MattZ

No, but you seem to be saying that Schilling shouldn't call his bullshit, bullshit. Right? And my point, is that Schilling is just calling em as he sees em.

He's not innocent. That's why he's not saying he's innocent.

thanks man - that was awesome

There's an interesting book that came out pretty recently that explores how our brains perceive music. I looked at it in the book store and turned to a chapter that seemed to be making the point that the whole major/minor chord distinctions as happy/sad are very much a learned/societal response. Same with "high" notes as opposed to "low" notes. Or the 1, 4, 5 chord patterns in our music. He also suggested that different societies definitely perceive music and rhythmic patterns differently. It's on my "to pick up" list. It's called This Is Your Brain on Music. This is not a plug for the

"dropping the kids off at the pool" literally.

I hate to say it, but I find that whenever I really need to use my cellphone (and I mean REALLY need to use it), it doesn't work. That sucks ass. 9/11, nyc blackout, steampipe explosion in NYC, trapped in elevator, stuck on subway, etc.

Side question: Why is it called theory? There's nothing theoretical about it. 1, 3, 5 make up a major chord. No matter what key you are in. That's fact, not theory.

Haha, yeah sorry. We agree, I think. Yeah, I know. The debate is all over the place, though. I suppose the point I tried to make (inartfully) is that musicians know theory and use theory whether they know it or not. Theory is going to tell you which is the right 7th chord to use. But so will your ear. My point with the Beatles example is that Paul's/George's ears told them they needed a B7 chord for whatever song they were playing (not theory -- or at least, not theory that they were conscious of). Even though they didnt know how to build the chord -- they searched it out and found

Yes. All musicians have music theory skills. Whether they realize it or not.

I disagree -- someone who understands that a chord is made up of 3 notes (1, 3, 5) and what one has to do to those notes (or others) to make a chord minor, aug, 7th, etc. is someone that is relatively well schooled in the basic building blocks of theory. If Paul/George knew that, they would not have had to be shown how to finger a B7. They could have built a B7 in their living room. And you don't need a lick of theory to know that the song you are playing really could use the pizzazz of a 7th chord right about now.

I remember an absolutely wonderful story from the Beatles Anthology where George (or was it Paul?) says they took a bus across town when they were kids because rumor had it there was a kid over there who knew how to play a B7 chord. Someone who understands theory and the building blocks of chords doesn't need to do that. But someone without formal training who knows what he wants to express and doesn't know how to do it, will find a way. Even without theory. If he/she is skilled enough and driven enough (no pun intended) to do it.

I always considered music theory to be a bit of a chicken and egg thing. And I say that as someone who knows a very little bit of theory and writes very bad songs. Obviously, music existed before theory did. And one certainly doesn't need theory to write fantastic music. Add Paul McCartney and John Lennon to the list of not classically trained. As I quoted above -- music theory is basically the science of what sounds good, isn't it? What will theory tell you that your ear won't? If you are good at your craft, you don't need theory. You need a good ear.

"I think I will answer the question I wanted you to ask instead of the question you did ask."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't think your logic is flawed. Animals we eat are tortured. No doubt about it. But it's easier for people to rationalize killing (or torturing) for food as opposed to sport. Plus, people like dogs more than cows. It sucks, but it's true. I don't have the discipline to be a vegetarian, but I also don't delude myself into thinking that the piece of meat on my plate conveniently fell out of the sky. I also know that if I ever had to watch how that piece of meat got to my plate -- birth to cage to slaughterhouse to truck to store -- that I would probably never eat meat again. But for

Saw Nick Lowe in NYC on 7/20 at Housing Books. A bizarre venue to see him, but the upside was that the crowd was very small and very respectful. We were surrounded by books and a coffee bar. 200 people there tops? Nick was funny, understated and seemingly struck by the love from the crowd. Two fairly bland openers before Nick took the makeshift stage at 9:15. Apparently the show was for charity so he only played til 10pm. From memory, the set was probably half from the new album, and half oldies. New song highlights were: I Trained Her to Love Me, Hope For Us All (maybe the highlight

Wanted to chime in on this even though not directed to me -- I thought the book was quite good. Without giving any spoilers, I thought it did a masterful job of showing how a population could turn against a group of people. That was always something that was incomprehensible to me even though I know it has happened many times before in history. Roth makes it seem not so hard to imagine. There were some parts that I thought were forced or didn't work all that well, but on the whole, it fascinated me.

I don't get this joke.

cryptique said it better than I did. I guess my surprise has more to do with the fact that so many athletes beat the shit out of their wives/girflriends or father illegitimate kids, etc. that its interesting to see people rally around the cause when it comes to mistreating animals. Like I said, if he did it, Vick deserves a special place in hell. Next to the place with the guys who beat their wives. But you don't see the same level of scrutiny on those guys. Just weird.

Let me preface this by saying that I am in complete agreement with a law that makes it a felony for anyone to do what VIck is accused of doing to those dogs. That being said, I have to admit I was a bit surprised when I learned that these acts are felonies. And I am surprised at the fallout that is going on (at least initially) with people claiming he will never play again. It's awesome and he deserves a special place in hell. But I am surprised that so many other people seem to agree.

I know its naive of me to think it, but I can't help thinking that I don't understand how professional athletes with so much fame, so much money and the best of everything at their fingertips would be willing to risk throwing everything away over the most ridiculously stupid stuff. I mean, this isn't even drugs or alcohol. And he's not addicted. Does Michael Vick really have such a passion for electrocuting under-performing dogs that he can't say no? It's mindboggling to me. Get another hobby for crying out loud. You have the money. And if it's the gambling that he's attracted to, buy

I prefer most of the studio cuts on YHF to the live ones. Ashes of American Flags and IATTBYH being two resounding exceptions. It's funny, when I saw Wilco at Warsaw in brooklyn recently, they played Pot Kettle Black. I got really excited when I recognized it because (apparently) that was a song that had fallen out of rotation a bit. I have to admit that I was *slightly* disapointed when they finished it. Just didn't work for me. Oh well. Jesus Etc is another one that just doesn't work. I miss the strings. The live versions of AGIB and SBS tunes, however, slay me. Slay. Me.

Yes, as currently and broadly defined. But I prefer to call them "statistically-challenged."

Happy bday. Have a blast today.

... had something in my eye.