“Right Back Atcha Babe” is a song by Tim Mcgraw from the album Emotional Traffic . It has a fantastic beat, wonderful vocals, and a beautiful sentiment in the chorus.
“Right back atcha babe/ Just like a boomerang, everything good you threw my way/ Right back atcha babe/ Best that you get ready/ There’s a whole lot of loving that’s gonna be coming/ Right back atcha babe”
I heard the song on a Delta flight from Atlanta to Vegas, and I replayed it fifty times. So I got to wondering…why was it not a hit song? To answer the question, I reflected on the number one rule of songwriting:
The lyrics to a hit song will always make a woman feel good about herself.
As Harlan Howard (author of “Tiger by the Tail”) used to say, “Women buy 90% of music and they make men buy the other 10%.” Very true. So I put the lyrics of “Right Back Atcha Babe” under inspection. Do they make a woman feel good about herself?”
That night in Phoenix when you stole my jeep
Then you brought it home with a new stereo, baby, that was sweet…Oh and how can I forget the day you gave me my red guitar?
We’re off to a bad start. Women want to receive gifts…not give them. So the song has already failed. It’s ignoring the structure of courtship, where men are the pursuer and women are the pursued. The writer probably thought he was being a good-little-feminist. But gender equality only works in the protected hallways of academia: not in the real world.
First things first
I want you to close your eyes
This may not even come close to that first kiss you gave me
But I’m gonna try
Oh and here’s that ring you’ve been waitin for all these years As for the tears, that you’ve cried When we made love the first time
I highlighted the problematic part. Women don’t want to cry after sex…no matter how many romance novels we read. They want to feel exhilarated in the arms of an Alpha king. The only women that cry after sex are addicted to Cymbalta.
We don’t need to go any further with our analysis, the song has already failed. Again, remember the important rules: For a song to be a hit, the lyrics will always make a woman feel good about herself.
The customer is always right…and the customer for music is a woman.
Chris Cornell died a few days ago. The lead singer of Soundgarden was famous for pioneering the “grunge” sound, which rose to popularity in the 1990s. Sadly, Cornell committed suicide. Even sadder is that he now leaves behind two children.
Cornell is the most recent “grunge” musician to committed suicide, or to die from a drug-related overdose: Kurt Cobain, Scott Weiland, etc. Unfortunately, it’s becoming a reoccurring event.
A lot of people are commenting on Cornell’s death. Some are talking about depression, others about about drug abuse. But several points are missing, so let’s take about what nobody is willing to say:
1.) Grunge musicians were only popular because they promoted nihilism
The “angry young man” shtick was purposefully promoted by music executives (most of whom are Jewish). These executives have a specific goal – using music to destroy the edifice of Christian America.
The lyrics are the most important part of grunge. Now some people will disagree, saying that they only listen to the instrumental parts of a song: guitar, drums, etc. This viewpoint is a common for musicians, who tend to focus on the structural elements. But there’s an old saying in Nashville: “They come for the beat; they stay for the lyrics.” This is so true. Remember that the average fan cannot play the drums – but they can sing along. So the average person will “connect” with a song by singing the chorus in the car, in the shower, etc.
The Weltanschauung of grunge is nihilism. And nihilism encourages the destruction of the individual. Just take a look at the titles of the famous grunge hits: i.e “Black Hole Sun,” “Rat in a Cage,” etc. They all encourage a hopeless perspective. How many people have learned to hate life by singing these songs? How many people have overlooked the glory of God in favor of a bleak landscape? Too many I’m afraid.
1.) It Takes Millions of Dollars to “Break” an Artist; Thus, Record Labels Carefully Plan Who They Want to Promote and Why
Do you think that a musician is famous by accident? Of course not. It’s takes millions of dollars to “break” an artist. Here’s a rundown of the funding that a rock band will require:
Money needed for radio payola (funds paid to a radio station to play their songs)
Money needed to record an album
Money needed for touring: hotels, food, gas, etc.
Money needed for promotional materials: print, digital, etc.
This is a short list. As you can see, the charges pile up. Before you know it, a rock band has put a million dollars on the company tab.
Rock bands are a major investment. Therefore, the investors have to approve the message. This would not be a problem, generally speaking. However, today’s record executives are obsessed with the destruction of American youth. So everything they do is aimed at cultural genocide. Everything they do is the fulfillment of their unholy desires. The executives only invested in grunge music because it served a greater aim – to create a culture war against Christianity.
The grunge musician was a puppet for the globalist agenda. He was given the microphone for a specific reason – to pour nihilism into the souls of Christian men and women. To kill the passionate spirit of a generation and replace it with hopelessness.
In the 1960’s, men were encouraged to take LSD and drop out. In the 1970s, men were encouraged to snort cocaine and hang out at Studio 54. In the 1980s, they were encouraged to become aggressive rebels and listen to punk rock. And in the 1990s, men were encouraged to become suicidal depressives. The music changed, but the song remained the same.
Are you starting to see the common denominator? Are you starting to see what we’re up against? All of our musical heroes were useful idiots, serving their diabolical masters. They believed they had “made it to the top.” In reality, they were allowed to be there.
Stanley Jordan is a virtuoso guitar player. He rose to fame in the 1980’s for his unique style, playing two guitars at the same time.
While he’s not the household name of somebody like Paul McCartney, he’s been VERY successful. Jordan was signed to BMI, put out 14 albums, and has played with some of the top musicians in the world: Quincy Jones, Kenny Rogers, Dizzy Gillespie, etc. In addition, he has appeared on a host of television shows, from Johnny Carson to Dick Cavett. He’s also been nominated for 4 Grammy awards. So needless to say, his musical resume is impressive.
Fast forward to today…
Somewhere along the way, Jordan started dressing in women’s clothing. I don’t know the proper term here: transsexual, cross dresser, etc. Nowadays, a litany of names are applied to “gender.” Let’s just say that Jordan went crazy.
The media has remained silent on Jordan’s transformation. Granted, Jordan didn’t have the same kind of celebrity as Bruce Jenner. That being said, he’s a mid-level star and one would expect a little press on the matter (especially considering the media’s obsession with breaking gender rules). But a random google search reveals nothing. By the media ignoring the topic, it shows that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Why have we not heard of Jordan’s sex change? The answer is complex, yet terribly simple.
Jordan’s transformation does not serve the goals of Cultural Marxism: i.e. destroying the lives of white Christian males.
The important point here is that Jordan is black. If his story was publicized, many American blacks would become alienated with the liberal cause. They would see that Jordan’s degradation was encouraged by the larger, white society; in particular, by liberal democrats.
In short, Jordan’s sex change is a black eye on the face of white liberals – it shows how their values have denigrated the lives of black Americans. Subsequently, the story has been erased from social media for the benefit of the left-wing agenda.
Richard Wagner is one the greatest classical composers of all time. In terms of music, he was a giant; his compositions have captivated audiences for two hundred years. Of all the great musicians to come out of Europe, perhaps nobody stands taller than Wagner. To listen to Tristan and Isolde is to hear to the greatest height of human emotion.
But Wagner is controversial. First, Hitler was a fan of his. And secondly, Wagner hated Judaism. So I decided to give his most famous essay a read: “Judaism in Music.” How valid were his claims? What point was he trying to make?
These are the major points of the article:
Jews are Ugly People; Therefore, their Art is Ugly
Wagner believes that Jews are unable to make great music because they’re an ugly people.
The Jew — we wish to have nothing in common with a man who looks like that…a man whose appearance we must hold unfitted for artistic treatment — not merely in this or that personality, but according to his kind in general — neither can we hold him capable of any sort of artistic utterance of his [inner] essence.
Are Jewish musicians ugly? Well, two Jewish musicians came to mind immediately:
I’m 50/50 on this one. Some Jews do have unpleasant physical characteristics (like big noses, for example). But I’m not sure it’s universal enough to give 100%. Bob Dylan looks like a coyote, but Adam Levine could be a model. So I’m not sold on this point by Wagner.
Jewish Language is Garbled; Therefore, their Music is Garbled
Wagner argues that the Jewish language is aesthetically distasteful; therefore, it can never produce a high form of music.
In particular does the purely physical aspect of the Jewish mode of speech repel us… The first thing that strikes our ear as quite outlandish and unpleasant, in the Jew’s production of the voice-sounds, is a creaking, squeaking, buzzing snuffle (4)
He goes on to say that the Jewish foundation of music is in the synagogue, and that this music is unappealing on a visceral level:
Who has not been seized with a feeling of the greatest revulsion, of horror mingled with the absurd, at hearing that sense-and-sound-confounding gurgle, yodel and cackle, which no intentional caricature can make more repugnant than as offered here in full, in naive seriousness? (p. 7).
I agree with Wagner’s statement here. I grew up around Jewish people, and Yiddish is an aesthetically distasteful language. Many times, it sounds like somebody is clearing phlegm from their throat: “eck,” “dreck,” and bleck,” etc.
Most Americans have never heard Jews speaking in their native tongue. So they are unaware of how unpleasant Yiddish, in particular, actually sounds. For a listen, click the following link and be the judge: Sounds of Yiddish
Jewish Musicians Must Rearrange the Work of Non-Jews in Order to Receive Fame
Wagner believed that the Jewish composer/musician was not capable of creating original works of high greatness. So instead, they rearrange the work of great Christian composers. He points to Mendelssohn as an example:
Mendelssohn…was obliged quite openly to snatch at every formal detail that had served as characteristic token of the individuality of this or that forerunner whom he chose out for his model…he gave the preference to our old master BACH, as special pattern for his inexpressive modern tongue to copy (p. 8)
I am no expert on classical music. However, I tend to believe in what Wagner was saying here. Jews were always the minority in a European majority. So it only makes sense that they would copy the popular culture in order to gain success.
For a modern example, I thought of Bob Dylan again (Jewish, born Robert Zimmerman). Now I like Dylan’s music, but let’s be real – Dylan is widely known to have stolen his style from Woody Guthrie. So Wagner’s point is true in this regard. The Jewish artist will often reappropriate the style of the native Christians.
“Judaism in Music” is a solid read. Overall, I found most of his points to be true; in particular, that the Jewish languages are not euphonious. And secondly, that Jews tend to copy the works of Christian artists. Wagner deals with these topics in a way that’s heated, direct, and honest. In short, I have a feeling that his words will remain relevant for many years to come.
On one hand, he’s a God. When he plays the guitar, the crowd is under a spell. He’s a magician, a sorcerer; the people, connected to his guitar strings. His voice a taming laser. He’s the puppeteer, making them dance at will. A holy man of amplified sound. He can transcend the mundane, taking us to the astral plane.
On the other hand, he’s a nobody. When he plays the guitar, he builds nothing. He’s below the plumber, the mechanic. His music, dying in the air. His works are transitory. He’s a clown, put here for the public amusement. A court jester. The surgeon, the architect, the scientist…all more valuable than a musician.
I really like the song “Silver Springs” by Fleetwood Mac. Musically, it has great dynamics; it builds from slow vocals into a soaring crescendo of instruments.
But like so many songs, the glory is ruined with a lyrical inspection. I’ve come to believe that it’s not a song about love; rather, it’s a song dedicated to stalking. A frightening descent into human depravity.
Given that Stevie Nicks is singing, I’ll assume it’s from a woman’s perspective…
You could be my silver spring…. Blue-green..colors flashin’ I would be your only dream….. Your shinin’ on ocean crashin’….
So far, so good. I’m in…
And did you say that she’s pretty…. and did you say that she loves you…? Baby I don’t wanna know.
Ouch. That’s sad. A relationship that ended. Two ships that passed in the night…a love that was not meant to be (insert one hundred other cliches into the parenthesis).
I’ll begin not to love you… Turn around, you’ll see me runnin’ I’ll say I loved you years ago… And tell myself you never loved me….No……
We’re beginning to see that this relationship was one-sided. She was into him. He…not so much into her.
And did you say she was pretty…. And did you say that she loves you…? Baby, I don’t wanna know….Oh no….. And can you tell me…was it worth it….? Really, I don’t wanna know..
She’s really upset about the ex’s new squeeze.
Time cast a spell on you…that you won’t forget me… I know I could have loved you but you would not let me….
Let it go, dear. Let it go…
Time cast a spell on you…that you won’t forget me… I know I could’ve loved you, but you would not let me..
There’s other fish in the sea…stay strong.
I’ll follow you down ’til the sound of my voice will haunt you..
Ok, it just got weird.
You’ll never get away from the sound of the woman that loves you..
Blending Ame has started a competition with me…the search for a greatest love song. As an example, I mentioned “You Are My Shining Star” by The Manhattans. She countered with some great selections of her own: “Close to You” by The Carpenters and “Endless Love.”
Let me throw another song in the mix. It’s by Joan Manuel Serrat, a Spanish writer that few Americans know. His song is called “The Woman I Love.” Lyrically…it’s perfect; it captures the lofty heights of emotion:
because without intention, her lullaby envelops you
and against her warmth, pride is lost
The woman I love, is succulent fruit
happily ripening, sweet and conceited.
The woman I love, tied me to her yoke,
in order to sow the field from end to end
from a love that speaks to us with the sage’s voice
and has a woman’s skin and lips
They’re all gone my previous companions…
My dog, my Scalextric and my lovers.
Poor little Juan!
The woman I love, tied me to her yoke:
but, please, don’t say anything to her.
We see the influence of Neruda: the focus on the sensual, the sacred connection between body and mind. And the Spanish language is perfect for the music – melodious and fluid. Can you feel this way? Do you still have it in you?
There’s a big difference between being sexual and being sensual – and we need more of the latter.