Tapes n' Crap

Nothing's smarter than accidentally coming into work to make up some lost hours on what turns out to be graduation day! Aka, nothing to do (normally this would bore me, but since I have lots of things I need to read/write...)

Music



Saturday was the Tapes n' Tapes show at the Paradise (third concert I had seen at that venue in the space of three weeks). The first opening act - Harlem Shakes - had to cancel, so we (aka, Brett et moi) had to hang around drinking overpriced PBRs for an hour (the one time I'm there on time....). Also showcased that night at the Paradise was a demo for the upcoming 2k7 MLB game for the xbox 360. I'm not sure why this demo was worthy of being mentioned on the building's marquee sign. But then again, I'm not sure why people play baseball video games either, so what do I know.

The second opening act was Ladyhawk, which is a band I've never heard of. Forceful indie rockers...don't know how to describe them really. When Brett asked me what I thought of them, I shrugged and said "eh, I wouldn't steal their music." Two guys standing right behind us had a very different take, however. They shouted "LADYHAWK!!!" while the sound guys were setting up, "LADYHAWK!!!" before and after each song, and even "LADYHAWK!!!" a few times during Tapes n' Tapes' set. They also kept screaming for some song called "on paradise" or whatever to be played. I would assume that said song was never played, but since they kept shouting for the band after they were done, aanything is possible.

Tapes n' Tapes was excellent. They played 6 new songs not from their first album..5 of which were rough and lacking energy, but the last new one they played had a real kick to it. Otherwise, it was a pretty simple, excellent presentation of their tracks from The Loon. My favourite member of the band is easily the drummer, who combines more than competent drumming, incredible energy, and looking like the lab assistant in your bio chemistry class to be one of the more charismatic musicians I've seen in awhile:

(note, the above two pictures were not taken by me, my camera ran out of batteries during the previous night's luau party. they're stolen from pitchfork's photos from their show in New York yesterday. So imagine the same people 24 hours younger to get an idea of what they looked like when I saw them).

Politics

If there's one thing that gets me pissed off, it is the electoral college. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that the vote of those people who happen to live in states that predominantly vote for one party or another are essentially meaningless, while people who happen to live in places that contain a large number (but not TOO many) retards decide our fate. Basically, someone who votes in Ohio has a far, far higher chance of affecting the outcome of the presidential election than I do. Which means that those of us in non-swing states are essentially slaves to the people who lives in Ohio, Florida, etc. What I'm trying to say here, is that I have personally undergone the same level and intensity of oppression as black slaves.

Well, that was a joke. But I am pissed off about it. Not because of the abstract principle that Ohioans ought not be in the driver's seat on this whole fate of the world thing (although if you've known many people from Ohio you'll know how true that is). But because of the following two points:
1. People who don't have a motivation to vote tend to not vote nearly as much.
B. The abstract principle of civic duty tends to compel old people and wealthier people to vote more often than it does the young or poor.

Essentially, I think that America is, by and large, fairly liberal. But a number of factors contribute to this not being reflected in the polls to nearly the extent it should be. And I think that one of the biggest factors keeping people from voting is that they feel their vote doesn't count. I can't really blame someone who lives in Massachusetts who, such as myself, doesn't know much about local politics, and doesn't bother voting because it is guaranteed that the state will chose the Dems for President and Congress. But if each and every single person's vote counted equally, then it'd be a WHOLE different story, and I think voter participation in New York, California, etc. would skyrocket.

The only argument for the electoral college as currently constituted is that candidates will only target populous areas, and not really push forward a pro-rural area agenda. But I think that is a dumb reason:
1. Since when does campaign promises have anything to do with campaign actions taken? Most of Bush's policies have been the exact opposite of things he campaigned on. Candidates will cater to rural or urban issues if their base wants them to; reaction amongst party members has far more weight than geographic ones.
2. Rural area voters aren't remarkably good at standing up for rural area concerns. Aside from a few specific points, folks in rural areas don't tend to stand up for environmental causes, for example.
3. So what? I fail to see why the states deserve justice in terms of having all being counted equally, while people don't. (Of course, the current system doesn't even do that, since the states that happen to be swing states are the ones that get the attention from candidates).



Apple-hating:

I don't mean to return to this topic again and again, but one of my bosses mentioned something about Apple winning a Smithsonian design award (partially for the iphone, a product which has yet to be released! which is ridiculous). Thinking about that helped crystallize in my own mind the problem I have with the Apple (and increasingly, Nintendo) aesthetic.

If you think about objects that you have in the house, you can fit them under three main categories:
1. Pure utility. Tools are meant for a purpose, and are designed to conform to adhere to that purpose best. Hammers are built for hammering, not looking pretty. (Note: I spent about 20 minutes trying to track down a screenshot from the Who Shot Mr Burns Simpsons episode when Jasper goes "The sidewalk's for normal walkin', not fancy walkin'!" but failed miserably).
2. Decoration.
3. Furniture and architecture. These are where it gets interesting, because one has to balance form and function. The ongoing conflict (strife, if I wanted to make an obscure and not all that accurate Heidegger reference) between the necessities demanded by the form so as to be useful, and working around those limitations is where the beauty happens. When it takes ingenuity to blend form and function into an ideal partnership, that is why architecture can have aesthetic value.

(the mind responsible for the spread of white, banal evil)

So, where should electronic gadgets fall in? They exist mainly to execute a purpose, but because of their smallness and malleability they can be put into lots of different forms. But this is not like category 3 where one must actively work to balance the decorative desires with the demands of the form; there is nothing stopping one making a computer or mp3 player case look like whatever. Electronic gadgets have almost nothing to do in terms of constituting a dwelling; this is why most people try and have unobtrusive TV and stereo sets.

The goal and telos of a computer is to produce a display and allow for manipulation of that display in myriad ways. This has nothing to do with the appearance of the case - there is no strife, no work, no difficult, and thus no craft. The reason why this problem doesn't appear to the minds of most is because no one in America is concerned with such categorical distinctions, their aesthetics is encased wholly within the notion of sociocultural issues. For instance: fine wines = infinitely more expensive than fine beers, not because they are harder or more costly to make (they aren't), nor because they are better tasting or more complex tasting (again, aren't those things either), but because they have the perception of being more fancy - a purely self-enforcing prophecy. The twisted logic of capitalism dictates that because we must pay more for things that which are valuable, things that we pay much more must thus be more valuable. The simple mistake: just because A implies B, B does not imply A. But since everything we do goes into and affects our intersubjective weighing, judging, and ranking of other people, the notion that expensive items = superiority is well entrenched in our culture. The danger becomes when one spends their entire life working hard in order to earn more money, and ends up finding that that salary bump does not come with a guaranteed increase in happiness. But then I'm just stating basic facts now (yet basic facts that are understood by almost no one, as is evidenced by how every single person you see on a daily basis goes about their lives).

Thus, the slapping on of an aesthetic front to the world of computers and electronic gadgets has nothing to do with the improvement of those products, or enabling them to go about their purposes any better...instead, it entails the bringing of the technological culture into the larger society of "normal" means of weighing people by class and wealth. Before this, in order to be a computer enthusiast you almost certainly were not very "plugged in" to popular culture. By making the imacs and i-products into a bubbly gum, candy coated shell (the Nintendo Wii and DS as well), those products have been stamped as accessible and valuable by the frothy high-culture created by the swirls of capitalism. Nerdiness becomes re-appropriated; what was once the devotion to outsider ways of getting things done or entertaining, now becomes a sociocultural fashion statement of appealing to a souless twee aesthetic. Which is precisely why the people who are real apple enthusiasts end up looking like smug, unsympathetic nimrods like this: