Monday, October 17, 2011

An Incomplete Accomplishment: The road to and through 26.2 Miles

In June of 2008 I weighed 280 pounds. Nary a pound of that was muscle. I tried to put on an XL button-down shirt (of the loose variety) and couldn't fasten most of the buttons. I appeared in a friend's wedding that summer, and today I try not to look at those photos (even though my hair looked amazing). The concept of exercise was to put down the remote and walk all the way down the two flights of stairs from my apartment just so I could drive to Taco Bell, dump 11 bucks, and run back up the stairs again to watch Lost episodes until I passed out.

Now I know what you're thinking: "Aaron, that sounds like pretty much the best life ever. What time can I come over to borrow those DVDs?" Calm down people. It wasn't the best life ever. Not even top 15. The only problem with sitting at home and eating while watching good looking people on TV is that eventually you have to be seen by real people. And watching good looking or athletic people doesn't necessarily make you good looking or athletic. It just makes you realize that you are none of the above. In my Matrix I looked like a cross between Josh Holloway and Steve Nash, but as soon as I went to a wedding or hung out with friends that ideal self-image disintegrated into Hurley and C.C. Sabathia (I am not quite certain why my poor self-image resembled two Hispanic men, but please don't read into that racially-- it's simply a fat joke).

So I did something about it. If any of you know me, than you know this story and have probably scoured through my facebook photos to find some big boy pictures. Long story short-- I lost about 12 pounds during the rest of that summer and another 58 in a two and a half month span from January to March of 2009. I even forced myself down 181 pounds at one point, but I have kept steady at around 210.

I was asked for a long time how I did it. Despite the obvious answer that I was secretly wearing a fat suit for six or seven years, I also dieted and exercised. And when I exercised and started losing weight, I fell in love with running. I had always liked the idea of running but wasn't healthy enough to do it regularly. After the weight loss I maintained the running with the dream (it sounds trite but it's legit) of doing a half-marathon. I achieved that goal in April of 2009 and have run four more half marathons since then.

This post is not meant to be a motivational tool for losing weight (though if someone uses it as such I won't prosecute), and it is not meant to try to convert people to running. But I love running. I find it extremely therapeutic and simple. I suck at stuff that takes a lot of preparation just to try it (this will be funny when we talk about my training schedule). But running is simple. You put some shoes on and move forward. There's really nothing else to it. I can run anywhere if I really want to without anything more than shoes. Can't do that with swimming (need a pool); can't do that with biking (need a bike); can't do that with weights (hmmm...). Running works perfectly for me because I am just too unorganized to do anything else.

The great part about running is that there are personal goals to achieve. After running several half-marathons and improving on each one I convinced myself that I could do a full marathon. The full marathon distance is 26.2 miles and has been that way since 1908 when the path to the end of a race was remapped to make the finish more entertaining for the Royal Family in Britain. 26.2 is more than a mile above the approximate distance of the original legend. The origin of the marathon comes from the legend of Pheidippides, a Greek messenger sent from the Battle of Marathon (that he had just fought in) to Athens to tell the Athenians that they had defeated the Persians. After running that distance (approximately 25 miles) without stopping he conveyed the message then died.

Yeah that's right. I wanted to do this.

So I began training. The program I used was very methodical and smart, incorporating days of rest and other exercise into the running routine. I didn't concern myself with going too fast because the point was simply to cover the distance. I ran an average of 25 miles a week for 18 weeks; the peak week was a grand total of 40 miles over four days. After that peak week I injured my back and sat out for a while but got healthy in time for race day.

Did you read that last paragraph? Do you know who is writing this? I never prepare that far in advance for anything-- ever. I invested a lot of time into this one thing-- sometimes getting up 5:30 in the morning to run in the dark or staying well past midnight to hit the treadmill in the gym. It would be beyond craptastic if I could not finish this race that I took over four months to prepare for.

Finish the race. Either I have low standards or that is just how difficult this activity is. My hopeful race pace was a 10 minute mile. I had done four of my five half-marathons slightly over or decently under that pace. It seemed practical. But I also kept telling people whenever they would ask me that finishing was my first goal. I made up some crap about my back to justify that goal, but the truth was I really did not think I could finish.

On race day morning I was filled with anxiety. It didn't help that the morning temperature was in the 40s and the wind speed was at least 20 miles per hour, or that I could hardly sleep the night before. But there I was at the starting line. They let us loose and I set off on my pace. I was in good shape for the first half because I had done that before. I knew I was just a little above a 10 minute pace which was more than justifiable in my eyes. Maybe I would have enough in me at the end to push it and finish under 4 hours and 20 minutes.

Then people started to pass. People of all shapes and sizes (losing 70 pounds is great and all, but getting passed by a guy who weighs 30 pounds more and/or is at least 30 years older is a deflating feeling). Every mile got tougher from 13 to 19. Once I got through mile 19 I could feel the end coming. Yes I was slower but could still finish under 5 hours (40 minutes off target and I am looking at this positively). Miles 20 and 21 felt great. My brother was there for support, and I got that feeling that people get when they know they are at the end of something and momentum takes over.

But in a marathon, the last part is still a large part. Think about this statement: Only 5 miles to go. That's nothing. That's what I was telling myself, until I reached mile 23. My legs shut down. They had had enough. I forced them along as much as I could, but my mental state was deteriorating. My mind had decided to join my legs in the giant wining fest. And it became an emotional roller coster. I couldn't think rationally, let alone focus my mind on finishing the race.

We have all heard of the walk of shame. It comes up in a myriad of different scenarios. My walk of shame was mile 24. I was defeated (there are a friggin' large amount of depressing "d" words), but I had to keep moving forward because that was my only logical choice. I finished the race because anything else would have been that much more demoralizing (another one!) and embarrassing. I felt like I was disappointing all the people close to me and even people not that close to me, even though this had nothing to do with them.

Did I cross the finish line? Yes. Was my final pace faster than an average walking speed? Absolutely. Did family and friends stress how proud they were that I finished no matter what the time? Of course they did, they're not jerks. But I am not satisfied. I could have gone faster; I could have trained better; I could have paced smarter; I could have remained emotionally and mentally cool. But I didn't do those things. Did I fail in my goal?

In my head I am battling Disney Channel ethics verses Old School Band Director ethics. Disney tells me that I tried and put forth the effort and finished and that is a success. Old School Band Director tells me it wasn't perfect, so it wasn't good enough. I am not sure which side is truly correct, but I think maybe it's both (copyright Forrest Gump). Sitting completely satisfied can't be right, but feeling like a failure sure isn't the way to go either.

In June of 2008 I weighed 280 pounds. In October of 2011 I finished my first marathon and I'm pissed that I didn't finish faster. I'd say that's a step in the right direction.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

The Top Five Star Trek Series of All Time (As In All of Them)

It seems laughable to do a top five list for something that only has five options to rank. But that is where you are flat wrong baby. Star Trek has existed in some form or another (either with new episodes, movies, or syndication) since 1966. Dear old dad was not driving when this phenomenon started. And since then there have been six series. Bam.

I was a huge Trekkie as a kid and am still a fan of the genre (I wouldn't even call myself a Sci-Fi fan because Star Trek is completely in it's own genre). I have already discussed how I collected tons of things and obsessed over the world of Trek. I even attempted to write a few short stories based in the Star Trek universe (the only thing they suffered from is being very bad stories-- other than that they weren't bad). I have involved myself on almost every level of the Star Trek universe and have finally caught up with all of the series by watching Star Trek: Enterprise with my roommate Kyle. We are nearly done with the show (you can watch most of the episodes for free here), so I figured now is as good a time as any to rank each Star Trek TV series exactly where they belong. I'll even throw in a few bits of information in there before I explain why I put which series where (including how many seasons, highlights, lowlights, and 2 episodes you should definitely watch including a thinker/heartstrings episode and an action fest two-parter [no series finales]).

Honorable Mention: Star Trek: The Animated Series
I thought it would be fun to at least acknowledge that there was a Saturday morning cartoon. To those of you who don't know (the 7 people I know will read this probably already know the info here) most of the original cast was back for this animated series. All of the characters were even voiced by the original actors from the live action series. The Animated Series also won an Emmy, which is one more than The Original Series received. The show lasted for one full season and is not really considered part of the Star Trek canon. But it was an official production from the makers of Star Trek, so it counts.

And now for the official Messy Shelves rankings of the Star Trek series.

No. 5: Star Trek: Voyager
Seasons: 7 (1995-2001)
Highlights: Anything to do with the Borg/ The Doctor's character arc/Lt. Barclay coming back
Lowlights: The existence of Chakotay/ The Phage lasting as long as it did/Ensign Kim being good on the clarinet without ever seeming to practice
2 Killer Episodes: "Think Tank", "Scorpion Parts 1 and 2"

Already I think I am in trouble with some of you. You thought certain that this would predictably start with another series produced during this millennium, but you were wrong. The simple and undeniable truth is that Voyager is good Star Trek, but it is far from always being good TV. The show is easily the biggest winner in overuse of technobabble, which is without question the most annoying thing about Star Trek. It also took them 3 seasons to realize that they were in the same quadrant as The Borg (the same alien race that gets ratings no matter what series they go to even though their trying to assimilate us all). Also it should be mentioned that no one represented multiple cultures (both real and fictitious) more poorly than Chakotay. My roommate and I have a goal before the end of the year to watch the worst episodes of Star Trek ever. We could probably just make them all Chakotay episodes and it would work. He just sucks (sorry Seven of Nine). And quit with the friggin' Holodeck!

The show was of course far from bad. It carried UPN throughout it's entire tenure. Star Trek struck gold again by creating a non-human character (The Holographic Doctor) that ended up having the most humanity on the show. Captain Janeway was a strong character even though her voice made me want to claw a chalkboard with a dead person's fingernails. And I was always a fan of new alien cultures, which Voyager had in spades. The only reason Voyager falls short to the next show is because the show ended when the engaging serial action series concept (Alias, Lost) was really starting to get some legs. It also doesn't hurt that the special effects would advance in the years following Voyager. Just watch the show, it's fine.

No. 4: Star Trek: Enterprise
Seasons: 4 (2001-2005)
Highlights: All of Season 3 /Trip being the inspiration for Sawyer on Lost/ Dr. Phlox's pleasant demeanor
Lowlights: Anytime Lt. Malcolm was in a dire situation/ Captain Archer always being pissed off/The premature cancellation of the show.
2 Killer Episodes: "Similitude", "In a Mirror, Darkly Parts 1 and 2"

The original impetus to write this blog was to make the insane stance that Enterprise was the best or second best Star Trek. But unfortunately this is simply not true. One of the reasons it's not true is because not enough people watched the show. The series moved to Friday night for it's 4th season which is pretty much the network saying, "I don't like your show, so I am going to banish it to the Rura Penthe of time slots." But while I have been quoted as saying "Enterprise would be awesome if it had good characters and good stories," I think there are a lot of good aspects to the show.

For one thing, Enterprise was more high drama than the other series simply because humanity had not evolved quite far enough. The best shows on television are the ones that acknowledge how much human beings can really suck. I'm not saying they are hopeless; the programs that have the highest drama produce heroes that succeed in their tasks despite their flaws (pretty much the plot of most epic movies such as Harry Potter, Star Wars, and Blazing Saddles). The other Star Trek series suffered from their characters being a little too perfect an altruistic sometimes. But Enterprise didn't have that problem. Captain Archer was pretty much a jack ass. Even T'Pol was kind of a sub-par Vulcan in terms of her emotional discipline. It seemed like every time the Enterprise would encounter a new culture they would get into serious big time trouble, and the endings were not always happy ones. This made for compelling and edge-of-your-seat style drama, especially during the Xindi arc of Season 3 (the first time a Star Trek series flirted with being serial by tying every single episode of the season into one story arc). In Season 4, things started to get more Trekkie, which hurts my "it's cool because it isn't like Star Trek" vibe, but the episodes were really cool. And then UPN cut it (you know, cause they knew what they're doing; hey how is that network doing these days anyway.).

The show isn't all roses, however. Ironically the viewership shrank when it got good. Season 1 and 2 meandered just a little bit (the first two seasons of a Star Trek series always seem a little off except for in The Original Series). Lt. Malcolm had to be the most oversensitive, whiny tactical officer in the history of time. In addition, Captain Archer is easily the worst of the 5 captains. He is head strong and constantly ticked off to the point that you just kind of get used to it. But the series really is exciting (and technologically very solid with much of the show in HD), and for the true Trekkie it riles up a lot of interesting historical canon issues that can keep you occupied for days. Highly flawed people=great TV.

No. 3: Star Trek: The Original Series
Seasons: 3 (1966-1969)
Highlights: Twilight Zone-style mysteries/ great interplay between the main cast/ grand introduction to a 45 year franchise
Lowlights: Too many mysterious aliens that look like your hot aunt/some blatantly awful Season 3 episodes/ very underdeveloped supporting cast (Sulu, Scotty, Uhura, Chekov)
2 Killer Episodes: "The City On the Edge of Forever", "The Menagerie"

Now it's time for the excommunication (it's OK I can make that joke-- RCIA baby). When talking to truly dedicated Star Trek fans (the kind that would say I am not one of them), they would say that The Original Series is, at the very least, the second best incarnation if not the first simply because it is the first show. I completely disagree. This is the same broken logic that people would use to claim George Washington was our greatest president. He wasn't. He was probably good, but he wasn't better than Lincoln, FDR, Teddy, Jefferson, or Benny Franklin (that last one is a joke in reference to The Office-- don't judge). TOS has to be judged on the same level.

The good news is, of course, that it is really flippin' good. TOS's best episodes are some of the best episodes in the history of Star Trek and worth viewing even if you aren't a Star Trek fan. There are dozens of episodes you could check out and be pleased with, just based on the fact that these episodes are iconic in terms of dealing with social issues of the time in a futuristic sci-fi show. "The City On the Edge of Forever" is one of the most intense, fascinating, and creepy episodes of TV I have ever seen in my life. When I was a kid I owned it on VHS and would watch it time and again. It is really a piece of art beyond the world of Star Trek.

Despite a lot of great things about TOS (some of the more comedic episodes are hilarious, and some of the more serious episodes can leave you thinking for days), the show had a lot of flaws. Because it didn't have a lot of support due to the network's nervousness about how popular it would be and how gung-ho and passionate Gene Roddenberry was on controversial topics, the show had some rough moments. It was essentially canceled before Season 3, but the fans protested and the network renewed it without too much of a fuss. This was pretty much a mistake because Season 3 is just not very good ("Spock's Brain"!!!!!-- an episode so bad that it caused me to set a record for how many !s I used in a single article). The show also focuses so much on the three main protagonists (McCoy, Spock, Kirk) that you aren't really sure why the other cast members are there.

All that being said, if you watch seasons 1 and 2 you will actually become smarter. I'm not even kidding. That's how good some parts of this show can be (when I read over this section I am somehow reminded of Bob Dylan in terms of inconsistent awesomeness)

No. 2: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Seasons: 7 (1993-1999)
Highlights: The overall darker tone (this show had some stones)/ Captain Ben Sisko is BA/ The best attempt to find a good villain that wasn't Borg (The Dominion)/ Quark and Odo interactions
Lowlights: Jadzia Dax leaving early for a dumb Ted Danson show/ Most of Season 2 (all Season 2s suck for every Trek except TOS)/ the overuse of the line, "the fate of the entire Alpha Quadrant"
4 Killer Episodes: "The Visitor", "The Search Parts 1 and 2", "The Way of the Warrior Parts 1 and 2", "Far Beyond the Stars

This is a mistake. I don't think that DS9 is the second best show in Star Trek. I think it's the best. But frankly there are two things keeping me from putting it at No. 1. And they are these:

1. Every character in DS9 is somewhere between good and incredible. But if you were to list the five greatest characters in Star Trek history, I don't think any of the DS9 folks should be on there except for one-- and he is borrowed from another show (my list would be Picard, Data, Spock, Kirk, and Worf with shout outs to McCoy, Sisko, Janeway, Odo, and The Holographic Doctor). Now most of the DS9 characters would get into the top 30 rather easily. But the fact is that Odo loses points for being a (great) re-tred of the Spock/Data humanity concept, and Sisko is also kind of a new spin on the "diplomatic but doesn't take crap" concept of Picard.

2. DS9's lack of solo time has to be taken into account. Of course that is the producers' fault and not the characters', but the fact that the show always had a partner on the air to make it seem more unique, darker, and better developed gives it an unfair advantage. Many people claim that DS9 suffered because it was never on the air by itself (always sharing time with TNG and Voyager), but I think it was an advantage. Kind of like Scottie Pippen. He was praised for doing all the things that Jordan didn't, and that is what made him great. But put Pippen on a team by himself and he is just a really awesome basketball player without the legend of being the held back, brooding, smarter sidekick (consult the 1994 Bulls or 2000 Blazers). Scottie Pippen matters as much as he does because of Michael Jordan. DS9 matters as much as it does because of The Next Generation.

With all of that being said, this show is just killer. It does all the things (serial TV, large story arcs, war, interpersonal conflict) that Enterprise does but with great writing and great acting. I felt an emotional connection to most of the characters on the show-- including a very large list of guest stars that were sometimes better than the main people (I'm looking at you Garak). In addition to being darker and more brooding it also explores a lot of emotional drama and even lets some of the characters have committed relationships (Worf can't keep his hands off anybody). There were episodes that had me on the edge of my seat and episodes that made me really tear up. That's good TV. Bonus points for being the only Star Trek show bold enough to (spoiler alert!) kill their main protagonist. When the show ended, it ended for good. None of the other series can say that. DS9 is my favorite, which means No. 1 must be awful good.

No. 1: Star Trek: The Next Generation
Seasons: 7 (1987-1994)
Highlights: Picard and Data (and the incredible acting done to portray them)/ the new spin on Klingons/ introducing the Borg/ Q/ poker/ basis of the best Star Trek movie (you heard me right) Star Trek: First Contact
Lowlights: Deanna Troi's feelings/ Dr. Pulaski/ the obsession with the Holodeck/ "Masks"
4 Killer Episodes: "The Inner Light", "The Best of Both Worlds Parts 1 and 2", "Tapestry", "Chain of Command Parts 1 and 2"

TNG is not just the best Star Trek. It is one of the best shows in the history of television. You won't see it on any of the most current best of lists because it isn't serial at all, and it's hard to put a sequel to something else on one of those lists (it also doesn't have any grutuites scenes in it-- you need that to have critical acclaim since critics stab people in the back and commit adultary all the time). But the ratings were monstrous as was the critical acclaim of the time and the unique way it was broadcast (full on first time syndication). The show also featured some incredible actors (Patrick Stewart, Brent Spiner) just acting the pants off stuff. The show had everything any of the other series had along with Gene Roddenberry's original vision still in tact. The emotional depth it reached was completely unparallel for a sci-fi show of it's time. The show presented humanity in a way that we could all look to the future with hope. The guest stars were amazing (Whoopi Goldberg as a 24th Century bartender? More please!). TNG is just plain good.

Sure it had it's drawbacks. It got predictable. Riker didn't really take off as a character the way he could have. The characters were a little too peaceful and understanding at times. And Deanna Troi's accent kind of freaked me out. But most of TNG's deficincies became endearing eventually. Kind of like a long healthy marriage. It isn't healthy because everything about it is perfect; it's healthy because you grow to enjoy the flaws of the other. That is how TNG is. None of the flaws made people stop watching, and that is why the show will be on TV for as long as TV still exists (so about 7 more years) and then it will casually move on to whatever is next. TNG made me love Star Trek, and it still makes me feel at home. I get geeked out just thinking about it. In fact, I might watch a couple of episodes tonight to recover from the dark world of Breaking Bad. Now there's a TV show.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Spotify: The Ethics of Excess and Change

I hope no one from the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is reading this because there is going to be a lot of honesty about how I get my music. You know what, they suck anyway. This is all their fault anyway for being turds. Forget them. Let's start by ratting out dear old dad.

When I was a kid my dad used to take us to the library all the time (they still have those right?). And while we would be sitting there reading books and looking for good movies, my dad would be going through all the CD racks looking for stuff he had heard about on the radio or from his past. My family was never poor by any stretch, but we didn't always have a lot of cash, so the library was the best place to go for our media fix. Anyway, Pops would come home with no less than fifteen to twenty checked out CDs and record them onto cassette tapes (lots of Steve Winwood, Bonnie Raitt, and other relatedish artists-- man I just can't get into Steve Winwood). These cassette tapes are probably laying around our old house in Greenwood these days gathering dust, or they are now on CD-Rs which will also soon be gathering dust. The point is simple: my dad owns a lot of stuff he didn't pay for. However, my dad has a record collection, cassette tape collection, CD collection, and even an 8-Track collection (though I think that info might be classified). Most of these items simply sit there and inspire one to categorize. Obviously you can't own things forever, so there is a limit on my dad's stuff.

Now don't get me wrong. Pops is not a hoarder by in any way, shape, or form (doesn't an image like that link scare the flippin' poop out of you? What about this image?). This isn't meant to deface my dad's collection (there are some especially cool records in it) because as many of you know I am not innocent of this collecting fetish. Ever since I was a kid I was obsessed with collecting stuff. Here is a short list of the collecting fetishes I have had over the years. Brace yourselves-- it's pretty awful:

- action figures (He-Man, TMNT, Thundercats, Transformers)
- baseball cards (along with basketball, hockey, football, Olympic, and comic book cards)
- comic books (mostly just Marvel and DC Comics-- though I was pretty open at one point)
- all things Star Trek (including everything above, video cassettes, newspaper clippings, magazines, card games, clothing, models, and one of the most intimidating Star Trek book collections ever by anyone except the publisher)
- Native American necklaces (this didn't last long)
- baseball caps (all teams, all sports, at least a few years of wearing one everyday)
- Most things Batman (this is ongoing still-- including DVDs, action figures, comics, and underwear)
- Button-down shirts and ties
- Rolling Stone magazines
- t-shirts
- Race medals (ongoing-- I am reasonably proud of this one)
- this list
- music (VERY ongoing)

Some of the things above are weird, and I don't think I remembered everything. If you think I used to collect something and want to leave a comment on facebook or here about it go right ahead. The whole point is I like collecting stuff and always have. There is something pretty satisfying about putting all your stuff in a nice neat row and staring at it. I got a lot of satisfaction out of that when I was a kid. I also love music about as much as anything on the planet that isn't breathing. So naturally, putting the two together makes sense.

On a side note, I am very frustrated by the fact that when people say they love music it sounds dorky. I don't know why that is and it ticks me off. If you love music, own it. Even if it is just some kind of obsession with TV theme songs, or the collected works of Palestrina, or the United Methodist Hymnal, or anything by Angelique Kidjo, or the third greatest pop rock band with a trombone of all time. I think if people let their dork flag fly higher the world would be a better place. Ok, small rant done.

I remember when I got my first CDs of my very own for Christmas (The Mighty Mighty Bosstones, The Rolling Stones, and...Sara McLaughlin) and the feeling I got from being able to call those discs my own and place them on a shelf. My CD collection went through the normal fluctuating ratio of bad music to good music that most over-emotional teenagers' collections experience. I also had the misfortune of growing up in a time where lines were being drawn between Dave Matthews Band fans and non-Dave fans. Same with Pearl Jam and a dozen other pop artists. But with all that said I stuck by my CD collection, and it grew and continues to grow formidably over the years.

Of course, when I got into college the mysterious and illegal worlds of Napster and the CD-R were hard at work. Don't worry friends, this column isn't about legality. Frankly the legal woes of copyright ownership simultaneously baffle me and piss me off. While Napster and Limewire were doing all that file sharing for free on the interwebs, my dad was freely recording hundreds of hours of music onto cassette tapes; my good friend Ben Syversen was burning the entire genre of free jazz onto just a few mp3 CDs for me; and major labels were keeping more than 90% of the profits of an artist's record. The argument that new technologies and illegal music consumption will stop great music from being made is far too old. Here is a short list of the new technologies that got negative press because artists would not be able to make enough money off the mediums to keep making new music:

1. Sheet music
2. Player pianos
3. Wax cylinders
4. Long playing records
5. The cassette tape
6. The Compact Disc
7. Recordable Compact Disc
8. Mp3s
9. iTunes
10. youtube
11. Streaming online music

It's incredible what people think will put an end to what they do (I left out AM Radio and the Mini-disc). The majority of these technologies caused a creative boost when they came out-- making art and entertainment easier to get a hold of and easier to create. I have read various reports and articles stating that the newest technology-- Spotify-- will be a legitimate end to the music industry. People are scared that, because it is technically legal but still completely screws the artist, musicians will not be able to make enough money in the industry. I am not going to totally deny that possibility. But that is also kind of a selfish attitude. EVERY industry is in financial trouble. Some of the richest men in the entire world are out of work right now. It's just too indulgent to think that your vocation or career are in any more danger than anyone else's.

So though the legality of Spotify seems to be quite shady (just to be clear the musicians are only getting about .0001 cents per song play), it doesn't really bug me on that level. If I wanted to preach against Spotify in terms of it not making the artist any money I would be a hypocrite. I legally download free tracks off various websites (Noisetrade, One Track Mind, and Paste Magazine)that don't give the artist any direct cash. I have a program called iRip that can put people's iPod playlists into my computer. I have borrowed songs and burnt CDs for countless hours of illegally owned music. But I possess that stuff. In a strange way it is yet another collection (even though I didn't earn it and don't deserve it).

No, what makes Spotify such a scary proposition for me is that I really don't need to own or collect music anymore. I don't need to invest in music anymore (in all fairness this also means I don't have to rip or burn music anymore and can go back to legally buying things and just Spotifying the stuff I don't have the money for-- in other words, legally NOT investing in good music).

Last week I downloaded Spotify onto my computer with the hope of studying it and figuring out what it was made of. I had no doubt what the first test would be. Radiohead is one of my favorite bands and I have slowly been collecting their albums over the past decade. I own all the super important ones-- The Bends, OK Computer, Kid A, In Rainbows-- and a few others. However, I have resisted on a couple other albums and one of those is Amnesiac. I've wanted to own it for quite sometime, but I have been reticent to purchase it. When I got on Spotify I found Amnesiac and began to listen. The album is good but certainly not on the same level as it's predecessor Kid A. Now that I have listened to the album at my own leisure in my own home on my own computer, I see no need to buy the it. This is unfortunate on a couple levels. For one thing it's not great for Radiohead. They aren't dependent on selling one more copy of an album from a decade ago, but making money off the music they created is kind of their livelihood. And the other issue is that my collecting bug just got swatted. I don't need to buy another Radiohead CD, record, or mp3 for the rest of of my life.

I own hundreds of CDs (possibly in the thousands but it seemed lame to actually count them for this post) in almost every possible genre you can think of (including two collections of classical music that I inherited from family and friends). I have dozens of records in a quirky collection that I am trying to beef up. And I have thousands of mp3s; many of which are on my computer yet I haven't actually sat down and listened to. But now with Spotify do I really need any of it? I played a game with my fiancee' the other night where she picked a random song and I found it on the program. And I found everything. I am sure there is some music that you can't find on Spotify, but that music is probably so obscure that you don't know it anyway.

There has been a fundamental change with the way we consume music. Instead of a having to wait to hear songs on the radio, we can listen to anything we want right now. We aren't talking about sampling a song or waiting a certain time to hear it. If I want to go listen to the entire catalog of The Hold Steady I can take my time and do it anytime and anywhere. There do seem to be some unwritten rules (I guess they are actually written) developing now on what a collector or casual music fan should buy versus what they shouldn't. I doubt any person who doesn't feel some kind of ethical attachment to the career musician will care about these rules, but whatever. The first rule seems to be that new material should be bought. In other words if you want to listen to Kanye West's Late Registration feel free to get your Spotify on. But you should definitely purchase Watch the Throne because Jay and Ye need the money. Something tells me that this rule doesn't flesh out very well.

The other rule makes a little more sense. For the artists who basically hope they can sell a CD or record while on tour since they don't have a record company, you need to buy their record. (At first I wrote that this rule would be hard to break since your favorite local band wouldn't even be on Spotify, but I just found Bloomington favorite Rodeo Ruby Love on there, which scares me because they really do need the money.) This is one rule I won't be violating considering my involvement with a fledgling indie record label that needs to sell actual records just to sustain itself, and going to shows (you've heard of live music right?) where I can get a band's music is the most fun thing about collecting tunes.

These rules are great, but they still don't stop Spotify from deflating the great journey of going to the store (or even iTunes) to find the perfect music to go into your car whether new or old (not to mention deflating artists' banks accounts). Now you can put that music together yourself from the entire collected works of the planet Earth and just plug your iPod into your car for that extended cross-country trek. Other than the creative cover art, what's the point in owning music anymore. The less stuff we have the better right? Is there really any great value to having something to stare at all the time?

For me there was. I'm not saying that collecting and listening to that collection of music filled my soul, but it got as close as any non-sentiant being. And now that's gone. As I reflect on what I am trying to say here I realize that it is simple. Spotify represents a change I am not ready for. It takes the excess that I was searching for and puts it in one nice neat package for the whole world to access. I don't want to have to end my life of collecting. You know what happened to all those Star Trek books I had when I was a kid? They're gone. I gave them away because I didn't need them and I wasn't reading them. But I am still listening to music. What do I do with all these jewel cases if I can listen to what's inside them right here where I am typing? And what do I with all these mp3s taking up valuable hard drive space on my computer when this program on that same computer can give me full instant access to any music I want?

I am not ready to admit consumer capitalism defeat. I'm still going to keep downloading tracks and buying CDs and records. The artists need the money and the industry needs the support. I like having shelves with stuff on them. I'm not giving up on the old ways even if the change is already here. Now if you will excuse me I need to listen to Watch the Throne. Just don't ask me how I'm going to do it.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

"Christian" "Music"


Sorry to keep my tens of faithful readers waiting for so long. I was at a church camp this past week being a guilt-free goofball. I will not write a blog on any of my experiences at camp because it is none of your business dadgummit. However, there was one thing that stirred up my ire. During the camp one of the staff members was playing music during meals, and one of the points he made was that the kids needed to be exposed to Christian music because they did not get enough of it at home. While he said this I listened in a little and could have sworn that we were listening to Cake's "The Distance" (the bass line was the exact same---completely copied which is not exactly "Christian"). Though there doesn't seem to be anything terribly immoral about this song, I doubt anyone would call it Christian.

So what is Christian music? I think the title has been absolutely warped. And I don't mean by people trying to lump their favorite bands into Christianity because they think it will make them feel more Christian. No, this is a business model that has been put together, and Christians are buying it. Before I dig further, some full disclosure:

1. I am, by most definitions including mine, a Christian (for about eight and a half years now).
2. I am in the process of becoming a Catholic Christian (thanks for reading Southern Baptists, Reformists and Puritans-- be on the lookout for my blog entitled "The Left Behind Series and The Salem Witch Trials: How to Properly Arm Yourself for Hell" in the next couple weeks).
3. I was a member of the religious organization known as Musician long before I became a Christian and still belong to those ranks.
4. If N.W.A. appears on my iPod shuffle I don't change it. If Chris Tomlin appears on it I go to the next track.
5. Contradicting the previous point is the fact that I play a ton of "worship music" for a lot of church functions (I also have a long history of being in church choirs and handbell choirs).
6. I enjoy most of the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, which is almost entirely "Christian" based on many definitions but mostly ignored in the Christian circles (so not only do some Christian music purists judge people for what they listen to, but they are also fairly uneducated on their own history).

There you have it. My perspective on this music is unique because I am simultaneously ensconced in it and try to avoid it all at the same time. But seriously what is Christian music?

Thank goodness for Google. If I didn't have Google I am not sure I could know anything. When you google the words Christian music here are the top ten sites you get:

-- K-Love Radio (they play Contemporary Christian Music)
--Christian Music.com (where they brag that you can find all the great Christian genres including rap and rock)
-- TodaysChristianMusic.com (another radio station--no need to link it I think)
--Funeral Arrangements for the founder of the band America (not to disrespect death but this is easily the strangest entry)
-- Christianmusic.org (more of the same)
-- Air1.com (another Christian radio station centered on alternative rock music that gets major cool points for their graphically bold yet impractical layout)
-- A wiki entry (we will check this out in a minute)
-- ccmmagazine.com (the Rolling Stone of Contemporary Christian music)
-- Christianmusictown.com (seems to be the Pitchfork of Christian music-- on a side note the girl in the band Addison Road looks kinda cute)

There you have it. It's all the same stuff. Christianity is extremely massive and a worldwide phenomenon. It is unfortunate that very few cultures are represented by the understood definition of Christian music when many (if not most) cultures in the world have Christians among them. If you look at the Top 10 Christian songs on Billboard you will see a ton of white dudes who have been around for at least twenty years along with a rock band and a contemporary gospel artist. Of course, you can't argue with what people buy, but how about the fact that Christian radio suffers from the same sort of shady "market research" that mainstream radio does. In other words, it's a profit margin business.

Let's go back to the wiki page for a minute. According to the top synopsis-style definition of Christian music it is "music that is written to express either personal or a communal belief regarding the Christian life and faith. The page goes on to spend a sliver of time on the entire history of Western music up to the present day (which for those of you who don't know was dominated by the church). The majority of the article is then dedicated to what should be termed Christian pop music but for some dumb reason is labeled Contemporary Christian Music (any label that has the word contemporary in it is doomed to fail because it won't be new and current forever, such as this classic Contemporary Christian jam). It is ridiculous that if I wanted to have a conversation about Christian music with someone I actually need to be able to reference Reliant K to be taken seriously. Reliant K does not define Christian music for me. Some of their songs (nay many of their songs) are not about Christian life or Jesus or anything.

Before people start thinking that I got drunk on haterade this morning let me make one thing clear. I have no beef with music that has a Christian message or music that is used to worship God. My beef instead goes towards another issue-- an entire industry that is feeding messages to kids about right and wrong based off a business model. I spoke of this earlier. If you turn on one of those radio stations (like K-Love) you will undoubtedly hear them say that the music on their station is what kids should be listening to if they don't want to be "part of the world" (I'll let Nick Buck tackle this issue). There are two fallacies with such a statement.

The first problem is that K-Love is a business that exists to make money. They want to make a profit because that is how they function. The second problem is that if kids want to get away from pop culture ideals (which I am not for or against), they should probably just listen to classical/art music (we need to get an acceptable name for this). Listening to Christian pop music to get away from secular pop music is almost as lame as switching over to diet soda because you can't handle the original.

I refuse to base my ethical stances on a business trying to sell me an ethical stance (feel free to comment if you can find the hypocrisy there) and then feel guilty that I am not doing the right thing if I chose a different business. The fact that Christian music has gotten wrapped up in popular music (whose main purpose should always be to entertain and make money) is really kind of sad. I enjoy a lot of the music that has come from the Christian music business, but it still seems a little questionable how it is all presented.

There is still another issue I am grappling with here. Almost everything discussed above has been about lyrical content. I may not have expressly stated that, but most of you probably assumed that the differences between Christian pop and secular pop are in fact lyrically based. What about the music itself? People don't say music with Christian lyrics. They say Christian music. But some of these genres started out as anything but Christian.

I like rap. I don't look it, but I am a big fan. I like stuff from every decade-- even this one (yes that means I can tolerate some Li'l Wayne). But the fact is that rap is party (as in drink, drugs, sex) music. It is meant to amp up the party and amp up those party elements. Does Lecrae know this? But that is not the most interesting Christian genre to me.

Fun fact: I used to go to Hardcore shows a lot. They were fun as long as I stood in the corner and avoided the blood coming from that one dude's head. Some of these shows even had Christian bands like Gwen Stacy. Hardcore is an extension of punk music that was meant to be faster, harder, stronger, better (no that wasn't a Daft Punk or Kanye joke-- the words are out of order). The music was meant to be more violent and inspire violence (mosh pits and other violent dances usually involving flailing of limbs). It doesn't exactly sound like the type of music Jesus would turn the other cheek to. And yet, it has a massive underground following in Christian circles. There are a lot of bands out there to check out and they do have Christian lyrics. But if the music was just instrumental, could we call it Christian?

Is there good Christian music? I think so, but I'm honestly not that opinionated (just keep me away from all the crap that sounds like Nickelback and I'm good). Just don't think that by listening to exclusively Christian music that somehow you are doing the right thing. You should probably figure out if the music is actually Christian (or music) first. And don't worry kids. If listening to Beyonce sends you to Hell, I will be right there with you with my Coltrane records, Warren G tape, Pearl Jam CD's, and Death Cab for Cutie mp3s.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Spoiler Alert: My Thoughts on Harry Potter...and Reality

After talking with some of my friends and family last night (this morning?) at the midnight premier of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part 2 (HPDHP2) I struggled with whether I liked the movie or not. Wait let me change that: I struggled with whether I loved the movie or not. Those of you who spoke with me last night may find that my opinions are a bit different than before. Can you blame me? It was like 2:30 in the morning man.

First I believe I need to give a full disclosure on my movie leanings. I like movies, but I am oddly picky and not in a good way. I like movies that have a backing, critical acclaim, or something familiar in them. That is why I enjoyed Green Lantern even though it was most certainly a bad movie. I liked Thor even though Natalie Portman has jumped from her Oscar high rise into grim movie purgatory (action movies and romantic comedies). I was a huge fan of Super 8 and make no apologies for it. I sat through Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides without falling asleep (Do you realize that this movie is now one of the top 10 highest grossing films in the world ever?! Do you realize 2012 is in the top 50? What is wrong with everybody???).

So with all that said there was no way I was going to hate HPDHP2 (dang that's a horrible name for it). It is officially one of my top two movies of the summer, but there are some lingering doubts about it.

There are a lot of people reading this blog right now (wait a minute that's not true) who already have figured out what my hang ups with the movie are. You are thinking that I am going to make the following points:

1. It was not completely faithful to the book and changed plot points around. Not crucial ones, but ones none the less.
2. The actors weren't very good.
3. There wasn't enough action.
4. There wasn't enough exposition.
5. It was too long.

You are wrong. I didn't mind what it changed. SPOILER ALERTS COMING! It didn't bug me that Grawp or the centaurs made no appearance. It didn't bug me that the Invisibility Cloak was not as much of a player. It didn't bug me that they felt the necessity to give various actors lines that didn't exist in the book because they had to pay the actor for something. Speaking of which, the acting is brilliant. Daniel Radcliffe is good at what he does and so is the whole cast. Not a bad actor in the bunch (or am I just saying that because that's what the critics are saying, so I must be missing something?). Also, there was plenty of action. In fact the whole movie was a giant action scene with three or four slower dramatic scenes. The exposition was fine. You can't do the amount of explanation that J.K. Rowling does in her books in a movie. That is totally understandable. Long? The movie wasn't nearly long enough. The precedent has been set for epic finale movies to be as long as they bloody well need to be. There was enough missing to make the movie a very short two hours and change (do you realize that the new Transformers movie is way longer than that?).

I also had massive beef with how many inopportune times people laughed and how many flippin' times they clapped. If you want to clap that much during a performance go to a jazz club. Wait. What? Jazz is dead? My bad I keep forgetting.

If I had any beef with the actual movie itself it would be the lack of intensified drama. David Yates is really good at painting scenery. Theses last several movies have been a visual marvel to behold, and one could waste plenty of time just staring at the beautiful bleakness on the screen. However, David Yates doesn't seem to know how to pull the drama out of a scene, line, or action sequence. I appreciate the minimalist approach to the music that they are using, but it is not appropriate for an epic like this. The cue has been given once again by our good friend Peter Jackson to take our emotions to a new level by letting the composer run wild with dynamic themes and development.

Now a couple of you might be saying how unfair it is to continually compare the world of Harry Potter to Lord of the Rings. How is it unfair to compare a child to their parent, especially when the child is like the parent. If you haven't seen or read the Lord of the Rings trilogy you are missing out. The stories are nearly parallel, with Tolkien's accounts a little more intended for adults. J.K. Rowling (sounds hauntingly like J.R.R. Tolkien to me) does a fine job in the books of playing to her strengths of simplicity and forward motion to get to the point, but it makes no difference. The story is the same, and it is epic and heartfelt and wonderful in both sets of books.

But I just can't say the same for both sets of movies, and I can't quite put my finger on it. I still feel like some of the dialogue was simply lifted and read without inflection. That is a bit harsher than it needs to be, but I stand by the idea behind the statement. When I read the seventh Harry Potter book my eyes welled up so many times it was laughable. Did I get teary or emotional at the movie? Of course I did, I'm not a robot, man. But I thought that my thoughts and emotions being displayed by real people on the movie screen with music and cinematography would just put my emotions over the top. However, it did not. I felt slightly cheated by a great performance that didn't meet my expectations. And I think I know why.

SPOILER ALERT!! (Seriously it's in the friggin' title of the blog, and I bet there will still be a couple people annoyed at my detail in this next paragraph-- just go read the book or see the movie already and be done with it. Despite my complaints, it's totally not a waste of your time to stop what you are doing RIGHT NOW and go see it. Once you have done that-- keep reading).

In one of the final chapters of the book/last scenes in the movie Harry get's wand-shot by Voldemort. It's cool though guys; all Moldy Voldy does is kill the horcrux that Harry accidentally had inside of him from the night Voldy killed Harry's parents (that's kind of the movie version; the book version is slightly more complicated but the same concept holds just fine). Anyway, when Harry wakes up from the sting of the wand-shot he sees an all white version of King's Cross Train Station. Then he sees his dear teacher Professor Dumbledore (it is now my intention to, upon the age of 65, grow my hair out as long as possible and then I too will be wise and loving to those younger than me). The two of them engage in a long-time-coming conversation (which covers a lot of extra stuff in the book), and then they exchange this important dialogue:

Harry: "Tell me one last thing. Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?"

Dumbledore: "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"

HPDHP2 is a very good movie, perhaps a great movie. But it does not achieve something that it could not possibly that is simply impossible to do. It didn't feel real. I'm not saying that this universe Rowling created is real in the sense that you need to be on the look out for Death Eaters, giants, and house elves. But in my mind? It's as real as anything. In the movie Dumbledore talks about the power of words-- almost like he is imploring you to go home and read the book. When those contained words go from the page to your brain they are doing so for you alone. That way there is nothing standing between you and the movie inside your head. No interference. You can get lost in the reality on your time and experience the emotions and plot twists for yourself. Movies can get very close to doing that, but they rely on other people to create the reality for us which gives us more to judge and creates more barriers. In a book the reality is what you can make of it, and there is no critic that is going to put down the way you used digital animation on your giants. The world is yours to create and enter.

So is everything in our minds real? Most of us would hope not (although Kanye West seems to be cool with it). If so, it opens up a realm of possibilities, questions, ideas, and theories that I am frankly way too dumb to tackle. But if what is in our mind is not real; it certainly feels real. And that might be just enough.

I hope director David Yates gets some kind of Oscar buzz with this movie. I know my version has already won 10 Academy Awards (Super 8 took Best Sound unfortunately). Anyway, I guess this is my first movie review, so let's give HPDHP2 a grade: A-- (two minuses because a B+ just sounds too low). Go see it, and let me know what you think.




Tuesday, July 12, 2011

On Tour With America's 7th Best Band: Part 3

It. Is. Finished.

Ok that was a little dramatic maybe, but the tour is over (by the way if this is the first thing you are reading on this site, you should probably read this one and this one). And the ride was wild. Usually when I write these blogs there is a direction I have in my head. This time I honestly don't know where to start...

Editor's Note: I do know where to end though. Check out the bottom of the blog for a nightly set list from the tour and then buy the tunes on the Internet because they are all good.

How about the fact that rock musicians who don't shower and tend to eat at terribly greasy (but tasty) restaurants never get fat while rarely smelling bad or getting an acne break out?

Or I suppose I could talk about how we played five shows for five completely different audiences. We had the reasonably uninterested crowd that sat at tables in Cleveland. We had the drunk and high basement show fans with lots of energy but not a lot of numbers. We had the dedicated localish record store fan base at Luna Music in Indy (filled out with several of my friends and family from Indy-- nice job guys). There was the big headlining gig in Grand Rapids at Founders Brewery (huge room, lots of people, loud, not a ton of intensity or interest). And then there was the polite, attentive people peppered with some enthusiastic friends of the band at Kalamazoo's The Strutt. Each time we played for a different crowd, and each time we rocked just as hard if not harder than the previous time.

The discussion could also center around the insane end to the tour that was Saturday July 9/Sunday July 10. I had to DJ a wedding in South Bend till about 9:45 then drive my brave Scion Box car to Grand Rapids (about a 2 hour drive) to play the biggest show booked on the tour. It helped that the speed limit in Michigan is 70 mph versus Indiana's 65 mph (My original thought was that everyone wants to get out of Michigan faster, but after seeing the great towns of Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo my opinion has changed a bit on those Spartan wolverines.). I arrived to a very large venue with stage lighting! We went on at midnight, and I was on stage ready to play with time to spare (making that show possibly the first ever show at Founders Brewery where the bass player was wearing a striped dress shirt, Banana Republic slacks, and Aldo dress shoes with Argyle socks-- not even a hipster could make that look cool). The show went well; though, I am not entirely certain that lighting treated me all that well. And it was one of the first shows where I got some audience love about my playing (to be fair some of it was about my floppy hair, just like in the old IU Pep Band Days). After getting to mingle with the other bands and goofing off, we got news that our co-lead singer had to leave suddenly for personal reasons.

Now I don't remember if I said how much I had to look at the tunes we had been playing during the tour. But we had to stick with about 10 song options during the tour because of my limited time practicing with the band. Now with the co-lead singer gone most of those songs except three were out the window. The remaining band members had to talk about what we wanted to do; the idea of not playing the Sunday show at all was thrown into the mix. At first I agreed with the idea of canceling that show, but I decided later that it would be lame (maybe even major-lame). The good news was our fearless (and buzzed) leader Tim wasn't havin' that (probably because this is the millennium of Aftermath). We soldiered on and realized that Tim is the co-lead singer and has more than 10 songs (great songs actually-- just a little more moody), and we could practice with the amazing Lewis Rogers from Sleeping Bag (new album out August 9) to get through 6 or 7 songs. Of course by the time we figured some of these things out it was 4:30 in the morning, and there was some random dude running for Lansing City Council who downed to big Checkers burgers then fell asleep in the room we where we are talking (I can't make this stuff up-- vote for the guy).

The next day we lazied around till about noon then found a studio in Grand Rapids to do some rehearsing. Lewis had to learn all of the songs in one practice, and I had to learn or relearn four new tunes. The practice went well, and we reluctantly started gaining confidence for the show that night. In addition to these new tunes I would also be relied upon to sing some backup vocals (something I am technically capable of but have never been very comfortable or confident actually doing live).

We showed up for the show (indie rock and randomly marching band says show; anyone pop, jazz, or the like that gets paid says gig; art music says concert or performance) in Kalamazoo tired from the dramatic running around and actual thinking. We would later get shafted on the free food we should have gotten and the air conditioning was out. Not exactly a warm welcome (the potential pun there is lame but you can tell it to yourself if you wish) we were hoping for, but we went on.

Of the five shows we played, I can honestly say the Sunday night show at The Strutt was my favorite and most memorable. We were a band of men having faced adversity, and we actually had to work to overcome it. We played the set well. Tim sang a solo tune to start that set the mood for what was going to be a more intense experience than audience were prepared for. The entire set was a slow crescendo into the last song where Lewis just went flippin' nuts. My vocals were perfectly mediocre, which was what we needed for that night (I heard nicer things from the crowd, but mediocre sounded less self-indulgent). We only had a couple of small issues, but they would have been normal problems without the different lineup and different songs. Other than that, it was a hit (as much as a band can be a hit in a town wear hardly anyone knows you and the headlining band features an old balding tenor sax player). All we could do is leave a pint of blood on that stage (why is Jimmy Fallon in Almost Famous anyway?) and we did that.

Show over. Time to go home.

The experience of going on tour with Husband&Wife will leave a major imprint on my life. There was some drama, but we always played music for music's sake. There was hardly any doubt that no matter what happened, we were there to play music and entertain an audience. One of the more frustrating things about making music in the educational universe is all the riff-raf that is considered important. I'm not saying there wasn't riff-raf on the tour, but all of it purely lead to the music and was identified as riff-raf. I don't know if the band made any money on the tour (I know I certainly didn't), but I know they loved playing. It came out every night on stage. And I got to hold down the low end of it.

It has made me think if there is an opportunity here that I should chase. Maybe this was the realization of my dream. But then I think about not showering, being away from my lady and family, and the potential of not being able to teach kids because of having to be gone all the time. But after all those important things, the dream still doesn't completely die. Maybe I'll tour again. Then again, maybe I won't. But it was definitely worth it. Even if I started in Cleveland.

Husband&Wife Set lists :
The Happy Dog in Cleveland:
Mulberry Squeezins (from Dark Dark Woods)
Market Fresh (from Proud Flesh)
6 Little Indians (PF)
Not Every Bird Can Fly (PF)
Be Gone Long One (PF)
Haven't Got a Friend (DDW)
Proud Flesh (PF)

The Purple Room in Columbus:
Noise Jam in C Into...
Be Gone Long One
Not Every Bird Can Fly
6 Little Indians
Market Fresh
I Have Been Made Huge (PF)
Proud Flesh

Luna Music in Indy:
Be Gone Long One
Not Every Bird Can Fly
6 Little Indians
Market Fresh
Don't Change (from Operation: Surgery)
I Have Been Made Huge
Proud Flesh
Founders Brewery in Grand Rapids:
Comp Jam (DDW)
Proud Flesh
Not Every Bird Can Fly
I Have Been Made Huge
Market Fresh
Don't Change
Haven't Got a Friend
I Got Fat (DDW)
Be Gone Long One
6 Little Indians

The Strutt in Kalamazoo
Supersize Me (OS)
Thanks for Understanding (DDW)
Support Yourself (DDW)
6 Little Indians
I Have Been Made Huge
Class War (PF)