How To Turn Legislation Into a Cage Match

Talk about sensationalism. This article was on the front page of the Oregonian today:

"For 26 days, can Oregon lawmakers get along?
Legislature - The success or failure of the session could determine whether it becomes a yearly fixture
Sunday, February 03, 2008
MICHELLE COLE
The Oregonian Staff

SALEM --Put 90 politicians inside the Capitol for 26 days during an election year. Add a mix of potentially volatile issues, including all-day kindergarten and immigrant driver's licenses.

Stand back.

On Monday, Oregon launches a historic experiment with annual legislative sessions.

Normally, the Legislature meets every two years, unless an emergency special session is necessary. Oregon is one of only six states where lawmakers do not meet every year to craft budgets or debate policy.

But that could change -- depending upon what happens in Salem in the next 26 days.

Democrats and Republicans agree state government -- and its $15 billion budget -- is too complex an enterprise to have a Legislature that meets only in odd-numbered years.

During the next month, they'll try to prove that they can do the people's pressing business and then go home.

So what will they do and how will it work? Check out the issues list and legislative user guide inside.

Will the experiment succeed?

You will decide. Voters would have to change the constitution to make annual sessions permanent. "

WHAT?!?!?! It sounds like they're advertising a TV show about people in suits beating eachother up. and then the whole "you will decide" bit? COME ON!
I guess this is the only way to get people interested in politics.

The First Annual Karen O Look-Alike Contest

I just read a really awful book, Exit Here by Jason Myers, which I don't recommend to anyone. It's about a bunch of coked up teenagers hooking up with each other, doing drugs, and being really empty. It's not very well written, has a little bit more depth than your typical rich teen girl series (Gossip Girl). It name-drops noisy indie bands and hair metal alike, a combination which I don't think exists in nature, leading me to think that people like these (hopefully) don't exist. What's more, in trying to be hip by mentioning underground indie bands like Fantomas, Entrance, and Ugly Casanova (which the author implies put out multiple CDs, a falsehood if I've ever heard one) alongside Guns 'n Roses and Dio, he brings up a band called Blood on the Wall, who do exist. The band the author actually namedrops, however, is Blood on the Walls, plural, who do not exist. Do your research, man.

But this isn't my point. I wanted to bring up a particular scene in the book where our narrator, Travis, goes to a Karen O look-alike contest. Karen O is the eccentrically dressed singer of Yeah Yeah Yeahs. So a look-alike contest would probably produce a bunch of wackos, which it does. But my real point comes up when Travis overhears a conversation between two Karen Os which goes like this:
"[It's okay, it's okay.]"
"No it's not. I spent ten hours getting ready for tonight."
"That guy judging the outfit didn't know what he was talking about, sweetie."
"He told me I looked like a PG version of Ashlee Simpson. I'll never get over that for as long as I live."
"Yes you will. I think you look good. You look more like Karen O than Karen O does."
"You really think?"
(pause)
"Um, of course I do."


Now, aside from the clear problems here, such as the ridiculous girl habit of lying to their friends about ridiculous things just to boost their egos (I will never understand this), there is another. While Travis clearly feels disdain towards these girls, and while I agreed with him at first, I later realized that it is now actually possible to look more like a person than that person looks like themselves. Especially a person as mythologized as Karen O.
The standard Karen O look is, as Travis puts it, "lots of black hair styled every which way", "lots of really big sunglasses", "lots of blue eye shadow streaked across both eyes", and "lots and lots and lots of shredded and V-neck and mismatched color tops and off-color pantyhose".
ANYONE CAN PULL IT OFF! ANYONE CAN LOOK LIKE THAT! Meaning, of course, that at moments, a person can actually look more like "Karen O" than Karen O looks like "Karen O" at other moments. Because, really, does she actually dress up like that all the time? I hope not. It would get really tedious.
This brings to mind the classic story of Charlie Chaplin coming in second at a Charlie Chaplin Look-alike contest, under a fake name. The thing is, this happened for a completely different reason than the reason for Karen O to, hypothetically, come in second at a Karen O lookalike contest.
Chaplin had a look: Bowler hat, little black mustache,cane. Most people could easily pull that off. But Karen O has a "look", a look which can be done in many different ways, with many different outfits, many different options, eyeshadow colors, etc.

See? But Chaplin only had one:

So whoever was judging that contest just had to pick the guy with the best mustache. While a person judging a Karen O contest would just have to pick which of these look-alikes did their favorite version of the Karen O "look". Which color combination they liked best. Which hair do. It's totally up for grabs in this case, because Karen O has been so highly publicized, and seen in so many different outfits that any which one could apply more than any other one, depending on the day. Someone going for "Karen O" could easily be considered "PG Ashlee Simpson" by a judge in a bad mood. Where as if a Charlie Chaplin look-alike had worn a porkpie instead of a bowler, he would've been booted out the front door for sheer ignorance. Charlie Chaplin had a look. Karen O has a "look". Does that make sense?
I just thought that was interesting.

Liam Lynch-United States of Whatever

So this song, while first of all being awesome, also touches on a subject we've dealt with with dZ, the "whatever". I'm not sure Mr. Lynch goes quite so far into it as de Zengotita does, but after all, he is a musician, not a sociologist. I've never heard anything else by the man (although I hope to soon, haters!), but if it all includes this much social commentary that would be pretty cool. He even touches on the "'tude" idea!


PS: The dude also directs movies, such as "Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny" and "Sarah Silverman: Jesus is Magic". He also helped write some of the songs on "Pick of Destiny", and created the "Sifl and Olly Show", on which this song originally appeared.

"I'm Not A Music Person"

According to the polarizing Thomas De Zengotita, everyone is a music person. Music gives you "attitude". Because it is one of the more pure media (music is music, it is not representing anything else, or is it?), it informs and is informed by who we are.
DZ claims that music is the tie that binds us, that it is virtually impossible (in high school at least) to have friends who don't like the same music as you.
While I disagree, the point of this blog is what does Tommy Boy think about those people who just "aren't music people"? You know, the ones who don't go shopping, watch television, go to parties, dances, Starbucks, the movies, don't have iPods, stereos, radios, don't drive, don't leave their beds where they curl up with a nice book. These people have never been to the mall, haven't experienced a soundtrack, have failed to invest in an object which might play music for them. They manage to avoid pressing that tempting "on" button on the car stereo, they don't spend time at their friends houses, they don't walk through residential neighborhoods on nice summer days.
You know, they're not music people.
Ok, I'm sorry to break this to those of you who fit that description, but you don't exist. Not in modern Uh-Mer-I-Cuh, you don't.
Yeah, but what about the people who really AREN'T MUSIC PEOPLE. The ones who like "songs", tend to listen to soundtracks if they're going to listen to anything, or maybe the radio, which they don't mute or channel-change during the commercials because those jingles affect them about as much as the actual songs do. These people don't know who "sings" the songs they like, it's not really important. I mean, it's not like they put time or effort into their art form, a la Van Gogh or Manet or, god knows, Shakespeare. What about those people who claim to be, and quite possibly are, ambivalent about music?
I wonder what dZ thinks formed them during their middle school days, back when their buddies were all like "Yo, check out this Bob Marley/Backstreet Boys/Radiohead/Linkin Park/Eminem/Mozart/Fal Out Boy/Sex Pistols/Metallica/Underoath/Britney Spears/Ciara/Brooks & Dunn/Boston/Jason Mraz/Sublime/Interpol/TaTu/Death Cab For Cutie/Abba/Christina Aguilera/Stephen Sondheim/Rascal Flatts tune, it's pretty dope," and they would invariably reply "Yeah, I've heard of those guys/that guy/that girl/those girls/those girls and guys/those Russian maybe-pseudo-lesbians (this one applies to TaTu only), they sound pretty cool" and upon listening to the recommended song by the afore mentioned artiste, feel about as moved and changed and formed as if they had just sat for 4 minutes watching the grass grow, or the cars pass, or the mosquitoes buzz.
What about those people?
Are their personalities formed by everything OTHER than music, everything that doesn't have some sort of musical connotation or accompaniment? In other words, are these people who they are today because of all the nothing that surrounds them?
Now I know a few of these people, and they are strong-willed, wonderful, interesting people, with fully fleshed out personalities, and I have to believe, because I do not believe in miracles, that these people received a considerable amount of help in forming their egos from musical intervention. They just never noticed it.

Which is really too bad for them.

So I guess that good ol' TomTom is basically trying to say, that even though music is a pure-ish medium, even though it is also an art form, even though all this and that, no one can escape it's grasp. Our culture is informed by music, how could we not be? It is everywhere, it's not too imposing, but when it wants to be heard, oh IT GETS HEARD. Even by those "I'm not a music" people.
Whether this is a good or a bad thing I don't know, but I definitely feel sorry for the people who don't have some song who's beauty they equate with that of an extraordinary sunset, the vast expanse of the Sahara desert, the litheness of a leopard, the stars on a clear night, really good interior decorating, or the Aurora Borealis.

Because it's just really too bad for them.

Roscoe-Midlake

I'm going to review this song for two reasons: 1, I LOVE IT. It's a really great song by a great band. 2, it relates to what we've been talking about in RTM, nostalgia for a time you never lived in. We've mainly talked about nostalgia for the '50s, like The Truman Show, Pleasantville, oh-things-were-so-simple type of thing. These guys take it one step further and reminisce about 1891. Yeah that's right. That's like 116 years ago.
Here are the lyrics:
Stonecutters made them from stones
Chosen especially for you and I,
w live inside.
The mountaineers gathered timber piled high,
in which to take along, traveling many miles
knowing they'd get here.

When they got here all exhausted
All the roof leaks had got started
And now when the rain comes, we can be thankful

When the mountaineers saw that everything fit
they were glad and so they took off

Thought we were due for
a change or two
around this place.
When they get back, they're so mixed up
with no one to stay with.

The village used to be all one really needs
Now it's filled with hundreds and hundreds of chemicals
That mostly surround you, you wish to flee
But it's not like you so listen to me listen to me

Oh, and when the morning comes
We will step outside
we will not find another man in sight
We like the newness, the newness of all
That has grown in our garden struggling for so long.

Whenever I was a child, I wondered what if my name had changed
into something more productive like Roscoe,
Born in 1891, waiting with my aunt Rosaline.

Thought we were due for
a change or two
around this place.
When they get back, they're so mixed up
with no one to stay with.

1891 they roamed around and foraged
They made their house from cedars
They made their house from stone.
Well they're a little like you
And they're a little like me
We have all we need.

Thought we were due for
a change or two
around this place
This place
This place

When they get back they're all mixed up
With no one to stay with
When they get back they're all mixed up
With no one to stay with

So, essentially he's pining for a time, "whenever" he was a child (what?!), when he might have been named Roscoe (awesome name) and gone foraging, building his house in the mountains, when the village was all we would need. When we were less mediated by chemicals which "surround you". When people were just glad to finish a job like roofing someone's shack in the mountains. I know there are a few grammatical mistakes in there, but who cares. The melody of this song doesn't repeat itself!!! It just keeps going!!
All in all, awesome song, and it was the first thing that popped into my mind when we were talking about nostalgia for times we never lived.
Here's the video for it, a little period piece which might help you in understanding what they're getting at.

The Death of the Music Business...

...and other mysteries of life revealed!
So I've been thinking about this a lot (I even did a math project on it): why is the music business dying? I, and some of my other music-faithful friends, continue to purchase CDs, buy music from iTunes or eMusic, and basically pay for our music whenever we can (keep in mind that we're high school students with limited budgets). So what is happening to cause the downfall of the industry? Why is no one paying for music, just like you might pay $1500 to have an art piece hanging in your house? Sure, the simple answer is to blame Sean Parker and his 'Napster' for spawning a race of pig noises, torrential bits, fruity cables, and weird made up words (what the hell was Kazaa, anyway?) But really the question is why was there a demand for such services?
It seems to me that the primary reasons for people to want services like these are the primary reasons that I hate them. They are not at all album-oriented. They're not even artist-oriented. They're just a bunch of songs. First came the radio, where you never had to hear the same band more than once in a row! Hell, if you listen to Z100 (Portland's top 40 station) you can even jump genres every few minutes! Why commit to an entire album of songs, one that was meant to be listened to as a whole, when you can get just the songs you want for free!
And this is where it ties into de Zengotita. We've already talked about this a bit in class, but basically, people have such short attention spans, we are so overstimulated by everything (see Adam's first blog post) that we can't commit to anything. So no one is willing to buy entire albums anymore, they don't want to spend their money on songs which they might not like or (god!) which might bore them after 2 listens. Even if someone did try to get a whole album off LimeWire or something, each song would be from a different source, they'd be out of order, some would have terrible sound quality, possibly having been recorded by placing a microphone next to the radio, and no one would care! What happened to artist loyalty! No one even knows who plays (sings? lip-syncs? produces the beats for? let alone writes?) the songs they like anymore.
So essentially, we have moved into a song-based era where song-based artists(?) get the most sales, just because people search for their songs on iTunes and ignore the rest. Top 40 radio has overstimulated our minds with pulsating beats, electronified voices, and hypnotic high-pitched hooks (accidental alliteration!) and now all the songs beat as one, and the album as a concept gets kicked to the floor and forgotten. I mean, God forbid that a band should actually make more than one song at a time and put them out together s a cohesive piece of art. Because really, although it's always had that element, music is now just entertainment. One more piece of the Blob.

Buy You A Drank—T-Pain

This song is so heinous, it deserves to be analyzed verse by verse:

Snap ya fingers, do ya step
You can do it all by youself.

Thanks T-Pain, I needed the reassurance that I can do it all by "meself". I wonder if anyone actually finds that motivational? I mean, when some guy with dreadlocks and a grill tells me that I can "do it all by meself", I feel like I should run as far as I can.

Baby girl, whats ya name?
Let me talk to ya, let me buy you a drank. I'm T-Pain, you know me. Konvict music, never booey?
I'm in the club, close at 3
What's the chances of you rollin With me back to the crib?
Show you how I live.
Let's get drunk, and forget what we did

Here, T-Pain shows us that he is a master of the pickup line. I've always found that offering a girl the past tense of a verb always comes in handy in getting her "back to the crib". He also lets us know who he is (even though we already know him, right?)Then he proves that he has excellent morals (and is able to tell time), by suggesting that they "get drunk" and "forget what [they] did". Brilliant, T-Pain. Never, booey.

I'mma buy you a drank, I'mma take you home with me. I got money in the bank, [ Shawty , what chu thank bout that? Got me in the grey Cadillac]
We in the bed like...
ooh oh oooh woah, wooah
ooh oh oooh, we in the bed like
ooh oh ooooh woah, wooah, woah
ooh oh oooh

My favorite part here is all the "oooh"s, but those are hard to analzyse. Other than that, he basically suggests that she better come back in his grey Cadillac (who the hell has a grey Cadillac?), because
a.) He bought her a drank
and
b.) He got money in the bank.
Whachoothinkaboutthat?

Talk to me, I'll talk back
Let's talk money, i talk that
One juice bombs, all cliches
Shorty got class, Oh, behave
Let's get gone, walk it out [now walk it out]
just like that that's what i'm talkin bout
we gon have fun, you gon see
on that patron, you should git like me

Here, T-Pain explains that he's a good listener, or at least a good conversationalist. So long as its about money and "juicy bombs". From then on, this verse makes no sense whatsoever.

I'mma buy you a drink, I'mma take you home with me. I got money in the bank, [Shawty , what chu thank bout that? got me in the grey Cadillac]
We in the bed like...
ooh oh oooh woah, wooah
ooh oh oooh, we in the bed like
ooh oh ooooh woah, wooah, woah
ooh oh oooh

Now, we're pretty sure by the end of the song that T-Pain must be good in bed, because of all those ooohs and whoas, but we don't really want to think about that.

Finally, I can get to the point of this blog: WHY O WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE THIS SONG?!?!?
Is it the (nonexistant) awesome hooks?
The (missing) great beat?
The (definitely there) pitch-corrected vocals?
Or maybe people just like being called "shawty".

In any case, this song is an abomination, which is why the blob loves it. It's entirely surface value. If anyone actually paid attention to the lyrics, the might understand the complete idiocy hidden within T-Pain's not-so-subtle metaphors. Then maybe they'd shut off their radios and learn to love a little peace and quiet. . .

Actually, the more I think about it, it must be the "shawty" thing. I mean, who doesn't love that?

PS
For a great video on this song, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTK0kFXJjd0
then worship at the idol of Chris.