I've been wondering for the past couple weeks what the best way would be to eulogize my favorite TV show, Arrested Development, now that it's had its final run and gone to TV heaven to rub elbows with Richie Cunningham and the Fonz (both of whom were regulars on AD anyway).
Writing about how great the show was (and boy was it ever great) is pointless, because it's over. I'm not going to convince anybody else to tune in because there's nothing to tune in to anymore. It aired mostly in obscurity, famous, if it all, for being constantly on the verge of cancellation throughout its entire run, so it didn't have any significant cultural impact. There are catchphrases that we fans can say to each other that most people won't even notice ("Her?" or "No touching!"), but it mostly dealt in inside jokes and running gags that make no sense without context ("Bob Loblaw Lobs Law Bomb!"). It wasn't the first show that got the shaft from FOX (and I still think it's an absolute crime that out of Futurama and Family Guy, Family Guy is the show that got resurrected), and it's not going to be the last.
In fact, I'm not even particularly outraged by its impending cancellation. It had a great run, 53 episodes, every one of which is brilliant, and they brought everything full circle with the last episode. In fact, after watching the last episode, that's when it became apparent to me that the show was finished. Not just cancelled, but finished. It won't be on Showtime, and certainly not on ABC, and there won't be a movie either, because they made an ending so perfect that it would almost be an injustice to make any more episodes.
So rather than mourn a loss that came before its time, let's celebrate the full and brilliant run that it had. Hell, 53 episodes is still 41 more than they ever made of The Office (which might be the most brilliant TV show I've ever seen, even if it isn't the most gut-bustingly hilarious).
COME ON!
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Tom has another knee-jerk reaction to another overhyped band
I don't have enough thoughts on this to make a real long post out of it, but I have to stop, like I have so many times in the past, and ask myself: What is the big screaming deal about the Arctic Monkeys? For a band to sell that many copies that quickly like they've done in England, I figured they must be one of those love-or-hate bands, a band that, even if you don't particularly care for them, elicits some sort of strong, gut-level reaction, like the Velvet Underground or Bjork.
So expecting something at least interesting (I know better than to expect to be blown away), what strikes me is how utterly average these guys are. They sound and look exactly like a thousand other bands that want nothing more than to have fun, and who put loads of time and effort into looking like they don't care. If you played an Arctic Monkeys song on a mix tape with Franz Ferdinand, Hot Hot Heat, and Kaiser Chiefs, I probably wouldn't be able to tell any of them apart.
And so it goes with most of the Great Big Hypes that come out of Great Britain. Arctic Monkeys are getting lots of comparisons to Oasis, another band that rose out of nowhere to become superstars at blinding speed, and another band who are completely average in every way. Not necessarily "bad," but not necessarily "good" either. If these bands existed in the United States, thousands of miles away from the star-making Midas Touch of the NME, they would gather a decent local following and toil in obscurity in local bars for a few years and then break up and commit to day jobs. In fact, they do exist in the United States, by the dozens, all over the country.
All of which is to say that I have no idea why the Arctic Monkeys are so huge. I'm not saying that the pop music scene in America is all that much better ("My Humps," anybody?), but I'm just completely mystified by the amount of press given to so many unremarkable bands like the Arctic Monkeys.
So expecting something at least interesting (I know better than to expect to be blown away), what strikes me is how utterly average these guys are. They sound and look exactly like a thousand other bands that want nothing more than to have fun, and who put loads of time and effort into looking like they don't care. If you played an Arctic Monkeys song on a mix tape with Franz Ferdinand, Hot Hot Heat, and Kaiser Chiefs, I probably wouldn't be able to tell any of them apart.
And so it goes with most of the Great Big Hypes that come out of Great Britain. Arctic Monkeys are getting lots of comparisons to Oasis, another band that rose out of nowhere to become superstars at blinding speed, and another band who are completely average in every way. Not necessarily "bad," but not necessarily "good" either. If these bands existed in the United States, thousands of miles away from the star-making Midas Touch of the NME, they would gather a decent local following and toil in obscurity in local bars for a few years and then break up and commit to day jobs. In fact, they do exist in the United States, by the dozens, all over the country.
All of which is to say that I have no idea why the Arctic Monkeys are so huge. I'm not saying that the pop music scene in America is all that much better ("My Humps," anybody?), but I'm just completely mystified by the amount of press given to so many unremarkable bands like the Arctic Monkeys.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Rather than go off on some rant about how Valentine's Day is a Hallmark-created holiday that makes romance feel mandatory, thus not romantic (or at least that's how it felt for me), and about how single people can't help but feel even more lonely despite knowing it's a stupid holiday (which is how I feel now), I'm giving you the preceding condensed version of the rant, which we've all heard a million times anyway, and giving you this, which I enjoyed so much last year that I'm digging it up again this year:
http://www.slate.com/id/2113350/
It'd probably be better for me not to even acknowledge the "holiday" at all, but oh well.
http://www.slate.com/id/2113350/
It'd probably be better for me not to even acknowledge the "holiday" at all, but oh well.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Belle and Sebastian: In Pursuit of Consistency
The traditional way of telling the Belle and Sebastian story goes like this: after three classic albums of bittersweet folk-pop, they released an unmitigated flop after a failed attempt at "democracy," then returned with a sort of "comeback" that reasserted them as Stuart Murdoch's band, and gave them a new direction.
Now let's back up a second, because I have some problems with that. First of all, what was so bad about Fold Your Hands Child, You Walk Like a Peasant? If you ask me, it was a fine collection of songs, inferior to If You're Feeling Sinister (the undisputed masterpiece) only in its lack of focus. Second, what was so great about Dear Catastrophe Waitress (that would be the "comeback," for those unfamiliar with the band). It was a new direction to be sure, but not an overly satisfying one. It seemed to indicate to me only that Belle and Sebastian do, in fact, have a decent budget to spend on recording, and that Stuart Murdoch in particular has a very large record collection. There were no moments of clear inspiration on Dear Catastrophe Waitress, and every song seemed to have been written from a standpoint that started with somebody saying, "Let's try to write a song that sounds like _____." If it had been the first Belle and Sebastian album, I'd probably have pegged them as sub-Wondermints classic pop imitators (not that there's anything wrong with the Wondermints).
Their new album, the follow-up to Dear Catastrophe Waitress, called The Life Pursuit, is much in the same vein, so naturally, it doesn't seem all that great to me either. As with its predecessor, it's a textbook "Name the Influence!" record. "Funny Little Frog?" How about "Death On Two Legs" by Queen (at least for the beginning of that chord progression)? "Song for Sunshine?" Sly Stone during the verses is obvious, but extra points if you came up with Todd Rundgren for the (admittedly gorgeous) chorus. "Dress Up in You?" Earlier Belle and Sebastian!
The Life Pursuit is not by any means a bad album, but is there any chance of if getting any heavy rotation after the next few months are past? Let's put it this way: the last time I put on Dear Catastrophe Waitress (which I was excited enough to run out and buy in a store the day it was released) was probably around when I was trying to convince people to consider Dennis Kucinich in the 2004 Democratic primary elections. The Life Pursuit is probably a step above their last outing, and it's nothing if not at least thoroughly pleasant, with many fine pop moments to be found, but let's be serious. Am I really supposed to care about this after listening to If You're Feeling Sinister? Maybe that's unfair, but there's too much good music in the world to settle for less.
Now let's back up a second, because I have some problems with that. First of all, what was so bad about Fold Your Hands Child, You Walk Like a Peasant? If you ask me, it was a fine collection of songs, inferior to If You're Feeling Sinister (the undisputed masterpiece) only in its lack of focus. Second, what was so great about Dear Catastrophe Waitress (that would be the "comeback," for those unfamiliar with the band). It was a new direction to be sure, but not an overly satisfying one. It seemed to indicate to me only that Belle and Sebastian do, in fact, have a decent budget to spend on recording, and that Stuart Murdoch in particular has a very large record collection. There were no moments of clear inspiration on Dear Catastrophe Waitress, and every song seemed to have been written from a standpoint that started with somebody saying, "Let's try to write a song that sounds like _____." If it had been the first Belle and Sebastian album, I'd probably have pegged them as sub-Wondermints classic pop imitators (not that there's anything wrong with the Wondermints).
Their new album, the follow-up to Dear Catastrophe Waitress, called The Life Pursuit, is much in the same vein, so naturally, it doesn't seem all that great to me either. As with its predecessor, it's a textbook "Name the Influence!" record. "Funny Little Frog?" How about "Death On Two Legs" by Queen (at least for the beginning of that chord progression)? "Song for Sunshine?" Sly Stone during the verses is obvious, but extra points if you came up with Todd Rundgren for the (admittedly gorgeous) chorus. "Dress Up in You?" Earlier Belle and Sebastian!
The Life Pursuit is not by any means a bad album, but is there any chance of if getting any heavy rotation after the next few months are past? Let's put it this way: the last time I put on Dear Catastrophe Waitress (which I was excited enough to run out and buy in a store the day it was released) was probably around when I was trying to convince people to consider Dennis Kucinich in the 2004 Democratic primary elections. The Life Pursuit is probably a step above their last outing, and it's nothing if not at least thoroughly pleasant, with many fine pop moments to be found, but let's be serious. Am I really supposed to care about this after listening to If You're Feeling Sinister? Maybe that's unfair, but there's too much good music in the world to settle for less.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Super Bowl halftime complaints, pt. II (actual game complaints coming next year when I might care about who wins)
While we're on the subject of the Super Bowl halftime show, why not allow Detroit to take center stage? This is a complaint I've seen reiterated elsewhere, so I know I'm not alone here, but Detroit has a rich musical history that many other Super Bowl host cities don't (that's right, I'm talking to you, San Diego, Houston, Miami, Jacksonville, etc.). And by the time the NFL awards Detroit another Super Bowl, there may not be anybody left living there.
Wouldn't it have been fun if they'd gotten together a nice tribute to Motown? Stevie Wonder (who was given a pre-game performance in a worthless face-saving gesture), Smokey Robinson, whoever is left of the Temptations, Diana Ross, and, I don't know, the ghost of Marvin Gaye? I know most of The Funk Brothers are still around, and they played on all of those Motown hits anyway. Hell, it doesn't even have to be all Motown. Throw in The White Stripes and Kid Rock. How about MC5, are any of those guys still alive? Alice Cooper, Iggy Pop, Alice Coltrane, Ted Nugent, put 'em all up there, see what happens!
See how much of a ridiculous spectacle this could have been?
But nooooo, we had to go with some old guys who aren't even from America, and therefore probably have no idea what the Super Bowl even is, other than the only American sporting event which makes the front page of BBC News. I'm not trying to be xenophobic here (in fact, you'll find fewer people more liberal than me), but really, we missed a good opportunity here.
And one we won't have again soon either; upcoming Super Bowl hosts include Miami, Glendale, AZ, Tampa, and (yet again) Miami. Jacksonville hosted last year, so for those keeping track the Super Bowl will have been held in Florida four out of six years.
Maybe next year we can celebrate Miami with KC and the Sunshine Band and Vanilla Ice.
Sidebar:
Philadelphia will never host a Super Bowl because it's actually cold here in the winter and we don't have a dome, but if we ever did, I'd like to think that our halftime show would have more of Todd Rundgren and The Roots and less Will Smith and Patti LaBelle, but I'm not going to delude myself. It would probably be U2 anyway.
Wouldn't it have been fun if they'd gotten together a nice tribute to Motown? Stevie Wonder (who was given a pre-game performance in a worthless face-saving gesture), Smokey Robinson, whoever is left of the Temptations, Diana Ross, and, I don't know, the ghost of Marvin Gaye? I know most of The Funk Brothers are still around, and they played on all of those Motown hits anyway. Hell, it doesn't even have to be all Motown. Throw in The White Stripes and Kid Rock. How about MC5, are any of those guys still alive? Alice Cooper, Iggy Pop, Alice Coltrane, Ted Nugent, put 'em all up there, see what happens!
See how much of a ridiculous spectacle this could have been?
But nooooo, we had to go with some old guys who aren't even from America, and therefore probably have no idea what the Super Bowl even is, other than the only American sporting event which makes the front page of BBC News. I'm not trying to be xenophobic here (in fact, you'll find fewer people more liberal than me), but really, we missed a good opportunity here.
And one we won't have again soon either; upcoming Super Bowl hosts include Miami, Glendale, AZ, Tampa, and (yet again) Miami. Jacksonville hosted last year, so for those keeping track the Super Bowl will have been held in Florida four out of six years.
Maybe next year we can celebrate Miami with KC and the Sunshine Band and Vanilla Ice.
Sidebar:
Philadelphia will never host a Super Bowl because it's actually cold here in the winter and we don't have a dome, but if we ever did, I'd like to think that our halftime show would have more of Todd Rundgren and The Roots and less Will Smith and Patti LaBelle, but I'm not going to delude myself. It would probably be U2 anyway.
Monday, February 06, 2006
"If you start me up I'll never stop..."
There was recently a TV show in which old, long-defunct bands like A Flock of Seagulls and a bunch of other people whose identities escape me reunited and performed one of their old hits (or in most cases, their only hit) and a contemporary song. At the time, this show gave me a newfound respect for the Rolling Stones, and made me realize that it's not a given that four or five old(ish) people will be able to get together and make competent music and give entertaining performances.
Then along came the Super Bowl.
Was it me, or was that an overwhelmingly mediocre halftime set? The sound was muddy, the performances were sloppy, and they managed to fit in a total of three songs. I know I shouldn't complain too much, because they're old men who are lucky to be alive at this point, and I know I'm probably spoiled from having Paul McCartney play last year (who'd have thought that all these years later, the Stones would still be desperately following in the Beatles' footsteps? Or at least a Beatle's...). But come on, this is one of the biggest audiences these guys will ever have, they gotta bring it!
And the song selection? Obviously "Start Me Up" and "Satisfaction" were unavoidable, but even as I was hoping they would try something less predictable, I couldn't help but be disappointed that it was a new song. With rare exceptions (like... well, Paul McCartney, and of course my buddy Brian Wilson, although Smile is sort of a rulebreaker in a number of ways), new music from icons a generation removed from their peak is almost never worth hearing, and never is there a worse juxtaposition than when it's played between two of the most recognizable songs in the entire pop music canon. Worst of all, they could have played another two songs if they'd cut down the pointlessly long and rambling endings to their two supersmashes. It's not as if Ron Wood or Keith Richards are spectacular soloists (another problem with their performance). Even if they'd just stuck to their big hits, wouldn't you much rather hear, say, "Gimme Shelter" or "Brown Sugar" than another four minutes of Wood and Richards trading sloppy blues riffs while Mick Jagger prances around yelling unitelligible gibberish that may or may not be related to the song?
I know I would.
One caveat: I stopped paying close attention during large stretches of the aforementioned long and rambling sections and started listening to the clarion call of the beer in the fridge, so if they played more songs that I missed somehow, I'll obviously have to change this entry somewhat.
Then along came the Super Bowl.
Was it me, or was that an overwhelmingly mediocre halftime set? The sound was muddy, the performances were sloppy, and they managed to fit in a total of three songs. I know I shouldn't complain too much, because they're old men who are lucky to be alive at this point, and I know I'm probably spoiled from having Paul McCartney play last year (who'd have thought that all these years later, the Stones would still be desperately following in the Beatles' footsteps? Or at least a Beatle's...). But come on, this is one of the biggest audiences these guys will ever have, they gotta bring it!
And the song selection? Obviously "Start Me Up" and "Satisfaction" were unavoidable, but even as I was hoping they would try something less predictable, I couldn't help but be disappointed that it was a new song. With rare exceptions (like... well, Paul McCartney, and of course my buddy Brian Wilson, although Smile is sort of a rulebreaker in a number of ways), new music from icons a generation removed from their peak is almost never worth hearing, and never is there a worse juxtaposition than when it's played between two of the most recognizable songs in the entire pop music canon. Worst of all, they could have played another two songs if they'd cut down the pointlessly long and rambling endings to their two supersmashes. It's not as if Ron Wood or Keith Richards are spectacular soloists (another problem with their performance). Even if they'd just stuck to their big hits, wouldn't you much rather hear, say, "Gimme Shelter" or "Brown Sugar" than another four minutes of Wood and Richards trading sloppy blues riffs while Mick Jagger prances around yelling unitelligible gibberish that may or may not be related to the song?
I know I would.
One caveat: I stopped paying close attention during large stretches of the aforementioned long and rambling sections and started listening to the clarion call of the beer in the fridge, so if they played more songs that I missed somehow, I'll obviously have to change this entry somewhat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)