"The Hound of the Baskervilles" review -- How Batman Is It?

For all the Batman I've exposed myself to, I've never gotten into Sherlock Holmes, one of the greatest influences on the Batman myth. On a whim -- and admittedly somewhat influenced by the upcoming movie -- I picked up a couple of Arthur Conan Doyle's books in paperback at a used book store. I finished quickly with "Hound of the Baskerville," and I'm starting "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" now. Several things struck me about the relationship between Holmes and Batman, and just Holmes in general. Interestingly enough, I'm now going to list them.

1.) The "genius" of Holmes is kind of a myth, but a fun one. It's a delicate thing, mystery writing. The writer must know his story inside and out in order to plant clues for the characters and the reader to follow, and possibly get confused by... yet the writer must know exactly why things are getting confusing because to him or her, there is no mystery. This is where Sherlock Holmes comes in and usually explains away all mystery as attributed to his brilliant deductive mind. That may be so, but I couldn't help laughing a little at this brilliant deductive mind because it seems like cheating, since the writer who knows how the mystery really plays out is also writing Holmes. I know, I know... it's ludicrous. Of course the writer knows, that's how it works. It's just sort of funny to think about. I suppose this is what proves Doyle was talented because he was a) smart enough to tell this and many of this Holmes stories through the eyes of the less-brilliant Dr. Watson, thereby giving the readers an ally in confusion and befudlement and b) Doyle makes matters so complicated that when Holmes steps up and deduces everything out, it comes as a relief. You see this a lot on shows like "Lost" (see my earlier post about why Sayid is that show's Batman), where the story is so crazy and tangled and messed up that if anyone you trust steps forward and gives you a square answer, they suddenly sprout a halo over their head. Also to Doyle's credit, the times when Holmes delivers these "How'd he figure that out" moments are crafted so nicely that you just enjoy the experience.

2.) Who Would Win In A Fight Between Holmes and Batman? Good question, myself. It depends on the type of fight. My first semi-true exposure to Sherlock Holmes was in a See-N-Play record-comic collection where Batman solves a murder in England with someone who turns out to be the ghost of Sherlock Holmes (odd that Batman doesn't piece that one together until the very end... who else wears those double-billed hats, Batman?). There they obviously worked together and helped one another out. But who had the upper hand?

Physically, it would appear the victor is Batman. He's honed his body, traveling the world and learning martial arts of every kind. Holmes can hold his own in a fight, but I have to think that if you spend every single night swinging around on a rope, you're probably going to kick some fine puzzle-deducting ass handily.

If it is a battle of wits/detective work, now things get interesting and I feel the victory should go Sherlock's way, if for no other reason than he is the character who inspired Batman, not the other way around. Normally the first one to do something is the leader in these types of things... to me, anyway.

3.) Is the song "Baker Street" by Gerry Rafferty inspired by Holmes' headquarters? And if so -- or even if it's not -- will it be a musical cue in the latest "SHERLOCK HOLMES" film by resident King Douchebag director Guy Ritchie? Only if there's slow-motion punching to accompany it. Judging from the lyrics, it does not appear the song is inspired from much of anything, except for sexy sax solos. Either way, I can't stop singing this song -- and its solo -- every time I read it. As it should be.

So How "Batman" is Sherlock Holmes? Probably only 6 out of 10 Batmans worth, but that might get bumped up to a 7.5 the more scowly I picture him in my head, probably happens because the way Doyle describes the way Holmes pacing in "Baskervilles" always reminds me of an image from "The Laughing Fish" where Batman does the same (at the bottom).

Enjoy...

New "Ya-Ya's" Review

I realized recently that unless they really get their act together, the Rolling Stones will only have released one album of new material for the entire first decade of the 21st century. That has not stopped them from re-releasing and remastering old material, which brings us to the 40th anniversary edition of "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out," the best live Stones record ever released, and maybe one of the best live albums ever, too.

Since this is a reissue of something classic, it naturally comes with an inflated price and several "bonus" features all totaling around $50 for something only a die-hard would buy, but if they're a die-hard, then they already have it. It also comes with the original review of the album by Lester Bangs in Rolling Stone magazine (that way you can find out if the album's good before you... buy it...?). It's all a little underwhelming for $50 in my opinion, and I was sure I would just ignore it.

Enter iTunes, where for $5.00 you can legally own the 5 previously un-released tracks of the Stones' headlining concerts in Madison Square Garden (for more money, you can get cuts from opening acts B.B. King and Ike & Tina, but for the purposes of this blog, we'll be focusing on the music of whatstheirnames). That's 10% of the price for 100% of the value (no offense to Ike & Tina. Well, maybe to Ike, but not Tina).

Eager not to spend too much, I snatched up the 5 tracks and immediately started wondering how I should listen to them, presently and going forward. Do I listen to them as stand alone tracks, as a separate set bundled together, or do I integrate them into a complete 15-track "Ya-Ya's" playlist, which may include juggling of the original track listing and consequently result in my having to make a Garage Band version with proper fades, so that I can complete the illusion that I am actually listening to this as it was performed 4 decades ago. Psychosis is time consuming.

This brings up one of the questions I've had since first listening to "Ya-Ya's" and watching the unofficial companion film, "GIMME SHELTER," a documentary/concert film shot of the same shows.
Fact: The Stones played 2 nights at Madison Square Garden
Fact: None of the song versions on "Ya-Ya's" appear on "GIMME SHELTER." That is to say that the version of, say, "Jumpin' Jack Flash" is different on the album from the one in the movie.

Questions: did they do this on purpose, or were they required to accommodate some legal clearances? Do the rights to the MUSIC belong to the record company, so they released other versions to the film company? Or vice versa? Who got to pick first? How did they decide "this one for that, and that one for this?" And was there studio trickery involved with the mixing of both? The "SHELTER" version of "Satisfaction" has a rambling improvised ending with Jagger going on about not giving us any bullshit well after the song's official lyrics complete. That version is not the version of "Satisfaction" which has just been released...

...sort of. You can hear his "We've got to find it!" bits at the end of the newly released track, which sounds similar to that of the movie version. Why didn't they just release the full rambling version from the movie... which now might not be as full as I thought because the film version skips one of the lyrics, and I always assumed this was true to the performance, but now this newly-released cut has all three stanzas...

And if the truth IS that they had to pick different versions for the album from the movie, then why could they include the Jagger-to-crowd banter as it was on both?

Like I said, it's time consuming. A quick study of Wikipedia listed the possible set list of this 1969 tour, and I've been going with that. It's altered a little from the album version, and I can't tell if the differences jar me because A) the album's pretty great as it was when it was released, so any change is always gonna freak me out; B) it doesn't work as well that way, period; or C) I just haven't spent enough time cross fading the levels to make me believe it.

I think the truth is A. The semi-reliable source claims "Sympathy for the Devil" came in the #3 spot, but that just seems weird. It's a strong rave-up of a song, and it seems odd to go from "Carol" into that and then cool things down with "Stray Cat" and the blues set. This might explain why the newly-released tracks weren't offered as an incorporation into the classic album... it was classic for a reason. They worked hard to get it right, they did, and no money-grubbing re-issue is gonna mess with that document.

Of the music it self, the new old tracks are mostly good, but I suppose I can see why they were left off. "Prodigal Son" is that jambly version you get on the "SHELTER" DVD (sort of: it's not EXACTLY that version... you know what I mean), and it's far from the best thing they did on the night. "You Gotta Move" is good, but far from electric or essential. The aforementioned "Satisfaction" is enjoyable if for no other reason to realize that they've HAD to play that freaking song since its release, and any weird cache of anti-pop-establishment cool anyone may have given them for not playing it -- 'cause, hey, it's not on the album of the concert, right? -- is blown.

The gem of these new old songs however is shared between "Under My Thumb" and "I'm Free." I've always liked "Thumb," and the band has always seemed to play it great live. Nearly every version of that song is just plain good, and this one is no exception in that regard, but what I wasn't expecting was how well it flows into "I'm Free" as they do here in a medley. I don't know where the line dividing "derivative" or "inspired connection" is with these songs. Basically, the guitar bits done for the chorus in "Thumb" sound exactly like those of the lead in "I'm Free," and as I play it over and over I wonder if the band just discovered this themselves and thought, "Well, crap, those songs are almost the same damn thing!"

Whatever the case, it works great, and the only reason I can think for leaving these off of the original release is due to space issues. They might have had space to give to one, but that meant losing the other, which would be a shame. I've never been a big lover of "I'm Free," but this version is absolutely excellent, with a lyrical guitar solo and a propulsive, faster-than-the-studio-cut beat. The studio version feels flat by comparison; the mark of a great live performance. In the little searching I did, I can't even find a stand-alone live version of "I'm Free" quite like the one released here, and I'm too giddy to objectively consider its greatness. Listen to it for yourself with "Thumb" and you'll see. There's something uplifting in this misogynistic double-header.

Which brings me to the final thesis on "Ya-Ya's" and the band itself. It's worth noting that the lineup for these concerts included no horns, back-up singers or acoustic guitars (sorta... I guess the two extra bluesy tracks are acoustic, but you get my point), with Ian Stewart as the only "non-band member" band member helping out on the keys. This was probably the last time the Stones played major tours in such a way, and it fuels their creativity as well as their rock artistry. Got a song like "Sympathy" that featured bongos on the album? Too bad. We don't have bongos on tour. What do we do? The low-techness of this performance seemed to focus their energies and harness their concentration. Richards and newly-christened Taylor had to find their electric interplay, creating a weird kind of double-lead guitar sound where you can't tell who's who anymore. The result is a unified sound on an album that demands your attention.

IF YOU GET ALL THE NEW OLD SONGS: the set list appears to be found here.

IF YOU CAN ONLY AFFORD ONE SONG: You're cheating yourself, but get "Under My Thumb." Here's a version that's kinda like the one included, but slower. The new cut is more like the one in "SHELTER."


IF YOU CAN AFFORD ONE MORE: get "I'm Free" and listen to them back to back all night.

Eye-Ball Hooks

Babies like contrasting images. Black on white that sort of thing.

I have a lot of Batman shirts.

I gave Henry a bath by sitting in the tub facing him.

This is what he stared at the entire time.



And he didn't take his eyes off it. Well, that's a little over-stated, but he would lock on, that's for sure.

Induction

The way I play guitar, my son is either gonna love the Rolling Stones or haaaaaaaaaaaaaaate them. I can play a few other songs from other bands (White Stripes and Weezer are up there... Even some Electric 6), but without question the band catalog I play with the most frequency is the band I can't seem to stop talking about and isn't it completely obvious by now, I mean their name is in the freaking title of this blog I don't have to tell you.

Most times it's been just me, Henry, and my acoustic guitar. So far the pop-rock song that is his favorite (and I use the term loosely, considering we're talking about a young child who's other "favorite" things include being changed out of pee diapers and lights) is Nirvana's "Come As You Are," but when I'm not warbling a softer version of the Cobain voice, I fall back on the Rolling Stones. In these short 12 weeks of the boy's life, he's had a variety of reactions to my performances, so here now are those reactions:

"Dead Flowers" Very good. Maybe it's the peppy beat or the way I sing it or I don't know what, but it's been the song to yield the most consistent positive responses, which recently have manifested into actual grins, not just things we hope are grins.

"Gimme Shelter" F. Not having it. It seems too intricate for both his young brain and my crappy skills to handle and make great.

"Till The Next Time We Say Goodbye" OK as long as I sing it like a lullaby, sort of.

Brown Sugar (a capella) So-so. It's not great, but when I get the guitar down I think it'll get a little better reaction.

"Sympathy For the Devil" Less than OK. It's not out and out bad, but it's not one where I'm anticipating many requests.

"Tumbling Dice" Great. Who knew that a song about unfulfilling sexual conquests in a gambling context would draw grins from the intro alone.

Truth be told -- and this goes for all these songs -- I don't play "Dice" just like the original version. I'll change lyrics (like in "Dead Flowers" I'm not gonna sing "I won't forget to put roses on your grave." I change it to something like "I won't forget to put roses out for the brave." True, the final refrain of this exact line is kind of awkward, but my audience can't even hold his own head up, so I hear few complaints. What I've learned best, however, is how certain genres of music begin, particularly the one where popular rock songs are turned into lullabies, making for sacrilegious "baby safe" versions of songs far too mature for infant ears (these were intended for head-banging teenagers, after all).

But now I get it. It's not that somebody wanted to go out and "butcher" a bunch of Metallica songs by making them wussy. It's that they love singing to their kids and they also love Metallica. So why not?

So... Why THESE Topics?

When I'm hanging out at the traditional late-night blog mixers, I often get asked by the more traditional writers, "Mr. Mohtaz, why did you chose to focus your typings on those three seemingly unrelated topics?"

"First off, it's pronounced 'Mah-tuz,' like 'Not-as,' but with an 'M' instead of an 'N.'"

"Forgive me."

"Don't worry about it," I assure them. "It happens all the time."

"Oh, good," they sigh, and start filling their mouth with complementary shrimp as I explain that my reasoning for this blog fixation is like that of every other internet business: because there was almost a need for it.

These are three immensely popular topics, all of which have been more universally, more appropriately and more thoroughly covered by a multitude of better looking websites. But not all at once. And I'm willing to bet that there are probably a few people out there who wish the could read the words of a guy who simultaneously hums the "Batman Returns" chase scene music while imagining he's in a tunic and doing a guitar-riff leg kick. Just like they do.

While these are all independently popular topics, it stands to reason that if I cast a wide enough net, I'm sure to catch something. There must be others like me out there. There just has to be.

Although there's really doesn't have to be. A quick Google Image search of "rolling stones batman star wars" gave me mixed results, and the closest thing I could find to a thesis photo for this blog would be two covers for Rolling Stone magazine.

This one...

...and this one...

("Star Wars" has been on RS a number of times, but none of the others really compared with this one).

I'm pretty sure I don't have any exactly-like-minded friends in my close circle. I know many fans of "Star Wars," and there has been a major up-swing in the Bat-cult lately, but I usually lose people when it comes to the Stones. In an informal pole of my Facebook profile a few months back, I believe I had approximately 3 other friends who list the Stones under their Favorite Music Info (used to be you could just click on your info and get a list of friends who shared this commonality. Not any more. You really know what you're doing, Facebook). This may sound small, but keep in mind... I have about 500 friends. That's not small: that's infantesimal. Either they're all closeted fans, or they don't care that much, or that means that I know 497 other people who don't give a rat's rat about this band, and I kind of believe that. I've tried multiple times to convert/educate people to their gospel, with middling success.

But I'm not in the Trojan horse game with this site. Not at all. I'm in the worlds-coming-together game. I'm in the niche-market game. I'm hoping to discover others like me. Searching for people to do one-stop comiserating when things get rough, as they tend to do and don't seem to have any intention of stopping any time soon I'm staring at you, "Wars" legacy.

So hopefully some Batman fan will enjoy my take on how the old 60's show was an underrated source of great Batman material (more on that to come) and then discover my musical tastes and say to himself (or herself... but let's not kid ourselves), "Holy Giant Lips, Blog-man! I'm a new parent who likes listening to 'Goats Head Soup' when the sun's almost down and I'm driving on the highway with my hand on a lightsaber TV remote , too!" And then the probable-he will be sure to seek me out the next time we're all at the Blogger Mansion. I'll be the guy with his head in the chocolate fountain.

Low Points Series: The Stones' "BLACK AND BLUE"

A series, if you will. And you will. As is my custom, from time to time I choose to dwell on the awful, and this blog's topics shall be no exception. Especially since they're so good at producing such awfulness with great verve and spirit.

The Rolling Stones' 1975 release "BLACK AND BLUE," specifically the song "Hot Stuff."

(Look at this stupid cover. Nice collar there, Wyman. A giant collar doesn't make your tacky necklace any cooler.)

What fresh turd is this? Like many fans of things out there -- I often find myself unable to give up on the bad moments of something I love. I'll re-examine it, hoping to mine out some new nugget of at least goodness, if not greatness, but willing to settle for okay-ness. Sometimes the stars align and I find a chunk I can call "not a complete waste of my time."

Then there's a horrible song like "Hot Stuff" that stinks of lazy, good-for-nothing bullshit.

Albums like "BLACK AND BLUE" present an interesting challenge for the adventure-seeking fan. Scanning the album sleeve, one looks past what is possibly the worst album cover imaginable and realizes there are absolutely no commonly-known songs listed. And there's only eight on the album. You would think -- as I might have, oh so many naive years ago -- that this means these could be eight undiscovered gems. And you would be very wrong. As the Stones dealt with the resignation of Mick Taylor, the album was a kind of recorded audition, and we all know how productive and listenable auditions can be, right? This led to a lot of noodling and a lot of jamming and generally a lot of crap.

A lot of crap. And that's saying something, because as I've pointed out, there are only eight songs! When it comes to B-Level Stones work, you get a couple radio hits, some rockers in between and then the rest are duds. You bat .500 and you call it good. Like their most recent album, "A BIGGER BANG." 16 tracks. 8 good-to-great ones, 4 so-so's, and the rest are plain bad, and that's the way it is. I'm happy to linger in a world where "Rough Justice" and "Look What the Cat Dragged In" exist without "She Saw Me Coming" and the like. This is the point of CD's and MP3's.

But back in the mid-70's, fans had to either skip around with a record needle or sit through tracks like "Hot Stuff," which is catchy in all the wrong ways (those ways being "it's repetitive and simple and you couldn't get it out of your head with a pick axe, and not for lack of trying). A really friendly review (and they exist, by the way) would call this kind of song "experimental." A more realistic review would call it "a nightmare." It's a kind of rasta-disco jam, and if you're like me you never thought you'd ever enjoy anything with the words "rasta" and "disco" and "jam" placed together, and you would be 100% correct.

(Man, it gets worse when you fold it out, too. It's the most bored avant garde portrayal of "Our Town" ever. On the beach, apparently!)

It also brings to light the power of horrible singing, vocal interpretation and the like. When you're Mick Jagger, and your only lyrics of note are "Hot stuff, can't get enough" repeated over and over and over and OVER again, you feel it is your duty as the singer of these stupid words to at least make them... well, not "interesting," but "different" in some way. That means you sometimes sing it straight, then louder, then you lift up the end, like "Hot stuuuuuUUUFF! Can'tgetenuff. Hat-stuuuuUUUUFF!" This is supposed to make it good.

To make matters even more horrifying, it's five minutes and twenty-one seconds long. Now, I get it: the Stones have always been a shaggy band. They're not the Ramones--they don't just hit it, quit it, and move on. I have come to understand that. But there's "shaggy" and then there's "overstaying your welcome." And then there's "you've overstayed your welcome, the party's over, you puked in my punch bowl? Where did you get that suit? That's my dad's suit. Don't throw that suit in the punch bowl! Now it's noon on the next Monday."

There are probably worse songs in the Stones catalog than "Hot Stuff," but I believe there are no worse songs starting off an album. For the sake of scientific method, let us only include the album starters the band wrote themselves. This includes "Paint it, Black," "Sympathy for the Devil," "Gimme Shelter," "Start Me Up" (which I kinda can't listen to any more either, but because it's overplayed), "Brown-f***in' Sugar," "Miss You." And those are the hits, guys. Somehow it was determined that "Hot Stuff" can hold these songs' collective jock. Of all 29 qualifying albums (studio and live), I would say that maybe "Dance Pt2" from "EMOTIONAL RESCUE" is as annoying as "Hot Stuff" (still that one's only four-some minutes long) and the only thing anywhere near as awful in the pre-Ronnie Wood era would possibly be "Yesterday's Papers" from "BETWEEN THE BUTTONS," and that's from the UK version. The US version put "Let's Spend The Night Together" in the #1 slot. Even "Sad Sad Sad" is better! That hurts. The best thing I could say for "Hot Stuff" is that it does successfully set the tone for the album. After it's done, you know what you're in for.

So can I do it? Can I listen to "BLACK AND BLUE" and find something worth while in "Hot Stuff?"

No. I can't. In the 10+ years I've owned the album, I've probably played it all the way through twice (I'm guessing; I tend to forget my nightmares), and I've probably purposely re-played only two or three songs, none of which are "Hot Stuff." Additionally, "Hot Stuff" marks a dangerous audio landmine in the middle of the mostly-enjoyable first disc of "LOVE YOU LIVE," right after the incredibly rocking versions of "Happy" and "Star Star." At least on that album the song is where it should be, bookended by songs that can help make the pile of goat dung seem like it's worth a damn. To have this song be the first impression of the album is like leading off with your pitcher and he gets hit with a 95 mph fastball--you're already starting off the game poorly.

WARNING: The following video contains not only this crappy song, but some of the silveryiest jackets ever.

"EVIDENCE!"

You may have seen this before, but it's pretty funny to see that Fios guy and a (politely here) "touched" Batman get the words "Harvey! Dent!" firmly stuck in my head.

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.