<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gauntlet Review &#8211; The Beatles &#8211; &#8220;Rubber Soul&#8221;, &#8220;Let it Be&#8221;, &#8220;George Martin: In My Life&#8221;, and &#8220;I am Sam Soundtrack&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://emptybookshelf.com/nate/2006/02/23/gauntlet-review-the-beatles-rubber-soul-let-it-be-george-martin-in-my-life-and-i-am-sam-soundtrack/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://emptybookshelf.com/nate/2006/02/23/gauntlet-review-the-beatles-rubber-soul-let-it-be-george-martin-in-my-life-and-i-am-sam-soundtrack/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=gauntlet-review-the-beatles-rubber-soul-let-it-be-george-martin-in-my-life-and-i-am-sam-soundtrack</link>
	<description>telling you what to think since aught-five.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 10:39:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: debra a. davis</title>
		<link>http://emptybookshelf.com/nate/2006/02/23/gauntlet-review-the-beatles-rubber-soul-let-it-be-george-martin-in-my-life-and-i-am-sam-soundtrack/comment-page-1/#comment-16827</link>
		<dc:creator>debra a. davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:47:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptybookshelf.com/?p=117#comment-16827</guid>
		<description>Hello just figured i would let you know i had a problem with this blog appearing blank also. Might be chimpanzees in the page.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello just figured i would let you know i had a problem with this blog appearing blank also. Might be chimpanzees in the page.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Empty Bookshelf Reviews &#187; Empty Bookshelf&#8217;s First 100 Reviews</title>
		<link>http://emptybookshelf.com/nate/2006/02/23/gauntlet-review-the-beatles-rubber-soul-let-it-be-george-martin-in-my-life-and-i-am-sam-soundtrack/comment-page-1/#comment-272</link>
		<dc:creator>Empty Bookshelf Reviews &#187; Empty Bookshelf&#8217;s First 100 Reviews</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:33:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptybookshelf.com/?p=117#comment-272</guid>
		<description>[...] August 11th, 2006 Nate    Oh, those kids. Always at it. You guys really shouldn&#039;t&#039;ve.   So here we are at the first of what may be a few reviews of our first milestone, 100 reviews. Not only is this the first review of this milestone, but of what could be very many milestones. We here at the Bookshelf like the word &quot;milestone&quot;, and don&#039;t believe in Thesauruses. So here we go, our first hundred in a nutshell.  The first actual review happened way back in October of 2005... remember that time before the Steelers won the superbowl, before &quot;Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire&quot; movie, before Dick Cheny accidentally shot his friend while hunting, and before Bristol, United Kingdom celebrated the 200th birthday of Isambard Kingdom Brunel (actually April 9) by relighting the Clifton Suspension Bridge?  Dan&#039;s first review was aimed at complaining about post-game hype surrounding an extremely long baseball game. Of course our readers probably care about boring Astros-Braves baseball games as much as they seemed to care about my terrible review of the dictionary. Even though that picture was good, it was nowhere near the five star quality of this image. I too tried my hand at reviewing food, but it was an utter failure. On the plus side, my review of the letter to the editor is one of my favorites, and my first review actually got eight comments, including this link. The few following that grilled chese review focused mostly on music, my opinion of &quot;Good Night, and Good Luck&quot;, a particular episode of Trading Spouses, and Dan&#039;s opinion of My opinion of &quot;Good Night, and Good Luck&quot;. Dan also said that the Colbert report wouldn&#039;t last, which seems to have been proven false.  October seemed to be us finding our footing.      November saw Dan&#039;s Cleveland Trifecta, a diatribe against horses, a road that he liked, an episode of &quot;Coach&quot;, and his complaints about how much he aches, now that he&#039;s an old man. I started the month strong with the Beth review, but struggled through the rest of it, with lame reviews like Thursday, a type of tooth&quot;paste&quot; that doesn&#039;t work for me, and an insightful, yet completely unnecessary complaint about my nosebleeds. My FAO Schwarz review kinda made up for them, but the highlight of the month involved Dan and I sparring about how Christmas is coming earlier every year, and something about me being a time-traveling sheep.   November didn&#039;t see much improvement over October, but the Christmas stuff was entertaining.     December got a bit better, even with a few less reviews. I busted out the old NES games, for a few reviews that I swear are not trying to copy off of XE, another personal favorite, Christmas Cards, Adam&#039;s first review, Dan throwing the hate down on Pitchfork media, and a suprising amount of people commenting on Roger Ebert&#039;s take on video games. The biggest advance in December was the pop-ins, that added added some clarity to our parentheses-obsessed-writing.  December was a highly engaging and entertaining month, even with only nine reviews.     2006 rolled around, and January saw Dan get political, review half of a book, not like warm winters a lot. I only contributed three of ten reviews that month, but all three of them were relatively alright, mostly because &quot;Where In Time is Carmen Sandiego&quot;, and &quot;The Simpsons&quot; after season 9 is so easy to complain about.  January&#039;s topics fell off a little.     February, while being the shortest month, was also a monster for us, as far as number goes. A whopping twenty-one reviews. To be fair, 17 of them came in our envelope-pushing live superbowl reviews, the biggest stunt pulled in the history of reviewing anything and everything on a five star scale. The only other reviews of any substance were my Gauntlet Review of the Beatles albums, and Dan&#039;s digging up of our one-issue underground high-school newspaper.   Despite the big stunt, and two good reviews, February was kinda lacking.     March just plain sucked. Four reviews total. One by me. Three mega-reviews by Dan.      April was slightly better, with another of my top five of my reviews, Legacy of the Wizard. The other four I would give an average of 3 stars to, but since there were only four during the month, that&#039;s going to cancel out the Legacy of the Wizard bonus and take it down a half star.      For my money, May was our best month yet. Dan&#039;s contribution was the lengthy three-part TV landscape review. I threw out quality stuff with my Songs for Silverman, and Degree Navigator reviews. The shorter American Dreamz and Davinci Code video game reviews were serviceable, but my immense LOST season 2 review tops everything.      June fell off a bit. Four reviews total. Split two and two. Mine were based on a ridiculous news story, and anger at other people for coincidentally coming up with the same ideas as me. Dan tried to put everything into perspective by seeing how well the entire history of human ingenuity and artistry stacked up in the interstellar community, and complained a little about how the national geography of roadways isn&#039;t designed to suit his needs.      July was filled with the (I gotta admit my ignorance as to the relevance of this phrase... and wikipedia does nothing to help) Navel Gazing set. I was had for a few minutes by a Jimmy Kimmel hoax, and I thought the critics were a little too harsh on Shayamalan. Despite the mediocre numbers for the month, I&#039;d give it a 3.5     This gives us a per-month average of 3 stars, which isn&#039;t too shabby.   In my first ever review, I reviewed the concept of this website. I claimed that we wouldn&#039;t be able to keep it fresh, that we&#039;d run out of ideas, and that we wouldn&#039;t be able to stay somewhat funny at least. I believe my exact quote was &quot;It has the potential to provide hours of entertainment for readers, and shape their lives for years to come. However, the downside is that it could get old real soon, and provide us with nothing but an excuse not to get real jobs.&quot;  Well, I think we&#039;ve significantly proven wrong every single point that I just brought up. We have 29 categories, 19 subcategories, and even two sub-sub categories. We&#039;re still writing about reasonably different things, and while we may have slacked on the funny in recent months, we still bring the &#039;A&#039; game on occasion. As far as my quote goes, I&#039;d be willing to bet that we&#039;ve provided maybe a few hours of entertainment for a handful of people, which probably did nothing to shape their lives for even the near fututre. On the upside, it hasn&#039;t gotten old, and we have gotten real-ish jobs.   For all of these reasons, I&#039;m willing to up our star rating by half a star, over the average rating of 3. I&#039;ve also realized that my method of calculating the rating might not be the best, so I&#039;m gonna throw in another half star for a final rating of 4 stars out of five.    And for those of you playing along at home, yes, this technically is the 100th review and so therefore should be included. This review receives 3 stars for not having much to offer in the way of witty musings, and for having a faulty overall rating method, but for packing so many subjects and links into one review. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] August 11th, 2006 Nate    Oh, those kids. Always at it. You guys really shouldn&#8217;t've.   So here we are at the first of what may be a few reviews of our first milestone, 100 reviews. Not only is this the first review of this milestone, but of what could be very many milestones. We here at the Bookshelf like the word &#8220;milestone&#8221;, and don&#8217;t believe in Thesauruses. So here we go, our first hundred in a nutshell.  The first actual review happened way back in October of 2005&#8230; remember that time before the Steelers won the superbowl, before &#8220;Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire&#8221; movie, before Dick Cheny accidentally shot his friend while hunting, and before Bristol, United Kingdom celebrated the 200th birthday of Isambard Kingdom Brunel (actually April 9) by relighting the Clifton Suspension Bridge?  Dan&#8217;s first review was aimed at complaining about post-game hype surrounding an extremely long baseball game. Of course our readers probably care about boring Astros-Braves baseball games as much as they seemed to care about my terrible review of the dictionary. Even though that picture was good, it was nowhere near the five star quality of this image. I too tried my hand at reviewing food, but it was an utter failure. On the plus side, my review of the letter to the editor is one of my favorites, and my first review actually got eight comments, including this link. The few following that grilled chese review focused mostly on music, my opinion of &#8220;Good Night, and Good Luck&#8221;, a particular episode of Trading Spouses, and Dan&#8217;s opinion of My opinion of &#8220;Good Night, and Good Luck&#8221;. Dan also said that the Colbert report wouldn&#8217;t last, which seems to have been proven false.  October seemed to be us finding our footing.      November saw Dan&#8217;s Cleveland Trifecta, a diatribe against horses, a road that he liked, an episode of &#8220;Coach&#8221;, and his complaints about how much he aches, now that he&#8217;s an old man. I started the month strong with the Beth review, but struggled through the rest of it, with lame reviews like Thursday, a type of tooth&#8221;paste&#8221; that doesn&#8217;t work for me, and an insightful, yet completely unnecessary complaint about my nosebleeds. My FAO Schwarz review kinda made up for them, but the highlight of the month involved Dan and I sparring about how Christmas is coming earlier every year, and something about me being a time-traveling sheep.   November didn&#8217;t see much improvement over October, but the Christmas stuff was entertaining.     December got a bit better, even with a few less reviews. I busted out the old NES games, for a few reviews that I swear are not trying to copy off of XE, another personal favorite, Christmas Cards, Adam&#8217;s first review, Dan throwing the hate down on Pitchfork media, and a suprising amount of people commenting on Roger Ebert&#8217;s take on video games. The biggest advance in December was the pop-ins, that added added some clarity to our parentheses-obsessed-writing.  December was a highly engaging and entertaining month, even with only nine reviews.     2006 rolled around, and January saw Dan get political, review half of a book, not like warm winters a lot. I only contributed three of ten reviews that month, but all three of them were relatively alright, mostly because &#8220;Where In Time is Carmen Sandiego&#8221;, and &#8220;The Simpsons&#8221; after season 9 is so easy to complain about.  January&#8217;s topics fell off a little.     February, while being the shortest month, was also a monster for us, as far as number goes. A whopping twenty-one reviews. To be fair, 17 of them came in our envelope-pushing live superbowl reviews, the biggest stunt pulled in the history of reviewing anything and everything on a five star scale. The only other reviews of any substance were my Gauntlet Review of the Beatles albums, and Dan&#8217;s digging up of our one-issue underground high-school newspaper.   Despite the big stunt, and two good reviews, February was kinda lacking.     March just plain sucked. Four reviews total. One by me. Three mega-reviews by Dan.      April was slightly better, with another of my top five of my reviews, Legacy of the Wizard. The other four I would give an average of 3 stars to, but since there were only four during the month, that&#8217;s going to cancel out the Legacy of the Wizard bonus and take it down a half star.      For my money, May was our best month yet. Dan&#8217;s contribution was the lengthy three-part TV landscape review. I threw out quality stuff with my Songs for Silverman, and Degree Navigator reviews. The shorter American Dreamz and Davinci Code video game reviews were serviceable, but my immense LOST season 2 review tops everything.      June fell off a bit. Four reviews total. Split two and two. Mine were based on a ridiculous news story, and anger at other people for coincidentally coming up with the same ideas as me. Dan tried to put everything into perspective by seeing how well the entire history of human ingenuity and artistry stacked up in the interstellar community, and complained a little about how the national geography of roadways isn&#8217;t designed to suit his needs.      July was filled with the (I gotta admit my ignorance as to the relevance of this phrase&#8230; and wikipedia does nothing to help) Navel Gazing set. I was had for a few minutes by a Jimmy Kimmel hoax, and I thought the critics were a little too harsh on Shayamalan. Despite the mediocre numbers for the month, I&#8217;d give it a 3.5     This gives us a per-month average of 3 stars, which isn&#8217;t too shabby.   In my first ever review, I reviewed the concept of this website. I claimed that we wouldn&#8217;t be able to keep it fresh, that we&#8217;d run out of ideas, and that we wouldn&#8217;t be able to stay somewhat funny at least. I believe my exact quote was &#8220;It has the potential to provide hours of entertainment for readers, and shape their lives for years to come. However, the downside is that it could get old real soon, and provide us with nothing but an excuse not to get real jobs.&#8221;  Well, I think we&#8217;ve significantly proven wrong every single point that I just brought up. We have 29 categories, 19 subcategories, and even two sub-sub categories. We&#8217;re still writing about reasonably different things, and while we may have slacked on the funny in recent months, we still bring the &#8216;A&#8217; game on occasion. As far as my quote goes, I&#8217;d be willing to bet that we&#8217;ve provided maybe a few hours of entertainment for a handful of people, which probably did nothing to shape their lives for even the near fututre. On the upside, it hasn&#8217;t gotten old, and we have gotten real-ish jobs.   For all of these reasons, I&#8217;m willing to up our star rating by half a star, over the average rating of 3. I&#8217;ve also realized that my method of calculating the rating might not be the best, so I&#8217;m gonna throw in another half star for a final rating of 4 stars out of five.    And for those of you playing along at home, yes, this technically is the 100th review and so therefore should be included. This review receives 3 stars for not having much to offer in the way of witty musings, and for having a faulty overall rating method, but for packing so many subjects and links into one review. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Empty Bookshelf Reviews &#187; The Last 200 Years of Human Creative Output</title>
		<link>http://emptybookshelf.com/nate/2006/02/23/gauntlet-review-the-beatles-rubber-soul-let-it-be-george-martin-in-my-life-and-i-am-sam-soundtrack/comment-page-1/#comment-202</link>
		<dc:creator>Empty Bookshelf Reviews &#187; The Last 200 Years of Human Creative Output</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jun 2006 14:32:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptybookshelf.com/?p=117#comment-202</guid>
		<description>[...] &quot;Performance Art&quot; - Hey aliens, I&#039;ve heard they have delicious brains!  So that leaves painting and music. Thinking on both of those two forms what would we include? For music, we have any one of Bach&#039;s Brandenburg Concertos (among countless other things of his that could be included - one of the Brandenburg Concertos was included on the Voyager records, so let&#039;s consider it the example for Bach), we have a selections of &quot;Beethovens&quot;: Fur Elise, the Moonlight Sonata, and excerpts from the 5th, 9th, and even 7th symphonies to choose from. Handel has Music for the Royal Fireworks, but after that, the selection gets a bit thin. The 1812 Overture is quite an achievement, but remembering what I had said before about context and how aliens wouldn&#039;t care about history, it&#039;s not detached from its context (the Napoleonic wars -- As Americans we don&#039;t care about them, and aliens would care even less); when someone listens to it, they invariably say it sounds like fighting music. So it (and most any other event/history-inspired piece of music-think Finlandia, The Moldau, etc.) is out of contention because it doesn&#039;t transcend its context. The Brandenburg Concerto has the name of a place in it, yet as music, it&#039;s completely detached from its namesake. Handel&#039;s Music for the Royal Fireworks also has a very context-heavy title, but what in it evokes a fireworks display without talking in artsy-fartsy &quot;painting with music&quot; terms or even explicitly calls out the &quot;royal&quot; aspect of it?  I&#039;ve just looked into baroque, classical, and romantic music, and anything made before those three was made primitive by Bach&#039;s baroque - and for music of the 20th century, well, let&#039;s take a look. Aaron Copland wrote some nice music, unfortunately, it&#039;s not alien-worthy. There&#039;s some sort of experimental or even reactionary sense to it, purposefully having instruments out of tune for effect and having some intangible &quot;American&quot; sound, sometimes taking existing folk songs and incorporating them into some larger work. That&#039;s great and all, but aliens don&#039;t deserve experimental music in any capacity. We should be proud of what we&#039;ve figured out, not the steps it took to get there.  Looking at less academic music, there&#039;s jazz, blues, swing, etc., etc. of the pre-Rock times, and all of those are out -- if the music has little significance today, it&#039;ll have even less in the future. Now, the Beatles are probably the most significant popular music artifact of the 20th century, but as Nate implicitly said, the music didn&#039;t get very interesting until they started with the drugs. Nothing against the Beatles, but I&#039;m not sure drug users make the best musical ambassadors. (Yeah, Bach, etc. probably used snuff or whatever was popular, but no one says, &quot;Wow, he must&#039;ve been high when he wrote this.&quot; John Lennon, I&#039;m looking through at you.) Also, the Beatles music has words, and as much as I&#039;d like English to be Earth&#039;s language there are two issues: 1) I don&#039;t want the Queen&#039;s English to be the official one and probably more importantly 2) aliens don&#039;t know English, the Queen&#039;s or otherwise, much less any Earth language.  The other musical heavy hitters of the 20th century? Led Zeppelin - drugs; Pink Floyd - more drugs; Michael Jackson - yeah, that&#039;d be a good idea; (I hate to admit it) Garth Brooks - I don&#039;t even need to provide a reason. Yanni&#039;s quite popular in his own weird way, and he has the language thing taken care of, but his music is too generic for representing human-kind. Yeah, there&#039;s the non-Western World&#039;s music, but let&#039;s be honest: they&#039;re all wishing that they were us by enjoying our pop music scraps we give to them years after their popularity here. It&#039;s the Western way or the highway.  Conclusion: Nothing musical that&#039;s alien-worthy after Beethoven. He died in 1827. Way to go humanity.  On to artwork: Well, the most well-regarded of today&#039;s artists (by art-critics/snobs) is Matthew Barney. Take a look around at that link, and you&#039;ll see that not only is his &quot;work&quot; not alien-worthy, it&#039;s barely human-worthy. Like music, a lot of the more notable recent-ish artists had drug problems (Picasso) which directly influenced their art, &quot;great&quot; or not. Van Gogh wasn&#039;t the most stable (cutting his ear off and all), and Dali - well, his stuff is interesting only because we view it as humans and react to it because of what we expect or don&#039;t expect of what we consider &quot;art.&quot; Aliens have no reason to react in that same way. Also, implicit pictures of male genitalia might not be the best thing to be showcasing to otherworldly visitors. I certainly don&#039;t want the aliens to know where the sensitive bits are when they begin their mass exterminations.  There have been some other relatively recent and notable artists, but they suffer from that same time/place/context issue as detailed in the music section. Mary Cassatt did the whole impressionism thing in an American way, and Georgia O&#039;Keefe did for &quot;innies&quot; what Dali did for &quot;outies.&quot;  In all actuality, no matter how it may be, hanging on so many dorm room walls, The Starry Night would make the 200 year cut, but again, the latent (and not so latent) craziness of Van Gogh precludes its inclusion.  Just like with the music, we end up looking back to the &quot;masters:&quot; Rembrandt, the Ninja Turtles (whose work doesn&#039;t really need introduction - except for maybe Donatello, that underachieving I-talian), Vermeer, the locally contentious Bosch and so on. Needless to say, all a long time ago.  Again, I&#039;ve only mentioned Western art, but like I said before, it&#039;s the Western Way or the highway.    The Last 200 Years of Human Creative Output is given one disappointing star due to its absolute lack of providing anything we&#039;d give to alien ambassadors as the pinnacle of human achievement. Beyond that, because there have undoubtedly been enjoyable snippets since then, we, as fans and humans, can only be distressed once we realize that it/they can&#039;t hold a candle to the previous work. Now, let me prefend (come on people, it means defending yourself before someone has put you in a defensive position) myself here: I am a loud opponent of the &quot;it was first, so it&#039;s absolutely significant and &#039;good&#039;&quot; mentality. Beowulf, The Ramones, Sex Pistols, Elvis, Soyuz, The Wright Flyer, and on and on - all overrated in any sense other than &quot;first ~.&quot; None of my picks were real &quot;firsts&quot; (except for Bach, sort of - but he was not the only game in town for that time of music when he was around), so I&#039;m good to go, principles intact. Please, leave suggestions for the alien art and music presentation below. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8220;Performance Art&#8221; &#8211; Hey aliens, I&#8217;ve heard they have delicious brains!  So that leaves painting and music. Thinking on both of those two forms what would we include? For music, we have any one of Bach&#8217;s Brandenburg Concertos (among countless other things of his that could be included &#8211; one of the Brandenburg Concertos was included on the Voyager records, so let&#8217;s consider it the example for Bach), we have a selections of &#8220;Beethovens&#8221;: Fur Elise, the Moonlight Sonata, and excerpts from the 5th, 9th, and even 7th symphonies to choose from. Handel has Music for the Royal Fireworks, but after that, the selection gets a bit thin. The 1812 Overture is quite an achievement, but remembering what I had said before about context and how aliens wouldn&#8217;t care about history, it&#8217;s not detached from its context (the Napoleonic wars &#8212; As Americans we don&#8217;t care about them, and aliens would care even less); when someone listens to it, they invariably say it sounds like fighting music. So it (and most any other event/history-inspired piece of music-think Finlandia, The Moldau, etc.) is out of contention because it doesn&#8217;t transcend its context. The Brandenburg Concerto has the name of a place in it, yet as music, it&#8217;s completely detached from its namesake. Handel&#8217;s Music for the Royal Fireworks also has a very context-heavy title, but what in it evokes a fireworks display without talking in artsy-fartsy &#8220;painting with music&#8221; terms or even explicitly calls out the &#8220;royal&#8221; aspect of it?  I&#8217;ve just looked into baroque, classical, and romantic music, and anything made before those three was made primitive by Bach&#8217;s baroque &#8211; and for music of the 20th century, well, let&#8217;s take a look. Aaron Copland wrote some nice music, unfortunately, it&#8217;s not alien-worthy. There&#8217;s some sort of experimental or even reactionary sense to it, purposefully having instruments out of tune for effect and having some intangible &#8220;American&#8221; sound, sometimes taking existing folk songs and incorporating them into some larger work. That&#8217;s great and all, but aliens don&#8217;t deserve experimental music in any capacity. We should be proud of what we&#8217;ve figured out, not the steps it took to get there.  Looking at less academic music, there&#8217;s jazz, blues, swing, etc., etc. of the pre-Rock times, and all of those are out &#8212; if the music has little significance today, it&#8217;ll have even less in the future. Now, the Beatles are probably the most significant popular music artifact of the 20th century, but as Nate implicitly said, the music didn&#8217;t get very interesting until they started with the drugs. Nothing against the Beatles, but I&#8217;m not sure drug users make the best musical ambassadors. (Yeah, Bach, etc. probably used snuff or whatever was popular, but no one says, &#8220;Wow, he must&#8217;ve been high when he wrote this.&#8221; John Lennon, I&#8217;m looking through at you.) Also, the Beatles music has words, and as much as I&#8217;d like English to be Earth&#8217;s language there are two issues: 1) I don&#8217;t want the Queen&#8217;s English to be the official one and probably more importantly 2) aliens don&#8217;t know English, the Queen&#8217;s or otherwise, much less any Earth language.  The other musical heavy hitters of the 20th century? Led Zeppelin &#8211; drugs; Pink Floyd &#8211; more drugs; Michael Jackson &#8211; yeah, that&#8217;d be a good idea; (I hate to admit it) Garth Brooks &#8211; I don&#8217;t even need to provide a reason. Yanni&#8217;s quite popular in his own weird way, and he has the language thing taken care of, but his music is too generic for representing human-kind. Yeah, there&#8217;s the non-Western World&#8217;s music, but let&#8217;s be honest: they&#8217;re all wishing that they were us by enjoying our pop music scraps we give to them years after their popularity here. It&#8217;s the Western way or the highway.  Conclusion: Nothing musical that&#8217;s alien-worthy after Beethoven. He died in 1827. Way to go humanity.  On to artwork: Well, the most well-regarded of today&#8217;s artists (by art-critics/snobs) is Matthew Barney. Take a look around at that link, and you&#8217;ll see that not only is his &#8220;work&#8221; not alien-worthy, it&#8217;s barely human-worthy. Like music, a lot of the more notable recent-ish artists had drug problems (Picasso) which directly influenced their art, &#8220;great&#8221; or not. Van Gogh wasn&#8217;t the most stable (cutting his ear off and all), and Dali &#8211; well, his stuff is interesting only because we view it as humans and react to it because of what we expect or don&#8217;t expect of what we consider &#8220;art.&#8221; Aliens have no reason to react in that same way. Also, implicit pictures of male genitalia might not be the best thing to be showcasing to otherworldly visitors. I certainly don&#8217;t want the aliens to know where the sensitive bits are when they begin their mass exterminations.  There have been some other relatively recent and notable artists, but they suffer from that same time/place/context issue as detailed in the music section. Mary Cassatt did the whole impressionism thing in an American way, and Georgia O&#8217;Keefe did for &#8220;innies&#8221; what Dali did for &#8220;outies.&#8221;  In all actuality, no matter how it may be, hanging on so many dorm room walls, The Starry Night would make the 200 year cut, but again, the latent (and not so latent) craziness of Van Gogh precludes its inclusion.  Just like with the music, we end up looking back to the &#8220;masters:&#8221; Rembrandt, the Ninja Turtles (whose work doesn&#8217;t really need introduction &#8211; except for maybe Donatello, that underachieving I-talian), Vermeer, the locally contentious Bosch and so on. Needless to say, all a long time ago.  Again, I&#8217;ve only mentioned Western art, but like I said before, it&#8217;s the Western Way or the highway.    The Last 200 Years of Human Creative Output is given one disappointing star due to its absolute lack of providing anything we&#8217;d give to alien ambassadors as the pinnacle of human achievement. Beyond that, because there have undoubtedly been enjoyable snippets since then, we, as fans and humans, can only be distressed once we realize that it/they can&#8217;t hold a candle to the previous work. Now, let me prefend (come on people, it means defending yourself before someone has put you in a defensive position) myself here: I am a loud opponent of the &#8220;it was first, so it&#8217;s absolutely significant and &#8216;good&#8217;&#8221; mentality. Beowulf, The Ramones, Sex Pistols, Elvis, Soyuz, The Wright Flyer, and on and on &#8211; all overrated in any sense other than &#8220;first ~.&#8221; None of my picks were real &#8220;firsts&#8221; (except for Bach, sort of &#8211; but he was not the only game in town for that time of music when he was around), so I&#8217;m good to go, principles intact. Please, leave suggestions for the alien art and music presentation below. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nate</title>
		<link>http://emptybookshelf.com/nate/2006/02/23/gauntlet-review-the-beatles-rubber-soul-let-it-be-george-martin-in-my-life-and-i-am-sam-soundtrack/comment-page-1/#comment-130</link>
		<dc:creator>Nate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Mar 2006 16:51:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptybookshelf.com/?p=117#comment-130</guid>
		<description>If you look at the pop-in on the word 1998 (or number i guess), you&#039;ll notice that I actually did think it was gonna be good. Truth be told, I kinda enjoyed it for a few years, until I learned the err of my ways. I listened to it the other day, and there are a few enjoyable tracks, but the ones that are bad are just plain awful</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you look at the pop-in on the word 1998 (or number i guess), you&#8217;ll notice that I actually did think it was gonna be good. Truth be told, I kinda enjoyed it for a few years, until I learned the err of my ways. I listened to it the other day, and there are a few enjoyable tracks, but the ones that are bad are just plain awful</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Em</title>
		<link>http://emptybookshelf.com/nate/2006/02/23/gauntlet-review-the-beatles-rubber-soul-let-it-be-george-martin-in-my-life-and-i-am-sam-soundtrack/comment-page-1/#comment-129</link>
		<dc:creator>Em</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Mar 2006 03:04:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://emptybookshelf.com/?p=117#comment-129</guid>
		<description>I guess the cd wasn&#039;t a total waste of money. Considering, without it you wouldn&#039;t be able to write this review, right? Give me some lenience though. I was only 12 when I bought it for you. I also don&#039;t think they had those headphones where you can pre-listen to cd&#039;s before purchasing. Yea, that&#039;s my story and I&#039;m sticking to it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess the cd wasn&#8217;t a total waste of money. Considering, without it you wouldn&#8217;t be able to write this review, right? Give me some lenience though. I was only 12 when I bought it for you. I also don&#8217;t think they had those headphones where you can pre-listen to cd&#8217;s before purchasing. Yea, that&#8217;s my story and I&#8217;m sticking to it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

