Author: Mike Katzif

In the month absence since we last waxed philosophic from on high, we took a short hiatus to creatively retool hello.column and hellocomein.com and prep for an EXCITINGLY droll season two. In the meantime we briefly return from endless vacationing to answer YOUR questions. Thats right, you faithful readers and rabid fans can FINALLY get your chance to delve into the seedy underbelly of hello.column. Ask us anything. If all goes well, we will still be standing to do this on a regular basis. READ ON…!

Does getting electrocuted destroy your sex life?
– Bryan Oura, Boston, Massachussetts

Greg: Bryan, far from it! Consider for a moment this simple equation developed by Dr. Frank Hipsop at Harvard in 1954:

q = pi*b*integral(2V dV)

Where q is quality of sex, b is the volume of moaning in dB, and V is the voltage of electricity that enters your bloodstream. So you see, the more voltage, the better the sex. But wait!! Consider also that Electricity follows the path of least resistance. So if you are being electrocuted and you touch your partner, then she/he is being electrocuted as well. And sex often (but not always) involves some form of human contact. Quite simply, we can thus double our equation:

q = 2*pi*b*integral(2V dV)

The quality of sex is doubled from what Hipsop predicted. What does all this mean? Well, I’ll leave that to the imagination…Enjoy!

Greetings…When is too much?
– Jordan Johnson, Wellington, Vermont

Aryn: Hey Jordan thanks for writing. I think you are going about this completely wrong. You shouldn’t be asking questions like that in this modern day and age. We have long past the need for “too much” or “too little” or “conservation” or “waste” or “overusing” or “just enough” or “a little more” or “a little less” and what not. It reminds me of this one time that I was at this restaurant and they came by with a HUGE pepper mill and said ” pepper sir? ” and I replied “yes please” and another guy which I didnt see earlier and was standing on the other side of me dumped a whole bucket of un-crushed pepper spheres onto my creme brule.

It was the most embarassing date that I had ever been on, wait…no the second most embarrasing, the first would have to be the time that I was at this corn factory with the girl that I had just met, and we were having a good time, and then I decided to eat some of the corn that was in the corn factory ( with the girl I had just met ) and then I had chronic nose bleeds for about 16 hrs while this girl (that I had just met at the corn factory) sat in the waiting room at the doctors office ( which fortunatly was close to the corn factory where we had just met (the girl) I ended up losing 75 lbs of extra “blood” weight and have since gone on to be the leader in diet remedies. So to recap.. what the hell are you refereing to in your question again?

Why wont mommy love me?
– Jimmy McPartland, Omaha, Nebraska

Mike: Thanks for writing. You see Jimmy, your Mommy will never love you. You caused her divorce from Daddy. I know people will tell you that Mommy and Daddy’s separation was because of Daddy’s constant wandering eye and inability at true intimacy, but really its because they had to spend to much time driving you to soccer practice. And I heard from Grandma that they were angry at you for wearing your socks too high on your legs like a little nerdboy. In fact, Mommy is no longer capable of love ever again. Way to go there, Jim. See you in therapy in fifteen years!

Can I turn my kid-brother into Bio-Diesel?
– Fred Westcoat, age 12

Greg: Fred. Yes you can!! It’s refreshing to see that the younger generation is so forward thinking and concerned for our nation’s future. Before long, we will all be heating our homes and driving our cars using fuel processed from our kid brothers. Fred, you will one day make your parents proud when you are a PhD energy scientist. Keep up the good work, and keep those creative and innovative ideas coming!

Hello Fellows! I was just wondering, when will the sun go out?
– Frank Peabody, Professor in Astrology, School of Science and Industry, Topeka, Kansas

Aryn: Mr. Peabody, honeslty I would think that you should already know the answer here from your sun 860 graduate level course you teach every fall and spring semesters. But to humour you I will answer away. Here is the skinny. the short answer is yes. The sun will have a scheduled ending soon, when the Zambots of Omicronia return to collect the magic stones from the secret chamber of the pyramids and pick up the “chosen” memeber of the secret society 5TTR (which I am a member), then the sun will turn into a red giant and burn up all the heathenous humans on this earth, while I and my fellow “chosies” lounge poolside on the space cruiser peeno one (the pickup cruiser) on our way to paradise that is Omicronia. See ya sucker, and thanks for the D+ you jerk.

Thanks for taking my question. I was wondering how many times can a man do a pushup? And why can I only do one before I throw up?
– Bud Collins, Columbia, Maryland

Mike: Hey Bud. Typically a normal man doesnt do pushups because this normal man is typically, at least in America, a flabby wad of cookie dough. Those that do pushups can expect to do about 25 pushups a set. Then rinse and repeat for five repetitions. I wouldnt worry about the vomiting after one single pushup. No doubt you are experiencing discomfort due to your long nights of heavy drinking, savage over eating, countless hours of videogaming, and an infinite number of years living with the nagging anticipation of actually kissing a real live woman. Take it slow and keep up the good work.

We now go to the Rapid-Fire question and answer segment:

Why wont mommy let me play with the toaster in the tub?
– Samantha Piper, Lubbock, Texas

Greg: Samantha- Have you ever had soggy, soapy toast?

So um…Where do boners come from and how do they work?
– Franklin Paul, Boise, Idaho

Mike: Arent boners from fragments of insect bone in the blood stream that swim through the penii until they mate, sticking to the inner walls of the veins. As they lay their calcium eggs it makes the organ into solid bone until you eject the cementy bone mixture out?

What makes a perfect pancake?
– Julia Children, Sommerville, Massachusetts

Aryn: Not you obviously.

Why are the oceans so big?
– Phill Dankle, San Francisco, California

Greg: Because God is an amazing god.

Where do babies come from and how do they work?
– Sandra Pope, New York, New York

Mike: Babies hail from outer space and are powered by nanotechnology…sentient alien nanotechnology. So be careful.

So what do you think? Email us your questions and comments: [email protected]

Coming up NEXT SEASON: Season Two to bring more thrills, chills, laughter and tears…stay tuned for more.

This week we talk urban redevelopment. In the last ten years, a glut of new sports stadiums and ballparks and arenas have been built around the country. Some have been financed by the city, some by taxpayers and the rare few by the actual owners of the sports teams. But does this investment actually lead to urban redevelopment or just another string Starbucks and Chipotles? And is that such a bad thing? Read on…

Greg: How do you feel about the new wave of downtown ballpark construction around the country as a tool for urban renewal?

Mike: I like it. I think its a good way to stimulate OTHER business to build there. I’m glad the Royals and Chiefs chose to stay where they were and we will upgrade the current stadiums. They will be pretty great I think. Though I’m glad that the rolling roof proposal didn’t pass…I thought it was lame and unnecessary and really ugly design.

Greg: Yeah I agree I think. I got into a big argument/discussion with my cousin last night about downtown ballparks and was just curious what you thought. In terms of if it’s an appropriate/effective way to redevelop a city?

Mike: I know lots of people in KC who would love a downtown ballpark. But I’m not sure its feasible considering the layout of KC and the lack of public transport. In other cities I think its a decent way to start growth (not the end all) and sometimes it simply serves as a catalyst. The Verizon Center here in Chinatown of DC really helped this area not be ghetto areas anymore. Within the last seven months even, I have seen all sorts of things go up here.

But for KC to expect that to happen here w\o developing a light rail or surrounding areas to create city density in downtown it might be foolish. Thing is, KC has all the suburbs that sprawl out forever, and then these little pockets here and there — 18th & Vine, Plaza, Crown Centre, Westport, Downtown, City Market, the stadiums etc…but there is nothing to tie them together. I think the Sprint Arena is supposed to spawn some activity downtown along w\ an entertainment district but we’ll see.

Greg: The Verizon Center… what is it? What does it look like?

Mike: Its the arena where NBA & NHL and concerts happen… Its like a huge box.

Greg: I have a more specific question I’m slowly working towards. Here’s kind of what I’m getting at and trying to figure out:

1. Do large scale redevelopment plans (i.e. downtown ballpark stadiums) create a genuine community (genuine is puposfully vague)?

2. How do large scale redevelopments compare to urban areas that develop more naturally, such as artists buying up depressed areas and slowly making them trendy?

3. Worst case scenario, the baseball stadium brings in a crowd to downtown on game nights and spinoff restaurants/bars/retail are busy those nights…. is that successful? I’m really not sure.

Mike: A couple things: I think you need a mixture of large scale and organic development methods. Its a macro and micro level idea of defining the city. The large scale things such as commercial entertainment districts such as theatres, movie theatres, shopping, chain restaurants and stadiums\arenas etc have the appeal to the normal person both in the city and people outside.

The normal person is looking for that kind of entertainment, and honestly sometimes I want that too, especially in sports going as I am a fan of mainstream sports. The stadium being built potentially is a draw to the area, and if there is adequate parking and public transport so people can easily get there and back, then it is something that will draw lots of people and then potential business to the area.

Many businesses see this as a macro level way to serve as a catalyst for growth and development. It also helps when the team is popular (and good)…a new park has shown even to help draw more fans to games which in turn makes the team better because more money is coming in.

Greg: Does that last long term?

Mike: As far as natural organic growth (i.e. people buying low rent and making it the new trendy residential area) I think that can only happen if the basics are taken care of elsewhere. I think once people have the basics they seek out the more fringe (and often better) places to eat and shop and drink… This brings as much worth to a city as the arena but they go hand in hand.

A residential city area needs things to do to make demand for people to want to live there. Bt for businesses to want to set up shop there, they need the reassurance that people are there creating a demand for the restaurants\bars\shops etc.

I’m not sure how sustainable any of this is…its all very fickle based on what the lifespan is and how high the rent is for the developments and the turnover rates of the businesses surrounding the residential and commercial and entertainment districts.

So in theory, a place can be there forever as long as people make it part of the city and the rent doesn’t rise too high, but the trendy stuff might fizzle out when its not the trend anymore…most restaurants not part of a chain turnover about every 2years…if you make it past that then you are golden, from what I’ve read. What do you think?

Greg: I’m not sure, all around… in a lot of ways I think the fantasy of going downtown and watching a baseball game and the stadium itself risks being Disney-fied and kind of fake.

Mike: It is at times, but once inside the stadium, the game and the atmosphere is what matters the surrounding landscapes of Gaps and Starbucks and Chipotles that are safe developments around there are needed for the common person, but it leaves something to be desired for others plus that stuff generates money to help develop housing, keep the stadium rent etc.

Greg: And I have that fantasy too, I mean i think it would be great to go downtown, have a beer and watch the game. But what will this be like in 15 years when the paint is chipping? A lot of the design of these urban renewal stadiums is retro, in the vein of the old stadiums. But it’s kind of a fake charm. It’s almost like living in a sentimentality like Leave it to Beaver or something.

But the thing is with my complaints is that I’m not sure what I’m complaining about is really a bad thing at all…see that’s the thing… I know you are right. The national chains are safe…they’ll stay.

Mike: For sports architecture that retro thing is more than just fake…baseball in particular is alway respectful of the past, the game itself and its relationship with your family memories of baseball— going to games with Dad. Its classy somehow with the brick and steel. As contemporary architecture, sports stadiums do leave something to be desired though.

Greg: Well… but it was classy. The old stadiums are classy…classy in their tradition and history.

Mike: But generally I can choose not to eat at those chain places if I want…and usually I don’t at all. But its good to have that stuff because it, in a way, helps the area. For example, my first place in DC was a ‘developing area’ but totally in the ghetto and 5yrs removed from probably being totally safe neighborhood. People were buying the cheap property and redeveloping, but there was no infrastructure there (no businesses at all) to make you feel safe. My new place has a nearby Whole Foods market and honestly having something like that, as much as I hate to admit, helps the neighborhood develop the metro stops help and so on.

Greg: Sure that’s true. It gives you an indication of the safety, quality of a neighborhood well if there’s a Whole Foods here it must be relatively safe…and really, like Starbucks, although it is a national chain, basically created a market that has allowed local coffee shops to thrive they created the coffee culture.

Mike: I mean, to some, that ‘homogenizes’ the area. But for others, its a great thing. We all want that ‘authentic’ feeling but I’m not so sure that always exists, sadly.

Greg: Well, in my mind there is a huge difference between a giant Home Depot at 119th and I35 than a Whole Foods in the city…not sure why.

Mike: Sometimes I think that ‘gentrification’ isn’t always a bad thing. Its just a key word that people throw around. Having a Starbucks would be the greatest sign of development and stability in some areas… So I get the idea that these large corporations often do take the flavour out of a place in a way to Disney-ize, but I think these days we need a mixture of both this and small businesses. As long as there is a corporate responsibility to not drive out the existing residents and local businesses with soaring rents.

Greg: I definitely agree… it’s good to see both types of businesses succeed side by side.

Mike: As much as I hate Starbucks on some level (their coffee kinda sucks and they will never recreate the community feel of a local store), you have to respect their business practice on another of having a solid product (and sometimes, a lifestyle) that people want. Granted its oft at the expense of these real and comfortable coffee shop community, (I sorely miss Radinas and Westport Coffee House) but they give most people what they want. And somehow starbucks do it without the Walmart and McDonald’s method of bad customer and employee relations.

Greg: Exactly…Chipotle, too doesn’t have that problem.

Mike: AND they are half-owned by McD’s

Greg: I know! Funny.

Mike: We are living in a material world, and we are that material girl.

Greg: Basically, the chains lend safety, reliability, the local places quality, uniqueness, diversity.

Mike: This is probably the most rational things I have seen about this issue. Its totally symbiotic.

Greg: Yeah. In the end, chains are an easy target but they have a lot of good things about them too… This story I think is relevant to the conversation. I personally am waiting in anticipation for the Chipotle to be done outside my office (close to my office) because let’s face it, they make damn good burritos. That I am craving now.

Mike: I was thinking that too actually of going there for lunch…strange…we are quite alike sometimes. Scary.

Greg: I know…funny.

Mike: I guess the marketing has worked on us.

Aryn: Hey guys, just saw this post and wanted to chime in with a few thoughts. First off, Chipotle is no longer owned by McDonald’s, the owner bought his share back. They were only a part of McDonald’s to help with distributions.

But as for my opinion: I think its a good way to rehash interest in a city. I think we are seeing a natural gravitation towards urban living, with all of the suburban kids growing older (like us) and wanting to live somewhere that is not so sterile. This of course may change when we get to the kid making part of our lives, but for now we want to be (at least I do) somewhere that I can walk, use public transportation and have different options than the cookie cutter box stores.

But neighborhoods have a natural sea change, they start out with the poor, the artists can afford , then the richer kids want to move in cause they are trendy, then the richer yuppies move in cause they think they are trendy, then its gets to be too expensive for people. Things settle and either find a balance or decline waiting for the process to happen 50 years down the line. It is quite apparent here.

In Chicago, you have Wicker Park (super trendy) which is way too expensive for the poor artists so they are moving to places like old town (where Sue works) and Pilsen (where the largest Hispanic population in the us lives) and systematically making the places nicer (= more expensive) and driving the “poories” out. But thats natural, I am not sure that there is another way to do it. But I think that stadiums can give that process a kick in the ass, if there is a location that is beyond crappy, it will create that security for business to invest in the area and brighten it up.

So what do you think? Email us at [email protected]

Coming up NEXT WEEK: The last and final hello.column of season one.

This week we take a break from the scheduled topic and weigh in on Fox News host Tony Snow being named new Press Secretary for Bush administration. What does this say about the role of media to objectively cover the news without bias or conflict of interests? Can Fox News even have any pretense of being separate and critical of our govt? Does a White House shake up really affect us, the common 20-something young pro? Read on…

Mike: Here are some selected links I have found… NY TIMES, NPR’s Morning Edition, Tony Snow’s official show website.

Greg: What do you guys know about Snow? According to NY Times article he is quite a bit different from McClellan- more of a showman.

Aryn: Yes .. quite amazing.. That guy Tony Snow is such a jack knob. I have heard his radio show on fox radio, and he seems to be in that (currently popular) group of right wing ‘feelists.’ And when I say ‘feelist’ I mean that in the way that you no longer have to have facts to support things, you only have to feel that it is truth and it will be. Basically exactly what Stephen Colbert makes fun of on his show. But I really think this is a terrible statement on the current state of our government, I am SURE that Mr. Snow will DEFINITELY give a fair and balanced view of our current White House happenings. Politics play way too much in the happenings of any politician, it seems that they are more worried about getting reelected than taking chances to actually solve some problems… or at least make movements towards solving those problems.

Mike: The thing is, he is the PERFECT candidate for this job as he was a speech writer for Bush I and his biased right wing news delivery is ideal to speak from on high of the daily procedures and policies and responses of the govt. A couple things to note: First, Bush is not up for reelection, nor is Cheney intending to run for Pres in 2008, so I believe this shakeup is really to set the agenda for the remainder of the current term and establish agendas for the Republican Party. Snow is essential there to act as a persuasive voice to the media and also has been given ‘walk-in privileges’ and an important role in ‘strategic thinking,’ as reported by NY Times article.

Second, They are looking to freshen up the relationship between public and the administration and this guy obviously comes with his own built in audience of fans and supporters. I just find that there is a conflict of interests for FOX NEWS as a legitimate news source. Not that this a new notion, but it establishes a further connection that is irresponsible to objectivity. Again, nothing new, but flagrantly blatant.

Also to note as told by NPR blog:

The man is Tony Snow, currently a Fox News commentator and amateur rock musician in a band called Beats Workin’. Snow is a former speech writer for Bush the elder and a former editorial writer for the Detroit News. And, in his most important “former,” Snow was once a commentator for Morning Edition.

I gotta hear this band! Here are two bands by that name, both of which do not include Tony Snow. Here is the actual band…

Aryn: BOO ya! I can relate to rock stars. And I like spinsters. It should make for a more entertaining press conferences, and maybe even boost some of the ratings on CSPAN. Have you heard any of his older morning edition shows? Are those available online? we should find some clips of his radio programs, and make a little link list to point to some of his thoughts.

Mike: After scouring the NPR archives for his contributions, I found that others at NPR were up to the same thing. Here are a few choice cuts of Snow reporting on “Kafkaesque” U.S. tax code, the American health care system, partisan politics and NAFTA. What is interesting to hear is old NPR stories about issues from the past Clinton Administration policies. A nice little time capsule. Also interesting to note is last week’s blog host on NPR, Mara Liasson, correspondent for the Washington Desk, is also a frequent commentator on FOX NEWS…coincidence? It’s all happening!

Greg: I think I need to watch this guy on TV- his NPR clips really weren’t that bad. I mean, he sounds like a partisan hack like the rest of them, but not as bad as say O’Reilly or Tucker Carlson perhaps??? When you think about it, it’s kind of a pointless job. Basically he’ll a punching bag for David Gregory to flex his ego with… good for political theater I suppose.

Mike: It’s all theatre! The point of the job is to speak for the administration. It puts him in the position, like any other press secretary to get the brunt of the shit storm when any bad news is reported. Scott McClellan oft had very little to say when he had the position and from what people say, he had little access beyond what they told him. It seems Snow might be more of a shaper of their media image. Tough gig…but then if George Stephanopoulos can do it, anyone can. In two years Snow will be on to another job much like McClellan, Ari Fleisher and the others before them. Not sure any of this really matters to change the way the administration performs.

So what do you think? Email us at [email protected]

Coming up NEXT WEEK: We REALLY will take a look at Urban Redevelopment!

This week Mike and Greg and Aryn chat about the purpose of critics of art and media. Why do we need them? Why do they sometimes come off as angry? Read on as we review the reviewers…

Mike: Okay, so Aryn inspired me to try something for next week’s Hello.Column… I read this review and was amazed how bad of a review they gave it. It seems a general trend in rock critics is the ‘impress me now’ mentality…that is, they are always unimpressed and a bit cynical toward many a records, and oft they change their tone later on when its deemed a classic.

Now its all subjective, so why would someone take the time to write a bad review of a band they already know they dont like? Why do we write reviews in the first place? Its a very strange practice and who is it really serving? Our own tastes? Or the consumer? I find its much harder to write a good review than rant on and on about all the bad things we find. It’s easy to find negatives, but what are the positives.

First: look at the above review. What are your thoughts? Second: relisten to album. Third: what do you think? Here are some other tidbits and links of reviews.

Greg: Good call. A similar discussion was on Talk of the Nation a couple weeks ago concerning movie critics. It evolves into a general discussion on the purpose of criticism, check it out, really good.

Mike: Good call… I knew I had heard a discussion similar recently… So what do we think the point of criticism is, first of all…? Let’s start there.

Aryn: Good call.. (enter laugh track) Reviews are an interesting beast. Theoretically I believe that they exist to assist the consumer to whiddle down their infinite choices to something that they will enjoy. We all have reviews that we read, some we heed, some not so much. It doesnt even have to be a good review to grab someones interest. I do enjoy seeing/hearing something simply riding on the fact that it was regarded as trash by critics.

But it does seem a little self-defeating to review something with a heavy pre-bias, but Its possible that this cannot be avoided. You can take the “sophmore slump” phenomenon that seems to curse new bands. Their first record is heralded as the “saviours of rock” , and then they have to go back to the studio and do it all over again, but this time with a million more eyes/ears watching/listening. It is almost impossible to have an opinion on something without referencing the previous works of an artist, or just the previous things that you have listened to.

Greg: My first thought is that critics are exposed to a large volume of the particular form (movies, music, books, etc), which gives them the unique perspective to make knowledgeable judgements. So critics are an easy way to gain perspective.

Mike: Here is another example of negative reviewing by coming in w\ pre-meditative ideas and expectations.

I think its hard to go into a review or listening to a record or seeing a film or reading a book these days without having a preconception of what you want it to be like. Our opinions are now clouded and based on our past experiences and expectations of other music (or whatever media\art reviewed) but also we are inundated w\ other people’s opinions on the internet, television, radio, magazines and any other niche medium. We are also spoiled by others opinions before we even get to make our own judgements.

Are we willing to even try to give something a second chance? Do we ‘waffle’ when we realize that EVERYONE else likes it. I have often tried to force myself to like a piece of music that everyone is going nuts over when I just dont dig it. I wonder, like I did with the Artic Monkeys’ press orgy, if I am missing something.

So is a critic looking out for us, the consumer, who spends hard earned cash on this stuff? Or are they there to be the judge and jury on all things art for a greater good? It’s so subjective that there are people I trust and others I don’t. I know politically I will ALWAYS disagree w\ a Bill O’Reiley type, while with the Daily Show-mentality, I will seemingly always agree with. so are critics of art, the ones who get to set the bar of polar extremes…love it or hate it, but decide based on their review? It seems people lack perspective and have short term memory loss when it comes to reviewing particular things… ‘the GREATEST EVER’… ‘WORST EVER’… ‘weak’… ‘uninspired compared to the last GEM’ etc etc…

Aryn: That’s why I only listen to classical music out of my Parlophone coin-operated phonograph. Let those rock critic review this music. They can’t! Its already been deemed “classic”.

Mike: So if a certain album is considered a classic, how hard is it to approach listening to the followup without that tainting your expectations?

Aryn: I think its impossible.. but the good ones will shine through, regardless.

Mike: In the Flaming Lips case they are known for having a really great album followed by one that is not as good. Are people expecting too much for having every album blow them away? I thought the Soft Bulletin was good, but not as good as Yoshimi which is quite the opposite of many people’s opinions. In turn I equally like the new album but for different reasons.

As a consumer\critic I think we are looking to bands to recreate the exact thing we love about the band, but then when they do its lambasted as well. Its like saying ‘take a leap, but not too far or I will feel uneasy.’ Look at Kid A compared to OK Computer…to me its a great follow up and I think maybe even better than the former…but thats not what most think. The majority reaction said Kid A was a failure and too much of a departure. It made us feel uneasy because it wasnt like the others. But isn’t that what we want?

Aryn: We want to be entertained. Which usually means that we want something familiar, but still unexpected. As musicians and artists age and get better and more used to what they are doing, their output will change and grow. In many ways I am glad that Kid A was a change from OK Computer, both being fantastic albums, but you can hear the shift in mentality between the two records, so that by the time their latest came out (Hail to the Thief) you can get a great mixture of the two sounds.

Mike: Aren’t you glad that Thom Yorke evolved from this… to this? I am. We have to allow for musicians to take a chance to reinvent and follow up. It bothers me when critics do not understand that not every effort attempts to be a classic. Sometimes that status is thrust upon it unfairly. Plus who is to say what is the aspect that makes a band so great. I guess this is where the critic comes in w\ some perspective of listening SO much.

But I have found that I often get to the point where I hear so much that i dont want to listen anymore…it gets watered down. I hear ever tiny influence and chord change and lyric and arrangement in such detail that its hard for me to understand why critics get so worked up about some groups good or bad.

Does having too much perspective allow us to lose our ability to just listen? I would love to go back and rewatch starwars or hear Abbey Road for the first time and see what I think.

Aryn: Does our perspective allow us to lose our ability to just listen? I say no. It enhances it. Without having a good ear for whatever it is you are listening to you lose a lot from the music. Having that perspective allows you to hear the little jokes, and subleties of the recording. I still can go back and listen to Abbey Road and enjoy the hell out of it because it IS one of those bad ass albums.

Or it could be changing the way that you listen to something freshens the response from it. I had always listened to it on CD form , and when I finally got a record player and played it on vinyl I finally understood the way that it was meant to be listened to. The build right before the end of the first side is fantastic, and the way that it forces you to stop and flip the record to hear the pleasant “morning after madness ” sound of side B… Truly amazing.

Greg: Come to think of it, I’ve never heard Abbey Road on vinyl. Usually I think people who praise the subtle superiority of vinyl are full of shit, but what you’re describing sounds cool… What song ends the first side?

I think in the end, critics are neither good nor bad. And perspective, too, is a double edged sword. I think just because a critic doesn’t like something doesn’t mean it’s bad… When dealing with criticism it’s easy to confuse originality with quality. The two are totally seperate in my view. Quality is relative to each individual person. Originality is historical and can be analyzed. Pizza Hut’s meat lovers pan pizza is freaking delicious in my mind. But it’s unoriginal cuisine and a lot of people would find it disgusting. Like Aryn said, you sometimes make it a point to watch the movies that critics hate.

Aryn: Ooh you must listen to it.. It was originally made (as all of those old records were) to be released on vinyl, which added the extra time factor for each side’s length. The first side ends with ‘I Want You (She’s So Heavy)’ and the second side begins with ‘Here Comes the Sun.’ This little factor, which may sound trivial, is trully lost when it is all put together in one coninuous stream on a compact disc, but can be used beautifully if put into the right hands.

Mike: ‘I Want You (She’s So Heavy)’ ends side A of Abbey Road… it builds with that repeated guitar riff and it builds and builds and then suddenly cuts off. Flip side and ‘Here Comes the Sun’ plays… amazing. Vinyl is a great way for some of those records to hear great album programing… Some of my favourite albums have that break somewhere…even many of the albums that were never really released on vinyl originally have that sense of break…its like the common story arc of intro, climax, resolution …and on two sides you can have that twice. Listen to ok computer. Or Wilco’s Yankee Hotel Foxtrot… its there.

Greg: I know I know. It’s easy to overdue the Radiohead transition music-intellect bullshit discussion. We’ve all had it a million times…. but for your viewing pleasure, more before and after: Before and After

Mike: Very true about overdoing Radiohead conversation. But I still love the song ‘Creep’… Here’s an anecdote: When I was in 6th or 7th grade I bought Pablo Honey for that song and just listened all the time. But then I forgot about that band, and sold that disc along with about seventy other 90s alt rock trash cds like Candlebox and Bush… I missed the Bends completely back then… until someone told me to listen to OK Computer(b\c I recomended Beck’s Mutations)… I was floored. This band got good all of a sudden. Really good. end flashback.

Greg: Where on OK Computer?

Mike: To me I hear the break occuring (at least in my own listening) after ‘Fitter Happier’… I know Aryn just bought it on vinyl and I assume its two records…so what is the last song on side B? That would be where the break would be i think.

Aryn: It is after side B on the two records. Last song is ‘Karma Police’ and side C starts with ‘Electioneering.’ Thats your classic story arc album sequencing.

Mike: I think my anger at bad reviewers has subsided.

So what did you think? Email us at [email protected]

Coming up NEXT WEEK: Mike & Greg once again attempt to speculate about 2008 Presidential election and talk politik.

This week Mike and Greg and Aryn chat about the Google behemouth… Are they the innovators we want them to be, or a collage of bad hype in the eyes of the US Govt?… All this plus a few other random bits!!!

Mike: Much has been reported, speculated, analyzed and compiled about Google recently. Especially in terms of their compliance in internet censorship with China and its refusal to hand over information to the US. Not sure what to make of it myself besides just soak it in and learn about intellectual property, Patriot Act information gathering, rights to privacy, ethics, blah blah.

Should Google agree to censor the information we or China have access to? Should the government have access to the information we seek on the internet (even if it might help people learn how to rid us of child pornography?) What middle ground can be found?

What does everyone else think? Email us at [email protected] to give answers… we will post people’s opinions soonish.

Some more related links: NPR NY TIMES

Greg: Check it- chatting inside Gmail. Just another reminder that Google will soon be ruling the world.

Mike: I’m loving this though… seems to cut out the middleman of AOL or the others… I use chat with excitement. Its how we all are able to stay in touch. I wish other people would embrace this stuff…especially other friends who seem to disappear. It makes periodical phone conversations less awkward. But yes, Google is taking over the world. One online application at a time.

Greg: Oh without a doubt- I will be fully embracing it. Google has been getting some negative press lately, but I think they’re the most innovative company around these days- and we live in an innovate or die sort of world. A company is only as good as it’s most recent innovation. Or lack thereof.

Mike: The bad press is mostly due to the lack or compliance with the US about Patriot Act investigations. I can agree with their decision for privacy rights for users. I dont really fear that there is some alterior motive for them to withhold acess information and control the universe. People are more skeptical about a forward thinking innovative company than they are about their own government who has far more a controlling influence on info. I’m suprised no one has made that clear.

Greg: I was impressed that they decided not to comply with the government’s request. Every couple of weeks I come across an article about various companies starting to worry about google- AOL is probably worried about Google chat. There’s some talk of google developing an operating system. and the king of all Google rumors has to do with developing a free nation wide wireless high speed network. I guess they’ve been buying up fiber optic pipelines.

The thing I really love about Google is that once a week they have their employees spend the entire day working on a personal project of their choice… fleshing out new ideas and the like. I think that’s how they come up with a lot of these great ideas.

By the way, Thanks for adding me on to your discussion about My Morning Jacket… Good topic because I’ve been thinking quite a bit about them lately. Seems like people love them or hate them.

Did you hear David Sedaris on Morning Edition? As usual, hilarious.

Mike: Its on my queue of things to listen to… I’ve been hooked on the Ricky Gervais podcast these days and I have to test some NPR podcasts…it’s about fashion week right?

I think Microsoft is definitly scared of google (and mozilla) and have changed their business emphasis for development. I see companies like Google or Apple or Pixar (before the Disney buyout) or Toyota and wonder why other companies never took the effort to go that extra mile for design and highly integrated features that are actually useful. They just seem to get it while Ford still has to layoff hundreds of thousands of people and close factories because their stupid oil guzzling trucks cost too damn much.

So now it looks like Google has now joined the other K Streeters by lobbying in Washington. Thoughts?

Greg: Hmmm. I’d like to know more about what they’ll be lobbying for. If they are doing this to try to counter some of the power of the telecom giants, as the article briefly says, then this has potential to be a good thing. They will probably need help from lobbyists when they roll out free nation wide wireless internet and Time Warner freaks out :) On the other hand- I halfway feel like we’re witnessing the indie band who’s selling out. Clap Your Hands Say Yeah got too much press too fast. Same goes for Arctic Monkeys. Google is a media darling and I see about a half dozen google articles every day with the latest rumor, stock info, dealings with China, etc. In the end, it’s a business, with the priority of making money… more money.

Aryn: I wonder when Google will have officially turned evil… as large companies tend to do.

Mike: Some people already think they have. For example the initial non-compliance with information sharing.

Aryn: And with the china stuff.

Mike: With the new ideas of online applications to rival Microsoft Office, it looks like online harddrives are coming soon. This is a great innovation that will tie people less to a particular compy but a just any compy w\ internet access…if there was ONLY a place to where this so called interweb would be in the airwaves without all those wires…almost like a WIRELESS society… and for free… make is so google!

Aryn: Is that a quote from somewhere?

Mike: It’s all from my rotten brain.

So what did you think? Email us at [email protected]

Coming up NEXT WEEK: Mike & Greg speculate about 2008 Presidential election and politik.