10 Things You Don't Know About Men

(with apologies to Esquire)

1. It's true we like to be like little boys in a big part of our lives. It's not a sign of immaturity, it's a sign of freedom.
   
   
2. Don't say we're all alike--we're not! If you say that, you embarrass yourself. Can you really say that 50 Cent and Al Gore are anything alike? Really?
   
   
3. Women really hold tremendous power over us. Even gay guys are powerless before you. It's not just sex--although that is a big part for most of us--and you should respect that power.
   
   
4. Speaking of gay, most of us don't have any gay leanings. Not one bit. When you see latent homosexuality in a man, it probably says more about you than him. On the other hand, sometimes we see it, too...
   
   
5. We never fail to notice if you have visible panty lines. It doesn't matter if you're 300 pounds and look like you're wearing a bag of cats on your ass, we'll notice. It comes from a lifetime habit of checking you out and we're really not sorry.
   
   
6. Go ahead, say you like sports, that you love the Avalanche, the Rockies, or whatever. We know you don't have the same tribal, male-bonding feelings we do, even if you can tell the difference between the left-wing lock and the neutral-ice trap.
   
   
7. If you suck in bed (figuratively, not literally!), we won't tell you unless you dump us. Frankly, we got laid, so why complain?
   
   
8. Identifying yourself by what you do is existential, not shallow. But we really wish we had a cooler job (except for r kelly...).
   
   
9. Existential activities also mean we don't have to talk about it, during it, before it, or after it. We talk for different reasons than you. Stop sometimes and let us exist. We may even start talking to you about it after a while.
   
   
10. We care about fashion, decorating, cooking (well, eating), and all of that. Just not enough to learn as much as you. Does it really help you to say that "raspberry" is a different color than "cranberry"?

CDs listened to today:

• Gyorgy Ligeti: Requiem
• Lucinda Williams: Car Wheels On A Gravel Road
• Lightning Bolt: Hypermagic Mountain
• Esa-Pekka Salonen: L.A. Variations
• Ludwig van Beethoven: Concerto for Violin
  
• Matias Aguayo: Are You Really Lost
• Anthrax: State Of Euphoria
  

I know fine food, but it doesn't always show.

When I buy milk, I get the organic kind, sure. But it really doesn't taste different from the regular kind. It's basically the same feed for the cows; maybe organics get a little more grass, but the same processing, the same homogenization, the same pasteurization, same packaging, and transport processes. Let's not kid ourselves about that! Milk is milk and I buy organic to avoid the hormones and antibiotics while also supporting slightly more sustainable husbandry measures.

But here's where I turn totally Philistine: I buy ultra-pasteurized milk. The purists will tell you that pasteurizing milk deadens the flavor and then they'll claim that the nutrients are destroyed by the heating of the milk (shoot, it probably does change the milk sugars and a bunch of other things). I buy ultra-pasteurized because it has a longer shelf-life in the fridge! I'm a single guy living alone and the only time I drink milk is with cookies (cheese is my preferred dairy source). So a half-gallon of milk lasts a long, long time in my house. I need the extra two or three weeks of storage time--and I still throw out half-drunk cartons.

It gets worse: I found that I actually like the taste of the ultra-pasteurized stuff better than the regular stuff. No, like most Americans, I've never tried unpasteurized (unless I got some in France, unawares). I'll bet there's not a pretentious gourmet out there who would admit to that, but hey, I like slightly cooked milk!


CDs listened to today:

• Peter Tchaikovsky: Francesca da Rimini
• Olivier Messiaen: Saint François d'Assise
• Matias Aguayo: Are You Really Lost
• William Schuman: Symphony No. 9

I've been reading about the recent legislation regarding the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA).

I remain constantly frustrated at the naïveté of those who support expanded powers for the federal government. Today, that is primarily the legislators from the Republican Party and their supporters. They want to expand the powers of the president and his government so that they can spy on people without warrants more easily, jail people without having to show cause or allow due process, and hide these activities from the public and the courts. I can only assume that they trust this president and want to give him the expanded tools they deem necessary to bring those who would attack us to justice.

This is fundamentally contrary to the founders of our nation's view of government and its powers. While the Republicans like to say that not supporting the president in securing our society is "Un-American", I feel that, on the contrary, this expansion of police powers at the expense of proper judicial oversight is profoundly in contrast to the principles on which this nation is founded. The reason the Constitution of the United States specifically outlaws searches (including wiretaps) without warrants and strictly limits the powers of arrest and prosecution is because they didn't trust those in power. Perhaps, as the Bill of Rights was written, they trusted George Washington, but they understood that the next guy might not be so trustworthy. The founders had also seen a government where such rights were not secure and knew what it was like to find soldiers searching their homes.

Americans have traditionally mistrusted government (as they should!). These Republicans seem to miss the import of that mistrust on two levels. First, they place far too great a trust in the current administration. This bunch doesn't seem overly competent, even if you trust them and their motives. How can you guarantee that the FBI and other police authorities aren't abusing their power when the administration is already responsible for oversight at places like the notorious Abu Ghraib prison? In fact, the FBI has already announced that they have violated their own rules in this matter. The government is too big to permit expanded surveillance powers to people who can't be effectively monitored: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Even if you trust this current administration, you hand these powers to the next president, too. Do you trust him or her, too? Isn't that a little too much faith to put in these guys?

CDs listened to today:

• Alban Berg: Lulu Suite
• Olivier Messiaen: Eclairs sur l'Au Dela
• Sam Phillips: The Indescribable Wow
• My Morning Jacket: Z
• Einojuhani Rautavaara: Angel of Light
• Seal: (eponymous, 1994)
• Jesus Guridi: Sinfonia Pirenaica
• William Schuman: Symphony No. 7
• Teenage Fanclub: Thirteen
  
• stellastarr*: (eponymous)
  

What's in a name?

Quite a lot, if you think about it. I kinda mentioned this yesterday and want to write about it. While it's true that Shakespeare's rose would still smell sweetly if we called it a dungbomb, I heard a podcast from Scientific American the other day where the reporter quoted the late Stephen Jay Gould, that in biology, when you name something, you are expressing a theory about it. In the biological field of taxonomy, the name of a thing designates what its relationship is to the entire universe of known living things. Perhaps it's part of human nature, or even the nature of rational thought, to categorize, sort, and classify the things we encounter.

Plato spoke of these categories as existing independently of the things themselves, the famous forms, and posited that the rational mind merely discerned how the real things in our world merely "shared" the essence of these ethereal forms. I think most of us would find this preposterous, but it does illustrate a central problem of Western Philosophy: what is the rational component in our perceptions? What is its source and how do ideas interact with the physical world? I certainly can't answer that today, and I'm getting pretty boring, but I enjoy the woolgathering.

So, what do I find fascinating about the problem of naming and classification? I think it's the fact that the possibilities are endless. It's like a puzzle that you don't ever have to finish--and there's no final, correct solution. Even better, the way you organize things can give you new insights into the world itself, discerning new relationships with new categories. To me, this is where most epiphanies and inspirations come from.

Here's the relevance to yesterday's post: I have to organize my extremely large CD collection or I would never find anything! It's a common problem for serious music lovers like me and how you organize the recordings says a great deal about what's important to you and how you came to your love of this hobby. My music collection is first split by media type: vinyl, compact disk, and digital files. This is a distinction that I make unwillingly and is only for the sake of storage! Still, it says something about me that I'm willing to let a distinction that isn't musical become my first level of organization, rather than find a way to interweave these media. For the sake of this discussion, I'm going to ignore the digital media organization--computers make it too easy to change the organization at the click of a mouse and mine is hardly static.

After I separate my CDs from my vinyl, the next level of organization shows that I am both a child of the rock'n'roll/hip-hop era and a classically-trained musician. I separate "Classical" music out from what I think of as "Not-Classical". While I often refer to the "not-classical" as "pop" music, I mean that in the sense of popular, or vernacular, music and not "pop" in the sense of Top 40 or the traditions of that business. My pop collection includes jazz, hip-hop, rock'n'roll, R & B, traditional folk, and ethnic/indigenous music (I'm sure I'm leaving out some genres from that list, but the important thing here is that I resolutely refuse to make those distinctions). When I go to music stores, I actively resent how they sub-categorize both the classical and "pop" sections (even on-line stores are guilty--probably more so). I refuse to make any additional distinctions in terms of genre, style, culture or any such foolishness. It's sheer folly, in my opinion, to try. When you make the narrower distinctions, artists are more likely to come along and make a complete mess of your efforts by combining rock and jazz or ethnic styles with R & B.

I tend to favor acts that don't narrowly follow the tenets of a single genre in pop music, or classical, really, so my next level of distinction is artist and each rack of CDs is sorted by artist. This has its own pitfalls, too, but shows how my theory of music works! After all, should I classify Elvis Costello differently from Elvis Costello and the Attractions? What about duos/trios/quartets where each musician receives equal billing? What if the pop disk has more than one act featured, such as compilations? And who is the artist on a classical CD? The composer? The ensemble? Soloist? Conductor? So I made some decisions on these matters that are not always consistent, but definitely begin to show some of those theories. Yes, if Elvis Costello is the primary artist, it gets sorted as Elvis. If the artists get equal billing, I sort under the artist whose name comes first on the album cover (exception for Kai Winding, the trombonist, who comes first because I'm usually not as interested in the other artists--and I reserve the right to apply this practice to other artists). I know this gets a bit arbitrary and rigid, but saves me much time trying to make what I see as somewhat meaningless decisions. Pop music then gets sorted alphabetically by artist. Like the music stores, people who perform under real or assumed, but recognizable as conventional, names are sorted by last name (Elvis Costello under "C", and not his real name, MacManus; Madonna under "S" and not "C" for her last name, "Ciccone"), while acts that aren't names are sorted by the name--minus any articles like "A" or "The". This doesn't always work since some acts have people's names, but the act is really a band named for a member--or worse, a person who isn't in the band. I get a bit arbitrary here and then never make the decision again. So Ted Leo & The Pharmacists is sorted under "T", but The Reverend Horton Heat is under "H". I'd probably reverse those two if I did it again, but who really cares as long as all the disks by an artist are together? Oh, and compilations all get filed under "Various Artists".

I define the classical artist as the composer. This is the way the music stores do it on CDs with only one composer, although I found that the bit of putting compilation CDs separately, then defining what is or isn't a recital CD that should be sorted under the soloist is a serious waste of energy. When I have multiple artists on the disk (oops, I meant composers), I just select the work whose track or tracks are the longest duration and determine that the CD shall be filed under that composer... I'm not 100% consistent on this. After all, if I have a CD where there are, say, 15 tracks by one composer, all between three and five minutes long, but there is a single six-minute track by a different composer, I'll probably file the CD under the more numerous composer who takes up an hour of the CD running time. Yes, last name first. This is much easier than trying to decide that one work on a CD is more "important" or "better" than the others and deserves to be used for the putative artist designation.

After I file my pop CDs or records under artist, I usually then sort by the title of the disk. If you have an artist like Seal, who has two CDs without title, I call them eponymous and file them in chronological order. I have tried chronological order for some of my disks, usually when I have a fairly complete collection from the artist (like Public Enemy), but I've really discontinued that since you never know when an artist will disappoint you and stop putting out good stuff (see: Public Enemy). With classical, I also sort by title, but based on that same longest work (by duration) artist logic. The hard part is when the work is something like all of the composer's symphonies or all of his string quartets, but then I also struggle with whether I file things under "C" for "Concerto for Violin", or "V" for "Violin Concerto". I usually just choose one, choose the other some other time, and live with the situation.

So why discuss this today? Because I wanted to explain yesterday's CD review where I mentioned that my CD titled "Mexico" is filed as Hebert Vazquez instead of the Arditti Quartet like a music store would--and to justify why Mr. Vazquez gets the pride of artist designation when there are five other composers represented on the disk...

CDs listened to today:

• Meyer Kupferman: Concerto for Cello, Tape, and Orchestra, disk 2
• Modest Mouse: Good News For People Who Love Bad News
  

I'm a little overdue with this CD review.

As if anybody is expecting me to keep a regular schedule! The disk is listed on my listening journal as Hebert Vazquez's String Quartet No. 1. And this brings up the topic of nomenclature and classification--more on that tomorrow. The formal CD title is simply "Mexico" and is performed by the Arditti Quartet. I probably bought this at the previously-mentioned clearance sale at Tower when it went out of business; I don't recall. I don't have to remember to know why I chose this disc. It was the Arditti Quartet!

These guys are clearly, passionately, dedicated to modernist and contemporary music. While the Arditti is undoubtedly less well-known than the Kronos Quartet of San Francisco, who are also celebrated for their dedication to contemporary composers and music, the Kronos musicians are neither dedicated to Modernism nor are they anywhere near the impeccably musical performers that we find in the Arditti. I know that the movement known as "Modernism" has passed into history and is a tiny bit old-fashioned , but that doesn't take away from the many composers who still work in this rich vein. Nor does it diminish the work of the Arditti. I think that eventually, the elements and principles of Modernism will move alongside the threads of Classicism and Romanticism as one of the great characteristics of art. As we open the 21st Century, it's probably still too soon to clearly define Modernism--they're still debating Romanticism! But if you believe in knowing it when you hear it, a place to start is the recordings and performances of the Arditti Quartet.

In case you haven't guessed from the title, this disk is dedicated to Mexican composers and six of them are represented here with single works. Three of these are actually not for the string quartet, but are more-or-less solo violin pieces performed by the quartet's namesake, Irvine Arditti. I say more-or-less because one of the works is for amplified violin and another is for violin and electronics. German Romero's Ramas is the amplified work and it's a nice exploration of the sounds a violin can only make at very low volumes, assisted by amplification, and the changes that amplification brings to the sound of the fiddle while Rogelio Sosa's Espasmo fulgor takes a traditionally modernist route with seemingly orchestral electronics--a very subtle blend of drama and mystery! When I think of Modernism, I think of the contributions of Expressionism and how important they are: sudden, extreme changes in mood and character. All of the works on this disk show that to some extent, but never in a trivial, theatric manner (like weaker composers and performers may be prone to exploit). That's what I love about the Arditti. These pieces are played with sensitivity, drama, and flair. The superb sound of the team and their incredible group dynamic show a unity of ensemble that's so, so satisfying.

It's hard to believe that the Vazquez quartet is even playable in spots, the textures of interlocking sounds are so intricate at times. It also pleases with some nicely robust rhythmic passages. Hilda Paredes' Uy u'tan shapes up nicely with a tremendous soundscape of static, dissonant held notes interwoven with sudden, sweeping snippets of motion. All of the works on this disk are outstanding, with the possible exception of Juan Felipe Waller's De jaque, sal, gala y luna, which is a fairly routine violin piece that is mostly saved by Mr. Arditti's fine work. I'm filing this disk away now and won't hear it as often anymore. I'll miss it.

9 out of 10

CDs listened to today:

• Samba Mapalanga: Ujumbe
  

OK, fun from work--and I have permission to reprint the fun part.

A friend sent me an ESPN.com blog item about football and I noticed that the author, Bill Simmons, lets his wife post a few words as part of the larger post. You can read her hilarious rant here. It's essentially a colorful look at the inner life of a pregnant woman, short-tempered and impatiently waiting for the big day. I shared the bit with my teammates at work, commenting that our teammate who is similarly pregnant is more even-tempered than that! My colleague responded with an even funnier rant than the one I shared. With her permission, I now pass it to you. Enjoy!

Are you serious?

Here's my list, and it's just from this morning:

• Sorry to the 5 cars that I cut off this morning on the way to work who were driving 54 in a 55 MPH zone. I was in a hurry.
• Sorry to the guy in front of me in the drive thru at Starbucks who didn't pull up far enough because he was afraid to get his Lexus SUV too close to the car in front of him... I couldn't pull up to order without getting within 2.5 inches from his back bumper. I was in a hurry.
• Sorry to my 2 year old who told me to go away when I tried to wake her up to get her in the shower. Mommy shouldn't have said "you have to get up every day of your life, get used to it!!!!" I was in a hurry.
• Sorry to the organizers of the last 5 meetings that I've replied "tentative" to - just because. I'm being proactive because I could go out on maternity leave any minute now. I'm in a hurry.
• Sorry to my boss, who's reading this and wondering how it is that I have time to just write inane emails. I'll get back to work right now. I'll hurry!

CDs listened to today:

• Dafnis Prieto: Absolute Quintet
• Elliott Carter: The Minotaur
• Bill Frisell with Dave Holland and Elvin Jones: (eponymous)
• Ellen Taaffe Zwilich: Symphony No. 2, "Cello"
• Jean Francaix: Wind Quintet No. 1
• Matias Aguayo: Are You Really Lost
• Jawbox: For Your Own Special Sweetheart
• William Schuman: Symphony No. 9
  

This has been bothering me.

Several years ago, an acquaintance of mine told me about how they handle one aspect of street maintenance in London. It made so much sense. Why don't we do that here in my hometown? Here's the deal: In London, when a street has to be dug up by a utility, construction company, or whatever, the city doesn't allow the contractor to put some lousy, third-rate, asphalt patch on the hole. Instead, the contractor fills up the hole and the city comes in to patch the pavement properly--to a high standard.

See, here in my city, the contractors finish the paving patches themselves. I assume they hire the paving contractor with the lowest bid. The patches are unbelievably bad, leaving some streets looking like four-wheel-drive roads. By the time one winter and its freeze/thaw cycles has passed, the road is a disaster. And the life of the pavement is drastically shortened, requiring repaving sooner than if the patches were high-quality. Why do we let them get away with it? Contractors should be required to simply pay the city a standard rate and let the city fix our streets. These guys have proven once and for all that they can't take care of the roads owned by the city and its people--no more!

And one more thing while I'm on the subject: The city had a contractor "chip-seal" my street. You probably know that this is the process of laying down tar on a street (the sealant), then laying gravel (the chips) on top and letting routine traffic push the gravel into the tar, making the street watertight. I have no problem with chip-sealing--really. Here's my beef: this block had potholes! They didn't even bother to patch these before the chip-seal! That means that this winter, the snowmelt will collect in them, freeze and thaw over and over, blowing up the underlying pavement in no time, leaving a huge pothole where a small one is now... Gee whiz!

CDs listened to today:

• Johan de Meij: T-bone Concerto
• The White Stripes: Elephant
• Lightning Bolt: Hypermagic Mountain
• Irwin Bazelon: Brass Quintet
• Alice In Chains: (eponymous)
• Esa-Pekka Salonen: L.A. Variations
• Hebert Vazquez: String Quartet No. 1
  

Did you see the most recent Democratic presidential debate?

Well, neither did I. But maybe you heard all the press around it? Going into the debate, the discussion in the press wasn't about what the candidates' positions on important issues were--it was more sports reporting! Would Senator Obama "attack" Senator Clinton? The endless metaphors of combat and sports were simply nauseating.

But that's nothing compared to the post-debate reporting. The news organizations (I hate the term "mainstream media") all got sucked in with the political types' fascination with the tactics of the debate, and more prominently, the post-debate spin. I saw virtually no reporting on what the candidates' positions were or what proposals were offered to make the nation stronger.

No! The big story was some variation on the boys ganging up on the lone girl. The story seemed to start as an assessment of how voters would react to this "unchivalrous" dynamic. But the camp of Senator Clinton needed to make sure they took full advantage of that analysis, so they tried to turn that same story into proof that the senator is "tough enough" to play with the boys--which meant her rivals' surrogates needed to spend time complaining that the girls' team was exploiting Ms. Clinton's gender.

So, how did the national defense get discussed? Health care? Carbon emissions and global warming? The weak dollar? Credit problems in the mortgage industry? I guess they had more important things to discuss in the headlines and reports most viewers/readers would see--we can't work with real issues or nobody would watch...

CDs listened to today:

• Bernard Rands: Canti dell'Eclisse
• Seal: (eponymous, 1991)
• Jesus Guridi: Sinfonia Pirenaica
• William Schuman: Symphony No. 6
• Ted Leo & The Pharmacists: Shake The Sheets
• stellastarr*: (eponymous)
• Peter Tchaikovsky: Concerto for Violin
• Various Artists: The K & D Sessions, disk 2
• Gyorgy Ligeti: Requiem
  

Last TV discussion for a while, I promise.

So my review of the new TV shows I've checked out continues, along with my assessment of shows I've enjoyed in previous seasons--who's on notice, who's no longer worth watching, and who's still going strong.

Thursday nights are the traditional night for networks to bring out their best; it has the highest number of viewers, so Survivor and American Idol are here when the networks need them. It also has fewer new shows as the established heavyweight shows dominate the night these days. There's little here that's truly fresh and exciting.

CBS still puts CSI: Crime Scene Investigation in the middle of their lineup and the show has found a nice, solid groove. It no longer fascinates like it once did, hard to do when there are two spin-offs doing the same basic formula, but William Peterson is still worth watching. The cast probably needs to find better ways to keep fresh than insisting one member be the victim of a ghastly near-murder every season. Maybe find inner details for their characters? ABC, bless them, keeps Ugly Betty in place. It's still marred by the worst music ever foisted on a TV show, but this is a brilliant comedy anchored by America Ferrara's hilarious work. She touches with her awkward pathos in a way that Desperate Housewives' Teri Hatcher can't begin to touch. The show is magical, somehow combining a cartoonish approach to life at Betty's work with real feeling between characters who are as far from realism as, well, a fashion magazine cover. ABC has also put Big Shots on Thursday night. Hold your nose if you surf past this one; it features four awkward performances from the leads as successful men struggling with whatever scriptwriters think seems glamorous, funny and slightly contemptuous of the wealthy.

My Name Is Earl has tried to take the same route as House, shaking things up with some major changes. The basic cast is still the same, thank heavens, but Earl is trying to be that better person I so admire--in jail! It's working much better than House does, thanks to the continuity of the personnel. The real surprise to me is that the creative team behind the program shows no sign of contriving a way for Earl to get released before his two years are completed behind bars. I remain convinced he'll get out this season, but I don't feel any urgency while the stories and characters remain so strong. NBC also keeps Scrubs on Thursdays for its last season. Its gentle decline grows ever-less absurd, but remains sweet and mildy amusing. ER is still a surprise to me. How is this show still going? Why do we still care about these people? None of the actors remain from the first few seasons, and George Clooney's bright light of a performance is long-forgotten. Yet I keep watching, fascinated that the juggernaut rolls on. When will it end?

Friday is still a bit of a TV ghetto for unloved shows (unloved by the networks, if not the viewers). Las Vegas is preceded by Friday Night Lights, still the prettiest cast on prime time, in my estimation. The stories are contrived, but the cast maintains an effective, unified style of performance that really works. Pay close attention and note the utter realism in their readings. The plots are only one step from Desperate Housewives-bizarre (you need more murders to get to that level) and it's a miracle that people this good-looking can overcome these scripts. Las Vegas? Think Love Boat with racier wardrobes and "darker" personalities and backstories for the staff/crew. I miss Nikki Cox's cleavage, but this may be the only show that outdoes CSI: Miami for underdressed, spectacular extras in many scenes. NBC banished the original Law & Order to this night (now missing entirely), demanded a lower price from the producer (and got it) and generally treats the show like kryptonite. And it cruises along, serenely following the same formula from its glory days on Wednesday nights. It's awesome how it just keeps going--and it's still not too bad. Come back!

CBS brings you Moonlight on Fridays. Yes, a vampire detective! I actually took a while to decide on this one before banishing it from the TiVo. It almost works, this secret life of his. ABC's new Friday show, Women's Murder Club was easier to call. the stories and characters are all so... ordinary. Except they're chicks! And they have Kaffeeklatsches now and then! Geez.

Maybe someday, the networks will bring Saturday night back to life, but it's all reruns and college football spillovers now. I'll let you know if they ever do something about it.

CDs listened to today:

• Ellen Taaffe Zwilich: Symphony No. 2, "Cello"
• Malcolm Forsyth: Quintette for Winds (or…)
• Javanese Court Gamelan: (eponymous)
• Samba Mapalanga: Ujumbe
• Meyer Kupferman: Concerto for Cello, Tape, and Orchestra, disk 1
• MJ Cole: Sincere
• Alban Berg: Lulu-Suite
• Phantom Planet: The Guest
• My Morning Jacket: Z
  

So, how about some more TiVo news?

Tuesdays bring a new season of Beauty And The Geek on the CW. Sadly, this season has been the weakest from the beginning due to a sorry attempt to avoid getting stale. They brought in a male beauty and a female geek, destroying nearly all the chemistry the show usually brings. The male beauty means the pretty girls have a boy they can hang out with who doesn't challenge them and the female geek shelters the boys the same way. Given the premise is that the members will grow emotionally, this is a disaster, leading to petty rivalries and other shallow spats. Nothing special here!

Cane on CBS was intriguing, but unsuccessful. Jimmy Smits, the lead, is always a welcome presence, but this turns out to be nothing but an updated Dallas. Cavemen is also on Tuesdays, but even I could resist it! Reaper is another CW show, and I struggle with it. The actors are charming--including a marvelous turn by Ray Wise as the devil himself, charming and a tiny bit scary. Still, the gimmick is just that and the characters aren't terribly engaging. A dear friend convinced me not to give up on it, but I'm still on the fence here. Reaper, you're "on notice"!

The other new Tuesday show is Carpoolers. What a dud. The characters drop to the lowest level of unimaginative sitcoms, the actors don't help this any and the idea of putting most of the scenes in a car where everyone faces forward? Not an inspired moment.

I'm still going to continue to watch The Unit for now. Thank you, Dennis Haysbert, for being interesting! Otherwise, this show wouldn't amount to much but occasional guy fun. Boston Legal isn't really working out, but I can't resist William Shatner's zany act. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit is still moving along in what becomes a glacial rhythm. Why are all the stories about exploited children in danger? Are we so desensitized to violence and sex crimes that they have to raise the ante? On Fox, Bones shows a slow decline in story quality, but David Boreanaz is worth the price of admission all by himself. Makes me wish I'd watched Buffy all those years ago. House, on the other hand, struggles this season. They've tried a re-vamping of the cast, moving the supporting trio of characters to more-limited roles and adding a new layer of characters for the title character to abuse. This isn't working!

On Wednesdays, I tried the CW's Gossip Girl. Yeesh! Pretty, pretty people, but the cheesiest, lamest soap opera, damaged by a voiceover from Kristin Bell of Veronica Mars fame. Bell's snarky tone was nice on her former show, but wears thin on this show. By the way, she's now pulling duty as a character on Heroes, where the same ironic tone just leaves me wondering if she has forgotten real acting.

CBS' Criminal Minds has suffered a key loss. Mandy Patinkin has left the show. He was the main reason I watched the show, so we'll see how that goes!

NBC has added Bionic Woman and Life. Bionic Woman is like the recently-departed Alias, a very pretty heroine dropped into a battle between two intelligence agencies who won't play by the rules! Why watch it? Did I mention how pretty she is? Or the marvelous fake boobs on her arch-nemesis, who only wears skimpy tank tops?

Life is a much happier tale to tell. I think it's the most-overlooked show of the season. Sure, it looks like another standard-issue detective show, and it is. Why recommend it? Check out the lead character, a man who was framed for murder and spent twelve years in prison before he was exonerated and could return to his job as a cop. How does a cop survive prison as a marked man? The beatings, constant fear, and daily struggles to keep the barest needs close? Well, he takes to Zen. Then he gets a huge legal settlement, so now we get to see him struggle with material and sensual temptations, his anger, and the demands of a cop's job (not to mention trying to locate the persons who framed him). He's delightful!

Fox has brought us Back To You, featuring a passel of sitcom veterans. Utter failure. I don't know if I feel worse for Kelsey Grammer or Fred Willard here. At least they didn't get work on Cavemen! And why isn't Cavemen already canceled?

CDs listened to today:

• Bela Bartok: The Wooden Prince
• Alice In Chains: Dirt
• Hebert Vazquez: String Quartet No. 1
• Ludwig van Beethoven: The Symphonies, disks 5 and 6 (conducted by Sir Georg Solti)
• John Coltrane: Blue Train
• Dafnis Prieto: Absolute Quintet
• Elliott Carter: In Sleep, In Thunder
• Frente!: Marvin the Album
  

So, what does an always-optimistic TiVo owner watch this season?

For starters, I gave up on the CBS show, Shark. I enjoyed it some last season, but it's just another generic cop/lawyer show with a more-talented-than-average lead in James Woods. The subplots that form the longer story arcs, such as the troubled relationship between Mr. Woods' character and his daughter, really don't add much and the supporting cast just aren't that interesting. At least Sunday nights still have that evergreen, 60 Minutes, which remains surprisingly strong.

Mondays remain a busy night here on the ol' TiVos! While I await the premiere of this season's 24, Fox has given us K-Ville. Again, nothing special here, just a cop-buddy show that only offers use the barest sense that they're in New Orleans rather than, say, Orlando. Not an interesting character in the bunch. And airing before K-Ville, Prison Break has lost a great deal of momentum this season as the writers decided to trap our protagonist in a new, foreign jail! I'll stick with Prison Break for now, but this show is, as Steven Colbert would say, "on notice"!

CBS tried to foist a real dud on us Monday nights. The Big Bang Theory features a tired version of the classic formula where gorgeous, not-too-bright beauty meets socially awkward, brainy nerd. Lordy, this is nothing worth seeing. None of the characters come close to anything but clichés and the plots smell like, well, not roses. Two And A Half Men continues to amuse, perhaps not as much as it used to, but I count at least three characters that make me laugh and the show still has masterful one-liners in nearly every episode. On the other side of the black hole known as Big Bang Theory, How I Met Your Mother still amuses. It's hardly brilliant, but Neal Patrick Harris' Barney character is still worth the time, all by itself. Another show that remains "on notice" for me is CSI Miami. David Caruso's central character is almost a cartoon, with his fake gravitas. Still, the stories are colorful, the visual style is bright, and the episodes are always chock-full of pretty, pretty people in skimpy, skimpy clothing!

NBC put two new shows on Monday night, either side of Heroes, the big winner from NBC last year. Heroes still satisfies, but seems to be struggling with too many plot threads which are slowing down the dramatic momentum. Perhaps the de-fanging of the major villain, Sylar, left the show without a straight-line plot? Starting NBC's big night is Chuck. this show has a lot of buzz and even my sister, who's rarely able to catch any prime-time TV, saw a bit and found the actor playing the title character charming and engaging. While the lead player in Chuck is easy to like, the plots are already showing signs of repetition and the other personages are hardly brilliant. One of the most difficult shows to figure is Journeyman, a sort of retread of a theme made familiar on shows like Quantum Leap and Early Edition. The hero finds himself "visiting" the past of others' lives, where he struggles to make sense of them and his mission (usually to set something right). I'm not sure about this one as the lead actor is a bit wooden, but the sub-plots are intriguing and the tone of the show is pleasingly somber, yet urgent.

ABC isn't doing much on Mondays just yet. Are they still trying to figure out what to do without Monday Night Football? They give us a heavy dose of reality programming, which is about the only kind of TV show I can easily resist. I'm still working on forming an opinion about Samantha Who?, the only scripted show on ABC's Monday night. The premise intrigues, a woman who has forgotten her life after suffering from amnesia and awakes from a coma to find she was not a very nice person, to say the least. Can she make a new life as a good person? Will she fall back into the old ways as she works to resume her job and social life? Is she just a retread of My Name Is Earl?

The big, golden nugget for sitcoms this season comes on the CW network every Monday night. Aliens In America is off to a great start. The fish-out-of-water tale is set in Wisconsin, where a small-town family takes on a foreign-exchange student, expecting some handsome, Nordic lad, but getting Raja, the Pakistani. The delight here is how the family is a pretty basic, standard-issue sitcom family, but Raja is the sweetest, most honest, and honorable lad. While the kids at school call him "Roger", Raja perseveres, respecting his elders, promoting modesty and virtue and remaining true to his innocence. Don't make any mistake, he's not naïve, but he is a character to admire.

CDs listened to today:

• Gyorgy Ligeti: Requiem
• Lightning Bolt: Hypermagic Mountain
  

November is TV sweeps month!

I've told pretty much everybody I know about this--that I am an unreconstructed optimist when it comes to new television shows. Nearly every commercial or article I read about the new TV shows makes them sound great to me, or at the very least intriguing. It's a real quirk of mine, considering how pessimistic I am about new releases from most other mass-media artists (authors, musical acts, filmmakers).

This season, I did manage to resist two new series: ABC's Cavemen and CBS' Viva Laughlin. Cavemen was the easy call, here. I never thought the television ads were that funny and honestly, stretching a paper-thin concept to a weekly half-hour? The best part here is seeing my reservations emphatically confirmed on my favorite review site, Metacritic.com, where the show easily achieved the lowest rating I've ever seen. Viva Laughlin seemed like an intriguing show, characters singing popular songs as part of a drama. After all, I'd heard of The Singing Detective for years, a BBC hit that got constant praise from domestic critics, and a small-town casino setting seemed like a nice tweak. Well, then I read Alessandra Stanley's review in the New York Times, wondering if the show was simply the worst of the new season, or the worst of all time? I still grabbed the TiVo copy and viewed the opening minutes to see if she was really telling the truth, that the characters don't actually perform the songs as honest singing performances. Like I couldn't trust her! It's true, the characters simply vocalize along with the original recordings (or sound-alike copies), murmuring the words and melodies instead of real singing. Bizarre and off-putting, to say the least!

CDs listened to today:

• Weezer: (eponymous blue album)

CDs listened to today:

• stellastarr*: (eponymous)
• David Maslanka: Symphony No. 7
  

CDs listened to today:

• Various Artists: The K & D Sessions, disk 1

CD review time again!

I don't recall from whom I bought The Annuals' Be He Me, but I remember why. I hadn't bought much besides jazz CDs for my "not classical" purchases for a while (I actually make a habit of buying half classical, half not-classical disks--pop CDs, I usually call them) and I was tired of it. Still, I'd been conservative about the pop CDs at the time, waiting to hear a few songs thoroughly before deciding on my purchase. That wasn't working because all the disks I had auditioned had been disappointments. It's that sort of conservative, wait-and-see approach that left me buying the more-reliable jazz artists. I knew that, so I did what has rewarded me in the past: look for an unheard recent release that's getting a lot of critical buzz. It may have been a visit to AllMusic.com or the New York Times online where I found the inspiration to get The Annuals' CD, I really don't recall.

I'm pretty happy I made this decision to buy Be He Me. It's not a recording for the ages, it's not exciting enough to meet that high standard, but it's very satisfying. The band's sound is flexible, blending piano, guitar and atmospheric electronics with mostly mid-tempo or slower tunes--more acoustic guitars and piano than electric choices. When they do choose to make more rhythmic tunes, the funk is a bit slow and graceful. You won't find jackhammer tempos, or much histrionic singing! Like Spoon, a similar-sounding bad, the melodies are singable, which is a strength. Still, the singer, Adam Baker, is not exactly secure in his voice (a common failing in what the pop-music press call "indie" bands), which is a weakness, but not a failing, considering the somewhat detached mood that wraps around most of this album. And it's that remote emotional tone that keeps this album from matching the brilliance of an act like Spoon. Consistency is nice when the tunes are so pleasing, but these guys need to shake things up with a little excitement to reach full potential.

7 out of 10

CDs listened to today:

• Shulamit Ran: O the Chimneys
• The Sea and Cake: The Fawn
• My Morning Jacket: Z
• William Schuman: Symphony No. 3
• Talking Heads: Remain In Light
• Esa-Pekka Salonen: L.A. Variations
  
• Jesus Guridi: Sinfonia Pirenaica
• Matias Aguayo: Are You Really Lost
  
• Yoshihisa Taïra: Hiérophonie
  

It's like magical thinking!

I've been keeping an eye on the presidential candidates. Like most people, I remain dismayed by the rhetoric. The worst is how the Republicans all kowtow to their radical tax agenda. They all claim tax cuts stimulate economic growth, which is not entirely untrue. Taxes soak up investment money. But government deficit spending inhibits growth by soaking up lending capital that should be reserved to allow businesses to borrow and grow. Now, the biggest player in the world bond markets isn't American business, it's the American government, meaning that the government competes with businesses for investment capital.

How does business fare in this situation? Well, this is America, so they do OK, but they certainly have to pay higher rates for bonds and loans than they would if the US government weren't soaking up a half-trillion dollars in loans per year. A balanced federal budget may mean higher taxes for businesses and investors, but it also means that businesses don't compete with the thousand-pound gorilla known as Uncle Sam in the bond market. The long-term government debt also means the deficits will affect our children's ability to have lower taxes. After all, this deficit spending is really a form of tax on the next generation since they won't be able to reduce their own tax levies while they pay the debt.

So what will The Right do about the deficit they've built over the last six-and-a-half years? Just listen to the presidential candidates to find out: cut taxes! At the very least, they'll defend against any tax increases by squawking "tax-and-spend liberal!" As I've said before, this is the same level of rhetoric you get from a headache remedy commercial on TV: "Head On! Apply directly to the forehead!"

"Tax and spend! Tax and spend!"

I don't know what's worse: the pathetic inability of the opposition party to counter this toothpaste-commercial level of complexity or the mainstream media's fear of revealing this stupid "tax-and-spend" label for the disingenuous tactic it truly is. How about we make both sides give substantive answers to why they want to change tax policy?

CDs listened to today:

• Milli Vanilli: Girl You Know It's True
• Samba Mapalanga: Ujumbe
• Olivier Messiaen: Des Canyons aux Étoiles
• Liz Phair: Whip-Smart
• Alban Berg: Lulu-Suite
• Esa-Pekka Salonen: L.A. Variations
  

I don't mind most sports clichés.

The staid drama of the games we watch--especially the major ones like baseball, football, basketball, hockey, and even motorsports--relies on certain, recognizable situations where the fans can easily identify them to use a template to interpret and enjoy the unfolding events. The cliché of the goat who becomes the hero or the one where the aging, gimpy veteran comes off the bench to rescue the team late in the game, these are like life and are how sports becomes a mirror for what we see in our lives. Like art, sports can show us lessons for life, show us beauty, and even entertain with sudden, unexpected drama when the clichés turn themselves around.

That said, there is one statistic in team sports, especially hockey, football and baseball, that irritates me every time I hear it. "The team that scores first wins 55% of the time." Or maybe it's 60% or 70%, it seems to depend on the broadcaster and the sport. Logically, it's only slightly less obvious than "the team that scores the most points wins more often". Duh!

Consider this with pure reason, if you will. First, winning teams always score more runs/points, right? Well, if the winning team scores, say 55% of the points in your sport, isn't it likely they would score first a disproportionate amount of the time? Not only that, the team who scores first only has to make the rest of the game a tie to win, right? Geez! Let's retire that piece of brilliant analysis, OK?

CDs listened to today:

• Elliott Carter: Double Concerto for Harpsichord & Piano with Two Chamber Orchestras
• Fountains of Wayne: Welcome Interstate Managers
• Dafnis Prieto: Absolute Quintet
  
• David Finko: Viola Concerto
• Milt Jackson and Wes Montgomery: Bags Meets Wes!
• Ellen Taaffe Zwilich: Symphony No. 2, "Cello"
• Erich Korngold: Concerto for Violin and Orchestra
  

I turned down a date last night.

Sure, I wanted to have some company for a Saturday night. Who doesn't? But I have to be honest and true with others about these things and she was not really up to my standard (unemployed and didn't really appeal to me physically). She seemed bright, interesting and articulate, but with no attraction, I just didn't want to end up paying for a night out with her. I'll save my pennies for someone who interests me.

So I simply told her I had another opportunity and wished her well on the job search... Sure, that's a white lie, but telling someone you don't want to go out because you find them unappealing seems a little harsh. But I need to learn to at least expect some physical chemistry. I've tried to make things work on the appeal of the more logical elements (showing I live in my head too much) like charm or brains or even "I shouldn't be so shallow, looks aren't everything!" That doesn't work. On the other hand, it's easy to fall into the shallow, materialistic trap of needing to have a glamorous bit of eye candy where the other elements are lacking.

Man, I think too much!

CDs listened to today:

• Hebert Vazquez: String Quartet No. 1
• The Clash: Sandinista
  

CD review time!

I have now filed away Olivier Messiaen's opera, Saint François d'Assise, for long-term storage after spending a few months getting to know it. I bought it at Tower Records' going-out-of-business sale because, well, I've always loved the late Mr. Messiaen's work, but a four-disk opera set usually costs $60-$80 and I don't love opera that much. But put that same box set on sale for 60% off and my love of the Frenchman's music is able to overcome my natural resistance to opera and spending money. I'll spare you a long write-up of Mr. Messiaen's musical style and biography; you can find one here at Wikipedia if you need, but I'll help you with his name right here: It's pronounced "mess-ee-ah(n)".

Given my confession that opera isn't my thing, you may not be surprised to learn that I approach the work less as a story with a plot and dramatic movement than as a large musical work like a lengthy symphony with voices. Frankly, while I speak French, I don't typically understand the lyrics of English-language operas, let alone other tongues, due to the strained way singers mash up vowels in opera.

This is a nearly four-hour opera divided into eight scenes and obviously is about St. Francis of Assisi. So, how does it work, musically? The sound vocabulary of brittle pitched percussion sounds from the xylophone and glockenspiels, mixed with whooshing brass, crystalline strings and whirling woodwinds typical of Mr. Messiaen's works? Check. Birdsong-based melodies? Of course. Interludes of animated, herky-jerky rhythms? Yup. But is there anything special here, compared to his masterpieces like the Turangalîla-Symphonie or the Quartet for the End of Time? Not really.

It's a pleasant work that shows what a skilled musician the composer was, but the essential unity of the work is missing. There is no sense of motion or progression. Instead, each act seems static and a bit motionless, a common failing for this composer, magnified by the size of the work and the vocal melodies--which tend to be simpler than his usual instrumental tunes (Perhaps a failing of the human voice, lacking the agility and flexibility of, say, a clarinet or xylophone?). The singers all put forth a good effort, most of them are elegant and pure, reflecting the reverence the composer obviously had for the title subject and Kent Nagano conducts unobtrusively, finding a consistent tone with the Hallé Orchestra early and maintaining it throughout. Still, there are no exciting moments in this opera, no spiky outbursts of exotic birdsong and joyful, playful melodies that caper and delight like his best works. Without that sense of joy and fun, the work gets a little, well, boring.

I always find mature works by Olivier Messiaen to be deeply satisfying, perhaps that's because he clearly rooted his inspiration in a profound, mystical Catholic faith. No matter the medium, solo piano to an expanded orchestra with chorus and singers, his celebration of the unseen creator is palpable to me. Thus, while I don't find this opera to be a brilliant work, it remains a pleasure to listen to, for all the beauty you can hear from this unique voice.

7 out of 10

CDs listened to today:

• Bela Bartok: The String Quartets, disk 2
• Ryan Adams: Rock N Roll
• The Annuals: Be He Me
• Ludwig van Beethoven: The Symphonies, disk 4 (Sir Georg Solti conducting)

Definitive?

I'm as much a pop-music geek as anybody--OK, any music if you judge from my listening journal! So when I saw a mention in the newspaper about a Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame (RRHOF) "list" of the 200 definitive recordings of rock and roll, you know my list-making little heart was determined to find it right away.

So what is the "Definitive 200"? It's not a public service from the RRHOF, suggesting the 200 finest or most-influential recordings as you might expect. The link I've provided you is to the press release on the RRHOF site, rather than the official site for the Definitive 200. The official website--and the list--are provided to you by the RRHOF and the National Association of Recording Merchandisers (NARM). It's little more than the retailers' effort to get you to buy this list of 200 purchase suggestions, presumably on CD at your local brick-and-mortar music store.

Of course, given the declining health of this particular group of merchants, they didn't go to a lot of trouble to combine obscure genius with the real crown jewels of the art. Most readers will recognize 90% of the artists easily and geeks like me will know every single artist and be familiar with most of the albums. And what do you get? Some obvious choices, such as The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Nirvana's Nevermind, and some choices that are hard to explain from the RRHOF. Certain choices are hard to explain based on category alone: the blind light-classical singer, Andrea Bocelli, has his Andrea is on this list along with the orchestral soundtrack from the movie Titanic. If you know much about these things, you may also see a serious problem with the latter two titles. They're not very good music, but they are very, very popular.

While the first 20 titles on this list are at least defensible choices, my eye leaps immediately to choice #21 on the list: Come On Over by Shania Twain. This was a monster hit, naturally, and engaging as a pop-country bonbon, but #22 is the Who's legendary Who's Next. The placement here implies that the people who compiled the list saw this Shania Twain disk as better than any album ever released by Stevie Wonder, The Who, Miles Davis, Jay-Z, and Beck. There are additional titles that lead me to scratch my head on here. Kenny G and Enya both make this list, along with Celine Dion. All of these choices, plus the cast recording of the Broadway show Phantom Of The Opera, show the true motivation clearly: to remind any reader, regardless of his or her general music-listening inclinations, to run right out and consume!

This shameless list is precisely the sort of self-indictment of the major music industry components--labels, retailers, and radio--that we've come to expect from them. From their perspective, the love of music is as irrelevant to what they do as the love of good food is irrelevant to a McDonald's manager. They need to move product and it really doesn't matter if it's fries or disks. It doesn't matter if the music or fries are healthful for the soul or body, they only care if the margins are right and the volumes meet their quarterly sales goals. There's no passion or love in this industry's big players and what they sell reflects that. Nobody really gets excited about the Titanic soundtrack, do they?

Sadly, the small, independent music labels and retailers who still love this stuff and haven't forgotten about good music are tied to the same economic model. I don't think anybody knows what the next life for music recordings will look like, but it has to be an improvement over this.

CDs listened to today:

• Stephen Suber: Enchantments: Concerto for Piano and Orchestra
• Various Artists: Jump 'n' Jive
• Jesus Guridi: Sinfonia Pirenaica
• Rami Levin: Anima/Breath Of Life
• Bill Watrous: A Time For Love
• stellastarr*: (eponymous)
• Gyorgy Ligeti: Requiem
• Lightning Bolt: Hypermagic Mountain
  

I want a dog.

Or maybe a cat. No, a dog. My place is too small, I'm not home enough, I don't have a dog-friendly back yard, I'm not fond of keeping up with dog maintenance, but I still want one. My sister and her family got a white labrador retriever puppy last weekend, only seven weeks old, and the little baby is so hard to resist. Whether he's misbehaving, snoozing or being playful, he's too much fun. And that's about as parental as I get!

By the way, my musing yesterday about Ron Miles? This is why I'm so hard to buy gifts for. I bought a disk of his on Amazon.com today (OK, not actually a Ron Miles disk since the one I really wanted is out of print, but a Bill Frisell title featuring Mr. Miles). When it comes to gifts? Take me out for dinner or a strip club or laser tag or a ski day or something. I'd rather have the company than things I can buy myself…

CDs listened to today:

• Olivier Messiaen: Concert à Quatre
• Liz Phair: Exile In Guyville
• Samba Mapalanga: Ujumbe
• Shulamit Ran: Apprehensions
• Tom Scott & The LA Express: Tom Cat
• Alban Berg: Lulu Suite
• William Schuman: Concerto for Violin and Orchestra
• Talking Heads: Naked
• My Morning Jacket: Z
  

A contacted me indirectly a couple of days ago. At this point, my attitude is so far gone that even that's too much. Apparently, her almost-ten-year-old daughter announced she had emailed me and that alarmed A, so she had the friend who introduced us call to "alert" me and tell me I shouldn't respond. Maybe I'm still overly sensitive from the insults, et cetera, but I should be trusted to handle a child's email—especially since she used to trust me alone with the kids.

Her daughter is a good kid (smart like her mother, too) and that's how I'd treat her. The putative email didn't arrive, so I'm mystified about what goes on. Perhaps her daughter was simply testing her mother's reaction? Perhaps there's a way to recall emails with this particular email service? I view my relationship with any child as sacrosanct, that my role is to do my best to treat them with dignity, to honor their parents, and only interact with them in ways that will make their lives better. Yes, I sometimes fail to meet such lofty ideals, but if a child wants to reach out to me, I would respond with all the grace, honor, and respect I have. Like I always do! Because I'm not a parent, I consider a child reaching out to an unrelated adult to be a huge matter and I would never take that lightly.

On another note: I listened to Ron Miles' album, My Cruel Heart, today. Why haven't I purchased more of his disks? I always enjoy that CD tremendously.

CDs listened to today:

• Hebert Vazquez: String Quartet No. 1
• Morton Feldman: Durations
• Janet Jackson: Rhythm Nation 1814
• Dafnis Prieto: Absolute Quintet
• Peter Jona Korn: Concerto for Violin
• Ron Miles: My Cruel Heart
• Ellen Taaffe Zwilich: Symphony No. 2, "Cello"

I want a new web browser for my computer.

Each browser I've used on my computer has strengths and weaknesses, and I really wish I could get one browser that did everything the way I like. The old Mac Internet Explorer (since abandoned by Microsoft as not worth the trouble) had a wonderful scrapbook feature that reliably saved entire web pages easily and quickly. No configuring needed. Safari launches quickly and handles RSS better than the others. Nice! Opera has a great saved session feature to save a bunch of windows or tabs so I can read things later. And Firefox has the easiest tab navigation and the better Java-handling. Oh, and Mozilla is close to Firefox with Java and the interface just doesn't annoy me like the others.

Firefox wins by default...

CDs listened to today:

• Olivier Messiaen: Saint François d'Assise
• Civ: Set Your Goals
• The Annuals: Be He Me
• Elliott Carter: Concerto for Violin
• Foo Fighters: (eponymous)
  

Lance Lewis, Space Detective!

OK, so I work with a guy named Lance Lewis. I like to think I have a good working relationship with him. We were chatting a few weeks ago about names, since one of the other folks on the conference call and I had names that were unusual enough that people have troubles with them from time to time. Somehow, the conversation evolved and Lance mentioned that there was a comic book hero from the '40s who shared his name: Lance Lewis, Space Detective. Naturally, I now have to occasionally address him as "Space Detective" during busy meetings.

It's a little obnoxious and childish, doing that, so I limit myself to only using the '"title" once per week--since I'm only slightly obnoxious and childish... Right? CDs listened to today:

• Lightning Bolt: Hypermagic Mountain
• Bela Bartok: The String Quartets, disk 1
• Ace Of Base: The Sign
• Ludwig van Beethoven: The Symphonies, disk 3 (Sir Georg Solti conducting)
  

How about a CD review?

I recently filed away With Love, by the Charles Tolliver Big Band. It was a Valentine's Day gift from a former girlfriend--how could she resist the title when she saw it on my Amazon wish list? I had put it on the wish list for consideration after reading a friendly review in the New York Times online, not necessarily planning to buy it, but I do love big-band music--especially the stuff produced since the late '60s. It's a shame the disk isn't more enjoyable, since it was a very thoughtful gift and she deserved better for her efforts.

The disk begins with a big, brassy peal of trumpets offset by blaring, diving trombone counterpoint and filigreed saxophone riffs. But right away, it hits you that the big noise isn't joyous, that it carries the same, flat, one-dimensional hint of minor keys familiar from the less-than-fun world of heavy metal (where you need to be exceedingly intense and serious). The band itself is an impeccable machine, sleek and powerful as it runs through its paces: loud, soft, fast, slow, smooth, rough. Yet the arrangements seem overly bombastic and lacking variety after a while as Mr. Tolliver (trumpet soloist and writer as well as leader) never seriously changes pace with a different harmonic approach or steps away from his use of the three wind sections in blocks (trumpets, trombones, woodwinds), rather than mixing the voices for some different sounds. The band roars impressively, but never really swings, which is quite odd since the rhythm trio is plenty strong in spots. Mr. Tolliver is an odd soloist, using a blaring, smeared sound on the trumpet as he never quite seems to find a way to string together coherent phrases that are more than a few moments long. At times, he seems lost in his own arrangements, aimlessly tossing out comments as the band punches accents (and boy, can this band punch!) rather than assembling an interesting phrase that meshes. The other soloists are stronger, thankfully, and the overall sound is hard to resist, although a bit sterile like a good college ensemble rather than the more confident, loose sound of seasoned pros.

4 out of 10

CDs listened to today:

• My Morning Jacket: Z
• Norma Wendelburg: Sinfonietta
• Bill Watrous: Space Available
• Jesus Guridi: Sinfonia Pirenaica
• stellastarr*: (eponymous)
• Gyorgy Ligeti: Requiem
  

I'm not big on video content, but God help me, I laugh every time I see this one:



Now it should be clear that I'm not exactly a guy who avoids Maxim magazine...

CDs listened to today:

• Various Artists: The Jackal
  

My car's "check engine" light is on.

It's been on for a while, say, four or five months and the car is running fine. It's hard not to think of the check engine light as a a bit of a racket for the benefit of the auto manufacturers and their certified repair shops, such as dealers. I know it isn't true, but it's easy to imagine that the light is a remote-controlled device, activated by the local dealer when his repair revenues don't meet his goals. My dealer told me it would cost something like $105 to simply download and decode the error message in my car that was activating the check engine light!

I've read that you can purchase a simple interface device to view the error code yourself (the access point is under a front seat). The devices cost $20-50, then you need a subscription to a web site to have access to a lookup tool to find out what the codes mean. How on earth would I find myself paying for any of this foolishness?

Perhaps, gentle reader, you'll observe as I do, that the auto manufacturers chose not to create a check engine light function using an LED alphanumeric display. They've already designed the microprocessors with output codes, but they couldn't be bothered to create plain-English (or German, or Japanese, or whatever) results to display. After all, then I would know the difference between "gas cap sensor malfunction" and something more serious. Not profitable for the big car companies and their service partners!

CDs listened to today:

• Tom Petty: Greatest Hits
• Ellen Taaffe Zwilich: Symphony No. 2, "Cello"
• Sergei Prokofiev: Symphony No. 2
• Tom Scott: Bebop United
• Samba Mapalanga: Ujumbe
• Gunther Schuller: Symphony For Brass And Percussion
• Tackhead: Friendly As A Hand Grenade
• Alban Berg: Lulu Suite
• Steven Stucky: Nell'ombra, nella luce
  

More ruminations regarding the economics of health care tonight. A while back, my friend Mark, who's a professor at the local medical school, wrote a really good article for the local paper regarding drug companies and how much they really contribute to society and health care. His argument, in summary, is that their claims about all the benefits their research bring are not really sincere. They claim money they spend on that research is all for the drugs that save sick children, Lance Armstrong and all those nice old people in their TV ads. The truth, as Mark observes, is that most of the research money is spent trying to replicate competitors' drugs to grab the big market share afforded by blockbuster drugs like Lipitor and Viagra. He notes that most of the drugs that really, really do something new are funded by government and not the drug companies.


So, why do the big drug companies get such favorable tax treatment? Why are they shielded by the feds from competitive purchasing practices? Could it be because they are the most profitable industry in America? And you thought it was Big Oil, right? And guess which industry spends the most on lobbying Congress and campaign contributions! This is an industry that needs regulation--or, rather, deregulation where we are allowed to create purchasing combines and stop giving them ridiculous patent rules and tax breaks.

CDs listened to today:

• The Annuals: Be He Me
• Morton Feldman: Coptic Light
• INXS: Listen Like Thieves
• Hebert Vazquez: String Quartet No. 1
• Sergei Kalinnikov: Symphony No. 2
• Mighty Mighty Bosstones: Let's Face It
• Dafnis Prieto: Absolute Quintet
• Olivier Messiaen: Catalogue d'Oiseaux, disk 3 (Peter Hill, piano)
  

Our nation's health care problems continue to mount. It's overpriced, doesn't serve patients equitably, and the wrong people make money from it. I can't address every bit of it in this post, but I do want to talk about a fundamental flaw in the way we approach health insurance.

As I understand things, health insurance as an employer-provided fringe benefit is something that rose after the Second World War. Prior to that, most people didn't have health insurance. Let's consider the economics from the employer side first. To the employer, health insurance as an employee benefit is a cost. Costs are anathema to a business, so the employers would only offer this if absolutely necessary. Why offer it? To attract employees and compete for labor, of course. So, if an employer can find other ways to attract labor, he would cut health insurance, right? If you want to consider an example, see Wal-Mart. That company offers health insurance for full-time employees, so naturally Wal-Mart has a majority of part-time employees. Nice! I imagine the various ways that an employer can avoid offering health insurance are as diverse as snowflakes--no two strategies are alike.

So why are we sticking to this model of organizing health insurance around employment? There are no jobs-for-life these days, so insurance is as transient as the next job. And how are children served by a model that requires employment to get insurance? They're innocents and it's not their fault that they can't get insurance when their parents fail to. To those who say that people are responsible for getting jobs and the related insurance, I ask: "what about children?"


And what about adults? Businesses have a powerful incentive to avoid the cost of insurance for their employees, so this is a clear conflict. Adults also need the ability to change jobs without fear of losing insurance at key moments of life's journey. None of this is served by the current model, let alone the tremendous cost burden it puts on businesses when they compete against foreign businesses.

Are we really going to stick to this economic model based on some bizarre notion of "personal responsibility"?

CDs listened to today:

• Ben Folds Five: Whatever And Ever Amen

CDs listened to today:

• Elliott Carter: Concerto for Oboe
• Olivier Messiaen: Saint François d'Assise
  

My nephew's birthday is today, so we had a celebration yesterday evening. My sister arranged a party at a kind of play gym for children of all ages. It's run by a very pleasant couple who organize various home-made activites based on something like the old TV show, American Gladiators, combined with various Nickelodeon game shows. The husband leads the activities and talks a lot about physics while he explains things, trying to inject a charming "educational" element into the fun. As the adult who participated the most in the fun, I had to opt out of some of the activities that needed partners, matched by size. Still, I got to have a lot of sweaty fun with the kids, spinning and falling and running about! I'm even a little sore from the unaccustomed motions...

CDs listened to today:

• Charles Tolliver Big Band: With Love
• Ludwig van Beethoven: The Symphonies, disk 2 (Sir Georg Solti conducting)
• Charlatans: Up To Our Hips

CDs listened to today:

• Muhal Richard Abrams: Blu Blu Blu

CDs listened to today:

• My Morning Jacket: Z
• Jesus Guridi: Sinfonia Pirenaica
• stellastarr*: (eponymous)
• Gyorgy Ligeti: Requiem
• Lightning Bolt: Hypermagic Mountain
• Bela Bartok: String Quartet No. 4
• Esa-Pekka Salonen: L.A. Variations
  

Today, A contacted me again. I was kinda hoping for a break and I got a bit of one, but all good things come to an end, I suppose. It's ironic, because just this morning, I noted to a friend that I was amused that A was blocking me on the work IM system. I shared my thoughts with him that I thought it was ironic that she was blocking me--given that I had only attempted to contact her once, to give her a gift. All other contact between us has been initiated by her, so you can see the irony that she blocked me on the work IM.

I tried to be professional toward her (after all, it was work), and then sent her a personal text message. I asked politely that she send any requests for help or information through her boss, couching it as a personal request. Naturally, after I asked her to leave me alone, she sent two more text messages... The second one was kind of sad. She asked if I ever wanted to be her friend, that it felt like I hated her and that hurt her feelings. For the record, I don't hate her, I just can't get enough space or distance from the relationship--with all its trouble--for me. All the contacts have pretty much been her wanting something from me, things I can no longer give. This is not friendship. Until she gives me real distance, I'm going to remain silent.

CDs listened to today:

• Gunther Schuller: Eine Kleine Posaunenmusik
• Supreme Beings Of Leisure: (eponymous)
• Samba Mapalanga: Ujumbe
• Igor Stravinsky: Symphony Of Psalms
• Various Artists: Hurricane Zouk
• Alban Berg: Lulu Suite
• Allan Blank: Concerto for Clarinet and String Orchestra
• Bill Watrous: Bone-ified

CDs listened to today:

• Sergei Kalinnikov: Symphony No. 1
• George Michael: Listen Without Prejudice, Vol. 1
• Hebert Vazquez: String Quartet No. 1
• Olivier Messiaen: Catalogue d'Oiseaux, disk 2 (Peter Hill, piano)
• The Persuasions: Street Corner Symphony
• Dafnis Prieto: Absolute Quintet
• Sergei Prokofiev: Symphony No. 1
  
• Save Ferris: It Means Everything
• Ellen Taaffe Zwilich: Symphony No. 2, "Cello"
  

CDs listened to today:

• The Interpreters: Back In The U.S.S.A.
• The Annuals: Be He Me

CDs listened to today:

• Eric Ewazen: Sonata for Trombone (Steve Witser, trombone)

CDs listened to today:

• Fishbone: The Reality Of My Surroundings

CDs listened to today:

• Olivier Messiaen: Saint François d'Assise
• Louis Calabro: Sonata-Fantasia
• Lightning Bolt: Hypermagic Mountain
  

CDs listened to today:

• John Abercrombie: November
• Johan de Meij: T-bone Concerto
• Ludwig van Beethoven: The Symphonies, disk 1 (Sir Georg Solti conducting)
• Nick Cave: Nocturama
• Charles Tolliver Big Band: With Love
• Lightning Bolt: Hypermagic Mountain
  

CDs listened to today:

• Tom Scott: Bebop United
• Alban Berg: Lulu Suite
• My Morning Jacket: Z
• Jesus Guridi: Sinfonia Pirenaica
• stellastarr*: (eponymous)
• Gyorgy Ligeti: Requiem
• Bela Bartok: The Miraculous Mandarin
• Lightning Bolt: Hypermagic Mountain
  

CDs listened to today:

• Arnold Schoenberg: Verklärte Nacht (Orpheus Chamber Orchestra)
• Various Artists: The K & D Sessions, disk 2
• Ellen Taaffe Zwilich: Symphony No. 2, "Cello"
• Igor Stravinsky: Le Sacre du Printemps
• The White Stripes: Elephant
• stellastarr*: (eponymous)
• Samba Mapalanga: Ujumbe
• Gyorgy Ligeti: Requiem
• Arnold Schoenberg: Kammersymphonie
• Lightning Bolt: Hypermagic Mountain
  

Today, I really felt like I reached my limit. It's been nearly three-and-a-half weeks since I broke things off with A, and she has contacted me an average of once per day. I really need some psychic space from her and I'm not getting it. Instead, I get a combination of requests to be her support staff (as if we were still an item), insults, and not-so-subtle notifications about her love life. Phone calls, MySpace bulletins, emails, text messages, instant messages--she's doing it all! I tried to be caring and patient with the requests for help, even when they were mixed with nasty comments. I reminded myself she's feeling the same absence, the same missing presence in her life and that the contact helped ease those feelings. I tried to maintain a friendly demeanor until I got horribly assaultive IMs and emails, clearly calculated to hurt my feelings.

All of this is leaving me feeling very fragile and on edge emotionally. It's as if we never broke up, given the amount of contact. I have made a lot of efforts to give myself space, replying only in the most limited manners and all while trying to be courteous. I definitely replied in kind from the nasty IM, but apologized, only to receive a horrible, cruel email, clearly written to wound. I regret the IM, that's for sure. But I also regret that, during this period, I was foolish enough to send her a gift of music files when I had a sentimental moment. The email I sent with it asked that she not respond--she responded twice. Today, she contacted me at work on a trivial pretext and I tried to beg off--only to get three additional emails. Then when I get home, a fifth message in my personal personal email, asking if we were going to be friends or not.

This is friendship? When do I get space and something friendly rather than attacks, thinly veiled "innocent" jabs and constant requests for help? I'm no longer going to respond to her at all.

This is miserable and I need to move forward without her. I want to move forward without her.

CDs listened to today:

• Hebert Vazquez: String Quartet No. 1
• Sergei Prokofiev: Sonata for Piano Nos. 9 & 10
• Teenage Fanclub: Thirteen
• Dafnis Prieto: Absolute Quintet
  

CDs listened to today:

• Mauricio Kagel: Piano Trio No. 1
• Phantom Planet: The Guest
• The Annuals: Be He Me
• Olivier Messiaen: Catalogue d'Oiseaux, disk 1 (Peter Hill, piano)
• Seal: (eponymous, 1991)
• stellastarr*: (eponymous)