Driving to a clients house this afternoon, I hear a DJ at some top 40 station talking about (duh) Michael Jackson. Specifically, how the people behind the new movie "Bruno" ( released the same day as Jackson's death) cut out a scene from the movie that had Latoya Jackson in out, "out of respect for the family". The DJ commented on the amazingly quick editing skills, and then added "obviously this was the right thing to do".

uh... seriously?

So, let me get this straight... it's perfectly good taste to:

Stalk and photograph every surviving Jackson family member wherever they go.
Eagerly find and promote the 911 call from Jackson's house.
Exploit his death by shamelessly promoting memorabilia and "tribute" items and programing on every possible media outlet.
Huddle around the computer screen awaiting the gory details of his dissected still-warm corpse...

But, show a completely unrelated movie with a completely unrelated scene in it featuring his sister?
No, THAT'S over the line. THAT'S "in bad taste".

What the frak is wrong with us?


-----------------

EDIT:

Entertainment Weekly describes the scene:

Ms. Jackson, who did not appear to be in on the joke, gamely tried to answer Bruno's questions even as he interrogated her about her brother Michael and tried surreptitiously to find Michael's number on her cellphone. The scene ended, as most things in Bruno's world do, with a moment of raw, funny discomfort.

Ok... so that would be a creepy scene to leave in.

So, a post at PZ Myers blog was talking about the website www.proofthatgodexists.org, which is sort of a choose-your-own-adventure game but with no adventure, or actual choice. If you give the "wrong" answers, it just redirects you either back to try again and mend the error of your ways, or tells you to get lost, you godless heathen. Or something like that.

Anyway, for sake of amusement, I played along and followed the black and white bread crumbs of moral certitude to it's final faithful destination, at which point I got the following screen:






Ain't that the truth.

It's Jesus, cradling a baby dinosaur:




That is all.



It is a similar type of no-explanation-needed-awesomeness as Nazi Zombies:





Ok fine, I will attempt a brief uncalled for explanation anyway:

Example no.1 is awesome because it's all like, Jesus loves you, little baby dino, but nevertheless he will one day kill you and your entire family with a massive apocalyptic asteroid.

Ok, so that is equal parts awesome and... really sad, actually....
*sniff*
Moving on...

Example no.2 is awesome, because as much fun as it is to slay zombies, (you know, so I've heard...) there is always this undercurrent of guilt because they used to be loved ones and family and just overall innocent people who did nothing to deserve a claw hammer to the brain stem except get bitten by a member of the undead legion.

Except here, they're fucking Nazis, so there's no guilt! Yippee!

-------------

                                                    "apparent horizon"


----------------------

I know it may be hard to believe, but this green blooded Vulcan badass logician that is the patron saint oh so many geeks:


Used to, in fact, be this awkward young dork, in a drab outfit, clumsy plastic phaser, and terrifyingly aroused eyebrows:



Thank god for character evolution!
And no, I have not yet seen the new movie.
I'm a bit scared.
I mean... what if it's campy? ;)

One of the most ubiquitous adages among photographers is variations of "It's not
the camera, it's the person behind it" and the like.

My recent favorite (from a forum poster's signature line: "Nice pen, I bet you write great stories with it."

And this idea can be strongly supported by the fact that a bit of searching turns up
startlingly good pictures taken on pretty nearly every camera ever produced.

And of course, "the best camera is the one one you have with you" is also an important
part of this. If you left your huge FF DSLR* at home, but you have a P&S in your pocket,
rather than feeling sorry for yourself, you should obviously pull out the P&S and make
the best of things.

However I feel it should be honestly noted that does not mean that there is no price
to pay for having a particular tool with you as opposed to another.

Although any camera, in any situation, can be used (by a skilled photographer) to capture
stunning pictures, they will be very different pictures depending on the camera used.

I know this seems like banal truism, but allow me to ponder it for a moment...

Lets take this random photograph as an example:

(Taken by "travelight" on flickr)



I know of no P&S that could have made this photograph.
This level of pleasing OOF background can only be achieved with the the narrow DOF caused
by high f numbers not found on (any?) P&S cameras.

So, what would the photographer have done if he found himself in the same situation while
carrying a P&S? Taken a different picture, of course. It might even have been a BETTER
picture, due to the creativity forced upon him by the limitations, but we can say for a
certainty it would bear very little resemblance to the photo that was in fact made.

Same thing with this photo:

(from "rburgoss" at Pentax Forum)



This is a photo that could ONLY have been created using a rather long,
rather fast, rather high quality lens. Exactly the sort of lens that many
amateur photographers are unlikely to be able to either afford, or lug
around with them at all times.

So, what is a poor and lazy photographer to do? Well, first of all I am going to
painfully covet a new DSLR with long fast glass, and then I am going to feel sorry
for myself, and then I am going to start to do the math and casting dark and
menacing glances at the guitars hanging on my wall...

And then I am going to grab my vastly inferior tools, and get out and there
and start finding pictures.

(well, metaphorically... what I am actually going to do is watch the latest
episode of Battlestar Galactica and then eat some pizza)

Because while I can never make pictures like these with my current gear,
there are plenty of other pictures out there to go around, and all the time
in the world spent on ebay won't find them for us.

Now if you will excuse me, I have an ebay auction to check.



[kurt]


* Glossary for non-photogeeks:

FF: Full frame. (big, expensive, pro cameras)
P&S: Point and shoot. (pretty much any camera you can fit in your pocket)
DOF: Depth of field. (the amount of the picture that is sharp and in focus)
OOF: Out of focus.
Fast: Big lens, lets in lots of light so you can take pictures at fast shutter speeds without motion blur
Long: large telephoto lens to zoom in close to your subject

Tim Horton's coffee makes me happy. It places me into a good mood
invulnerable even to the cranky presence of the mildly insane piano
client whose house I currently en route too.

It may even be my favorite coffee ever. Why? What makes it in any way
special? And how much of my opinion is due to the significant amount of
Tim Horton's coffee my wife and I consumed on our honeymoon?

True, it not like Newfoundland has a plethora of other coffee options, but still,
it's really solid coffee by most any standard: Fresh, hot, and with a suspiciously
unique flavor that I can never figure out, and therefore manages to spark a
specific craving for THEIR coffee, as opposed to all others.

I assume this is no accident.

Yet I cant help asking how much positive emotional association is responsible for
this particular acquired taste. Is it irrational to say that Tim Horton's coffee
is the best because it reminds me of times pleasant? Some would say that thinking
that any coffee tastes good is in itself an irrational belief.

The first time I remember ever actually enjoying coffee was during a very specific
car ride home with my Mom. We were talking about toys. I was 12, and she had
just bought me an Obi-Wan Kenobi action figure. It was sitting on the dashboard,
next to my Mom's travel mug, with it's shiny blue lightsaber challenging invisible
enemies. I loved the fact that my mom had put aside her personal value system
to buy me a pointless toy. The action figure now sits in a forgotten box in a
forgotten room, but the memory seems to be thriving just fine. Thanks mom.

The coffee was "Vermont Maple Nut", and it had far too much cream and sugar
in it. At least, by my current standards. I didn't care. It fact... I quite liked it that
way. If the coffee was black, I would never have taken that first happy sip.

Are gateway experiences dangerous? Maybe so, but they they also often manage
to be embarrassing in retrospect. We try to forget the transistional forms we used to
be, content in the knowledge that THIS time we got it right. Today, finally, I am a
person I will still be proud of tomorrow. Yup. This version of me is the most defensible
one EVER...

And yet the fact remains that at the time we sincerely enjoyed a belief or taste that
now seems transparently foolish. I must accept the responsibly that it was a mistake
I enjoyed making.

Sheila is the reason I stopped putting sugar in my coffee.
Point blank.

It was a conversation, I think, about sweet deserts, and how the unbridled bitter
of the coffee etched the sugar from off her teeth. I can't say for sure if it was her
judgmental opinion of sugar, or her fondness for bitter, or both, but for me it was
like waking up.

Coffee.
No sugar.
Oh.
Why didn't I think of that?

I must confess, the actual transformation-of-behavior

Darkest. Episode. Yet.

Even visually, there are scenes that are so gloomy, they are very nearly mono-chromatic- overcast with inky blue (of course)

Plot wise... well, if you watched it you understand. I'll not offer any spoilers.

Why do I do this to myself? Why do I enjoy shows like this?

There have been a few TV moments that are more heart-wrenching than BSG, most notably many from episodes of "The Wire", including one scene that quite unexpectedly made me feel crappier than anything on film ever has. (And it's probably not the one you are thinking it is)

Battlestar Galactica hasn't quite archived that level of realistic pointed despair, but it sure comes damn close sometimes.

And I keep coming back for more...

So, not too long ago I saw the movie "Dark City".
It's a beautiful (if somewhat flawed) movie, best known for being the Matrix before The Matrix, and one of it's several patches of light is this sultry dark haired dame, played by Jennifer Connelly.

Her character moonlights as a jazz singer in a smoke filled dimly lit bar. The two songs we see her character perform on film are "Sway" and "The Night Has A Thousand eyes", both as performed by Anita Kelsey.

The original theatrical version of the movie has vocals of Anita Kelsey, with Jennifer Connelly lip syncing.

Now, here's the thing... it turns out that during (or near) filming they captured Jennifer Connelly's vocals, and the director's cut of the movie now features those same scenes with Connelly's actual voice.


I have to say, I strongly prefer the Connelly versions.

Here are the two songs from the director's cut:

"Sway": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7H_1KuJ5SU

"The Night Has A Thousand Eyes": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFTz5KqUQvc

----------------
For the sake of comparison, here are the songs with the Anita Kelsey vocals:

Sway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFZaiuySd5M&feature=related

"The Night Has A Thousand Eyes": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25e9ni85d_w

--------------

To be sure the Kelsey vocals are far "prettier", but for this particular context Connelly's voice is, to me, far more evocative, seductive, and meaningful.

Thank goodness for directors cuts... It just makes me sad that the full version of her singing "Sway" don't exist, so far as I know.

One of the (many) proofs I am not at all cool is that I hardly ever listen to Jazz. This is a product of both culture (have never had cool friends either) and the fact that when I DO listen to jazz, especially modern jazz, I have to really force myself to "get" it, and most of the time fail in my efforts.

And frankly, listening to music as a purely intellectual activity is interesting for all of about seven minutes or so,(unless a grade depends on it) and then I get bored and listen to music that actually makes me feel something.

But then sometimes to my great surprise, a particular piece of jazz will manage to work it's way past my raging whiteness into the part of my heart not made of stone.

This tune gives me warm fuzzy chills.

"Petite Fleur"
Chris Barber's Jazz Band
(Monty Sunshine on clarinet)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enJaxZQw5vM

Andre was asking me for Chopin recommendations, and in an attempt to come up with a list, I ended up getting stuck on one, my current favorite.

Chopin Etude in E Major Opus 10 No.3 Also known as "Tristesse"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNAyKL2GHvA

Please do yourself a favor and listen to this short little piece, preferably before reading my following pedestrian ramblings about it.
........

This piece contains what is very possibly my favorite melody of all time. And you must trust me when I say I held that opinion even before I read a quote by Chopin agreeing with me.

Chopin had a knack for crafting melodies that were beautiful, lyrical, subtle, even (dare I say?) "hooky", while at the same time sometimes shockingly interesting and unexpected.


Specifically, I am struck by the turn of the melodic phrase at 1:03.

The piece has just crashed haltingly and violently upwards from 0:55, and then it just freezes midair, before floating back down,and on it's
way back down takes a feather-fall trip through five understated and achingly poignant chord changes in such a compelling necklace of notes that the first time I heard it I started upright from the project on my workbench at the piano shop, and started the track over just to hear
it again. The phrase is only 13 seconds long, and it doesn't even really resolve except by three faint almost-grace notes.

We don't hear from this lovely little fragment again until the only other time it is is used in the etude which happens at very end, at which point, after a short epilogue, we finally hear it's full resolution.

I have to say I think it is worth the wait.

The other startling fact about this piece is that it is an "etude". An etude is a practice piece. It is something written specifically
to improve a particular skill in a student, and as such is not usually intended to be judged it's merits of musical interest.

Here's to finding magic in the mundane...


........


(Oh, and finally, although any Chopin played by Pollini is a time honored and difficult to improve upon classic, I recommend listening to other versions to understand how the piece is variously interpreted. Let me know if you find your own favorite!)

Alfred Cortot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPydmqbK-8w