tsuibhne

Cross posted from Headphone Sacrament

-------------------------------------

So, I don't care what the reality of the situation is, I'm totally claiming credit for this.

Back at the beginning of March, Lev Grossman made a post at his Time blog asking about a Daft Punk video. I responded to the post with a link to a Wikipedia entry that answered his question.

In his reply to my comment, Lev included this quote,

and people should really ignore this post and go over to this guy's blog and watch some emo guy singing 'Goin' ta Hogsmeade'

You can see the comments at the post to see my reply. (BTW, he's talking about this post)

I didn't really think much of this, beyond it was kind of cool to get linked from Time's website. (I'm a dork like that)

Then today, I saw this post over at WizardRock.org

That is right folks not only is old Remus' birthday but The Remus Lupins were mentioned in the one and only Time Magazine.

And sure enough, you can read the short piece here. Now, look at who wrote that piece.

Yeah, I'm totally claiming credit for this one.

I am: William Gibson The chief instigator of the "cyberpunk" wave of the 1980s, his razzle-dazzle futuristic intrigues were, for a while, the most imitated work in science fiction.

Which science fiction writer are you?

I can live with this.

Ok this is new.

I'm in freekin Wikipedia!

OK, no the Matt Sweeney article still talks about that guitar player guy (and despite knowing of his existence for almost 15 years, I've still never heard anything he's played on).

On the other hand the article on the Potomac River includes a link to my old Land of Mu blog. Go here. At the end of the first sentence there are a group of outside links, the first links to something I write back in '03.

Weird.

A question that I've been contemplating, in an on again, off again kind of way, over the last year is how to approach religion now.

I was a some what religious person for much of my youth, but ended up wondering off into other areas through out my 20s. More recently, I have attempted to return to my "roots", so to speak, but I've balked over the fact that things are different now.

I guess you could liken it to growing up in a small town, then moving to the city for a number of years, and then moving back to that town and trying to readjust to things that used to come naturally to you.

I've seen and done to much to simply take up where I left off, but I'm not sure how to find a new relationship with my faith.

In the same discussion where I wrote my last post, I also just posted a link to something that I wrote back in March, on the subject of what I believe.

I was going to try and pull a quote out of that, but when I went for one, none of them seemed to work divorced from the whole. Sorry, but if you care, you're going to have to read the whole thing.

Another element to the equation is a thought that's been bouncing around my head recently. I've been thinking on the idea of relativism. Specifically, the area of relativism that states that there is no absolute truth, since everything is relative.

As I said in the linked essay, I self identify as Irish Catholic. If you're familiar with Catholicism, they are not fans of relativism.

I've been thinking about this since, on the surface at least, my whole subjective theory schtick looks a lot like relativism. And I'm not any where near qualified to say if it is or isn't, since I never could muster up enough of an attention span to read a book on philosophy.

Instead, I've been focusing on the idea of truth, and could there be truth in a subjective reality. I've come to the conclusion that yes, there can. This truth only extends as far as the individual, but that does not diminish the strength of that truth. For the individual, the truth is absolute.

There is a connection here between these three strands; subjective absolute truth, religion as a construct, and how I should be approaching faith. I just can't see it yet. Of course, the connection may be that something in this equation has to go.

The following is an unedited email that I just sent out to an email list that I read. The subject of Atheism has been floating around in my head recently and this was my first attempt to get some of those thoughts out on my head.

-----------------

First off, a little context.

I tend to separate the current discussion about atheism into two groups.

1) The political/legal civil liberties issue, which is a tightrope act where words and ideas must be thoroughly considered before spoken.

2) An argument concerning the validity of atheism as a mode of thought and way of approaching the world.

The subject of this email will be the second group.

I must confess that I've largely avoided these discussions. I recognize the validity of atheism as a way of seeing the world and the inherent potential of this view to be an important guiding light in making decisions. So, I do not see the point in listening to someone try to tell me something that I already agree to.

Atheism's missionaries also have a unique ability to push my buttons and get me riled up, resulting in me sounding like a reactionary idiot. Since this is something that I don't need much help in accomplishing, I've made the decision to limit my interaction with the debate to points in time when I feel it is necessary.

I'm providing this context because what I am about to say is largely based on my interactions with people who were not prepared to allow me my ignorance and instead foisted their views upon me with out my consent. I realize that this is a horrible way to come to a conclusion, but until I can get a better handle on my emotions, it is all I have. I leave it up to the reader to decide what amount of validity there are in my words. If you disagree with them, then feel free to simply ignore them. You won't hurt my feelings, nor will you diminish the potential good that I see in atheism.

Also, just to be clear. None of the below is directed in any way at anyone here. I, personally, have not seen any of what I am about to discuss on this list.

As I see it, there are three points that make atheism a potentially dangerous thought process.

1) For many Atheists, atheism is a religion. Just because they call their god science and reason, does not negate this. I make this observation because atheism is prone to the same dogmatic fundamentalism that other religions are prone to. The difference is that, for many, by framing the concept of atheism as a thought process that is separate from religion, they limit the potential of seeing this flaw because they make it harder to translate lessons learned to atheism. To put it more plainly, many atheists fall into the trap that since atheism isn't a religion, then it is impossible for them to fall into dogmatic fundamentalism, since only religious people are subject to such a mistake. This, of course, is completely with out merit and it is just as important for atheists to keep vigil against this tendency as it is for a religious person. Being an atheist does not mean that they are suddenly open to new ideas where ever they come from. This tendency, to attack those things that we do not agree with or do not understand, is one of the oldest tendencies in existence and is shared by all animals. To deny that it colors our perception of the world around us is foolish.

As an example, I'll point to the pr troubles that atheism is having even today. You would think that a group of people devoted to reason and logic would have a better understanding of memetics, general semantics, and the over all 'medium over message' tendency that governs communications today. With my limited interaction with the movement, I can't help but wonder if the issue is that many of those who are postalizing for atheism these days have fallen into the trap of dogmatism. They see themselves as right and their message as the one true message, and so if others do not see it, then the problem is with them and not how atheism is being presented. It is interesting to note that, even though I have come into contact with a number of fundamentalist Christians in my years, I have never had an instance where one attempted to force their views on me. On the other hand, with the exception of the members of this list, every admitted atheist I have ever met has attempted to "show me the light." I do not offer this insight as any evidence of the superiority of religion, that would be stupid since my situation is largely based on the fact that I already self identify as a Christian and am able to navigate such situations. No, I offer this insight to show that the sins of religious fundamentalists are just as prevalent among atheism's own fundamentalists.

2) There is a tendency among some atheists to hold up history's "religious wars" as proof of the evil of religion. Apply reason and logic to these situations though, and you find that very little violence in the world's history can be attributed directly to religion. At most, religion is used as justification for violence. The argument put forward by some though, implies that if we did not have religion, then these atrocities would not have occurred, which of course is preposterous. When religion failed to have the sway that it used to in Western Europe, leaders turned to nationalism and other common causes. The war in Iraq is justified by being about "spreading democracy." Should we get rid of democracy, because some would use it to justify slaughter? Of course not! Why then should we toss out religion? Why is religion evil, while other justifications escape such harsh criticisms?

The danger in this tendency is that it over simplifies issues. People look at problems like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, and other such issues, and say they are problems caused by religion. The issue here is that this over simplification of the real cause of these issues, prevents us from working towards a real solution to these problems. It is the intellectual equivalent of shoving our collective heads in the sand. And then we wonder why they hate us so. It couldn't be because we've ignored and trivialized issues that are inherently important to them?

3) And I acknowledge that this point is much more nebulous and that it applies to an even narrower group of people, but I think it is one that should have a spotlight shone on it from the very beginning so that it stays nebulous and confined to a very narrow group. I also acknowledge that most apparent instances of this point are caused not by actual belief, but by poorly worded phrases or ideas that have not been properly considered. Still, even sloppy language should have a light shown on it so that it does not become sloppy action.

There is a certain utopian school of thought with in atheism that religion is the cause of much of the world's suffering, and that if we could remove religion, then this suffering will disappear.

I recently came across an interesting comment by R.U. Sirius in his book Counter Culture Through The Ages. To paraphrase my interpretation of what he was saying, "the idea of a utopian society implies an authoritarian society. Since a utopia can not be sustained indefinitely in an environment where everyone is free to think and do as they please. If everyone is free to think and do as they please, then eventually a group will appear who disagree with the status quo, which will bring discord and an end to the utopia. For the utopia to exist indefinitely, when such a group appears they must either be oppressed or banished."

Any attempt to say that people should stop following religion, because it will lead to a more harmonious world, is in fact a flirtation with oppression and authoritarianism. Any attempt to actually bring such a concept into existence, is to move beyond flirtation and into action.

The common thread of these three points is dogmatism. The belief that your beliefs are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Atheism is just as prone to dogmatism as any other mindset and so needs to be just a vigilant. Whether it is simply the inexperience of the atheists I have come across, the media's refusal to give time to atheists who understand this, poorly worded arguments, or just my own self imposed ignorance on the subject; I have not seen many instances where atheists have taken the danger of dogmatism into proper consideration. And that, if true, is a very dangerous situation.

OK, that's it. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

So, it's 11:06 PM on new years eve as I begin writing this and what am I doing? Thinking about writing that review of Yusuf Islam's An Other Cup that I promised to write today. I would have written it today, but I spent the day watching Escaflowne instead. All 26 episodes of it. I think I'll spend tomorrow, after trying to run a few errands, watching the first season of the Justice League and doing a little laundry.

To be honest, I kind of hope this is precedence setting. The week after next week, with a full week of work, will be the big test to see if I can keep the new blog up and running with content. I hope I can though. I've missed writing about music.

Of course, this time it isn't just about will power. When I decided that I wanted to give the writing thing another shot, I did some planning. One of the things that's kept me from writing in the past has been equipment. I love my Mac, don't get me wrong, but the standard keyboard and mouse for Macs suck. So, after Christmas I went out and picked up a new keyboard. One that has better action and is easier to write with. So far I'm pretty happy with it, though only time will tell if it helps me write more. Or, to be more precise, only time will tell if it keeps me from writing more. Will power still plays a big role in this, but having the right set up definitely is an important part. Set and Setting folks, Set and Setting.

Anyways... Happy New Year to those that read this. Hopefully 2007 is a better year for all of us.

test

So I've decided to take another crack at trying to break through this writer's block that's kept me from writing reviews for the past 8 to 9 years.

In this vein, I've re-imagined my various blogs and tried to streamline things a bit.

First off, One Sided Conversation (what used to be at tsuibhne.net) has been killed. I've backed up the contents of that blog and will move anything worth while over here, but that site is no more.

Headphone Sacrament has been now been moved to tsuibhne.net.

The idea is that anything music related will go up at headphone and everything else will be posted here. Life As A Knot, my link blog, still exists at its current location, as does the old Land of Mu blog. Though, Mu's existence will likely be limited. My plan is to take a couple of articles that I posted there, that I don't think are available anywhere else on the web, and use them as the center piece in a new Reading Room, similar to the Moorish Science Reading Room. We'll see what kind of mood I'm in after that. I may try to expand on it, or I may just leave the articles on their own and be done with it after that.

For now, I have my first review up at Headphone. A pretty bad review (as in my writing, not the music) of 7 tracks from Nerdcore MC Ultraklystron's up coming album. Hopefully, I'll get better at this as I get back in the swing of things.

Future reviews that I'd like to write:
The Recipe's Jubilee
Beefy's Tube Technology
Yusuf Islam's An Other Cup
and may be a couple of singles here and there

We'll see what actually transpires though. As always comments are encouraged and welcomed.

I always find it a bit odd when someone who admits to disliking computers passes judgement on the evils of the internet. In most cases, they tend to come across, at least in my head, with a somewhat bitter, old man's style "back in my day..." kind of voice. They also have a habit of missing the subtle elements of what is happening, which tends to be the main reason that they don't like the internet.

A couple of weeks ago I finally got around to finishing RU Sirius's book Counter Culture Through The Ages and am now slowly working my way through What The Door Mouse Said. Door Mouse is a history of the early days of the PC revolution and the role that the 60s counter culture played in it. As I read/am reading these two books I'm struck by a paradox that seems to appear when considering counter culture movements these days.

When you look at something like the 60s counter culture on a micro level, and see it as a discreet event in history, its easy to see how the 60s "revolution" failed. When you step back though and take the situation in at a macro level, you get a much different perspective on the situation. You begin to see various threads, many of which pre date the 60s, but which were greatly affected by the 60s. When taking this macro level view, it becomes much harder to discredit what happened, or to declare it a failure, if for no other reason then because it becomes much harder to say that its over.

As an example, lets return to the internet. Over the last couple of years, there's been an increasing amount of murmuring about "bubble 2.0" (we're geeks, we see life as a collection of version releases, bug fixes, and minor upgrades. Get over it). Venture capital money has finally started to filter back into the industry and that feeling of something happening is starting to pick up again. And so it is natural, and probably pretty damn healthy, for the industry to begin preparing itself for what may be coming down the line. With this shift though, I've begun looking at the past 10 years.

I know its customary to remember back to the naiveness and innocence of the mid 90s and laugh at all the foolish proclamations that circled back then. Consider though what has changed with in the last 10 years though, and it becomes much harder to laugh and discount. May be one has to be in a place to see things from the inside of the industry to really grasp what is going on, but the world really has been turned upside down in many ways over the last 10 years.

The first challenge in figuring out where things went right and where they went wrong with the bubble, is in separating what the geeks were saying about what was coming back in the 90s and what the marketing people were saying was coming. Most of the idiotic "visions" came from marketing people. The things that actually came to pass, whether you noticed or not, tended to be things that came from the geeks. The exceptions to this observation, usually end up being the example that prove the rule. Geeks who drank the marketing kool-aid and lost their heads, or marketing people, as strange as this may sound, who actually groked what they geeks were talking about and understood what was happening.

The same thing happens when you look at something like the 60s counter culture using the same model. Separate out the people who were actually invested in the revolution and understood what was happening, from the people who were either just trying to have a good time or were trying to use the chaos as a vehicle to push their own narrow minded agendas. Now tune out the cranks, and pay attention to the people who knew what was happening, while being mindful of which kool-aid people are drinking, and suddenly a whole new world opens up in front of you. Suddenly, the crazy talk either disappears or doesn't sound as crazy as it once did. Suddenly things that looked hokey before, take on a more profound meaning.

I think that's what gets me about people who admit to disliking computers, passing judgement on things like the internet. Most have seen little more then the what the marketing people want them to see. And even if they have seen more, they appear to have issues telling the cranks from the geeks, so to speak.

We now live in a society where the underground is being co-opted by the mainstream as it is being created. And so being able to separate the messages out, becomes increasingly important.

Well what do you know, looks like lj isn't blocked at work. Something tells me this isn't a good sign.

Anyways...

I probably should have written this last night when I was on a rave, but I didn't, so now I'm left trying to pick up some of the pieces and just shove them somewhere for now.

background: I'm reading Counter Culture Through The Ages right now. This weekend I read the sections on the Lost Generation (especially Joyce) and the beats (esspecially Burroughs). The idea of attacking language as an act of insurection has gotten stuck in my head.

Fragments:

1) The ecstatic experience is one of the few moments where the individual glimpses life free from the tyranny of reason and the oppression of consensus reality. For that brief period they glimpse the possibilites that are normally kept from us.

Isn't it interesting then that, with the possible exception of only the most boring rationalistic mindsets, these experiences are looked on as, at most, communing with the divine, or at least, a higher mental state then the one we normally inhabit. As if we inheriently know that there is something beyond the cold grey world that we are trapped in. Is this idea a minfestation of the collective unconcious? Or is it just a cultural areloom from a time long past?

OK, I guess that's it. Not sure where this is going, but it is something to somewhere. We'll see.

The nice thing about a 4 pack of beer (though the Sammy Smith's are fairly large bottles) is that its only four bottles. The bad thing about a four pack is that once you've finished those four bottles, if you reach for another, well then your looking at 8 beers. Wait, what is the bad part again?

ANYWAYS... Two more things on AMC.

1) The opening verse of The Dead Part Of You:

The price of your soul is less than the cab fare
That gets you home before the living end
The dead part of you leaves me with a blessing
From a destruction of your beauty
Your self-hatred your self-pity

Go ahead, give me a better opening then that, I dare ya!

2) I'm not much of a lyric person, but my god I love the lyrics to Johnny Mathis' Feet. Especially these two verses:

Johnny looked at my songs and he said,
Well at first guess, never in my life
Have I ever seen such a mess.
Why do you say everything as if you were a thief?
Like what you've stolen has no value
Like what you preach is far from belief?

-------------------------

Johnny looked at my old collection of punk rock posters
Anonymous scenes of disaffection chaos and torture
And he said, you were on the right track
But you're a lamb jumping for the knife.
He said, a real showman knows how
To disappear in the spotlight.

So, I've just about finished off a four pack of Samuel Smith's Oatmeal Stout (yummy!) and I'm listening to American Music Club, and god I'm enjoying AMC a bit to much.

Something tells me this is not a good sign.

If I break out the Joy Division, someone call 911, OK?

I guess the fact that I still have my sense of humor is a good thing.

Oh and for the record? AMC's version of Goodbye To Love is possibly the greatest cover ever recorded. I'm actually scared to listen to the original for fear that it may tarnish the beauty that is the AMC version. The version I have is off Audiogalaxy but now that I see the comp where the song came from is on iTunes, I may buy it. If for no other reason then to thank everyone who is responsible for it.

BTW, for the record, I listened to a clip of the original of Goodbye To Love when I was hunting for the links. I was right, the original can't hold a candle to the AMC version. For Karen Carpenter it is a song. For Mark Eitzel it is resignation to the inevitable.

A friend of mine caught Mark doing a solo show shortly before AMC finally called it quits. He said it was the weirdest experience (he wasn't familar with AMC before this show). One minute Mark is telling the funniest story you've ever heard. The next moment he's singing a song that has you ready to slit your wrists. Only to start telling jokes again, as soon as the song was over.

So, way back in 2000 I did something stupid. Well, I did a lot of stupid things back then (part of being me is doing stupid things I later regret), but this one was big. I don't feel like getting into specifics, but the bottom line is, I was a dick to a good friend because I couldn't handle all the shit that was going on in my life at the time and I snapped.

The thing is that now that I'm finally pulling out of the funk I've been in over the last five years or so that one thing is the last dangling thread that I wish I could tie up. The rest of the stupid crap I did I can live with. I'm not proud of it, but I can accept it and move on. That one thing, not so much.

It doesn't help that that was basically the last time I talked to said friend. With the exception of a short email I got from her a few months later, in reply to something I sent, that basically said 'fuck off,' but not using such civil language.

I've been thinking about her off and on over the last couple of months as things have started to begin to come together for me. I've plugged her name into google a couple of times to see if I could track her down, but to no avail. The only contact info I have for her is an old yahoo email address that I figured was abandoned years ago.

The thing is that last night I did some poking around for her again and I came across the old email list where we met. On a whim I did a search of the lists' members (the list has been more or less dormant for a couple of years now) and found her old yahoo address was signed on. This didn't mean much of anything. About 75% of the email addresses on the list have been abandoned and are bouncing. The thing was, I noticed that her email wasn't marked as bouncing.

I've got no idea what this means, but just in case, and with no other options, I sent an email to that address last night. I had thought about sending a long email giving her the run down on what I've been up to, as well as an apology for my actions. After I wrote the apology portion of the email though, I decided to just end the message. I would love to pick up where we left off, but mostly I just want her to know that I'm sorry for the way I treated her and to let her know that I hope she's happy where ever she is.

The problem, of course, is that I don't know if that account is still being used. Anyone know what happens when you send email to an abandoned yahoo account? I sent a message to my old yahoo account and got an error message back. I'm hoping that is a good sign, but it is conceivable that my old yahoo mailbox is full (I was getting 20+ spams a day that weren't ending up in the spam folder when I last logged in) and that is what caused the error.

Anyways, now I'm waiting. Obviously, what I want is an email from her accepting my apology. I'm not sure if we'll ever be the friends we were, but I would like to be forgiven for my actions. Honestly though, I'd rather another 'fuck you' then no message at all. At least then, I'll know that she got the message and I tried. I'll still feel bad, but at least I tried. Right? If I don't get any kind of reply though, then I won't know what happened to it. Is the account abandoned? Did my message end up in a spam folder? Did she delete it with out reading it? Did she read it, but is still so pissed at me she didn't respond?

Tomorrow I'm seeing Belle and Sebastian for the first time. I've got great seats (GA floor, in front of the stage) and I'll be looking for everywhichway, who's also hitting the show and is also in the GA floor section. They're also playing with Broken Social Scene and Ted Leo, so the show should be very cool. On top of this, tomorrow morning I'm picking up an order from Amazon that I'm really looking for to. So, tomorrow is already going to be a really good day. If I get an email from her on top of that? I think I'll just be a giddy little boy all day long.

For now, I wait. And check my email every couple of minutes. I've cleaned out my Junk mail folder so that I can easily look to make sure her email didn't end up there by mistake. On top of everything it has been a really slow email day for me. I've gotten a total of 5 emails on that account all day. Three emails from Downtown Music Gallery (I got on their email list after placing a couple of orders with Tzadik Records) and two spam messages, that's it. Just enough to let me know that my email is working, but nothing to take my mind off the wait.

It is a little maddening.

Oh well, this killed a few minutes (I've checked my email twice while I wrote this).

And on the off chance that she reads my email and makes her way here (there's a link to tsuibhne.net in the email, which has a link to here);

Jen, again, I'm sorry. Please put me out of my misery.

So I just finished watching Punk: Attitude, the Don Letts film on the history of punk.

My reaction is a bit mixed.

Pros:
It was nice to finally see someone at least acknowledge where punk came from and the debt it owes to both of 50's rock rebellion and the hippie movement of the 60s. Though I would have liked to see an expansion of this element of the history of punk, since I think it provides a great deal of context to what came later.

The coverage of the early NY scene was a slightly different perspective then what you usually see. The Talking Heads were name checked once and a little video footage of an early CBGBs performance was shown. Blonde were never talked about directly, but only mentioned two or three times in relation to someone else's story. The Ramones, of course, got their bit of the spot light, but hell, they're the Ramones and I think there are laws about how much time you have to give them when talking about the history of punk. Instead, we hear about Richard Hell, Patti Smith, Suicide, Television, and a few others. The perspective is interesting, because it focuses on the diversity of what was being done back then. No, every band did not sound like the Ramones, something that isn't always obvious in most of these types of films.

The UK scene got a similar treatment. The Sex Pistols got their contractually obligated slice of time. The Clash got a bit less, but the Buzzcocks actually got a fair amount of time. There was also a good bit of time spent on the over all culture of the UK scene, as well as the early NY scene.

And then things started to fall apart.

Cons:
Even if you don't know who the man is, it is obvious that Don Letts was part of the UK scene (though, just in case you missed it, he's credited with introducing the UK scene to reggae and dub, while he DJed at the Roxy). The farther away you get from the UK scene, the less information the film gives you.

From the UK scene there is a quick glance at the UK post-punk scene, with Rollins (come on, you knew Rollins would be involved in this project) name checking PIL and Magazine. Others name check Wire, Pop Group, and another band I can't remember. And then we jump back over to the US and spend a few minutes talking about No Wave. Glen Branca is one of the talking heads, so Theoretical Girls gets name checked, as do the No New York bands, though the comp is never mentioned or referenced. From there we move to CA, which is given more coverage then I would have expected, possibly because Jello is another talking head, though only about 15-20 minutes. Part of that time is spent talking about the transition from the early punk to hardcore. There's a few minutes spent talking about the difference between east coast/west coast hardcore, where we are quickly introduced to Bad Brains and Minor Threat and Fugazi are mentioned (though, apparently, the only thing they have to offer is the straight edge movement for the former, which is summed up with the song's lyrics, and a ban on doing interviews with magazines that advertise alcohol and tobacco for the latter. Musically, apparently they weren't doing anything new). Sonic Youth and punk's relationship with hip hop are briefly mentioned somewhere in there. Interestingly enough, the post UK band that gets the most face time is Agnostic Front. Not only do they get a talking head and some concert footage, they also get a clip from a video shown a couple of times.

After this quick over view, which only covers up until about 82 or 83 (Fugazi are name checked, but the fact that they formed in the late 80s isn't mentioned. Just from watching the film, they look like they were formed in the early 80s) there is a gap until Nirvana is brought in to bring it all back home and set up the conclusion.

The unintentionally funny moment of the film comes as they transition into talking about Nirvana. They specifically talk about how there is this void in the history of punk from the early 80s until 92, because the scene had gone underground and no one was paying attention. The comments from several talking heads indicate that this is something of a shame. The film then perpetuates this by moving directly to Nirvana, instead of at least giving a quick overview of what happened in those 10 years. No mention of Revolution Summer, the Riot Grrl movement, the rise of indie rock, or anything else.

The feeling is that Don Letts sat down and traced out the history of punk, as he knows it. He then filmed that. The feeling is that he never bothered to dig at all, to see what else was going on that he might have missed or to see if may be he had some elements of the story wrong. This is Don Letts' view of what happened, nothing more or less.

That said, I wouldn't call it a band film. The perspective offered on the early NYC and UK scenes is interesting. Definitely worth a rental.

I came across the story of Densha Otoko yesterday and have been sifting through the translation.

Quoted from the wikipedia article (first link):

In 2004, an anonymous user posted in a thread for single men to decry their woes. According to his account, he had been sitting next to a beautiful woman on the train when a drunken man entered the car and began bothering the other passengers, most of whom were female.

When he began to badger the beautiful woman, the poster took the risk of telling the man to stop bothering the passengers. The two struggled for a short time while the other passengers used this distraction to summon the conductor, who took control of the situation.

Never having done such a thing before in his life, he was amazed to find that the woman was thanking him deeply for saving her from harassment. They exchanged addresses and parted ways. The poster, upon returning home, began talking with other posters in the thread and was eventually nicknamed "Densha Otoko" (Train Man).

A few days later, Densha Otoko received a package from the woman he had saved. The package contained an expensive set of cups and saucers made by Hermès. Flabbergasted, the man turned to the 2channelers for advice; he was soon convinced that such a gift was too expensive to be a mere thank-you gift. Following the advice and suggestions of the other posters, Densha Otoko eventually contacted the woman.

After an enjoyable first date, they began meeting regularly, Densha Otoko all the while posting updates and asking for advice on everything from restaurant choices to what clothing to wear from other posters. Following their collective advice, he got a haircut, purchased new clothes, and began to come out of his shell. After several dates, his personality had changed for the better and this culminated a few months later in his confessing his love for her. She reciprocated, and when the 2channelers were informed of this there was a mass celebration; posts began flowing in congratulating the new couple, and extravagant ASCII art pictures were posted.

Because 2ch has an enormous impact on net culture in Japan, this story quickly spread throughout the media and became an instant hit. Its almost fairy-tale-like simplicity and emotional power drew people in. According to Densha Otoko and Hermes (the nickname of the woman, so named for the brand name of the tea set she sent him), they are still together

I'm using the term metanovel to refer to this because that was the description that I once heard for the Incunabula Papers/Ong's Hat story. I'm not sure if the description fits, but that's all I've got. If you have a better word, feel free to leave a comment.

Before I get to far into this, I should probably address the "truth" question. Works of this sort always bring up debates about whether the story is true or some kind of hoax. Personally, I don't care. I love rereading the Incunabula Papers partly because sometimes I read them as a sceptic and sometimes I read them as a believer. My following comments may appear to indicate that I see these works as strictly fiction, but this is just semantic laziness on my part.

Put a gun to my head and tell me to choose, and I'll throw the Densha Otoko story on the true pile, just because I can identify with Densha and it gives me some small kernel of hope. But, I think that the debate in the end, misses the point of works like this.

Then again, I could rant for pages about this theory stuff, but that isn't what I want to do. May be later.

The interesting difference, for me at least, between Densha Otoko and say something like Ong's hat or the John Titor story is how low key it is. Ong's Hat was obviously designed to get a lot of attention with in a certain subsection of society. Similarly, whether you believe Titor or not, you have to admit that his story was bound to cause a lot of commotion with in a certain group. And while Densha Otoko did cause even more commotion then either of the other two stories mentioned, it didn't have to. The story could have lived and died on the BBS and it still would have been a really cool story.

There's also a higher level of interaction in the Densha story. Ong's Hat had three guys sitting behind the scenes plotting things out and then letting it all loose. I'm not familiar with the particulars of how Titor told his story, but a similar metaphor could probably be used. These stories still held to the storyteller/audience dichotomy that is prevalent in modern story telling, though they did play with it more so then previous examples of modern story telling. Both Ong's Hat and Titor brought the audience into the story, but Densha just seems to have brought them even further into the story. Part of the story is the feedback that Densha got from the audience. The clothes he wears, the places he and Hermes go, are all elements that the audience brought into the story.

Personally, I'd love to see more of these kinds of stories being told and collected like the Densha story is being collected. In many ways it is a return to the storytelling traditions of old, which we are loosing.

On a lark I started rereading Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix tonight. I came in late to the whole Harry Potter thing. (story of my life) I only finished reading the available books last November. So, excuse me if I'm forgetting something or this is old hat, but something just occurred to me, that I thought I'd jot down.

Anyone familiar with the series, knows the role that Love plays in the books. It is the love that Harry's mother has for Harry that saves Harry's life as a child and keeps him safe through out the book. This fact plays a role in every one of the books and is actually a central theme through out the entire series, the love a mother has for her son.

Not to force a Christian allegory on the situation, Rowling has stated point blank that that was not her intention with the books, but I started thinking about a book I had read awhile ago tonight after picking Phoenix up again. The book is William Barclay's commentary on the Bible, specifically the Gospel of Luke. In regards to the section of Luke where Jesus tells his followers to love their enemies more then their friends, Barclay talks about the three different words used in Greek that translate to love. Eran is the love felt between lovers. Philein is the love for those we hold dear. And finally, there is agapan. Barclay writes that "agapan describes an active feeling of benevolence towards other people; it means that no matter what others do to us we will never allow ourselves to desire anything but their highest good; and we will deliberately and of set purpose go out of our way to be good and kind to them."

(of course, these concepts are not strictly Judeo-Christian or Greek. Most people will see the obviousness of these three versions of love. I just happen to have this concept handy in my mind.)

Now, breaking philein down even further, into love that one has for family and love that one has for close friends, the role of philein in the story is obvious. It is philein, in the form of the love of Harry's mother, that keeps Harry safe and is the most obvious expression of love through out the books. We also see a, somewhat more diluted, form of philein in the form of Harry's dedication to his friends. I say 'somewhat diluted' because Harry has a habit of getting caught up in his own troubles and ignoring what the people around him are going through. He does appear to show remorse when he realizes that he is doing this though, so we'll forgive him his teen angst.

We also see Harry's relation to eran, first in his feelings for Cho, and then, even more so, in his feelings for Ginny. At the end of Half Blood Prince, we see that his feelings for Ginny are such that he attempts to push her away, so that she does not get hurt in the coming fight.

So, the first two concepts are definitely present, and by the end of the sixth book have made their presence fully known. In many ways the development of Harry through out the series can be tied to his understanding of these two terms.

Given the role of love in the series, and given the role that these first two concepts play in the development of Harry, it is kind of odd that agapan is almost completely absent from Harry's life. Now don't get me wrong. There are traces of agapan in Harry. He is portrayed as a generally good, kind person. As long as you are good and kind to him, that is.

What set me off down this thought path was a scene at the beginning of Phoenix where Harry is tormenting Dudley. Why is he doing this? Because he can. Because Dudley is scared of him. And the book makes clear that Harry enjoys tormenting Dudley. There is no agapan in Harry's actions towards Dudley. I can't think of anywhere in the story where Harry shows any hint of agapan towards Dudley or his aunt and uncle. (yes, the three of them are family, but since he doesn't hold them dear in any form, philein probably doesn't apply) While I picked out Harry's relationship with Dudley, this same relationship is also present in Harry's interactions with Malfoy, Snape, and others. In each case, not only does Harry strongly dislike these people, he relishes any chance he gets to torment them or sees ill happening to them. Now, I'm not saying that Harry has no justification in the way he approaches these people. Again though, given the importance of love in the series, its omission is curious.

Its omission is made even more curious by the fact that agapan does appear in the story. It actually can be found quite often in each of the first six books. It just doesn't come from Harry. No, it comes from Dumbledore. Throughout the series, Dumbledore's compassion and benevolence appears to be never ending. The question of the wisdom behind the agapan that Dumbledore shows is also a reoccurring theme of the book. And in each case, Dumbledore is vindicated in his willingness to trust people. (For those who are now thinking of Snape, I request that you wait until the end of the series before casting judgement. I firmly believe, given the conversation in the infirmary after the incident, that there is more to that situation then we realize.)

So, where does this leave us? It leads to my assertion that agapan will play a significant role in the final book. And that agapan will likely play a significant role in Harry defeating Voldemort. I think before the end of the next book, Harry will learn how to show compassion and benevolence to those that may be called his enemies, as well as those who are his allies.

My friend Shava (shava23) has finally gotten ahold of something that looks like a real job.

She's going to handle getting funding for an open source software project called, Tor, which looks interesting.

The fact that Shava is working on this project is reason enough for me to be interested in it. I need to give the site a more thorough read tomorrow though.

If you're wondering why I would be so interested, just google "Shava Nerad". Her name is unique enough that most of those links, all 22,000+ of them, are talking about her. Or just check out her resume.

Over the last couple of days I've been getting a little restless with the music I listen to. I haven't picked up any new albums recently and I'm wearing a lot of the indiepop I have out. A few minutes ago I was looking through iTunes, trying to figure out what I wanted to listen to while I got some paper work together. On a lark I put on a show I'd downloaded off archive.org from a band called The Assembly of Dust. I grabbed the show months and months ago, but never really listened to it until now. Three songs in and it is a pretty good show.

Now, why is this important enough to post about?

Well, AoD features the song writing talents of a guy named Reid. Reid used to be in a band called Strangefolk, who I actually followed for awhile back in the mid 90's. Both AoD and Strangefolk are, what the kids call, jambands.

I can almost hear any chance I had at indie cred going down the toilet. *smirk*

OK, so before I go any further it is probably time to come clean. The reason that I'm new to this whole indiepop thing is because in about 93 or 94, just I was on the verge of really discovering indiepop, I got side tracked.

I had come across Blues Traveler around '91, when they released their first album. I came across the Spin Doctors in the summer of '92, right between the release of their first album and the release of the Two Princes single (which lead to their popularity). I first heard Phish in the fall of '92, shortly after Picture Of Nectar was released. In the summer of '93, I caught my second Phish show and my first HORDE tour.

At the same time this was going on, I was also seeing bands like Buffalo Tom and Poole and Shudder To Think and Jawbox. And I was listening to records by Jawbreaker and Sebadoh and Velocity Girl and Tsunami and all kinds of other indie acts. This wasn't terribly uncommon back then, to straddle both worlds.

Then in the fall of '93 I went away to school at Radford Univ. in the middle of no where VA. There is really only one thing to do on Friday night in Radford and that's go to frat parties. Drinking and partying with the kind of kids that made high-school hell for me, was not my idea of a good time. And I was to shy and socially inept to find the few freaks that roamed around campus. Instead, I found the internet. Specifically, I found an email list dedicated to the HORDE tour (and the kind of bands that were playing the tour at the time) and I found rec.music.phish.

Now, the first thing you have to remember was there was no jamband scene at this point. There was no scene at all. There was a group of bands, of which only about 5 were touring nationally, and there was a group of fans who enjoyed what these bands were doing. Back then the only thing we all really had in common was our love of music. There was no culture. Oh, there were certain shades of a post-hippie thing going on. We were mostly college students, mostly liberal, mostly saw nothing wrong with peace and love. We also were very sensitive about the hippie connection. I remember people just getting really pissed over the whole 'neo-hippie' title that some of the magazines were flirting with. We didn't want to stand in anyone else's shadow, we wanted to be our own people. And the 'neo-hippie' tag ignored the fact that most of us where just as happy listening to Fugazi or the Dead Kennedys as Phish.

While the proto-scene didn't have much, what it did have was a bunch of bands slugging it out at the local and regional level who were desperately trying to make a name for themselves. Most of these bands had at least a small dedicated following, who did what they could to support their favorite band. Since the horde-list was pretty open as far as what bands were discussed, it became the de-facto town square. And so, these dedicated fans would show up on the horde-list to preach the gospel of their latest obsession. They'd tell us about albums, tours, and offer up tapes for trade.

In that first year of college, I picked up a couple albums from bands I'd heard about on the horde-list. Of course, since there was no web (not as we know it today) and there was nothing resembling an indie scene/network at this point, I was limited to the few bands that had picked up major label deals. It was in the second year that I finally cracked the nut and started trading tapes. This opened a whole new world for me.

Now, when the dedicated jumped up and preached about their current obsession, I was equipped to go out and track down tapes of shows that these bands did. I've always preferred lesser known bands to the more established. And I've never shyed away from dropping money on a band I may like, just because I've never actually heard them. So, I was busy back then, tracking down tapes by various bands who had been mentioned on the horde-list, or, later, a few other lists. And when I found these tapes, I'd listen to them. And then I'd post my thoughts on the band. I mean what is the point of tracking down unknown bands, if you don't tell people about your discoveries?

Apparently, I was a bit more enthusiastic in my searching and preaching then other people. And apparently, some folks decided that I was a decent writer. I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point I became a source for new music. People starting looking towards me as someone who would tell them about the latest band to try and break free of local obscurity. And a few bands looked to me for help as well. I ended up doing a little PR work for a band out of New Orleans. And there was another band out of NYC, who's manager ended up sending me all their albums and merch as thank you's for things I wrote. Which perplexed me to no end.

See, I never fit in in high-school. Even the kids I hung out with, I didn't fit in with. I constantly felt like I was on the outside and no one particularly cared what I had to say. Now, people are telling me that they make a point to read every email that I write to a given list. People are thanking me for turning them onto a certain band. Bands are thanking me for lending them a hand, when all I did was tell people what I thought about them. This was very perplexing.

And it was around this time that I gave up on punk/indie. A simple case of small fish in the big pond/big fish in the small pond. Actually, no, it isn't that simple. It wasn't just ego, though I'm sure ego played a significant role. There was energy in that scene, that I didn't feel in the indie scene. There were no rules, no in-crowd. Some 18 year old college freshman was just as important, and their thoughts and ideas were just as valid, as the guitarist for some band or some promoter. Every band was a new discovery. And we all relished the explorations. That was behind my decision to give up on the indie scene as much as ego. There just seemed to be so much more in what was happening.

Of course, good times never last. By the late 90s the jamband scene started coming together. At the same time, the scene was getting tied up in a lot of personal issues that I was going through. I became bitter and stopped exploring, stopped finding new bands, and stopped talking about those bands. In the end, I gave up on the jamband scene (which is what it was by then) around 2000.

As my time in the jamband scene was coming to a close, I met a guy named Streator. Streator straddled both worlds. He was a deadhead who'd spent a little time in the jamband scene, but he also was well versed in the indie scene as well. We began chatting about the two scenes, their supposed differences and, more numerous, similarities. Streator ended up pulling me back into the punk/indie scene. I bounced around a few years, trying to find something that transcended enjoyment and hit me in that special way. I found that in the fall of '05, when I stumbled upon the indiepop scene. And I've been playing catch up ever since.

Which brings us full circle in the story.

See, when I left the jamband scene in 2000, I was done with it. I made no attempts to save any bridges and figured that I would never return. I had out grown it and now I knew better. Oh sure, I had had great times, and I didn't regret any of those times, but that was the past and there was no reason to revisit it.

Except, I never fully left it. I stopped listening to the music. When I was bored though, sometimes I'd hit jambands.com to look over the news and articles. I figured that I couldn't let go, because I hadn't found a new obsession. Old habits die hard and all that.

Last summer I pulled some shows off archive.org and checked them out. I found that some of those old shows, from bands I used to follow, were still fun. I chalked it up to nostalgia and figured I didn't have any time for the new bands. Now, I'm listening to AoD, and I'm wondering...

This is not to say that I've returned to the fold completely. AoD, like most of the bands I used to follow in the jamband scene, has a strong pop feel to it. And those first three songs that I really liked, which I mentioned above, were all old Strangefolk songs. The newer material is alright. Good enough that I need to give it more time before passing final judgement. They don't hit me in the same way the old songs used to hit me though. And there are a bunch of the new bands (especially bands focusing on white boy funk or 'let's call it bluegrass' country) that just leave me cold, even now.

I may not be as done with the scene as I thought though. And I kind of like that.

Well, crap. I just spent a lot more space talking about things I didn't expect to talk about. And never got around to talking about things that I wanted to talk about. Hmm... Another post.

So, last night I sent an email glitterbum commenting on her LJ. We've never spoken before, though we do have a common friend and are both on an indiepop email list (I just lurk). In the email I included a link to this site and my other site.

Today I see this new entry on her LJ, which contains the quote, "For the motley assortment of old college friends and anonymous wierdos that read my journal..."

I can't help but wonder at the timing here.

And for the record? I consider 'anonymous wierdo' a compliment. Just saying.

just a fun quote that I need to stick somewhere

"They told me I'm really good at thinking outside the box. I said, 'There's a box??'"
-Rea Abel