"The Silo Song" is the opposite of "The Sanctuary Song" since the latter is brand-new but "The Silo Song" is something I wrote about thirty years ago with Ophir, the most intimate musical friendship I ever had in my life. Part of the reason I don't have much to do with musicians is he shot himself out in L.A. many years ago.
"The Silo Song" has some interesting chord changes and would be worth a work-up now because the general premise on originally writing it was there are two guys in a missile silo. They have just received the order to launch after an enemy attack and the song asks them not to do it in the hope someone, somewhere will live after it's all over.
Given the nuclear provocations of the last year, "The Silo Song" has meaning again but having meaning isn't alone enough or I could start covering Country Joe songs and ask all over again one, two, three four, what are we fighting for.
"The Silo Song" starts out in D minor but I've always played it mostly on guitar. Maybe I'll need to transpose it if the song hits any of the broken keys on the synthesizer but that will wait for just now.
It wouldn't be too good to get far into it just now but the most obvious play for it is to go beyond the request for the men in the silo to stand down on launching their missiles. The next part is they ignore the request and launch anyway. That playbook has been known for fifty years and everyone dies. That's the darkest of futility and makes it less compelling as a song, mostly because it's so obvious.
The beauty part of the song is doing it the other way around. What happens if they do stand down.
(Ed: Russia wins and America dies)
Not true. After nuking America, survivors elsewhere in the world, assuming there are any, would never forgive Russia for it and Russians would not be able to forgive themselves. It would force a radical sociological evolution on the world. So what comes of that. Humanity survives ... and then what.
(Ed: too sci-fi)
Not really because the objective is to make a point rather than describe the specifics of a post-Armageddon conflict.
(Ed: what point is that?)
Humanity survives.
(Ed: if I keep pushing this will you go off on a monologue about altruistic suicide?)
Yes.
(Ed: ok, then. How about that new Bugatti which does 290 mph?)
I guess the next time I need to do 290 mph in a car and have a million dollars to blow on something besides buying land for preserves for orangutans, I can call up Bugatti to get one.
"The Silo Song" has some interesting chord changes and would be worth a work-up now because the general premise on originally writing it was there are two guys in a missile silo. They have just received the order to launch after an enemy attack and the song asks them not to do it in the hope someone, somewhere will live after it's all over.
Given the nuclear provocations of the last year, "The Silo Song" has meaning again but having meaning isn't alone enough or I could start covering Country Joe songs and ask all over again one, two, three four, what are we fighting for.
"The Silo Song" starts out in D minor but I've always played it mostly on guitar. Maybe I'll need to transpose it if the song hits any of the broken keys on the synthesizer but that will wait for just now.
It wouldn't be too good to get far into it just now but the most obvious play for it is to go beyond the request for the men in the silo to stand down on launching their missiles. The next part is they ignore the request and launch anyway. That playbook has been known for fifty years and everyone dies. That's the darkest of futility and makes it less compelling as a song, mostly because it's so obvious.
The beauty part of the song is doing it the other way around. What happens if they do stand down.
(Ed: Russia wins and America dies)
Not true. After nuking America, survivors elsewhere in the world, assuming there are any, would never forgive Russia for it and Russians would not be able to forgive themselves. It would force a radical sociological evolution on the world. So what comes of that. Humanity survives ... and then what.
(Ed: too sci-fi)
Not really because the objective is to make a point rather than describe the specifics of a post-Armageddon conflict.
(Ed: what point is that?)
Humanity survives.
(Ed: if I keep pushing this will you go off on a monologue about altruistic suicide?)
Yes.
(Ed: ok, then. How about that new Bugatti which does 290 mph?)
I guess the next time I need to do 290 mph in a car and have a million dollars to blow on something besides buying land for preserves for orangutans, I can call up Bugatti to get one.
No comments:
Post a Comment