You Don't Know What Love Is: My Relationship With the White Stripes and Music In General

I love the White Stripes. This is a declaration that seems sort of silly in 2008. Why take the time to write about your love of a band that has been around since 1999, and has held a firm foothold in the mainstream realm of "cool" music since 2001's "White Blood Cells"?

The reason is this: my love of the White Stripes is something I have only recently become aware of. I have always been aware of the band, I've noticed the hundreds of magazine articles with Jack and Meg white on the cover, I've always stopped my channel surfing when an MTV or VH1 was playing one of their videos, I've turned up my radio whenever "Seven Nation Army" has come on, I've played "Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground" on many a jukebox, and I have acquired the occasional single of theirs via itunes or other, less legitimate means. I even rocked out to a burned copy of the debut album of the Raconteurs, Jack White's side project, that was given to me by a former coworker. And yet, somehow, in the years between 2001 and now, I have never listed the White Stripes when asked about my favorite bands, and I have never purchased any of their albums.

In fact, I have even gone so far as to roll my eyes when other people have told me that the White Stripes are one of their favorite bands, when someone tried to inform me of the genius of "Icky Thump," I would tune them out. Somehow I had convinced myself that I didn't like the White Stripes, even though I have never heard a song of theirs that I do not, in fact, love. Consistently I have discussed the songs of theirs that I like as the exception. "Oh, I'm not really a White Stripes fan, but I love The Denial Twist." "But I love My Doorbell." "But I love their cover of "Just Don't Know What to do With Myself."

In short, if the White Stripes were a woman, they would be that girl I was friends with for a long time but never realized I was in love with. And I think perhaps this has something to do with the nature of my consumption of music in general. I have had similar moments of discovering fandom of a particular artist after the fact, such as Oasis, or Travis. Very rarely do I discover an artist and have that immediate connection. Even my favorite artist, Ben Folds, whose music I have been mocked by my friends for my obsession with, was re-connection, having bought "The Unauthorized Biography of Reinhold Messner" in high school, and listened to it maybe twice, before decided it sucked. This is the same album I actually had to repurchase years later and consider to be the best work done by Ben Folds Five before the group split up and Ben became a solo artist. It wasn't until I was in my twenties that I heard the live version of "Still Fighting It," and soon devoured everything else Folds has done, as well as having gone to see him live four times in the last five years.

So what happened with the White Stripes? The only thing I can think of is that I had heard of them before I heard them, that they were already being pushed to be as the Next Great Thing so hard that I never even took the time to consider that they actually could be. So even when I enjoyed everything I heard by them, I took for granted how talented they are because this had been told to me on such a regular basis.

It reminds me of a long running debate I have with my friend Lauren over the perceived greatness of the Beatles. I often joke with her that she "hates" the Beatles, due to her perception of their being overrated. The debate mostly boils down to the fact that the Beatles can be considered as having come along at exactly the right time, in an era before the internet, before cable TV, before the ability to walk into a bookstore and find countless titles on the magazine rack dedicated to the critical deconstruction of music. That in the 1960's, it wasn't as hard for a successful band to dominate all media, because there was much less media to dominate and news traveled quite a bit slower. I concede that there are many annoying people who would like to assume that rock and roll began and ended with the Beatles, that all that came after are pale imitations, that attribute far too much influence on the modern music scene to the four boys from Liverpool. But at the end of the day, the Beatles made fantastic music and they should not be written off simply because of the overzealousness of their most obnoxious fans. The fact that I, having been born in 1981, over a year after John Lennon's death, yet can still appreciate "Nowhere Man," or "Let it Be," is significant towards the quality of the music.

And such is the way I now understand the White Stripes. They are a truly talented pair of musicians, and it simply took me a long time to understand that. I never had to think about if they were good or not, because I'd already been told so. I've been told it for years by outside sources and written them off as a result of it, but when I finally took the time to view them outside of the articles, the interviews, the commentaries of the peanut gallery, what was left for me was the music itself. And when it's just me and the headphones, that's where I get it.

Keith Olbermann: My New Hero?

Really, Gerry?

Geraldine Ferraro. Really? You don't see ANYTHING wrong with what you said? And the Hillary campaign is the victim here, according to you? You're the one who brought up the issue of race, and then suggest that the backlash of racism is absurd? You have said that attacks on Hillary, for example suggesting that her marriage to Bill is the only reason she is where she is, is sexist, but you saying Obama being where he is only because he's black isn't racist? Sorry Gerry, you can't have it both ways. I'm glad you resigned, because I want to believe deep in my heart that your comments do not reflect Hillary's campaign, just as McCain has already criticized members of his, and lost base supporters, for their similar comments.

And quite frankly, your comment has some truth, just not in the way you meant it. Of COURSE his being black is part of what got him here today. But not in the way you say it, in that his being black makes him a novelty. His race has absolutely shaped his place in the campaign, because it has shaped the man he is. It is without question tied to his identity, and as such is directly connected to the way he grew up, and the way he saw the world as he grew. None of us has any way of knowing how Obama would do in this campaign if he were a white man or a woman of any color as you say, because it is impossible to separate him from his racial background, just as it is impossible to separate Hillary from her marital history or you from your gender during the Mondale/Ferraro campaign in 1984. None of us would be where we are today without the things that shape our identity.

So what exactly was your point in what you said? Is it that any black man who ran for president in 2008 would have become the frontrunner of the Democratic party? I don't think so. It is Barack Obama's character, his charisma, his ability to inspire people that has led him as far as he has come, just as it is Hillary Clinton's warrior spirit that has kept her in the running as well, her knowledge of how to play the game, and her ability to garner the devotion of her supporters. Neither candidate is "lucky" to be where they are, they have both been fighting for their entire careers to get to this point, and they both deserve the position they are in and the right to have their voices heard in this primary.

Ammendment to my Rant from earlier:

Couldn't have said it better myself, Bill:

Prime Time

Here in Ohio there is only one day before the primary, and two days, I think, before our entire state and maybe the country, breathes a massive sigh of relief. Without a doubt this is the most fiercely battled primary in my voting history. By the time the polls open here typically the candidate has already been decided, even in 2004 Kerry had pretty much locked it down by the time it came to Ohio.

I took down an earlier post I wrote about my position on the Obama/Hillary decision, because upon re-reading it, I decided even I didn't agree with my reasoning and in fact I was probably doing the exact thing I had been so annoyed about during my post following Edwards' withdrawal. From the comments I read on Huffington Post, I may be in the minority here, but I like to believe I am actually one of the silent majority. Because I honestly think that the fact of the matter is, we are lucky, as Democrats, to have to make the decision that we do, to have two very good candidates to be President of the United States. If Barack loses the nomination and it goes to Hillary, I will vote for her in the general election, albeit with a heavy heart. My decision to vote tomorrow for Barack Obama is based on his strengths, and not Hillary's weaknesses.

So what are Obama's strengths? Regardless of what some pundits or naysayers have tried to convince me of otherwise, his ability to inspire people and command an audience is a strength and is not a hollow promise. For years, I have heard the constant rhetoric bemoaning the fact that the youth of America is apathetic, and I have heard people my age complain that they feel disconnected from politics. What Obama has done is address these two points, and he has energized the apathetic in a way no candidate has in my lifetime. And frankly, the way that his opposition has tried to spin this negatively just further underscores why people turn away from politics to begin with.

What is happening now in this election is the opposite of what happened in '04. I was one of the few Democrats that actually liked John Kerry and thought he would make a good President. The general unspoken consensus when he took over the frontrunner status, was something of "well he's our best chance, I guess." We tried very hard as a group to hide this sentiment, but let's face it, the Democrats never loved John Kerry. The Republicans loved George Bush. Not being a Republican, I can't speak to the accuracy of a theory I have that this time around, John McCain is their John Kerry. But I will save McCain thoughts for the general election.

I said it back when licking my wounds following the general election, 2004's ballot should have just said "Not Bush," and that is no way to win an election. In reality, people do like to be optimistic when voting, especially when it comes to candidates. It was clear in the fall of 04, that for the next presidential election we would need to run someone that people actually loved. I didn't expect Obama to run so soon, so I was expecting either a return of Al Gore, or to beat a dead horse, Edwards.

But Obama did run. And people do love him. Not to say that Hillary doesn't have passionate supporters as well, but the Obama phenomenon is truly something unique in this generation of politics. They say he's too inexperienced, and yet, he actually has more experience than Abraham Lincoln, who is considered to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Presidents in the history of our country, and if nothing else certainly had to deal with the single biggest crisis in our nation's history. And did it. Because Lincoln was a smart man who surrounded himself with other smart people. I see no reason to suspect that Obama would do otherwise, in fact he has already promised to include Republicans in his cabinet, apparently agreeing with Lincoln's sentiment that it's not enough to surround yourself with smart people, but they should also disagree with you.

So I will admit it. Somewhere between Edwards' withdrawal and now, I have drank the kool-aid. I am optimistic, I am hopeful, I am inspired. I believe that there is a chance here to witness history. The Obama campaign does not represent one man, but rather the culmination of a grassroots movement that has been growing in this country, the same movement that pushed Howard Dean to the early forefront of the 04 race, and ultimately landed him as chair of the DNC. Obama's momentum has felt so absolutely driven by the people he seeks to represent, to lead, that it is very hard for me not to get swept up in the hope. I want very much to defend that hope, that optimism, from the people who seek to strip me of it. I want to make them see what it is that I see in this campaign. I am tired of the hatred, the bitterness, the cynicism of politics, and I am very very happy to say that yes, I support a candidate that truly makes me feel like there is something we can do as a people to change the tide.

So you can call me naive if you want, say that you've been through it all and you've seen the same promises every time and that nothing ever changes. Maybe, maybe not. But I believe we can, change things, it might take a lot of work, it might take a lot of time, but history proves time and time again that people can make a difference, and I would rather be a part of such an attempt, than on the sidelines saying it probably won't work.