Category Archives: Uncategorized

I’ve been loathe to post on this, mainly because I think that publicity whores like Michael Savage should not be given more press, but I found a productive reason to post. AFLAC (ya know, the commercial with the duck) has decided to pull its advertising from Savage Nation. That’s a good start.

In case you’re unaware of the scandal, here’s some of what Savage said:

You know what autism is? I’ll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out. That’s what autism is.

What do you mean they scream and they’re silent? They don’t have a father around to tell them, “Don’t act like a moron. You’ll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot.”

Autism — everybody has an illness. If I behaved like a fool, my father called me a fool. And he said to me, “Don’t behave like a fool.” The worst thing he said — “Don’t behave like a fool. Don’t be anybody’s dummy. Don’t sound like an idiot. Don’t act like a girl. Don’t cry.” That’s what I was raised with. That’s what you should raise your children with. Stop with the sensitivity training. You’re turning your son into a girl, and you’re turning your nation into a nation of losers and beaten men. That’s why we have the politicians we have.

Yeah. I mean, it’s really too stupid to even comment on. Really, just so wrong in so many ways and so misinformed, sigh…

Jeanne from Charlie in Wonderland takes up the banal task of explaining why he is so very, very wrong:

Savage is clearly unaware of some basic facts about autism:

* Half of all people with autism never learn to speak

* More than half of people with an autism diagnosis have an IQ that places them in the mentally retarded range

* The number of children diagnosed with autism has increased at a rate of about 15% per year for the past twenty years.

* 60 years ago autism was thought to be a psychiatric disorder caused by bad mothers, even though no evidence was ever offered to support that theory. This theory was rejected by responsible observers in the 1960s.

Regarding the call for a boycott: I am very against censorship. I don’t think Savage should be arrested for what he said or forcibly silenced by the government. However, I think businesses should be accountable for which programs they air during, and people should be encouraged to put social pressure on those businesses who fund programs like his. Savage lost his show on MSNBC for telling a gay caller to “get AIDS and die”. Remember that? This clown needs to be removed from the airwaves and people should pressure his supporters (his advertisers) to withdraw their funding.

For the record, I still believe in public pressure for causes in which I don’t agree. A few years ago, when anti-war voices were being silenced by cowardly advertisers, I hated it, but I defended their right to do pull their funding.

UPDATE: Home Depot has also pulled its advertising from Savage Nation

UPDATE on the UPDATE:
“Sarah from Home Depot” says:

Just to clarify. We are not advertisers on the Michael Savage program.

Awww… I find this so adorable. The candy corn as fire made my day. It’s kind of like an Americana Svankmajer animation.

Watched the Dark Knight last night. Overall, a great comic book movie. I’m not exactly sure how much it ‘transcended the genre’, as many reviewers have put it, but that’s not exactly a bad thing. The important thing to remember is that Batman as a comic never transcended the genre, even in its Frank Miller days, on which much of this particular Batman is based. Perhaps it was because of the overhype of the film – and it was plenty hyped, Jesus – but I went into the movie half-expecting the first big budget arthouse-style superhero movie. It’s not. It’s a really good superhero action movie. But yet, the critics keep insisting it be more. Why must it be?

Ebert writes:

“Batman” isn’t a comic book anymore. Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” is a haunted film that leaps beyond its origins and becomes an engrossing tragedy. It creates characters we come to care about. That’s because of the performances, because of the direction, because of the writing, and because of the superlative technical quality of the entire production. This film, and to a lesser degree “Iron Man,” redefine the possibilities of the “comic-book movie.”

“The Dark Knight” is not a simplistic tale of good and evil. Batman is good, yes, The Joker is evil, yes. But Batman poses a more complex puzzle than usual: The citizens of Gotham City are in an uproar, calling him a vigilante and blaming him for the deaths of policemen and others. And the Joker is more than a villain. He’s a Mephistopheles whose actions are fiendishly designed to pose moral dilemmas for his enemies.

What these reviewers seem to be missing is this: many comic books are this smart. TDK is not necessarily better than its roots, and I believe that Christopher Nolan was careful not to let this happen. Let’s leave the transcending for the Watchmen movie, which is based on Alan Moore’s expansion of the comic book mythology into the world of realism.

The most striking facet of the film, that kept it firmly tethered to its pulp roots, was the dialog. From the opening scene, the bad guys spoke as bad guys and the cops spoke as cops. Well, the grunts on both sides tended to have the primary deficit in eloquence. It wasn’t quite so bad as the 60s Batman-style “Gee, Boss! What’re we gonna do now?” thang, but Nolan kept them in their place. Sometimes, though, the dialog seemed a might too stodgy. Batman, especially when in character, growled through his usual two-dimensional morality, but with a bit more depth. The Joker probably had the best dialog of all, but it was purposefully cartoony and Ledger played it artfully.

Sidenote: Ledger was very good in the role, bringing a convincing mania to the character. I dug the grimy, lip-smacking, creepy vibe he gave off, which was in direct contrast to Nicholson’s polished upper-crust parody. Still, I don’t think it is Oscar material (whatever that means anymore). He’s very good at becoming the character, but it is primarily a comical character. There simply isn’t that much depth to the character, and Nolan kept it that way. The closest we get to a motivation is a vague description of his ‘anarchic’ philosophy – which is actually not an anarchic philosophy in my opinion (for the record, anarchy and chaos are not the same thing; anarchy means literally: no ruler). But Ledger will win the Oscar. Why? Because he died. There, I said it. If there is one thing the Academy cannot resist, it is sentimentality, whether in film or in real life. I will bet 20 dollars to the first person willing to take it. Ledger will get the Best Actor Oscar. Hmmm, now that I think about it, maybe the role is Oscar material, seeing that Oscar material tends to require forces unrelated to the actual performance in the film.
/cynical rant

I’m a huge fan of Gary Oldman in the role of Gordon. His bland, mustachioed cop that you can’t help loving is exactly what the pulp adaptation needs and he plays it to perfection. The more I see and read of Oldman, the more he strikes me as the seminal professional actor. Outlandish in roles that call for it and subdued in the roles that call for him to step into the background. He never steals a scene, but yet gives you a few moments to say, “Fuck yeah Gary Oldman!, I mean Police Chief Gordon, I mean Commissioner Gordon.”

K, to sum it all up: great performances, so-so dialog, plenty of nail-biting moments, lotsa explosions, beautiful cinematography. Definitely go see it in the theaters.

I went to the Wordless Music show in Prospect Park last night, featuring Metropolis Ensemble and Deerhoof. I had heard good things about the Rite Remixed project (Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring arranged for electronics, percussion, and brass) and I’m a big Deerhoof fan. Make it free and booyah!, I’m there. Nice.

Let’s start with Deerhoof. Fucking awesome. There. Oh wait, more? Ok. Well I’ve been spending practically all of my time arranging The Little Death for a five piece rock band for an upcoming performance in about a month (I’ll post an official announcement soon), so exploring the colors of a standard rock ensemble has been my modus operandi like fer sure. Jesus. Deerhoof. 4 people. Two guitars playing a lot of unison, a bass, and a 3-piece drumset. But what a huge fucking sound. Damn. I felt like I was in school the entire time, learning how to create a massive sound from limited means. I’ve been stressing over hihats and rides and crashes and shit, and their drummer just killed it with a kick, a snare, and a ride. Pretty incredible. See ’em live if you get a chance.

K, so The Rite Remixed, The Rite Remixed… Let me preface this with the fact that I was in a pretty bad mood when I first arrived at the concert, for reasons I shan’t delve into. My mood definitely affects my perception of a performance, a bad one can amplify my cynicism and make me less skeptical of a performance/concept/performer. So, in the aftermath I’ve been analyzing my thoughts on the project and trying to be honest with myself about how I feel about it.

Ok, so the performance of the Rite consisted of a full brass section (well actually a few people short of the original), extra percussion, and two guys on laptops a-doin’ their thing. The brass and percussion sounded great, straight-up. There were several good friends of mine in the horn section, who I know as killer players. I think it was mostly Juilliard alumni, with some Manhattan Schoolers sprinkled in. Really strong loud brass playing, although the there were some balance issues related to the sound system/guy. It was kind of hard to hear the trombones, ironically, and I could have used a bit more percussion.

It soon became apparent though that this performance was not about the brass and percussion. The two guys on laptops, who arranged the piece, were the focus, both visually and musically. One was sitting (Leo Leite I think), and the other was standing and essentially being ‘laptop performer extraordinaire’ (I believe this was Ricardo Romaneiro, but since I’m not positive I’ll refer to him as LPE). So LPE came out just before the performance and I let out an involuntary “Oh, goddamnit!”. He was decked out in full hip hop attire: Kangol hat, preppy polo shirt, black sunglasses. Now if there is one thing I despise in classical music, it’s when classical people try to act cool. Just… just, don’t. Embrace your inner geek. Being a classical composer will never be cool. Sorry. For the entire performance LPE played the role of the… well, of the Laptop Performer Extraordinaire. He bopped with the rhythms as if he was DJing at a deep south crunk party. He did the customary tweak-the-knobs-as-if-you-are-trying-to-save-a-child’s-life thing (ya know, how they’ll grab the knob of their MIDI controller – likely controlling a simple filter-sweep – and turn it like it weighs 300lbs). He generally acted as different, and above, the standard black-clad musicians behind him as he could.

Now, I know what you’re thinking right now. ‘Damn Matt, that’s, um… that’s just kind of bitchy. Tearing apart the appearance of a performer at a concert? That’s so Gawker.’ Well, Dear Reader, I believe I prefaced this “review” by saying I was generally in a bad, sour ass mood when I saw the performance. My little rant was just to indicate my thoughts on the overall appearance of the performance, which was one of minimizing the contributions of the brass and percussionists – to be honest they looked like ringers or a back-up band, rather than part of the Ensemble – and focusing on the soloists. The problem with the performance musically, was that this focus became apparent in the music as well.

As I said, despite my minor gripes about a couple sound issues, players sounded fantastic, but they were constantly being buried underneath the electronic arrangement. The backing track – there seemed to be an attempt to make it appear live, but it was primarily on track, with some minor tweaks here or there (filters sweeps, cuts, etc.) by LPE – consisted of the orchestral parts of The Rite of Spring, played by analog-modeling soft-synths. I mean these were serious old-school sounding synths. Whoever did the primary programming and sequencing has a hardcore analog fetish. And most of the synths sounded good, but they were way too high in volume, essentially burying the orchestra. Couple this with the fact that many old school synths sound to most people actually quite silly (sorry synth geeks!), and it made for a strange overall timbre for the piece. Pretty much the entire backing track was synthesis, and all of it these audacious old school sounds. After about halfway into it I had reached synthesis overload. I wanted to hear some beats, some noise, some samples, something other than what my Moog-freak friends would get off on.

The overall effect seemed to resemble a Wendy Carlos-style Switched-On Bach synth arrangement, but with real brass and percussion in the background. The synths were so loud, and LPE was so much the focus visually, that it resembled more of a vanity project than an effective arrangement. Many sections sounded really cool (I mean, I am kind of a synth geek myself), and at times the combined timbre created very unique textures. I thought to myself: ‘Maybe the fact that they “remixed” this in such an old-school fashion is actually really far-out’, ‘Maybe I’m just being a sourpuss’. I’m not sure though, which I guess means I’m not convinced. Its audacity was certainly admirable, both in ambition and in style. I asked Mell, who was with me what she thought. “It sounded comical” was her take. I have to agree, the whole thing came of as comical: sonically, because of the overemphasized silly analog-style synths; in appearance, because of the obvious attempt at impressing the cool hipsters of the crowd who, for the record, seemed to be somewhat entertained by the spectacle, but mostly eagerly awaiting Deerhoof. Btw, Deerhoof kicked ass.

Damn.

Dayamn boy! That’s a helluva subtitle from this sad sad story of a dog being fed glass.

Ps attention jerks of the world, can you stop feeding dogs glass? Thanx.

Just try and tell me you’re not gonna to be singing, “Ponyo, Ponyo…” in your head all day.

I’ve finally gone ahead and posted my Shared Items from Google Reader on my blog. They’re on the left, just below my list of Covers and Remixes (that are FREE for download!!!!!). After months of ridicule from Melly for not posting them on my blog, I’ve bowed into the pressure. It’s cool though, Shared Items fulfills that area of interest on a story where you’re not quite fired-up enough to post on it, but you’d still like to, ya know, share. So, for example: Film Blog X has a post about Tarantino mentioning that Inglorious Bastards has hired a new grip. Hella exciting for Mafoo, less so for your hatin’ ass. Into the Shared Items!

Get it? Cool.

If you’re a Google Reader whore as I am you can alway view my page in Reader by clicking the title of the post, where you’ll be able to see my shared items, download songs, listen to my podcast, see my list of bloggy pals (recently updated!), and um see a picture of me dressed as a sexy 70s Macbeth from 1996.

In this article, Joe Queenan makes the same generalizations about contemporary music as most classical-centric conservatory freshman: ie. it is not immediately engaging, the most far-out modern works will never be as revered as the most complex classical masterpieces (um, duh…), the ‘white hairs’ don’t like it and will never like it. The thing is, these are age-old arguments about modern music. In fact they are ancient arguments about modern art, indeed what teenagers tend to think upon viewing the most established works of abstract art.

So why would The Guardian print the article? Well, because I’m writing about it right now, and you’re reading about it right now, and chances are you clicked on my link and generated a few cents of income to the advertisers on The Guardian page. It’s like our quandary of dealing with the Ann Coulters of the world. We want to ignore them, but their arguments are so childish, so brazen, so offensive that not responding seems to be an act of appeasement.

So when Queenan writes:

Would contemporary music attract more listeners if a truly great composer came along? The last time the American public got excited about a living composer was when Leonard Bernstein was in vogue; but Bernstein, a superb conductor and Broadway tunesmith, never developed into a great composer. At present, the American public seems most taken by anachronisms (Henryk Górecki, Arvo Pärt), infantilists (Glass), eclectics (Corigliano) and atmospheric neo-Brucknerites (John Adams). Even when the public embraces the new, what it is really looking for is the old. It is hardly surprising that so many composers simply throw in the towel and compose music that will be ignored in their own lifetimes, hoping it will find an audience with posterity.

What? Wtf?? He called Adams an “atmospheric neo-Brucknerite”??? What does that even mean? How is Adam’s music anything like Bruckner’s, just because it is repetitive?? And he honestly believes that there have been no “truly great composers” in the last century?? Where to begin?

See, don’t you feel the urge to pound out a response right now, email the article to your contemporary music-lovin friends of yours, put Joe Queenan on your New Music Dartboard? Yeah, that is what he wants. Just as when Ann Coulter said that in response to 9/11 that ‘we should invade their countries and convert them all to christianity’ or whatever, you have to stop and think, “oh, wait, she’s a clown. She’s not to be taken seriously.” Same thing with Queenan. He is exactly like that 18 year old drunk trombone player at the party who drunkenly slurs that good music ended with Wagner. You can argue with him all you want, all you’re going to end up with is about an ounce of Natty Ice periodically spat onto your face.

But, if you’d like to, like my misguided ass, post a rant of your own in response, feel free to do so. Tom Service wrote an interesting response. Just remember the cardinal rule of the information age:

Do not feed the trolls.

Gwuh??

Quentin Tarantino has just gone out with his long-anticipated script about World War II. But here’s the weird thing sources are telling me: not only is Laurence Bender attached to produce Inglorious Bastards, but also Harvey Weinstein who will be producing as well but not financing it.

… just confirmed that Quentin Tarantino is talking to Brad Pitt to star…