Idol worship (American style)

American Idol is back and as great as ever. For those of you who haven't read all the posts on this site I will have to do a recap on a few points. For me American Idol would be what most people call a guilty pleasure except I think that the concept of guilty pleasures is bullshit and I'm not going to let anyone dictate how I should or shouldn't feel about things (and in this case pop music).

To re-iterate my points on pop music: You can only really hate pop music if you are confused by its motivations. But lets get it straight pop music is nothing but candy. It's overtly sugary, it offers no sustenance and too much of it will make you feel sick. It's unfair to complain about pop music by comparing to other forms of music because that's like comparing a healthy and substantial meal to a bag of lollipops and pixie sticks. Pop music has its place in the musical landscape but you cant live on it because you are in danger of dying of malnutrition.

Now that those points have been reinforced onto American Idol. I am a huge fan of music (all art really) and I think what I am drawn to primarily is truth and honesty. A lot of people tend to think that pop music and specifically American Idol have no merit and lack any type of credibility. But In the musical spectrum some people aren't meant to be songwriters. They are best suited as a singer/performer of songs. And just because someone doesn't write a song themselves doesn't mean that they are incapable of performing with powerful conviction and/or emotion. The singers that are truly great take the time to find something they can relate to in a piece and sing it sincere emotion. When a good singer sings a good song you can feel it. And although there are usually only a few truly amazing moments or songs per season of American Idol when it happens it is a great thing to see.

Ignoring the musical aspect of the show American Idol is completely in step with modern society. We live in immediate times where we want everything now! now! now! And generally don't care if it is disposable and forgettable. In this situation we want the product before it exists. This isn't a case where the end justifies the means. The means justify the means. Being a fan of the show doesn't mean that I would ever in a million years buy a CD from any of the contestants (or even be able to recall the names of anyone lower than the top 3 from the year previous). This doesn't even matter though. The album sales are nowhere near the millions and millions who watch the show but as I stated above we are buying the process not the product (and they make enough money on the show that they really couldn't care less if the artist is successful afterwards or not). Its like that show on the discovery channel where you see how stuff is made in a factory. No one (well almost no one) is running out and buying the stuff they see made at the end of the show but watching how it goes from raw goods to the store shelf is the fascinating part.

I just want to add that I predict at this early point that Paris Bennett will be in the top 12

Devolutionary thoughts

About 20% of the world lives on less than $1 a day and about 50% live on less than $2 a day. The gross domestic product of the poorest 48 nations is less than the wealth of the worlds 3 richest people.

These are the types of stats that many of us have seen before and yes it is staggering to see how imbalanced the world is but the more I think about it the more I wonder what implications this has in the grand scheme of things.

From an evolutionary stand-point we (the western world) are doomed if a major catastrophe should happen to us (be this major weather events, or full on climate change due to global warming, or severe depletion of natural resources and/or fuel/energy sources etc etc.)

We live with unprecedented creature comforts and if you look at how our world has changed in the past 100 years (and again how much it has changed in just the last 10 years) you can imagine the vast differences there will be in in just a few generations down the line. If by some major disaster (as stated above) everything we know was turned on its head and we were forced to revert to basic survival how many of us would be able to make it? I can't imagine myself doing too well.

By contrast if you have made it to adult-hood in an area where it is not uncommon for children to die before their 5th birthday there is a good chance that you are among the strongest in the gene pool. And with that process (sadly) repeating itself for many many years the ones who have made it are surely destined to share genes with future generations. More so than the 400 pounder in Houston sitting on the couch eating Doritos watching the Jerry Springer show.

In terms of natural selection the strong survive. In our culture everyone (with very few exceptions) survives. But this is only because we have figured out a way to stave off the forces of nature and other elements for the time being. I don't however think this is a permanent fix. In the end nature (the planet) will always win. In general we don't give the planet enough credit and are seemingly more worried about the environment than our place in the environment. Sure we should be respectful of the planet but it is arrogant of us to think that anything we do will really affect this earth (in the long run, which is in fact a very very very long run. The earth is about 4.55 billion years old we aren't even a footnote). Have you ever seen a parking lot that has been forgotten about for say 5 years? Its faded, warped, worn out and there are all sorts of plants growing through the cracks. That's what nature can do in 5 years. If we were wiped off this planet the world would make short work of all the crap we left behind.

I guess my point is that while we are moving at light speeds (technologically) we are most likely devolving in terms of basic survival skills. Come the next ice age I don't think anyone will be looking for a php programmer (no offence to any php programmers just the first example that came to mind).

This makes me think back to when we had that blackout (August 2003) which lasted a day or two. What if all the electricity went out and the powers that be said "That's it! The powers gone! and its never coming back! Sorry there's no more and there never will be! We ran out! We didn't want to worry you by telling you earlier!"

Seriously if that happened where do you think you and everyone you knew would be now (two and a half years later in the dead of winter). I can bet you where the guy who lives on less than a dollar a day would be (the exact same spot regardless).

Digital Vinyl

Saddle Creek and Merge records (home of some of the best indie rock going today) are offering free MP3 downloads of any albums that their customers buy on vinyl. It is refreshing to see an idea like this when all we see from the majors are lawsuits and threats to the customers. The indie's realize that it is best to keep your customer happy and offer them what they want.

If history has taught us anything it's that you can't win a battle against technology. Things change and if you are in business you must be able to adapt to new changes as they come along or you will be ruined. There was a time when record companies (such as Brunswick) stamped "Not for radio play" on their records because they feared it would harm sheet music sales. How's the sheet music industry doing these days?

The other day I watched a DVD and the first thing on it was a big warning saying that buying pirated DVD's was the same as stealing. But they didn't seem to do anything when this day was clearly coming. I remember saying just as music downloads were really starting to take off (the late 90's) that it will be very soon when the same thing is happening with movies. I think the next 10 years will show a major shift in companies that have technological foresight vs. the ones who have been doing things the same way for decades. The world is a very different place than it was even 10 years ago. With a home computer and few extras people can record their own albums and edit their own movies and the quality is damn good. Plus with the internet connecting people like never before, modern word of mouth spreads like wild fire.

Golf shoes and the path to the Lord.

I was in the Goodwill today as I often am and just as I was about to leave an older woman sitting on a chair trying on shoes says to me "Golf shoes are really comfortable" she proceeds to take off a shoe and says to me look at all the padding in this thing. I just smile and say "nice" she goes on to say that she walks a lot and they are the most comfortable shoes. I thought our conversation was over there but no there was more. Just as I was stepping to leave she asks "Do you have any New Years resolutions?" At this point I figure she may just want someone to talk to so I'll play along. I say I do not. She says her New Years resolution is the Learn the Language of Love. I'm thinking wow this is becoming quite an interesting dialog. She says "Feeling love is different than knowing the language and being able to communicate it to others also that her friend has a cassette titled the language of love but that you probably need a video to learn it". She also says I can have that resolution and proceeds to try to think of some others I can have. I half wished that I had just said I wanted to start eating healthier. She says her last years resolution was Wisdom and she goes on to stumble over a bible verse to do with Solomon. At this point I knew where the conversation was heading, the next question was.... "Are you Christian?". I never really know how to answer these questions. I pause and say "No I'm nothing, I was raised with nothing". She mishears me and asks "You're Muslim?" I say "No I'm nothing I don't follow any religion". She goes on to tell me about the 2 different churches that she goes to and that I should come by. She then asks where I grew up and I say "On the West Side" she says she did too and tells me the street she grew up on and surprisingly I grew up on the street right next to her's. I tell her this and she says "oh yeah, that new street" I found this humorous because the house I grew up in is at least 50 years old. The conversation went on a bit longer and she dropped the church thing a few more times. Saying it must be hard to step into a church if your not part of one but she said "The door swings both ways". I'm not exactly sure what that means does that mean that its easy to walk into a church but then if you don't like what's going on inside its just as easy to get the hell out of there. At this point I figured I had better get out of there before the "faith" questions become more pressing. I told her I had to get going so she shook my hand and told me here name and again said that I should come to the church on Sunday. I said "Maybe I will" but doesn't maybe mean no the majority of the time. I think it does.

King Kong (the new one and the old one)

I should state a few things off the bat for those of you who don't know me or haven't read all the posts on this site.

I was not a very big fan of the Lord of the Rings movies.They were ok but I certainly wasn't blown away by them and I certainly don't think any of them should be in the top 25 movies of all time

I am also not a very big fan of CGI For the most part scenery looks ok these days but I really dislike it when characters and "living things" are computer generated.

Before watching the new King Kong I decided to watch the original. As we all know the original is regarded as one of the greatest films in history, but I have to say that it really doesn't stand the test of time. I realize that I watched it for the first time in 2005 (72 years after it was made). But this brings me to an idea that my brother introduced me to. For films there are "classics" and "timeless classics". King Kong is certainly a classic (the film was revolutionary in its day) but it isn't a timeless classic. I honestly found parts of it extremely hard to get through. In comparison there are many films from the same period that are still amazing and relevant today. But that's an argument for another time.

The 2005 remake was pretty good. It was nice to see Jackson put his own spin on the original he even added a few clever elements to the script in reference to the original. King Kong actually looks O.K. for a character created with CGI, much better than Golem or anything from Star Wars parts 1-3. There are however a few things that I take issue with.
* The CGI dinosaurs look like a bag of shit, they look no better than the ones in Jurrassic park which was made in 1993.
* Jack Black although a great comedy actor is not very good in a serious role (at least not this one).
* I'm no animal expert but I don't think a giant gorilla would ever stand a chance in a fight against 3 Tyrannosaurus Rex's no matter how "in love" he was.
*I was kind of annoyed by the way that Ann Darrow "fell" for King Kong and had genuine feelings for him. By Contrast it was almost comical that in the original she felt nothing for him and didn't even care when he was killed. But I guess those were the days before the idea of Stockholm syndrome was popularized.

There is a scene in the new one that takes place in a cavern with a bunch of giant bugs and it is one of the creepiest things I've seen in a film in a long time.

Apparently the original King Kong is Peter Jackson's favorite movie of all time and it is what inspired him to get into film making. I like to think that Jackson was driven to make this film because he considers himself to be the King Kong character. If the ladies could only see past his simian appearance they would actually love him.