Reroute To Newness

I've decided to throw money down the toilet and buy myself a dedicated website. Seems professional.

So I'm not going to be contributing to this address any more. You can follow me and all my Henry/Batman/Star Wars/Rolling Stones rambling at Phillip Mottaz Town, the address to which is very creative: phillipmottaz.com.

I hope you're not all Blogspot loyalists.

Viewing Strategy: Somewhat Henry Related

A few things have come to mind recently, and they both concern and don't concern our baby boy.

There has been considerable outcry among my family and family-friends that I don't write enough about Henry and don't post enough pictures about Henry. Without getting too psychologically deep into it, I think the reason for the lack of Henry-based blogging from me is that a.) after spending the entire day with him on my mind every second, I enjoy the chance to talk or type about nearly anything else, and b.) there's not a lot to tell. He recently got some severe diaper rash so we have to monitor his butt very closely which has earned me the nickname "Captain Butthole." Hey, (some of) you asked for it.

So here's a new one that will meld these two worlds together in a way kind of I guess maybe I don't know for sure probably.

I remember when Rachel was about 5 months pregnant when I couldn't sleep, and was tired of writing down potential names, so I went to our movie collection and just started rummaging through. I wondered when the best time would be to show him the things that we loved. "Best time" as in "he'll enjoy it the most at this age" and "he'll actually understand it enough to like it at this age." I made a short list of some of the "Must See's" and then took a stab at when I would introduce them (this is gonna make for a lot of weird birthday traditions). Movies like "Rear Window" can show up in the late teens I think, because I'd want him to be old enough to not just pass on it based on the limited cinematic flair. By 2017, everything will be 3-D anyway, so stuff like this requires maturity by the viewer to not be deemed simply "quaint."

Naturally this led me to my introduction of "Star Wars" in the boy's life, and it's a topic I've grappled with for a long while, going back before we even talked about having children. The question isn't "When?" in this case (around age five, I guess, or younger), but "How?" When I was younger, this decision seemed pretty straight forward. There were only three movies and that's that. Now there are a total of six and the newer ones bring in questionable content. I'm afraid of exposing my baby to the prequel trilogy.

If I keep the prequels from him, and he ends up liking the Original Trilogy, then surely somewhere down the road he will discover the prequels and resent my hiding them from him. If I show him the prequels, then a.) will he like the whole series as a result? and b.) how should the movies be presented.

Dumbass Lucas thinks the series should be shown 1-6, which is why he's a dumbass. And since I can't be the only parent grappling with this difficult issue of "HOW TO PRESENT THE 'STAR WARS' SAGA TO MY CHILD," I offer the following solution.

THE PERFECT ORDER:

STEP 1.) Start with "Star Wars," the 1977 cut if possible. It makes the most sense to start here since it's one of the best of the series, and it plays like an introduction. You can't start off a 12-hour-long movie series with "Phantom Menace" and then get to Episode IV to hear a lecture about what the Force is and who's who. "Star Wars" was written as an introduction, so let it be just that.

STEP 2.) Follow with "The Empire Strikes Back." This makes sense because you're getting to the heart of the real story of the entire series at this stage. By sticking with the Episode IV to Episode V strategy, you also preserve some reveals and surprises. If you did the whole 1-6 chart like Lucas recommends, then wouldn't kids be confused by "Empire?" "Daddy, why doesn't Luke know that's Yoda?" Also, the big shock of learning that Darth Vader is Luke's father isn't ruined by not only 6 previous hours of prequel movie, but 6 BADLY ACTED hours of prequel movie.

STEP 3.) Play the trailers for "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones" instead of the full movies. Play all of the trailers if you want. You get all the stuff you'd want from that movie and none of the mess. You even get some Darth Maul action -- and 50% of his dialog! The reasoning behind this route is that now that we've got all our cards on the table about who's who (except for Leia), we're ready for what can essentially be a flashback. After the kid reels from learning that Darth Vader is Luke's dad, he'll be more interested in that character. And since you'll probably want to show him as little of Teen-Anakin in "Clones" as possible, this is the best solution. If you or your child insists on watching the full movie, that's your load to bare, and you'd still watch them in this slot. I for one am going to try my best to exercise tough love.

STEP 4.) Play the "Clone Wars" Cartoon Network DVD's. I still can't believe how in the first minute of the first episode of this series of 3-minute cartoons, Genndy Tartakovsky and his team managed to give "Star Wars" fans more of what they wanted than 4 hours of prior prequel action. The first scene is all essentials: Yoda, Anakin, Obi-Wan and Palpatine. The shorts are also super fun and action packed. The downside may be that it results in rising interest in such prequel characters as Kit Fisto and Mace Windu, but you can probably just distract your child with something shiny rather than subject him to the disappointing knowledge that there's nothing more to tell. I'd even argue that by jumping right into the action-packed-ness of this series might add a layer of mystery to the back story that the prequels managed to thoroughly stamp out.

Another alternative is to let the boy play the first couple legs of "Lego Star Wars," a game so well made that it almost fools you into believing that Count Dooku and Jango Fett are interesting, necessary characters.

STEP 5.) Play "Revenge of the Sith." The "best" of the prequels manages to squeak in a full play in our running order if only because it contains (in Lucas' words) 80% of the prequel story.*This helps. You don't have to suffer through meandering adventures in robot factories or long detours on boring planets (can there be a more boring planet than Naboo? It's just Italy. Italy on Earth is awesome. Italy as an entire planet though?... guh). You just get right to it, sort of like the prior cartoons. You're still not spoiling any of the story either, unless you count the Leia-is-Luke's twin thing, and in that case the reveal of that name (cried out in dying childbirth, no less) might serve as enough of a "Wow!" moment to distract your child from the fact that Padme is dying "from a broken heart." But the best part about playing "Sith" now is that it doesn't wreck our final chapter...

STEP 6.) Play "Return of the Jedi." I said the original "Star Wars" was built as an intro, and this one was built as a finale. And it works great coming out of our brief prequel interlude. We just saw Yoda at his strongest, and now at his weakest. We saw the Emperor doing all kinds of nasty, but Luke doesn't know just how powerful that nasty is. What's most important is that we end spending time with characters we actually like and don't want to punch in the nuts. It also ends on a positive note with the Empire being defeated and Luke sort of saving his father, but our new viewer has now spent just enough time with Anakin that he can like him, but not so much time with him that he thinks that you can slaughter a tribe of Sand People and still get Natalie Portman to love you.

*If "ROT Sith" is 80% of the prequel story, then I think that means 15% is for "Phantom Menace," leaving 5% for "Attack of the Clones," which explains why "Clones" is practically worthless.

Gross

"Sexy" R2-D2.

I'm just glad they didn't run with the whole "appendages" thing.

I Can't Keep Jimmy Fallon's Balls Out of My Mouth

I know, right? It's the grossest, most foul thing I've ever written, but it's true. On the USSRockNRoll.com site, I recently defended the comedic cute boy's career, and I'm now dedicating my own personal blog space to the man again. I didn't go looking for it, it came looking for me.

I'm even breaking my own sorta-rule about being a news spot, but I'm too interested in yet another Rolling Stones sell-their-old-stuff-again event.



Quick sidebar: I had always understood that the Stones themselves (at least Jagger) was never that excited about "Exile." I remember the interview he gave to "Rolling Stone" magazine where they went through every album up to that point ("Voodoo Lounge" I think), and he kind of blah-blah'd "Exile" saying it didn't have as many of those big, great, classic ROLLING STONES songs like, say, "Sticky Fingers" did, or "Let It Bleed." Maybe it's a percentage thing. You'd think that "Tumbling Dice" would count as one of those big songs, but maybe its impact would seem larger if it had been one of 9 or 10 instead of one of 18. It's also possible that this was a crappy time in Jagger's life and he doesn't enjoy being told his most miserable recording experience was the best period.

Anyway, the week-long event promises to be filled with many things that I like: nostalgia, cover songs and potential comedy.

So you keep doing good stuff, Jimmy Fallon, and I'll have your back. And balls. Gross.

Nearly A Month Away

I've been busy, traveling, sick and busy for a while and haven't found a way to contribute to this page as much as I'd like to. I do have some weird random thoughts that have come to my mind over the last few over-the-counter-drug-addled days...

1.) The Hollywood Stones (the Rolling Stones tribute band) was formerly known as "Sticky Fingers," in one of those grand cover-band traditions of paying tribute by just mentioning a title from the thing you're covering. But they changed their name, and I'm assuming this was due to legal pressures from the real Stones or their record label... which would be ironic since the Stones themselves got their band name from the title of a Muddy Waters song. I'm not saying I'm right, but if I am, that seems wrong.

2.) I've been plodding through the RedLetterMedia.com reviews of "Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones," and both made me laugh a lot. I can't say I understand everything going on in the reviews (there are "character" moments where we learn the reviewer is a psychopath who may or may not have murdered his wife and now has kidnapped a hooker in his basement), but the criticisms of the movies and the prequel trilogy in general have been pretty spot on. I've thought about interviewing him for the USSRockNRoll.com site, but I'm afraid he'd wanna do it in character, and I'm not up for that. I mostly want to congratulate him on doing something so many people have wanted to do for so long.

3.) And contrary to that, the worst thing to happen to the "Star Wars" world was not the prequels, it was the Holiday Special, which I finally saw a couple months ago. "Saw" as in "tolerated a few minutes at a time and then jumped ahead to the next horrible pile of steaming garbage they collected." It's interminable.

Nolan vs. Spielberg with Lucas' Help

Please click on the picture to credit the true artist of this insanity.

John Williams -- The True Enemy

On a recent trip to the grocery store, the "Raiders March" (or "Indiana Jones Theme" to those out of the know) arose from the depths of my iPod to put spring in my step. This was nearly ten months after the debacle that was "Crystal Skull," yet with that wound still fresh in my mind, the "Raiders March's" mighty powers prevailed, bringing me back to my childhood, allowing me to forget and forgive the sins of the recent Indiana Jones installment. But I shouldn’t have forgotten or forgave so easily. That movie was crap, and yet I was actually considering re-watching it simply because of the music. Then everything became clear and I was sickened by my discovery. The blame for some of the crappiest movie sequels and sins against our childhood memories lies less with George Lucas. It should lie entirely on film composer John Williams.

Enlivened, I threw my produce and frozen pizza bites down on the ground and made a quick mental list of the major musical keys Williams had contributed to my life, and I found three scores from film franchises which fit the description of "The first couple movies were great; the last ones... less so." All this time I had been writing my angry letters to Lucasfilm in vain. It was not their fault. They just wanted more John Williams music. They fell victim to the siren song of John Williams Chopin-esque cues.

Look at the facts: three of the most recognizable and exciting film themes of the last 30 years were for the "Star Wars," "Indiana Jones" and "Superman" movies. All three got their theme songs from Williams. And all three went on to squander any good will the original films established on a mixed bag of fart jokes, pseudo science and baffling continuity choices. In all honesty, who could blame a guy like Steven Spielberg for making a new Indiana Jones movie for the same reason I went to go see it: to hear that theme song with a really good sound system.

The key piece of evidence in our case against Williams comes from "Superman Returns." It's seemingly the oddball of the three, since it's the only one with no real connection to George Lucas. But the theory of the Williams Siren Theme solves the mystery that's plagued us since the 2006 release of Bryan Singer's Superman film. Instead of doing a full series re-boot--which was being so deftly employed by the Batman and Bond series--Singer insisted that his film be considered part of the same continuity as the Christopher Reeves movies--movies 20+ years old that hardly anyone would care to remember. The only possible reason to go to all this trouble in qualifying "Superman Returns" as "Part of that continuity, taking place after 'Superman II,' and supplanting 'III' and 'IV' installments" is to use the John Williams theme song. That's it.



Like all great conspiracies, the truth hid in front of us in broad daylight. The old Williams themes have been used in all the trailers for "Phantom Menace," "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and "Superman Returns," and we all bought in.

Here is the teaser for "Phantom Menace," where you get snippets of (in order, I think) the theme when Obi-Wan first appears, the main titles, Luke's theme when he's wistfully thinking about joining the rebellion, then three from "Empire": the "Turn it around!" moment in the Falcon, the Force-throw-shit-around part of the Vader-Luke battle, and the end of the credits ...all masking upcoming lameness.



The Power of Editing.

We, the Williams Generation, are powerless to his music's call. We bow down at the slightest flute trill and will pay any amount for the slightest chance to hear something vaguely resembling the "Imperial March." I say NO MORE. End this reign of tyranny. Free us from your decibel hold and let us never suffer another filmed excuse to play your music ever again.

Incredible Updates

I have semi-dedicated pages to my "Batman: The Animated Series" reviews.

It is to be found... here.

See? Wasn't that incredible?

The Hollywood Stones

When I rock Henry for his naps, I often take my iPod touch and watch videos. As I rock, I'll search YouTube for live music I haven't seen. As fate would have it, I recently stumbled off the usual Rolling Stones path and landed on the Hollywood Stones, the tribute band formerly known as Sticky Fingers.

Tribute bands are fascinating and their very existence initiates a series of incredibly weird questions as I rock a baby: do they, the band, only listen to one band? Is being the cover version of Bill Wyman any more exciting than being the ACTUAL Bill Wyman? If I met these guys, would they be fun to talk to or would they be crazy because all their knowledge would circle around one thing? At what point do you figure "this guy looks the part, so we can teach him the drums?" Do you think they're happy the real Stones still put out new music, or do they even bother with it?

Another weird thing about these guys (and it would seem with most cover/tribute bands) is it's hard to find details on their website. Now maybe it's because I'm doing this on a tiny touch screen, but the hollywoodstones.com site looks like one page with a photo and some quotes. I had to get show info from their MySpace page, and I didn't enjoy it.

Yeah, I'm thinking about checking these guys out. I feel it would potentially satisfy a piece of me that I could get nowhere else, including with the actual Rolling Stones. By remaing free from true 100% reality, the Hollywood Stones are like a walking hit list. They seem to play and perform the way that we WANT the Stones to be. Lead singer Dick Swagger, a name that seems a little more telling than it needs to be, can give you the "Gimme Shelter" look, or the 70's glam, or the 80's athletic pants versions of Jagger.

Looks go a long way for most of the band. Swagger moves like Jagger even if his face more resembles Freddie Mercury (either he couldn't sing like Mercury -- which would totally make sense -- or his heart just wasn't in it). Keef Riffoff (oh boy...) does a lot with a wig and a pout to make up for his looks. I've also seen him do the patented riff-kick more in some ten videos than I think Keith Richard has done in his life, but who could blame him?

It's interesting that they went with a Mick Taylor guitarist (with the most plausible fake name Rick Taylor) as opposed to a Ronnie Wood or even Brian Jones. It's also weird that this guy actually looks more like the guitarist from Aerosmith, an observation which opens up a whole new level of who's-covering-who mess that I don't care to enter. Harley Watts and Will Hyman round out the rhythm section and these Mad Magazine level names.

Most importantly, the Hollywood Stones sound like we (which really should read "I") want the real Stones to sound. They even play "Only Rock n' Roll" better/the way I prefer (the way as seen in the video for the song. Since the late 70's, the Stones play it this less sexed up way that I find boring and dull. Luckily, they only play it at EVERY SINGLE CONCERT THEY DO. I'm almost done with parentheticals). Same goes for the first half of their "You Can't Always Get What You Want," as I've mentioned earlier. Their "Jumpin' Jack Flash" feels like the ROCK N' ROLL CIRCUS version, and the only songs I've heard that was more "meh" were " Under My Thumb" (which is a tough one anyway) and "Emotional Rescue."


I feel a strange kind of envy towards the Hollywood Stones. I like to sing along and I work on my strut and leg kick in my spare time. I think it's part of the reason why I like the Hives so much. 5-man band, one lead singer, super strut-cocky. And I've always sort of been genetically programmed to love bands like The Faces or The Black Crowes for the same reasons. It's down and dirty and playing the types of stuff the Stones are known for. I love it. But these guys -- The Hollywood Stones -- have it down.

I guess.

It's just weird. I have always fantasized about joining a band onstage for a huge concert, but has that ever really happened to anyone outside of Judas Priest? And when that happened, did that make guys like the Hollywood Stones think "Hey! If someone quits the Rolling Stones, I'll be ready to step in for them?" What's the career path? Do they hope to make the real Stones feel like less of a nostalgia show by comparison? And do they only play Rolling Stones songs at home? Do they have a rivalry with Beatles tribute bands? Do fans of the Beatles tribute bands call out the Hollywood Stones for just following in the Beatles tribute band's footsteps? Are such things even possible?

I get it and I don't get it.

Semi-Legitimate

In case you've ever wondered "Does he write about these things for money, or just for the pure pleasure?" I have an answer for you: some money.

I've recently began writing reviews for WILDsound.ca, and one of the TV series I'm covering is the "Batman" animated series from the 1990's.

The first review can be found here. Spoiler, it's largely glowing.

Also a quick clarification: I don't know what WILDsound.ca does or why their sight is laid out the way it is. It just is.

Relative, and Not

A couple quick things:

1.) A review I wrote has been published on WILDsound.com. Though I wouldn't recommend going to that exact address, rather THIS one for the general sight. My review for last week's "30 Rock" can be found here. As I will be covering the series, please keep eyes peeled.

2.) More relative to this page, this movie exists:



I'm interested, but a little apprehensive. As a friend and fellow complainer about "Star Wars" has said, enough is enough already. We're all disappointed in George Lucas, but do we really need a whole movie about it?

Apparently.

Batman Birthday, Part 2

Quick poll: how many people think I'm identified with Batman to my family?

Polls closed because there's no need for a poll. I am COMPLETELY identified with Batman.

For my birthday I received:

Batman sleep shorts, a Batman trucker hat (aka "Bat-douche"), and these gold-toed black socks, which coupled with the previous items look like Batman dress socks.

Added to the the shirt I was already wearing and the sweatshirt I often wear, you get this horrifying image:

I also received an address book...

On my other obsessions, two gifts were given to me in theme bags...

That makes 5-ish Batman and only 1 "Star Wars" (and a Clone Wars bag to boot), so to even the score, I received a birthday card that does this.

I can't tell if I'm boring these people or presenting an incredible challenge.

"Saw this... thought of you"

You know that you're obsessed with something when your friends identify you with any item they find resembling that obsession. I'm assuming that when Keith Richards dies or George Lucas becomes President, I'll get many phone calls and emails from friends of mine.

For the moment, this was sent to me by a friend with the "Saw this... thought of you" criteria.

Batman Birthday Image Search

Today is my birthday, and this 34-year-old-with-adolescent obsessions is happy for two things:

1.) His celebrity birthday brother is current film Batman Christian Bale (so long, Gene Hackman! I just got a new trophy-celebrity!)

and 2.) The Google Image search I did for "Batman Birthday." Just on a whim and with a strong desire to come up with a Batman-related post, I typed this in.

Besides this one, which seems to serve #1 perfectly...
...I got mostly decorated cakes. At first, I ignored these. But then I recalled my recent enjoyment of the book and blog "Cake Wrecks" and decided to go with it. Some are cool. Most... less so. Embrace the snark, everyone.

It seems like the easiest and best way to go is to do a round cake with the classic Batman logo. Like so...

Remember "Batman Z?" It was gonna take all the best parts of "Batman Y" and make 'em even better!

There are many ambitious mothers and confused grandparents out there who want more for their son or daughter (probably son), and that leads us to some questionable choices.

This one's admittedly pretty bad ass, except it's for a 5-year old. Not that the old Adam West show wasn't good for that age group, but I just have a hard time understanding how a modern day 5-year-old would appreciate the detail work that went into crafting the opening-credits image of Batman and Robin on his cake.
GRADE: "TOO MUCH TIME SPENT MAKING THIS."

It reads on the cake-page a little more ominously than they meant it. More like "Happy Birthday... Forever." Seems like the perfect title for mid-80's horror shlock. "The boy who never aged, but had to celebrate his birthday so often that he killed people with cake. Cake that had a Bat-logo made of tar."
GRADE: "TAR."

Jeebus... A funny thing about these things; as with any art, it is in the attention to certain details and the neglect of others that point to the artistic voice. Notice this is a riff on the DVD cover for the movie "Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker." We all know the Joker has white skin, but on the box he had been given a greenish hue. That's paying attention to detail. That's the kind of thing that slips when it came to making Batman there. He has a little gimpy leg that kind of droops into a foot. And just incase you don't know what you're looking at, they added "Batman Beyond" at the top. Classic mom cake.
GRADE: "CREEPY."

Pretty incredible, really. That signal looks like it's neon.

GRADE: "NEON = FLAVOR."

Incredible for a different reason. Batman's got sexy cat eyes for you on your birthday, And what tastes better than gray cake?
GRADE: "GRAY FROSTING."

Is it just me or does the writing on this cake look like it was done in ink? And I'm sure it's a trick of the camera, but the little shape on the bottom right looks like a dog. So you've got a skyline against a white sky, a signal shaped like ice cream, ink writing and a dead dog lying in the street about to get hit by the Batmobile.
GRADE: "INK."

I doubt even Robin wanted a Robin cake. And those toys positioned above the cake seem to be passing judgement.
GRADE: "CANDY."


Batman escaping a snow fort on a steel cake. Look at that top! It looks like it could stop a bullet.
GRADE: "FORMIDABLE."

This one reminds me of Frogger.
GRADE: "LOGS."

Now we get into a strange series of Batman sitting on the cakes. Batman rarely looks good sitting unless it's at the driving wheel or a computer. Observe:

There's gotta be a story behind this. Some satirical angle. It's obviously been done by a skilled tradesman. It looks like it's been molded from clay -- Batman's six-pack has definition! -- but the pose is so oddly relaxed. And it's a fat-face Batman, too. This cake Batman looks like he ate too many Batman cakes, and he's sucking it in for the camera.

This one's from Brazil, and maybe in that country, in that culture, a man can sit with very straight posture with no piano or computer or anything in front of him (it's too bad about the piano, because the way the cape flies back it would be perfect for a concert pianist). But to my crappy American eyes, this looks like Batman on the toilet. I cannot be the only one who thinks so.

Yes, happy 6th, Brandon, from your hero, Transexual Batman. (S)he's posed as if we're at Heff's grotto. And that little smile makes it all worth while. Tranny Batman enjoys a little mystery in his-her nightlife, and if you read the right Batsignals, that mystery could be solved quickly. Or get really freaky real fast. Either way.

Hamill-time

For part of my birthday present, my wife watched "EMPIRE STRIKES BACK" with me (she said she knew it would be a treat for me because I often hold off on watching such things as often as I'd like to, because if I did that we'd have to get a divorce; or at least serious marriage counseling; and she was right).

So aside from the usual stuff you notice as you watch something for the zillionth time (like how smooth the transitions are between scenes; we just saw R2D2 get eaten and spit out by a swamp monster, then we go to 3PO in the Falcon asking, "Where is R2 when I need him?"), I realized that Mark Hamill is sadly underrated in this film. He has only two scenes in the entire movie with another human face. Every other scene is with a puppet, a mask, a monster or all of the above.

What's more is he makes those puppet/mask/monster scenes work, and therefore makes the entire movie work. Everyone wanted to give Frank Oz all the credit for making Yoda effective, but if Hamill didn't appear like he was buying it, none of us would have either.

It could have looked horrible. Acting without any real people around you is very difficult. When you don't do it well, it looks like this...

Or this...


Or this...

What you want is this:
A confused, yet ambitious look of desire and hope. He wants to be great. He needs to learn patience and responsibility.

Yeah, I'm probably over stating his abilities purely based on my own nostalgia. I probably take Luke more seriously than I should because I'm hanging onto the feelings I had as a child, letting my memories and perceptions become truth. BIG DEAL. That doesn't mean it's NOT true. And in this case it is. 100%.

We'd be lost without you, Mark. You were the rock.

A Better "Bigger Bang"

I realized that the Stones have released a total of 24 studio albums, four of which were completed in the last 21 years. This would constitute a "down period" in the band's career, but that doesn't mean they haven't put out some good stuff.

They just haven't been doing it that often.

The result has been lackluster, especially when compared to their hey day material. The unfortunate bit is that three of these later albums were CD's, which means they were longer than a traditional 40+ minute album. And since the Stones were reared on putting out albums in 40-minute blocks, but are required to churn out 60 minute CD's, that's about 20 minutes of not-so-spectacular stuff.

WHY BRING THIS UP? Because as I've been playing and playing 2005's "A Bigger Bang" and skipping my less-favored tracks resulted in a solid Stones album forced into a CD lifestyle. I've been dealing with this for a while, because for some reason I can't stop playing the CD in the car (it just lives there), but it wasn't until recently that I uploaded it onto my iPod and started cutting some of the fat. There was a good album in there -- good enough music that the band actually opened their recent tour with "Rough Justice" (for a few nights anyway) and kept some of the songs in the line-up. When I saw "Shine A Light," I actually was hoping to hear some of my favorites from this album, which seems crazy. When given the choice, shouldn't I want to hear "Sympathy for the Devil" for the 100th time?

The fact that they didn't play them then made me a little sad, because it's like they didn't believe in their own music. And it makes me sad-angry because they've been forcing songs like "You Got Me Rocking" down our throats since 1994, but I can't find a single instance of "Laugh, I Nearly Died" live. It's a travesty!

So without further ado, I present to you the 1970's album version of 2005's "A Bigger Bang," (aka "The Way You Should Actually Experience This Album If You Want To Like It.")

First off, the cover. Either don't look at it too often or, if you're still using the CD, turn it from the goof-ball, space-campfire photo and opt for the simple white-letters-over-black reverse side. I can't find a picture, so just look at the one at the top of the page compared with this (assume the sides)...

___________________________

therollingstones.abiggerbang

_____________________________

Already you're in a better place.

Now, you're gonna cut it down to 11 tracks, leaving:

1.) Rough Justice
2.) Let Me Down Slow
3.) It Won't Take Long
4.) Streets of Love
5.) Back Of My Hand
6.) Biggest Mistake
7.) This Place Is Empty
8.) Oh No, Not You Again
9.) Laugh, I Nearly Died
10.) Look What the Cat Dragged In
11.) Infamy

Now we've got something to properly review. And in true addition-by-subtraction fashion, this new running order gives a new focus to the entire operation. In fact, a decent emotional thread weaves through this album, making it almost sound relevant. It's like there was a concept album hiding amongst the latest affirmations of going wild* and car-as-love motifs**.

This leaves a lean, mean, blusey record, where all the songs are about something beyond "Let's make a song." In the past, strong music as used for "Rough Justice" would have been relegated to the proof of how crazy or sexy the Stones want to be. Here, it's about something (breaking up with a girl or I dunno...). And "Rough Justice" is one of their greatest songs of the last, 30 years. It's an album kick off, not an album sludge (I'm looking at you, "Flip the Switch"). It is a fan maker. It is a rocker that doesn't have anything to prove. It has stupid innuendo used well, not random swearing for swearing's sake (I'm looking at you, "Sparks Will Fly"). It deserves better. I hope they play it for their 90th birthdays.

"Let Me Down Slow" is an okay #2, but coupled with "It Won't Take Long," you have something taking shape. In "Let Me Down," Jagger's expecting his girl to break up with him, and he wants it done painlessly. Then by track 3, he's in denial about the situation, declaring it won't take long to forget her. I say denial because we still have more album to go.

That's where "Streets of Love" comes in, a well made schmaltz and the best version of "Wild Horses" they've made since "Angie." More importantly, it's better-made, more-tolerable schmaltz than "Rain Fall Down," which contains some of the worst lyrics on the CD (it's just stream of consciousness; something like, "I went to sit down, started watching TV, then I got hungry and I saw you there, and the Rain Fell Down, and we made sweet love." This is barely an exaggeration). Carrying the schmaltz torch alone, you only have to sit through 5 minutes of good schmaltz instead of 10 minutes. Plus, "Streets" solidifies this heartbreak theme, where Jagger's protagonist is admitting to himself that he's alone and lonely and that he's at fault.

THIS IS NEW, people. As far as I can tell, I can't think of a single Rolling Stones track where they admit they might have some fault in a failed relationship.

You go to "Back of My Hand" for a dose of blues menace, and it's a great song because it's cool to hear them doing this again. This is the best you could ask for in a later-period Stones album: does it remind you of the right things.

You skip the bar rock "She Saw Me Coming" going directly to "Biggest Mistake" arrives to throw in some more empathy as Jagger is realizing his cheating ways may have cost him the love of his life. We've been down this road before ("BABYLON'S" "Already Over Me" -- which sounded exactly like "Always Suffering" on the same damn album), but not without the filler to soften it. Here we just came out of "Back of My Hand," making for a more powerful emotional transition.

"This Place Is Empty" stays mostly because it fits the theme. It's not a bad song, but not great. It keeps things going for the pick-me-up of "Oh No, Not You Again," a song they believed in enough to include in their concerts. More bar rock is jettisoned in "Dangerous Beauty" (I mean, who cares?) and you get to one of the lost jewels in this mess, "Laugh, I Nearly Died."

It's really a shame that their success has overpowered the band's ability to shed the fat and just play music. I understand it for "STEEL WHEELS" and "VOODOO LOUNGE" and "BRIDGES TO BABYLON" (more on the 1st and 3rd), but this was a good album, with actual musical stretching going on. I have never heard Mick Jagger sing like he does on "Laugh." Never. It's on the chorus specifically. It's a pained howl, and it's loud and it's awful and it's great. And they never play it live. Nor will they. History will regret because the song was on the back end of a fat album, bookended by turds like "Beauty" and the less-than-timeless "Sweet Neo Con," a song not helped by some seriously annoying lyrics (it's like liberal bait; I'm all for doing politics in music, but lyrics like "You call yourself a Christian / I think that you're a hypocrite / You say you are a patriot / I think that you're a crock of shit" are as tired as Charlie).

We're almost done.

Some songs seem fast, but are really slow songs with fast guitars. Some are fast songs with slow guitars. "Look What The Cat Dragged In" gets a lot of play with me because it's a fast song with fast guitars, fast drums, fast bass, fast other guitar and fast lyrics. It's a lot of fun to sing along with, and I guarantee no one has ever confessed to that with any of these songs and it is a shame.

We drive past "Driving Too Fast" -- I don't know many CD's where you can't skip the second to last song -- and go into "Infamy," a great song if for no other reason than it is a Keith song with the full Rolling Stones. That is to say, it's not just a Keith song with Ronnie and Charlie and Darryl. Mick plays the harmonica on it, and it's nice to hear. The way their careers and concerts have gone, it seems there's a serious separation between the Mick material and the Keith material. But since they were always stronger together than apart, it stands to reason that this feels more like fun than obligatory.

There you have it. 43 minutes and it's all pretty good. At least as good as "TATTOO YOU." The only thing you're missing is a great, get-'em-all-singing last song. "Infamy" is a great song, but it's not a finale. At least not by the standards of a band that has closed albums with "Salt of the Earth," "You Can't Always Get What You Want," "Moonlight Mile" and "Soul Survivor" (yes, I'm comparing it to their absolute best albums. So what?). It's not even on par with a finale like "Star Star," which was at least as grease ball as the rest of its album. It's more along the lines of "TATTOO YOU's" "Waiting On A Friend." "Here's a good song... and the end."

This is what I think about: ways to save my heroes from themselves for my ability to better enjoy them.

*As a rule, I believe that if you have to say/sing how you're going to "go crazy" or "be wild" that you are, in fact, neither crazy nor wild. This can be seen in "VOODOO LOUNGE's" "I Go Wild" and "BRIDGES TO BABYLON's" "Out of Control." Both serviceable songs, but ultimately suspiciously pushy about their agenda.

**Seriously, what is up with 60's-age Stones and these car songs? "LOUNGE" has "Brand New Car," this one's got "Driving Too Fast," and I'm pretty sure there's some mention to engines or speed on "BABYLON." It's like they just discovered the Beach Boys.

Tightwad: "Led Zeppelin Downloads"

Intellectually, this has very little do with this blog (no parenting, Batman, Star Wars or Rolling Stones whatsoever -- unless you count the one insert shot of the Stones' Amazon.com page, which I don't). But it was done by me, and I'm in charge of this, so that makes this 100% relevant.

Enjoy...

Le Star Wars

Qui, you read correctly. I can write in French.

Or I at least write it as well as the people in charge of the following gem understand English. Or movies. Or electricity.

I've worked for three-plus years as a transcription writer for television, and our duties are basically to write down everything said or shown in English so that it can be translated into another language (the foreign markets are so important these days). I don't know who 20th Century Fox used to transcribe the movie, the trailer or even the gist of "STAR WARS," but I'm positive it didn't come close to this.

And even if the story got mangled, it took a visionary -- a man or woman of tremendous ability -- to mangle it all in their head. To make a video like this takes true artistry. Blind, clueless, living-in-your-own-world artistry.

I think the meeting went like this:

EXT. PARIS - CAFE - DAY

Smoke is everywhere as a NERVOUS EXEC meets with a DANCE CHOREOGRAPHER.

NE: "We would like you to direct a music video."

DC: "I've heard of those. I'll do it. Direct on the stage?"

NE: "No, with cameras for television."

DC: "Perfect. What is everything you just said?"

NE: "It's a video for that disco version of the theme from 'Star Wars.'"

DC: "I love it. What is 'Star Wars?'"

NE: "It's this movie. Kind of sci-fi fantasy with lots of --"

DC: "Oh, yes. I have seen the poster. I know just what to do."

NE: "You do?"

DC: "Sure. So the gold robots fight the black face man, they can both fly and dance, they dance with each other and then land on the city, yes? I got it, I got it..."

NE: (wipes his brow)

DC: "Ah! Our crepes are here."

And just for good measure, the Dancing Vaders (aka "The Darth Vader Dancers," aka "Lords of the Sith-Dance") have Batman capes, giving this post a score of 18 out of 30 on the Blog Relevance Meter.

Knowing

I've been humming "Baby Break It Down" for the past two days. Granted, most songs with the word "baby" in them get into my head a lot quicker these days, but most of them are at least more explainable. "Baby It's Cold Outside," "Hit Me, Baby, One More Time," "She's My Baby," etc. These are what we call "hits."

"Baby Break It Down" is not a hit, by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a little ashamed to admit that I had to look up its location, which is deep in the later half of "VOODOO LOUNGE," a 15+ year old record and not one of their finest. When I was consolidating music, I actually picked a handful of songs I still enjoyed from this album, mixed with a (smaller) handful from "BRIDGES TO BABYLON" and put them on a CD along with "TATOO YOU" in its entirety. Semi-needless to say, this CD gets about as much play as a sweaty nerd on prom night (thank you), and even if it did get played in a regular rotation, "BBID" isn't even among the chosen few (that would be "Love Is Strong," "The Worst," "I Go Wild" and "Mean Disposition").

So how did this happen? How do I know most-ish of the words to this song (at least the chorus) when by all rights it should have been excised from my memory?

The answer is simple and embarrassing: I know it because I played the album so many times.

And how did that happen? Because I was a fan? Sssssssort of.

It's because I was a fan in the making. "VOODOO LOUNGE" was the first Rolling Stones album I ever purchased and heard in its entirety.

Now THAT'S embarrassing.

I can't be the only person to have played "VOODOO LOUNGE" more than 20 times in my lifetime, but I hope I'm the only one who knew the words to every song on it before even hearing a lick of "EXILE" or even "SOME GIRLS."

Or maybe I'm not. Here's a video of a dude who not only admits to knowing the song in question, but he's playing his version of it. And he video taped it. And he put that video on YouTube. And it's got 1800 hits.

1800 hits.

It is at this point in the navel gazing when you must ask yourself why was this song -- a mostly OK but disposable album filler -- even recorded, as this is a question the Stones must have asked themselves every time they've entered the damn studio since 1974. Whatever new song they create, they're never obligated to play it again. Nor can they. Their live shows average around 2.5 hours long, only 10 minutes of which can be dedicated to any song made since the 70's. How does it affect your songwriting when you know you're probably just gonna have to make room for the zillionth playing of "Brown Sugar?"

But the main question remains: how have I retained the knowledge of this song? Why haven't I let it go? It's a strange thing when the fans clearly know the artists' work better than the artists themselves. Actually, it's a strange realization. I suppose with very popular artists, this happens more often than they'd care to admit (or than the fans would care to admit).

Lucas On "The Daily Show."

OK, now he's just lying to us.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
George Lucas
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

While I can appreciate the nod to "I had no idea it would get this big," and the gentle good humor he has toward "These are just movies," I still don't think I buy that young kids loving the prequels deems them as good movies. By the logic diplayed here, won't those same kids eventually grow up to hate the prequels (or the "Clone Wars" TV show that some generation seems to love...?), therefore proving the popular belief that the prequel trilogy is crappier than the original trilogy?

The answer is yes.

Oh, and he wrote a book, that looks like it's really long and text-booky. But I've also heard that some of the younger librarians claim it's their favorite. Much better than anything written by Pauline Kael.

Child Abuse

As the parent who dresses our baby, I take full responsibility for my actions.

As you can see, he's thrilled with this decision.

It's not great parenting, I know. I mean... a faded logo shirt with dark sleeves and cords?

What's next? A hipster fedora?

Realizations - MST3K and the Rolling Stones

I just realized that to many fans, Mike Nelson is the Ronnie Wood of "Mystery Science Theater 3000." He was an easy yet controversial replacement to a much beloved member of a popular group, and though he was part of the group longer than any of his "better" counterparts, he is still seen as the lesser.

But to examine the analogy a little further, and to the side (you really gotta want it with my analogies), MST3K and the Rolling Stones have a weird parallel in their careers, and one that proves Nelson may in fact be the Mick Taylor of the show.

Starting with the original lineup of Joel Hodgson, Trace Beaulieu, and Kevin Murphy, this would be considered "The Brian Jones" period, one of popularity and prosperity. Then Joel left the show and was replaced by Mike. If the show had suffered, then the Ronnie Wood analogy would hold up. But during Mike's run as host, some of their funniest material came about. This includes the theatrical movie as well as the transition to the Sci-Fi channel, making this period the "Sticky Fingers" portion of Best Brains, Inc.

Obviously this isn't remotely scientific (or even Mystery Scientific) and if you really wanted to get down to it, the period where Mary Jo Pehl acted as antagonist was probably the post-1977 Wood years for the show, but she'd already worked on the show for so long (120 episodes!) that it doesn't exactly work. Neither does calling replacement Crow T. Robot the Ronnie, since he was only part of 48 episodes and -- while no Trace -- found his spot and did good work. Perhaps there is no true Ronnie Wood to MST3K, and we'll all just have to wonder the planet aimlessly knowing that ours is a world without rules. Chaos Planet I call it.