Thursday, July 30, 2009
Hall & Oates... duo or group?
Nothing against Hall & Oates as a musical group; I've enjoyed many of their hits. I just wonder how accurate it is to call them a duo. I remember hearing a DJ calling them one of the most successful duos of all time, which puts them alongside favorites of mine such as the Everly Brothers and Simon & Garfunkel.
Now, I don't own any Hall & Oates albums. Perhaps most of their songs really do feature only the two of them harmonizing, or otherwise performing sans band. Heck, even Simon & Garfunkel had only one of the them singing on the occasional song. But Hall & Oates looked like the two frontmen of a band. Another favorite band of mine is Heart. What makes Hall & Oates any more of a duo than Heart? Ann Wilson sings most of the leads, as does Daryl Hall (unless I am mistaken - again, I don't own any of their albums). Nancy Wilson often sings harmonies with occasional lead vocals, as does John Oates. Could Heart have reclassified themselves as a duo had they called themselves The Wilson Sisters or Ann & Nancy Wilson?
Other examples might include Difford & Tilbrook instead of Squeeze (during a hiatus from Squeeze, there actually was a Difford and Tilbrook); Bono & the Edge instead of U2; Partridge & Moulding instead of XTC; and with apologies to George Harrison, even Lennon & McCartney instead of the Beatles. The list goes on...
One of my favorite songs by Hall & Oates is Sara Smile... now that sounds like the work of a duo. But for the most part, they sound less like a duo than they do a band. When I've seen them perform, they look like a band, although for the vast majority of people, Daryl Hall and John Oates are really the only members that they could list. But still, it seems to me that Hall & Oates are a duo in name only.
Here's a thought: One of the most successful duos of the 1980's was...
The Thompson Twins!
Now, I don't own any Hall & Oates albums. Perhaps most of their songs really do feature only the two of them harmonizing, or otherwise performing sans band. Heck, even Simon & Garfunkel had only one of the them singing on the occasional song. But Hall & Oates looked like the two frontmen of a band. Another favorite band of mine is Heart. What makes Hall & Oates any more of a duo than Heart? Ann Wilson sings most of the leads, as does Daryl Hall (unless I am mistaken - again, I don't own any of their albums). Nancy Wilson often sings harmonies with occasional lead vocals, as does John Oates. Could Heart have reclassified themselves as a duo had they called themselves The Wilson Sisters or Ann & Nancy Wilson?
Other examples might include Difford & Tilbrook instead of Squeeze (during a hiatus from Squeeze, there actually was a Difford and Tilbrook); Bono & the Edge instead of U2; Partridge & Moulding instead of XTC; and with apologies to George Harrison, even Lennon & McCartney instead of the Beatles. The list goes on...
One of my favorite songs by Hall & Oates is Sara Smile... now that sounds like the work of a duo. But for the most part, they sound less like a duo than they do a band. When I've seen them perform, they look like a band, although for the vast majority of people, Daryl Hall and John Oates are really the only members that they could list. But still, it seems to me that Hall & Oates are a duo in name only.
Here's a thought: One of the most successful duos of the 1980's was...
The Thompson Twins!
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
I get that a lot
It's nice being a Bay Area sports fan. There are several teams to follow, at least one in every major sport. And right now, one of baseball's brightest stars is pitcher Tim Lincecum of the San Francisco Giants. He is the current NL Cy Young Award winner.
Among the funniest things I read and hear are the references to how youthful he looks. It wasn't that long ago that security guards at ballparks didn't believe that he was an actual major leaguer and wouldn't allow him access to the players only areas. My favorite is the description that he looks like he should be riding a skateboard and/or bagging groceries.
Which brings me to a show that aired in early April called "I Get That A Lot," which showed celebrities pretending to be average people working at regular jobs. Some of the stars were: LeAnn Rimes, Jeff Probst, Mario Lopez, Ice-T, and Heidi Klum. Whenever someone said they looked like the famous star that they were, they'd say "I get that a lot" and deny it.
So I couldn't help but picture Tim Lincecum bagging groceries at a grocery store:
customer: "Hey, you're Tim Lincecum!"
Tim: "No... but I get that a lot."
customer: "No... you're Tim Lincecum!"
Tim: "Sorry, but I'm really not."
customer: "Then what's your name?"
Tim: "Ironically, it's Randy Johnson. Good thing I like the Giants!"
customer: "But you look like Tim Lincecum."
Tim: "But my name is Randy Johnson."
(pause)
same customer: "Do you like Choco Tacos?"
Tim: "I LOVE Choco Tacos!"
customer: "You're Tim Lincecum!"
Tim: "Lots of people like Choco Tacos."
same customer: "Randy!"
Tim: (no answer)
customer: "Randy!"
Tim: (no answer)
customer: "Tim!"
Tim: "What?"
customer: "You're Tim Lincecum!"
(the end)
My apologies folks, but I'm imagining these kinds of scenarios all the time! Here's a link to a commercial he did for MLB 2K9. By the way, the tall player in the locker room is... Randy Johnson.
Among the funniest things I read and hear are the references to how youthful he looks. It wasn't that long ago that security guards at ballparks didn't believe that he was an actual major leaguer and wouldn't allow him access to the players only areas. My favorite is the description that he looks like he should be riding a skateboard and/or bagging groceries.
Which brings me to a show that aired in early April called "I Get That A Lot," which showed celebrities pretending to be average people working at regular jobs. Some of the stars were: LeAnn Rimes, Jeff Probst, Mario Lopez, Ice-T, and Heidi Klum. Whenever someone said they looked like the famous star that they were, they'd say "I get that a lot" and deny it.
So I couldn't help but picture Tim Lincecum bagging groceries at a grocery store:
customer: "Hey, you're Tim Lincecum!"
Tim: "No... but I get that a lot."
customer: "No... you're Tim Lincecum!"
Tim: "Sorry, but I'm really not."
customer: "Then what's your name?"
Tim: "Ironically, it's Randy Johnson. Good thing I like the Giants!"
customer: "But you look like Tim Lincecum."
Tim: "But my name is Randy Johnson."
(pause)
same customer: "Do you like Choco Tacos?"
Tim: "I LOVE Choco Tacos!"
customer: "You're Tim Lincecum!"
Tim: "Lots of people like Choco Tacos."
same customer: "Randy!"
Tim: (no answer)
customer: "Randy!"
Tim: (no answer)
customer: "Tim!"
Tim: "What?"
customer: "You're Tim Lincecum!"
(the end)
My apologies folks, but I'm imagining these kinds of scenarios all the time! Here's a link to a commercial he did for MLB 2K9. By the way, the tall player in the locker room is... Randy Johnson.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Joey Chestnut commercial
I had this idea for a commercial after reading an article online. According to a Yahoo! article, Nathan's Hot Dogs was chosen as the best tasting hot dogs, and as we all know, the famous hot dog eating contest held every year in Coney Island is sponsored by Nathan's. This year's champion is Joey Chestnut with a world record 68 hot dogs.
So this is what I picture:
Mr. Chestnut has just finished wolfing down a pile of hot dogs and buns at a different venue. He pats his stomach, then notices his score: 57
"Only 57?" he says, then shrugs and looks at the camera. "Well, they weren't Nathan's Hot Dogs!"
So this is what I picture:
Mr. Chestnut has just finished wolfing down a pile of hot dogs and buns at a different venue. He pats his stomach, then notices his score: 57
"Only 57?" he says, then shrugs and looks at the camera. "Well, they weren't Nathan's Hot Dogs!"
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Jeopardy drinking games
Ever since Ken Jennings was champion (an amazing 74 consecutive victories), Jeopardy has been a show that I try to watch every night. Prior to that, it was streaky with me and whether or not I was feeling smart enough to play along. I'm lucky if I get 20% of the correct responses, and I don't think I've been lucky yet. But watching it is almost a daily occurrence for me now.
Years ago during Survivor: The Australian Outback (the show's second season), I read an article about how some viewers had created a drinking game centered around whether or not Elisabeth Hasselback cried. I've come up with my own ideas about when to have a drink based on what happens during a game of Jeopardy:
• Whenever there is a clue or response having to do with Canada; and
• Whenever Alex speaks French or otherwise uses a French accent (by the time he's done saying the word genre, it sounds like he needs to blow his nose)
I'm convinced that the writers have to have at least one reference to Canada in every show; in fact, I believe that Canada is one of the subjects that competitors must study in addition to: U.S. Presidents (when in doubt, guess Martin Van Buren), British Monarchy, World Geography, and Potent Potables (to take a lesson from Ken Jennings).
****************
Here's a television memory I have involving Alex Trebek: he was once punk'd! He was asked to make an appearance at a gathering for the Alex Trebek fan club. Naturally, the 'fans' were all actors and they were instructed to be as annoying as possible, calling themselves 'trebekies' and holding up and clicking signaling buttons. One of the more amusing things about this is that among the actors was a pre-fame Camryn Manheim! As one would expect, over the course of the joke, Alex got a bit perturbed. It was really funny.
But I like Alex - I can't imagine anyone else as host.
****************
Here are some other thoughts I've had about Jeopardy:
When all three contestants have an incorrect response to the same clue, Alex has the tendency to say, "No harm, no foul." Considering how important it is to prevent a 'runaway' at the end of the game, any adjustment to the score is crucial. "No harm, no foul" may apply throughout most of the game, practically speaking, but towards the end it can have a huge impact. For example, if Georgette has $15,000, John has $8,000, and Thomas has $3,000 and they all miss a $2,000 clue, their scores will then be $13,000, $6,000, and $1,000. And now John can no longer catch Georgette if these scores were to go into Final Jeopardy. I know, I know, for all intents and purposes, this circumstance will rarely apply in a match, but it still bothers me whenever Alex says that.
My greatest moment: correctly guessing the Final Jeopardy response as: What is clover? (I don't remember exactly, but it had to do with livestock feed and the clue included a scientific name with the prefix tri-)
Even if I'm watching alone, my responses don't count unless I say it out loud and it's the last one I say.
I've been wondering if there has ever been a match in which only one contestant could participate in Final Jeopardy? (as in, the other two contestants had minus scores)
****************
And finally, until another Jeopardy-related thought enters my mind, here is an idea I had for a fun Final Jeopardy clue (fun because if the contestants don't know the response, they might get it anyway):
Clue: Known for the garage rock classic "96 Tears," the Mysterians were led by this frontman
Correct response: Who is ?
Years ago during Survivor: The Australian Outback (the show's second season), I read an article about how some viewers had created a drinking game centered around whether or not Elisabeth Hasselback cried. I've come up with my own ideas about when to have a drink based on what happens during a game of Jeopardy:
• Whenever there is a clue or response having to do with Canada; and
• Whenever Alex speaks French or otherwise uses a French accent (by the time he's done saying the word genre, it sounds like he needs to blow his nose)
I'm convinced that the writers have to have at least one reference to Canada in every show; in fact, I believe that Canada is one of the subjects that competitors must study in addition to: U.S. Presidents (when in doubt, guess Martin Van Buren), British Monarchy, World Geography, and Potent Potables (to take a lesson from Ken Jennings).
****************
Here's a television memory I have involving Alex Trebek: he was once punk'd! He was asked to make an appearance at a gathering for the Alex Trebek fan club. Naturally, the 'fans' were all actors and they were instructed to be as annoying as possible, calling themselves 'trebekies' and holding up and clicking signaling buttons. One of the more amusing things about this is that among the actors was a pre-fame Camryn Manheim! As one would expect, over the course of the joke, Alex got a bit perturbed. It was really funny.
But I like Alex - I can't imagine anyone else as host.
****************
Here are some other thoughts I've had about Jeopardy:
When all three contestants have an incorrect response to the same clue, Alex has the tendency to say, "No harm, no foul." Considering how important it is to prevent a 'runaway' at the end of the game, any adjustment to the score is crucial. "No harm, no foul" may apply throughout most of the game, practically speaking, but towards the end it can have a huge impact. For example, if Georgette has $15,000, John has $8,000, and Thomas has $3,000 and they all miss a $2,000 clue, their scores will then be $13,000, $6,000, and $1,000. And now John can no longer catch Georgette if these scores were to go into Final Jeopardy. I know, I know, for all intents and purposes, this circumstance will rarely apply in a match, but it still bothers me whenever Alex says that.
My greatest moment: correctly guessing the Final Jeopardy response as: What is clover? (I don't remember exactly, but it had to do with livestock feed and the clue included a scientific name with the prefix tri-)
Even if I'm watching alone, my responses don't count unless I say it out loud and it's the last one I say.
I've been wondering if there has ever been a match in which only one contestant could participate in Final Jeopardy? (as in, the other two contestants had minus scores)
****************
And finally, until another Jeopardy-related thought enters my mind, here is an idea I had for a fun Final Jeopardy clue (fun because if the contestants don't know the response, they might get it anyway):
Clue: Known for the garage rock classic "96 Tears," the Mysterians were led by this frontman
Correct response: Who is ?
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Wait... come back!
Where: the Sierra Madre dorms, Tower 5, on the Cal Poly San Luis Obispo campus
The Sierra Madre dorms on the Cal Poly campus are not the usual dorms, like the 'red-brick' dorms typically found on Cal State campuses, although Cal Poly has red-bricks too. Sierra Madre has five 3-floor towers, surrounding a multi-level courtyard. In Tower 5 of that particular year, the third floor was occupied by girls, and the first two floors were occupied by guys. I was on the second floor.
I participated in WOW week, the orientation period for new students prior to the Fall quarter, thus I arrived early for my room assignment and had the room to myself for most of the first week. Room G was a corner room, one of the largest rooms in the tower. Its door opened to face a wall, then a turn right led an unusually long distance to the other end. That's where I chose to sleep, near the window.
So one night I was sleeping when I heard some loud knocking on my door along with some chatter. Groggily, I slowly got myself up, leaving my badly-needed glasses on the nightstand. As I opened the door, I saw through my blurred vision what was causing all the ruckus. On the other side of the lounge area was a group of nightie-clad co-eds from the third floor. WOW week indeed! And as I headed back to my nightstand to fetch my glasses (without saying a word or smiling first - BIG mistake), I heard one of them say, "I guess he's not interested."
AAAAAUUUGGGHHHHH!
EPILOGUE:
Evidently, I never forgot that episode. After I heard them go through the door that led to the stairwell, I can only speculate what happened next. This is what I imagine:
This bevy of young nubiles proceeded to go to the first floor to see if they would have better luck than the 'ghost-town' they found on the second floor. The guys on the first floor must have had their welcome wagon ready, because for the rest of the year, I have this picture in my mind of them perpetually with the girls from the third floor sitting on their laps.
The Sierra Madre dorms on the Cal Poly campus are not the usual dorms, like the 'red-brick' dorms typically found on Cal State campuses, although Cal Poly has red-bricks too. Sierra Madre has five 3-floor towers, surrounding a multi-level courtyard. In Tower 5 of that particular year, the third floor was occupied by girls, and the first two floors were occupied by guys. I was on the second floor.
I participated in WOW week, the orientation period for new students prior to the Fall quarter, thus I arrived early for my room assignment and had the room to myself for most of the first week. Room G was a corner room, one of the largest rooms in the tower. Its door opened to face a wall, then a turn right led an unusually long distance to the other end. That's where I chose to sleep, near the window.
So one night I was sleeping when I heard some loud knocking on my door along with some chatter. Groggily, I slowly got myself up, leaving my badly-needed glasses on the nightstand. As I opened the door, I saw through my blurred vision what was causing all the ruckus. On the other side of the lounge area was a group of nightie-clad co-eds from the third floor. WOW week indeed! And as I headed back to my nightstand to fetch my glasses (without saying a word or smiling first - BIG mistake), I heard one of them say, "I guess he's not interested."
AAAAAUUUGGGHHHHH!
EPILOGUE:
Evidently, I never forgot that episode. After I heard them go through the door that led to the stairwell, I can only speculate what happened next. This is what I imagine:
This bevy of young nubiles proceeded to go to the first floor to see if they would have better luck than the 'ghost-town' they found on the second floor. The guys on the first floor must have had their welcome wagon ready, because for the rest of the year, I have this picture in my mind of them perpetually with the girls from the third floor sitting on their laps.
Friday, July 24, 2009
2 Perfect games!
Congratulations to Mark Buehrle of the Chicago White Sox for his perfect game!! 27 up and 27 down. And the catch by DeWayne Wise to preserve it was spectacular.
What I don't understand is how a fielding error cost Jonathan Sanchez of the San Francisco Giants a perfect game less than two weeks before. Sanchez issued no walks and didn't hit a batter. He pitched a perfect game as well. Only a tough chance error relegated him to pitching a no-hitter, an incredible accomplishment to be sure, but not perfection. I realize that a perfect game is defined as facing the minimum number of batters, but for all intents and purposes, I don't think that Buehrle's and Sanchez's accomplishments were any different. And now the record books will show one as greater than the other, a perfect game vs. a no-hitter.
If the only blemish to a perfect game happens in the field, then why can't it be called a perfect game too? In Sanchez's case, call it a perfect game, and if more information is necessary, a 28-batter perfect game. For Buehrle, a 27-batter perfect game. But call them both perfect games. To call Sanchez's game simply a no-hitter is to make it sound no different than a no-hitter that included five walks and a hit batter.
And not just for the game that Sanchez pitched, but for all the no-hitters that were perfect except for defensive errors - they deserve to be called perfect games too. And it will take some fielders off the hook.
What I don't understand is how a fielding error cost Jonathan Sanchez of the San Francisco Giants a perfect game less than two weeks before. Sanchez issued no walks and didn't hit a batter. He pitched a perfect game as well. Only a tough chance error relegated him to pitching a no-hitter, an incredible accomplishment to be sure, but not perfection. I realize that a perfect game is defined as facing the minimum number of batters, but for all intents and purposes, I don't think that Buehrle's and Sanchez's accomplishments were any different. And now the record books will show one as greater than the other, a perfect game vs. a no-hitter.
If the only blemish to a perfect game happens in the field, then why can't it be called a perfect game too? In Sanchez's case, call it a perfect game, and if more information is necessary, a 28-batter perfect game. For Buehrle, a 27-batter perfect game. But call them both perfect games. To call Sanchez's game simply a no-hitter is to make it sound no different than a no-hitter that included five walks and a hit batter.
And not just for the game that Sanchez pitched, but for all the no-hitters that were perfect except for defensive errors - they deserve to be called perfect games too. And it will take some fielders off the hook.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
A historic blog entry
Sounds right, doesn't it? "A historic" I mean, because historic has a 'hard' h. Not "an historic" which has become way too prevalent for my taste. Since when did people start adding the 'n' anyway? Does it appear more cultured? The longer one enunciates the 'n' - the more cultured one appears?
And it seems to be the particular word 'historic' with which this happens. Not 'history,' as in "she is an history professor" or "he has an history exam tomorrow." And how would "they were an hysterical mob" or "she is an hippie" sound? But I have no problem with an honest mistake.
One explanation I found on the Internet had to do with the origin of the particular 'h' word, something about whether or not it came from the old English where the 'h' was silent even though the 'h' is pronounced in modern American English. Huh?? Who's got the time to look a word up in the dictionary and find its origin? I think it should really come down to whether or not the 'h' is pronounced or silent, regardless of origin, and what sounds best, even when reading silently to oneself.
Another example of whether or not I think 'a' or 'an' should be used is with acronyms. It depends on how the particular acronym is pronounced when spoken aloud. An acronym that starts with an 'N' such as NBA sounds better with an 'an' in front of it because 'N' is pronounced 'en.'
When I read, I guess I sound things out loud in my mind - I just hope my lips don't move!
And it seems to be the particular word 'historic' with which this happens. Not 'history,' as in "she is an history professor" or "he has an history exam tomorrow." And how would "they were an hysterical mob" or "she is an hippie" sound? But I have no problem with an honest mistake.
One explanation I found on the Internet had to do with the origin of the particular 'h' word, something about whether or not it came from the old English where the 'h' was silent even though the 'h' is pronounced in modern American English. Huh?? Who's got the time to look a word up in the dictionary and find its origin? I think it should really come down to whether or not the 'h' is pronounced or silent, regardless of origin, and what sounds best, even when reading silently to oneself.
Another example of whether or not I think 'a' or 'an' should be used is with acronyms. It depends on how the particular acronym is pronounced when spoken aloud. An acronym that starts with an 'N' such as NBA sounds better with an 'an' in front of it because 'N' is pronounced 'en.'
When I read, I guess I sound things out loud in my mind - I just hope my lips don't move!
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
I'm not in love... so don't forget it
There are few things I enjoy more than finding out little bits of trivia, especially when it comes to music. In the following case, it involves a favorite old movie too. Isn't the Internet fantastic?
I don't recall whether I originally worked backwards or forwards as I was piecing things together, so I'll just start with the movie. A wonderful movie from back in the sixties starred Sidney Poitier as an aspiring engineer who takes a job as a teacher in a tough London high school. It is called "To Sir With Love." Besides Lulu's famous title song, there is also a terrific little band that performs towards the end. I remember always thinking "I wonder if they're a real band" and "I wonder whatever became of them?" Well, yes, they were a real band and they're called The Mindbenders.
Before that, they were known as Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders, one of their hits being "The Game of Love." After Fontana left, they were simply known as the Mindbenders. The guitarist, Eric Stewart, became the lead singer and they scored a hit with "Groovy Kind of Love." They're the ones that appeared in "To Sir With Love."
"It's Getting Harder All the Time" by the Mindbenders (from "To Sir With Love")
But there's more! I never would have guessed, but Eric Stewart later became a member of the band 10cc, known primarily for their hits "I'm Not In Love" and "The Things We Do For Love."
"I'm Not In Love" by 10cc
Standing and playing guitar in the 10cc video is Graham Gouldman, whom I found out is a songwriter extraordinaire, penning such songs as "For Your Love" and "Heart Full of Soul" by the Yardbirds; "Bus Stop" and "Look Through Any Window" by the Hollies; and "No Milk Today" by Herman's Hermits.
Also members of the band for awhile were the brilliant duo of Godley and Creme, directors of such videos as "Every Breath You Take" by the Police. They also scored with the hit "Cry" after leaving 10cc.
There are more tidbits to be found... but I'm not trying to be wikipedia, although that is where I often turn to for information (I hope it hasn't steered me wrong yet). I just find all this stuff fascinating and more than a little exciting to find out!
I don't recall whether I originally worked backwards or forwards as I was piecing things together, so I'll just start with the movie. A wonderful movie from back in the sixties starred Sidney Poitier as an aspiring engineer who takes a job as a teacher in a tough London high school. It is called "To Sir With Love." Besides Lulu's famous title song, there is also a terrific little band that performs towards the end. I remember always thinking "I wonder if they're a real band" and "I wonder whatever became of them?" Well, yes, they were a real band and they're called The Mindbenders.
Before that, they were known as Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders, one of their hits being "The Game of Love." After Fontana left, they were simply known as the Mindbenders. The guitarist, Eric Stewart, became the lead singer and they scored a hit with "Groovy Kind of Love." They're the ones that appeared in "To Sir With Love."
"It's Getting Harder All the Time" by the Mindbenders (from "To Sir With Love")
But there's more! I never would have guessed, but Eric Stewart later became a member of the band 10cc, known primarily for their hits "I'm Not In Love" and "The Things We Do For Love."
"I'm Not In Love" by 10cc
Standing and playing guitar in the 10cc video is Graham Gouldman, whom I found out is a songwriter extraordinaire, penning such songs as "For Your Love" and "Heart Full of Soul" by the Yardbirds; "Bus Stop" and "Look Through Any Window" by the Hollies; and "No Milk Today" by Herman's Hermits.
Also members of the band for awhile were the brilliant duo of Godley and Creme, directors of such videos as "Every Breath You Take" by the Police. They also scored with the hit "Cry" after leaving 10cc.
There are more tidbits to be found... but I'm not trying to be wikipedia, although that is where I often turn to for information (I hope it hasn't steered me wrong yet). I just find all this stuff fascinating and more than a little exciting to find out!
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Generation X
By definition, I'm a baby boomer. The thing is, I wasn't part of the generation born right after the war. I didn't come of age during the 1960's, I was born in the 1960's. I didn't go to Woodstock. I wasn't even aware of the Vietnam War (thank goodness for that!). Not that I'm complaining about when I was born; I was born at a great time. But I've never felt like a baby boomer. I grew up on the Beatles, but I was really just listening to my older siblings' Beatles records. The Beatles broke up when I was seven.
Shows like 'Thirtysomething' were geared and marketed towards the baby boomers. But they didn't mean anything to me because at the time they aired, I was too young to be able to relate to them. Whenever there is talk in the media about the baby boomers, it's never geared towards people my age; it's always geared towards the front end of the baby boom: 'The Boomers Are Reaching Retirement Age,' for example.
It's been years since this subject really mattered that much to me, but I'm expressing my thoughts now because... I've got a blog!
It started with the book, 'Generation X', by Douglas Coupland. At last, something was geared towards us, the tail-end of the 'baby boom.' As he defined it, it wasn't necessarily the post-baby boom generation, but rather it was an overlap of the defined baby boom generation and the children born a little bit after: those born in the late 1950's and then through the 1960's - as I read it, the younger siblings of the baby boomers. At first, they were synonymous with twentysomethings, but as time went on, those twentysomethings began turning thirty. And then the term Generation X started being applied to the new twentysomethings. Was it Generation X or or Age Group X, after all?
The media couldn't even agree on what Generation X meant anymore. But most definitions had it as those born after the baby boom. And when I turned thirty, I was no longer a twentysomething, and therefore no longer a member of Generation X. So once again, I was a baby boomer to whom nothing was geared towards; I felt forgotten again. Like I mentioned previously, I'm happy that I was born when I was regarding the troubling social climate of the 1960's and not having the anguish and trauma of the draft hanging over me; I guess what I'm saying is I want my Generation X label back. Whether or not it's really a positive label is another matter, but at least it was mine (for awhile, at least).
********
My review of the book 'Generation X' is, well, I couldn't tell you. I only made it about half-way through, although I remember reading all the margins.
Shows like 'Thirtysomething' were geared and marketed towards the baby boomers. But they didn't mean anything to me because at the time they aired, I was too young to be able to relate to them. Whenever there is talk in the media about the baby boomers, it's never geared towards people my age; it's always geared towards the front end of the baby boom: 'The Boomers Are Reaching Retirement Age,' for example.
It's been years since this subject really mattered that much to me, but I'm expressing my thoughts now because... I've got a blog!
It started with the book, 'Generation X', by Douglas Coupland. At last, something was geared towards us, the tail-end of the 'baby boom.' As he defined it, it wasn't necessarily the post-baby boom generation, but rather it was an overlap of the defined baby boom generation and the children born a little bit after: those born in the late 1950's and then through the 1960's - as I read it, the younger siblings of the baby boomers. At first, they were synonymous with twentysomethings, but as time went on, those twentysomethings began turning thirty. And then the term Generation X started being applied to the new twentysomethings. Was it Generation X or or Age Group X, after all?
The media couldn't even agree on what Generation X meant anymore. But most definitions had it as those born after the baby boom. And when I turned thirty, I was no longer a twentysomething, and therefore no longer a member of Generation X. So once again, I was a baby boomer to whom nothing was geared towards; I felt forgotten again. Like I mentioned previously, I'm happy that I was born when I was regarding the troubling social climate of the 1960's and not having the anguish and trauma of the draft hanging over me; I guess what I'm saying is I want my Generation X label back. Whether or not it's really a positive label is another matter, but at least it was mine (for awhile, at least).
********
My review of the book 'Generation X' is, well, I couldn't tell you. I only made it about half-way through, although I remember reading all the margins.
Monday, July 20, 2009
There are only eight planets in our Solar System
Would you believe that it's been almost three years since Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet? Has anyone really gotten used to this? After a lifetime of picturing our solar system having nine, count 'em, NINE planets, now we have to accept that there are only eight. It used to be so symmetrical (work with me here) having Mercury and Pluto, the two smallest planets, holding down both ends of our solar system (except during the periods when Neptune was further away from the Sun than Pluto). Okay, so symmetrical isn't the right word, and it's not like the planets are actually lined up in a straight line as in the posters, but do you see what I'm getting at? Couldn't we just make Pluto an honorary planet or something?
At the time, I imagined the following sketch on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update:
Weekend Update Anchor: "Less than a week after reclassifying Pluto as a 'dwarf planet,' scientists have renamed the beleaguered former planet... Goofy."
(show close-up of Goofy character)
At the time, I imagined the following sketch on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update:
Weekend Update Anchor: "Less than a week after reclassifying Pluto as a 'dwarf planet,' scientists have renamed the beleaguered former planet... Goofy."
(show close-up of Goofy character)
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Sweet Harmonies
I would love to have access to a mixing board. And of course the knowledge to be able to use it. What I'd most like to do is isolate great harmony vocals.
When listening to music, we are naturally drawn to the melodies. I feel that this is particularly true for vocals. When thinking of the songs of great duos such as Simon & Garfunkel, what comes to mind? The melody or the harmony? "Hello darkness my old friend, I've come to talk with you again..." And although I love melodies as much as anyone, I believe that the real magic happens with the harmonies. And yet they can be so subtle, it can be really difficult to decipher them. They just blend in so well. Wouldn't it be nice to separate the harmonies and hear what's happening with them?
The group that comes to my mind first is, well, Simon & Garfunkel. They alternated singing lead vocals, so I would adjust the volume of the harmony vocals up and down to hear what they sound like with the melody and then I'd end up with them in complete isolation. Another group would be ABBA. Yes, I unabashedly like ABBA - I think Agnetha and Frida are extraordinary vocalists and that their voices blend magnificently. The ability to separate their voices with a mixing board could prove to be such a lesson in how to sing together.
Yet, the particular singers that I am most interested in hearing sing their harmonies are David Crosby, the late Maurice Gibb, and Phil Everly. Crosby describes himself as a natural harmony singer and wouldn't it be a joy to hear just what he's doing with his work with the Byrds, and Crosby, Stills & Nash (& Young)? In the Bee Gees, Maurice sang in the background, supporting his brothers. I would love to hear what his singing voice sounds like. And then there's Phil Everly. As far as I know, his brother Don sang the majority of the lead vocals, and there was Phil providing those exquisite high harmonies. How would they sound apart from the melodies? For my money, harmonies are harder to sing as well. But don't get me wrong, they're only as good as the melodies they are sung with.
When listening to music, we are naturally drawn to the melodies. I feel that this is particularly true for vocals. When thinking of the songs of great duos such as Simon & Garfunkel, what comes to mind? The melody or the harmony? "Hello darkness my old friend, I've come to talk with you again..." And although I love melodies as much as anyone, I believe that the real magic happens with the harmonies. And yet they can be so subtle, it can be really difficult to decipher them. They just blend in so well. Wouldn't it be nice to separate the harmonies and hear what's happening with them?
The group that comes to my mind first is, well, Simon & Garfunkel. They alternated singing lead vocals, so I would adjust the volume of the harmony vocals up and down to hear what they sound like with the melody and then I'd end up with them in complete isolation. Another group would be ABBA. Yes, I unabashedly like ABBA - I think Agnetha and Frida are extraordinary vocalists and that their voices blend magnificently. The ability to separate their voices with a mixing board could prove to be such a lesson in how to sing together.
Yet, the particular singers that I am most interested in hearing sing their harmonies are David Crosby, the late Maurice Gibb, and Phil Everly. Crosby describes himself as a natural harmony singer and wouldn't it be a joy to hear just what he's doing with his work with the Byrds, and Crosby, Stills & Nash (& Young)? In the Bee Gees, Maurice sang in the background, supporting his brothers. I would love to hear what his singing voice sounds like. And then there's Phil Everly. As far as I know, his brother Don sang the majority of the lead vocals, and there was Phil providing those exquisite high harmonies. How would they sound apart from the melodies? For my money, harmonies are harder to sing as well. But don't get me wrong, they're only as good as the melodies they are sung with.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Rickey Henderson - my choice for the All-Time Starting Line-Up
Understandably, when most people put together their all-time baseball team, they go position-by-position through the defense, and worry about putting together a batting order later (if at all). And conveniently enough for this argument, I'll start with my choice for left field: Rickey Henderson.
Why? Because he's my lead-off hitter. And he's the best lead-off hitter. Ever.
I've seen other lists, and the left fielders most often considered the best are: Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Barry Bonds, Rickey Henderson, and Carl Yastrzemski. All great, with great all-around games, including Rickey. And that is the criterion used by the experts: best all-around game. And so it goes, around the diamond, then through the outfield - put together a group of players with the best all-around games. And when it comes to Rickey, he gets the nod for being a great lead-off hitter, but that's about it. Just one of many factors to be considered.
My argument is, that is the most important factor when putting together the best possible line-up. I can get jazzed at the thought of having a group of all-time all-stars, but I get even more excited about having the best table-setter at the top of the batting order. Right off the bat (pun intended), with Rickey we've got someone that will cause the opposing pitcher to sweat. Where to begin? Walk him, and you've virtually given up a double. If he gets on base at all, and you're pitching from the stretch. With him taking bigger and bigger leads, you can't concentrate on the batter. He'll steal third. He'll steal home. He's a rally starter. And not only that, he hits with power, so if you want home runs from the top of the line-up, he can do that too. As far as line-ups go, the lead-off hitter is crucial. I don't have as strong an opinion about any other spot in the line-up. I think with all the great players, it would be difficult to decide who won't be batting third or fourth.
While the experts are splitting hairs and arguing about the top five at each position and which ones are the best all-around players, I'll be jotting in Rickey Henderson's name at the top of the batting order!
Why? Because he's my lead-off hitter. And he's the best lead-off hitter. Ever.
I've seen other lists, and the left fielders most often considered the best are: Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Barry Bonds, Rickey Henderson, and Carl Yastrzemski. All great, with great all-around games, including Rickey. And that is the criterion used by the experts: best all-around game. And so it goes, around the diamond, then through the outfield - put together a group of players with the best all-around games. And when it comes to Rickey, he gets the nod for being a great lead-off hitter, but that's about it. Just one of many factors to be considered.
My argument is, that is the most important factor when putting together the best possible line-up. I can get jazzed at the thought of having a group of all-time all-stars, but I get even more excited about having the best table-setter at the top of the batting order. Right off the bat (pun intended), with Rickey we've got someone that will cause the opposing pitcher to sweat. Where to begin? Walk him, and you've virtually given up a double. If he gets on base at all, and you're pitching from the stretch. With him taking bigger and bigger leads, you can't concentrate on the batter. He'll steal third. He'll steal home. He's a rally starter. And not only that, he hits with power, so if you want home runs from the top of the line-up, he can do that too. As far as line-ups go, the lead-off hitter is crucial. I don't have as strong an opinion about any other spot in the line-up. I think with all the great players, it would be difficult to decide who won't be batting third or fourth.
While the experts are splitting hairs and arguing about the top five at each position and which ones are the best all-around players, I'll be jotting in Rickey Henderson's name at the top of the batting order!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)