80's music videos, David Fincher and musical taste

FincherFanatic has a chronological list of all of the music videos that David Fincher has ever directed. His video for the Nine Inch Nails track "Only" is definitely worth checking out as well as videos for A Perfect Circle, The Rolling Stones, Iggy Pop and others. There are videos dating back to 1984 with varying degrees of the camp and naïveté of the early age of music videos. For good or ill, these videos stand as testament to how influential Fincher was to the burgeoning medium.

I still remember the first time that I saw Guns N' Roses on MTV. I thought that there was no one on the planet as cool as Axl Rose. My how tastes change. Don't get me wrong, I still turn up the radio and throw up the horns when "Paradise City" comes on it's just not exactly the zenith of my musical taste anymore. In this regard I think that one's taste in music is much like our palate. As children we have a very narrow range of what tastes good; anything outside of that range we will simply refuse to eat. As we grow older and (hopefully) are exposed to a wider variety of food, we learn that there are many different kinds of food that we enjoy.

In some cases it is foods that we've never tried before that give us that olfactory epiphany (like the first time I heard R.E.M.). Other times it is simply the dish that we never really liked but we give it a chance years later and come to find that we really appreciate it now (I never really liked The Beatles later work as a kid, now my tastes have matured so I can see the flavors that I was missing before). Changing taste is a natural part of human development and should be encouraged (parent's who tell their children "oh, you don't like that" when a child asks to try something are probably doing the child a disservice).

In talking to people about music I find that some people are confused at the extreme range of my personal taste. The implication that I get from some people is that it somehow detracts from one style of music (e.g. post-feminist culturally conscious riot grrrl rock a la Sleater-Kinney) that you are a fan of another, seemingly opposed style (e.g. beer guzzling, mullet-wearing rock a la Guns N' Roses). To me this assertion is as absurd as the notion that one cannot both enjoy a glass of lemonade on a hot summer day and a rich cheesecake as the culmination of a seven course gourmet meal.

Music is many things, and like any art it has a viral influence on the audience. The more that you enjoy music of many different styles the more that you will find styles of music that you never knew you liked. This is not to say that you will not find things that you don't like (I loathe pea soup and Creed songs in equal measure) but even having a bad meal helps you define the boundaries of your taste (just try to avoid the Insane Clown Posse platter, it's been under those heat lamps for a bit too long).

So take a minute to stroll down memory lane and enjoy the bittersweet taste of 80's popular music. You never know, it might remind you of your favorite forgotten video from the time of neon, leg warmers and big hair.

Drawing Way Outside The Lines

I saw Tool at the Frank Erwin Center last night and it exceeded all expectations. For them to sound this good seventeen years into making music is a testament to their dedication. As with their tours for Lateralus and Ænima the light show was in full effect with many songs accompanied by their respective music videos and some new material. Maynard's voice sounded great and the acoustics of the venue were perfect for Tool's expansive sound.

Following them through the years it has been interesting to see their evolving sound and the way that it informs their live performances. I know that there are some fans that feel that Ænima is the high water mark of their career; as good as that album is, I have to disagree with this sentiment. Last night was undeniable proof that Tool's transition from alt-rock vitriolics to prog-rock epics has been one for the better. Don't get me wrong, I love Ænima, along with OK Computer, it is one of the few true masterpieces of post-Nirvana 90's rock. The difference is one of cohesion.

One can certainly make the case that, taken individually, tracks on Ænima are better than tracks on their more recent albums but I believe that this is failing to see the forest from the trees. Tool albums are no longer about individual tracks, this is especially telling when one looks at which tracks are played on the radio. The radio format is all about three to four minute time slots for listeners with short attention spans and it has become increasingly difficult for their label to get Tool tracks on the air. When even the shortest Tool songs (excluding segues) often stretch to six or seven minutes the only option for radio play is to chose on of the shorter songs and hack it down into a four minute "radio-edit". The reality is that Tool has long since left the land of easily packaged, radio-friendly "popular rock" music. Tool's more recent work is not about tracks, but concepts.

Take, for example the "Wings for Marie (Pt 1)" and "10,000 Days (Wings Pt 2)" song cycle from their latest album. What starts slowly with a quiet brooding over the course of seventeen minutes builds into a cathartic release that to experience live borders on some kind of religious epiphany. This is not about seeing your favorite band crank out rock songs so that you can sing along and wave your lighter. At the risk of sounding maudlin, this is about the experience of seeing a group of dedicated artists create something positive and beautiful. This is all the more powerful from being made in a medium that so often is just used to sell iPods and Volkswagens.

It's been a few years since I've gone to a big stadium rock concert and there is a new trend that has become disturbingly pervasive. Three of the people sitting in the row in front of me spent most of the night alternatively texting their friends (presumably about being at the Tool show) and taking video clips and picture snapshots with their camera-phones. Did I miss a meeting? Since when is it not sufficient to just experience something? I can understand the juvenile need to show off the fact that you were at a big rock show, but to spend the whole evening watching the show through the blurry two megapixel lens of your phone just boggles my mind. I must say the irony was certainly delicious to look out over a stadium thronged with thousands of fans, cell phones held aloft to capture the moment, singing along:

Cause I need to watch things die
From a distance
Vicariously, I
Live while the whole world dies
You all need it too - don't lie.

Vending Machines + Facial Recognition = One More Reason Why Japan Is Awesome

Yesterday a cigarette vending machine was released in Japan that can tell whether or not someone is an adult based on facial recognition. The machine uses a complex system of heuristics to make this determination, including on the bone structure, wrinkles, and the way that the skin sags (or doesn't) on a person's face. In the cases where the machine is unable to determine definitively that a person is 20 years old (the legal age to buy cigarettes in Japan) they can insert their drivers license as an alternate form of identification. This is some crazy science fiction that could only come from the land of the rising sun.

When I visited Japan I made a point of using the beer vending machines, because well, it's beer in a freaking machine! What more reason do you need?! Incidentally an awesome drinking game is to wander the streets of Tokyo aimlessly and buy a biru from each vending machine you stumble across. One thing that I quickly learned was that I was not able to buy beer after 8pm (different machines seemed to have different times but 8pm seemed to be the norm). This was their solution for preventing minors from purchasing beer or cigarettes from the vending machines that blanket metropolitan areas. These machines were equipped with card readers so that locals could use their driver's license as proof of age after 8pm but of course my gaijin passport was not supported. In any case I'm sure they'll start using these for biru and I can't wait to go back to test them. With any luck they will be calibrated to also handle funny-looking white guys...

Ambiguity Made In America

My thoughts on the series finale of The Sopranos

**WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS**


I finally had a chance to watch the series finale of the Sopranos over the weekend. Long gone are the hype that preceded its airing and hysteria that followed. The sheer volume of critical attention given to this one event is staggering. In the end, this is just a TV show and as much as viewers of the show are outraged about the ambiguous and anti-climatic ending there are more important things in life worth getting upset about (one of them, the Iraq war, is even an underlying theme of the last season of the Sopranos).

Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, what is the meaning of this abrupt conclusion to the series? Does Tony get shot? What about his family? Does he escape with his life only to be indicted? So many questions left unanswered, and what does it all mean? Bob Harris has an excellent, and exhaustive, analysis of the religious symbolism in the final scene (along with some fascinating ties to the Godfather trilogy). No doubt many others have mined the rich depths of symbolism in this episode so I will leave it as an exercise to those with curiosity (and time) to look into this further. Rather than simply rehash others' analysis I want to focus on what for many was the main point of contention with the finale. The lack of a definite conclusion, of not knowing Tony's fate is the single biggest criticism being leveled by fans and critics alike.

It seems almost laughable to me that anyone would be surprised when the conclusion to the single most morally ambiguous show on television is itself ambiguous. Like the show, the protagonist Tony Soprano, one of the greatest anti-heroes ever created, is a melting pot of conflicted emotions and paradoxical motivations. A merciless killer who can suffocate his self-described "son" and heir apparent with his bare hands. A family man brought to tears when a family of ducks that was living in his pool flies away. Over the course of seven seasons the show paints these two (along with many other) completely contradictory pictures of the same man. Far from the stereotypical one-dimensional mafioso, Soprano is so multi-faceted it is at times hard to keep track of which Tony we are seeing. In fact the way that Tony can switch from one persona to another at a moment's notice leads to some of the show's funniest and most dramatic moments.

The show does not shy away from the implications of such a conflicted existence. Over the seven years Tony's faces everything from marital estrangement, assassination attempts and nervous breakdowns. Through it all the viewer is brought to a place where we understand Tony (as much as anyone can), where we simultaneously empathize with him for his human foibles and revile him for his monstrous acts. That we can exist in such a moral limbo about the show's main character is ultimately what makes The Sopranos so successful (both commercially and artistically).

The connection between plot and abstract concepts is very tight in The Sopranos, more so that most other shows. Everything from the music playing, background images and the colors of key props is intentional and often has some deeper symbolism. In order to represent such a complex family of characters the show must make full use of the more complex aspects of art. It is only fitting then, that such a complicated and multi-layered show would be concluded in a similarly inscrutable fashion. The creators could have easily created the Godfather-esque bloodbath that so many fans anticipated (nay even hungered for), or the fairy-tale "everyone escapes to live another day" ending. But both of these would be the wrong choice, both would be an absurd oversimplification of what deserves better. To cut to black when he did, David Chase is not abdicating his responsibility as so many have claimed, he is letting his show die the way it lived, in the messy moral gray area where one man can be both a sinner and a saint (sometimes both at the same time). That the creators chose to wrap this faux-climax in religious trappings and leave the final answer on the tip of the tongue is only fitting when none of the answers in this show ever came easily. Indeed the difficult questions in life never truly get answered, at least not forever. That is, after all, what makes these questions interesting, and what makes the process of finding the answers worth while. Only a fool seeks an easy answer to a difficult question and I can't help but see the hubbub over the Sopranos finale as just a bunch of foolishness.

187 On The Album

Ars reports that Jay-Z will not be offering his latest album, American Gangster on the iTunes Store. His reason is an interesting one: he doesn't want the album broken down and sold as individual tracks (something that iTunes requires but many other online music stores do not). From what I can tell, the general consensus is that he should just offer the album as individual tracks and be happy that people want to buy his music. This issue lies at an increasingly busy intersection of technology and art that I am fascinated by so I want to dig a bit deeper into the details.

In reading many of the responses to this announcement I was struck with how strong the sense of entitlement is among many on the internet. Granted the quasi-anonymity that the internet provides can certainly skew people towards the whiny end of the scale it still seems like many people feel that artists owe them something. It is telling that people who, by their own admission, are not Jay-Z fans are indignantly demanding that he "get with the program" and just offer his tracks up on iTunes like everyone else. Even many Jay-Z fans are using this as further rationalization for their use of peer-to-peer networks. There is a wonderful irony to someone saying, "why don't you offer your music the way I want it" out of one side of their mouth and "I don't actually pay for your music" out of the other. So where does this sense of entitlement come from?

Like many of the problems plaguing the embattled music industry, I think much of the responsibility lies at the feet of the record labels and the RIAA. Their policies have been driven solely by greed for so long that they don't know any other way to operate. This is an industry that routinely sells CDs (which cost pennies to manufacture) for $18 while giving the artist an average of less than a dollar per CD sold. Ask them why and they will spew a river of garbage to put Cuyahoga to shame. The reality is that the relationship between labels and artists has always been one-sided which is why many established artists are looking at abandoning their labels entirely. So the label's greed has hurt the artists they claim to promote and has alienated the fans that they claim to serve.

Before the internet there wasn't much that a disgruntled music fan could do. You either paid the exorbitant cost of a CD or you listened to the homogenized sound-gelatin of the radio. The emergence of the internet, along with completely destroying the traditional distribution model for digital media, has provided a forum for the disenfranchised music fans. It is appropriate that an industry enslaved to the economic principle of maximizing profit would be blindsided by a technology that trumps its strongest suit. Manufacturers spent years perfecting CDs to the point that they cost almost nothing to produce. Labels hired armies of lawyers to craft contracts that would turn artists into indentured servants. Then Napster came along and the whole game changed. The cost of distribution shrunk to almost nothing and now all of the music fans, sick of being overcharged for mediocre product, revolted en masse.

So now there are myriad P2P tools that allow anyone to easily get their favorite music for free and music fans (for the most part) are gruntled. Like any revolution, the digital revolution of the early 21st century has left some behind. The artist, long at the mercy of the labels, can now see a way out of bondage but the internet has not yet fulfilled that promise. As in many revolutions, some of the P2P revolutionaries have taken things too far. What started as a rebellion against the records labels has transformed into a culture of entitlement. The motto of "free music from corporate tyranny" has been perverted into "I deserve free music".

To be honest, I'm not a fan of Jay-Z but I do support his decision to not allow his album to be split apart. Technology has dramatically changed the landscape of music, mostly for the better, but music is still a creative endeavor. A painter is (usually) given input into how their paintings are displayed in a gallery. This is because the gallery owner is not solely driven by a desire to sell paintings, they have tempered that with a desire to respect the artist's intent and creative sensibilities. In this context I think that Jay-Z's request that his album be appreciated as a whole and not as individual tracks is completely reasonable. In fact I would argue that anyone selling his album has a mandate, just like a gallery owner, to respect his creative intent. Napster and its mutant offspring may have demolished the distribution model for music but this does not destroy the relationship that an artist has with their work.

White Chalk

PJ Harvey's latest album is a rather dramatic departure from her more recent work. A minor-key piano heavy affair; Harvey uses her voice to great effect to create the somber mood of the album. Gone is the throaty growl of her early work, replaced by a ghostly timber that is startling to hear at first but ultimately works remarkably well. It is a testament to PJ Harvey's versatility as an artist that she can execute such a dramatic transformation. Her choice of delivery fits the theme of the music perfectly for ultimately this is an album about loneliness. Not the quiescent solitude of one who chooses to be apart mind you, but the bitter regret of one who has lost, who has been betrayed. She has explored these themes before but never has PJ Harvey's choice of delivery given this particular subject matter such potency.

The opening track "The Devil" along with it's sister track "Silence" underpin the major themes of the album. Both deal with the pain of lost love, they describe the pangs of need that lead one to a shared rendezvous in the vain hope that what is lost will be waiting there. This powerful metaphor runs throughout the work and we are like moths drawn to the light of her revelatory confessions. At different points the lyrics mention nakedness, in the literal sense, but this is only a metaphor for the raw emotional state of Harvey's tragic heroine. To be sure, this is an emotional excision; the feelings of loss, betrayal and blind hope all torn from her breast and laid bare before us.

Between the esoteric instruments (Optigan, broken harp, mellotron and mini-moog) and the antiquated language (ether gets prominent mention) White Chalk feels like a Victorian elegy for a lover lost in some tragic Poe short story. The raw sensuality of Harvey's work, often far more overt, here slowly builds to a roiling boil over the course of the eleven tracks until the dramatic climax on the album's devastating closer, "The Mountain". Repetition is used very effectively to establish a mood early and maintain it throughout the album making it feel more like stanzas of a single Sapphic poem than discrete tracks. Like much of PJ Harvey's other work, White Chalk took multiple listens to scratch the surface and reveal the deeper beauties hidden within but she makes the scratching hurt so right that you can't help yourself.

Patent Extortion v. Innovation

Arstechnica is reporting that Canadian-based company Wi-LAN has filed law suits against 22 different companies over two of its patents. Wi-LAN, which bills itself as "a leading technology licensing company" is part of a new breed of companies that don't actually make anything or offer services of any kind. Essentially all they do is buy and register a portfolio of promising patents and then sit on them in the hopes that someone else creates something that infringes one or more of those patents. I'm sure industry experts have all kinds of technical terms for this business model but for simplicity sake I'm just going to call them a patent leech.

Here is the full list of companies that they are suing:

1. Acer Inc.
2. Apple Inc.
3. Atheros Communications Inc.
4. Belkin International Inc.
5. Best Buy Co. Inc.
6. Broadcom Corporation
7. Buffalo Technology (USA) Inc.
8. Circuit City Stores, Inc.
9. Dell Inc.
10. D-Link Corporation
11. Gateway Inc.
12. Hewlett-Packard Company
13. Infineon Technologies AG
14. Intel Corporation
15. Lenovo Group Ltd.
16. Marvell Semiconductor Inc.
17. Netgear Inc.
18. Sony Corporation
19. Texas Instruments Incorporated
20. Toshiba Corporation
21. Westell Technologies Inc.
22. 2Wire Inc.

They have wisely chosen to file their suit in a patent litigation-friendly district of East Texas where the local laws are essentially structured to favor the plaintiff in these types of cases. This underscores one of the real weaknesses of a legal system based on precedent. They can go to a court system that favors their case and if they emerge victorious they then have the saber of precedent to brandish against all of the other companies that might ever want to use Wi-Fi or power management features in their products even though the case would have been thrown out in a more reasonable court.

This is such a gross perversion of the spirit of patent law it is sickening. From Wikipedia the rationale behind patents has four main components:

1. Provide incentives for research and development
2. Encourage disclosure of innovations into the public domain
3. Protect products for which the cost of commercialization (testing, manufacturing, marketing) is much higher than conception (research and development)
4. Provide an incentive for companies to be creative and work around existing patents thus spurring development of new technologies that might not otherwise exist

The insidious thing about an "intellectual property" company like Wi-LAN is that they reap the benefits of patent law without paying any of the cost:

1. Wi-LAN no longer even does any research and development; they simply hold onto broad patents that they filed back when they were a real company and buy up new patents using the money that they have extorted from others.
2. Wi-LAN does not actually want anyone to know about their patents, the most lucrative scenario for them is when the entire industry unknowingly steps on one of their overly broad patents and establishes a technology that is useful to everyone (e.g. Wi-Fi). They can simply sit back as the technology matures and is brining profit to the companies actually doing the work then swoop in after the value of that technology is well established and extort an entire industry.
3. The whole point of providing an incentive for conception is so that said company then moves on to commercialization! By creating a niche for companies that don't produce anything but lawsuits patent law has actually hurt commercialization more than it helps it. I can not emphasize this enough, the companies actually doing the work are the ones commercializing Wi-Fi products, not the engineers at Wi-LAN that snuck "multiplexing over multiple transceivers" (Patent 5,282,222) past the knuckleheads at the patent submission office. Don't be confused by all of the fancy language in that patent, the concepts that we are talking about are ones that any college graduate of the relevant discipline could scribble on a cocktail napkin while downing Yaeger Bombs and hitting on co-eds at a South Padre Island pool bar. In short, these ideas are neither new nor inventive.
4. By waiting until the technology is ubiquitous "intellectual property" companies totally subvert the concept of fostering creativity. It's a bit too late in the game for us to get creative about Wi-Fi. What are we going to do, shut down the hot spots in every coffee shop and book store in America while we wait for someone to find a creative work around? Obviously making the Wi-Fi cards in everyone's laptops useless while our best engineering minds work out a new way to wirelessly transmit data is really all about creativity.

Lest I be mistaken for a pinko, I am not advocating a total abolition of patents, I simply advocate that we take a long hard look at any legal system that fosters these kind of leeches. After all, the point of the open market is a million financial organisms all competing with each other, not a million financial organisms all being granted their own monopolistic niches based on dubious merits.