North Korea Fires Missiles. Nothing Actually Changes

Reuters reports that North Korea has launched some short range missiles.
Japan has issued orders to shoot down the missiles.
They're short range missiles -- not the long-range ones they'd been talking about, and had been universally warned and roundly criticized about.

I heard about it first on Twitter, at this guy's page.

But this does not change anything. North Korea continues stomping its feet, in order to make sure the Nuclear Summit is about them, and not anyone else. Whether North Korea's new leader Kim Jong-eun was behind this new plan, or whether one of Kim Jong-il's advisers is simply urging a continued, consistent policy, is unclear. However, North Korea remains true to its longtime policy of wild swings in word and deed, as an effort to grab international attention, play allies/rivals against each other, and extract as much aid as possible.

The fact the missiles were short-range, not the long-range ones we'd heard about, was a calculated move, I think. It's another example of North Korea's continuing balancing game of acting out, but staying just enough on THIS side of the pale that they can trick people into thinking it's worth negotiating with them (in exchange for aid!)... and then acting out again to make sure everybody remembers they're crazy and unpredictable, so it's important to pay attention to them and try to engage them! Their irrational behavior is actually very rational, and calculated, and various world polities have been taking the bait like suckers since the cold war.

Two good ways to think of North Korea are Hillary Clinton's hilarious assessment that it's like "An Unruly Teenager" (North Korea's prickly response to her comment is even funnier: I heard Kim Jong-il challenged her to a fight by the swingset at 3:30)

...or that North Korea is basically the geopolitical equivalent of an internet troll, doing whatever it can to get a reaction. We figured this out when North Korea's envoy to the United Nations started shouting "FIRST!" at the opening of the UN's General Assembly meetings.

As everybody who deals with internet trolls and melodramatic teenagers knows, the best way to deal with them is to ignore the histrionics, and maintain the original policy, lest a response be read as reinforcement of the drama-queen strategy.

One of the best pieces of North Korea analysis remains this piece from One Free Korea: "How To Disarm Kim Jong-il (now Kim Jong-eun, of course) Without Bombing Him"

Another one: (original map:)

It's actually not a bad fit.

My blog's licensed under Creative Commons, which means you're allowed to use these troll images... but please give me credit and a link. And if you make one of your own that's really funny, leave a link in the comments below!

ATEK is Dead; let's Bury it: What Next

This is part two of a two-post series about the demise of ATEK. Please read Part One first.

What next:


First thing:
I'm informed that all ATEK's e-mail addresses except the two still being used by the two active officers, have been deleted, so all e-mail records are deleted with them. If ATEK is to be retired, I think a fair thing to ask is that the ATEK website forums be closed, and all the website forum member data stored in the member IDs be deleted, so that I know the information I entered into ATEK's website or sent to the membership officer when I joined, won't appear elsewhere. I don't want to get random e-mails from god-knows-who saying "hey. You signed up for ATEK, so now I'm here to tell you about OUR English teacher thing." I'll sign up for THAT one if I'm interested. I haven't received any e-mails from ATEK in about a year, so it might be that the e-mail addresses have already been deleted. I'd be happy to have confirmation of this. The person who has been in charge of membership in ATEK over the last year and some is the single person involved with ATEK whom I respect the most for being honorable, honest, and ethical in the way he's carried out his ATEK duties, and his duty has, all this time, been to protect the private information of those who signed up for ATEK. If he confirms that ATEK has officially erased the member data he has, frankly, I trust him.

If another group wants to get started, I think it's best that they start with a blank slate anyway: I'd hate for them to inherit anything else along with ATEK's member data, but I fear that's exactly what would happen if a group decided to revive the idea of ATEK while using ATEK's member data. There's no need to keep that around anymore.

Second thing:
ATEK has to go. The name is toxic. The next organization needs a new name and a fresh start. Let's have no illusions about that.

Third thing:
As I wrote in 2009, in my "On Ugly English Teachers and Racist Korean Journalists"series, the English teaching community is fractured, disconnected, and a whole splayed out web of different needs, according to region, time in country, connection with Korea, type of school, nation of origin, and more. We are far, far less than the sum of our parts right now.

Yes, there are facebook groups, meetups and other informal organizations, and that's good; however, when some politician or journalist chooses the (still) politically easy road of scapegoating English teachers, there (still) isn't any group who can form an articulate, coherent response, and that hurts the English teachers ATEK was trying to represent... and all of us. I have very different ideas about expat community now than I did when I was writing about it so much in 2008 and 2009, but as long as there's no Korean language pushback when the Anti-English Spectrum, or any old Korean journalist or politician runs our name down, the situation won't change all that much. So, unless you like invasive drug and blood tests...

Something is needed.


Fourth thing: 

In the piece I linked just above, I wrote about how long-term expats seem to often go native, to stick to their own, perhaps tired of dealing with the turnover, which means the expats who have the time in country, understanding of the culture, and most of all, language skill, to really lead the charge, often end up looking out for their own instead.

And I'm sorry to say that with a wife and a kid, I now fall into that category. I wish well to anyone who wants to start something, I'll give you some advice on Skype or over the phone, but I won't be at the next KOTESOL conference signing people up for whatever somebody forms. I'm tired, and I already gave it a shot, and somebody has more energy and enthusiasm for it than I do. Somebody without a kid.

I've got a kid and grad school on the pipeline, and many of the friends of mine who were E-visa English teachers, whom I thought of while doing ATEK work, have repatriated, to be replaced by people I don't know, who are way younger than I am, with whom I don't always feel a great deal of connection, and frankly, toward whom I don't feel much obligation, when my baby's smiling at me from across the room. I've become one of the "gone native" expats I wrote about in 2009, and I don't identify myself as an English teacher anymore. The expats I connect with now are usually connections because of their blogs or their long-term status, not because of shared English-teacher status.

So... send me the e-mail, I'll link to the website and the press release, I'll even chat from time to time if you want to ask about how ATEK handled/mishandled a situation that's occurring in the new organization (if you ask nicely), and I'll send anybody who inquires along to you, but don't expect much more from me than that this time. I jumped with both feet, twice, for ATEK - once with Equal Checks, and then again as Communications Officer, and those stand as the two most stressful times in my whole life in Korea, so... I've paid my pound of flesh, and now I've got a family to look out for.



The English Teacher's organization that will succeed:


In looking at the nature of the native English teacher scene in Korea, and the ways ATEK failed and/or almost/could have succeeded, here are some features of the organization English teachers need, that will be able to successfully help English teachers:

1. It will not be one monolithic organization, but a series of affiliated organizations.
Public school teachers.
Elementary school teachers.
University teachers.
Teachers in Jeollado.
Teachers in Seoul.
Teachers from USA.
Teachers from Ireland.
Hagwon teachers in general.
Adult hagwon teachers.
Native English speaking teachers.
Long-term expats.
F-visa holders.
Non-native English teachers in public schools.
Non-native English teachers in hagwons.

and so forth.

People will be members of more than one of these groups (obviously) some may contribute to only one of them, some energetic, optimistic people, will probably help make decisions, or advise, for numerous groups. All groups should look with suspicion on anyone who tries to become an influential part of all of them.

A series of less rigid organizations will be better able to serve the information needs of the different subsets of teachers in Korea, it won't put too much pressure on one person, it will make it harder for English teacher-hate groups to target the leaders, it will make it harder for someone with ulterior motives to try and exploit too many people at once, there won't be any list of all the members in one place, and it will make it easier for each group to articulate the particular needs and concerns of those different subsets.

These affiliated organizations should be loosely enough linked enough that they can each act independently, but closely enough linked that when one group has a pressing need, the other groups can speak in support and solidarity, and keep members abreast of what's happening in other parts of the landscape. Also... closely enough linked to spot someone trying to exert too much influence in too many groups. Because that happens when volunteer groups are concerned.

2. Built for ease and speed of communication.
It might be as simple as a series of twitter accounts that all English teachers in Korea can follow: that would be enough to inform people about changes and concerns, to send people to the links and articles that might interest them, to alert people about petitions or changes in law, or to muster a few people with the Korean skill to translate a document or part of a document, in order to keep everyone informed.

3. Information exchange, not mobilization or representation, will be its main stock in trade
Let's be honest. There have been so many groups trying to create an "all-in-one Expat Korea source" that there's no need to create another. Except perhaps for this one, which is all you need. There are so many blogs and forums discussing English info, and the scene changes so frequently -- a blogger moves to a new host and all his old links go dead (I'm talking about you, Chris in South Korea); the laws change and a formerly dead-reliable page goes outdated; a recruiter closes his/her website; the laws change again, the most informative blogger repatriates -- that there's not really much point in trying to pull it all together in one place, because three months later everything's changed.

But the main thing these groups will do is get vital or useful information, tailored to the specific group, out to that group.

It will get information out proactively: "how to make sure you're covered by health insurance" is a much more important message to send out, than "raise funds for this guy who got hurt and doesn't have health insurance" -- we're responsible for ourselves.

4. But representation will be a limited part of it, and mobilization might be a VERY limited part of it
What kind of representation? Not the "ATEK is the only organization representing over 20 000 Native English teachers in South Korea" overstatement-type... but, for example, a set of Twitter accounts and blog connections, leading to a survey monkey survey that can help add a line like "80% of the 3000 English teachers surveyed strongly oppose this new law..." in a press release... that kind of representation, and the resources to GET that kind of representation, would be fantastic, and if it's links to surveys rather than all-in-one groups with membership lists, presuming to represent, the risk of vainglory goes WAY down.

5. Long-term Expats, F-Visa Holders and Koreans will Provide Much of Its Stability and Continuity, While Short-Term Expats will Provide (Either Some Or a Lot Of) Its Energy
Because it was easiest to verify membership with E-visa holders, ATEK put its main stock in the most transient of visa-holders. This led to a lack of institutional continuity that hurt ATEK a lot: loads of half-finished or barely-begun projects, tons of great ideas with no follow-through. Meanwhile, a few jobsworths (or maybe just one or two) made it unreasonably hard even for very willing non E-2 visa holders to get involved in meaningful ways. This was one of the biggest mistakes ATEK made. A successful expat organization will have long-term expats as the engine of its strength, and the long-term connections, both formal and informal, between them, will create a frame on which those with good ideas can hang their efforts.

6. It will not duplicate what other groups and websites already do, but send people to the places already providing information and services for English teachers, expats, and anyone.
'Nuff said.

So, if you have ideas about what an English teacher group needs or should be, weigh in in the comments. I can't think of much more boring than beating the dead ATEK horse, because that boat has sailed, but if people are interested in new organizations, in forming something more useful, feel free to put a link or an e-mail address in the comments, where people can reach you.

ATEK is Dead; Let's Bury it: A Eulogy

Status:

Since 3WM published its "Atek, the Great White Hoax" series, starting almost exactly a year ago, ATEK has gone silent. I've reached out to those who are keeping the website online, and the outlook ain't hot. The bad press has made it pretty much impossible to recruit officers, and without officers, it is impossible for ATEK to help English teachers in the way the organization hoped to in the beginning. ATEK has been without a president since last spring, and its other officers have slowly moved on, or shifted the networks they initially formed through ATEK, along other lines, under other names. ATEK's Facebook groups are mostly spam-catchers, the ATEK name has become radioactive, and whichever English teacher's organization comes next will have to answer some tough questions about why they're different from ATEK, and how they plan to do differently, or better. The ATEK website is basically defunct, though still operating, the English teacher help forums there are silent (except somebody who wants you to buy some video games), and all the ATEK e-mail accounts have been closed but two.

ATEK the organization, and the people involved in it, with a few exceptions, did want to help English teachers, for the most part. Yeah, some were in it for the resume padding or the networking or the ego-gratification, or to try to get a little extra buzz surrounding some other cause or gig they were involved with... but when is that untrue of any volunteer organization, and how does that preclude an organization from helping people, if people can set those agendas aside and focus on the goals of the organization?

It's a shame this group of people couldn't work that out, that for too many of the people involved in the organizational breakdowns, being right became more important than being pragmatic. I suppose that's the drawback of new organizations like this, though: they attract idealists, when they need pragmatists, and the pragmatists get frustrated with the drama, and seek out venues to get stuff done, where they don't have to deal with hissy fits.


Why it failed:


Problem 1:
ATEK talked a bigger game than it actually walked for pretty much all of its existence, promised a little more than it could deliver, and got started on the wrong foot with some of the groups and people it most needed to have supporting it: some of the people who would have provided the leadership, continuity and competency it lacked, and then was too inflexible to find a way to work with some of those people, even when they gave it numerous (probably undeserved) second and fifth chances. And a few people put too much of their personalities into ATEK, in the wrong way, for it to ever quite get completely clean of the stain. While I have well-publicized issues with the 3WM ATEK series, it is more or less accurate in its picture of the ways ATEK got in its own way, and hobbled itself from becoming a more useful organization.

Problem 2:
While some involved in ATEK might still maintain that the online peanut gallery, unwilling to contribute positively, but quick to loudly recount past flaws and wrongs, was mostly responsible for ATEK's demise, I disagree. While they ensured ATEK had a hard time living down its failings, if ATEK had had more successes, those criticisms would have sounded hollow.

Problem 3:
ATEK was brought down by a toxic mix of personalities, pretty much all of whom meant well, at least when they started in, but too many of whom couldn't work together, too many of whom couldn't set aside their egos agendas and vendettas, because of the way they were trying to portray themselves, or their beliefs about the role they had, or personal issues they had with other players, or their desire to please too many people with conflicting views, or their desire to be vindicated taking precedence over the greater good for English teachers. These ugly personality blends submarined the organization just when it was approaching the critical mass it needed to become a useful institution.  A few of the very best people involved in ATEK were too quiet during times when their voices of reason could have provided much-needed calm and leadership, or had already left in frustration, or got booted on technicalities, and so weren't around when their points of view were badly needed.

Problem 4:
ATEK became far too organizationally bloated, far too quickly, and that hampered people who wanted to help out, from finding places where they could help out with the talents they had.

Problem 5:
ATEK depended too much on the part of the foreign English teaching population that is least reliable in the long-term: the E-2 visa, one-year, high-turnover teachers. Some -probably most- of the people in Korea on E-2 visas are amazing people, with great ideas and awesome energy... but when 60-80% of an organization's membership repatriates every twelve months (the average officer served somewhere around six months while I was there, despite officer terms being one year), when nary an officer carries out their full term as an officer because they're changing jobs and countries, it's hard to generate organizational continuity and coherence.

Problem 6:
There had to be a way for people who weren't strictly, rigidly English teachers, even who did have something they wanted out of ATEK (people selling textbooks looking for buyers, recruiters or school HR people looking for recruits, labor law firms looking for commissions, whatever) to contribute to ATEK meaningfully, while remaining honest about what they were in it for. ATEK started working on a disclosure policy far too late.

Problem 7:
ATEK simply bit off way more than it could chew. University teachers, public high school, middle school and elementary school teachers, after-school hagwon teachers, preschool hagwon teachers and adult hagwon teachers each have their own unique needs. F-visa holders and E-visa holders have different concerns and needs, and by trying to address all the various needs of so many overlapping groups, ATEK couldn't do a good job of representing any of them.



Why We Still Need Something Like ATEK:


A year ago, when I wrote about ATEK, I mentioned that with all the back-and-forth over ATEK, we were forgetting this very, very important point:

Anti-English Spectrum is still out there, organized, and active. Anti-English Spectrum members continue putting bugs in the ears of Korean policy makers, and going through foreign English teachers' trash, and "following" them. And English teachers (and various non-English teacher expats) continue cannibalizing their own, rather than mounting/supporting/contributing to an organized response to it.

This remains true. And as long as they exist, and there is no organization representing native English teachers, the Anti English Spectrum will continue to set the terms for how foreign English teachers are portrayed in Korean media, and we don't want that. Unless you like invasive drug and disease tests, and constant resubmission of documents, and being scapegoated.

coming soon:
What next... (read part 2)

Foreign Drug Crime in Korea

Matt, at Popular Gusts, continues documenting the changes in drug-testing laws for English teachers in Korea, with this fantastic post including comparative statistics, a critique of the media narratives about drug-using English teachers, and reflections on the cumbersome new duplication of documentation that is, once again, being required of foreign English teachers in Korea.

You should go read it right now.

We've been over this territory before, lots of times -- these days I'm happily studying and being a dad, so I'm not as knuckle-deep in the English teacher stuff as I used to, but the main boilerplate remains the same:

1. As for the quality of the teachers coming into Korea, you get what you pay for: either in terms of initial pay, or in terms of opportunity for advancement. No career educator is going to stay in Korea teaching English if they have virtually no chance of ever graduating out of "assistant instructor"status, or going higher than "head teacher"(a position I'd been promoted to by my fifth month in Korea, which meant nothing except one night of drinking's worth in cash extra per month.)

2. As for retaining quality teachers who come, if it's too onerous to stay, because of duplication of already-submitted documents, or invasive medical tests that send the message teachers are assumed to be criminals until proven innocent... good teachers, or teachers who aren't wildly passionate about being in Korea, or ones who simply have a lot of dignity, will go elsewhere.

However...
3. As the politics of English education goes, because English teachers don't vote, and don't push back in Korean, they're an easy scapegoat, and rearranging the laws for English teachers, nominally adjusting the requirements and timing of said requirements, is a great way for a politician to look like they're passionately concerned about kids with virtually no political risk whatsoever, because of the narratives already in place.

A Limerick about Comment Moderation

Maybe this is a little blogger-referential for some of you... but at least it's short. A version of this poem is now my comment policy.

A brave keyboard warrior named Smee

emboldened by anonymity,
with misogyny bile
and a gospel quite vile
posted ravings and rantings freely.

The good blogger knew not what to do
as the racist and sexist words flew
for a while found it sport
to provoke a retort
but then quickly got tired of the spew.

Yet of late this small weblog could boast
twenty, thirty plus comments per post
all because of one dude
whose cartoonishly rude
comments seemed like a piss-take at most.

But the trashy fun starts getting tired
once the blog's entire content is mired
in a back-and-forth row with
a self-righteous blow-
hard whose kneejerk replies seem hard-wired.

So before your own blog gets derailed
see to it the trolls get curtailed
don't let jerks have their mirth:
a good chat is well worth
the due vigilance that it entailed.

If a commenter's words barely link
to the topic on which the post thinks
don't be shocked if the tangent
leads to rudeness more flagrant:
moderate it as quick as a wink.

And if courtesy seems somewhat lacking
let the trolls know they're in for a smacking:
that you keep a short leash
before hitting delete
so the chat in good faith can get cracking.

And if I'm in a generous mood,
on a whim I might answer the rude
get a couple barbs in
for a kick and a grin...
or it might be a ban for the 'tude

'Cause this here is my website, not yours
so I set all the rules and the mores
if there's stuff you don't like
you can take a quick hike
to more troll-friendly sites by the scores.

Korea's New Adoption Law Is Horrible (one part of it, anyway)

[Update: I'm not adding too much more to this post, because somebody much more knowledgeable about Korea's overseas adoption situation than myself has agreed to write a guest-post with more information.]

Step one:
The Korean adoption issue is a tough one, that involves fundamental identity questions for a lot of people. There's a huge number of people who, before they were old enough to make decisions of their own (though some were old enough to remember Korea), were sent overseas to be raised by an adoptive family. Their experiences with their adoptive families vary greatly, their experiences trying to figure out their position in/among/regarding Korea vary greatly. The official Korean narrative of overseas adoption is one of guilt and shame: while he was president, Kim Dae-jung apologized to overseas adoptees in 1998. For various reasons, Korea continues to send kids overseas for adoption. This, obviously, causes a whole mix of feelings, especially for the adoptees whose experiences of adoption, or exploring the Korean part of their identity, has been one filled with hurt or confusion. I won't deny any of that, and I welcome comments and views from overseas adoptees who read this blog. I also invite links to the websites, articles, blogs, and communities where overseas adoptees find community and understanding.

Now that we're clear on that... Step 2: the post:

I'm disappointed to see South Korean policy makers taking the wrong cues from the USA, in terms of the way it treats women. The Korea Herald reports on a new adoption law that has stirred up some controversy. How do laws like these keep getting passed without public discussion beforehand? 


[Update:I am informed that this idea was developed by a coalition of unwed mothers and adoptee groups.]

Choi Young-hee (we’ve met her before on the k-blogs) has suggested that women who want to give their children up for adoption be forced to keep the baby for a week before giving them up, meanwhile undergoing mandatory counseling about childcare options within Korea, and the types of support available for parents in Korea. It also requires agencies to search for a domestic adoptive family before looking overseas, and requires more rigorous documentation and background checking before approving an adoption.

[Update, thanks to Shannon, a reader:] The thinking behind parts of the law -- in particular cleaning up the shady part of the adoption "industry," pleading for more support for unwed mothers in Korea, and requiring birth registrations so that legally shady adoptions (tantamount to baby-trafficking) stop, are well and good. I am vigorously opposed to the "seven days" part of the law, for a number of reasons.

Number one: Until I see scientific proof Korean women can reproduce asexually, I’m pretty sure it takes two people to make a baby. Not one. Let’s not be stupid... or sexist... which is what this law is, if only the mothers need to undergo counseling. Daddy’s just as responsible for that little bundle of “what’re we gonna do about this” as mommy, and it’s unfair to write laws that only hold mommy responsible, because she’s the one who carries it to term.

Number two: it assumes that the mother is the one choosing to give the baby up for adoption. We all know this is not always the case. The babydaddy, or either pair of grandparents-to-be might be the ones forcing the mother’s hand, even though she might well want to keep the baby. The article also mentions that the decision to adopt his usually been made before birth. Why compound the alone, isolated feeling some single mothers already have, by forcing them to spend a week with a baby they’ve already decided they can’t keep or raise? And if a single mom gets bullied or guilt-tripped into keeping a baby she’s unable to properly care for, and her family disowns her because of the imagined shame, or gets stuck in poverty because there's not enough social support for her to finish high school or college while providing for a baby... who’s to blame for that? Most of all, why not move the counseling to a time before the decision has already been made?

Number three: if part of the motivation for this is the old birthrate thing (to be fair, the article doesn’t explicitly say it is... but when discussing thousands of babies sent away from Korea, the low birthrate usually isn't far behind), then file this one away with cracking down on doctors who administer abortions, and turning off the lights in office buildings for “Go home and fuck day” as half-assed solutions that don’t address the actual problem in any way, in order to make it look like policy makers are trying to address the problem, without actually having to address the problem.

And here’s the problem: Korean parents are choosing not to have babies, or to give up the babies they have, because of the imagined cost of raising a child in a hypercompetitive country, and because of such a dearth of social support for parents, that mothers feel like they must choose between having a career and having a family. Abortion, adoption, late marriages, people opting not to marry, the "gold miss" phenomenon (as it pertains to gold misses not having babies): all these things are merely symptomatic of those two overarching problems.

Until these two problems are addressed, everything else is window dressing. Making it harder for women to get an abortion, or making it harder for a woman to give up a baby she’s financially, emotionally, or just all-around not able to raise, again, is like raising the legal speed limit on Tehran-ro and thinking that will fix the traffic gridlock at rush hour in Kangnam. There are solutions to the problem, but they are fundamental, infrastructural, society-wide, not cosmetic and ad-hoc.

Here are some suggestions that might ACTUALLY convince families to have more kids, and keep the kids they have:

•  enough social welfare support for kids in single parent OR two-parent families that people no longer cite cost as a reason for not having a kid. 
• enough open public discussions about single parenthood, and PSA campaigns and the like to encourage support for single parents, that families (not just moms, but the parents of pregnant women, and the next-door-neighbors and sewing-circle and church-group-partners of the moms of pregnant women) don’t see anything wrong with single parent families... or see them as opportunities to display human charity and generosity and community support, rather than ostracism. 
• mandatory subsidized childcare centers in office buildings large enough to host more than a set number of employees. 
• expansion of employment options using irregular and flexible hours that will be more amenable for people balancing work and family, but still well-paid enough to make raising a child economically feasible. 
• stronger laws, with better enforcement, ensuring maternity leave, a job to return to, and non-discriminatory hiring practices towards single parents  

Number four: take a woman who feels trapped by her situation and society, fill her up with the mad cocktail of hormones that childbirth releases, and trap her for a week with a baby she doesn’t want, and pressure her to keep it with mandatory counseling, and friends, we’re going to have some nightmare case where an unstable mom does something horrific either to herself, or heaven forbid, to her baby, in order to escape the situation that makes her feel trapped.

I mean, for goodness sake, is it that difficult to do this counseling BEFORE the baby's born - perhaps in the second trimester, when morning sickness has faded, and before the baby bump gets big enough to hinder mobility, so the mother-to-be can undergo the counseling without having to deal with the mindfuck cocktail of childbirth hormones? Can we also make it mandatory for both parents (if the pregnancy came from consensual sex) and all four grandparents (who will probably be involved in raising the kid)? I'd be a little more OK with that. In fact, I'd be VERY OK opt-in family counseling made available for ALL pregnant women.

But singling out a new mother for forced counseling? Forcing her to do this is inhumane, and a recipe for disaster. Singling women out for this possibly humiliating, distressing, seven-day treatment can be read as slut-shaming at a policy level, and it strikes me as needing to go back to the drawing board. Should we do something about overseas adoption being the go-to option for mothers with unwanted pregnancies, and qualms about abortion? Sure.

But I think we can come up with something better than this. Perhaps (and get ready for this... your mind is about to be blown...) we could ask women who abort, who adopt, and who delay marriage and pregnancy why they feel like they can't keep their babies, and then form policy in consultation with the lot of them?

This week in a capsule...

It's been about a week since I last posted, and friends, it's been a week of contrasts.



and this


(Play this video 80 times in a row to experience my Tuesday night)

offset by arguing on the internet about making wild unqualified generalizations, laughing at the Indefatiguable Dragon Slayer's back-and-forth with well-known K-blog troll David T (also known as Archaeologist)

and offset again by "Does Modernization Breed Revolution" (not on its own), does identification with a nation-state, or ientification with marginalized communities within a nation-state, lead to political action? (more or less, but less than one would think), what are the sources of rebellion in Western societies? (perceived lack of legitimacy, history of protest, and past successful protests, among other things), and does poverty lead to terror? (nope)

Also... confucianism isn't enough to explain Korea's rapid development on its own... but probably figures in somewhere. It's just really hard to figure out exactly where, and how, and it's hard to come up with ways to measure "culture" as a variable in a social phenomenon, because culture is such a slippery word.

It's been interesting.


Oh... also... Babyseyo's first day trip happened a few sundays ago, when we took him to a convent where Wifeoseyo and I like to visit, and he nearly caused a riot.


The nuns there had prepared a song for us, which is at the end of this video. Absolutely lovely.

Blog Posts of the week Recap: Best link comes last

These are the blog posts I discussed in this week's "Blog Buzz" feature on TBS radio. See you next Thursday!

1. A sober topic:

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-about-those-who-are-left-behind.html

The Korean translates comments by Joo Seong-ha, a North Korean defector who's been deeply involved in recent efforts to stop the repatriation of North Korean defectors from China. He describes counting the cost of bringing the repatriation story into the news: due to the publicity, there'll be a crackdown in China, and tougher border control in North Korea... that’s a lot of potential human suffering to be caused by a media campaign... yet in Mr. Joo's calculus, border control has been so tight since the transfer of power to Kim Jong-eun anyway, and China's been so tough lately on North Korean defectors (refugees: let's call them what they are) that  Mr. Joo figures things pretty much can’t get any worse... so it’s time to build international pressure. 

Every time I see coverage on this protest, and government leaders adding their voices to the pressure on China, I'm glad.

2. Hub of Tackiness

http://lostonjeju.blogspot.com/2012/03/is-jeju-going-to-become-hub-of.html

After a lot of talk about the military base, Lost on Jeju is annoyed about some tourism developments around Jeju: apparently, they're developing Jeju’s coastline at Tapdong -- wrecking the natural coast and pouring concrete to build more tourist attractions...

Though at Iho Beach, development has led to lots of asphalt, but no influx of businesses, so that all you see is a wrecked beach, the redevelopment of Tapdong seems to be going ahead.

Basically... there's a delicate balance that must be reached between developing amenities for tourists, and retaining the charms that initially made a site attractive to tourists. My mind turns to Samcheongdong, which has lost all its original charms, as traditional restaurants and unique cafes have been replaced by waffle cafes, coffee shop chains and accessory shops.

When I saw a "Ripley's Believe it or Not!" museum under construction on Jeju, my heart sank. Importing the worst of tourist trap amenities from the world's other famous tourist traps, doesn't automatically make Jeju Island a world-class tourist destination, any more than getting arrested for tax evasion makes me as famous as Martha Stewart.

Two-fer from INP:

I liked I'm No Picasso's call for more nuance in discussions of Asian masculinity, in this post. http://imnopicasso.blogspot.com/2012/02/jeremy-lin-i-guess-ill-weigh-in.html

even more, I liked her insights into trying to find the kinds of expats you actually want to hang out with, here: 

http://imnopicasso.blogspot.com/2012/03/any-suggestions-for-meeting-people-non.html

This is a risky topic because it’s easy to fall into stereotypes, but basically... there is a spectrum of how seriously people take their time in Korea as an opportunity to learn another culture -- ranging from "Let's drink budweiser and shit-talk Korea" to "Let's study Korean fan dancing together" -- and most expats fall somewhere in between that... but it's important to find people who are at about the same place on the spectrum as you are, so that the level of shit-talk, and the level of "trying to understand" stay at tolerable levels for all involved.

All that to say... don't give up, because those people are out there. INP suggests developing an online presence, whereby you can filter people before meeting them in person, to figure out who's likely to be the kind of person you want to hang with.

Hyori Pushes Back

Every person who's been body-snarked in Korea, or been told they're fat when their body is perfectly within healthy range, has to smile a little inside at Lee Hyori's response to netizens who criticized her no-longer-epically-taut abs.

http://omonatheydidnt.livejournal.com/8606969.html

When Lee Hyori struck back at netizens saying, basically, “well of course people lose a little tone as they get older” I felt a little hope in my heart that maybe fans will start offering their idols a little more leeway to be, um, healthy.

Full disclosure: I especially liked it, because I’m the same age as Hyori.

Ran out of time:

I didn't have time to talk about the awesome mixtape posted at "G'Old Korea Vinyl" -- which has songs ranging from the '80s to 1939, and is a great overview of old Korean music, in about 40 minutes. Go. Listen. Enjoy.

http://goldkoreavinyl.com/

http://www.internationaltapes.com/uncategorized/g%E2%80%99old-korea-vinyl-mixtape/

That is all. go listen to the mixtape.

Go Read Matt's History of Blackface in Korea

[Update: still more great Blackface insights that I'd like to keep connected to the rest of this discussion:

Gord Sellar with another really great insight about blackface in Korea
and Eugene is Huge topped himself, and wrote an even better post about unintentional/intentional racism, and when a "pass"should and shouldn't be granted.

After the storm and thunder, two great last words to add to the discussion:

1. Eugene Is Huge, with a perspective on how much we can infer about Korean people in general, from this Blackface thing. I look forward to the day his comment, "that not everyone in Korea feels that this is not a problem, and that Koreans themselves are not a hive mind" feels like an unnecessary stating of the obvious, when "Oh, Korea" issues come up, rather than feeling like a worthwhile reminder.

2. Matt, from Popular Gusts, has a very well-researched history of Blackface in Korea, tracing the first time blackface was used in comedy, what happened before the '88 Olympics, and a case where Koreans called out a TV station for inappropriate programming, after a case of a Korean comedian imitating a black person.

One last thought on blackface... for now

[Update: article on AllKpop.com by Tiger JK - a member of Drunken Tiger - is REALLY worth reading]

After a long twitter discussion with someone who failed to see the problem with the blackface stuff, other than that it was tasteless and unfunny... two more thoughts.

1. YES. Fighting racist, insulting or degrading depictions of other cultures in Korean media is a worthwhile battle to fight, for this reason:

The things that are acceptable to show on TV are the things my kid grows up watching. The things that are put on TV, and the public discussions around what's OK, and why this was and that other thing wasn't OK to put on TV when kids can see it: these things set the norms for all media consumers in that society, for what's OK to talk about, to laugh at, and what we should be offended at. Those conversations about TV shows become conversations about what Uncle Vernon, or Uncle Chul-soo is OK to joke about and talk about around the dinner table as well, and helps kids decide Uncle Vernon is either a guy with strong opinions, or just a racist ass: media reflects, at the same time as it dictates, what the norms and taboos are for a society.

And after all content and jokes that degrade a particular group, or treat a group as inferior, are either removed from TV, or framed within public discussions about how it's not OK to degrade that group... after the media has moved beyond denigrating that group, and the dinner-table conversation reflects those norms, there's finally a chance kids in that media's society can grow up with a mindframe that is 100% non-discriminatory towards that group.

And that's the goal.

My twitter pal asked me, "Shouldn't you be fighting real battles about workplace discrimination, banking and working rights, to root out racism?" And I say the battle for a non-racist media and the battle for non-discriminatory treatment are one and the same. Because if a person has been raised in a media that respects all people groups (not ignores the fact there are people-groups, but acknowledges and respects the differences), you say "Well shouldn't a brown dude be able to get an iPhone in Korea?" and he'll go "Well, duh!" rather than throwing up a wall of cultural exceptionalist/ethnic stereotype defenses.

2. It's a fair point that not every nation's media is the same. Given the robust free speech in Denmark, and the robust public discussions about what's OK and not OK, I understand why people didn't think it was right to have a Fatwa declared against the muhammad cartoonist - because in that country, free speech is pretty well protected, and everybody gets their turn to be mocked, but everybody gets a platform to shout "I don't like what you said about me!"

The state of free speech in Korea isn't quite that strong: it's in the middle of the pack, press-freedom-wise, and every time Lee "Thin-Skin" Myungbak arrests or persecutes another blogger, podcaster or critic, I wonder how long it will be until Korea's media is truly free. And those who want  freedom to partake in "irresponsible reckless name-calling" are just as much in the wrong as those who would arrest them.

As for which media should be allowed to make which jokes, and when, I think a good rule of thumb is to put the shoe on the other foot. How would Koreans feel if East-Asians in the USA were still being portrayed like this:
(source)

Instead of like this:
(source)

Yeah that's what I thought.

Blackface In Korea? AGAIN? Bubble Sisters were NINE YEARS AGO!

[UPDATE] MBC has apologized and said "It will not happen again" -- we'll see.

Hat tip to Eat Your Kimchi.
More at Kushibo, and The Unlikely Expat, and Expat Hell


If the video's blocked on copyright grounds (they're shitheads, but they like to guard their stuff, those MBC folks), contact me and I'll see to it you get a copy of the video from the uploader.

OK, Korean media people. Here's the thing.

You, collectively, get to plead ignorance ONCE. Once altogether. Not once every three years: there's no reboot button. There are areas where you are supposed to have learned the lesson, and then not do it anymore.

And after that first "oh, we didn't realize," the free pass has expired. Forever. That Get-out-of-jail-free card is one-use only.

In fact, if you look at the makeup - all the way down to the white space around the lips -- it looks like the people who did this blackface DID know enough about blackface to make sure the Korean singers' makeup was identifiable as classic blackface.

To compare: (source)

And:

 Note the Koreans in versions of Hanbok: Korea's traditional clothing.

 

 Notice also the TV Station logo on the top right.

 The Koreans lined up in the background, being entertained by the minstrel show.

 The caption at the bottom: one of the blackface painted actors shouts "I love you Korea!"

They're supposed to be dressed as a cartoon character.

That cartoon is extremely racist itself. You can read about it here.

And you don't get to say "Oh. That was another TV station/studio/music company that did blackface last time: they should have learned their lesson, but we can hardly be blamed..." Because you have people in your company who have been in the industry, who have been paying attention to the industry, since the last time some asshat did this. (in January)

So pull your head out of your asses Korean domestic media companies. Because your stuff gets put on Youtube, gets watched by all the expats living in Korea. Pull your heads out of your asses because a month after Girls' Generation got on Letterman, and (as is hoped) a whole bunch of new people started to pay attention to The Korean Wave, and began to be interested in Korea... here's what they see:


And that's embarrassing. Embarrassing for Korea, because some people? All they know about Korea is Girls Generation on Letterman, Hyuna's Bubble-Pop video, and now these screenshots.

Embarrassing for all the people trying to promote Korea overseas, to change and improve the image of the country.

Not all Koreans are racist. That's obvious. But Korea's media makes Korea look like a racist backwater from time to time. And with images like this, Korea's media makes Korea look like a really racist backwater.

And the Koreans who aren't racist, have to kick up a storm when this shit does happen, so that it doesn't happen again, and it doesn't take letters from the NAACP or the Simon Weisenthal Center to cause a retraction or an apology.

If this video gets pulled from Youtube (and it might), contact me. I'm in touch with the uploader, who has a copy on their computer.

Oh, but tu quoque, Roboseyo: you see, Billy Crystal wore blackface at the Oscars! Yes. He did. And he got called on it, a lot, because blackface just isn't acceptable. When "chinky eyes" got drawn on a Starbucks cup in America, it caused a bloggy firestorm. Because while America clearly hasn't solved racism (that's not how these things work anyway), America DOES talk about these things, and everyone can learn where the lines are drawn, because everybody is witness, or party, to these discussions.

It was just a little over a month ago - ONLY A FREAKING MONTH since since the last blackface fuck-up on Korean Television. (SNL Korea's blackface Dreamgirls skit). That time I was talking about the ambiguities on the radio -- why should American cultural sensitivities be suddenly forced on the entire world's media, just because someone might put something on Youtube?...

But when I look at these images, and this video... such attempts to contextualize go out the window.

Look at the video above. This is not a video that would only offend Americans sensitized to blackface. Look at these pictures. Find me an African who doesn't find that offensive. (source)

How about this music video. (Bubble Sisters were 2003. We STILL haven't learned, nine fucking years later?)


How about this fried chicken commercial. (Uploaded 2009; not sure when it aired)


This no longer strikes me as an isolated incident. This strikes me as something Korean society needs to have a soul-searching discussion about.

(source)

Because if foreigners wearing hanboks is the only acceptable way to put foreigners on TV in Korea -- either in Hanboks, or with bones in their freaking noses... Korea really, SERIOUSLY needs to talk about portraying non-Koreans in the media, in a way that treats them as humans, as adults, as thinking, feeling beings, and not just as embodiments of stereotypes,  (source)

as a validating foreign gaze,
(source)

or as pretty faces saying Korean men are handsome, Kimchi is delicious, and everything Korea is a wonderful! (Misuda accomplished more than that... but it did put otherness on display...and nobody's explained to me why the opinions of pretty, foreign women (put your emphasis on whichever of those words you choose) are more valuable than the opinions of non-pretty, or non-foreign, or non-women. I wrote about that here.

... if those are the only images foreigners get in domestic Korean media, we'll have another generation growing up who are unable to think of Korea's relationship with the world in any frame other than "us and them" and that's not a healthy attitude for a country that wants to be a global player.

The cultural argument needs consideration: last time around, I argued it's ethnocentric to say the whole world must ascribe to our values of what's offensive... but it's also ethnocentric, and just fucking disrespectful, to say "because we're a different culture, we're allowed to mock your racial/ethnic/gender identity group as much as we like. You just don't understand us." (And it's dishonest to continue hiding behind "We don't know any better" (you get to play that card once) or "You weren't the audience" (that's not how things work in the hyper-connected information age. Everybody sees everything all the time). Does Korea really want to be considered an elite/advanced nation? Then set that "Korea's still a developing country" excuse to rest and start taking ownership.

So between the type of tunnel vision that says "Everything that offends me must disappear from everywhere" and the type of tunnel vision that says "Because we don't share every aspect of your cultural history, we're allowed to brazenly continue practices that we are well aware are offensive to a lot of people" we need to find a middle ground where all involved cultures feel they're being respected. It needs to be a reciprocal conversation: not just a dictation of one media's mores to another culture, nor a flat cultural argument and a subsequent refusal to listen.

And the way to find that middle ground is to talk about it. Continually -- these kinds of discussions are never completely finished (cf: Billy Crystal), but every time we revisit the same themes, we've come a little farther, learned a little more, and are more likely to get things right. So let's talk about it. In English, and also in Korean.

Because here's what happens next: Korea's One Use Only "Get out of Jail Free" ignorance card has already been played (back in freaking 2003, when the Bubble Sisters used blackface)

Now that the free pass has already been used, every subsequent time garbage like this gets on Korean Television, or in Korean newspapers, bloggers are going to write about it. And send letters to groups like the Simon Weisenthal Center and the NAACP about it, and contact the journalists we know, and share it on facebook and twitter. And cause as much embarrassment as possible for korea, until the TV producers who say "Yeah, sure, paint her face black. It'll be funny." Stop saying that. Until the KTO has a sit-down with the chairperson of MBC and says "Stop undoing our Korea promotion work with your racist brain-sharts." Until SM Entertainment and JYP lay a little smackdown on local Korean media for making their Hallyu venture harder to achieve because instead of "K-pop? Weren't they on letterman" the initial respons becomes "Korea? Isn't that the country that still makes blackface jokes?"

And while we're here, let's not forget: there's already an anti-Hallyu backlash in Japan, and other places. As Block B discovered, it doesn't take much to get an entire nation up in arms at a percieved slight (cf: Jay Leno's dog eating joke and here), and you never know when this or that story unexpectedly goes viral. If MBC decides to mock the Thai, or Filipinos, or Vietnamese, next time their variety shows can't think of a joke, if the next target are some dirty Chinese instead of some blackface pickaninnies, that rumbling anti-Hallyu backlash could crystallize into something too big, and too angry, for an apology video to smooth over.

Korea wanted a place on the world stage. Well, now that you're here, this is what happens. Everybody watches everything, and dirty laundry gets hung out for the world to see. There are no more secret shames, so let's hope Korean TV programmers, music video producers, and the like, start treating non-Korean cultures with a little more respect and responsibility.

We haven't forgotten about you, T-ara. Don't worry.



More links:
Hitler and Anti-Semitic stuff:
Bar named Gestapo
Hitler bars.
Let's not forget the kinds of apologies Koreans have been known to demand in the face of insults to their heritage.
The Nazi Coreana ads: using Nazi symbols and Hitler references to sell cosmetics.
Explaining why Koreans suffered more than the Jews. Because it's a contest, and the people who suffered the most win.

Are Koreans Afraid of Foreigners? Videoclip plus Facepalm

CJ Entertainment put this video out, to show how scared Koreans are of foreigners.



The only problem is, I don't think it shows Koreans are scared of foreigners.

I'm not surprised at all, given the fact so many Koreans' main experience with English is connected with Very Important Tests, or Evaluations That Could Bugger Your Upward Mobility Forever (even if you never need English in your work), that many are nervous about speaking English. If you could measure English Speaking Anxiety, I don't doubt Koreans would be near the top of the international rankings. But I'd say this video proves Koreans are afraid of speaking English, not of foreigners. Most Koreans I've met are pretty curious about foreigners, if they're brave enough to start talking.

I took issue with EBS's racism video earlier, basically for editing video to tell the narrative they wanted it to (that time, that Koreans like whitey more than South Asians)... and it's interesting to contrast these two videos, to demonstrate that yeah, the white guy also has trouble finding useful help, and some people walk by the white guy, too.

Another angle: if a Korean were walking around on the streets of Toronto or Baltimore, they'd probably have just as much trouble finding help, or being passed by. Because they're not speaking the language of the land. Not even trying.

As a traveller like this guy is dressed up to be, and especially as someone living here, not knowing the basics of the local language kind of inexcusable. It's not THAT hard to learn a couple of phrases, to learn to count, to learn left, right, straight, and "over there," and it'll help you find what you're looking for, and get along with the natives. If you can't be arsed to learn that, while staying here longer than a month, you should only travel to countries that speak your language, or stay well on the beaten track for tourists, where odds are higher you'll eventually bump into someone who can speak with you.

While we're in Korea, and while it's sweet that CJ cares so much about how anglo tourists fare in Korea (did they make similar videos for tourists speaking Vietnamese, Cantonese, Thai, Mandarin, Mongolian and Tagalog?), let's remember that Koreans in Korea are under no obligation to learn the languages of the people who visit Korea, and if they do learn, and if they speak it with you, they've doing you a favor, to which you are not entitled. Let's be clear about that.

And this doesn't prove Koreans are afraid of foreigners. That is all.

Sigh. Do I HAVE to write about Jenny Hyun?

So Jenny Hyun is a person I never heard of before, and she wrote some racist things.
Write-up. Write-up.

I usually don't write about Korean-American or Asian-American things.

Because I'm not Korean, I'm not American, and I'm certainly not Korean-American. Where those discussions intersect with questions of Korean identity and Korea expat identity, it interests me, and I link "I Am Koream" on my sidebar because it's related often enough...

but since everyone's writing about Jenny Hyun's racist tweets, I guess I will, too:

Is Jenny Hyun a typical Korean-American? No.
Is she a typical Korea-Korean? No.
Has she lived in Korea? Not that I've gathered so far.
Do her tweets say anything about Korea? No.
Do her tweets show us anything about how Korea Koreans feel about black people? No.
Do her tweets show us anything about how Korean Americans feel about black people? No.
Is there any reason I should care about her racist dumb comments more any other set of racist dumb comments? No. And hers even less than the other trolls racists and dumbasses, who are more likely to have been in control of themselves when they write their drivel.
Is this going to kill the Korean wave in America? No.
Should Girls' Generation or Chocolat continue to employ her? No.
Should Ms. Hyun have a twitter account if she knows this is one of the ways her mental condition manifests? No.
Last I heard, the situation is being explained as a possible schizophrenic episode... and should I get my knickers in a knickerbocker over words that are nothing more than the manifestation of an unwell mind? No.

Does she deserve to get off the hook if she really is sick? Not off the hook... but she clearly needs help here, either for dealing with racist attitudes, or for dealing with her condition. And she should have a few people around her who are filtering stuff like this.

If the schizophrenic thing is a line her agent or handlers are peddling to get her off the hook? That's just as bad as the stuff she tweeted (and her unapologetic response to the backlash), because schizophrenics and others who struggle with mental illness do NOT deserve to have their condition filed with "I was drunk" and "He's lived a hard life" as excuses for bad behavior that deserve to be met with jaded "oh yeah?" responses. Poisoning the compassion the unwell deserve is the most deplorable thing I can think of.

The final takeaway... probably the only real takeaway here:
The response to racism (Mayweather's comment) is not more racism.
The response to Hyun's racism, is not more racism, either (NB: people using this to say all Koreans or all Korean-Americans are racist, because of their tangential association with Ms. Hyun.)

OK I'm done.

Also... Jeremy Lin... Taiwanese-American. Intersects with the themes of this blog even less... though I like a good sports Cinderella story as much as the next guy, and it's really easy to root for him.

SBS K-Pop Star

After the success of "Superstar K" and then "I am a Singer" other reality/audition shows have been catching on like a virus on Korean television.

My wife has been a big fan of K-pop Star, where heads or representatives of some of the major Kpop companies themselves are the panel of judges, watching talented young people compete. Some of the competitors have been pretty darn good, so I'd like to write a post talking about it.

Oh.

Nevermind then.

Building a Great Album: Side 2

I'm calling it side 2 even though you don't have to flip over a CD or tracklist... yet somehow a lot of albums are still structured to have similar highs and lows to what you'd get on a tape or vinyl record. Because it works: it's a way to sustain listeners through an hour of music from a single artist. I'm sure their are other ways to structure it (for example, making an entire side of a record a single song)

I'll Believe in Anything - Wolf Parade. Saw this song performed live. Wow.


By the way, while I'm on the topic... http://www.music-map.com/ is a great site to visit if you like an artist, and want to find more like them.

4. Somewhere in the second half, there needs to be one (or more) song that is absolutely awesome, to hold together the second half. If the album is front-loaded, I'll lose interest. Arcade Fire's albums suffer from this: too many of their second halves (side twos) are a little undifferentiated, and the resulting effect is an impression that their albums are all about ten to fifteen minutes too long. The side two anchor can bring something a little different than the opening trio, it's a good place for a piece that sprawls (on the first half, it's better to keep things tight) ... but it has to kick ASS in its way.

Some great standout second-half anchors - you'll notice that a number of these are the emotional climax of the entire album, and others are the emotional counterpoint that contrasts the tone of the first three tracks:
Ball and Biscuit (White Stripes: Elephant)



What is the Light and Waitin' For A Superman (Flaming Lips: The Soft Bulletin)
When Doves Cry (Prince: Purple Rain) (click the link fast. Prince has a record of removing his songs from Youtube)
Runaway (Kanye West: My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy)
Hallelujah and Lover, You Should Have Come Over (Jeff Buckley: Grace)
I'll Believe in Anything (Wolf Parade: Apologies to the Queen Mary: best track on the whole album)
So Come Back, I'm Waiting (Okkervil River: Black Sheep Boy)
2 Eyes 2 C: (Suckers: Wild Smile)
Maps: (Yeah Yeah Yeahs: Fever to Tell)
Ziggy Stardust (David Bowie: Ziggy Stardust)
Lonely Lonely and When I Was a Young Girl: (Feist: Let it Die)
Tracks thirteen, fourteen, fifteen: (Modest Mouse: This is a Long Drive for Someone With Nothing to Think About - only a stunning climax would have been able to balance an album with so many massive dynamic swings, but these three do it.)
Share (Cymbals Eat Guitars: Why Are There Mountains-the two songs I mentioned in this post are the only two really good songs on the album, in my opinion, but their placement shows me the band knows something about shaping an album. I'll give their next one a try.)

Scythian Empire (Andrew Bird: Armchair Apocrypha)
Broken Drum (Beck: Guero)
If You See Her, Say Hello and Shelter From the Storm [not on Youtube] (Bob Dylan: Blood on the Tracks)

5. A satisfying closing. This is one of the reasons I really hate rereleases, bonus tracks, and special editions that add tracks (especially alternative versions of songs we've already heard) to the end of the original album: because the final word of an album shouldn't be messed with. And if a track wasn't good enough to be part of the original album statement, it doesn't deserve a place on a disc with the original album.

Many bands put their most sprawling track last (Desolation Row, A Day in the Life), some sail off into the stratosphere (Purple Rain - Prince: Purple Rain; All Is Full Of Love - Bjork: Homogenic; Dragon's Lair: Sunset Rubdown - Dragonslayer; My Body is a Cage - Arcade Fire: Neon Bible), or at least somewhere (The Happy Birthday Song - Andrew Bird: Andrew Bird & The Mysterious Production Of Eggs) and others end with a gentle sigh that almost deflates (I Saw a Light - Bat For Lashes: Fur and Gold, Mothers of the Disappeared - U2: The Joshua Tree), and others are a little bow to tie off the emotional dramatics that came just before (After Hours - Velvet Underground: Self-Titled; Her Majesty - Beatles: Abbey Road; Space Travel is Boring - Modest Mouse: This is a Long Drive...) but when it finishes, you know it's finished, and the journey is complete.


Radiohead are the best at putting a final song in that drifts off and leaves the listener exactly where they want them. While the rest of their albums are so good it's not always easy to say they're the best tracks on the albums (though some are contenders) but they're all gorgeous songs, and perfect closers. Wolf At The Door and Four Minute Warning (Hail to the Thief and In Rainbows, part II) are favorites.  Tom Waits ties off his albums (which fly in every direction) with his final songs, which is very important to restore unity after switching across genres, themes and emotional tones as much as he does - "That Feel" from Bone Machine, "Anywhere I Lay My Head" from Rain Dogs, and "Come On Up To The House" from Mule Variations are three finishes that complete the arc of their albums, and "Fawn" is a perfect, sad little bowtie.

Other great closing tracks:
Bird Gehrl (Antony and the Johnsons: I am a Bird Now); Pitter Patter goes my Heart (Broken Social Scene: You Forgot it in People) Filmore Jive (Pavement: Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain)

Bird Gehrl


On the flipside, NEVER EVER put your worst song last, because that's the closing impression I'll have of your album. From Here We Go To Sublime, by The Field, has a closing track I find really languid and dull compared to the excellent rest of the album, and particularly compared to the superlative track "Silent," which is the chillest bliss-out I've ever heard. It uses a different sound vocabulary than the rest of the album, and is considerably slower, so that the album ends in an anticlimax... and not in a good way (as in Bird Gehrl, above, or "One road To Freedom" a nice bring-down at the end of Ben Harper's "Fight For Your Mind," after the stormy "God Fearing Man"

Following the template
Antony and the Johnsons - I Am A Bird Now
White Stripes - especially Elephant
U2 - The Joshua Tree
Kanye West - My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy... though the closing track isn't as great as some of the others.
Rain Dogs - Tom Waits (one of the greatest songwriting albums in my collection)
Songs by Leonard Cohen (his gorgeous debut album)
Bjork - Homogenic
Built To Spill - Perfect from Now On (second half high points; Time Trap, You Were Right)
and it doesn't have to be classic, indie, or obscure, either:
Barenaked Ladies - Stunt

Filmore Jive - Pavement (a band whose sound checks none of the boxes that usually make me like a band... but which I keep coming back to again and again, because their songs are just ... great.)


The other way to make an album is to make one that's strong from top to bottom -- no tracks particularly stand way out... but there also isn't a weak one in there, either. This is hard to do, because if the songs are too similar, it's boring, but they have to stay within the vibe. These consistent kinds of albums are the best for listening while you're working or driving, and they're really satisfying.
Avett Brothers: I and Love and You
Most Wilco albums, other than Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
Most albums by "The National" -- which is why they grow on you so much. High Violet is an especially good example of this, because they even manage to have some standout songs... without having standout songs.
Animal Collective: Merriweather Post Pavillion
Bob Dylan: Blood on the Tracks
Bon Iver: Self titled
David Byrne: Grown Backwards



Back to the first post.  Back to part 2.  My posts about Bliss-outs.  About K-pop. About REAL Korean Music.

Building a Great Album: Side 1

Soundtrack: Black Dog, Led Zeppelin, for your listening pleasure.


Though albums are sold as CDs or digital tracklists these days, rather than tapes or records with two sides, there are certain features of the first half of an album's playing time, and certain features of the second half, that have held true even after we stopped having to flip over our tapes and records. This post is about what works on side one of an album.

I'll try to put links up at least one of the times I mention an album or band... but google works, folks, and unless I add a qualifier, I'd say that all the songs (and albums on which they are found, obviously, given the topic) are keepers, and worth a try. Unless you really disagree with my taste in music... which is OK, too.

1. As per Nick Hornby's Mixtape Rules from High Fidelity, the first track SHOULD be a great one... but it should also be a statement of purpose about what the album will be about (this has been true since Sergeant Pepper, the first modern album), and the second song should bring things up even higher, if possible-or go somehow further in the direction the album's going. No band has ever (or at least... SHOULD ever) put their most depressing song first. Or the one offbeat song that doesn't match the rest of the album's tone. The Joshua Tree put Bullet The Blue Sky fourth (a good place for a change of pace song), not first. White Stripes' Elephant also changes pace for tracks 4 and 5. Couldn't exactly gone any higher.

Led Zeppelin (Black Dog, Whole Lotta Love, Immigrant Song) and U2 (Where the Streets Have No Name, Beautiful Day) are two bands that are very good at picking a great opener. Like or dislike the entire album, with "And the Hazy Sea," Cymbals eat Guitars tells you exactly what you're getting. On an awesomer scale, "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" at the beginning of Michael Jackson's "Thriller" lets you know you're in for something really, really hot.

Other albums with really great first songs, or songs that set the tone really well: Funeral, by Arcade Fire (The Suburbs is probably a better album overall, but The Arcade Fire might never top that first song off their debut full-length). Purple Rain, by Prince (Let's Go Crazy), "Fever to Tell" and "It's Blitz" by the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. Weezer's "My Name is Jonas," is an amazing opening volley. "Until the Morning Comes" by Tindersticks. Yeah Yeah Yeah Song, by The Flaming Lips (At War With the Mystics is not their best, but probably their most fun album.)

Until the Morning Comes (Tindersticks)

2. The first three tracks should set out most of the album's sonic parameters, and if you only have four or five great songs for your album, it's not a bad idea to cash in two, or even three of them, in the first triple. If the goal of your album is to rock out, the advice given in High Fidelity (I think in the book: can't find it in the movie clips) stands: start strong, but make the second song even better, to serve notice that things are going to rock out, not peter out.

Greatest opening trios in my collection:
White Stripes: Elephant (Seven Nation Army, Black Math, which somehow, almost unbelievably, kicks it up another notch from the stunning opener, and then There's no Home For You Here, which nearly made me drive off the road the first time I listened to it in a car.)
Jeff Buckley: Grace (Mojo Pin, Grace, Last Goodbye)
U2: The Joshua Tree (Where the Streets Have no Name, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, With or Without You: Incredible!)

Yeah Yeah Yeahs: Zero. Shiny!


Other stellar opening trios: David Bowie: Ziggy Stardust (track 4's not bad, either), The Flaming Lips are very good at opening songs and trios that set out the tone for the album...and also kick ass, The Yeah Yeah Yeahs albums "Fever to Tell" and "It's Blitz" also do this really well, but the masters might be The White Stripes: all of their studio albums do this in spades, bringing the thunder while setting the soundscape.

Interestingly, the Beatles - album as genre pioneers - usually don't follow to the "first three tracks" rule

3. If there isn't a tone-shift track somewhere in the first five tracks (think "Bullet The Blue Sky" on Joshua Tree, or "Exit Music For a Film" on OK Computer, or "The Beautiful Ones" on Purple Rain), I stop expecting one, and start listening for if the album is consistent all the way through (Blood on the Tracks) instead. Changes of tone aren't needed, but it's a different type of album where the songs all combine into a very unified listening experience, instead of standing out a little, one from the other.

Back to part one.  On to part three.