If you're an NFL Draft junkie like myself, you're probably finding it increasingly difficult to find good, comprehensive info without having to pay for lame online subscriptions. However, don't fret, as there's plenty of insightful, and best of all, free, draft analysis scattered out there on the internet. Of course, quality sites are sometimes hard to find, so why don't you do yourself a favor and bookmark, or better yet, set as your default browser page, Miguel's 2002 NFL Draft Links Page. This is easily the most comprehensive and well organized resource for the NFL Draft that I've ever seen. 10 out of 10 on the RCQS (Rick Carlisle Quality Scale).
- posted by Shane @ 11:11 PM |
Originally due for release sometime in the middle of 2001, the N.E.R.D. album, In Search Of..., was finally put out on store shelves last week. Bootlegs have been available to download for at least half a year, but that of course was the pure studio version of the album, the one that was scheduled to be released before the Neptunes decided they wanted to ditch the drum machine and synth for a live drummer and real guitars. Have these new changes been for the better? Given that I've had the first version of the album for a good four months and the new one for a week, it probably wouldn't be fair of me to make a firm judgement at this point in time, so I'll just resort to doing what I do best. It's fence sitting time.
Before, I never really understood the fascination that groups like Add N To (X) have with live drumming. It was always my the belief that percussion was the easiest component of the music to synthesize, thinking that the temporal aspect of drumming, which is obviously easily duplicated by a computer, was the single most important factor in recreating a drum sound. Everything else, such as the subtle dynamic boosts or just the plain rawness of the sound, were things that I now think I often neglected. On, In Search Of..., I have to admit that having a live drummer adds a little more energy to the music. This might be due to the rhythm now feeling less static and prohibitive, but I think it has more to do with the actual sound of the drums. Real drums just sound sharper. There's now more of a contrast between the percussion and the rest of the music, making it easier to take in the wholeness of the sound. Ironically, it was the previous, totally synthesized version of this album that sounded more organic, as the separate musical lines tended to blend together more. While it was never something I consciously thought about, I was always aware that all the different sounds I was hearing basically originated from the same source. Now, with the live instruments, everything sounds clearer and distinct, less natural but more authoritative. The guitars play a large part in this as well, but I'm almost willing to say that their effect is more negative than positive. In "Lapdance" for example, when the chorus hits, the guitars sound a little too cliche as they try to pick up in intensity and dominate the sound. The guitar is fine whenever it plays a supplementary role in the music, but it becomes a little annoying when used as the main focus.
I'm getting tired, so I'll just say this. The live instrumentation does deliver as promised. While I'm not going to support the notion that they make the songs sound more "authentic", I will say that they add spice and a little extra liveliness. The big trade-off is that the music doesn't flow quite as naturally and is now more difficult to envision as a totally self-contained piece. Sometimes music is more enjoyable when you can see it as a blur. Noticing the "separateness" of the instrumentation can actually be a bad thing, a distraction even. But you know...why am I complaining? I get two solid albums where there was once just one from one of my favorite producer groups. That's plenty to keep me happy.
- posted by Shane @ 12:46 AM |
Monday, March 18, 2002
I'm as big a fan of Lauren Graham as anyone, so I'm hoping this is just a sick joke.
- posted by Shane @ 11:21 PM |
"...the junior receiver put on a display that one veteran talent evaluator termed "one of the greatest shows" he had seen in 20-plus seasons of handling pre-draft auditions."
"Running with a sprained ankle he suffered last Friday, he was clocked at between 4.23 and 4.26 seconds in the 40-yard sprint by four scouts surveyed by ESPN.com. The scout for one club had him at a mind-boggling 4.18 seconds running on the Pro Turf surface."
"I actually looked at my (stop)watch twice, just to make sure it wasn't broken."
Is this even possible? How in the &#$@ does anyone run close to a 4.2 on a slow surface with a sprained ankle? The next Burner? I hear the Vikings are looking for a wide receiver... :)
- posted by Shane @ 6:04 PM |
I'm currently cleaning up the hard drive on my computer and I must say that browsing through the good old "misc mp3" directory is pretty amusing. It seems like a fairly decent selection, though if I had to note a general trend, I'd say it consists mostly of random pop singles from 1998 to 2001. It's been a while since I've written up a pointless list of any kind, so I thought that I might as well crank one out as I sort through this thing.
Total CLASS (Top 30 of the "misc mp3" folder in alphabetical order)
Aaliyah - Are You That Somebody
From "What's up with that annoying baby sample?" to "Single of the 90's?". Timbaland track #1.
Aaliyah - Try Again
It's not just the 303, I swear. Timbaland track #2.
Aaliyah - We Need A Resolution
It sounds awkward at first, but it really is the total package. Surprisingly, even the Timbaland rap at the end is good. Timbaland track #3.
All Saints - Pure Shores
I've said enough about this one.
Azzido Da Bass - Doom's Night (Timo Maas Mix)
Used in that horrible tire commerical, but I forgive it.
Backstreet Boys - Everybody (Backstreet's Back)
One of the all-time monstrous bass lines. I'm sorry I made fun of this in high school. Max Martin track #1.
Backstreet Boys - I Want It That Way
Did I ever tell anyone my plan to travel back in time to the 1960's and sabotage Beatlemania with Backstreetmania? This would be the first single. Max Martin track #2.
Backstreet Boys - Shape of My Heart
Believe it or not, I wrote an essay about this song in college. Maybe I have a death wish, but the "Shane's an idiot but I'll pretend I respect him" act from the other students was priceless. Max Martin track #3.
Billy Ocean - Get Outta My Dreams, Get Into My Car
What a kooky idea to base a song on. I wonder if she ever actually got in the car...
Britney Spears - Baby One More Time
While this is class, the Travis version is ass. Max Martin track #4.
Britney Spears - Oops...I Did It Again
The best Britney song ever, I think. Max Martin track #5.
Daphne & Celeste - Ooh Stick U
Totally obnoxious, but still class. Don't ask me why.
Daphne & Celeste - U.G.L.Y.
Totally obnoxious, but still class. Don't ask me why.
Destiny's Child - Independent Woman Part 1
I've already said enough about this one as well.
Destiny's Child - Say My Name
I almost axed this just because I couldn't think of anything to say about it.
Gilmore Girls Theme
It's Gilmore Girls. What did you expect?
Jay-Z - Big Pimpin'
Efficient. Every sound has a purpose. Timbaland track #4.
Joey Beltram - Energy Flash
Simon Reynolds said this was good. BRUTAL.
Josh Wink - Higher State of Consciousness
This is what happens when you attach a bird whistle to a machine gun.
Lionel Richie - Dancing On the Ceiling
Does anyone remember the video for this? I used to think it was cool how they filmed him dancing on the floor and then just turned the footage upside down. How stupid is that? I was only like six years old, but that's really no excuse.
Missy Elliot - Get Ur Freak On
Never has a song sounded so...aquatic? Timbaland track #5.
Mogwai - Mogwai Fear Satan (My Bloody Valentine remix)
Kevin Shields isn't dead. I just remember this track taking forever to download.
Mystikal - Shake Ya Ass
Nothing.
New Radicals - You Get What You Give
It's not often that I feel guilty for liking something, but this song is an exception. I'm so sorry.
Outkast - Bombs Over Baghdad
Songs like this only come around every five years or so. That puts us on track for 2005.
Robbie Williams - Angels
Standard power ballad, but I buy it.
Robbie Williams - Rock DJ
British pop stars are far more exciting than ours.
Saint Etienne - Heart Failed (In the Back of a Taxi)
I haven't noticed a lot of enthusiasm toward The Sound of Water, but I really like this particular song. Can anyone tell me how similar the rest of the album is to this?
Shania Twain - Man I Feel Like a Woman
Are you surprised? Who doesn't like that "O-O-O-OH!" part?
Sisqo - Thong Song
I wonder if there are Vegas odds on whether or not he can ever match this.
Sugababes - Overload
Whoops, I think that's 31.
- posted by Shane @ 12:28 AM |
I decided to revisit Low's Things We Lost In The Fire today. I still have similar feelings about it now as I did a year ago. I think I can see what they're trying to do, writing songs that are more tuneful and more ambitious from a production standpoint. Texturally, it sounds like the level of activity has increased from previous work, but it might only seem that way because the supporting lines of music now have greater definition and a new found obviousness about them. I know that probably sounds like a complaint, but it's solely an observation. The reason I'm making note of this is the fact that Things We Lost In The Fire has done little to change my opinion of the band, despite it rectifying some of the problems I've had with their music before. While I've enjoyed bits and pieces off of their older albums, Low is a band that I've never fully understood. I do like them. I'm just not enamored with them. I realize that it would be completely unproductive to whine about how slow the music is, because that's basically at the essence of what they do. Besides, I like plenty of music that many would consider excessively slow. I think, however, when taken in combination with the homogenous construction of their songs, the snail's pace becomes something that can sometimes test my patience. Things We Lost In The Fire confuses the issue further, mainly because it's difficult to discern whether the change in strategy has been a benefit or detriment to the music. Melodically, it's more identifiable. There's more variation both between and within songs, eliminating the need to REALLY pay attention to the music in order to enjoy it. This increased accessibility hasn't come without a price though. The old Low was all about tension, specifically a kind of temporal tension, where the listener, more out of necessity than want, would hang on every note, every syllable, sifting through the open space in anticipation of what was coming next. It's this enjoyable uneasiness that has been stripped away in favor of a more comfortable, immediate beauty. I'm entirely undecided on which method works better.
(By the way, I would be remiss in not pointing out how gorgeous the song "Laser Beam" is. Too bad the mp3 I have of it is cut short. Incentive to buy the album used perhaps.)
- posted by Shane @ 11:54 PM |
Friday, March 08, 2002
One of my favorite music critics, Simon Reynolds, has just posted his Unfaves of 2001. Just a few scattered reactions:
- Someone is going to have to explain to me what exactly is meant by this viewpoint that Richard D. James "seems paradoxically trapped by the "infinite possibilities" offered by today's software and plug-ins". I'm in agreement that the man has lost it recently, but attributing his decline to some kind of technology fixation just seems a little off the mark to me. Maybe I'm not an experienced enough listener, but how does one actually go about identifying when songcraft has been compromised by producer micromanagement and "tweakage"? I suppose "whenever it sounds bad" would be the simple answer.
- I'm in complete agreement about Survivor era Destiny's Child developing an annoying newfound self-consciousness. While the group threw out a similar brand of self-centered girl power bombast in "Independent Woman Part I" (a song I grew to love), it always seemed to me that Beyonce never really understood the cultural pervasiveness of her message. The performance of this song was of course sterotypically stylish and chic, but that's what made the song so much fun as a "F#ck You" to both the male chauvinist caricatures of the rap world and the "realism" of "serious" female performers. For a while there, Beyonce was almost like the female Jay-Z, exuding supreme confidence and possesing the ability to dish out shots while still keeping the spotlight squarely on herself. Too bad it all fell apart when the song "Survivor" came out. Here it's pretty easy to sense Beyonce's feeling of obligation to live up to her own hype and deliver as an iconic uber-feminist. Actually, correct that, "iconic uber-Beyonceist" would be a far more accurate term. The old Destiny's Child was fun and inclusive, while this new "Survivor" group, because of Beyonce's inexplicable demand for respect, just comes across as whiny and paranoid.
- He hates Creed, but then again, who doesn't?
- I partially agree with the stance that the new Kylie Minogue material doesn't really deserve the kind of hype and public discourse that it's getting, but I think that's only because I live in the U.S. Even though the music isn't always exciting, I think getting worked up about someone like Britney is justified, just based on the pop cultural clout that she carries. I'd imagine that if I were British, I'd be getting swept up in the current Kylie sensation as well. By the way, just to clarify...even though I don't see Fever as being some kind of landmark pop achievement, it's still very solid and I wouldn't discourage anyone from getting it.
- I wish American music magazines were interesting enough to debate about.
- At least I'm not the only one who doesn't see Bob Dylan as some sort of music deity. I was surprised to see that someone as experienced as Reynolds could have so little exposure to Dylan, but as someone who has only heard a handful of songs and MAYBE an album, I feel pretty good that there are others in my shoes. And you know what, it's not even his voice that bothers me. It all just sounds very bland for something that's supposed to alter the way I perceive music.
- I'm not sure if I'm buying this idea that "Digital Love" and "Where's Your Head At" lose impact because they're one-offs. I'm trying to think of a song that I enjoy immensely, where part of the appeal stems from it being genre defining. I don't think I can. I mean, for me, the fact that songs like "Common People" and "Bombs Over Baghdad" are one-offs serves to make them even more epic and more invigorating.
- I really need to read that Creation book.
- Adding The Streets record and a Tigerbeat 6 comp to my wishlist.
- posted by Shane @ 2:51 AM |
The following is taken from a friend's log (click the link to find out who exactly, if you don't already know):
----- "According to various sources around the Internet the 94-97 NBC "Must See TV" lineup consisted of the following: 1994 Mad About You, Friends, Seinfeld and Madman of the People
1995 Friends, The Single Guy, Seinfeld, Caroline in the City
1996 Friends, The Single Guy, Seinfeld, Caroline In the City
1997 Friends, Union Square, Seinfeld, Veronica's Closet
What's the point of all this? Just covering my ass on a call out. Yeah, some rookie out there thought Friends was broadcast after Seinfeld for a short period." -----
Today's word of the day is "thoroughness", because being thorough usually pays off. I may be a rookie, but I know enough to realize that messing around with absolutes such as "always" and "never" can often lead to disaster. A claim was recently made that Friends was always broadcast before Seinfeld on NBC's Thursday lineup, not including holiday specials and other unusual, isolated circumstances. The evidence above looks to be pretty supportive of that assertion, but what we're all forgetting here is that these TV lineups are usually provided at the beginning of the fall television season and rarely hold up throughout the entire course of the year. Here's a little more patented trivia for you all. An early history of NBC's Friends, courtesy of Seth A. Ovadia. His article is very long, so here are the most relevant passages:
----- "Although Cosby, Cheers and L.A. Law have been off the air for a number of years now, NBC has continued to use Thursday night and its framework of four half-hour comedies topped off by a drama as their showcase night. Seinfeld has replaced Cheers as the centerpiece of the evening and such shows as Mad About You, Wings and Frasier (a Cheers spinoff) have done time on Thursday, establishing an audience and then getting farmed out to other nights as hits to build around.
Therefore, we can see that Friends original time slot of 8:30 on Thursday - in between Mad About You and Seinfeld - was a position that offered the show a large lead in and a massive follow up, a position where even a significant drop-off from the audiences before and after it would still guarantee a top thirty position in the rankings. Friends did more than just hold the audience, however. It actually improved on its lead in as it attracted a "cult following" during the fall. Through February, it was the 14th highest ranking show on television for the season.
In February, NBC decided to cancel the show that was in the 9:30 slot on Thursday, the Dabney Coleman vehicle Madman of the People, which was failing to hold the audience between the top ranked show in the nation, Seinfeld, and the top ranked drama, the new medical show, ER. NBC moved Friends from 8:30 to 9:30, a position that Tom Shales noted, "Al Gore reading the party platform could get a rating in."
To help it in its move to 9:30, NBC arranged the added support of having four stars from other Thursday night shows make guest appearances on the two part episode that played at 8:30 and then 9:30 on the night of the move. In the first part, Helen Hunt and Leila Kenzle of Mad About You guest starred, which set off a plot development that was based on the fact that Lisa Kudrow has roles in both Mad About You and Friends as twin sisters. The 9:30 episode had Noah Wyle and George Clooney from ER, despite that fact that ER is set in Chicago and Friends in New York. As Shales noted, "what does that matter when a network is on a promotional bender?" "
"The move to 9:30 was one that worked even better than NBC could have hoped. The show not only held viewers between Seinfeld and ER, it moved into the top five on a regular basis during the spring, on its way to an eighth place overall finish (second behind ER among new shows). Over the summer, it became the highest rated show ten times in a period of eleven weeks and was the highest rated series overall for the rerun season.
Ironically, Friends was so successful at 9:30, it has lost its position there. NBC has moved it to the 8:00 p.m. slot for this season so that it could function as an anchor in the place of Mad About You which has been shipped off to Sunday nights in an attempt by NBC to establish a presence on that evening. Friends may very well not be in the top five for this television season due to the fact that early evening shows draw less of an audience than later slotted shows, but Friends has moved on to where it performs a different function for NBC on Thursday nights. Originally a show that was hoped to not lose viewers, it has developed a following that NBC believes it can use to draw viewers to the channel all by itself." -----
Whew! Ok, time to summarize. So as you can see, Friends began airing AFTERSeinfeld in February of 1995. It didn't switch to the front of the Thursday lineup until later in the fall of 1995. That's a whole six months of post-Seinfeld Friends episodes, some new, some reruns. Just in case you don't believe what you've just read, you can find additional evidence here and here (old Usenet postings).
There you have it. I don't think I have much else to say. I suppose two words should suffice. PANTS DOWN
- posted by Shane @ 6:42 PM |
Monday, March 04, 2002
According to the Friends Episode Guide, the series pilot originally aired on 9/22/1994. Just under five years later, WWF Smackdown made its debut on the UPN network on 8/25/1999, unless it somehow turns out that Aaron Barnhart of the Kansas City Star is a liar. Just an interesting little bit of trivia for those who might care.
- posted by Shane @ 12:39 AM |
