Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘reviews’

It was during a recent MRI that I discovered how much my relationship to music has changed.

I’d just been informed that this imaging session would include the use of a contrast agent, gadolinium, which was unexpected. I’ve had MRIs with contrast agents before—specifically back during our search for the cause of my TIA—and I find them annoying, not only because of the (admittedly slight) discomfort, but also because stating that “Heavy metal is in my blood!” is never as funny spoken out loud as it sounds in my head. And so, I was a little off my game, what with the plastic shunt in my arm, the supposedly noise-canceling cans over my ears, and my head deep inside the tube upon which angry ogres would soon begin to pound with ill-tuned hammers, when the technician spoke into the cans.

“Would you like some music?”

“Sure.” Music is almost always a good idea.

“What would you like to listen to?”

It should have been a simple question, and there was a time when it would have been a simple question, back in the day when I actually bought albums and played them so often that, even today, if I were to hear Jethro Tull’s Thick as a Brick, I could tell you the exact spot where my LP used to skip. But I don’t buy albums anymore. I stream them. More to the point, I rarely queue up specific albums, but rather I stream individual songs, lists of similar-sounding tracks, all curated by an algorithm. I don’t even know the names of many of the artists I listen to; their songs play past without my knowing who they are or the albums they’ve released. (That is, of course, if they release albums, instead of a long parade of singles and EPs.)

This simple question caused my brain to seize up. I tried to think of one of the artists I do know, but I also needed one whose name was easy to relate from the inside of a torpedo tube. The only names I was able to recall would either require that I spell them out—Halestorm, Les Friction. Ursine Vulpine—or were names that I didn’t even know how to pronounce—Nemesea, SVRCINA—so, instead of simply pulling up one of the clearly-named bands from my youth (Genesis, Yes, The Beatles), my brain went to its default, the music to which I was first introduced.

“Classical is fine.”

Turns out, J.D. Vance isn’t the only one who finds listening to classical music unusual, because as my little cubbyhole began to hum and whir and thump and bang, my technician treated me not to Mozart or Beethoven or Bach, but to orchestral renditions of popular songs—at least I presume they were popular songs; I only recognized one of them—which is rather like watching a very self-conscious person try to dance for the first time.

Thankfully, the supposedly noise-canceling cans over my ears didn’t, so the music was mostly drowned out by the MRI’s percussion section, and I found my toes tapping to the ogres’ hammers rather than to the milquetoast rendition of Sia’s “Chandelier.”

Thus, my Twenty Minutes in a Tube ended and I was released from my purgatory, free once more to return to my scattershot playlists of jumbled songs from artists I cannot name.

Progress? I’m not so sure.

k

Read Full Post »

  • “Top 10 Reads for the Summer”
  • “The Best Games of 2023, Ranked”
  • “Twelve Items Every Pantry Must Have”
  • “5 Movies You Need to See”
  • “Seattle’s Best Restaurants”

There is no scarcity of voices eager to tell us what to do, what to like, what is good. “Listicles” abound, plastered with headlines shot through with words like “Best” and “Ranked.” But, “Best” according to whom? Who decides how these things are “Ranked?” Not me, for sure. Probably not you, either. But here’s the thing:

  • I’m enjoying a book my friend didn’t like.
  • The music I’m listening to is probably not on your playlists.
  • I loathe brie cheese.
  • A well-maintained and -manicured lawn is my idea of a crime against nature.

In other words, my tastes are different than yours, and yours are different than mine. And that’s okay.

My tastes in music, books, and cuisine aren’t better than anyone else’s. Yes, I was trained as a musician, have written novels, and have taught myself to be a better cook, but my personal likes and dislikes in these areas aren’t better. Obviously, they have been influenced by what I’ve learned, but they’re not better. “Better” presumes there is some Platonic ideal against which all others are found lacking, and while this might work for some objects, when it comes to things like sandwiches, it’s useless. There is no “best” sandwich. There’s just your favorite kind of sandwich. And there’s mine.

“Bestseller” doesn’t mean “best,” and it damned sure doesn’t mean you’ll like it. Neither do awards, kudos, upvotes, likes, retweets, or some stranger’s rankings.

Where there are quantifiable characteristics that can be evaluated, let’s compare and discuss them; we might learn something, see something we never saw before, and possibly modify our opinion. But when we’re dealing with the unquantifiable, when we’re talking about basic visceral likes and dislikes, we just need to chalk it up to personal preference.

I’ll enjoy what I enjoy, and you do the same. I won’t think less of you because you love brie cheese (though I may wonder how you manage it).

In short, I don’t want to yuck your yum.

k

Read Full Post »

Gentlefolk, start your DVRs.

Ripper Street is back with Series 3 (that’s “Season” 3, for us here in the States), airing on BBC America beginning April 29.

BBC canceled the show after its second season, citing low viewership in the UK, but when an online petition garnered over 50,000 signatures, the production company was able to reach a deal with (what is now) Amazon Prime Instant Video to fund a third season.

UK residents have already seen this third season, and reports I’ve read state that it’s the strongest, most viscerally charged season to date. The show’s creator, Richard Warlow, was more cautious about future seasons this time, and gave the end of Season 3 a sense of closure while still leaving sufficient loose threads with which to weave a Season 4, should it get picked up again. Here’s hoping on that score! (more…)

Read Full Post »

Last year, I brought to your attention Ripper Street, the BBC  crime drama set in Whitechapel (London) in the years after the Jack the Ripper murders. Last year, the premiere season was showing on BBC America, and I was all atwitter about it.

It’s back for a second season–a good bit of news–but it’s also back in the news.

You see, Ripper Street was canceled at the end of its second season. Even The Guardian was gobsmacked by the news, calling it “Dreadful news for fans of quality drama.”

And I agree. But all is not lost.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

I watch a lot of British television–a lot for an American, that is–and not just on BBC America. I watch Masterpiece Theater, I subscribe to Acorn TV, and I even buy DVDs direct from the UK so I can see some shows not available any other way (“New Tricks” is a good example). But there’s one thing I hate about British television series: They’re too damned short.

Now that my beloved “Ripper Street” has completed its stingy 8-episode Season One, I was jonesing for a new series. I saw the ads for the new show called “Orphan Black,” but to be honest, I wasn’t going to watch. Then an advert for the opening 3-minutes popped up on my Facebook feed and I thought, why not?

In the first minutes, we meet Sara (Tatiana Maslany) at a train station somewhere near New York City. She’s a Brit, and she has serious problems. But whatever she’s up against, it’s  nothing compared to the what’s bothering that woman over there, crying at the end of the train platform. Sara goes over to the woman, and discovers that the woman looks just like her…right before the woman steps in front of the oncoming train. Sara, distraught, has a moment of panic, then a moment of clarity; she grabs the dead woman’s purse and flees the scene.

That’s the three-minute setup, and it was pretty good. Good enough, in fact, to get me to plunk it on the DVR and watch the whole episode.

Is it as good as “Ripper Street”? No. Is it better than most things on American network television? Yes.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

It’s not often that I can tie together what is arguably the grittiest crime drama on network television with a 1966 rom-com–OK, I’ve never done it, so today’s a first–and I’ll be frank with you, tieing these two objects together is going to take some doing, so have patience. I’ll get there.

Yesterday during my workout I watched “How to Steal a Million” (1966), starring Audrey Hepburn and Peter O’Toole. It is a light-hearted bit of fluff about the daughter of an art forger and a purported art thief who need to steal something to protect a secret. It’s set in Paris, Audrey is swathed in Givenchy throughout, O’Toole sports around in an XK-E, and it has several temporal “shout-outs” to the stars’ previous hits, so I’m sure it was doubly enjoyable for folks back in ’66 who’d been following these two icons through their early careers. It’s a little less believable than most romantic comedies (which means it was totally farcical), but one doesn’t watch a rom-com for believability or with any doubts as to the outcome. We watch them for the interaction, for the play, for the fun of it, and in this respect, “How to Steal a Million” delivers, even today.

I thought it was out-dated, though, because of its treatment of Ms. Hepburn’s character. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Yesterday’s post engendered some questions about getting feedback on our writing; specifically, How? More specifically, in the absence of an editor or agent, “…where does the average person seeking to improve their writing find honest and unrestrained critical feedback for their writing?”

First, let’s dispel a myth. Editors and agents don’t give you advice on how to improve as a writer. Sorry. They don’t.

Some agents (like the one I had) don’t give any constructive advice at all, but merely give you their impression of the marketability of an already completed work. Some agents are savvy enough to help a writer polish a work-in-progress, but from all the anecdotal evidence I’ve heard, they’re rare. They’re marketers, not editors.

And editors are generally only going to provide feedback on a particular work, the one they have contracted to bring to market. An editor will help you make a book you’ve written better, which may help you become a better writer, but the goal is to make the book better, not to make you a better writer. It may sound like a subtle distinction, but it isn’t.

In short, both agents and editors are focused on a single, finished work, only appear in a writer’s life after s/he has achieved a certain level of competence, and are not in the business of bringing a writer’s chops up to professional levels. After Book One, they may provide input or advice on Book Two, but they still aren’t going to tell you how to write, much less how to write well.

So, where does that leave a budding writer? (more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »