I was strolling across the Louisiana State fairgrounds in April of 2001, digging all the sights, sounds, and smells of the Jazz and Heritage Festival. I was having the time of my life. I was pleasantly buzzed, stuffed to the gills on crawfish, and learning more about music than I'd ever before learned in one weekend. As I walked along, I heard a beautiful ruckus coming from one of the side stages. This band was really jamming! Everyone in it was obviously putting their all into it, and the guitar player was really going for it. I stopped and found the stage, determined to watch the rest of the set and find out who it was. To my disappointment, that only lasted about four more minutes - I'd gotten there right at the end. When I asked someone nearby who I'd just discovered, she gave me a look that said she knew just from the question, let alone my northern inflections, that I wasn't a local, and said "That's Anders Osborne".

Within ten minutes, I owned his Ash Wednesday Blues disc.

Born in Sweden and coming to America via almost everywhere, Anders Osborne has become an indelible part of New Orleans. His style reflects the gumbo that is the richest music scene in America, by my reckoning. Take one part blues, one part jazz, one part rock, and sprinkle with funk, and you've got his band. This week you'll hear him with Doug Belote on drums, Tim Green on sax, and Kirk Joseph, an original member of the Dirty Dozen Brass Band, on sousaphone. That alone makes this band a bit unique. No one sounds quite like Anders.



I haven't had the fortune yet to see an entire Anders Osbourne show. He doesn't seem to do the southwest. He tours but also spends a lot of time writing songs, many of which  done by others such as Keb' Mo', Johnny Lang, Sam Bush, and Tim McGraw. When performing, he makes it clear that it is the song that is the focus, not him. While he's a terrific guitarist, his live performance isn't a series of solos. Tim green probably does more soloing in the boots I have than Anders does.

This weeks selection comes from an October 23, 2002 performance at a venue that, by my reckoning, seems to get a LOT of great shows - the State Theatre in Falls Church, Va. This show also featured Big Chief Monk Boudreax (the guy in the feathers below) but he isn't on stage yet during this song. This song is called Burning on the Inside, and features some interesting interplay between the guitar and the sousaphone. I hope you'll tell me what you think of it. Here it is.



In two weeks: One of the projects he embarked on in his 37-years-so-far career was an attempt to record music with monkeys.

Trolling the Underground will have to be late because of technical issues. The last two days it's been practically impossible to upload pics or write long passages. Things were just moving too damn slow, and some of the utility pages wouldn't even load! Today I have work and then school (yes, a Friday night class. Am I dedicated, or what?), and I'm doing some under-the-table work tomorrow morning. Plus I have a buttload of homework to do this weekend as well. I was trying to get it done ahead of time, like I did with the Thursday Thirteen. Rat bastids. Anyway, I know it's overdue. So there.

Without Googling (or any other internet searching - I'm watching!) name the TV shows that had theme songs performed by these artists..........

1. Johnny Western
2. Mike Post (two answers that I know of)
3. The Grateful Dead
4. John Sebastian
5. Frankie Laine
6. The Who
7. Barry Manilow
8. Jan Hammer
9. Johnny Rivers
10. Al Jarreau
11. Inner Circle
12. Jose Feliciano
13. Joey Scarbury

Answers as they come.

1.  Have Gun Will Travel (I saw this name in the credits, and that's where I got the idea for this quiz.)
   
2. Hill Street Blues (Paula)  It seems there are many more than just 2. Rockford Files (Eden's Husband) Magnum, P.I.G. and many others.
   
3.  Twilight Zone - 80s (O'Tim) How'd I know he'd get this one?
   
4. Welcome Back, Kotter (O'Tim)
   
5. Rawhide! (Frankie also sang the theme songs for Gunfight at the O.K. Corral and Blazing Saddles) 
6.  CSI (Dawn)
7.  American Bandstand (Eden's husband. Let me guess.... Nod?)
   
8. Miami Vice (O'Tim) 
9. Secret Agent 
10. Moonlighting (O'Tim) 
11. COPS (Dawn)
12.  Chico & the Man (O'Tim)
    
13. The Greatest American Hero (Miss Cellania)
    

It had to happen on hump day. Two days later, I could have made a poll of it.

Reading the news today, I of course noticed the execution of serial nutjob Danny Harold Rolling (the name itself bugs me..... if you're going to use your middle name as well, then be formal enough to use your full first name. WTF is Danny Harold? That's like me calling myself "Joe Patrick the Troll".) Normally, I'm uncomfortable with the death penalty because I feel that one innocent (there's that word again) person executed is one too many. When we KNOW the person is guilty I'm a bit less sympathetic, although I think keeping him around and making his life farooking miserable on purpose would be  better from a punishment standpoint. I'm not interested in debating that, though, because I'm more interested in the way he went out. Singing.

I don't think I've ever heard that one before. You usually hear about the constant pleas of innocence, or the nervous tittering, or the hubris of Gacy's "Kiss my ass." The first thought I had when I saw that was, of course, "What song????" Unfortunately, they didn't say, but suggested that it was a hynm. That's a disappointment to me, because these last minute conversions  bug me. The time to find Jesus was before you raped the girl and chopped her head off, asshole. That would have been infinitely more helpful. But also, I'm disappointed because it isn't really memorable. I'd have preferred something like Muskrat Love or Walking on Sunshine. Maybe How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria (and then he could look at the guard and say "Ooh! Ooh! Let me up! I have a dance that goes with this!). Or, if the absurd isn't for you, there's always Folsom Prison Blues or Highway to Hell.

I, myself, would sing Deep Purple's "Highway Star", complete with the guitar solo, done note for note in "doo doo doo"s. Imagine my headstone:

Well, as many of you have pointed out to me, my blog has has accessibility issues for several weeks now. It's worse on the weekends, but happens throughout the week. The so called "help" forum has had people explaining all along that the servers are being updated, and that if we're patient we will have a bigger, better, more reliable service to show for it. They also told us that they will be finished making these "improvements" very soon, in fact.

As you know, this has been going on for at least three weeks. Many of us feel that the S.S. Very Soon has, in fact, sailed.

I noticed that no one commented about anything on Saturday, and thought that either the problem was back or those last few posts didn't have much longevity. Could happen. Then I spent Sunday morning drinking tea and changing the poll (below and in the sidebar). When I noticed that it didn't post, I knew. So I went back to the forum to see what's up, and here is what I found. This is a post from one of the "helpers". He's not a paid tech or representative of the company, he's a "volunteer" who serves in place of an actual liason to the company. He's one of those who has been giving us the news on the updates all along. I'm not going to post his name, as he's been around here before and I used to read his blog, and don't want to start anything personal. However, this is the message posted from Blogdrive's "volunteer liason", so to speak.

As has been explained before to any who'd paid attention, the cause of these issues is the resynchronization of servers and related maintenance to Blogdrive's data center. This is not a case of any Blogdrive administrators, owners, volunteers or likewise not caring. Quite the opposite, in fact, as attempts are being made to actually improve service. It is a bit of a growing pain to experience posts and updates showing up, then disappearing, etc. but it does happen.

I assure you, and I don't see what is so difficult in accepting this unless you are a total idiot, that no one at Blogdrive, either it's owners, employees, or volunteers, are keeping your entries from showing on purpose. No one is avoiding the problem, and perhaps the people who demand to speak to the owners should stop their lengthy ramblings, emails, trouble tickets, and yes, even phone calls, all for something that EVERYONE KNOWS is being worked on. I'm personally happy NOT to see Helpee, CBG and the likes in here all the time explaining what's going on, or engaging squeaky wheels and being prevented from doing what everyone is bitching about in the first place- trying to fix the problem. All is being done to end any inconveniences, and while it may seem frustrating to be told, again and again, to have patience, I promise you it is not as frustrating as saying it. If it's so appalling to you to be told the same thing over and over, stop asking the same God-damned questions.

Well, isn't that charming? The way I see it, I may not pay much for the service, but I do pay for it. When things aren't working right, I deserve real information and real deadlines. I don't deserve to be strung along.

Furthermore, I certainly don't deserve to go into a "Help" forum and be told to hold my farooking water.

If Blogdrive cannot provide the service it is charging for, people will leave. Customer retention requires, at all times, communication. This is not communication.

The fact that the person posting this tirade is not a paid Blogdrive rep is meaningless to me. Blogdrive allows him to moderate the help forum so that they don't have to pay someone to do it. That makes him officiall enough in my eyes.

So the question is this - can anyone, in good conscience,  recommend their blog service? I know we all have issues sometimes. Blogspot seemed to have one yesterday, as well. But are they this frequent, with such little regard for the customer? I want to know who does not think their provider sucks.

Because I'm just not there anymore.

   


When it comes to the law, everyone has a pet peeve. I expected as much, seeing as I do that America has just too damn many laws, with many failing to serve the many and others being just plain stupid. There were some good ideas put forth, and some good debate on at least one proposed change. There was no debate over changing marijuana laws. Of course, these are what one might call "small - sample statistics"!

The prohibition of marijuana seems to persist under the power of inertia alone. It simply remains an unpopular subject in government despite the noticable lack of credible evidence against it. While seeking suitable photos for this entry,I came across a very damning study, showing how marijuana changes the blood flow in the brain. It cited statistics for "moderate users" (70 joints/week) and "heavy users" (350 joints +/week). Seventy joints a week is MODERATE? For who, Tommy Chong??????? And if someone is smoking 350 joints/week, which is 50/day, I can only guess that their weed really sucks. Are you sure you're not smoking oregano???? This reminds me of the famous study that proved that marijuana is lethal, as it killed a lab monkey that smoked it. The monkey, it seems, perished after being forced to smoke over 50 joints in one hour. All they proved is that monkeys need oxygen as well.

Despite, or actually because of, these silly studies, one out of 136 Americans is currently behind bars. No, they didn't all get busted with pot. The unforgiving and ineffective drugs laws in America have merely insured that on top of all the killers, thieves, rapists, molesters, and embezzlers that deserve some time in the stripey hole we have a lot of ordinary people who chose to get high. These numbers would be worse if we didn't have a escape valve; the guy that raped your kid can be paroled to make room for the unparolable guy that had two sheets of acid. So don't worry, America. You're safe from him. Just keep the kids inside.

The other ideas were things like abolishing the death penalty, repealing the Patriot Act, repealing the "Torture Law", repealing laws restricting consensual sex between adults, repealing seatbelt/helmet laws, and repealing laws en masse as a prerequisite to making new ones. Only one person had a suggestion that entailed further restriction. Thus, I think that on the whole, the reaction can be summed up in one statement from the people to Washington, DC: "Stop telling us what's good for us, and with the extra time that you gain from that, start doing something good for us. Shit fer brains!"

I'd like to see a referendum on THAT.


New poll in the sidebar!!!

Many of these have more than one link..... don't miss anything!

Update: The Rio Grande Gorge link has been fixed.

1. Various mountain ranges.

2. National forests.

3. Balloon Fiesta!

4. Empanadas.

5.The Rio Grande Gorge.

6. Road Runners and Coyotes.

7. New Mexican food. Yes, it is different than Mexican food.

8. Magnificent sunsets.

9. Carlsbad Caverns.

10. New Mexican art.

11. New Mexican architecture.

12. New Mexican history.

13. ....and do I need to mention how great the weather is (unless O'Tim is here)?

Taken from Archer, who stole it from Dawn, who was cajoled into it.

1 – What was the scariest movie you have ever seen?

The original version of The Haunting

2- What was your favorite Halloween costume as a child?

Remember the movie poster for Jaws, with the shark coming out of the water with its' mouth open? My costume looked just like that. It was made out of cardboard and packing foam that had been molded in a toothy-looking serrated pattern, and my face looked out of the shark's mouth. It was COOL.

3- Given enough money what would be your fantasy Halloween costume?

I have a great idea for a "Business Suit Satan" outfit I'll put together someday.

4- When was the last time you went trick or treating?

I think I was in 6th grade or so.

5- What is your favorite Halloween candy?

Tootsie Rolls

6- Tell us about a scary nightmare you once had.

Remember Carrie? Remember when she got whacked with all that blood and just stood there looking royally pissed at everyone below her? The night I saw that, I dreamed she was doing that at the foot of my bed. It was....discomforting.

7 – What is your supernatural fear?

Grizzly bears. They're bad luck when they're hungry.

8-What is your 'creepy-crawlie' fear?

Black Widow spiders, and we have them aplenty where I live.

9- Tell us a time you saw a ghost or heard something go bump in the night.

When I lived in Elgin I occasionally heard footsteps upstairs when no one was there.

10- Would you stay overnight in a real Haunted House?

You bet I would!

11-Are you a traditionalist or a creative carver of you Jack-o-Lantern?

I'm not good enough to be creative with it.

12- How much do you decorate the house at Halloween?

I might carve a pumpkin.

13- What do you want on your tombstone?

"You're late. You missed him."

It was 58% to 42% last week, with people who might be dressed any old way - or no way- while blogging, over those that are always fully dressed. I'm of the former group. When you llive alone, you might as well be comfortable, eh? Besides when you're writing, comfort is job #1. At least for me.

In fact, I'm just half dressed right now. Big deal. I'll put a shirt on later.

This week's poll is, once again, a no -clicker. The number of possible answers is way to large, so this is a free-range, essay type poll! Here 'tis:


What one law would you change? How would you change it, and why?

Go nuts.

I've just finished writing my first paper for my Hitchcock/Kubrick Film as Literature class. I'll be revising it throughout tomorrow and handing it in on Monday. I thought I'd troll for feedback here.

It's about Rope, Starring James Stewart, John Dall, and Farley Granger. It's one of my favorite movies by one of my favorite directors. The essay, as instructed by the Professor, is written with the assumption that the reader is familiar with the film. If you haven't seen this movie, I strongly recommend it!! If you have, then I welcome your feedback. What do you think of my thesis??

---

The Technical Eloquence of Hitchcock’s Rope

In the making of a film, Alfred Hitchcock took special pleasure in spearheading the use of new techniques. His interviews make it easy to see the pride with which he explains how he achieved some effect or other. No greater example exists than his film Rope (1948), which employed several technical innovations uncommon to filmmaking then and still today. This was not just Hitchcock’s way of playing with toys, however. Rope was made as it was to elicit specific emotional reactions from the viewer.

Rope, like many other films, was based on a stage play. In films, however, directors tend to expand the scenery of the play to more locations than is possible onstage. The dazzling Alpine scenes in The Sound of Music (Wise, 1965), for instance, were not possible on Broadway. Much of the first ten minutes of Harvey (Koster, 1950), where Elwood P. Dowd (James Stewart) walks down the street to the pub, was not in the stage play at all, which opens in his private library. Hitchcock decries this approach in the book "Hitchcock" by Francois Truffaut, saying that “…. this is where the film makers often go wrong, and what they get is simply some dull footage that’s been added to the play artificially.” (212)

Hitchcock did the opposite with Rope. The credits play to a placid scene where people walk down a quiet city street (including Hitchcock himself). As soon as the credits have finished, we are pulled into an apartment, and there we stay. The apartment itself is arranged much like it would be onstage, with two rooms set next to each other. The viewer never sees the “wall” that is behind the camera in either room. The action is blocked much like a play would be, but the camera is “on stage” with the actors, drawing the audience into the room as well. As soon as we enter the apartment, we witness a murder, with the body then stashed in a trunk. The tension begins. The usual instinct is to run from a murder, especially if you have just committed it, but the guilty parties stay, and we, the witnesses, stay with them. The tension grows every time another person comes into the apartment and stays. No one leaves until near the end, and every new person in the room builds the pressure. Every time someone goes near the trunk or asks about the victim, it grows again. If Hitchcock had thrown in gratuitous scenes of the party guests arriving in their cabs and going up the stairs to the apartment, the pressure would have been vented when the action left the room. The audience would have a chance to relax, to “get away from it” for a bit. He keeps the feeling of unease constant and growing by keeping us in the small space that in real life, we would not hesitate to leave with great haste. He also keeps the pulse slightly elevated by repeatedly placing the camera, and thus the audience, next to the trunk.

A long window runs along the wall behind the action, offering a view of the New York skyline. This skyline also resembles what Broadway might offer. It is a diorama-like construct, with clouds that shift position at a regular rate throughout the film, and meticulous care was taken (to the point of reshooting several scenes) to display a colorful, but not too colorful, sunset fading into a dark night sky. The diorama’s appearance shows the attention to detail demanded by Hitchcock the artist. This progression of spun glass cloud and light gives the audience its’ only sense of time’s movement (and no doubt spares us a dozen or so shots of a clock). More importantly, however, the artificiality of the scenery serves to constantly remind us that everything truly important is in the apartment with us. That is the only place where we can see anything real, and in action. There are no birds, planes, or window washers to distract us from the tense situation, just this clockwork scenery. Hitchcock has managed to put a barrier around the scene, sheltering it from any outside reality until his purpose has been served.

Hitchcock also subtly manipulated the actors’ performances in order to draw the audience further into the drama. In most films, every scene will be composed of many cuts. During the process, actors will be doing the same short bits over and over, tweaking this or that, and correcting errors. They may go in and out of character during this process, and will be shooting the scenes in a different order than they appear in the finished work. The flow and timing are a result of the film’s editing. Plays are just the opposite. Actors, stagehands, orchestra, and audience are all “in the moment”. The performers must stay focused and in character. They are responsible for keeping the pace.

In filming Rope, Hitchcock eschewed editing as much as the physical medium itself allowed. Each cut was an entire reel of film, lasting about 10 minutes each. He avoided any obvious edits by having the camera zoom in on a dark field, like the back of a man’s jacket, at the end of a reel. The next reel would begin in the same spot, and move back. The pace of the “play” is never interrupted. The audience’s feeling of being in the room with the action is never challenged by a swift change of camera angle. By keeping the view to one camera, which of course can move about as a person would, the audience member never feels like a voyeur as much as like another person at the party – one who knows what’s up but cannot speak.
This tactic did more than merely allow a theatrical atmosphere, however. It forced the cast to perform in larger blocks. Instead of going in and out of character for 30-second cuts, they were forced to stay in character, and in the moment, for ten minutes at a time. This provided an emotional continuity that compliments the pacing continuity provided by the very same approach. Having the actors retain the emotions that their characters are feeling in this way helps draw the viewer into the emotional stew slowly boiling in that small space confining both cast and audience. By continuing to treat Rope as a play, Hitchcock loses none of the drama that made it work onstage in the first place.

While it is the norm today, color was fairly fresh technology in 1948. While it had been around for at least a decade, it was still usually reserved for special projects. Rope was, in fact, Hitchcock’s first color film. He didn’t merely allow the color to be its’ own reward, however. As he was already accustomed to using photographic style to make a cinematic point, color became another tool to him. For the most part, the color remained low-key, with soft, cool tones rather than bright, warm ones. Not only was Hitchcock taking caution with an unpredictable new (to him) medium, he was also taking care that the relative novelty of color would not distract the viewer from the story. In fact, part of the film was re-shot in order to tone down the sunset.

He used color pointedly in one instance, though.  When Mrs. Atwater (Constance Collier) enters the party, she sees Kenneth (Douglas Dick) and mistakes him for the murder victim, David (Dick Hogan). She calls out the name “David”, startling Phillip (Farley Granger) and causing him to break his glass and cut himself. When the camera moves to Philip, the first thing the audience notices is the bright red blood on his hand. As it is normal to feel alarmed at the sight of someone bleeding, and since movie audiences had not yet in 1948 been inured to such sights, the audience is given a start. Had the film been black and white, the blood would not give the viewer a start at all. In fact, it is likely that the blood would go unnoticed for what it is until another character says “Philip, you’re bleeding”, which would be far less effective. This approach also allows Hitchcock to draw his metaphor subtly; Philip, indeed, has blood on his hands. Ironically, Hitchcock chose to make Psycho (Hitchcock, 1960) in black and white so as to contain the emotional reaction to the blood in the shower scene.

At the climax of the film, Rupert (James Stewart) discovers what his hosts have done, and fires a gun out the window. This is the first time that the outside, or for that matter the windows themselves, have been acknowledged since the opening credits. In direct contrast to the carefully structured fantasy of the skyline, Hitchcock took great care in making the sounds at this point of the film realistic. To capture the sounds of people on the street reacting to the shots, he hung a microphone out of a window several stories up. He then had actors on the street reacting to the gunshots. This approach gave the voices distance; some words were clear, others not quite so. For the approaching police sirens, a microphone was set up outdoors and real car sirens were recorded, starting miles away and coming closer. The audience hears the sirens start far off into the dim distance, and slowly get louder as they grow closer. We hear the other street sounds, and the people now reacting to the approaching sirens.   Every sound from without is exactly like it would be to someone in a real apartment with a real window open in a real city. In this way Hitchcock uses meticulous reality to invite the outside world back into the picture. After being shunned for the length of the movie, reality can now enter the apartment again, just in time for Philip and Brandon (John Dall) to get a good taste of it. At this point, the tension is gone, the pressure vented out of the open window, and the “captive” audience is released to go where they will.

While Hitchcock’s entire career could be considered a love affair with cinema, Rope is a film for the theatregoer. While that makes it differ from much of his other works, it still has one thing in common with them all; Hitchcock’s contention that reality, plausibility, and character had less importance than the emotional involvement of the audience.  Creating that emotional involvement was the primary goal. From there came the joy taken in creating new ways of getting his desired image onscreen. The unique methods used in Rope would not be conducive to day-to-day filmmaking, and were not undertaken lightly. Everything Hitchcock did played a part in manipulating the audience’s emotions and creating a truly engaging experience.