Norman Greenbaum wrote a really cool and unusual song back in 1969 called «Spirit in the Sky«. It sold over 2 million copies turning into a gold record in the US. The song reached number 3 in the US and number 1 in the UK, Australia and Canada. Although Greenbaum is a Jew, he was inspired to write a gospel song on a Christian theme, meaning about Jesus. He said he wrote the words in just fifteen minutes. The song has been covered by gospel/Christian performers but my fave cover is the one I will post here by Doctor and the Medics (1986), (along side his own version).
When I first heard «The House of the Rising Sun» I thought it was the coolest song in the world, and I was a wee lad then. And I remember that all the kids loved it, and since we were in a Catholic, parochial, school we were not supposed to be mentioning songs like that one. After all the song was about a whore-house… But the song was powerful and fitting for a band that called themselves «Animals».
Ok, so these guys, The Animals, hailed from Newcastle and did not really get any notoriety until 1964, even though they did form in 1962. They did become famous with «The House of the Rising Sun«, curiously enough a sort of folk song from the United States whose author is unknown. But they had many other hits as well, like «It’s My Life«, «Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood» and «We Gotta Get Out of this Place«. Some think they were part of the «British invasion», but in truth I think they sort of missed it.
The band went through several personnel changes throughout the 1960’s. They even re-located to San Francisco and became somewhat of a psychedelic rock band. They still had hits like «San Franciscan Nights» and «Sky Pilot«. The Animals were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1994.
It was 1963 when Eric Burdon joined the group Alan Price Rhythm and Blues Combo and changed its name to The Animals. The band originally was: Eric Burdon (lead singer), Alan Price (keyboards), Hilton Valentine (guitar), John Steel (drums) and Chas Chandler (bass). They played the blues, covering songs of John Lee Hooker, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, Nina Simone and others.
Well, The Animals are still around…
(Photo The Independent)
Hope you liked it and tell me what you think about this classic, phenomenal band.
(«Leyenda»/Francisco Bravo Cabrera/All Rights Reserved)
I just wanted to add a couple of things about Frida Kahlo to complete these three posts about the artist. But I must first be truthful with you my friends and subscribers, especially those who love, admire or even venerate Frida Kahlo. I do not like her or her work and here are some of the reasons why I do not. And this does not reflect anything personal as obviously I never met her. I just base myself on what she herself has written about her life and about herself and, naturally, her paintings.
First: I find that she is quite popular because she painted things that could be considered patriotic, or from the Mexican national folklore. This made her very appealing to the people of her country and even to the government to position her almost as a national identity. And there are many that do believe that. And she was also looked at as a woman that suffered, and practically a martyr, and that sells.
Second: She painted very few works. This makes her paintings more valuable. But the themes of her paintings are not too varied. She seemed preoccupied with what we now call “selfies”, as she painted self-portraits over and over. It seems to me that she was in love with herself and was totally immersed in her own mystique. And in many of her paintings she glorified, and even deified Diego Rivera, her husband.
Three: Well, a lot of women think of her as a feminist icon. I do not really understand that one at all. Frida was submissive. If you read her diary you can read her own words of submission to Diego Rivera. Being in love and passionate about a man or a woman does not detract from feminism, but being submissive to another does. Why? Because when you submit you are recognising that the object of your submission is a superior being and that you are lesser in their eyes…and in status…and you must submit to gain approval and acceptance. That is not a good human trait, for women or for men. And this is evident in the portraits she painted of herself and Diego Rivera. There are several (at least two) where she places his face on her forehead and paints a third eye on Diego, thereby making him a god of sorts.
Fourth: Her paintings are what some might call Naïve art, which is supposed to be art created in the simplest manner and going against all the formalisms of the classicists. I think it really is a euphemism for bad art. There are some interesting paintings done by naïve artists but Frida’s really do not even reach that leve. Not all of them thought, there are some good ones. For example, the one below I do like.
So… I think I have stated my case quite clearly. There are some paintings by Frida Kahlo that I like, although I really do not spend much time on them, and the majority of her work I can do without. I do not see her as a feminist, quite the contrary. One thing I do see that since the 80’s Frida Kahlo merchandising has become incredible. Many entertainers like Beyoncé and Madonna have tried to pursue the Frida look and have even dressed like her, modelling their attire (and even poses) after photographs of Frida Kahlo. And of course we have the millions of Halloween costumes of Frida Kahlo, for the kids enjoyment, naturally…
And finally, one last thing that I really do not like at all about the Frida mystique is that she has stolen attention that should have been given to other female artists. Women like Leonora Carrington, Remedios Varo, Louise Bourgeois and Dorothea Tanning (more or less from the same generation). These were exceptional artists whose life was dedicated to the development of their work and their philosophy of art.
(«Leyenda»/Francisco Bravo Cabrera/All Rights Reserved)
I just wanted to add a couple of things about Frida Kahlo to complete these three posts about the artist. But I must first be truthful with you my friends and subscribers, especially those who love, admire or even venerate Frida Kahlo. I do not like her or her work and here are some of the reasons why I do not. And this does not reflect anything personal as obviously I never met her. I just base myself on what she herself has written about her life and about herself and, naturally, her paintings.
First: I find that she is quite popular because she painted things that could be considered patriotic, or from the Mexican national folklore. This made her very appealing to the people of her country and even to the government to position her almost as a national identity. And there are many that do believe that. And she was also looked at as a woman that suffered, and practically a martyr, and that sells.
Second: She painted very few works. This makes her paintings more valuable. But the themes of her paintings are not too varied. She seemed preoccupied with what we now call “selfies”, as she painted self-portraits over and over. It seems to me that she was in love with herself and was totally immersed in her own mystique. And in many of her paintings she glorified, and even deified Diego Rivera, her husband.
Three: Well, a lot of women think of her as a feminist icon. I do not really understand that one at all. Frida was submissive. If you read her diary you can read her own words of submission to Diego Rivera. Being in love and passionate about a man or a woman does not detract from feminism, but being submissive to another does. Why? Because when you submit you are recognising that the object of your submission is a superior being and that you are lesser in their eyes…and in status…and you must submit to gain approval and acceptance. That is not a good human trait, for women or for men. And this is evident in the portraits she painted of herself and Diego Rivera. There are several (at least two) where she places his face on her forehead and paints a third eye on Diego, thereby making him a god of sorts.
Fourth: Her paintings are what some might call Naïve art, which is supposed to be art created in the simplest manner and going against all the formalisms of the classicists. I think it really is a euphemism for bad art. There are some interesting paintings done by naïve artists but Frida’s really do not even reach that leve. Not all of them thought, there are some good ones. For example, the one below I do like.
So… I think I have stated my case quite clearly. There are some paintings by Frida Kahlo that I like, although I really do not spend much time on them, and the majority of her work I can do without. I do not see her as a feminist, quite the contrary. One thing I do see that since the 80’s Frida Kahlo merchandising has become incredible. Many entertainers like Beyoncé and Madonna have tried to pursue the Frida look and have even dressed like her, modelling their attire (and even poses) after photographs of Frida Kahlo. And of course we have the millions of Halloween costumes of Frida Kahlo, for the kids enjoyment, naturally…
And finally, one last thing that I really do not like at all about the Frida mystique is that she has stolen attention that should have been given to other female artists. Women like Leonora Carrington, Remedios Varo, Louise Bourgeois and Dorothea Tanning (more or less from the same generation). These were exceptional artists whose life was dedicated to the development of their work and their philosophy of art.
(«Monserrate» de/by Francisco Bravo Cabrera/Derechos Reservados/All Rights Reserved)
«Monserrate», mi nueva obra está hecha con acrílicos sobre una tela de 70 x 140 centímetros y la acabo de firmar. Tiene jazz, miradas y símbolos para quien los entienda. Coleccionistas deben contactar a «By Guloshka» (IG: @Guloshka).
«Monserrate«, obra que lleva el nombre de los majestuosos picos de la cordillera montañosa catalana, Montserrat, es un ejemplo de mi estilo «surreal-expresionista«, esta vez visto en un formato más grande y orientado verticalmente. La pintura rebosa de color, de rostros, de miradas y de un guiño hacia la música. Pero también en ella encontraran símbolos aquellos que puedan entenderlos. He estado desarrollando el surreal-expresionismo desde 2003, y el estilo está en pleno apogeo y aún le queda suficiente espacio para seguir creciendo y desarrollándose en futuros proyectos. Mis obras, entre ellas ciertamente las surreal-expresionistas, se han exhibido en Europa, América y Asia. Además aparecen en muchas colecciones en el mundo entero. La importancia del color, las formas, las líneas y los símbolos son las partes principales que forman el surreal-expresionismo, y en «Monserrate» puede identificarse claramente cada una de ellas como aspectos individuales y como la composición en su totalidad.
+++
«Monserrate», my brand new painting, is made with acrylics on canvas and measures 28″ x 56″ (inches). I just finished signing it. It has jazz, looks and symbols for those who know how to understand them. Collectors please contact «By Guloshka» (IG: @Guloshka).
«Monserrate» named for the majestic peaks of the Catalonian mountain range, Montserrat, is an example of my «surreal-expressionist» style, this time in a larger and vertical format. The painting abounds with colour, and among the faces, the looks and the nod towards music, there are symbols for those who can understand them. I have been developing surreal-expressionism since 2003 and the style is in full bloom with still room enough for further growth and development in future projects. My surreal-expressionist works have been exhibited in Europe, America and Asia, as well as in many collections throughout the world. The significance of colour, forms, lines and symbols are an integral part of surreal-expressionism and in «Monserrate» one can clearly identify each as individual aspects and as the wholeness that creates the composition.
