`

The Rollers "Troubles" (Bel Star, 1962): NY Night Train Daily Party Platter

This is the continuing series I will post every other day while i'm out of town, thanks to Jonathan Toubin DJ of New York Night Train

A Los Angeles group that evolved out of the Jewels in the early 1960s recorded this weird and wild dancer produced and arranged by Gary Paxton - the legend behind Monster Mash, Alley Oop, and many more! A snappy beat, an unusual arrangement, and a pentatonic riff. While it sounds like a party, the lyrics are about "troubles" and if you missed the theme, the word "troubles" is repeated dozens of times....


This video is a today's installment in the New York Night Train Party Platter YouTube playlist (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...). Every track is recorded directly from the original 45s (no bootlegs, reproductions, etc) to give you an idea of what the real deal authentic vinyl sounds like. COME BACK EVERY DAY FOR A NEW FIX! Because the records pass so quickly at my parties, this channel is an attempt to slow down a bit and focus on one record at a time in hopes that it'll hip you to artists, tracks, and other details - and, on the most base level, give you something to listen to.

Get your enjoys,
Jonathan Toubin

http://www.NewYorkNightTrain.com
https://www.facebook.com/newyorknight...
https://twitter.com/jonathantoubin
https://instagram.com/jonathantoubin/
Category
Music
License
Standard YouTube License

`

Andre Franklin with the Preston Epps Trio "SAY YEAH!" (Polo, 1965): NY Night Train Party Platter

This is the continuing series I will post every other day while i'm out of town, thanks to Jonathan Toubin DJ of New York Night Train

Los Angeles Soul dance party excellence featuring Mr. Bongo Rock himself! I hear Preston Epps is still active in the Los Angeles area and still amazing! This track pairs him with a smokin' band and the soulful vocals of Andre Franklin. "Lemme hear you say 'Yeah!'" "Yeah!" The floor always gets involved in the call and response when DJs drop this one. And if this doesn't make you wanna move, you may be dead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_...


This video is a today's installment in the New York Night Train Party Platter YouTube playlist (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...). Every track is recorded directly from the original 45s (no bootlegs, reproductions, etc) to give you an idea of what the real deal authentic vinyl sounds like. COME BACK EVERY DAY FOR A NEW FIX! Because the records pass so quickly at my parties, this channel is an attempt to slow down a bit and focus on one record at a time in hopes that it'll hip you to artists, tracks, and other details - and, on the most base level, give you something to listen to.

Get your enjoys,
Jonathan Toubin

http://www.NewYorkNightTrain.com
https://www.facebook.com/newyorknight...
https://twitter.com/jonathantoubin
https://instagram.com/jonathantoubin/

-

Thee Midniters "Jump, Jive, and Harmonize" (Whittier, 1967):NY Night Train Daily Party Platter

This is the first in a series I will post every other day while i'm out of town, thanks to Jonathan Toubin DJ of New York Night Train

"Turn On Your Love Light" times a million! Stone cold East L.A. classic! The finest recorded moment of one of the best bands ever! What the heck, let's just say this is one of the most exciting musical performances committed to tape in any genre... anywhere... ever! A heart-stopping guitar riff intro, relentless drumming, blasting harmonicas, heart-stopping dynamics, and the kind of tension and release teetering on the edge of collapse that makes all the best art live way past its time!

Like most of the best stuff, now and then, they only sold a few copies! "Jump, Jive, and Harmonize" probably peaked at number 362,541 on the Billboard chart that year while "Light My Fire," recorded a few miles away, was a number one hit. How could anyone have any faith in the popularity of a record? How could you believe in consumers or the music industry that creates them? Now or then? Could it be that records like this are too out of this world and there aren't enough cool people to buy 'em? Fortunately time has a way of elevating neglected masterpieces to the rightful position in culture and now, fifty years later, this is probably Thee Midniters second-most notable track thanks to Norton Records' "In Thee Midnite Hour" compilation and 2009 pressing of this single....

After years of searching, I found this original 1967 copy in East L.A at Highland Park's Avalon Records - not far from the source.... The perfect place to find the perfect record and the rare experience that justifies all of those hours of failed hunting.

You got the soul baby! That's all it takes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thee_Mid...
http://wwwyoufoundthateastsidesoundco...
http://www.nortonrecords.com/315-thee...


This is my daily addition to the New York Night Train Party Platter playlist. Each track here is recorded directly from the original 45 (no bootlegs, reproductions, etc) to give you an idea of what the real deal authentic vinyl sounds like. COME BACK EVERY DAY FOR A NEW FIX! Because the records pass so quickly at my parties, this channel is an attempt to stop and focus on one record at a time in hopes that it'll turn you on to the artists, tracks, labels, etc. But mostly I hope this music moves you as much as it moves me.

Get your enjoys,
Jonathan Toubin
Soul Proprietor, New York Night Train

11 Thought Provoking Images Show What Humans Are Really Doing To The Planet

from Collective Evolution:

Go to school, get a job, pay your bills, and try to put yourself in a position to earn enough money to be able to live – this is our current human experience. But while we’re busy focusing on how to survive, our planet is being trashed at an exponential rate.

Is it possible to create a human experience where we don’t destroy the planet? Is it possible for everybody to have their basic necessities met without the use of money? Is it possible to create a “system” where money is not even needed? We believe so, but there still seems to be a harsh resistance to this type of thinking, despite the tremendous amount of options that exist to change our world.

For example, we could use hemp and other biodegradable non-toxic ingredients to manufacture our products – products that don’t harm the environment, but actually help to heal it. No more plastic, no more deforestation. Hemp can also be used to generate energy and boasts over 50,000 other uses, but this crop is still illegal in many places.

Again, hemp is just one small example out of many with big implications. There exist a number of problems that urgently need to be addressed, and the fact that a handful of corporations pretty much own the entire planet and all its resources doesn’t help, but things are changing, there is still good out there. Imagine if these corporations came together and pooled all of their resources to change the world. What a difference that would make. We need a shift in consciousness to save the planet, a network that is not driven by greed, fear, and ego, but one that is driven by a common goal: the betterment of our planet and the well-being of all life on Earth.

This is absolutely possible to achieve, and sometimes I feel that because this is such a simple idea in essence, people don’t believe it. It’s not uncommon for many to refer to economics, business, finance, the very system that enslaves us; it’s hard for many to imagine a world without money or to understand how that world would even function in practice. I believe this simply comes from an ignorance of solutions that are out there and the way our world works in general. Self-education is the key to making change happen.

I’ve said this before and I will say it again, working in this field for a number of years now and being interested in it for even longer, the progress we’ve made as a human race is astounding. Anybody who pays attention to this type of thing can clearly see that. At the same time, we have a long way to go, and there are many steps for the human race to take, but we are indeed heading in the right direction.

These are just a few pictures to get you thinking, and they’ve been floating around the internet for a while. We apologize if you’ve already seen them, but we definitely wanted to archive them on our website as they do provide some valuable food for thought.

A Great Video clip for all on the 4th of July

Confederate Flag: No Honor in Fighting for an Unjust Cause

Story of America with Eric Byler and Annabel Park in Columbia, South Carolina

Bill Starr has a South Carolina lineage that predates the Revolution, and ancestors who fought in the Civil War for the Confederate States of America. Hear why he wants the flag to come down.

The Confederate battle flag was raised over the South Carolina capitol dome in 1962 as a symbol of defiance of the Civil Rights movement. In 2002, a compromise in the state legislature moved the flag to a Confederate war memorial in front of the dome, with the United States flag and the South Carolina state flag replacing the Confederate flag atop the dome.

In the wake of the June 17, 2015 massacre at the Mother Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, lawmakers including both US Senators and the governor of the state (all Republicans) asked the legislature to vote to remove the flag from state grounds as a symbol of healing, unity and inclusion.

Videography by Eric Byler

Henry Rollins: When You Claim Racism Is Over, You Get a Dylann Roof

from my old friend, via the L.A. Weekly

By Henry Rollins

Suddenly, several mornings ago, there were photos of Dylann Roof, a miserable-looking South Carolina man with a bowl haircut, on almost every news site. You already know what he has been accused of doing and reached your conclusions about it with great speed.

Leading politicians were asked for opinions on what had happened. Ex-governor of Texas and 2016 presidential hopeful Rick Perry, in an interview with Newsmax TV, characterized the alleged deeds of Mr. Roof as an accident. An aide later said that Mr. Perry meant to say “incident.” I’ll take the aide at his word, but either term is a strange way to categorize what happened.

Before more was known about the now-infamous Dylann Roof, there was a noticeably halting manner in the statements from politicians and in the reportage by media outlets. Some of them seemed unwilling to bring up the idea that this attack on a Bible study class at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church by a single white male, which left nine African-Americans dead, had a racial element.

One of the first things known about the event, besides the number of casualties, came from a witness who heard Roof say, “I have to do it. You rape our women and are taking over our country and you have to go.” That sounds pretty racially pointed to me.

I wondered if it was a case of all concerned trying to come up with a way to package and roll this out to America and the world. I wondered if they were playing for time as they strategized the best way to “sell” it.

As we learned more about Roof, it became all but impossible to argue that he didn’t have a strong racial bias. Within a day, several photos emerged of Roof holding a Confederate flag, burning an American flag and, most interesting to me, posing in a sports jersey with the number 88 on it. H is the eighth letter of the alphabet and 88 is used by white supremacists as shorthand for “Heil Hitler.”

Within several hours of the killings, South Carolina’s Gov. Nikki Haley came under scrutiny for flying the Confederate flag on the state capitol grounds. Growing up in America, you have seen the “stars and bars” flag, patch, sticker, etc., more than once. It means different things to different people. For some, it’s a symbol of slavery, racism, Jim Crow laws and a horrific past. For others, it speaks to heritage and identity.

South Carolina’s Sen. Lindsey Graham acknowledged that the flag is symbolically a “part of who we are” but also said it was time to take the flag down. He said, “The problems we’re having in South Carolina and around the world aren’t because of a symbol but because of what’s in people’s hearts,” which I think was spot on. He went on to say, “I hope that, by removing the flag, we can take another step towards healing and recognition — and a sign that South Carolina is moving forward.”

I read people’s posts underneath articles online. I believe them. People log on with relative anonymity, so I think they actually say what’s on their minds. From the hundreds of posts I have read, everyone got blamed for what happened. The NRA, the president, the GOP, liberals, gun owners, those who favor more gun control — all of them were set upon.

I think the problem is much bigger than an offensive flag, or the number of guns in America. If Gov. Haley can get her request past the state’s politicians and get the flag removed, sales of the flag in all forms will increase. If you were to magically remove 50 percent of all the guns in America and make it impossible for more to be manufactured, there would still be enough for anyone to acquire one easily.

I couldn’t stop looking at the photographs of Dylann Roof. The disconnected gaze and the dead-end misery in his face was as big an indicator as any flag he was holding, or anything in the “manifesto” that recently surfaced, said to be written by him.

As is true with anyone, there is more to Roof’s story. Maybe he couldn’t meet girls. Maybe he was interested in something else and was unable to handle it. His roommate claimed that Roof was talking about doing harm to people six months ago, yet it seems the roommate didn’t tell anyone. As far as all the disturbing pictures, who took them? Unless you agree with Roof’s purported point of view, wouldn’t you want to have a word with someone so obviously disturbed?

Could it be that Roof took all of his pain and confusion and assigned it to racial hatred? Is it possible that if Roof had stayed in school, a sharp teacher could have seen his distress and done something? In a country so full of people, why was Roof so alone?

It’s not guns, flags and revisionist coatings of the past that are the biggest dangers. It’s the low-hanging fruit of racism. It comes so logically to some in America. It is such an easily accessible ignorance, so well bolstered by ridiculous theories on the Internet, which Roof’s “manifesto” was such a perfect example of.

When you remove the education of the citizens of your country as a top-tier priority, claim “racism is over” and just blame others when things go so tragically wrong, you get a Dylann Roof. He is made in America. He’s not from Mars. He’s one of ours.

Chances are that Dylann Roof will be found guilty and die in prison, one way or another. He’s as good as dead already. He was dead before he entered that church.

Look for your weekly fix from the one and only Henry Rollins right here every Thursday, and come back tomorrow for the awesomely annotated playlist for his Sunday KCRW broadcast.

Some interesting and infamous musicians ... when they were children

from our friend Tara McGinley at Dangerous Minds

Nick Cave

This morning, my husband sent me the above baby Nick Cave photos for a chuckle (talk about a “bad seed” wonk wonk). For whatever reason, it became my mission, dear Dangerous Minds readers to find even more photos of rock starts (that was a typo, but I’m leaving it) as children. So, yeah, this what I’ve spent my morning doing. YOU’RE WELCOME.

We were all babies once, you know!



Debbie Harry (who turns 70 on July 1!)

 



David Bowie

 



Dolly Parton

 



Brian Eno

 



Kathleen Hanna

 



John Lennon with his mother

 



Kelley and Kim Deal

 



Lydia Lunch

 



Marc Bolan

 



Joey Ramone with his father.

 



A one year old Diana Ross with her older sister Barbara Jean “Bobbi” in 1945.

 



GG Allin

 



Sid Vicious

 



Brian Jones

 



Boy George

 



Patti Smith

 



Lemmy Kilmister

 



Jimi Hendrix and dad

 



Janis Joplin

 



Freddie Mercury

 



Nina Simone

 



John Lydon

 



Ian Curtis

 



Syd Barrett

 



Genesis P-Orridge, then known as Neil Megson

 



Björk

Noam Chomsky: Why Americans Know So Much About Sports But So Little About World Affairs

from The Chomsky Reader via Alternate



The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway to influence the real world

The following is a short excerpt from a classic, The Chomsky Reader, which offers a unique insight on a question worth asking -- how is it that we as a people can be so knowledgable about the intricacies of various sports teams, yet be colossally ignorant about our various undertakings abroad?

QUESTION: You've written about the way that professional ideologists and the mandarins obfuscate reality. And you have spoken -- in some places you call it a "Cartesian common sense" -- of the commonsense capacities of people. Indeed, you place a significant emphasis on this common sense when you reveal the ideological aspects of arguments, especially in contemporary social science. What do you mean by common sense? What does it mean in a society like ours? For example, you've written that within a highly competitive, fragmented society, it's very difficult for people to become aware of what their interests are. If you are not able to participate in the political system in meaningful ways, if you are reduced to the role of a passive spectator, then what kind of knowledge do you have? How can common sense emerge in this context?

CHOMSKY: Well, let me give an example. When I'm driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief.

In part, this reaction may be due to my own areas of interest, but I think it's quite accurate, basically. And I think that this concentration on such topics as sports makes a certain degree of sense. The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway, without a degree of organization that's far beyond anything that exists now, to influence the real world. They might as well live in a fantasy world, and that's in fact what they do. I'm sure they are using their common sense and intellectual skills, but in an area which has no meaning and probably thrives because it has no meaning, as a displacement from the serious problems which one cannot influence and affect because the power happens to lie elsewhere.

Now it seems to me that the same intellectual skill and capacity for understanding and for accumulating evidence and gaining information and thinking through problems could be used -- would be used -- under different systems of governance which involve popular participation in important decision-making, in areas that really matter to human life.

There are questions that are hard. There are areas where you need specialized knowledge. I'm not suggesting a kind of anti-intellectualism. But the point is that many things can be understood quite well without a very far-reaching, specialized knowledge. And in fact even a specialized knowledge in these areas is not beyond the reach of people who happen to be interested.

...

QUESTION: Do you think people are inhibited by expertise?

CHOMSKY: There are also experts about football, but these people don't defer to them. The people who call in talk with complete confidence. They don't care if they disagree with the coach or whoever the local expert is. They have their own opinion and they conduct intelligent discussions. I think it's an interesting phenomenon. Now I don't think that international or domestic affairs are much more complicated. And what passes for serious intellectual discourse on these matters does not reflect any deeper level of understanding or knowledge.

One finds something similar in the case of so-called primitive cultures. What you find very often is that certain intellectual systems have been constructed of considerable intricacy, with specialized experts who know all about it and other people who don't quite understand and so on. For example, kinship systems are elaborated to enormous complexity. Many anthropologists have tried to show that this has some functional utility in the society. But one function may just be intellectual. It's a kind of mathematics. These are areas where you can use your intelligence to create complex and intricate systems and elaborate their properties pretty much the way we do mathematics. They don't have mathematics and technology; they have other systems of cultural richness and complexity. I don't want to overdraw the analogy, but something similar may be happening here.

The gas station attendant who wants to use his mind isn't going to waste his time on international affairs, because that's useless; he can't do anything about it anyhow, and he might learn unpleasant things and even get into trouble. So he might as well do it where it's fun, and not threatening -- professional football or basketball or something like that. But the skills are being used and the understanding is there and the intelligence is there. One of the functions that things like professional sports play, in our society and others, is to offer an area to deflect people's attention from things that matter, so that the people in power can do what matters without public interference.

QUESTION: I asked a while ago whether people are inhibited by the aura of expertise. Can one turn this around -- are experts and intellectuals afraid of people who could apply the intelligence of sport to their own areas of competency in foreign affairs, social sciences, and so on?

CHOMSKY: I suspect that this is rather common. Those areas of inquiry that have to do with problems of immediate human concern do not happen to be particularly profound or inaccessible to the ordinary person lacking any special training who takes the trouble to learn something about them. Commentary on public affairs in the mainstream literature is often shallow and uninformed. Everyone who writes and speaks about these matters knows how much you can get away with as long as you keep close to received doctrine. I'm sure just about everyone exploits these privileges. I know I do. When I refer to Nazi crimes or Soviet atrocities, for example, I know that I will not be called upon to back up what I say, but a detailed scholarly apparatus is necessary if I say anything critical about the practice of one of the Holy States: the United States itself, or Israel, since it was enshrined by the intelligentsia after its 1967 victory. This freedom from the requirements of evidence or even rationality is quite a convenience, as any informed reader of the journals of public opinion, or even much of the scholarly literature, will quickly discover. It makes life easy, and permits expression of a good deal of nonsense or ignorant bias with impunity, also sheer slander. Evidence is unnecessary, argument beside the point. Thus a standard charge against American dissidents or even American liberals -- I've cited quite a few cases in print and have collected many others -- is that they claim that the United States is the sole source of evil in the world or other similar idiocies; the convention is that such charges are entirely legitimate when the target is someone who does not march in the appropriate parades, and they are therefore produced without even a pretense of evidence. Adherence to the party line confers the right to act in ways that would properly be regarded as scandalous on the part of any critic of received orthodoxies. Too much public awareness might lead to a demand that standards of integrity should be met, which would certainly save a lot of forests from destruction, and would send many a reputation tumbling.

The right to lie in the service of power is guarded with considerable vigor and passion. This becomes evident whenever anyone takes the trouble to demonstrate that charges against some official enemy are inaccurate or, sometimes, pure invention. The immediate reaction among the commissars is that the person is an apologist for the real crimes of official enemies. The case of Cambodia is a striking example. That the Khmer Rouge were guilty of gruesome atrocities was doubted by no one, apart from a few marginal Maoist sects. It is also true, and easily documented, that Western propaganda seized upon these crimes with great relish, exploiting them to provide a retrospective justification for Western atrocities, and since standards are nonexistent in such a noble cause, they also produced a record of fabrication and deceit that is quite remarkable. Demonstration of this fact, and fact it is, elicited enormous outrage, along with a stream of new and quite spectacular lies, as Edward Herman and I, among others, have documented. The point is that the right to lie in the service of the state was being challenged, and that is an unspeakable crime. Similarly, anyone who points out that some charge against Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, or some other official enemy is dubious or false will immediately be labeled an apologist for real or alleged crimes, a useful technique to ensure that rational standards will not be imposed on the commissars and that there will be no impediment to their loyal service to power. The critic typically has little access to the media, and the personal consequences for the critic are sufficiently annoying to deter many from taking this course, particularly because some journals -- the New Republic, for example -- sink to the ultimate level of dishonesty and cowardice, regularly refusing to permit even the right of response to slanders they publish. Hence the sacred right to lie is likely to be preserved without too serious a threat. But matters might be different if unreliable sectors of the public were admitted into the arena of discussion and debate.

The aura of alleged expertise also provides a way for the indoctrination system to provide its services to power while maintaining a useful image of indifference and objectivity. The media, for example, can turn to academic experts to provide the perspective that is required by the centers of power, and the university system is sufficiently obedient to external power so that appropriate experts will generally be available to lend the prestige of scholarship to the narrow range of opinion permitted broad expression. Or when this method fails -- as in the current case of Latin America, for example, or in the emerging discipline of terrorology -- a new category of "experts" can be established who can be trusted to provide the approved opinions that the media cannot express directly without abandoning the pretense of objectivity that serves to legitimate their propaganda function. I've documented many examples, as have others.

The guild structure of the professions concerned with public affairs also helps to preserve doctrinal purity. In fact, it is guarded with much diligence. My own personal experience is perhaps relevant. As I mentioned earlier, I do not have the usual professional credentials in any field, and my own work has ranged fairly widely. Some years ago, for example, I did some work in mathematical linguistics and automata theory, and occasionally gave invited lectures at mathematics or engineering colloquia. No one would have dreamed of challenging my credentials to speak on these topics -- which were zero, as everyone knew; that would have been laughable. The participants were concerned with what I had to say, not my right to say it. But when I speak, say, about international affairs, I'm constantly challenged to present the credentials that authorize me to enter this august arena, in the United States, at least -- elsewhere not. It's a fair generalization, I think, that the more a discipline has intellectual substance, the less it has to protect itself from scrutiny, by means of a guild structure. The consequences with regard to your question are pretty obvious.

QUESTION: You have said that most intellectuals end up obfuscating reality. Do they understand the reality they are obfuscating? Do they understand the social processes they mystify?

CHOMSKY: Most people are not liars. They can't tolerate too much cognitive dissonance. I don't want to deny that there are outright liars, just brazen propagandists. You can find them in journalism and in the academic professions as well. But I don't think that's the norm. The norm is obedience, adoption of uncritical attitudes, taking the easy path of self-deception. I think there's also a selective process in the academic professions and journalism. That is, people who are independent minded and cannot be trusted to be obedient don't make it, by and large. They're often filtered out along the way. [...]

From The Chomsky Reader,as published on Noam Chomsky's personal site. (Serpents Tail Publishing, 1988).