Random News Story for Saturday

I know that this is sort of a random post, especially after being so silent. But I needed to say to the world that I am horrified by this news story.

Abortion is not really one of my more passionately held political or religious viewpoints. To put it simply: politically, I believe in a woman's right to choose within some reasonable frame of time that I'm not educated enough to determine (and seems relatively arbitrary anyway, according to my slight knowledge).

Morally, the act horrifies me. And although I'm certainly not generalizing the above incident to all uses of abortion, this case should horrify you as well.

That is all.

-Sean Read more

ROFL.

We were revolutionaries!

What was your first screenname? Mine, I’m almost ashamed to admit was “Daslyfox.” Ha. “Sly Fox”, get it? So why “Da”? Simple. “Da bomb.”

I know. Soooo "I'm-a-loser-1997." Because that’s what year it was that my parents first got the internet. We were surely behind the curve—I mean most of the people who resembled friends (who really is a friend in middle school?) were already online. All of them were already wearing badges stating their self-chosen aliases in attempt to draw a black line around their identity and give people a clearer idea of how they wanted to be seen. Most of these were not the typical bread and butter ones (SeanFox123), of course many of them had a youthful, creative “twist” to them. I won’t embarrass anyone; I don’t remember others’ screennames anyway.

We were all teenagers, eager to carve out a social presence on the net. I sought friends and allies by participating in AOL chatrooms and cheap-o online gaming communities back when those AOL communities were innovative, or at least virtually monopolizing the online community, and none of us had any idea how this all worked.

It occurred to me when I was noting some friend’s screennames that if I were 40 and instant messaging with a young associate in my company across gChat or AIM after friending them on Facebook (I’m a hip and “with-it” executive), their (our) screennames would strike me as infantile. And yet, to me, their friend, they’re nothing. These images are only digital doppelgangers or glances of the people I know and love from a time in their lives I didn’t know them—when they picked their last screenname.

Now we can “safely” use our real names on Facebook or gChat; maybe we’re too grown-up to want those fronts up anymore in any case—too grown-up to want people to think we’re interesting or cool based on a carefully chosen array of letters and digits. We haven’t totally given up yet; we are still attempting clever e-mail identities, blog titles or MySpace “names” (sorry, I hate MySpace, I have no idea what it’s actually called when you can pick a clever alias).

Do these levels of self, or more accurately, these public identifications have precedent? To my knowledge, only with pennames by great authors and fake IDs and passports. Nicknames don’t count, after all. Nicknames come from friends and social circumstances. We’ve named ourselves. And whether my friends have felt that I have been accurately portrayed by anyone of my hundreds of assumed names, or even by my current screenname, DJSharpie27 (the only one I currently have that I have that is truly disingenuous)* is not important. It was our foray, our invention, and our mysterious mutual attraction to this duality that generated the excitement and interest that led our technology to where it is. Despite it all, I don’t care what Bill, Larry, or Sergey or Mark say. We built Web 2.0.

LOL!

*For those who are interested, I want to be a DJ, I love Sharpies, and since the screenname was taken, I used 27, a number I’ve always fancied for some relatively unremembered reason. I think it was a fortune cookie from the China Garden in my hometown during a dinner celebrating the completion of the Homecoming float…one of the best times of my life. I think that’s where it came from anyway. Read more

Year Zero/In Rainbows

As a prelude, the Fresh Air of 13 March served to get this post (hovering since Year Zero was released last Spring) out of my head. It’s worth listening to.

If you don’t know that the music industry is changing, you’re hiding under a rock. Everyone ought to be aware by now that soon, the very meaning of music as a media and the business will be drastically different from how it is now, especially how it was two years ago. How we purchase music and, to me, more saliently, how we listen to it is undergoing a major revolution.

There are three major examples of this that have recently profoundly influenced my relationship with the industry—Girl Talk is one just by himself, but there has also been the release of Nine Inch Nails’ Year Zero and Radiohead’s In Rainbows.

I love Girl Talk, and an entry on him is coming soon, but for now, I want to address the latter 2. Both albums are similar in that they were released under conditions that were nothing short of revolutionary. For the full story of Year Zero’s release, go to the Wikipedia entry or for the full DETAILS, go to the NIN wiki and for In Rainbows, go to the Wikipedia entry or check out the backlog “In-Rainbows” blog-tags on Radiohead_At/Ease (many of my later links are cribbed from this, the best Radiohead resource on the net).

Basically, Nine Inch Nails leaked tracks on USB keys that were left in restrooms and such containing, along with a track or two, some kind of coded or hidden message that led you to a website that had further hidden or coded messages or some other kind of statement coinciding with the concept of the album. All of it worked together to tell a narrative that registered as if we are all unknowingly trapped in an oppressed society, drugged on some undetectable substance by an authoritarian government. They didn’t just decimate the fourth wall, they decimated all four of them at once—the album’s release blurred the lines between the artist and the audience, reality and a nightmarish dreamscape, perceptions of reality and certainty, and most importantly (in my opinion) self-expression and public consumption/social meaning.

Radiohead’s release held a much more limited meaning artistically, but in the sense of the business, their model is incredibly relevant. One initial report put album sales at a staggering at 1.2 million, although these numbers were later thrown into doubt. Still it seems, that the average listener paid somewhere around 8 dollars, but theoretically only 2/5 downloaders paid. Those numbers are in doubt, as Jonny Greenwood points out in a more recent interview. And this is on top of the stolen ones.

The first conclusion I’m drawing here is that the release of albums is getting much, MUCH more creative of late; there have been other marketing ploys of late—international bonus tracks, iTunes incentives, etc. But Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead achieved unprecedented levels of media buzz and fan exuberance. One reviewer (Pitchfork) of In Rainbows put it thusly—

Like many music lovers of a certain age, I have a lot of warm memories tied up with release days. I miss the simple ritual of making time to buy a record. I also miss listening to something special for the first time and imagining, against reason, the rest of the world holed up in their respective bedrooms, having the same experience. Before last Wednesday, I can't remember the last time I had that feeling. I also can't remember the last time I woke up voluntarily at 6 a.m. either, but like hundreds of thousands of other people around the world, there I was, sat at my computer, headphones on, groggy, but awake, and hitting play.

So these creative releases are certainly heightening the interest in the album and the interaction with the band, as Trent Reznor pointed out by saying in an interview on the Spiral (quoted from Wikipedia, for the Spiral—registration required): “'marketing’ is an inaccurate description of the alternate reality [marketing], and that it is ‘not some kind of gimmick to get you to buy a record - it IS the art form ...’”.

The second conclusion is a terrible one for the future of music, in my opinion. Despite this fan excitement, despite its ostensibly free release, In Rainbows was STILL stolen (DISCLOSURE: and I say this as a hypocrite, after trying to buy the album properly for $10, there was a huge internet snafu due to China issues—so I torrented it like so many other people).

The third conclusion here is that two of the most innovative albums of the last year or so were innovative NOT because of the artfulness of their musicality, but for the artfulness of the business surrounding their release. Indeed, musically, I was disappointed by both albums, although I think it had more to do with me being caught up in that aforementioned fan exuberance than it did with a lack of quality on the part of the albums themselves (I passionately love In Rainbows). But as Trent Reznor pointed out, the ideas concerning the release become some sort of meta-statement. The release became the album and the art itself.

Clearly, we as a society are rethinking what it means to purchase and appreciate music. And as Thom Yorke and David Byrne pointed out in their Wired interview, the very value of music is at stake. I’m curious to see where this will go in the next few years.

As an epilogue, and proof that Reznor and Nine Inch Nails are not letting up, Ghosts I-IV is getting RAVE reviews (VSL, RStone), and they're still getting innovative with fan interaction.

-Sean

Read more

When to Walk Away

I really wanted to blog about something more cheerful—like War & Peace or my passionate and newfound hatred of David Baldacci, or even about the glorious uncheerfulness that is Garfield Minus Garfield. HOWEVER, I am compelled…FORCED even to vent about what I’ve learned from Hillary Clinton.

This article was inspired by two things; the horrendously arrogant talk of offering the VP slot to Obama and a new column by Andrew Sullivan. First, lest anyone accuse me of having rose-colored glasses concerning Obama’s politics, I don’t think he’s been much better on tailoring himself for voters than Hillary has, and here’s my proof.

Should Hillary Clinton give up? (Unfortunately) no. You see, somehow, she keeps pulling some magical rabbit out of her hat and somehow, she stays in the game. But saying “somehow” is a big stretch. Afterall, it’s only through dirty campaign tactics, blatant lies, silly melodramatic accusations to the press, and hypocritical straw-man attacks on Obama that she has kept herself viable. And why do I say that? It comes down to the simple explanation that she has nothing that Obama doesn’t have. What experience does she have? Since when being first lady all of a sudden make you an expert on the Presidency? ESPECIALLY as national security matters are concerned! Moreover, as a Senator, Hillary has not particularly distinguished herself as an enlightened decision-maker. In fact, the best example of this is the Iraq War. She supports the war in 2003, and to this day STILL refuses to account for the switch in her viewpoint (IS there an appropriate explanation? Maybe there is! WHO KNOWS?). Furthermore, her ridiculously hypocritical attacks on Obama in what she callsNAFTAGatethe link is an excellent analysis of the whole affair, in my opinion) are just continuing proof of her gut-wrenchingly awful campaign tactics.

And now, havingdragged Obama into the mudwith her (to Obama’s detriment, and a decision by him that I’m not the least bit supportive of), she continues to tear this party apart simply because she’s capable of doing so and the cost of it isn’t too great in pursuit of her dream. As Andrew Sullivan says:

They have been thinking of this moment since they were in college and being a senator or an ex-president or having two terms in the White House are not sufficient to satiate their sense of entitlement. Even if they have to put their own party through a divisive, bitter, possibly fatal death match, they will never give up. Their country, their party . . . none of this matters compared with them.

And some people might think, “What about Obama? Why shouldn’t he walk away?” A) he’s leading in the delegate count, and B) he has motivated and pulled out voters the Clintons never could have, boding well for a Democratic victory in November. Clinton is losing (barely, I understand) in the delegate count, and is guaranteed to alienate a significantly large and probably decisive portion of the voters in November. To me, both of those reasons are enough.

Really, the policy differences between Obama and Clinton are relatively miniscule. I mean, sure there are significant ones like health care, or smaller ones like Cuba policy, but when it comes down to it, we’re not choosing a candidate for their policy, we’re choosing a candidate for their leadership ability. Maybe Obama won’t be as good as I’m hoping, but that’s part of what he’s inspired in me—the idea that he is; and I believe his experience, however allegedly limited it may be, is enough to demonstrate his viability. Clinton has not demonstrated anything more to me than a desperate machine hungry for power, even if I have her wrong and she means well, she hasn’t been able to convince me of that. And one way or another, she’s driving this race, her party, and, in my opinion, this whole country into the ground.

So this is what I’ve learned from Hillary Clinton. As grand or well-meaning as my goals might be, I’m resolving to always know or be aware of when it’s time to walk away.

-Sean

Read more

Blasphemy?

You decide.

My guess, Sean will have some definite opinions.

Hat tip: Tyler Cowen of the always interesting Marginal Revolution

- M

Read more

War & Frickin' Peace

Hi everyone, I’m Sean. Just as a brief introduction, I’m in China. So if I seem out of touch with reality, it’s because my reality is invariably different from yours!

The Awesomeosity Project, hereafter abbreviated TAP, was birthed in a fit of hilariousness in front of the National Archives in Februaryish of 2007 by my then-new-friend-now-close-friend Brandon (the Originator) and since then, with the nurturing of myself (the Catalyst) and Mariel (who doesn’t have a nickname yet but will before long, I’m sure) it has developed into a full-blown philosophy about art, life, but especially yourself.

We’ll discuss this more as time goes on, but for now I want to kick this thing off with an appreciative note to the Classics of literature. Most people write these books off as longwinded and boring. We’ve all had our bad experiences with Oliver Twist, A Tale of Two Cities, Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina, The Mill on the Floss, and so many others, yes?

Well, it’s time we stopped razzing them, in my opinion. We’re all grown up now. Let’s give them another shot. As part of my work on the other half of TAP, The List, I have been reading War & Peace. Now, my love of classic literature is not terribly old, but is not terribly recent either. My three favorite authors are Twain, Dostoevsky, and Shakespeare, who will be counted as a writer rather than a playwright here, at least. As you may know, a new edition of War & Peace was just released by the two people considered to be the best Russian-English translators of our time, the married couple Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. In the introduction, Pevear quotes with:

In 1954, Bertolt Brecht wrote a note on “Classical Status as an Inhibiting Factor” that puts the question nicely, “What gets lost,” he says of the bestowing of classical status on a work (he is speaking of works for the theater), “is the classic’s original freshness, the element of surprise…of newness, of productive stimulus that is the hallmark of such works. The passionate quality of a great masterpiece is replaced by stage temperament, and where the classics are full of fighting spirit, here the lessons taught the audience are tame and cozy and fail to grip.” --p. x

And yet, we have to remember that War & Peace WAS once new. Pevear later says “War and Peace is a work of art, and if it succeeds, it cannot be in spite of its formal deficiencies, but only because Tolstoy created a new form that was adequate to his vision” (p. xi). We must remember in taking on War & [frickin’] Peace that what we are reading was shocking and revolutionary, or at least interesting to those that came before us. We have to read it with fresh eyes that do not see the thickness of the binding but the writings of the author (or at least translations of them), the machinations of the plot, and the strengths/failures/plights/desires of the characters. This is why we read ANY book.

I’ve found it to be true so far about several books, including Following the Equator by Mark Twain, Demons and The Idiot by Dostoevsky, and I’m very quickly finding it to be true about War & Peace. I simply CANNOT put it down. This is a terrible problem to have with a 1300 page novel because when you can’t put down a typical 2-300 page novel, at least you finish it eventually and can go to sleep or do something else constructive. War & Peace simply DOESN’T END. I have broken my New Year’s resolution to go to bed before 12 almost every night since I started reading it because when 12am roles around, and I’m deep into hating Nikolai Rostov or falling in love with Prince Andrei or laughing merrily at the exploits of the rascally loveable Denisov, it’s like a ball and chain tied to my arm (it’s about as heavy as one too), and I can’t put it down. In fact, at page 410 right now, I want to finish it as quickly as possible because I think I might just plow right through it a second time. I’m in LOVE with this book!

Read it! You will be WELL-rewarded. 15 pages a day easily puts you through the whole thing, introduction to endnotes in three months, and before long, you’ll find yourself reading far more than 15 pages a day. It’s simply engaging—and a perfect example if how a classic novel can still be fresh and relevant over 100 years after it was first-written.

There is a short article in Newsweek about the new translation here, and you can also go to a suite of stories on NPR, including an interview with the translators and a story comparing their translation to another translation that has come out quite recently. I encourage you to check it out. War & Peace always seems like a task not worth attacking to anyone who has glanced at the three-inch binding. But it reads lightly, beautifully, and gracefully, and I think you’ll find it much more refreshing than you expected.

-Sean

Read more