Perhaps the most Cold War of all cartoons was also one of the best Rocky and Bullwinkle, the fractured tales of a flying squirell (with the capabilities and sonic boom of a V2 rocket) and a moose with the most terrible puns you've ever heard.
I often wonder if animators are more inclined to appease parents required by the good graces of parenting watch the shows along with their children because the older I get these 1960s cartoons seem to get funnier.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Hulkamania
A lot of you probably weren't aware that my life idol (before Batman, Theodore Roosevelt and Johnny Cash) was Hulk Hogan. At the age of 4 I distinctly remember watching WWF (the real WWF) on Saturday afternoons. It had been a long time coming since realized that again recently.
Perhaps the best proof:
Perhaps the best proof:
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Political Infidelities
I treated myself tonight, like I do most nights, to a little PBS (ladies...), and I saw the last part of Clinton, American Experience's exposé on Bill Clinton's presidential legacy
Which at first I was hesitant towards, simply because it would only further stereotypes that Public Broadcasting has a liberal touch, so obviously I was afraid it would turn into a gushing fest about his improvements of our nations economy, which he should be credited for, as well as the compromise to issue block grants to states for economic stimulus with congress.
The series ended up focusing on the Affair. The Affair I realize now actually took place shortly after my ninth birthday, but I do remember my Clinton-loathing parents telling me to sit down and watch his confession on national television. I realize this sounds unnecessary for a child to see, but I always thought, even at a young age, that the brutal reality we exist in never really phased me, and honestly I loved to watch political speeches and ceremonies at a young age (the year previous at age 8 I got up early on a weekday morning so I could watch the Hong Kong Handover Ceremony from British control).
At the time, however, it was difficult for me to comprehend what exactly was happening, mostly for the fact that I honestly couldn't define what "sex" was, which was ironic because "sexual relations" was the buzzword in 1998* and that term is even more ambiguous that just the word "sex".
What strikes me most hearing the interpretation of that time was my realization that Monica Lewinsky was 23 years old. I.e. my current age. Instead of the loathing that I typically associated with her, I actually empathized rather strongly with her, a sensation I didn't expect. I couldn't imagine a 23 year old woman to have the type of strength to deal with such an image, regardless of her sins. The truth in my young eyes is that I see a very fragile and uncertain young woman getting involved in the way I see a lot of my friends and associates behave.
It seems clear that the scandal was really a maneuver to create a negative image to excuse as a crime, which legally it just wasn't. It also shows our split as two parties because for hundreds of years previously, politicians were full of infidelities and yet neither journalists nor colleagues ever considered to release this type of information to the public, let alone for further political advancement.
*insignificant note; but 1998 was also there year that w both had a huge boom in internet capabilities AND was known historically for being a great year for video game innovation.
Which at first I was hesitant towards, simply because it would only further stereotypes that Public Broadcasting has a liberal touch, so obviously I was afraid it would turn into a gushing fest about his improvements of our nations economy, which he should be credited for, as well as the compromise to issue block grants to states for economic stimulus with congress.
The series ended up focusing on the Affair. The Affair I realize now actually took place shortly after my ninth birthday, but I do remember my Clinton-loathing parents telling me to sit down and watch his confession on national television. I realize this sounds unnecessary for a child to see, but I always thought, even at a young age, that the brutal reality we exist in never really phased me, and honestly I loved to watch political speeches and ceremonies at a young age (the year previous at age 8 I got up early on a weekday morning so I could watch the Hong Kong Handover Ceremony from British control).
At the time, however, it was difficult for me to comprehend what exactly was happening, mostly for the fact that I honestly couldn't define what "sex" was, which was ironic because "sexual relations" was the buzzword in 1998* and that term is even more ambiguous that just the word "sex".
What strikes me most hearing the interpretation of that time was my realization that Monica Lewinsky was 23 years old. I.e. my current age. Instead of the loathing that I typically associated with her, I actually empathized rather strongly with her, a sensation I didn't expect. I couldn't imagine a 23 year old woman to have the type of strength to deal with such an image, regardless of her sins. The truth in my young eyes is that I see a very fragile and uncertain young woman getting involved in the way I see a lot of my friends and associates behave.
It seems clear that the scandal was really a maneuver to create a negative image to excuse as a crime, which legally it just wasn't. It also shows our split as two parties because for hundreds of years previously, politicians were full of infidelities and yet neither journalists nor colleagues ever considered to release this type of information to the public, let alone for further political advancement.
*insignificant note; but 1998 was also there year that w both had a huge boom in internet capabilities AND was known historically for being a great year for video game innovation.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The Modern Political Ideology; Foreign Policy, the Idea of War, and the Subsequent Sacrifices.
If you've had the opportunity to watch Boardwalk Empire, you would see an analogy of our overall dissent about war in 2012. There is someone you know personally whom has served in the armed forces, and now that the majority of them are back from their tours permanently, we now as the civilized colony that elected for them to go now see the consequences.
Jimmy and Richard Harrow discussing their time serving during World War I:
The idea of a soldier is heroic regardless of personel interpretation or political ideology. The majority of Americans disagreed with the last decade military interventions (now), but that never really questioned anyone's loyalty or respect for our military.
So where does that leave me, the civilian? How do I frame a reasonable ideology to structure my judgements of foreign policy?
There is my Patriotic side, which is something I believe in on a grandiose level. That's another discussion altogether, but to say for now I embrace my country in a more biblical way, a trust of its intentions, despite its inherencies. But for me, Patriotism rarely involves the use of force as a show of dominance. Yes there should be a strive for the best. My family for three generations has a moderate history of military enlistment, so there is a belief in the military that encourages a lot of respect.
And to be fair, I think this is a fantastic standard. There is a large trust in this country's military because military in inherently engrained into the fibers of our society.
Where I see majority in opinion is this here. We see the consequences of war in real time, and both sides now authentically believe that there's rarely a necessity for aggressive conflict. the dissent of this country, and has been for its entirety. It has however shifted to recognize one thing: the world is getting smaller.
If you look at the transition our government has made from the Imperialist/Colonial interpretations a century ago, it becomes easier to understand how shaky it was to go into Libya with Western forces. Obama attempted to utilize this chance to state his foreign policy doctrine; that he would intervene for any nation seeking democracy, which almost worked. Almost, by which I mean did, but also recognized that interventionism at that level is less welcome.
I've always thought through college that Iraq was perhaps the last action of Post-Colonialsim. To state what the real or unreal intentions of invading Iraq were is absolutely pointless. When Iraq was happening, people were ready, and enthused. I mean that, and I remember seeing shit go down (the first bombings in Baghdad) made me nervous but very interested. People were also scared shitless (including myself) in 2002 and were ready to go with it by the next year.
Now by Imperialism, I don't mean to say that Iraq was colonialism, but I'm saying that also we've tried to reinstate structure, and counterinsurgency wasn't a flawed concept because it seems so clear now that we clearly didn't, and still mostly don't, understand their culture.
Watching the documentary footage that I've been lucky enough to see, it's clear that during which time, American patriotism and Afghan society didn't understand each other. In the film Restrepo, I see constant reminders of how disenfranchised different cultures can interact. I watch American soldiers attempting to speak to village elders and so clearly see that both parties are truly honest in what they believe, yet struggle so poorly to come to understanding.
Something I think that has all aggravated us is the lack of treatment for those who have come back from these wars. This has not only been a passion of the Tea Party and most Republicans, but also of the Occupy movement. Something that gave the movement legitimacy was when an Iraqi soldier was hit by a tear gas canister and had to be treated medically during the height of the Occupy protests.
To demonstrate a flag waiving for either side is, again, entirely pointless. What I'm saying is there is a consensus building that this the most flawed of our consequences, the lack of assistance for those who have served in armed combat.
And so we sit here in this time, with little American military activity in which to see, and it in fact is shrinking. Yet, no one seems to really be upset by this. Our collective society is not shouting that our military is getting smaller, for once.
This is what's striking my curiosity believing we have come to a rationale understanding of war, which may or may not be repeated, but for the time being a Populist mentality is prevailing with an acknowledgement that was isn't really a thing to be doing with so many parties becoming interconnected.
In real time, what subsidizes this rationality is through our ability to gain information immediately. I swear I must hear at least 4-5 hourly 5-minute news briefs on a podcast, and it's so easy to gather instant information that it's being filtered more purely. There's a mutual understanding that information you can instantaneously seek is now better than condensed media details.
With the advances we've seen, where grandparents have Facebooks and brutal realism has come back from our family and friends. I rarely, or would ever like to to, interpret what veterans feel on their returns back. When the first soldier from my hometown was killed in Afghanistan, people were in the streets that Saturday. One of my closest associates to this day I struggle to understand how or what he experienced, and so when I head home for holidays we drink incessantly until 4 a.m. and say little about the subject, because it's none of my fucking business and he's more of a man than I could ever be.
That appears the to be the common denominator, that compassion for how military and civil society are always connected. Because we've had our wars fought by our closest friends, it's hard to disconnect, and so when the one end of the rubber band whiplashes, so does the other to help, and subsequently shows us what war results to in the post-Western world. This fuels how we think in 2012 about intervention or interest in foreign policy, a need to mind our business, but as always keep the big stick swinging.
Jimmy and Richard Harrow discussing their time serving during World War I:
The idea of a soldier is heroic regardless of personel interpretation or political ideology. The majority of Americans disagreed with the last decade military interventions (now), but that never really questioned anyone's loyalty or respect for our military.
So where does that leave me, the civilian? How do I frame a reasonable ideology to structure my judgements of foreign policy?
There is my Patriotic side, which is something I believe in on a grandiose level. That's another discussion altogether, but to say for now I embrace my country in a more biblical way, a trust of its intentions, despite its inherencies. But for me, Patriotism rarely involves the use of force as a show of dominance. Yes there should be a strive for the best. My family for three generations has a moderate history of military enlistment, so there is a belief in the military that encourages a lot of respect.
And to be fair, I think this is a fantastic standard. There is a large trust in this country's military because military in inherently engrained into the fibers of our society.
Where I see majority in opinion is this here. We see the consequences of war in real time, and both sides now authentically believe that there's rarely a necessity for aggressive conflict. the dissent of this country, and has been for its entirety. It has however shifted to recognize one thing: the world is getting smaller.
If you look at the transition our government has made from the Imperialist/Colonial interpretations a century ago, it becomes easier to understand how shaky it was to go into Libya with Western forces. Obama attempted to utilize this chance to state his foreign policy doctrine; that he would intervene for any nation seeking democracy, which almost worked. Almost, by which I mean did, but also recognized that interventionism at that level is less welcome.
I've always thought through college that Iraq was perhaps the last action of Post-Colonialsim. To state what the real or unreal intentions of invading Iraq were is absolutely pointless. When Iraq was happening, people were ready, and enthused. I mean that, and I remember seeing shit go down (the first bombings in Baghdad) made me nervous but very interested. People were also scared shitless (including myself) in 2002 and were ready to go with it by the next year.
Now by Imperialism, I don't mean to say that Iraq was colonialism, but I'm saying that also we've tried to reinstate structure, and counterinsurgency wasn't a flawed concept because it seems so clear now that we clearly didn't, and still mostly don't, understand their culture.
Watching the documentary footage that I've been lucky enough to see, it's clear that during which time, American patriotism and Afghan society didn't understand each other. In the film Restrepo, I see constant reminders of how disenfranchised different cultures can interact. I watch American soldiers attempting to speak to village elders and so clearly see that both parties are truly honest in what they believe, yet struggle so poorly to come to understanding.
Something I think that has all aggravated us is the lack of treatment for those who have come back from these wars. This has not only been a passion of the Tea Party and most Republicans, but also of the Occupy movement. Something that gave the movement legitimacy was when an Iraqi soldier was hit by a tear gas canister and had to be treated medically during the height of the Occupy protests.
To demonstrate a flag waiving for either side is, again, entirely pointless. What I'm saying is there is a consensus building that this the most flawed of our consequences, the lack of assistance for those who have served in armed combat.
And so we sit here in this time, with little American military activity in which to see, and it in fact is shrinking. Yet, no one seems to really be upset by this. Our collective society is not shouting that our military is getting smaller, for once.
This is what's striking my curiosity believing we have come to a rationale understanding of war, which may or may not be repeated, but for the time being a Populist mentality is prevailing with an acknowledgement that was isn't really a thing to be doing with so many parties becoming interconnected.
In real time, what subsidizes this rationality is through our ability to gain information immediately. I swear I must hear at least 4-5 hourly 5-minute news briefs on a podcast, and it's so easy to gather instant information that it's being filtered more purely. There's a mutual understanding that information you can instantaneously seek is now better than condensed media details.
With the advances we've seen, where grandparents have Facebooks and brutal realism has come back from our family and friends. I rarely, or would ever like to to, interpret what veterans feel on their returns back. When the first soldier from my hometown was killed in Afghanistan, people were in the streets that Saturday. One of my closest associates to this day I struggle to understand how or what he experienced, and so when I head home for holidays we drink incessantly until 4 a.m. and say little about the subject, because it's none of my fucking business and he's more of a man than I could ever be.
That appears the to be the common denominator, that compassion for how military and civil society are always connected. Because we've had our wars fought by our closest friends, it's hard to disconnect, and so when the one end of the rubber band whiplashes, so does the other to help, and subsequently shows us what war results to in the post-Western world. This fuels how we think in 2012 about intervention or interest in foreign policy, a need to mind our business, but as always keep the big stick swinging.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
What it's like to live in Austin, Texas
Austin, Texas is one giant group of dudes collectively asking if they could borrow a cigarette, myself included. Austin was a logical decision for many, given our economy. Low unemployment, warm weather, lots of creative opportunity.
But seven months here I feel a blasé attitude about the whole Biodome. It's not that I thought that the grass was greener. The grass is obviously greener, but there's just a lot more cattle grazing than before.
I went into an anonymous coffee shop to submit an application several weeks ago, and the man at the counter informed me with a sigh that there was already about 200 other applications sitting on top of mine all looking for a solid part-time gig.
The music scene has seen a large sense of recycling. The atypical venues on 6th Street have all seen a large economic purging for large profit. I've only been a few times, and everytime the demographics stem between party-hardies and freshmen from UT trying to tour their parents through their newly chosen city (sidenote: that's a terrible idea, because while it's devoid of real culture, it's also just too orgiastic to embody this place, but it is funny to watch the moms freak out).
Urban renewal is a heavy aspect of both Austin's identity and its geography. I've heard a statistic muttered to me countless times that something around 150 people move to Austin every day. I would complain, but i'm a part of those Okies that moved east for opportunity, although my grapes are in the form of telemarketing phone calls and foodstamps.
That's not to say I regret my decision. If there's something a lot of us are learning it's that:
A. Our Bachelor's Degrees mean nothing
B. There's a lot of us all looking for the same thing.
People also accuse Austin of being a smaller LA, and I refute this notion constantly. My first reason is that I've been to Los Angeles on a number of occasions, and the diversity of the community is not nearly as accommodating. Another is that there's competition in Austin, but it's not nearly as ugly as it is in California.
It's hard to nail down what one does down here in this obscurity of opportunity. Especially in the winter. No body said that in the winter everyone's metabolism slows from the chilly wind. That said it is wonderful, but it's also hard not to feel obligatorily blamable for what this place has become. It has definitely homogenized in my time being here, but yet there is still a struggle to separate the fat from the cream. As to who's winning is anyone's guess, but it's still amusing to watch it hold onto it's Texas identity. The majority of people I meet here aren't from anywhere near Texas, which is great and paralyzing at the same time because it means that the identity is constantly shifting, which disables my ability to find it.
I will say the most satisfying thing about being here for 7 months and watching Austin City Limits in my living room after work and knowing all of the landmarks. That and the excessive number of resources available.
But seven months here I feel a blasé attitude about the whole Biodome. It's not that I thought that the grass was greener. The grass is obviously greener, but there's just a lot more cattle grazing than before.
I went into an anonymous coffee shop to submit an application several weeks ago, and the man at the counter informed me with a sigh that there was already about 200 other applications sitting on top of mine all looking for a solid part-time gig.
The music scene has seen a large sense of recycling. The atypical venues on 6th Street have all seen a large economic purging for large profit. I've only been a few times, and everytime the demographics stem between party-hardies and freshmen from UT trying to tour their parents through their newly chosen city (sidenote: that's a terrible idea, because while it's devoid of real culture, it's also just too orgiastic to embody this place, but it is funny to watch the moms freak out).
Urban renewal is a heavy aspect of both Austin's identity and its geography. I've heard a statistic muttered to me countless times that something around 150 people move to Austin every day. I would complain, but i'm a part of those Okies that moved east for opportunity, although my grapes are in the form of telemarketing phone calls and foodstamps.
That's not to say I regret my decision. If there's something a lot of us are learning it's that:
A. Our Bachelor's Degrees mean nothing
B. There's a lot of us all looking for the same thing.
People also accuse Austin of being a smaller LA, and I refute this notion constantly. My first reason is that I've been to Los Angeles on a number of occasions, and the diversity of the community is not nearly as accommodating. Another is that there's competition in Austin, but it's not nearly as ugly as it is in California.
It's hard to nail down what one does down here in this obscurity of opportunity. Especially in the winter. No body said that in the winter everyone's metabolism slows from the chilly wind. That said it is wonderful, but it's also hard not to feel obligatorily blamable for what this place has become. It has definitely homogenized in my time being here, but yet there is still a struggle to separate the fat from the cream. As to who's winning is anyone's guess, but it's still amusing to watch it hold onto it's Texas identity. The majority of people I meet here aren't from anywhere near Texas, which is great and paralyzing at the same time because it means that the identity is constantly shifting, which disables my ability to find it.
I will say the most satisfying thing about being here for 7 months and watching Austin City Limits in my living room after work and knowing all of the landmarks. That and the excessive number of resources available.
Style
-Charles Bukowski
Style is the answer to everything.
A fresh way to approach a dull or dangerous thing.
To do a dull thing with style is preferable to doing a dangerous thing without style.
To do a dangerous thing with style, is what I call art.
Bullfighting can be an art.
Boxing can be an art.
Loving can be an art.
Opening a can of sardines can be an art.
Not many have style.
Not many can keep style.
I have seen dogs with more style than men.
Although not many dogs have style.
Cats have it with abundance.
When Hemingway put his brains to the wall with a shotgun, that was style.
For sometimes people give you style.
Joan of Arc had style.
John the Baptist.
Jesus.
Socrates.
Caesar.
García Lorca.
I have met men in jail with style.
I have met more men in jail with style than men out of jail.
Style is a difference, a way of doing, a way of being done.
Six herons standing quietly in a pool of water, or you, walking
out of the bathroom without seeing me.
-Charles Bukowski
Style is the answer to everything.
A fresh way to approach a dull or dangerous thing.
To do a dull thing with style is preferable to doing a dangerous thing without style.
To do a dangerous thing with style, is what I call art.
Bullfighting can be an art.
Boxing can be an art.
Loving can be an art.
Opening a can of sardines can be an art.
Not many have style.
Not many can keep style.
I have seen dogs with more style than men.
Although not many dogs have style.
Cats have it with abundance.
When Hemingway put his brains to the wall with a shotgun, that was style.
For sometimes people give you style.
Joan of Arc had style.
John the Baptist.
Jesus.
Socrates.
Caesar.
García Lorca.
I have met men in jail with style.
I have met more men in jail with style than men out of jail.
Style is a difference, a way of doing, a way of being done.
Six herons standing quietly in a pool of water, or you, walking
out of the bathroom without seeing me.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Solids vs. Stripes
Our generations Led vs. Who debate could engorge two bands with similar passions but dissimilar musicianships: The White Stripes and The Black Keys
I love this notion because not only are they similar in name but they brought back the same theme of Blues revival for a generation but with a far different flare.
This point here is to demonstrate where rock music is today. Where we see ourselves on the edge of the spectrum in the final bounce and transition from the early 2000s rock, but nothing else is as agreeable as The Black Keys and The White Stripes. They're both duos, their both blues revivalists, but more importantly both bands have shared a lot of the same public realm of consciousness with the same manner. Different start and stop points, and virtuosity is unquestionably in favor of their elders, but they perhaps are the most recent stands of real rock music we've in such audacious forms.
Commercial success I suppose could be taken into account for these duos, but it's probably the most minimalistic argument because in modern day music it appears to be the least important aspect of any musician's careers.
Now here's where I'm gonna put down my analogy:
The Black Keys are Led Zeppelin and The White Stripes are The Who.
In this argument, I'm not comparing them as to who's better. Everyone knows that Led Zeppelin wins hands-down, but that parallel does not correlate here because neither The Black Keys or The White Stripes are better than the other. Rather, this argument means to compare them by characteristics of style and musicianship to their predecessors.
You pretentious a-holes.
The Black Keys are similar to Led first and foremost in their consistency. People make a lot of stink that The Black Keys have changed dramatically in the last decade, which is a notion I disagree with. For one, between The Big Come Up to Magic Potion, the formula changed very little and few complained. much like Zeppelin. It's the same method that gave both bands their virtuoso skills and their fan bases alike.
What I mean to say is that The Black Keys have memorable songs. In the way Led Zeppelin had numerous commercial hits that were also well written and performed, The Black Keys have had this same blessing. Now, again, given their styles are so different, they still have a half dozen songs that it seems most people know, whereas The White Stripes is less so. Short of Elephant, the White Stripes were touch and go.
Now the reason specifically that The White Stripes in my mind correlates them closer to The Who is in their experimentation. The Black Keys and Zeppelin at their cores are undeniably more formulaic in their adhesion of their blues influences, respectively.
The White Stripes and The Who both have a deeper, perhaps nuttier interpretation of the Blues. More animalistic even.
If you listen in between the songs on Live at Leeds, you hear The Who talking a lot about where their songs originated. They also share a similarity in their chance to thrash. Keith Moon was notorious for damaging property and making pure energy pump through an instrument (or himself). Jack chose to take it out on his sound, which blew my mind as a teenager knowing that near shrieks and pitches could be pulled back that finitely. I think that's where the whiplash of the head-bang comes through; at that moment where the guitar stops short and changes direction.
And truth be told, if I asked you on the spot how many Who songs you can name in a row, you know your answer would be less than had I asked the same about Zeppelin.
The Black Keys now are not the shimmering electric roots they started as, and to the dismay of the hipster world, much like of the brethren whom beat the Modest Mouse threshold, took the trajectory towards a major label and a little extra grip in the pocket. But with that it has opened their door to many other demographics in the music community. Zeppelin, while perhaps the most virtuosic of any band in this discussion, did the same and became indifferent towards the mercantilism associated with the music industry. Instead, they used it to their advantage, and I don't think anyone in the band is complaining about the royalties they've seen from the countless Hot Topics across this great nation. But to be fair, it has allowed them access to future generations becoming aware of these grandfathers of modern rock music. The Black Keys, far more than The White Stripes, have shrugged at this unnecessary necessity, and have proverbially gone with the flow, and in return it allowed them to finally nail down what they've been looking to do with their sound for the last five years.
Rest assured, I could care less about when an artist goes mainstream, it's just the ecology of the system.
I love this notion because not only are they similar in name but they brought back the same theme of Blues revival for a generation but with a far different flare.
This point here is to demonstrate where rock music is today. Where we see ourselves on the edge of the spectrum in the final bounce and transition from the early 2000s rock, but nothing else is as agreeable as The Black Keys and The White Stripes. They're both duos, their both blues revivalists, but more importantly both bands have shared a lot of the same public realm of consciousness with the same manner. Different start and stop points, and virtuosity is unquestionably in favor of their elders, but they perhaps are the most recent stands of real rock music we've in such audacious forms.
Commercial success I suppose could be taken into account for these duos, but it's probably the most minimalistic argument because in modern day music it appears to be the least important aspect of any musician's careers.
Now here's where I'm gonna put down my analogy:
The Black Keys are Led Zeppelin and The White Stripes are The Who.
In this argument, I'm not comparing them as to who's better. Everyone knows that Led Zeppelin wins hands-down, but that parallel does not correlate here because neither The Black Keys or The White Stripes are better than the other. Rather, this argument means to compare them by characteristics of style and musicianship to their predecessors.
You pretentious a-holes.
The Black Keys are similar to Led first and foremost in their consistency. People make a lot of stink that The Black Keys have changed dramatically in the last decade, which is a notion I disagree with. For one, between The Big Come Up to Magic Potion, the formula changed very little and few complained. much like Zeppelin. It's the same method that gave both bands their virtuoso skills and their fan bases alike.
What I mean to say is that The Black Keys have memorable songs. In the way Led Zeppelin had numerous commercial hits that were also well written and performed, The Black Keys have had this same blessing. Now, again, given their styles are so different, they still have a half dozen songs that it seems most people know, whereas The White Stripes is less so. Short of Elephant, the White Stripes were touch and go.
Now the reason specifically that The White Stripes in my mind correlates them closer to The Who is in their experimentation. The Black Keys and Zeppelin at their cores are undeniably more formulaic in their adhesion of their blues influences, respectively.
The White Stripes and The Who both have a deeper, perhaps nuttier interpretation of the Blues. More animalistic even.
If you listen in between the songs on Live at Leeds, you hear The Who talking a lot about where their songs originated. They also share a similarity in their chance to thrash. Keith Moon was notorious for damaging property and making pure energy pump through an instrument (or himself). Jack chose to take it out on his sound, which blew my mind as a teenager knowing that near shrieks and pitches could be pulled back that finitely. I think that's where the whiplash of the head-bang comes through; at that moment where the guitar stops short and changes direction.
And truth be told, if I asked you on the spot how many Who songs you can name in a row, you know your answer would be less than had I asked the same about Zeppelin.
The Black Keys now are not the shimmering electric roots they started as, and to the dismay of the hipster world, much like of the brethren whom beat the Modest Mouse threshold, took the trajectory towards a major label and a little extra grip in the pocket. But with that it has opened their door to many other demographics in the music community. Zeppelin, while perhaps the most virtuosic of any band in this discussion, did the same and became indifferent towards the mercantilism associated with the music industry. Instead, they used it to their advantage, and I don't think anyone in the band is complaining about the royalties they've seen from the countless Hot Topics across this great nation. But to be fair, it has allowed them access to future generations becoming aware of these grandfathers of modern rock music. The Black Keys, far more than The White Stripes, have shrugged at this unnecessary necessity, and have proverbially gone with the flow, and in return it allowed them to finally nail down what they've been looking to do with their sound for the last five years.
Rest assured, I could care less about when an artist goes mainstream, it's just the ecology of the system.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
No Mayo
Written by contributor M.F. Swanke
Choices. Life is all about choices. When I was five, I picked out my own room in the new family home. It was the smallest bedroom, but had the best view of the backyard woods and stream – I’ve always been one to appreciate a good view.
I chose to play the saxophone throughout Junior High, and chose to drop it for percussion and guitar when I started High School. Not long after, I chose to pick up drinking whiskey and started smoking a pipe. Chose to ignore family™ and friends™. Chose to change who I was, and I chose to switch my major three times during college. And now here I am with a degree, and no real-life™ experience.
I met a man the other day that told me he has been out of college for two years, and still doesn’t have a job. He spoke in a degrading tone about the jobs he turned down – bagging groceries at Fred Meyer, waiting tables, painting apartments, roofing – all jobs I would’ve gladly accepted. He said, “I’m looking for a good-paying-salary-job, and won’t just settle for anything.” This poor guy, much like myself, is living with his parents and waiting for something that could never happen.
Now, here’s the part where some of my generation might be tempted to try and gain a little sympathy from anyone whose not abandoned reading this for facebooking, masturbating or playing some stupid game on their iPhone. They might talk about the lack of jobs out there for a college grad while never even considering flipping burgers, telemarketing, retail or joining some labor-intensive work force. I’m sure they would bring up that one Political Science class they took, and their plan for changing the system, light up an American Spirit, and look emotionlessly into your eyes waiting for a response.
Well now, Gold might be up, but you still lost the fucking game. Home ownership is down, and the American dream is like our grandparents – fast approaching nothingness if not already dead.
So, here I sit. It’s 9:30pm on a Monday; a two-beer night quickly turned into five, and I’m now drinking my sixth Red Chair while reminiscing about the choices I’ve made, and how they’ve led me to this point. I keep replaying The Monitor by Titus Andronicus. My thoughts are a jumbled mess. My mind is not right, and typing this feels like work. Spring is coming. I can smell it.
On March 9th I will be leaving Washington and moving to Alaska where I was offered a manger position at The Fish Pirate Saloon in Ketchikan. The pay isn’t the best, but I’ve come to terms with the fact I will probably never make more than ten dollars an hour (at least for the next couple of years). I’ve got a great deal on housing, and the work hours will be plentiful. The job lasts only for the seven-month cruise ship season (with the option to work again next year), and I should be returning to Washington sometime in early October, but part of me is excited about the possibility of being sucked in by the North Country and establishing a permanent home base there for awhile.
Growing up I had always been excited about what the future would bring. In Junior High all I could think about was High School, and in High School all I could think about was College, and in College all I could think about was Life, but then someone would pour another drink or roll another joint and I’d forget about it.
Life In Three Parts
Part One:
Go to High School and get good grades
Part Two:
Go to College and get good grades
Part Three:
???PROFIT???
It seems like many of us go through life just waiting for the next step, for the next part of the game to begin. All the major decisions in my life were made to ensure I got through College so I could secure a future for myself. Except College didn’t prepare me for real-life™, and nobody ever told me that there really wasn’t going to be a future just waiting around for me to graduate. So, this is why I’ve decided to head North – not just because it’s a job, but because it’s the most unexpected option for Part Three. I choose to escape the future instead of staying in Washington, chasing a dream that will never come true.
No Future Part Three: Escape From No Future
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)