July 6, 2019

No Image

Entertainment July 6, 2019

João Gilberto, Master Of Bossa Nova, Dies At 88

João Gilberto.

Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

Updated at 9:34 p.m. on Saturday, July 6.

João Gilberto, one of the principal architects of the Brazilian musical style bossa nova, has died at his home in Rio de Janeiro, according to a FaceBook post by his son. João Marcelo Gilberto wrote that his father, who was 88 years old, died following an undisclosed illness.

João Gilberto is credited some with writing the first bossa nova, or new beat. This mid-20th century musical gift to the world drew on Brazil’s African-influenced samba tradition, but was performed without the usual battery of drums and rhythm instruments, and at much lower volumes. Gilberto’s intimate and nuanced style of guitar playing and singing, eventually central to the bossa nova sound, were reportedly developed in 1955 when he sequestered himself inside of a bathroom at his sister’s house so as not to disturb her family and to take advantage of the acoustics provided by the bathroom tiles.

In the mid-1950s, Brazil was in the midst of a post-WWII modernization inspired by a new president who wished to move the country out of third world economic status. Gilberto’s “Bim-Bom,” often named as the first bossa nova song, came from that period, and soon thereafter, the style began to sweep Rio’s cafe’s and bars. Bossa nova’s sophisticated sound became popular with a new moneyed class eager to move away from the more traditional samba sound of explosive drums and group singing. Rio de Janeiro was ground zero of the country’s cultural explosion; Gilberto, composer Antonio Carlos Jobim and poet Vinicius de Moraes were the key architects of a culture shift that forever changed their country’s musical point of reference.

The breakthrough came just before the end of the decade. In 1958 Jobim and de Moraes had collaborated on a recording of the song “Chege de Saudade” by another vocalist, but the song didn’t become a phenomenon until Gilberto’s version, with his softly percussive finger picking technique on an acoustic guitar and breathy vocals that matched the soft curves of the music. Gilberto’s version became a hit in Rio and internationally, and launched the bossa nova movement.

YouTube

Brazilian born pianist Jovino Santos Neto described the influence Gilberto’s technique had on the music of that era as profound. “His uncanny ablity to syncopate his vocal delivery, while keeping a simple groove was his trademark sound,” Neto wrote to NPR from his home in California. “Several others tried to imitate him, with no success”.

Over three years Gilberto recorded three albums that were the blueprints for a musical revolution: Chega de Saudade (Odeon, 1959), O Amor, o Sorriso e a Flor (Odeon, 1960), and João Gilberto (Odeon, 1961).

In 1961 the U.S. State Department had organized one of its goodwill musical ambassador tours to Rio and jazz guitarist Charlie Byrd caught some of the music and took the style back home, where he shared it with jazz saxophonist Stan Getz. Their 1962 album Jazz Samba was an immediate success in the US. The next year, Getz invited Gilberto to record together. The resulting album, Getz/Gilberto, featured compositions by the Jobim/de Moraes writing team, many of which became jazz standards over the decades, including “Corcovado,” “Desafinado” and “Doralice.”

The album’s breakout hit featured Gilberto’s then-wife Astrud on a sultry vocal of the song “Garota de Ipanema (Girl From Ipanema).” João sang the lyrics in Portuguese, Astrud repeated them in English and Getz added an now-iconic tenor sax solo. It was a worldwide hit and won the 1965 Grammy for record of the year. Getz/Gilberto won album of the year and would go on to become one of the highest-selling jazz albums of all time, helping to cement bossa nova’s soft, lulling beats and intimate vocals across the global musical landscape.

In the mid-1960s, less than a decade after the movement started, the music was pretty much silenced by a military dictatorship that clamped down an all outside political and cultural influences. Gilberto, who had moved to the United States after recording Getz/Gilberto, remained until 1980. Upon his return to Brazil he was heralded for his contributions and recorded with many of the younger musicians who had been part of the Tropicalia movement that incorporated rock and psychedelia into the subversive music aimed at the dictatorship.

Pianist Jovino Santos Neto says that Gilberto’s restless musical spirit was reflected in the music he made upon his return: “When people started to think that he was a bossa nova singer of Brazilian tunes, he challenged their assumptions by applying his style to boleros, Italian songs, Gershwin and later to the pop music of Brazil.”

Gilberto continued to perform well into the 21st century and has been recognized by every generation since his debut as a Brazilian musical pioneer. Well known to be a recluse, he spent the last years of his life alone in his apartment in Rio, trying to sort out various legal problems that had accumulated over the course of his storied career, while still holding a place of highest honor in his country’s cultural legacy.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No Image

Business July 6, 2019

Barbershop: Nike Recalls ‘Racist’ Air Max Shoe

NPR’s Michel Martin speaks about the controversy with journalist Alyssa Rosenberg, professor Joseph Cooper and fashion blogger Eugene Rabkin.



MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

There’s another sports-related story we wanted to talk about – or at least it speaks to the fact that sports figures and companies are about more than – well, sports. We wanted to talk about that special-edition sneaker that Nike had planned to release in honor of Independence Day featuring the so-called Betsy Ross flag with 13 stars in a circle representing the 13 original colonies. According to several news outlets, beginning with The Wall Street Journal, Nike pulled the shoes after former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick privately advised Nike executives to do so.

Kaepernick, of course, is the activist famous for kneeling during the national anthem during his playing days to protest police violence, which evidently ended his playing days. He’s also a Nike brand ambassador. Now, it’s not exactly clear what he said to Nike, but it’s been reported that he noted that the flag has been adopted by some white supremacist groups, along with a Confederate flag, to celebrate a time when slavery was legal and the country was supposedly more white or white people had all the power. Nike said in a statement that it pulled the shoes based on concerns it could, quote, “unintentionally offend and detract from the nation’s patriotic holiday” – unquote.

But then other people criticized that decision, including the Arizona governor, Doug Ducey, who said that Nike has, quote, “bowed to the current onslaught of political correctness and historical revisionism” – unquote. He claimed that he would pull back support for financial incentives that were promised to Nike for opening a manufacturing plant in Arizona.

So we figured the Barbershop would be a good place to talk about all this because that’s where we talk with interesting people about what’s in the news and what’s on their minds. So joining us today are Alyssa Rosenberg. She’s an opinion writer who covers culture for The Washington Post. She wrote about this recently. Welcome.

ALYSSA ROSENBERG: Thanks so much for having me.

MARTIN: Joseph Cooper is a professor at the University of Connecticut, where his research focuses on sport, education, race and culture. Professor Cooper, welcome to you.

JOSEPH COOPER: Thank you for having me.

MARTIN: And Eugene Rabkin is the founder of StyleZeitgeist, which is a fashion blog. Eugene, welcome to you as well.

EUGENE RABKIN: Thank you.

MARTIN: So let me just read something that Alyssa wrote in her piece. She said that few things are more American than a giant company’s efforts to turn a profit off a patriotic emblem, then see the product flare into a cultural bonfire. Duly noted. Duly noted, Alyssa. I’m going to actually go to professor Cooper first on this because I take it you agree with Nike’s decision to pull the shoes. Is that right?

COOPER: That is correct.

MARTIN: Because?

COOPER: I agree because, one, we live in a highly politicized climate. And when we think about understanding what the meaning of certain symbols historically meant and what they mean in contemporary terms, I think it’s important that if we are moving towards becoming a more perfect union and respecting the positionalities of diverse groups, then we consider maybe certain symbols that we used to celebrate – i.e., the Confederate flag, i.e., the original 13 colonies flag – that symbol isn’t a symbol of unity for all Americans.

And so, taking into account groups that have been historically oppressed, such as African-Americans during that time period when that flag was created, I think that it was a very appropriate gesture for Nike to pull that particular style of shoe.

MARTIN: So, Alyssa, I’m going to go to you here because, you know, unlike some people for whom, you know, Kaepernick is just the gift that keeps on giving – I mean, there are people who just are outraged by everything he does, and there are those who want to turn this into a referendum on people who love America versus the people who don’t. But one of the things that interests us about your piece is you took a different tack. You were saying you’re not denying that perhaps this flag has been co-opted by these white supremacist groups. The point you made is that we shouldn’t be so quick to capitulate when racists try to taint symbols of our national story.

ROSENBERG: Well, and I think it’s a really interesting question. At what point has something been so thoroughly co-opted that it can’t return to any semblance of its original meaning? And because a couple of obscure Klan groups or some guy from Identity Evropa or some jerks at a Michigan high school football game try to use a historical symbol like the Betsy Ross flag, who gets to say they win? You know, why do jerks who want to imbue something with a new meaning that it may not necessarily have had – why do we get to say that they’re right, that they get to poison this and then none of the rest of us can have it?

I mean, I think part of what was very interesting about this debate is that clearly, this is a conversation about a symbol that has happened in some quarters but has not reached a broad audience. And so I don’t know that there is a consensus on whether or not the flag is tainted.

I respect anyone who says that because the symbol has been used this way, it no longer has an uncomplicated meaning. But I am really opposed to just ceding space to white supremacists simply because they touch something, therefore it’s poison. Why not fight back? Why not try to have an actual conversation about who gets to decide the meaning of these things?

MARTIN: Now, Eugene, one of the reasons we called you is that – I want to mention you didn’t write about this particular story, but you’ve been writing as a fashion blogger about images and fashion that a lot of people have found offensive, and you’re saying that, you know, fashion is meant to provoke and that fashion that fails to provoke loses its power. So where do you come out on this argument, on this issue – you know, recognizing that I don’t think you were born in the U.S., so perhaps the whole history of the Betsy Ross flag and all this isn’t as present for you as it is for other people. But what do you think?

RABKIN: Well, first, I couldn’t agree with Alyssa more. I think that we should not allow white supremacists to reclaim the symbol that is not theirs to claim in the first place, you know? there is – there are examples like that that have happened before. There’s a London brand of boxing gear called Lansdale, you know, and neo-Nazis in London, in the U.K., used to wear their T-shirts because if you cover Lansdale up to a certain point with a jacket, you get to see NSDA, which was the name of Hitler’s party. You know, Lansdale did not stop making clothing. You know, they put out a statement saying that we did not – you know, we do not agree with these values. And that was that, you know?

So I don’t think you should allow that – these symbols to be claimed. But also, you know, for me, the bigger issues here is stifling creativity, you know? And the sneaker is a sneaker, you know? But Nike here – what happened was Nike engaged in self-censorship, you know, because we are living in a time that is so volatile, and moral outrage is stoked so easily both on the left and on the right that it produces atmosphere of self-doubt and self-censorship. And that, to me, is a real problem because fashion is a creative discipline, just like art, and it should have that freedom to provoke and to challenge people’s assumptions.

MARTIN: Joseph, what do you say about that? Professor Cooper, what do you think?

COOPER: Yeah. I mean, I think there’s varying views on – this isn’t the first time that fashion and politics have collided. A few years ago, Gucci put out a style or image on one of their pieces of clothing that was resembling of the minstrel show, which was highly offensive to African Americans in the United States. So as opposed to viewing it as a form – and large – a large contingency of the hip-hop community boycotted Gucci and said, you know, this was culturally insensitive.

So as opposed to viewing it as censorship, I look at this has become a more democratic society whereby traditionally, certain groups – their views and perspectives on certain symbols and images have been silenced or largely marginalized. And now organizations and companies such as Nike are taking into account those voices because they understand that these constituents, these consumers, are major stakeholders for their company. And so to me, I look at it as being more culturally sensitive, more culturally inclusive as opposed to a form of censorship.

MARTIN: So, Alyssa, I’m going to go back to this question of, how do you engage with something that has been co-opted by, for example, white supremacists? Like, there’s a brand of – I’m sure – I don’t want to give more credence to it, but there’s a brand of outerwear that a lot of kids like, and the initials are initials that some of the white supremacist groups also like because it’s – it is a reference to a salute to Hitler, right? So they’re not going to stop making clothes either, but then some people would rather their kids not have that – those clothes.

So what do you suggest? I know you raised a number of examples where, you know, people have used the American flag for heinous things, but other people have said, no, it’s not just yours. What do you say about how to engage with something like this?

ROSENBERG: I think you have a vigorous dialogue about it, and you put it in context. I mean, the African-American lawyer who was almost stabbed by the American flag during the Boston busing protests always said that the flag wasn’t tainted for him and that as long as it was used in a context where sort of positive values were raised vigorously that it could be a symbol of what America could be. And so if it’s your kids, talk to your kids about why certain people feel this way, why they might end up associating themselves with something that they don’t intend…

MARTIN: OK.

ROSENBERG: …You know?

MARTIN: We have to leave it there for now, but there’s more to say because, you know, I want to ask all of you if you’d buy the shoes if they actually came back on the market, right?

RABKIN: (Laughter).

MARTIN: Would you buy it? Eugene, quickly, yes or no – would you buy it?

RABKIN: Absolutely not. I don’t wear sneakers.

MARTIN: Oh, OK. Well…

RABKIN: (Laughter) I’m the wrong person.

MARTIN: That’s Eugene Rabkin. He’s the founder of StyleZeitgeist. That’s a fashion blog. Also with us, Alyssa Rosenberg, opinion writer for The Washington Post, and Joseph Cooper, professor at the University of Connecticut. Thank you all so much for talking to us.

ROSENBERG: Thanks so much.

RABKIN: Thank you.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

No Image

Sports July 6, 2019

California Pay-To-Play Bill Pushes College Athlete Compensation

NPR’s Michel Martin speaks with College Athletics Players Association founder Ramogi Huma about a California bill that will allow compensation for college athletes.



MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

The U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team is contending for a fourth Women’s World Cup tomorrow. At the same time, its team members have been fighting for pay comparable to that of their male colleagues. Meanwhile, the debate over how college athletes are treated recently reached a new level as well. A bill that allows athletes to be compensated for their names, images and likenesses is now making its way through the California Assembly. The so-called Fair Pay to Play Act passed the state Senate in May. And it’s gotten national attention after being criticized by the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, Mark Emmert.

We wanted to know more about it, so we called Ramogi Huma. He was behind the 2014 attempt to unionize Northwestern football players. He is the founder and executive director of the College Athletes Players Association. And we started our conversation by asking how this bill is different from past efforts to compensate college players.

RAMOGI HUMA: This is state legislation, and state legislation is different than some of the major pushes in the past. If you look at some of the most compelling battlefronts, you’re looking at lawsuits. And some of the lawsuits were – are successful to a certain degree but have not provided what we see as equal rights and protections. I think that right now, this is probably the best leverage that college athletes have ever had in terms of breaking through that threshold.

MARTIN: I’m thinking – the analogy that you draw here is – would be, say, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, which is that if he started working on Facebook in his dorm room at Harvard, Harvard doesn’t think they have a right to a piece of Facebook. But I think the analogy that the universities might use is a student using the lab facilities to work on some breakthrough cure for cancer, let’s say, the university would think, because you’re using my facilities to advance your talent, they then deserve a piece of your breakthrough. Do you understand what I’m saying?

HUMA: Yeah. There’s a couple aspects to that argument. Number one is the players already had a reputation. Otherwise, they would not be competing in college sports. Does the college seek to enhance that image? Yes. And athlete’s reputation – yes. But when a player goes and signs an autograph, does the school somehow have the right to literally just own that player’s name, image and likeness? Is that player property of the university? Our answer is no.

Another anecdote was – it was really interesting. David Drummond, who’s a vice president of Google – he used to play football at Santa Clara University. And in a keynote address at a symposium, he talked about the fact that Google was developed at Stanford, in part by student researchers. Stanford paid those student researchers very well. So it’s not some kind of a rule or moral high ground that says the university has to monopolize every bit of talent whether or not the student is advancing gains using the university’s computers or not.

MARTIN: The NCAA president, Mark Emmert, sent a letter to lawmakers urging them to delay the bill, suggesting that the players would be harmed by this. I mean, that was kind of the language that he used. But he said that players, for example, could be ruled ineligible for competition. What’s the basis of that? And is that a credible threat?

HUMA: You can never protect someone by stripping them of their rights. The premise is that unless California lawmakers become complicit in denying California athletes equal rights, then somehow those players will be harmed. And that’s just a false premise.

MARTIN: And before we let you go, do you feel like you’re making headway? Like, you know, part of the reason you got started with this – you were a former UCLA football player yourself. You saw the NCAA suspend your teammate for accepting a bag of groceries when he had no food. You know, you’ve seen a lot over the course of time that you’ve been working on this. And I’m just wondering if you feel like your arguments are making headway. Are people starting to take the questions around how college athletes are treated more seriously?

HUMA: I do think there’s progress. Not as fast as I would like – you know, you look at the multi-year scholarships are now available, the name, image and likeness lawsuit from Ed O’Bannon that resulted in stipends. There’s still a ways to go. Let’s put it that way. But I do think there’s reform. I think a lot of key people are listening, especially lawmakers.

MARTIN: That is Ramogi Huma. He is the founder and executive director of the National College Players Association, an organization founded to advocate for college athletes.

Ramogi, thanks so much for talking to us once again.

HUMA: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)