The plot thins. It seems that, despite Nelly's best efforts, kids may be having less sex. How do we know this?

They did a study.

Now all we need is a study to show what music kids listen to, and how much. That'll clamp the lid down on this, right?

I remember my senior year in high school, when the students were given an anonymous written survey to fill out. It was about drugs and alcohol. It was "anonymous" because the point was not to bust us, but to see what attitudes kids in general had towards illegal partying. Our identities were safe, we were told.

I also remember not believing that for a second.

Never mind the fact that many adults with authority over children will renege on a promise to a teenager in a split second if they feel that it is in the kid's best interest (and yes, sometimes it is). It was the fact that I grew up in the country, and our entire high school had a student body of about 300 kids. Everybody knew everybody, and all the teachers knew every student. And I had very distinctive handwriting.

I never really got cursive down to looking good, so I print. My printing then seemed to merge with cursive in some ways, so I ended up with a unique blend of the two that all my teachers had commented on at some time or another. No one else in that school, or even that town (or probably the whole damn district), had handwriting that looked anything like my distinctive scrawl. I didn't need to put my name on that survey to sign it, so to speak.

Given that, despite the fact that I had been to parties where I drank beer and was smoking pot at least a year before survey time, I lied through my teeth on that poll. I made myself look cleaner than Greg Brady.

Now, many of these kids don't have the situation I had. Many of them are in schools so large that only the most dedicated teachers are likely to know their names without consulting a seating chart. But that doesn't mean that they trust adults enough to tell them the truth about their sexual activities. Or even what music they listen to. Lord knows I didn't want my folks to see the printed lyrics to "Walk This Way". Or "Big Ten Inch Record".

So what is the point of doing all this?

Hey, pollsters have to eat, too, I guess.

Jeff Beck is living proof that the electric guitar is God's favorite instrument. If it weren't, it stands to reason that He'd have Jeff playing whatever is. In almost any conversation about guitar players, among those that listen and know, Jeff is mentioned reverently, as if he didn't really need to be mentioned at all. It just goes without saying that he's in a class by himself.

He started his recording career in 1963 with a band called The Tridents. When invited to replace Eric Clapton in The Yardbirds, he ended up contributing to some of their biggest hits: Train Kept A-Rollin',I'm a Man, and Shapes of Things among others. If you see the highly overrated film Blow Up, you'll see a frustrated Jeff doing his best to smash his guitar into submission, which simply amused Yardbirds rhythm guitarist Jimmy Page no end.

Then, Jeff started his own band, The Jeff Beck Group, which was to have a lineup of Beck, Page, John Paul Jones, and Keith Moon, who was considering leaving The Who. This lineup lasted about as long as it took to record one song- Beck's Bolero. Then Moon chose (wisely) to remain where he was, while Page and Jones formed some other band. Beck finally debuted his band with Rod Stewart on vocals, Ron Wood on bass, and Mick Waller on drums (pictured below).

This band lasted until the day before they were scheduled to play at some obscure rock festival in Bethel, NY, when Jeff dissolved it and started a new Jeff Beck Group. After a few years with that band, and a brief foray into the power trio format with with Vanilla Fudge alumni Tim Bogert and Carmine Appice, he noticed something that surprised him. People were interested in just hearing him play guitar. He didn't need a singer all the time.

Beck wasn't the first to use the lead-guitar-instead-of-a-singer concept. There were the surf bands of the 60's, and Roy Buchanan was already on the scene. But his landmark release Blow by Blow introduced the idea to a mainstream rock audience that had never heard the like, and attracted a lot of the jazz audience as well. That and the next few albums permanently sealed his reputation as the guitar player's guitar player.

I'ts been said that the purpose behind Jeff's playing is to make the listener forget that he's playing a guitar, and it is possible to do that. He gets a wide variety of sounds and effects from one instrument. He doesn't do it with electronics, though, like others (like the incredible Robert Fripp) will.... he does it by holding the guitar differently, or a special way of tweaking the string. He hasn't used a pick since 1983. As Eric Clapton said "With Jeff, it's all in his hands."

Feeling as I do that the now 62 year old Beck is doing some of the best rock and roll of his career (and has in fact received 2 grammys for Rock Instrumental in the last 6 years), I chose to post selections from my most recent soundboard recording. I like this because this is the same band I saw from the second row a few years ago, featuring Terry Bozzio on drums and Tony Hymas on keys, canned bass and other effects. THe hardest thing was to decide what to post. The extra day really came in handy.

One of the reasons I love Beck's playing so much is the way he alternates between great sensitivity and balls out rocking. There are songs that illustrate both, but I still felt it was appropriate to choose two songs, one to illustrate each point. Both are from the Filene Center in Vienna, VA, on September 2, 2003. The first is a beautiful version of the Beatles' "A Day in the Life", which has appeared on his Live at B.B. King's Blues Club disc. This disc is a wonderful example of this linup's capabilities.

Click here for "A Day in the Life".

The next cut is a song originally from his most recent studio release, Jeff, called "My Thing". It's a foot stomping show ender with a main guitar riff that's almost too fast to follow. It definately shows a player who has no interest in letting age slow him down.

Click here for "My Thing".

Enjoy the wonder that is Beck.

He's playing in the U.S. right now. If he plays near you, see it. You won't regret it for a moment.

Next week: As a jazz drummer for 70 or so years, he performed with some of the biggest names in the business. He also did a one-time appearance on a famous comedian's show in the 80's.

When I got home yesterday, cable was down. As it was after 5:00, they would only send a technician if three customers in the same area called to complain. That means that it's an area wide problem. If it's just one customer, he can just go screw himself for 20 hours or so. Evidently, no one called. Boy, I love monopolies.

So I can log on and do this explanation at work, but this week's Trolling the Underground will have to wait until the home service works, as I'll need the resources on my home computer to finish writing it. I guess I'll see you all then.

As expected, Joe Lieberman was routed in yesterday's primary election. And as expected, he says he will continue to run as an Independent.

I don't know if Massachusetts, like New Mexico, has closed primaries where only registered Democrats were able to vote in the primary. If so, perhaps he thinks he can attract enough DTSs and Republicans to pull off a win.

To quote O'Tim quoting Roger Daltry quoting Murray Head quoting some anonymous kid 85 years ago, "Say it ain't so, Joe".

This is exactly what I was talking about a few posts down. A lack of respect for the electoral process coming from the people involved in it. He has the right to do it, of course. It's perfectly legal. But it's tacky and it's wrong.

Lieberman, with this move, seems to be saying "I'm the right person for this job. I know I am. You voters are obviously just too stupid to see it, so I'll keep telling you."

The purpose of an election is to hear the voice of the people. To have the people themselves choose the candidate that they want to run for office. Sometimes, well, frequently, we will choose wrongly, but that is our right and the cross we must bear. The responsibility of the candidate is to respect that voice. Obviously, Joe Lieberman does not have that respect. He evidently thinks this is about his ego, and about getting the last word.

The people have spoken, Joe. Say your goodbyes and clear out your desk. I still have some boxes from my move if you need them.

Still miss ya, man.

I've frequently said that you can convince most people of almost anything by using just four words. Those words are "They did a study."

You don't have to know who "they" are. You don't have to know how the study was done. You don't have to know how the data was collected, what standards were used in interpreting the data, how long the study took, or how large the sample size was. "They did a study" is all you need, because everyone knows that only smart people do studies, and they're certain that someone else who is very smart (and oh, so honest) checked up on these folks to make sure that everything was on the up and up. "They" are frequently considered to be an unimpeachable source.

So now, we have incontrovertable evidence that listening to sexy music makes teenagers have sex earlier. We know this because, well, they did a study.

The study claims that over a thousand virgins were interviewed on the phone. Obviously, this was not done in L.A. or Albuquerque. Then two years later, they were interviewed again, asked if they'd been popped, and what music they listened to. Hey, kids wouldn't lie about sex, would they?

The study focused on rap and hip-hop, of course, and proved that the "demeaning" sexual mesages made boys seek females relentlessly, and girls see themselves as sex objects.

Does any of this sound familiar? Of course it does. They did a study about rock, too. And disco. And probably swing jazz.  And they found the same things.

While not a parent myself, I was once a teenager, and remember a lot of that time. I will now share with the parents in the audience an uncomfortable truth, one I hope you are ready for.

You see, teenagers fuck. A lot. And they enjoy it, despite the fact that most of them aren't doing it very well.

And this is nothing new. My generation got it on all they could to the smarmy strains of "Lost in Love" and the sexy sting of "Paradise By the Dashboard Light". My brother probably lost his virginity listening to "Slow Ride" by Foghat. And how many guys owe their first piece of ass to the Beatles or Elvis? Miles Davis? Glen Miller?

Or even Bing Crosby?

You see, anyone who was once a teenage boy remembers that regardless of the music you liked, getting to home plate was job #1. Teenage boys have always been like that. The phrase "Young, dumb, and full of cum" wasn't coined by Tupac.

And girls have always been likely to see themselves as sex objects. That's why they preen so much. That's why they stuff their bras and follow fashion so closely. No one gets a navel ring to meet MIT entrance requirements.

And as always, adults that couldn't wait to slough off the social stigma of virginity themselves seek to blame the music that their kids love and that they can't stand. I wonder, how many people involved in this study still like to listen to "Walk This Way"?

I also wonder why they think the music comes first. Isn't it equally possible that the kids who are more interested in sex in the first place pick the sexier music to listen to?

So what to do? Ban the music? That will just make the kids want to hear it more. Probably, the only halfway effective thing would be to have Beyonce do a song about using condoms.

So what artists in particular are spreading teenage legs the most? I don't know.

But when I find out, I'll hit Nat up for a special podcast.

* With apologies to Frank Zappa.

*(People tend to see what they want to see, regardless of what is really written, so what's the point in actually taking the time to write something? Just fill in the blank yourself.)

The first time I remember seeing Martin Mull was in the late 70's, on some variety show or another. He was already on Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman but I didn't watch that, so he wasn't familiar to me. He was just a guy with a guitar who sang a very funny song where he hummed the dirty parts to make it fit for prime time, and then ended up humming the majority of the song. I thought it was a riot. He was promoting an album called Sax and Violins, which I remember almost buying once, before choosing something else..

The next time I saw him was on the hilarious show Fernwood 2Nite, which I DID watch, owing to the fact that I was then allowed to stay up later. His career sped up from there, mainly on TV but also in film, and there's hardly anyone who doesn't know who he is. I remember wondering in the beginning, though, why he didn't do more music.

It turns out that he'd been there and done that. In fact, he released albums and performed in nightclubs throughout the 70's. His act was a combination of stand up comedy banter and humorous songs, competently played. His first album even had Levon Helm from The Band on drums and background vocals!

His live act was a combination of music and patter. He'd basically tell jokes to set up the songs, then do the songs, which were jokes in and of themselves. I kind of doubt that anyone was sneaking recorders into his nightclub shows, but there are a few radio recordings out there, like this one.

This week's selection is from a show at Chicago's Ivanhoe Theater on Febuary 2, 1977, during his tenure on "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman." It was recorded by WXRT, the greatest radio station in existence. He'd just put out a new record and was talking to the audience about that as well as "MHMH". It sounds like a smallish to medium crowd, and seems to be the second of two shows done that night. It's pretty funny stuff. The cut is more than half talking, and the song, "I'll Hate Myself in the Morning", is short, but as I said, funny stuff.

Here it is!

No one won the contest, which surprised me, but such is life. Since I'm actually mailing out prize discs, I don't feel obligated to make it TOO easy. Besides, as I told O'Tim, it's fair for me to win once in awhile.

Next week: This guitarist turned down an invitation to join the Rolling Stones, so they took his former bass player instead. First to get it gets a copy!

When I set up this imaginary fistfight between Matt Dillon and James T. Kirk, I meant

THIS Matt Dillon....

(the guy with the star),

NOT this Matt Dillon.....

....whom I had forgotten about altogether. Shit, Yeoman Rand could kick HIS ass.

Not so crazy now, am I?

One of the vital functions of parenting, I am lead to understand, is preparing the little joy bundle in question for independent, adult existence. Making sure they can make the right decisions, know how to handle adversity and strive for success, and function well in a society with certain laws and mores. To educate them in the process and requirements of being an acceptable, if not exemplary, member of a particular society. To make sure that what is expected of them is also natural to them.

Yet, when I listen to parents speaking to their children, and think back on the things my parents told me, I see that most, if not all, parents fail to do this in a fundamental way, because of something they seemingly can't help doing.

Lying.

Oh yes, people lie to their children every day, all over the world. I don't mean nice lies, like Santa Claus or "Sure you'll be pretty when you grow up". I mean things that are fundamentally untrue in the real adult world. Examples follow.

1) "You can't judge a book by its' cover".

Well, this holds true in a fashion...... appearances can be deceiving, and we can all be surprised. However, that's not usually what parents are trying to tell kids with that statement. They're trying to get their kids to be more accepting of others and not judge them by their clothes or skin or the color of their hair. They want their kids to go play with those slovenly redheaded stepchildren, get to know them, and stay out of Mom's hair while she gossips with the other moms.

Yet, as adults, we judge books by little but their covers. We don't have time to get to know everybody, and they all must be judged in some way. When you go to the mall, you can spot the trailer trash right off. When you go to see a professional, you expect him to wear a tie. Not that a tie performs any particular function that a professional requires, but just because he can't be a professional without one. Sans the tie, he's just some idiot schlub. With it, the same guy suddenly knows what he's talking about. Female professionals are spared the tie, of course, but should have on  a nice outfit and have no visible tattoos. If your OB/GYN has "Live to Ride, Ride to Live" tattooed on her neck, you just might switch, eh?

Furthermore, people will insist upon judging books by their covers in police investigations, the last place where such a tactic could be useful. How many times have people bemoaned the lack of profiling in airline security? "It's the Arabs that do these things, so why are they checking people who aren't Arabs? It's a total waste of time." I'm sure you've heard this one a few times.

It's stupid. It wasn't an Arab that blew up the Fed building in Oklahoma City. It wasn't an Arab that blew one off at the Olympics in Georgia, although it was Arabs that they wasted two weeks looking for. The last time I checked, "Jose Padilla" was not an Arabic name. Neither was "John Walker Lindh". Of course, Arabs do blow things and people to smithereens, but to rely on that only creates an unnecessary hole in any security procedure or police investigation.

Oh, and how often does a woman who can sing well, but isn't super hot, get a shot at the top 40?

2) "It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game."

Right, that's why steroid use is rampant in pro sports. That's why colleges don't always give accurate grades to their star athletes. That's why politicians regularly use any dirty trick they can to win. That's why voting districts with high populations of black people got fewer voting machines in 2004. In adult America, winning is all. Do it however you can. No one wins "Survivor" by keeping his/her word or caring about others, right?

Just yesterday I heard of a Republican who is running for Senate right now.... I forget where, but I'm thinking Virginia..... who is behind in the polls, so he's channeling Republican funds to a Green Party candidate. He hopes this will draw votes away from the Democrat who is favored, and allow him a win. Legal? Probably. I find it despicable, though, as it disregards the purpose of an election - that is, for the will of the people to be expressed- and turns it into a manipulative exercise, so that he (and his Party, which is so much more important than the country itself) has a chance to win. Never mind winning on his merits. Odds are he hasn't any. It makes you wonder what might have happened in 2004 had the Dems been disingenuous enough to fund a Libertarian candidate.

Who cares, anyway, right? It's not as if most of us vote anyway. We have little use for it. We tend to tell our kids that it's a duty, though.

3) "Honesty is the best policy."

Right, look in the mirror and say THAT on April 14th. Dishonesty is universal in the adult world. I don't even need to go into politics with this, as dishonesty is expected and accepted in that arena. The only political lies that bother anybody are those that come from the OTHER side. Your guy never lies..... that damn media just twists things around to make it look that way. Even adults that strive to be honest with others will usually lie to themselves, at least.

Parents tell this to kids not to make them honest adults, but to keep their kids from lying to THEM. This will work for awhile, as people will always forgive a small child for being utterly tactless. As they get older, the parents will tire of the embarrassment and teach their kids about "little white lies". Lying to pull one's ass out of the griddle is usually taught by example. And let's not forget that lying is frequently "Just good business."

4) "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Remember when you were young, and "He hit me first" was no excuse? Remember when saying that would still get you punished, because you knew very well - or were supposed to - that you weren't  to hit ANYONE, regardless? And you'd always get the same old lecture.... "It takes two to make a fight."

Not in the adult world. ANYWHERE in the adult world. If Country X kills 100 innocent citizens of Country Y, then anything Country Y does after that is justified, because Country X did it first. So Country Y, when they kill 10,000 innocent citizens of Country X, is simply defending itself, and has done no one any wrong. They can then, if they wish, march straight into Country Z. They didn't do anything, but Country Y doesn't like the way Country Z is looking at them. Besides, Country X did it first, and they're all friends over there. Meanwhile, Country X had their own axe to grind against Country Y in the first place, because they had it coming. Yeah - this is the ADULT world.

We show it in our justice system as well, although among industrial nations America is pretty much alone. I mean capital punishment, of course. We demonstrate our commitment to life by killing those we believe have killed others. I word it that way because we don't always have the facts straight in these courts of ours, and innocent people do go to jail. They also get the death penalty.This is usually no problem for the families that need closure and the lawyers that have political aspirations.

It's not all their fault, though. How many times have you heard someone say that an accused person should be executed when they haven't even been convicted yet? How many people in America honestly feel that the only thing wrong with the death penalty is the fact that the scum get a few chances to appeal it, as if they WOULDN'T if it were THEM on the chopping block? I've met people who consider the possibility of executing a few innocent people as an acceptable margin of error! They are not even slightly interested in justice..... only revenge. Again, they would feel different if it was their lives on the line.

I could probably go on forever, but I think my point is made. Of course, people will always claim that they're trying to make their kids into better adults than they themselves are, and perhaps that's true. I think it gives us a reason - besides sheer hubris, that is- for the fact that teenagers won't listen to adults. They've observed the adult world a bit, and figured us out.

And I am not, of course, suggesting that parents start teaching their kids the virtues of bigotry, opportunism, dishonesty, and revenge. It all makes me wonder, though.

What kind of world might we have if we held ourselves - and each other- to the same standards to which we hold an eight year old?