Here is a lovely column by what I would suspect is an intelligent man, he's a professor at George Washington University, but he's a misguided idiot when it comes to his beloved Cubbies.
First off, reading your column makes it sound like you care more about Wrigley field than winning. That's pathetic. If you care more about your stadium than the team, stop caring about sports.
Second, Ricketts only brought up moving because the stupid alderman is being a pain in the ass. Its not Ricketts fault the previous ownership idiotically signed a profit sharing agreement with the rooftop owners. Those owners are paying a paltry 17% to make money off the Cub's product. They're bitching they're going to lose their view.
I say, who cares? Do you want your team to win? Do you want to win a World Series? That takes money.
The Cubs might be the most profitable because they have worked diligently to cut their bloated payroll to build for the future. But profitability doesn't equal success. The Pirates and Royals are consistently profitable and they suck. Though, at least in the Royals case they're trying of late.
But honestly sir, why do you care about a stupid decrepit stadium? The place is a shithole. It was a shithole when I was 10 years old, its a shithole now. You have a history of not winning there that stretches back almost a century and you're worried about a stadium?
Seriously, stop being a Cubs fan. You sum up everything wrong with their century of futility. In fact, stop caring about sports if you don't want your team to win, because that's what the Cubs are trying to do, build a winner.
Oh, and Go Cards and Go Sox.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Our military is a cesspool of sexual violence.
Currently trending as a fairly hot news topic is the Air Force's officer in charge of their sexual abuse prevention and response office being arrested for.....sexual assault. While, this doesn't really come as a surprise to me one of the things this is highlighting yet again is the high rate of sexual abuse that happens in the armed forces.
There is much talk going on about how sex abuse numbers are rising in the military are rising. Well, here's the thing. The estimates on how many occur each year are rising. This is alarming, but the real alarming part is that the estimates are just that, estimates, because only about 10% of the cases are reported. While I'm sure (ok, I'm not, I hope there is, but I'm suspicious) that there is some good methodology behind the numbers, roughly 26,000 cases of abuse up from about 19,500 in 2010, I wonder if the real problem is the Pentagon has buried the issue so long the estimates look like they're increasing at a high rate simply because the problem is so under reported? Or, if its really increasing at such an alarming rate, what can be done?
The power afforded officers in the military is great, as it should be, except the problem is this often leads victims to not report assaults. Much like sexual assault on college campuses across the country, the potential damage to a victim's reputation and future is high. Victims may be denied promotions, harassed by their peers, and any manner of other forms of abuse.
The very nature of the military does not make this a simple problem to solve. Obviously a more conducive environment to reporting and prosecuting these crimes needs to exist. Perpetrators should be punished as they would in civilian courts, and generals should not just be allowed to overrule a jury.
However, it seems that the military is far behind in enforcement and education even as they continue to further integrate. You can argue against integration of the military all you want, that still does not excuse the crimes from happening.
Its classic victim blaming. "If those women weren't in the military this wouldn't happen."
Well, ok, yes. But they ARE in the military and while there is always going to be sex crimes, the alarming rates of 1 in 16 is just that, alarming! Its somehow the women's fault they're abused simply because of their career choice?
The current high profile instance came while the officer in question was extremely drunk and began groping a woman he didn't know. I often wonder how often alcohol is related to these cases? Drinking and the military have long gone hand in hand, often as a form of self-medication to deal with psychological and physical pains.
The current culture of our military is a perfect breeding ground for sexual crimes and it does little to serve the victims or make real changes to prevent them from happening. Hopefully Secretary of Defense Hagel and the Pentagon can come up with some real solutions to allow victims to come forward and begin weeding out those in our armed forces who prey on others.
Just because you cannot prevent all cases, does not mean much more couldn't be done to prevent some and bring justice for those who it does happen to.
There is much talk going on about how sex abuse numbers are rising in the military are rising. Well, here's the thing. The estimates on how many occur each year are rising. This is alarming, but the real alarming part is that the estimates are just that, estimates, because only about 10% of the cases are reported. While I'm sure (ok, I'm not, I hope there is, but I'm suspicious) that there is some good methodology behind the numbers, roughly 26,000 cases of abuse up from about 19,500 in 2010, I wonder if the real problem is the Pentagon has buried the issue so long the estimates look like they're increasing at a high rate simply because the problem is so under reported? Or, if its really increasing at such an alarming rate, what can be done?
The power afforded officers in the military is great, as it should be, except the problem is this often leads victims to not report assaults. Much like sexual assault on college campuses across the country, the potential damage to a victim's reputation and future is high. Victims may be denied promotions, harassed by their peers, and any manner of other forms of abuse.
The very nature of the military does not make this a simple problem to solve. Obviously a more conducive environment to reporting and prosecuting these crimes needs to exist. Perpetrators should be punished as they would in civilian courts, and generals should not just be allowed to overrule a jury.
However, it seems that the military is far behind in enforcement and education even as they continue to further integrate. You can argue against integration of the military all you want, that still does not excuse the crimes from happening.
Its classic victim blaming. "If those women weren't in the military this wouldn't happen."
Well, ok, yes. But they ARE in the military and while there is always going to be sex crimes, the alarming rates of 1 in 16 is just that, alarming! Its somehow the women's fault they're abused simply because of their career choice?
The current high profile instance came while the officer in question was extremely drunk and began groping a woman he didn't know. I often wonder how often alcohol is related to these cases? Drinking and the military have long gone hand in hand, often as a form of self-medication to deal with psychological and physical pains.
The current culture of our military is a perfect breeding ground for sexual crimes and it does little to serve the victims or make real changes to prevent them from happening. Hopefully Secretary of Defense Hagel and the Pentagon can come up with some real solutions to allow victims to come forward and begin weeding out those in our armed forces who prey on others.
Just because you cannot prevent all cases, does not mean much more couldn't be done to prevent some and bring justice for those who it does happen to.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Ok, I got a bit more on that....
Continuing on my train of thought from yesterday...
If you're attempting to argue against homosexuality, especially allowing homosexuals to marry, please, PLEASE stop resorting to horrible logical fallacies to bolster your position.
Allowing consenting adults who happen to be of the same sex will not usher in people being allowed to marry animals, people being allowed to marry children (outside of what already happens in the silent corners of the country every day), or any of the other stupid arguments I hear people make.
Let me approach this directly: neither animals, nor children can give legal consent. The massive change in American law that would have to occur for this to become legal is mindblowing. It would require rewriting pretty much our entire legal code if animals are suddenly recognized in the same manner as humans in things of this nature.
Same with children. Children cannot give consent. Now, there are certain groups that marry off young girls, many barely into their teens. However, many of these are "off the books" because though they have parental blessing, its often in plural marriages of a relative few. Parents can also give permission for their underage children to marry as in the case of the reality TV star who married the creepy old dude.
But again, this is far different from allowing some random person to marry a minor without parental input.
Also, tangentially related, but still pertinent to the conversation I believe, Jason Collins, a NBA free-agent came out this past week. The media of course have been opinionating and covering it like a glove. Its silly, but its what they do.
However, this has led some to opine the only reason its a story is just because of media hype. I'm sorry, this just isn't true. For an active male pro athlete in one of the major American sports to come out is a huge step. Why? Because locker rooms are still notoriously hyper-heterosexual. He's received plenty of support, but there have also been plenty of detractors, for various reasons.
Here's the thing, contrary to what many people think, there are huge swaths of America where being gay is not ok. Oh sure, its fine if no one knows, but its a real hazard to your job if it becomes known.
Wait, that is discrimination and not right! This is true, but good luck proving you didn't get that raise or promotion because of your sexuality. Much "easier" to keep it quiet, keep it hidden and just pretend to be "normal."
This simply isn't right. Again, these are sexual activities between grown consenting adults. Unless you're doing something stupid like banging the boss' wife (or son or whatever) it should have no bearing on your job.
Is there a portion of the homosexual community that gives the rest a bad name by being overly militant in pressing for their rights? Sure, but why paint an entire group by the actions of a few? That's the same as painting all Christians hatemongers because of Westboro Baptist, all Muslims terrorists because of the actions of some, or any other mass stereotyping that occurs.
Please, stop pretending everything is fair and equal and everything is ok and happy and life can go on. That's the point, its NOT ok and NOT fair and equal and all anyone is asking is that it is made fair and equal. I know it sounds simple, but its apparently not at all.
If you're attempting to argue against homosexuality, especially allowing homosexuals to marry, please, PLEASE stop resorting to horrible logical fallacies to bolster your position.
Allowing consenting adults who happen to be of the same sex will not usher in people being allowed to marry animals, people being allowed to marry children (outside of what already happens in the silent corners of the country every day), or any of the other stupid arguments I hear people make.
Let me approach this directly: neither animals, nor children can give legal consent. The massive change in American law that would have to occur for this to become legal is mindblowing. It would require rewriting pretty much our entire legal code if animals are suddenly recognized in the same manner as humans in things of this nature.
Same with children. Children cannot give consent. Now, there are certain groups that marry off young girls, many barely into their teens. However, many of these are "off the books" because though they have parental blessing, its often in plural marriages of a relative few. Parents can also give permission for their underage children to marry as in the case of the reality TV star who married the creepy old dude.
But again, this is far different from allowing some random person to marry a minor without parental input.
Also, tangentially related, but still pertinent to the conversation I believe, Jason Collins, a NBA free-agent came out this past week. The media of course have been opinionating and covering it like a glove. Its silly, but its what they do.
However, this has led some to opine the only reason its a story is just because of media hype. I'm sorry, this just isn't true. For an active male pro athlete in one of the major American sports to come out is a huge step. Why? Because locker rooms are still notoriously hyper-heterosexual. He's received plenty of support, but there have also been plenty of detractors, for various reasons.
Here's the thing, contrary to what many people think, there are huge swaths of America where being gay is not ok. Oh sure, its fine if no one knows, but its a real hazard to your job if it becomes known.
Wait, that is discrimination and not right! This is true, but good luck proving you didn't get that raise or promotion because of your sexuality. Much "easier" to keep it quiet, keep it hidden and just pretend to be "normal."
This simply isn't right. Again, these are sexual activities between grown consenting adults. Unless you're doing something stupid like banging the boss' wife (or son or whatever) it should have no bearing on your job.
Is there a portion of the homosexual community that gives the rest a bad name by being overly militant in pressing for their rights? Sure, but why paint an entire group by the actions of a few? That's the same as painting all Christians hatemongers because of Westboro Baptist, all Muslims terrorists because of the actions of some, or any other mass stereotyping that occurs.
Please, stop pretending everything is fair and equal and everything is ok and happy and life can go on. That's the point, its NOT ok and NOT fair and equal and all anyone is asking is that it is made fair and equal. I know it sounds simple, but its apparently not at all.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
I don't understand why you care so much...
After listening to some poor right wing Christian fumble his way through an explanation of why he cared so much about homosexuals having equal rights, I figured, hey, I'll throw my opinion out there. Why not? Its the internet!
The fundamental question I have for Christians who have such an issue with homosexuality is this: How is it affecting your life in a negative manner?
If you reply, "Its sinful!" to that I reply, other's sin CONSTANTLY in manners much more damaging to society as a whole, yet most of you do little to combat that. Greed, something crippling our country and the world at the moment, is something you speak so little on. Heck, some churches even espouse a gospel of greed as if accumulating wealth is a sign God is blessing you.
So, what's your next idea? Please don't say because the Bible says so.....oh god, you're going there aren't you?
Ok, well, the Bible says LOTS of things, many of those things in the same books the few mentions of homosexuality occur. So, do you wear clothes made out of two different fabrics? Do you think its ok for a man to rape a woman as long as he marries her? You're fine with polygamy then right? Slavery is cool too. Stoning for infidelity? Hope you don't have tattoos (it is doubtful you do I know.) You realize the Bible has 2 creation stories in Genesis right after each other right? Which one is the correct one?
Hang on you might protest, that's old Testament stuff. Oh, you mean like one of the strongest proscriptions of homosexuality? Right there in Leviticus? With all those weird laws we don't follow?
Now, Paul does address homosexuality of a sort in the New Testament. But its brief, and its quite possible he was addressing the Greek practice of adult men taking adolescent boys as "companions." Paul could be vague at times, see Philemon, is he telling Philemon to free Oesimius? Or just forgive him and accept him back?
Now, lets get on to more important things. Let's address what Christ said on the subject. *crickets*
Done with that.
I can accept if you view the behavior as sinful. I might disagree, but here's the problem. Its sin that doesn't affect you. How about you worry about the plank in your eye rather than the speck in theirs? What if all the money spent to "fight the homosexual agenda" (note this is politics, not the religious arena) was spent on other things? Helping to offer quality health care? Advocating for living wages here and abroad? Various other worthy goals that don't include infringing on the rights of your fellow citizens.
I hate to tell you, well, no, I don't. I'm happy to say, you're going to lose this one. 50 years from now you'll look as stupid as the tacit racists who were against integration.
I'm just saddened that you think God is calling you to be this way. I'm pretty sure God doesn't give one more crap about their sin of homosexuality than the litany of sin we all deal with daily. Possibly you could find the charity in your heart to focus on what you can do to improve the world, rather than making it more difficult for others.
The fundamental question I have for Christians who have such an issue with homosexuality is this: How is it affecting your life in a negative manner?
If you reply, "Its sinful!" to that I reply, other's sin CONSTANTLY in manners much more damaging to society as a whole, yet most of you do little to combat that. Greed, something crippling our country and the world at the moment, is something you speak so little on. Heck, some churches even espouse a gospel of greed as if accumulating wealth is a sign God is blessing you.
So, what's your next idea? Please don't say because the Bible says so.....oh god, you're going there aren't you?
Ok, well, the Bible says LOTS of things, many of those things in the same books the few mentions of homosexuality occur. So, do you wear clothes made out of two different fabrics? Do you think its ok for a man to rape a woman as long as he marries her? You're fine with polygamy then right? Slavery is cool too. Stoning for infidelity? Hope you don't have tattoos (it is doubtful you do I know.) You realize the Bible has 2 creation stories in Genesis right after each other right? Which one is the correct one?
Hang on you might protest, that's old Testament stuff. Oh, you mean like one of the strongest proscriptions of homosexuality? Right there in Leviticus? With all those weird laws we don't follow?
Now, Paul does address homosexuality of a sort in the New Testament. But its brief, and its quite possible he was addressing the Greek practice of adult men taking adolescent boys as "companions." Paul could be vague at times, see Philemon, is he telling Philemon to free Oesimius? Or just forgive him and accept him back?
Now, lets get on to more important things. Let's address what Christ said on the subject. *crickets*
Done with that.
I can accept if you view the behavior as sinful. I might disagree, but here's the problem. Its sin that doesn't affect you. How about you worry about the plank in your eye rather than the speck in theirs? What if all the money spent to "fight the homosexual agenda" (note this is politics, not the religious arena) was spent on other things? Helping to offer quality health care? Advocating for living wages here and abroad? Various other worthy goals that don't include infringing on the rights of your fellow citizens.
I hate to tell you, well, no, I don't. I'm happy to say, you're going to lose this one. 50 years from now you'll look as stupid as the tacit racists who were against integration.
I'm just saddened that you think God is calling you to be this way. I'm pretty sure God doesn't give one more crap about their sin of homosexuality than the litany of sin we all deal with daily. Possibly you could find the charity in your heart to focus on what you can do to improve the world, rather than making it more difficult for others.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
So, bombing sovereign nations doesn't make them like us?
I read an article in The Atlantic today about Farea al-Muslimi, a 22 year old Yemeni democracy advocate. He spoke before a U.S. Senate committee on America's use of drones to strike at targets in countries like Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and who knows where else.
Al-Muslimi's words were powerful and moving. They were also a bit "Well no shit, really?"
Essentially what he said boils down to "Drone attacks terrorize the population and make them fear and hate the US. Even when those killed were the bad guys, its still terrifying to have missiles blowing stuff up where you live."
I might have paraphrased a bit, but that's the gist of his argument. We're doing more harm than good by these drone attacks. If you live in an area where the US is seemingly blowing up buildings at random, what is your view of the US going to be? How is this in the long term helping to fight global terrorism?
Its not. If anything, its adding to the ranks of future militants as the children who grew up in fear mistakenly fall prey to blaming America for everything and become radicalized.
Am I saying if we stop drone strikes terrorists will go away? Of course not, I'm not stupid, I'm merely saying that by doing this the way we are, we're just insuring the fight is perpetuated onto the next generation.
How would America react if a foreign nation decided to kill "terrorists" on our soil without permission? It would be a massive international incident and the hawks would probably be clamoring for armed strikes against the perpetrator.
Instead, since we're America, its ok because Yemen, Pakistan, etc. can't directly threaten us. Might makes right.
Except it doesn't. Might causes fear and application of that might creates enemies.
I'm not saying we ignore the problem of terrorists in areas like Yemen. But the way we're going about solving it, by random acts of violence which kill civilians far too often, that's not a solution. That's continuing to make ourselves part of the problem.
Hopefully the Senators will listen to al-Muslimi's words and reconsider our use of drones in strikes against sovereign nations.
Al-Muslimi's words were powerful and moving. They were also a bit "Well no shit, really?"
Essentially what he said boils down to "Drone attacks terrorize the population and make them fear and hate the US. Even when those killed were the bad guys, its still terrifying to have missiles blowing stuff up where you live."
I might have paraphrased a bit, but that's the gist of his argument. We're doing more harm than good by these drone attacks. If you live in an area where the US is seemingly blowing up buildings at random, what is your view of the US going to be? How is this in the long term helping to fight global terrorism?
Its not. If anything, its adding to the ranks of future militants as the children who grew up in fear mistakenly fall prey to blaming America for everything and become radicalized.
Am I saying if we stop drone strikes terrorists will go away? Of course not, I'm not stupid, I'm merely saying that by doing this the way we are, we're just insuring the fight is perpetuated onto the next generation.
How would America react if a foreign nation decided to kill "terrorists" on our soil without permission? It would be a massive international incident and the hawks would probably be clamoring for armed strikes against the perpetrator.
Instead, since we're America, its ok because Yemen, Pakistan, etc. can't directly threaten us. Might makes right.
Except it doesn't. Might causes fear and application of that might creates enemies.
I'm not saying we ignore the problem of terrorists in areas like Yemen. But the way we're going about solving it, by random acts of violence which kill civilians far too often, that's not a solution. That's continuing to make ourselves part of the problem.
Hopefully the Senators will listen to al-Muslimi's words and reconsider our use of drones in strikes against sovereign nations.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Jumping the Shark or Why I Don't Follow TV Shows
I'm not a big TV watcher. I'm too difficult to please. I don't have cable and don't follow the "popular" cable shows.
I don't really enjoy sitcoms as they fall into a formula ridiculously fast.
I enjoy procedural shows to a degree, but seldom follow them.
But, for the few shows I do watch, it drives me insane when the show just does something stupid.
Case in point. My wife and I enjoy Castle. We're currently watching the 5th season on Hulu. Its been ok, pretty meh as the show has sort of run its course in a lot of ways, but we just finished the continued episodes.
!!!SPOILER ALERT IF YOU CARE!!!!
These two episodes were terrible. It was pretty much Taken, except in Castleverse. They even jokingly alluded to Taken acknowledging the plot was a thinly veiled ripoff of it.
Castle's daughter and a friend get kidnapped. The friend's family is loaded, even by Castle standards. They pay a ransom, get their girl back. Alexis is still held hostage. OH MY!!
Castle, doing his best Liam Neeson impression goes to rescue her. Oh, did I mention she got whisked to Paris France? Because its so easy to smuggle 2 people out of the country. Anyway....
Castle goes to rescue her, through some contacts, gets hooked up with people to help him find the bad guys....plot twists abound.
Then, an old dude with a rifle saves Castle....who could this be? Could it be Castle's dad? Yes, yes it could......really? He's a CIA agent?
Ok, I'm bitching about a show that is fairly silly quite often. But, it was just outlandish. The writer's have really run out of better ideas? Why did we have to find out about Castle's dad? Why couldn't it be a mystery?
Ugh. I just dislike it when decent shows do bizarre and dumb things. Overall, I still like Castle, I'm just sitting in front of my computer thinking about all the shows I wanted to like but ultimately couldn't stick with.
Anyone remember Heroes? The first season was meh as I felt they wasted potential, but it was enjoyable. The second season they bizarrely decided to follow ALL THE CHARACTERS NO ONE CARED ABOUT most of the time. Why? I gave up then because it was so bad. Apparently it stumbled along until season 3.
I understand its hard to make good TV shows. Most shows have a life of 3-4 years of good episodes at best. But I wish they'd just assume that from the get go instead of stringing shows along with crap. (Bones anyone? Man, its still ok sometimes, but its pretty bad now too.)
Oh well. Pointless post is pointless.
I'll go back to yelling at clouds.
I don't really enjoy sitcoms as they fall into a formula ridiculously fast.
I enjoy procedural shows to a degree, but seldom follow them.
But, for the few shows I do watch, it drives me insane when the show just does something stupid.
Case in point. My wife and I enjoy Castle. We're currently watching the 5th season on Hulu. Its been ok, pretty meh as the show has sort of run its course in a lot of ways, but we just finished the continued episodes.
!!!SPOILER ALERT IF YOU CARE!!!!
These two episodes were terrible. It was pretty much Taken, except in Castleverse. They even jokingly alluded to Taken acknowledging the plot was a thinly veiled ripoff of it.
Castle's daughter and a friend get kidnapped. The friend's family is loaded, even by Castle standards. They pay a ransom, get their girl back. Alexis is still held hostage. OH MY!!
Castle, doing his best Liam Neeson impression goes to rescue her. Oh, did I mention she got whisked to Paris France? Because its so easy to smuggle 2 people out of the country. Anyway....
Castle goes to rescue her, through some contacts, gets hooked up with people to help him find the bad guys....plot twists abound.
Then, an old dude with a rifle saves Castle....who could this be? Could it be Castle's dad? Yes, yes it could......really? He's a CIA agent?
Ok, I'm bitching about a show that is fairly silly quite often. But, it was just outlandish. The writer's have really run out of better ideas? Why did we have to find out about Castle's dad? Why couldn't it be a mystery?
Ugh. I just dislike it when decent shows do bizarre and dumb things. Overall, I still like Castle, I'm just sitting in front of my computer thinking about all the shows I wanted to like but ultimately couldn't stick with.
Anyone remember Heroes? The first season was meh as I felt they wasted potential, but it was enjoyable. The second season they bizarrely decided to follow ALL THE CHARACTERS NO ONE CARED ABOUT most of the time. Why? I gave up then because it was so bad. Apparently it stumbled along until season 3.
I understand its hard to make good TV shows. Most shows have a life of 3-4 years of good episodes at best. But I wish they'd just assume that from the get go instead of stringing shows along with crap. (Bones anyone? Man, its still ok sometimes, but its pretty bad now too.)
Oh well. Pointless post is pointless.
I'll go back to yelling at clouds.
Saturday, April 20, 2013
A Brief History of Music (as it applies to Ovid9) part 1
Growing up, there was always music around our house. My parents both loved music. My mom played piano and sang, and my dad just loved music for music's sake.
We listened to tons of oldies. Though my parents came of age in the late 60s early 70s, they were heavily steeped in the music of the 50s and early 60s.
Part of this came from my dad being a lifeguard and the pool playing music of that era. Part of it came from him being the youngest in his family by 7 years and hearing the music his older siblings listened to.
But we listened to lots of oldies.
We also listened to lots of late 70s, early 80s Christian music. I know what most of you are thinking, and you're partially right, some of it did suck. Other's not so much.
Keith Green was a hell of a musician and songwriter. The 2nd Chapter of Acts, mixed in with lots of cheese put out Roar of Love in 1980 which was played a TON in my house when I was young. Its pretty much The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe put to music. While its certainly dated at this point, I still vividly recall many of the songs on it.
Rich Mullins, whose life was tragically cut short after getting hi by a car, was also a factor around my house.
My dad also had a deep love of classical music. Handel, Bach, Tchaikovsky, and Mozart among others.
This lead me to miss most of the wave of 80s music. I don't consider this a bad thing as I can now appreciate some 80s music, that decade was pretty terrible for music as a whole. A lot of virtuosity that was supposed to cover up terrible songwriting and stuck in the era studio tricks. (I feel that the best of the 80s is some of the greatest music ever made while the bulk of 80s music should be forgotten or at least put up as a warning to future generations.)
So, music was a big part of my life.
Sadly, I fought piano lessons. Something I regret to this day. I hated practicing, so I didn't, so I didn't get any better. Its unfortunate as I'd give anything to have that skill now.
Because it was "safe" much of my introduction to popular music was in the Christian realm. I started listening to contemporary top 40 pop around 1991. Like any other 6th grader I'd tape the radio and had a collection of all sorts of (terrible) pop hits.
When it came to actually buying music, my parents let me join BMG and I quickly accumulated a collection of greatest hits of the likes of Steppenwolf (my metal roots), CCR, ZZ Top (I had no idea what most of the songs were about). Unlike many of my classmates I didn't get dozens of albums that I regret now. (Crash Test Dummies anyone?)
I did get more than a few that still sit on my shelf and I look at and laugh, but there is a connection to them. A connection to a time of innocence when everything was simple and clear and black and white. I'm not saying it was a better time as I was not the most empathetic kid to those who I felt had brought their issues upon them. But there is something about simplicity.
It was around my 7th grade when I started expanding my musical horizons. That year I discovered both Meatloaf and Audio Adrenaline. Both would figure heavily in my musical expansion in the future.
We listened to tons of oldies. Though my parents came of age in the late 60s early 70s, they were heavily steeped in the music of the 50s and early 60s.
Part of this came from my dad being a lifeguard and the pool playing music of that era. Part of it came from him being the youngest in his family by 7 years and hearing the music his older siblings listened to.
But we listened to lots of oldies.
We also listened to lots of late 70s, early 80s Christian music. I know what most of you are thinking, and you're partially right, some of it did suck. Other's not so much.
Keith Green was a hell of a musician and songwriter. The 2nd Chapter of Acts, mixed in with lots of cheese put out Roar of Love in 1980 which was played a TON in my house when I was young. Its pretty much The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe put to music. While its certainly dated at this point, I still vividly recall many of the songs on it.
Rich Mullins, whose life was tragically cut short after getting hi by a car, was also a factor around my house.
My dad also had a deep love of classical music. Handel, Bach, Tchaikovsky, and Mozart among others.
This lead me to miss most of the wave of 80s music. I don't consider this a bad thing as I can now appreciate some 80s music, that decade was pretty terrible for music as a whole. A lot of virtuosity that was supposed to cover up terrible songwriting and stuck in the era studio tricks. (I feel that the best of the 80s is some of the greatest music ever made while the bulk of 80s music should be forgotten or at least put up as a warning to future generations.)
So, music was a big part of my life.
Sadly, I fought piano lessons. Something I regret to this day. I hated practicing, so I didn't, so I didn't get any better. Its unfortunate as I'd give anything to have that skill now.
Because it was "safe" much of my introduction to popular music was in the Christian realm. I started listening to contemporary top 40 pop around 1991. Like any other 6th grader I'd tape the radio and had a collection of all sorts of (terrible) pop hits.
When it came to actually buying music, my parents let me join BMG and I quickly accumulated a collection of greatest hits of the likes of Steppenwolf (my metal roots), CCR, ZZ Top (I had no idea what most of the songs were about). Unlike many of my classmates I didn't get dozens of albums that I regret now. (Crash Test Dummies anyone?)
I did get more than a few that still sit on my shelf and I look at and laugh, but there is a connection to them. A connection to a time of innocence when everything was simple and clear and black and white. I'm not saying it was a better time as I was not the most empathetic kid to those who I felt had brought their issues upon them. But there is something about simplicity.
It was around my 7th grade when I started expanding my musical horizons. That year I discovered both Meatloaf and Audio Adrenaline. Both would figure heavily in my musical expansion in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)