Alexander

At this time of year, I usually teach a unit on banned books (often accompanied by reading "Fahrenheit 451" and Bradbury's short story "Usher II"). I assign the students to research a banned book and give an oral report on why it was banned. I also have them read an excerpt as a part of their presentation, which I hope will encourage them to read the whole book. The last time I gave this assignment, one of the banned books on the list I gave the students to choose from was by a holocaust denier. Some of the parents objected strongly. I included the book because I wanted to demonstrate that sometimes books that most reasonable people would WANT to ban should STILL be printed (freedom of the press and all that). It's easy to say that books like Harry Potter or "Catcher in the Rye" shouldn't be banned. It's another thing to say that "Mein Kampf" shouldn't be banned. If freedom of expression is not extended to those we disagree with, then there is no freedom of expression. The holocaust denier book was called "The Hoax of the 20th Century" by Arthur R. Butz. The student who was researching it couldn't find the book in any local library, which pretty much amounts to the same thing as a ban...

I stopped watching TV some time ago. For a long time, the only television I watched at all was "The Simpsons" and "House," but I've stopped watching those shows as well. I watch DVDs, of course, and I occasionally see "SpongeBob" and a few other cartoon shows that my daughter watches, but that's it. I get all my news from the paper and on-line. Last week I watched a few speeches from the Democratic Convention, however...

29

Thanks again to all for the good wishes. The funny thing is that there isn't a lot of acrimony or anything like that. We're not constantly screaming at each other, nor are we walking around in stony silence. We still talk and laugh, just like we always did. We still sleep in the same bed at night. When I sit down with her on the couch and my leg touches hers, she doesn't pull it away. Some of it is probably for Sam's (our daughter) benefit, but alot of this goes on when she's asleep or not even here. I don't know.

Funny...I just heard this news, yet I've had "One of a Kind Love Affair" running around in my head all day! The Spinners were a wonderful group. I love their Atlantic recordings, especially with Phillipe Wynne on lead vocal!

I've never been to counseling, but this isn't the first time I've heard that counselors will side with the woman right off the bat. Even if more fault lies with the man, it seems like a bad tactic on the part of the counselor, as far as getting the therapy going. A couple of years ago my wife and I tried counceling and we saw a woman who came down on me like a hammer. I didn't like her at all, although my wife liked her fine... One day my wife came to a session with MY therapist (also a woman...actually, she's a rabbi! She's awesome!), and that went VERY well. My therapist was VERY even-handed. She didn't assign blame. What she tried to do was to teach us how to communicate. After that, my wife agreed that our marriage councelor hadn't been very good that that they were ganging up on me, which wasn't fair. Since then, however, I haven't been able to get my wife to see a councelor. I'm making a concerted effort to find someone we can talk to now, because I think we really need to learn how to talk to one another again without falling into familiar patterns (she tends to nag, I tend to lecture).

Thank you all SO much for your comments. As you can well imagine, it feels a little lonely over in Alexander-land right now. I know that it's not ALL me. But it is ME that my wife is currently having a difficult time living with. Not that I'm evil or malicious, but rather that my formerly adorable quirks don't seem too adorable at the moment. Or, as my wife put it today, "The things you know and understand, you're a GENIUS at. The things you don't know or understand, you're HOPELESS with." Of course, this is nothing new, but (as somebody mentioned earlier in the thread) people grow apart. The things that are important to me aren't so important to her, and the things that are important to her aren't as important to me (not to say that I have NO interest, but - for example - I'm the kind of guy who could live quite happily his whole life and never buy a house. My wife wants a house very badly. I would never actively try to discourage buying a house (not that we can even afford one right now), but the fact that I'm not burning with the same desire to own one that she is bothers her. A lot). In the final analysis, what I want is for everybody to be happy, or at least content. I know I'm not going to be happy without her, but I also know that in time I will be able to be content again. I know that my daughter won't be happy, but if I make sure that I stay in her life, she'll eventually adapt. If Stacy isn't happy with me, I can't ask her to make herself happy. The best I can hope for is an eventual outcome that will cause the least damage and pain to all three of us. And finally, I don't get the whole "legally separated and still living together thing," either. I've asked her to put if off until I move out (although that may take some time), but I think she's afraid that if she doesn't do it NOW she'll get cold feet and not do it later on down the line. It's tough though, you know? The last time I was single, I was eighteen-years-old. Now I'm almost thirty-eight. That's twenty years, man. I've been with Stacy for longer than I was alive WITHOUT her!

Well, my wife dropped the bomb today. She's filing for a separation. Not quite sure where to go from here. At the moment, I'm out of work (budget cuts in my discrict), so obviously I'm not going to be able to move out for a while. She and I have been down this road a couple of times before, but she's adamant that she means it this time (and I believe her). Any advice from more experienced folks on this matter? What's the best way to handle this? How can we best protect our daughter from any negative fallout? I don't think that this will be a particularly nasty separation/divorce. I still love Stacy and I respect her feelings. I understand that the problem is me and that a separation may well be the best thing for us (I have asked that we try some counciling during the intervening period before I move out, if only so that we may learn the best way to deal with this as a family). The fact is that, marriage licence or no, we will ALWAYS be a family, just a different kind of family. When we were contemplating divorce about a year ago, we broke the news to my daughter who was just distraught. We've agreed that we're not going to discuss it with her again until the plans are firm. Any advice from someone who's been there?

I'm reminded of a Monty Python skit called "How To Do It": Alan: Hello. Noel: Hello. Alan: Well, last week we showed you how to become a gynaecologist. And this week on 'How to do it' we're going to show you how to play the flute, how to split an atom, how to construct a box girder bridge, how to irrigate the Sahara Desert and make vast new areas of land cultivatable, but first, here's Jackie to tell you all how to rid the world of all known diseases. Jackie: Hello, Alan. Alan: Hello, Jackie. Jackie: Well, first of all become a doctor and discover a marvellous cure for something, and then, when the medical profession really starts to take notice of you, you can jolly well tell them what to do and make sure they get everything right so there'll never be any diseases ever again. Alan: Thanks, Jackie. Great idea. How to play the flute. (picking up a flute) Well here we are. You blow there and you move your fingers up and down here. Noel: Great, great, Alan. Well, next week we'll be showing you how black and white people can live together in peace and harmony, and Alan will be over in Moscow showing us how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. So, until next week, cheerio. Alan: Bye. Jackie: Bye.

When I was 18 and gearing up for the Senior Prom, I contemplated selling my comic book collection in order to get money for tuxedo rental, limo, flowers, etc. I even had a guy from a local comic book shop come over and look over my collection. For some reason, I wanted to sell the whole thing at one go, so I was unwilling to break it up and sell off parts of it. The guy offered me $200 just for my X-Men (and X-Men related) titles, but I refused (he was unimpressed by my complete runs of John Byrne on "The Fantastic Four" and "Alpha Flight") unless he took everything at once. After I graduated high school, I lugged my collection around for the next several years. Tiring of that, I decided once again to sell my collection sometime around 1996 or so. This is shortly after the speculator comic book market crashed, devaluing everything. The guy offered me $40 for my whole collection, including those "X-Men" comics that were fetching $200 just a few years earlier (I had the "Death of Phoenix" and everything). I made a $45 counter offer, and he accepted. In the years that have passed since that time, I have accumulated a collection that takes up only two long-boxes (which includes a few items from my old collection that somehow didn't get sold at the time. Not sure why. They must not have been with the other comics). Nothing terribly valuable, although I understand that my 1991 copy of "From Hell" #1 is worth a little bit of money. I feel bad, though, that I sold my original run of "Watchmen," because those have become quite valuable. Not that I care about the monitary value of my comics. I keep them bagged so I can enjoy reading them over and over again, not so I can sell them and send my daughter to college (they'll never be THAT valuable). My biggest mistake as a comic book collector was letting two copies of "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" #1 slip away back when the comic was new. At the time, I didn't have a car and the comic book store was near my dad's office, so he would stop by on Friday afternoons on his way home and pick up my comics for me (this was pretty much en leu of an allowance). One week he came home with two copies of "DK" #1 instead of my usual order (which was all Marvel comics). I bitched and moaned and made him take them back so I could get my copy of "X-Factor" or "West Coast Avengers" or whatever crap I was reading. He has never let me forget that. I wound up getting "Dark Knight" when it came out in the Trade Paperback ediition (which I still have to this day). It's actually amazing the good condition my comics are in, considering that some of them are over twenty years old now. My dad kept HIS comics in a paper grocery bag in the attic of our house. I used to read them all the time (that's how I got hooked on comics and also how I developed my adolescent devotion to Marvel). When I was a kid, most of my dad's comics couldn't have been more than five or six years old (including several Kirby FFs, Thors, and Captain Americas), but they already looked like hell (and look much, much worse now, even though I've kept them in plastic since about 1984. Of course, I wouldn't sell my dad's collection along with mine back in '96). I was reading some eleven year old comics last night, and they still look like the day I bought them...

His episodes of "SpongBob Squarepants" where he plays Mermaid Man (to Tim Conway's cranky Barnacle Boy) are hysterical! "EVIL!"

"Citizen Kane" "Les Enfants du Paradis" "The Seventh Seal" "Wild Strawberries" "Psycho" "Inherit the Wind" Among many others...

I dunno. I always assumed less than a week; just a few days. Can't say I ever thought it through though. That's a good question. It depends on where Marsalis Wallace went on business and how long he was gone. Let's break it down: Chronologically, the first thing to happen in the movie (outside of Butch's flashback) is Jules and Vincent hitting Brad and his friends. That, the mess in the car, the visit from the Wolf, the stand-off in the diner, and Butch's visit to Marslais all take place during the same day. Am I right in remembering that Vincent's "date" with Mia Wallace is that same night? It is possible that Marsalis really isn't out of town that night, but is attending to the business at Butch's fight. If that's the case, then the whole film could happen over the course of only two days. Day One: Hit over at Brad's Blowing Marvin's head off Clean-up at Jimmy's house/The Wolf Stand-off at the diner Vincent and Mia - Butch's fight Day Two: Butch's return to the apartment - kills Vincent Butch and Marsalis w/Zed and the Gimp Butch escapes I seem to remember Mia being with Marsalis at the fight, however. Doesn't she thank Vincent for the date? That would fuck up my chronology here. Anyone else care to take a stab at it?

Congrats!

Alex has changed his view of the afterlife? It's an imaginary afterlife, but it's a nice afterlife to imagine.

Maybe YOU go to Weehauken. I'm going to Englewood Cliffs!

At least he, Ahmet and Ray will all be together again. They can lay down some new tracks...

I've got the same except for the gold CD. And frankly, I prefer the old LP with the uncorrected speed. That's the sound I've been used to since 1979. Ever since first hearing about this incorrect pitch question I've found it hard to believe that Miles Davis would let all those years go by without kicking up a big stink if the pitch was really such an important issue. But I had to have SOME digital version of the album, so I figured it might as well be one with the correct front cover. (Remember the earlier CD edition with the ugly Columbia masterworks blue-border and the 70's space-cadet photo of Davis inside the border? That was kind of like re-issuing Rubber Soul with a picture of Abbey Road-era Beatles on the cover. And, gee, it's only one of the most---some would say THE most---famous jazz albums of all time, so what the fuck, who'll notice?) Yeah, that CD cover was the WORST. It was one of the first jazz CDs I owned, but even then I thought it was an ugly cover.

Totally agree. That's why I kept it after I got the CD version with the bonus cut. I think I'll give it a spin right now!

I currently own three copies of KOB. 1) LP 2) Gold CD 3) 1997 CD edition with bonus alternate of "Flamenco Sketches" I also have the Ashley Kahn book. If the few tracks I don't have turn up on iTunes, I'll probably just buy those there to round the whole shebang out. I certainly don't need another LP copy (even if it IS speed corrected. Personally, I kind of like having the original LP version with the incorrect speed. It allows me to listen to the album as it was originally heard, even if it wasn't MEANT to be heard that way).

Blackface is and has always been a far more complex phenomenon than simply "white people making fun of black people."

I plan on seeing this when it opens tomorrow. I don't care how tasteless it is (and I'm speaking as someone who has worked with the metally challenged), I think that Downey looks AMAZING in this. Moreover, it's pretty obvious that the film is not meant to demean either blacks or the handicapped, but rather Hollywood's hypocracy. Stiller's character plays a mentally handicapped man in order to advance his career, not because he cares about the challenges that such people face. Hollywood recognizes that playing a handicapped individual is a fast-track to an Oscar, but they still call the character a "retard." That says a lot more about these characters than it does about people with mental disabilties...

The original Soul Man... RIP You're DAMN right...

Here's an article on this very topic written by an intellectual property lawyer. It's probably not what you'd expect... I love the oblique Costello reference in the title... THERE ARE SOME THINGS YOU CAN’T COVER UP WITH FISH STICKS AND CHOWDER All eyes are on Girl Talk, a Pittsburgh DJ named Gregg Gillis, who just released his fourth album, titled Feed the Animals. It’s available on a “pay-what-you-will” basis at illegalart.net. Go get it right now, I’ll wait. And do be a sport and throw the guy a couple bucks. Don’t be a freetard. It’s worth it. OK, be prepared to be amazed. Put it on and turn it up. See? Girl Talk’s thing is sprawling dance tracks composed entirely of snippits, generally several at once, of recognizable hit songs. Lots of people have been doing this, and you can find thousands of mash-ups on the Internet. Most mash-ups involve just a couple of songs, often the vocals from one song superimposed on the instrumental tracks of another. Hey, who knew “You Light Up My Life” and “Enter Sandman” fit together so well! The archytype of this was Danger Mouse’s 2004 masterpiece The Grey Album, which combined vocal tracks from Jay-Z’s Black Album dropped atop looped instrumental tracks nicked off the Beatles’ White Album. And of course the grandmasters of this are the guys in Negativland. Feed the Animals may set the gold standard for appropriated musical works. The tracks are not the simple mash-ups built on one or two ideas, but elaborate constructions, using dozens of samples in a single track. They’re incredible, cohesive works that stand on their own. What makes Girl Talk different from the rest is Gillis’s taste and his wonderfully broad reach of source material (a typical track, “Still Here”, includes recognizable samples from Procol Harum, Kanye West, the Band, Yung Joc, Ace of Base, Salt ’N Pepa, Kenny Loggins, and about a dozen others) and his wickedly goofy sense of humor. Gillis isn’t making a point or delivering a punch line; like a good club DJ, he just wants to keep the party going, and have fun doing it. Feed the Animals is a kaleidoscope of endless surprises, one of the happiest albums I’ve ever heard. And if I knew anything about hip-hop, which provides the lion’s share of the vocalizing, I’d probably like it twice as much. If that’s possible. Girl Talk hasn’t gotten permission for any of the samples of other people’s recordings on Feed the Animals. The law, the way record companies want it to work, would render Feed the Animals an impossibility. There are hundreds of samples on the album, and each would require two licenses: one from the record company and another from the publishing company. Each company would likely demand to hear the context in which the sample is used. Many would then simply deny permission, or not respond at all; the rest would charge thousands of dollars for the usage. FTA would be DOA. So, the big question is: Will Gillis get sued into oblivion? On one hand, he’s been doing this without interference since 2002; Feed the Animals has been out for two weeks. On the other hand, he’s getting a ton of attention; Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, and pretty much the entire music media is raving about Feed the Animals. He’s got to be moving hundreds of thousands of tracks. Feed the Animals is the work that sits squarely in the middle of a collision of murky legal principles and conflicting court decisions. A very bad decision out of a Tennessee federal court a couple years ago said that any sampling of a sound recording was infringement, no matter how small, and even when the use was unrecognizable. As this decision has not been adopted in any other federal court circuits, I’m guessing think that if Girl Talk’s gonna get sued, it’ll be in Tennessee. On the other hand, there’s been an increasing recognition by courts, particularly in cases involving the visual arts, that appropriating existing copyright material for a new work is OK if the new work is transformative. And Feed the Animals is nothing if not wildly transformative of the works it borrows. I mean right now I’m hearing Ahmad rapping “Back in the Day” over a groove from Rod Stewart’s “Young Turks” and in a few seconds it’ll move seamlessly on to something else. If that’s not transformative then I’m Rick Astley. If the “music industry”, hobbling and decrepit as it is, comes out of its spider hole and goes after Girl Talk, watch out. After high profile gigs at major festivals and increasing large venues around the world, Gillis has millions of die-hard fans, most of whom I’d guess understand, to some degree, the legalities involved here. The push-back from this legion of happy lunatics if Girl Talk is sued will be immediate and probably devastating. And Gillis doesn’t need to worry about representation, either. If he gets served with a complaint, dozens, even hundreds of legal organizations and free range attorneys—including me—will be lining up to help defend him for free. It would be that important. —Paul Rapp

I have a couple of Girl Talk CDs, including this most recent disc ("Feed The Animals") and I happen to think that it's wonderful. He makes some amazing juxtopositions in his work (think of this as Claude Levi-Strauss's "bricolage" or akin to Burroughs' "cut-up" technique). I think that's the point. Putting familiar things next to other familiar things in order to create something new and interesting. In one sequence, Girl Talk puts Nirvana's "Lithium" next to Ludacris's rap on Fergie's "Glamorous" right before segueing into "September" by Earth, Wind, and Fire. It's cool!