall movie it was hard to find mine. they are
overwhelmingly negative. seems to me the director could have been
creative and not so lazy and created an original story based on the era
based on original characters and who could whine. plenty but that's
beside the point. you can't blame an original story for distorting
history it's not meant to recreate. he found it easier to take an
actual historical event - and not just
any event but the most significant event in modern LGBT history and
created a fictional white character because focus groups found that
straight people were more comfortable seeing white guys throw bricks
than black or puerto rican trans. that's not saying there weren't white
people there, there were plenty. nor i am saying that the movie
excludes portrayals of black and PR trans - there are plenty. the fact
that the director is gay makes it worse to me and i question his
integrity and self esteem. why should we care what straights think -
our rights are enshrined in the Constitution not dependent on the
evolution of thinking among straights. sure acceptance helps but how
does it help to make gay characters so white washed and straight acting
to gain acceptance among straights who will then expect real gay people
to be like those portrayed in the movie and then when they meet real gay
people who are not like that how does that help? it doesn't it's
counterproductive and oppressive and i am disgusted. i am not telling
anyone what to do this is my view. you can like, or positively comment,
or wittily or creatively comment supportively or articulately present
another point of view that is not negative, or you can move on.
I finally found the movie i was thinking of and remember it as being
fictional yet authentic, inclusive, historic and trail blazing.
Recommend Stonewall 1995 or the PBS documentary Stonewall Uprising and
the documented articles accurately describe history that occurred in the
life time of so many still living today, including the actual rioters
and brick throwers and demonstrators so distorted by this film.
Just ran across this on the film maker's own FB page where he's getting
trashed worse than on the movie or queerty page; very amusing and
fulfilling, and best of all, for those like me a little slow at
recognizing parody when i see it - it says Parody right on the title.
MItch is a good man who did a great job in
SF as director of the AIDS office and then SFDPH. I was shocked but
plesaed that LA hired him but for awhile he seemed to be swallowed up. I
think the reorganization makes sense, could be more efficient and allow
for better coordination. Mental health is always fighting for and
deserving of more resources; his opposition to forcibly medicate persons
with mental illness is not relevant to the re-org.
My
biggest pet peeve with LA County Health and Hospitals - lack of
qualified and proficient interpreters for patients and family members
with limited-English proficiency required by Federal and often but too
frequently not effectively enforced by OCR, the
agency I worked for. In recent years there were too many anecdotes
about the lack of qualified Spanish-speaking interpreters in LA
County-USC (General Hospital) a facility surrounded by perhaps the
largest Latino community in the nation and a large number of Spanish
speaking staff.
Just
as pathetically, many doctors reported the failure of their attempt at
interpretation by computer or over the internet as being woefully
inadequate, and worse, inaccurate. Admittedly I was forcefully
passionate on this issue from the beginning, before
HIV arose, envisioning an elderly non-English speaker in a hospital
unable to communicate or learn English. OCR did a lot of good on this
issue in a lot of places over the years. My blog may have the
description of our significant effective intervention in Phoenix with
many hospitals in 2002 shortly after the LA office opened, one of OCR's
most notable accomplishment.
But
what has taken me 3 paragraphs to provide background for was the
standoff I could never resolve near the end. Overwhelmed by HIPAA
complaints without the provision of adequate additional resources to
handle them, OCR rejected my pleas - and it may
not surprise you to know they were sorely agitated by my never ending
efforts - to open a discretionary compliance review over the issue at LA
County. OCR is allowed but not required to conduct reviews, it's a
tool used quite effectively over the years. But OCR is required to
investigate complaints and those must be the priority when resources are
limited. Meanwhile the advocates who were the source of many of the
anecdotes I was hearing refused to file a complaint fearing our LEP
Guidance Memorandum not strong enough, despite the fact that bringing LA
County UP to meeting those standards as we had done in Phoenix would
have been a massive improvement and helped so many of those limited
English speakers they claim to represent. Unable to overcome this
standoff or conundrum my biggest frustration.
ok
and i'll put the serious one down here; i don't think this is that bad
for Hill through my usual rose colored glasses, i don't think Biden will
run but if he does it will all work out, cnn making much of her recent
comments about her experience and
willingness to compromise, to work with others, being unpopular in
today's political environment; refreshing she is not trying to appeal to
the lowest common denominator, what is needed is someone with the yes
experience and ability and the willingness to work with others to get
things done; electing ideologues on both sides or even just one side
accomplishes nothing, as in the Rs getting the biggest House majority in
decades by warped redistricting they got ideologues not interested in
accomplishing anything more than shrill appeals for extremism; i am not a
centrist or moderate but more moderates would get more stuff done for
the good of all, and that's not reinforcement for an establishment that
blocks progress and equity it's a challenge to it that too many fail to
see.. http://www.nbcnews.com/.../first-read-bad-news-gop...
and
to be straightforward and possibly avoid snark but not guaranteed,
enough of the contention that an obstacle to Bernie winning is the
refusal to support him because he can't win; i am opposed to Bernie
because i don't want him to win, I would never
under any conditions vote for him I think he is incompetent and
incapable of accomplishing anything, I don't agree with his approach or
some of his views - gun control only one example - that is not a
negative attack that is what i think, Hillary is smarter, tougher has
accomplished much and will do more, and she has always worked often pro
bono for social justice , reform and improvement in the lives and
economic conditions of underserved people; she got childrens health
insurance passed decades ago and did more before and since, bernie never
did or accomplished anything before or after being elected to the
senate.
The higher she rises the harder she will fall. Reminds me of that
saying about no matter how much you repeat it, a lie is still a lie.
Great column by a great columnist.
Reversing the pattern, some posts from FB, to be expanded or not later.
CHICAGO = My reminiscence of a wonderful week there will have to wait;
better to search my blog because I think I wrote about it before. My
first speaking engagement outside the Region here little did I know
would lead to so much controversy and be just the start of my own
nationwide tour swelling my head like a mini-diva for a good cause
speaking on behalf of the office on HIV-related and other forms of
discrimination prohibited by Federal law, just being allowed to appear and
speak publicly a victory after a long fought internal struggle in the
office. Hometown of my Italian mother, 2 generations from Naples.
Friendliest people and gay bars anywhere (outside a small town)..
Gorgeous tulips in bloom everywhere, recently found my photos I need to
organize and collate digitally at last. And to prove you can't tell
this B no, an uneventful sojourn on the L to the far south side to Mom's
old neighborhood, something and Wood? I'll look it up, Mother told me
not to go, the sweet Polish couple at the tourist store who used to live
nearby told me not to go, everyone of every color at OCR told me not to
go, of course i went, 2 stops from downtown no other white people on
the train, had to bite my grin off my face from the discreet looks
saying when that crazy white boy getting off the train. So finally past
more housing projects I have ever seen, an old neighborhood of big
houses and wide streets appears and I get to my stop. Her house was
blocks away, the blocks were long, like LA no one was walking. So i
stood on the platform took some photos, Mom recognized the billboard and
corner store (or so she said) I declared victory and waited for the
next train back downtown without leaving the platform. Mission
accomplished. It was a wonderful week.
Mom graduated Harper High School, 6520 S. Wood St. Chicago, that's what i
wanted to document in family blog post, lived south of there Marquette
sounds familiar, got it somewhere want to document below, Grandma
pushing vegetable cart through Italian neighborhood in the 1920s; we all
immigrants except the native indigenous, although not all of us arrived
willingly, we all here now.
Sometimes
a partial victory just as good, same feeling when in kindergarten
catechism after months of pestering, i wore them down and they said sure
nonCatholics might be able to go to heaven if they really good, but
they would have to go to purgatory first.
My first civil rights victory. Much older, hearing Mom whisper to Dad
you gotta say something did you hear what he said the way he talks to
me - how many times i told him the same thing in reverse - and Dad's
reply -same as it was to me = you 2 work it out I'm not getting involved
you 2 exactly alike. A little validation goes a long way and I'll back
off satisfied. Longer versions of those anecdotes elsewhere. Hadn't
planned on writing about family again, but pleased I am finding a less
negative perspective again.
50, well i was going to post an anecdote but first it wasn't 50 years
ago, or 40 just to make that clear but sometime ago, on one of my first
visits home during a break from attending UC Berkeley, I had been
picketing Safeway during the grape boycott. I opened the fridge, the
first thing one does when visiting, and I found a shelf full of grapes.
I immediately disposed of them of course. The next day, while sensing
mom in the next room, I opened the fridge - and found twice
as many grapes as the day before. Closing the door I heard the well
timed clicking of her heels entering the kitchen. As she opened the
back door to go to her car she turned and said, and if those are gone
when I return I'll get even more. Fearful of being blamed for ruining
the boycott when the union discovered Mom's store the source of
skyrocketing sales, I acknowledged defeat and never disposed of or ate
another grape again. Never mess with an Italian mama - her kitchen is
her kingdom!
And now for my father's side of the family, and a remembrance of Aunt Nelly and so much more, to be expanded perhaps, or more likely not reading
back i see that was way more than enough or intended. Likes permitted,
questions likely not to be answered. You'll see what i mean when you
get there but this indicates I reviewed and edited this. My Dad's
favorite sister and the only one he didn't stop talking to after the
others shunned my Catholic mother in a post wedding visit to his
hometown Saginaw. His father was Welsh but his mother French Canadian
Indian and Catholic who ran a "boarding house". I think there was an
earlier wife who died and was mother to some siblings. Whatever my Dad
the only one who converted from Methodist to Catholic apparently before
meeting my Italian mother. Nelly loved antiques, owned a shop, and
gardening. I noted below her and Uncle Bunny's notorious RV trips.
Didn't see them much have lots of cousins I don't know from the other
siblings. Nelly and Bunny had 2 sons, one is a Buddhist i think or is
he Hindu explored every religion who knows where he is last i heard
Sedona, Johnny an avid businessman in Idaho owns laundry, flooring who
knows what else, you get the picture total opposites. But what I am
trying to get to is Nelly's visit to CA and her and my Dad's visit to me
in SF. After WWII he (Bunny) was stationed at Presidio in SF and they
had a duplex apt in what is now the Haight. I lived in the Haight and
loved it, shared an apt overlooking GG Park with he who brought me to
see Diana in Tahoe; one April we marveled at snow falling over the park.
Then my own solo apt. Well after visiting the Dahlia garden in GG
Park which she went gaga over, for good reason, we had to drive by to
see the place. Ok. Well then we had to stop in front. OK. Then I
noticed her hand on the door handle and me and Dad exchanged furious
glances. Yep before we could move she was out the door "I'll just knock
and see if anyone's home." Nelly was a little firecracker and you
didn't mess with Nelly. OMG this was the Haight and it wasn't all peace
and flowers at the time. The door opens slightly, but not enough to
see who answered, In goes Nelly and the door shuts behind her. OMG We
jumped out of the car and tried to wait before knocking. But soon the
door opened and we were invited in. Turned out to be a retired social
worker from Alameda County (Oakland) who had just returned from a long
dreamed of vacation in Africa. Lots of mementos and we saw the yard
where my cousins played as infants. My Dad visited and stayed there
after high school. He would take walks to smoke cigs to GG Park and
downtown and the rest I may never blog about. Suffice it to say when I
came out to my mother, at her urging, and she kept urging me to tell my
father, who I wasn't comfortable with at the time, she said, "haven't
you ever heard of latent" i didn't think she even knew what the word
meant and was forever speechless on the subject. But over the years
circumstances reminded me of that from time to time. Eventually he met
and married my Mom whose family had relocated from Chicago. His friend
at the office was dating Mom's cousin so she went along to a company
picnic - hell it was the whole weekend - to Catalina Island. All the
guys went gaga over my beautiful mother. She never drank, hated it,
family reasons. The others present recounted at a reunion a few years
ago by the end of one evening my mother had a dozen drinks all untouched
lined up in front of her and my Dad eventually passed out on the lawn.
Well i recovered nicely i think from the tawdry fork in the road not
taken. The END
The
dichotomy of FB, so frustrating at times, yet through FB one can find so many
talented artists creative and fun people from all over the world if you look for the good; lately I seem finally better at finding the good.
Not sure how long it will last but i now have a record 72 persons on
my page; and it's been at least a week since someone quit me or had to
leave. smile emoticon
Getting better at articulating my purpose here. I have a lot of time
and there's are more self-destructive ways i could and have spent my
time. I like to write I like to take photos I post way way way too
much. I love Diana Ross, most music other than opera or country,
cabaret and jazz especially, in drag or not, i especially like to plug
those creative artists without celebrity status or film or recording
contracts, community based artists. I am perhaps way too passionate
about social justice issues and politics. I used to like to debate or
argue but i no longer find pleasure in that. Everyone has enough stress
unless you like being challenged your FB should not cause stress. I
have learned the hard way by suffering the effects of my occasionally
volcanic temperament rudely displayed on others' pages.
After
way too many years of being edited by my former government employer, I
especially value that this page is mine all mine my rules; talk about a
control freak this space is what I have control over. If you ignore a
post, I can deduce you felt anywhere from indifferent to disgust or
anywhere in between. I like to see likes so if you like something like
it. I really don't want to read on MY page what YOU don't like. In
return, I will not express negativity on your page.
As well, I
will not object to negative posts on your page. So please don't object
to my occasional or frequent rants on my page. Feel free to bash Diana
Ross or Hillary Clinton on your page without a peep from me. And don't
be surprised to find ranting on my page from the serious to the trivial.
I am not trying to tell you how to manage your page; but only I decide
how to manage mine.
A few things that are sure to make me go
volcanic will be criticisms of Diana or Hillary on MY page alone. I am
also beyond these petty celebrity fan feuds; someone likes this one not
that. And it's way past time folks stopped dishing Florence, Mary, or
Diana - they were young, life happens they didn't hate each other
neither should we. Nothing wrong with preferring one over another, they
are all different and so are we. Not to say there wasn't tension from
time to time or still to this day but that's for them to work out. And
yes I'll confess to my share of dishing, but then it is MY page.
Finally, I have been musing about the opposite - someone's on your page,
or you are on theirs - and you're just not into it anymore, you can't
stand to see one more post on Diana or Hillary or I think your page is
boring. I still like to have people because what they do is fascinating
or worthwhile or important and i like to maintain awareness even if I
don't post or like something.
But I am thinking of creating
something that says, I like you but I don't like your FB page and i have
way too many news feeds. Here's my email if you want to stay in touch.
No hard feelings, no leaving in a huff, etc. I am not trying to have
the most people; I would like to have people who wish to be here and
find something of value, interest, or humor.
So remember when i
said i like to write? See how long this is? Well for the newbies i
will post a link to my blog and you'll really see what too much is.
But as i like long form more than short form, I am really trying to
transition to the blog and post links on my FB page to new blog posts.
First i need to fix or replace my computer but i can do that soon. My C
drive shrunk, no one knows why. I cannot view any videos you post or
listen to music you post. But I have all my stuff on an external drive
so I can access that just fine. Little trouble accessing the internet.
I will make one more attempt now that I am about to have completed
resolving some financial issues for which I needed internet access but
once that is done I am getting professional assistance to erase and
restore my drives to factory settings then reinstall programs.
Eventually I hope to have a state of the art fully loaded laptop so I
can create post and write from anywhere inside or outside my house or
gardens instead of cooped up in this hot stuffy home office. So from
the most important to the most trivial i can conclude this and get some
air before I return refreshed and less sticky.
And thank you all for being here. Each of you is here because I find you interesting. I hope i don't disappoint you.
A
lifelong passionate lover of music - you can credit Mom's affinity for
every Italian male vocalist growing up - rare is an album, or CD, that I
would play i order. An exception is Thelma Houston's "Sunshower" (1976)
written by Jimmy Webb prior to her taking the disco world to storm.
Marvin Gaye, including but not limited to "What's Going On" comes to
mind as well and I am sure there are others that fail to come to mind at
this very moment.
Needless to say, in the LP area I
would make cassette tapes from albums in my preferred order and with
varying artists suiting my whims of the moment. The CD era allowed the
same but soon I wasn't bothering with cassettes, disappointed at the
technical quality and a 5 CD changer allowing me to set a program of
songs from 5 CDs at a time and I can't remember the maximum number of
songs allowed.
And now after years of copying more, but
still not all, of my collection onto my computer, there seems to be no
limit for the length of a playlist. I have playlists, mostly Diana
Ross, approaching 40 hours. Lately I have been creating playlists of
recordings I feel like hearing for a period of time, then changing based
upon mood or boredom. For example, I recently made playlists of my
favorite Billie Holiday recordings, my collection of live Billie Holiday
recordings. Due to their prolific output and my obsessed collection,
the most challenging have been Dinah Washington and Nancy Wilson. I
recently got a Dinah playlist down to manageable length. It's not that I
listen to either often, but I find both mesmerizing and addictive.
My
favorite playlists are those of female recording artists many of them
jazz oriented. I even recently tackled Judy Garland and Peggy Lee now
that I think of it. And a recent re-release of a Frank Sinatra
recording had me studying his output and learning his career
chronologically.
My recent addiction to writing more than
reading has led me from a thought to post my current, 24 hour playlist,
to this lengthy background introduction. You should have realized by
now you can skip it and go to the list. I like many but not all genres
and this one in particular resulted from an effort to include many
genres and then to select the section I felt like listening to at any
particular time. In reality I just let it run and restart my computer
every 24 hours.
Some of the above is to explain the
absence of certain artists, namely Dinah, as well as the absence of so
many favorite jazz vocalists too numerous to mention, absent from my
list but not my collection, Anita O'Day, Carmen McRae, Cassandra Wilson -
my favorite current live and recording vocalist - Diana Krall, Ella,
Esther, 2 Ettas, Karrin Allyson - another current fav, Ledisi
outstanding live yet to reach her recording potential, SARAH VAUGHN
perhaps THE greatest vocalist ever, a few peeking at my file has brought
to mind.
Special mention to JACKIE RYAN, AND SWEET BABY
J'AI, the best unknown recording artists working today, google each of
them and buy their CDs; you won't regret it.
Most recently,
due to release of expanded editions I was making lots of Diana
playlists and then spent time making some fabulous girl group era
songlists. Which reminds me I have a You Tube page with many playlists,
I'll link it here.
But
all that is my overwrought way of saying that absence from this list
doesn't mean I don't have it or haven't listened to it lately.
Another
reason for posting is this could be my most diverse playlist ever,
formerly limited each to a particular genre, artist, or theme, this one
has some of almost everything. And there is a core at the beginning
that was based on my memorial playlist for Beau, my canine companion of
close to 17 years, departed April 1, whose removal of the catheter
holding his final injection caused the Vet to remark "He just wrote the
book" reminding me of the iconic Dinah song and starting my playlist the
final version of which I have yet to publish.
My to do
list, includes that, research on 2 songwriters I was conducting at the
time, an organized photo album of Beau and my recent gardening
accomplishments. Rather than list almost 400 songs I am listing the
recording artists. Well if i keep commenting on each one this will take forever.
Art Pepper (only recently got out my fav straight ahead jazz collection from the '50s
Teri Thornton - masterful vocalist, rediscovered after Beau, she returned late in life to recording,
winning a prestigious Thelonius Monk award - am i mixed up - she won
a presitigious award at a vocal competition, then succumbed to a fatal illness
Thelma Jones (more when i publish my songwriting research Beau inspired
Nancy Wilson - favs from throughout her stellar career (so that means a lot)
Frank
Sinatra - from wonderful recent compilation Ultimate Sinatra covers
early and mid career and a live concert recorded in December 1961 in
Sydney Australia. I just googled to verify the date and found many
editions including a 4 CD edition spanning his career and the Australian
edition a 2 CD package which is the one I have which includes the
concert.'
Billie Holiday! the exclamation mark because I
noticed several songs recorded (separately of course) by Frank and
Billie, in fact i think i have a playlist with just these 2, this list
includes the songs each recorded back to back and my favorite live
Holiday recordings.
Betwixt and between my frequent dilemmas
over the order, initially i had electronic remixes of Billie Holiday
(understandably considered blasphemous by purists) but i moved them
somewhere.
Blackbird by Sylvester remained either cuz it fit or i failed to move it later, then
The Supremes - the list i postedon FB yesterday of my favs mostly in chron order
Diana Ross - well I asked but NO ONE requested my current list
GeeJayDeluxe and GJ2K1 remixes of Diana, some Supremes, some mashups, since i discovered him every one of my many Diana lists includes his work from his remixes of Promise, Symphony, For Once, Mr. Sandman I proudly segue to
Billie Holiday blasphemous electronic remixes by varied mixers followed by some old favs from the dancing days
I Can't Get No Sleep - India
I Like MW Shanice
Beautiful People - Barbara Tucker
Only Love Can Break Your Heart - Saint Etienne
Blackalicious - Make You Feel That Way and Day One
Sounds of Blackness - Optimistic
SYLVESTER - he lives on you tube, in my collection, in the recent musical "Mighty Real"
Dolores Peterson electronic On My Mind
Leelah James
Chelo
Prince - some of his recent recordings ingenious and topical
Madonna - love her latest
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Mary J. Blige - love some of her recent release
Angie Martinez
Ricky Martin, some old favs, mostly latest release just nominated for several Latin Grammys
Enrique Iglesias - old and new, i can't help it
Romeo Santos - love his voice and his new gay friendly release promoting acceptance
