This is the 21st Century

After recently deciding to supplement my Pioneer DVR/DVD-R Hard Disk recorder, I realized that there isn't many of these types of machines on the market. I had hoped that in the last two years these recorders had advanced a bit, possibly utilizing DVD-DL, while we wait for HD-DVD-R. This article by CNET confirmed my fear - these machines aren't being made anymore - here. They are popular in other countries, especially the UK, we just can't get them in the "free world" of America. It seems either the cable companies are pressuring manufacturers because they want to rent out their own units, or the makers are being pressured by the MPAA. Since March, all devices are required to incorporate digital tuners, which may have played a part in this disappearance, and which strangely enough has affected VCR's - many of which I've seen without tuners (making them VCPs?). So, after finding out only two or three models are still being made, I decided to get 2 Phillips DVDR357Hs while I still can. Perhaps the best feature, besides being able to watch my DVDs upconverted to 1080p using an HDMI connection, is the digital tuner. While it doesn't record HD (down-converting it to SD), I can record off the HD channels, which results in a much better recording which is letterboxed for better viewing on my HD TV. Apparently the editing on this model doesn't seem to be as convenient as the Pioneer, but my old 520H will now be used for projects such as VHS conversion, while the Phillips are used for TV recording. Although its not a leap forward in technology, its probably the most practical purchase. While I believe that Pioneer did eventually make DVD-DL recorders, these are rare, expensive and DL doesn't seem to be catching on. Even when HD-DVD becomes affordable, I have my doubts about recordable versions, given the Draconian HDCP restrictions.

Jeremiah Blues

Here's a paper on the current state of copyright law. John Tehranian concludes that an average person could violate roughly 83 copyright laws per day, resulting in $12.45 million in damages, or $4.5 BILLION per year. These activities don't even include blatant attempts such as P2P file sharing. Of course, he stretches the possibility of each scenario to the limit of what's possible, and he totally disregards any fair use exceptions. Who would get sued for a public performance for singing in their car? Although, after the precedent set by the DMCA, fair use is essentially non-existent in digital terms, and that sets a dangerous precedent for non-digital mediums. I won't be surprised if someday I'm sitting in a nice minimum security prison, owing billions in compensation (his paper radically changes my original estimation of roughly $600,000) - but at least it will be a vacation.

The End

This article presents the current state of PC gaming: according to the industry it's fine. Of course, us PC gamers know this is not the case. It started about seven years ago - with the death of the Flight Simulation, a game genre that is not reproducible on a console system. Just as bad, has been the numerous console titles that have not been ported to the PC. Notable inclusions are Obi-wan and Dead Rising. Come Spring, there will be a major media event with the release of Stars Wars, The Force Unleashed, hopefully the most playable SW title since Jedi Academy, but quite shockingly it will not be available for the PC. Someday, if I ever want to experience these titles, I'll have to break down and get an XBOX system. The need to do this is quite absurd given the investment in high-end PC hardware, and Microsoft OS, a company which, if not so greedy, could easily port the games for their own XBOX system to their OS.

Computer World

As we get closer to the singularity, I've been thinking more about how technology has changed throughout my lifetime. Previously I had thought of this in terms of hardware, advancing from my Commodore 64 though a 486, Pentium II, Pentium IV, to a Pentium D. But now I'm beginning to think more in terms of how I use computers. Most of the programs I use now, didn't exist 5 years ago, and I can barely remember what I was using back in the 90s. Who can remember a time before iTunes? How about the days when we had to a CD-ROM encyclopedia instead of instantly accessing a VERY current Wikipedia. We now have a myriad of choices for using our PCs. My computer is so customized - using quick launch shortcuts, keyboard shortcuts and programs and plug-ins like Slickrun and Googlebar, that its hard for me to use other people's machines efficiently.

I never really jumped on the idea of internet apps. Of course when I first used Google years ago, I knew it had a future as THE search engine, but I never imagined how far they would go. I started using iGoogle (or Google IG back then) as my home page, and now I couldn't live without it, I have all the links and precise news that I need in one place, plus some cool tools and toys. Last week I was doing an update, and I unintentionally installed Google Desktop. This program is excellent. It has a nice transparent design with time and temp and a cool photo slideshow. It also has a handy notepad, so I don't need to open a new program or file to quickly remember something - and it reads html, which is the first time I've found a text editor that does. It also provides news articles to the desktop and its has a web clips section that shows near-real-time additions to web forums, discussions, USENET groups, Wikipedia, and blogs (now I'll know when I update this page). I now have a new appreciation for RSS feeds. This is all done so much more effectively and stylishly than Microsoft's failed Active Desktop could ever do. Of course, the real power of Google Desktop is the Desktop search. I never really thought I would need this back when I heard about X1. But now, I read so many various articles on the net, I begin to forget what I was reading and I spend way too much time trying to find things again. Like so many other geeks these days, I now need a Google-assisted memory. The desktop search not only remembers these articles for me, but it also searches documents, email and files, so I can search for everything in one place.

My other new tool is the Google Notebook. I've apparently made notes in it before, but I never realized it. By simply selecting Note This, I can put something from a search into the notebook. I have previously been using Evernote for this, but the great thing about Google Notebook is that it is stored online. This way, I can do work on one computer, and then continue on another machine. I don't have to remember to keep moving various text files from one PC to another, as it is all easily integrated into the browser.

So , I've now reached a new level in computer use as we have reached the point where a computer isn't all that useful with an internet connection. Just as web pages have now become dynamic, our desktops have become much more useful and interesting than the static ones they used to be. Besides these applications, I can't get enough of Google Earth, along with Google Sky. These guys really have a vision for applications, and their pricing scheme is much better tan Microsoft. I can't wait to see what Google will have for us in the future.


edit - 10.21.07: I just listened to Leo's 10.02 show and he was talking exactly about this, saying that technology has matured enough that we can now talk about content and not hardware. Great minds.

De Do Do Do De Da Da Da

So, for today's post we have yet another Sting entry. Only because Sting is in the news, and its been a long time since he has been. Blender magazine further confirms my assumptions about the media's assault on intelligence. Sting has been voted the worst lyricist. Wait. What? That's right, and Neil Peart comes in second. Seriously?! WTF?! Add Bono, Sarah Maclachlan, and H in there and you'll have my list of best songwriters. Now, Sting is used to being called pompous, arrogant and pretentious. But, I never though anyone with a functioning brain would actually question his lyric writing ability.

His strength lies in the fact that he can discuss complex ideas, put into a simple, three verse structure. Like his musical writing, minimalism is the key, but yet there is serious depth and intensity. His songs are easily accessible, he's not overly verbose or obscure, (with the possible exception of Wrapped Around Your Finger). He also strikes a good balance between intellectual and visceral dimensions of a song. As for the subject matter, Sting's lyrics encompass the whole sphere of the humanities. In the words of Daryl Jones, "I've never heard a Sting song that's a nothing song." So he throws in a little Shakespeare, Chaucer, Nabakov, St Augustine, etc. He was one of the inspirations that led me to pursue degrees in English and Philosophy. "Cloying spirituality"?? Are we listening to the same songs? I assume they don't mean that in a religious sense. (and by the way, by using that phrase they are being pompous themselves - their readers can't understand Sting, but they're going to understand that?). Maybe its in the personal sense, but as for being overly sweet - remember "Every Breath You Take" is NOT a love song - Sting usually focuses on the dark side, or at least the dual side of things. Apparently his lyrics are good enough to be made into book form.

So, basically he's too smart for these people. It's strange that we have constant debate about the failure of our educational system, yet we criticize any attempt to appear smart. We now have people on TV that say they don't know, or care, if the world is flat. Who would have thought we would get this stupid? The media wants to retard people so they can tell them how to think. Then its easier to sell Britney, Justin, and any rap to people. Smart people aren't going to stand there and eat crap that they paid for just because that's what they are told to do. This is a magazine that had Kanye West on their latest cover - that shows where Blender's IQ level is at (and thanks Kanye, for ruining the Police performance at Live Earth).

Luckily for me, I usually consider these polls to be the opposite of reality - there's usually too much Bon Jovi and GNR to be taken seriously. As for Sting, he gets free publicity, which coincidentally happens right before his Lyrics book is released. And what about Neil? I dare anybody to listen to "The Pass", and then tell me Neil is a bad songwriter - talk about depth and intensity!

Princes of the Universe

Advanced Theory I

Check out the Advanced Theory Blog for an interesting cultural theory. I'm not sure it makes coherent sense, or if it is even supposed to. It may be as esoteric as many other post-modern theories, or it may just be a pseudo-intellectual way to criticize and make fun of modern culture. Either way, it seems worthy of some consideration. Every post he makes regarding Sting (no pun intended - really), contains a statement to the effect of "I don't know if Sting is advanced or not", which I find quite amusing. It seems Sting is so super-Advanced, he has confused the founder of Advancement theory, but I'll have more to say about that later.

The Sun Always Shines on TV

OK, the new TV season started this week, which means I have to allocated more time to staring at another screen. Now I know that television is mind-numbing, soul-sucking vortex. It is a ubiquitous form of entertainment for stupid people: it caters to the daft, unintellectual, and mediocre types. It allows people to be passive and avoid the effort required for inter-active entertainment and therefore tells people what to think as a convenience so they don't have to think for themselves. I'm always surprised by how many people say they don't watch TV on their Myspace profiles. Either they simply don't have time (or haven't learned how to timeshift) or TV's prominence is beginning to diminish. If its the latter, than either people are really too embarrassed to admit that they watch it, signaling an image problem for television, or new mediums have overtaken it. Nevertheless, I think it is a great medium for somewhat artistic entertainment. I find that when people ask me what movies I've seen recently, I don't have much to answer, but I seem to know more about many recent tv shows. Almost all of my DVD purchases are music or TV, and much of my Netflix queue is similar. Film is artistically superior, and I think one of the greatest art forms, so why is this the case?

First, I think the quality of films has fallen faster than TV, certainly in the mainstream. At least is hasn't increased, where TV has. It seems the great independent film making days of the 90s has lost momentum. Its possible that such films just don't get the publicity like they used to, similar to the music industry, and I should probably research more, or at least get more Henry Rollins reviews. Like music, time is an issue here. I would rather spend the time experiencing the work, than trying to search for it.

One more aspect is the introduction of HD. I'll pretty much watch anything that's in HD, maybe even a few seconds of sports. As for films in HD, it would take a substantial investment in equipment, and I wont even get into the format wars.

It seems the Sopranos set a new standard in TV quality. Premium channels have been putting out some good material such as Entourage, Californication and my new favorite comedy Flight of the Conchords.

So, onto this season. My returning favorites are Numb3rs, Lost, Jericho for the dramas and of course How I Met Your Mother, The Office, and Scrubs for comedies, along with Two and a Half Men and Rules of Engagement. The Big Bang Theory seems to have the most potential for this year's comedy achievement, and I'll give Reaper a try, although I'm not hopeful. In the drama category, the only new candidate for me is Journeyman.

As for the sun shinning on TV, it is symbolic of American optimism, or at least repression, where the darkness stays hidden, but it ever-present. Nothing represented that more than Miami Vice, but more on that later.

Don't Lose Your Head

Since 1991 fans have been trying to undo the damage Highlander II created. The original film was unlike any other film, original (somewhat) and thought-provoking. It was a kind of magic. The sequel took what was an epic-fantasy-noir film and reduced it to pure sci-fi. Even the film makers tried to undo it by unsuccessfully releasing the Director's cut. Like all good stories of immortality, the original worked by showing its unnatural place in a familiar reality. But the apocalyptic sequel was far too unconnected from our reality to make a moving statement. That, said I never thought it was a really bad film, it just wasn't a good Highlander film. Highlander was a movie that was just unsequelable. It portrayed the end of a story. When the series was created, it effectively rebooted the story and presented a worthy counterpart for the film, albeit in watered-down TV fashion. We had hoped that the producers had learned their lesson from the aftermath of the Quickening.

That was until September 15th, 2007. Word about Highlander the Source was not good, but one at least expected a straight to DVD release. Instead we were given a "Sci-fi Original" movie. Even though it was never created by the Sci-Fi Channel, it might has well have been, it was just as bad. The awfulness that The Source achieved was simple unimaginable. It makes the Quickening look like a great film. It took the idea of an apocalyptic world far further than the Quickening did (although I won't even mention the Animated Series), and was far more disconnected. This time they decided to make the characters act unlike their previous incarnations. So we are left with a story that has no point of reference in terms of setting, plot, or characterization, and with a film that has no cinematic feel of the original. The noir elements are long gone, as are any flashbacks, a core part of the Highlander universe. Instead we get really cheesy special effects. I won't dwell on how bad this movie is any further, suffice to say it is simply unwatchable and it probably killed any chances for a continuation of the story. Stay tuned for my reaction to the other "revisioning" of the Highlander universe, Highlander Vengeance.

99 Red Balloons

For those of us who grew up during the Cold War, we were well aware of what would probably happen if the US and the Soviets went to war. Within a few hours everything would go to Hell (almost literally). What fascinates me is what would have happened if the Cold War had become a hot one using conventional weapons and leaving the nukes hidden away. Many films and books have presented various scenarios, most of which I find highly unlikely. What I'd really like to know is how the government thought this might happen, how they trained for it, and what plans, procedures and such existed for it. Obviously the Powers that be thought a conventional war was at least a possibility, otherwise they wouldn't rationally have spent the hundreds of trillions of dollars on forty years of military build-up. So far the first bit of info I've come across is "Dropshot", the war plan originally conceived in 1949.

This essay by John Reilly explores the US plan for World War III (Dropshot) circa 1957. In the age before ICBMs became the main strategic weapon, it was still seemingly possible for a U.S./ Soviet war to be fought conventionally. The plan was for an initally defensive war against an aggressive Russia that was actively seeking expansion and eventually some sort of global domination. This alternative history explores how this might have happened under the right conditions. Reilly makes some interesting political and economic points along the way.

"There is a good argument to be made that the United States took as little hurt from the Cold War as it did because the president during the 1950s was that logistics expert, Dwight David Eisenhower. . . Using his own good judgment to gauge just what the Soviets could or would do, he starved the U.S. military during the 1950s to let give the consumer economy room to breathe." Compare this to the 1990s of the Clinton administration, where the military was starved, but the economy did quite well.

Reilly contemplates what would have happened if Eisenhower had been replaced by Adlai Stevenson. His ambition to destroy the communist bloc was similar to Reagan's, although his timing would have been wrong. It wasn't until the 1980s, when the Soviet's finally "exhausted the growth capacity of the command economy," that the opportunity to pressure the Soviets farther finally occurred. In my opinion, Reagan's administration may not have been clever enough to know with certainty that they could break the Soviets by outspending them militarily. Reagan played a dangerous game of brinkmanship, such as the deployment of the Pershing II missiles. If they were confident of economic victory, these aggressive stances seem unnecessary. I think Reagan got lucky. He took a big gamble that could have got us all killed, but was fortunate enough to find success.

Also in Reilly's scenario, Stalin stays in power. If Stalin had lived longer, past 1953, he may have planned to fight a decisive war. If Stevenson backed up his own idealism by sending forces to Europe, Stalin very well could have countered by launching his offensive. Thirty million Americans would be needed for service, and unlike World War II, this one would be devastating for the American economy. The U.S. would have been forced to become a command-economy state.

The plan was for NATO to hold the front, until the American forces could arrive, which could be a year. IT suggest that the Soviets could very well advance past Germany, and the UK would probably not be held.The second phase would be an offensive to occupy Russia. Dropshot notes that invasion from the Far East or the Middle East would be impractical, and only an offensive straight in from Europe would work.

Finally, the aftermath of a successful war would have had terrible effects on the world economy, although it may have been less damaging than World War II. Russia might have been able to transition to a market economy with less resistance. In America, collectivism and Socialism might have become instituted as the command economy which helped win the war would be viewed as superior to the market economy. The social revolution of the 1960s would not occur, and presumably the pessimism of the 40s and 50s would be reinforced, with the continuing view that the world is a dangerous place. Positively, The arms race would never have occured, and the threat of nuclear annihilation would be gone.

But, would the outcome have really been so positive? I certainly don't think a communist victory would be a good thing. However, An American victory might have had its downsides as well. The US would have global domination of the advanced world, and without any opposition would be free to do anything it wishes. This unhindered power may have been too much to contain, and would probably be used on scale far exceeding what we have seen in the 21st Century, where the US has done things that would have previously been unthinkable, both constitutionally and morally, due to the possibility of destroying the integrity of our 200 year history. [1] In the 80s miniseries Amerika, the Soviets achieved global victory, and the conditions under their rule, however intolerable, were unescapable "There was nowhere else to go." A post-World War III Socialist America could have utopian possibilities, [2] but it would also have the potential to become a tyrannical, dystopian police state. Having two equally-matched superpowers during the Cold War meant there was a Yin/Yang balance, and there were possibilities to choose from, depending on what type of system your allegiences might fall.


Geek edits:
[1] example: Star Wars - Palpatine and the fall of the senate
[2] example: Star Trek (although despite the superficial utopian Socialism, ST could be viewed as a communist society , see this article for explanation.

A Legacy

Last read: The Flies - Sartre.

Upon re-reading this, I was struck that I never fully realized before just how Nietzschean this play is. It is full of references to the "spirit of gravity", and to "my way" . This work really needs more exposure. It also has Hamlet connections, Christ imagery and few lines that could be straight out of a Neil Gaiman work, and it may even be a little Star Wars-esque in terms of the Hero's journey. Some one really needs to make a film of this.

Random Notes

Here is an article on the current state of processors. It is interesting to see how far we have come since the late 70s.


______________________________________________________________

Here is a quote I found as part of the continuing existential struggle between truth and happiness/beauty:

“Suffering, I was beginning to think, was essential to a good life, and as inextricable from such a life as bliss. It's a great enhancer. It might last a minute, or a month, but eventually it subsides, and when it does, something else takes its place, and maybe that thing is a greater space. For happiness. Each time I encountered suffering, I believe that I grew, and further defined my capacities--not just my physical ones, but my interior ones as well, for contentment, friendship, or any other human experience."

Lance Armstrong

Darkness

I can dream up schemes when I'm sitting in my seat
I don't see any flaws 'til I get to my feet
I wish I never woke up this morning
Life was easy when it was boring

I could make a mark if it weren't so dark
I could be replaced by any bright spark
But darkness makes me fumble
For a key, to a door that's wide open

Instead of worrying about my clothes
I could be someone that nobody knows
I wish I never woke up this morning
Life was easy when it was boring

Once Upon a Daydream (Part II)

So, after a 24 year absence, The Police returned to the Twin Cities last night. What can be said about their performance?

Fucking incredible!

Sorry, but that's the best way to describe it. There has been a lot of criticism about the early part of the tour (including some from Stewart himself.) The main problems seemed to be Andy getting lost and an overall lack of energy. Not so in St Paul. These guys were right on. Not only were they able to get to together and play their songs again, but they did it better than last time! They have obviously matured since 1984, but they've also become much better musicians. Stewart has always been on the top of his game and still is, what is really obvious is how much better of a bass player Sting has become. He adss more fills and there are a lot more nuances and punctuation to the musical phrases. And Andy shredded on his guitar far beyond what I would expect from a 64 year-old mostly-jazz player. There was certainly no lack of energy - these guys burned from the first note. This was not a Fragile/Fields-of-Gold-esque Sting, this was the Rock Star Sting. I can't wait for the DVD of this tour, this one's going to get played real loud!

The new arrangement of Truth Hits Everybody rocked much more than people have claimed. Don't Stand So Close to Me has been the most problematic song. Many people don't like the new arrangement, and Stewart has hinted at dropping it- apparently they can't get the new version to work well, and for some unknown reason they can't do they original arrangement. Nevertheless, it seemed to me this version worked just fine. It may have been the most low-key song out of the 19 song set, it was still well worth performing. The only noticeable mistakes were from Sting, who missed a line or two from King of Pain, and failed to project a few vocal notes. Otherwise, beside a few strange guitar harmonics, the show was flawless.

Personally I was disappointed that they have already dropped Spirits in the Material World, as this is one of the few songs I have not yet heard live. Why does Sting always do this? On both the 88 and 91 tours he started including Spirits but dropped it within a few shows. Technologically speaking I was not on for this show. I forgot the memory card for my camera, and if I hadn't I would have tried to video most of the show to document the stage lighting and image projections. As for my attempt at an audio recording, I am really out of practice (I quit after my failed attempt at Sting's 07.2000 show). Once again I screwed up -twice! Stupid pause button! So, I only ended up with half of the show, on what would have been my best recording ever. I really hope someone else out there distributes one.

Setlist: Message In a Bottle/ Synchronicity II / Walking on the Moon / Voices Inside My Head/ When the World is Running Down / Don't Stand So Close to Me / Driven to Tears / Truth Hits Everybody / The Bed's Too Big Without You / Every Little Thing She Does is Magic / Wrapped Around Your Finger / De Do Do Do De Da Da Da / Invisible Sun / Walking In Your Footsteps / Can't Stand Losing You / Roxanne / King Of Pain / So Lonely / Every Breath You take / Next To You

God Part II

Here's several hundred arguments for the existence of God. I think my favorite is the Velikovsky one.

The Soul Cages

One Little Victory - I finally found the video for The Soul Cages. Thanks to the incompetence of the media (MTV) and the recording industry (A&M - which never released this on home video), it took me over 16 years to finally see Sting's best video. I also found Games Without Frontiers, performed with Peter Gabriel at a charity concert on The Soul Cages tour. While I'm taking the time to "thank God for the internet", here's a link to a video by How We Live, Steve Hogarth's former band, and one I would consider to be the perfection of 80s pop.

Deal with the Dark Lord

Here's an article suggesting that the Star Wars universe is much better expressed in games than on film.

"[T]his epiphany began back in 1998, when Rogue Squadron came out on the Nintendo 64 -- a note-perfect evocation of in-flight combat. I played it nonstop for four months. Then every year or so, another superb Star Wars title came along to get me addicted, from Knights of the Old Republic to Jedi Starfighter to Battlefront. Each time, Lucas did a much better job of recapturing the original spirit of his universe"

Now, while I can see his point and agree with the premise, I don't concur that this is actually the case. The lineage of Star Wars games has not increased in quality. I'm not that familiar with Rogue Squadron, but from what I've seen it doesn't come near 1993's X-wing. X-wing and its sequels Tie Fighter and X-wing Alliance are probably the best space sims ever made, but there has been no advancement to the series since 1998. Imagine what could be done with the current level of processors and GPUs. Jedi Knight, and particularily its sequels Jedi Knight II and Jedi Academy are some of the best first-person games I've ever played, but once again the last installment came out in 2003. KOTOR and KOTOR II just bored me, while the universe it created fascinated me, the playability did not. Give me first-person real time action game over a turn-based RPG any day. Both Battlefront and Republic Commando seemed like mindless shooters to me and I tired of them quickly. Galactic Battlegrounds is a good strategy game, for Age of Empires-like conquests in another galaxy, and I have yet to install Empire at War.

Every since the domination of console systems, PC games have seemed to be dumbed-down. All I'm asking for is a fully controllable space sim like X-wing. One set during the clone wars with flyable Eta-2s, Delta 7s, ARC-170s and V-Wings would seem like a worthwhile endeavor. Also, its time for a new saber-wielding Jedi title.

A similar thing has happened to the world of Flight simulators. With the exception of the Allied Force update to Falcon 4, there has been very few modern-jet sims since the 90s. The trend has been to make "simple" sims that are playable on console controllers.

Its time for game makers to utilize the technology thats available to make games that have better playability. Only then do I think the game world will rival that of film.

Consider Me Gone

On the passing of Jerry Falwell, I will only present a quote from Christopher Hitchens:

"It's a shame that there is no hell for Falwell to go to, and it's extraordinary that not even such a scandalous career is enough to shake our dumb addiction to the 'faith-based'"

Somewhere Else

"Love her like you've never fallen
in love before
Fall out of love with her
So you can remember"


EASTER 2007: Somewhere Else is here. What can be said about the latest Marillion offering? While this is recognizably the band that brought us Marbles, it is (as usual) a completely new direction for Marillion. It is experimental and unconventional. This is more of a song-oriented record than a album-based record consisting of a continuing theme. At the same time, the songs don't really stand out as prominent individual pieces. They all blend together quite nicely, creating an atmospheric journey the transitions seamlessly from one track to another. There aren't many hooks, making the album as a whole not as easily accessible as it might be, there are no tracks like "You're Gone" to reach out and grab you. (*see note below). The closest track is "Most Toys". The first time I heard this I thought it was going to be very trite. At less than three minutes, it is an anomaly for Marillion; but more troublesome, the lyrics seem incomplete, as an intro verse should have been added. Nevertheless, the track is a catchy one.

Musically, Somewhere Else contains top notch performances. The bass and drums are solid. There is a lot of outstanding piano work, and perhaps most importantly there is a lot of Rothery's magical electric guitar. The style contains pieces of Anoraknophobia, .com, and musical phrases straight off of Brave and This Strange Engine. There is also a notable Beatles influence, both musically and lyrically, as there was on Marbles ("Don't Hurt Yourself"). What is lacking is the intensity of the "classic" Marillion era of Season's End and Holidays in Eden, where the bass was driving and the guitars screaming.

In terms of lyrics and song structure, this album continues Marillion's journey farther away from conventional structure into more abstract territories. There isn't much of a verse/chorus structure and many songs seem to be two completely separate sections put together, although there could be a thematic purpose for that,(The Other Half), (This is what prog is supposed to be right, so anyone who thinks Marillion is not progressive needs to take a listen to this. It's not Holidays in Eden!). The lyrics are also abstract and seem somewhat stream-of-consciousness. I'm not ready to comment on the lyrics for "Somewhere Else" yet. I thought "Hope for the Future" was esoteric! But H has really gone farther, I'm not sure if he is just getting more obscure, or if I'm just not getting it, or maybe there's nothing to get. I guess that's my homework assignment, and I'm sure like all good art it will become more and more meaningful as I experience it. In the tradition of U2, H's global awareness certainly shines through more than any other Marillion record. "The Wound" is a song about pain and ferns with imagery that reminds me of Sting's "Lazarus Heart":

He looked beneath his shirt today
There was a wound in his flesh so deep and wide
From the wound a lovely flower grew
From somewhere deep inside

While the songs have a high quality to them, it does seem that something is missing from the album as a whole. It reminds me of Peter Gabriel's Up, some good material, but really missing something. One or to really strong songs would really cement the work into a whole that feels finished. The Other Half, See it Like a Baby, Somewhere Else, No Such Thing and The Wound all seem like the core of a great album. Most Toys adds energy and in a more finished form could move to my "better half of the album" list.

So while I don't think the album as a whole lives up to the standards set by the Classic period, I also think this will be an essential piece of Marillion history, the music is simply too unique and too well crafted not to be. For myself this is a CD that can be put on repeat and I never feel inclined to hit stop.


*Just to set the record straight on Marbles: I've seen much criticism about "You're Gone", referring to bad pop and often accussing it of a cheese factor. Not only do I think it the best song of 2004 and the best Marillion track since This Strange Engine, I also think it may be one of their best songs ever. The intensity of the lyrics and the multiple guitar solo's are unsurpassed. I remember riding a bus across the UK the month Marbles came out, and leaving this song on constant repeat on my ipod. The emotional intensity in this song seemed to me to reflect the emotional depth that I felt from England as well.


". . .And your life took on a life of it's own. . ."

Once Upon a Daydream

Well, from the icy depths of Hell comes the most significant annoucement in the history of contemporary music: The Police are reforming for a 2007 World Tour after a 23 year absence. So far they have been elusive on the subject of new material.

Amusing Ourselves to Death

OK, so in my last post I made note of the "postmodern 21st century." Imagine my surprise to find out that I was completely wrong. Just when I thought I finally had a grasp on the postmodern age, catching up on my Derrida and Baudrillard (yeah, right), I have now learned that postmodernism is over!

Alan Kirby writes in the latest edition of Philosophy Now that "sometime in the late 1990s or early 2000s, the emergence of new technologies re-structured, violently and forever, the nature of the author, the reader and the text, and the relationship between them." He proposes that we are now in the post-postmodern age, what he calls pseudo-modern. The significance of a work has now shifted from the author to the reader/viewer/listener. Because of technology we can now participate (although not necessarily interact) in the creation of content. Computer games, reality TV and the internet (certainly in the case of WEB 2.0 social networking sites) are all examples of this new type of cultural product. This "democratisation of culture" can be viewed as resulting in an" excruciating banality and vacuity of the cultural products thereby generated (at least so far.)" Because these products require cultural participation and involve electronic forms of communication that are by nature short-lived, they are of a timely nature. These works cannot be reproduced in the future without losing meaning and relevance. " A culture based on these things can have no memory. . . non reproducible and evanescent, pseudo-modernism is thus also amnesiac: these are cultural actions in the present moment with no sense of either past or future." " A triteness, a shallowness dominates all."

Interestingly Kirby traces the beginnings of pseudo-modernism back to the 70s and 80s, with one example being the beginning of pornography. This is an example of the viewer becoming the focus of the work rather than the producer, it creates "illusion of participation." In more recent history, the methods of obtaining music have changed. In the past a music work included a careful consideration of play order to complete an album. Now, we have the choice to purchase individual tracks through digital downloads and construct our own playlist orders on our iPods, imposing our own order and structure on the artists' works.

So, it would seem there was a a paradigm shift at roughly the start of the millenium. As someone who was born "before 1980"(slightly), I agree that the previous era was a "golden age of intelligence, creativity, rebellion, and authenticity." I'm not ready to concede that all cultural products will fall into the pseudo-modern form. I think there is still a need for concrete works found in novels and carefully produced films and music. I can also admire the intensity and creativity of pseudo-modern works, and I don't find them necessarily overly violent or pornographic. Kirby notes a tension between the "sophistication of technological means, and the vapidity or ignorance of the content conveyed on it." This new viewpoint explains to me the emptiness I've noticed in much content since 2000. However, as someone born close to the divide, I can also appreciate this technology and the endless possibility of content that it can provide. We have freedom and choice. DVRs, netcasting, and portable media players,as well as new forms of media distribution such as Youtube, have provided unprecedented access and convenience. (Not to mention the occasional use of torrents to collect missed episodes of programs).


I'll throw in an early vote for best psuedo-modern work and rate The Office number one so far.

You Bet Your Life

Last movie viewed: A Scanner Darkly

This movie gets my vote for best film of 2006. Besides the stunning visual depictions, the story itself was one that deserved to be on film. It is perhaps the best existential tale in recent history and one that is certainly timely in the postmodern 21st Cenutry.

Bob Arctor is not unlike Sartre's Roquentin, who finds contempt in ordinary things and finally reaches a state of pure nausea when he sees the being of existence itself. Arctor, in a moment of clarity, finds himself alienated from his own life, unable to fit into traditional society. But his rejection of its does not alieviate the dread and despair.

"The Pain, so unexpected and undeserved had for some reason cleared away the cobwebs . I realized I didn't hate the cabinet door, I hated my life, my house, my family, my backyard, my power mower. Nothing would ever change, nothing new could ever be expected. It had to end, and it did. Now in the dark world where I dwell ugly things and surprising things and sometimes little wondrous things spill out at me constantly and I can count on nothing."

"What does a scanner see? Into the head? Down into the heart? Does it see into me, into us? Clearly or darkly? I hope it sees clearly, because I can't any longer see into myself. I see only murk. I hope for everyone's sake the scanners do better. Because if the scanner sees only darkly the way I do then I'm cursed and cursed again. And we'll only wind up dead this way, knowing very little and getting that fragment wrong too."

I'm reminded of the discussion of Zen in Robert Pirsig's Lila: "Zen hell is the world right here and now, in which you see life around you but can't participate in it. You're forever a stranger in your own life . . . You split into two people, who they think you are, and who you really are , and that produces the Zen hell." Like the famous people discussed in this Zen truth, Arctor becomes two people, the one being watched and the one watching himself.

Having become an object to himself, he is unable to see the transcendence of his being. Unaware of who he is, Arctor is not able to understand the facticity of his life, and this inability to take responsibility for it only increases the sense of despair.