Alot on the Internet

Alot seen here.

*Thanks, Kylie, for the heads up.

Lost Highway

It was here that the skunk found me.

Explosions in the Sky

The Danger of a Single Story

Allow me a moment of political soap-boxing:

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is an African writer who, it seems, is making quite an impact in the African literature community. I haven't read her books or articles, but I did just watch this speech and thought it was really great. I also liked how she briefly tied her discussion of Africa and the Western world into the U.S.-Mexico immigration debate. This speech is a reminder that we cannot rely on a single story - a single version - if we hope to really understand a people, a country, an issue, etc.

Too often it seems like reader's forum letters, comments following online news articles, like/dislike button, and similar quick-response techniques these days are simply ways for people to say something reductive, claiming a solution that stems from only looking at the issue from one angle rather than multiple. A letter to the Daily Universe is hardly going to resolve all the issues surrounding a debate, though such a letter can be helpful in presenting a single perspective and encouraging further discussion. Forums are meant to be places for discussion, where we learn things through collective civil discourse that ultimately helps the community better itself. But too often reader's forums just become arenas of contention and personal attacks, where writers and readers are more interested in reading the next smack down than they are the next insightful thought.

I think this form of literary bloodsport comes, at least in part, from our wish for things to be simple and easy, especially when it comes to things that make us uncomfortable. Issues like immigration, health care, abortion, globalization, and other such things cannot (or at least should not) be resolved over night. For me, I've felt like the best method requires me to take some time, study things out, then come to a conclusion that I'm also willing to modify or even completely change when new information presents itself. This isn't an easy method to follow, because I also wanna be finished with the discussion, believing that I've got it all figured out and that everyone in opposition to my view is wrong. But this isn't true. Sometimes they're wrong, sometimes we're both wrong, or we're both right while still on opposite sides of the fence. It's a tough juggling of personal and communal well-being, and a rather pluralist mentality. Often this method fails me and I just get rash and judgmental. So, it's good to see things like Chimamanda Adichie's speech to remind me to take a moment, think about things, and try looking at it all from a perspective outside my own.

Hear That Sound

I've been listening to the new National album, High Violet, a lot this week - thinking about it a lot. I like the album. Not as much as 2007's Boxer, but much more than 2005's Alligator. High Violet has some of the same charm as Boxer - nice drums, (mostly) nice lyrics, and a general feeling of anxiety laced with hope that I guess I connect to.

But there are some notable differences, too. Matt Berninger's vocals often have more echo to them and the general sound of the album is more open, which I guess makes sense since they recorded it in Aaron Dessner's garage. These changes are fine, except that part of the charm of Boxer was how soft, close, and intimate the album felt and sounded. Boxer sounds like it was recorded in your living room; like they're playing the album right there in your room and Berninger is talking to you. With the rather personal, albeit cryptic, nature of Berninger's lyrics, I think the closer sound serves his voice and lyrics better.

And the music? Well, songs like "Terrible Love" and "Lemonworld" feature a noticeably more grungy sound. As simply a taste issue, I prefer their smoother sound - again, Boxer, excels at this. But some discussion among some friends of mine wondered whether this grungy sound was a conscious musical decision, or just a crappy recording. I'm not a skilled enough listener, nor do I have the hi-fi system to really make such a judgment (though my Sennheiser PX 100 headphones are a respectable way to listen to the recording quality of an album - at least for a layperson like myself). I tend to think the gritty sound was a conscious decision rather than an ignorant blunder. Whether or not High Violet's recording contains blarring flaws doesn't change that there's more to the album than just the quality of its recording, and, in the end, I think the pros outweigh the cons. When I listen to the disc, the thing that really frustrates me is the album's rather limp conclusion; the last two tracks, "England" and "Vanderlyle Crybaby Geeks" just aren't that interesting to me, regardless of how good or bad the recording is. There's more to a song than its recording, but the quality of the recording is still interesting to think about sometimes, and I feel like writing about that for a few paragraphs.

I like a good recording as much as anyone, but I'm willing to forgive some poor production, mixing and mastering if the songs are strong. There are a number of poorly recorded albums out there that are still really great - I'm thinking of things like The Sisters of Mercy's First and Last and Always, Redemption (Bound)'s Home (Again), Skinny Puppy's Rabies (though that was a pressing error, more than a recording flaw; the album was later remastered and reissued), Metallica's ...And Justice For All and Death Magnetic, Simple Minds's Reel to Real Cacophony; even my favorite album, The Cure's Disintegration sports some rather murky recording (lucky for us, in less than a week that will hopefully be rectified, as it has been for The Sisters and Simple Minds albums).

The issue of an album's recording has become more of a thing after indulging in a long(ish) Metallica binge. During this heavy metal indulgence, I read a less than impressive book on Metallica's songs, which drew my attention to ...And Justice For All's (poor) recording quality. I've always really liked the Justice album. It appealed to me much sooner than Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets, and even Metallica (the Black Album). But I didn't notice the crappy recording. I knew it sounded different, but seeing how I was in jr. high at the time, an album's recording quality wasn't the thing I was most interested in when it came to listening to music. Anyway, after recently listening to the disc a couple times, I can see the problems that people have been talking about - the biggest issue being that you can hardly hear the bass, which you think I'd have picked up on since I am such a fan of the bass guitar.

Recently, while reading some reviews of the Metallica documentary, Metallica: Some Kind of Monster, I stumbled across some posts on the recording quality of Metallica's most recent album, Death Magnetic. They weren't very nice, complaining about how loud the album is - meaning how loud the album is recorded. Again, I had noticed the album sounded different and was loud, but I failed to notice that it was how loud the recording was, not just how high I had the volume. This explained why I've often found myself turning Death Magnetic down more and more while listening to it. The disc is too loud, and it's really too bad, because the songs are really good (except for the closer "My Apocalypse", which is just kinda there). I could argue that part of the reason why I missed the recording issue on Death Magnetic is that I've been listening to a 192 kbps mp3 rather than the CD or vinyl, but the truth is I just missed it.

So what does it matter that Death Magnetic is recorded too loud? Well, it's a matter of compression, as was explained in a very enjoyable article in the now canceled magazine Stylus. Writer Nick Southall explains how the new thing in recording is compression. The more you compress a disc, the louder it gets; if you compress it too much the album will be so loud that it clips (basically, the sound is shot and sounds bad). Even if you don't compress an album to the point of clipping, it still pushes all the volume levels on the album to one average level, which is unnatural and weird to listen to. Variation in sound levels is a natural thing to music and the ear likes it much better - listen to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, to see what I mean. In the case of Death Magnetic, the whole album sounds like it's being played at maximum volume, so maximum that the instruments begin to blend together and the sounds distort, which make the album less appropriate for your headphones and more appropriate for a Gitmo torture cell. When I don't even need to drive my speakers beyond their limits to get clipping, there's a problem.

Unfortunately, Metallica isn't the only sinner when it comes to high compression recordings. It's actually becoming the norm amongst the big music industry studios. Pop in an older disc and then compare that to a more recent one and it's almost guaranteed that there will be a noticeable difference in recording volume. A little compression isn't bad, but like anything there's a threshold that shouldn't be crossed.

The problem basically boils down to laziness; studios want an immediately attention-grabbing record. And listeners don't wanna turn the volume up anymore and aren't really paying attention to what they're listening to. Music wallpapers our lives - it's everywhere, and we've kind of stopped listening to it (if we ever really did). It's now just a sensory thing - a stimulant - rather than an art form, or even an entertainment. The lazy listener isn't interested in what is really going on in what they're listening to, just that they're listening to something that appeals to the most superficial needs of the listener - a beat, a melody, even just an image rather than a sound. The lazy recording artist wants their record to appeal to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible; enter high compression and botched music.

This seems another example of how the lazy, yet mainstream, use of modern technology actually creates a poorer quality product and a poorer quality experience with that product (even if we don't consciously notice, our body can tell). It's like crappy cell phone cameras being used as the primary camera rather than the emergency camera for those out of nowhere moments you just gotta have a picture of. Or watching movies on iPods, and rubbish quality YouTube videos. Again, sometimes the quality is gonna be shot and there's nothing to be done about it; but for somethings (i.e. movies; music videos; heck, even many digital cameras for home movies shoot a decent picture - is uploading them at decent quality too much to ask?) ruddy quality is rather inexcusable, especially when we dismiss cassette tapes and VHS as obsolete and poor quality - my VHS music videos look and sound better than most of the videos I've watched on YouTube.

The digital age and the mp3 explosion have saturated the music world with poor quality mp3s - they take up less space; naturally, when you cut out all those frequencies that really fill a song out, your file sizes will be smaller, but so will one's listening pleasure (give Dead Can Dance's Within the Realm of a Dying Sun or Mike Oldfield's Light + Shade a cd vs. 192kbps mp3 comparison and it becomes really obvious how much is lost in the conversion). We absorb all these things because they're easy and convenient, not because they're better. It also doesn't help that we're often listening to our music on junky speakers/headphones - iPod and Skullcandy headphones are good for wasting resources and feeding landfills, not for listening to music; that single miniature speaker in our laptops is also hardly a listening device, but it can be temporarily useful when it's all you have available.

Perhaps this all sounds a bit pretentious, elitist, and preachy. Fair enough. Sometimes we should be a little elitist about things. I happen to feel like talking about music recordings this time. It's what has my interest at the moment. As one with some technology issues and a perhaps unhealthy love of music, I've just been thinking that we could stand to pay attention to what we're listening to a little more, and paying attention to how the music is recorded as well as the music itself. It's good to sometimes sit down and just listen to an album and really focus on the album - like we would (hopefully) focus on a movie we're watching or a book we're reading.

Photo by Mothslayer

How to Destroy Angels Gets It Right

I already blogged about this on that other blog that no one reads. But I felt like quickly doing so again here, so this news can reach my entire reader fanbase.

All week I've been enamored with the EP from How to Destroy Angels. I kinda think they have one of the best band names in recent times. And it only gets better when you see the music video for opening track "The Space in Between." Like the band name, this video is so goth, especially when you notice that the dead couple is Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails fame) and his wife Mariqueen Maandig, who, with Atticus Ross (the smoking guy), comprise the band. That Reznor and his wife have now done a nice, gothic, industrial rock album together is cool enough, but to then do this video is just really awesome to me. Though others may find it to be a bit much.

The video is rather intense and gruesome, but effective and well put together. I can't get over how fabulous it is that Reznor and Maandig, married as of last year, decide to be the dead married couple in their video. It's pretty awesome in that suffocatingly or masochistically gothic way that really intrigues and amuses me. Reminds me of that great Buffy line: "When you kiss me, I want to die." As dark as this video may be, there's something really charming about this married couple collaborating on a project like this. Paradoxically, it seems to dispel some of the darkness, if that makes sense. "The Space in Between" lays the darkness on thicker than many of the other tracks on this EP, and is a track that deserves to be performed by a band called How to Destroy Angels. With a band name like that I expect their music to blot out the sun. They come closest to achieving supreme darkness on "The Space in Between" and "A Drowning." The others seem to sport a touch less of that really dark Reznor edge found in some of his Nails work. But then I remember that this is Reznor working on an album with his wife, and then it seems to make sense that the songs here would be dark, but not suffocating; they're just darkly charming, which is a really nice thing.

If you dig what you see and hear, you can download the EP for free. How to Destroy Angels has released this EP as a free download, winning them big points. Offering free downloads of albums is a really fabulous and ultimately financially successful move, as proven by Radiohead's pay-what-you-want initial release of In Rainbows, and Nine Inch Nails's, post-record label releases Ghosts I-IV and The Slip. Giving your music away for free doesn't mean you lose money. Radiohead and Nails have both made plenty of cash off the CD and vinyl releases of those free albums, not to mention the people who then went to their concerts and bought other merchandise. Yeah, these two bands are doing alright. Granted, they were both already successful and basically able to do whatever they wanted, but the principle behind file sharing and offering free music still seems sound; I've attended many concerts and purchased many CDs of bands far less successful than Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails that I discovered through "illegal" means. I have CD versions of all the aforementioned albums, because I not only like to have a tangible copy of the music I love, but also because I like to support the artists I love. What I don't support are music industry executives controlling an album's cost and the profits, keeping most of the cash for themselves instead of letting most of the cash go to the artists who made the album. The music industry has been wringing everything they can out of consumers for a long time and it has only gotten worse with the digital iTunes age.

But for now I can thank Reznor and his band mates for releasing How to Destroy Angels's EP as a free download and later offering a CD issue for me to buy (which will sound even better than the 320 kbps downloadable version). Reznor has pretty well figured out how to succeed as a musician while also pleasing fans, as evident by advice he offered last year to new/unknown bands. A band who is generous to its fans is much more likely to receive a bit of money, not just from me, but from fans at large. Aren't we all more willing to support someone who we feel is considerate of us as fans and not just as numbers to suck money out of? Such a band is much more likely to get a bit of my money through a CD purchase - or a vinyl purchase, if I could ever get a functioning, quality record player (vinyl still sounds the best, too). How to Destroy Angels, working outside the industry, is succeeding where the industry continues to fail; they've released a good EP of songs made with complete creative control, they've released it for free, and will then release a purchasable album version of the disc so that those who wish to pay - and there are many - will do so. Only the industry loses on this one, and that's fine with me.

More Facebook - Dodging the Issue

It seems that the growing outcry from unhappy Facebookers finally got Mark Zuckerberg's attention. Or maybe he just read my earlier blog post and felt bad. The former sounds more likely, while the latter is me sometimes thinking that people read my blog. Whatever the reason, there has been more news on Facebook's recent bumblings, because Zuckerberg is intent on keeping us all happy, or just doesn't want to look like a colossal chump.

Zuckerberg published a letter in the Washington Post addressing some of the privacy issues that have people in a real huff right now. While Zuckerberg admits to Facebook making some mistakes and dropping the ball on giving users simple and substantial control over their privacy, he fails to acknowledge that Facebook has indeed been giving advertisers, like Google's DoubleClick and Yahoo!'s Right Media, people's personal information. He notes that people are concerned how their private information is being used, but then just lists "the principles under which Facebook operates." The first three are my favorite:

-- You have control over how your information is shared.

-- We do not share your personal information with people or services you don't want.

-- We do not give advertisers access to your personal information.

Yeah, okay, Mark. These principles must work more like guidelines, since lately all three of these have been conveniently overlooked. That the letter fails to admit that user information has in fact been distributed to advertisers and that control of information is hardly in our hands alone seems a gross oversight. Sure, the privacy settings and usage might be confusing for some, but it is manageable. Users really do have some flexibility and control over their privacy, though improvements can and should always be pursued. But using the privacy settings well, is not my primary concern. I wanna know why our information is being beamed out across the web, without our permission, to people who didn't even ask for that information. What made that okay and how does that gel with these principles? An admission of dishonesty and an apology seems a small thing to ask for, but we didn't even get that. It was just more schmoozing corporate blabber that only went halfway, addressing the less important half.

Once again, we've been served poorly, leaving me rather skeptical about the future privacy improvements. Maybe instead of improving user privacy controls, Facebook should first just adhere to the principles they set for themselves.

"You [don't] have control over what you share"

Some comforting news:

Facebook has decided privacy isn't really that important and has been sharing private information with advertising companies, even if those companies don't ask for the information. The reasoning behind this is partially explained by Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg's statement that "privacy was no longer a 'social norm.'" So that makes dishing everyone's info off to advertisers fine, because none of us care about privacy anymore.

Zuckerberg's claim doesn't seem to gel a recent poll which showed that 60% of Facebook users have considered deleting their accounts due to privacy concerns. Course, the poll notes that the bulk of that 60% have most likely bent over and accepted the privacy policy changes as a tolerable inconvenience, rather actually following through with their complaints and shutting down their accounts. Me and mine certainly haven't given up those precious accounts that keep us connected to all the everything happening in anyone's life. So maybe Zuckerberg is right, "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people."

Even if we have become more open and less private in our online lives, who wants their info handed out to advertisers? And who is Zuckerberg to claim that EVERYONE is more open with their private info. Sure, we're happy to post private, sometimes humiliating pictures and videos of ourselves (which we have at least some privacy control over), but that's hardly the same as someone else deciding - without telling us or getting our permission - to give personal contact info, user names, and other more sensitive material to advertising companies. (Or maybe it is the same. Something to think about . . .) We are told that, "You should have control over what you share." It sounds nice - sounds like Zuckerberg has our interests at heart. But just because we "should" have control, doesn't mean we do have control, and it certainly doesn't mean that Zuckerberg gives a fig about our private lives.

I think that people might be more open about their lives, but we like to think that that openness is on our own terms. We all start our blogs; our Facebook, MySpace, Twitter accounts; our Flickr and Photobucket picture accounts; even our own websites. All of this supposedly gives us more opportunity to stay connected to people we want to be connected with. Or it gives us a chance to "make our voices heard" about things we feel like talking about - the common person now has a voice. Except that common voice gets swallowed up in the digital, ever-expanding universe. This technological explosion sounds pretty nice, except that it eventually just becomes static. Who can actually stay connected to 900+ Facebook friends?

Our use of the technologies is rather naive and bumbling a lot of the time, and we get sucked into the webosphere without correctly and constructively navigating it. Plenty of people (probably myself included) have some techno-anxiety - be it Facebook (like the Anti-Facebook League of Intelligentsia) or just the internet in general. There's substance behind some of these techno-suspicions; the internet, like anything, is a tool to be utilized by the user. If we don't know how to use it right, it won't work for us as well as it could, and might even work against us. Unfortunately, there isn't a real good set of operating instructions that everyone has and reads. We often just kinda jump in and start clicking, which usually results in viruses, porn ads, and stolen identities.

Facebook is a tool, too. But its use value might be nearing its end.

White Noise

The blogosphere:


Enjoy.

In the Cathedral

The Choir of the Cathedral of the Madeleine put on an exceptional carol service Monday night. Every year my family tries to go up and hear at least one of the carol services. We've often tried to go to the Christmas Eve service, but this year it worked out better to go on Monday, which I have no problem with because it seems that the Madeleine Choir is incredible any time they perform.

The choir entered singing "O Come, O Come Emanuel", which the audience is invited to sing along with during the fourth, fifth, and seventh verses. A couple behind us failed to note this detail and began belting out the first verse at full volume. I felt momentarily annoyed because "O Come, O Come Emanuel" is one of my favorite carols and the choir's performance is always about the most overwhelmingly gorgeous thing in music. But I couldn't be annoyed with this couple, even if they weren't the best singers and certainly couldn't harmonize with each other, because they were so happy to be there and singing and you could tell they loved that song and the opportunity to sing it in the Cathedral of the Madeleine with the choir. So it was still a lovely experience.

This service included several songs I hadn't heard the choir perform before, like the "Coventry Carol", "Myn Lyking", and "Jesus Christ the Apple Tree". Beautiful, all of them. "Jesus Christ the Apple Tree" was particularly wonderful to me and I wanted to share the text with you here.

The tree of life my soul hath seen,
Laden with fruit and always green:
The trees of nature fruitless be
Compared with Christ the apple tree.

His beauty doth all things excel:
By faith I know, but ne'er can tell
The glory which I now can see
In Jesus Christ the apple tree.

For happiness I long have sought,
And pleasure dearly I have bought:
I missed of all: but now I see
'Tis found in Christ the apple tree.

I'm weary with my former toil,
Here I will sit and rest awhile:
Under the shadow I will be,
Of Jesus Christ the apple tree.

This fruit doth make my soul to thrive,
It keeps my dying faith alive;
Which makes my soul in haste to be
With Jesus Christ the apple tree.

- poem set to music by Elizabeth Poston (1905-1987)

If you haven't yet been to the Cathedral of the Madeleine, I'd recommend visiting. It's a lovely place; one of my favorite in Salt Lake.