Wednesday, May 14, 2008

I might have a music addiction


Winwood!



So, you don't have to pay for music anymore.

OK, that's not news. Stay with me.

For a long time I had been relying on this Google search algorithm to find free music online. Replace "Judas Priest" (...shut up) in the quotes at the end with whatever band you're looking for and let Google do the heavy lifting for you.

Lately, though, that's gone to crap. Nothing but links to long-dead FTP sites and spam.

Then, today, I found Elbo.ws. It aggregates MP3 blogs, a class of blog that I understood to exist but, clearly, vastly underestimated. MP3 bloggers are, on the aggregate, crazy willing to save me some money.



Seriously. Give their blog search a try. Search for your favorite band or song on there. You can refine by album, artist, or song on the results screen to clear out some of the unrelated crap.

I'll wait. ...

...

I KNOW, RIGHT?! How hadn't I heard about this site before?

I seriously just "saved", what?, $50 bucks or so by scanning my long-neglected iTunes shopping cart, searching on Elbo.ws for those same tracks, and relying on the kindness of strangers to get the MP3s that I otherwise would have paid a buck for.

Pretty much any major single from the past 60 years? It's out there for the taking. Especially if your tastes run indie.

This isn't going to save you if you're an album lover. But if you need to hear Steve Winwood's "Valerie" right this second? You're set.

The question no one asked: what did I download tonight? Be happy to tell you! It starts with a sampling from some upcoming and recent releases and then gets, um, less reputable... then swings back to this blog post with half of the Big Lebowski soundtrack. Shouldn't be hard to track down the MP3s yourself, but have some music videos while you're here. The Cloud Cult and Wisely ones (with Pam from The Office) are especially cool.

  • Cloud Cult - "Everybody Here is a Cloud"


  • My Morning Jacket - "Evil Urges"

  • Fleet Foxes - "White Winter Hymnal"


  • Fleet Foxes - "Ragged Wood"

  • Fleet Foxes - "Mykonos"

  • House of Pain - "Jump Around"


  • Mungo Jerry - "In The Summertime"

  • Hanson - "Mmm bop"

  • Loverboy - "Working for the Weekend"

  • Nena - "99 Luftballons"

  • Marc Cohn - "Walking in Memphis"


  • Wisely - "Through Any Window"


  • The Stranglers - "Golden Brown"

  • Deee-lite - "Groove Is In The Heart"


  • Donna Lews - "I Love You Always Forever"

  • Sonic Your - "Superstar" (Yes, the one from Juno)

  • Carpenters - "(They Long To Be) Close To You"

  • Peter Bjorn & John - "Young Folks"


  • Steve Winwood - "Valerie"


  • Mark Ronson f/ Amy Winehouse - "Valerie"

  • ? and the Mysterians - "96 Tears"

  • The Crests - "16 Candles"

  • The Commodores - "Three Times A Lady"

  • Paul Simon - "50 Ways To Leave Your Lover"

  • David Bowie - "TVC 15"

  • Dusty Springfield - "I Only Want To Be With You"

  • Harry Nilsson - "Everybody's Talkin"

  • Elvis Costello - "My Mood Swings"

  • The Gipsy Kings - "Hotel California"

  • Kenny Rogers & The First Edition - "Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In)"

  • Bob Dylan - "The Man in Me"



The lesson, as always: I'm hopeless. The Fleet Foxes and My Morning Jacket albums coming out in June sound like they're going to be really awesome.

And can I say a hearty "SCREW YOU!" to people that disable embedding of their videos on YouTube? What the hell is the point if I can't embed the damn music video?? How am I supposed to share Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up"?? Yes, that's the first time anyone's warned you about being Rickroll'd. You're welcome.

Monday, May 12, 2008

Do you really hate the Eagles?

So I was scanning The AV Club's latest Inventory column about 'great bands with more than one prominent lead singer.' Since the Eagles made the list, I wasn't surprised to see the following about 3 comments in:



The section I've highlighted says:
Also, the Dude taught me along time ago to question the greatness of the Eagles


I'm going to refrain from mocking him for his "along" typo, since that would reveal just how thoroughly white I am...

But what I really want to talk about are fake bullshit opinions like this. What Mr. "Hans Sprungfeld" is referencing, of course, is cult favorite The Big Lebowski, wherein a character named "The Dude" expresses disdain for The Eagles. See below, and all video clips in this post contain NSFW language!



Since Lebowski is a pretty big deal for our generation, I know a fair number of people that automatically respond, Pavlov-style, to any mention of The Eagles by quoting that scene. They can't help it. And it's not just quoting the film; they really actively hate the fuckin' Eagles.

Now, there are many legit reasons for disliking The Eagles. Perhaps you feel worn out on them due to their ubiquity on oldies radio. Maybe they're too pop for your tastes. Maybe you're of the mind that "Hotel California" should be, like, 4 minutes shorter than it is--call it "American Pie syndrome". Maybe you get tired of falsetto singing really fast. You've got options for Eagles-hate, and I'm not here to convince you otherwise.

But if you hate The Eagles just because The Dude hates The Eagles? I hate you. You are worthless. Do you really hate The Eagles? Really? Who in our age demographic cares that strongly about The Eagles anyway? Are your opinions so malleable that an unlikeable character in a cult movie can shape them?

You know people like this. They're the same people that refused to drink merlot for two years after seeing this scene in Sideways:



They also hate Sonic Youth after seeing that scene in Juno when Ellen Page says, "I listened to some more Sonic Youth, and it sucked! It's just noise!" Now, I happen to agree with that one, but I had a few Sonic Youth albums around and already had decided that they're a decidedly unlistenable band. I also hate playing Kool Thing in Guitar Hero 3.

Yeah, you know these people. Lemmings. Sheep. Uh... spies that are chasing after a Macguffin briefcase of opinions, the contents of which are unimportant but after which they are compelled to give chase. ... Right. Should have stuck with 'sheep.'

Telling you what to think is NOT the point of characters expressing opinions in movies like this: the character is expressing their (and arguably the screenwriters') opinion as insight into their personas. The Dude occupies a universe of his own choosing and has no time for contemporary popular culture. Sideways's Miles is an insufferable, unyielding snob who is incapable of fitting in with less exacting peers. Juno rightly prefers melody, harmony, and resolutions instead of aimless drifting and abstract noise experiments. I'm not reaching too hard here.

These expressions are not meant to change your opinions. If you happen to agree, you nod approvingly and bond with the character. If you don't have a solid opinion either way, maybe you should look into it before you express a movie character's opinion as your own, mmm 'k? Or, worse, letting a screenwriter change your mind about what you like to listen to.

In the interest of full disclosure, I think The Eagles are just ok. Their songs are cover-friendly though, like this heartbreaking cover of "Desperado" sung by an 11-year-old girl as part of the Langley Schools Music Project.



Or this cover of "Hotel California" by The Gipsy Kings:



That song is featured prominently on the soundtrack to... well... take a guess.

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Shooter IM addendum

me: by the way, if you need a good-bad movie to netflix, check out "Shooter"
mark wahlberg. sniper rifles. you can't lose

frank: i've kind of wanted to see that.

me: i rented it last week. totally worth it
the movie's a little too long but it's loaded with awesome
and, unbelievably, the gunplay is relatively realistic for an action movie

frank: the sniper holds a strange romantic allure in American pop culture.

me: i think it's a lone gunman thing
even though snipers work in teams

frank: ... a certified angel of death... the job of precise killing for god and country... on the fine line of war combat and asasination.

me: also it's like shooting a giant bolt-action penis

Shooter is at least worth a Netflix



Submitted for your approval: Shooter is the greatest movie of all time.

Need some evidence? Oh, I've got a sniper rifle with armor-piercing evidence aimed right at your heart.

1. It's an action movie Same genre as Terminator 2, The Transporter, Hot Fuzz, Face/Off, The Rock, and True Lies. So it's in good company.

2. It stars Mark Wahlberg He's a sniper who was left for dead and has gone into hiding in Kentucky, "the patron state of shootin' stuff," as he puts it. So he's an excellent marksman AND is capable of describing this country with insight unseen since de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

3. He's got a dog Dogs are always sweet. And check out his "in hiding" facial hair! He also trains his dog to fetch beer.



4. It's easy to empathize with our hero Why is our hero killing people after going into hiding? Easy: the big bad government killed his dog when he refuses to cooperate with a secret mission he disagrees with. They kill his dog. They have to die. He explains this very eloquently to an FBI Agent.
Special Agent Memphis: I don't think you understand how deep this conspiracy goes.
Bobby Lee Swagger: No, you don't understand. [beat] These people shot my dog!


5. Bobby. Lee. Swagger. Did I mention that our hero's name is Bobby Lee Swagger? Hell and Yes. Best hero name ever.

6. Sniper rifles. Everywhere. Who doesn't love sniper rifles?



7. A sidekick who kicks ass The token sidekick who gets dragged into a deeper conspiracy, seen below, is a trained killer, so you get double the sniper rifles. You can't lose with two snipers. I can't lie: a lot of people are gonna die.



8. A love interest who kicks ass The token love interest, played by Kata Mara, is far from a damsel in distress. She takes out a bunch of thugs. With a shotgun. In her bra. You want to see that. Thankfully, I'm looking out for you, dear reader, and I've shared a picture of her killing skills below. You're welcome.



That's some good killing.

What's wrong with the movie? Other than you might blow up from an overload of pure awesome, nothing. Better than Citizen Kane.

Godspeed, Mr. Swagger.

Monday, May 05, 2008

Music died for your sins

Great article on Slate today reviewing a book about the parallel Christian pop culture that has exploded in the past 15-20 years.

The whole article is fascinating, but the part about the stresses that Christian rock bands face was most interesting:
The Christian rockers Radosh interviews are always torn between the pressure not to lead their young audience astray and the drive to make good music...

They want to make good, authentic music. But they are also enlisted in a specific mission which confines their art.


Here's where I have to disagree. When I'm wearing my graphic and information design hats, I always have to be aware of constraints. Whether it's audience or media or choice of colors or word counts or legal requirements or whatever, constraints define my work. And here's the thing: limitations make it better.

How? Constraints force you to focus your work. If a few aspects of your project have already been decided ahead of time, you have to work around them. You have more time to be creative with other aspects of the project. You find clever ways to turn those limitations into advantages. You aren't paralyzed by limitless choice. You have to think. You have to work harder! And your work will overall be better for it.

As this article from Wired points out, Hemingway thought his greatest story was only six words long: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn."

This music blogger did a similar trick by reviewing almost 800 MP3s but limiting his thoughts to six words for each. Most of them are pretty clever.

This cartoonist forced himself to write 200 comics in under 12 hours, and I don't think he would improve on the tight, clever, stream of consciousness humor if he took 12 months.

Back to design, these guys made a fairly beautiful webpage/flyer for a conference with only Times New Roman, the much-maligned default font. Hell, some of the greatest typographers who ever lived only had one typeface available to them. They worked with what they had.

This applies, of course, to music as well.

Only a few truly, absurdly gifted musicians can get away with doing whatever they want. Radiohead comes to mind. Beck can almost pull it off.

Remember OutKast's split double album Speakerboxxx/The Love Below? Andre, set loose to fulfill his every wacky fantasy on his half, created "Hey Ya!," which was undeniably perfect but was sadly surrounded with 9 relatively crappy, aimless songs.

Me First and the Gimme Gimmes have made an entire career out of their self-imposed restraint: they only do punk covers of popular songs from other genres. And they're awesome at it.





I always wondered how good the Smashing Pumpkins could be if Billy Corgan would have just lived with, say, 2 guitar tracks per song instead of arguably wasting his time laying 64 guitar overdubs in pursuit of perfection. Such excesses worked for a while:



I always thought they did their best when they briefly lost their drummer and Corgan had to write better songs to make up for it:



Ryan Adams is another great example: he's clearly absurdly talented, but his genre hopping dilutes what he's capable of. He's pretty good at rock and roll:



He's even better when he sticks to alt country (whatever that means) and focuses on the songcraft a little more (not that he has to that much; like I said, he's ridiculously good):



The Magnetic Fields' stock in trade has always been arbitrary limitations, like their triple album 69 Love Songs, which hops genres constantly but the songs are all love songs (albeit with a variety of definitions of 'love song'). Here's one example:



Or their latest album "Distortion" where all instruments and vocals were arbitrarily drenched in, you guessed it, distortion. All the better to focus on the delightful lyrics:



They also had an album ("i") where every song started with "i". Why? Why not? Now you don't have to decide what letter your songs will start with. Get cracking on making every other aspect of the album better.

So what's the point? If Christian pop music groups can't work within their arbitrary constraint (ie, every song is about loving Jesus instead of a lady), they're doing something wrong. This limitation should force you to be more creative in every other aspect of your songcraft. It should make you better.

The expectations of your Christian audience aren't holding you back.

You just suck.

Who watches the Watchmen?


One of my long-term goals has always been to write this blog openly, without the beautiful anonymity of the Internet. I understand immediately that the 7 or 8 people that read this blog know who I am anyway, but humor me--isn't humoring the author what all blogs are about, anyway?--for a moment.

I think we can all agree that anonymity is both the best and worst thing about the Internet. Certainly, the ability to post on message boards and make comments without knowing who's talking has allowed innumerable people to voice their opinions who might not otherwise.

However, this has opened the floodgates to an unfathomable amount of idiocy, best encapsulated by this Penny Arcade comic about the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory": Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad.

Perceived intelligence of the site doesn't matter; popularity breeds stupidity, regardless of content. The more popular and highly trafficked the site, the grander the scope of idiocy you'll see. Check the comments after any article on the normally intelligent New York Times and you'll see that the masses in the comments are just as ignorant (and willing to wax poetic about the ignorance of others) as, say, YouTube. Last month, a brave writer on Slate scanned the 60,000+ comments on a YouTube video of a laughing baby and correctly noted that "In our time, Internet commenting has become its own special form of social idiocy" and that letting the YouTubers at a cute video of a child was akin to "dipping a bunny into acid."

On top of bringing countless types of abrasive idiocy to light, even well-meaning messages without a name attached are, in my opinion, virtually worthless.

I speak from bitter experience here. My junior year in high school, myself and a few close friends had gotten fed up with the direction that (start laughing...) our marching band (...now) was headed. I don't remember the nerdy, socially awkward details at all, but what's important at the moment is that we were hopping mad and wanted our leadership to make some changes.

So, god damnit, we wrote a long, well-reasoned letter to our band directors that laid out our grievances and offered some reasonable resolutions.

We were, however, big pussies and didn't want to get in trouble if our letter was poorly received. So we didn't put our names on it and dropped it in the suggestion box when no one was looking.

The next day between class and our daily loser meeting band practice, we heard the distinct sound of laughter coming from the directors' office. The ruckus was, predictably, over our letter. They were laughing outright at our reasonable suggestions! How dare they?! Amidst the chuckles, I heard our percussion teacher say, "they make some good points, but because there's no name on this thing, I just can't take it seriously."

That stuck with me: your words are infinitely more valuable in the long run if you're willing to stand by them.

In addition, anonymity can be infuriating to whoever reads your message. Take this note that I found on top of my office computer this morning:



If you can't read it, it says:
Laptops must be stored in a locked cabinet outside office hours.
Don't let audit catch you like this.


While it's surely well-meaning and trying to keep me out of trouble with all-powerful security folks, without a name or anything else attached, it just seems kind of dickish, no? That's certainly how I read it at first. Hell, entire Web sites exist to display the passive-aggressive dickery that comes naturally with anonymous notes. Even if I wanted to thank whoever wrote it (which I did after I calmed down a bit), I don't know who to talk to.

So it's been with some trepidation that I have been blogging for years without putting my name beside it.

I was planning on changing that after getting my master's last December. As I've started moving into the information architecture and web design fields, I've wanted to write about a number of relevant topics; however, I didn't want to put it out there anonymously. What if it's good stuff? There's a pretty robust community of professionals that blog out there, my name is as Google-able as could be, and good content could be just one more networking opportunity. What if a kick-ass blog post with some solid ideas gets me a job some day?

I figured that a blog could complement my portfolio (which definitely has my name all over it) nicely. I even coded the whole damn thing in Wordpress and was ready to go live.

Plus, it would be nice to be able to publicly host my own content and, accordingly, have total control over it.

Then this happened: a CNN producer, Chez Pazienza, got fired for blogging, even though he did so anonymously and never mentioned his employer.

Also, this happened: Mike Tunison, aka "Christmas Ape" of Kissing Suzy Kolber and Deadspin got fired from the Washington Post shortly after coming out of the blogging closet. Why did he cast off the beautiful cloak of anonymity? For full disclosure! And, ironically, the Post, a journalistic enterprise, had a problem with that.

Now, granted, Tunison wrote howlingly funny and wildly inappropriate posts about Philip Rivers and Hines Ward, but he never claimed to be writing for anyone else other than himself and his readers. He certainly wasn't representing the Post or his day job as a local beat reporter.

For his part, Chez also wrote howlingly funny and wildly inappropriate (and harshly opinionated) posts about any number of topics, including the current state of the news media. If you were to scan his posts, he would probably come off as a total ass.

But what an eloquent ass! Check out some of his greatest hits:


That's some great stuff. It's a shame that CNN and the Post chose to dismiss such pure talent over what they did in their spare time. Sure, they have every legal right to fire whomever they please. And Chez and Tunison have every right to write about whatever they want on their personal sites, anonymous or no. I just don't think blogging is sufficient reason to lose your job, especially when you don't mention said day job in your posts. Especially when they're doing something (writing) that their choice of day job shows they obviously love. It's like getting fired for enjoying cooking in your spare time when your day job is a line cook.

"But they're so outlandish and opinionated! Surely that must affect their day jobs!" Bullshit. Most of us can and do check our private lives at the door when we put on our day job hats. And who says they can't coexist? I thought Forbes was wise to embrace and promote one of their staff writers after he was publicly outed as blogger Fake Steve Jobs.

And it's not for fame or money, either. Blogging isn't exactly a claim to fame or riches. Let's look at a popular blog for example. Deadspin.com is arguably the biggest and most influential sports blog out there. On Technorati's admittedly loose definition and ranking of blogs, it's the #61 top blog, and the most popular sports blog on the Internet (if you're curious that places it far below Gawker, Daily Kos, Drudge Report, and the ridiculously high-ranked icanhazcheeseburger.com; and just ahead of Freakonomics.). According to founder Will Leitch, on a good month Deadspin gets about 2 million page views. To compare, Sports Illustrated's site gets that in about a day. ESPN.com in probably half a day or less. It's just not that big, even if it's top dog among blogs. Here's a fun exercise: ask your parents if they've heard of blogging legends Dooce, Tucker Max, or Big Daddy Drew. Nope? Thought so. Accordingly, the money isn't going to be great. Have you checked out the pay rates on Internet ads? A penny for every 10,000 click-throughs? I can't lose!

Of course, folks have been getting fired for blogging as long as there have been blogs. (See: Dooce)

Still, it's a shame that a blog that doesn't mention your employer can be grounds for getting fired.

Given this, I'm staying in the shadows until I'm fully working for myself. Not that it matters, since probably a dozen people read this and they're almost all my real-life friends. And I've been sloppy: if you dig enough, it's not impossible to link my real name to this blog. I'm Facebook buddies with my boss at work. I'm pretty much working on borrowed time here.

But I might as well not actively make it any easier.

So if anyone who doesn't know me in real life wants to know, my name might be Lee, my full name is very Google-friendly, and I work for major multinational firm Compuglobalhypermeganet. See you on the Internets.