Sunday, April 15, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Robert Johnson's guitar
Just about everything's been said Robert Johnson, legendary bluesman (and you really should be listening to him), and much of it can't be confirmed. But I don't believe that this has been mentioned.
Robert Johnson is famously known for, among many other things, posing with a Gibson L-1 guitar in one of two known photos of him- the poised, dapper studio photo that graces the front of the Complete Recordings CD.
Robert Johnson is famously known for, among many other things, posing with a Gibson L-1 guitar in one of two known photos of him- the poised, dapper studio photo that graces the front of the Complete Recordings CD.
It's such that Gibson has put out a signature model of the guitar- at a high price, I might add.
But look closely at the twelfth fret- the fret with two dots, in case you can't tell- you'll see that it meets the body of the guitar.
Why do I mention this? Well, as a guitarist myself who has studied his music, I can tell you that it's very difficult to play beyond the twelfth fret if it meets the body without a cutaway. Believe me, I've tried.
But according to the extremely thorough songbook Robert Johnson: The New Transcriptions, at least one song- "Come on in My Kitchen", one of my favorites- requires that you play notes at the fifteenth fret. This is very hard to do with my dinky little Silvertone acoustic.
But look at the other known photo of him- the informal, darkly brooding photobooth portrait. Look at where the two-dotted fret is.
The twelfth fret is now above the body. This is a different guitar! Even that was a revelation to me. But the fifteenth fret is now much easier to reach.
This lead me to the conclusion that the guitar he uses in this second portrait is in fact what he used for, at the very least, the Nov. 23rd recording sessions in 1936. I find it unlikely that he had two at any given time, given his financial situation. (So perhaps the more formal portrait was taken during a later period, and he'd gotten a new one by that point. Who knows? Maybe he just borrowed it.)
So before you cough up over two thousand dollars to buy the Gibson signature model, consider whether or not it's actually suited to playing his music. At the very least you can make it easier for yourself by playing "Come on in My Kitchen" without a capo, unlike what The New Transcriptions recommends.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Comics and Stories truly begin
I've been reading Walt Disney's Comics & Stories chronologically, and after a few years of reprints from Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Silly Symphonies newspaper strips (Bucky Bug, lots of Floyd Gottfredson), and adaptations- usually text-based- of shorts, I've finally gotten to the original stories.
And as can be expected, they show hallmarks of things to come.
The first one (I'm 99% certain) is of all things a Jose Carioca story, his second published- the first was in a '42 newspaper story. Starring an unexpected character? Check.
The next ones surprised me even more. Flower from Bambi (beautifully drawn by Ken Hultgren, I might add) meeting Little Hiawatha, renamed Little Bear for no reason, complete with racist dialect. A text story about Elmer the Elephant (why??) together with the crows from Dumbo, as blackbirds for no reason. Friend Owl thwarting off-model Foulfellow and Gideon. Unexpected, sometimes inexplicable crossovers? Check!
Carl Barks ducks? Checkeroonie.
Licensed character kids' comics are just... so... weird.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Important issues of the day: Pirates vs. Ninjas
I know, I know, it's an old debate that's been beaten to death, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in.
First of all, I think it'd be best to say what side I'm on to get it out of the way: I prefer pirates.
I've never been crazy about ninjas simply because they have no personalities. Think about it: Your typical ninja doesn't even reveal his entire face, denying us a huge chunk of potential expressions. They're always jumping around, looking real cool, but what else is there? Any good writer ought to know that mere skills, no matter how impressive, do not make for a compelling character. Ninjas are almost always identical, faceless assassins that merely serve to get in the hero's way. I've never even heard of a ninja who had a distinctive personality, appearance, or much less played the main character.
If you ask me, there isn't any comparison. Pirates are extremely flexible characters, with an array of costumes, voices, weapons, quirks, ethnicities, and potential positions on the scale from good to bad to choose from. They can even be supernatural. I've heard the argument that pirates are dirty, scruffy characters (which is actually part of the reason I like them), with no style or grace, while ninjas have grace to spare. Who says a pirate can't be graceful? What about Douglas Fairbanks and Errol Flynn?
I honestly think it's better to make a comparison of pirates and cowboys. But the trouble is that they both has similar advantages and a similar flexibility, while the main difference is that one is skilled on land, the other at sea.
It is perhaps best to ask ourselves what the differences between pirates and kung fu warriors are. Kung fu warriors can have any kind of personality they please, as proven by Kung Fu Panda. Or perhaps samurai. But it kinda boils down to aesthetics, really- what environment the stories take place in, what fighting skills they possess, and the style of the costumes and art.
When you get down to it, it's all about aesthetics. You could compare pirates to old-school gangsters, or medieval knights, or barbarians. It's all kinda depends on what they wear, what weapons they use, what time period it takes place in, and what the buildings look like. Everything else is fair game.
But so long as ninjas remain one type of ninja, I don't think the rivalry is valid.
First of all, I think it'd be best to say what side I'm on to get it out of the way: I prefer pirates.
I've never been crazy about ninjas simply because they have no personalities. Think about it: Your typical ninja doesn't even reveal his entire face, denying us a huge chunk of potential expressions. They're always jumping around, looking real cool, but what else is there? Any good writer ought to know that mere skills, no matter how impressive, do not make for a compelling character. Ninjas are almost always identical, faceless assassins that merely serve to get in the hero's way. I've never even heard of a ninja who had a distinctive personality, appearance, or much less played the main character.
If you ask me, there isn't any comparison. Pirates are extremely flexible characters, with an array of costumes, voices, weapons, quirks, ethnicities, and potential positions on the scale from good to bad to choose from. They can even be supernatural. I've heard the argument that pirates are dirty, scruffy characters (which is actually part of the reason I like them), with no style or grace, while ninjas have grace to spare. Who says a pirate can't be graceful? What about Douglas Fairbanks and Errol Flynn?
I honestly think it's better to make a comparison of pirates and cowboys. But the trouble is that they both has similar advantages and a similar flexibility, while the main difference is that one is skilled on land, the other at sea.
It is perhaps best to ask ourselves what the differences between pirates and kung fu warriors are. Kung fu warriors can have any kind of personality they please, as proven by Kung Fu Panda. Or perhaps samurai. But it kinda boils down to aesthetics, really- what environment the stories take place in, what fighting skills they possess, and the style of the costumes and art.
When you get down to it, it's all about aesthetics. You could compare pirates to old-school gangsters, or medieval knights, or barbarians. It's all kinda depends on what they wear, what weapons they use, what time period it takes place in, and what the buildings look like. Everything else is fair game.
But so long as ninjas remain one type of ninja, I don't think the rivalry is valid.
Canonicized lameness
Something that's really been bugging me about entertainment targeted towards preteens and young adults lately is that I frequently can't tell if it's being ironic and satirical or if it's actually trying to represent how young people act and think.
I'm thinking mostly of Disney Channel sitcoms. I'll see the young teens on that show saying things like "Wazzzzuup, muh homeeeez? We's gunna party fo' sheeeeezle!" and the audience is expected to laugh at it, but then I recall that when I actually was surrounded by people of this age- around the time when Shrek first came out- they would say these things as if they were simply the sort of things you said.
What I'm trying to say if that it seems as though it's trendy to lame and dorky- that it's cool to be a poser.
There have been many times when a character on TV will use a word or phrase I've never heard before, and they act like I'm supposed to know what they're talking about, without any context. It usually doesn't sound like the way real people talk (which, admittedly, isn't something I'm fully knowledgeable of).
One example I can think of is from an ad for the cartoon Johnny Test- which is a cartoon I'm surprised still exists, considering that when it was on Kids WB, I watched one episode and found it incredibly dull and stupid- and the main character uses the phrase "ice cream mouth". He says it with such conviction, it's like it's supposed to be as common as "brain freeze" or "milk mustache". Since when did people who aren't four-year-olds get ice cream all over their faces, anyway?
And I've been hearing people on TV use the phrase "ice cream headache" instead of "brain freeze"- almost as if "brain freeze" is copyrighted or something. Saying "ice cream headache" takes twice as long to say, so I'm thoroughly unconvinced that anybody uses it in real life.
It's become increasingly frustrating not knowing what's real and what's a parody. Sometimes I suspect that the people who write this stuff are secretly brutally mocking their audience while being the sort of swill that they actually go for. You can't expect me to be interested in modern trends, but I would like to be able to glimpse at it and understand what the heck is going on. It's like when someone tries to be sarcastic but isn't very good at it.
I'm thinking mostly of Disney Channel sitcoms. I'll see the young teens on that show saying things like "Wazzzzuup, muh homeeeez? We's gunna party fo' sheeeeezle!" and the audience is expected to laugh at it, but then I recall that when I actually was surrounded by people of this age- around the time when Shrek first came out- they would say these things as if they were simply the sort of things you said.
What I'm trying to say if that it seems as though it's trendy to lame and dorky- that it's cool to be a poser.
There have been many times when a character on TV will use a word or phrase I've never heard before, and they act like I'm supposed to know what they're talking about, without any context. It usually doesn't sound like the way real people talk (which, admittedly, isn't something I'm fully knowledgeable of).
One example I can think of is from an ad for the cartoon Johnny Test- which is a cartoon I'm surprised still exists, considering that when it was on Kids WB, I watched one episode and found it incredibly dull and stupid- and the main character uses the phrase "ice cream mouth". He says it with such conviction, it's like it's supposed to be as common as "brain freeze" or "milk mustache". Since when did people who aren't four-year-olds get ice cream all over their faces, anyway?
And I've been hearing people on TV use the phrase "ice cream headache" instead of "brain freeze"- almost as if "brain freeze" is copyrighted or something. Saying "ice cream headache" takes twice as long to say, so I'm thoroughly unconvinced that anybody uses it in real life.
It's become increasingly frustrating not knowing what's real and what's a parody. Sometimes I suspect that the people who write this stuff are secretly brutally mocking their audience while being the sort of swill that they actually go for. You can't expect me to be interested in modern trends, but I would like to be able to glimpse at it and understand what the heck is going on. It's like when someone tries to be sarcastic but isn't very good at it.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The clothes make the man, apparently
You know what confuses me? When people dress in really weird, sometimes shocking clothes and claim to be "expressing themselves".
So... you're expressing that you wear shocking clothes? If taken literally, that means that their clothes is who they are as a person. Like their clothes is their entire being. Isn't there something better for you to be doing?
I think the reasoning behind it is that they're using their clothes as a means to say what they're into. The phrase "fashion statement" goes around a lot. If you were to say, "I wear these clothes because it's the sort of thing I like," that'd be a lot less confusing. I understand expressing your interests through a t-shirt or something, which is basically what I do.
But when you merely say "yourself", you make it sound like there's nothing more to yourself. Like all you are is weird clothes and a desire to bug people. That's a pretty empty statement. Can't the weirdness express something other than visual subversiveness? To be subversive for the sake of subversion solves no problems. Why can't a person be more like Yoko Ono, whose weirdness makes a social statement as well, dedicated to the promotion of love and peace?
This is why I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of Lady Gaga. She claims that she's being honest and genuine, and just being herself. Honest about what, exactly? That she likes bizarre costumes?
I understand that it's all an experiment in the phenomenon of celebrity. But that kinda rubs me the wrong way. It almost sounds like she considers fame a toy, and in some ways that attitude kinda boils down to "I'm in it for the fame". It's weirdness for weirdness's sake, but I'm not entirely sure if it makes people happier like I would like it to be. Or even especially more open-minded.
I doubt that she'd be getting much attention if it weren't for the costumes. The music's decent, but I'm curious what statement it makes, if any.
Part of it is that it's nothing John and Yoko, Andy Warhol, and Madonna hasn't done already. John and Yoko made themselves look ridiculous to advertise peace and love the same way politicians get votes and commercials sell deodorant. Andy Warhol sought to bring attention to the shape and form in commercial art and iconography, and make it a legit art. Madonna probably wanted to bare raw emotions and desires that women have.
I guess what I'm saying that while being different is good, there has be an underlying purpose and goal behind it- the weirdness ought to be a means to an end. Even if it's just for the sake of having fun once in a while. At least do it for that.
So... you're expressing that you wear shocking clothes? If taken literally, that means that their clothes is who they are as a person. Like their clothes is their entire being. Isn't there something better for you to be doing?
I think the reasoning behind it is that they're using their clothes as a means to say what they're into. The phrase "fashion statement" goes around a lot. If you were to say, "I wear these clothes because it's the sort of thing I like," that'd be a lot less confusing. I understand expressing your interests through a t-shirt or something, which is basically what I do.
But when you merely say "yourself", you make it sound like there's nothing more to yourself. Like all you are is weird clothes and a desire to bug people. That's a pretty empty statement. Can't the weirdness express something other than visual subversiveness? To be subversive for the sake of subversion solves no problems. Why can't a person be more like Yoko Ono, whose weirdness makes a social statement as well, dedicated to the promotion of love and peace?
This is why I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of Lady Gaga. She claims that she's being honest and genuine, and just being herself. Honest about what, exactly? That she likes bizarre costumes?
I understand that it's all an experiment in the phenomenon of celebrity. But that kinda rubs me the wrong way. It almost sounds like she considers fame a toy, and in some ways that attitude kinda boils down to "I'm in it for the fame". It's weirdness for weirdness's sake, but I'm not entirely sure if it makes people happier like I would like it to be. Or even especially more open-minded.
I doubt that she'd be getting much attention if it weren't for the costumes. The music's decent, but I'm curious what statement it makes, if any.
Part of it is that it's nothing John and Yoko, Andy Warhol, and Madonna hasn't done already. John and Yoko made themselves look ridiculous to advertise peace and love the same way politicians get votes and commercials sell deodorant. Andy Warhol sought to bring attention to the shape and form in commercial art and iconography, and make it a legit art. Madonna probably wanted to bare raw emotions and desires that women have.
I guess what I'm saying that while being different is good, there has be an underlying purpose and goal behind it- the weirdness ought to be a means to an end. Even if it's just for the sake of having fun once in a while. At least do it for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)