Dave, Peace, Love, and Rock-n-roll

father's day / air show / all kinds of stuff

2005-06-19T14:30:00.000-07:00

Today is father's day--- my dad is 81 years old, and still hanging in there really well. He doesn't wear glasses, his hair hasn't turned gray, and most of the time he looks about 20 years younger than he is. He's also got all of his mental abilities still. Way to go, Dad! (Even if he does drive me insane sometimes. And vice versa). He lives just 5 miles down the road from me, so I spend a lot of time with him on most days.

My dad and I have radically different approaches to life..... he loves to putter around in the outdoors (his favorite place to be is perched on top of a riding tractor/type lawn mower), whereas I find lawn and garden work to be a most tedious way to spend one's time. But yet we get along pretty well most of the time.

My own idea of outdoor fun is to play music really loud to a crowd of enthusiastic people, or maybe to go hiking or swimming for a couple of hours. That wouldn't turn my dad on to any great degree. He likes to work, mow, garden, rake, sweep, hunt, and fish. I doubt if he's been on a "hike" in 50 years. He'd find it pointless. I also tend to stay indoors a lot more if it's cold or rainy. He doesn't mind weather difficulties at all. He just bundles up, and out he goes. In the dead of winter, he'll be sitting in his pickup truck, happily smoking a cigarette and reading the morning paper. I asked him once why he didn't just go in and read. He said "Well, you can't just stay indoors all the time. Ceilings are boring. When I look up, I'd rather see the sky."

Yesterday, my dad bought tickets for us (my sister, brother, and myself) to see the U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds air team. They did a show in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Of course since it's father's day, we're supposed to be buying tickets for him, and not the other way around, but that's not the way he does things. He did allow all three of us to buy him dinner tonight, though. That was cool.

Speaking of the air show, it was a hot, clear day--- perfect weather for flying, I suppose. What those guys do in an airplane is nothing less than stunning. There was a pre-recorded speech at the beginning, calling them the true heroes of America, and I believe it. They are. They're trained not just for the purpose of doing these shows--- although they do about 50 of them a year--- but for piloting fighter jets. I mean, let's face it--- I'm no military public relations person by any means, but we couldn't feel secure in this country without a LOT of protection, and these guys and girls are the ones doing it.

The previous night--- Friday, June 17--- I played at the Edelweiss outdoors. A complete contrast to last Friday. This time, it was rockin'!! I had a smallish crowd of around 15-20 people, but most of them stayed until after midnight, and they loved the tunes. Coolness! By the way, my best song is rapidly developing out to be "Evil Ways" by Santana. This has long been one of my favorite songs to be played live--- every band does it differently--- and I can do a really good keyboard improv to it. My version of it usually lasts between 5 and 10 minutes long, while I'm jammin' away. I love it! Usually the people do too.

Ehhhh well there's more news, but I gotta quit typing.

Oh shoot--- before I forget: happy 50th wedding anniversary to my long-time friends Marlene & Fred Noyes!! For about twenty years, Fred was the bass player / manager for the Southern Comfort band, Madison's BEST variety-party band all through the 1970s and 1980s, and even into the early 90s, at which point they finally called it quits. It's hard to imagine any other band ever doing what they did. Despite the fact that he was about 20 years older than the rest of the band members on average, Fred could rock out with the best of them--- and he was willing to play *anything*, regardless of his own personal taste in tunes--- everything from Sinatra, to hardcore blues, to Hank Williams, to Bruce Sprinsteen, to Chicago, to the Georgia Satellites, and even Van Halen.... and the Southern Comforts did it all not only very well, but better than any other band could have done the same material. They never "copied the record" but put their own unique spin--- usually harder than the original--- on every song they ever did. A cover band they might have been, but to my ears they were the embodiment of the word "original".

So.... happy anniversary to Fred and his life partner Marlene. And rock on, both you guys!

The Jackson Verdict

2005-06-14T14:58:00.000-07:00

Well, that train-wreck of a media circus out in California is finally over, and Michael Jackson was found to be completely..... well, not exactly "innocent", but "not guilty" in the legal meaning of the term. I was very impressed with the jury members who spoke for interviews. Seems to me that they did their job conscientiously and tried as best as they could to follow the judge's complicated instructions. They also made a decision, early on, to ignore Jackson's celebrity and reach a verdict as if he was any ordinary person. I think they succeeded.

Interestingly, several of the jurors were still troubled by Jackson's bizarre behavior with young boys, and they all but said outright they felt he had probably molested SOMEONE, somewhere along the line. But the jury felt there was simply not enough evidence to convict him of this particular case. (I didn't think there was, either.)

I think this is a good example of how this country's judicial system is supposed to work. And it did work. In any alleged crime, the prosecution has the burden of proof. There has to be legal evidence to convict--- just a gut feeling isn't enough--- and the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" really does have meaning. I'm glad it does.

Now, what about Michael Jackson? He has already made a statement, via his lawyer, that he won't be sleeping with any more boys. Well, that's a good start anyway. He should have known better than to do that in the first place. Let's hope he keeps that promise.

If I were Jackson's manager / advisor, here's what I would suggest he do, if he wants to recover his health, his sanity, and his career:

1. First, he needs to get some therapy, some psychological help. Whether this molestation occurred or not, it's pretty obvious by now that he's a very troubled, damaged person in too many ways. He's got to learn to live in the real world, and understand the values and concerns that normal people have. His reputation as a bizarre freak is really dragging him down.

2. He needs to lie low for a while. No interviews or public appearances. Just spend a few months "taking care of business." From the rumors I've been hearing about his financial state, there's a lot of that to do. Make a budget, and stick to it. Sell the unnecessary junk. (Maybe even sell Neverland).

3. Ne needs to begin salvaging his music career, what's left of it. I think the guy is talented, so this is do-able, even if won't be easy. First thing I'd have him do is go to Europe. Not a good idea to start a comeback attempt in the U.S. And I'd have him do some concerts. They don't have to be multi-million dollar extravaganzas with fireworks and electronic effects, either. He should let the raw musical talent take precedence. If Bruce Springsteen can just go onstage with a guitar and a small rock band and do his thing, Michael Jackson can scale down a bit too. The "King of Pop" nonsense has become too over-the-top.

4. If he succeeds in Europe, then I'd have him come back to the states. But he needs to act more like a normal person, be seen in normal places, wearing normal clothes. Obviously he's not the blue-jeans type..... Justin Timberlake can go around in jeans with a hole in the knee. Michael Jackson probably couldn't. But he doesn't have to get himself rigged up like a mannequin either. There must be a middle ground. Maybe a fashion consultant could help. But he has to get the perception of being somewhat "normal", otherwise forget it.

5. He should not mention children, kids, childhood, any of that stuff. People don't want to hear the word "children" and "Michael Jackson" in the same sentence any more. And I don't blame them, because neither do I. It sounds really icky at this point.

6. At this point, I'd slowly have him begin doing some performances here in the States. Record an album, or do some shows, or get involved in production or management or something. But I'd tell him to keep it on a normal human level.

Ha ha..... I've always had dreams of being a manager!! Actually, several years ago, a couple of guys in Madison who were writing songs and starting a band once asked me to be their manager, for real. And if they'd had enough material, I would have done it. But they only had about 5 songs completed, and that just wasn't enough.

2005-06-11T06:17:00.000-07:00

Edelweiss beer garden. Isn't this awesome?

where is my audience??!

2005-06-11T06:00:00.000-07:00

Last night was a bummer. I've been really trying to develop my keyboard "act" (it's all cover tunes, but what the heck)--- but last night was my first gig where NOBODY showed up. I mean, there was no point in me even setting up my equipment. The only people in the bar were four employees, and they were about ready to shut down and go home for the night. That really does nasty things to a musician's ego.

By the way, the place where I've been playing most is a cool little German restaurant/bar in Victory, Wisconsin called the Edelweiss. It's sort of like a small-scale version of the Essenhaus in Madison (is that place still around?) What I like most about Edelweiss is that their outdoor beer garden is totally rockin' and beautiful. I love to play outdoors there, which I've done two times already this summer. In fact, here's a picture of it.

general stuff

2005-06-07T16:41:00.000-07:00

There was a news article today about mental illnesses. Since I know a couple of people who suffer from such dysfunctions, I'm sort of interested in the subject.

It seems that the rate of mental illness, although now beginning to flatten out somewhat, has been steadily on the rise since the 1950s. Now this is kind of thought provoking.... I mean just consider the implications of that. We treat an awful lot of mental illness by throwing medication at it. And apparently the medication does seem to work a lot of times; okay, fine.

But if the rate of mental illness rose all those years, then it would seem pretty obvious that--- unless everybody's brains suddenly dysfuncted all at once--- something other than biology or chemicals is at work here. Why were there such a greater percentage of mentally ill people in 2000 than there were in, say, 1940?? Maybe such illness is caused, or exacerbated by society, and not brain chemical imbalances?!

I've also been reading some interesting studies that indicate the brain is a lot more "plastic" than previously thought. People who are mentally ill, like say with depression, might indeed have a chemical imbalance going on. But now the evidence suggests this imbalance might not be biological in origin. It might be the RESULT of decisions they made, or things that happened to them, instead of the CAUSE of such decisions.

It also is kind of scary that the rate of teen depression is so high. Teens today feel a sense of pressure that they apparently didn't decades ago. So like, what's up with all that? It isn't good. There seems to be a greater all-around level of unhappiness and stress and anger and dis-satisfaction in people today, at least compared to how it used to be. And we're gonna have a harder time succeeding as a society (and individually) if that keeps on being the case.

I guess I've been pretty lucky--- I've never had any kind of mental illness. Never suffered from depression, or bipolar, or a substance abuse problem, or an eating disorder, or ADD, etc. etc. I'm not saying I'm "normal" (which would be extremely boring)--- but other than being a very poor housekeeper and having a tendency to procrastinate, I'm pretty much all there mentally; rational, emotionally on an even keel, and basically a content person. I don't go off the deep end, or on weird tangents.

But there are plenty of people who aren't healthy inside their heads or their emotions, and I feel bad for them. I've known a couple of people who had SERIOUS, life-impairing mental illnesses, and it would be awful to suffer like that. If it's society itself that's causing some of these problems, we gotta figure out a better way.... not just to treat such illnesses, but to prevent them from happening in the first place.

On a completely unrelated topic--- a lot of press has been written about the recent Supreme Court decision to keep a federal ban on "medical" marijuana, despite the fact that some states have allowed it. I'm no pot smoker, and I have real serious doubts about its medicinal value. BUT...... um, isn't this a "states" issue?? It bothers me that the Feds can overrule state decisions on something like this. In fact, it strikes me as being unconstitutional. In fact, it *is* unconstitutional. And that has nothing to do with a debate for-or-against marijuana. It's basic legal facts. The dissenting Supreme Court Justices agreed with me too, although the majority of the court went along with the Federal ban.

Okay, before I go, I gotta mention at least something about music. It's a necessity in this blog!

Top 40 these days pretty much sucks, but there are two good songs currently popular that I really like. Jesse McCartney, "She's No You" has a cool guitar lick to it (especially in the beginning), and kind of a moody evocative feel. Nice job. And the Caesars have a 60s-organ-based song called "Jerk it Out" with a STRONG backbeat and groove, and a great chord pattern. It's nice to hear a genuine rock-n-roll tune that you could actually dance to!! Both songs are good summertime "fun" pieces of music.

update (finally!!!)

2005-06-05T00:37:00.000-07:00

Well, if anybody out there is still reading this blog, sorry for the long absence. I've just been so doggone busy. Helping out my dad and my aunt every day and playing music out (and getting paid for it!!) every weekend. My primary venue is a very cool little German restaurant/bar in Victory, Wisconsin. They have a small outdoor beer garden that's awesome in the summertime. It's on the Mississippi River, and at night the owner has it all lit up with colored lights and flowers.... it reminds me of Vitense Golf course at night. Excellent place for playing music. I'm even singing a little bit, God forbid. I really need a singer to work with sometimes, but until I find one in this area, I'm all I've got. Hopefully I'll get better as time goes on. My Yamaha keyboard has some excellent guitar sounds programmed into it, so the lack of a "real" guitar player doesn't bug me too much, but the lack of a singer sometimes does.

The couple of people who have either commented on here, or sent me emails about the blog.... thanks!!! If more people are reading this, send me some feedback!

I promise more updates, more frequently. Promise promise promise!!!

Keeping Up with the Times

2005-05-03T10:01:00.000-07:00

When I was a kid, I knew quite a few older folks (age 60-plus) who were always bemoaning the modern era. Life as they knew it hit its peak when they were around twenty years old, and to hear them talk, it had gone downhill ever since. They didn't like any music or movies or television shows created after 1950. I swore to myself that I would never, ever get like that. For the rest of my days, I vowed, the best time in life would be the present, and I'd be with-it and hip and "modern" until I was 80.

Well, it's getting a little harder for me to do that. Example #1: cell phones. I seem to be the only adult person in the United States under age 70 who does not own a cell phone and (worse yet, talk about being really unhip) has no particular desire to own one. Sure there are occasional times, particularly when I'm driving somewhere, that it would be nice to be able to call somebody---like if I need directions to where I'm going. And I do realize it's a nice safety backup, like if you're hiking alone in the woods and a tree should fall on you or something. "Who you gonna call?" indeed. Without a cell, you're sunk. But you know, I've survived just fine without a cell phone ever since I graduated from high school--- back in the day--- and I think I'll survive a few more years too.

By the way, the main reason why I don't own one is the price. I pay $100 a month to my regular land-line phone company for a package deal of telephone service, DSL internet connection, and cable TV. I really don't want to add another $35 per month or whatever it costs for a cell phone subscription. And I don't want to spend $50 or $80 for a one-time calling card to use one of those Wal-Mart type cell phones either. It just isn't that critical to me. Those calls are about 25 cents a minute.

Text messaging and picture-phones....ehhhh, I can do without those too. My version of text messaging is e-mail. Old-fashioned, but hey it works, and once you've paid for the internet connection, it's unlimited messages for free. And the picture phones, while it is undeniably cute that they can take (and e-mail) photos on the spot, have absolutely dismal picture quality. What are they, like 1.2 megapixels or something? Forget it. If I'm gonna take pictures, I want them to be crisp and clear and look like they were taken with a camera, not a telephone. Jeez, am I starting to sound like Andy Rooney or what? My God. Old-timer alert, Old-timer alert!!!

Let's see, another example. Laptops. I've tried to type on those things, and hey, sorry for being unhip and locked down to one location when I do my computing, but..... I'll take a big ol' desktop PC any day. The picture is clearer and brighter, the sound is better (subwoofer and all), and the keyboard is 600 percent easier to type on. Do I need to take a computer with me? Nope.

Getting away from technology--- food-consumption issues. I've been reading many articles saying that Pepsi, Coke, and other similar cola drinks are on a decline. More and more consumers are drinking fruit-based beverages or just plain water. (The concept of buying water in a plastic bottle when you can get it out of the tap for free still remains mind-boggling to me). Even when people do drink colas, they want weird flavors..... Cherry Coke, Vanilla Coke, Coke with Lime..... bleahhhhh. I'm an old-fashioned guy: I take fully sweetened, fully caffienated coca-cola and nothing less!

I'm also not into the trendy "exotic" foods--- people just love to go eat at a Thai food place, or buy papayas at the grocery store, or stock their spice rack with all kinds of flavors that I couldn't even pronounce, much less eat. But I can't help it.... my taste buds just automatically connect with midwestern/Americana foods like hamburgers, french fries, spaghetti, mashed potatoes, casseroles, and jello. My favorite restaurant, other than Wendy's, is Old Country Buffet. That pretty much says it all right there.

However, I will also say this: I seem to be one of the very few people in this country who isn't battling a weight problem either. I've been 125 pounds (at 5' 8") all my adult life, with scarcely an ounce more or less than that. If anything, I'm about 25 pounds underweight. Can't help it. I eat everything I want, as often as I want, as much as I want, and that seems to keep my weight at an even keel. I can't even imagine counting calories or watching fat content (I drink whole milk too). So the sugar content in colas don't bother me at all, but I can understand how they do bother people who are trying to keep their weight down.

Let's see, what's another "hip item of the day" whose appeal escapes me? Reality shows. I think MTV's "The Real World" started off the whole trend of reality shows in the early 1990s, and I did watch the first season of that. But after that, ehhhh..... my own life is real enough for me. If I want escapism, I want actors and drama/comedy fiction.

Hmmm..... I guess I'm just an un-trendy kind of guy. But I still keep tryin'. And I will still never complain about modern life.... not if I can help it anyway!

itunes sucks--- i can't even download the thing

2005-04-27T15:30:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I finally decide to get into the whole "itunes" craze. Might be nice to legally download high-quality music files, right? So I went out and bought a $15.00 "i-card" good for 15 songs at 99 cents each. Sounds like a good deal. But I can't even download the program that gets you into the song catalog!! I've tried, like, three times now and I keep getting an error message that says "error connecting with service manager" followed by another error message that says "Failed to install GEARAspiWDM service". Nowhere on the itunes web site does it give any email address or help line where you can call or write or communicate with them..... so now I've got 15 songs paid for, and I can't even look at the catalog. I'm pretty computer-literate too, but this one is a mystery that I can't solve.

On a happier note, it's always cool to hear a "forgotten" old song that makes you remember how good it was. Case in point here: last night I heard Rod Stewart singing "People Get Ready" (1985 or so?)--- awesome tune! I haven't heard it in years. Very bluesy and with a country-lonesome-nighttime train-whistle-sounding guitar (provided by Jeff Beck, who had worked in a band with Stewart 15 or 20 years before).

Other news: I just got a PA system for my keyboard, due to a few outdoor gigs coming up. It sounds awesome, although it's not stereo (which I didn't realize until after I'd bought it). Oh well, for $300, you can't expect super-duper stuff. Now I'm looking for a singer to work with me occasionally. But since most of the people who might be reading this are in Madison, I guess none of them would be available!!

Michael Jackson trial

2005-04-20T22:32:00.000-07:00

Okay, I'll confess--- I'm a Michael Jackson child-molestation trial junkie. Yes I actually anticipate information about this ridiculous spectacle every day. Why? I don't really know--- I suppose it's sort of a morbid fascination with the idea of somebody who was once the world's greatest musical star now having to fight for his reputation, his career, and (sort of) his life.

I have no opinion on whether Jackson is innocent or guilty. Legally, he's considered to be innocent until proven otherwise, so that's my gonna be my stated opinion for now too. You gotta start somewhere.

I do think, the longer this trial goes on, the more likely it seems that he will be found not guilty. The main reason I say this is because the astonishing parade of witnesses for the prosecution have pretty much all been found to be chasing after a financial payoff for their stories. Either that, OR they're one brick short of a load. (Jackson is too, of course, but hey--- that isn't what he's on trial for). They key issue is credibility; who is the jury going to believe? If they don't believe the prosecution's witnesses, then they have reasonable doubt, and that's enough to find Jackson not gilty.

Visually, the most irritating trial sight that appears on the news each day is that of Jackson being constantly shielded by that geeky unbrella (which is usually being held by a bodyguard). For some reason, the whole umbrella thing makes Jackson look like a bizarro nerd. In his own behalf, I wish he'd at least *try* to act reasonably normal. If he really is innocent, then he's destroying his own credibility by continuing to behave like an eccentric. He desperately needs the public on his side right now--- not to mention the jury--- and coming off like a creature from some other world just isn't gonna cut it for him.

If it turns out that Jackson is found not guilty, I do hope he stops sleeping with young boys. I'm sick of hearing about it, and he's gotta realize it's just destroying his reputation. And he obviously has some serious issues that he needs to deal with too. The whole trial--- on both sides--- is sort of sad and pathetic, but just try to look away. It's like a traffic accident. And I'm not particularly a Michael Jackson fan, by the way (although "Thriller" was a pretty good pop album of the early 1980s). But he used to be a fairly good-looking young black guy, and now he's a freakishly deformed being who looks alienated from life as we know it. That sucks.

Loretta Lynn

2005-04-18T20:31:00.000-07:00

Tonight on "60 Minues 2" (or whatever the weekday version of "60 Minutes" is called), Mike Wallace did a full-hour interview with Loretta Lynn. I've always been a fan of this lady--- even though I don't care much for country music as a rule--- and her latest album "Van Lear Rose" made me more of a fan than ever. This record totally rocks. I mean it ROCKS!! The whole album basically tells the story of her life (one of the songs actually begins "now here's the story of my life / listen and I'll tell it twice....."), and it uses a riveting mix of blues, rock, country, and folk music to do it. A few of the songs are far more rock than country--- the first time that Loretta Lynn has ever explored such musical territory--- and she comes out a total winner. One of the tunes in particular, "Have Mercy On Me", is a blistering hard-rock-garage-band blues stomper where the only trace of country music to be found at all is in Loretta's Kentucky accent. But there's plenty of traditional-sounding country music too, which is handled with just the right touch of reverb-laden slide guitars and nighttime, bluesy twang. It's like traditional rock and country updated to a modern-alt-country-rock sound, if that makes any sense.

Even apart from my long-standing fandom of Ms. Lynn, I like this album because it sounds so totally real and un-studio-like. It sounds like a genuine live performance, which is essentially what it was. All the songs were recorded live in the studio, about one take each, with very little or no overdubbing. You can't get much more raw than that. Also, it was produced by rock musician Jack White (of the White Stripes band), and it was he who gave it the swampy bayou honky-tonk sound.

This CD was nominated for a bunch of Grammy Awards this year, and it won two of them--- best Country album, and best Country duet (between Lynn and Jack White, who trade off lead vocals on the rocking "Portland Oregon"). It's been extremely critically acclaimed, particularly in rock-oriented publications like "Rolling Stone" magazine.

So--- why the hell isn't country radio playing this thing??! Much of tonight's interview with Loretta Lynn was spent analyzing this question, although Loretta herself doesn't seem to care that much. She's happy with the critical kudos and the broadening of her audience. But Jack White, who obviously is a great admirer of Lynn, spent quite a bit of time with this question. His theory is that country radio is youth-oriented, and Lynn--- now age 70--- is simply too old to be put on their playlists.

I think it's more than that, though. There was a discussion in one of the internet boards that claimed Lynn's record wasn't played on country radio because it doesn't fit the usual country format. That's absolutely true--- it doesn't. You listen to "Van Lear Rose", and it sounds completely different from the Alan Jackson / Toby Keith / Shania Twain stuff that's out there. It's much more raw, more bluesy, more "real", with more personality than 95 percent of what gets played on country music these days. And I like it better.

But apparently the programmers at country radio are scared by such "new"/old sounding music. They have a preconceived notion of what their listeners will tolerate, and it seems to me like they're afraid to take a chance on anything remotely different. This is too bad. I say, why not just throw a few tracks from Loretta's album on the radio, and see how it does. Maybe people might like it! It might get her a whole new generation of fans--- well, actually it already has--- but I mean it might get her some younger COUNTRY fans who have no idea who she is.

And so what if she's 70 years old? She still sounds just as young and fresh as in her earliest records in the 1960s (no kidding, she does), and the music rocks. Is the public that age-biased? I don't think so. I don't even think radio programmers are that age-biased, although the idea of playing music by a woman in her 70s probably does make them a bit hesitant.

The basic problem here is that country radio, like pretty much all mainstream radio these days, is shackled by extremely tight playlists and a distinct "sound" and woe be to any band or singer that varies from that sound in the slightest. I don't think radio programmers are giving the public enough credit. I wish they'd play more of a variety of music than they do. I don't like everything that all sounds alike (as country radio does nowadays). But then again, maybe I'm in the minority.

American Idol sucks. Why??!

2005-03-23T18:35:00.000-08:00

So like, what is it about American Idol that makes me itch? The singers are all pretty good, really. They've got stage presence, and excellent voices. The music is professionally sung and played. But the show is still such a major suck-fest of non-talents. Now, isn't that one of life's mysteries? But hey, maybe it's one that I can solve.

Here's my take on things:

#1, "American Idol" doesn't really have anything to do with music. In fact, its goal is the exact opposite of music. It has more to do with television, and getting the largest numbers of Wal-Mart shoppers in front of the tube as is humanly possible to do.

(Don't laugh at the Wal-Mart reference; the show's biggest success story to date, Clay Aiken, had a huge best-selling album due almost solely to its phenomenal sales in Wal-Mart stores. Nothing against Clay--- the guy has an awesome voice, and seems to be genuninely nice and well-grounded--- but his fans are TV watchers. They aren't "music buyers" who frequent the rapidly disappearing retail outlet known as a "record store".)

#2, lame (and I do mean lame) versions of cover songs that are best remembered by the original artists. This alone destroys all the credibility that the performers might otherwise have. Once again, it's that TV mentality: the Wal-Mart crowd doesn't want new music, unfamiliar music, or challenging music. They just want something that reminds them of old times.

#3, karaoke background. Come on, all you TV executives who put "Idol" on the air--- this show is making millions of dollars for you. Couldn't you at least spend a few bucks to hire some live musicians?

Now--- one big reason that "American Idol" haters often give for their dislike of the show is, surprisingly, not one of my reasons for disliking it: the fact that the singers ONLY sing. The performers only seek to entertain; they aren't songwriters, producers, or whatever. Some people resent that, as if singing and songwriting were two equally compatible skills. (Often they aren't). So here's a news flash for all you folks who insist that singers have to be multi-tiered artists as well: Frank Sinatra was only a singer, and he did okay. Elvis Presley was only a singer. Judy Garland was only a singer. But they were pretty damn good at singing, and they all raised the bar of "entertainment" into "art" just because of the raw force of their talent. They really were that good to warrant the definition of "artist".

So it isn't just the fact that the singers..... sing. (as if that's some kind of a sin). It's more the fact that they don't have any kind of clearly defined persona; and also the fact that they seem to have hit stardom out of nowhere. I don't get the feeling that any of them actually earned their star status. They were just plonked in front of the "American Idol" audience, and whammo.... there they are.

I personally would rather hear any good street musician on State Street in Madison, armed with a guitar and a halfway decent voice, than the overly-glitzy and glossy "American Idol" contestants. I see a lot more authenticity and raw feeling in back-to-basics live performance than I do in the network smooth-over process. But maybe that's just me.

In the news: 80-something woman refuses to leave hospital

2005-02-16T23:21:00.000-08:00

This is a sad story I just read: An 82-year-old woman has been in the hospital for a year (!), not because there's anything wrong with her. She's perfectly healthy except for the fact that she can't walk, which is a handicap and not an illness. She takes no medication and isn't being treated for any medical condition. This woman belongs in a nursing home, but she has sued the last two she was in, so they won't take her. And apparently she is legally entitled to stay in the county of her residence. So nobody can force her to live in a nursing home in another county.

She has now stayed in the hospital for over a year, racking up medical bills of a million dollars, which of course she is unable to pay.

The hospital is exasperated, and has tried to bring suit against this lady... not that they want her money, they just would like her to go!! She's taking up very expensive bed space in their building. But they aren't going to forcibly remove her into the street, a fact that she is well aware of. And so she happily lives in the hospital, where she says the doctors and nurses are great to her.

Part of this story is undeniably bizarre, almost to the point of being funny, but part of it is awfully tragic. I can usually think of great solutions to almost everything, but this one has me stumped. What could be done for this old woman? I mean, really! This is a classic case of somebody "falling through the cracks", and creating a burden on the whole medical/social system. Darned if I have any answers.

first post!

2005-02-15T07:00:00.000-08:00

Hey what's up? This is the very first post of my blog. Hopefully this develops into something fun and interesting, but that's gonna depend partly on you. I need lots of feedback, and it would be 'way cool if this turned into a communication forum of sorts--- not only for people I know, but also for newcomers I haven't met yet. So *please* feel free to respond, add comments, email me, talk about stuff going on in your life too, cool sites on the web that you run into, or whatever trips your trigger. It isn't just about me.... it's about you too.

So who-all watched the Grammy awards night before last? I missed a lot of it, but was glad to see Ray Charles dominate the evening--- he got several awards, including Album of the Year (too bad he couldn't live to see it). I wonder though, would he have gotten this award at all if he were still alive?? I mean, this is an album that gets very little airplay, and most people I talked to barely knew it even existed until the Awards. Maybe he should have gotten a Lifetime Achievement award, and the Album of the Year have gone to somebody more contemporary. I don't think that any major entertainment awards should be a reward for dying.

On a happier note, I was *very* glad to see Loretta Lynn win for best country album. If you guys haven't heard her CD "Van Lear Rose", you're missing out. She's 69 years old, and has created the most raw and rockin' music of her career--- my favorite song on it, "Have Mercy On Me", is a bluesy rock stomp, not one shred of country on it except for her Kentucky drawl; the music is all screaming guitars and heavy drums. You wouldn't think it works, but does it ever! Awesome record.

Plus, I'm a sucker for older women who are still out there accomplishing. Good for them. (And Loretta is kind of a hottie for her age, too.)