The Earlies
Vampire Weekend
Bat for Lashes
Menomena (ok so not really new, but new to me!)
Beirut (same)
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Democratic Debate
This is supposed to be a good one so I hope to catch as much of it as possible. And while I know CNN has to reach as many viewers nationwide as possible, since this one was set in Los Angeles, I was hoping to catch more of it. But alas, it begins at 8 pm EST (5 pm here in San Francisco) and I don't get home from work until after 6:30 pm. This has plagued me throughout the campaign thus far and I have not been able to catch more than a few minutes of debating. I always read about it the next day, but it lacks the pizzazz of a live, televised debate. Sigh. I guess just file this post under "random bitching".
Sweet! (literally)
Dunkin' Donuts brewing West Coast expansion plans
"Company officials said in recent months they plan to expand to 15,000 locations by 2020. They would not return calls for comment, but commercial real estate brokers in California's East Bay area contend Dunkin' Donuts is ready for its deep-fried manifest destiny."
Despite what this announcement will eventually do to my health, I'm very pleased.
"Company officials said in recent months they plan to expand to 15,000 locations by 2020. They would not return calls for comment, but commercial real estate brokers in California's East Bay area contend Dunkin' Donuts is ready for its deep-fried manifest destiny."
Despite what this announcement will eventually do to my health, I'm very pleased.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Atlantic
Now that http://www.theatlantic.com/ is free, I'm enjoying this magazine a lot on my way to and from work. I noticed today that I really like their photography, as well. Unfortunately, I couldn't (quickly) find the photographer to credit - but here's a photo-summary of today's politics, stolen from The Atlantic:
C'mon 01.20.09!!!
Additionally, everyone should read this article. It rationally explains why every one of us should be terrified of China. I'd love to hear any thoughts on this.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Depressed Candidate Runs Attack Ad About Self
"Mitt Romney says he's a candidate for change. He says he's a candidate Americans can finally trust," begins the self-destructive television spot, narrated by Romney himself. "But in 2004, this so-called Washington outsider approved nearly four separate tax hikes. And do you know why he did that? Because he's a big fat disappointment, that's why."
"Ugh," the television spot continues. "I'm going back to bed."
"Ugh," the television spot continues. "I'm going back to bed."
Obama
So eloquent!
“The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor, young versus old, and it’s not about black versus white. This election is about the past versus the future.”
-South Carolina, January 26
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Why I hate the two party system
I cannot tell you the number of times I've heard the phrases "I don't want to waste my vote" and "But I want to vote for a viable candidate" in the past few months, but it has been A LOT. In addition to weighing the merits and potential flaws in each candidate's plan for the future and rationalizing one's own viewpoints on the many issues we have facing ourselves during this election, Americans must also gamble with each candidate's place within their respective party and how that might play out in a national election against the other party's candidates.
Additionally, the candidates must weigh their own views of what is right for America against their party's positions, and though they may often match up, I find it hard to believe they always do. The candidates must also prove their loyalty to the party (rather than Americans) in a number of situations. They waste our time during debates praising the other candidates in their party, when they could be discussing the issues. In a recent political discussion with my mother, I realized how narrow the focus of these debates, in addition to all other forms of media, were. Clearly, Americans need to prioritize the issues and time is limited. But I would have to do some research to tell you the candidates' stances on anything other than the war, the economy and healthcare. Obviously, those are all very important issues, but they're not the only ones we're facing (in addition, we're subjected to candidates squabbling about nuances in their plans, rather than telling us why theirs will work). This leads me to my next point: the money game.
Bob Dylan called political parties "social clubs in drag disguise", but it seems in this day and age, they are more like corporations in drag disguise (particularly applicable to Mr. Guiliani). In goes money, out comes political favors. So much time is spent procuring donations in order to run, and with those donations comes a certain obligation to the donor (no way to tell exactly what, but I hardly believe there are no strings attached, even if there are not supposed to be), that Americans don't get the kind of attention from the candidates they deserve, leading to an absence of information. While this has improved greatly with the increased incorporation of internet platforms into political campaigns, I feel that it is in debate-like situations that we can witness the fervor (or lack thereof), personality (or lack thereof), and reactions of the candidates to opposition best. Plus, it seems that the public still gets a lot of its information from television.
But then you get to the television, and it becomes a ratings game. Moderators direct more questions toward the media's view of the most viable candidates and at times, the stage turns into a bad episode of some reality television show - each player competes for attention. It all plays into the transformation of politics into business. The Democratic Party advertises their brand. The GOP advertises their brand. Obama advertises the Obama Corporation, endorsed by the Democratic brand. Same for Hillary, Edwards, Romney, Huckabee, etc. to their respectives parties/brands. And in a sense, that IS just politics. But what I have a real problem with is that top layer - the two brands.
Americans comprise one of the most diverse populations in the world - in terms of income, race, ethnicity, religion, you name it. How can we possibly be divided into two groups? How can we possibly be expected, every four years, to choose from only two (and in the past few elections, not very good) candidates? How can those two people possibly represent the lot of us? And instead of coming in with a clean slate, every election the new president walks in with a whole lot of baggage. Not only from the donors, but from the party, and all of the party's interests. And because this game has been going on for so long, there are a lot of interests to take into account.
So this is where you ask, but if we introduce more parties, won't the elected party represent an even smaller group of us? Well, even though we pride ourselves on being the ultimate champions of democracy, we are not the only democratic country in the world. European elections (at least the ones I've read about) tend to result in the formation of a coalition of moderates that represent a much greater portion of the population than either of America's parties (the Grand Coalition in Germany, for example, represented more than 70% of the vote in the last federal election). Meanwhile in America, we've reached a devastating degree of polarization. I read about the Republican Party and their views, and I do not relate with the majority of their views AT ALL. I cannot even understand the logic of some of them. And I'm usually very good at seeing both sides. This frightens me. What frightens me even more is the number of Americans who DO agree with the Republican Party.
Now, this isn't a rant to try and turn everyone into Democrats - I don't agree with many of their views as well. It is the realization that we've reached a point where, politically, it would seem that half of the country does not trust the other half, and vice-versa. But in my personal experience, I trust most of the people I meet, Republican or Democrat, and think they generally are good people. Now, I'm an optimist, but I can be skeptical - and even with my skeptic cap on, I still observed that most of the people I met in my day-to-day were filled with good intentions. I suppose you could argue that perhaps it's because I live in a city of liberals (this is San Francisco, after all) - but it's true even when I visit my parents in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania - and that's a very conservative area. So why are these good people aligned with a party loaded with bad policies and armed with fear? I believe it's the political party money machine and the mindset that goes along with the two party system.
By using the media to manipulate the public into believing issues like abortion or gay marriage are critical to the future of this country and using faith to trap voters into a catch-22 (vote for us or you're betraying your lord!), the Republican Party has succeeded in alienating much of the country - and that's going to stick for awhile. Despite my own views, I know that faith is very important to many Americans, but I do not feel it should be important in the political arena - at least not to the degree that it has been during the past seven years. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that was why we had the separation of church and state.
I'm not just picking on the Republicans, the Democrats engage in similar marketing, though maybe not in such an obvious way. The two parties push their aggregated piles of money into separating the country into two distinct piles through marketing to, rather than engaging with, the American public, then convincing them that voting for one of two people is the only way to make your vote count. (In the meantime, which voters do you think have all the power? The independents.) Both parties more or less have the stats and although we may see a 1964 type election this year because of the immensity of the failures of the Bush administration, they know generally that those who claim to belong to their party will vote for their candidate. The people are loyal to their brands. Both the media and the government have capitalized on Americans' laziness and unwillingness to truly think for themselves, and have narrowed the presidential race to a Pepsi v. Coke debate. And until the public learns that maybe they'd prefer a Fresca now and then, or a Sprite, or a Barq's (damn, I'm thirsty!), we'll most likely be stuck with a choice between the candidate I don't agree with at all and the candidate I kind of agree with sometimes.
In summary, two things need to happen. One - we get rid of the need for money in order to run for president. We're moving toward it - and once more, I find myself grateful for the internet - but old habits die hard. The only way to truly change the way elections operate is to change our consumer behavior - the political parties, like a good business, will respond to change. If we change the way we get our information (to something free - like the internet), and remove the filters through which we get it (pundits, targeted ads, orchestrated debates), and don't let the old methods of playing the political game have any influence over our decisions (note: be skeptical of everything! vote based on the candidates' past actions like their voting record! vote based on the viability, not of the candidate to win the party's nomination, but of their plans for the future! does it sound like a hare-brained scheme meant only to appeal to a certain class of voters - it probably is!) then the whole system could have the freedom to change. We could learn about more than just the candidates for two parties. The American people are very fluid in opinions. The parties change slowly. Their inhabitants are addicted to the status quo for their survival. They spend a lot of time and money making sure that we believe their way is the only way, but it's not. This is America - anything is possible!
Secondly, and this one may be even harder, we need to start thinking for ourselves. Like I argued, two parties cannot possibly represent 100% of America. And the longer we let this go on, the more entrenched the system becomes. The more interests each party gathers. The more eggs Americans put in one of two baskets. What would be so wrong with multiple parties? I believe more Americans would feel properly represented, and although a coalition of the middle would still have differences, I feel that they would agree on the important things. I see more of America agreeing on the big things these days, and just arguing over the petty stuff. So you may ask what if the vote was split between two extremes, rather than the moderates? Wouldn't they just constantly argue in the Senate and House? I suppose so, but how is that different from what we have now?
I think a lot of America's problems stem from our addiction to the status quo. We used to be at the economic forefront of the world, but I see our economy stagnating. Americans fuel economic growth, it seems, not through innovation, but through rapid consumption and greed. The idea that it would be patriotic to spend your way out of the last recession was perhaps the worst I've ever heard. Yeah, it made economic sense at the time - but look what it led to. Innovation of the real, quality-of-life-improving variety seems to have vanished. In short, our resistance to change is ruining us. America made its largest leaps forward in eras of political uprising and active debate. I think if we start with this area of our national interest, the spirit of change and entrepreneurship America used to be famous for (we were an economic miracle!) would flow to other areas, including social progression and resumed economic superiority.
All it would take for this to happen is a simultaneous rejection of the status quo. We would have time to really research candidates, rather than perform the guessing game of party politics and weigh your real opinions against viability. The only way I feel to really achieve this is to vote for independent candidates, or those of other parties. However, I'd only support doing this if they really represent your view. Basically, everyone would just have to block out the media and the idea of making sure your vote "counts". I have a feeling if everyone did this honestly, your vote really would count in a much larger and more positive way, both in terms of the way you feel about your participation in the democratic process and in terms of the future of our nation.
What do you think?
Additionally, the candidates must weigh their own views of what is right for America against their party's positions, and though they may often match up, I find it hard to believe they always do. The candidates must also prove their loyalty to the party (rather than Americans) in a number of situations. They waste our time during debates praising the other candidates in their party, when they could be discussing the issues. In a recent political discussion with my mother, I realized how narrow the focus of these debates, in addition to all other forms of media, were. Clearly, Americans need to prioritize the issues and time is limited. But I would have to do some research to tell you the candidates' stances on anything other than the war, the economy and healthcare. Obviously, those are all very important issues, but they're not the only ones we're facing (in addition, we're subjected to candidates squabbling about nuances in their plans, rather than telling us why theirs will work). This leads me to my next point: the money game.
Bob Dylan called political parties "social clubs in drag disguise", but it seems in this day and age, they are more like corporations in drag disguise (particularly applicable to Mr. Guiliani). In goes money, out comes political favors. So much time is spent procuring donations in order to run, and with those donations comes a certain obligation to the donor (no way to tell exactly what, but I hardly believe there are no strings attached, even if there are not supposed to be), that Americans don't get the kind of attention from the candidates they deserve, leading to an absence of information. While this has improved greatly with the increased incorporation of internet platforms into political campaigns, I feel that it is in debate-like situations that we can witness the fervor (or lack thereof), personality (or lack thereof), and reactions of the candidates to opposition best. Plus, it seems that the public still gets a lot of its information from television.
But then you get to the television, and it becomes a ratings game. Moderators direct more questions toward the media's view of the most viable candidates and at times, the stage turns into a bad episode of some reality television show - each player competes for attention. It all plays into the transformation of politics into business. The Democratic Party advertises their brand. The GOP advertises their brand. Obama advertises the Obama Corporation, endorsed by the Democratic brand. Same for Hillary, Edwards, Romney, Huckabee, etc. to their respectives parties/brands. And in a sense, that IS just politics. But what I have a real problem with is that top layer - the two brands.
Americans comprise one of the most diverse populations in the world - in terms of income, race, ethnicity, religion, you name it. How can we possibly be divided into two groups? How can we possibly be expected, every four years, to choose from only two (and in the past few elections, not very good) candidates? How can those two people possibly represent the lot of us? And instead of coming in with a clean slate, every election the new president walks in with a whole lot of baggage. Not only from the donors, but from the party, and all of the party's interests. And because this game has been going on for so long, there are a lot of interests to take into account.
So this is where you ask, but if we introduce more parties, won't the elected party represent an even smaller group of us? Well, even though we pride ourselves on being the ultimate champions of democracy, we are not the only democratic country in the world. European elections (at least the ones I've read about) tend to result in the formation of a coalition of moderates that represent a much greater portion of the population than either of America's parties (the Grand Coalition in Germany, for example, represented more than 70% of the vote in the last federal election). Meanwhile in America, we've reached a devastating degree of polarization. I read about the Republican Party and their views, and I do not relate with the majority of their views AT ALL. I cannot even understand the logic of some of them. And I'm usually very good at seeing both sides. This frightens me. What frightens me even more is the number of Americans who DO agree with the Republican Party.
Now, this isn't a rant to try and turn everyone into Democrats - I don't agree with many of their views as well. It is the realization that we've reached a point where, politically, it would seem that half of the country does not trust the other half, and vice-versa. But in my personal experience, I trust most of the people I meet, Republican or Democrat, and think they generally are good people. Now, I'm an optimist, but I can be skeptical - and even with my skeptic cap on, I still observed that most of the people I met in my day-to-day were filled with good intentions. I suppose you could argue that perhaps it's because I live in a city of liberals (this is San Francisco, after all) - but it's true even when I visit my parents in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania - and that's a very conservative area. So why are these good people aligned with a party loaded with bad policies and armed with fear? I believe it's the political party money machine and the mindset that goes along with the two party system.
By using the media to manipulate the public into believing issues like abortion or gay marriage are critical to the future of this country and using faith to trap voters into a catch-22 (vote for us or you're betraying your lord!), the Republican Party has succeeded in alienating much of the country - and that's going to stick for awhile. Despite my own views, I know that faith is very important to many Americans, but I do not feel it should be important in the political arena - at least not to the degree that it has been during the past seven years. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that was why we had the separation of church and state.
I'm not just picking on the Republicans, the Democrats engage in similar marketing, though maybe not in such an obvious way. The two parties push their aggregated piles of money into separating the country into two distinct piles through marketing to, rather than engaging with, the American public, then convincing them that voting for one of two people is the only way to make your vote count. (In the meantime, which voters do you think have all the power? The independents.) Both parties more or less have the stats and although we may see a 1964 type election this year because of the immensity of the failures of the Bush administration, they know generally that those who claim to belong to their party will vote for their candidate. The people are loyal to their brands. Both the media and the government have capitalized on Americans' laziness and unwillingness to truly think for themselves, and have narrowed the presidential race to a Pepsi v. Coke debate. And until the public learns that maybe they'd prefer a Fresca now and then, or a Sprite, or a Barq's (damn, I'm thirsty!), we'll most likely be stuck with a choice between the candidate I don't agree with at all and the candidate I kind of agree with sometimes.
In summary, two things need to happen. One - we get rid of the need for money in order to run for president. We're moving toward it - and once more, I find myself grateful for the internet - but old habits die hard. The only way to truly change the way elections operate is to change our consumer behavior - the political parties, like a good business, will respond to change. If we change the way we get our information (to something free - like the internet), and remove the filters through which we get it (pundits, targeted ads, orchestrated debates), and don't let the old methods of playing the political game have any influence over our decisions (note: be skeptical of everything! vote based on the candidates' past actions like their voting record! vote based on the viability, not of the candidate to win the party's nomination, but of their plans for the future! does it sound like a hare-brained scheme meant only to appeal to a certain class of voters - it probably is!) then the whole system could have the freedom to change. We could learn about more than just the candidates for two parties. The American people are very fluid in opinions. The parties change slowly. Their inhabitants are addicted to the status quo for their survival. They spend a lot of time and money making sure that we believe their way is the only way, but it's not. This is America - anything is possible!
Secondly, and this one may be even harder, we need to start thinking for ourselves. Like I argued, two parties cannot possibly represent 100% of America. And the longer we let this go on, the more entrenched the system becomes. The more interests each party gathers. The more eggs Americans put in one of two baskets. What would be so wrong with multiple parties? I believe more Americans would feel properly represented, and although a coalition of the middle would still have differences, I feel that they would agree on the important things. I see more of America agreeing on the big things these days, and just arguing over the petty stuff. So you may ask what if the vote was split between two extremes, rather than the moderates? Wouldn't they just constantly argue in the Senate and House? I suppose so, but how is that different from what we have now?
I think a lot of America's problems stem from our addiction to the status quo. We used to be at the economic forefront of the world, but I see our economy stagnating. Americans fuel economic growth, it seems, not through innovation, but through rapid consumption and greed. The idea that it would be patriotic to spend your way out of the last recession was perhaps the worst I've ever heard. Yeah, it made economic sense at the time - but look what it led to. Innovation of the real, quality-of-life-improving variety seems to have vanished. In short, our resistance to change is ruining us. America made its largest leaps forward in eras of political uprising and active debate. I think if we start with this area of our national interest, the spirit of change and entrepreneurship America used to be famous for (we were an economic miracle!) would flow to other areas, including social progression and resumed economic superiority.
All it would take for this to happen is a simultaneous rejection of the status quo. We would have time to really research candidates, rather than perform the guessing game of party politics and weigh your real opinions against viability. The only way I feel to really achieve this is to vote for independent candidates, or those of other parties. However, I'd only support doing this if they really represent your view. Basically, everyone would just have to block out the media and the idea of making sure your vote "counts". I have a feeling if everyone did this honestly, your vote really would count in a much larger and more positive way, both in terms of the way you feel about your participation in the democratic process and in terms of the future of our nation.
What do you think?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Holy. Crap.
Ok, so I heard all of the Tom Cruise scientology video hype last week, but today was the first time I actually had to watch it. Ok, there was no exaggeration. It's nuts. Completely and utterly scary.
Fortunately, and in record time, someone has parodied it.
Fortunately, and in record time, someone has parodied it.
Friday, January 25, 2008
"Teeth" Movie Review
This review of the horror comedy "Teeth" was pretty funny and piqued my interest in the film, although I don't know if I'll actually shell out the clams to go see it, or wait for Netflix.
The advisory at the bottom was probably my favorite part:
Advisory: We really can't say this too many times. This film contains sex, profanity and adult themes - none of which you'll really notice because of all the severed genitalia flopping around. "Teeth" may be the worst first-date movie ever, and that includes the porno that Robert De Niro escorted Cybill Shepherd to in "Taxi Driver."
The advisory at the bottom was probably my favorite part:
Advisory: We really can't say this too many times. This film contains sex, profanity and adult themes - none of which you'll really notice because of all the severed genitalia flopping around. "Teeth" may be the worst first-date movie ever, and that includes the porno that Robert De Niro escorted Cybill Shepherd to in "Taxi Driver."
A somewhat productive use of hatred
This invention amuses me greatly. Thanks, Morford.
In other news, the Jamie T song "So Lonely Was The Ballad" makes me smile.
In other news, the Jamie T song "So Lonely Was The Ballad" makes me smile.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
I'm Not There
First off, the casting for this film was spot-on. High points: Cate Blanchett acted her bloody ass off - it was superb. David Cross as Allen Ginsberg (albeit a small part) was magnificent. Marcus Carl Franklin (below) did an amazing job as well.
The movie in general - FANTASTIC. It was moving, creative, beautiful to watch, excellent soundtrack, obviously. I don't want to give too much away, but it helps to know about Bob Dylan's life. There are a lot of elements of his biography that aren't fully explained, but if you know about him, you'll get it. A bit hard to follow, but overall, pure magic.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
My new favorite music blog
Just stumbled upon this blog called Cafe Eclectica Music while looking for top track listings for 2007 so I can use an iTunes gift card (for full albums, I do cds - so old-fashioned!). Haven't done too much surfing around, but it seems awesome so far! Let me know what you think.
Bruce Springsteen and the economy
"I got a job working construction for the Johnstown Company,
But lately there ain't been much work on account of the economy.
Now all them things that seemed so important,
Well mister they vanished right into the air.
Now I just act like I don't remember;
Mary acts like she don't care."
So... recession?
But lately there ain't been much work on account of the economy.
Now all them things that seemed so important,
Well mister they vanished right into the air.
Now I just act like I don't remember;
Mary acts like she don't care."
So... recession?
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Heath Ledger
Man, it's almost embarassing how fast celebrity news travels. Between the time a coworker sent this around (which I believe was almost immediately after it was released) and now (roughly an hour or so later), I received the news from at least 5 other sources. There was a similar experience last year with Anna Nicole Smith.
Now, I'm not a huge celebrity person, but I have to say it made me a little sad. I just saw him over the weekend in I'm Not There, which I'll be posting a review of shortly (preview: "It was amazing!"). I also thought he was magnificent in Brokeback Mountain. I guess I'd feel similarly about anyone who died so young, with so much promise.
I read some of the comments on this site - a summary of the most truthful: "We were all expecting this from Britney Spears, but Heath?"
He's supposed to be really good as the Joker in the upcoming Batman movie.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Cruel fate strikes again.
Jens Lekman is coming to town. And once again, I will not be in San Francisco, but rather in Las Vegas for March Madness (I'll be there March 21-23 - everyone's invited!). Why does he only show up when I'm gone?
One more small note regarding one of my biggest pet peeves. I received an order from Amazon today and I am just appalled at the number of stickers put directly on cd cases. First of all, I've already purchased the cd online... the stickers have no sway over me - why are they there? I don't care if the cd contains x, x and x great songs. I don't care if it's a best bargain or one of rock's greatest instrumental albums. Clearly, I already know about all of this as I have purchased said album. Secondly, why on the cd case? Why not outside of the already superfluous plastic wrapping? Apparently, the manufacturers/distributors want to make sure that you know FOREVER that there was once a sticker there, because those little blights never seem to come off clean. STOP THE MADNESS AMAZON! Seriously, stop.
One more small note regarding one of my biggest pet peeves. I received an order from Amazon today and I am just appalled at the number of stickers put directly on cd cases. First of all, I've already purchased the cd online... the stickers have no sway over me - why are they there? I don't care if the cd contains x, x and x great songs. I don't care if it's a best bargain or one of rock's greatest instrumental albums. Clearly, I already know about all of this as I have purchased said album. Secondly, why on the cd case? Why not outside of the already superfluous plastic wrapping? Apparently, the manufacturers/distributors want to make sure that you know FOREVER that there was once a sticker there, because those little blights never seem to come off clean. STOP THE MADNESS AMAZON! Seriously, stop.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
How did I miss this?
Ha! Between this monstrosity (who is campaigning in the big states of California and Florida as we speak), and three different winners of three different states, the GOP is so screwed.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
What to do with bonus money?
I think I'm going to start buying art again. Music-centered art. I cannot afford this piece or this piece, but if someone really wants to buy it for me, I'll let you. If anyone knows of a great artist or place to buy, in particular, classic rock era artwork - please let me know. Thanks!
Gloria Steinem Column
I'm sure many of you have already seen this, but just in case, this is a great column regarding gender barriers. Obviously, it's centered around Hillary Clinton, but Steinem makes a lot of good points that can be applicable to many areas of life.
Women Are Never Front-Runners
Women Are Never Front-Runners
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Ron Paul fascinates me.
I thoroughly enjoyed his speech last night in New Hampshire and felt a bit remiss that I hadn't caught more of them. Here's one for all of you:
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Great quote
I'm a big fan of quotations. This one made me smile and nod today.
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer."
--Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer."
--Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"So ya... thought ya... might like to... go to the show."
In my quest to unite music and film, the musical genre inevitably came up. However, not in the traditional sense (although my sister did kindly give me Cabaret for Christmas, although I suspect the gift was self-serving - see below). Each year, my parents typically pick a band in the classic rock genre, one that they know I like. Then for Christmas, I get a spattering of their best albums (in my parents' opinions - this naturally works out for them as well). Last year it was The Beatles. This year it was Pink Floyd.
My last obsession was Bob Dylan, with a brief dip into Leonard Cohen (I plan to revisit both of these artists later). I knew I needed something different, something that would offset Dylan's folkiness. Pink Floyd turned out to be just the ticket.
In one of many trips during break to Best Buy (I come from a family of compulsive gift card users - most are spent by New Year's), I picked up The Wall. I had already received the album from my parents and given it several thorough listenings. I knew I had to see this film.
My last obsession was Bob Dylan, with a brief dip into Leonard Cohen (I plan to revisit both of these artists later). I knew I needed something different, something that would offset Dylan's folkiness. Pink Floyd turned out to be just the ticket.
In one of many trips during break to Best Buy (I come from a family of compulsive gift card users - most are spent by New Year's), I picked up The Wall. I had already received the album from my parents and given it several thorough listenings. I knew I had to see this film.
I had heard things. I knew Pink Floyd's music. Believe me, I thought I was prepared for whatever trip this film would take me on.
I was wrong.
I don't want to give anything away, but it was far more... well, trippy is the only word I can think of right now, than I expected. But I loved every moment. A few warnings - it's dark, in fact, very very dark. It's explicit - do not watch with children. Roger Waters was actually unhappy with the final product (thank you Wikipedia) because he felt the main character (Pink, a rock star played by Bob Geldof) was unsympathetic. I didn't find him entirely so, but I suppose they could've upped the sympathy quotient some. Final warning - it IS confusing. Most of the metaphors are pretty straightforward, but without traditional dialogue and a timeline that jumps fairly frequently - you can lose your way. I'd suggest watching at a time when you won't be interrupted or distracted. And please, let me know what you think!
Final story re: my sister Katie. I'm much more into music than either of my other sisters - although Becky is progressing. Since Katie typically has no real opinions about music, I rarely ask what she's into. A couple of weeks ago, we were talking on the phone about possible Christmas presents. I thought I might send her to a concert, so I asked what bands etc. she was into these days. Her response: "Actually, I'm into musicals." Not a total surprise, but still, hilariously delivered by my 17-year-old sister. While I'd selfishly love to share folk and indie and rock music with her, she does bring me much joy when she breaks out into Fiddler on the Roof song and dance in the middle of Macys.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
The Fog
This photograph was taken by my grandfather during his recent visit to the Bay Area. We were in Sausalito, facing the city. This is one of the many reasons I love San Francisco.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
