November 29, 2004 at 4:27 pm
(Media)
Wow, is it me or in the new U2 album the most hyped album ever?!
Think about it…first off, they’re featured in the new iPod commercial. And there is the whole “U2 iPod” collaboration. The new album got rave reviews from critics such as Edna Gundersen of USA Today. The band played an “improptu” set in New York last Tuesday, the day the album was released. And they played on SNL just before the album’s release as well. Naturally, expect a hot debut on the charts for both the album and the single, Vertigo.
Here comes my gripe about pop music. Look, I know a lot of people really like U2. And frankly I’d much prefer listening to just about anything from U2 to anything from their UK contemporaries like The Cure, Depeche Mode or The Police. (Although “Sunday, Bloody Sunday” annoys me in the same fashion as “Message in a Bottle.”) But what I’ve heard just doesn’t impress me that much. Maybe I’ll listen to it more (I won’t go out of my way, though.) The reviews do indicate this is a lyrically complex album. And I’ll leave myself open to the possibility that it’s a good album without being something I like. But that doesn’t stop me from thinking this will probably debut at #1 not solely because it’s great, or because it’s U2, but perhaps most importantly because of the hype.
And that’s the problem. As hype becomes increasingly important, and as it becomes increasingly expensive to promote a new release, fewer and fewer new artists will get promoted at this level because they represent quite a bit more “risk.” But new artists are at least as likely if not more to “push the envelope.” Again, I say this because moving in a new direction for an established group is somewhat risky. How many times have you picked up a new album by a band you like and been disappointed because their new sound isn’t enough like the sound you like?
Rock could be said to be losing market share. There are plenty of other genres, and plenty of pop music history to listen to. People (myself included) are turning to all sorts of other genres, and even other ways of listening (from DVD concerts to things like Recycled Rainbow.) The shame in this all is that I really feel the “pure” rock genre has life left in it–new paths that could lead to truly intriguing sounds. Sure, established groups like U2 may be able to go down those paths, but young blood would be a huge catalyst. But I don’t think today’s mainstream music industry is geared in a way that will let that happen.
Comments
November 29, 2004 at 12:20 pm
(Civil Rights, Colorado, Social/Economic, Uncategorized)
DenverPost.com - Community policing, step one
Speaking of what the police could be doing…I think this is great. There is no doubt that police forces and the communities they are supposed to serve are often at odds. Too bad Lone Tree is an upscale suburb. I’d like to see how this force handles the problems of urban areas like Denver/Aurora.
Comments
November 29, 2004 at 10:44 am
(Civil Rights, Colorado, Free Speech, Privacy, Science/Technology)
ACLU appeals “Howling Pig” lawsuit ruling
A story from one of our local papers. Good for the ACLU for appealing this. Briefly, here’s what’s happened so far. A university student doctors a photo of a professor to a likeness of Gene Simmons for his website, The Howling Pig, which is intended to discuss campus issues in a clearly satirical tone. The professor complains, and the Police storm in and seize the student’s computer.
The ACLU sues the DA among others, stating that the student’s First Amendment rights have been violated by Colorado’s libel statute. The judge in the case dismisses it, and the ACLU appeals.
It is amazing to me that this had to happen at all. Why does the professor care enough to make a complaint? Does he not respect the campus community enough to think people can make the distinction between reality and satire? And how does the case justify search and seizure? (The ACLU also sued over Fourth Amendment Rights.) I’m also curious about why the judge determined there was a lack of evidence.
Tort reform was something the Republicans brought up repeatedly during the campaign (especially in some of our local races.) One thing that would help–don’t encourage the police to follow through on weak complaints. Surely they could have been busting up a meth lab or something.
Don’t give an inch.
Comments
November 28, 2004 at 1:15 pm
(Political)
I’ve been running across the Republican argument that they stand for small government. What is “small government?” Traditionally, I believe this means limited govenment interference in trade, simple taxation, limited support for social/domestic programs and support of civil rights.
But based on the Bush administration, this no longer appears to be the case. Bush put in place protectionist policies for steel companies in 2002. (story) and supported trade barriers in other industries. (story) The Bush tax cuts do not simplify the tax code. (analysis) The No Child Left Behind Act consolidates power over the nation’s schools at the Federal level. (Program description from whitehouse.gov) The Patriot Act increases the Federal Government’s police-keeping power, easing access to confidential information and limiting fourth-amendment rights.(analysis) So in other words, some of President Bush’s best moments have been increasing the size of the Federal level of govenment, not decreasing it.
Of course, the Bush administration is trying to offset their government growth by cutting domestic programs such as Federal Student Loans. Note that this was left out of The Budget Message of the President.
My personal reflection: I was able to attend the college of my choice due to good-sized, low-rate Federal loans (in addition to merit-based scholarships.) Many of my classmates were in a similar boat, and many of them are now working as engineers for companies like Lockeed Martin and Honeywell. Assuming that there are moderately promising yet financially less well off high school seniors out there, cutting back the Federal Student Loan program seems like a good way to create a lot of intelligent, resentful people who are employed well below their potential level, and that is a bad thing for our country.
Comments
November 26, 2004 at 10:50 am
(Civil Rights, Environment)
Property Rights Law May Alter Oregon Landscape
Ah, the Republicans strike again. I want to make a couple of points. Of course, land use and personal property rights are important. You hate to see someone buy a lucrative piece and then lose the ability to get their investment out of it because it’s home to a new endangered species. But land use policy is important because it assigns value to things that can’t be valued in dollar terms–clean air and water, undeveloped areas, open space. Oregon may become a massive exurban area or it may not, but this policy clearly sells out to people who see nothing but dollar signs. Any investment has a risk.
Secondly, I was on a forum a few weeks ago arguing for “smart development.” Someone mentioned that they lived in the suburbs because they liked being able to see the sky and enjoyed the river running near their home. Funny, my appreciation for those things is exactly why I live in an urban area. The more we spread out, the less likely others get to enjoy the same things we enjoy.
Comments
November 24, 2004 at 5:25 pm
(Free Speech, Social/Economic)
Kristof: Apocalypse (Almost) Now
See above for a view on the “Left Behind” series of novels by LaHaye and Jenkins.
I’m using this as an excuse to confront an inconsistency I see with Evangelicals. It seems to me that the ideas that come from the left as far as sustainability should appeal to Evangelical Christians because they stress time with family, community and (if you wish) God. The left is also critical of a lot of scientific research as well as killing.
Thanks to Mr. Kristof for another fair column.
Comments
November 24, 2004 at 10:12 am
(Political)
If I had a dollar for every time I found someone criticizing Michael Moore over the past week, I’d be pretty well off. Most of the time, the noise was coming from inarticulate ranters (wow, you called him fat and ugly–how creative!) But Film Threat put him on top of their “Frigid 50″ list for being egotistical–they even urged him to “lose the chip on [his] shoulder.”
I find this backlash somewhat amusing–it’s a lot like the backlash against Rush Limbaugh 10 years ago. The right is taking a very defensive posture against someone they’re supposed to think they’ve defeated. If he’s so ineffective, why bother noticing him?
We all know that, for instance, Ann Coulter’s books and Moore’s documentaries preach to the choir so to speak. I haven’t spent a lot of time thumbing through How to talk to a Liberal and I haven’t bothered recommending Bowling for Columbine to my right-leaning friends and co-workers. It’s enough just to know that there are people out there who are troubled by the same things.
But here’s what I really like about Moore–he makes people squirm. Take a look at Charlton Heston trying to defend his rallies in Denver and Flint right after school shootings in those cities, or Congressmen trying to explain why their own children aren’t in Iraq. He makes people confront the disconnect between their beliefs and their actions and that’s where he is most effective. If he can tighten his arguments and then aim at the center and right, well, corporate goons beware. Note to the editors at Film Threat-Michael Moore without a chip on his shoulder is like R.P. McMurphy without a frontal lobe.
Comments
