I'll be seein' ya, Bean Blog.

I'm moving my blog over to Wordpress. A full blown explanation is located on the new site, but the main reason I'm leaving Blogger is adaptability. I feel that Blogger is (surprisingly) getting left behind in terms of social media and Web 2.0 capabilities, and as a future information professional whose career is based on evolving and forward-thinking, Blogger just hasn't stayed as relevant as I might've hoped. So hop on over to my new site and give it a look-see. And as Bilbo said, "I regret to announce...this is The End [of Blogger]. I am going now [to Wordpress]. I bid you all a very fond farewell [until you click the link below]. Goodbye!"

Wordpress blog.

-Jon

Steve Jobs: 1955 - 2011

The passing of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs came as quite a surprise to me. I knew he had been battling cancer for many years now, and his resignation as Apple's CEO got many people wondering if his health was significantly failing. I looked at his step down as just a way to slow his pace of life down, to get away from his job and focus on things that were more personal to him. So I was a little shocked when I saw the headline announcing his death.

And I'm surprisingly saddened by the news. I don't find myself mourning the death of strangers too often. The news of someone's loved one passing or of a soldier killed in battle or a young child dying in a tragic accident is always sad to hear, but I'm rarely personally affected. While I certainly wouldn't say I'm personally affected by the passing of Jobs, I do feel more sorrow than I would expect.

I think it's because of this man's legacy. Steve Jobs was an original. His work was groundbreaking and changed the shape of information and how we take it in and experience the world around us. He played a far bigger role in popular culture of the last thirty years than most people would think to attribute to him. A musician or actor can do their craft well and move people and affect change by their status or societal role. But Jobs did more than that. His creativity has changed the scope of an entire industry forever.

Jobs' work in personal and portable computing has essentially defined how I listen to and digest music. That blows my mind. When I became a legitimate musical consumer, it was early on in the decade. That's when Apple released the first iPod. And while I didn't have my own personal iPod until about five years later, the invention of iTunes and its subsequent ubiquity on computers created the essential music listening experience for me. When I think of the absolute best way to really listen to and take in, to digest and absorb and consume, to really engage in a new album, the perfect scenario for me is in my apartment after 9 pm, one lamp on the lowest notch, room temperature about 68°, window open, light breeze, rum and coke in hand, and my laptop hooked up to my Bose computer speakers playing music from iTunes. I love to see those play counts increase. Adults who grew up in the '70s mourn the loss of analog formats and are sad to see so many people not listening to turntables anymore; in fifteen or twenty years I'm going to be sad to see that my kids are listening to music on whatever the new hip thing is rather than on iTunes.

In essence, Jobs provided me with a fundamentally important part of my life experience. Music is so important to me, and I listen to it with his program and his devices. I owe a great deal to his legacy.

Aside from that, it's rare to see such a perfect mix of talent, creativity, business savvy, innovation, and personal and professional aesthetic in our culture today. It's sad to see such a creative mind leave the world. Thanks for everything, Steve. You gave my musical world a home.

-Jon

Martin Sexton.

EDITED (9/07/11): Found this amazing video of Martin performing his song "Hallelujah" live. Please watch. His voice makes my heart feel things.

Last night we had the pleasure of seeing Martin Sexton play a solo show at the Iowa State Fair. I haven't seen a show as good as his in years.

I've known about Martin for a long time. I think my first exposure was probably about 10 years ago, when a cool older kid in youth group who liked weird music introduced Joel and I to the song "Candy." I've listened to him on and off since then, never really falling in love a particular record but enjoying a variety of his songs. This concert opened up a whole new side of his music that I'd never really caught before.

This guy has absolutely one of the most soulful sounds around. His stuff is very Americana without crossing over completely into just straight folk music. I don't want to call it "rock," but that seems most fitting. It's like heartland rock and roots rock and blues rock all jumbled with just the slightest pinch of jazz (he scats from time to time). A lot of songs are very anthemic, but not Coldplay anthemic, more like pre-Born To Run Springsteen anthemic. Very everyman music, like music you'd listen to driving in a dusty old pickup truck, driving towards the Rocky Mountains on a lonely two-lane highway as dusk sets in. It's stuff to sing along to.

He pulls this sound off perfectly in concert. It is incredible to see him perform; he transforms his guitar into the most rhythmic machine and pulls sounds out of it I can't describe. The first thing I noticed when he started to play was just how percussive he was able to make his guitar. He didn't need anybody along with him because he made his one instrument sound like seven instruments. And this was no convoluted guitar pedal manipulation, he just manages to coax an insane array of sounds, both rhythmic and melodic, out of his guitar, as he's singing some crazy lyrical rhythms. With just his voice and guitar, he creates these incredible musical atmospheres that pour over you. Really amazing stuff.

I've never heard a guy sing like this. He has almost a Jack Black-ish voice, but if Jack Black was about seven times better and had the most incredible falsetto ever. Seriously, I don't know how Martin does it, but his falsetto is just so solid. Not a hint of waver, he is as solid singing falsetto as he is singing with his gut. A fitting example would be the song "The Way I Am." In this song, he does this part that is very nearly a yodel, but he transcends into this stirring amalgam of breath and melody, hitting notes just shy of lederhosen. He's actually released two recorded versions of this song, one on his debut album In The Journey and another on his 1998 album The American. I enjoy the earlier version better because you can hear less production on it. He went into a booth and played his guitar and sang into a microphone and behind him you can hear the silence in the studio. He turns a great song into a chilling performance.

I would absolutely recommend going to see him if you get the chance. Something else I noticed in his show was how socially minded he seems to be. A lot of his lyrics have a slight spiritual undertone, and they seem to be very much pro-love. Only a few of his songs hit a bit of a political tone, but without getting overtly pro-left/right he hits more on this social theme of making the world a better place. Depending on what side you fall on, you can interpret it as either right or left. But rather than taking sides in a futile debate of "Which party is better?" his songs promote love and peace and the well-being of humanity. In a society where that worldview might be often touted but rarely acted out, it's refreshing and inspiring to hear these songs.

Martin is phenomenal. I hope you get a chance to see him, or buy a record, or somehow get his music in your head. And I'll leave you with this song, which was his encore at the show we saw. As much as I hate fan-made videos, this song is too good to pass up.

Enjoy.

-Jon

Friends don't let friends....*

I've been dying for something to write about lately and all of a sudden I am buzzed and I thought, duh, why don't I write about why exactly I am buzzed?

Kind of a long story. Since I have a University of Iowa email address, I occasionally get emails from them telling me about research studies that are being conducted. So about a month ago, I got an email from the National Advanced Driving Simulator** calling for people within the ages of 21-35 who drink moderately to participate in a research study about drinking and driving. I thought to myself, "Self***, you are between the ages of 21 and 35 and you drink alcohol in a moderate fashion, you should sign up for this study and see if you get in."

Crazy thing. I emailed back, signed up, and got a call back. I answered all the health/drinking screening questions and lo**** and behold, I was an acceptable candidate for this study. I set up an appointment for an in-person screening and went, did the urine test, a driving sign recognition test, they took height, weight, resting heart rate, asked me some questions about my driving habits and my drinking habits, and then we spent some time on this driving simulator. This is really what the study is all about, and they wanted me to get used to the simulator.

The sim itself is pretty cool, it is made up of four screens, 3 high-def HP computer monitors and one crappier computer monitor with no logo on it. 3 of the screens are on top where a car windshield would be, and the 4th crappy one is where your dashboard instruments would be, and that is what is displayed on it. The 3 high-def screens display the actual simulation environment where the subject is driving. I must say, for a simulator, it's pretty realistic. Obviously the graphics are not real life, you are driving a simulator, but the way your brain interprets the 3 computer screens is crazy, it actually feels like you are driving. When cars pass you, you hear their motor get loud and then recede into the distance, thanks to effective mimicking of the Doppler Effect (nice .gif) by the simulation program. Plus they recreate the environment pretty well. The subject (for this study) drives along a rural country road at 55 MPH, and there are hills, nice cloud formations, the occasional Ford Taurus or USPS truck passes, and one or two lovely country farmhouses. Real great programming.

So the study consists of the subject coming in, driving the sim for 10 minutes to get used to it, then "dosing." The dosing consists of putting on a nose plug and drinking two tall cups of Hawaiian Punch in 10 minutes. The trick is that they may or may not have put a certain amount of Everclear***** into the cups. You're not supposed to know so as not to affect the results of the study. Ha. Give it three minutes and you know whether or not you've consumed their awful liquor. Plus the nose plug is horribly painful to wear, especially on a schnoz like this one.

After you've consumed the drinks, you sit for about an hour to and constantly take breathalyzer tests until you've reached a certain BAC. Once you hit their projected BAC (you aren't supposed to know how much you've taken in for a particular session), you get to drive the sim. And not just drive it, you are put through a divided attention test. The sim looks like the windshield of a real car, and that includes both rear view mirrors. Right next to each mirror there is a little box, and occasionally through your drive there appears an orange arrow. If the arrow is pointing left or right (corresponding to the side it's box is on), you are supposed to press a button on the steering wheel. It an arrow appears that is pointing up, you are supposed to press nothing, just keep driving as normal. Quick recap, you are driving along a rural country two-lane highway, cars occasionally pass, you are supposed to keep a steady pace of 55 MPH, as well as stay in your lane, and whenever an orange arrow appears that is pointing left or right you are supposed to hit your corresponding button. And I did mention that you are buzzed out of your brain correct?

And then after you drive the sim, you wait. And wait. And wait. Since you are picked up at your residence by one of the researchers in the study, for legal reasons, you can only leave when you are dropped off by one of the researchers as well. And they don't let you leave until your BAC is back down to a level of 0.03, which takes approximately 140 hours. Exaggeration, for my first dosing visit it took me about 3-4 hours to get my BAC down to an appropriate level to leave. So really what they're paying you for is the waiting time.

Did I mention this is a compensated study? If a person successfully completes all four dosing visits, along with the initial screening visit, they are paid 365 doll hairs. That's right, three hundred and fifty donuts******! So as Colleen and I are both participating in this study, we will end up with over $700. I have nothing else to say but cha-ching.

So to those who read my blog yet do not approve of drinking, let me implore you that this is in the interest of science and the results will be put to good use by NADS and the University of Iowa. And we get paid, which is a HUGE bonus. Colleen and I are actually funding our Celebratory 2nd Anniversary Trip to Chicago through doing this study together. So not only is this study good and safe for the study of drunk driving, it is essentially funding love and romance. Who can honestly say no to that?

-Jon

*This blog has been written and edited completely while under the influence of alcohol over the course of 3 weeks. Please keep this in mind while noticing any *'s and spelling/grammar errors.

**The first guy you see on the home page is Omar. He has the most intense facial hair I think I've ever seen. Looks like Fred Flintstone.

***I did not actually think these exact words. Referring to the phrase in bold, when people say this in real life, I feel more rage in my body than I do about most things.

****NOT "low"

*****Everclear, NOT Everclear. One time Colleen and I saw Art Alexakis perform a solo acoustic show at Coe College. It was surprisingly good. Not Martin Sexton good (shameless plug) but he was good.

******Here's the thing, this is a reference from the 1979 movie The Jerk starring Steve Martin. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a video of the scene from which this line comes so here is another funny scene. I love how he jumps when he exclaims about the arrival of the new phone book.

?uestlove.

Another blog courtesy of "drinking" and "driving." Pitchfork recently interviewed ?uestlove and as always, it is an entertaining and incredibly informative read. The guy is an absolute music genius, one of the few of our generation whose music references I take very seriously and view as must-adds to my music collection. He's got this intense knowledge of music; today's various music scenes as well as a deep intimacy with soul music of the '60s and '70s. It blows me away.

This blog is inspired by two interviews with ?uest that I read today. One is from 2003, and one is from yesterday (8/19/11). The guy is this mad scientist/chameleon/jack-of-all-trades of music. I certainly would not want to restrict him to a hip hop box because he clearly knows the world outside of it, even though his band (The Roots) is a hip hop group. He makes music references like all he does all day long is listen to music. It's amazing. I want that job. I want the music research job, where you listen to records all day long, read liner notes all day long, figure out who played drums on what record while producing another record, how music connects, how musicians align, continually grow the big picture view of this giant web of music of the last 100 years. It's obvious by how he talks that ?uestlove has this kind of over-arching, encyclopedic knowledge of music.

But what I love the absolute most about ?uestlove is when he talks about D'Angelo. ?uestlove was integral in the creation and production of D's landmark album Voodoo and all I've ever wanted is for a musician to put out something as good as Voodoo in the last ten years. I think some have come close, possibly even matched it, but so, so few. This album is just out of control good. I am talking a kind of good that percolates. Good that sneaks up on you. Good that shows up after the fifteenth listen and gets better every single time. I still hear stuff on this album that I haven't caught before. I've never heard anything as layered as this.

But this isn't the time to actually write about Voodoo in a review sort of way.* What I want to highlight here is how important ?uestlove is to the current music scene. The first interview is eight years old now. ?uestlove and the interviewer chat about the then-current state of black music and how sociopolitical aspects of the day play into black music, but the good stuff comes when they start to chat about working with D'Angelo during the recording of Voodoo. It's such a cool concept; Voodoo was made on the principle that music is art and should be made with the utmost respect to those pioneers who have come before and the unknown visionaries that are to come and always with respect to the art itself. All of these incredibly musical people came together and made this mind-blowing album. It wasn't about money or gaining fans, it was about releasing a product, this work of art that could change how someone listened to music. "If creating music were a political party, then we were sort of being socialists." Why can't more artists think this way?

What I love is how he reinforces this ideal. He mentions going into the studio to record with John Mayer around the time of the interview (?uestlove played drums on "Clarity" off of the Heavier Things album in 2003). And ?uest actually says it was the most fun he'd had playing since recording Voodoo. He said he went in to record the one tune and they ended up jamming out like six new songs. That's incredible. It makes me so excited to know that these two musical brains have collaborated in the past and they are both still making music today, albeit not together. It is a giant relief to me, and it's one of those moments I have so infrequently nowadays when I think "Oh yeah, John Mayer used to be make amazing music and still has the potential to put out a completely life-altering record." Here's to hoping.

Also equally as interesting in this interview is how he profiles the breakdown of D'Angelo. How releasing "Untitled (How Does It Feel)" as a single off of Voodoo contributed to a very sexualized public persona that D'Angelo found hard to overcome. How the tour to support Voodoo quickly unwound because of all of this public hype. It's a sad story, but one that is pretty common in genius artistic circles, as ?uestlove puts it, "...they sabotage their shit."

Fast forward to August '11. In this interview with Pitchfork, ?uestlove speaks a lot more about The Roots and where they are, what it's like to be a house band of a late night host, etc. He does delve into the Soulquarian era a bit at the end, but overall this whole interview shows less his involvement with D'Angelo and more his ground-level view of rap over the last 20 years and how it has changed. This guy has been an integral part of hip-hop for over two decades now, and he has been in various circles as that time has gone by. This is a really interesting read for anyone who likes music, and especially anybody who likes hip hop.

I'm happy we still have ?uestlove around. I desperately hope he continues to coax D'Angelo out of semi-retirement, but at the very least, I hope he keeps collaborating. That is where I think he comes up with the greatest stuff. He has this uncanny ability to pull real music out of artists; he is our generation's Quincy Jones and D'Angelo is his Michael Jackson. I just hope they eventually reconnect and make their Bad.

-Jon

*Not sure I ever will, only because it's hard to write about something that good. All it seriously would be is me repeating over and over how awesome the whole freakin' album is. Each track, "Wow this one is amazing." Doesn't make for the best read. What I should do is accumulate every time I've mentioned it in passing in another post and you'd have basically my every thought about the insanity and genius that is that album.

Les' talk t'som peple.

What I love about culture is that there is always something new to discover and enjoy. A few months ago, Norm MacDonald debuted his Comedy Central effort, Sports Show with Norm MacDonald, and unfortunately, it aired for nine superb episodes before some monkey at Comedy Central didn't see it making the same ratings as second season Tosh.0 episodes, and it got canceled to be replaced by what? Reruns of Tosh.0. Shame on you, Comedy Central.

That's a tangent though. This is about Norm, or rather, what Norm exposed us to. On one of his early episodes, he introduced his "nephew" Kyle and a remote segment he did at a UFC event. It was one of the funniest non-Conan remotes I'd ever seen. Thankfully, it must have gotten a great response, because Kyle was back a few episodes later to do another one.

Kyle's segments are basically him at a sporting event, interviewing athletes or spectators. His interview style is incredible though, it's as though the character he's playing is a person with high-functioning Asperger's syndrome. His speech patterns are so forced, he intentionally slurs his words and doesn't ask fully-formed questions or even speaks with fully-formed sentences, leaving the interviewee struggling to guess what Kyle is saying or asking them. He is completely socially inept, often hugging people unnecessarily or mumbling his words and then really enunciating when asked to repeat himself. He makes everyone feel awkward and uncomfortable during the exchanges, and wow is it funny stuff. Take a look.

His intro to the segment is one of the funniest things I've seen in my life. I found it so funny, in fact, that I went on YouTube to try to find the Kyle remotes once I found out Norm had been canceled. My only luck was that first UFC segment, but on a whim, I clicked on one of the suggested videos on the right sidebar, which I very rarely do. I don't trust YouTube's suggestions, but I'm glad I took the risk this time. What I actually found was a video that Tosh had shown as one of his viewer videos of the week. I remember liking it but not until I watched it again that I realized the main funny guy in it is Kyle! So I watched some more videos uploaded from the YouTube user GoodNeighborStuff.

Turns out Kyle is part of Good Neighbor, a comedy group out of L.A. that does random sketch comedy. Granted, lots of their stuff is weird, a prime example being the end of the following "Toast" video and all of the transitions from Kyle's interview segments. I get that they add to the low-budget, randomness aspect of the segments but I could do without them. But ultimately, Kyle is really the breakout star of this group. Even in the group's actual sketches he plays a watered down version of his bad interviewer character and it is hilarious. For example:

This whole sketch gets very kooky. Colleen pointed out that it veers mildly into the realm of performance art/slam poetry, which neither of us are crazy about. The best part is Kyle's struggle to toast to his friends. I'm not sure if I'm laughing more at the outdated phrases he uses like "mofo" and "pimp" or the tone he uses; it's so earnest in wanting to sound cool and aloof and it comes off completely opposite.

Here are the other videos I found of Kyle and his bad interviewer character. Really funny stuff. I hope he can find another place to showcase this character, because I seriously cannot get enough of it.

Favorite moment: 0:30

Favorite moment: 1:20

Favorite moment: 1:06

Favorite moment: 1:36. I can't stop laughing at the face face he makes at the end of that little blip.

-Jon

The Wire

I just finished up what was, possibly, the best show I have ever watched. Gritty, real, suspenseful, and complex, HBO's The Wire has more to offer the average TV viewer than nearly anything on TV today.

The show primarily follows the Major Crimes Unit of the Baltimore Police Department as they try to crack several high-level cases. This is as simplistic of a description as you can possibly get. The show is incredibly layered, and in reality, it is about the overall social institution of the modern American city and the competing institutions within it. There are several aspects of this show that blew me away as I watched, mainly because it was very challenging. This is no network cookie-cutter TV show. As the viewer, you are thrown into a world you might know nothing about, and expected to keep up with the lingo, a huge array of characters, a deep web of plots that continually intersect and affect each other. I don't think I've ever been challenged so much by a television show, just simply to keep up with what's going on. With this in mind, it's certainly a tough show to get the hang of, but once that is accomplished, once the language is learned and names are remembered, you dive into the world headfirst and are shocked by what you see.

We begin with Jimmy McNulty, an alcoholic murder detective in the Baltimore Police Department, and the story follows the events that occur due to his desire to bring in real criminals. From there, you're introduced to police officers, police commanders, politicians, drug dealers, drug soldiers, drug addicts, longshoremen, stick-up boys (I had never heard the term stick-up boy until I watched The Wire), elementary school kids, journalists, prisoners. This barely starts the list of the cast. You meet so many characters, all of them different, fighting the particular system they are in, trying to change it rather than be changed by it. That's the difficult part about watching this show. Each season deals with a different urban institution: the police department/drug trade, the harbor union, the local political structure, the school system, and the media. Each system is made up of individuals who are figuring out how best to survive. To me, that is what is most hopeful/depressing about the show, that at the core, it is about survival, and how Americans can do nothing but do their best to survive with what they've been given. No one chooses to be born in the poor neighborhoods to parents who don't stick around or who can't provide. Often, the people that we see are people trying to get out of their particular situation, and by doing so they compromise ideals or blend into their system in order to find their way out. It rarely works. This show breaks down the stereotype pushed on us by the American Dream, that if you just push, work hard, keep your nose to the grindstone, you will eventually succeed and be happy. This show takes that concept of success and completely turns it on its head. There are characters who you think find success, but what have they given up to get there? How do they view that success once they find it? The natural instinct in every human being to survive is shown to be innate yet flawed, as so many of us don't have the means to survive, or the concept of survival is far different than we originally expect.

There is a realism in this show that I'd never seen before. Right out of the gate, you are thrown into this world. There is no set-up, no checklist of character names/professions/relationships that are marked off in the first two episodes to ground the viewer into the environment. From the very first episode, the viewer is treated like just another citizen on the streets of this Baltimore, as someone who has lived this life and understands the names and the looks and the language of these people. Which is definitely a difficult thing to wrap your mind around when you're a white, male Iowan. It was a challenge to keep up with this show. We constantly had to pause and discuss what we just saw, or rewind a scene to catch dialogue. But if you can catch up and learn to follow along, holy cow is it rewarding. I've never seen a show that felt so raw. There isn't sugarcoating in this show. It's violent, it's visceral, it's authentic. Nothing feels out of place, or made-for-TV. And that's why when things happen that you don't expect or didn't think could happen, it's jarring. It's easy to look at a city's low-income school system and hope that the teachers are all just trying their best to teach the kids, or that the politicians are actually attempting to make good on their campaign promises to bring reform. Is it really happening that way? It shocked me to see assumptions and conventions I had in my head about how society runs flipped and turned around, and the reason it was really shocking was because I believed the show. There isn't any doubt as you watch that this must be how things are done. Obviously, it's still a TV show, so real life will prove itself to be somewhat different. But it's a testament to the show how incredibly real you feel it all is. Things don't seem faked in The Wire.

One huge element of the show that really adds to that feeling of authenticity is the music. Aside from five instances in the entire run of the program (a song played over season ending montages), all music in the show is diegetic, or environmental music. If you hear a song in a scene, it's because the song is coming from a character's boombox, or from the speakers of a passing car on the street, or the house music from a strip club. There is no atmospheric music, no musical score in the traditional sense. And even more so, the music supervisors of the show added that much more credibility by choosing songs that would legitimately be listened to by citizens of the city. There is a lot of rap in the show's soundtrack, and very East Coast, Washington D.C. area rap. Not lots from New York. The program showcases popular songs from Baltimore artists, things that the people of that city would be listening to. I didn't notice it for a long time either, which is really interesting seeing how much music can add or subtract from the video medium. It just adds an entirely new layer of realism to the show that I love. And the theme song, holy cow it is an awesome one. The song is Way Down In The Hole, originally by Tom Waits, and it is performed by a different artist for each season of the show*. It is a powerful song, and one that wouldn't necessarily be thought of as the best choice for this show's theme song. But that's what makes this show great, there are parallels and painted pictures and metaphors all over the place. As the viewer, you're encouraged to piece things together and make your own opinions about how things are done, how the characters interact and live their lives, and catch on to a vague sense of what the show is trying to say. There is no easy solution or wrap-up at the end of each episode. There are symbols that just barely point to what the show might be trying to communicate; it's up to the viewer to really bridge those gaps.

On the whole, I'd classify this show as a bit of a downer. There are moments where hope shines through, but this is a show where characters (main and peripheral, there is no invincibility spell even for some of the show's most important characters) meet untimely ends, characters fail, efforts to do good or to succeed or to survive absolutely fall flat. This is a show with very few heroes, yet at the same time you find yourself rooting for a wide variety of the characters at different times. The Wire takes the normal procedural cop show format and turns it inside out. In those shows, you have good guys and bad guys, and the good guys are the cops who have to solve a crime perpetrated by one of the bad guy criminals. And at the end of the hour they've solved it and somebody is in jail. Nothing like that in this show. You know how as you grow up, you begin to see things less in terms of black and white and more in terms of a gigantic spectrum of colors and circumstances and finding real truth is difficult? In The Wire's Baltimore, characters seem to be born with that knowledge. And having that knowledge doesn't make life any easier. These are all people who are just trying to find personal success in what they do, and it is very nearly impossible to do so, because in life, there are almost always things that keep people down. It doesn't matter who you are, where you're born, or what you try to do, there are forces beyond your control against which you constantly have to battle. McNulty wants to solve crimes, he wants to be "good police", but what can you do when the mayor puts pressure on the police chief to juke crime stats so that it looks like there is less crime than there really is? The police are told to whatever is necessary to make the stats look good rather than solve real crime. Go for the low-totem, easy-to-bag criminals and make good numbers rather than bring down the kingpins who are responsible for the real, society-affecting crimes. Everybody is looking for a way out of their own personal hell, their own undesirable situation, and the lines begin to blur on who is really succeeding. It's powerful stuff you see in this show.

And that's why I'm labeling it the best show I've ever seen. It tells the best story, and in the best way. This is a story that really matters to people, because whether they know it (or believe it), these cultural issues affect them. It shows how important survival is, but really tests you to figure out what is acceptable to give up in order to survive? We clearly cannot do it on our own power. I think this is a very alien concept to the modern American mind; we can't do it ourselves, we require some outside power to come to our aid. We grow up being told that we can do it, we can achieve all our dreams, as long as we just work hard and apply ourselves. And I think the message that we are incapable of that on our own is a tough concept, but ultimately, a real truth in life and important to remember. It's a struggle to work through too, because the next question is inevitably: where do we find our help? None of these characters ever seem to hit upon it the right way, but it's incredibly entertaining and challenging to see them struggle with the question. Also, there is lots and lots and lots of sex, violence, and language throughout this show. Like I said, no sugarcoating. Be forewarned.

-Jon

* The version by the Blind Boys of Alabama (Season 1) is far and away my favorite.

The Voice Recap: SPOILER ALERT

Disclaimer: All thoughts, statements and proclamations contained within are the sole opinion of the writer. And they are opinions only. And I disagree with lots of people and most news articles I've read about the show so be forewarned... I despise Dia.

The Voice ended it's first season run last night and I certainly have some conflicting emotions. Ultimately, the show was a success for me because despite its many flaws, I kept coming back for each new episode because I was invested. I must say, I am very pleased with the winner. Javier obviously had the best technical voice of the whole crew, and while it might not have been the most unique voice, nobody deserved the title more than him. But let me back up a bit.

I've been unsure during the whole run of the show whether or not it seems like an effective structure. The whole coach votes and audience votes seemed confusing and ineffective, and especially since the voting system changed every week. It was hard to keep up with how things were actually getting tallied. And since each coach became emotionally invested in their particular team, they seemed to get less and less helpful as the show went on and offered less criticism. By the end, not a single coach said anything negative about any performance, other than "Didn't like the setting." Far too complimentary for a group of amateurish singers who all faced serious missteps in any given performance. I stopped caring what the coaches were going to say because they all basically said the same thing, "You have a fantastic voice, you're such a star, such great presence, I'm a fan of you!" Watered-down mumbo-jumbo if you ask me.

Which begs the question, how important is a contestant's actual vocal ability in this show? How soon does it become more about presence and spectacle than talent? Biggest case of this is with Team Cee Lo's final two members, Vicci vs. Nakia. Nakia's final performance was Whataya Want From Me (that's actually how the song title is spelled, and it makes me sick.) Nakia did a fine job with the tune, but forget it as soon as Vicci comes out and does a (vocally) average rendition of Dog Days Are Over, but who had an entire fleet of Japanese Taiko drummers to back up her own fiery drumming. Who sang better? Nakia. Who performed better? Vicci. Vicci wins. Of course you're going to win if you're the last performer and you have a grand show-stopping tune to cap off the night. So is it fair? Who the heck knows.

This also leads me to believe that the coaches stopped doing anything worthwhile except for choosing songs to sing. With one glaring exception (DIA), the finalists all had great voices. And they all faltered on certain songs because of poor song choice. But did the coaches EVER give them any real vocal critique past the semifinals? Of course not. When really, what could've been said were things like this:

"Javier, the original song you sang actually seemed a bit off for you. You didn't seem comfortable, you sounded out of breath the whole time, and your voice didn't ever seem to find its power through the song. Nerves maybe?"

"Vicci, rather than turning every song into a contest with yourself to see how much air you can push out of your mouth by hitting as high of a note as you can, try scaling back a little and showing some variety in your voice."

"Beverly, stop falling back on hitting that one wavery high note you hit in every single song when you're not sure where to go with a vocal run."

"Dia, you're awful in general. Go back to the anime cartoon you came from."

The last one is a little harsh, but you get the idea. Nobody was flawless all the way through, but the show just got so freakin' feel-good by the end.

In terms of the four finalists, I wasn't totally on board with all of them. My ideal final four would've been Xenia, Bev/Frenchie (didn't care, liked them both), Nakia, and Javier. There was no way Xenia was going to make it to the final four, and I'm surprised she even made it as far as she did. The girl had the voice most noticeably different than everyone else on the show, but gosh did she lack some stage presence. Her performance of Price Tag was clearly uncomfortable to watch, even if her voice was fun to hear. Nakia just had more flair for me than Vicci. Vicci has a decent voice, but I wasn't buying into her whole war-dance/primal scream persona. Who could seriously listen to an entire album of her taxing her lungs that way? It'd be exhausting. And Casey Weston's weak Dolly Parton impression was absolutely no match for Javier's range and technical skill.

And then there's Dia. Where do I begin? From the very beginning, she has played this show like a game. Granted, it is a reality show vocal contest game, but the fact that she is playing it so obviously makes me hate her. She is without a doubt the most disingenuous person on the show. Looking back, she started out harmless, singing some breezy song with her innocuous voice that got Cee Lo and Blake to turn their chairs. Whatever, not a big deal. She came across as this super shy girl with an interesting voice, but oh if only she could break out of her shell! said everyone. Fast forward to the battle round, still a bit stronger, but boy Dia you really need to break out of your shell if you're going to get further! And everytime she's on camera up to this point, she's blinking her little mousey eyelashes at everyone and giving off this "Are these big celebrities telling little ol' me that I have a good voice? It couldn't be!" vibe. Then comes her performance of an acousticey Heartless, which sorry, has already been done by another reality show singing competition. Go get a more original cover, Dia. But oh my gosh! Dia finally came out of her shell! Nobody saw that one coming! Where did this little on-stage firecracker come from?! And then in the coaches remarks, she's back to blinking at them like she didn't know what just happened and she's just so thankful for all their kind words, blah blah blah. Awful. This girl knew exactly what she was doing the entire show, and she apparently fooled Blake and all of voting America with her snake-like behaviors. So from then on, she just kept the strong performances coming, and not strong vocally, just strong in that everybody thinks she's doing so well by singing confidently when really she's had that in her the whole time. She played it so well, she started with a problem that was very easy to fix, no confidence/no stage presence, and when she did fix it, America freaked out and started buying her crappy Kanye cover on iTunes. Annoyed me to no end. How could you have released FOUR albums without any confidence in your vocal ability? Does not add up. If you look at her and you look at Xenia, obviously Xenia was being real because she actually did look uncomfortable and was not good on stage. She's sixteen! She wasn't faking anything. Dia was faking all the way.

And here's the worst part: her voice is not that great. Sure, she can carry a melody just fine, but her voice sounded basically like this to me. I can't really explain it much better than blaaaah-blaaaah, blaaah-blaaaah. Like she pushed her tongue out all the time and the sounds came from the back of her throat. Just awful to listen to.

Ironically, the only person that seemed to ever point out that she was playing the game well and putting up a front was the show's fakest asset, coach Christina. There were actually two or three times where Christina's comments were less than flattering and came just short of calling her out on her game-playing and Dia's little cat-like demeanor changed from this:

to this:

Kudos, Christina.

Here's the most frustrating part about Dia for me too, she nailed her duet with Blake. They chose the best possible song, it sounded great, Blake's country voice fit just perfectly into that Tom Petty song. If she had made her Voice debut with that song and not played her manipulative game, I would've liked her far more. I'm so glad she didn't win.

So overall, did the show succeed? Did it find The Voice? I'm saying definitely. Javier has a great voice, and deserves the accolades he's receiving. Should it be up to America to choose The Voice? Definitely not, as based on the finalists original song performance, Javier just barely beat out Dia. Neither of their originals were that great. Javier had a good song, he just did not deliver a good performance. Based strictly on original performance, you know who I thought was going to win? Beverly all the way. Yeah her original song was a little cheesy bland vanilla ("lovesick...lovesick...I'm sick of love!"), but gosh did she deliver a great performance, and not only spectacle and stage presence, but she nailed her vocal part. She had the best original performance without a doubt. Yet Javier still wins. Did America choose right? Yes, but I wouldn't trust them to do it again.

One last thing before I wrap; the show needs to ease off the product placement. Yes I know the finale needs to be exactly that, a finale, with grandiosity and flourish and big names, but I don't consider Pitbull and Ne-Yo to be big names. Stevie Nicks was a good draw with some legit credibility (even if she has the most nasal voice ever), but the Train singer? Even worse, the OneRepublic singer? American Idol alum Katherine McPhee? Do we need a Social Media Correspondent? Or a "chance" run in with Gym Class Heroes in the next door studio which allows Adam to perform their upcoming hit single on which he is featured? All this stuff seemed SO contrived and I'd love to see less of it and more actually performing by the contestants (and the coaches for that matter). And now a few favorites:

Favorite Voice: Probably Xenia. While she wasn't technically the best, nor certainly not the best on stage, she had a super unique tone for a 16 year old and was really fun to listen to.

Favorite Performance by a Contestant or Coach: Team Cee Lo's cover of Everyday People by Sly & The Family Stone. Cee Lo's afro wig was unforgettable.

Top 3 Season 1 Moments:

3. What song does Christina choose to duet with her protege? HER OWN SONG. This was the icing on the cake for how inflated her ego could actually get.

2. Brad Paisley asking Blake a question mid-song and Blake responding in kind by singing while sitting down then getting up and joining Brad on stage. So cheesy.

1. "If The Voice should be delayed for anyone, it should be...for the President. LET'S, GET, TOIT!" - Carson Daly, possibly the blandest and cheesiest human being alive. Can't wait for what gems he's got in store for us during Season 2.

-Jon

P.S. Was Cee Lo and Vicci's Pat Benetar cover inspired by Hook? Cee Lo made a great Rufio.

Reception Dances

What makes a good wedding reception dance? Not the reception itself, but specifically the dance. I have attended two weddings this season, and only have one more before the summer is over, but it's been something that I've thought about at every wedding I've ever been to (that had a dance) and I want to try and dissect what exactly makes or breaks a reception dance.

I see a few very fundamental factors that need to be considered: audience, atmosphere, and the music itself. Let's take a look at each.

1. Audience

This is where you need to start because these are the people who are going to be doing the actual dancing. If you are not putting out material that pleases them, you'll lose them and subsequently, you'll lose the dance. So you've got to read the room a little, see what age brackets are really represented, and even more importantly, what age brackets will get up and do the most dancing. This is a tough one because while weddings can skew younger or older, you're guaranteed to have at least somewhat of a variety of people to satisfy. And you won't be able to satisfy them all. Tough stuff. Also, you've got to read what sort of music your crowd will groove on. Is it a country crowd? Is it an old swing crowd? A very religious crowd? All this needs to be taken into account when choosing songs. More on that soon.

2. Atmosphere

What kind of wedding is it? Religious, younger, older, traditional, alcohol, modern, big, small, dance floor, or a mix of some or all? All of these types and some extra ones will certainly affect how the dance goes. As I think about it, it's kind of hard to actually qualify how exactly each of these components fits into making a great dance. In the most general sense, I would say the best fit for a killer dance is going to be young, mildly-liberally religious, big, and I'm going out on a limb for this one, no alcohol. Call me crazy, but all too often alcohol takes away from the good-natured vibe of a great dance. It makes non-drinkers uncomfortable, and there is nothing worse (for me) than dancing around/with people who have drunk themselves into the sleepy-eyed phase. I've only once seen alcohol at a wedding done with class and taste and it contributed to the overall party feeling of the dance.

Another important aspect that falls under this category is the DJ. Is it a professional wedding DJ or a friend of the bride or groom? For a couple that wants their dance to go a specific way, this is a very important thing to take into account. There is no right answer here, and there are many pros and cons to each. Quick list:

Pro DJ Pros:

1. Equipment - Any pro DJ worth their cost will provide an excellent sound system that should not give you any problems during the dance. No feedback, killer song transitions, etc.

2. Pacing - Almost every pro DJ I've ever seen keeps the whole reception moving so much better than friend DJs. Not to say it can't be done by friend DJs, but for the most part, pro DJs seem to have a better sense of how to keep things from getting awkward. Announcing the bridal party, announcing what's coming next (cake cutting, first dances, garter/bouquet toss, etc.)

3. Song selection - Any pro DJ worth their cost will have an extensive song collection that will include an array of genres, years, artists, etc. Any guest can make a request and it will almost certainly be available to play (unless it's on the bride/groom's don't-play list).

4. Groovin' - This relates to the pacing point but more specifically to the dance itself. Almost unequivocally, a pro DJ will have more experience than a friend DJ in terms of what songs will keep people interested and on the floor. Most friend DJs (with few exceptions) don't know what to play next to keep the floor busy and that's a detriment to the flow of the dance.

Pro DJ Cons:

1. Price - ALWAYS more expensive than friend DJs. No exception.

2. Familiarity - Pro DJs should be just that: professional. They will almost certainly not know the marrying couple personally, and for that reason, won't have an intimate knowledge of the reception and the potential guests that will be there. They have to go completely off the must-play/don't-play lists the couple makes beforehand and then read the room once they arrive.

Friend DJ Pros:

1. Familiarity - A repeating point from before, but this is the biggest draw that I can see to having a friend do the DJing. Friends know what kind of music you like, you can implore them to play exactly what you want when you want.

2. Price - Way cheaper than a pro DJ. Obviously.

Friend DJ Cons:

1. Skill - All too often with friend DJs, there are far too many uncomfortable song transitions, and it's almost always due to the fact that the friend is working off either the bride or groom's laptop connected to the PA system, probably playing songs off a playlist made in advance by one of the two that is entitled "Wedding playlist." Friend DJs are usually doing it for the first (and possibly only) time and this lends itself to a fair amount of poor song selections and bad transitions. Doesn't make people want to dance.

2. Equipment - Most friend DJs are first-timers and won't be bringing more than a laptop/iPod to plug into the PA system and going off a pre-made playlist. This won't always be a big deal but if there is a technical issue, they probably won't know how to handle it.

3. Pacing - More having to do with the reception overall than the dance specifically, friend DJs don't often do announcing in a way that makes things flow the best. Wedding guests prefer to know what's going on rather than guessing what's happening when.

4. Groovin' - While I have seen exceptions, most friend DJs just don't know what songs are good dance songs and what are not. It's a very complex art to play songs that will get into people's heads and make them get up and dance and overcome the fear of being judged by other people not dancing, and most friend DJs are first-timers and haven't had practice playing different songs to get people dancing.

So it's obvious from my list that I would go for a pro DJ over a friend DJ. Duh, we had a pro DJ at our wedding and while he wasn't without mistakes, I was way happier with his performance than I would've been with a friend DJ. Not to say I've never seen a friend DJ kill it, but it's such a rare occurrence.

3. Music

Probably the most important aspect of the whole event, because barring a few crazy exceptions, almost any audience can be moved to dance if the right music is played. Great wedding tunes are hard to pin down, but there are some tunes that I've seen fail more than once, and I doubt could ever really work. This is in no way a comprehensive list of songs about which I can opine, but these are the only ones coming to mind this second.

- Party In The U.S.A.

One of those weird songs that is an absolutely great tune, one of the best hooks around when it came out, but I don't personally think it makes the best dance tune. It will certainly get people dancing, which I guess is the ultimate goal of any song played at a dance, but rather than having a killer beat that facilitates fun dancing, it's just a little too slow and ends up leaving the people on the dance floor basically moving slowly and singing the song to each other in order to not feel uncomfortable. So it's not my favorite. But it is a good song to play to attract people to the floor.

- Mambo No. 5

I love this song. Good rhythm, fun melody, it's a great dance tune. And as it's a one-hit wonder, everybody knows it and it will both draw people to the floor and keep them there.

- She Bangs

This is a weird song, because I love it, and I just wish more people enjoyed dancing to it as much as I do. I think it's just barely too fast for its own good.

- Cupid Shuffle/Cha Cha Slide

I've got both love and hate for these tunes. They are reception dance staples, and for that reason lots of people hate them. But they hold so much merit because of how easy they are to pick up and dance along with. People who would never dance will get up and dance because they are being told exactly what to do and can copy everybody else. There is no sense of "everybody's watching me" that often keeps more reserved people off the floor. And if you are a good dancer (Meredith Bell), man these ones are fun to play around with.

- I Gotta Feeling

Another reception dance staple. Not in love with this one, and I think it might have even been played twice at our own reception dance (bad form DJ Tony). But again, the merit is there because it pulls people onto the floor. And it's got a fun kind of message for a reception dance. I'm mainly just annoyed everybody gets excited to dance to a song featuring vocals by Fergie.

- Don't Stop Believin'

I despise this song, and I have always wondered why it would ever show up on a DJ's playlist. I get that everybody knows it and can sing along, but it is, in no imaginable way, a good dance song, and is not even a good closer. People just have to sing it to each other and can hardly move around the floor in an awkward way with this one. So bad.

- Hey Ya!

Another solid hit that's not often thought of to play. Who doesn't love to shake it, sh-shake it, shake it, sh-shake it, shake it, sh-shake it, shake it, shake it, sh-shake it, shake it like a Polaroid picture?

Who the heck knows how to make the dance great? A DJ could play a string of just the best songs you've ever heard, and not get a single butt off their seat and onto the floor. On the other hand, the songs could all suck, and with the right crowd, they will fight through it and enjoy themselves on the floor (see: us at the last wedding we were at). Whatever the case, reception dances are so much fun and a great way to celebrate happy nuptials. I'd only ask for She Bangs to be played more often.

-Jon

Old clothes.

A few weeks ago I raided my dresser and got rid of lots of old stuff that didn't fit. It's a mildly depressing thing that some of my absolute favorite t-shirts didn't fit anymore, (1) because it means I'm gaining more mass than I burn off and (2) because it means I had to part with some of the most character-defining articles of clothing I've ever worn. Before I dropped everything off at Goodwill, I took a few pictures of the most important shirts. Here they are.

Iowa Soccer Baseball Tee:

Not that significant of a shirt other than it was one of the first where I could tell Colleen really loved how I looked in it. I had never really noticed that before with any of my clothes, and I remember walking into youth group wearing this shirt (the first baseball tee I'd ever worn where the arms are a different color than the torso, makes your shoulders look huge) and seeing Colleen raise her eyebrows like "Hmm!" It was a special thing. On the other hand, one time I got called out on wearing this shirt and I started to talk about how I liked the Iowa men's soccer team. It's only club. So that was embarrassing.

Rhea Central Super Jacket's Tee:

This one was a bummer to dump. I found this scrunched tight in a rack of crappy old t-shirts at a thrift store in Dayton, Tennessee. It was a local thrift store, not a Goodwill or Salvation Army, so the opportunity to find cool vintage clothes is upped quite a bit. This is the only really great thing I found that day, and I didn't immediately think it was great but thought I'd get it since I hadn't found anything else. It fit perfectly and was super comfortable, enough to wear to run or to play frisbee in or go to youth group or hang out or whatever. Versatility can make a pretty good piece of clothing absolutely essential in a wardrobe. The shirt was plain white, with a weird dragonfly/insect/man on it with flitting wings and a pretty phallic stinger right between his legs. What I found funny is that he's saying "Feel the sting!" with gritted teeth and he's finger wagging at you. Framing the insect-man were the words Rhea Central Super Jackets. Pretty simple, but I ended up wearing that shirt possibly more than any other in my wardrobe over the course of the next four to five years. Yikes. It was getting pretty gross by the end. But there are loads of cool pictures from high school with me in this shirt. More on why that's important to me later.

The Benes #41 Cardinals Jersey Tee:

This was definitely the hardest to even think about parting with, so I didn't. This one is the only one I kept, tucked away in an obscure corner of my dresser. I'm not sure exactly why I got so attached to this shirt. I purchased it years and years ago at a thrift store with Luke; I think it was the Salvation Army in Marion. This was the first jersey t-shirt I'd ever found and I immediately fell in love with it. I was probably 15 years old, and the silliness and irony of a t-shirt made to look like a jersey suited the style I was looking for perfectly. I didn't know who Benes was, as I was a Cardinals fan in name only and not in

practice, but my oh my was I the biggest name-only Cardinal fan you'd ever meet. Around this same time I purchased my first Cardinals ball cap which was permanently attached to my head for the next few years. So just the mere fact that I had found a cheap Cardinals shirt endeared it to me. That it was a jersey tee made it a must-have. I wore this shirt probably not as much as the Rhea County tee, but this one was worn during some of the most indelible memories of my teenage years. Two of my absolutely favorite pictures of Colleen and me feature the Cardinals tee.

I love these pictures. These, and the Cardinals shirt, bring me back to the super fun first years of our relationship, and at an even more basic level, they bring me back to the fun years of being young. As uncomfortable, awkward, depressing, zitty, drama-filled, "whatever other miserable adjective you can think of" as teenage years are for everyone, they are so much fun. Those are the years you really begin to figure out who you are, what your identity is. You start learning how you relate to the opposite sex, what sorts of things you find funny, what things you really enjoy doing, what kinds of music you like to listen to. I really enjoyed my teenage years, and occasionally being reminded of them is fun.

The Cardinals shirt was with me through some of the most important days of those years, and I just didn't want to get rid of that one. So I kept it. It's odd, maybe this is just me trying to wax philisophical about getting a little older, our culture, or whatever, but I feel like my generation (and even less so the ones coming after us) have fewer and fewer relics or mementos from their childhood. I think we all have toys we played with or books we read, but it's so rare to actually still have the items that define our realities as young kids. Every time Colleen and I visit my family in Kansas City, I love looking through the bookshelf down in the basement that has the huge collection of completely random books that Mom and Dad had collected over the years. For some reason, those flimsy paperback books about Sesame Street characters still resonate with me and bring to me this overwhelming nostalgia. And I feel like the older I get, the less I have keepsakes like that. Fifty years from now, no grandparent is going to show their Facebook account to their grandkid and say "When I was your age this is what we spent our time on, look how many friends I've amassed over the years!" How lame is that? It's an old-fashioned ideal, but I want tangible items I can give my kids to touch and feel and smell and read and play with and wear.

So while it certainly doesn't fit anymore though, I am saving the Cardinals shirt for my kids. Who knows whether or not we'll raise Cardinals fans or if they will like dumb clothes like jersey shirts, but I would like it to be kept in a basement closet of some kind to be discovered by my child. It managed to catch the eye of a pretty young blonde girl a long time ago, who says it couldn't happen again?

-Jon

The Voice

NBC finally pulled it off. They got Colleen and me hooked on a reality music contest show. We first saw the ads for The Voice about a month and a half before the premiere, and usually when a show is overhyped I immediately write it off. A reality music contest judged/coached by Christina Aguilera, the girl-voiced Maroon 5 guy and a country singer, hosted by Carson Daly? Thankfully Carson managed to pull in the artist who released one of the Top Three Best Albums last year and who has the soul to match his wardrobe, Cee Lo Green. I'd seen Cee Lo do some featured spots on some rap albums prior to the Gnarls Barkley album "St. Elsewhere", but his name actually solidified in my brain after he and Danger Mouse released the single "Crazy" in 2006. I definitely wouldn't ever have expected him to do a reality music contest show so I figured this one was worth tuning in for.

Oh so right. The first two weeks were blind auditions, where the four coaches get to pick 8 singers for their team based only on their vocal performance. After the blind auditions, the coaches then have pairs of singers off their teams perform duets and then they decide which singer they keep on the team and which one gets booted off the show. After each team is whittled down to four people, then show will go live for I guess audience voting rounds? I'm not sure past that but for now, the show is riveting reality TV.

What is the draw here? I'm confused as to why I like the show but I think it has to do with a combination of good singers and good coaches. With American Idol, you have to sit through the first few shows of crappy auditions to finally get to the actual contestants. With The Voice, I'm not sure where they got the contestants, but most have had some kind of experience with singing, whether it's on broadway, releasing actual studio albums, back-up singers for famous singers, etc.

And the coaches! Cee Lo is obviously awesome, and it's so great to see him talk about music and singers and goof off with the other coaches. His outfits are outrageous. With Adam, I used to be a huge Maroon 5 fan (they've got pretty redundant to me the last few years but whatever), and he's got some pop music credibility so I'm fine with him. Christina has singer cred all over the music industry, so while I'm not a huge fan of her, I appreciate her being a coach as she's got some pretty impressive, albeit often gaudy, pipes. Then there is Blake Shelton. Started off not liking this guy because he's country, what is he going to have to offer? He won us over on the first episode. Not only is he a pretty funny dude, he might be the one coach who has the most legitimate pieces of advice for the contestants. So while I will never listen to his music, I definitely think he adds a lot to the show. And that's why, you don't judge*.

After the blind audition weeks, the coaches pick two singers off their individual teams and have them practice up (with the help of a celebrity coach aid) on the same song which they then perform as a duet, then the coach picks one to stay and one to go. I wasn't sure this change in the show's format was going to work but holy cow it definitely does. It immediately draws out some fierce competition having two singers singing the same song at the same time. I will say though, in terms of the coaches actually coaching their singers before going out into the battle round seems a little pointless. The coaches don't actually seem to offer much technical advice and their celebrity friends offer even less. The aids were Reba McEntire, Adam Blackstone, Sia, and Monica. I don't care much about any of them other than Adam Blackstone (producer on many great records, he's playing the sickest bass with ?uest and James Poyser right here), and he just wasn't featured much. They could be done with the celebrity cameos and it wouldn't hurt the show at all.

So the battle round went off like crazy, super fun to watch and listen and root for a certain team and singers within teams. The only thing I'm torn about is the finality of the coaches decisions. This was demonstrated better by Blake than anyone during the first battle round. He had two guys singing against each other, the country guy (Patrick) and the soulful guy (Tyler). Blake ended up going with (SPOILER ALERT) country boy Patrick, which was severely disappointing. As good of a voice as Patrick had, Tyler had pipes that blew his competitor out of the water. He was so much more entertaining to listen to, he had real range and emotion in his voice versus the one-note stylings of Patrick. The better singer was robbed. And there's no second chance, no comeback or anything. We're just left with a singer who is less entertaining than another one. Disappointing.

So the show rocks, and if you haven't seen it, it's still early enough on to catch up with it and keep watching. Good reality competition TV, which I think is hard to find.

-Jon

*-J. Walter Weatherman

A-A-R-D-V-A-R-K!

Cool new thing you should check out. Ever had a question but didn't know how to get an answer? Sure, you can hop online and see if you can turn your question into a search for which Google will return some results, but Google is an engine, a program, not a human. For example, Colleen and I are new to North Liberty and it's time for our six month teeth cleaning. Since we don't know anybody in North Liberty that we can ask for recommendations, we pop on the web to see what we can find. But how do you use Google for this kind of query? You can't exactly search "friendly dentist, north liberty" and hope to get any sort of legitimate return that you can use. So much for the most popular search engine in the world.

You should check out Aardvark. This is the new generation of searching. In the last five years we've seen social media and networking blow up like nothing anyone expected. It only makes sense that search and discovery would find a way to incorporate the social aspect into itself. So here's the deal with Aardvark. There's a text box in which you type your question in natural human language, anything like "Which is the friendliest dentist office in North Liberty?" or "What's the most reliable brand of tires?" or "What's the best bbq sauce that pairs well with Sam Adams beer?" Aardvark takes your query and finds another human user that can provide an answer. So rather than just getting a list of links that might or might not be what you're looking for, you get a response in human language from another human who has a better idea of what you're looking for.

It works like this, and this might be what turns some new users off initially. You do have to sign up to even ask your question. But it's nothing more than an email and a zip code. It also asks you what subjects about which you'd consider yourself able to answer questions. So you sign up, and Aardvark then takes your query and sends it on to its ever-growing set of users, hopefully one of which will answer your question. Depending on the type of question and the key words that are found within the query, your query is sent to users who have specified that they have some knowledge about the key word subjects. Real life example, I recently queried "What is the most trustworthy auto repair shop in North Liberty, IA that can repair a broken exhaust pipe?" The main key words picked out of this query were car maintenance and North Liberty and the question is sent to other users who have specified that they have some knowledge about car repair, and even more optimal, users who are located close to North Liberty. My query was received by Josiah M. in Iowa City, IA and he replied back through Aardvark "I can highly recommend All Season's Auto". Boom. Now I've got at least an idea of where to start looking for auto repair from someone locally.

This is such an awesome idea, even though there are some obvious cons. The pros are pretty great though. Firstly, the design and user interface is just perfect. The main page has great colors and hardly anything except just the one text box to enter in the query. It's very Google-esque in its design without immediately recalling Google. The other huge pro is that returns are going to be far more user specific than you'd get from Google. Having your query sent to other human users who can understand your natural language question lets them answer it in a way that you, another human user, will be able to understand. It's awesome.

Plus, by becoming a user of Aardvark, you also become an answerer. When you sign up, you pick a list of subjects in which you've got a little expertise, and if another user asks a question that involves one of your subjects, you might get an email or instant message (or whatever specific type of communication you've listed with the site) from Aardvark that says something like, "Hi (your name), want to try answering this question? (then it lists the user's question)" This is a great system because it allows the answerer many options. The answerer can go ahead and answer the question with an easy reply email, they can simply choose to ignore it and the query will get sent on to another user, they can flag the question as inappropriate, or they can refer the query to another user they have in their network that might be able to answer it. Example: I get a question from a user about the best sushi around North Liberty. Unfortunately, I don't like sushi so I know I can't give a good answer. Luckily, I have a friend in my Aardvark network that does live in the area and loves sushi, so I refer the question on to them to see if they can answer it. Also, as you get answers to your questions, you can add the users whose responses you like the best to your network to continue to query those users most often. That's what makes this interface so great; it is so user-centric and really boosts the social networking aspect of search and discovery.

More about the communication that this interface allows between users. With a site like Google, you query some terms and get some returns. That's the end of it. You can tweak your query a bit to get different returns but it's still querying a generic machine search engine. With Aardvark, the whole search/return system is like a giant conversation between users. I query something, another human user responds, and if I want, I can respond back to continue on a conversation between us. This allows a huge amount communication, conversation, and concept searching among users.

Here is a great example of this. I submitted a query, "What are some good blues albums that are stylistically and sonically like the album 'Bluesbreakers With Eric Clapton' by John Mayall?" I got four responses:

1. Vera S. (27, female, from Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine) said: "you can check out 'Similar Artists' section at http://www.last.fm/music/John%2BMayall%2B%2526%2BThe%2BBluesbreakers"

2. Jim B. (59, male, from Bowling Green, KY) said: "Hi, Try Stevie Ray Vaughan, The Paul Butterfield Blues Band, Derek and the Dominoes, Otis Rush, Cream, Johnny Winter, and one of my all time favorites Albert King. Jim. Also, try Peter Green Jim"

3. Tolgahan K. (22, male, from Rockville, MD) said: "John Mayall has plenty of albums with great guitarists, Clapton is just one of them. "A Hard Road" with Peter Green, and "Blues Breakers" with Walter Trout are very similar to the one with Clapton, just pure electric blues. Also check out Clapton's "From The Cradle", one of the best blues albums that is modern, yet pays respects to the traditional stuff."

4. Michael E. (male, Chickawauga, GA) said: "Try Jonny Lang, Buddy Guy, Jimmie Vaughan, Taj Mahal, Little Ed and the Imperials, Steve Vai and the rattlers, Robert Cray, Dr. John. Just to name a few Mayhal was a St. Louis style Blues. Try a little Chicago style with South Side Johnny(has a brass section) Hope this helps."

This is a pretty good sampling of responses I'd hope to receive from most queries. The first one is pretty dumb; if I had wanted to use Google for this query that's what I would've found. Not helpful. But the other three are great; people who have actually listened to the album and know what other albums sound like it suggest those and artists with similar styles to John Mayall. The last guy even got specific with different genres of blues style. Awesome. And I can respond back to any of these that I want to, basically starting an online dialogue.

Clearly this engine is not without its set of disadvantages. The fact that the entire system is based upon communication with other human beings rather than just pulling up a list of links means that timing is an issue. For every query I've tried so far, responses have taken upwards of an hour to come back. Not optimal if you're looking for the best Mexican in town and you're hungry right now. But for less urgent queries, this is such a unique way to find answers to questions.

Another big con for me is that Aardvark was recently acquired by Google. I was a little disappointed to hear this, even though it will mean the system getting more publicity and more users, thereby improving the quality of its output. Google is such a giant monopolistic company, and while the products that they offer are absolutely great, it's always nice to see an upstart with an idea that actually has something to offer that Google doesn't. But this isn't a dealbreaker for me, and I'll still continue to use it when I need.

Here's the link again: give it a try. It's not a perfect replacement for Google; for most queries, you'll probably want to stick to Google. But for those times when you need an opinion from someone, have some time to spare before you get an answer, and want more returns than the top ten corporate sponsors from Google, try Aardvark. And then let me know what you think. It's a pretty cool thing.

-Jon

Open Letter to John Mayer

Dear John,

I watched the 2011 Grammy's last night. What has happened to our music culture?

I am glad I kept watching through the first quarter of the show, because it got far better as it went on. But it started out rough because Lady Gaga performed. And more than anything I was confused. I have been for about a year now actually. I've listened to her stuff; I enjoy dancing to it about once and then it fizzles out for me. How has she become such a powerful force in the industry? It's her persona. It goes so far beyond her music. She is all spectacle; rather than just releasing killer dance music and not dressing it up, she promotes her persona through everything she does. It has never seemed to be just about music with her. Releasing a new album isn't her end product, and unlike musicians in the past who have used their music to promote some sort of social ideal outside of themselves (I don't need to give you a music lesson here, but Sam Cooke's A Change Is Gonna Come is the first one that comes to mind), Lady Gaga seems to use her music as one facet of her persona for the end result of promoting herself, but it's dressed up in the garb of "Be whoever you want to be! For me that means shoulder spikes, fake blood, and dinosaur eggs." I've seen her performances on different televised events and rather than seeming inspirational, it all comes back to her. What would a performance of hers be like without looking like an extra off of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine? What would be left of Lady Gaga if you took away all the pomp?

Same with Justin Bieber, but in a different way. Everything I see this kid do seems contrived. His documentary just came out this weekend. Wait, his documentary? He's sixteen years old. How does this kid deserve to have a documentary? He has no story yet! Someone found a cute young kid on YouTube, realized how well he could be marketed in the right hands, and the gamble paid off. How many sixteen year olds have as much musical talent as Bieber has? Lots of them. And most of them go on to music schools or perform in orchestras or sing in church choirs. I didn't see any real musicality from him last night, all I saw was some slick dance moves and a baby playing left-handed guitar chords. Not enough, Justin.

What about spectacle done right? Look to Cee Lo's performance with Gwyneth. I loved it, mainly because they both have the chops to back up how visually grandiose their performance was. They both sounded amazing and it was so much fun to watch. Yeah it was over the top, there was a fake rocket ship on stage and Cee Lo was dressed like a giant rainbow-colored chicken. I laughed each time the back up puppets shushed to keep the performance TV friendly. That's the kind of spectacle I want to see in our culture. Glam done right, not shock value for shock value's sake.

I need more of good stuff, like Dylan's performance with Mumford & Sons and the Avett Brothers. Sure, Bob Dylan is old and his voice isn't what it used to be, but he has earned his place on that stage. He gets to go up there and sing whatever he wants and however he wants to. It was great to see an old legend perform with new talent; they looked like they were having a blast.

So here's why this is penned to you, John. I wish the real talent in our culture produced more. I know real music takes longer to write and produce and output but it's disheartening to see what a powerful market force Justin Bieber is and how he is dominating everything when all I wish I had was a new Coldplay album or a new album from you. I want less choreography and more playing. I want to see collaboration and creativity in a musical sense, not who can come up with the craziest dress. I loved seeing Raphael Saadiq dancing around on stage with Mick Jagger. I want to see which musicians D'Angelo has back him on his new album and figure out as much about them as I can. I want more albums like The Roots/John Legend's Wake Up! from this last year. I can't wait for Adele's album to come out next week. I know it's selfish of me as a consumer to demand so much output from the talent, but what is a consumer without a producer?

And ultimately, the Grammy's weren't as discouraging as I thought they would be. I cheered when Esperanza Spalding won Best New Artist over her tough competition and when Arcade Fire beat out the other huge smash records for Album of the Year. And please don't stop making music. Your performance with Norah and Keith was my favorite of the night. Rhythmic, sexy, succinct, understated. Such an awesome tribute. And it was nice to know you don't have the lyrics to Dolly's entire discography memorized.

-Jon

Musical Connections

Uncovered a new gem in my music collection last night. As is my custom with the new year, I am currently listening through my entire collection in a systematic fashion. I have two different playlists I choose from: all albums with 0 play count (just ones to which I haven't listened), and albums with a "last played" date from the year 2010. I was getting ready to read in one of my class books so I went to my jazz section to choose something light. I stumbled upon Cannonball Adderly's classic Somethin' Else. I've listened to this one quite a bit, it's a really great album featuring Miles Davis. I've had this album in my library for probably five or six years, at least since 2005. And originally, I only got this album because the cover art for John Mayer Trio's album Try! was essentially an exact copy of the cover art for Something' Else. Cool connection there. Thanks John.

Anyway, I play the first track, entitled Autumn Leaves. Again, nothing special, I've listened to this tune quite a few times and have enjoyed it. But this time, I hear the melody kick in right around the 1:30 mark. Normally with jazz tunes, my ear isn't good enough to actually know what the melody line is unless I've heard the tune in some other context (i.e. John Coltrane's cover of My Favorite Things, as that's a famous song outside of Coltrane's recording, I know when he plays the melody line). This was the case with this song. The previous times I'd heard it I wouldn't have been able to pick out the melody line. This time, however, I heard something familiar around the 1:30 mark that pricked my ear. I couldn't figure out where I'd heard it before. I checked the song title (I hadn't really thought about what I was listening to other than the album title) and realized this was a song I fell in love with a few months ago after I got Eric Clapton's latest album, Clapton.

It was a pretty good album; I'd given it a few listens but didn't go nuts over it. Except for the closing track, Autumn Leaves. I didn't know when I first heard it that it was a cover, I just thought it was a beautiful, heart-breaking, gorgeously-played tune written by Clapton. It didn't seem like an off-base assumption; many of his songs feature chords that fit so well together iced with breathtaking guitar lines. I listened to this song over and over when I first got the album, I could not get over how simple and how beautiful the chords sounded. And his solo at the end just blew me away. More than anything the tone of his guitar sounds so rich.

So I loved the song. I had no idea the song was 65 years old. It was originally a french tune written by Joseph Kosma entitled "Les Feuilles Mortes" ("The Dead Leaves") and English lyrics were written by Johnny Mercer, a stalwart contributor to the Great American Songbook. It has been recorded by a variety of different artists, and is a fairly common jazz standard due to its simple yet creatively beautiful chord progression.

This was mainly an exciting find to me because of the potential that still lies in my music library. I've been listening to it, adding to it, trimming it, editing it for years now, and still, I just now found a new musical connection that blew me away between two completely unrelated albums. What other awesome links are waiting for me to find?

Here's what I found:

-Jon