the art of writing is discovering what you believe
Obama: The system sucks, but I’m so awesome that it’ll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we’re gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Obama: The system sucks, but I’m so awesome that it’ll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we’re gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.
[From Shorter Candidates]
Ginger is too long-haired for us allergy sufferers, but we’ll have her the full month, and try and get a…. Grooming is hard to care about in the shelter, apparently, and she let it slide a bit.
The girls, caught in the act of being in the same room.
At the same time, the film available now is the best there ever has been and the manufacturers keep making it better as well as making it possible to switch from a saturated palette (Portra VC, I’m looking in your direction) to a more realistic one, all with a rich dynamic range for you to use as you like.
…A side-effect of digital equipment getting cheaper that I had not thought of is that the client might have the same gear as the professional he hires, and might feel like he can offer suggestions or even make creative decisions based on his experience.
Got my Olympus XA fixed this week. Turns out what seemed like a mechanical problem — the rewind button didn’t pop out and allow the shutter to be cocked — was electronic. Or at least that’s what they told me (and billed me for). But I got new foam seals around the door and it looks a tad cleaner. Brought a roll of Neopan and loaded it in the shop . . . I need to start carrying it around more and running film through it. I haven’t uploaded anything to Flickr in ages, partly because I am backlogged in scanning and partly as I have not been shooting for one reason or another, none of them good reasons.
There was a detailed conversation going on about digital and analog photography, with two pretty experienced and knowledgeable guys discussing their dissatisfaction with digital images, even as they marvel at the technology in the cameras. It may be obvious to some, but it appears that camera technology isn’t really advancing in terms of image quality. Sure, you get bigger sensors and high pixel counts but do you really see more lifelike and realistic dynamic range? What consumers want and manufacturers deliver is bright and punchy — ie, saturated — images, whether it’s realistic or not. At the same time, the film available now is the best there ever has been and the manufacturers keep making it better as well as making it possible to switch from a saturated palette (Portra VC, I’m looking in your direction) to a more realistic one, all with a rich dynamic range for you to use as you like.
One of the parties involved said that he has had to go back to shooting film to satisfy clients who have fallen out of love with the digital stuff they are seeing. A side-effect of digital equipment getting cheaper that I had not thought of is that the client might have the same gear as the professional he hires, and might feel like he can offer suggestions or even make creative decisions based on his experience. Yikes. Who needs that aggravation (cf: Dick Cheney telling Norman Schwartzkopf how to run the campaign to recapture Kuwait)?
So it’s by no means cut and dried. For all the techno-whizbang that these cameras offer, what are the pictures like? And how easy is it get the picture you want? My Nikon 5400 is pretty useless at anything I try. Even ordinary ambient-lit grab shots are often a mess. Either it uses the flash and lights the center with a dark halo in the rest of the image or it captures a really interesting but useless motion blur. Or sometimes something else just as unsatisfying. Ye Olde 127 Instamatic was more reliable.
Re-released last week for the first time since 1978: Keith Richards’s first solo single, a killer take of Chuck Berry’s rock-and-roll Christmas classic. My wife found a semi-decent digital version of this on Napster a few years ago, where by “semi-decent†I mean “good enough to listen to but you could hear the needle dropping on the turntable the guy used to record it to MP3â€.
Odd: I paid for Run Run Rudolph and got billed for two tracks.
Re-released last week for the first time since 1978: Keith Richards’s first solo single, a killer take of Chuck Berry’s rock-and-roll Christmas classic. My wife found a semi-decent digital version of this on Napster a few years ago, where by “semi-decent” I mean “good enough to listen to but you could hear the needle dropping on the turntable the guy used to record it to MP3”. (DRM-free iTunes Plus format, to boot.)
So I went back and “bought” Pressure Drop (they seem to be a package deal, even if they don’t get downloaded as one). It downloaded, no notice that I had paid a second time.
Can you have too many versions of that one? I have at least three (Toots from The Harder They Come, The Clash, and now this one).
And DRM-free iTunes+ is 256k. Keef’s version is spot-on, as well. Definitely one for a seasonal iMix.
In their book, The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America David Domke and Kevin Coe say religion is often used as a political weapon in America.
…If someone were to ask a more focussed set of questions, I think we would see a more clear picture of how faith informs how people think and vote.
The United States believes in separation between church and state, right? Then why does religion play into our elections so much? Kennedy had to explain Catholicism. Carter ran as a Southern Baptist. Now Mitt Romney is explaining Mormonism, and we’re constantly reminded that Mike Huckabee is a former Baptist minister. Religious rhetoric is frequently used by the current administration too. How is religion used in modern politics?
In their book, The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America David Domke and Kevin Coe say religion is often used as a political weapon in America. Are you a religious person? Does your religious affiliation determine who you vote for? [From KUOW: Weekday]
I heard some of this today and remembered David Domke from my days at the U. I agreed with their argument that if religion/faith is going to be part of the discussion, that all faiths need to be included. The idea that only those who are willing to vote on their faith first, and the good of the nation second, should rule the roost is wrong. I was struck by one passage: they noted that when asked if the US is a Christian nation, the answer was yes, with 70% saying so. But does that mean that 70% of Americans are practicing Christians? Or that they think the US models Christian behavior and attitudes, at home or abroad? Or just that 70% of their neighbors are not Muslims, Jews, or anything else, are therefore Christians?
[update] I heard back from Prof Domke, and this is what he had to day:
Regarding your question about “practicing Christians,” if you mean regular “church-going” Christians, then about 40% of Americans meet this criteria — if you define “regular” as at least once or twice a month. Among US adults generally, 85% consistently say they believe in a God, and another 10% say they believe in a spirit of some kind. Among the same group, about 70-75% consistently identify as Christian in their religious beliefs.
I run with a different crowd. That, or some of those folks are fudging the facts a bit. Only 5% don’t believe in some supernatural being?
We may need Gore, but we don’t deserve him.
We may need Gore, but we don’t deserve him. [From Father Sgt. Christmas Card]
So much of what you consume when you get older is about accommodation: I have kids and neighbors, and a partner who could quite happily never hear another blues-metal riff or block-rockin’ beat in her life; I have less time, less tolerance for bullshit, more interest in good taste, more confidence in my own judgment.
…I never really got it, though listening to those clips, out of the context of their songs, makes it clear how much better he is as a blues stylist, either with their material or — for me the best of the lot — a Robert Johnson tune, like the last one.
Signor TBogg offered this:
In light of the Led Zeppelin reunion earlier this week, I thought I would share this passage from the book where he reflects on Led Zeppelin and the cost of growing up:
I discovered, sometime during the last few years, that my musical diet was light on carbohydrates, and that the rock riff was essential – especially in cars and on book tours, when you need something quick and cheap to get you through a long day. Nirvana, The Bends, and The Chemical Brothers restimulated my appetite, but only Led Zeppelin could satisfy it; in fact, if I ever had to hum a blues-metal riff to a puzzled alien, I’d choose Zeppelin’s “Heartbreaker” from Led Zeppelin II. I’m not sure that me going “DANG DANG DANG DANG DA-DA-DANG, DA-DA-DA-DA-DA DANG DANG DA-DA-DANG” would enlighten him especially, but I would feel that I had done as good a job as the circumstances allowed. Even written down like that (albeit with uppercase assistance) it seems to me that the glorious, imbecilic loudness of the track is conveyed effectively and unambiguously. Read it again. See? It rocks.
The thing I like most about rediscovering Led Zeppelin –and listening to The Chemical Brothers, and The Bends — is that they can no longer be comfortably accommodated into my life. So much of what you consume when you get older is about accommodation: I have kids and neighbors, and a partner who could quite happily never hear another blues-metal riff or block-rockin’ beat in her life; I have less time, less tolerance for bullshit, more interest in good taste, more confidence in my own judgment. The culture with which I surround myself is a reflection of my personality and the circumstances of my life, which is in part how it should be. In learning to do that, however, things get lost, too, and one of the things that got lost — along with a taste for, I don’t know, hospital dramas involving sick children, and experimental films — was Jimmy Page. The noise he makes is not who I am anymore, but it’s still a noise worth listening to; it’s also a reminder that the attempt to grow up smart comes at a cost.
So I listened to this clip (there’s no video, just still frames) and I was struck by the truth of what Hornby says.
It really is the riffs and the instrumental interplay. Hardcore Zep fans will find it unbelievable that anyone doesn’t know this (is there a stronger fan base than theirs?) but the headline summary has always been about Jimmy Page and his mastery. I never really got it, though listening to those clips, out of the context of their songs, makes it clear how much better he is as a blues stylist, either with their material or — for me the best of the lot — a Robert Johnson tune, like the last one.
The early stuff is exciting, with the raw power of the band combining to make their signature sound. But as things go on, past III, I don’t feel the same energy. Perhaps my favorite track of theirs didn’t even make this selection, as it doesn’t feature a solo.
Anyway, here are some selected clips from the reunion show of this past week. He’s pulled out the good ones so you don’t have to.
Of course, the other truth in Hornby’s passage is that music does sometimes get forced to the margins of our lives. The records and artists we thought were all-important when we were 17 become less so at 27 and are under the back stairs, with a lot of other stuff we never use, by the time we’re 37. We may have added some music to match our maturing tastes but how much of when we felt burned so hotly back then has lasted?
There’s probably a book or two either written or in progress about the phenomenon of music produced for consumption as physical goods, rather than as performances to watch or replicate.