I am one lazy bastard. The holiday season is busy. My colleague fights the same traits, plus he just got married.
I love posting nonsense in this space, and I plan to again after the new year.
But for now, I feel the need to do SOMETHING with this little corner of the web. So I decided to cop out and publish this apology for my laziness.
Happy Holidays to all...
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Bad Company makes death sound kinda nice
"Johnny's life passed him by like a warm summer day."
-Bad Company, "Shooting Star"
Doesn't exactly make me want to shed a tear for Johnny.
It might be the most peculiar death reference in rock. The only one I can immediately think of that compares in terms of weirdness is David Lowery asking if he could take his gun to heaven, noting, "I'd check it with St. Peter at the gate."
-Bad Company, "Shooting Star"
Doesn't exactly make me want to shed a tear for Johnny.
It might be the most peculiar death reference in rock. The only one I can immediately think of that compares in terms of weirdness is David Lowery asking if he could take his gun to heaven, noting, "I'd check it with St. Peter at the gate."
Separated at Birth, Rock icon v. MTV dumbass
Van Morrison, circa 1966
Ashley, the crazy West Virginian on Shot of Love with Tila Tequila (a show I totally watch)
Friday, November 2, 2007
Good News
To all fans of Joss Whedon (or Eliza Dushku for that matter)
http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2007/10/whedon-returns-.html
http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2007/10/whedon-returns-.html
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
A-Rod
Damn this work schedule, keeping me from commenting on inanities as I love to do so much.
A quick observation:
Of the many things being said about A-Rod opting out of his contract, one of the dumbest came from the crew of Baseball Tonight, suggesting that A-Rod's "playoff failures" should scare away potential suitors.
A-Rod's postseason OPS: .844
Jeter's postseason OPS: .846.
That .002 is the difference between the heart of a champion and hideous failure, I tell you.
A quick observation:
Of the many things being said about A-Rod opting out of his contract, one of the dumbest came from the crew of Baseball Tonight, suggesting that A-Rod's "playoff failures" should scare away potential suitors.
A-Rod's postseason OPS: .844
Jeter's postseason OPS: .846.
That .002 is the difference between the heart of a champion and hideous failure, I tell you.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Finally
Atlanta's long drought is over. No, I'm not talking about the fact that we are about to run out of water. We finally have our own WNBA franchise. (Aside to Crystal: Who said there weren't good places in Atlanta to meet women).
http://sports.espn.go.com/wnba/news/story?id=3067643
There are a few questions that I asked myself when I found this out:
1. Do they expect a city that has the lowest attendance for NBA games to support a WNBA franchise?
2. Will they outdraw the Hawks?
3. What will the mascot be? As of this posting they don't have one yet. Might I suggest the Ladyhawkes
http://sports.espn.go.com/wnba/news/story?id=3067643
There are a few questions that I asked myself when I found this out:
1. Do they expect a city that has the lowest attendance for NBA games to support a WNBA franchise?
2. Will they outdraw the Hawks?
3. What will the mascot be? As of this posting they don't have one yet. Might I suggest the Ladyhawkes
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Book Review: That Hideous Strength
Due to the fact that we agreed that this blog would only be about pop culture and not delve into religion or politics I will only say that everyone needs to read this book. This is the third book in C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy and all of them are among my favorites.
Friday, October 12, 2007
The Mitchell Report, Cover. TomKat, Inset.
The Mitchell Report is coming out. I am glowing with schadenfreude already. I can't wait to see which Major Leaguers are busted as steroid abusing freaks.
I can't help but draw a parallel between the steroid scandal and the tabloids, though. I mean, when Game of Shadows came out, ESPN ran a sidebar where you could compare skinny Pittsburgh Barry to the current Incredible Hulk model. It was almost exactly like those US Weekly shots of Farrah Fawcett one year ago, next to one of Farrah today, speculating whether or not she had plastic surgery.
Steroid watching is very much akin to tabloid reading. Which I suppose makes Troy Glaus akin to that naked girl from High School Musical, and Barry Bonds akin to Lindsay Lohan.
I can't help but draw a parallel between the steroid scandal and the tabloids, though. I mean, when Game of Shadows came out, ESPN ran a sidebar where you could compare skinny Pittsburgh Barry to the current Incredible Hulk model. It was almost exactly like those US Weekly shots of Farrah Fawcett one year ago, next to one of Farrah today, speculating whether or not she had plastic surgery.
Steroid watching is very much akin to tabloid reading. Which I suppose makes Troy Glaus akin to that naked girl from High School Musical, and Barry Bonds akin to Lindsay Lohan.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
And having mentioned music videos...
I met this guy at a wedding reception this past weekend, and we chatted about rock-n-roll. He encouraged me to check out his brother's band, the XYZ Affair.
The song is pretty damn good, and the video is good for a laugh- particularly if you are as big a fan of old-school Nickelodeon as I am.
The song is pretty damn good, and the video is good for a laugh- particularly if you are as big a fan of old-school Nickelodeon as I am.
Morning TV (or, "Rumors of my demise have been (somewhat) exaggerated")
I too must apologize for my long respite from the blog. My side of the ledger was starting to look more neglected than my front yard.
There are plenty of things that I have been meaning to write about lately. Instant replay in baseball. The baseball playoffs. My ode to liner notes. Rod Stewart.
But for now, this will be something of a quick hitter, as I just finished preparing for one trial and am now beginning to prepare for one next week. (And by quick hitter, I do not mean to imply that this is short- rather, unplanned.)
I have had the hardest time finding good background noise for my shower and shave. A couple of years ago, I tried playing the radio, starting with Dave FM. Every morning, The Police, The Eagles, Bob Marley, U2. Usually in that order. Sometimes, to trip me up, they would play Sting solo instead of The Police. I couldn't take it anymore. So finally, I got so furious that I called to complain about their lack of variety. In my phone call, I also noted to them the irony of their limited playlist, in light of their variety-trumpeting ad campaign. The intern who fielded my phone call feigned ignorance.
99X had a mess of a morning show, that had the unfortunate double-whammy of being crass and boring. There was no way I was going to listen to the regular guys. And try as I might to seem enlightened, NPR was encouraging me to go back to sleep more than it was serving as a springboard into a productive day.
Then, I had cable installed. But, as discussed in a previous post, I have grown disgusted with SportsCenter. And Mike and Mike were slowly driving me into a homicidal rage every day. (They have the unfortunate double whammy of being unfunny and stupid.)
Now, I have settled on VH1/MTV. Not bad.
For one, they actually show videos that time of day. And not too many commercials, either.
For another, the videos are almost universally entertaining. It must be a great time to be twelve years old. The videos those kids have are way better than the faux-performance videos they showed back when I actually watched MTV.
I would have loved Nickelback's "Rock Star" back in the day- it is visually compelling and superficially clever. Even now, I enjoy the spot-the-cameo game it inspires.
12 year old Babar would have also loved the Maroon 5 video for "Wake Up Call." It has hot women, a nearly-amusing "story line", and gun violence- all you need in a good video, if you ask me. And as an aside, the song is good. I defy you not to have it stuck in your head after you hear it. When I confessed this to my girlfriend, she noted that I reluctantly said the same thing about the first single from this Maroon 5 album. She asked me if I was going to buy the album. I told her that I may not have a choice.
And 12 year old Babar would have been freaking enamored of the "AYO Technology" video with 50 cent, Justin Timberlake, and scores of scantily clad ladies. In fact, I probably would have recorded it for frequent viewing. And again, what's more, it is a good song.
Throw in an aggressive new offering from the Foo Fighters, that irrepressibly catchy song from Feist (the first ever VH1 You Oughta Know artist that I didn't want to bludgeon to death with a mic stand), and a countrified Bon Jovi, and you have some good morning TV.
The only pimple on the ass of VH1: Avrile Lavigne. Her new song sucks hard. And the video is crappy-weepy. If her voice had even a hint of twang, this video would be a staple on CMT (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Anyhow, music videos are where it's at in the morning. I encourage you all to reawaken your inner pre-teen as you reawaken yourself every morning.
There are plenty of things that I have been meaning to write about lately. Instant replay in baseball. The baseball playoffs. My ode to liner notes. Rod Stewart.
But for now, this will be something of a quick hitter, as I just finished preparing for one trial and am now beginning to prepare for one next week. (And by quick hitter, I do not mean to imply that this is short- rather, unplanned.)
I have had the hardest time finding good background noise for my shower and shave. A couple of years ago, I tried playing the radio, starting with Dave FM. Every morning, The Police, The Eagles, Bob Marley, U2. Usually in that order. Sometimes, to trip me up, they would play Sting solo instead of The Police. I couldn't take it anymore. So finally, I got so furious that I called to complain about their lack of variety. In my phone call, I also noted to them the irony of their limited playlist, in light of their variety-trumpeting ad campaign. The intern who fielded my phone call feigned ignorance.
99X had a mess of a morning show, that had the unfortunate double-whammy of being crass and boring. There was no way I was going to listen to the regular guys. And try as I might to seem enlightened, NPR was encouraging me to go back to sleep more than it was serving as a springboard into a productive day.
Then, I had cable installed. But, as discussed in a previous post, I have grown disgusted with SportsCenter. And Mike and Mike were slowly driving me into a homicidal rage every day. (They have the unfortunate double whammy of being unfunny and stupid.)
Now, I have settled on VH1/MTV. Not bad.
For one, they actually show videos that time of day. And not too many commercials, either.
For another, the videos are almost universally entertaining. It must be a great time to be twelve years old. The videos those kids have are way better than the faux-performance videos they showed back when I actually watched MTV.
I would have loved Nickelback's "Rock Star" back in the day- it is visually compelling and superficially clever. Even now, I enjoy the spot-the-cameo game it inspires.
12 year old Babar would have also loved the Maroon 5 video for "Wake Up Call." It has hot women, a nearly-amusing "story line", and gun violence- all you need in a good video, if you ask me. And as an aside, the song is good. I defy you not to have it stuck in your head after you hear it. When I confessed this to my girlfriend, she noted that I reluctantly said the same thing about the first single from this Maroon 5 album. She asked me if I was going to buy the album. I told her that I may not have a choice.
And 12 year old Babar would have been freaking enamored of the "AYO Technology" video with 50 cent, Justin Timberlake, and scores of scantily clad ladies. In fact, I probably would have recorded it for frequent viewing. And again, what's more, it is a good song.
Throw in an aggressive new offering from the Foo Fighters, that irrepressibly catchy song from Feist (the first ever VH1 You Oughta Know artist that I didn't want to bludgeon to death with a mic stand), and a countrified Bon Jovi, and you have some good morning TV.
The only pimple on the ass of VH1: Avrile Lavigne. Her new song sucks hard. And the video is crappy-weepy. If her voice had even a hint of twang, this video would be a staple on CMT (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Anyhow, music videos are where it's at in the morning. I encourage you all to reawaken your inner pre-teen as you reawaken yourself every morning.
I Give Up
My team will never be great as long as Chan Gailey is the head coach. Too often in his stay on the Flats I have been tricked into thinking that we have a chance at greatness. Every time I'm disappointed. I planned on writing a longer post about how Gailey is 0-6 against UGA, or that after starting 9-2 last year, we lost our final three games by a combined total of nine points. Or that this year, with what looked like our best team overall since the Joe Hamilton era, we've started 0-3 in a crappy ACC with losses to Virginia and Maryland. But I'm not. We are probably going to beat Miami this week. And possibly Virginia Tech as well (VT always stumbles late in the season). But we'll lose to Georgia and lose in that pointless bowl game in Boise to Hawaii. So all I'll say is Go Jackets and to hell with Georgia.
Ok. I lied when I said this would be short and sweet. Why shouldn't we expect greatness from our football team. We've won a National Title more recently than UGA. But do you think that Mark Richt would be around if he had lost six straight to his biggest rival. Gailey supporters always bring up the fact that we have gone to five straight bowl games since he became coach. So what. Every one of those bowl games were meaningless. The Gator Bowl was the best bowl game we've gone to and that is the bowl game UGA goes to when they have bad years (or it's SEC non-union equivalent). We've gone to one ACC championship game and we lost 9-6 to Wake Forest. And Chan. I'm sick of the terrible offensive play calling. You had the best player in the country last year in Calvin Johnson and you did nothing with him. And this year is no different. You can't run the ball 40 times a game and expect to win against the big boys. We aren't Nebraska in 1995. Take a page from our defense and take some risks. Shotgun draw may be a way of life but it ain't mine.
Ok. I lied when I said this would be short and sweet. Why shouldn't we expect greatness from our football team. We've won a National Title more recently than UGA. But do you think that Mark Richt would be around if he had lost six straight to his biggest rival. Gailey supporters always bring up the fact that we have gone to five straight bowl games since he became coach. So what. Every one of those bowl games were meaningless. The Gator Bowl was the best bowl game we've gone to and that is the bowl game UGA goes to when they have bad years (or it's SEC non-union equivalent). We've gone to one ACC championship game and we lost 9-6 to Wake Forest. And Chan. I'm sick of the terrible offensive play calling. You had the best player in the country last year in Calvin Johnson and you did nothing with him. And this year is no different. You can't run the ball 40 times a game and expect to win against the big boys. We aren't Nebraska in 1995. Take a page from our defense and take some risks. Shotgun draw may be a way of life but it ain't mine.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Don't Call It a Comeback
Sorry for the long break. A mixture of work and illness prevented me from blogging for the last couple of weeks but I hope to make up for it this month.
So during lunch at work the other day we were talking about movies and how movies in the 70's and 80's had a lot more cussing on them than movies released today. Now, I'm not going to write about that today but it did remind me of something I've been meaning to write about for awhile. So in no particular order, here's my list of the greatest cussers in movie history.
1. Samuel L. Jackson - Pretty much every movie he's ever been in. As an aside I watched all three Lord of the Rings movies back to back and by the end my friend and I were imagining what the movie would be like if every role was played by Jackson. At the time it seemed really funny.
2. Jason Lee - Mallrats and Chasing Amy.
3. Bruce Willis - The Die Hard movies.
4. James Gandolfini - The Sopranos
5. Joe Pesci - Goodfellas, My Cousin Vinny
6. Robert De Niro and Charles Grodin - Midnight Run
7. Ben Affleck - Dazed and Confused
8. John Goodman and Jeff Bridges - The Big Lebowski
9. Sean William Scott - The American Pie Movies
10. Bill Paxton - Aliens
What are some of your favorites?
So during lunch at work the other day we were talking about movies and how movies in the 70's and 80's had a lot more cussing on them than movies released today. Now, I'm not going to write about that today but it did remind me of something I've been meaning to write about for awhile. So in no particular order, here's my list of the greatest cussers in movie history.
1. Samuel L. Jackson - Pretty much every movie he's ever been in. As an aside I watched all three Lord of the Rings movies back to back and by the end my friend and I were imagining what the movie would be like if every role was played by Jackson. At the time it seemed really funny.
2. Jason Lee - Mallrats and Chasing Amy.
3. Bruce Willis - The Die Hard movies.
4. James Gandolfini - The Sopranos
5. Joe Pesci - Goodfellas, My Cousin Vinny
6. Robert De Niro and Charles Grodin - Midnight Run
7. Ben Affleck - Dazed and Confused
8. John Goodman and Jeff Bridges - The Big Lebowski
9. Sean William Scott - The American Pie Movies
10. Bill Paxton - Aliens
What are some of your favorites?
Friday, September 28, 2007
When legal nerdery meets obsessive fandom
At the risk of being redundant to all four of our readers, I am an attorney.
A case I am working on right now has me thinking- if a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to subpoena witnesses on his behalf, and if the Defendant himself is the judge of which witnesses are relevant to his case...
Why hasn't anyone in New England subpoenaed Derek Jeter or A-Rod to testify on their behalf at a trial in October?
A case I am working on right now has me thinking- if a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to subpoena witnesses on his behalf, and if the Defendant himself is the judge of which witnesses are relevant to his case...
Why hasn't anyone in New England subpoenaed Derek Jeter or A-Rod to testify on their behalf at a trial in October?
I am indeed ready for some football
1. I am going to the UGA-Ole Miss game this weekend. I am very excited. However, I feel like I need to note that I do fear this is a classic trap game. I worry that the Dawgs probably spent the first part of the week patting themselves on the back for a job well done in Tuscaloosa, and the second part of the week gearing up for the Volunteers on October 5. Let's hope they prove me wrong. Or, alternatively, that Ole Miss proves so inept that it does not matter.
2. I have been reading The Blind Side by Moneyball author Michael Lewis. Great read. The book analyzes the evolution of the left tackle position- how it went from just another faceless position to an indispensable component of a successful football team. I recommend the book highly.
In The Blind Side, Lewis illustrates his analysis with the tale of Ole Miss left tackle Michael Oher. Consequently, this weekend in Sanford, I will be eager to watch this building of a young man in action.
3. I saw extensive coverage of a high school football game on Sportscenter today. Not just a score, or a "Plays of the Day" replay of a remarkable play. But a full game breakdown, with highlights and stats. That seems messed pretty messed up to me. Ever since LeBron James made it profitable, ESPN has been showcasing younger and younger athletes, and featuring games involving younger and younger teams. Which sometimes can be interesting, but more often is completely obnoxious.
Next thing you know, they'll be showing Little Leaguers.
4. Two weeks later, I would like to officially welcome Georgia back to the SEC East race. I was writing them off (loudly and angrily) after the South Carolina game, but the Dawgs are now one Gamecocks loss away from controlling their own destiny again. Which, in a way, is all you can ask for. Until the week after the Florida game, anyway.
5. Penn State lost to Michigan. What a showcase of suckitude for the Big Ten.
6. App. State lost to Wofford. Which presumably means that Wofford can beat Penn State. Once this season is over, I am sure there is going to be an awesome Slippery Rock story, wherein some school like North Suburban gets a top-25 vote for being the team that beat the team... that beat the team... that beat the Big 10 champion.
7. In hindsight, it sure was stupid to believe the Falcons had a shot this year, and not because they lost Michael Vick. Rather, the Falcons switched this year from a zone blocking scheme (using smaller more mobile linemen), to a more traditional alignment. Of course that is going to result in some situations where their undersized OL is overmatched. No wonder Joey Jo Jo is doing his best David Carr impersonation this year.
8. Brett Fav-ruh and the Green Bay Packers are a feel-good story. It is nice to see Favre back on top. But we should have seen it coming to a certain extent. Even if I did not think they were going to go 3-0, we should have expected to see them in the playoffs. Just look at the other teams in the division. One is QBed by Tavaris Jackson, and another is QBed by their coaches' choice of whoever sucks less between Rex Grossman and Brian Griese. The other team is (still) the Detroit Lions.
9. After this past weekend, I am more convinced than ever that every football announcer on TV sucks. There are exceptions, but as a group they bring nothing to the table.
10. I am even more stoked for football now that the Braves have finally been eliminated. Their little run at the end made it interesting, but they were mediocre for too long to have come as close as they did. At least the Mets are looking like they might wind up watching the playoffs on TV. And unlike Braves fans, Mets fans (John Knight aside) don't have college football to occupy their time after their baseball team is eliminated.
11. This is only tangentially related to college football, but I love that the "Don't tase me, bro" guy is from U of F. Incidentally, if my colleague and I had started this exercise in narcissism that is a blog today, I would have pushed strongly for "Don't tase me, bro" as the blog title.
2. I have been reading The Blind Side by Moneyball author Michael Lewis. Great read. The book analyzes the evolution of the left tackle position- how it went from just another faceless position to an indispensable component of a successful football team. I recommend the book highly.
In The Blind Side, Lewis illustrates his analysis with the tale of Ole Miss left tackle Michael Oher. Consequently, this weekend in Sanford, I will be eager to watch this building of a young man in action.
3. I saw extensive coverage of a high school football game on Sportscenter today. Not just a score, or a "Plays of the Day" replay of a remarkable play. But a full game breakdown, with highlights and stats. That seems messed pretty messed up to me. Ever since LeBron James made it profitable, ESPN has been showcasing younger and younger athletes, and featuring games involving younger and younger teams. Which sometimes can be interesting, but more often is completely obnoxious.
Next thing you know, they'll be showing Little Leaguers.
4. Two weeks later, I would like to officially welcome Georgia back to the SEC East race. I was writing them off (loudly and angrily) after the South Carolina game, but the Dawgs are now one Gamecocks loss away from controlling their own destiny again. Which, in a way, is all you can ask for. Until the week after the Florida game, anyway.
5. Penn State lost to Michigan. What a showcase of suckitude for the Big Ten.
6. App. State lost to Wofford. Which presumably means that Wofford can beat Penn State. Once this season is over, I am sure there is going to be an awesome Slippery Rock story, wherein some school like North Suburban gets a top-25 vote for being the team that beat the team... that beat the team... that beat the Big 10 champion.
7. In hindsight, it sure was stupid to believe the Falcons had a shot this year, and not because they lost Michael Vick. Rather, the Falcons switched this year from a zone blocking scheme (using smaller more mobile linemen), to a more traditional alignment. Of course that is going to result in some situations where their undersized OL is overmatched. No wonder Joey Jo Jo is doing his best David Carr impersonation this year.
8. Brett Fav-ruh and the Green Bay Packers are a feel-good story. It is nice to see Favre back on top. But we should have seen it coming to a certain extent. Even if I did not think they were going to go 3-0, we should have expected to see them in the playoffs. Just look at the other teams in the division. One is QBed by Tavaris Jackson, and another is QBed by their coaches' choice of whoever sucks less between Rex Grossman and Brian Griese. The other team is (still) the Detroit Lions.
9. After this past weekend, I am more convinced than ever that every football announcer on TV sucks. There are exceptions, but as a group they bring nothing to the table.
10. I am even more stoked for football now that the Braves have finally been eliminated. Their little run at the end made it interesting, but they were mediocre for too long to have come as close as they did. At least the Mets are looking like they might wind up watching the playoffs on TV. And unlike Braves fans, Mets fans (John Knight aside) don't have college football to occupy their time after their baseball team is eliminated.
11. This is only tangentially related to college football, but I love that the "Don't tase me, bro" guy is from U of F. Incidentally, if my colleague and I had started this exercise in narcissism that is a blog today, I would have pushed strongly for "Don't tase me, bro" as the blog title.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Book Review: The Ladies of Grace Adieu
This is a collection of short stories by Susanne Clarke set in the same world she created her debut novel Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell. I loved that booked so I picked up this one. While not as good as the novel (most of the stories were written before the novel), there are several stories in here that I greatly enjoyed. The best three stories of the collection were "On Likerish Hill" (a nice twist on the Rumpelstiltskin)
"The Duke of Wellington Misplaces His Horse" (deals with the post-military career of the Duke) and "Mr. Simonelli or the Fairy Widower" (the diary of a rector and his proposal to five women).
This is also a good primer for Jonathan Strange also. At just over 200 pages, it's a little easier to take on than the 800 page novel. So if you like this collection I would highly recommend picking up Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell next.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
On fandom
The Neil Peart article has seemed to draw a fair amount of response. And many folks seemed eager to weigh in on which artists' fans annoy them. Reading Neil Peart's comment section has made me ponder the nature of fandom and why certain artists' fans might seem annoying. And one of the best reasons I have come up with is that all fans, on a certain level, are annoying.
I realize that this is an extremely broad statement. And potentially off-putting, as everyone is a fan of something. I am a fan of the Atlanta Braves, the Georgia Bulldogs, Neil Young and Crazy Horse, and milkshakes, just to name a few. Every person reading this is a fan of some sports team, some recording artist, some television program, some thing.
But, having copped to fandom myself and acknowledged that it is universal, I think that there are enough annoying fans of all stripes out there that we should consider the nature of fandom- and why I believe that the entire concept of fandom breeds annoying people.
For starters, consider the origins of the word. The word "fan" is derived from "fanatic." And in common usage, the word fanatic is rarely ever used as a compliment. Its synonyms, as listed on dictionary.com, include zealot, bigot, hothead, and militant. Not terms one would want to self-apply.
We must also consider the traits encompassed by fanaticism. Fanaticism is a completely irrational state. A fanatic is completely unreceptive to criticism or counterarguments. As Winston Churchill put it, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
These "fanatic" traits are present among fans of sports teams. A football team's roster can be (and often is) comprised entirely of deplorable human beings, but its fans will still cheer for them on Saturdays. Consider the Georgia fans who spent this off-season cracking jokes on talk radio about Florida's team discipline problems; these yahoos seemed to have conveniently forgotten about all of the guys in red and black who themselves were recently given the opportunity to check out the back of a police car. Similarly, it doesn't matter to Patriots' fans that their team was recently caught in a cheating scandal; they still root for victories and angrily dismiss those who dwell on the whole imbroglio. And remember, there are people who still cheer for Barry Bonds.
Sadly, these "fanatic" traits are definitely present among supporters of political parties. In this country, we seem to have reached a point where people "cheer" for their political party, regardless of whether or not the party has earned their cheers. I know plenty of people who seem to root for certain outcomes in political races with no regard for the issues, in the exact same way they would hope that the Cowboys will beat the Redskins on Monday night. It doesn't matter to these people whether their political party "deserves" to win, or whether their political party has talent or a good game plan. The political party is their team. And you always hope your team beats the snot out of the other guy.
And finally, these "fanatic" traits are also present among people who are fans of particular recording artists or musical genres. Whenever you reach a state of extreme and irrational support for a musician, you lose the ability to differentiate between the good from the bad, the worthwhile from the insignificant, the real from the fake. And what's more, you become "annoying."
In other words, to analyze an example from my colleague's recent post, Doors fans may be annoying. But not because there is something inherently wrong with them or the music they are fans of. Rather, I believe Doors fans seem annoying because they irrationally support Jim Morrison, even though I believe that his artistic output does not warrant the level of hero-worship he is given. (This seemed to be a common thread of the comments section- the fans generally identified as the most annoying were fans of artists who received more support or acclaim than they "deserve.")
In the same way, fans of anything can be annoying, when their support becomes irrational, exclusionary, and obsessively zealous.
Especially when the fans in question root for the Yankees.
I realize that this is an extremely broad statement. And potentially off-putting, as everyone is a fan of something. I am a fan of the Atlanta Braves, the Georgia Bulldogs, Neil Young and Crazy Horse, and milkshakes, just to name a few. Every person reading this is a fan of some sports team, some recording artist, some television program, some thing.
But, having copped to fandom myself and acknowledged that it is universal, I think that there are enough annoying fans of all stripes out there that we should consider the nature of fandom- and why I believe that the entire concept of fandom breeds annoying people.
For starters, consider the origins of the word. The word "fan" is derived from "fanatic." And in common usage, the word fanatic is rarely ever used as a compliment. Its synonyms, as listed on dictionary.com, include zealot, bigot, hothead, and militant. Not terms one would want to self-apply.
We must also consider the traits encompassed by fanaticism. Fanaticism is a completely irrational state. A fanatic is completely unreceptive to criticism or counterarguments. As Winston Churchill put it, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
These "fanatic" traits are present among fans of sports teams. A football team's roster can be (and often is) comprised entirely of deplorable human beings, but its fans will still cheer for them on Saturdays. Consider the Georgia fans who spent this off-season cracking jokes on talk radio about Florida's team discipline problems; these yahoos seemed to have conveniently forgotten about all of the guys in red and black who themselves were recently given the opportunity to check out the back of a police car. Similarly, it doesn't matter to Patriots' fans that their team was recently caught in a cheating scandal; they still root for victories and angrily dismiss those who dwell on the whole imbroglio. And remember, there are people who still cheer for Barry Bonds.
Sadly, these "fanatic" traits are definitely present among supporters of political parties. In this country, we seem to have reached a point where people "cheer" for their political party, regardless of whether or not the party has earned their cheers. I know plenty of people who seem to root for certain outcomes in political races with no regard for the issues, in the exact same way they would hope that the Cowboys will beat the Redskins on Monday night. It doesn't matter to these people whether their political party "deserves" to win, or whether their political party has talent or a good game plan. The political party is their team. And you always hope your team beats the snot out of the other guy.
And finally, these "fanatic" traits are also present among people who are fans of particular recording artists or musical genres. Whenever you reach a state of extreme and irrational support for a musician, you lose the ability to differentiate between the good from the bad, the worthwhile from the insignificant, the real from the fake. And what's more, you become "annoying."
In other words, to analyze an example from my colleague's recent post, Doors fans may be annoying. But not because there is something inherently wrong with them or the music they are fans of. Rather, I believe Doors fans seem annoying because they irrationally support Jim Morrison, even though I believe that his artistic output does not warrant the level of hero-worship he is given. (This seemed to be a common thread of the comments section- the fans generally identified as the most annoying were fans of artists who received more support or acclaim than they "deserve.")
In the same way, fans of anything can be annoying, when their support becomes irrational, exclusionary, and obsessively zealous.
Especially when the fans in question root for the Yankees.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
You know the singer has a drug problem when...
Driving home tonight, I flipped the radio to XM channel 12, Cross Country. Flipped there just in time for the beginning of Todd Snider's "Doublewide Blues." Good tune. I was pleased that the radio gods smiled on me.
Immediately after the song wrapped up, they played another Todd song- "Keep off the Grass." Even better song.
But instead of being excited that I got to hear two great Todd Snider tunes back-to-back on the radio, I became concerned. I thought, "Is this part of a tribute because he turned up dead on the bathroom floor of some dive bar in Nashville?"
With most artists, you assume it is because the station is doing a "Two-for-Tuesday" or "Back-to-Back Weekend" promotion. With Todd, you assume the worst.
Immediately after the song wrapped up, they played another Todd song- "Keep off the Grass." Even better song.
But instead of being excited that I got to hear two great Todd Snider tunes back-to-back on the radio, I became concerned. I thought, "Is this part of a tribute because he turned up dead on the bathroom floor of some dive bar in Nashville?"
With most artists, you assume it is because the station is doing a "Two-for-Tuesday" or "Back-to-Back Weekend" promotion. With Todd, you assume the worst.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
A pre-teen's perspective on a scandal
Yesterday, I was talking to someone who has a twelve year old son. We were discussing his youngster's perspective on the news, and somehow the Larry Craig bathroom solicitation scandal came up.
It dawned on me that if I had heard, as a twelve year old, that you could be arrested (or, alternatively, picked up for gay sex) for tapping your feet on the floor of a bathroom stall... I guarantee that my feet would have been freaking glued to the tile whenever I had to drop a deuce in public.
In fact, even as a 27 year old, my feet will probably be completely stationary when I sit on the throne, in the wake of this scandal. Sometimes you can't be too careful.
It dawned on me that if I had heard, as a twelve year old, that you could be arrested (or, alternatively, picked up for gay sex) for tapping your feet on the floor of a bathroom stall... I guarantee that my feet would have been freaking glued to the tile whenever I had to drop a deuce in public.
In fact, even as a 27 year old, my feet will probably be completely stationary when I sit on the throne, in the wake of this scandal. Sometimes you can't be too careful.
But Neil Peart is Such a Good Drummer
Dave FM today played a Dave Matthews Band song the other day while I was driving to Publix for some lunch. Now this is not an unusual thing but it got me thinking about bands that I like less because of their fan base.
Bands I hate more because of their fans:
The Doors - Please stop calling Jim Morrison a poet. He wasn't. And if you don't hate Morrison more after watching The Doors (and consequently like the rest of the band more) than there is something wrong with you.
Dave Matthews Band - I'm only going to mention them out of the hundreds of jam bands out there because of their commercial success but know that I hate ALL jam bands more because of there fans. The thing that most annoys me about their biggest fans is that they generally only listen to Dave Matthews. I know a guy who's CD collection consists of about 50 CD's; 40 of them are DMB albums.
Rush - Their fans are funny. They know Rush sucks but they still listen. They sound embarrassed when they have to defend them. I hate to say it (actually not really) but when the only good thing about your band is the drumming you better be Basement Jaxx. I will say that their song YYZ on Guitar Hero 2 is really hard to play.
Nirvana - This will be short and sweet. Kurt Cobain ain't Jesus. Get over it. He wasn't even the best musician in his own band.
John Lennon - I really hate these fans. He wasn't some revolutionary. He was a selfish, heroin addict who walked out on his first son. Imagine growing up without your dad. Thank God for Paul McCartney.
Which fans make you like a band less?
Bands I hate more because of their fans:
The Doors - Please stop calling Jim Morrison a poet. He wasn't. And if you don't hate Morrison more after watching The Doors (and consequently like the rest of the band more) than there is something wrong with you.
Dave Matthews Band - I'm only going to mention them out of the hundreds of jam bands out there because of their commercial success but know that I hate ALL jam bands more because of there fans. The thing that most annoys me about their biggest fans is that they generally only listen to Dave Matthews. I know a guy who's CD collection consists of about 50 CD's; 40 of them are DMB albums.
Rush - Their fans are funny. They know Rush sucks but they still listen. They sound embarrassed when they have to defend them. I hate to say it (actually not really) but when the only good thing about your band is the drumming you better be Basement Jaxx. I will say that their song YYZ on Guitar Hero 2 is really hard to play.
Nirvana - This will be short and sweet. Kurt Cobain ain't Jesus. Get over it. He wasn't even the best musician in his own band.
John Lennon - I really hate these fans. He wasn't some revolutionary. He was a selfish, heroin addict who walked out on his first son. Imagine growing up without your dad. Thank God for Paul McCartney.
Which fans make you like a band less?
And to think, my good eyepatch is at the cleaners...
Today is Talk Like a Pirate Day.
I hope everyone takes advantage of Talk Like a Pirate Day. Use this as an excuse to annoy bosses, co-workers, significant others, sympathetic bartenders, concerned emergency room attendants, and anyone else you may come across today.
Personally, I don't enjoy forming full sentences or paragraphs in pirate-speak, as the founders of this holiday seem to advocate. However, I do enjoy groan-inducing pirate-speak one-liners.* For example:
What is a pirate's favorite means of alternative dispute resolution? ARRRGH-bitration.
What is a pirate's favorite Canadian Football League franchise? The Toronto ARRRGH-gonauts.
Who is a pirate's favorite southern rock drummer? ARRRGH-timus Pyle.
And so on.
However you choose to mark the occasion, enjoy.
*I can't help but feel that three consecutive hyphenated words has to be some kind of record, by the way.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Welcome Back, Great Dane
The Atlanta Falcons have brought back Morten Andersen. Again.
The 47-year old kicker will begin his 25th season competing in the NFL.
To put his age into perspective, he was lining up extra points for the Saints when Archie Manning was still their quarterback. He made his NFL debut before 21 of the Falcons' current players were born.
Meanwhile, tonight, I attended the Braves' game and cheered loudly for Julio Franco (as I always do, and to the tune of "Sussudio," at that). The 49 year old marvel, with the help of the strongest steroid of all (Jesus of Nazareth, and presumably nothing else), came through with an RBI single for the Braves.
Now, if only we can convince the Hawks to sign Kevin Willis, we will have a full complement of old guys to root for in the ATL.
The 47-year old kicker will begin his 25th season competing in the NFL.
To put his age into perspective, he was lining up extra points for the Saints when Archie Manning was still their quarterback. He made his NFL debut before 21 of the Falcons' current players were born.
Meanwhile, tonight, I attended the Braves' game and cheered loudly for Julio Franco (as I always do, and to the tune of "Sussudio," at that). The 49 year old marvel, with the help of the strongest steroid of all (Jesus of Nazareth, and presumably nothing else), came through with an RBI single for the Braves.
Now, if only we can convince the Hawks to sign Kevin Willis, we will have a full complement of old guys to root for in the ATL.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Book Review - The Big Over Easy
I finished this book a couple of weeks ago but I haven't had the time to write a review. It's the first book in Jasper Fforde's Nursery Crime books and it gets the series off to a great start. As you can probably assume from the title, the book concerns the murder of Humpty Dumpty and introduces us to the lead detective of the Nursery Crime division, Jack Spratt, and his assistant Mary Mary.
The book is full of literary in-jokes from nursery rhymes, Greek mythology to classic literature. On top of that it's a good mystery novel without all of that. My only complaint is that the story gets a bit ridiculous by the end. There's also too many false endings. Other than that it's a great read.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Maybe Landon Donovan was unavailable.
I have something of a bone to pick with the new Gilette ad campaign. I think they picked a bizarre troika of star athletes to pitch their product.
Tiger Woods, I get. The man is unquestionably the greatest golfer of his generation. Quite probably the best of all time.
Ditto Roger Federer. He is unquestionably the best tennis player of his generation. Well on his way to being called the best of all time.
Batting third, however, we have... Thierry Henry?
There is a slight problem here. The first two guys did not need any introduction. In fact, if Gilette had not bothered to put their names on the screen at all, I would not have needed any captions to identify Tiger or Federer. I think that is true for most men of my demographic (by which I mean wordy males who pay an inordinate amount of attention to sports).
The third guy not only had to be introduced, the credentials they listed read, "2003 Footballer of the Year." Seems to dim the star power put off by the other two, no?
I think that if Gillete were trying to make the point that their product is the best, and is used by the best, they should have stuck with the individual sports when selecting the third guy. Tiger, Federer, and the undisputed heavyweight champ of the world, for instance. Or Tiger, Federer, and Jeff Gordon, maybe. Even Tiger, Federer and Tony Hawk might work. His status as pro skater #1 is more or less undisputed.
But since boxing sucks, Jeff Gordon gets pelted with beer when he wins, and nobody normal cares about skateboarding, I can understand Gillete choosing to go another route. But if they were willing to turn to team sports, there would seem to be plenty of stars more prolific, more recognizable, and more recent than Henry. Peyton Manning, for one, was named the best player in his sport more recently than 2003. And you know he would have been willing to mug for the camera for a bit.
Or maybe they should have stuck with just two pitchmen. When you have two unquestioned superstars, the ad is diminished by adding someone who doesn't quite rise to that same level of badassery.
And look, I know Henry is a badass. He has to be- he is a pro soccer player and I have heard of him. But I think that Gilette made a very curious choice in going with an anonymous-in-the-states Frenchman whose most noteworthy personal achievement came almost 5 years ago, whose defining team achievement came almost 6 years ago, who plays a sport that Americans only care about every four years.
I think it is one of the worst casting decisions in a shaving ad since Edge shaving gel had David Robinson and Tim Duncan, WHO BOTH HAVE FACIAL HAIR, pitching their wares.
But at least they only lost by 4.
I have been absent from my computer (and indeed, much of the rest of the world) with an unpleasant illness the past couple of days. I like to blame the Georgia Bulldogs.
Some thoughts:
1. Some piss-poor playcalling. 3rd and 2 late... 2 talented feature backs, a horse of a QB... I know, let's run to the outside with the slowest guy on the team. Sounds retarded, no? But Bobo called it in, Sutherland on a sweep. And what is even more amazing than the fact that he made such a moronic call was that it would have worked if not for...
2. Piss-poor execution. Someone needs to explain to Mo-Mass that a block requires physical contact with the man in front of him. I saw more physical blocks in intramural flag football. And of course, when talking about poor execution in Georgia games, one always comes back to...
3. Dropped pass after dropped pass after dropped pass. I will be the first to admit that my boy Stafford did not play well. But his skill players (defined loosely, to include Tripp Chandler) need to help the big guy out from time to time. And by "from time to time" I mean most specifically when you are holding the game-tying touchdown in your hands, there, Tony Wilson.
4. But most perplexing, perhaps, was Richt's decision to kick the field goal when Georgia had it 4th and 15 from the 20.
This is not second guessing. Anyone watching the game with me knows that I was loudly and crudely calling for the offense to go back out there on 4th down.
The reasons are simple. There were 4 minutes left in the game. Georgia had not consistently stopped the run all night. To give the ball back to South Carolina to let them eat up the clock did not seem like a good idea to me.
But what's more, even when the kick was good, the Dawgs still needed a touchdown. If they had been down by six, I would understand kicking, to pull within a field goal. But they were down seven. They still needed to march the full length of the field when (or, indeed, if) they got it back.
And if they had failed on the 4th down, the Dawgs were giving South Carolina the ball back in the same spot where they would have taken over after a kickoff. Field-position wise, the Dawgs were no worse by missing it on 4th down than by taking the 3 and kicking back off.
Predictably, Georgia kicked the field goal, let South Carolina eat up tons of yards and clock, and then could not get the job done when they were left throwing desperation heaves downfield.
I love Richt. I think he is a good coach. But occasionally, he needs an associate head coach of clock management. And sometimes, I am afraid he needs an associate head coach of common sense. Unless he feels that a 4 point loss is somehow nobler than a 7 point loss.
Some thoughts:
1. Some piss-poor playcalling. 3rd and 2 late... 2 talented feature backs, a horse of a QB... I know, let's run to the outside with the slowest guy on the team. Sounds retarded, no? But Bobo called it in, Sutherland on a sweep. And what is even more amazing than the fact that he made such a moronic call was that it would have worked if not for...
2. Piss-poor execution. Someone needs to explain to Mo-Mass that a block requires physical contact with the man in front of him. I saw more physical blocks in intramural flag football. And of course, when talking about poor execution in Georgia games, one always comes back to...
3. Dropped pass after dropped pass after dropped pass. I will be the first to admit that my boy Stafford did not play well. But his skill players (defined loosely, to include Tripp Chandler) need to help the big guy out from time to time. And by "from time to time" I mean most specifically when you are holding the game-tying touchdown in your hands, there, Tony Wilson.
4. But most perplexing, perhaps, was Richt's decision to kick the field goal when Georgia had it 4th and 15 from the 20.
This is not second guessing. Anyone watching the game with me knows that I was loudly and crudely calling for the offense to go back out there on 4th down.
The reasons are simple. There were 4 minutes left in the game. Georgia had not consistently stopped the run all night. To give the ball back to South Carolina to let them eat up the clock did not seem like a good idea to me.
But what's more, even when the kick was good, the Dawgs still needed a touchdown. If they had been down by six, I would understand kicking, to pull within a field goal. But they were down seven. They still needed to march the full length of the field when (or, indeed, if) they got it back.
And if they had failed on the 4th down, the Dawgs were giving South Carolina the ball back in the same spot where they would have taken over after a kickoff. Field-position wise, the Dawgs were no worse by missing it on 4th down than by taking the 3 and kicking back off.
Predictably, Georgia kicked the field goal, let South Carolina eat up tons of yards and clock, and then could not get the job done when they were left throwing desperation heaves downfield.
I love Richt. I think he is a good coach. But occasionally, he needs an associate head coach of clock management. And sometimes, I am afraid he needs an associate head coach of common sense. Unless he feels that a 4 point loss is somehow nobler than a 7 point loss.
Monday, September 10, 2007
This Post is Brought to You by Campbell Select
Why do I think John Lithgow is a good actor? Here are the movies and TV Shows I've seen him in.
1. Santa Claus: The Movie - A Dudley Moore Vehicle
2. Harry and the Hendersons - A bad family film that I enjoyed as a child
3. L.A. Story - A good movie but I don't remember him being in it.
4. Raising Cain - A terrible horror movie about an evil twin
5. Cliffhanger - Now here is the movie I associate with him. It's a pretty awesome movie, mainly for the fact that Sly Stallone is at his 'roided-out best and Lithgow speaks with the most ridiculous accent I've ever heard. It's really hard to describe. It's like a mix between a British accent and a generic eastern bloc accent. His performance is so over the top that it probably ruined any chance of him taking on a serious role ever again.
6. Pelican Brief - A boring John Grisham adaptation.
7. Shrek - Pretty fun turn as Lord Farquaad
8. 3rd Rock from the Sun - The other role I think about when I think of him. I actually liked the first season of this show but overall it was a really bad show.
So the two roles I most associate with John Lithgow are his parts in a bad Sylvester Stallone movie and a bad NBC Sitcom. And I still think he's a good actor. I know he's been nominated for a couple of Oscars and some a Tony or two but I've never seen any of those performances. So this is one of those things that I don't understand but I just have to accept.
1. Santa Claus: The Movie - A Dudley Moore Vehicle
2. Harry and the Hendersons - A bad family film that I enjoyed as a child
3. L.A. Story - A good movie but I don't remember him being in it.
4. Raising Cain - A terrible horror movie about an evil twin
5. Cliffhanger - Now here is the movie I associate with him. It's a pretty awesome movie, mainly for the fact that Sly Stallone is at his 'roided-out best and Lithgow speaks with the most ridiculous accent I've ever heard. It's really hard to describe. It's like a mix between a British accent and a generic eastern bloc accent. His performance is so over the top that it probably ruined any chance of him taking on a serious role ever again.
6. Pelican Brief - A boring John Grisham adaptation.
7. Shrek - Pretty fun turn as Lord Farquaad
8. 3rd Rock from the Sun - The other role I think about when I think of him. I actually liked the first season of this show but overall it was a really bad show.
So the two roles I most associate with John Lithgow are his parts in a bad Sylvester Stallone movie and a bad NBC Sitcom. And I still think he's a good actor. I know he's been nominated for a couple of Oscars and some a Tony or two but I've never seen any of those performances. So this is one of those things that I don't understand but I just have to accept.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Separated at Birth, Girls who like Girls Edition
Jodie Foster...
... and Emily Sailers of the Indigo Girls.
... and Emily Sailers of the Indigo Girls.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Should this Bother Me?
It randomly dawned on me today that I can name three female billiards players off the top of my head. Jeanette Lee, Allison Fisher, and Karen Corr.
By contrast, I can only name two professional bowlers (Walter Ray Williams and Pete Weber).
And I cannot name a single competitor in the World's Strongest Man competitions.
Sometimes, I miss the days of watching 3 AM ESPN.
But now that I think about it, Drew Weatherford and the Detroit Shock have a LOT in common.
I have been post-free for a few days, so I am making up for lost time.
One of the reasons I have neglected my duties as a blogger has been the amazing sports weekend I just enjoyed. That's right, Labor Day weekend. Which means, as it does every year, the WNBA finals.
Bet the house on the Detroit Shock. They play defense and know the true meaning of DEE-TROIT basketball.
Of course, if you haven't angrily turned your computer off at the thought of reading a WNBA post, relax. I am speaking, of course, of the return of college football. A few thoughts...
1. How Bout Them Dawgs! Stafford looked great (75% completion, almost 10 yards per attempt, no turnovers). The defense looked like it could be something special, especially considering that Ok State ran up video game stats on offense last year. I am thinking it is going to be a great year between the hedges.
2. Freaking Soft University... FSU looked terrible in their matchup against Clemson. Kind of makes you long for the days when you had someone to hate down in Tallahassee. A Georgia fan might gloat that they have not been good since their OC traveled north to Athens. Tommy Bowden may well regret having this game so early on his schedule, though... Now he won't be able to save his job during an underachieving season by beating his pop. By the time Clemson starts to suck come November, this win will be but a distant memory.
3. Illinois-Missouri. Two crappy teams that I should care nothing about. But I was thoroughly entertained by their matchup. On a tape-delay replay, no less. A furious comeback by Illinois, cut short at the last minute. Great game.
4. Beware Georgia Tech. I know Notre Dame is probably going to suck this year. But the kind of whupping the Rambling Wreck put on them is no joke. If anyone but Chan Gailey were their coach, I would be worried.
5. Nice stats from the golden boys of the Big East. I saw parts of the Louisville game. That passing attack is going to be hard for anyone to beat.
6. There is no point trying to say something witty about Michigan. A top-5 team with National Title aspirations should not lose to a I-AA school. Ever. Every Big 10 team is suspect, by mere association.
Next week is going to be awesome, with Spurrier coming to Athens. Here's hoping the Bulldogs remind the Ol Ball Coach that you can't spell "suck" without "USC."
One of the reasons I have neglected my duties as a blogger has been the amazing sports weekend I just enjoyed. That's right, Labor Day weekend. Which means, as it does every year, the WNBA finals.
Bet the house on the Detroit Shock. They play defense and know the true meaning of DEE-TROIT basketball.
Of course, if you haven't angrily turned your computer off at the thought of reading a WNBA post, relax. I am speaking, of course, of the return of college football. A few thoughts...
1. How Bout Them Dawgs! Stafford looked great (75% completion, almost 10 yards per attempt, no turnovers). The defense looked like it could be something special, especially considering that Ok State ran up video game stats on offense last year. I am thinking it is going to be a great year between the hedges.
2. Freaking Soft University... FSU looked terrible in their matchup against Clemson. Kind of makes you long for the days when you had someone to hate down in Tallahassee. A Georgia fan might gloat that they have not been good since their OC traveled north to Athens. Tommy Bowden may well regret having this game so early on his schedule, though... Now he won't be able to save his job during an underachieving season by beating his pop. By the time Clemson starts to suck come November, this win will be but a distant memory.
3. Illinois-Missouri. Two crappy teams that I should care nothing about. But I was thoroughly entertained by their matchup. On a tape-delay replay, no less. A furious comeback by Illinois, cut short at the last minute. Great game.
4. Beware Georgia Tech. I know Notre Dame is probably going to suck this year. But the kind of whupping the Rambling Wreck put on them is no joke. If anyone but Chan Gailey were their coach, I would be worried.
5. Nice stats from the golden boys of the Big East. I saw parts of the Louisville game. That passing attack is going to be hard for anyone to beat.
6. There is no point trying to say something witty about Michigan. A top-5 team with National Title aspirations should not lose to a I-AA school. Ever. Every Big 10 team is suspect, by mere association.
Next week is going to be awesome, with Spurrier coming to Athens. Here's hoping the Bulldogs remind the Ol Ball Coach that you can't spell "suck" without "USC."
Black and White, United in Rock
I just purchased The Connells' 1990 album "One Simple Word" off the dollar rack. Not a bad pickup at all. Although the cover and title make it sound suspicously like Christian rock, the album is a workmanlike record of countryish pop rock songs. And the song "Get a Gun" is one of the catchier tunes I picked up in my recent dollar bin raid.
The first thing I noticed from the band photo on the back was that they look like a group of camp counselors. But the second thing I noticed was that the gentleman on the far left of the group shot is distinctly not a honky.
It led me to consider... the best racially integrated bands of all-time:
The Doobie Brothers (and for all the lineup changes, they stayed integrated)
The Steve Miller Band (the black guy even got to sing, and a kick-ass track, at that- "My Saving Grace")
Guns N Roses (Slash's racially mixed background includes a Nigerian mother, making Axl's hate-filled rant in "One in a Million" even more interesting)
Thin Lizzy (Phil Lynott was a black Irishman, a rare bird indeed)
The Allman Brothers Band (huge bonus points for finding racial harmony through blues-driven rock in Macon, GA in the 1960s)
An honorable mention in the "some of my best friends are black" category:
The Rolling Stones (Darryl Jones replaced Bill Wyman on bass, but curiously, he still does not appear in band promo shots)
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers (featuring the Average White Band's Steve Ferrone on the drum kit since 1995)
Hootie and the Blowfish (I heard a rumor that Darius Rucker is black, but I have seen no evidence to back this up)
The first thing I noticed from the band photo on the back was that they look like a group of camp counselors. But the second thing I noticed was that the gentleman on the far left of the group shot is distinctly not a honky.
It led me to consider... the best racially integrated bands of all-time:
The Doobie Brothers (and for all the lineup changes, they stayed integrated)
The Steve Miller Band (the black guy even got to sing, and a kick-ass track, at that- "My Saving Grace")
Guns N Roses (Slash's racially mixed background includes a Nigerian mother, making Axl's hate-filled rant in "One in a Million" even more interesting)
Thin Lizzy (Phil Lynott was a black Irishman, a rare bird indeed)
The Allman Brothers Band (huge bonus points for finding racial harmony through blues-driven rock in Macon, GA in the 1960s)
An honorable mention in the "some of my best friends are black" category:
The Rolling Stones (Darryl Jones replaced Bill Wyman on bass, but curiously, he still does not appear in band promo shots)
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers (featuring the Average White Band's Steve Ferrone on the drum kit since 1995)
Hootie and the Blowfish (I heard a rumor that Darius Rucker is black, but I have seen no evidence to back this up)
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Cover This!
I was listening to the radio the other and The Black Crowes came on the radio. It was the millionth time they've played Hard to Handle. I've always liked that song better than the original version by Otis Redding. It got me thinking about other cover songs I think are better than the original. In no particular order.
All Along the Watchtower - Jimi Hendrix
Live and Let Die - Guns 'N Roses
With a Little Help From My Friends - Joe Cocker
Smooth Criminal - Alien Ant Farm
Hurt - Johnny Cash
Blinded by the Light - Manfred Mann's Earth Band
I don't know if it's better but I also really like Cakes cover of War Pigs.
Feel free to leave your favorite covers in the comments. Any mention of The Dave Matthews Band will get you banned from making comments for a month however.
All Along the Watchtower - Jimi Hendrix
Live and Let Die - Guns 'N Roses
With a Little Help From My Friends - Joe Cocker
Smooth Criminal - Alien Ant Farm
Hurt - Johnny Cash
Blinded by the Light - Manfred Mann's Earth Band
I don't know if it's better but I also really like Cakes cover of War Pigs.
Feel free to leave your favorite covers in the comments. Any mention of The Dave Matthews Band will get you banned from making comments for a month however.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
On wearing a moustache
I choose to write this evening about an experience I had about 6 months ago. I am somewhat concerned that it may violate the official "What Happens in Vegas..." policy. And, that slogan is vaguely threatening. But I feel compelled to write a bit about a piece of performance art/sociological experiment/exercise in jackassery I participated in, tourism slogans be damned.
For a Las Vegas trip, I grew a moustache. Not as part of a beard, or a van dyke, or anything. Just an honest-to-god, Tom Selleck moustache.
I figured, why should they be the exclusive province of sexual deviants? Time ago was, real men could grow moustaches. Now, it is Mike Ditka, Jeff Fisher, and the singer from the Killers. And that's about it.
I had two comrades-in-'stache enlisted with me. We all grew moustaches. Great, aggressive, manly moustaches.
The first thing we noticed: moustaches make you self-counscious. This was demonstrated in part by the fact that my two comrades-in-'stache abandoned me day one. Shaved 'em off, right off the bat. They didn't feel comfortable, they said. And I can't say I blamed them. Although drunker than they, I, too was self-conscious.
Which is somewhat interesting. I have had varying degrees of facial hair many times in the past. I have wilfully chosen to dress in a silly manner in public, with no problem. But wearing the moustache, I was constantly aware that I looked strange, in a way that I did not feel when I wore a cowboy hat (somewhat) unironically. And everytime I forgot, I strolled past a reflective surface, and the process began again.
In a related observation, the moustache is often all that people notice of you. I was told many, many times that I looked like Wade Boggs. And it was never qualified, "with your moustache." Just- "Hey, has anyone ever told you that you look like Wade Boggs?" One poker dealer even deemed a streak of bad luck for me "The Boston Massacre."
Wade Boggs is a 50 year old man. I am 27. Wade Boggs is bald- he even advertises for a hair restoration service. I have a ridiculously full head of hair, to the point that it grows out, not up. Wade Boggs is taller and (at least somewhat, in his post-playing days) heavier than me. Facially, I in no way resemble the chicken-eating "Cheers" guest star who manned third base for the Red Sox. But people still insisted that I looked exactly like the guy, because of the one (and only) trait we shared- a reddish moustache.
That kind of reductive comparison really called my attention to the degree that people recognize moustaches.
Another observation was that you do not blend in to your surroundings nearly as well when you are wearing a moustache. When I sat down at a poker table, everyone looked up at me, and took an extra second or three to size me up. I am used to looking very anonymous. But in a moustache, I just didn't blend.
I think it is endlessly fascinating that this particular facial hair style has fallen so far from grace that it looks out of the ordinary today. Pull some baseball cards from the 1970s- half the players in the major leagues had moustaches. It was normal, accepted. And somewhere along the line, the moustache became uncool. Very uncool.
Even Wayne Newton shaved his moustache.
Maybe it was Freddie Mercury, or Super Mario, or Wade Boggs himself. Maybe it was social tides beyond the control or comprehension of the average man. But somewhere, in between 1990 and 1995, the moustache fell out of favor. And now, as I learned in the Nevada gambling mecca, a man must be brave, and drunker than I, to wear a moustache with pride.
I do believe that one day average Joes will reclaim this look from Johnny Molester and the rest of his deviant ilk. But for now, the moustache wearer is a lonely man.
For a Las Vegas trip, I grew a moustache. Not as part of a beard, or a van dyke, or anything. Just an honest-to-god, Tom Selleck moustache.
I figured, why should they be the exclusive province of sexual deviants? Time ago was, real men could grow moustaches. Now, it is Mike Ditka, Jeff Fisher, and the singer from the Killers. And that's about it.
I had two comrades-in-'stache enlisted with me. We all grew moustaches. Great, aggressive, manly moustaches.
The first thing we noticed: moustaches make you self-counscious. This was demonstrated in part by the fact that my two comrades-in-'stache abandoned me day one. Shaved 'em off, right off the bat. They didn't feel comfortable, they said. And I can't say I blamed them. Although drunker than they, I, too was self-conscious.
Which is somewhat interesting. I have had varying degrees of facial hair many times in the past. I have wilfully chosen to dress in a silly manner in public, with no problem. But wearing the moustache, I was constantly aware that I looked strange, in a way that I did not feel when I wore a cowboy hat (somewhat) unironically. And everytime I forgot, I strolled past a reflective surface, and the process began again.
In a related observation, the moustache is often all that people notice of you. I was told many, many times that I looked like Wade Boggs. And it was never qualified, "with your moustache." Just- "Hey, has anyone ever told you that you look like Wade Boggs?" One poker dealer even deemed a streak of bad luck for me "The Boston Massacre."
Wade Boggs is a 50 year old man. I am 27. Wade Boggs is bald- he even advertises for a hair restoration service. I have a ridiculously full head of hair, to the point that it grows out, not up. Wade Boggs is taller and (at least somewhat, in his post-playing days) heavier than me. Facially, I in no way resemble the chicken-eating "Cheers" guest star who manned third base for the Red Sox. But people still insisted that I looked exactly like the guy, because of the one (and only) trait we shared- a reddish moustache.
That kind of reductive comparison really called my attention to the degree that people recognize moustaches.
Another observation was that you do not blend in to your surroundings nearly as well when you are wearing a moustache. When I sat down at a poker table, everyone looked up at me, and took an extra second or three to size me up. I am used to looking very anonymous. But in a moustache, I just didn't blend.
I think it is endlessly fascinating that this particular facial hair style has fallen so far from grace that it looks out of the ordinary today. Pull some baseball cards from the 1970s- half the players in the major leagues had moustaches. It was normal, accepted. And somewhere along the line, the moustache became uncool. Very uncool.
Even Wayne Newton shaved his moustache.
Maybe it was Freddie Mercury, or Super Mario, or Wade Boggs himself. Maybe it was social tides beyond the control or comprehension of the average man. But somewhere, in between 1990 and 1995, the moustache fell out of favor. And now, as I learned in the Nevada gambling mecca, a man must be brave, and drunker than I, to wear a moustache with pride.
I do believe that one day average Joes will reclaim this look from Johnny Molester and the rest of his deviant ilk. But for now, the moustache wearer is a lonely man.
Golden Sombrero plus one
Jeff Francoeur had a rough night last night.
0-5, 5 strikeouts.
For once, I am not just blowing smoke when I say, "I could have done that."
0-5, 5 strikeouts.
For once, I am not just blowing smoke when I say, "I could have done that."
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
A Few Thoughts
Here are my reactions after watching the first half of the Falcons-Bengals game:
1. I'm officially upgrading my seat from coach to first-class on the Joey Harrington Train.
2. Jerious Norwood is going to be a beast.
3. I like the new addition of Ron Jaworski to the Monday Night Football team. I know, I'm as surprised as you.
4. The Defense... concerns me.
5. About Michael Vick - The only thing I'll say is that I think this is a class issue, not a race issue. Some of the most racist people I work with have been Vick's biggest supporters. People who grew up around dog fighting actually see nothing wrong with it.
1. I'm officially upgrading my seat from coach to first-class on the Joey Harrington Train.
2. Jerious Norwood is going to be a beast.
3. I like the new addition of Ron Jaworski to the Monday Night Football team. I know, I'm as surprised as you.
4. The Defense... concerns me.
5. About Michael Vick - The only thing I'll say is that I think this is a class issue, not a race issue. Some of the most racist people I work with have been Vick's biggest supporters. People who grew up around dog fighting actually see nothing wrong with it.
Friday, August 24, 2007
I felt bad. And nationwide.
Yesterday, I saw a car on the road that looked just like the ZZ Top Eliminator car. Same color and everything.
I gave it the roundhouse, underhand point salute. I hope they saw me.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Auburn Still Sucks
I think one of two things need to happen to college football polling.
1. They need to eliminate all pre-season polls.
Or
2. They should eliminate pre-season polls from any BCS calculations.
In the current system, teams in the pre-season top 10 have an unfair advantage over every other team in Division 1-A football. The only reason they have this advantage is because various sports writers and coaches decided that they would be the best teams in the nation before a game was even played. For example, in the 2004 season three BCS schools went undefeated in the regular season (I’m eliminating non-BCS schools from my argument in this case); USC, Oklahoma and Auburn. Now by the end of the year it was generally agreed that Auburn was a better team than Oklahoma. However, because Oklahoma was ranked higher than Auburn in the pre-season (number 2 and 17 respectively) they were slotted to play USC in the National Title game that year. Because they had gone undefeated and had been ranked number 2 at the beginning of the year pollsters were somewhat forced to keep them ranked where they were (there is an unwritten rule that if you keep winning all of your games then you don’t drop in the polls).
Now I know that pre-season polls will never be done away with (they get people talking and allow ESPN and others to “debate” football months before the games start), but I think they can be taken out of the BCS equation. The BCS should go to a system that eliminates all polls that rank teams before week 8 (or whatever week it is that the first BCS rankings are released) from their calculations.
By doing so, teams would no longer have an unfair advantage due to pre-season polls. Also, surprise teams (like Auburn in 2004) would have an equal chance to play for national title as any team ranked higher than them in any pre-season polls. Pre-season polls are never right anyway so why should we allow them to cloud an already flawed system. National champions should be decided on the field and not in the minds of people like Lou Holtz (may he rest in peace).
I write this not as an SEC fan (I’m an ACC guy) but as a fan of college football.
1. They need to eliminate all pre-season polls.
Or
2. They should eliminate pre-season polls from any BCS calculations.
In the current system, teams in the pre-season top 10 have an unfair advantage over every other team in Division 1-A football. The only reason they have this advantage is because various sports writers and coaches decided that they would be the best teams in the nation before a game was even played. For example, in the 2004 season three BCS schools went undefeated in the regular season (I’m eliminating non-BCS schools from my argument in this case); USC, Oklahoma and Auburn. Now by the end of the year it was generally agreed that Auburn was a better team than Oklahoma. However, because Oklahoma was ranked higher than Auburn in the pre-season (number 2 and 17 respectively) they were slotted to play USC in the National Title game that year. Because they had gone undefeated and had been ranked number 2 at the beginning of the year pollsters were somewhat forced to keep them ranked where they were (there is an unwritten rule that if you keep winning all of your games then you don’t drop in the polls).
Now I know that pre-season polls will never be done away with (they get people talking and allow ESPN and others to “debate” football months before the games start), but I think they can be taken out of the BCS equation. The BCS should go to a system that eliminates all polls that rank teams before week 8 (or whatever week it is that the first BCS rankings are released) from their calculations.
By doing so, teams would no longer have an unfair advantage due to pre-season polls. Also, surprise teams (like Auburn in 2004) would have an equal chance to play for national title as any team ranked higher than them in any pre-season polls. Pre-season polls are never right anyway so why should we allow them to cloud an already flawed system. National champions should be decided on the field and not in the minds of people like Lou Holtz (may he rest in peace).
I write this not as an SEC fan (I’m an ACC guy) but as a fan of college football.
John Elway is the New QB Coach at Son's HS
I wonder if he'll give his son tips on forcing a team he doesn't like to trade him when he gets drafted in a few years.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2987589
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2987589
This is SportsCenter?
The good people at the Worldwide Leader can kiss my ass.
Perhaps worrying that they were losing in the stupid people demographic to The Best Damn Sports Show Period on Fox, ESPN has broken out some incredibly moronic programming for its centerpiece show.
The "Who's Now" tournament? Possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen on television. Watching Keyshawn and Erin Andrews debate who has more "buzz," LeBron James or Shaquille O'Neal was excruciating.
The segment where Reese Davis, Mark May, and Lou Holtz (bravely battling what I assume to be a case of dementia) debate what will happen in specific college football games in November? Completely freaking retarded. Although I am glad to know that Rutgers will finally claw their way back into the top 10 on November 2. Great analysis, guys.
With football season just around the corner, you just know they are going to dust off that gem where CFL legend Sean Salisbury and the guy who looks like Mike Oldham pretend to argue about the NFL.
And is it just me, or are the Little League highlights getting out of hand? I feel like these 12 year olds get more coverage than actual Major League Baseball sometimes. And I am sure that has nothing to do with the fact that ESPN and ABC broadcast the LLWS games. Pure coincidence.
I would rather watch a Jeremy Schaap puff piece about some crippled curler in Manitoba defying the odds to try out for the Olympic team than some of the things SportsCenter subjects me to now.
Perhaps worrying that they were losing in the stupid people demographic to The Best Damn Sports Show Period on Fox, ESPN has broken out some incredibly moronic programming for its centerpiece show.
The "Who's Now" tournament? Possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen on television. Watching Keyshawn and Erin Andrews debate who has more "buzz," LeBron James or Shaquille O'Neal was excruciating.
The segment where Reese Davis, Mark May, and Lou Holtz (bravely battling what I assume to be a case of dementia) debate what will happen in specific college football games in November? Completely freaking retarded. Although I am glad to know that Rutgers will finally claw their way back into the top 10 on November 2. Great analysis, guys.
With football season just around the corner, you just know they are going to dust off that gem where CFL legend Sean Salisbury and the guy who looks like Mike Oldham pretend to argue about the NFL.
And is it just me, or are the Little League highlights getting out of hand? I feel like these 12 year olds get more coverage than actual Major League Baseball sometimes. And I am sure that has nothing to do with the fact that ESPN and ABC broadcast the LLWS games. Pure coincidence.
I would rather watch a Jeremy Schaap puff piece about some crippled curler in Manitoba defying the odds to try out for the Olympic team than some of the things SportsCenter subjects me to now.
3 TDs and 3 FGs...
I was blown away when I saw the score for the Rangers-Orioles game yesterday. (Game 1 of the doubleheader of course. The score for game 2 was unremarkable.)
30-3.
Holy God.
Of course after facing Santana and Bedard, any pitcher is going to look like he is throwing BP. But 30 runs?
One of the cliches people spout when discussing what makes baseball great is that the games have no clock. As long as you are hitting, your inning will continue. The Rangers took that cliche to heart on Wednesday.
30-3.
Holy God.
Of course after facing Santana and Bedard, any pitcher is going to look like he is throwing BP. But 30 runs?
One of the cliches people spout when discussing what makes baseball great is that the games have no clock. As long as you are hitting, your inning will continue. The Rangers took that cliche to heart on Wednesday.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Hey, Hey, We're the Single Most Underrated Rock N' Roll Band of All Time.
I love the Monkees.
I have tried to play it off as kitsch. I have tried to play it off as an anti-intellectual, populist argument. I have tried to play it off as a hyper-intellectual, open-minded argument. But however you spin it, I reach the same result. I love the Monkees.
And this invariably, no matter argument I am spouting at the time, gets me laughed at.
Occasionally, people will laugh with me and then "confess" to loving Herman's Hermits or The Archies or some other kind of sixties bullshit. But more often, I get sincere, actual, I-think-you-are-stupid laughter. I might as well take up a worthier cause, like trying to convince people of the merits of technicolor or ovaltine, or some other pop culture relic.
But, whenever I want to abandon this cause, I pop on a record, and realize all over again that (we're coming to the chorus now...) I love the Monkees.
This is because the Monkees rule. I believe this to be a provable fact.
The most common anti-Monkee arguments:
1. They didn't write their own songs.
2. They didn't play their own instruments.
3. They were put together as a "band" by a producer who wasn't interested in art, only in dollars.
4. They were too image-conscious, and dependent on their television show.
5. They didn't have anything important to say.
In turn:
(1) and (2): To those who present arguments #1 and #2: Congratulations! You can read linear notes!
However, I ultimately do not believe that the Monkees' writing credits or lack thereof is not a knock against them. For two reasons:
(a) They did write songs. Good songs. Mike Nesmith wrote "Mary, Mary." And "Listen to the Band." And "The Girl I Knew Somewhere," which I had previously sworn was a Neil Diamond song. Micky Dolenz wrote "Randy Scouse Git." And the entire band collaborated on "Words." These are some solid pop gems, penned by these supposed talentless boobs.
(b) Why does it matter if the band wrote their own songs? The Four Tops and the Temptations did not write their own songs. Hell, The Byrds rarely wrote their own songs. Sinatra never wrote a song that I know of. Why is it so freaking important for a band to write all of its own material?
I blame the Beatles. They imposed the image of a self-contained band on the public consciousness. But even they began with a ton of covers. And cynics out there will note that they only really started focusing on their songwriting craft when it was pointed out that they did not have to pay writing royalties to the authors when they recorded their own originals.
Country fans have this figured out. They do not seem to care if an artist writes every song he sings. Authorship is something of a bonus, yes. But the perspective and "authenticity" of writing your own material is not a replacement for performing good songs well.
And playing your own music? On every track? The Beach Boys better stop printing the musicians list for "Pet Sounds," lest the rock intelligentsia declare them as crappy as The Monkees.
(3) To those who argue that the band came together inorganically, I say: This is no real criticism. Plenty of artistically successful bands have been assembled by a faceless, profit driven producer. See: Sex Pistols, The; Maclolm McLaren and. See also: Sync, N*, Lou Pearlman and.
Once again, the four buddies from Liverpool have created a model which has shackled people's images of rock music. But giving credit only to bands who played in seventh-grade talent shows together is to, in essence, pre-judge music. When you give credit only to those bands whom you feel meet some pre-determined criteria, you are pretty short sighted, and you are closing yourself off to all kinds of positive experiences. And if you were to do this in other areas of your life, it would qualify you for a seat on the Springer stage.
(4) As for #4, what can I say? It was the sixties. Every band was on TV, running around like idiots. And if you think a band loses credibility for doing that, I guess you should probably not tune in to watch "A Hard Day's Night" or "Help" on AMC.
(5) The people who spout idea #5 are particularly grating. These are the people who will tell you Jim Morrison is a poet while glossing over the fact that he wrote inanities like "Hello, I love you." (Which is a good song, but you see where I am going.)
Not all good songs are deep. "Louie, Louie" is one of the best songs ever written- it is infectious, rebellious, just the right amount of jubilant noise. But it doesn't mean shit. Conversely, not every deep song is good. Otherwise, we would all have "Abraham Martin and John" or some other bullshit like that on our I-Pods.
The Monkees played (and even wrote) some amazing pop-rock songs. The vocals on "I'm a Believer" are tone-perfect. The organ in "I'm not Your Stepping Stone" builds to a dark and wicked-sounding crescendo, building alongside some crashing drums and some rousing call-and-response vocals. "Pleasant Valley Sunday" rides a Byrds-worthy ringing guitar into a gorgeous chorus with flowing harmonies. "D.W. Washburn" sounds like the third-best song on the Lovin' Spoonful's greatest hits (when in fact it is the 12th best song on the Monkees' greatest hits).
And the impetus for this post- I just yesterday bought The Monkees' 1996 album "Justus" off the dollar rack. And it is pretty damn good. Better than "Chaos and Creation in the Backyard." But I don't remember The Monkees playing the halftime show of the Broncos-Packers Superbowl. I just remember another corny VH1 special and a marathon of their show on TV Land.
I have come to accept that the general music-loving public does not like The Monkees. And, my above-listed counterarguments aside, I can somewhat understand why.
But I want to use this space to give a cheer to Micky. To Mike. To Peter. and To Davy.
You guys were easily the 15th best rock band of the 1960s. And the most underrated rock band of all time.
I have tried to play it off as kitsch. I have tried to play it off as an anti-intellectual, populist argument. I have tried to play it off as a hyper-intellectual, open-minded argument. But however you spin it, I reach the same result. I love the Monkees.
And this invariably, no matter argument I am spouting at the time, gets me laughed at.
Occasionally, people will laugh with me and then "confess" to loving Herman's Hermits or The Archies or some other kind of sixties bullshit. But more often, I get sincere, actual, I-think-you-are-stupid laughter. I might as well take up a worthier cause, like trying to convince people of the merits of technicolor or ovaltine, or some other pop culture relic.
But, whenever I want to abandon this cause, I pop on a record, and realize all over again that (we're coming to the chorus now...) I love the Monkees.
This is because the Monkees rule. I believe this to be a provable fact.
The most common anti-Monkee arguments:
1. They didn't write their own songs.
2. They didn't play their own instruments.
3. They were put together as a "band" by a producer who wasn't interested in art, only in dollars.
4. They were too image-conscious, and dependent on their television show.
5. They didn't have anything important to say.
In turn:
(1) and (2): To those who present arguments #1 and #2: Congratulations! You can read linear notes!
However, I ultimately do not believe that the Monkees' writing credits or lack thereof is not a knock against them. For two reasons:
(a) They did write songs. Good songs. Mike Nesmith wrote "Mary, Mary." And "Listen to the Band." And "The Girl I Knew Somewhere," which I had previously sworn was a Neil Diamond song. Micky Dolenz wrote "Randy Scouse Git." And the entire band collaborated on "Words." These are some solid pop gems, penned by these supposed talentless boobs.
(b) Why does it matter if the band wrote their own songs? The Four Tops and the Temptations did not write their own songs. Hell, The Byrds rarely wrote their own songs. Sinatra never wrote a song that I know of. Why is it so freaking important for a band to write all of its own material?
I blame the Beatles. They imposed the image of a self-contained band on the public consciousness. But even they began with a ton of covers. And cynics out there will note that they only really started focusing on their songwriting craft when it was pointed out that they did not have to pay writing royalties to the authors when they recorded their own originals.
Country fans have this figured out. They do not seem to care if an artist writes every song he sings. Authorship is something of a bonus, yes. But the perspective and "authenticity" of writing your own material is not a replacement for performing good songs well.
And playing your own music? On every track? The Beach Boys better stop printing the musicians list for "Pet Sounds," lest the rock intelligentsia declare them as crappy as The Monkees.
(3) To those who argue that the band came together inorganically, I say: This is no real criticism. Plenty of artistically successful bands have been assembled by a faceless, profit driven producer. See: Sex Pistols, The; Maclolm McLaren and. See also: Sync, N*, Lou Pearlman and.
Once again, the four buddies from Liverpool have created a model which has shackled people's images of rock music. But giving credit only to bands who played in seventh-grade talent shows together is to, in essence, pre-judge music. When you give credit only to those bands whom you feel meet some pre-determined criteria, you are pretty short sighted, and you are closing yourself off to all kinds of positive experiences. And if you were to do this in other areas of your life, it would qualify you for a seat on the Springer stage.
(4) As for #4, what can I say? It was the sixties. Every band was on TV, running around like idiots. And if you think a band loses credibility for doing that, I guess you should probably not tune in to watch "A Hard Day's Night" or "Help" on AMC.
(5) The people who spout idea #5 are particularly grating. These are the people who will tell you Jim Morrison is a poet while glossing over the fact that he wrote inanities like "Hello, I love you." (Which is a good song, but you see where I am going.)
Not all good songs are deep. "Louie, Louie" is one of the best songs ever written- it is infectious, rebellious, just the right amount of jubilant noise. But it doesn't mean shit. Conversely, not every deep song is good. Otherwise, we would all have "Abraham Martin and John" or some other bullshit like that on our I-Pods.
The Monkees played (and even wrote) some amazing pop-rock songs. The vocals on "I'm a Believer" are tone-perfect. The organ in "I'm not Your Stepping Stone" builds to a dark and wicked-sounding crescendo, building alongside some crashing drums and some rousing call-and-response vocals. "Pleasant Valley Sunday" rides a Byrds-worthy ringing guitar into a gorgeous chorus with flowing harmonies. "D.W. Washburn" sounds like the third-best song on the Lovin' Spoonful's greatest hits (when in fact it is the 12th best song on the Monkees' greatest hits).
And the impetus for this post- I just yesterday bought The Monkees' 1996 album "Justus" off the dollar rack. And it is pretty damn good. Better than "Chaos and Creation in the Backyard." But I don't remember The Monkees playing the halftime show of the Broncos-Packers Superbowl. I just remember another corny VH1 special and a marathon of their show on TV Land.
I have come to accept that the general music-loving public does not like The Monkees. And, my above-listed counterarguments aside, I can somewhat understand why.
But I want to use this space to give a cheer to Micky. To Mike. To Peter. and To Davy.
You guys were easily the 15th best rock band of the 1960s. And the most underrated rock band of all time.
Top Five Musical Holes I Need to Fill (Heh...He Said Holes)
5. The Minus 5 - I enjoy their music every time someone plays one of their CD's. Also most of the band opened up for The Presidents of the United States of America at the first concert I went to see without parental supervision. Although they were called the Young Fresh Fellows when I saw them.
4. Tom Petty - I'm starting to remedy this. I have his greatest hits collection and Full Moon Fever.
3 Ludacris - I can't show enough how much I love Ludacris. Buying a couple of his albums would probably help.
2. Tupac - I need to at least own all of his pre-posthumous releases.
1. The Rolling Stones - Number of Justin Timberlake albums I own - 2. Number of Stones album I own - 1 (and it's a greatest hits package)
4. Tom Petty - I'm starting to remedy this. I have his greatest hits collection and Full Moon Fever.
3 Ludacris - I can't show enough how much I love Ludacris. Buying a couple of his albums would probably help.
2. Tupac - I need to at least own all of his pre-posthumous releases.
1. The Rolling Stones - Number of Justin Timberlake albums I own - 2. Number of Stones album I own - 1 (and it's a greatest hits package)
My CD Collection is Shiny and Costly
I'm getting married in November, so when my fiance's lease ended at the beginning of August she moved into my house. For the past couple of weeks we've been unpacking her stuff and re-arranging the house to fit all of her things (Thank God for the garage or all the stuff wouldn't fit. And even then...).
When we started unpacking all of her media (books, movies and CD's) I had a strange thought when we got to her CD collection. Here's how the conversation went:
ME: Is it alright if we don't mix our CD's when we get to organizing them?
HER (What she said aloud): OK
(What she was thinking): Dear God, run! Before it's too late!
Now I had no problem mixing our movies or books together. And it's not that I think she listens to bad music. She actually listens to great music (a lot of it overlaps come to think of it). For better or worse though I pretty much remember when I bought all of my CD's. I also remember what mood I was in and what I was doing when I first listened to each of my CD's. I think that I have too much of an emotional attachment to my music collection and it would feel weird if someone elses music were sitting next to it.
But that's the whole point of getting married in the first place. You give up the "me" and the "my" and you replace it with "we" and "our". So I think I'll mix our CD's together. I can still look at my CD's to remind me where I've been. And I can see her CD's next to mine and realize where I currently am. And I'd much rather have her in my life than have separate CD collections and a bunch of dead memories.
(I didn't mean to get all sappy at the end of this post but it seemed to write itself).
Footnote: There's also an unofficial competition between Babar, our friend (let's call him) Mot and myself to see who has the biggest CD collection. And even though I wouldn't count her CD's in the total, it still seems like cheating.
When we started unpacking all of her media (books, movies and CD's) I had a strange thought when we got to her CD collection. Here's how the conversation went:
ME: Is it alright if we don't mix our CD's when we get to organizing them?
HER (What she said aloud): OK
(What she was thinking): Dear God, run! Before it's too late!
Now I had no problem mixing our movies or books together. And it's not that I think she listens to bad music. She actually listens to great music (a lot of it overlaps come to think of it). For better or worse though I pretty much remember when I bought all of my CD's. I also remember what mood I was in and what I was doing when I first listened to each of my CD's. I think that I have too much of an emotional attachment to my music collection and it would feel weird if someone elses music were sitting next to it.
But that's the whole point of getting married in the first place. You give up the "me" and the "my" and you replace it with "we" and "our". So I think I'll mix our CD's together. I can still look at my CD's to remind me where I've been. And I can see her CD's next to mine and realize where I currently am. And I'd much rather have her in my life than have separate CD collections and a bunch of dead memories.
(I didn't mean to get all sappy at the end of this post but it seemed to write itself).
Footnote: There's also an unofficial competition between Babar, our friend (let's call him) Mot and myself to see who has the biggest CD collection. And even though I wouldn't count her CD's in the total, it still seems like cheating.
Die Hard with an *
I went to see the new Die Hard movie last week. I thought it was good. I think it had something to do with the writing (by the way, F-you Babar).
Anyway, I was disappointed though because once again the gods of Marketing crushed the gods of Awesome. Because it was decided that a PG-13 Die Hard would make more money than an R rated Die Hard, we were treated to John McClane going no higher on the Cuss Word Food Chain than "shit". He wasn't even allowed to say his signature line before being cut off by a gunshot.
That gets me to my second point. This movie is very violent. I'm surprised even with the toned down language that this wasn't rated R anyway. But I guess if you take most of the blood out the violence becomes OK for a thirteen year-old to watch.
Back to the real reason I'm writing this. What made this movie so unbelievable (aside from the awesomely ridiculous action sequences) was the fact that we were supposed to believe that McClane had cleaned up his act. He didn't even smoke much less cuss up a storm. Now in my day to day life I neither smoke or cuss but John McClane does. I expect him to do these things because that is who he is. A PG-13 Die Hard takes this away from me and all the other Die Hard fans who grew up watching McClane dispatch bad guys while smoking and yelling "Yipee kai-ay motherfucker".
A PG-13 movie also eliminates much of the mystery from an action movie. Which body parts will we see fly? How many F-bombs will be dropped? Cigarettes smoked? How much nudity? The answer to all of these question (and some I can't think of right now) is none.
So marketers, please make True Lies 2, Running Man 2 and Rambo 4 rated R. I promise if you do, I'll go see them twice.
Footnote: Pg-13 ratings also make the bad guys even worse shots. No collateral damage allowed I guess.
Anyway, I was disappointed though because once again the gods of Marketing crushed the gods of Awesome. Because it was decided that a PG-13 Die Hard would make more money than an R rated Die Hard, we were treated to John McClane going no higher on the Cuss Word Food Chain than "shit". He wasn't even allowed to say his signature line before being cut off by a gunshot.
That gets me to my second point. This movie is very violent. I'm surprised even with the toned down language that this wasn't rated R anyway. But I guess if you take most of the blood out the violence becomes OK for a thirteen year-old to watch.
Back to the real reason I'm writing this. What made this movie so unbelievable (aside from the awesomely ridiculous action sequences) was the fact that we were supposed to believe that McClane had cleaned up his act. He didn't even smoke much less cuss up a storm. Now in my day to day life I neither smoke or cuss but John McClane does. I expect him to do these things because that is who he is. A PG-13 Die Hard takes this away from me and all the other Die Hard fans who grew up watching McClane dispatch bad guys while smoking and yelling "Yipee kai-ay motherfucker".
A PG-13 movie also eliminates much of the mystery from an action movie. Which body parts will we see fly? How many F-bombs will be dropped? Cigarettes smoked? How much nudity? The answer to all of these question (and some I can't think of right now) is none.
So marketers, please make True Lies 2, Running Man 2 and Rambo 4 rated R. I promise if you do, I'll go see them twice.
Footnote: Pg-13 ratings also make the bad guys even worse shots. No collateral damage allowed I guess.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
1950 AL MVP and Paradise by the Dashboard Light, great. But don't forget Paul's Boutique
Major League Baseball Hall-of-Famer Phil Rizzuto passed away earlier this week. RIP, Scooter.
In many of the obit pieces I have seen, they feel compelled to mention that Rizzuto provided the baseball commentary in Meat Loaf's "Paradise by the Dashboard Light." But they do not mention the other contributions Rizzuto made to pop culture.
Like being the word Billy Madison could not spell in his cursive test.
Or, more importantly to me anyway, drawing a mention on the Beastie Boys' classic album Paul's Boutique.
In honor of Rizzuto, here are the 5 best sporting references on Paul's Boutique:
5. "Shea Stadium, the radium, EMC Squared...," from Sounds of Science.
Nice National League reference from folks I whom I thought to be Yankee fans.
4. "I'm the King Ad-Whammy, you're Dick Butkus," from Get on the Mic
Although, judging from the pronunciation, they did not have #51's fearsome on-field persona in mind. Or his work on "My Two Dads," either, for that matter.
3. "I got more Louie than Phillip Rizzuto," from What Goes Around.
Cryptic, because I am not entirely certain what "Louie" refers to.
2. "Like Mario Andretti, 'cause he always drives a car well," from Shadrach.
I particularly enjoy this one because it is a crystal clear and literal similie.
1. "Got more hits than Saduharu Oh," from Hey Ladies.
I hope this line gets mention in the press when America's least favorite chemically enhanced slugger, DH'ing for the Angels, approaches Oh's records in about two years.
Post-script: do check out this site if you enjoy the minutae of Paul's Boutique. http://paulsboutique.info/
In many of the obit pieces I have seen, they feel compelled to mention that Rizzuto provided the baseball commentary in Meat Loaf's "Paradise by the Dashboard Light." But they do not mention the other contributions Rizzuto made to pop culture.
Like being the word Billy Madison could not spell in his cursive test.
Or, more importantly to me anyway, drawing a mention on the Beastie Boys' classic album Paul's Boutique.
In honor of Rizzuto, here are the 5 best sporting references on Paul's Boutique:
5. "Shea Stadium, the radium, EMC Squared...," from Sounds of Science.
Nice National League reference from folks I whom I thought to be Yankee fans.
4. "I'm the King Ad-Whammy, you're Dick Butkus," from Get on the Mic
Although, judging from the pronunciation, they did not have #51's fearsome on-field persona in mind. Or his work on "My Two Dads," either, for that matter.
3. "I got more Louie than Phillip Rizzuto," from What Goes Around.
Cryptic, because I am not entirely certain what "Louie" refers to.
2. "Like Mario Andretti, 'cause he always drives a car well," from Shadrach.
I particularly enjoy this one because it is a crystal clear and literal similie.
1. "Got more hits than Saduharu Oh," from Hey Ladies.
I hope this line gets mention in the press when America's least favorite chemically enhanced slugger, DH'ing for the Angels, approaches Oh's records in about two years.
Post-script: do check out this site if you enjoy the minutae of Paul's Boutique. http://paulsboutique.info/
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Suckiest Bunch of Sucks That Ever Sucked
Over the past week I have been watching the 10th season of the Simpsons, which just came out on DVD. Now, like any good nerd I’ve listened to most of the commentary tracks for this season. Having listened to the various writers, directors and guest stars talk about the show I figured out the reason why the Simpsons started sucking 6 or 7 years back. Well, two reasons actually.
First of all, when a show has been on the air for so long, it’s hard to come up with new ideas to keep the characters funny. There are only so many times Homer and Bart can grift the town out of their money or lose all of the family’s life saving in a get-rich quick scheme. Also, Lisa can only annoy us so many times with her constant moralizing and calls for tolerance of her stupid stances while at the same time not tolerating any one else’s views. The show actually tackled this issue in a hilarious episode featuring the memorable new characters Poochie and Roy. However, this episode aired in season 8 and the Simpsons are currently in their 19th season.
In addition to the show just being old, the current group of writers grew up watching the Simpsons. I think this is an important, if overlooked reason why the show isn't funny anymore. The problem with having writers that grew up watching the show is that their main source of comedy comes from the very show they were writing for. The earlier writers had several sources of comedy to draw from while the new writers mainly had the Simpsons. The show has had such an impact on pop culture that most comedy today draws from the Simpsons. Even if they looked for other sources of comedy, those sources have been, for better or worse, influenced directly or indirectly by the Simpsons. The result of this is that the newer episodes seem to only be copy of a Simpsons episode and not a real episode.
Footnote: I recently saw the movie and the screenplay was written by the original writers. It was surprisingly good and I think the writers had something to do with it.
First of all, when a show has been on the air for so long, it’s hard to come up with new ideas to keep the characters funny. There are only so many times Homer and Bart can grift the town out of their money or lose all of the family’s life saving in a get-rich quick scheme. Also, Lisa can only annoy us so many times with her constant moralizing and calls for tolerance of her stupid stances while at the same time not tolerating any one else’s views. The show actually tackled this issue in a hilarious episode featuring the memorable new characters Poochie and Roy. However, this episode aired in season 8 and the Simpsons are currently in their 19th season.
In addition to the show just being old, the current group of writers grew up watching the Simpsons. I think this is an important, if overlooked reason why the show isn't funny anymore. The problem with having writers that grew up watching the show is that their main source of comedy comes from the very show they were writing for. The earlier writers had several sources of comedy to draw from while the new writers mainly had the Simpsons. The show has had such an impact on pop culture that most comedy today draws from the Simpsons. Even if they looked for other sources of comedy, those sources have been, for better or worse, influenced directly or indirectly by the Simpsons. The result of this is that the newer episodes seem to only be copy of a Simpsons episode and not a real episode.
Footnote: I recently saw the movie and the screenplay was written by the original writers. It was surprisingly good and I think the writers had something to do with it.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Because you needed it spelled out, now it is time to listen to the solo
Many excellent rock songs contain exclamations that precede the solo. Some of my personal favorites:
"Take me!"- T.Rex, "Mambo Sun"
"Guitar" (pronounced "gee-tar")- The Faces, "Stay With Me" (also, Aerosmith, "Tell Me What it Takes.")
"One more time..."- Matthew Sweet, "Sick of Myself"
"Make me cry"- Pearl Jam, "Yellow Ledbetter"
"Welcome back now!"- Bruce Springsteen, "Growing Up"
"OK, Edge. Play the blues!"- U2, "Silver and Gold" (off Rattle and Hum)
"Well pick it, now."- Todd Snider, "Statistician's Blues" (and on the live album, he follows his own exhortation with a response of "Alright.")
An honorable mention to Pavement, who did not blurt anything random prior to a solo but did inform listeners in "Gold Soundz" that "we're coming to the chorus, now."
"Take me!"- T.Rex, "Mambo Sun"
"Guitar" (pronounced "gee-tar")- The Faces, "Stay With Me" (also, Aerosmith, "Tell Me What it Takes.")
"One more time..."- Matthew Sweet, "Sick of Myself"
"Make me cry"- Pearl Jam, "Yellow Ledbetter"
"Welcome back now!"- Bruce Springsteen, "Growing Up"
"OK, Edge. Play the blues!"- U2, "Silver and Gold" (off Rattle and Hum)
"Well pick it, now."- Todd Snider, "Statistician's Blues" (and on the live album, he follows his own exhortation with a response of "Alright.")
An honorable mention to Pavement, who did not blurt anything random prior to a solo but did inform listeners in "Gold Soundz" that "we're coming to the chorus, now."
For Those About to Acknowledge Glaring Omissions... We Salute You!
In my late-night, post-softball haze, and in my rush to honor the only resident of my hometown to appear in US Weekly, I left perhaps the best brother band of all time off the list.
Angus and Malcolm, please forgive me.
I will note for the record, though, that Styx is an intentional omission.
Brother Bands
Tonight, my softball team was short on players because of injury. To avoid the ignonimity of a forfeit, we placed a call to solicit the services of my younger brother. And we enjoyed a rare non-loss as a result.
But strangely, even in celebrating our good fortune on the diamond, I had the realization that I had punched my younger brother in the face way more than I have punched any other human being.
I think that many brothers have a similar relationship. Love for one another. An understanding that can only come from sharing significant portions of genetic code. But, still, occasional tensions that can result in violence that would be unthinkable if perpetrated on a stranger.
Popular music has shown us plenty of brothers who are capable of great things together (like my brother and I did tonight in tying one of the better teams in my beer league). But those brothers have also often resorted to punching one another in the face.
In honor of the near triumphs of me and my brother on the softball diamond, I offer my opinions on the 5 best "brother bands" of all time.
5. The Black Crowes. I know, I know. They straddle the line between cool and completely shitty. But they may be (no joke) the best Rolling Stones ripoff band since the Faces. Plus, as native May-rettans, I have to throw Rich and Chris Robinson a little support.
4. Oasis. I guarantee Noel and Liam have punched each other in the face more often than my brother and I have. And in between those punches, they produced two classic albums, two pretty solid albums, and one very memorable performance on MTV unplugged.
3. The Replacements. Paul Westerberg may have steered the band (more or less) creatively. But the band was one of the best of their time. And they did feature a guitarist (Bob) and a bassist (Tommy) from the same parents.
2. The Kinks. An extremely underrated band, in my opinion. Ray and Dave Davies produced some of rock's most memorable, obnoxious guitar riffs; stunning, musically and thematically varied concept albums; and perhaps the greatest song ever written about a transvesite (except for Aerosmith's Dude Looks Like A Lady, which had a not-at-all ridiculous horn section).
1. Creedence Clearwater Revival. John and Tom Fogarty collaborated for only a few years, but it was long enough to produce one of rock musics more enduring catalogs. I know it is a bit trite, and I know that popularity does not prove quality. But everyone and their estranged cousin owns "Chronicle." Plus, if it is good enough for The Dude, it is good enough for me.
But strangely, even in celebrating our good fortune on the diamond, I had the realization that I had punched my younger brother in the face way more than I have punched any other human being.
I think that many brothers have a similar relationship. Love for one another. An understanding that can only come from sharing significant portions of genetic code. But, still, occasional tensions that can result in violence that would be unthinkable if perpetrated on a stranger.
Popular music has shown us plenty of brothers who are capable of great things together (like my brother and I did tonight in tying one of the better teams in my beer league). But those brothers have also often resorted to punching one another in the face.
In honor of the near triumphs of me and my brother on the softball diamond, I offer my opinions on the 5 best "brother bands" of all time.
5. The Black Crowes. I know, I know. They straddle the line between cool and completely shitty. But they may be (no joke) the best Rolling Stones ripoff band since the Faces. Plus, as native May-rettans, I have to throw Rich and Chris Robinson a little support.
4. Oasis. I guarantee Noel and Liam have punched each other in the face more often than my brother and I have. And in between those punches, they produced two classic albums, two pretty solid albums, and one very memorable performance on MTV unplugged.
3. The Replacements. Paul Westerberg may have steered the band (more or less) creatively. But the band was one of the best of their time. And they did feature a guitarist (Bob) and a bassist (Tommy) from the same parents.
2. The Kinks. An extremely underrated band, in my opinion. Ray and Dave Davies produced some of rock's most memorable, obnoxious guitar riffs; stunning, musically and thematically varied concept albums; and perhaps the greatest song ever written about a transvesite (except for Aerosmith's Dude Looks Like A Lady, which had a not-at-all ridiculous horn section).
1. Creedence Clearwater Revival. John and Tom Fogarty collaborated for only a few years, but it was long enough to produce one of rock musics more enduring catalogs. I know it is a bit trite, and I know that popularity does not prove quality. But everyone and their estranged cousin owns "Chronicle." Plus, if it is good enough for The Dude, it is good enough for me.
One of baseball's stupidest rules (and, questioning the wisdom of a fat closer)
Tonight, Bob Wickman blew a save in Atlanta.
But that doesn't even tell the whole story. He sucked. SUCKED.
Almost 40 pitches. Half of which were balls. Got hit hard, by a pathetic offensive team whose only weapon is their steroid abusing husk of a leftfielder.
I have two problems with this performance, which I will tackle in turn. First: Why the hell do the Braves insist on trotting out a seriously overweight closer in the stifling August heat in Atlanta? Second: Why will tomorrow's boxscore read "WP- Wickman?"
On the first topic:
.jpg)
Bob Wickman is a professional athlete. That's right, this guy. Let that sink in.
And yet, in this, the hottest month of the year, in this, the nastiest, most humid region of the country, the Braves expect this man to succeed in an outdoor physical activity that doesn't involve Joey Chestnutt downing hotdogs (USA! USA! USA!).
And maybe, if Wickman were an aberration, I would not have a problem. But the Braves have a history of making the Bellsouth Call to the Bullpen to fat guys.
Juan Berenguer. Antonio Alfonseca (the six-fingered man). Ray King. Kevin Gryboski. Dan Kolb (who is listed, derisively, and appropriately as "Danny" on baseball-reference.com).
And they have a number of fat guys out there right now. Chad Paronto. Tyler Yates (who I think I read somewhere is gay). And the subject of this rant, one Bob Wickman.
I have no problem per se with fat guys. I am rapidly heading into that fine fraternity myself.
I just know as a frustrated Braves fan, I remember years of questionable bullpens. And living here in this unbearably hot and humid swath of the country, I have come to realize that being in shape is essential in trying to survive the elements. Maybe the Braves bullpens of years past were doomed to fail by their waistlines- they were bound to blow leads and cower in a puddle of fat-man sweat in the Atlanta heat.
(Of course, my fat man hypothesis says nothing of the colossal failures of one Chris Reitsma, or the current gopher-ball tendencies of one Rafael Soriano. But you get my point.)
On the second:
Bob Wickman was the WINNING PITCHER. Despite his pathetic performance, he gets the same boost in the win column as a starting pitcher who pitches a perfect game with 20 strikeouts. How is this fair?
Back in the day (or, more appropriately, way back in the day), a winning pitcher was almost always the starting pitcher, who took the slings and arrows and carried his team for the bulk of the game. A pitcher who pitches a complete game and wins 10-9: hey, you deserve the win. You were the guy on the hill who allowed the other guys fewer runs than your guys scored. A pitcher who pitches a complete game and loses, 1-0: deserving of the loss. As harsh as it sounds, you got bested by the other guy. Better luck next time.
But with the advent of frequently-used bullpens (thank you, Sparky Anderson), wins and losses have much less relevance. And if you need any more proof of this reduced relevance, look no further than tonight's result in Atlanta. The man who had more to do with the Braves blowing their lead and nearly losing was credited with a "win." What a bullshit statistic.
Under the rules, I understand. He was the "pitcher of record." But something must be done to straighten these things out, so that "Wins" and "Losses" for pitchers have some kind of meaning.
For one, I think a pitcher should only get a win if he has (and I know this is subjective as hell, but bear with me) a "good" performance. You keep your team in the game, and they take the lead, you should get credit. But if you come into a tie game, get an out with one pitch, and then watch your team rally with your warmup jacket on, you should not get the same amount of credit as Don Larsen in the 1956 World Series.
Many of the anachronistic rules on who gets credited with a "win" are based on the notion that some pitcher must get credited with a "win," while another must get blamed with a "loss." But why is this? Why must every game have a "winning pitcher?"
I think that there should be games without a "winning" or "losing" pitcher. Think about it. The boxscore's description of WP and LP infrequently tells you who actually played a role in his teams outcome. So do away with it. Give a "win" if a starting pitcher pitches well and his team wins as a result. Give a "win" if a relief pitcher makes an impressive contribution and makes a victory possible. But don't give a "win" just because someone has to get one.
If Harvey Haddix pitches 13 perfect innings and his team loses because of an error, he should not get saddled with a loss. And if Bob Wickman and his fat ass blows a lead, and gets bailed out by the ever-impressive Chipper Jones, he should not get credited with a "win."
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Grunge fans can continue to use their illusion...
My esteemed blogging colleague (blolleague?) brings up an excellent point about everyone's favorite greasy haired messiah. Pearl Jam was way better than Nirvana. Apologies to Peter Cooper. (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=73765385)
More significantly, though, there is one significant myth about Nirvana that need to be debunked.
That myth being: Nirvana killed hair metal.
I used to spout this child of the 90's party line myself, but it just is not true. Look at the facts.
Bon Jovi released Keep the Faith the year after Nevermind. That was a successful album, with 2 pretty big singles on it. Bon Jovi followed that up with a platinum greatest hits album. So they survived the supposed culturally shattering moment of Nevermind okay.
Aerosmith sold 7 million freaking copies of Get a Grip, released in 1993. For what seemed like the next 3 years, they were all over MTV with those Alicia Silverstone videos.
Guns N Roses (pause, everyone, for a moment of silence in honor of crazy-ass Axl) dominated MTV in the year following the release of Nevermind.
Metallica did not even bother to become popular until the years following Nevermind. They probably remain (for some reason) America's most popular heavy metal act.
So there were bands, contrary to the gospel of the 90s, that survived those opening chords of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" (which, I might add, sound suspiciously like the chorus of Boston's "More than a Feeling").
So what if Poison never released a successful album after Nirvana hit the scene. Same for Ratt, or LA Guns, or any number of other hair metal bands. Those bands had limited life spans to begin with. They stopped being popular, not because Kurt Cobain sang unintelligible lyrics while wearing a cardigan. They stopped being popular because they happened to hit their expiration date as a cultural phenomenon at the same exact time as Nirvana crept out of obscurity and into every unbearable teenager's record collection.
There have been plenty of musical trends that died sudden deaths prior to hair metal. And nobody asserts that they have a single, tangible killer. For example, Psychedelic Rock had a very similar shelf life to hair metal. But the Eagles don't get credit for making it irrelevant. Nor do Black Sabbath (as much as they rocked they were never really popular, you can look it up). So why do Nirvana get credit for "killing" a musical trend (that, as the continued popularity of bands like Aerosmith and Bon Jovi demonstrates) was never actually killed?
Nirvana did not kill hair metal. Anyone who tells you that Nirvana did kill hair metal is delusional. And they probably smell bad, too.
More significantly, though, there is one significant myth about Nirvana that need to be debunked.
That myth being: Nirvana killed hair metal.
I used to spout this child of the 90's party line myself, but it just is not true. Look at the facts.
Bon Jovi released Keep the Faith the year after Nevermind. That was a successful album, with 2 pretty big singles on it. Bon Jovi followed that up with a platinum greatest hits album. So they survived the supposed culturally shattering moment of Nevermind okay.
Aerosmith sold 7 million freaking copies of Get a Grip, released in 1993. For what seemed like the next 3 years, they were all over MTV with those Alicia Silverstone videos.
Guns N Roses (pause, everyone, for a moment of silence in honor of crazy-ass Axl) dominated MTV in the year following the release of Nevermind.
Metallica did not even bother to become popular until the years following Nevermind. They probably remain (for some reason) America's most popular heavy metal act.
So there were bands, contrary to the gospel of the 90s, that survived those opening chords of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" (which, I might add, sound suspiciously like the chorus of Boston's "More than a Feeling").
So what if Poison never released a successful album after Nirvana hit the scene. Same for Ratt, or LA Guns, or any number of other hair metal bands. Those bands had limited life spans to begin with. They stopped being popular, not because Kurt Cobain sang unintelligible lyrics while wearing a cardigan. They stopped being popular because they happened to hit their expiration date as a cultural phenomenon at the same exact time as Nirvana crept out of obscurity and into every unbearable teenager's record collection.
There have been plenty of musical trends that died sudden deaths prior to hair metal. And nobody asserts that they have a single, tangible killer. For example, Psychedelic Rock had a very similar shelf life to hair metal. But the Eagles don't get credit for making it irrelevant. Nor do Black Sabbath (as much as they rocked they were never really popular, you can look it up). So why do Nirvana get credit for "killing" a musical trend (that, as the continued popularity of bands like Aerosmith and Bon Jovi demonstrates) was never actually killed?
Nirvana did not kill hair metal. Anyone who tells you that Nirvana did kill hair metal is delusional. And they probably smell bad, too.
Please
Stop making references to:
1. Caddyshack
2. Animal House
3. Fletch
The movies aren't as funny as you remember.
Fighting Foo Since '95
The Foo Fighters are a little more than a month away from releasing a new album and whenever they do I always think of Dave Grohl's other band. I ask myself "Are the Foo Fighters a better band than Nirvana?". And the answer is always yes. Now I'm not saying the Foo Fighters are a more influential band, I'm just saying they are better.
I think the reason I like the Foo Fighters more is because their music has always seemed timeless to me. What I mean is that I think their music would be popular in any era of rock history. Nirvana, on the other hand, represents an era of history. And the only reason Nirvana represents Seattle grunge music is because Kurt Cobain died. Up until that point Pearl Jam was the biggest, most important grunge band on the planet. After Cobain committed suicide the rock critics finally had their tragic figure along the lines of Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin or Jim Morrison (Morrison especially). Had he not died, I believe Nirvana would have been considered a second-tier grunge band like Alice in Chains or Soundgarden.
If I'm feeling nostalgic about the early 90's (not something that happens too often) I'd play a Nirvana album (or more likely Pearl Jam). However, whenever I want to rock out, I'd always choose the Foo Fighters (of the two) and am never disappointed.
I think the reason I like the Foo Fighters more is because their music has always seemed timeless to me. What I mean is that I think their music would be popular in any era of rock history. Nirvana, on the other hand, represents an era of history. And the only reason Nirvana represents Seattle grunge music is because Kurt Cobain died. Up until that point Pearl Jam was the biggest, most important grunge band on the planet. After Cobain committed suicide the rock critics finally had their tragic figure along the lines of Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin or Jim Morrison (Morrison especially). Had he not died, I believe Nirvana would have been considered a second-tier grunge band like Alice in Chains or Soundgarden.
If I'm feeling nostalgic about the early 90's (not something that happens too often) I'd play a Nirvana album (or more likely Pearl Jam). However, whenever I want to rock out, I'd always choose the Foo Fighters (of the two) and am never disappointed.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
A gay postscript
A few quick thoughts on other topics related to homosexuality, and then I am out (perhaps not a wisely chosen phrase, but here I go):
1. I cannot wait for the day in which a high profile, team sports athlete comes out of the closet during his playing days. Especially if that athlete is a badass football player based in a southern market. I really hope it forces the ignorant and hateful segment of our population to address their issues with homosexuality.
I really thought the first openly gay football player would be Ricky Williams. And I was rooting for that. All those people who cheered him on at Texas would know, no matter what they would say now, that they cheered for a gay man. That would be awesome.
Instead, Ricky just came out as a drugged-out flake.
2. It killed me that Todd Jones, a product of my hometown of Marietta GA, was one of the athletes leading the anti-gay charge a few years back. I generally found him to be a pretty funny guy, and I always feel compelled to root for the hometown guys. But then he had to use his Sporting News article as a pulpit for his own spiteful views.
His anti-gay writing was somewhat ironic, though, given that he bears more than a passing resemblence to the biker guy from the Village People.
3. I think that Scott Thompson is an underrated force in people's acceptance of homosexuality. People talk of the "Will and Grace" effect on middle America, but I believe Scott Thompson was laying that groundwork years and years ago.
As I hinted before, middle schools in the south are fertile grounds for gay bashing. We thought nothing of calling people "faggots," or playing "smear the queer."
And yet, when they started to show "Kids in the Hall" reruns on Comedy Central, my friends and I watched. And thought that Scott Thompson was awesome. And had no misconceptions whatsoever that he was gay.
Prior to becoming a big "Kids" fan, I probably would have told you (while drinking Hi-C and after doodling football logos in the margins of my notebooks) that I would be less of a fan of a rock band if they came out as gay, or that I would be less of a fan of an athlete if I learned he was gay.
But I watched "Kids in the Hall," and I thought Scott Thompson was hilarious.
To make my belabored point, liking Scott Thompson made me realize it was okay to like gay people. And this, while this seems like it should be an unremarkable realization, when you are in seventh grade, it is a very critical step in your development towards becoming a tolerant and reasonable human being.
4. To add a postscript to post #3, "Kids in the Hall" is better than "Saturday Night Live" (including the Aykroyd-Belushi years). I am sorry, but it just is.
This is gay
Probably not a great topic to address out of the box. I have no intention of using this space to raise points that may in any way be socially constructive. But our carefully crafted poll question has made me think: is it okay to use the word gay pejoratively?
I like to consider myself culturally sensitive. But sometimes the 12 year old in the schoolyard comes out and I find myself using the word "gay" to describe something, when what i really mean is that thing sucks.
The Braves' bullpen is gay. "Hogan Knows Best" is gay. The new Michelob bottle is gay. I use the term offhanded all the time.
And I use these phrases and others like it to describe things negatively, even though they have no connection to homosexuality at all. Except maybe the Braves' bullpen. Tyler Yates, I am looking in your direction.
This is almost certainly very unfair. (By "this," I mean use of the word "gay" negatively. Not my unprovoked shot at a journeyman relief pitcher.) I bear absolutely no ill will towards homosexuals. I would never clumsily try to express that something sucked by saying it was "black," or "Asian," or anything along those lines.
So why is it okay to use the word gay?
I used to try to rationalize it all the time, by saying that I did not mean the word as a slur against homosexuals. But then I saw an interview with Eminem where he said the same thing, and he sounded like an ignorant dumbass. I realized then that I sounded like the same ignorant dumbass whenever I spouted similar drivel.
And instinctively, I tended to use that phrase less around my gay friends. That tells me that deep down, I probably realize that it is wrong.
Yet, I still occasionally use the word "gay" to indicate that something sucks, without any grand plan behind my saying it. It is a piercing, direct, and sometimes even a funny word to use.
But I am coming to the conclusion that using the word "gay" pejoratively is probably wrong.
I am sure that the 12 year old in me will almost certainly take over from time to time, and I will use the word "gay" when I should not. I know myself too well to think that I am going to change my regrettable speech patterns overnight.
And sometimes, the word just seems to fit in a conversation, as a blunt and clumsy way to express an attempt at humor. When that happens, I am sure that I will let the "gay" word slip.
But, overall, I am coming to the conclusion that using the word "gay" pejoratively is a really gay thing to do.
I like to consider myself culturally sensitive. But sometimes the 12 year old in the schoolyard comes out and I find myself using the word "gay" to describe something, when what i really mean is that thing sucks.
The Braves' bullpen is gay. "Hogan Knows Best" is gay. The new Michelob bottle is gay. I use the term offhanded all the time.
And I use these phrases and others like it to describe things negatively, even though they have no connection to homosexuality at all. Except maybe the Braves' bullpen. Tyler Yates, I am looking in your direction.
This is almost certainly very unfair. (By "this," I mean use of the word "gay" negatively. Not my unprovoked shot at a journeyman relief pitcher.) I bear absolutely no ill will towards homosexuals. I would never clumsily try to express that something sucked by saying it was "black," or "Asian," or anything along those lines.
So why is it okay to use the word gay?
I used to try to rationalize it all the time, by saying that I did not mean the word as a slur against homosexuals. But then I saw an interview with Eminem where he said the same thing, and he sounded like an ignorant dumbass. I realized then that I sounded like the same ignorant dumbass whenever I spouted similar drivel.
And instinctively, I tended to use that phrase less around my gay friends. That tells me that deep down, I probably realize that it is wrong.
Yet, I still occasionally use the word "gay" to indicate that something sucks, without any grand plan behind my saying it. It is a piercing, direct, and sometimes even a funny word to use.
But I am coming to the conclusion that using the word "gay" pejoratively is probably wrong.
I am sure that the 12 year old in me will almost certainly take over from time to time, and I will use the word "gay" when I should not. I know myself too well to think that I am going to change my regrettable speech patterns overnight.
And sometimes, the word just seems to fit in a conversation, as a blunt and clumsy way to express an attempt at humor. When that happens, I am sure that I will let the "gay" word slip.
But, overall, I am coming to the conclusion that using the word "gay" pejoratively is a really gay thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)