Chicago is one of the most commercially successful bands in modern American music, one that has been running continuously in some form or another for decades. But the Chicago of today (of the last thirty plus years, really) is nothing like the group in its original incarnation. The band that eventually became known for love ballads and Lite FM radio began in the late 60's by a bunch of young hippies eager to play experimental, politically charged jazz/rock fusion.
What, then, caused their eventual shift in tone? There are many factors, but the catalyst was the loss of what is arguably the heart and soul of the band, Guitarist Terry Kath. Kath was incredibly skilled with his instrument, drawing praise from even the likes of Jimi Hendrix. His experimental performances and soulful voice dominated the band's earliest albums. Unfortunately, he was also a lover of firearms and drugs, which lead to him accidentally shooting himself in the head in the late 1970's. The band would try to move on, and would eventually land even greater success than they had in Kath's lifetime, but musically and artistically, they would never be the same again.
Most Chicago fans I have read agree that this era of "Classic Chicago" ends with Kath's death, but many would argue that the quality of their output went downhill sometime earlier. How much earlier varies from person to person. For some, Chicago is worth listening to through their first seven records. Others stop after five. Even fewer like only their first two, and I've even seen purists who only care about their debut release.
I too prefer the early albums, though I haven’t listened to enough of them to say where my cutoff point is (I’m going to guess it won’t go past their 10th album). At the same time, I can appreciate some of their later pop hits, if only as a guilty pleasure used sparingly.
Here are a few fun facts for anyone interested in the band’s discography:
- One of Chicago’s early band names was “Chicago Transit Authority”, which they had to shorten once the real CTA told them to do so. However, they managed to get their first album out before the name change. If you ever see an blue/yellow album cover with the title “Chicago Transit Authority”, know that it isn’t another band, or a weird aberration. It’s the band’s first record, and one of the few that I consider a must own.
- The band's releases are organized using a loose numbering system. Both their original works and compliations fall under this system, and there have been quite a few Greatest Hits works over the years. This is why you can walk into a music store and see a CD labeled Chicago 30.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Lots of anime
Yes, lots of anime out or coming out. I'm currently watching FMA Brotherhood Vol. 2, FMA Classic, and Eden of the East. The Trigun boxset is out now, the second (and final) set of FMA Classic will be too, and there's still some Gundam product I need to scoop up before it's too late. Guess it's a good time to be a fan.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Addendum to last post
The Lennon remaster CD's have a specific URL on the back - johnlennon.com/70. That's a sign that you aren't supposed to just go to the official site, but to a specfic part of the site specifically made for the release. Here's what I found after following the URL:
1) The site isn't finished yet.
2) You won't be able to access it at all without having bought one of the bigger box sets or the deluxe edition of the new Greatest Hits disc.
So if you're one to simply buy a few of the albums, the site becomes not an extra level of value, but a paywall, and that link becomes not supplemental, but advertising. The cynicism only adds up.
1) The site isn't finished yet.
2) You won't be able to access it at all without having bought one of the bigger box sets or the deluxe edition of the new Greatest Hits disc.
So if you're one to simply buy a few of the albums, the site becomes not an extra level of value, but a paywall, and that link becomes not supplemental, but advertising. The cynicism only adds up.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
John Lennon Remasters
Slightly more than a year ago, the Beatles album remasters were released. At the time, I felt like I did as a child during Christmas time, actively counting down the days until launch (when I remembered to do so, of course). It was a happy time, but deep down I knew there was a more cynical, capitalist angle to the event. It reminded us that no other band can quite get away as easily with charging premium prices for their material, nor can any other band quite dictate how it will be presented. It is a bit maddening to know that you can't buy the mono remasters as single albums, and even more maddening to know that the Mono box set costs more money for less music. There's no point in asking why any of this is the case. Paul McCartney will Force choke you and answer "Fuck you, that's why" (I say this lovingly). The fact that I was missing about half their discography was reason enough to plunk down, but when I see cranky old timers bitch about having to (or at least being asked to) constantly rebuy old music, I understand where they're coming from.
I can say, however, that my cynicism shield only exists for my favorite band of all time. I know this because I can't muster it for the band member's solo works. This week will mark the 70th birthday of John Lennon, and to celebrate the event, his entire catalog of solo work has been given the same remastering treatment that was used for the Beatles, right down to using the same alternating black/white album spines, and a giant, expensive boxset. I went out and immediately bought two of the records, but I have no strong interest beyond that.
But it's more than a lack of interest. I really feel that heavy air of cynicism around these remasters. This article on the Guardian spells it out perfectly. In short, much of the merchandising and branding of the man runs contrary to what he believed in, or at least, what we tell ourselves he believed in. Additionally, the man was not a saint, and his post Beatles output often fell flat. I've seen some of this material get ripped on with a ferocity that no other rock legend tends to receive, even for their worst work. Solo Lennon can be shitty, just like shitty solo McCartney can be.
What does it mean, then, that there's an entire box set of this thoroughly uneven work? It might mean that some revisionist cobbled up liner note material that tries to put the album Rock 'N Roll in the same Pantheon as Plastic Ono Band (though maybe it isn't so kind?)
What does it mean that there is a new greatest hits CD made for this remastering project? For one, it certainly means that Lennon's solo work isn't considered as sacred as the Beatles catalog, which will probably never see another compilation CD ever again. More importantly, there's already a fantastic hits disc which they could have worked with. The fact that it was left behind shows a greater concern for marketing than on making a definitive compilation.
And hey, there's some other component of the release - a box set compilation, containing CD's that organize the material based on themes, or some vague logic like that. Again, I see this as a lack of confidence. Not many fans will want all the albums, but maybe they want a decent chunk. But maybe that means that even a selection of the full albums isn't quite enough...
What I'm taking away from all of this is reinforcement of a growing feeling of mine, that the public at large has an odd dual relationship with John Lennon. We revere him at the same time we consider him human. We praise his great work with more gusto than we point out his failures. We try to make positives out of the fact that he was frequently an asshole. Maybe people are simply trying to hold on thee ideal they have formed in their minds, since Lennon isn't here to personally reshape their opinions. I think most of us know that we continue to be intrigued by the man at the same time that he frustrates us. Perhaps that alone ensures his infamy.
Look forward to some album reviews, hopefully.
I can say, however, that my cynicism shield only exists for my favorite band of all time. I know this because I can't muster it for the band member's solo works. This week will mark the 70th birthday of John Lennon, and to celebrate the event, his entire catalog of solo work has been given the same remastering treatment that was used for the Beatles, right down to using the same alternating black/white album spines, and a giant, expensive boxset. I went out and immediately bought two of the records, but I have no strong interest beyond that.
But it's more than a lack of interest. I really feel that heavy air of cynicism around these remasters. This article on the Guardian spells it out perfectly. In short, much of the merchandising and branding of the man runs contrary to what he believed in, or at least, what we tell ourselves he believed in. Additionally, the man was not a saint, and his post Beatles output often fell flat. I've seen some of this material get ripped on with a ferocity that no other rock legend tends to receive, even for their worst work. Solo Lennon can be shitty, just like shitty solo McCartney can be.
What does it mean, then, that there's an entire box set of this thoroughly uneven work? It might mean that some revisionist cobbled up liner note material that tries to put the album Rock 'N Roll in the same Pantheon as Plastic Ono Band (though maybe it isn't so kind?)
What does it mean that there is a new greatest hits CD made for this remastering project? For one, it certainly means that Lennon's solo work isn't considered as sacred as the Beatles catalog, which will probably never see another compilation CD ever again. More importantly, there's already a fantastic hits disc which they could have worked with. The fact that it was left behind shows a greater concern for marketing than on making a definitive compilation.
And hey, there's some other component of the release - a box set compilation, containing CD's that organize the material based on themes, or some vague logic like that. Again, I see this as a lack of confidence. Not many fans will want all the albums, but maybe they want a decent chunk. But maybe that means that even a selection of the full albums isn't quite enough...
What I'm taking away from all of this is reinforcement of a growing feeling of mine, that the public at large has an odd dual relationship with John Lennon. We revere him at the same time we consider him human. We praise his great work with more gusto than we point out his failures. We try to make positives out of the fact that he was frequently an asshole. Maybe people are simply trying to hold on thee ideal they have formed in their minds, since Lennon isn't here to personally reshape their opinions. I think most of us know that we continue to be intrigued by the man at the same time that he frustrates us. Perhaps that alone ensures his infamy.
Look forward to some album reviews, hopefully.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Perl
I've spent some time at work finally learning Perl. When I first looked at the language back in college, I was turned off immediately. Now I understand what the problem was, and it is the same reason why the language has such a strong following. Perl's basic features and syntax are safe and straightforward. A Java programmer can look at it and have a decent idea as to what's going on. But Perl is also incredibly flexible. If you want to do something, you can probably do it several different ways. You can make a Perl program easy to read, or fast, or compact - whatever your tastes are as a programmer, the language will accommodate. This is what makes it so well loved, but it can also make it difficult to learn without the proper materials.
I also think there's another, more subtle psychological element to the way Perl works. To me, it strikes a happy middle ground between the various schools of thought about how a language should behave. A few days after writing that last sentence, I came across a Perl book containing the closest thing the language has to a motto: "Simple things should be simple, difficult things should be possible".
I guess I wasn't that far off. I think that is a great way to explain Perl. There is an incredible amount of different ways to use the language, but you don't have to use any of them if you don't want, or more likely, don't need to. And if you want to stick with the basics, there's no penalty. It's refreshing to see a programming language that isn't trying to shove a religion-like belief system down your throat. It can be frustrating to see object oriented languages which are so obsessed with making everything into a class that the simple act of opening a file requires six import statements and a method call that looks like
On the other hand, there are a lot of small, fast functional languages that decide that you need a million data types, each of which uses every brace and bracket on the keyboard for different results. Apparently, it isn't enough to have arrays. You also need lists (also nice), tuples (wtf?), and god knows what else. And if you ever read the documentation for these things, they make it sound as if every exception and difference makes perfect sense. Back in college, my friend Joe and I were frustrated with the fact that every time we asked what a certain concept was in our Hardware Engineering course, the answer was always "oh, it's just a 4-to-1 Mux", as if either of us knew what the hell that was at the time. That's what these "whizbang" little languages remind me of (though to be honest, we should have known what a multiplexer was back then).
There's another great quote from the Perl book, paraphrased here - "you can do just about anything you need with a hash". Amen to that.
PS - the crack at OO Languages above is more due to my time with .NET languages. Say what you will about Java, but it lets you get to core classes very quickly.
I also think there's another, more subtle psychological element to the way Perl works. To me, it strikes a happy middle ground between the various schools of thought about how a language should behave. A few days after writing that last sentence, I came across a Perl book containing the closest thing the language has to a motto: "Simple things should be simple, difficult things should be possible".
I guess I wasn't that far off. I think that is a great way to explain Perl. There is an incredible amount of different ways to use the language, but you don't have to use any of them if you don't want, or more likely, don't need to. And if you want to stick with the basics, there's no penalty. It's refreshing to see a programming language that isn't trying to shove a religion-like belief system down your throat. It can be frustrating to see object oriented languages which are so obsessed with making everything into a class that the simple act of opening a file requires six import statements and a method call that looks like
We.Don't.Want.You.To.Get.Any.Work.Done.FileReader.FileBuffer.LayeredBuffer.LayeredNachos.OpenStream(AndYouThoughtTheArgumentListWouldBeSmall);
On the other hand, there are a lot of small, fast functional languages that decide that you need a million data types, each of which uses every brace and bracket on the keyboard for different results. Apparently, it isn't enough to have arrays. You also need lists (also nice), tuples (wtf?), and god knows what else. And if you ever read the documentation for these things, they make it sound as if every exception and difference makes perfect sense. Back in college, my friend Joe and I were frustrated with the fact that every time we asked what a certain concept was in our Hardware Engineering course, the answer was always "oh, it's just a 4-to-1 Mux", as if either of us knew what the hell that was at the time. That's what these "whizbang" little languages remind me of (though to be honest, we should have known what a multiplexer was back then).
There's another great quote from the Perl book, paraphrased here - "you can do just about anything you need with a hash". Amen to that.
PS - the crack at OO Languages above is more due to my time with .NET languages. Say what you will about Java, but it lets you get to core classes very quickly.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
anime
Today I bought Volume 2 of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood. Apparently, of the three Best Buys in my area, only one sells enough anime to stock the show in Blu Ray. That's kind of sad, but one store is better than none.
When I got home, I looked up the show's episode count, and did some quick math. At the rate that Funimation is going right now, they can release all of Brotherhood in exactly five volumes. At 44 bucks each on Blu Ray, that's.... ouch. That's a lot.
I've been going back and forth on whether I should keep buying the show on BD. To be honest, it isn't so much the price that gets me. 13 episodes for that much dough is still cheaper than anime in the days of singles releases. I guess what bothers me is that so far, the show hasn't proven that it's worth watching in Hi Def. The fight scenes look gorgeous, but like with so many anime these days, there have been episodes where hardly anyone moves, and so the BD quality feels like a waste. Meanwhile there were a few stories in volume 1 which felt slow and unnecessary, despite the fact that the first fourteen episodes are already a compression of events in the original series. I know it gets better over time, but Fullmetal is one of the only surefire money makers right now, and I figured they'd be more willing to pull out the stops. I want to make this a "one episode per week" show, but that only seems to work with 13 episode series, where every single one has to count.
When I got home, I looked up the show's episode count, and did some quick math. At the rate that Funimation is going right now, they can release all of Brotherhood in exactly five volumes. At 44 bucks each on Blu Ray, that's.... ouch. That's a lot. I've been going back and forth on whether I should keep buying the show on BD. To be honest, it isn't so much the price that gets me. 13 episodes for that much dough is still cheaper than anime in the days of singles releases. I guess what bothers me is that so far, the show hasn't proven that it's worth watching in Hi Def. The fight scenes look gorgeous, but like with so many anime these days, there have been episodes where hardly anyone moves, and so the BD quality feels like a waste. Meanwhile there were a few stories in volume 1 which felt slow and unnecessary, despite the fact that the first fourteen episodes are already a compression of events in the original series. I know it gets better over time, but Fullmetal is one of the only surefire money makers right now, and I figured they'd be more willing to pull out the stops. I want to make this a "one episode per week" show, but that only seems to work with 13 episode series, where every single one has to count.
IE 9
I tried the IE 9 beta out last night. I had trouble thinking of a way to describe it, so I will go with my original, awkward summary - it feels like Microsoft is approaching their consumer oriented web browser the same way they treat their professional products.
See, if you're just a normal computer user, MS doesn't really have to try and sell you on its wares. Chances are you're going to upgrade your computer right around the time that a new version of Windows comes out, in which case they've already got you. Businesses, on the other hand, are trickier. They're going to spend a hell of a lot more, and as a result, they're going to be much more hesitant to update their software on a regular basis. It is up to Microsoft to find ways to get them to do so anyway. They have a few methods, one of which is to make a product work on multiple OS's, but work best on only one. If you want all the new features (and chances are, at least one of them won't be useless), you either pony up, or take what you can get. Sooner or later, your OS of choice won't be supported at all, in which case you will have to move on whether you like it or not. Another classic tactic is to lay a ton of sheen and polish on the surface of a program, but leave the inner workings and menus exactly the same, leading to an aesthetic nightmare and, in some cases, a program that spends too much time with useless, sellable features that it fails to work on the issues which really need addressing.
These tactics pretty much sum up what MS has done with IE9. Take a look:
- It is tightly integrated into Windows 7, with all sorts of features which I haven't yet seen
- It will run on Vista, but without all the same features
- It won't run at all on XP
- The interface is brand new, minimal, and integrated into the look and feel of Aero. Meanwhile, the Internet Options menu is exactly the same as it has been since IE4 or so. Not only does it look old, but it makes you wonder - if IE keeps supporting all these new features on the web, then why are we still configuring a web browser the same way we did in the days of dial up?
MS is using IE to give users the double deuce. It is telling WinXP users that if they're pretty much screwed at this point, while Vista users are going to have to pay for spending money on the company's mistake.
Thank goodness for options.
See, if you're just a normal computer user, MS doesn't really have to try and sell you on its wares. Chances are you're going to upgrade your computer right around the time that a new version of Windows comes out, in which case they've already got you. Businesses, on the other hand, are trickier. They're going to spend a hell of a lot more, and as a result, they're going to be much more hesitant to update their software on a regular basis. It is up to Microsoft to find ways to get them to do so anyway. They have a few methods, one of which is to make a product work on multiple OS's, but work best on only one. If you want all the new features (and chances are, at least one of them won't be useless), you either pony up, or take what you can get. Sooner or later, your OS of choice won't be supported at all, in which case you will have to move on whether you like it or not. Another classic tactic is to lay a ton of sheen and polish on the surface of a program, but leave the inner workings and menus exactly the same, leading to an aesthetic nightmare and, in some cases, a program that spends too much time with useless, sellable features that it fails to work on the issues which really need addressing.
These tactics pretty much sum up what MS has done with IE9. Take a look:
- It is tightly integrated into Windows 7, with all sorts of features which I haven't yet seen
- It will run on Vista, but without all the same features
- It won't run at all on XP
- The interface is brand new, minimal, and integrated into the look and feel of Aero. Meanwhile, the Internet Options menu is exactly the same as it has been since IE4 or so. Not only does it look old, but it makes you wonder - if IE keeps supporting all these new features on the web, then why are we still configuring a web browser the same way we did in the days of dial up?
MS is using IE to give users the double deuce. It is telling WinXP users that if they're pretty much screwed at this point, while Vista users are going to have to pay for spending money on the company's mistake.
Thank goodness for options.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)