Enigma: the Mystery of Phil Ochs

Like "superstars" in sports, the moniker "enigma" in music circles has been rendered virtually superfluous by its overuse.  Marc Eliot's Death of a Rebel:  A Biography of Phil Ochs delineates the all-too brief life of a GENUINE musical enigma, Phil Ochs, who hanged himself to death at age 36.  Eliot's work transcends mere biographical rehashes of career vicissitudes; it presents a compelling psychological profile of a revered lyricist/folk singer possessing personality contradictions comparable to Shakespeare's Hamlet.  Eliot's character dissection is twofold:  coverage of Phil's musical career is adroitly complimented by discussion of Phil's political activism.  Through warm, personal reminisces of Phil by friends and peers and an exemplary presentation of the ambience of the Sixties, Eliot challenges the reader to diagnose the cause(s) of Phil's psychological breakdown.  All explanations inherently possess a paucity of conviction, highlighting Eliot's characterization of Phil as an unsolvable enigma.

The book first and foremost presents Phil as a superlative lyricist, capable of protest and introspective songs of high quality.  Pete Seeger, author of 'Where Have All the Flowers Gone?' and (w/ Lee Hays) 'If I Had a Hammer," wrote to Phil:  "I wish I had one-tenth your talent as a songwriter."  London's Melody Maker, the most analytical of music periodicals, cited Phil for his synergism of "Beatles' musicality and Dylan's poetry."  His lyrics expressed an intrinsic part of his personality.  Eliot quotes Phil:  "I write about (issues) out of an inner need for expression, not to change the world.  The roots of my songs are psychological, not political."  This explains Phil's lyrical inconsistency; i.e., some songs variously laud or condemn the protest movement, liberals, JFK, etc.  The wit and creativity of Phil's songs is partially explained by Eliot's characterization of the preadolescent Phil as a dreamer too absorbed with movie screen images of Brando (whom he meets- pages 74-4), Wayne, and Dean to discern reality; the innate ability to simplify and satirize issues to their bare essentials stems partly from Phil's college days at Ohio St. (straight A's) and the political indoctrination espoused by the Marxist father of a college friend.

Phil's true musical roots lied not with folk/protest but with rock-n-roll as practiced by Elvis and Buddy Holly, and his ultimate goals were the decidedly unfolkish ideals of riches and superstardom.  Phil quickly realized he couldn't acquire Dylan's status as institution solely through folk.  Eliot quotes Paul Rothchild, producer of Phil's first three albums:  "(Phil's voice) was too cultured.  It wasn't 'of the people' enough.  It wasn't Pete Seeger or Woody Guthrie; it sounded too trained."  So, Phil rejected Dylan's abandoned throne, and followed the latter's conversion to folk-rock.  After signing a lucrative contract with A&M Records and the release of two successful records, Phil destroyed his pop commercial viability through his (to me) heroic role in the fiasco of Chicago, 1968, and alienated his legions of folk fans by dressing in a gold lame suit in Carnegie Hall in 1970 by singing Elvis and Buddy Holly tunes.  Phil had great talent and, yet, couldn't find a suitable musical genre to express himself- an unpalatable proposition for a genius.

Politics were truly a double-edged sword for Phil, providing fodder for some of his best songs and planting the seeds for the irreversible writer's block, paranoia, manic depression, and split personas that plagued Phil's final years.  Eliot gives the reader the flavor of the Sixties' student movement through the eyes of one of its leading practitioners.  Eliot shows how the ideals and dreams Phil possessed were shattered many times and the personal trauma this created- in Mississippi, in Chicago '68, and in Chile in 1973 with the overthrow and murder of that country's elected socialist president Salvador Allende.  Phil's frustration and resignation with the failure of the Left had a masochistic effect, leading to self-effacing and self-destructive behavior.  Eliot also highlights fascinating political idiosyncrasies of Phil's; he implicitly understood music and students couldn't change the attitude of the middle class and yet publicly espoused its value.  He later proclaimed the need for an Elvis Presley-type to become a Che Guevara of the Left, leading to the lame suit concert whose negative response confused and hurt Phil deeply.  Political and social issues made Phil musically and broke him spiritually.

The most attractive feature of the book is its objective feel.  The author's love of Phil's music, wit, activism, and sincerity is balanced by discussion of the repugnant last years of Phil's life.  Phil's excessive drinking, spurts of anger and violence at loved ones, and his creation of an evil alter ego, John Train ("I live outside of the law!") are discussed in an intimate manner that allows the reader to spiral and careen with Phil/John to the bitter end.  Eliot passes no opinions or judgments; instead, he allows the readers to draw their own conclusions.

Eliot spent 18 months tracking down colleagues of Phil and retracting Phil's steps.  The result is a thorough, in-depth profile unprecedented in pop literature.  Phil will always remain an enigma, but Eliot gives us warm, personal clues to solve an unsolvable genius.  Phil will forever be remembered for his music, his candidness, and his mystique.

 

 

 

 

 

The Perils of Going Viral

These days, much of social media frustrates and vexes me. Uncouth language, a lack of compassion, an annoying overuse of internet clichés ("epic fail," etc.), and an inability to read past the headline all tempt me to raise my voice- a voice crying in the wilderness, but a voice nonetheless. However, it took a letter written by a self-congratulatory parent to a school administrator that (wait for it) "went viral" which spurred me to write my first blog in over two years.

  

A Pennsylvania parent named Mike Rossi, apparently vexed at a brief, didactic letter mailed to him by an elementary school principal informing him that the three days missed by his children during the school year for a family trip to Boston to watch him run in the 2015 Boston Marathon would not be excused, decided to post onto Facebook the letter and his written response.

  

Mr. Rossi's response began with, in essence, a belittling of the value of going to school by claiming his children "learned as much in the five days (in Boston) as they would in an entire year of school." Hmmm.  Interesting. Is he saying that we can phase out the 180-day school year in favor of a five-day sojourn to Boston (a pleasant notion for most kids)?  Is this the secret of those countries currently ranked ahead of the United States in education?

  

More trip rationalization followed: "Our children had a once-in-a-lifetime experience (that) can't be duplicated in a classroom or read in a book." Echoing this notion, mirabile dictu, schools agree that some educational experiences cannot be duplicated in a classroom setting, which is why field (class) trips, where school officials agree to let a class or an entire grade enjoy a common learning experience outside of school grounds, were invented.

  

Mr. Rossi continued: "In the 3 days of school they missed (which consisted of standardized testing that they could take any time) they learned about dedication, commitment, love, perseverance, overcoming adversity, civic pride, patriotism, American history, culinary arts (culinary arts?), and physical education." Generally speaking, for obvious reasons, "standardized testing" should be administered to each student at the same time, which is why the same S.A.T. questions are not given on different test days.  However, as the exact nature of the standardized testing was not made clear, let's move along...

  

The next paragraph explained the true motivation for this entire enterprise: "(My kids) watched their father overcome injury, bad weather, the death of a loved one and many other obstacles to achieve an important personal goal." Actually, Mr. Rossi is not alone in the running community in attaching great importance to the value of their somewhat (I have to admit, being a runner myself- albeit one who will not qualify for the Boston Marathon anytime soon) self-indulgent running endeavors. More than one runner believes that each run they complete is a lasting inspiration to the lives of others.

  

One cannot quibble with the next three paragraphs: "They also experienced first-hand the love and support of thousands of others cheering on people with a common goal.

  

At the marathon, they watched blind runners, runners with prosthetic limbs and debilitating diseases and people running to raise money for great causes run in the most prestigious and historic marathon in the world.

  

They also paid tribute to the victims of a senseless act of terrorism and learned that no matter what evil may occur, terrorists can not deter the American spirit."

  

Redundancy followed ("These are things they won't ever truly learn in the classroom"), in case one did not understand beforehand that certain things cannot be learned in a classroom, or read in a book.

  

Details on the part of the vacation that most closely resembled a school class trip came next: "Our children walked the Freedom Trail, visited the site of the Boston Tea Party, the Boston Massacre and the graves of several signers of the Declaration of Independence... They also visited an aquarium (presumably the New England Aquarium), sampled great cuisine (presumably not the marine life at the New England Aquarium. Stop. Wait. Is this what he meant by "culinary arts"?) and spent many hours of physical activity walking and swimming." Now, I certainly see great educational merit in walking the Freedom Trail, which I did back in 1998, and I loved the New England Aquarium, by far the best aquarium I ever saw, and I encourage all families to travel to Historic Boston during spring or summer vacation.

  

However, making this trek during the school year is another matter. I wonder if the conservatives (the faction that responded most favorably to this letter, and who probably to a person consider themselves those who "play by the rules.") who relished both the subtle devaluation of education and the patriotic images of the letter would have responded as favorably if a parent had instead posted a letter explaining why they decided to pull their child out of school for three days to drive to Washington D.C. for a mass protest against, say, police brutality or a war and to drive around poorer neighborhoods, an experience that some would find just as patriotic and educational as the Boston trip of the Family Rossi.

After a brief blurb contradicting the first two paragraphs of the letter ("We appreciate the efforts of the wonderful teachers and staff and cherish the education they are receiving at Rydal Elementary School. We truly love our school"), Mr. Rossi reaffirmed the validity of the trip ("But I wouldn't hesitate to pull them out of school again for an experience like the one they had this past week."), a voyage that would have never been made if he hadn't "qualified" for the Boston Marathon (see epilogue), auxiliary benefits of the excursion aside.

  

He ended the letter with "Michael Rossi, Father," presumably because the elementary school principal dared to end her letter with "Rochelle Marbury, Principal," as if the principal should not have identified her position to distinguish herself from, say, the assistant principal or the janitor.

  

(Epilogue: there is now some doubt as to whether Mr. Rossi had even legitimately qualified for the Boston Marathon.  Please visit the website Letsrun dot com for some interesting circumstantial evidence. The lesson is this: if you take great pains to glorify yourself through Social Media, "haters" will take great pains of sometimes greater proportion to nullify these efforts.)