The often demented ramblings and musings of a music journal author
Something has been troubling me since yesterday. I stumbled across an artiste whose name intrigued me (often the first impression one makes on me is to have an interesting name, either of the artiste or the album) and having trialed a few tracks found it not terrible. It was, I think I can only conclude, doom metal, but for what it was it was not too bad, and I haven't had that much experience with that sub-genre. So as I usually do, I went searching for more information on the artiste. Wiki had nothing, which is never a good start. My other main source --- for metal at any rate ---
Encyclopaedia Metallum was more helpful, but still details were sketchy. So I decided to type in the artiste's name as a domain, and was gratified to see a website pop up.
The artiste in question is known as Babylon Mystery Orchestra, and turns out, from what I can see, to be the solo efforts of one guy, who sings, plays all instruments, writes all lyrics and music and is so far unsigned, despite having six albums and being in existence since 2003. Is this a good thing? If he was that talented, surely he would have been signed by now? Perhaps. Not necessarily, I thought though. Some artistes either turn down the advances of a major label as they either don't want their music diluted, want to retain control of their music or simply don't trust them. From having read about BMO I think he falls into the final category.
Now, the music is fine: nothing terribly special, but not unlistenable (at least, in the samples I heard) but I often look for more interesting than good albums to review. Wow, that sounds stupid doesn't it? That's not what I mean. What I mean is that I look for something interesting
first, some hook on which to hang the review. Of course, if the music is terrible then it doesn't matter how different or thought-provoking the name is, I shy away from it. No point in sacrificing quality for novelty. I learned this lesson with Vincent Kuhner's album some time ago, buying it only for the extra-long title, and was very disappointed, if not totally confused by it. But if the music matches the interest factor, I can usually push “Purchase” and have a listen to the whole thing.
Babylon Mystery Orchestra is the brainchild of one Sidney Allen Johnson, and on his website there is a lot of rhetoric about the things he doesn't like, and/or trust, and it seems, in fairness, to be pretty much everything. He has written, it would appear, albums that take apart religion, politics, America ... here, I'll let the guy tell you himself:
”From its inception Babylon Mystery Orchestra has defiantly presented its vision of the truth, the way a true artist should, without regard to the prevailing popular views of the time. The gothic hard rock/heavy metal artist thrives on challenging conventional thinking. Especially that of the rock music elites. No man-made institution is sacred to Babylon Mystery Orchestra! Not America, portrayed as the Biblically doomed "Mystery Babylon the Great" on the debut CD "Divine Right Of Kings." Not the Christian church, a man-made institution rightly questioned on the critically acclaimed work "The Great Apostasy: A Conspiracy of Satanic Christianity." The second CD, "On Earth As It Is In Heaven," even condemned rock music itself!”
Okay, all fine and good. It's a thinly-disguised promotion for his previous works, certainly, but it manages to succesfully state his case. So I'm intrigued, and want to investigate more. I notice that on his site the guy seems to have links to essays ---
essays? Yeah. So obviously he's reasonably intelligent and presumably articulate. A good way, I reason, to find out what he's all about is to read one or two. So I do. The one I choose seems to be a deconstruction of the theory of evolution. Now, to my mind, there is only one group that denies evolution as a solid theory, and that's creationists. So am I reading the rantings of a religious conservative? I read the article, which I have to say is both well-written and researched, and seems to reference some eminent scientists, who appear to agree that there may be flaws in Darwin's theory. I get a little unsettled by this, and await the revelation at the end that Johnson believes God created the world. If he says this, then I know (right or wrong) I'm dealing with a creationist, and my opinion may form on that basis.
But to my surprise, he doesn't say anything, beyond mentioning The Great Flood and Noah, however the manner in which he refers to them leaves me no wiser as to whether he's advocating creationism or laughing at it equally. My curiousity unsatisfied, I turn to see if there's a similar essay “taking down God”, as it were, but my attention is drawn to one about homosexuals. In this article, I find Johnson perhaps revealing his true colours, as he seems to launch into an angry, hate-filled tirade about the passing of laws in certain states promoting and allowing same-sex marriage. It's clear he doesn't agree with this, it's clear he has a hatred of gays, and also of the president, as he constantly refers to laws passed by Obama, with a thin veneer of hatred over his writing which suggests he either hates Democrats, or blacks, or both.
So, are we now looking at racism, gender-fuelled hatred and prejudice? It would, on the face of it, seem so. The fact that the symbol for BMO is a badly-disguised swastika does not help settle my nerves. I know it's the actual original ancient symbol that Hitler corrupted to make into the Nazi emblem, and which came to stand for repression, murder, totalitarianism and hatred, but in which context is it supposed to be understood when used as the logo for Babylon Mystery Orchestra? I don't see essays on jews, but I do see a lot of hatred directed at Islam. This is not good. Islam is a religion; it's Islamic
terrorists or
extremists that should draw the ire of all right-thinking people, not a whole community that is spread out over the globe.
Titles run like: “There is no god but Allah: the truth about Islam part 2”, “The science of denying God”, “Heavy metal's golden goose ... COOKED! By the Ku Klux Klan” and “Homosexuals and Hugenots”, the latter of which was the one I read. This last one, at least, makes very uncomfortable reading, and I am left in something of a quandary (whoever owns it shouldn't have left the doors open, but there you are, I wandered in and now I'm stuck in it!): do I now judge this man's music --- the lyrics of which do seem to reflect his view on the world as transmitted through his somewhat hate-filled but well-written essays --- on the basis of what he writes? If I review it, can I divorce the music from the ideals, the man from the music, the album from the prejudice? And if I do review it, am I giving oxygen to a preacher of intolerance and hatred, becoming (however inadvertently or reluctantly) the mouthpiece for Sidney Allen Johnson, providing a platform from which he can spout his edicts and pronouncements? If people reading this enjoy the music, am I driving them into the arms of a fanatic?
But if I choose not to publish, not to pursue this review, ignore the man and his music, am I pushing the problem to one side and refusing to face it? Am I pretending this sort of hatespeak through music does not exist, even though I know it does. Of course I know, but is this a case of NIMJ (Not In MY Journal)!? Am I ignoring the problem and hoping it'll fade away? Am I taking the easy way out instead of taking this challenge head-on and trying to deal with it? Should I even
involve his politics, beliefs, prejudices, or just concentrate on the music? But when the music is so deeply rooted in that belief system, how can I have one without the other? They're each part of the whole, more than the sum of their parts, and one road leads inexorably to the other.
Or do I misunderstand the man? His first essay, while coldly laughing at the idea of evolution and explaining WHY he does not believe in it --- or, indeed, global warming --- was quite a deep and enthralling read, and he can certainly string a word or two together, there's no doubting that. Is he a harmless conspiracy theorist, one of those people who blames the government on everything that happens, that think shadowy men sit around a dark table in a grey office somewhere and make decisions that affect the world, faceless, powerful men who are answerable to no ---- hey! Where are you taking me? What's the hood for? I demand to see the Irish ambassador!
Seriously though, do I give his writings credit, should I decide to go ahead with the review, or ignore them? Do I give him more exposure, let him say what he wants, and let people make up their own minds about that, or do I essentially repress what I've read, practicing a form of censorship myelf which I have never fully agreed with? Will I be unwittingly doing the work of the “shadowy men” by denying Johnson and the Babylon Mystery Orchestra a chance to state their case? Will I be making myself a tool of the “Illuminati” or PNAC, or whoever he blames for all the ills and wars and diseases and economic meltdowns in the world?
It's not even that I'm that blown away by his music: I mean, it's okay, but I could just as easily review something else, forget about him and move on. But then again,
could I forget him? If his words --- be they misguided, plain wrong, or in fact the unvarnished, undisguised truth --- have affected me so deeply that I felt I had to write this to try to sort out my reaction to BMO, do I not owe it to myself, and my readers, to explore further and see what's to be found? I only run a tiny music journal, in the final analysis, not a conspiracy centre or a television studio, but what I put in it is up to me, and I like to think that my choices are based both on personal experiences and first impressions as well as gut feelings.
What does my gut tell me about this? I'm still trying to work that out.
If anyone knows of Johnson, or Babylon Mystery Orchestra, and has any advice, I'd be really grateful to hear from you. Anyone else who would like to weigh in, on either side, your input would be welcome too.