Moral
Crux
This article originally appeared in NFH #19 in
the summer of 1990.
Underground music is
a funny business these days...you find that people that like the same stuff you do
developed their tastes through totally different channels yet somehow ended up at the same
point. There are people making music I like that listened to tons of Stooges or MC5,
others who dug sixties garage bands, some who dug glitter trash like the New York Dolls,
and some even who thought Black Sabbath or most shockingly Led Zeppelin were the ultimate.
Myself, I cut my musical teeth on the Jam, the Clash, the Damned, Stiff Little Fingers,
the Undertones, the Ramones, and most of all, the Sex Pistols. So on hearing the second
Moral Crux lp entitled The Politics Of Thinking, I thought I might have found a
kindred spirit, given the similarity in sound and lyrics to the first Clash lp or SLF
records, and when singer James Farris responded to a letter asking about what else they
had done with a top ten list that included 8 bands in my OWN top ten, I knew this was
somebody I'd have to get to know more about. So off goes the NFH home interview kit. The
NFH questions were read by James' girl friend, who threw in plenty of her own while
playing devil's advocate to keep James on his toes.
Moral Crux started in
1983 with James joining up with guitar player Jeff Jenkins to kick things off. James was
in a cover band that played Clash and Sex Pistols and New York Dolls prior to Moral Crux,
and there was a split in direction when James wanted to do more original material while
some of the other members wanted to become more commercially acceptable. James quit that
band and then met Jeff who played guitar and was into a lot of the same music. They got
together and wrote some songs and just went from there. Along the way they added drummer
Jody Kimmell and a really excellent bass player in Justin Warren.
As of today they have
two albums (the first just called Moral Crux), both of which are heartily
recommended to those into late 70s punk with melody and lyrics about things that matter.
There are also a few scattered compilation tracks, and there'll be a new lp this spring,
maybe in time for this issue. The best comparison I can make is to the first Clash lp;
James at times sounds a little like Mick Jones vocally (he also can sound like Billy Idol
on the first Generation X lp), and the guitar sound is similar, but the effect of the
intervening years is also evident in Moral Crux music, so things are in general faster
than the Clash were. While both lps are strong on the lyrical message, it's the second
that is most effective in my view since it gets specific about certain problems and
attacks them in concise and powerful two and a half minute songs. Stuff like "Stand
Strong" or "Material Brain" may be unfashionably anthemic, but I'd rather
listen to them than many other things that are touted much more loudly these days!
Coming as they do
from the state of Washington, Moral Crux are a bit awkwardly placed. The northwest sound
is all the rage, but it has nothing to do with this band. "For myself", says
James, "it has nothing to do with anything. It's getting really big, and it kind of
really sucks because it doesn't have anything to offer to me. It's just like an early 70s
revival. There's nothing in the lyrics, the music's boring, all the bands look the same. I
don't like it, and not so much just the Subpop bands, there are just a lot of bands around
Seattle and there's this resurgence....another trend...where all the people have their
hair really long and dress a certain way. Not anything against long hair, but everyone
looks the same, and it's just another trend. This grunge rock...people bitch about us and
say "oh, you guys are this late 70's punk or hardcore band" but I think that's a
versatile thing anyway. A late 70s punk band you really can't pigeonhole. But to me,
personally, there's no rebellion in it or any charge, there's nothing that really gets you
excited, because it's no different than heavy metal or any other mindless stuff, anyway.
It's weird how all the Seattle bands sound exactly alike, to a T. It's just boring and has
no substance, and I don't know what this big popularity thing is. It's funny to see a lot
of people jumping on it."
This leaves Moral
Crux a little oddly placed...they really aren't a hardcore band, but their only real
outlet for exposure is in the Flipsides and Maximum Rock'n'Rolls (I first read about 'em
in Flipside, myself). So you probably missed their tours. The first was in the summer of
88 after the first album, and covering only the western US. Their second tour was more of
a national thing, and they managed some dates with Social Distortion "which was OK in
a way because some of the shows were bigger", says James, "but we still prefer
the smaller places where you can get more of an atmosphere...clubs like 200 or 300 people.
Once you get more than that, it's a little strange."
James is the main
voice of social concerns for the band; he writes all the lyrics and sings them, and he
seems to be the one who takes charge of handling the way the band presents themselves to
the rest of the world. So is it just his band? "It's perhaps like a representative
form of democracy", he explains. "Jeff and I formed the band, so I'm a
co-founder. I'm really interested in the politics of the band anyway...environment, social
issues. I read a lot so I address a lot of the issues. A lot of the other band members
aren't as involved as I am...so some people are better suited for certain situations and
positions. It's the same as with instruments. As far as being a spokesperson, you look at
all bands...look at the Beatles, it was Lennon who was the spokesperson. With the Pistols
it was Johnny Rotten, Strummer for the Clash, Jello for the Dead Kennedies. It's no weird
thing or anything. Someone has to do it."
James assures me that
the other members of the band share similar tastes in music and that these tastes are also
pretty diverse, with the exception of commercial radio, which James dismisses as useless.
"Anything as long as it's got soul and honesty." He has no ambition to sign with
a bigger company than local indie Polemic, unless maybe just a slightly larger
independent. As he sees it, it isn't worth the increase in audience if you have to
compromise in any way, and he doesn't see any way that Moral Crux could get signed without
making concessions. He rules this out immediately, pointing to the difficulties
experienced by one band after another in signing with a major. He points to the Clash, one
of his favorite bands, as an example. "In ways, the Clash getting as big as they did,
still kept in touch with what they were doing even though they got signed to CBS. They
still kept their records cheaper than what the company wanted to. They didn't bend on
that. But they did eventually kind of screw up, and I remember Joe Strummer talking in one
of the British papers and admitting that they did."
A big problem for
those of us who really believed the message of late 70s punk...that the audience was
equally important to the band, that playing ability didn't matter as much as attitude, and
that real music had nothing to do with making money...is how to reconcile the fact that
many of the people who made those days so heady have since apparently totally forgotten
what it was that made it great, so you see things as ridiculous as Joe Strummer saying
that "Rock The Casbah" was the best song the Clash ever did, Paul Weller saying
that the Jam were crap, and Johnny Lydon virtually ignoring the value of the Pistols,
which is infinite by comparison to PIL in my opinion. For me, it's been a matter of
divorcing the concepts from the people who espoused them...the fact that these people's
values have changed doesn't make the statements they made when they held those values any
less important to me. But I wondered how James dealt with this since we share so many
common favorites from that era.
"It's kind of
strange", he says, "because there are certain people you think will always stay
true rather than sell out or whatever. Maybe it's difficult, but I'd rather see bands
break up than get really dopey or go into another medium like films or whatever. But as
far as Weller not liking the Jam, I think that's really stupid. The Jam were a really
great, brilliant band, and Paul Weller's a great white soul singer and a brilliant guitar
player. One thing good about the Sex Pistols is that they didn't last that long so they
didn't have a chance to get really stupid. But then again, the stuff that Steve Jones is
doing is pretty ridiculous and even the PIL stuff...the first couple PIL albums are good,
but now it's pretty sickening, like you say, but I guess that's something to just look out
for and use as an example not to do. I don't know...what they want to do is what they want
to do, but it's hard to swallow certain things like that. I remember people saying that
punk died the day the Clash signed to CBS. It would have been interesting to see what
would have happened if they would have stayed with a small label...what would have
happened if they had more control over things. Maybe things would have turned out
different."
Although there's a
hell of a lot of interesting music worldwide, maybe even more so than in the late 70s, one
element that's lacking these days is the respect that there used to be for bands with a
message. I've always felt that there's room for both music that's fun and music that
carries a message, but that when music does carry a message, it's capable of being a
rallying point that can galvanize young people to action. That happened in the late 60s
and again in the late 70s, but whether you like Subpop grunge or not, you gotta admit that
it isn't a form that's going to shape anyone's long term world view. But in spite of that,
it seems that these days it's a distinct liability to try to say something in your lyrics.
Moral Crux has seen that, too.
Says James:
"Yeah, I feel that way. I've felt that way since as far back as 84. But especially
from 1984 to now it's been really bad. All you can do is do what you do, and keep to your
goals. Stick to your guns. You can't bend on anything. It's like people who start reading
their own press...you can't really be influenced by that. What you're doing comes from
your heart, and whether one person likes you or one million, that shouldn't have any
bearing on it. Things go in cycles, and now it seems to be like sleepy town. It got really
generic for a while with all the speed metal and all the crossover stuff, which to me is a
euphemism for lack of ideas, basically. I'm hoping that there's going to be this big
renaissance coming like happened in the late 70s, because it's been so dry for so long.
Even some new type of music, or something. Right now there are some other bands kind of
like us that are surfacing, and it seems like people are a little more open minded about
newer things, as opposed to the whole generic thrash thing that you have to play fast and
look a certain way. It's strange how a lot of bands become almost as conservative as the
people that they're out to be different from."
As for the often
stated assertion that political bands only preach to the converted, James says: "I
don't subscribe to it...I figure if you reach one or one million people, that's more than
you started with. For myself I have to do what's honest and what I believe in, and I'd
rather go up and do what I feel is honest and have hardly any fans than go up there and
sing whatever is trendy at the time and have mass appeal. If you do what isn't real to you
it's ridiculous and you don't have any integrity at all. It's all for naught if it isn't
what you believe in."
"And a lot of
people say "you're just bitching about the government all the time, why don't you go
to Russia". And that's not the point at all. The point is that I want to make the
place better. You have to acknowledge these problems before you can do that. There have to
be checks and balances...you have to be a watchdog. The key to freedom is eternal
vigilance."
Although James sounds
really radical just off his lyrics, when you discuss politics with him you find that he's
extremely rational in his approach to various topics. Raised in a family of Democrats, he
is one of many that have recognized that there's no significant difference between the
Democrats and Republicans, and he yearns for a third party which he thinks could be a
labor party or maybe even a socialist party, something that looks more after the needs of
the people. Farris' views are strongly shaped by a voracious appetite for reading
material.
"I check out the
things I sing or speak about in great depth. If you don't you're just being foolish and
you lack any credibility. And I subscribe to publications like the Nation, News and
Letters (a socialist paper), Mother Jones, New Republic, and I can buy the Christian
Science Monitor daily from newsstand about three blocks from my house...it's a good
international daily publication. And I listen nightly to about five hours of news talk
show from San Francisco from one to five in the morning. It's a great talk show, and
there's a lot of information that comes across the airwaves at that time."
He's a strong
advocate of voting: "Even if there are two things that are evil, to get the lesser
evil is better." But he thinks some significant changes are in order, changes that
can only come from having an informed and active electorate. "We need a lot more
elements of socialism like socialized medicine. In a country that has this much money it's
ridiculous that there isn't adequate housing and education for everyone. The best thing to
do as far as any system is to take the best elements of all these systems and blend them
all together and come up with something new."
At the time of the
interview, the elections in Nicaragua had just resulted in the ouster of the Sandinistas,
and though as I write this in mid-April it is unclear how the transition will work out,
it's already clear that many are heralding the election as vindication for the Contra
approach. Personally, I thought that rather than proving the US posture correct it just
demonstrated that the people there have concluded that the only way they can have a
remotely normal existence is to have a government that the US likes. I wondered if James
followed that situation and had a similar impression.
"Yeah", he
said, "it's pretty sick that the US will support damn near any regime as long as they
have said that they are anti-communist, whether be they dictators, or violators of human
rights or blatant racists or whatever. That didn't seem to matter as long as they played
ball with Uncle Sam and let us exploit their land and labor and what not, while in turn
the tyrant leader would be paid well. Central America has had such a long history of US
intervention and exploitation anyway. In this current election Bush gave like ten million
dollars to the UNO party to support their election. I mean, ten million dollars, and the
country has like 3.7 million people in it. As far as free elections it's kind of a
misnomer. Even in the United States when you have free elections, it's pretty much who has
the most money."
"Also, the
United States really gets upset when one of these countries gets more independent, or when
the puppet they place in power wishes to have a sovereign nation or freely elected
government in their own power. The US government always glorifies democracy and self
determination and freedom and sovereignty in the abstract, but when it comes to looking
like it's going to be an actuality in that direction, they always cook up an insurgency. A
good example would be the creation of the Contras, or some CIA assassination, or the
mining of the harbors in Nicaragua, which we were found guilty of by the World Court so we
pulled out of that."
At this point, James'
girl friend stepped in to ask: "In a country where women are considered inferior,
isn't it surprising that Chomorro got elected?"
"First of all,
just anywhere, in the US or Latin America or anywhere, there's so much sexism involved. As
far as Chomorro goes, I think she's just a sap. I think she's just a US puppet. It's going
to be interesting to see what happens."
Having a political
discussion by mail in anticipation of someone else's comments is a pain in the ass, but I
decided to tackle another in view of recent events in Europe...I personally feel that the
optimal form of government is an enlightened socialism in which major, capital intensive
industries like utilities, (energy production and distribution, communication,
transportation, education, and health care for starters) are government run and smaller
industries can be privately operated. The bottom line is that there are some industries
where it isn't cost effective to have competition (which is why you can only buy
electricity from one company in any given area, for example) or where you would rather not
have maximized profits be the main goal of the industry (as in education or health care or
even insurance), and in those cases, since you can't hope for the market to set the kind
of prices that are necessary, it makes the most sense to have the government run the
industry for the benefit of the people. We already have some socialism in this country
(clearly highways weren't paid for by private enterprise, and the post office isn't on the
Dow Jones, for example). The question is, do we have enough?
As in the case of
Nicaragua, it appears now that with the disintegration of Communism in eastern Europe, all
the right wingers are crowing about how capitalism has conquered and proven that socialism
is a failure, while in reality what they had in those countries never gave socialism a
fair shake. I never felt any illusion about communism as practiced under Soviet control,
but it's distressing to see current events used to advertise the greatness of capitalism.
I put this viewpoint
to James and asked for his response. He replied: "As far as the whole big change over
there, Gorbachev is the one totally responsible for the big turnaround, not the United
States, though they'd like to take credit for it. It's great that Gorbachev was not only
man of the year, but man of the decade in Time magazine. It's great that one person can be
responsible for such a change. But I think whatever system works in a nation works, and as
long as there are no human rights violations and the people are for the system, who cares
what label is on it? Not every democracy can be like the USA's. Resources, amount of
citizens, geographical location, climate, and so many other factors really play into what
must be considered to find the system best fit for a certain nation. A young country might
start out and be communistic in the beginning, and as they grow they might capitalize or
become a mixture of capitalism and socialism or whatever. Like I said before it's best to
take the best elements of all the systems and blend them. As long as the government leaves
avenues of reform and isn't repressive, I figure that's really the main item."
"People are
really hung up on labels, like socialized medicine or national health or however you want
to say it...like Social Security; everyone freaked out, like "That's
socialism!"...But you know how people do that...they don't realize, like communism,
well we have community things like parks, and I suppose our first settlers were communal,
like the first colonies, you know. It's just how everyone's really baited as being this
and that and putting negative connotations on it. There's nothing wrong with certain
elements of socialism, like Social Security is good."
"I don't think
the government here can't do well. It's just a matter of them wanting to exercise some
more things, like a national health plan and things like that. These countries are just
going to have to find out what works best for them. The whole thing, as far as
intervention...let them have the revolution, and if we do send anything we can send
medical aid and books and education and food and stuff like that instead of sending
bullets and guns. People forget that this country began with a revolution."
At this point James'
girl friend interjects: "Do you feel that the US even has the right to intervene
whatsoever, since the Cold War is over and the threat of communism isn't even there
anymore?"
"Well", he
replies, "under the guise of the Monroe Doctrine they always think they can do that.
There are certain countries that are allies, and where we have a lot of interest and are
on good terms with them, and if they need our help and ask for it, that's OK. But
intervening in countries, especially militarily, is totally screwed."
I stated that I think
that the major issues facing the world are population growth (because it directly stresses
everything in the world), environmental destruction, and repressive government in that
order, although all are clearly interlinked. I asked James what he thought about this
list, and to comment on what problems he thinks needs to be attacked.
"That's a tough
one", he answered. "I think the environment might be first, because the planet
can survive without us, but not the other way. We can't survive without the planet. But I
think they're really close knit and it's really hard to categorize them in order of which
comes first. But I think health care and the general welfare of the people is right up
there with the environment as well; that everyone has food and a place to live and a good
education and a job and all that stuff. Also I think now a big issue is drugs; I myself
have never taken any drugs or tasted alcohol or smoked; I've never felt compelled to. I've
never done any of those things, and I've also been a vegetarian since 1984, although that
really doesn't have anything to do with what I'm going to say...I think the solution is to
legalize them, because what is going on now isn't a war on drugs, it's just a war on civil
liberties. It's just an excuse for people to come and pick on minorities or whoever they
want."
James' girl friend
quickly objects: "But the government should express the will of the people, shouldn't
it, so if the government legalizes drugs, won't that be like condoning them?"
"No", says
James. "A lot of people will give you that argument, but they could do it in the
sense that it wouldn't be. I'm in favor of a legalization / education / rehabilitation
system where the attitude would be "we have this problem and we have to deal with
it", instead of going over to Peru or Columbia or the golden triangle and repressing
these people when the problem is ours; it's a supply and demand thing. And you're only
going to get rid of drugs when you can curb people's desire to take drugs. And it's really
hypocritical that alcohol and cigarettes are legal and they're the most deleterious drugs
in our society and are way more responsible for carnage than any of these other drugs.
Drugs should be legalized because crime, I mean drug crime, would be virtually done away
with the day after. Because 80% of all crime is drug related, either directly or
indirectly. For some guy that gets hooked on drugs is going to become a criminal, and
because he's hooked he's going to go out and beat up people and steal and even kill people
for money, and if it was legalized, that would be eliminated. It's just like prohibition,
these drive-by shootings are just a classic picture of the Elliot Ness days, like the
Untouchables and Capone and stuff."
James' girl friend:
"Who would supply the drugs?"
James: "The
government."
James' girl friend:
"And where would they get the drugs?"
James: "Wherever
they could get them. They could grow it themselves, buy it from pharmaceutical labs, or
whatever."
James' girl friend:
"So in a way that would be rather condoning it...saying "we're selling it for
only two dollars while you can get it on the street for 20, and oh, by the way, read this
pamphlet"."
James: "Yeah.
People are going to take drugs. Like I said, people are going to take drugs until their
desire is curbed. There's nothing you can do about it. You can lock them up, you can build
all the jails, you can stick knives in their head, you can torture them, they're going to
take drugs. Look at places like Malaysia where they torture people or cut their heads off,
these guys hooked on heroin. But once you're hooked on that drug, you need help. You can't
live without it, so what are you going to do? Do you see my point? That's the whole
essence of it...it has to be dealt with through education. You take a lot of the glamour
out of it. because I think most of the people hooked on these drugs think it's a
relatively boring, stupid thing to do; just like some guy who sits around and drinks beer
all day. They go "what a boring thing to do!". But if somebody wants to get
rehabilitation now it's so hard for people to get it. You have to go through so much
bureaucratic red tape and most of the time they can't even get it. There'll be waiting
lists stacked up. So the whole thing of this war on drugs, when Reagan came in and besides
cutting all the other human needs programs in the early 80s he cut all the money to go to
any rehabilitation in this whole tough on drugs thing. This "Just Say No" thing
is just a ridiculous, hypocritical stance that has no substance at all. He had Nancy
Reagan go into these clinics and meetings and then afterwards there'd be a cocktail
party."
James' girl friend:
"All of these problems are based on human inadequacy...how can you solve that? When
people are trying to maintain a living and keep up with the Joneses, how can people care
about the environment or the government or keeping other people off drugs or the homeless.
How can you solve that? You can't solve people's problems for them."
James: "There
needs to be a lot of things done, definitely. I think you have to get to the real problem
and go from there. You have to look at our society and say "why do people take drugs?
What is it in our society that makes people take drugs?"
This leaves us with
the question, if people are so strung out from the pressures of society today that they
can't even make a decision not to use drugs that seems logically apparent to anyone who
considers the consequences, then how are these same people ever going to wake up and force
a change in the way society works in time to save the world from environmental and
political catastrophe?
Says James: "I
think there's a lot of people waking up now. I look for the 90s to be a lot more like the
60s in a way where hopefully all the different groups will get together, like all the
minority groups, blacks, whites, all the different ethnic groups, gays and lesbians, just
all the common people getting together and forming a string coalition, to combat the
violation of their rights. And I hope there'll be like a big consciousness taking place. I
think that's how we're really going to be saved. We need some really good spokesmen and
leaders again like Martin Luther King or Malcolm X. We need people to get more involved
and more conscious about things, whether it be like the environment or whatever. I think
now a lot of people are looking at a lot of these issues like the downing of the wall
which are well and good, but there are still a lot of things at home that still have to be
dealt with."
"As far as the
environment, we're going to have to have a whole global consciousness and a linking of
everyone together doing it, and that's what we should do with the space program as well is
to have a global peaceful exploration, instead of using it for military. It should be used
for peace, all the nations together."
