Music Week Continues!!

The response to Music Week has been almost overwhelming, but despite popular demand and the tens of thousands of staff writer, research assistant, personal masseuse, secretary, and chauffeur resumes flooding my inbox, for the foreseeable future I will continue posting only once per day.


One of many things I miss about being in school was having more occasions to listen to friends' favorite music. I discovered Spoon at Wednesday night poker. The second Pixies song I heard was when Handsome Mike handed me his iPod one weekday afternoon with Wave of Mutilation queued up and said, "Listen to this, and then lets go play it." Today a decent chunk of my new music comes from trusty old WXRT where I recently heard an upbeat but unfamiliar Rolling Stones song. I've always enjoyed the Stones (I even closed my Con Law II final exam with a quote from Mick Jagger), but after they ended 40 Licks with that pathetically depressing surrender of a song called Losing My Touch I assumed this upbeat one on XRT was old. But then the DJ came on and said, "That was a new one by the Stones called Doom and Gloom."

I tend to prefer the more energetic stuff, so I'd put this amongst the top Stones singles of my lifetime (I was born in '79, so You Got me Rockin, Love is Strong, and Start Me Up would be up there) (I don't put much weight into lyrics, but lyrically Love is Strong was pretty groundbreaking, "Your love is strong, and you're so sweet, you make me hard..." To this day I can't think of a song with such a blunt reference to an erection.")

In Doom and Gloom Mick hasn't written any lyrics that will be on t-shirts in 50 years, but I appreciate hearing this 69-year old man -- who's previous song would make you believe that his cause of death will either be a self inflicted gunshot wound to the head or autoerotic asphyxiation caused by his body going limp from a heroin overdose --- end a song by saying he choses to deal with the Doom and Gloom in society by approaching a pulchritudinous woman and pleading, "Baby won't you dance with me?" But again, he could be la-di-da'ing the melody and it wouldn't take much away from the song for me.

(I just gotta get the following out of my system: I've read All You Need is Love more than I've listened to it.)

I enjoyed the mental picture of the Stones getting together and writing this song via jam session, but that was erased when I learned Mick wrote it himself (although I imagine they refined it together.) I also read a borderline-defensive quote from Keith saying Mick couldn't have written the song without everything Keith taught him about guitar.

Youtube already has a healthy number Doom and Gloom covers, but contrary to what youtube voters and commenters seem to think, this one by the Rolling Tongues is my favorite. The singer is butchering the lyrics, but I don't care. And he puts his own twist on the guitar riff and melody, but in a good way. And his soloing is great --- the guitar-as-a-penis action towards the beginning of the solo is stuff you can't teach. And these guys are having a blast!! I challenge you to find a better version. There is a very very serious school of thought that says I'd rather be in a bar watching the Rolling Tongues cover the Rolling Stones than be in an arena watching the real Rolling Stones play their hits.

Doom and Gloom has an official music video that contains nudity and requires you to sign into youtube. How many times a day does Mick Jagger have sex with a woman he's known for less than 6 hours?

I haven't found anything to substantiate the following claim, but here it is anyway: I don't think Charlie Watts is playing drums on the studio version.

I've watched every drum cover of this song, and there are a couple decent ones, but no great one. (I think this cover is one or two takes away from being really good.) (The best drumming I've seen is probably from the Rolling Tongues drummer above.)


More parentheticals:

(Guitar note: Playing along with Love is Strong might have showed me why Keith Richards moves the way he moves when playing. He has this kind of slithery-with-lots-of-slow-motion-full-body-twitches-and-back-arches-and-exaggerated-leg-movements trance going on while playing -- sometimes his fret hand is two feet from the strings -- so if you try playing along with Love is Strong and concentrate on Keith's parts, you'll see how much time he spends not playing anything, and I think his entire body's movements are caused by how much he constantly pulls his hands back from the guitar to keep from overplaying. And maybe that goes to explain the longevity of his hands.)

(Look at this old footage of the Stones. Today they'd be considered a boy band. Keith would be the only semi-cool looking one. And back then he was strumming furiously.)

Music Week ©

My uses for YouTube can be put into five categories:

1. Listening to music
2. Watching big wave surfing videos
3. Watching clips from Training Day
4. Watching crazy poker hands
5. Watching this scene from Game of Thrones

But I probably spend more time on Category #1 than the other four combined, so it is with great pride that I welcome you to Notes from a Prudent Man's first annual Music Week© !!

Each day I will link to a song I've obsessed over on YouTube. (or something along those lines)

If your chair has a seat belt, I'd suggest getting a new chair.

I was watching Californication (a show not good enough to watch at home, but perfect for passing time at work [for those of you with jobs like mine]) and heard a song that caught my attention. I googled the chorus and learned it was a cover of an old Blind Faith song from '69 called Can't Find My Way Home. (Steve Winwood and Eric Clapton's old band -- I was unfamiliar with their band.)

I went on youtube and found this acoustic recording by Winwood that I preferred to the studio version or any of the concert recordings with Clapton. (If you're in Clapton's band, at what point do you get sick of suffering through his guitar solos night after night?) (At what point is one of his bandmates going to stop playing and walk over to the mic and say, "Fuck! Enough!! Enouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh!!! We get it! The first 30 seconds are great, the next 30 are decent -- tolerable at worst -- but after that it's just annoying."

Anyway, if you like the song, you'll be happy to know that I've listened to umpteen covers and will link to my two favorites for your listening pleasure:

1. Yoichi Aoyama and the BM's - This might be my favorite version of the song, including the Winwood acoustic.

and

2. STYX - I've never listened to STYX, so I was surprised to hear the tone of this guy's voice. I like when they zoom out at 2:02 and you can see that the singer has had a long career and drank a lot of beer and eaten a lot of steak dinners, but is not quite ready to hang up the tight pants. (And he sure as hell doesn't need that belt.)


Notes on the Winwood acoustic version:  

He's in drop C tuning. Can musicians hear that and know it's drop C? (From watching his hands I could tell it was dropped tuning, but I dropped it to D and strummed the first chord with him and had the "oh wow" moment.) 

Disclaimer: the following theory is not based on any science or even a google search to see if other people agree with it, but here it is anyway: I think tuning a guitar down will make a cheap guitar sound slightly better. Maybe the lower frequencies are less effected by the cheap woods, I don't know, but I left my guitar in drop C (or open C, I don't know the proper name) for months after I played along with Woody on youtube.

Guitar playing readers, please feel free to chime in on this theory.


(the over under on Music Week posts is 3.5)

guns

(I wrote this Thursday, December 18th and saved it as a draft, but the next day was the school shooting in Connecticut so I held off, but here it is.)

(That preface makes it seem like this is going to be something provocative, but it's not)

A couple year ago I was waiting to get a haircut and got into a conversation with a retired police officer about guns. At one point he showed me an ad in a magazine for this Stroeger shotgun and strongly recommended buying one for home defense. He said it was easy to shoot and the spread of the shot would give me a greater margin for error.

I had never fired a gun before, so I told him I didn't think the State would allow me to buy a one. But he laughed and assured me it was very easy to get a Firearm Owner Identification Card. Fill out a one page form, pay a $10 fee, and attach 1X1 picture, and within 30 days I'd have a license to own a gun.

Take a look at the application. Some of the questions include:

4. Are you addicted to narcotics?

(A bit subjective)

5. Are you intellectually disabled?

(again, seems a bit subjective)

6. Are you subject to an existing order of protection which prohibits you from possessing a firearm? 

(if yes, then why the fuck are you APPLYING FOR THE FUCKING LICENSE???? If someone answers Yes to this, they should immediately be taken into custody?)

10. Are you an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States? 

(No, but here's my name and address)

At the bottom is a section for applicants under 21.

We don't trust you to drink beer responsibly, but answer these three questions and you can carry a gun.

Have you ever watched gun videos on Youtube? There's a whole world out there. 

This is a great one on the myths and realities of shotguns for home defense.

First let me just say I think this guy is doing a great service. I love when people post tutorials---of any kind---online. (This is my lone contribution to that) (although I guess this blog is a tutorial for how to look at the world and live your life)

In case you don't want to watch the video, here's a summary:

MYTH - the pumping sound of a shotgun makes people run away. According to our narrator:

"It does not. First of all, the only time they should hear that sound is after a shotgun blast. Taking an unloaded gun to a gunfight is absolutely stupid. I've pointed shotguns at people, trust me, just pointing a shotgun at people gets their attention."

(I'd love to listen to him talk about the times he's pointed shotguns at people)

More advice:

"If someone is hiding behind a wall, or a couch, you want to be able to shoot through the damn thing. Be aware of your ammo. If you're worried about your kids, don't use a pistol, or even buckshot, use ball 223 ammo."

(again, I'd love to hear him talk about a time he's shooting at someone hiding behind a couch)

Other advice:

"Just because you shoot somebody with a shotgun doesn't mean they're instantly incapacitated. There are many, many, MANY stories of buckshot and slugs bouncing off a human skull. You have to follow through, you have to stay on it."

MYTH - you need to get your barrel cut or buy special ammo to get a tighter pattern. NO.

"By doing that you nuder the power of the shotgun: the spreading pellets. Imagine somebody is 15 yards away, and you fire that shotgun, and they're running, and your aim is not perfect, you might still get 4 or 5 pellets in them. but if you had it tightened you wouldn't get any."

(would love to hear him talk about a time he's shooting at a guy who's running)

Other advice: Avoid low recoil ammo. It simply means less gunpowder, less penetration. If you can shoot full power ammo, do it.

This is the shotgun he recommends for women "and even some men."

Getting your barrel shortened is overrated. The difference is negligible. 

He says the most misunderstood aspect of a shotgun is the bead sight. The sight is set at 100 yards, but the trajectory of a shotgun blast is like throwing a rock, "so if you're shooting at somebody 25, 50, 75 yards away, you'll need to aim low to hit them."

How many times has this guy been in a gunfight?

He suggests a shotgun over a rifle for home protection because of the "lethality" of a 12 guage. "It's the most lethal thing we as civilians can put on our shoulders and shoot."

...

Then I came upon this video of a guy taking his wife out for some long range shotgun shooting. 

(If I was running away from this woman and got as far away as that target, I'd foolishly think I was pretty safe.)

The most popular comment to the video is this:  

A beautiful woman who is a a decent shot and clearly enjoys shooting. It's no mean feat hitting offhand at that range with shotgun slugs. Dude, if you're dating her, whatever you do, DON'T let her get away from you. She's every man's dream.

Here they are shooting a machine gun. If you're wondering about the accents, they're from Kentucky. 

(An example of their accent: Where I'd say, "I like it." She pronounces it, "I lock it.")

(Is this machine gun legal? Is that what the mass killers are using? If you need a gun like this to hunt, you must be a terrible hunter.)

Here they are grilling a birthday dinner with a shotgun on "standby, in case we have any unwanted visitors." (don't bother watching this one)

This one is probably my favorite. June 9th was "Take your daughter to the range day." (fast forward to 1:00)

Oh wow. Just stumbled upon this

Ok, I don't know where I'm going with this. I've spent time on gun control before, and I don't want to get into it again other than to say that I think the only people who should want assault rifles to be legal are the those who profit from the sale of assault rifles, and aspiring mass murderers. 

2012 best picture nominee reviews

It’s almost Oscar season so here are my grades for the 2012 best picture nominees. (I think 2012’s crop was worse than 2011, and 2011 was worse than 2010.) Out of these nine, I’d only strongly recommend my top two. And as usual, I prefer knowing as little as possible about a film when I start watching it, so I’ll try to avoid revealing too much in the reviews. Here they are from worst to first:

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close –I didn’t get into this. It had its moments and showed glimpses of good writing from the book, but for the most part I found myself bored and ready for the movie to end. And it got a little cheesy with all the music. And what is John Goodman doing playing a doorman? C

Moneyball – Michael Lewis makes a great point that can be applied to any situation, and the 2002 Oakland A’s help him further it, but I think it’s impact on their success is slightly overstated in the book and grossly overstated in the movie. I’d rank this higher if I didn't follow baseball. If I was an MLB general manager, I'd give other GM's a copy of Moneyball and a few weeks later I'd start offering them mediocre players with above average on-base-percentages. (The way they documented Billy Beane’s own playing career and the impact it had on him as a GM might have been my favorite part --- but now I can't remember how much of that was in the movie and what I'm remembering from the book.) C+

Hugo – The first thing that put me off was that this takes place in Paris, yet everyone is speaking with British accents. I enjoyed enough of this, but I’m not especially interested in the history of film and Hugo didn’t do whatever needed to be done to pique my interest. Maybe I should have watched it in 3D? Not a bad movie, but I wouldn’t rush to watch it. B

The Help – A tried and true formula, but it was entertaining and moving. B

The Tree of Life – This was the most difficult to rank. On one hand I can argue this was the most intentionally boring and pretentious film I’ve ever seen. But on the other hand, some of the scenes were very poignant—they were just so few and far between. Malick is essentially trying to challenge the way we think of a film by not having a plot, and I respect that, but on top of not having a plot, nearly half the film was made up of long shots from space and nature on earth. And maybe he’s trying to say our lives don’t have a plot and we’re unfathomably tiny specks in the universe with our little struggles and male vs female instincts, and I respect all that; but knowing that doesn’t make this any easier to watch. Someone could film me getting out of bed in the morning and brushing my teeth and taking a dump and getting dressed and drinking a glass of milk and walking to the bus stop and getting on the bus and ignoring everyone on the bus and reading a book and getting off the bus and walking to the office and sitting at my desk, and then zoom out to a shot of the entire galaxy for five minutes. And that’s real, and it tells us something, it’s just not the most entertaining thing to sit and watch. I’d like to watch this again and fast forward through all of the videos from space and waves crashing. (Cindy googled it and read that the space scenes were shot for a different film that was scrapped, so he forced them into this—which if true, makes their inclusion exponentially maddening.) B

War Horse – It says a lot about what I thought of these films that War Horse is ranked #4. I expected this to be terrible—I didn’t even want to watch it—so maybe it’s ranked so highly because it exceeded those extremely low expectations. The story follows a horse, but it’s a human story. That said, don’t you dare go out of your way to watch it on my recommendation. (If anything, suffer through Tree of Life before this.) B

Tree of Life (reprise) – I think “suffering” is the proper adjective for what people do when watching Tree of Life, and I suppose there’s something to be said about that. Ok, I’ll say this, it’ll get you talking, and it’s worth suffering through because it is unique, but if all movies were like this, I might not watch movies as often. B

The Artist – Most of this was fun and creative, but I found the ending to be completely backwards and pathetic. (for it’s implication that we’re a fame-obsessed culture. Maybe we are. Maybe you are.) B+

The Descendants – A simple, well-organized story, great acting, striking cinematography, and some truly memorable moments. (And a Rule Against Perpetuities issue.) The scene with Clooney trying to hold back while getting belittled by his father-in-law in the hospital was my favorite scene of the year. A

Midnight in Paris – Woody Allen being funny and creative. Or in other words: Woody Allen being Woody Allen at his best. Just the thought of this movie makes me smile. A+