The Man in Blak

Well then. I guess I won't be sending you any of my La Bottine Souriante collection anytime soon.

What in the world are you talking about? And I wouldn't go so far as to say that In Rainbows is as good as the White Album - I'm not even sure it's even that much better than Amnesiac, honestly - but I think the comparison works somewhat when you consider each album's place in its respective catalogue. Both were stripped down affairs that assimilated all of the band's previous influences into one place. Both are marked by production/distribution controversies (the former with the all-digital "name your own price" approach, the latter with the blank white album cover and the DYI-ish "outtake" approach to many of the tracks). Both arguably never approach the high points established by previous albums with a single track (though "Videotape" and "Happiness is a Warm Gun" come very, very close).

As the album closer, I can see why they probably made the choice to go with a more subdued approach, just to provide an appropriate come down. But I've got two problems with that: 1. There's no need to come down from what has already been a really mellow album to that point. If anything, that's the time to go for a slow burn into one last, huge cathartic moment, which would be a perfect situation for the driving live take on the track. 2. Their swing at it kind of sucks. If there's one strength that Radiohead has shown on their stronger songs of the past, it's been their ability to introduce electronic elements into their music and somehow make it seem more organic. The rolling drum sample is not one of their better moments and the last loop that the song rides out on doesn't come off smoothly either. It's still a very good song, but it's great in spite of those changes when it could have been a mindblowing closing number, in my opinion, and that's where a lot of the frustration amongst the Radiohead faithful comes from.

I realize that I'm invoking a potentially dangerous comparison, but the White Album didn't have a "unified sound" behind it either. One other thing to consider, if you're not understanding the appeal of the album - the tone of the lyrics and music has shifted a little bit, as the paranoia has seemed to take a backseat to some more inviting concepts. "House of Cards" almost sounds sexy, quite possibly a Radiohead first; Thom even sings "I don't want to be your friend / I just want to be your lover", for fuck's sake.

Well, I think it's being called the best Radiohead album ever because, in a way, it provides the most accessible look at all of the stages of Radiohead's development. Songs that wouldn't have sounded out of place on Amnesiac ("15 Step") sit alongside others that could fit rather snugly into The Bends ("House of Cards", "Jigsaw Falling Into Place"). If you look at the track rankings that people have put together on the Green Plastic message board and elsewhere, you'll notice that many of the lists are completely different from each other. It's like a big Radiohead potluck. In Rainbows bridges the gap between the different artistic directions that Radiohead has taken throughout their career and, by doing so, it somewhat downplayed the divisive electro-orchestral-jazz ideal that they used for Kid A/Amnesiac, which was probably your favorite album(s).

Between last night and this morning's commute, I've ran through a couple of playthroughs and I'm liking it. It doesn't really blow you away at first - there's no fence-clearing shot like "Pyramid Song" or "Paranoid Android" to be found here - but it's far more solid from start to finish than Hail to the Thief and maybe even Amnesiac as well. If there's a weak link to be found, it's probably "All I Need", which sounds like Thom listening to Board of Canada's "Roygbiv", deciding to put some words on it, and staplegunning a fat climactic swell onto the ass end of it. That's not to say that it's actively bad, but it's a definite road bump. All in all, though, I could really see this growing on me, but I still can't believe that they neutered "Videotape" and "Arpeggi" when it came to the drums for the studio versions. Listening, waiting, and failing to hear the drums pick up on "Videotape" illicited an audible "oh, what the fuck are you doing" from me, which hasn't really happened on a Radiohead album since I endured "Sit Down. Stand Up." for the first time. Of all the tracks to bait and switch from the live versions (Good Idea: "Reckoner"), why would you choose one that's arguably one of the best songs you've written in years? EDIT: Linked to the wrong Youtube clip.

Not to digress too far from the album, but the bit rate is only part of the deal. The type of bit rate (variable vs. constant) and the method that the encoder uses for dealing with redundant stereo signals (e.g. joint-stereo encoding) can go a long way towards enhancing the quality of the file, regardless of whether its 128kbs or 160kbs or whatever. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I've heard 128kbs rips that sound better than 192kbs - the audio artifacts for 128kbs, especially in the drums, make my skin crawl at times - but I'm pretty confident that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 160kbs (which is what I believe In Rainbows is encoded in) and 192kbs (arguably your best quality/size ratio for most folks), especially if they were listening through an mp3 player or headphones.

Here are his defensive numbers, which are based upon the combination of a couple of different metrics around Zone Rating. (Full spreadsheet, which I believe was compiled by Sean Smith, is here, if you want to investigate further.) He's about average, but it doesn't appear that he can play shortstop competently (at least not from his past ZRs there) and he certainly doesn't have the bat to carry even a roster spot as a non-SS utility infield guy. I don't think he's going to be much more than "organizational depth."

The pythagorean record has got to be one of the most overrated analytical tools in the sabermetric toolbox. It doesn't account for extra innings, it isn't park adjusted, it holds an inherent bias against winning home teams (who don't have as many innings to score runs as the losing road team), it obscures changes in the roster over the sample period, and it doesn't really deal with "noise" in run distribution (blowouts vs. one-run games). Everybody's so quick to point out that pythagorean record has more predictive value than overall W-L record, but how much more predictive value does it really give you? Recent numbers cited at BTF indicate that first half pythag has had a 51% (moderate, but not really strong) correlation with second half wins in this decade, which is only 4% better than 1st half W-L record. And never mind that the run environment and managerial tactics in the regular season are quite different than what we see in the playoffs, which is a crucial point to consider when you're dealing with a team like the 2007 Diamondbacks that has been more prone to losing blowouts games by using absolutely terrible relievers in mop-up situations. These crappy relievers, who aren't even the same league as the "core" part of the Arizona bullpen, won't likely see the same percentage of innings in the playoffs, where long-term resource management (i.e. saving the arms of your best relievers) takes a backseat towards getting any chance for a win. Pythagorean record does have some utility as an estimator for future success, but it is far from law in any case, especially in the context of a team like the Diamondbacks, whose bullpen usage directly led to an abnormal run distribution throughout the regular season.

I really like the TBS coverage, vanilla commentary be damned. I never imagined how refreshing it would be to have a broadcast that didn't have graphics constantly moving around with steam noises, stupid camera angles (batter's box cam, angst-ridden home team fan cam), Scooter, or Tim McCarver. Obviously, there are some things that need to be improved - I do agree that they need to set up some better coverage of the crowd noise for the standard signal, Frank Thomas shouldn't be anywhere near the studio, and Don Orsillo really doesn't appear to have any discernible personality whatsoever. But, in my opinion, this is leaps and bounds above Fox as a pure baseball broadcast, and the extra stuff that TBS presents through the Hot Corner on MLB.com is a nice touch as well.

Okay, with that in mind, would something like this Olevia 26" LCD be the way to go? It's got the 16:9 aspect, and it looks like it comes with an HDMI cable. How would it work in a basement, though - aren't LCDs recommended for well-lit rooms?

Lackey may have turned in a ridiculous season, but he's 0-2 with an 8.38 ERA in two starts against the Red Sox this year. When you factor in the rest of his career against Boston, that sample doesn't seem so far out of line. Obviously, anything can happen - it's a short series with the season on the line. I just think that the odds are against the Angels to put something together against a Boston team that has outclassed them in almost every phase of the game.

LA's main strength is their pitching and their staff hasn't really done well against Boston at all: Lackey's got a 6.27 career ERA against the Red Sox in 11 starts and Jered Weaver has been lit up for almost seven runs per nine in the two starts he had this year. Guerrero has been banged up and Gary Matthews Jr. isn't even on the postseason roster, due to his knee. I don't think a sweep is an unrealistic possibility.

Red Sox over Angels in 3 Yankees over Indians in 4 Cubs over Diamondbacks in 4 Phillies over Rockies in 5

We're in the process of moving to a new house and I'm trying to pick up a new HD-capable TV on the cheap (~$500) to use in the basement. Gaming would probably be the primary function for the TV. I stumbled upon a 27" Samsung CRT on Best Buy that looked fairly decent - does anybody have any experiences with this model/manufacturer or have any recommendations?

Okay, I lied. I gave 2007 some attention on the last couple of commutes and I think I can put what I've heard into tiers, with some comments sprinkled throughout. The Contenders: - Deerhoof, Friend Opportunity Finally, the band stumbles onto the grand unification theory of its various tendencies and releases a cohesive and memorable album from start to finish. There's no "Wrong Time Capsule" on here, but "The Perfect Me" comes pretty damn close and the rest of the album is leaps and bounds above the remainders that comprise much of their earlier material. My personal favorite for the year. - Animal Collective, Strawberry Jam Impossibly bizarre, but compelling, as always. I need to check out the solo Panda Bear as well. - Low, Drums and Guns - LCD Soundsystem, Sound of Silver - Radiohead, In Rainbows Even the tracks that seem a little scuffed up have hooks that can dig into your skin (the cresting strings that close "All I Need", the zigzagging guitar interplay in "Jigsaws Falling Into Place"), but it's the tracks that owe clear debts to other genres that are the real eye-openers: soul in "Reckoner", McCartney-esque symphonic folk in "Faust Arp", dub in the surprisingly sexed up "House of Cards." The opener shows that Thom and co. can still seamlessly integrate electronic music into their work, but the rest of the album brings the listener to a more important conclusion: Radiohead can make a pop album, with "pop" having the same robust context that once applied to the word when some group called The Beatles roamed the earth. And if the mere possibility that "House of Cards" could land on Jennifer Garner's workout playlist disturbs you, then you may be cheating yourself out of an album that is closer to the Holy Radiohead Triumvirate than you'd think on the first playthrough. Still Pretty Good: - White Stripes, Icky Thump - The National, Boxer You can't see the cultural saturation? Maybe I just happen to frequent a remarkably savvy hardware store. Nevertheless, this one's a keeper, even if it takes more than a couple of listens for the literary nature of the lyrics to set in. I'd say that they sound like Tindersticks if they decided to be a rock band, but that would probably just piss people off. - Deerhunter, Cryptograms - Exploding Star Orchestra, We Are All From Somewhere Else - Andrew Bird, Armchair Apocrypha Eh: - The Arcade Fire, Neon Bible You ever get the sense that the Arcade Fire are like Daffy Duck and Funeral is the trick that they can only do once? People that were disappointed with the album struggled to quantify exactly why that is, pointing to Springsteen and different (and perhaps overblown) arrangement techniques, but I think the root cause is simple enough - the songwriting just sucks a bit this time around. That being said, I do like the Black songs - "Black Mirror", "Black Wave/Bad Vibrations" - and the second look at "No Cars Go" is a definite highlight, but most of the rest of the album drags where it should soar, fizzles where the band was once explosive, and fails to bring about any sense of the catharsis that made Funeral such a memorable album. - Battles, Mirrored I really want to like this one and I'll admit that the highpoints hold their own well enough - "Race In", "Tonto", and "Atlas" (which takes a while to get past, thanks to the fact that the song unabashedly rips off the groove behind "The Beautiful People") are definitely worth checking out - but so much of the rest of what's on here could be snipped out of the album without anybody even missing it. There's a reason this band has stuck with EPs throughout their whole career up to this point. - Menomena, Friend And Foe - Blind Cave Salamander, Blind Cave Salamander - Of Montreal, Hissing Fauna, Are You The Destroyer? Bleh: - Amiina, Kurr - Band of Horses, Cease to Begin - Minus the Bear, Planet of Ice - Bright Eyes, Cassadaga Conor Oberst is an unfortunate paradox - the overbearing ego and pervasive condescension are probably as crucial to his artistic process as they are destructive to the end results. Ah, well. Sure, "The Brakeman Turns My Way" is especially bad, but at least he's not staging in-album interviews with himself anymore. - A Place To Bury Strangers, A Place To Bury Strangers Dear God No: - Apples in Stereo, New Magnetic Wonder A new revolution in songcraft - falling asleep on your electric piano after hitting the Tuning button. Non-Pythagorean Scale my ass. The rest of the album rips off ELO, though, so I guess it's not a complete disaster. - Smashing Pumpkins, Zeitgeist How many times can you attempt (and somehow, unbelievably, fail) at rewriting "Zero"? And you say there's a ten minute dirge called "United States"? The Statue of Liberty's standing amidst a sea of blood? Somebody smash a television with a cricket bat.

As for the actual quality of the album, here's a track-by-track breakdown with samples of live performances of the new material, courtesy of Rolling Stone. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/166...bytrack_preview

Maybe I'm cynical, but the idea comes off as pretension, rather than revolution, to my eyes. Offering DRM-free downloads with a request for donation is an awfully convenient way to combine anti-establishment (Radiohead doesn't need record labels!) with pseudo-innovation (Radiohead doesn't need conventional CDs!). If they really wanted to push a moral quandary upon the music-buying populace, why not forgo all non-download distribution streams entirely? Aren't they pulling their punches a little bit by providing the consumer with an unbelievably bloated (and hilariously overpriced) box set as an alternative? Or simply hedging their bets? Look, the pirates are going to gank the album anyway. The honest folks that would have normally shelled out $14-18 for the album proper will be staring down the prospects of an absurd box set in December for gratification; they'll have all of the incentive in the world to lowball or completely cheapass it and download it for virtually nothing. And it's going to be hard to rationalize a purchase of the conventional CD release months down the line (Early 2008?) when the album has already started to reach saturation level and the option of a cheaper and ultimately legal download is still available.

It's hard to argue that Hamilton "came back" from anything, considering that he only made his major league debut this season. Ankiel, however, would have probably been the concensus choice, had the Cardinals called him up earlier in the season. And HGH.

Maybe it's just me, but the undertones to Belichick's carefully scripted apology (far from contrite) and the team's eagerness to run up the score on everybody seem to indicate that the Patriots - brace yourselves - feel disrespected. I don't think that an undefeated season is likely - I just disagreed with the idea that Belichick would rest the key guys leading into the playoffs if he had the opportunity for an undefeated season.

If the Patriots somehow get to the final weeks of the season with an undefeated record, I can't see Belichick easing off of the throttle for the playoffs. Not only does he understand the magnitude of having the opportunity for an undefeated season, but he understands that running the table would basically be the ultimate "fuck off" to the league and the media for CameraGate.

Thanks to a staggering run of incompetence by Dan O'Dowd, it's pretty easy to forget that the Rockies may have actually had a better long-term outlook than the Marlins back in '95 when the Blake Street Bombers were around and the team was a perennial league leader in attendance. I don't think anybody in their right mind would argue that they have the historic cachet of the Yankees or even the Padres, but they're not a completely faceless franchise. That being said, I think the Phillies have a slight edge for the series, if only because the short series allows them to mask their greatest weakness (pitching). Like the 2006 Cardinals, the ghastly five man rotation that nearly torpedoed their season becomes a halfway decent trio for the playoffs, with a top shelf pitcher that outclasses anybody that the Rockies can bring to the table.

I think I did pretty well, all things considered. I underestimated Colorado's young pitching and I overestimated Detroit's rotation but, by and large, I matched up with the final standings fairly closely.

I haven't really listened to enough of my 2007 stuff to really put together any kind of decent suggestion, but I'm surprised that nobody has even put forth The National's Boxer as a suggestion. Not necessarily because it's great, but just because it seems to have dibs on that elusive cross-section of indie appeal and mainstream acceptance. I mean, I heard "Fake Empire" in a goddamn hardware store the other day.