There have been numerous "Top Sport Stories of the Decade" as this decade comes to a close. This decade for sports has been an interesting one. There has been a lot of controversy and many stories that are sad and tragic. There have been some uplifting ones as well. I wanted to share some of the ones I found most compelling, interesting, and important. What I have noticed was that many of these sports stories tend to focus on the latter part of the decade, which may be a result of the stories being more fresh in people's minds or maybe they simply received more coverage with the emergence of new media. I plan to focus on the major sports in the United States (the big four of baseball, basketball, football, and hockey). Though I will scatter a few of the other emerging sports as I call them, MLS soccer, NASCAR, and UFC. And even pro-wrestling, since it is a form of sport as entertainment. College football will be included as well. Stories that I will not include but I do consider important are Michael Phelps' 8 Olympic gold medals (Olympics are important, but just don't grab Americans the way it does in Europe), Tiger Woods' affair/fall from grace (too soon to examine it and it has nothing to do with sports), Lance Armstrong (since cycling is not, in my opinion, a major sport in America, but still an amazing accomplishment) and Duke U's Lacrosse team's sexual assault case (there is probably still more to this story as well).
Some stories get inclusion as a result of under coverage, some because of the bizarre nature of the story, and some for the repercussions. Many of the stories have little to do with the actual on-field accomplishments, since this decade has really been a decade of scandal. But, there have been some great sport accomplishments, LA Lakers championships, Boston Red Sox and Chicago White Sox ending their droughts, New England Patriots and Pittsburgh Steelers both winning multiple championships in the NFL, Florida/SEC dominance in college football, and several NHL teams winning the cup for the first time. I have created a long list and will proceed to write out my top stories in no particular order. Some stories have been combined into a category and some have been combined with a person that spurred the story, I did so in order to relate where the story began it's coverage and in order to save some space.
1. NHL Lockout of 2004-2005 Season
Hockey is often overlooked in American sports' media, it is still one of the big 4 sports, but the fan base is smaller and more niche. This story is a pretty big deal though, baseball and basketball both had lockouts in the 1990s, but they seasons were only shortened, and in baseball there was no playoffs. But the NHL lockout is the first time an entire season was cancelled, not a single game was played by the the 30 NHL teams. Players went to Europe to play, (nearly 400 of them!) some never to return to the U.S.A. again and some even went to play for minor league teams. At the center of the issue was money. Teams were not making enough compared to the amount that they paid players. The league wanted to institute a salary cap on teams, or possibly a luxury tax or even revenue sharing, along with a pay cut across the board. Something which was something the players would not let happen, even though the league was losing money. After nearly a year the lockout ended with the salary cap being approved. The result is that stability would come to the league, which has been mostly true, but there are still teams in trouble such as the Phoenix Coyotes.
2. Pat Tillman's death
Pat Tillman was a safety for the Arizona Cardinals who after 4 seasons in the NFL decided to put his career on hold to go serve this country in the War in Afghanistan. Tillman was killed in 2004 as a result of friendly fire. There was a big controversy following his death because it appeared that there was a cover up of some sort by his army unit. The cover up became the story, but the real story is that Pat Tillman is a great American who served his country not out of requirement or a draft, but out of his love for the nation. Tillman's number was retired by the Cardinals as well as his college team. Tillman is also represents something that professional sports needs more of, real heroes.
3. Pacers/Pistons brawl
November 19 2004 was the night that may be one of the worst nights in NBA history. Near the end of the Pacers and Pistons game in Detroit, after a tough contest between the teams, a fan tossed his soda onto Ron Artest of the Pacers. Artest responded by running into the stands and punching a fan, (not the one who tossed his soda at him). Team-mate Stephen Jackson followed him and punched a fan as well, then the players returned to the floor where Artest punched two more fans and Jermaine O'Neal punched a fan as well. Fans spilled unto the floor, players were running into the stands and back, security finally made its way to restore order, but it was too late. The mess resulted in Artest's suspension for the rest of the season, (several other players were suspended too) as well as legal ramifications for the fans and the players as well (most of the players received community service and probation). This made the NBA look like the players were unprofessional. Having a soda or beer thrown at a player is wrong, but for the player to lose their cool to such an extreme manner hurt the league as a whole, not just the player or team's reputation. Never has there been such an event to occur in professional sports, to see players and fans to engage in violence with one another is almost unheard of it. And to basically see a riot occur is still unbelievable.
4. Gone too soon - early deaths in pro sports
There have been many shocking and sad deaths this decade. Many players taken down in their prime. Sean Taylor of the Redskins was shot and killed. Nick Adenhart was killed by a drunk driver on his way home from pitching a game. Cory Lidle was killed in a plane crash, shockingly similar to the Thurmon Munson tragedy. Darryl Kile died a few days before he was scheduled to make his next start, he died of a unusual heart defect. Chris Henry died at the young age of 26, sad as he was trying to restore his public image and make changes from his previous lifestyle. Fred Lane, a running back for the Carolina Panthers was murdered by his wife, a mere 25 years old in the beginning of what could have been a great career. Corey Smith and Marquis Cooper, two friends and NFL players who were lost at sea while on a fishing trip in the offseason. Derrick Thomas, the great Kansas City Chief linebacker who died as a result of a car accident. Josh Hancock, another St Louis Cardinal player who died young. Joe Kennedy, a journeyman pitcher who died suddenly of hypertensive heart disease, at the age of 28. Eddie Griffith, Malik Sealy, both Minnesota Timberwolves who died in car accidents. Dan Snyder a 23 year old hockey player who died in a car accident, the driver was his then teammate Danny Heatley. And lastly, Korey Stringer, who died in 2001 in training camp for the Vikings. There have been numerous other deaths, but this point is not to dwell on their death, but to celebrate their life and for the accomplishments.
5. Dale Earnhardt's death
I wanted to separate this point from the previous list. All of the players had varying degrees of success, some were hall of famers, some were solid players, and some died before their careers could fully blossom. Earnhardt is different, he was one of the greats. Earnhardt's #3 car was semi-retired it hasn't been used since his death. His death is also different because he was essentially on the field, he died as he attempted to win NASCAR's biggest race, the Daytona 500, which he was in the top 3 at the time of the crash. Earnhardt's death spurred changes to NASCAR's safety regulations.
6. The emergence of Mixed Martial Arts
MMA is quickly becoming of the new big sports in America. The major MMA is the UFC, started in the early 90s. The UFC has expanded between pay per view and TV deals and even into merchandise, clothing, and video games. Names once no one new are now household names, Chuck Liddell (was on Dancing with the stars even!), Tito Ortiz, Frank Mir, Randy Couture, Tim Sylvia, Rampage Jackson, and Forrest Griffin. The UFC is the best known, but there are several other promotions such as IFC and Strikeforce and many many others. But UFC is the biggest and I predict will eat up the smaller ones and become "the league" in the MMA. The sport is on the rise and will an ever expanding fan base, it is amazing that a sport that is essentially two people fighting in a cage could become some popular.
7. David Beckham come to the U.S. and the MLS reaps the benefits
Soccer failed in the 1970s in the US, but in 1996 the MLS debuted. Early on it was a big money loser, but things began to turn with the beginning of the decade. The teams started to become profitable and the league added new teams. Then in 2007 David Beckham came to the U.S. One of the biggest stars in the sport. Beckhan is known as much for his off-field news as his play on, from being married to a Spice Girl to having a film named in his honor. Beckham made people even more excited about soccer and gave the league the ability to secure a better TV contract and even more stars and even more teams. The league become a money maker, not a money loser and even more expansion is planned for the future.
8. Chris Benoit and other pro wrestlers dying young
There were several pro wrestlers dying young this decade (Chris Candido, Eddie Guerrero, Bam Bam Bigelow, Mike Awesome, Umaga, Curt Hennig, Crash Holly, Test, and British bulldog/Davey Boy Smith). But the one that got the most attention and was the most bizarre was Chris Benoit. Benoit was one of the best technical wrestlers of his time, he was ruthless and truly one of the toughest competitors. He won many titles including the world championship, the premire title in WWE. Benoit's career was a struggle to make it to the top and by 2007 he was one of the top in WWE. Benoit's death was not only his, but his family's as well. Although what went down specifically is not known for sure, what is known is tragic. Benoit killed his wife and son, before hanging himself in his home gym. Benoit's death made the national news unlike any wrestler's death before. And with it came the truth from steroid and drug use to head injuries that put his mind out of place. With all of this came the cries of was the WWE ignoring drug use and encouraging their employees to juice? The WWE had a firestorm that they had never seen before, Benoit's death along with Guerrero's resulted in the creation of a drug policy and testing of the employees. It also resulted in WWE offering drug rehab for both current and former employees. WWE continues to be the premiere pro-wrestling company, but now has to better protect its employees and image in the face of this event.
9. Michael Vick
Vick story is important because he was one of the marquee names in the NFL. But he took a fall from grace that is nearly unprecedented. Vick went from the football field to jail as part of an alleged dog fighting ring. He would spend about a year in prison for his part in the ring, Vick not only fought the dogs, but killed some of the weaker ones himself. After doing his time, he returned to the league, but the fact that a player of his star stature had the stupidity to get involved in dogfighting, a barbaric sport, in what makes this story so compelling. Along with the fact that he was an active player at the time in the prime of his career.
10. Rae Carruth
Rae Carruth was a wide receiver for the Carolina Panthers with a couple of seasons under his belt. In 2000, Carruth was tried and found guilty for murdering his girlfriend and their unborn child. The events of the murder were that Carruth drove up to his girlfriend's vehicle while another car drove up and shot her. She died after calling police. Their daughter was born via C-section, 3 months early, and died shortly after. Carruth received 18 years in prison. This story has faded for many, but it still remains one of the saddest in the sports for the circumstances under which the events transpired.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
What defines a real hair band?
My previous post was on the hair metal genre. Originally this post was suppose to be that one, a discussion of the genre and and analysis of sorts of who is a hair band and who is not. I got sidetracked onto a much interesting topic about the ability of the genre to revive itself. So now i will focus on the topic of who I consider the "hair bands" who I see as often mislabeled.
First, the bands that got lumped in by accident. One thing that I found interesting about this genre is the number of bands that got lumped in. There are probably several reasons, I have a few theories. The bands these bands toured with; if you are an up and coming band, an example would be Tesla, and get an opportunity to open for a big band, Poison, you take that opportunity. Unfortunately, you get labeled as something you might not sonically be like. I use Tesla and Poison, because they did in fact tour together, and they could not be further apart, outside of the lone fact that they make a form of hard rock music. A second reason is that labels signed up as many of these hard rock/metal bands as they could, so the label had more control over the marketing of the band which led to further confusion over the band's genre. These factors I think result in the mislabeling. But, I want to help set the record straight on these bands.
1. Guns N Roses - this band gets labeled as a hair band from time to time. The reason, I think, is that in the Welcome to the Jungle video. lead singer Axl Rose does his hair up and puts on heavy amounts of makeup, looking like a typical L.A. hair band. But, this is the only time in the band's career he appears like this. Everyone else is dressed in a gypsy-like manner, jeans and t-shirts, Axl included. Almost every album they released had a parental advisory, they controversial, (see G'N'R Lies), they were incredibly diverse musically (the Illusion albums), they were full of attitude and anger and they were really dangerous (causing riots in Montreal and St. Louis). The band was never a hair band, but somehow gets labeled as one.
2. Def Leppard - A little tougher to defend, but I think it can be done. Lep was one of the biggest bands of the decade, making a very poppy hard rock sound. But it is tough to call the band a hair band, they were just a big band. Pyromania and Hysteria combined to sell 22 million + in the U.S. since their releases, an amazing feat. The Lep members are similar to GNR in the sense that they just didn't have that hair metal look, no one had big hair, no makeup, and clothing was really pretty simple. The band's first 2 albums are clearly metal albums specifically NewWaveOfBritishHeavyMetal (NWOBHM) which is akin to Iron Maiden, which is not a hair band. Pyromania had elements of the NWOBHM and Hysteria's producer, Mutt Lange wanted to create the hard rock version of Michael Jackson's Thriller. So, I come to the conclusion that Def Lep cannot be labeled a hair band.
3. Jackyl - Not well known as the first 2, but a band that is grossly mislabeled. The band came out in 1992, a time in which hair bands were dead, but this band went onto sell 1 million copies of their debut and their followup went gold in 1994 and they played Woodstock. They did write some pretty nasty and dirty songs (Dirty Little Mind, Down on Me, I could never touch you like you do), but the band is really more of a combination of a Southern Rock and Metal band. A tough band to define; the band loves the South, from 'Redneck Punk' to 'Dixieland', to 'Dumb Ass County Boy', not typical of hairbands. They really don't have any ballads song. Most of their songs represent a sense of work hard, play hard attitude, motorcycle riding, be loud and be proud.
4. Skid Row - Such a great band that had a hugely successful album, that is a hair album. But, after that self titled debut and power ballads, the band's true colors appeared. A pure metal band. Slave to the Grind (1991) was a heavy metal band, the album went from talking about typical hair band topics into social commentary. Poverty (Livin on a Chain Gang) political unrest (Slave to the Grind, The Threat) political corruption (Monkey Business) and drug abuse (Wasted Time). The band toured with Guns N Roses and Metallica for this album and followed this album with an even heavier album in 1995. The band was mis-labeled because of their first album, when they were clearly much heavier and had more to offer.
5. Tesla - The final band I want to talk about. This one, out of all of the above mentioned bands seems to be most mislabeled. The band is from Sacramento CA, probably the biggest band besides Deftones to come out of the city. The band's sound is not hair metal, it is really tough to label. There is alot of talent and several of their early releases contain both electric and acoustic guitar parts playing together or alternating between the two. The band was a not glam at all, I mean the lead singer drove a cement truck for a living before the band. The band was named after Nikolai Tesla, considered by many the inventor of the radio, and had songs and albums named after the debate of Tesla (the man) concerning who invented the radio. My point, who writes a song about this, who would right a song about Edison, who would do a cover of Five Man Electric Band's "Signs". The answer is a. Tesla, and b. not a hair band.
There are few other bands that can be debated as well, but I felt that these 5 were the most critical since they were almost all very successful and had been mislabeled far too often. There is one band that defines the genre, but there are key elements. The look (big hair/makeup), the sound(metal, but poppy/catchy, and power ballads)(strong 70s influence), the subject matter (girls, partying, drinking and more girls), the attitude (I am a rock star, I am king od my world), and the clothing(spandex/leather, black and then a lot of bad colors like neons). Thus for some reason or another all of the above mention bands cannot be labeled as a hair bands.
Hair Metal; love it or hate it, it won't go away
Hair Metal.
Although I was born in the later years of this music genre, there has always been something that has made me love to this genre and style. It started when I got my first Motley Crue CD (Dr. Feelgood) 7 years ago and I have created a collection and become an expect of sorts on the genre. I have a few bands that are personal favorites, Motley Crue, Bon Jovi, KISS (the non-makeup years) W.A.S.P., and Poison. I have almost all of the CDs by these artists and continue to support them with their new music. Some other artists that I have strong liking towards include Ratt, L.A. Guns, Faster Pussycat, Warrant, and Slaughter. There are some other bands that I enjoy that often get mis-labeled as hair bands, Def Leppard, Jackyl, and Skid Row. There are dozens of other bands out there that are as good or even better than the ones mentioned above; (Twisted Sister, Quiet Riot, Dokken, Winger, White Lion, and Cinderella).
It is tough to defend these bands as far as musical merit goes. The songs are straight forward in every sense of the word. The look is unorthodox and the music is formulaic. But, I always enjoyed the music for the entertainment value. It is over the top, but there is certain level of showmanship that makes the music good. Watching Decline of Civilization II, recently, I tried to see if I could better understand the genre or give the genre some deeper meaning, but couldn't.
For those who have not seen it, do yourself a favor and go find it or wait for it to appear on TV. Essentially it is a documentary of heavy metal in the late 1980s, focusing on the L.A. hair bands, but also containing. The musicians interviewed in the film (the majority of the interviews were with artists from minor bands, but a few better known bands were mixed in), came across as un-educated guys who really just liked having a good time. The film did do a good deal of for shadowing, the music was becoming being over populated with too many bands, many of which had better looks than talent. With the exception of a somewhat up and coming band (a few albums had been released, but had yet to reach their peak), Megadeth. The most famous scene is probably with Chris Holmes of W.A.S.P. Holmes is seen drinking vodka straight from the bottle, literally pouring it down, while sitting in his pool, with his mother of all people sitting in the side of the pool looking on in disgust. The interview consists of basic questions; why do you do this, where do you see yourself in 10 years, how does it feel to be this big star etc. Holmes says he is a full blown alcoholic and predicts he will be dead in 10 years and tries to get his mother to drink with him. Ultimately, painting these artists are really people we should feel for, not envy. Though, I think it should be noted that the director did select to interview a guy who is nicknamed "the mean-motherfucking-man" by his bandmates and had his band leader say that Holmes is only good at two things, getting drunk and playing guitar, and is generally considered one of the most outrageous and reckless people of the metal community. On a happier note, he was also married to Lita Ford for a couple of years. This interview and the film as a whole shined a new light onto the scene, one that was much grittier and darker that it appeared on the cover.
But here we are 20 years later and many of these bands that were once dismissed continue to tour and make new music. Almost all of the big bands still exist, Bon Jovi and Motley Crue both have big tours. Bon Jovi somehow managed to navigate the changing times of the 90s and still sell millions of records, every album released post 1990 has gone at least gold or platinum. Some of these bands have undergone lineup changes, but still keep charging onward. There is even an emerging market of new bands that borrow heavily upon the sound and look of the 1980s. The one people would most recognize is Steel Panther, (The Darkness and Beautiful Creatures are others of note) but in Sweeden there are many bands out there that copy the look and sound (Crash Diet, Vains of Jenna, Hardcore Superstar). A revival of sorts is going on, which is amazing to see since the music, will not go away.
No more Fiesta Mix on Airplanes! AKA the downsides of travelling
I have done some flying over the past month and had the pleasure of enjoying some various airline food. Now, we all know that food on airlines can be good and can be bad. But, a recent flight I was on served Cranberry snack mix. The flight was at 8AM, so they had to serve a breakfast item, so I went in thinking, alright, dried cranberries, maybe some fruit. I opened the mini bag only to find that there were at most 5(!!) cranberries, with a mix of honey flavored sesame sticks and cinnamon flavored soybeans. Remind you, it was 8 in morning. I was hunger, so I figured why not. I did not want to buy their snack/meals, which are decent, but out of principle. The cranberries were alright, but the sesame sticks were not sweet nor were the soybeans, both tasted just like they do in the fiesta mix, bland and salty.
I know the airlines are hurting, but could they at least get something a little better? This food is cheap, I did a search to buy the Fiesta Mix online and it is $6.95 a pound, which if divided up probably provides enough snacks for about 30 people, so they probably need to buy 5 bags per flight, so basically an airline may spend under $50 for food for an airplane of people who paid a couple of hundred dollars each for their seat.
It was bad enough when they took peanuts away, they at least had flavor and some nutritional content, but what they have replaced it with is literally non-food. Pretzels are a step up from the fiesta mix (Who would serve this at their party?, No one!), but still a step down from peanuts. And this breakfast snack was only a breakfast snack because they put 5 cranberries in it. They could have easily just gone out and bought those mini boxes of raisins, might have to spend $20 more per flight, but I am sure people would be happier with what they got.
I hate to have to complain about such a minor and insignificant item, especially when there are many people who may not have the opportunity to fly and would be grateful to have just that opportunity, but the overall experience of flying has really gone downhill. And it has gone down hill fast, I remember when I was a kid, 10 or 15 years ago, how food was good, flying was an enjoyable, you didn't get treated like a criminal at security, and overall the experience was something to look forward to. But now, it is terrible.
On another note, one of the most entertaining parts of traveling has been security. In 2002, my mom, grandfather and I took a trip from Atlanta to California. Well, the way we ending up buying tickets, we had one way tickets at a certain point. (We went Atlanta to San Francisco, then San Fran to Seattle, Seattle to Atlanta, so the one way was San Fran to Seattle). So, we of course got the serious and expert inspection at the airport. We, being good citizens, agreed and let the TSA people to do their job. Now, my mom and I had no problem with the inspection, search the bags, take off shoes (this is pre-shoe bomber incident). But they made my 89 year old grandfather take off his shoes, which was a lot of extra work for him, since the couldn't provide him a shoehorn. But it brings up the point that comes up time and time again, why do this to someone who is clearly not a threat? Look, he was 89 years old, we used a wheel chair to get him onto the plane, really is this your threat. And now more recently, my mom had her bag searched as we went through the airport at Los Angeles (LAX, which by the way, is quite possibly the worst designed airport, and what is worse it that the city has the second largest metro population in the country, so it is not some small airport where it wouldn't matter). So my mom's bag was searched and the item of interest, was a piece of fish that we got as a gift (Copper River gift set, the fish is freeze dried or something). I had to just start laughing at the situation, because simply, this was the threat? A piece of fish.
So, back to my original point, the overall experience of flying has significantly gone down and the food, as I see represents this. Something that was once good has become awful and little steps could be made to remedy this.
I know the airlines are hurting, but could they at least get something a little better? This food is cheap, I did a search to buy the Fiesta Mix online and it is $6.95 a pound, which if divided up probably provides enough snacks for about 30 people, so they probably need to buy 5 bags per flight, so basically an airline may spend under $50 for food for an airplane of people who paid a couple of hundred dollars each for their seat.
It was bad enough when they took peanuts away, they at least had flavor and some nutritional content, but what they have replaced it with is literally non-food. Pretzels are a step up from the fiesta mix (Who would serve this at their party?, No one!), but still a step down from peanuts. And this breakfast snack was only a breakfast snack because they put 5 cranberries in it. They could have easily just gone out and bought those mini boxes of raisins, might have to spend $20 more per flight, but I am sure people would be happier with what they got.
I hate to have to complain about such a minor and insignificant item, especially when there are many people who may not have the opportunity to fly and would be grateful to have just that opportunity, but the overall experience of flying has really gone downhill. And it has gone down hill fast, I remember when I was a kid, 10 or 15 years ago, how food was good, flying was an enjoyable, you didn't get treated like a criminal at security, and overall the experience was something to look forward to. But now, it is terrible.
On another note, one of the most entertaining parts of traveling has been security. In 2002, my mom, grandfather and I took a trip from Atlanta to California. Well, the way we ending up buying tickets, we had one way tickets at a certain point. (We went Atlanta to San Francisco, then San Fran to Seattle, Seattle to Atlanta, so the one way was San Fran to Seattle). So, we of course got the serious and expert inspection at the airport. We, being good citizens, agreed and let the TSA people to do their job. Now, my mom and I had no problem with the inspection, search the bags, take off shoes (this is pre-shoe bomber incident). But they made my 89 year old grandfather take off his shoes, which was a lot of extra work for him, since the couldn't provide him a shoehorn. But it brings up the point that comes up time and time again, why do this to someone who is clearly not a threat? Look, he was 89 years old, we used a wheel chair to get him onto the plane, really is this your threat. And now more recently, my mom had her bag searched as we went through the airport at Los Angeles (LAX, which by the way, is quite possibly the worst designed airport, and what is worse it that the city has the second largest metro population in the country, so it is not some small airport where it wouldn't matter). So my mom's bag was searched and the item of interest, was a piece of fish that we got as a gift (Copper River gift set, the fish is freeze dried or something). I had to just start laughing at the situation, because simply, this was the threat? A piece of fish.
So, back to my original point, the overall experience of flying has significantly gone down and the food, as I see represents this. Something that was once good has become awful and little steps could be made to remedy this.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Billboard changes album charting policy; A obvious policy or a reflection of the music industry?
http://www.billboard.com/#/column/chartbeat/billboard-200-undergoes-makeover-1004043310.story
The above article came out a few weeks back discussing how the Billboard Top 200 album chart will undergo a change. In the past the chart would only allow albums to chart on the Top 200 if the album was released within the past 18 months, does not have a charting single, and has fallen below the Top 100, then it can not chart on the Billboard 200. The albums that sell after reaching that criteria chart on a the Top Catalog Albums. Now, on paper it sounds like a obvious decision, that in many ways makes simple sense. No matter when an album was released, it should chart it sales on the same chart. And, how many albums released from 3 years or 13 years ago are still selling in a the same numbers as when they were released (very few), so it would make no difference.
But, to me there is probably a little more going on. There music industry is not selling numbers in the manner it has in the past. For example the best selling album of 2008, Lil Wayne's Tha Carter III, selling 2.88 million. Pretty impressive, but go back a couple years to 2005, the best selling album, Mariah Carey's "The Emancipation of Mimi" selling over 5 million copies, nearly twice of Lil Wayne. But go all the way back to 2000, when N'sync was the best selling album sold 9.9 million in for the year. And a year earlier, the Backstreet Boys "Millennium" sold 11 million album in a year!
Of course, in 2000 file sharing was not as prevent, but Itunes also did not exist and digital sales count to the Billboard count. Long story short, albums are not selling at the rate they once did. Artists are becoming single based, they sell singles that chart well and sell well, but the albums they come off of do not. Lady GaGa has had 5 Top ten singles off her debut album and not even gone multi-platinum.
The second reason, which is may have been the more impactful for the timing of the decision than the decision itself. For three weeks this summer, the top Catalog album outsold the top top 200 album. The album was Michael Jackson's "Number Ones" released in 2003 to a lukewarm reception. This greatest hits sold so well as a result of Jackson's death, and since many retailers had this album in higher stock than his other album, it was what people picked up first. This event is minor to many, but the impact is that a greatest hits album released 6 years ago (sometimes viewed as a replacement to the "HIStory" greatest hits double disc that came out in 1995) could outsell an artist in the present making new music.
Billboard can create positive reasons to why they are combining charts, but it is much more likely that the chart is being created out of necessity, albums are not selling near as well as they were and in order to make it appear that albums are selling in better numbers*, they need to combine the charts.
*Billboard lists how many albums are sold weekly in their website, but the numbers are always mentioned in the end of the article, and only compared to the same week last year, and total yearly sales are only compared to the totals of the previous year.
The above article came out a few weeks back discussing how the Billboard Top 200 album chart will undergo a change. In the past the chart would only allow albums to chart on the Top 200 if the album was released within the past 18 months, does not have a charting single, and has fallen below the Top 100, then it can not chart on the Billboard 200. The albums that sell after reaching that criteria chart on a the Top Catalog Albums. Now, on paper it sounds like a obvious decision, that in many ways makes simple sense. No matter when an album was released, it should chart it sales on the same chart. And, how many albums released from 3 years or 13 years ago are still selling in a the same numbers as when they were released (very few), so it would make no difference.
But, to me there is probably a little more going on. There music industry is not selling numbers in the manner it has in the past. For example the best selling album of 2008, Lil Wayne's Tha Carter III, selling 2.88 million. Pretty impressive, but go back a couple years to 2005, the best selling album, Mariah Carey's "The Emancipation of Mimi" selling over 5 million copies, nearly twice of Lil Wayne. But go all the way back to 2000, when N'sync was the best selling album sold 9.9 million in for the year. And a year earlier, the Backstreet Boys "Millennium" sold 11 million album in a year!
Of course, in 2000 file sharing was not as prevent, but Itunes also did not exist and digital sales count to the Billboard count. Long story short, albums are not selling at the rate they once did. Artists are becoming single based, they sell singles that chart well and sell well, but the albums they come off of do not. Lady GaGa has had 5 Top ten singles off her debut album and not even gone multi-platinum.
The second reason, which is may have been the more impactful for the timing of the decision than the decision itself. For three weeks this summer, the top Catalog album outsold the top top 200 album. The album was Michael Jackson's "Number Ones" released in 2003 to a lukewarm reception. This greatest hits sold so well as a result of Jackson's death, and since many retailers had this album in higher stock than his other album, it was what people picked up first. This event is minor to many, but the impact is that a greatest hits album released 6 years ago (sometimes viewed as a replacement to the "HIStory" greatest hits double disc that came out in 1995) could outsell an artist in the present making new music.
Billboard can create positive reasons to why they are combining charts, but it is much more likely that the chart is being created out of necessity, albums are not selling near as well as they were and in order to make it appear that albums are selling in better numbers*, they need to combine the charts.
*Billboard lists how many albums are sold weekly in their website, but the numbers are always mentioned in the end of the article, and only compared to the same week last year, and total yearly sales are only compared to the totals of the previous year.
Baseball Playoff Expansion: Good idea or Bad idea?
Saw a recent story concerning how major league baseball may expand the first round of the playoffs by making it a best of seven series instead of a best of five series.
Here is the article
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/12/02/weiner.union.ap/index.html
The NBA and the NHL have both made this move. The only real difference for the casual fan is that the playoffs go on for a little longer. The number of games in the playoffs for the NBA, NHL, and MLB make the postseason last a little too long, MLB is about a month, the NBA and NHL both last about 7 weeks. A result in part because MLB has a one fewer playoff round than the NHL and NBA have.
There are pros and cons that can be weighed in determining how worthwhile this would be to baseball. Here are some pros to think about; It gives teams a better chance to win a series and makes the series more interesting. when the regular season is 162 games and 3 game sweeps are common, that one more game could be much more important as it can make a favored team work a little harder for that win. Also, it makes strategy more important, teams must have a 4 man rotation, not the 3 man that many teams rely and succeed on. Another pro, from the owners and league's perspective is that it will be a money winner. More games on TV mean more TV revenue and money going into the league. Teams will get to have additional games to sell tickets, merchandise, and concessions. For the league, this would be a no-brainer, more money and more exposure would be great for the league. I found it interesting that the players were the ones in favor of the expansion. The other pro to consider is that since the players already play 162 games, what will a couple of more games mean? The teams in the playoffs are already the best ones in the league, so they should have to prove it, thus why the playoffs exist.
There are several reasons to oppose this expansion. Obviously, with three seven game series in a row, the "specialness" of the playoffs lose their meaning. With extra games, the fatigue of the season may result in more injuries and that teams may no longer be able to rest their pitchers for as many days as previously. Also, there is the classic argument, playoffs are long enough already and don't need to be any longer.
All are valid arguments, but can be argued against. The playoffs first added league championships in the 1960s, then the divisional series in the 1990s, and fans adjusted, the additional of a couple of games is much less impactful to the playoffs than the additional of entire series. Injuries are important to consider, but the risk of injury is as possible in the playoffs as in the regular season, there are countless odd/strange/random injuries that occur in baseball, players tearing muscles attempting to make a diving catch, pitcher being hit by the ball after a player hits it. Injuries are part of the game, baseball has the luck that it is not as physically demanding as say football, a sport where a concussion is a possibility in a game, where in baseball it is very unlikely. I use the concussion example because it is one of the most serious injuries as it is affecting the brain and neurological system. And to the final arguement concerning the fact that playoffs take too long already, the players (yes, the MLB players) have said, according to the article, that they would be willing to give up the rest days that they get in order to complete the post season in a timely manner.
Well, I thought that I would be making this into more a debate, but to me, I see this as a positive. My reasoning is that the pros out weigh the cons. The players like it and are willing to give up their off days. As a player I can see that it gives them a chance to show themselves off on a national stage; say a west coast team is seen on the east coast. The owners and league officials will make even more revenue, which I doubt they would oppose. The playoffs could get more interesting, more strategy being implemented. Though many fans may be opposed at first, I think that even the most traditionalist of fans would enjoy the extra games, if for no other reason, the chance to simply watch more games between good teams.
In closing, MLB has much more pressing issues to deal with it, this one is an easy one that is win-win-win (players, owners, and fans).
Here is the article
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/12/02/weiner.union.ap/index.html
The NBA and the NHL have both made this move. The only real difference for the casual fan is that the playoffs go on for a little longer. The number of games in the playoffs for the NBA, NHL, and MLB make the postseason last a little too long, MLB is about a month, the NBA and NHL both last about 7 weeks. A result in part because MLB has a one fewer playoff round than the NHL and NBA have.
There are pros and cons that can be weighed in determining how worthwhile this would be to baseball. Here are some pros to think about; It gives teams a better chance to win a series and makes the series more interesting. when the regular season is 162 games and 3 game sweeps are common, that one more game could be much more important as it can make a favored team work a little harder for that win. Also, it makes strategy more important, teams must have a 4 man rotation, not the 3 man that many teams rely and succeed on. Another pro, from the owners and league's perspective is that it will be a money winner. More games on TV mean more TV revenue and money going into the league. Teams will get to have additional games to sell tickets, merchandise, and concessions. For the league, this would be a no-brainer, more money and more exposure would be great for the league. I found it interesting that the players were the ones in favor of the expansion. The other pro to consider is that since the players already play 162 games, what will a couple of more games mean? The teams in the playoffs are already the best ones in the league, so they should have to prove it, thus why the playoffs exist.
There are several reasons to oppose this expansion. Obviously, with three seven game series in a row, the "specialness" of the playoffs lose their meaning. With extra games, the fatigue of the season may result in more injuries and that teams may no longer be able to rest their pitchers for as many days as previously. Also, there is the classic argument, playoffs are long enough already and don't need to be any longer.
All are valid arguments, but can be argued against. The playoffs first added league championships in the 1960s, then the divisional series in the 1990s, and fans adjusted, the additional of a couple of games is much less impactful to the playoffs than the additional of entire series. Injuries are important to consider, but the risk of injury is as possible in the playoffs as in the regular season, there are countless odd/strange/random injuries that occur in baseball, players tearing muscles attempting to make a diving catch, pitcher being hit by the ball after a player hits it. Injuries are part of the game, baseball has the luck that it is not as physically demanding as say football, a sport where a concussion is a possibility in a game, where in baseball it is very unlikely. I use the concussion example because it is one of the most serious injuries as it is affecting the brain and neurological system. And to the final arguement concerning the fact that playoffs take too long already, the players (yes, the MLB players) have said, according to the article, that they would be willing to give up the rest days that they get in order to complete the post season in a timely manner.
Well, I thought that I would be making this into more a debate, but to me, I see this as a positive. My reasoning is that the pros out weigh the cons. The players like it and are willing to give up their off days. As a player I can see that it gives them a chance to show themselves off on a national stage; say a west coast team is seen on the east coast. The owners and league officials will make even more revenue, which I doubt they would oppose. The playoffs could get more interesting, more strategy being implemented. Though many fans may be opposed at first, I think that even the most traditionalist of fans would enjoy the extra games, if for no other reason, the chance to simply watch more games between good teams.
In closing, MLB has much more pressing issues to deal with it, this one is an easy one that is win-win-win (players, owners, and fans).
Friday, November 6, 2009
Time for Change:Misuse of Native American Imagery in Sports
I recently had to do a book report paper for my class. The assignment was to select a coach/manager of a pro or college team. I selected Bobby Bowden, legendary football coach of Florida State. I read the book, did the report, and while thinking about FSU, I started thinking about their mascot, Chief Osceola. For those not familiar, the chief is a student dressed in Native American clothing (apparently not even of the correct tribe that once lived in the region), complete with feathers, a weapon of some kind, face paint, and rides around on a horse, Renegade. 
Chief Osceola
Chief Illiniwek
FSU is not the only school to do this; Utah has the Utes, Seattle U use to have the Chieftains, Illinois has the Fighting Illini (though changed their logo and removed their mascot), North Dakota has the Fighting Sioux, San Diego State has the Aztecs, and that is just at the college level. Many college teams have changed, but mostly out of NCAA rules that affects the school's ability to make post seasons (and make money). Big schools such as Marquette, Standford, and Syracuse, have completely rid themselves of their Native American mascots. Smaller schools such as Eastern Washington and Southeastern Oklahoma have changed as well. FSU has been able to strike a deal with the Seminole tribe so that they are allowed to continue using the Chief, even though other Native Americans oppose.
But lets look at the pro sports world. Each of the 4 major sports has an example of Native American mascots being used. In the NHL, there is the Chicago Blackhawks. The NBA has the Golden State Warriors. MLB has two teams; the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. The NFL has two teams as well, the Kansas City Chiefs and the Washington Redskins.
The photos above are of the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins. The reason I highlight these two is that out of all the professional teams, I see these are the most damaging. The Indians logo, on their hats that they wear 162 games/year, is a caricature of Native Americans, it is a humorous cartoon representation of a group of people. The Atlanta Braves and Warriors use to have logos similes to this, but got rid of them by the early 1990s. The Redskins are highlighted because their logo is clearly suppose to be of a Native American man, and their team's name is Redskin. Redskin is a derogatory and racist term used to describe Native Americans.
There are many defenses for these mascots; it is tradition, it is honoring Native Americans, it is simply sports/entertainment, just to name a few. I have been a sports fan my entire life and even when I was small, I thought something just doesn't look right about these logos. The Native American people have been marginalized by these mascots, no other minority group could be represented in this manner. (Are there ant teams named the Los Angeles Mexicans, or New York Jews, San Francisco Asians, or Atlanta Blacks, no). If anyone so much as attempted to do such things, there would be protests to no end. Now, Native American have protested sporting events by these teams with not so stellar results, the logos remain and Native Americans still feel offended.
I write this to point out that this is an issue I think people overlook far too often. Next time you watch a sporting event (be it pro or college) and see a mascot that has a Native American tie-in, take a moment and think about that mascot. Would you want your ancestry to be a mascot? How would you feel if your ethnic background was being paraded around in a stereotypical manner? There is no argument for keeping these racist mascots, every argument I previously mentioned cannot be supported with any strong evidence. Hopefully some day these teams will change; I am sure that a major road block is that there is too much of a fear that teams will lose revenue. But, it is a sad fact that we will continue to have millions of people watching a team that insults an entire race of people who have already faced so much tragedy in our nation's history.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
2009 World Series Prediction
Now that it is official that the Yankees and Phillies will face in the 2009 World Series, it is my turn to predict who will win. Again, my opinion is just as valid as any other fan, so here we go.
Yankees win, the Yankees win!
I am going with the Yankees in 6 games. This postseason the Yankees have been a great team, pitching has been great, great hitting, and a strong bullpen. They swept a Twins team that came in on fire, surprisingly winning the Central. Then came the Angels, who put up a good fight and were quite balanced and held the Yanks at bay in two games. But, this Yankees team is a great team. They have 7 players with at least 20 home runs, a record shared with the 2000 Blue Jays, the only other team to ever accomplish this feat. An opponent can not just walk one Yankee in hope of facing a weaker batter, there isn't one on this year's team. They led the league in runs as well, 915 in total, and several other offensive categories. They were 4th in ERA, so they are strong on both ends and with Mariano Rivera closing, it is near impossible to come from behind in a game against them in the postseason. Then, you have to factor in the postseason play so far, A-Rod has snapped out of his typically poor postseason player and become the leader the Yankees and the crowd favorite.
The Phillies have also had a great season and postseason, they were first in their league in runs, and were near the top in several other categories, and were 6th in ERA. They won 10 fewer games in the regular season though. They kept many of the same players from last season's world champion team, but I just don't think they have enough to keep pace with this Yankees team. Brad Lidge was erratic in the regular season, but has done well this postseason, and they will have a few extra days off more than the Yankees and if they go with a 4 man pitching rotation, a slightly better pitching staff. But, the Yankees scored nearly a 100 more runs, and as stated before, they are have so many good hitters that even pitchers like Hamels, Lee, and Martinez starting won't be able to top this.
So I am going with the Yankees in 6 games. I say 6 games because we haven't had a World Series go past 5 games in several seasons, it is simply about time. Although the Yankees are better, the Phillies did just win last season and really beat up on the Dodgers in the NLDS, plus they have had more time to rest up, thus, it seems like the Phillies will win 2 games, they will put up a good fight. As for MVP, I am going with Mark Texeria. Of the 57 MVP awards (including shared honors), 26 have been pitchers, about %45, the last decade keeping with this trend. The reason I am going with Texeria is that this is a new Yankees team, alot of new names and faces and one of the biggest changes was bringing in Texeria, Sabathia, and Burnett. Thus far, Texeria has under preformed, but I expect big things from him in the World Series, second choice is A-Rod, he has been unbelievable this postseason and since CC just got the ALCS MVP, I doubt he would get WS MVP too.
Oh, and America you do realize if Philly repeats this will turn into another Boston situation. In so far as they won't shut up about about how great their city is and then the Flyers, 76ers, and Eagles will all win championships in their leagues. C'mon, we know it will happen. Philadelphia fans are almost as bad as Boston fans, at least Yankee fans are in a city that you want to live in.
Yankees win, the Yankees win!
I am going with the Yankees in 6 games. This postseason the Yankees have been a great team, pitching has been great, great hitting, and a strong bullpen. They swept a Twins team that came in on fire, surprisingly winning the Central. Then came the Angels, who put up a good fight and were quite balanced and held the Yanks at bay in two games. But, this Yankees team is a great team. They have 7 players with at least 20 home runs, a record shared with the 2000 Blue Jays, the only other team to ever accomplish this feat. An opponent can not just walk one Yankee in hope of facing a weaker batter, there isn't one on this year's team. They led the league in runs as well, 915 in total, and several other offensive categories. They were 4th in ERA, so they are strong on both ends and with Mariano Rivera closing, it is near impossible to come from behind in a game against them in the postseason. Then, you have to factor in the postseason play so far, A-Rod has snapped out of his typically poor postseason player and become the leader the Yankees and the crowd favorite.
The Phillies have also had a great season and postseason, they were first in their league in runs, and were near the top in several other categories, and were 6th in ERA. They won 10 fewer games in the regular season though. They kept many of the same players from last season's world champion team, but I just don't think they have enough to keep pace with this Yankees team. Brad Lidge was erratic in the regular season, but has done well this postseason, and they will have a few extra days off more than the Yankees and if they go with a 4 man pitching rotation, a slightly better pitching staff. But, the Yankees scored nearly a 100 more runs, and as stated before, they are have so many good hitters that even pitchers like Hamels, Lee, and Martinez starting won't be able to top this.
So I am going with the Yankees in 6 games. I say 6 games because we haven't had a World Series go past 5 games in several seasons, it is simply about time. Although the Yankees are better, the Phillies did just win last season and really beat up on the Dodgers in the NLDS, plus they have had more time to rest up, thus, it seems like the Phillies will win 2 games, they will put up a good fight. As for MVP, I am going with Mark Texeria. Of the 57 MVP awards (including shared honors), 26 have been pitchers, about %45, the last decade keeping with this trend. The reason I am going with Texeria is that this is a new Yankees team, alot of new names and faces and one of the biggest changes was bringing in Texeria, Sabathia, and Burnett. Thus far, Texeria has under preformed, but I expect big things from him in the World Series, second choice is A-Rod, he has been unbelievable this postseason and since CC just got the ALCS MVP, I doubt he would get WS MVP too.
Oh, and America you do realize if Philly repeats this will turn into another Boston situation. In so far as they won't shut up about about how great their city is and then the Flyers, 76ers, and Eagles will all win championships in their leagues. C'mon, we know it will happen. Philadelphia fans are almost as bad as Boston fans, at least Yankee fans are in a city that you want to live in.
Friday, October 16, 2009
W.A.S.P. - "Babylon" a CD review
The new W.A.S.P. CD came out this week, October 12th in Europe and sometime later in the U.S. (hopefully). I was able to get a copy off the Internet. First off, the band has stayed in tact from the previous album, Blackie Lawless (as always) Doug Blair, Mike Duda, and Mike Dupke. The overall sound of the album is quite similar to the previous album, Dominator. The band is a metal band after all. And just like the previous album, there are 9 tracks.
The album starts off with 'Crazy', a song which has a catchy chorus, of "you'd have to be crazy to love me", the song is about idol worship. The second track is "live to die another day", another strong effort. Track three is "Babylon's burning", which takes on a discussion of religion. There is an interview out there where Blackie says that the album has a strong influence from the biblical visions of "The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse". The cover seems to depict the four horsemen, or maybe it is the band members? Well, back to the songs. Track 4 is a cover of Deep Purple's 'Burn'. W.A.S.P. has not done a cover on an album in a while, there is 'Saturday Night's alright for Fighting' off The Best of the Best, but that was 9 years ago, and before that it was 'Somebody to Love' in 1995. Blackie's unique voice always make his cover choices interesting and often diverse. Selecting a Deep Purple song was interesting as Blackie's voice is a bit different than David Coverdale's (yeah, the guy from Whitesnake was in Deep Purple, look it up!). Blackie's take was solid and Doug Blair did a pretty good job on Ritchie Blackmore's guitars. the 5th track, 'Into the Fire' starts off a little slower, but by no means a ballad, it has some "Heaven's Hung in Black" on it, but it turns into a classic WASP rocker pretty quick. Track 6, 'Thunder Red' is a faster track, warning of the impending doom of the 4 horsemen. I found it interesting that the band had a song with a similar name, "Thunderhead" that track deals with impending doom as well, but the 1989 track is focused on drug addiction. 'Seas of Fire" is another strong rocker, sonically like "Hate to Love Me" off Unholy Terror, of course after 25 years and 13 albums, some songs might sound a little similar to another. "Godless Run" almost starts off as the big ballad that W.A.S.P. incorporates onto most of the post 'Headless Children" albums, but it is not the ballad at all, instead it is sonically a big and technical song, another strong song. The final track is "Promised Land" a cover a of Chuck Berry song from 1964. The song seems to be the way to close the album, after 8 songs that deal with the end of the world, it is nice to hear a song with some type of hope. The song is fast and has Blackie singing in a quick and positive voice, something out of character for him since, well several albums ago. The song is fast and lively, the closest song I can think of is Rock n Roll to Death off Still Not Black Enough, kind of a throw back to the songs of the 50s and 60s.
So overall, I would give this album a 7. The shortcomings; a little on the short side (only 9 tracks and two covers, makes you wanting more), a little too similar to the last album (it is nice to have a stable lineup in the band, but there are times where the band sounded a little too much like their previous works) and no ballad, (would have been nice and it could have been incorporated). The positives; the complexity of the album, going after the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse is a tough one to handle and Blackie did his research (it is over my head, but I am sure that his interpretation is based upon he understanding of the bible), though he has made it clear that the album is not a concept album (containing one story line), and Blackie's voice and the band's musicianship is solid, sorry to my personal favorite Chris Holmes, but these guys can play really well. The songs are all strong too, I cannot even say which is my favorite, it is going to take several listens before I can decide, but that is standard for a WASP CD.
There are so many W.A.S.P. albums to chose from and sonically there is a wide range, that it is tough to call this the definitive W.A.S.P. album. That title would again go to "The Headless Children" or maybe "The Crimson Idol" or possibly their first album "W.A.S.P". But, this album is another great effort and will hopefully be warmly embraced by the fans. It sounds like a combination of "Dominator" and "Unholy Terror", so newer W.A.S.P. As for non-fans, forgot what you know about 1980s W.A.S.P., their lyrics are much more complex, the musicians are stronger, it is not about making an over the top show anymore, it is about making good music. And to the metal fans out there, if you want something loud and aggressive, but also smart and lyrics you can comprehend, go check this one out.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Poorly named sport franchises
There are many sport teams out there that simply have badly named teams. I am not saying all are bad, but some simply do not fit in, and some are just look like the owners spent 5 minutes selecting the name or selected a name that needs to be upgraded. And then there are teams that need to change because they are offensive, but I will save that for a separate post.
The NFL is pretty good, almost all of teams have solid names that relate to the city or area. Though there are far too many bird teams, I mean birds are just not cool, Eagles are ok, Falcons (never saw one in Georgia by the way) could upgrade, Ravens (kind of scary if you think about the poem), Cardinals (I bet there are a lot in Arizona's desert), but realistically the names are not that bad. The Browns could upgrade, but that will not happen. I mean the name of the team is a color, the fans dress up as dogs, so is brown the color of the dog and if so, just call the team the wolves or foxes or something other canine. But, seriously, the NFL has done a good job of making the teams have good names.
The NHL is next. Almost all of the teams in Canada could upgrade.
Montreal Canadiens, Vancouver Canucks: Montreal and Vancouver both need to change because the team names are lazy, it would be like if New York had a team called the "Americans", and Canuck is a slur that non-Canadians use, so really they are making fun of themselves.
Ottawa Senators: where to begin? Well, the logo is a picture of a Spartan warrior or Greek warrior. What does that have to with Ottawa, nothing. The term Senator is a term for a representative in a democratic government, what does this have to do with hockey and this warrior guy? Solution, change the team name to warriors.
Calgary Flames: Why would you make the team name after something that ruins the surface you play on? Fire melts ice, what a bad name. Plus Calgary is cold, though they have nice summers, but hockey is a winter sport. The team moved from Atlanta 35+ years ago, so maybe it is time for a change.
Anaheim Ducks: The duck is quite possibly the least scary bird, well except for the robin. Where are these ducks by the way? Is Anaheim the duck capital of California or something. I think the name is a result of Disney owning the team, but still this is bad name. Ducks are not tough, they are cute. And why are there so many hockey teams in California, I love the San Jose Sharks, but even I am like it is too warm for hockey.
San Jose Sharks - Hate to do this to my favorite hockey team, but San Jose is pretty landlocked. The bay is north of the city, but not very close. Oh, and there are not many sharks in the bay, so they could have done a much better job in selecting the mascot.
The NBA
Well, most of the issues in the NBA result of moving teams.
The Utah Jazz: There are so many great jazz musicians from the state of Utah, no, the team moved from New Orleans and never changed the name. This is a terrible name, there is no association between Jazz and Salt Lake City, maybe a jazz club or two, but really this is just laziness.
Los Angeles Lakers: Originally in Minnesota, the land of a ten thousand lakes, the name made sense. But there are no lakes in Los Angeles, well maybe there are some, but the city is not known for their lakes. Maybe the LA Smog?
New York Knicks: Still not sure what Knickerbocker is and it is still technically the official name. Just change it already, no knows what this word means.
Memphis Grizzlies: Again, team moved from Canada to Memphis. It worked in Canada, but Memphis is not known for their beers, maybe they change it to the kings for Elvis and Sacramento change their name to something better since everyone outside of California thinks of the kings as the hockey team in LA. Wow, that was two-for-one deal.
Miami Heat: We all know Miami is hot, it is 85 degrees 10 months of the year. Please don't remind everyone of that. This is laziness on the ownership, you named your team after a descriptive term for the weather, and not even a creative one like the Phoenix Suns,
MLB
Philadelphia Phillies - Problem here is the laziness of the owners, though I will be nice since they named the team 120 years ago, so they probably thought it was catchy. Basically it is the name of the city a second time, like the Cleveland Cleves, or the Portland Ports. It must have been a very quick meeting when they thought this name up.
Cincinnati Reds - Similar to the Browns in the NFL, this team is simply a color, an adjective. Teams need to have nouns, not adjectives, adjectives modify, in this case, modifying the city of Cincinnati. Again, the was founded 100+ years ago, so maybe this was the best they could work with.
Kansas City Royals - I have no idea what royalty has to do with Kansas City, I guess this like the Reds, they simply took a color and made it the team name. Or maybe the name is for royalty, I don't know and it is confusing. If it is for royalty, than this team is unAmerican because this country was founded to protest the ideas of royalty and monarchs.
Oakland Athletics - Again, an old team with an old name. The problem is that the A's is much more popular than the full name and the shorter A's, makes no sense. The team is a letter? And athletic is not better, obviously they are athletes.
So, basically we have several poorly named teams between the four major sports. There must be better choices out there, or at least more creative ones (Columbus Blue Jackets, Arizona Diamondbacks)
Well, that wraps it up for this entry.
The NFL is pretty good, almost all of teams have solid names that relate to the city or area. Though there are far too many bird teams, I mean birds are just not cool, Eagles are ok, Falcons (never saw one in Georgia by the way) could upgrade, Ravens (kind of scary if you think about the poem), Cardinals (I bet there are a lot in Arizona's desert), but realistically the names are not that bad. The Browns could upgrade, but that will not happen. I mean the name of the team is a color, the fans dress up as dogs, so is brown the color of the dog and if so, just call the team the wolves or foxes or something other canine. But, seriously, the NFL has done a good job of making the teams have good names.
The NHL is next. Almost all of the teams in Canada could upgrade.
Montreal Canadiens, Vancouver Canucks: Montreal and Vancouver both need to change because the team names are lazy, it would be like if New York had a team called the "Americans", and Canuck is a slur that non-Canadians use, so really they are making fun of themselves.
Ottawa Senators: where to begin? Well, the logo is a picture of a Spartan warrior or Greek warrior. What does that have to with Ottawa, nothing. The term Senator is a term for a representative in a democratic government, what does this have to do with hockey and this warrior guy? Solution, change the team name to warriors.
Calgary Flames: Why would you make the team name after something that ruins the surface you play on? Fire melts ice, what a bad name. Plus Calgary is cold, though they have nice summers, but hockey is a winter sport. The team moved from Atlanta 35+ years ago, so maybe it is time for a change.
Anaheim Ducks: The duck is quite possibly the least scary bird, well except for the robin. Where are these ducks by the way? Is Anaheim the duck capital of California or something. I think the name is a result of Disney owning the team, but still this is bad name. Ducks are not tough, they are cute. And why are there so many hockey teams in California, I love the San Jose Sharks, but even I am like it is too warm for hockey.
San Jose Sharks - Hate to do this to my favorite hockey team, but San Jose is pretty landlocked. The bay is north of the city, but not very close. Oh, and there are not many sharks in the bay, so they could have done a much better job in selecting the mascot.
The NBA
Well, most of the issues in the NBA result of moving teams.
The Utah Jazz: There are so many great jazz musicians from the state of Utah, no, the team moved from New Orleans and never changed the name. This is a terrible name, there is no association between Jazz and Salt Lake City, maybe a jazz club or two, but really this is just laziness.
Los Angeles Lakers: Originally in Minnesota, the land of a ten thousand lakes, the name made sense. But there are no lakes in Los Angeles, well maybe there are some, but the city is not known for their lakes. Maybe the LA Smog?
New York Knicks: Still not sure what Knickerbocker is and it is still technically the official name. Just change it already, no knows what this word means.
Memphis Grizzlies: Again, team moved from Canada to Memphis. It worked in Canada, but Memphis is not known for their beers, maybe they change it to the kings for Elvis and Sacramento change their name to something better since everyone outside of California thinks of the kings as the hockey team in LA. Wow, that was two-for-one deal.
Miami Heat: We all know Miami is hot, it is 85 degrees 10 months of the year. Please don't remind everyone of that. This is laziness on the ownership, you named your team after a descriptive term for the weather, and not even a creative one like the Phoenix Suns,
MLB
Philadelphia Phillies - Problem here is the laziness of the owners, though I will be nice since they named the team 120 years ago, so they probably thought it was catchy. Basically it is the name of the city a second time, like the Cleveland Cleves, or the Portland Ports. It must have been a very quick meeting when they thought this name up.
Cincinnati Reds - Similar to the Browns in the NFL, this team is simply a color, an adjective. Teams need to have nouns, not adjectives, adjectives modify, in this case, modifying the city of Cincinnati. Again, the was founded 100+ years ago, so maybe this was the best they could work with.
Kansas City Royals - I have no idea what royalty has to do with Kansas City, I guess this like the Reds, they simply took a color and made it the team name. Or maybe the name is for royalty, I don't know and it is confusing. If it is for royalty, than this team is unAmerican because this country was founded to protest the ideas of royalty and monarchs.
Oakland Athletics - Again, an old team with an old name. The problem is that the A's is much more popular than the full name and the shorter A's, makes no sense. The team is a letter? And athletic is not better, obviously they are athletes.
So, basically we have several poorly named teams between the four major sports. There must be better choices out there, or at least more creative ones (Columbus Blue Jackets, Arizona Diamondbacks)
Well, that wraps it up for this entry.
Oh, that Zeppelin Song...
Recently, it came to my attention and now focus, that Led Zeppelin has many songs that simply do not have the title of the song in the lyrics of the song. Here is a list out of their 8 studio albums (Led Zeppelin to In Through the Out Door)
Immigrant Song, The Lemon Song, Out on the Tiles, Black Dog, The Battle of Evermore, Four Sticks, Misty Mountain Hop, Hats Off to (Roy) Harper, Trampled Underfoot, Bron-Y-Aur Stomp, Over the Hills and Far Away, The Crunge, D'Yer Mak'er, The Rover, Night Flight, The Wanton Song, Boogie With Stu, Black Country Woman, Sick Again, Achilles' Last Stand, Royal Orleans, Candy Store Rock, Hots On For Nowhere, Tea For One, South Bound Saurez, Hot Dog, Carouselambra. This list totals 27 songs.
Then there are bunch of songs that make a mention of the song title once; Kashmir, Going to California, What It is And Should Never Be, Friends, Celebration Day (the word celebration appears), Heartbreaker, the song remains the same, The Rain Song (the word 'rain' appears), In My time of Dying, Down by the seaside, In The Evening, and Fool In The Rain (again, the word 'Rain' at some point in the song). This list totals 12.
So between these two lists, 39 out of a possible 73 songs either have one mention of the title or no mention of the title. And then there are 3 instrumentals that I did not include, so now there are only 70 songs. So out seventy, more than half lack having the title of the song in the lyrics.
So this brings me to why I am writing on this very random thing. I find it just odd that an artist would do this, why would you make songs that people can't remember the name? Are they simply suppose to go into a record store and ask, "Can I get the Zeppelin album with the song that goes ...." or "That song, it is about ...". It would be confusing to the record buying public to do this. Also, how were radio stations suppose to play the song, if some calls into the station and asks for "That Zeppelin song" there are many to choose from.
Led Zeppelin is one of the most important in influential rock bands over the past 40 years. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of bands exist simply because of the impact that Zeppelin had and for opening up the door for bands to play a heavier, harder, and louder, form of music. Zeppelin still is important today, even if the band has ceased to exist for nearly 30 years. But, it still puzzles me that they would make so many of their songs without the title in the lyrics. Maybe it is another part of the entire mystique of Led Zeppelin, the songs speak for themselves. Black Dog for example, the lyrics have nothing to do with dogs, but the title just sounds dark, but also quite cool. So, I was not able to solve the mystery in this phenomena, but I can conclude that Zeppelin may have done this move on purpose in order to further their own mystery and demonstrate that their songs were/are so well composed and supported by such talented musicians, that titling the songs in a traditional manner would have been just uncool, and un-Zeppelin.
Immigrant Song, The Lemon Song, Out on the Tiles, Black Dog, The Battle of Evermore, Four Sticks, Misty Mountain Hop, Hats Off to (Roy) Harper, Trampled Underfoot, Bron-Y-Aur Stomp, Over the Hills and Far Away, The Crunge, D'Yer Mak'er, The Rover, Night Flight, The Wanton Song, Boogie With Stu, Black Country Woman, Sick Again, Achilles' Last Stand, Royal Orleans, Candy Store Rock, Hots On For Nowhere, Tea For One, South Bound Saurez, Hot Dog, Carouselambra. This list totals 27 songs.
Then there are bunch of songs that make a mention of the song title once; Kashmir, Going to California, What It is And Should Never Be, Friends, Celebration Day (the word celebration appears), Heartbreaker, the song remains the same, The Rain Song (the word 'rain' appears), In My time of Dying, Down by the seaside, In The Evening, and Fool In The Rain (again, the word 'Rain' at some point in the song). This list totals 12.
So between these two lists, 39 out of a possible 73 songs either have one mention of the title or no mention of the title. And then there are 3 instrumentals that I did not include, so now there are only 70 songs. So out seventy, more than half lack having the title of the song in the lyrics.
So this brings me to why I am writing on this very random thing. I find it just odd that an artist would do this, why would you make songs that people can't remember the name? Are they simply suppose to go into a record store and ask, "Can I get the Zeppelin album with the song that goes ...." or "That song, it is about ...". It would be confusing to the record buying public to do this. Also, how were radio stations suppose to play the song, if some calls into the station and asks for "That Zeppelin song" there are many to choose from.
Led Zeppelin is one of the most important in influential rock bands over the past 40 years. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of bands exist simply because of the impact that Zeppelin had and for opening up the door for bands to play a heavier, harder, and louder, form of music. Zeppelin still is important today, even if the band has ceased to exist for nearly 30 years. But, it still puzzles me that they would make so many of their songs without the title in the lyrics. Maybe it is another part of the entire mystique of Led Zeppelin, the songs speak for themselves. Black Dog for example, the lyrics have nothing to do with dogs, but the title just sounds dark, but also quite cool. So, I was not able to solve the mystery in this phenomena, but I can conclude that Zeppelin may have done this move on purpose in order to further their own mystery and demonstrate that their songs were/are so well composed and supported by such talented musicians, that titling the songs in a traditional manner would have been just uncool, and un-Zeppelin.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Pearl Jam's Backspacer: Quick, catchy, and still going strong
I got an advanced, actually leaked, copy of the new Pearl Jam album, Backspacer. After nearly 20 years in the business and millions of records sold, Pearl Jam continues to make music and good music at that. For many casual listeners. they know the songs from their debut, "Jeremy", "Black", "Alive", and "Evenflow", and after that they don't feel a need to find out the rest of the band's catalog. After their debut, they skyrocketed into fame and released 7 albums between 1993 and 2006. The latest, number 9 overall, is a strong effort. The album is short album, about 33 and a half minutes. This was the first surprise to me, usually they are clocking in around 50 minutes. The songs are short, with only 2 of them over 4 minutes. Now, some might find this as a positive and some see it as a negative. The positive is that they have a bunch of songs that are radio ready, no need to make an radio edit that cuts parts out. The negative is that some might feel ripped off to only get 33 minutes for a CD that costs $17. I at first was hesitant to this idea, but after listening to the whole album, I saw it is as a positive, there are no long drawn out guitar parts that sometimes hinder their albums and if you have gotten any of their live shows on CD, there are almost always one disc that features 8 songs that clock in at 65 minutes.
Sonically, not much is different than previous works. Obviously, this albums alot like their last album, Eddie's voice sounds strong, the rest of the band is strong as well. The first single 'The Fixer' is pretty pop sounding, not the traditional Pearl Jam sound. Many of the songs are like this, no heavy riffs, no grunge. After thinking of which album it sounds like, I concluded that "Yield" may be close, along with the last album. There is not much of the experimental sound that was present on No Code, Vitalogy, and it is not slow like Riot Act. It is not 'Ten' Part II, and it is not the aggression that was present on Vs. I compare it to 'Yield' because that album had many songs that were somewhat 70s rock in feel 'In Hiding' and 'Given to Fly', they remind some of Led Zeppelin, and I think that 'Brain of J." is somewhat Ramones, as several of their album openers are, loud and fast. This album starts off with "Gonna See My Friend", fast and punchy, probably the meanest on the album, similar to 'Last Exit'. "Got Some' another strong song, as is 'Johnny Guitar', then the band slows down with 'Just Breathe', a nice balladesque song. "Amongst the Waves' starts slow then picks up, like 'Pilate' on Yield. "Unthought Known' is pretty good, "Supersonic" is quite enjoyable, very fast, sounds like Pearl Jam attempting to do Ramones. "Speed of Sound" slows things down again, sounds like something off of 'Pearl Jam'. "Force of Nature" is alright, faster pace than its predecessor. "The End" is a very interesting final track, somewhat like 'Just Breathe", bare bones, and shows the great voice of Eddie Vedder. Overall, the album is strong in my opinion, Pearl Jam has spent every album after 'Ten' trying to make music that is not mainstream, they make music they want to make. The album is probably not the best place to start one's Pearl Jam's collection, but it is overall a strong album, it is a quick, catchy, and shows that this band can continue to make new and different music long into their career.
Sonically, not much is different than previous works. Obviously, this albums alot like their last album, Eddie's voice sounds strong, the rest of the band is strong as well. The first single 'The Fixer' is pretty pop sounding, not the traditional Pearl Jam sound. Many of the songs are like this, no heavy riffs, no grunge. After thinking of which album it sounds like, I concluded that "Yield" may be close, along with the last album. There is not much of the experimental sound that was present on No Code, Vitalogy, and it is not slow like Riot Act. It is not 'Ten' Part II, and it is not the aggression that was present on Vs. I compare it to 'Yield' because that album had many songs that were somewhat 70s rock in feel 'In Hiding' and 'Given to Fly', they remind some of Led Zeppelin, and I think that 'Brain of J." is somewhat Ramones, as several of their album openers are, loud and fast. This album starts off with "Gonna See My Friend", fast and punchy, probably the meanest on the album, similar to 'Last Exit'. "Got Some' another strong song, as is 'Johnny Guitar', then the band slows down with 'Just Breathe', a nice balladesque song. "Amongst the Waves' starts slow then picks up, like 'Pilate' on Yield. "Unthought Known' is pretty good, "Supersonic" is quite enjoyable, very fast, sounds like Pearl Jam attempting to do Ramones. "Speed of Sound" slows things down again, sounds like something off of 'Pearl Jam'. "Force of Nature" is alright, faster pace than its predecessor. "The End" is a very interesting final track, somewhat like 'Just Breathe", bare bones, and shows the great voice of Eddie Vedder. Overall, the album is strong in my opinion, Pearl Jam has spent every album after 'Ten' trying to make music that is not mainstream, they make music they want to make. The album is probably not the best place to start one's Pearl Jam's collection, but it is overall a strong album, it is a quick, catchy, and shows that this band can continue to make new and different music long into their career.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
NFL Divisions: What the ??
Yesterday I was looking at the divisions in the NFL (National Football League) and realized that there are several teams that are simply in divisions that simply do not make sense.
So here are the current divisions and I have highlighted (with a *) the teams that I feel are out of place.
AFC East AFC North AFC South AFC West
Buffalo Baltimore Houston Oakland
NY Jets Cincinnati Indianapolis * Kansas City *
Miami * Cleveland Jacksonville Denver
New England Pittsburgh Tennessee San Diego
NFC East NFC North NFC South NFC West
Dallas* Chicago Atlanta Seattle
NY Giants Minnesota Tampa Bay St Louis *
Philadelphia Green Bay New Orleans Arizona
Washington Detroit Carolina San Francisco
So there are 5 of the 32 teams that are in the "wrong division". I understand that there are geographical limits to the NFL's divisions, they are to be taken literally, but they should at least be a little more accurate. And I am sure that these divisions have to also keep some rivalries in tact, why else would one Texas team been in the East and the other in the South, when on the map, Dallas is pretty much north and a little east of Houston. And I am sure that when the NFL redid the divisions they had to make them fair for the teams within the division, hence why Indy is not in the East, it would be a powerhouse division. So, now to why I selected the teams that I did.
1. Dallas - Dallas is in the East, why? It is in the Central time zone, St Louis is further east on the map than Dallas and its in the West division. Really, this one got me started on this post, I mean why is Dallas in the East? South would be better, or West. It is further south then half of the NFC South and Tennessee.
2. St Louis - Why is this team in the West? It is a several hour plane ride to Arizona, California, and Washington, all places the team has to go each season. This team use to be the LA Rams and I guess they never changed their division when the team moved, but it is about time.
3. Miami - This team is in the East, but it needs to be in the South. Tampa Bay is in the South for the NFC and Miami is actually further south than Tampa! Why should they play in a division with the other three teams that play in snow or at least freezing cold temperatures most of the season?
4. Kansas City - This is similar to the St Louis argument, again in the same state as St Louis, but plays in a division where every other team is in another time zone.
5. Indianapolis - What is this team doing in the south? There is nothing southern about this team except Payton Manning. They are actually north of Cincinnati, which plays in the AFC North.
I propose this new NFL division map.
AFC East AFC North AFC South AFC West
Buffalo Indianapolis Houston Oakland
NY Jets Cincinnati Miami Kansas City *
Baltimore Cleveland Jacksonville Denver
New England Pittsburgh Tennessee San Diego
NFC East NFC North NFC South NFC West
Carolina Chicago Atlanta Seattle
NY Giants Minnesota Tampa Bay St. Louis*
Philadelphia Green Bay New Orleans Arizona
Washington Detroit Dallas San Francisco
Unfortunately, St. Louis and Kansas City are stuck in their current divisions due to the fact that moving them would mess up all of the other divisions. Dallas in the South works, same for Miami in the AFC. Baltimore in the AFC East works too, and Indy up north is good too. Carolina in the NFC East is getting the team closer, though it could stay in the south, but Carolina is pretty far east and is 5 hours from the nearest rival in the South, Atlanta. With these modified divisions it would create the possibility of new rivalries. Also, since good teams come and go, it is difficult to argue that some divisions are stronger than others, AFC East for example. And as for St Louis and Kansas City, maybe it is time for them to relocate, I can't figure out a logical way to move them into another division, I was thinking of switching Minnesota and St. Louis, but it would not work and there is really nowhere to move Kansas in the AFC. The NFL has done a good job with this realignment, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Carolina are finally out of the West and Arizona is in and out of the East, but there is still some work to do.
So here are the current divisions and I have highlighted (with a *) the teams that I feel are out of place.
AFC East AFC North AFC South AFC West
Buffalo Baltimore Houston Oakland
NY Jets Cincinnati Indianapolis * Kansas City *
Miami * Cleveland Jacksonville Denver
New England Pittsburgh Tennessee San Diego
NFC East NFC North NFC South NFC West
Dallas* Chicago Atlanta Seattle
NY Giants Minnesota Tampa Bay St Louis *
Philadelphia Green Bay New Orleans Arizona
Washington Detroit Carolina San Francisco
So there are 5 of the 32 teams that are in the "wrong division". I understand that there are geographical limits to the NFL's divisions, they are to be taken literally, but they should at least be a little more accurate. And I am sure that these divisions have to also keep some rivalries in tact, why else would one Texas team been in the East and the other in the South, when on the map, Dallas is pretty much north and a little east of Houston. And I am sure that when the NFL redid the divisions they had to make them fair for the teams within the division, hence why Indy is not in the East, it would be a powerhouse division. So, now to why I selected the teams that I did.
1. Dallas - Dallas is in the East, why? It is in the Central time zone, St Louis is further east on the map than Dallas and its in the West division. Really, this one got me started on this post, I mean why is Dallas in the East? South would be better, or West. It is further south then half of the NFC South and Tennessee.
2. St Louis - Why is this team in the West? It is a several hour plane ride to Arizona, California, and Washington, all places the team has to go each season. This team use to be the LA Rams and I guess they never changed their division when the team moved, but it is about time.
3. Miami - This team is in the East, but it needs to be in the South. Tampa Bay is in the South for the NFC and Miami is actually further south than Tampa! Why should they play in a division with the other three teams that play in snow or at least freezing cold temperatures most of the season?
4. Kansas City - This is similar to the St Louis argument, again in the same state as St Louis, but plays in a division where every other team is in another time zone.
5. Indianapolis - What is this team doing in the south? There is nothing southern about this team except Payton Manning. They are actually north of Cincinnati, which plays in the AFC North.
I propose this new NFL division map.
AFC East AFC North AFC South AFC West
Buffalo Indianapolis Houston Oakland
NY Jets Cincinnati Miami Kansas City *
Baltimore Cleveland Jacksonville Denver
New England Pittsburgh Tennessee San Diego
NFC East NFC North NFC South NFC West
Carolina Chicago Atlanta Seattle
NY Giants Minnesota Tampa Bay St. Louis*
Philadelphia Green Bay New Orleans Arizona
Washington Detroit Dallas San Francisco
Unfortunately, St. Louis and Kansas City are stuck in their current divisions due to the fact that moving them would mess up all of the other divisions. Dallas in the South works, same for Miami in the AFC. Baltimore in the AFC East works too, and Indy up north is good too. Carolina in the NFC East is getting the team closer, though it could stay in the south, but Carolina is pretty far east and is 5 hours from the nearest rival in the South, Atlanta. With these modified divisions it would create the possibility of new rivalries. Also, since good teams come and go, it is difficult to argue that some divisions are stronger than others, AFC East for example. And as for St Louis and Kansas City, maybe it is time for them to relocate, I can't figure out a logical way to move them into another division, I was thinking of switching Minnesota and St. Louis, but it would not work and there is really nowhere to move Kansas in the AFC. The NFL has done a good job with this realignment, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Carolina are finally out of the West and Arizona is in and out of the East, but there is still some work to do.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Obama's speech to students: What's the big deal?
Over the past few days I feel like I have been inundated with news stories about President's Obama's speech to students. The speech aired today, after the speech was made available last night. Since I am not in school, I didn't see it, but did catch some news bits afterwords. The main fear before the speech was made was that Obama was going to indoctrinate America's youth with liberal ideals and was making a direct appeal for change to a segment of the population that is more easily persuaded.
Now, I probably shouldn't be writing on a speech that I didn't see, but I am because the actual words are only partly important in this case. The bigger issue, as I see it, is the power/influence that media has. There was interesting note in one article about this speech, stating how Reagan and George H.W. Bush both made similar addresses to American students, Reagan actually made a direct appeal stating how taxes were bad (which I am sure really resonated to elementary age kids). I doubt that there was as big a reaction to their speeches as there was to Obama's. Now, I did not vote for Obama and thus am not seeing any real changes that he promised, I only mention this because if someone who did not even vote for him can feel comfortable with his speech, than maybe Obama's speech is not so damaging.
I think there are much more effective means for Obama/Democratic party to indoctrinate their ideals into the American public. I have seen dozens of Obama products; T-shirts, coins, posters, comic books, plates, and even children's books. These are not as powerful as one speech, but they are more accessible to more people. It is much easier to go buy a piece of Obama-Mania than to sit and watch a speech. I remember reading a children's book about President Clinton when I was young and then becoming a 'supporter' of Clinton, though in my later years I changed my opinion and now disregard ever supporting him. And it has been shown that one of the most influential aspect of child's political views is that of their parents. In so far as, that if a child is raised by two republican parents, than that child will most likely be a republican. So, really, Obama's rhetoric is not what we need to worry about for our children, what we need to worry is about is Obama as a product.
Now, I probably shouldn't be writing on a speech that I didn't see, but I am because the actual words are only partly important in this case. The bigger issue, as I see it, is the power/influence that media has. There was interesting note in one article about this speech, stating how Reagan and George H.W. Bush both made similar addresses to American students, Reagan actually made a direct appeal stating how taxes were bad (which I am sure really resonated to elementary age kids). I doubt that there was as big a reaction to their speeches as there was to Obama's. Now, I did not vote for Obama and thus am not seeing any real changes that he promised, I only mention this because if someone who did not even vote for him can feel comfortable with his speech, than maybe Obama's speech is not so damaging.
I think there are much more effective means for Obama/Democratic party to indoctrinate their ideals into the American public. I have seen dozens of Obama products; T-shirts, coins, posters, comic books, plates, and even children's books. These are not as powerful as one speech, but they are more accessible to more people. It is much easier to go buy a piece of Obama-Mania than to sit and watch a speech. I remember reading a children's book about President Clinton when I was young and then becoming a 'supporter' of Clinton, though in my later years I changed my opinion and now disregard ever supporting him. And it has been shown that one of the most influential aspect of child's political views is that of their parents. In so far as, that if a child is raised by two republican parents, than that child will most likely be a republican. So, really, Obama's rhetoric is not what we need to worry about for our children, what we need to worry is about is Obama as a product.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Is the use of torture good or bad as a form of interogation? What makes something an act of toture?
Check out the article below it is about the government's posibble investigation into the interrogation techniques used by the CIA, thanks in part to the good people at the ACLU. I wanted to write a brief blog on this topic, because this is pretty interesting to me.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/24/us.terror.interrogations/index.html?iref=newssearch
The article discusses some of the acts used as interrogation, which to me do not seem to be forms of torture. Example, interrogators shot a gun off in a room next to the room in which they conducted an interrogation, telling the suspect that the victim of the shot was the suspect's friend. Now, they did not actually kill said person, they simply shot the gun off, the only victim was the concrete wall. How is this torturing a person? No one was hurt, it is a technique to get the suspect to give up information, information that can be used to save lives. The article mentions how investigators said that they (the investigators) made threats, really more exaggerations, that they would find the suspect's family and bring haul them in, which again they did not do. The techniques are not hurting anyone. Torture involves bodily harm, which these techniques are not doing. There may be mental damage, but I don't know how since what they said they would do didn't happen. So to answer the second part of the title's question, no, I don't think what occured is torture.
So onto the more difficult question of good or bad/right or wrong. Our nation has never been one to utilize torture, it is something other nations do, not us. In the case of terrorism though we have a much more difficult question. Terrorists are not going to be reasonable, President Obama is not going to be able to have a nice chat with Bin Laden in the White House, terrorists are not operating under the normal rules. In spite of this, I am still not sure if it right for our government to use torture. It breaks international law and it is going to make us appear to the world as barbaric. So unfortunately, I can't decide on this topic. But, I am sure that what this cnn article discussed about the techniques is not torture, If the government wants to launch an investigation, which they probably won't find anything. It will only result in wasting millions and millions of dollars that could go to better use in helping the economy and this nation's citizens.
In closing, read the article and decide for yourself.
Lady Gaga: A respresentation for a period of music and giving hope in trying times
I got Lady Gaga' Poker Face stuck in my head a couple of weeks back. I have really not been a fan of the mainstream pop music, I have always been a rocker, ever since I got my first CD when I was 13, Blink 182 - Enema Of the State, which in retrospect was not the best was to start a music collection, but the musical tastes of a 13 year old never are.
So back to Lady Gaga. I am not sure where this woman came from, I found some stuff on her on wikipedia, but I have not the slightest idea how accurate it may or may not be. She is from New York and was born in 1986, which means she has already done more in her life than I have and is only a year older than me. She really came out of nowhere last year, her first two singles both made it to Number 1 on the Billboard charts, which is pretty significant since she is like the first or second female artist to do this in the 50 year history of billboard's tracking of pop singles.
I find her character fascinating. She considers herself a fashion icon, but I think we can all agree that she is not going to be influencing anyone with her outrageous outfits. Her voice is average, at best, her voice sounds as if she sung the lyrics and then the producer took it and messed with it with some electronics, her voice sounds at time robotic. The lyrics to the song are weak, as in simple and quite dirty. Example of the simplicity the chorus to Poker Face "Can't read my, Can't read my No he can't read my poker face P-p-p-poker face, p-p-poker face(Mum mum mum mah" really that is the best you come up with? As for the explicit nature "I'll get him hot, show him what I've got", again poker face. Now Love Game "I wanna take a ride on your disco stick", subtle, and what makes this better is that your target audience is female, great message to send to them, have sex with guys and they will love you. There is some metaphor in Poker Face, but Just Dance and Love Game are direct, not complex at all
But, there is a positive to Lady Gaga. Her music is sub par, but catchy. And this past year has been very tough for our country, a recession, record job loss, the loss of lives for the troops fighting for our freedom, just to name a few. What Gaga then does is creates an escape of sorts, a message of go out and have fun, dance the night away and be happy. Now, will she go down in music history as a legend like Madonna, Michael Jackson, or Bruce Springsteen? I doubt it, but she has only released one album, while each of the above mentioned have released a dozen plus. Who knows if she will even remain popular after this album. Gaga is also important because with her mammoth success, she can come to represent and encapsulate a period in music history. Think of it this way, there were dozens of southern rock bands in the 1970s, but if asked to name one, or their favorite one, most people would say Lynyrd Skynyrd. Now, Skynyrd was great and probably the most well known, but what about 38 Special, Allman Brothers, Mollie Hatchet, just to name a few, all were popular, all had hits, but who do most people remember? Skynyrd,
I am not saying Lynyrd Skynyrd and Lady Gaga are equally important, but more to the point that both come to represent a period in time in music in a certain genre. Gaga, represents the music from 2007 to 2009 (or later) , simplistic and laden with computer effects. Think about other songs topping the Billboard charts Crank That Soulja Boy, Umbrella (somewhat), Low, I Kissed a girl, Whatever You Like (heavy on the synth), Womanizer, I Gotta Feeling, Boom Boom Pow, Right Round. There have been other hits, but these come to mind because if you listen to them, you are hearing alot of effects, and lyrics that don't have any meaning.
Now, I could go off on a tangent about how this music is a reflection of the failure of our society, but I am not going to do that. Even if Lady Gaga makes music I don't like, I will give her this. She has had more hits than most of the music I listen too, she has even sold more records than some of the artists I listen to. She may not be the best singer, she may not be the best lyricist, she may not even be a lady, but I am going to give her this, she can make a catchy song and can make an uplifting message even if it is simple.
So back to Lady Gaga. I am not sure where this woman came from, I found some stuff on her on wikipedia, but I have not the slightest idea how accurate it may or may not be. She is from New York and was born in 1986, which means she has already done more in her life than I have and is only a year older than me. She really came out of nowhere last year, her first two singles both made it to Number 1 on the Billboard charts, which is pretty significant since she is like the first or second female artist to do this in the 50 year history of billboard's tracking of pop singles.
I find her character fascinating. She considers herself a fashion icon, but I think we can all agree that she is not going to be influencing anyone with her outrageous outfits. Her voice is average, at best, her voice sounds as if she sung the lyrics and then the producer took it and messed with it with some electronics, her voice sounds at time robotic. The lyrics to the song are weak, as in simple and quite dirty. Example of the simplicity the chorus to Poker Face "Can't read my, Can't read my No he can't read my poker face P-p-p-poker face, p-p-poker face(Mum mum mum mah" really that is the best you come up with? As for the explicit nature "I'll get him hot, show him what I've got", again poker face. Now Love Game "I wanna take a ride on your disco stick", subtle, and what makes this better is that your target audience is female, great message to send to them, have sex with guys and they will love you. There is some metaphor in Poker Face, but Just Dance and Love Game are direct, not complex at all
But, there is a positive to Lady Gaga. Her music is sub par, but catchy. And this past year has been very tough for our country, a recession, record job loss, the loss of lives for the troops fighting for our freedom, just to name a few. What Gaga then does is creates an escape of sorts, a message of go out and have fun, dance the night away and be happy. Now, will she go down in music history as a legend like Madonna, Michael Jackson, or Bruce Springsteen? I doubt it, but she has only released one album, while each of the above mentioned have released a dozen plus. Who knows if she will even remain popular after this album. Gaga is also important because with her mammoth success, she can come to represent and encapsulate a period in music history. Think of it this way, there were dozens of southern rock bands in the 1970s, but if asked to name one, or their favorite one, most people would say Lynyrd Skynyrd. Now, Skynyrd was great and probably the most well known, but what about 38 Special, Allman Brothers, Mollie Hatchet, just to name a few, all were popular, all had hits, but who do most people remember? Skynyrd,
I am not saying Lynyrd Skynyrd and Lady Gaga are equally important, but more to the point that both come to represent a period in time in music in a certain genre. Gaga, represents the music from 2007 to 2009 (or later) , simplistic and laden with computer effects. Think about other songs topping the Billboard charts Crank That Soulja Boy, Umbrella (somewhat), Low, I Kissed a girl, Whatever You Like (heavy on the synth), Womanizer, I Gotta Feeling, Boom Boom Pow, Right Round. There have been other hits, but these come to mind because if you listen to them, you are hearing alot of effects, and lyrics that don't have any meaning.
Now, I could go off on a tangent about how this music is a reflection of the failure of our society, but I am not going to do that. Even if Lady Gaga makes music I don't like, I will give her this. She has had more hits than most of the music I listen too, she has even sold more records than some of the artists I listen to. She may not be the best singer, she may not be the best lyricist, she may not even be a lady, but I am going to give her this, she can make a catchy song and can make an uplifting message even if it is simple.
Monday, August 24, 2009
My Summer Reading List
This summer has been a good summer for me book wise. I have always enjoyed reading, even since I was little. I have knocked out quite a few books this summer, across a spectrum of genres. So I am going to list them out and add a little insight on why I enjoyed or didn't enjoy said book. And how the book came under my radar.
1. The Language of Fear by Del James - (Thriller)
I found out about this author because of being a Guns N Roses' fan, he co wrote a couple of songs and one of the short stories in this book is what the music video November Rain is based upon. The book is about a collection of short stories that I classify as thriller. They are quite intense, some are rock n roll in their subject, but mostly just people in extreme circumstances. Some are quite gruesome, one involves a young couple, the boyfriend pours gasoline on his girlfriend, then himself and well, it gets worse. Overall, this is an exciting and interesting read, check it out.
2. Waiting for the Sun: A Rock and Roll History of Los Angeles by Barney Hoskyns - (Music History)
As the title states, this book is about the history of the Los Angeles Music scene. It was a pretty interesting read, lots of details and really the author got into every spectrum of rock n roll, but I felt that it focused too much on the the Early years, 3/4ths of the book is pre-1980, so a little unbalanced, the 80s and 90s were some really important times and L.A. was the center of it. Overall, well done, but probably only if you are really into knowing everything.
3. Parental Advisory: Music Censorship in America by Eric Nuzum (Music History)
Great read, found this at half-priced books. Quick read though, about 200 pages, then a timeline of every act of censorship in music. Book is primarily on the different reasonings of who music has been censored, and sometimes how it has backfired. It was released in 2000 and could use an update. If you are the least bit interested in music censorship, check it out.
4. South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today by Various (Philosophy)
5. Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul by Various (Philosophy)
6. The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer by Various (Philosophy)
So I am going to discuss these three books together. I got started on a philosophy kick for about 2 or 3 weeks, it is kind of similar to what I learned in my Comm classes, so I though, go check it out. Overall, all of these books are well put together, but are very esoteric at times. The South Park one was my least favorite, I struggled through it to say the least. The Batman one was neat, I am only familiar with the films, but it posed some interesting questions about the characters. The Simpsons was by far the best one, just enjoyable and not too tough to comprehend. Check this series out, there is a company that makes these, along with dozens more under the category of philosophy and pop culture, it will help you appreciate certain movies and shows more because it gives you a new depth of knowledge.
7. The Bridge at Andau by James A. Michener (History)
The first history book of the summer, finally! This is a great short book, I read it in an afternoon drive in Hawaii. The book is about the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, this period of about month where Hungarians fought back against the communist regime that was installed by Stalin. The book is wonderfully written. The author was a reporter who created characters off of the real people he met, though some are real and real names are sometimes used. The Hungarian people faced a great deal of oppression and reading section about the labor camps for political extremists (non-communists) made what happened at Gitmo sound tame. Eastern Europe is a fascinating region and the Hungarian people are a strong and determined people.
8. Are You There Vodka, It's Me, Chelsea by Chelsea Handler (Humor)
9. My Horizontal Life by Chelsea Handler (Humor)
Well, these two were great light hearted reading. Handler is a funny story teller and has had a unique life. Of the two books I prefer Are You There..., a little less raunchy and more of a biography in the classic sense. Though, My Horizontal, did produce alot of laughs. I think that Handler's writing would be described by many as male, she speaks her mind and has no problems of using profane language and discussing sexual escapades. In some ways, I see it as more of a feminist writing. But, really, these books are about getting a laugh, buy and enjoy.
10. StoriTelling - Tori Spelling (Biography)
Decent, but she attempts to come across as down to earth, when she can't. She still appears snobbish, she complains about getting a BMW on her 16th birthday. She writes in a simple fashion, she talks about her marriages, her discussion of early boyfriends is interesting as it appears that a couple were bordering on emotional abuse, so I do feel some sympathy to her. Basically got this, her life is not a fairytale, and I think that is what she was aiming for.
11. Whores: An Oral Biography of Perry Farrell and Jane's Addiction (Paperback)by Drendan Mullen (Music/biography)
Just finished this one, enjoyed it a great deal. Jane's Addiction has been ignored as one of the true pioneers of the alternative scene, they have gotten some credit, but more is due, this book in part does that. It reads somewhat like The Dirt, interviews with the band members plus friends, managers, and musical contemporaries. The focus is mainly on the early days up to the breakup, then kind of lost some momentum, it skipped entire years for some people in the band. Perry Ferrell's journey is fascinating, so if you have interest in their music or the alt rock area, check this out.
12. Ruthless by Jerry Heller (Music/autobiography)
Jerry Heller was the manager of N.W.A. probably one of the most important artists in the rap genre. Not only was he the manager, he was the close friend of the band's leader Eazy-E. This book do talk about the background of the group, but mainly the period in which Heller worked with the group. He does talk about himself for a portion of the book, and does stir the pot with some comments about Ice Cube and Dr Dre, both of whom left the group under not so good terms. But, this is probably the best book written about this group, NWA created gangsta rap, they talked about what they lived and what they lived was an intense life with guns, drugs, sex, and violence, a point that Heller makes and cannot be argued with. Check this out, but be prepared for some bias opinions.
13. Off The Rails: by Rudy Sarzo (Music/Memoir)
Rudy Sarzo is a bassist who has worked with countless bands, Quiet Riot, Whitesnake, Dio, and Ozzy Osbourne. This book is about Rudy's time with the Ozzy Osbourne band in the early 80s, but mainly Randy Rhoads, Rudy's friend and Ozzy's guitarist who died tragically in a plane crash at the age of 25. Rhoads was an incredible talent and I think this may be the only book about him, his musical talent was amazing, albeit his contributions brief, two albums with Ozzy and a few Japan releases with Quiet Riot, plus some live stuff. Sarzo also writes really well, he writes using little profanity. Great stories and a great tribute to Rhoads.
14. Snake Eyes: Confessions of a Replacement Rock star by Stacey Blades (Music/Memoir)
Stacey Blades is the guitarist for L.A. Guns, a somewhat well known band, best known for their tribute to Jayne Mansfield "Ballad of Jayne". Blades has had an interesting life, born and raised in Canada and began his music career towards the tail end of the 1980s, he was born in 1968. He has had somewhat typical rock n roll adventures, drugs/alcohol problems, strippers, exwives, bad band mates, but seems to be overall happy with the life he has lead. His writing though could stand to improve, I think he used the work 'kickass' at least 100 times. But, overall, this guy has had an interesting career, that many people arent aware of.
15. A Child Called It - Dave Pelzer (Memoir/Self Help/Inspiration)
Found this book at target, heard about it because of a song by the band Buckcherry, titled the same as the book and was based upon the book. The book was a tough one, it is the memoir of the author who faced unthinkable abuse by his alcoholic mother. It is a brief book, about 150 pages, could be read in a couple of hours. Ultimately, the book's message is to never give up on yourself, not surprising for the author who made this into a career as a motivational speaker. If nothing else, it is a unique and intense story. Read it, but be prepared to be shocked.
16. Heavy Metal Islam: Rock, Resistance, and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam by Mark Levine (Music/Unsure)
This book was pretty interesting. The author travels to several countries in the MidEast (Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Iran). Basically the author examines how heavy metal exists and impacts the culture of each country. There were some negative reviews for it, but it is intersting, just be prepared for a rather dense read at times. It is interesting to think about the implications that Western Culture has on the Mid East, the population in all of these countries is young, and in some ways the perfect audience, (angry, alienated, oppressed). You just wouldn't think that metal would an audience like it does in this region. This region is important and this book had the ability to take the reader there.
Well, that wraps up what I have read so far this summer. I have a couple in the queue as well, one on the Trail of Tears, a true crime, and another book on music, that surely will not disappoint. So, stay tuned, because part 2 of this list will be coming. And, if you enjoy this list please leave your comments and such.
1. The Language of Fear by Del James - (Thriller)
I found out about this author because of being a Guns N Roses' fan, he co wrote a couple of songs and one of the short stories in this book is what the music video November Rain is based upon. The book is about a collection of short stories that I classify as thriller. They are quite intense, some are rock n roll in their subject, but mostly just people in extreme circumstances. Some are quite gruesome, one involves a young couple, the boyfriend pours gasoline on his girlfriend, then himself and well, it gets worse. Overall, this is an exciting and interesting read, check it out.
2. Waiting for the Sun: A Rock and Roll History of Los Angeles by Barney Hoskyns - (Music History)
As the title states, this book is about the history of the Los Angeles Music scene. It was a pretty interesting read, lots of details and really the author got into every spectrum of rock n roll, but I felt that it focused too much on the the Early years, 3/4ths of the book is pre-1980, so a little unbalanced, the 80s and 90s were some really important times and L.A. was the center of it. Overall, well done, but probably only if you are really into knowing everything.
3. Parental Advisory: Music Censorship in America by Eric Nuzum (Music History)
Great read, found this at half-priced books. Quick read though, about 200 pages, then a timeline of every act of censorship in music. Book is primarily on the different reasonings of who music has been censored, and sometimes how it has backfired. It was released in 2000 and could use an update. If you are the least bit interested in music censorship, check it out.
4. South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today by Various (Philosophy)
5. Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul by Various (Philosophy)
6. The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer by Various (Philosophy)
So I am going to discuss these three books together. I got started on a philosophy kick for about 2 or 3 weeks, it is kind of similar to what I learned in my Comm classes, so I though, go check it out. Overall, all of these books are well put together, but are very esoteric at times. The South Park one was my least favorite, I struggled through it to say the least. The Batman one was neat, I am only familiar with the films, but it posed some interesting questions about the characters. The Simpsons was by far the best one, just enjoyable and not too tough to comprehend. Check this series out, there is a company that makes these, along with dozens more under the category of philosophy and pop culture, it will help you appreciate certain movies and shows more because it gives you a new depth of knowledge.
7. The Bridge at Andau by James A. Michener (History)
The first history book of the summer, finally! This is a great short book, I read it in an afternoon drive in Hawaii. The book is about the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, this period of about month where Hungarians fought back against the communist regime that was installed by Stalin. The book is wonderfully written. The author was a reporter who created characters off of the real people he met, though some are real and real names are sometimes used. The Hungarian people faced a great deal of oppression and reading section about the labor camps for political extremists (non-communists) made what happened at Gitmo sound tame. Eastern Europe is a fascinating region and the Hungarian people are a strong and determined people.
8. Are You There Vodka, It's Me, Chelsea by Chelsea Handler (Humor)
9. My Horizontal Life by Chelsea Handler (Humor)
Well, these two were great light hearted reading. Handler is a funny story teller and has had a unique life. Of the two books I prefer Are You There..., a little less raunchy and more of a biography in the classic sense. Though, My Horizontal, did produce alot of laughs. I think that Handler's writing would be described by many as male, she speaks her mind and has no problems of using profane language and discussing sexual escapades. In some ways, I see it as more of a feminist writing. But, really, these books are about getting a laugh, buy and enjoy.
10. StoriTelling - Tori Spelling (Biography)
Decent, but she attempts to come across as down to earth, when she can't. She still appears snobbish, she complains about getting a BMW on her 16th birthday. She writes in a simple fashion, she talks about her marriages, her discussion of early boyfriends is interesting as it appears that a couple were bordering on emotional abuse, so I do feel some sympathy to her. Basically got this, her life is not a fairytale, and I think that is what she was aiming for.
11. Whores: An Oral Biography of Perry Farrell and Jane's Addiction (Paperback)by Drendan Mullen (Music/biography)
Just finished this one, enjoyed it a great deal. Jane's Addiction has been ignored as one of the true pioneers of the alternative scene, they have gotten some credit, but more is due, this book in part does that. It reads somewhat like The Dirt, interviews with the band members plus friends, managers, and musical contemporaries. The focus is mainly on the early days up to the breakup, then kind of lost some momentum, it skipped entire years for some people in the band. Perry Ferrell's journey is fascinating, so if you have interest in their music or the alt rock area, check this out.
12. Ruthless by Jerry Heller (Music/autobiography)
Jerry Heller was the manager of N.W.A. probably one of the most important artists in the rap genre. Not only was he the manager, he was the close friend of the band's leader Eazy-E. This book do talk about the background of the group, but mainly the period in which Heller worked with the group. He does talk about himself for a portion of the book, and does stir the pot with some comments about Ice Cube and Dr Dre, both of whom left the group under not so good terms. But, this is probably the best book written about this group, NWA created gangsta rap, they talked about what they lived and what they lived was an intense life with guns, drugs, sex, and violence, a point that Heller makes and cannot be argued with. Check this out, but be prepared for some bias opinions.
13. Off The Rails: by Rudy Sarzo (Music/Memoir)
Rudy Sarzo is a bassist who has worked with countless bands, Quiet Riot, Whitesnake, Dio, and Ozzy Osbourne. This book is about Rudy's time with the Ozzy Osbourne band in the early 80s, but mainly Randy Rhoads, Rudy's friend and Ozzy's guitarist who died tragically in a plane crash at the age of 25. Rhoads was an incredible talent and I think this may be the only book about him, his musical talent was amazing, albeit his contributions brief, two albums with Ozzy and a few Japan releases with Quiet Riot, plus some live stuff. Sarzo also writes really well, he writes using little profanity. Great stories and a great tribute to Rhoads.
14. Snake Eyes: Confessions of a Replacement Rock star by Stacey Blades (Music/Memoir)
Stacey Blades is the guitarist for L.A. Guns, a somewhat well known band, best known for their tribute to Jayne Mansfield "Ballad of Jayne". Blades has had an interesting life, born and raised in Canada and began his music career towards the tail end of the 1980s, he was born in 1968. He has had somewhat typical rock n roll adventures, drugs/alcohol problems, strippers, exwives, bad band mates, but seems to be overall happy with the life he has lead. His writing though could stand to improve, I think he used the work 'kickass' at least 100 times. But, overall, this guy has had an interesting career, that many people arent aware of.
15. A Child Called It - Dave Pelzer (Memoir/Self Help/Inspiration)
Found this book at target, heard about it because of a song by the band Buckcherry, titled the same as the book and was based upon the book. The book was a tough one, it is the memoir of the author who faced unthinkable abuse by his alcoholic mother. It is a brief book, about 150 pages, could be read in a couple of hours. Ultimately, the book's message is to never give up on yourself, not surprising for the author who made this into a career as a motivational speaker. If nothing else, it is a unique and intense story. Read it, but be prepared to be shocked.
16. Heavy Metal Islam: Rock, Resistance, and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam by Mark Levine (Music/Unsure)
This book was pretty interesting. The author travels to several countries in the MidEast (Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Iran). Basically the author examines how heavy metal exists and impacts the culture of each country. There were some negative reviews for it, but it is intersting, just be prepared for a rather dense read at times. It is interesting to think about the implications that Western Culture has on the Mid East, the population in all of these countries is young, and in some ways the perfect audience, (angry, alienated, oppressed). You just wouldn't think that metal would an audience like it does in this region. This region is important and this book had the ability to take the reader there.
Well, that wraps up what I have read so far this summer. I have a couple in the queue as well, one on the Trail of Tears, a true crime, and another book on music, that surely will not disappoint. So, stay tuned, because part 2 of this list will be coming. And, if you enjoy this list please leave your comments and such.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
