Empty Bookshelf Reviews

Author: Dan

  • The Cleveland Marriott Downtown at Key Center

    This review is the final installment of the Cleveland Trifecta

    A programming note: Being that one of the goals of this site is to avoid becoming a “rant blog,” I’ll apologize for my three most recent reviews. (Those two links are only coincidentally related to computer topics — they’re on the first page of google results for “rant blog.” You guys strike me as the type that check your ‘external page links’ section of your log analyzer, so that’s why you’re getting some hits from this crazy, random site) Upon deciding to review a collection of three Cleveland-related things, I didn’t realize that even though I was planning on negative reviews, my opinions weren’t creatively negative. There’s nothing wrong with negativity, but unfortunately, the way that the Cleveland items were bad was more in the “disappointed” way than the “this sucks more than anything has ever sucked before” way. So, with that in mind, on to the last Cleveland-related review.

    The Cleveland Marriot at...
    The Cleveland Marriott at…

    With a ridiculous name like “The Cleveland Marriott Downtown at Key Center,” I should’ve known something was up. I have exceedingly low expectations when it comes to hotels. I’m even less of a snob about hotels/motels than I am about restaurants, and the fact that I consider hotels and motels to be in the same category should let everyone know how I go about choosing lodging. Just like the ChopHouse & Brewery, prices were high and because of that, so were my expectations. There was a special group discount rate due to the eye show, but due to the fact that it was very much in the middle of “metropolitan” Cleveland, and was (at least superficially) rather fancy, I had high expectations, as I’m sure that the Marriott expects that of their customers.

    Even though work paid for the stay, I’m still hesitant to even spend someone else’s money for a hotel over $75/night, much less the Marriott’s $160. Much of that price is due to the fact that, again, it’s in the middle of downtown, but still, it’s Cleveland. In all fairness to the hotel, I’m not really the target market; I travel on “business,” but I’m still rather cheap thrifty, so I’m not the type to rave about the quality of the food brought by room service, if only for the fact that I could never justify spending that sort of money to eat-in (or out, for that matter). Regardless, whether or not I’m part of the “target market,” I was staying at (deep breath) The Cleveland Marriott Downtown at Key Center.

    The Key Center is one of the modern-looking skyscrapers that I talked about in my review of Cleveland, and the “Marriott Downtown” is, obviously, a hotel that occupies a fair amount of space of this skyscraper (It’s a Cleveland-sized skyscraper, so 57 floors, not anything really big but still tall enough to make you dizzy when looking up at it from the ground.

    The hotel itself had doormen, a concierge, and all of that fancy stuff, so again, even though I wasn’t really planning on using those services, I can’t hold it against the hotel for offering them. My room was on the 15th floor, facing the lake (and Browns Stadium), so the view was nice, but being that I was there for work, it’s not like I really spent that much time in the room, anyway (again, not the hotel’s fault). The bed had about 10 pillows of pretty much every shape and size (apparently, an obscene amount of pillows is par for the course in “fancier” hotels these days), and the bed was comfortable, but not Tempurapedic comfortable, but no hotels have beds that nice, anyway.

    At this point, I guess I’m really just reviewing this hotel based on how much better $160/night is compared to ~$70/night. Having stayed at a hotel in that latter price point a couple weeks earlier, I was expecting more and better, beyond the convenience of not having to commute to/from the hotel to the convention center. I guess it’s been said that the more expensive hotels are, the more you have to pay for conveniences. The $70 hotel offered both wired and wireless internet access for free, while The Cleveland Marriott Downtown at Key Center offered a free “demo” of TV-based internet, and of course, the “demo” simply said “It’s the Internet — On Your TV!!! Only $9.95 per day!!!” Wired and wireless access were also $9.95 per day. I guess it’s a matter of the “businessmen” that need an internet connection will pay for it, even if it’s $19.95 per day, but it strikes me as cheap. Is that the only complaint I have about the hotel, no free internet access? Well, I didn’t end up buying it any of the days, but it definitely would have made my job simpler, as some doctors had questions about content on the website and so on.

    ***

    The Cleveland Marriott Downtown at Key Center receives three stars due to the fact that even though it was rather pricey, they skimped on the fact that if they consider themselves to be the “business traveller’s destination” (my words, their insinuation), most all business travellers have some sort of need for an internet connection, and charging for it on top of a rather high daily rate only serves to make the hotel look cheap, not accommodating. Also, perhaps even more damningly, that insufferable dropping of the “the” in The Cleveland Marriott Downtown at (where’s the “THE?!”) Key Center” and the fact that they always include “The” at the beginning really grinds my gears.

  • The Cleveland ChopHouse & Brewery

    This review is the second leg of the Cleveland Trifecta

    There’s nothing worse than not getting what you pay for. I’m no “fine diner;” I don’t consult dining guides (Zagat’s, Mobil, or the new-as-of-today Michelin guide for New York). Some have called me a picky eater, but this isn’t “picky” due to anything other than the fact that there’s a reasonable amount of food I simply don’t like. I’m not talking about, “my god, I could never eat a cheeseburger from McDonald’s!” but a more straightforward dislike of particular foods (fish, onions, and so on). That makes me a picky eater but not a selective eater. In no way shape or form am I too good for a restaurant; I’ll eat anywhere, but though this doesn’t mean that I’m not allowed certain expectations of a particular restaurant. Especially expensive ones.

    Not the best picture in the world.
    The best picture I could find.

    Choosing price as the index, restaurants can be broken up into five categories: fast food/convenience food (McDonald’s, Wawa), family dining (Friendly’s, Perkin’s), theme dining (Outback, Olive Garden), upscale dining (there aren’t really national examples of this… though P.F. Chang’s would count while The Cheescake Factory straddles the line between theme and upscale), and fine dining (the restaurants found in the Michelin guides). Very few people have the money to visit these “fine dining” establishments and many areas don’t even have any of these restaurants within reasonable distance. All this is to say that at each price point there are particular expectations. Every now and then a fast food restaurant offers something better than an entree at a Perkin’s-type restaurant, but that’s not expected. These positive “category jumps” are rare, and it’s found much more frequently that a restaurant in a higher category only manages to deliver the quality expected at a lower price point. The Cleveland ChopHouse & Brewery is one of these restaurants.

    Looking for a nice-ish place to eat after a full-day of conventioning, I took a walk toward the “warehouse district” of downtown Cleveland (the rough geography has been previously discussed) around 9:00pm (yes, late but not a problem as most places closed at 11). Most every restaurant was in that “upscale dining” category, so wherever I’d choose, a not insignificant amount of money would be spent. Simply, The Cleveland ChopHouse & Brewery was the most eye-catching of the options.

    The intentionally sparsely decorated space was dimly lit and moderately full, with a combination of the sounds of jazz music from the speakers and conversations throughout the space. I’m not picky about interiors or decor, so even though it was perfectly comfortable, it didn’t strike me as anything special, but the three (+?) shiny vats (hence the “brewery” part of the name) were eye-catching in their glassed-in section of the main room. A better than neutral experience so far, but the unfriendliness of the hostess was the beginning of the end of any meaningful positive experiences to be had. I don’t need to be pampered or coddled to, but you’d think that in the usually limited interaction (“Non-smoking please” “ok”) there wouldn’t even be room for someone to be unfriendly, but apparently I said the wrong thing. The table was perfectly fine and happened to face a TV. Water service began right away, but that was it for about 15 minutes. No servers stopped by to take a drink order for those 15 minutes until one stopped by after seeing how long I was sitting. Naturally between that order was taken and its arriving, the actual server came by to take my drink order again. Having worked at a restaurant, I know how much servers hate when customers at a table they’re not serving need to get something from the proper server, so I didn’t say anything. When the proper server came by, she was very apologetic about how long I had to wait, but in that “I’m apologizing even though it’s not my fault” sort of way, like when the food is under/over-cooked. Except, in this case, it is usually the server’s fault (more restaurant experience talking here). Oh well.

    Bread service began (a small pie pan’s worth of fresh corn bread with honey butter…. rather good), but my now twice-ordered drink was still MIA. Of course once I had enough of the bread, the drink showed up. It was some sort of “Irish Stout” made in the brewery section of the facility, and I’m not beer connoisseur, but it was fine, sort of like Guinness without as much of the cigarette butt taste.

    At a new-to-me restaurant, no matter how expensive, I have a simple strategy for deciding what to order: pick three things from the menu, ask the server what they like, and pick one that was common with my list. This happened to be Shrimp Scampi. **A note on this selection. Some have said, “Why would you get shrimp at a steak house. You should get beef.” Well, it’s not like seafood is any cheaper at these restaurants, and they claim to specialize in “steaks, chops, and seafood.” Naturally, it took a particularly long time to get to my table, but it (and the mashed potatoes it came with) were “just finished” hot, so at least it hadn’t been sitting in a heat lamp or equivalent (restaurant experience tells you when it’s “just finished” hot or “heat amp” hot). The whole “steak house” thing usually implies slow (“relaxed” might be a better word?) service, but without making a stupid joke about them pulling the shrimp out of the lake, it took forever.

    The actual entree was ok. For $26.95 I’m not looking for ok. There’s nothing bad to say about it, but nothing good to say either. It was shrimp scampi, just that simple. No particularly interesting flavors, just plain old shrimp scampi. Some say that the “atmosphere” is included in those prices, but as discussed above, it wasn’t anything special either.

    *½

    The Cleveland ChopHouse & Brewery receives one-and-a-half stars due to its not meeting expectations set by attempting to establish itself as an “upscale” restaurant. This is decidedly different than confusing hype and product, as restaurants create their own hype/expectations simply by deciding which price point to which they intend to cater. These expectations are as much a part of a dining experience as the food itself, especially for pricier restaurants. If a restaurant in a lower price category receive higher star ratings, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are “better.” They are simply better for the price point. Soon there will be a higher level discussion of star ratings to attempt to establish “rules.” Go Rules!

  • Cleveland, Ohio

    This review is the first leg of The Cleveland Trifecta

    Cleveland is a very weird city. The stereotypes surrounding it are…um, everything that goes with the “Cleveland Rocks” intro of The Drew Carey Show and people who look like Drew Carey and like the Browns. That’s not really much upon which to base my good-intentioned prejudicing.

    Wishful Thinking
    Wishful Thinking

    I’ve actually been to Cleveland three times in the era of my life I can remember. The first visit was high school trip, and the only “feel” of the city I got was from the 50 or so feet between where the bus dropoff point and the entrance to an attraction (The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and The Hard Rock Cafe), so that first trip doesn’t count. In the last two years, to attend the East West Eye Conference, I’ve made the trip twice. Unfortunately, I’m sort of an expert on downtown Cleveland. Maybe some Cleveland fans can inform me that where I stayed/visited is depressing and/but there’s another “downtown” not so business-oriented that is unspecifically better.

    Anyway, on to business:
    The Chicago Loop (a section of “downtown” Chicago) is dead after 5 or so each weekday and all weekend because there’s no more work to be done, and there are lots (and lots) of other bustling areas still “downtown” to do things. To be in the “loop” after hours is a bit unsettling, skyscrapers that go way up, traffic lights doing their thing, but very little traffic and even fewer people. Downtown Cleveland is just like this, but all the time. Except instead of no people, Cleveland some of the most aggressive panhandlers/homeless people that I’ve ever come across. So it also has that goin’ for it, which is nice.

    To better paint a picture, one can cross any street downtown during business hours (or any hours, really) without looking in either direction and not get hit by a car. This isn’t because the drivers are friendly and slow down to avoid hitting pedestrians; it’s because there aren’t many drivers. Likewise, I found no McDonald’s in downtown Cleveland. McDonald’s isn’t a sign of class, just a universal symbol of people being busy and needing a fast, cheap place to eat. The only other “quick” food I could find was a run-down Subway and some hole-in-the-wall reuben deli/eating area (I think the reuben is Cleveland’s official sandwich). All of this weirdness is compounded by the fact that the downtown is clean and exhibits lots of new/newish buildings. Unless there’s some other downtown area, it’s like the people go to these buildings at 8 or 9 in the morning then zip out of the general area around 5.

    There’s a hip/trendy (read: expensive) part of downtown called “The Warehouse District,” where if you want to spend $30 for yourself on dinner and wait interminably to get it, it’s a great chance. But even here, especially at what should be busy times (weekend nights), it’s oddly quiet. Something doesn’t feel right when you and your “work buddies” are part of the ten people in a bar at midnight-thirty on a Saturday night. These businesses (restaurants, bars, etc.) stay in business, so the rent must be shockingly low for such metropolitan locations. The football stadium is part of the “downtown,” so it (the whole area) must get busier on football Sundays, but that’s only 8 Sundays each year unless the Browns happen to make it into the playoffs (good luck with that).

    **

    Cleveland, Ohio receives two stars due to its general “deadness” and obliviousness regarding that “deadness.” (Songs talking about how much it “rocks” paint an ignorantly optimistic picture.) Its positive points are earned from its aesthetic appeal (minus the fact that there’s no challenge when playing “I Spy a smelly bum”) and the 45 minutes of walking around before the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame gets old.

  • The Hype Surrounding This Week’s “Trading Spouses”

    Click here for general site update.

    I’ve never watched Fox’s Trading Spouses. I’ll never watch it again. But I watched it last night, and I’m glad I did. You might’ve seen the ads, “THE BIGGEST REALITY BLOW-UP EVER!!!” or something like that. Considering all of the times that people could remember details of the commercials, but not the product that the commercial advertised, the producers of the TV spots did a great job in that I can’t even remember the tagline of the commercial, but I remember that the show was to be aired Wednesday night at 9pm and was called “Trading Spouses” and some lady was to go crazy.

    Trading Spouses
    She loves Jesus…and cake. Yep, it’s also “mean week’ at emptybookshelf.com

    Actually, Fox had been using the same commercials to advertise the episode for two weeks. If I were reviewing the ad campaign (as opposed to the hype), points would be docked due to the fact that last week’s episode did not contain the lady freaking out. It was similar to when Fox had promised a conclusion to Joe Millionaire but instead broadcast a clip show. To be honest, due to my allegiance to watching professional wrestling (credibility alert!), I’m much more accustomed to unfulfilled televisionary promises than I’d prefer to be. I did not watch or attempt to watch last week’s episode, but after seeing the same intriguing commercials from the week before, this time with even more adamant promises of “THE BIGGEST MELTDOWN EVER!!!” it became required viewing.

    To be honest, I actually didn’t even watch the whole thing; I figured that the good part would be towards the end so I flipped to Fox around 9:35. For those of you wondering what the whole reason for her flipping out. In simplest terms, she didn’t like the fact that non-Christians were in her house. You’d think that there was more to it than that, but there really isn’t beyond some context. So, the context: the “traded spouses” were the mothers/wives in, respectively, a very traditional Southern Baptist (I think) family and a New Age family whose mother was a fortune teller. So, sort of, hippies versus the old school. Long story short, the “hippy” mom got along wonderfully with the religious woman’s family, but the religious woman went crazy dealing with the “godless” family. [Sort of in her defense, the dad in the New Age family tried to have discussions with the lady to which she wouldn’t take part in due to his “pushing her buttons.” The swap is over, and the religious lady gets reunited with her family and completely goes bonkers, “explaining” how dirty her house is because the “godless” (repeated about a bajillion times) lady spent time in it; she then tells all of the crew to leave, then decides that it’d be ok if the Christian crew stayed; “Only the ones that believe in Jesus can stay. Everyone else goes.”

    She went on to say that anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus is awful, etc. to which her husband says that Jewish people believe in God, and they’re ok. She says that they’re not, as her family is seen freaking out at her (as opposed to with her). Quite the blowup. I’d say that it pushes Evangelism back decades except for the fact that it’s not exactly a secret that there are wacko religious nutjobs out there (yeah, there are also wacko New Age hippy nutjobs out there too, but the New Age family in this show was portrayed to be and actually were quite reasonable, if not understanding about their “new mommy’s” religious beliefs).

    Thumbs up (figuratively, don’t worry we’re not out to violate your trademark, Roger) to Fox for not turning the incident into comedy. There was no clown music playing when she freaked out, no “irreverant” narrator doing joke voices, no silly little animations added to embellish the scene. They even edited it in such a way to portray her as someone with some potential deeper (fixable?) issues, not just a Bible-quoting wacko for the anti-religious crowd to laugh about, saying, “See, I told you they were all crazy.”

    ****½

    The Hype Surrounding This Week’s Episode of Trading Spouses receives four-and-a-half stars due to the fact that it was everything I hoped it could be and more. The ads promised an over-the-top freaking out and boy did it deliver. Even though it helped contribute to the hype, the whole tease-and-don’t-deliver ad campaign remains unforgivable, if not unfortunately expected, so that’s half-a-star off. (Lesser reviewers might take off more than half for that.) So much hype was built up once the first week was revealed as a teaser for the melt-down that it really needed to be dynamic. And it was.

  • Nate’s Review of Good Night, and Good Luck.

    Recently, this Site’s integrity has been challenged. A member of our Junior Staff, though well-intentioned, has violated one of the precepts of reviewing. This review reviews that review, explains its shortcomings, then concludes with an establishment of goals for both The Site and its Junior Staff.

    Nate takes aim at the press but hits George Clooney instead.
    Nate takes aim at the press but hits George Clooney instead.

    Having also seen Good Night and Good Luck., I’m more than adequately qualified to weigh in on the movie’s merits (or lack thereof). But why a review of Nate’s review instead of the movie itself? Nate made the oh-so-common mistake of confusing a movie’s hype with the actual movie itself (this confusion can be found in any reviewable product, not just movies.) It’s not George Clooney’s fault that critics think his movie’s all that and a bag of chips. Nate didn’t separate the hype from the product, and because of that, he gave the movie an unfair review, which casts this Site in an equally unfair light.

    What I assume to be Nate’s gripes about the movie, what I called its “superficiality” during our initial discussion of it (before the publishing of Nate’s review), should not be gripes. They should be supporting details, leading to an informed opinion, and therefore, an informed review. Was George Clooney doing something evil when he chose to let the historical actions speak for themselves? Is it wrong to assume that history can and will repeat itself? Even if George Clooney were to consider his movie a parable (I do not believe that it is or is meant to be a parable, just a vaguely cautionary tale.), he’s not the first. If we were to consider this movie to be the thread connecting McCarthyism to the “war on terror,” we must remember that this same thread extends also to the Salem Witch Trials in Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible.” Though “The Crucible” explicitly called back/forward to the HUAC proceedings, it remained a rather superficial examination of a community of fear. Was Arthur Miller only giving Two-and-a-Half stars worth of effort in his famous play, simply because he had the (gasp!) audacity to think to himself, “Gosh, this has happened before, and it’s practically happening again.” Again, though I don’t consider “Good Night, and Good Luck” allegorical, I will say that any “depth” comes solely from the (re)viewers’ minds. If George Clooney were to say, “Gee, I hope that people vote democrat after seeing my movie!” go ahead and spend the effort bashing him (and his movie) because as an allegory, political tool, etc. it fails. It fails miserably.

    Because the anti-political crowd (think of “The Daily Show” — soon to be mega-reviewed on this very site) is so large, vocal, and lacking perspective, they’re unaware of the fact that because being against politicians (or claiming that a movie is politically preachy) is just as much a political opinion as hating Hillary Clinton is a political opinion. If they’re looking for “Good Night, and Good Luck” to be a political tool, it will be. It’s been said that human minds better create horror than human eyes. Given the freedom to imagine their personal nightmare as opposed to a finite, real horror, they imagine the worst. George Clooney gives the audience that opportunity: look in the box, and what you see is only what you want to see.

    No, it’s not a perfect movie. It does lack depth, it does simply re-create existing history. The actors aren’t so much “acting” as “impersonating.” but despite all of this, it remains intriguing. Metaphorically, I knew McCarthy’s ship would sink, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to watch him scramble for a lifeboat. It is not one of the “best films of the year;” it’s not particularly “important,” no one “needs to see this movie.” But even though other critics are on record saying these things about the movie, George Clooney is not. The movie speaks for itself. It doesn’t say much of value, but certainly more than two-and-a-half stars worth. Nate’s expectations of the critics were not met, not Nate’s expectations of the movie. This is not the fault of the movie or George Clooney. Once the unwarranted, incorrect hyperbole of the critics is cast off, what’s left? A particularly solid, entertaining movie, nothing else. This is not a review of the movie, but a review of Nate’s review. The absolute star ranking of the movie is not important, as its now widely understood that it’s better than the two-and-a-half bitter stars that Nate threw at it. Nate’s review was well-written, had a particularly funny caption for its photo, maintained coherency despite its length, so I will be more fair in my review of his work than his review of Clooney’s.

    *½

    Due to Nate’s nature as the Site’s Junior-Reviewer -at-Large, we can’t expect perfect, objective reviews. He’s only human. We all are. Should I hold The Site to a higher standard of quality, demanding insight and unbiased objectivity in reviews written by all contributors? Naturally I should (and so should all of the Junior Staff), but until that point arrives, we will use each review as an example in time, a time-capsule of sorts, of each writer’s strengths and weaknesses so that the readership-at-large sees our Junior Reviewers accomplish all of their opinionary goals. What is insight without perspective? What is opinion without foresight? What are sweeping generalizations in the absence of nuance? What is getting on one’s soapbox without a safety net of objectivity? These are the questions for which I know the answers and for which The Site’s readership demand answers. We read on as our Junior staff grabs the first handle in the philosophical jungle-gym that begins the pursuit of their own personal answers to these inquiries. Between the lines of each review we gain a clearer understanding of their answers. Between the lines of each review we see them learning to better tell others what to think. I have utmost confidence in The Site’s Junior Staff’s ability to not only learn from their mistakes, but to rise above them, and truly establish themselves, and therefore, this Site, as a premiere opinion-making entity in the world.

    Nate, we’re all rooting for you.

  • On the Turning Away from Delicate Sound of Thunder by Pink Floyd

    What a difference a little re-imagining can do. A Momentary Lapse of Reason, Pink Floyd’s first album without Roger Waters and first of two (more to come?) albums that serve better as soundtracks to IMAX movies than as any sort of rock album (no, I don’t believe in the power of the rock. I have no romantic delusions about rock music.) brought a number of inconsequential tracks to Pink Floyd’s discography. They all sounded pretty much the same and went on and on (and on). The only semi-standout track would be “On the Turning Away.” (“Learning to Fly” is ok, but it’s not in the same league.) But even though it’s the (semi)standout track on the mediocre album, it’s good, but not great.

    The \'On the Turning Away\' Vinyl Single
    The ‘On the Turning Away’ Vinyl Single

    This is where record producers come in. I’m not fully claiming to understand what they do (and I doubt that the televised sessions from the Ashlee Simpson Show are an indicator of what they do for 99% of the bands out there), but a simple musical re-arrangement establishes the transition between “good” and “epic.” Maybe David Gilmour did all this re-arranging himself, but it seems like it could easily be the producer saying, “Why don’t you try it like this live?” There are no huge differences: no sitar, no new words, no new guitar solo, no trimmed guitar solo, and so on. But the live recording from Delicate Sound of Thunder completely trumps the original.
    Let’s take a listen:

    0:00
    I’m not sure if Pink Floyd invented it, but here’s yet another extremely quiet, extremely slow (deliberate might be a better word?) start to a song. The stereotypical late-era-Pink Floyd organ/synthesizer is doing its thing just like in the studio version. The organ takes longer getting through the opening chords as the performance is taken a bit slower than in the studio. The original version clocks in at 5:42 while this live version tips the scales at 7:56. The slower tempo is the first step in really establishing the song as a successful epic.

    1:12
    The singing starts. Because it’s a live version, the audience is heard cheering (of course they have to cheer at the beginning of the actual singing because the beginning of the song itself just sounds like pointless synthesizer-playing). Also the first words are, “On the turning away,” so everyone in the audience knows what song it is. During this verse, the sense of scale of the live recording (the sense of scale missing in the studio version) is first heard. By moving the vocals “back” in the soundscape and capturing some of the echo and reverb of the live venue, the song finally has the “presence” that the studio version lacked.

    2:27
    The second verse starts, and the first big musical change is heard. A standard electric bass doubles the bass line of the organ. It’s a minor change, but it adds more texture to the song. Initially (and on the studio version), there was nothing interesting happening below the vocal track. The organ played a rather subdued (sonically) unfocused bass line, and the song didn’t sound empty, but with a lackadaisical vocal line, only a bit of guitar strumming, an equally lackadaisical vocal harmony line, and that same organ part, the song was stuck on “ponderous.” With the abrupt, focused sound of the electric bass, the song can feel faster while still maintaining the same deliberate tempo.

    3:33
    This little electric bass section was played by an electric guitar in the studio. Moving the (rather inconsequential) part to the bass spreads out the range and blends directly into the bass part played by the organ in the next section.

    3:44
    The newly-found sense of scale is on full display as the song seemingly wraps up (just like the studio version), but to really space it all out, drops the drums, guitar (electric and acoustic), and that bass guitar leaving just a the vocals, the organ, and a newly found choir. Starting singing merely texture (mainly aah’s) with the organ against Gilmour’s vocals, the choir swells and seamlessly begins singing the lyrics in just about a billion-part harmony at “coldness inside,” halfway through a line begun by Gilmour. (That’s some pretty sophisticated arranging.) And the acoustic guitar is brought back in for a tiny flourish (more texture) as the organ, choir, and Gilmour revel in the echo of the space and take their sweet time wrapping up the chorus.

    4:17+
    Guitar solo, etc. begins. Just about spot-on with the studio version except the bass guitar is brought to the front of the soundscape, more forward than even the lead guitar (a risky decision), and the chorus sings along (ooh’s and aah’s) with the organ’s chords.

    7:18+
    Traditional live rock performance where they can’t figure out how to end the song, and they all beat their instruments until the guitar player (probably) made some sort of big chopping motion with his instrument, signifying the end.

    *****

    “On the Turning Away” from Delicate Sound of Thunder receives 5 stars due to its successful “reboot” of the original version of the song. To be honest, I could do without the lyrics (the “turning away” refers to people with money ‘turning away’ from those in need. Spare me. I’m sure that David Gilmour uses his heated garage to house homeless people, not Aston Martins.). In spite of that, this version includes some of the best 45 seconds ever committed to a record (3:33 – 4:16). Perhaps one of the most successful mulligans of a studio recording ever.

  • The Streets’ A Grand Don’t Come for Free

    The concept album. Such an ugly idea, conjuring images of Styx, Dreamtheater, Rush, and other shameful bits of Canadian “culture” (I’m not sure if Sty is from Canada, but they might as well be). Sure, Pink Floyd succeeded admirably with The Wall, The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here (if you’d consider that an official concept album), and The Final Cut, though Momentary Lapse of Reason didn’t exactly succeed so much (at all) with the whole high-brow nature of the concept album. Unfortunately, this whole high-brow image (which is more accurately described as pretentiousness, not simple high-brow-ed-ness) serves only to make “concept album” a dirty word. The Beatles weren’t exactly pretentious with Sergeant Pepper and the Lonely Hearts Club Band, though it does have its moments of stylistic experimentation bordering on above-mentioned pretentiousness (John: Yoko says it needs more sitar! Paul: I hate you.), but it worked. Each song brought a lot to the table and none were just musical masturbation in the studio. But can there be a straight-forward concept album if The Beatles’ template practically necessitated some obtuseness? Is it even a concept album anymore? What if it maintains that common theme and thread through each song but its depth is in the straightforwardness of the lyrics? The best album of 2004 was a concept album. In fact, the best two albums of 2004 were concept albums.

    The Best Album of 2004
    The Best Album of 2004

    Though it doesn’t deal with themes such as alienation (OK Computer), living in a consumer-driven society (the last two Pink Floyd albums), and the eternal lightness of being (Hit Me Baby One More Time), A Grand Don’t Come for Free tells the entire story of a night of a recreational drug-using 20-something who begins his big evening out by unfortunately losing 1,000 pounds. It’s not particularly profound, but it’s very British, as The Streets (Mike Skinner), who can lazily be called “Britain’s” Eminem, talks of “birds, holiday, football (when he means soccer)” in the re-telling of his story. All things considered, and for the sake of internal consistency, I’ll remind everyone that I (still) get very little out of words and lyrics in songs. I might know them from frequent listening, but 9 times out of 10, I wouldn’t be able to actually say what a song is about. That said, the significance of A Grand Don’t Come for Free doesn’t stem from its lyrics (or its standing as a concept album due to those lyrics).

    The quality of rap music is usually described in two parts: the music and the actual rapping (as much as I hate to say it…… the “beat” and the “flow”). I’m not sure what makes either good or bad, but I can listen to a Jay-Z song and tell that he’s good at rapping, and almost anyone can recognize that the appeal of Hey Ya! is sourced [it’s a hip-hop pun!] back to the musical half (the beat). Granted, lots of people also liked the part about shaking it like a Polaroid picture, but I digress. The Streets (well, Mike Skinner) frequently showcases his wordplay skills (simultaneously completely similar while completely dissimilar to Eminem) and sets this wordplay against music that is almost completely unlike any other rap music in the US. Maybe this is where the appeal lies. I won’t go so far as to say that all rap music sounds the same, but much of it does sound like it was generated with the same “toolkit” or template. Likewise, among popular rap songs, there really aren’t too many topics: “honeys” and “hoes” (obviously, both are synonyms for women…the label simple implies how the guy plans on arranging procreation). Now, for those of you that might be jumping up and down about the myriad topics explored in US rap music, or how there are lots of rap groups that make music that doesn’t sound anything like the MTV-popular(ized) rappers. Yes, there are lots of those groups, but how often do you hear Jurassic 5 blasted out of a car stereo? Nothing against Jurassic 5, The Roots and other groups favored by underground hip-hop apologists, but it’s not mainstream rap. Now, The Streets does mention women (the above-mentioned “birds”) but in decidedly less vulgar terms than any hairmetal band. Though The Streets offers a different take on the concept of rap, one that addresses different issues, different situations, it expands what would normally be considered rap’s limits. These aren’t limits of vulgarity, but similar to Kanye West writing lyrics about un-rap-like concepts of spirituality (in Jesus Walks), A Grand Don’t Come for Free turns the mundane into entertainment in “Blinded by the Lights” as he takes a hit of ecstasy, worries it was a dud, wonders why his friends haven’t returned his text messages, then suddenly is lost in the sweat and jitters of the ecstasy. It’s not profound, but what other artist would be able to make these topics interesting? Sure, there are songs about girls (“Fit But You Know It” – about girls who are dangerously aware of their attractiveness to the point of looking ridiculous and “Dry Your Eyes” – a not inaccurate discussion of how things usually end) but there are also songs about being addicted to soccer gambling, bums who won’t leave your house and on and on.

    *****

    The Streets’ A Grand Don’t Come for Free receives 5 stars as even in a year of well-regarded releases (especially Green Day’s American Idiot, another concept album) it did more. Simultaneously turning not particularly interesting topics into interesting music is quite the feat, especially if it manages to avoid pretentiousness. (Sorry, but the 50’s-esque rock’n’roll break in “Homecoming” on American Idiot is a bit too much.) Musically, it’s an all new soundscape (ooh). Highlights: track 1 (“It was Supposed to be So Easy”), the hidden track after #11, “Empty Cans” (when listening to the album, you can decide how symbolic that title is), and #4, “Blinded by the Lights”, all among a particularly solid collection of songs.

  • Using “Forrest Gump” as a Verb

    So I was reading USA Today the other day. Yeah, I know, it’s the best newspaper in the history of ever, and it’s seemingly also the official newspaper of travelling, being that most of its readership statistics stem from the fact that hotels usually give it away to hordes of travellers each morning.

    \"I\'ll Forrest Gump you, you crazy hippy!\"
    “I’ll Forrest Gump you, you crazy hippy!”

    In Robert Bianco’s (TV’s Robert Ebert) review of an upcoming episode of HBO’s Rome, talking of the historical revisionism at/for the expense of entertainment, he says that “… Vorenus and Pullo Forrest Gump their way through ancient history.” That’s some genius wordsmithing right there. I actually caught the episode in question (the whole travelling thing and hotel’s usually having HBO), and it was dull to say the least, for whatever that’d be worth. I doubt that “Forrest Gump” becoming anything other than a popular movie will ever happen [a verb, baseball team, or restaurant…..oh wait], but let’s give USA Today credit where credit is due.

    *****

    Using “Forrest Gump” as a verb receives 5 stars due to journalists lowering the bar and creating new words based on pop culture as opposed to investing in a thesaurus and picking one of the many that people should know but probably don’t. Just kidding. Go USA Today!

  • The Colbert Report

    An immediate reaction upon watching an episode: Har-Har.

    One TV executive to another: You know what? It seems like everyone likes The Daily Show. It gets all sorts of main stream press, especially about its lampooning of regular news shows. Let’s make a show that is just that. Kuh-Ching! [high-five]

    Inspired by The Daily Show or simply following its template?
    Inspired by The Daily Show or simply following its template?

    Sounds like a good idea. Take Steve Colbert, probably The Daily Show’s best current news-anchor-parodizer (after Steve Carrell left) and give him his own show. Unfortunately, being that his gimmick (the whole fake newscaster thing) is just that, a gimmick, it means that it gets old and he’s stuck with a one dimensional show. During his interview with Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria on October 19, you could actually pick out the moment when Colbert struggled to decide whether to continue with “gimmick-based” questions (“So why should anyone care about the world?”) or turn towards a more serious, John Stewart-esque, seriousness-through-humor style. Walking this fence is the reason that the show will fail. Interviewing guests who are not comedians (Zakaria, as a prime example) only leads to more awkwardness. By now, everyone is familiar with The Daily Show style of news, and interviewees know not to give serious answers to the ridiculous questions. Unfortunately, these guests often aren’t particularly funny. Colbert is plenty funny though it’s undecided whether he’s a one joke pony (Strangers with Candy fans, chime in).

    **

    The Colbert Report receives 2 stars due to the obvious (upon viewing) cashing in on The Daily Show’s success. It has its moments, but stretching what would normally be 4-6 minute segments on The Daily Show to half-hour length makes those moments exceedingly fleeting. The show does deserve credit for its title (“Report” is pronounced as “Rapport”), and it moves faster than Keith Olberman’s (relatively) similar show on MSNBC. Unfortunately for Colbert, the talking heads of political news and commentary have already become parodies of themselves. Bill O’Reilly’s “talking points” section is so far over the top that if I want to laugh at it, I can simply watch that, not Colbert’s spin on it. Likewise, Michael Moore’s fame and/or notoriety have also moved toward self-parody. The “ambush interview” doesn’t need to be parodied when the original inspiration is as ridiculous as it is. Of course, the show gains points for attempting to start a joke-feud with gun control advocate, James Brady.

  • Soft Shell Crabs

    soft shell crab
    ½
    Soft shell crabs earn a .5 out of 5 stars due to the fact that when one eats a soft shell crab, he (or she) is no longer of the realm of man…he becomes an animal. Let’s see: take one whole crab, steam it, eat it. Notice, there’s no preparation or “removing of the entrails.” It makes me think that people would eat whole cows if their mouths were big enough. The .5 comes from any character one might build while eating all of a sea creature that is widely considered the ocean’s garbage man.

    Dan