MacPhoenix: WebSpaceSo I got this email from eBay that had this banner:
“Peak buyers’ interest”? Really? While I appreciate the proper use of the possessive apostrophe, the word is pique. It means to stimulate. It also means to annoy. Which they did.
[Tomorrow][1] sometimes seems like a week away. Anyway, this time Rich and I are exchanging “Ready Lets Go/Music Is Math,” by the **Boards of Canada**, and “Starship Trooper,” by **Yes**.
Rich offered this bit for me before I listened to BoC:
> Artist: Boards of Canada
> Album: [Geogaddi][3]
> Tracks: Ready Lets Go / Music Is Math
> Label: Warp Records
> Released: 2002
>
> Within the first few minutes of listening to this album, Boards of Canada had established themselves, without question, as one of my top 5 favorite bands.
>
> Quite simply, the music is audio psychedelia–rich in sonic depth and texture, and emotionally evocative. It is completely electronic, and yet altogether human.
>
> I don’t want to spoil the experience with too much hype, so relax, sit back, close your eyes and take the ride.
And this is how I introduced “Starship Trooper”:
> Okay, rich(e)rich, my next song is “Starship Trooper,” by Yes. This came out in 1970 off *The Yes Album*, which contains the wildly overplayed “I’ve Seen All Good People.” If I had to choose a favorite Yes album, it would tough to decide between this one and *Close to the Edge*.
>
> I like prog rock. What can I say? Yes is one of those divisive bands–most of my friends really don’t like them, or, worse, confuse them with **Rush**. My parents, who, in all honesty, shaped my musical tastes from an early age, don’t like Yes, since bands like them and **ELP** represent the [downfall of album format rock-and-roll][2]. I dug Yes before **Pink Floyd**, before **Led Zeppelin**. It’s just one of those things that appealed to me as a kid, and still does.
>
> Now, why “Starship Trooper”? Well, your [first song][1] was 8 minutes long, so I figured that all time restraints were off. ;) Next, this song has what I consider to be a perfect build. Starting at about 5:36, there’s just a guitar playing a lick, it’s subtly joined in by organ and drum, then bass, and it just builds from this one riff. It grips me every time I hear it. It goes on *forevah!*, but it holds me for every second. There’s a false crescendo two minutes in, and it still goes on. There’s this wall of sound that just grows and grows. When it finally does peak, at about 8:25, I get all wobbly. Seriously. That’s what music does to me. If I’m listening through headphones, I’ll tear up when that peak hits from the release of the tension.
>
> I’m not expecting the same visceral reaction from you, of course.
After we listen to the tracks, I’ll post our reactions and set up next week’s exchange.
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prog_rock#Rise_and_fall
[1]: http://www.macphoenix.com/creative/blog/archives/2007/04/tmx_reactions_to_pretzel_logic_v_cowgirl.html
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geogaddi
Ooops! Sorry for the delay. So, [as established previously][0], Rich and I were sending music to each other that highlight our musical backgrounds. Last time I chose “Pretzel Logic,” and this is what Rich had to say about it:
> Before hearing this song, my only exposure to **Steely Dan** was the song “Bodhisattva”—an up tempo rocker that I always looked for in the jukebox when having a few drinks at the bar, so I was happy to check out some more from “the Dan.” Now one thing I like about hearing bands perform cover songs and/or standards is that it allows you to put the unfamiliar—in this case SD, in a context that is more familiar—a jam based on the ubiquitous rock staple: the [12-bar blues][1].
> In this case, it really allowed me to see what is unique about the SD sound. (Keep in mind that I’m not really a *blues* guy, so I’m going to speak in broad generalizations about my impressions of blues jams I have heard.) Most blues jams rely heavily on a deep shuffle groove that keeps you moving — and this groove is very effective — at both slow and fast tempos. As far as lyrics and vocal melodies, they connect with the listener on a sort of core level, unadorned with the frills, so to speak, but speak simply and honestly to some fundamental, common experience we all can relate to. The music, to me, is more of a vehicle for this core emotional expression—the blues!
> But then there is “Pretzel Logic.” While it is rooted in the basic 12-bar progression, it has a completely different vibe and feel with a jazz/prog rock sound and structure, feeding all the fundamental blues elements through the “Steely Dan” music production machine. The lyrics are not raw and simple, but clever and require a bit of attention to catch all the subtleties. As far as the performance, SD doesn’t sound like an improvised jam based on some simple chords. This piece has been arranged and composed in a very deliberate way. I can hear it. It’s almost too deliberate at times. The experience of listening to “Pretzel Logic” is reminiscent of when I listen to progressive rock. The key focus is a commitment to achieving a level of performance and composition that meets and/or exceeds the existing technical standard. So combining this technical, heady vibe with the usually raw and emotive blues makes you take notice.
> I am happy to report that the production quality of this recording is excellent—the drums are tight and mixed well, the vocals are well recorded and in tune with an almost transparent quality to them, and we even have some nice stereo imaging. This is clean and professional, a well engineered and orchestrated mix that creates a sonic space for the song to exist in. This is significant to note. This means that the song, regardless of what the music evokes at any time, will be something that always at the very least sound good, because it is a recording with a collection of good sounds arranged well.
> Now I’ve listened to this track about 15 or so times since I received it from you, in various states of mind, in headphones, on a mini system, and in the studio. Listening usually brings on one of three responses:
> 1) I’ll look for this in the bar’s jukebox next time I’m out. I’ll think about the images and probably will start some conversation based on “Imagine meeting Napoleon?” or “It would be a strange trip to tour the southland in a [minstrel show][2]. I could only guess it would feel like being on Acid for weeks at a time.” Which is good! The song moves me a bit, and I can connect with what’s going on. Plus, it gives me a bridge to connect with the classic rock heads in my life. :)
> 2) “These white boys are stiff.” You know I love to dance. I need a groove (slow or fast) to keep me moving or engaged mentally with the track. It’s like, I hear the blues element, but want it to be *more* bluesy. It’s as if the core, raw, honest elements of the blues “proper” have been refined and edited out. When it hits me like this, I’m more inclined to want to turn something else on.
> 3) In certain states of mind, shall we say, the song is a [synestheticly][3] “takeable” ride. =)
> Let me conclude with “How frequently will I listen to Pretzel Logic in the future, and when?”
> It’s definitely made it into rotation when at the bar, for certain. This is where I think will enjoy listening to the song most and most often. When hanging out with you Supa, it will probably find it’s way into the playlist. =) When hanging out at home alone, I’d guess that it’s much more likely to find it’s way on via shuffle over deliberate effort. It will probably never come on with Alyssa around—she has matching aversions for Steely Dan and **Fleetwood Mac**, interestingly enough!
> And if a friend puts it on, I am familiar enough to enjoy rocking out to it with them!
This was my reaction to “Cowgirl”:
> My only previous exposure to **Underworld** was “Born Slippy,” off of the *Trainspotting* soundtrack. They reminded me of **Orbital**, which was probably due more to my lack of exposure to electronic music than anything else. (Were we still calling it *techno* in 1996?) But the main point here is that I really enjoyed Orbital, and I thought “Born Slippy’ was pretty good too.
> With only knowing “Born Slippy” and maybe a few other passing tracks from Underworld, I was surprised how recognizable “Cowgirl” was to me. Underworld has a very unique groove. I really enjoy the build at the beginning of the track, and, like my very *favoritest* prog and psychedelic music, the song has a half-dozen different movements within it that make the entire track seem more epic than probably 8 minutes normally allow.
> The synths sound great. I know you’re more of a beat man, but I love the pretty noises. Also, since this is from 1994, all these sounds may be played out, but they’re new to me, which is a nice feature to being exposed to music a decade or so after the release. However, I also like to be able to sing along to a song, which is nearly impossible in this case. The vocals are used as another instrument in the track. I appreciate this on a technical level, but it does limit how deeply I get into it. Also, I couldn’t make out exactly what the vocalist (I can’t really call him a singer) said, which turned out to be “an eraser of love.” It’s a cool line, and actually means something, but it’s affected to the point where it’s difficult to understand. Figures I’d have an issue with that. :)
> It’s a very cool track. I’d love to hear it at a party. It would be fun to dance to, what with the glow sticks and whooping noises and trails and such. It stays in my library, for sure, and I gave it 4 stars on **iTunes**. Even more importantly, it makes me look forward to hearing more Underworld tracks. I knew eleven years ago that I wanted to hear more from them, but I was too obsessed the death of grunge at the time.
Tomorrow, I’ll post the next exchange: *Music Is Math v Starship Trooper*.
[0]: http://www.macphoenix.com/creative/blog/archives/2007/03/tuesday_music_exchange_pretzel_logic_v_cowgirl.html#post_comments
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_bar_blues
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstrel_show
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia
For years I had wanted to meet Kurt Vonnegut. Then, about 10 years ago, I saw him on some sort of show. I forget the exact nature of it. Vonnegut must have talking about **Hocus Pocus** or maybe even **Timequake**. But the point here is that he was old, an old old man.
And there he was only 74.
I’ve never really made peace with *the old man*, in any form. And to see Vonnegut as an old man really bugged me. What time does to us. It’s cruel and pointless and vicious. But that’s my hang up.
Anyway, my point is that from that time on, I figured that I would never get to meet Vonnegut. Who knew I’d have 10 years to throw away not meeting him? Still, in that time, I grew to accept that idols only exist in our perception of them. The Kurt Vonnegut that I wanted to meet was already in his books. It’s a trite philosophy, for sure, and one that allows me to rationalize my situation where I will meet *nobody* whom I idolize. But it is true. I may never be friends with someone like Vonnegut, but all my friends are partially friends with him, because of the huge influence he’s had on me.
Excerpt from **Breakfast of Champions**, 1973:
> Trout accepted the invitation after all. Two days before the Festival was to begin, he delivered Bill into the care of his landlady upstairs, and he hitchhiked to New York City—with five hundred dollars pinned to the inside of his underpants. The rest of the money he had put in a bank.
> He went to New York first—because he hoped to find some of his books in pornography stores there. He had no copies at home. He despised them, but now he wanted to read out loud from them in Midland City—as a demonstration of a tragedy which was ludicrous as well.
> He planned to tell people out there what he hoped to have in the way of a tombstone.
> This was it:
> 
More excerpts and memorials:
[Jonathan Schwartz at **This Modern World**][1]
[Tom Tomorrow at **This Modern World**][2]
[Atrios at **Eschaton**][3]
[John Gruber at **Daring Fireball**][4]
[Skatje at **Lacrimae Rerum**][5]
[PZ Myers at **Pharyngula**][6]
[poputonian at **Hullaballo**][7]
[1]: http://thismodernworld.com/3673
[2]: http://thismodernworld.com/3675
[3]: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_04_08_atrios_archive.html#117634956734591420
[4]: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2007/april#wed-11-vonnegut
[5]: http://skatje.com/?p=295#comments
[6]: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/so_it_goes.php
[7]: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/good-uncle-bad-uncle-by-poputonian.html
There’s this shop on Rt 25 out in Smithtown called “U R Busted,” which cracks me up every time I see it. I think it’s a lawyer specializing in defending drug possession cases, but it may also be a bail bondsman. It’s not too clear. The sign, however, causes me great mirth whenever I pass by it.
It also makes me think of the time that my best friend, Erick, ragged on me for using the word *busted*, to describe something that was broken. We were working in *Sears*, which puts this is a tight 4-month frame in the winter of 1992. We were in the hardware section, meaning that half the time, we dealt with people returning old and broken tools under the *Craftsman* lifetime guarantee. I think *Sears* has since limited this program.
So someone came in with something that didn’t work, and I asked Erick where the replacement part would be, saying that the object in question was “busted.” Well this caused Erick great mirth. He kept repeating “busted,” and told other people that I said something was “busted.” When I said that it was a perfectly reasonable use of the word, he dismissed me. We eventually had to go to a dictionary–a paper one. We didn’t use computers or the internet to search for meaning back then. Entry number 2 of the word *bust* in my **Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary** has it as a synonym for break or burst. It was coined in the 1860s, which is even older than I am.
But it never left me how hard he ribbed me for using *busted* to mean something broken. I still use the word, and I enjoy “Busting Up a Starbucks,” by Mike Doughty, a bit more than I suspect most people do.
When Rich and I first discussed [Lingua Shapta][1], we knew that we had a common musical ground in our appreciation for the band [Soul Coughing][2]. What we didn’t realize at the time, however, was that our musical pasts were completely divergent. Rich was immersed in Hip Hop, Industrial, and Techno, where as I was all Prog Rock, Psychedelic, and Grunge. It limited our conversations about music at first, because excepting the recent past, where we began to converge, we shared little in what we considered *essential* music.
But that was ten years ago. (Yipes!) Since then, we’ve had a decade of commonality in our musical surroundings. Even if I’m reluctant to admit the talent of someone like Eminem, I’m more than aware of his presence in pantheon of popular music, so the conversations about music and style are far more productive than they had been all those years ago. Still, because the two of us were shaped by our earlier musical influences, there’s still gaps in our understanding of each other.
So Rich proposed a musical exchange. Each week we would give each other a track to listen to. We would comment on the tracks and get each other’s comments on the track. I thought that was interesting, so I said I’d post them.
Here’s our first exchange:
I sent Rich “[Pretzel Logic][5],” by Steely Dan. In my email to him, this is what I wrote:
> Well, if we’re gonna go with music that the other one isn’t exposed to, I’ll have to start off with Steely Dan. I’m pretty sure your exposure to them is limited and you probably can’t stand them. ;)
>
> Steely Dan is one of the bands that’s both respected and vilified by critics. They’re consummate musicians, but too cold and aloof, apparently. I don’t know from any of that. I think their music is a perfect mix of jazz and rock, and their lyrics are clever and often misanthropic, which is pretty much my style all around. Hmm…, maybe I just justified the cold and aloof charge against them.
>
> Anyway, this song, “Pretzel Logic,” is a smooth blend of Dixieland and country rock. The thing about the Dan is that it’s hard to date when the music. Almost everything they do has a late 70s vibe and late 90s production values. I won’t give away when this one was recorded, but you’re pretty savvy with the ‘net, so if you must know, it’s just a few clicks away. ;)
For those readers who must know, it came out in 1974. You can’t tell that from the recording though. The Dan had amazing production quality.
Rich then sent me “[Cowgirl][6],” by Underworld. In his email to me, this what he wrote:
> Thanks for the Steely Dan track! I can’t wait to spend some time with it (as soon as American Idiot- er i mean American Idol is done!) The only song i really know by Steely Dan is “Bodhisattva” which is pretty groovin’, so i’m looking forward to this! The only other thing I know is that [they really don’t like touring][3] and don’t really care about the fan’s response to that, so maybe that’s in part where their reputation for aloofness comes from.
>
> Here’s the first song I’d like to offer in our exchange….
>
> The song is Cowgirl by Underworld from their first album [Dubnobasswithmyheadman][4], released in 1994.
>
> This song is the epitomal underworld song, and probably in my top ten songs of all time. (Only the best for you, Supa!)
>
> Right from the start, it puts me in a sonic and emotional space. I love how rhythmical the vocal loops are and how well they integrate into the sonic soundscape without defining a distinction of “this is the music, these are the vocals.” There is just music, and it’s a great trip. This song has taken me places both in my mind and on the dancefloor. The structure and development of the song is also something to note, as each element gets it’s moment to shine, and the song seems to never stop evolving.
>
> Plus, it works in the club, at the rave, in headphones, and as listening music–how cool is that?!
Next week, I’ll post our findings on these two songs, and the next two songs we’ll be exchanging.
[1]: http://www.linguashapta.com/
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Coughing
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steely_Dan#Pretzel_Logic._.281974.29
[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underworld_%28band%29#Darren_Emerson_joins_the_duo:_1991.E2.80.931994
[5]: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=64295&s=143441&i=64287
[6]: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=42027216&s=143441&i=42027199
It was long overdue. And from working in the vegetarian kitchen, where much of my day is spent standing over a huge pot of steaming onions, my hair stinks. Now that 4/5th of it is gone, I hope to have shampoo-smelling hair in a day or two.
Here’s logic I’ll never understand: When a horrific crime is reported, the media ask, “Are our laws tough enough?” This is one of those knee-jerk reactions that fall apart on any amount of scrutiny.
In particular, I’m thinking of [Karen Fisher][1] who was arrested for killing Monsignor William Costello, last July, while driving drunk. There was a round of “Are our DWI laws tough enough?” with the easy, but unjustified, answer being, “No.”
It was Karen Fisher’s third arrest for drunk driving, and, while this had been the first time she killed someone, her second arrest had been made while she was driving her two children. Obviously, this is a woman with a problem. And Newsday was filled with letters asking why she still had a license. That’s a fair question, but it doesn’t get to the root of the matter.
The woman is a drunk.
License or no, she’s got a problem. In the above linked article, after she made a plea agreement, which pivots on a successful alcohol treatment program, Fisher’s bail had been revoked because she was kicked out of the program for drinking.
Shall we ask, “Are our alcohol treatment programs tough enough?”
This is an inherent conundrum when it comes to the law: Those people who break it don’t care about it. They don’t care what the penalties are. They don’t care how it will ruin the lives of their loved ones. They don’t care.
But those of us who are law abiding seem to gladly make stronger and stricter laws that will eventually swallow up people who make single mistakes or are wrongly accused or do things that were once socially acceptable. You’re next smokers.
This isn’t to say that drunk driving shouldn’t be illegal. It should. It’s assault with a deadly weapon with intent to harm. But Karen Fisher wouldn’t be stopped by the severest laws on the books, because she is beyond alcoholic. She’s psychologically unable to not drink until she’s drunk. This doesn’t portend the break down of society. She’s got a problem that only she will be able to stop, no matter what the law says.
Knee-jerk reactions to this are worse for our society, however. Shortly after Fisher’s crime, and not too long after an equally horrific case where a driver, going the wrong way on a major parkway, killed a man and a child in a limousine, Newsday had a letter that shocked the hell out of me.
I’m paraphrasing, but this was really the message:
>Drunk drivers, like the guy going the wrong way and careening into a limousine, are obviously drunk. Why bother with a trial? The police know someone is drunk right away. It costs money to try these people, and there is always a chance that some stupid jury or shark lawyer can get them off scott-free. Let the police decide, then and there, the severity of the crime.
Now, if that doesn’t scare the fucking piss out of you, then you can stop reading anything else I ever write.
[1]: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lifish0302,0,7551760.story?coll=ny-li-bigpix
> Lincoln is still the only head of state in the world to submit himself to an election during a revolution, during a rebellion, during a Civil War.
[Found here.][1]
[1]: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/02/pundit_who_publ.php