When I started this blog, I decided to use the snappy line above ("People actually read this crap?") as the title. As it turns out, people don't actually read this crap.
If I were doing this for ego-stroking purposes it would bother me. I'd be lying if I said I was content with the voice-in-the-wildnerness-ness, but I started this as much as a means to vent as anything else. So I shall continue.
There was a jazz festival here in Toronto over the past ten days or so. I actually made it to a couple of shows, although there were a couple I would have liked to have seen that I ended up missing for one reason or another. I just hope that I won't "pull a Jaco" again.
Some context: back in the early 80s I was in Europe for the summer, and kept missing Jaco Pastorius's Word of Mouth tour. He died just a couple of years later. I would have loved to have seen him and his band.
Last spring I got lucky, if you can call it that. By pure happenstance I saw Michael Brecker's last performance before he stopped playing. When I heard he was sick - Myelodysplastic syndrome if I'm spelling it right at this late hour - I was very upset, almost as if Mike were a close friend or a member of the family. I'm very glad to see that he has made some steps back toward recovery; I read the other day that he played one tune at a Herbie Hancock show.
Other happenings in my so-called life: the World Cup is nearly over, and the 2006 Tour de France has begun. The Rugby World Cup isn't until next fall, so I can't say I've hit the trifecta, but having cycling and soccer going on at the same time is pretty cool. And there's so much coverage that I can't watch it all. I've taken to recording the shows on my PVR and watching them - at least in part - on fast-forward. It's sort of like being like Adam Sandler in "Click", without the several million bucks Sandler is getting for playing the role, of course...
Monday, July 03, 2006
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Woof! a photo blog
Tripe cream cones! Get 'em here! Get your tripe cream cones right here!
No, that's not a typo;I checked. These people are actually giving away samples of processed tripe. Ewww. That's the bad news. The good news that this stuff is made for dogs. Think about it: what could possibly be more appetizing to a dog than beef innards? Okay, on second thought, maybe you don't have to think about it if you don't want to.
Where did I see this brilliant example of entrepreneurship? Why, at Woofstock. A healthy chunk of Toronto's Front Street was closed yesterday and today for this festival/fair/trade show/carnival of nuttiness. It was actually a lot of fun - if you like dogs, that is.
Of course there were cool dogs:
And funny dogs:
And others whose owners clearly have way too much time on their hands:
Yup, Poochie is wearing an Oilers jersey, complete with helmet.
A bit of a World Cup theme...
Okay, now this is just cruel. Even a dog knows that hockey season is over - especially for the Leafs!Oh, and one good-looking cockatoo, er, too:
The prize winner has to be this one. I mean, I'd be hiding my face too if I had actually gone so far as to a) own a toy poodle; and b) dye said toy poodle fuchsia. Or maybe it's just a marginally-less-cringe-inducing hot pink. This poor mutt is going to need psychotherapy for the rest of his/her life:
There are plenty more pics where these came from, but I think I'll just hold onto them and chuckle at 'em at my leisure... aw heck, here are a couple more:
Why do I have this sudden urge to put on a tweed jacket?
"Where's Pumbaa?"
"Hello, water bottle. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."[-or, if you prefer:]
"Oh yeah? Well, maybe you're going to last two hundred years in a landfill, but I'll still be collecting royalties from Frasier reruns! So there!"
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Another Sunday, some more random thoughts
A follow-up to a previous entry: This week I finally got the swishy new flash diffuser for my camera - you remember, the one that would instantly give every photo I took that perfect just-kissed-by-God lighting?
Well, I've been working out with it for the past couple of days. It doesn't help with composition or choice of subject, and it sure as hell doesn't make people better-looking, but hey, if you're gonna be ugly, you might as well be ugly and well-lit. Of course, the event I needed this thingamajig for was two weeks ago, but next time someone asks me to shoot people (come on, you know what I mean...) I'll be ready for anything.
Speaking of, er, shooting people, the recent news about a group of they-might-just-be-terrorists being arrested in the Greater Toronto Area is causing some stir. I've seen just enough detail to realize that I can't arrive at any sort of conclusion as to whether these guys are the real deal or not. There is discussion about the massive amount of ammonium nitrate fertilizer they had on hand (if you're not a farmer, that is). There was a cell phone in a box with wires coming out of it. At their first court appearance, many of their (female) family members arrived in burqas. Just those few elements are enough to keep the pundits yapping for days.
Next question: presuming that they were indeed planning to Blow Something Up, what where they lookin' at? The Toronto Star says that the police were quick to announce that public transit, i.e. the TTC, was not, definitely not, repeat, not a target, no really, we're not kidding, no sir, not a target at all. That's enough to convince me that the TTC was target number one. But what else? The CN Tower? Naah; although it's undeniably a Toronto landmark - how else are you going to figure out which direction is south in this town? - its destruction probably wouldn't generate much in the way of terror. The Toronto Stock Exchange? Not likely. The entire financial district, i.e. King & Bay? Possible. CSIS's Toronto bureau? I've heard that possibility mooted in more than one forum. That's the scariest one yet; not that I have any concerns about Canada's intelligence gathering, it's just that the CSIS offices are uncomfortably close to mine. Call me selfish.
To segue neatly into other international life-and-death struggles: I went to a rugby match yesterday. Scotland A vs. the England Saxons; that is to say, categorically not the international Test teams that we'll see at the World Cup, but pretty darn good. It was a great day for rugby, meaning that it was a bit cool and rain pelted down all afternoon. Fans and players alike were soaked, although I'd venture to say the players had a little more fun, since they could at least run around; those of us in the stands were a miserable bunch of drowned rats by the end. But it was a great game: Scotland looked very strong, particularly on defence. England did fine but looked considerably less disciplined - let's face it, when was the last time the Scots looked more disciplined than the English? There were a few brilliant offensive and defensive plays, and the real highlight of the match was the last few minutes, when the Scots held the line for several minutes against the English. Pretty stirring stuff.
Because of the crappy weather conditions, I only took my camera out of the bag a couple of times to get some action shots:
For the non-rugby-literate out there: if you're looking for the ball, England's #5 has it (please don't ask me his name; after shelling out 15 clams for parking (!!) I didn't feel like blowing another five bucks on a program) and he's about to have his lungs handed to him by a couple of hard-tackling Scots. He has his back to the opposing goal line, which I know doesn't seem very bright, but believe me, it's sound rugby technique. He's just taken the ball in something called a line-out, which actually involves people standing in two lines waiting to have the ball thrown back into play. Sounds orderly, doesn't it? Almost Canadian. Everyone in the photo is looking very intense, particularly those big second-row forwards with the no-cauliflower-ears-for-me-thank-you helmets on. Thanks, guys, for giving my pic that little extra something.
And finally, since I just need to get this off my chest: I saw one of the new Mercedes R-series vehicles today. I call it a vehicle 'cause it doesn't really look like a car, nor a truck, nor an SUV, nor a minivan. In fact, the first thought that popped into my mind when I took a good long three-quarter look at this thing was that it looks liked a kinda swoopy hearse. Go ahead, take a look; am I wrong?
Well, I've been working out with it for the past couple of days. It doesn't help with composition or choice of subject, and it sure as hell doesn't make people better-looking, but hey, if you're gonna be ugly, you might as well be ugly and well-lit. Of course, the event I needed this thingamajig for was two weeks ago, but next time someone asks me to shoot people (come on, you know what I mean...) I'll be ready for anything.
Speaking of, er, shooting people, the recent news about a group of they-might-just-be-terrorists being arrested in the Greater Toronto Area is causing some stir. I've seen just enough detail to realize that I can't arrive at any sort of conclusion as to whether these guys are the real deal or not. There is discussion about the massive amount of ammonium nitrate fertilizer they had on hand (if you're not a farmer, that is). There was a cell phone in a box with wires coming out of it. At their first court appearance, many of their (female) family members arrived in burqas. Just those few elements are enough to keep the pundits yapping for days.
Next question: presuming that they were indeed planning to Blow Something Up, what where they lookin' at? The Toronto Star says that the police were quick to announce that public transit, i.e. the TTC, was not, definitely not, repeat, not a target, no really, we're not kidding, no sir, not a target at all. That's enough to convince me that the TTC was target number one. But what else? The CN Tower? Naah; although it's undeniably a Toronto landmark - how else are you going to figure out which direction is south in this town? - its destruction probably wouldn't generate much in the way of terror. The Toronto Stock Exchange? Not likely. The entire financial district, i.e. King & Bay? Possible. CSIS's Toronto bureau? I've heard that possibility mooted in more than one forum. That's the scariest one yet; not that I have any concerns about Canada's intelligence gathering, it's just that the CSIS offices are uncomfortably close to mine. Call me selfish.
To segue neatly into other international life-and-death struggles: I went to a rugby match yesterday. Scotland A vs. the England Saxons; that is to say, categorically not the international Test teams that we'll see at the World Cup, but pretty darn good. It was a great day for rugby, meaning that it was a bit cool and rain pelted down all afternoon. Fans and players alike were soaked, although I'd venture to say the players had a little more fun, since they could at least run around; those of us in the stands were a miserable bunch of drowned rats by the end. But it was a great game: Scotland looked very strong, particularly on defence. England did fine but looked considerably less disciplined - let's face it, when was the last time the Scots looked more disciplined than the English? There were a few brilliant offensive and defensive plays, and the real highlight of the match was the last few minutes, when the Scots held the line for several minutes against the English. Pretty stirring stuff.
Because of the crappy weather conditions, I only took my camera out of the bag a couple of times to get some action shots:
For the non-rugby-literate out there: if you're looking for the ball, England's #5 has it (please don't ask me his name; after shelling out 15 clams for parking (!!) I didn't feel like blowing another five bucks on a program) and he's about to have his lungs handed to him by a couple of hard-tackling Scots. He has his back to the opposing goal line, which I know doesn't seem very bright, but believe me, it's sound rugby technique. He's just taken the ball in something called a line-out, which actually involves people standing in two lines waiting to have the ball thrown back into play. Sounds orderly, doesn't it? Almost Canadian. Everyone in the photo is looking very intense, particularly those big second-row forwards with the no-cauliflower-ears-for-me-thank-you helmets on. Thanks, guys, for giving my pic that little extra something.
And finally, since I just need to get this off my chest: I saw one of the new Mercedes R-series vehicles today. I call it a vehicle 'cause it doesn't really look like a car, nor a truck, nor an SUV, nor a minivan. In fact, the first thought that popped into my mind when I took a good long three-quarter look at this thing was that it looks liked a kinda swoopy hearse. Go ahead, take a look; am I wrong?
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
New word! New word!
I was visiting homestarrunner.com this morning (if you haven't been there, surf there now and visit for a while; I'll just wait here. .. dum de dum dum.. la la la... hmm hmmm HMMMMM hmm hmm hmmmmm... dah doo ba-doo-WAAH! It must have been moonglow, way up in the blue... Oh! you're back... heh heh, wasn't expecting you back quite so soon)
There, wasn't that fun?
Anyhoo, I was watching one of the Teen Girl Squad cartoons, and discovered "woot", as spoken by the cartoon versions of Henry Rollins, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington (holding an axe). Being the keen student of etymology - and yes, also being the geek - that I am, I quickly Googled the term and promptly found four widely-varying theories as to the origin and meaning of the term. In the end, everyone seems to agree that it's a bit of a synonym for "hey cool!" or "wow" or some generic exclamation of pleased surprise (or should that be surprised pleasure?). So woot it is from now on, as in "Woot! I've just learned another bit of geek-speak!"
There, wasn't that fun?
Anyhoo, I was watching one of the Teen Girl Squad cartoons, and discovered "woot", as spoken by the cartoon versions of Henry Rollins, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington (holding an axe). Being the keen student of etymology - and yes, also being the geek - that I am, I quickly Googled the term and promptly found four widely-varying theories as to the origin and meaning of the term. In the end, everyone seems to agree that it's a bit of a synonym for "hey cool!" or "wow" or some generic exclamation of pleased surprise (or should that be surprised pleasure?). So woot it is from now on, as in "Woot! I've just learned another bit of geek-speak!"
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Worst. Newscast. EVER.
Wow.
As a former TV journo I've watched a lot of newscasts over the years. I've seen some great shows. I've seen very good shows, and employees who did the best they could with the limited resources available to them. I've watched newscasts from independent stations and from network stations. I've watched shows done by newsrooms of sixty people and others done by newsrooms of ten. I've reported, produced, hosted, directed, edited, even done studio camera and audio. I like to think I know a tiny bit about the TV news biz.
Last night I recorded Canoe Live, the, um, "news" program that's being foisted on viewers by Toronto's Sun TV. Today I pinned myself into my recliner and forced myself, Clockwork Orange-style, to sit through the whole wretched thing.
How much did I hate this craptacular waste of an hour? Let me count the ways:
1. A television news show done out of a newspaper's newsroom. Whatever happened to editorial independence?
2. Who does a newscast these days without a teleprompter? Let's see now: cheap college stations; major stations who suffer a breakdown in the middle of a newscast (at least until the next break, when hopefully a technician or engineer can get the thing working again); and cheap-ass TV stations that operate in Canada's largest single market, are owned by major media conglomerates and for some reason still think it's a good thing to look cheap. Maybe it's meant to be "edgy" - a favorite word of managers who can't think of anything new to do. In any case, it's distracting and just makes viewers think that the anchor can't possibly be as bright as the anchors on all those other stations.
3. Why in the name of everything that's holy would a Toronto station that wants to connect with Toronto viewers, hire a host from Fort Wayne, IN who's never lived in Canada before, let alone Toronto? I'm sure Janette Luu is a lovely person and I have no doubt that her parents love her very much. I still have no idea, though, what the hell she's doing hosting a show mere weeks after a number of other very talented, very hard-working and very Canadian hosts got laid off in March.
4. Why, on a television news program, am I being forced to watch and listen to columnists and reporters from the (freakin' awful) Toronto Sun? And why on God's green Earth is there no original reportage? Call me old-fashioned, but when I tune into a program that purports to be news and/or current affairs, I expect to see some reporting and perhaps a bit of informed commentary. All we get on Canoe Live is commentary wallpapered with the most generic visuals I think I've ever seen. If I wanted to hear what the high foreheads at the Sun think, I'd read their paper. Well... you're right...I wouldn't. Maybe it's because Sun TV laid off all their journalists and all but one of their ENG (that's Electronic News Gathering for those of you who came late to the party) camera operators.
5. Do I really have to tune to one of my HD channels - for which I pay real money - to see a standard-definition program that then goes on to show me a photo of today's Sunshine Girl? (For those of you unfamiliar with the Sunshine Girl, surf to http://www.torontosun.ca/SUNshineGirl/home.html for a sample) If I wanted boilage I'd pick up a copy of the Sun. Well... you're right... I wouldn't do that either.
6. If I'm even remotely interested in getting some modicum of information about what's going on in Toronto, why the hell does Sun TV presume I'd be even remotely interested in photos of viewers' pets?!? I kid you not; there were pics of a flippin' Jack Russell terrier up on screen as long, or perhaps longer, as images of Stephen Harper when they did their exhaustive coverage of Stephen Harper's latest imbroglio with the Parliamentary Press Gallery. And to whom did the lovely Janette talk for in-depth analysis of the issue? Maybe the president of the PPG? Nope. Perhaps Sun TV's intrepid national political reporter? Don't be silly; they don't have one of those. Who else? A Toronto Sun reporter! The mind boggles.
7. News organizations around the world, including the venerable BBC, have already figured out that so-called citizen journalism is anything but reliable; the BBC in fact hired a number of producers for the purpose of vetting the incoming videos and e-mails, in order to avoid the embarrassment of showing or posting material that is inaccurate, defamatory or just plain false. So far Canoe Live is only posting comments - and what educated and pithy comments they are - from unsolicited e-mails that mysteriously appear on the screen mere seconds after the lovely Janette reads the topic. (does anyone else think that's a little dodgy?) I'm severely tempted - and I mean severely tempted - to mount an elaborate hoax, shoot it with my trusty citizen-reporting cellphone/camera/whatsit and fire it off to the executive producer of Canoe Live, just to see how much of it ends up on Canoe Live *and* reported breathlessly as an exclusive by the Toronto Sun. Hmmm... my Scorpio side is already feverishly dreaming up the scenario.
Great googly-moogly! If I get any crankier about this particular hour of my life that I'll never get back, I think I'll give myself a stroke. My fingers were a veritable blur on the remote as I rushed to purge this steaming load of crap off my digital video recorder. I still get the jibblies just thinking about it.
I'm willing to give the show another look-see... someday. The show is supposedly in beta mode while they work out the kinks. Please, for the love of Pete, work out the !^@%$ kinks already! You might want to start by a) giving your audience credit for some intelligence; b) doing what news shows are supposed to do: report the damn news! c) getting yourself a real core of real journalists, as opposed to columnists planted in the Sun's newsroom; d) going out and actually talking to real people, if you're absolutely bound and determined to claim to be a news-ish program.
[wiping foam from corners of mouth]
Thanks, I needed that. Sometimes you just gotta vent, you know?
As a former TV journo I've watched a lot of newscasts over the years. I've seen some great shows. I've seen very good shows, and employees who did the best they could with the limited resources available to them. I've watched newscasts from independent stations and from network stations. I've watched shows done by newsrooms of sixty people and others done by newsrooms of ten. I've reported, produced, hosted, directed, edited, even done studio camera and audio. I like to think I know a tiny bit about the TV news biz.
Last night I recorded Canoe Live, the, um, "news" program that's being foisted on viewers by Toronto's Sun TV. Today I pinned myself into my recliner and forced myself, Clockwork Orange-style, to sit through the whole wretched thing.
How much did I hate this craptacular waste of an hour? Let me count the ways:
1. A television news show done out of a newspaper's newsroom. Whatever happened to editorial independence?
2. Who does a newscast these days without a teleprompter? Let's see now: cheap college stations; major stations who suffer a breakdown in the middle of a newscast (at least until the next break, when hopefully a technician or engineer can get the thing working again); and cheap-ass TV stations that operate in Canada's largest single market, are owned by major media conglomerates and for some reason still think it's a good thing to look cheap. Maybe it's meant to be "edgy" - a favorite word of managers who can't think of anything new to do. In any case, it's distracting and just makes viewers think that the anchor can't possibly be as bright as the anchors on all those other stations.
3. Why in the name of everything that's holy would a Toronto station that wants to connect with Toronto viewers, hire a host from Fort Wayne, IN who's never lived in Canada before, let alone Toronto? I'm sure Janette Luu is a lovely person and I have no doubt that her parents love her very much. I still have no idea, though, what the hell she's doing hosting a show mere weeks after a number of other very talented, very hard-working and very Canadian hosts got laid off in March.
4. Why, on a television news program, am I being forced to watch and listen to columnists and reporters from the (freakin' awful) Toronto Sun? And why on God's green Earth is there no original reportage? Call me old-fashioned, but when I tune into a program that purports to be news and/or current affairs, I expect to see some reporting and perhaps a bit of informed commentary. All we get on Canoe Live is commentary wallpapered with the most generic visuals I think I've ever seen. If I wanted to hear what the high foreheads at the Sun think, I'd read their paper. Well... you're right...I wouldn't. Maybe it's because Sun TV laid off all their journalists and all but one of their ENG (that's Electronic News Gathering for those of you who came late to the party) camera operators.
5. Do I really have to tune to one of my HD channels - for which I pay real money - to see a standard-definition program that then goes on to show me a photo of today's Sunshine Girl? (For those of you unfamiliar with the Sunshine Girl, surf to http://www.torontosun.ca/SUNshineGirl/home.html for a sample) If I wanted boilage I'd pick up a copy of the Sun. Well... you're right... I wouldn't do that either.
6. If I'm even remotely interested in getting some modicum of information about what's going on in Toronto, why the hell does Sun TV presume I'd be even remotely interested in photos of viewers' pets?!? I kid you not; there were pics of a flippin' Jack Russell terrier up on screen as long, or perhaps longer, as images of Stephen Harper when they did their exhaustive coverage of Stephen Harper's latest imbroglio with the Parliamentary Press Gallery. And to whom did the lovely Janette talk for in-depth analysis of the issue? Maybe the president of the PPG? Nope. Perhaps Sun TV's intrepid national political reporter? Don't be silly; they don't have one of those. Who else? A Toronto Sun reporter! The mind boggles.
7. News organizations around the world, including the venerable BBC, have already figured out that so-called citizen journalism is anything but reliable; the BBC in fact hired a number of producers for the purpose of vetting the incoming videos and e-mails, in order to avoid the embarrassment of showing or posting material that is inaccurate, defamatory or just plain false. So far Canoe Live is only posting comments - and what educated and pithy comments they are - from unsolicited e-mails that mysteriously appear on the screen mere seconds after the lovely Janette reads the topic. (does anyone else think that's a little dodgy?) I'm severely tempted - and I mean severely tempted - to mount an elaborate hoax, shoot it with my trusty citizen-reporting cellphone/camera/whatsit and fire it off to the executive producer of Canoe Live, just to see how much of it ends up on Canoe Live *and* reported breathlessly as an exclusive by the Toronto Sun. Hmmm... my Scorpio side is already feverishly dreaming up the scenario.
Great googly-moogly! If I get any crankier about this particular hour of my life that I'll never get back, I think I'll give myself a stroke. My fingers were a veritable blur on the remote as I rushed to purge this steaming load of crap off my digital video recorder. I still get the jibblies just thinking about it.
I'm willing to give the show another look-see... someday. The show is supposedly in beta mode while they work out the kinks. Please, for the love of Pete, work out the !^@%$ kinks already! You might want to start by a) giving your audience credit for some intelligence; b) doing what news shows are supposed to do: report the damn news! c) getting yourself a real core of real journalists, as opposed to columnists planted in the Sun's newsroom; d) going out and actually talking to real people, if you're absolutely bound and determined to claim to be a news-ish program.
[wiping foam from corners of mouth]
Thanks, I needed that. Sometimes you just gotta vent, you know?
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Back home
It's been a while since my last rant.
I went to Calgary last weekend for my nephew's wedding and shot about three hundred (!) digital photos. Much to my chagrin, the fact that I'm not a pro photog is still painfully evident. I won't blame my gear (notwithstanding the fact that I still don't have the swishy flash diffuser I mentioned in my previous post "Sizes"); nor will I blame the bloody awful lighting (a large high-ceilinged, darkish room with HUGE picture windows facing south and west... at sunset!). After all, it's a poor workman who blames his tools. Well, I had good tools and I still suck. The upside of shooting three hundred digital pics, though, is that I can get rid of the chaff and still have a reasonable number of pics that look good. Hopefully said nephew and his lovely new bride will be happy with my work.
I started thinking - I mean really thinking - about my summer holidays today. Frankly I should have been concentrating on something else, like perhaps work, but hey, that's life in the big city. I'm hoping to take three weeks off in July. And I mean off; In the past I've taken my laptop or *gasp* my BlackBerry wth me on holiday, and I usually wind up spending half my so-called time off, well, on. Last year I took five days (can you believe it? five whole days!) off without an electronic leash of any kind. It was glorious, although admittedly it came as a bit of a shock to discover that the world actually continued to turn without me being at my desk. Talk about an epiphany...
I went to Calgary last weekend for my nephew's wedding and shot about three hundred (!) digital photos. Much to my chagrin, the fact that I'm not a pro photog is still painfully evident. I won't blame my gear (notwithstanding the fact that I still don't have the swishy flash diffuser I mentioned in my previous post "Sizes"); nor will I blame the bloody awful lighting (a large high-ceilinged, darkish room with HUGE picture windows facing south and west... at sunset!). After all, it's a poor workman who blames his tools. Well, I had good tools and I still suck. The upside of shooting three hundred digital pics, though, is that I can get rid of the chaff and still have a reasonable number of pics that look good. Hopefully said nephew and his lovely new bride will be happy with my work.
I started thinking - I mean really thinking - about my summer holidays today. Frankly I should have been concentrating on something else, like perhaps work, but hey, that's life in the big city. I'm hoping to take three weeks off in July. And I mean off; In the past I've taken my laptop or *gasp* my BlackBerry wth me on holiday, and I usually wind up spending half my so-called time off, well, on. Last year I took five days (can you believe it? five whole days!) off without an electronic leash of any kind. It was glorious, although admittedly it came as a bit of a shock to discover that the world actually continued to turn without me being at my desk. Talk about an epiphany...
Sunday, May 14, 2006
A random rant
As is generally the case on weekends, I went to Starbucks this afternoon to sip on a moccacino (decaf, of course) and read the paper. As is also generally the case, I had my MP3 player with me to save me from the, er, music that usually bleats from the speakers.
I like to think my music collection is fairly eclectic, albeit predominated by jazz: today's sampling included Steps Ahead, Miles Davis (early and late), Lyle Lovett, Alain Caron (good to get some CanCon in there), Charlie Parker, Fourplay (a much better band than their crap name might lead one to believe), Crash Test Dummies, Jaco Pastorius, NOJO (more CanCon!) and Keith Jarrett, among others. Good accompaniment for the 'cino and Sunday Star.
Now, I quite like Keith Jarrett. My Song, with Jan Garbarek on saxophones, is a good album. Jan sounds great. Keith's solos are terrific, too... but he has a well-documented and very bad habit of vocalizing during his solos. It's distracting and just plain annoying.
I've heard a few jazzers over the years who sing along with themselves as they play. George Benson has made something of a career out of it (cf. "On Broadway" or "This Masquerade" from Breezin'), and it was an integral part of Slam Stewart's trademark sound. Oscar Peterson is another vocalizer, although he does it almost contrapuntally; he'll often play a lick in a call-and-response style, and then vocalize/hum/sing the response before getting back into it. My old friend, the late Frank Mantooth, was another vocalizer, although he didn't really sing so much as he articulated rhythms to himself (with a soft "t-t-k-t-t-k-t" as he played. It was if he was tonguing the notes like a horn player, as he churned them out on the piano.
Jarrett's squeaking has no redeeming qualities. God bless him, but every time I hear him play I want to teleport myself back in space and time to slap a big ol' patch of gaffer's tape over his yap. Ahhhh... even thinking about doing that makes me feel better. Just breathe through your nose, Keith, you'll be fine.
I like to think my music collection is fairly eclectic, albeit predominated by jazz: today's sampling included Steps Ahead, Miles Davis (early and late), Lyle Lovett, Alain Caron (good to get some CanCon in there), Charlie Parker, Fourplay (a much better band than their crap name might lead one to believe), Crash Test Dummies, Jaco Pastorius, NOJO (more CanCon!) and Keith Jarrett, among others. Good accompaniment for the 'cino and Sunday Star.
Now, I quite like Keith Jarrett. My Song, with Jan Garbarek on saxophones, is a good album. Jan sounds great. Keith's solos are terrific, too... but he has a well-documented and very bad habit of vocalizing during his solos. It's distracting and just plain annoying.
I've heard a few jazzers over the years who sing along with themselves as they play. George Benson has made something of a career out of it (cf. "On Broadway" or "This Masquerade" from Breezin'), and it was an integral part of Slam Stewart's trademark sound. Oscar Peterson is another vocalizer, although he does it almost contrapuntally; he'll often play a lick in a call-and-response style, and then vocalize/hum/sing the response before getting back into it. My old friend, the late Frank Mantooth, was another vocalizer, although he didn't really sing so much as he articulated rhythms to himself (with a soft "t-t-k-t-t-k-t" as he played. It was if he was tonguing the notes like a horn player, as he churned them out on the piano.
Jarrett's squeaking has no redeeming qualities. God bless him, but every time I hear him play I want to teleport myself back in space and time to slap a big ol' patch of gaffer's tape over his yap. Ahhhh... even thinking about doing that makes me feel better. Just breathe through your nose, Keith, you'll be fine.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Sizes
My eldest nephew is getting married next weekend (the "May two-four weekend", to use the vernacular). He's asked me to be the official photographer (whatever that means; something tells me I won't be getting a press pass). I'm happy to do it, but being something of a Man Of Expensive Hobbies, I just won't feel right unless I get some ridiculously expensive gewgaw that I'll be able to blame when and if the photos don't come out perfect.
So began the hunt for the perfect flash diffuser. I have one already that I don't like much; it's a pain to put on and take off, and the results have never been all that great. I went online to see what the pros and semi-pros are using these days. Opinions seem pretty evenly divided on two different bits of gear, both (mercifully) relatively inexpensive. So I trundled off to the local expensive camera store to try them out. The first one is dead simple and gives good results in most basic situations; "solid but not spectacular" as I like to say. As for the other one, I put it on the store's flash on the store's camera and started taking test shots.
Oh. My. God. Beautiful soft light, no harsh shadows, simple to use... I fell, and fell hard. I was in love. I handed over my Interac card and walked out of the store, visions of gorgeous wedding pics dancing before my eyes.
It wasn't until I got home that reality reared its ugly head. I discovered that my swishy new flash diffuser actually comes in different sizes. The flash I tried the diffuser on in the store was a slightly newer model than the one I have, so of course the diffuser didn't fit. Who would ever have thought that a big ol' camera manufacturer like Canon would actually change the dimensions of a flash head from one year to the next? I mean really... Jeans and shoes come in sizes. Pizza comes in sizes. But flash heads?
*sigh*
I guess planned obsolescence is still alive and well in the photo world.
But no problem, right? I still had my receipt; it would be a simple matter of trundling back to said expensive camera store and exchanging the offending diffuser with the proper one. But noooooo... to paraphrase Yogi Berra, my flash is so popular that no one uses it any more. I called all the pro shops in Toronto, then all the pro shops in Calgary (where the aforementioned wedding is taking place). Finding the right size of swishy new flash diffuser seems like it will be quite a production number. All I can do for the moment is return the one I bought for a refund, use the simpler, cheaper, not-so-in-freaking-credibly-nice diffuser and grumble a lot.
I remain undeterred, although my chances of getting this thing in time for the wedding are starting to look slim. But someday, trust me: my photos will have that just-kissed-by-God look to them. In the meantime, there's always Photoshop.
So began the hunt for the perfect flash diffuser. I have one already that I don't like much; it's a pain to put on and take off, and the results have never been all that great. I went online to see what the pros and semi-pros are using these days. Opinions seem pretty evenly divided on two different bits of gear, both (mercifully) relatively inexpensive. So I trundled off to the local expensive camera store to try them out. The first one is dead simple and gives good results in most basic situations; "solid but not spectacular" as I like to say. As for the other one, I put it on the store's flash on the store's camera and started taking test shots.
Oh. My. God. Beautiful soft light, no harsh shadows, simple to use... I fell, and fell hard. I was in love. I handed over my Interac card and walked out of the store, visions of gorgeous wedding pics dancing before my eyes.
It wasn't until I got home that reality reared its ugly head. I discovered that my swishy new flash diffuser actually comes in different sizes. The flash I tried the diffuser on in the store was a slightly newer model than the one I have, so of course the diffuser didn't fit. Who would ever have thought that a big ol' camera manufacturer like Canon would actually change the dimensions of a flash head from one year to the next? I mean really... Jeans and shoes come in sizes. Pizza comes in sizes. But flash heads?
*sigh*
I guess planned obsolescence is still alive and well in the photo world.
But no problem, right? I still had my receipt; it would be a simple matter of trundling back to said expensive camera store and exchanging the offending diffuser with the proper one. But noooooo... to paraphrase Yogi Berra, my flash is so popular that no one uses it any more. I called all the pro shops in Toronto, then all the pro shops in Calgary (where the aforementioned wedding is taking place). Finding the right size of swishy new flash diffuser seems like it will be quite a production number. All I can do for the moment is return the one I bought for a refund, use the simpler, cheaper, not-so-in-freaking-credibly-nice diffuser and grumble a lot.
I remain undeterred, although my chances of getting this thing in time for the wedding are starting to look slim. But someday, trust me: my photos will have that just-kissed-by-God look to them. In the meantime, there's always Photoshop.
Let the madness begin...
I'm a late bloomer when it comes to the blogosphere. I didn't even start reading them until last summer, when the CBC lockout created a flurry of blogs all spouting righteous indignation. Talk about cool!
Over the years I've gone through phases of journal-writing. I've even had jags of letter-writing that might have been worthy of an epistolary novel - if anything interesting happened, that is. The simple fact is that I've spent a great deal of my life actually writing things for a living. And now I'm going to do it for fun? What am I, nuts?
I think this blog is really about catharsis. I'm going to be curmudgeonly, I'm going to vituperate (as you'll soon learn, I love parenthetical comments almost as much as I love using big words) and I think I'm going to have a damn fine time doing it.
Why did I pick Voltaire2006 as a nom de plume? Simple. I think that if François Marie Arouet were alive today, he would be - holy crap - 311 years old. Wait a minute; what I *meant* to say was that if he were alive today, he and I would probably get along just fine. He'd still be 311 years old, though, so I could probably take him in a fair fight. Voltaire had a bit of a problem with authority figures (although he was apparently a great schmoozer), and hated bigotry, pedantry and, above all, intolerance. I think I could advance a strong argument that he may well have been the first curmudgeon. And who doesn't have a big ol' soft spot for the curmudgeons of this world?
I have no idea what the future holds for this blog. I might get tired of it in a week, or it may become a valuable therapeutic tool. Who knows? Someone out there in the blogosphere might even read this. I look forward to your comments.
Over the years I've gone through phases of journal-writing. I've even had jags of letter-writing that might have been worthy of an epistolary novel - if anything interesting happened, that is. The simple fact is that I've spent a great deal of my life actually writing things for a living. And now I'm going to do it for fun? What am I, nuts?
I think this blog is really about catharsis. I'm going to be curmudgeonly, I'm going to vituperate (as you'll soon learn, I love parenthetical comments almost as much as I love using big words) and I think I'm going to have a damn fine time doing it.
Why did I pick Voltaire2006 as a nom de plume? Simple. I think that if François Marie Arouet were alive today, he would be - holy crap - 311 years old. Wait a minute; what I *meant* to say was that if he were alive today, he and I would probably get along just fine. He'd still be 311 years old, though, so I could probably take him in a fair fight. Voltaire had a bit of a problem with authority figures (although he was apparently a great schmoozer), and hated bigotry, pedantry and, above all, intolerance. I think I could advance a strong argument that he may well have been the first curmudgeon. And who doesn't have a big ol' soft spot for the curmudgeons of this world?
I have no idea what the future holds for this blog. I might get tired of it in a week, or it may become a valuable therapeutic tool. Who knows? Someone out there in the blogosphere might even read this. I look forward to your comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
