More Bruce!

It's come to my attention that there is a faction of Bruce fans who are unhappy about him playing halftime at the Super Bowl. I learned this from a recent Joe Posnanski column on the subject, and it seems as though a number of die-hard fans think that because he has been turning down the opportunity to play the Super Bowl halftime show for years, his agreeing to do it this year means he is somehow "selling out." Now, I don't know if the people discussed in Posnanski's column actually represent a large number of Bruce fans, but I don't have the energy to go scouring message boards and Bruce blogs, so I'll just assume there is a relatively sizable number of Springsteen fans who feel this way. If so, that's just silly.

On a 1-10 scale, with 1 being "I'll stupidly sing along to Glory Days when it gets thrown on the jukebox," and 10 being, "I have a copy of an experimental ska album done by Clarence Clemons and Nils Lofgren," I'd say my Bruce fandom rates at about a 7. I love him, and of course the E Street Band, but I am not fanatical about him. I went through a two-year period around the turn of the century when I was obsessed with his three-disc live album, and I have now seen him in concert four times. In fact, on more than one occassion I've told people that seeing him with my three of my closest friends in a luxury box box (with an open bar) at Madison Square Garden in 2001 was the most fun I've ever had. And I meant it.

That being said, I am not as obsessed as many others are. And as a result, I may not have the same kind of connection deep in my soul where his decision to play the Super Bowl could somehow affect me. But at this point in his career, it's hard to imagine there is any way Bruce could realistically "sell out." The guy has been packing stadiums (not arenas, stadiums) for decades. He's sold millions of records and been worshipped by pretty much everyone everywhere.

Furthermore, the whole concept of selling out is kind of stupid to begin with. When musicians start making music, they're dream is to get as big as someone like Springsteen. That's the goal, to fill venues and sell countless records. The whole thing reminds of a quote about selling out that I believe has been credited to James Hetfield of Metallica. "Yeah we sold out. Every night, every show, every building." At this point, the only way I think Bruce could actually sell out is if he and the E Street band did a U.S. tour in support of Sarah Palin's 2012 presidential campaign. If that happens, then yeah, he sold out.

I realize it's common for fans who have been with an artist from the beginning to feel a sense of detachment when they hit it big. And when it happens, they will accuse the band of "selling out." But usually what happens in those cases is that the band then develops a whole new mainstream following and loses its original die-hards in the process, kind of like Blues Traveler. But even if there were Bruce fans who gave up on him when he hit it big, they are long gone. So if you're still a Bruce fan, you've lived through "Dancing in the Dark," you've lived through "Human Touch." For Godsakes, you've lived through that remix of "The Secret Garden" that played all over the radio that included audio clips from "Jerry Maguire." If you stayed with Bruce after that, how the hell could you think he is selling out now?

So what if Bruce has been turning down the Super Bowl for 20 years and suddenly decided he wants to do it. At this point, the guy doesn't have a lot left that he hasn't accomplished musically. Playing halftime of the Super Bowl is one more thing to check off the old list. And some might say he's only doing this because he wants to pimp his new record. So what? The guy just made a new album he's proud of, and he wants people to listen to it. Why not promote to the entire fucking world?

There's a chance that Posnanski is wrong, and Bruce fans aren't actually upset about this. If so, then I guess this whole post can serve as my feelings about the concept of "selling out."

I Love Rock And Roll

I've been thinking about Bruce Springsteen a lot recently. The most obvious reason for this being that he, along with the E Street Band, is playing at halftime of the Super Bowl. While I don't normally give a rat's ass about who does the halftime show, Bruce is about as good as it gets. Therefore, it's a good bet that this year's halftime will be entertaining, as opposed to unbearable. I still miss the days when shows like "In Living Color" and "Beavis and Butthead" ran original episodes during halftime of the Super Bowl, but even that probably would've lost out to Bruce for me. In case you were wondering, "In Living Color's" Super Bowl content hasn't aged all that well, though I did chuckle at their Bob Griese joke.



The other reason I've been thinking about Bruce is because of a band I've recently discovered called The Gaslight Anthem. Like dozens (maybe thousands) of bands before them, TGA's sound is regularly compared to Bruce's. And really, these guys are like him, and it's not just because they are from New Jersey. As guitarist Alex Rosamilia says of his band, "It sounds like Bruce Springsteen singing for a Cure cover band, with a tinge more aggression." If that description doesn't intrigue you, well then I don't think I like your taste in music.

I came across TGA when I noticed they were playing at Webster Hall with Heartless Bastards, another recent fave. I figured that if they were playing with Heartless Bastards, they must be pretty good. So I read a couple of reviews, and their most recent album, The '59 Sound, was very well-received. And I obviously took notice when I saw a number of reviews compare them to the Boss. I then checked them out on MySpace, and bought tickets to the show after listening to this song.



***On an unrelated noted, I just remembered that Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers played the halftime of the Super Bowl last year. This is relevant because of how Heartless Bastards got their name. A couple of the members of the band were playing one of those video trivia games at a bar, and the question was, "what is the name of Tom Petty's band?" And one of the options for multiple choice was "Heartless Bastards." That means that the last two bands I've fallen in love with both have direct ties to the two most recent Super Bowl halftime performers. Coincidence? I think so.

Part of what I enjoy about TGA is that they're completely unabashed about their Bruce influence. In fact, I've noticed references to Bruce lyrics in at least two of their songs.While noticing things like that are kind of cool as a Springsteen fan, that's not why I've been obsessed with them for a week. When it all comes down to it, what makes them stand out is that they just rock. They're sound is not really original, but it doesn't matter. As far as I'm concerned, the true sign of a great rock band is one that make you want to get into a power stance and air-guitar along with them. And it's not necessarily because the guitar playing is transcendent on its own, but because the band has such a feel for the music they are trying to make. That's TGA.

Oh, and I love their attitude. The quote I gave above from Rosamilia comes from some random Q&A I found on a music blog. And I particularly enjoyed this exchange:

Q: You have also been compared to The Killers, does this make you feel any different to the Springsteen comments?
A: I couldn’t care less about being compared to the Killers. I’ve never really gotten into them, and I don’t see the comparison at all. Sorry.

Could this be the start of a Killers-TGA feud? I hope so.

And while we are still sort of on the subject of Bruce, let me just put out my prediction for the four songs he will play on Sunday. My guess is he opens with The Rising, followed by The Wrestler. Then he'll go into Glory Days and finish it all off with Born To Run. Just in case you cared . . .

Tainted Song

So I realize that I've been a little erratic with the posts of late, but that's not for lack of enthusiasm. I've actually been busy. I was out of town skiing for the long weekend, out enjoying a post-President Bush cocktail on Tuesday, and at my first Knicks game in about four years on Wednesday. Don't worry, I got free tix. I didn't pay to watch that "rebuilding" project, aka "pray for LeBron."

As I said, I was out of town over the weekend, and as I was driving back from Vermont, "Tainted Love" came on. I think we can all agree it's a great song, and it got me thinking about that amazing Levi's commercial from the 1990s that featured a guy in ER, and how all the sounds of the ER came together to form the melody to that song. And then everyone notices it, and they all start singing. Fortunately, and not surprisingly, it is on YouTube, and it's an even better commercial than I remember.



Pure genius. And since it's directed by Spike Jonze, it's not surprising.

Anyway, this commercial got me thinking about a few things. First off, wide-leg jeans. Not to get all nostalgic on you, but remember those? I sure as hell do, as that was in style when I was in high school. The Levi's wide legs were about as wide as I would go, but then there were the JNCO jeans, which were particularly popular among Asians, ravers, and Asian ravers. I was never ballsy enough to consider rocking those absurd dungarees, but I always admired those that did because even though I was not willing to make that kind of fashion statement, I respected those who would. Because those jeans were cool during my formative years, it makes me look down upon the now fashionable skinny jeans. As far as I'm concerned, they're dumb. Long live JNCOs! (I bet you didn't think you would ever see that written.)

As is my custom, seeing that Levi's commercial got me doing a little research on "Tainted Love," and I discovered something that blew my mind. It's a cover. This is normally the trivial type of shit I am able to wow my friends with, so I was blown away. It was written by a guy named Ed Cobbs, and performed by a British soul singer named Gloria Jones. Check it out, it's pretty awesome.



Additionally, I learned that Jones had a son with Marc Bolan of T. Rex (you know, "get it on, bang the gong, get it on"), and she even sang back-up for the band. In fact, when Bolan died in a car crash, she was driving the car. How did I not know this?

The thing is, I knew that the extended version of "Tainted Love" included a cover of "Where Did Our Love Go?" by The Supremes, which had been the B-side, and I always thought that it was a nice touch. If you don't know what I'm talking about, compare the following two videos (and yes, I'm really getting a kick out of embedding videos today).



Fast forward to about 4:50 to get to The Supremes part. According to Wikipedia, "At the peak of the song's popularity, many radio stations opted to play the full medley, utilizing their own edits to shorten the 9-minute track."



Now that I know that "Tainted Love" is just a conglomerate of two covers, it makes me reconsider my feelings for it. I mean, at least it's a different take on "Tainted Love," but it's barely a new take on "Where Did Our Love Go?" I typically hate when artists get famous on a cover, but Soft Cell did it with two disguised as one. However, I just can't bring myself to hate their version of "Tainted Love." It's just too damn good.

Also, as I learned from further internet research, an artist releasing a cover version as a single would usually write the song that appears on the B-side, as this would still entitle the artist to some songwriting royalties stemming from sales of that single. However, since Soft Cell wrote neither "Tainted Love" nor "Where Did Our Love Go?" (the B-side), they lost the opportunity to make any songwriting royalties stemming from one of the most popular songs of the '80s. Suckas.

If nothing else, this discovery explains why Soft Cell never had any other hits. They didn't know how to write any songs.

Give Me Fever, Inauguration Fever!

The more I think about it, the more Barack Obama is starting to remind me of Jimmy Clausen. I know it might seem a bit odd to compare the President-elect to Notre Dame's quarterback, but let me take you back to 2006.

That April, Clausen was the No. 1 quarterback recruit in the country when he was scheduled to announce his commitment to Notre Dame at the College Football Hall of Fame. Then a junior in high school, Clausen showed up to the announcement in a stretch Hummer limo with an entourage in tow. It seemed a bit over the top at the time, but Fighting Irish fans didn't care. In fact, they were fired up. This guy was going to save Notre Dame football. But to this point, he hasn't.

As we get ready for Obama's inauguration next Tuesday, I can't help but see some parallels. It seems like everyone I know (and yes, I realize I live in a Democrat-centric world) has got inauguration fever. If they're not going down to DC next week, they know someone who is, or wish they were. Frankly, I just don't get it.

I'm as excited and hopeful about Obama's presidency as most rational lefties, and I realize inaugurating our first black president is a big deal, but this Obama worship has got to stop. So far, all he has really proven is that he is an amazing orator, fundraiser, and campaigner. Some of these things are important traits of a good President, but to this point, Obama hasn't done anything to prove he is a good president. And last time I checked, the country is in the shitter. Everything about inauguration sounds a little excessive, and I think it's an odd time to be having such an extravagant (not to mention costly) celebration. People seem to think it is going to be some sort of can't-miss historical event, but I can't say I have ever heard anyone talk about any past inaugurations as anything that memorable. So why is this going to be different?

I've expressed these thoughts to some friends, and they mostly say, "don't be such a downer, it's just a party." Frankly, I think we've done enough celebrating of Obama. I'm over it. I thought that is what election night was for, when tens of thousands of people showed up to see him speak in Chicago. When people took to the streets of New York City to yell and scream and hug strangers. It was an amazing night, and Obama did an excellent job of managing expectations during his address that night. The country seems to think we need one more party, but it seems to me like the past two years have essentially been one giant party for Obama, capped off by a rager on November 4.

It's probably unrealistic to expect Obama's minions not to turn this inauguration into a frenzy, so I guess there was no way for him and his staff to stop it. But let's stop pretending he is some sort of mythical savior, because he's not. I can only hope that Obama downplays the hysteria during his address, and then we can finally find out if he is actually going to turn things around. I'm optimistic, but so were Notre Dame fans about Clausen.

Hall Of Dumb

If you're someone like me who devours any number of nerdy baseball blogs and websites, you know that Monday is a relatively big day in baseball history. If you don't know, well then let me fill you in.

On Monday the Hall of Fame will announce its 2009 class, which will definitely include Rickey Henderson, likely include Jim Rice, and possibly include Bert Blyleven. Every blogger from Perez Hilton to Markos Moulitas has given their fictional ballot for the Hall of Fame, so I won't go into too much detail about my choices (Henderson, Blyleven, Raines, Tramell, reasons below) here. Instead, I want to address the ongoing case for Jim Rice, and one element I find particularly absurd about it.

Let me just get it out the way that Jim Rice is a horrendous choice for the Hall of Fame. Many insightful and clever writers have ripped his case to shreds elsewhere, but the bottom line is his candidacy is completely driven by Boston writers. What's odd is that when a candidate sees such a boost of support in the later years of his eligibility for the Hall, it's usually because advanced metrics come out to show that the player is more qualified than originally thought. However, that isn't the case with Rice. In fact, not only do advanced metrics say Rice is underqualified, but basic metrics do too! 382 home runs, and his case for the Hall of Fame is entirely predicated on power!

Anyway, the objective case is marginal, and Rice's supporters seem to know this. And that's why his case in recent years has been based entirely around this subjective statement: "He was the most feared hitter of his time." If you're referring to his three-year peak from 1977-79, than this is probably true. But three years does not make a Hall of Fame career.

"Most feared" is a phrase that gets thrown around a lot in baseball. It's not only highly subjective, but also vaguely racist. And the reason I say this is because I only see it attached to surly black players. Seriously, the only guys I can think of who ever got the "most feared" title were Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Jim Rice and Albert Belle. Manny Ramirez has probably been called the "most feared" as well, but it's not like he's white. Dale Murphy would never get the title of "most feared," but he actually has a better Hall of Fame case than Rice, seeing that he actually played an important defensive position, and played it well. But he was a wimpy-looking white dude, and despite his magical light saber bat seen in the photo to the right, he doesn't get this arbitrary subjective statement thrown out there boost to his Hall of Fame chances. On the flip side, it's probably the only time where being seen as an "angry black man" has helped someone get included in an elite institution. So maybe this is progress!

Speaking of angry black men, on behalf of my good friend Daniel Sas, the biggest Albert Belle fan on the planet, let's revisit him for a second. I know it was a completely different run-scoring environment, but Belle hit 381 homers in 6,673 plate appearances. Rice hit one more home run, in 9,058 plate appearances. For those who don't have a calculator, that's 2,385 more PAs. And lest you think Belle was completely a product of his era, keep in mind that his career adjusted OPS is 143, and Rice's is 128. The bottom line is that if Rice is a Hall of Famer, than Belle most certainly is too, but Belle fell off the ballot last year in just his second year of eligibility because he got less than five percent of the vote. Considering Rice and Belle were both jerks to the press, it's amazing Belle didn't gotten more support. Are baseball writers really this stupid? You know what, don't answer that question. But seriously, how can you treat two players, with essentially the same case, so differently? I'm not even saying I think Belle is a Hall of Famer because I'm not sure. But if you think Rice is deserving, than you basicallly have to think Belle is as well. Too bad for Belle won't be on the ballot long enough for the "most feared" juices to seep in.

The most humorous part of the entire thing is that we actually have proof that Rice wasn't even that feared. How do we know? Intentional walks. Rice finished in the top 10 in intentional passes just three times in his career. And he was given a free pass just 77 times in his career. Now I realize that could be a product of who was hitting behind him, but if he were really so feared, wouldn't he have gotten more intentional walks than Von Hayes (82), Ed Kranepool (89), Garret Anderson (101) or Wally Joyner (108)? When B.J. freakin' Surhoff (81) has more intentional walks than you, I'm sorry, that just absolutely kills your "most feared" case in my mind. For the record, Belle had 91 intentional walks. But remember that was in more than 2,300 fewer plate appearances.

So yeah, it's pretty clear Jim Rice is a fraud, at least when it comes to the Hall of Fame. But it looks like there is nothing informed baseball nerds can do to stop it. Sigh.

And for those who care about who I think should go in . . .

Rickey Henderson--D'uh.

Tim Raines--The case against him is essentially that he's not Rickey Henderson. That's like saying Willie McCovey should not have gotten in because he's not as good as Lou Gehrig. If Raines spent his career in Boston, as opposed to Rice, he'd definitely be getting in on Monday. I know he doesn't seem obvious at first glance, but he reached base safely more times than Tony Gwynn. There is even a website devoted to his candidacy. So if you don't believe me, believe these guys.

Bert Blyleven--Another not-so obvious candidate, but the reason he hasn't gotten more support is because he doesn't have 300 wins. Wins are obviously not the best metric by which to rate pitchers, and he is fifth all-time in strikeouts, and ninth in shutouts. Those are two pretty basic (and strong) indicators of dominance. So yeah, he should probably be in.

Alan Trammell--Similar to what I said about Rice v. Belle above, if you believe Ozzie Smith is a Hall of Famer, and Smith got in on the first ballot with 91.7% of the vote, than Trammell is too. Based on runs created, Trammell had 100 more than Smith in two fewer seasons. As good as Smith was with the glove, it's hard to believe he was more than 100 runs better than Trammell with the leather because Trammell was also very well-regarded on defense. Unfortunately, since we don't have access to advanced defensive metrics for these older guys, we have to go based on reputation. I tend to think we overrate basic offensive skills and tend to underrate the ability to play an up-the-middle position, and play it well. When you think really hard about it, isn't a guy like Trammell much harder to find than a guy like Rice? One is an above-average hitter who plays a premium position adeptly, and the other is a slowpoke slugger who isn't even that great of a power hitter and led the league in double plays grounded into four times.

Maybe this all just a long of way of poking even more holes through the swiss chese case of Jim Rice, and maybe Trammell isn't deserving either. But if Rice is, then a whole lot people from his era are too. Sadly, it's Rice who will be going in. I guess we can consider it a victory for race relations.

Not As Awful As I Feared

I've had January 6 marked on my calendar for about a month, and no, it's not because today is Marlon Anderson's birthday. It's because today is the day that brought upon the return of "90210" and "Scrubs." And while I realize my affinity for the former might make me lame, I've already made it clear in this blog that I enjoy the show, so there is no use getting defensive about it now.

I won't go too much into "90210", other than to say that it was more of the same. In other words, I loved it. Instead, I'll focus on "Scrubs," which moved from NBC to ABC after a year-and-a-half hiatus. I'm not exactly sure if it was that long, but they made reference to it during the first of two episodes, so I'll go with that.

I wasn't actually a fan of "Scrubs" from the beginning, but after my sister insisted I would love it for about five years, and I finally started watching it when re-runs began appearing on Comedy Central a couple of years ago. I was living in North Carolina at the time, and since I was regularly bored while I was there and Comedy Central was showing "Scrubs" roughly 12 times a day, I was able to catch up with it pretty quickly. My sister was right, I thought it was hysterical, and it quickly became my favorite show since "Seinfeld" (though "90210" might be giving it some competition).

Like most comedies, "Scrubs" started to lose it's proverbial fastball during its most recent seasons, and I wasn't really expecting much from the new episodes. In fact, I expected them to suck. However, after devoting so many hours to this damn show, I figured I would watch the last few episodes to see how it turns out. Besides, it's not like I have anything that much better to do on a typical Tuesday. (Note: I read that this might not be "Scrubs" final season, but it is Zach Braff's final season. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it's the final season. I'm not like a huge Zach Braff fan or anything, but he is the star.)

Because my expectations were so low, I have to say that tonight's two episodes weren't that bad. I was fully prepared to do a full-on rant about how much it sucked, but it was surprisingly not terrible. I even laughed a few times. But all in all, I wasn't pleased. First of all, they fired the janitor. I never found him that funny as compared to other characters, but this is an ensemble cast, and he was a big part of the show. Second, they had Dr. Kelso retire, and Kelso was probably the funniest character on the show. If he wasn't the funniest, it was his son Harrison who was the funniest, even though we never see Harrison. I'd go so far as to say that Harrison is the funniest imaginary character in TV history, with only Bob Sacamano ("Seinfeld"), Maris ("Frasier") and The Gooch ("Diff'rent Strokes") as competition.

***Quick triva (answer at the bottom): Besides having an awesome imaginary character, what else does "Scrubs" have in common with "Diff'rent Strokes?"

Yes, Dr. Kelso made a cameo in the first episode, but he has been replaced by Courtney Fucking Cox. I realize the producers probably thought she would bring ratings, but her character is the a combination of the worst parts of Monica Geller and Kelso. Hey "Scrubs" writers, we get it, medicine can be a business. Stop hitting us over the head with that for the eighth straight season. Also, according to a New York Times article, Disney (parent company of ABC) asked that The Todd no longer wear his signature "banana hammock" because they thought it was distasteful. Disney signs my checks, so I won't go off on this too much, but I'd like to. I guess it was moot anyway because The Todd didn't make an appearance for some unknown reason. OK, so maybe this is turning into a rant.

Like I said, I'll probably keep watching just to see how they decide to end, even though it's pretty clear that J.D. and Eliot will end up together somehow. In that way, it's fitting that Cox (Courtney, not Dr.) is involved, because the end will be just like "Friends." The "will they or won't they" plot line will be resolved years after the show stopped being funny. But even if the final season sucks, it wouldn't be the first time that happened. "Scrubs" has given me many laughs while asking for nothing in return, and for that I will be thankful.

***Trivia answer: Both "Scrubs" and "Diff'rent Strokes" switched networks. "Diff'rent Strokes" switched from NBC to ABC in 1985. Stupid ABC, always poaching other networks' shows. I mean, "I love ABC, their parent company signs my checks!"

End Of An Era

Ever since graduating, my college roommate has a term he uses for when we get drunk like we used to in college. He calls it “college drunk.” Original, right?

Needless to say, I got “college drunk” on New Year’s Eve. I’m not really sure I’m too old for that kind of drinking, but I’m probably getting there. That being said, I was conscious enough early in the evening to make what I believe to be is a semi-interesting observation.

On my walk from the Subway to my apartment, I noticed someone wearing those 2009 sunglasses. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, take a look at the photo to the below to get an idea of it. As you’ll remember, these became very popular at the turn of the millennium, and there has been a version of them every year since. This was in Brooklyn at about 4:30 pm when I saw this guy, and while I was marveling at how much of a tool he must be, it occurred to me that this souvenir only works when the middle two numbers of the year are zero. But since this is 2009, we have to what Boys II Men referred to as the end of the road, and we will probably never see these glasses again. Sure they could go ahead and make the glasses again next year since 2010 features two zeroes, but they would be off center and probably look stupider than already do.

I have a lot of questions about these glasses. Who came up with them? How many have they sold over the years? Do people wear them outside of Times Square (I sure as shit hoe so)? What do they do with the excess inventory? Who are the idiots that wear them?

But as dumb as people look while wearing these glasses, I’m amazed they’ve stayed popular for a decade and I have to give credit to whoever came up with them. There is no way for me to be positive, but I have to think that since they probably cost about eight cents to manufacture, these glasses were a profitable venture. But after 10 years of glory, it looks like they’ll need to find their next great chachka invention. And I’m glad I’ll probably never have to see them again.