The cats’ relationship is still a work in progress . . .
Listening to a lot of Uriah Heep lately has reminded me just how much I liked Ken Hensley’s Hammond Organ work, and that got me to thinking about other keyboardists I like a lot, and that got me to thinking about other instrumentalists that I like, and that got me to making lists, because that’s what geeky music geeks do when they start thinking about things, which is generally a bad idea for everybody involved.
But it happens, and since I made these lists, I now feel obligated to share them. Each name in each list is appended with the name of the band(s) with which that the player is most closely and clearly associated. I’m generally thinking about rock music when I’m thinking about these sorts of things, so I’m knowingly not including some titans on their instruments if they didn’t primarily within that idiom/genre.
And to cut off the person who generally comments (under a different name each time) whenever I post a music-related list . . . yes, I know, this is only my own opinion, and these lists don’t include some of your favorite jazz, classical, blues, Colombian cumbia, Bollywood film score, Tuvan throat singer, Bulgarian women’s choir, or Inuit ritual music. I’m sorry I’m not as deep as you are. Your mother must be so very proud!!
My five favorite keyboardists:
1. John Evan (Jethro Tull)
2. Ken Hensley (Uriah Heep)
3. Richard Wright (Pink Floyd)
4. Keith Emerson (Emerson, Lake and Palmer)
5. Allen Ravenstine (Pere Ubu)
My five favorite drummers:
1. Keith Moon (The Who)
2. Charles Hayward (This Heat/The Camberwell Now)
3. Chris Cutler (Henry Cow/Art Bears/Pere Ubu)
4. Carl Palmer (Emerson, Lake and Palmer)
5. Bill Bruford (Yes/King Crimson)
My five favorite bassists:
1. John Entwistle (The Who)
2. Paul McCartney (Beatles/Wings)
3. Chris Squire (Yes)
4. Tony Levin (King Crimson)
5. Glenn Cornick (Jethro Tull)
My five favorite guitarists:
1. Robert Fripp (King Crimson)
2. Paul Leary (Butthole Surfers)
3. David Gilmour (Pink Floyd)
4. Steve Howe (Yes)
5. Adrian Belew (King Crimson)
My five favorite singers (male):
1. Nick Cave (Birthday Party/Bad Seeds)
2. David Bowie (solo)
3. Freddie Mercury (Queen)
4. Daryl Hall (Hall and Oates)
5. Peter Gabriel (Genesis/solo)
My five favorite singers (female):
1. Joni Mitchel (solo)
2. Grace Slick (Jefferson Airplane/Jefferson Starship)
3. Bjork (solo)
4. Dagmar Krause (Henry Cow/Slapp Happy/Art Bears)
5. Flatula Lee Roth (Tragic Mulatto)
Who would you include in these lists if you felt geeky enough to make your own?
I will be climbing out of my blog-hole and decloaking in a couple of weeks to attend an event with a bunch of fellow blog-monsters. While I’m looking forward to catching up with some old real world friends and getting to actually meet some new online friends, I’m not really sure that I’ll add a whole lot to the discussion about the three framing questions underpinning the event: “How have blogs changed the way we communicate? How do bloggers interact with their readers? What can bloggers do to foster a sense of community with their readers?”
I really don’t have a lot to say about those big-picture themes related to blog communities, because I view blogging as a completely selfish act. It’s my own personal way of raising intellectual self-indulgence to an art form, and embracing crankiness for its own sake and satisfaction. Marcia recently offered the best definition of “crank” I’ve ever heard: “A crank is someone who has strong opinions on too many topics.” Guess who she said it about?
“Blog community” is essentially a meaningless concept in regard to how and what I write because of this. I’m a blog community of one. I like to be amused, and I find myself amusing. I’ve just chosen to amuse myself in public where other people can watch and occasionally throw crumbs and pebbles my way, village idiot style. If there wasn’t an Internet, I’d be writing all of this stuff in little ledgers and journals, and I’d be giggling and ranting (as appropriate) just as much as the words spilled out, regardless of whether anybody was ever going to read them or not. It’s the act of writing that moves me, less than the act of being read, although if the latter doesn’t take any additional effort, then I’m certainly fine with having the words out in the public domain. It’s a whole letter easier than Xeroxing ‘zines, anyway.
Given my selfish motivations when it comes to writing, the fact that there are folks out there who actually are willing to read the many, many words I gush is gravy for me. Nice, tasty gravy, but gravy nonetheless. Of course, the 724 comments I’ve received over the past three-plus years would indicate that it’s certainly a very small number of folks whose interests overlap with mine, since some of my fellow Times Union bloggers can pull 724 comments in an afternoon. A slow afternoon, even. And even worse: I’ve been blogging one place or another since September 2000, and those 724 comments are actually all of the ones that I’ve ever received, anywhere, since prior to having a blog here at the Times Union, I ran all of my earlier blogs and websites with the comments function turned off.
I wrote an explanation of why I took such a “community-free” approach back in January 2004, and I reproduce it below, not because I don’t value the comments I receive here, and not because I don’t appreciate the online connections I’ve made over the years, but rather to offer a counterpoint view to the importance of the “blog community” model that seems to have become a widely-accepted truism in recent years, and which frames the get-together next week. So, maybe I’ll see you there? I’ll be the tall, cranky guy with the Southern accent, complaining about those darn kids and their new-fangled blog communities. Carnsarnit! Git off my lawn, you little networkers, you!!! Shoo!!!
Here’s the old article . . .
I’ve been following and participating in an interesting e-conversation over the past week or so in the Albany Bloggers mailing list about the pros and cons of having comments postable and posted on blogs.
I’ve, obviously, set this blog up to not allow reader comments to be viewed, and not because I’m not interested in feedback. (I am, and if you click the “contact” link to the left, and have something to say other than “Motley Crue rule, you suck,” then odds are I’ll be happy to correspond with you and take your feedback into consideration). I think my real reasons for avoiding the viewable comments portion of this blog are slightly more subtle than “I don’t care care what you have to say” or “I don’t want my friends talking to each other on my website.”
When I first got serious (for the third or fourth time) about keeping this blog up regularly, I had in mind a quote that Jed Davis included in his blog when he moved from Live Journal to Blogspot: “I’m trying to write for me,” wrote Jed. “Yet I constantly felt like I was at the mercy of the online comment box.” That made, and makes, perfect sense to me, and I agree with the sentiment wholly.
There’s a widely held position in the blogosphere that not including reader comments in a blog makes it weaker. I’m probably coming from a more orthodox print media background, but I can’t really get my mind around such a position. I mean, does a novelist include comments from readers in his/her book? Does a musician include comments from listeners in his/her CD? While I know that the web is supposed to be the great equalizer, the ultimate meritocracy, it would seem to me that people’s writing, flash, art, whatever else they post online gets its truest measure of worth in word-of-mouth, or traffic, or response from the blog community by way of incoming links, or in private correspondence between those who create work and those who respond to it, not by how many comments are posted each day in public.
My biggest concern with comments (other than the obvious ones like spammer comments filling up a blog with commercial rubbish) and bulletin boards dedicated to one writer/artist/musician is that over time, the most devoted and serious commenters will also tend to be the most sycophantic ones: “I love [whatever] the most, and will prove my devotion by stating it here,” “No, I love [whatever] more than you do, and will prove my devotion by stating here twice.”
Mutual appreciation societies become inherently inward-looking and stifle growth, and I think some commenters use feedback on other people’s blogs to enhance their own stature or status vicariously: “If I’m the all-time greatest, most visible fan of [whatever], then I must be almost as good as [whatever] myself, or certainly more important than all the other fans of [whatever].”
So I would much rather people choose to link to my website or contact me directly by e-mail as a lasting endorsement of their estimation of the value of my work (or not), than have daily comments that (again) over time would become less and less challenging, and more and more comfortable, and more and more focussed on the commenters and not the creator (remember: criticism comes easier than craftsmanship)(a fact that, I think, I came to forgot too often during my years of music criticizing). Such a public feedback mechanism ultimately builds a cocoon of fuzzy warmness that would, I think, keep me from pushing in new directions of my own choosing, not the choosing of the those who support my current work and want to see more of it.
Real world example: I’ve been writing and publishing music criticism for nearly 20 years. The first version of jericsmith.com went online in late ‘94, and it was primarily dedicated to music criticism. As the website grew over the past ten years, it became more and more focused on music criticism. I wrote a novel during that time, and it was about music criticism.
But I have to admit that I am really sick of music criticism at this point: there are only so many ways to describe music, and I feel like I’ve done each of them way too many times. So my blog began (in 2000, originally, although I didn’t get serious about it until October 2003) as a way for me to have an outlet for non-music-critic writing. (Specifically poetry for 2004, but that’s not necessarily a permanent fixture once I finish this year’s writing project, and after a year’s sabbatical, who knows, I may want to write music criticism again).
So the issue here is one of comfort and getting stuck by what readers/commenters want: I get regular posts from musicians and bands asking me to go back to more music criticism, praising my work there, not understanding why I’d want to write (shudder) poetry, hoping that I’ll see the light and return to my roots, and that then I’ll review their new CD or come to their concert, since they’re sure that I will love it! Where can they send it? Or can they just drop it off at my house?
So it’s not really about support for my work: it’s about what support for what my work can do for them. And if I listened to them, I’d spend the rest of my writing life recycling used and stale music writing cliches. My earliest writing successes were in poetry (I won a statewide contest in high school, competing against adults) and lyrics (probably the only thing of any lasting value in my entire music-making career). Somewhere, though, I got derailed onto a writing path that led to a seemingly permanent rut of music reviews.
And, ultimately, that’s the real reason that I want to do something different with this blog, and, for the moment at least, listen to myself, not focus too heavily on what others have to say about the direction my writing’s taken, and not post what others have to say about the direction my writing’s taken on the very blog that’s taking me there.
This blog, publicly, is a monolog at the moment. (A monoblog?) I have lots of online dialog (diablog?) and feel a strong sense of internet community via the Xnet2 mailing liste (involving people with whom I’ve had e-relationships for over ten years) and Albany Bloggers and Upstate Wasted, among other outlets. I read lots of other people’s blogs, and heartily endorse any link listed on this page as being worth regular visits. I appreciate those who link back to me. I enjoy e-mail conversation among and between these various communities.
I’m just not ready to let this page go from monoblog to diablog, though. Not yet, anyway. But keep those e-mail’s coming, I appreciate the feedback, and am glad we can share ideas and observations. Let’s just not feel obligated to let that laundry air dry.
You might have noticed that I replaced the photo of myself that’s been here since I starting blogging for the Times Union. The new one was taken in my office at the University at Albany, and is less than a year old. The prior one was about five years old at this point. I swapped them out because I think that folks who present their visages photographically in the public domain really should try to have snaps that are current enough to allow strangers to recognize them at their current ages. Keeping 25 year old photos up on a blog or a Facebook page is kind of obnoxious and duplicitous, right?
I’ve noticed that there are two communities where such old photo abuse is most rampant. First (and probably not surprisingly) is the community of media figures, including newspaper columnists. (Ahem, I’m looking at some of you, Times Union print writers. Or at least I’m looking at a 20-year younger version of you when I read the paper over grilled cheese and sausages). The other professional field where abuse of old photos seems most rampant and egregious is in the real estate business. Marcia and I have been casually looking at houses over the past year, and have had multiple cases of responding to a listing with a picture of a perky-looking young Realtor marketing it, and then going to tour a house and meeting said perky person a quarter-century on, easily, from when their head shots were taken.
For what it’s worth: I don’t want to buy houses from those folks, because I feel like they’re falsely marketing themselves, so why would I trust them to accurately represent the house? (Or the news, Times Union folks. Just saying.) I’m comfortably middle-aged and am perfectly happy to do business with people who look like me or an older version thereof, and who aren’t ashamed to represent themselves that way. So, in the spirit of fairness, that’s why those few of you who regularly read this blog get to see me five years further on in my profile picture, with whatever extra wrinkles, gray hairs or jowls that requires me to display.
I’ll still kick your ass in the boxing ring, though. Just for the record. You don’t have to be handsome or young to hit things.
More on Mid-Major At Large Teams: I used my 1998-2009 analysis of Mid-Major At Large (MMAL) teams discussed here to develop a graphic visualization that can be used to predict Cinderella Points based on the number of MMAL teams in the tournament. Here’s the graph (click it for a larger version):
The numbers across the bottom represent the number of MMAL teams in the tournament. Four to twelve is the historical range during the survey period, though there have never been eleven MMALs in a given year. (Note that it’s hard to go back any deeper than 1998 because the conferences changed so dramatically around that time, and because that’s when the BCS came into being, which, I believe, is when the cards began to be institutionally stacked against MMALs). The vertical axis represents Cinderella Points (the sum of the seed numbers for surviving teams at each round). The four clusters of data and exponential regression trendlines defining them are, from top to bottom, for the Round of 32, the Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight and Final Four. As noted in the prior post, the strongest positive correlation between MMAL’s and higher Cinderella Points occurs in the Sweet Sixteen, and you can see graphically how higher MMAL numbers actually correlate to lower Round of 32 Cinderella Points. So, in concept, once you know the number of MMAL’s in the tournament, you can go up that line to get the predicted Cinderella Points for each round.
Based on my analysis of the NCAA D-I rankings and standings at this point, I’m going to go out on an optimistic limb and predict that there will be nine MMALs this year: four from the Atlantic 10, two from the Mountain West Conference, and one each from the Missouri Valley Conference, the West Coast Conference and Conference USA. So using the predictive trendlines in the graph above, that should result in 181 Cinderella Points in the Round of 32, 72 Cinderella Points in the Sweet Sixteen, 25 Cinderella Points in the Elite Eight, and 10 Cinderella Points in the Final Four. I’ll report back when the field is selected to see if my optimism was warranted for the number of MMALs, and adjust my Cinderella Point predictions accordingly, and then at the end of the tournament to see how well the predictive model held up.
Meanwhile, In Space: Great news on a planetary exploration front, as the Cassini mission to Saturn has been extended for seven more years. Hurrah! What a good and worthy mission this has been, and I can’t wait to see how many more amazing images and discoveries it provides us before this yeoman space craft plunges into Saturn in September 2017. On Mars, Rover Opportunity just passed the twelve mile mark, still trucking along on its way to Crater Endeavor. Unfortunately, it’s sister rover Spirit has been re-designated as a fixed probe after being stuck in sand for a year. It’s handlers need to adjust its position over the next couple of months to get its solar panels lined up in better position if it’s to survive the upcoming Martian winter. Fingers crossed. And while we’ve still got five more years to wait before New Horizons arrives at Pluto, some Hubble Telescope images indicate that we’re going to see something amazing when it gets there. Such a good time to be a space nerd, even with President Obama’s (probably wise) decision to abandon a near-term mission to the Moon. I always remind myself that nearly 60 years elapsed between Magellan’s Crew’s first circumnavigation of the globe and Francis Drake’s second one. So by that metric, as long as we make it back to the Moon by around 2033, we’re on the same sort of schedule. (I’m considering the entire Apollo program as a single “voyage”). That doesn’t mean that many sailors’ explorations of Africa and the Americas between Magellan and Drake weren’t worthy and valuable, anymore than it doesn’t mean that our exploration of low Earth orbit with the International Space Station is useless. We learn by exploring, and sometimes monumental firsts are so audacious that it can take a long, long time before they can be duplicated.
Meanwhile, In The Ether: Things are loading up hot and heavy over on the Upstate Ether archive, and I’m seeing things over there that I had thought were long, long vanished into the Internet pipes. Those are some busy Overlords. I’m not sure whether to be horrified or humored by “Safe In The Neighborhood: Wintermute vs Drunknard.” Either way, it kept me reading until the end.
Meanwhile, In Music: Give yourself a Gold Star if you know where the title of this post came from. A Geek Gold Star.