Travis

Michelle said:

Travis said:

1. I was the singer of a funk/rock band called Concrete Snake
2. I used to have a Pavement shirt for every day of the week, now I only have one due to wearing them too much.
3. I have bowled 2 300 games and an 800 series (combined score over 3 games) (not all the same night)

#1?

Nope. First band I was ever in. All things considered (high school band) I think we were pretty good. Totally self indulgent (forgive me), but here's a clip of us when we sort of got back together for fun at a new years party in 01.

Thanks @CretanBull and @Kate23 That information is incredibly helpful. I started doing some research and what I'm hoping for has already (at least to some extent) been run up the flagpole by Bernie. Not a new idea (and I wouldn't be shocked if it is a part of Warren's tax plan already though I didn't see it referenced in what she put forth on her website), just evening the gap (or honestly I would be in favor of flipping it to some limited extent, but at least equaling) between the taxation of investment income and working income. I knew it wouldn't be something new, but I think it's a good time to message it with some of the other ideas that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders particularly are talking about. The way I see it, they're starting to get at the problem with the way they are talking about corporate stock buybacks and forcing companies to be held to a certain standard when it comes to things like wages and benefits, but I think it's important that Washington holds up their end to the culture change too. By taxing investors so much more favorably than people who work, they are sending a symbolic message that there is more societal value to sitting back and letting your money grow than actually getting your hands dirty, not to mention that as far as general constituencies go labor needs that favorable treatment far more than the investor class (and I would propose low income carve outs so that particularly seniors and people with disabilities, but others that fall into an acceptable range don't get screwed on the deal). It is also good timing for something like this with the Democrats putting a premium on campaigns that deny funding from corporate interests. Hell, Wall Street already despises Elizabeth Warren. Not like they can vote for her less.

Anyhoo, like I said, this isn't some revolutionary (I know that even Bernie was far from the first person to bring it up) idea but I think it would play really well in the current populist climate and I think it's something that we as a country have wrong. Unfortunately I still have a lot of research to do because as much as this has been a thorn in my brain for years I only Monday started telling myself "so why don't you do something about it and start advocating for it?" Time to start looking at statistics and reading the history of the issue. Oddly sounds kind of fun, though time consuming when I don't have a ton of it.

Thanks again for the advice. I really appreciate it and I will use it.

Last week I misread "a competitive banking show" when someone posted about a "competitive baking show."

In other news: does anyone know how to set up a pitch meeting with Hulu for a new project I'm developing called "Cash Them Checks"?

Karaoke cover record! When is someone going to have the balls to actually just overlay a karaoke cd and sell it? I truly believe it's coming.

You know the worst part about Beverly Hills (and granted it's a ridiculous nitpick on a great sketch, but it really stuck in my craw, where somehow the conclusion is everyone can agree on Beverly Hills being a good song), Beverly Hills is not only just a terrible, Weezer giving into its worst impulses song (I would actually use BH as the banner for everything I don't like about Weezer), it's a totally blatant repackaging of El Scorcho! Just completely, laying it right out there "hey, let's just remake El Scorcho only "catchier" and without the thoughtful stuff that made it really good. That'll sell great!" It's lazy with an exponent.

I didn't know that about the origin of the Africa thing, and that doesn't really surprise me either. It's yet another layer to all of this. I never (at least since my mid 20s when I was more eager to pull the trigger on judgments) thought of Rivers as any sort of a bad guy. I actually imagine him to be a pretty thoughtful, good dude. I try not to learn much about such things and I'm sure there is plenty of evidence in whatever direction skews true, but I don't know. That story and how it played out is just kind of a perfect encapsulation of my thoughts on the dude. It's this super frustrating package of a dude who came out of nowhere with some real talent, then (it feels to me) lost interest and got jaded, but hung around because why not? It's a lucrative job and why not cash in on your opportunities? People do it every day, but it's just so mind blowing when you translate that attitude into such a competitive and "sell the devil your soul" profession. It's just so tough to wrap the mind around. Part of me is like "hell yeah, go get that paper, dude." and part of me feels incredibly aggrieved for some dumb reason. I do honestly kind of hate myself for having it wring so much out of me (I mean, what am I up to? 5 paragraphs and I'm actively stopping myself from droning on way further). It goes against so much of what I believe. There's just something about Rivers. I guess that's why the SNL thing worked so amazingly well. 

Murderbear said:

I'm sorry. Maybe it's because I've never really been a Weezer fan but that cover album seems like the most boring thing ever. I have zero problems with cover songs. I've played many a cover song in my life but when you put out an entire album of covers and play them exactly exactly the same, what's the point? No attempt to put any of their own spin on it.

Rivers gonna Rivers.

I've always thought about covers similarly too. One thing to do a verbatim cover in a live setting. That can be super fun for everybody. Give the crowd a fun surprise, the band obviously picked it because they enjoy it... Even if it's a tribute album sort of a thing where people are coming together to celebrate an artist (though as a rule almost every tribute album is complete garbage), I don't love it, but I get it. I hadn't heard they were going to be verbatim, but I'm not surprised and it's totally stupid. It's also just so, so Weezer.

Actually, seeing your post made a light bulb question go off over my head. It kind of felt like a ton of scattered thoughts came together. Is Weezer really lazy? Did they build up so much goodwill with those first two records and maybe the well got a little drier and they just somewhere along the line realized that they could just coast (I'm certain this is mixed with a giant spike in cynicism from within)? One of the big things that happened after the second album is that their music started to feel a lot less thoughtful and more phoned in. You could also ask, and maybe this is way more fair, is Rivers just not so interested in music anymore and Weezer is just a good way to keep good money coming in while he does his thing the rest of the time? I mean, there isn't anything wrong with most people not really loving their job and not necessarily really laying it out there every day to be the best at it. I don't know, the notion of a verbatim cover album is such a lazy cash grab (lookin at you too Duran Duran) that given the rest of the track record I think it begs the question.

I also say this as someone who thought The White Album was pretty ok. There is stuff on Green that I liked. I mean, there is Weezer stuff that I hate (Make Believe is the (not hyperbole) worst album I've ever listened to in its entirety), but I actually consider myself kind of a Weezer moderate. Ha! Maybe the truly relevant question is why do I still let myself devote any grey matter processes to Weezer anymore? They're just such a frustrating puzzle, I guess I can't help myself.