The Long Road

One of the bands I wish had never broken up is Rage Against the Machine. I discovered this band not long before their demise. Kind of a bummer to find a band you really like and then poof… they are no longer. Oh well. At least they had a pretty good back catalogue for me to enjoy.

So what’s the big deal? Well, Rage had a pretty unique sound. These guys were angry and talented and socially conscious. One guitar, one bass, one drum kit and one voice. And they made the most of it. Rage played with an edge and punk sensibility that punk lost a long time ago. But they never really said “fuck the man”. Instead, they gave you every reason to think it would be a good idea to do so.

If you were to ask me who was the most interesting guitar player to listen to, one name that would come up would certainly be Tom Morello. Back when U2 was alienating their audiences with albums like “Pop” The Edge (U2’s guitarist) said that he and they were into abusing sound and interesting in dismantling the convential idea of what noise can come from a guitar. Soon after, U2 homogenized their sound into a flat, uninteresting muddy wet paper bad kinda thing. But that’s a different post now isn’t it? Morello’s playing enbodies what The Edge was talking about. He takes great pride in the fact that he makes such sounds only with his guitar. And yes, it’s cool stuff - and I have no idea how he does most of it.

There’s more. Tom Morello’s guitar licks are at the same time super heavy and not all at the same time.

He seems to have an infinite supply of hooks in his quiver, hooks that are doubled or complimented by the bassline. Result? It’s groovin’.

Click to listen to Rage covering Renegades of Funk
Thanks to ninebullets.net for the track.

Or watch below…

Ever wonder if Marty McFly could take Bill S. Preston Esquire or Ted “Theodore” Logan? Or if Wyld Stallyns played better than McFly covering Chuck Berry? Well neither did I… until now! I came across this cool little head to head battle between Back to the Future and Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.

Now without giving away the author’s conclusions before you read them, you should know that he is dead wrong (but I’m a little biased)

Read it here now.

Several years ago I saw the coolest looking book in the bookstore. Its cover was comicbookesque, right down to simulated worn edges, seemingly from years of people thumbing through its pages. It simply seemed to want to be read. I didn’t buy it.

But I did come back to the bookstore. And indeed, after about 3 more visits, I finally coughed up for this book that I knew nothing about, but was somehow drawn to. Good call.

Michael Chabon won the Pulitzer Prize for this novel. You’ll know him if you saw the Michael Douglas film Wonderboys. Chabon wrote it. Anyway, I’d say the award for Kavalier and Klay was well deserved. In fact, I’d easily go as far as to say that it is one of my all time favorite books. Its wonderfully written, is a sweeping, epic story, and hey, its about two guys who decide to write comic books. Super cool. Anyway, do yourself a favor and pick this one up - you’ll be awfully glad you did.

After years of development, Chabon finally has a screenplay version of the novel that he seems happy with. Now I know that there are those out there that won’t want something this awesome wrecked by a movie treatment (Craig, this means you), and Lord knows, there are some sad, sad movie versions of books out there (most recently the butchering of Eragon by Chris Paolini- MASSIVE disappointment), but I’m looking forward to it, simply ‘cause I love the story, and the characters and the whole premise of the thing.

Here’s Chabon interviewed about K and K. Read it, and then go read this book!

Well, I guess I’ve got some ’splaining to do with reference to my previous post. I’ve sorta been thinking about how people often take what they read on the web as accurate and true. So I thought maybe I’d float that last post out there to see what might happen. People haven’t been commenting much lately either, so I hoped it might stimulate a few comments. Anywoo… if you’ve read the post, and Paul’s comment, you’ll know that I’ve been caught. Indeed, the photo was not found in an old shoebox, dusty and left forgotten by a distance relative. No, actually, that shot was taken (as Paul indicates) in downtown Dalian on the very first Photo Geek outing almost four years ago. In fact, if I recall, that frame was on the very first roll I shot with my Grandpa’s old Rollei (passed on by him to my dad, and from him to me). Since getting the print back, I’ve always been struck at how it simply looks like it was taken a REALLY long time ago (due to the subject matter). Sooooo… I though I’d see if anyone would call me on it. Stupid Paul and his good memory!

I’ve having fun with my scanner these days. In fact, here is an old pic that I’m trying to use software to restore. The original was found in an old shoe box. Written on the back was “Chinatown”. Presumably we are talking about Vancouver here, and judging by the dates found on other pictures in the same box, likely sometime between 1907 and 1915. Things sure have changed eh? Anyway, don’t know who the boy in the pic is, or even who took it.