( 11:48 AM )
Yesterday while listening to the radio for some reason I heard the studio version of Cheap Tricks' "I Want You To Want Me." It made me immediately wonder why they were playing the studio version when everyone prefers the live version. In fact, I'm pretty sure that most people have never even heard the studio one since it was the live version of the song that was a hit.
My second thought then was, seriously, how many songs are better known from a live recording than from a studio cut? I came up with the above example and then, well, pretty much anything by Peter Frampton. Let's face it, how many people have heard much by Frampton that wasn't on "Frampton Comes Alive"? At this point more people have heard crappy remakes of "Baby I Love Your Way" than even remember when Frampton, with his white guy 'fro, was a major rock god.
I mean, I can think of some songs that have live versions that are fairly well known. "Detroit Rock City" by Kiss, comes to mind. (I don't know why it's the one that comes to mind...I'm tired, maybe?) The live version of "If I Had a Million Dollars" by Barenaked Ladies might be better known than the original, but I've heard the studio version often enough.
I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but I know that it's still rare. So, I guess kudos to Cheap Trick for making a kind of boring studio song sound kick-ass in concert.
(On an almost completely unrelated note, I can't hear the name Cheap Trick without thinking of Demone in "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" attempting to scalp tickets to one of their shows to a reluctant student. "Dream Police? I Want You To Want ME? Mommy's alright, daddy's alright, they just seem a little weird..." Sure he was scuzzy, but admit it...you liked him just a little bit better after his stirring defense of Robin Zander and Rick Nielsen, didn't you?)
::
1 comments
( 7:31 AM )
While watching CNN's coverage of Pope John Paul II's imminent demise a few days ago, I saw a commercial from a committee attacking Congressional Democrats for their reluctance to accept President Bush's plans for overhauling the Social Security system. I wanted to take a bat to the TV. Not because I disagreed with the ad's message -- even though I do, since last time I checked in a democracy political disagreement was allowed -- but just because I was seeing the spot at all. During an election year bullying political ads drive me to distraction. When it's not an election year bullying political ads cause me to want to perform acts of destruction.
Just leave me alone during the non-election years. Let me watch the news without being told that one of the two main political parties is evil incarnate. Why don't we just have political committees start running ads to tell us which politicians are "soft" on terrorism? Hell, let's bring back the House Un-American Activities Committee and give them an advertising budget.
President Bush makes speech after speech about fanning the flames of democracy across the world, yet in our country the President and the Republican party use every tactic short of imprisonment to squash anyone that disagrees with their political agenda. I heard this morning on NPR that Congressional Republican's are so mad that they weren't able to get their way in the Terry Shiavo case that they're looking into ways that they can gain more control of the Federal Judiciary. Apparently they all missed that Government class where "checks and balances" were explained and why we have three separate branches of government. The President and Congress both already have more power than any of our Founding Fathers really meant for them to have (well, John Adams accurately predicted what the Presidency would become and wanted to just cut to the chase and give the office a bunch of power, but most everyone thought that he was wrong).
Guess what? I don't want any branch of our Federal government to have any more power than they already do. And all of those pundits that screamed about "smaller government" seem to be readily in favor of a bigger role for whatever side they agree with.
And while I'm on this rant, I don't get the Terry Shiavo case. It was a family dispute -- admittedly an extremely painful family dispute -- and suddenly we've got every politician, talking head and preacher in the country taking a position on it.
In particular, I don't understand the religious argument that life is sacred and must be preserved. Isn't death also supposed to be sacred? Isn't death part of God's plan and the natural order of things? Isn't that what every minister, rabbi and priest says at every funeral? Then how is it a sin to want to let someone die a natural death and go on to their reward (since if this is a religious argument I'm assuming that there's a belief in a reward after death)? It seems to me that if you believe in life after death and you're keeping someone alive past the point when they really should be then all you're doing is trapping their soul. I'm not saying that medicine shouldn't keep people alive or anything, but there does come a point where, in a complete absence of quality of life, for loved ones, doctors, whoever, keeping someone going is more a selfish act than one of love and compassion.
At least there might be some good out of that particular story, since from what I understand interest in living wills has gone up a few thousand fold.
::
0 comments
|
