Having spent a week in Michigan on vacation I am now back. While I was there I was watching part of the Detroit Red Wings game with my brother in law and saw a commercial for a new band. But, before I talk about that I feel the need to go on one of my well know tie raids and rant.
At work we listen to the same pop top 40 hits radio station all the time. I work with other people, my vote counts as one. Majority rules. It's as simple as that. Let me highlight for all the readers out there the top 10 worst hits of all time. The songs that are guaranteed to make me puke like a college jock hung over on Sunday morning. The songs that are guaranteed to scream in agony. The songs that our military men and women should blare out of the speakers of their tanks and humvees on the streets of Islamabad as a form of Al Qaeda terrorist torture.
1. Love Story - Taylor Swift
Quite possibly the most synthesized, robotic, formulated, blood curdling, gut wrenching piece of shit ever to occupy American airwaves.
2. Hot N Cold - Katy Perry
Quite possibly the second most synthesized, robotic, formulated, blood curdling, gut wrenching piece of shit ever to occupy American airwaves. Think I will feel different after about 20 million plays every day on that same pop station? I've been known to change my mind like a girl changes clothes, so who knows.
3. SexyBack - Justin Timberlake
Justin Timberlake, the most visible member of NSUCK (pardon me, I mean NSYNC) to launch a solo career. Do the world a favor - hire a human drummer, fire your keyboardist, and finally realize you aren't a rapper and there's more to life than hip hop.
4. Shattered - O.A.R
How many times must I hear this song before I have to turn the car around because I'm going to puke.
5. Hoedown Throwdown - Miley Cyrus
I'm not even going there. Such a beautiful voice and great talent wasted. Do the world a favor, divorce Walt Disney let your dad fill his own damn achy breaky wallet with cash. You're old enough to vote and you have the potential to do much better than Disney would ever allow.
6. Everybody Wants to Rule the World - Tears For Fears
It's the holiest, most wonderful anthem of the 80's. What the hell for? They've had lots of awesome songs. This song sounds like it'd be playing in the elevator of an office building full of stale, uptight workers that should be starring in a remake of the movie "Office Space."
7. Bless The Broken Road - Rascal Flatts
You know my wife works with a lot of nurses and medical personnel. They'd all have the same warning for me - if I puke too much, I'll get dehydrated.
8. Poker Face - Lady Ga Ga
P-P-P-Poker face P-P-Poker face
S-S-S-Sound like shit S-S-Sound like shit
9. If U Seek Amy - Britney Spears
Those who actually bought this record have been seriously F-U-C-Ked by the record company. I have to spend another second listening to this fake, synthetic, unimaginitive computer generated waste of radio air time then I'd say that the radio DJ has really F-U-C-Ked me up the ass really good. It's the typical record company "sexual reference will sell an extra million copies" strategy.
10. Heaven - Warrant
From the one hit wonder band that brought us the infectiously rocking "Cherry Pie" comes this song. In the 80's it sounded like shit. It's 2009 now. It still sounds like shit. Really corny ballady shit. The kind of shit they'd play on one of those "Top 100" shows on VH1.
Having gotten all of that off my chest I'm now finished with my tie raid. Back to my original topic - the band I saw in the Best Buy commercial during the hockey game at my brother in law's house.
What makes for a really good rock band? Or really good musical artists of any kind? A lasting artist that can make not one or two, but many really good albums?
Not good looks or a wholesome boy image like the Backstreet Boys or NSYNC.
Not sex appeal like Mariah Carey or Britney Spears. Just once I'd like to see Mariah Carey step out on stage wearing a sweatshirt and sweat pants, not showing hardly a single inch of skin below the neck and see how good she sounds then. Britney might get away with it becuase she doesn't actually sing live anyway. Ouch, that was below the belt.
Not the hip-hop sound. Granted, there are lots of great hip-hop songs. But they're all singles - the rest of the album is just the same boring thing.
The key to good music in any band is this: the lead singer must fit the rest of the band. Solo artists keep the same bands as much as they can becuase they fit well with them. Do you REALLY think Queen will make another hit if they recruit that American Idol guy to take Freddy Mercury's place? George Michael has sang a few songs with Queen in live shows. He sounds better with Brian May behind him than he ever sounded by himself. How would Aerosmith sound if Steven Tyler and Joe Perry didn't blend together? Imagine Sweet Emotion. It's a great song becuase Steven and Joe blend together perfectly. The song is over 30 years old and it still sounds great today when they perform it live because Steven, the lead singer, fits together with the backing vocals and guitar style Joe Perry provides. How would Def Leppard sound if their lineup changed? They sound the way they do becuase lead singer Joe Elliot and bassist Rick Savage provide a unique vocal blend, and the rest of the band fits together perfectly. U2 without Bono? Unimaginable. Bono and Edge sound awesome together, but probably wouldn't make it by themselves.
Take Van Halen. In the early 80's they had some mediocre hits before they kicked out lead singer David Lee Roth became too difficult to work with and got fired. Replacement singer Sammy Hagar, a much better singer, came in his place. They made a live album where he sings a lot of those older hits. All of a sudden Jump is a magical rock song. Panama is electrifying. Why? Becuase Sammy Hagar and Michael Anthony are the perfect vocal match. Throw in a shredding guitar solo from Eddie and ferocious drumming from Alex, and what do you know? Rock and roll legends are born. Then they record the "OU812" album and they're rock and roll legends.
Sammy leaves the band becuase of Eddie's alcoholism, a good career move. They hire former Extreme lead singer Gary Cherone to take his place. Without former Extreme guitarist Nuno Bettencourt behind him, Gary doesn't sound like much. Van Halen doesn't sound so good anymore - becuase the lead singer doesn't fit.
Fast forward to today. A bunch of guys old and wealthy enough to easily enjoy retirement decide to collaborate. Sammy Hagar and bassist Michael Anthony are still friends. They decide to recruit guitar legend Joe Satriani and get drummer Chad Smith. What do you have? A new band called Chickenfoot. They make an album and sell it exclusively through Best Buy - a bizarre and alarming new trend. During the hockey game at my brother in law's house I see a best buy commercial advertising the self-titled album and it's first single entitled "Oh Yeah." The vocals of Sammy and Michael totally rock and are a perfect fit for Joe Satriani's unique guitar style and good, aggressive, but still human sounded drumming. They sound like they're really singing and really playing instruments, not hitting buttons on a computer. They fit together well, and as a result they're a good sounding band. I jammed with the stereo cranked all the way home from Best Buy in my car to some new music for the first time in ages.
Rock and roll lives forever.
Lady Ga Ga will end up on one of VH1's one-hit wonder shows after 5 years and try to revive her career by posing nude for Playboy in 10 years. I'm surprised Mariah Carey hasn't thought of that. If I made an album as bad as "Glitter" I'd have a nervous breakdown too.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Headed Home Tomorrow
About a year ago this weekend I visited the great state of Michigan.
This weekend, my wife and I have made the same annual trek for my second NASCAR race.
Last year I was introduced to the sport of racing and read "NASCAR for Dummies" by Mark Martin.
A year goes by, and having established myself in the sport I got to see him win a race live.
Also a much more spectacular crash. It's ok to call the crash cool - there were no injuries, except for the rattled nerves of the responding paramedics.
Some pictures for your enjoyment
Hope nobody wanted a glass of water - #12 David Stremme just crashed into it.
Mr. NASCAR for Dummies himself - obviously not a dummy as he wins.
The one and only grand marshall KID ROCK:
"Gentlemen, start your god damn mother f#$king engines" :)
This weekend, my wife and I have made the same annual trek for my second NASCAR race.
Last year I was introduced to the sport of racing and read "NASCAR for Dummies" by Mark Martin.
A year goes by, and having established myself in the sport I got to see him win a race live.
Also a much more spectacular crash. It's ok to call the crash cool - there were no injuries, except for the rattled nerves of the responding paramedics.
Some pictures for your enjoyment
Hope nobody wanted a glass of water - #12 David Stremme just crashed into it.
Mr. NASCAR for Dummies himself - obviously not a dummy as he wins.
The one and only grand marshall KID ROCK:
"Gentlemen, start your god damn mother f#$king engines" :)
Monday, May 18, 2009
Almost Spammed
Over the weekend I get an email from google saying their "automated robot" detected things on my blog site that may be spreading SPAM.
Thankfully, I replied and got reactivated.
I'm back on the air. It's a good thing - I'm glad to see someone big is fighting a big problem.
Go Google!
Thankfully, I replied and got reactivated.
I'm back on the air. It's a good thing - I'm glad to see someone big is fighting a big problem.
Go Google!
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Multitasking
Anybody who has worked in the business world has heard the most overused executive buzzword ever: multitask
Generically defined, multitasking is the ability to perform more than one task at the same time.
The term was coined in the mid 1980's by the computer industry. With the invention of Microsoft Windows (and others like it) computers were able to have more than one program running on a single computer. The operating system divided the CPU's processing time among all the programs, switching in between them very quickly, creating the illusion that all of these programs were running at the same time. Hence, users were able to perform multiple tasks at the same time, or multi-task.
Sound complicated and technical? You're right - it does. In fact, it's a computer term that was never meant to be applied to working human beings.
Fast-forward a decade or two. The term has been perverted and warped into a buzzword used by out of touch corporate managers who have their heads so far up their asses that they'll probably never figure out what's really going on.
Before I really go into an on-line tie raid let me just say one thing. I own this blog, and the beauty of blogging is that you can be as direct and irreverent as you want to be. This is my place to say all the loudmouthed obnoxious things I'd never say in real life. Very few people I know realize this page exists - I do not share it with members of my family. Unlike social networking sites, where the point is to communicate with friends, the point of this site is to express what's inside.
Put less eloquently: if you like what you read, good for you. If you're offended, then go google it and find another site to read. I do not allow reader comments becuase I personally could care less what anybody has to say about what I write. It's blogger, not twitter.
Now, imagine yourself at work. Regardless of what you do - healthcare, accounting, marketing, retail, information technology, or law, the scenario has been experienced everywhere. You're at your desk. You're getting calls and the phone won't stop. You have paperwork to do. You have emails to answer. Your boss is wanting status on all of the above. You have a nice hot cup of coffee (or in my case Earl Grey tea, just like Star Trek) and you get to it. And you know what? A few hours go by and you come to a startling realization: you've gotten a lot of work done!
Now - imagine yourself doing all of the above in one morning. That afternoon, your manager takes you into their office. It's time for your annual performance review. Your marks are pretty good - average in some places, above average in others. Overall, they think you're doing well. Except you endure an hour of all the little things you're doing wrong, how you could have done them better, and so on.
The solution? You just need to multitask better. The better you can multitask, the more you can do at the same time, the more work you can get done, and the more productive you are. Nevermind that you've accomplished a lot and you're learning more all the time and you're in a constant state of improvement. They aren't impressed by what you've done for your company, or even what you've done for them lately. No, they just think you're not getting enough done, and the solution is to multitask better. After all, they have a lot more work for you to do and they're too damn cheap to pay for it all. It's the classic story of corporate america. It happens everywhere.
Think about that the next time you see a want ad where the descriptions reads "a dynamic position in a fast-paced work environment where good multitasking skills are essential." It acutally means "we'll work you 50 hours a week, pay you for 40, and make you feel bad about it when you don't meet corporate goals that are unrealistic to begin with."
Did you get that memo?
Apparently I missed it. Maybe I'll ask my boss to get me another copy.
Generically defined, multitasking is the ability to perform more than one task at the same time.
The term was coined in the mid 1980's by the computer industry. With the invention of Microsoft Windows (and others like it) computers were able to have more than one program running on a single computer. The operating system divided the CPU's processing time among all the programs, switching in between them very quickly, creating the illusion that all of these programs were running at the same time. Hence, users were able to perform multiple tasks at the same time, or multi-task.
Sound complicated and technical? You're right - it does. In fact, it's a computer term that was never meant to be applied to working human beings.
Fast-forward a decade or two. The term has been perverted and warped into a buzzword used by out of touch corporate managers who have their heads so far up their asses that they'll probably never figure out what's really going on.
Before I really go into an on-line tie raid let me just say one thing. I own this blog, and the beauty of blogging is that you can be as direct and irreverent as you want to be. This is my place to say all the loudmouthed obnoxious things I'd never say in real life. Very few people I know realize this page exists - I do not share it with members of my family. Unlike social networking sites, where the point is to communicate with friends, the point of this site is to express what's inside.
Put less eloquently: if you like what you read, good for you. If you're offended, then go google it and find another site to read. I do not allow reader comments becuase I personally could care less what anybody has to say about what I write. It's blogger, not twitter.
Now, imagine yourself at work. Regardless of what you do - healthcare, accounting, marketing, retail, information technology, or law, the scenario has been experienced everywhere. You're at your desk. You're getting calls and the phone won't stop. You have paperwork to do. You have emails to answer. Your boss is wanting status on all of the above. You have a nice hot cup of coffee (or in my case Earl Grey tea, just like Star Trek) and you get to it. And you know what? A few hours go by and you come to a startling realization: you've gotten a lot of work done!
Now - imagine yourself doing all of the above in one morning. That afternoon, your manager takes you into their office. It's time for your annual performance review. Your marks are pretty good - average in some places, above average in others. Overall, they think you're doing well. Except you endure an hour of all the little things you're doing wrong, how you could have done them better, and so on.
The solution? You just need to multitask better. The better you can multitask, the more you can do at the same time, the more work you can get done, and the more productive you are. Nevermind that you've accomplished a lot and you're learning more all the time and you're in a constant state of improvement. They aren't impressed by what you've done for your company, or even what you've done for them lately. No, they just think you're not getting enough done, and the solution is to multitask better. After all, they have a lot more work for you to do and they're too damn cheap to pay for it all. It's the classic story of corporate america. It happens everywhere.
Think about that the next time you see a want ad where the descriptions reads "a dynamic position in a fast-paced work environment where good multitasking skills are essential." It acutally means "we'll work you 50 hours a week, pay you for 40, and make you feel bad about it when you don't meet corporate goals that are unrealistic to begin with."
Did you get that memo?
Apparently I missed it. Maybe I'll ask my boss to get me another copy.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Windows 7 - My Take on what the computer industry heralds as the greatest thing ever
On Cinco de Mayo, Microsoft released the "release candidate" of the new version of Windows - called simply "Windows 7" to the general public for download.
The industry has given a lot of positive press about this release. Unlike the technological dud that Windows Vista turned out to be, Windows 7 is touted to be an excellent product that needs less hardware than Windows Vista to run, but more than Windows XP.
I decided to give this release a try. Why not - the download is free. I am using an older Toshiba Satellite A105 with 512MB of RAM and an Intel Celeron M processor.
To my surprise, although Microsoft states that the minimum memory required is 1 gig, it ran suprisingly fast, not much slower than Windows XP. It was very smooth and responsive, appeared very stable.
But, unfortunately, the interface has worsened rather than improved. Aside from being ugly it's excessively ostentatious and ornamental and not functional. They made the same mistake Apple made with Mac OS 9: they focused so much on looking good that ended up being overdone. The same mistake that many Linux makers made around 2000 trying to compete with Microsoft and Apple. Looking good is important, but it's important to also be streamlined, functional, sleek and clean. The modern Linux distributions accomplish this well, Mac OS X accomplishes this better than anybody, and Windows XP accomplishes this pretty well. Windows 2000 accomplished this extremely well. Aside from that the color scheme is horrible - I can't stand the black taskbar color. Absolutely horrid.
My official opinion on the questino that as a computer guy everybody will ask me - is Windows 7 worth the upgrade?
If you purchased a computer preloaded with Windows Vista then yes. Vista is a horrible product and for $99.99 (price of the upgrade edition) it's worth your money and time to get rid of it once and for all. It's leaner and meaner than Windows Vista and offers improvements underneath the hood. Even Microsoft admits that Vista is a lackluster product.
If you're running Windows XP now but have a modern computer that could do Windows Vista, or perhaps a little bit below par, and want something a bit sleeker, more modern, and faster, then you're better served with a modern Linux distribution. Ubuntu is easy. Easy for me to say, I'm a computer guy. But trust me, if I can tackle home improvement, you can tackle that. There's options out there, but Windows 7 will be a waste of your money and time.
The industry has given a lot of positive press about this release. Unlike the technological dud that Windows Vista turned out to be, Windows 7 is touted to be an excellent product that needs less hardware than Windows Vista to run, but more than Windows XP.
I decided to give this release a try. Why not - the download is free. I am using an older Toshiba Satellite A105 with 512MB of RAM and an Intel Celeron M processor.
To my surprise, although Microsoft states that the minimum memory required is 1 gig, it ran suprisingly fast, not much slower than Windows XP. It was very smooth and responsive, appeared very stable.
But, unfortunately, the interface has worsened rather than improved. Aside from being ugly it's excessively ostentatious and ornamental and not functional. They made the same mistake Apple made with Mac OS 9: they focused so much on looking good that ended up being overdone. The same mistake that many Linux makers made around 2000 trying to compete with Microsoft and Apple. Looking good is important, but it's important to also be streamlined, functional, sleek and clean. The modern Linux distributions accomplish this well, Mac OS X accomplishes this better than anybody, and Windows XP accomplishes this pretty well. Windows 2000 accomplished this extremely well. Aside from that the color scheme is horrible - I can't stand the black taskbar color. Absolutely horrid.
My official opinion on the questino that as a computer guy everybody will ask me - is Windows 7 worth the upgrade?
If you purchased a computer preloaded with Windows Vista then yes. Vista is a horrible product and for $99.99 (price of the upgrade edition) it's worth your money and time to get rid of it once and for all. It's leaner and meaner than Windows Vista and offers improvements underneath the hood. Even Microsoft admits that Vista is a lackluster product.
If you're running Windows XP now but have a modern computer that could do Windows Vista, or perhaps a little bit below par, and want something a bit sleeker, more modern, and faster, then you're better served with a modern Linux distribution. Ubuntu is easy. Easy for me to say, I'm a computer guy. But trust me, if I can tackle home improvement, you can tackle that. There's options out there, but Windows 7 will be a waste of your money and time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
