Sunday, June 3, 2012


The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Wedding Reception Music

As much attention as is given to weddings, most people (and by people, I probably mean men) can agree that the more vital, differentiated part of the wedding process is the wedding reception.  I’ve been to weddings ranging from devoutly religious to ardently secular to full-blown military galas, and with a few small little exceptions, they’re all pretty much the same thing.  There are, however, substantive differences between a good and a bad wedding reception.

While I’ve been to several weddings, I have been to MANY more wedding receptions.  A year plus of working at a banquet hall in high school does that sort of thing.  And most of the things are fairly beyond the control of whomever is organizing the reception—the décor of the reception hall, the quality of the food served, et al can only be controlled as far as making choices of where to go.  You make a choice, you reserve a location, and then you hope for the best of luck.  But with the quality of songs played, it is more in the control of the customer.  Every DJ I’ve ever met, and I’ve likely met more than you, would rather get a ton of requests of songs they don’t even particularly like rather than playing a bunch of obscure songs that won’t make people happy.

Now, not every wedding party is the same.  Some weddings come from very traditional families and they’d rather have a jazz trio play Glenn Miller style tunes than danceable songs.  But for a majority, and this has applied across the board, dance music is the way to make people excited.  It presents the bride and groom a wondrous opportunity to see their family and friends act like complete buffoons.  But the joy really depends on what songs are being played.  Some songs are exceedingly conducive to bringing down the house—some aren’t.  As an expert in the field, I have decided to analyze forty-two (given the title of this, I need not explain why I decided on forty-two) popular reception songs and the pros and cons associated with them.

Party Rock Anthem—LMFAO: On the plus side, it’s a really popular song that’s catchier and has the kind of fun, mindless vibe that one would aspire to hear under the circumstances.  However, as a dance song, it’s kind of questionable.  Not a bad choice for young people but it’s kind of hard to imagine grandma hitting the dance floor and shuffling.
I Gotta Feeling—Black Eyed Peas: Lyrically, it’s obviously kind of what you’re going for.  It’s happy and optimistic.  The part where you yell “Mazel tov”, for the record, is prohibited as Jewish weddings because, just, on principle.  The biggest con is that musically, it’s kind of a depressing song.  Not that it’s a bad song (even though it absolutely is)—just that the song is really only useful for middle aged women to work out to.  Granted that’s kind of what a wedding reception generally is, but still, I wouldn’t advise it.
Don’t Stop Believin—Journey: I maintain that people who claim to like Journey are just trolling me.  Like, I’ll get worn down and be like “Okay!  Okay!  Wheel in the Sky is a good song!” and then everyone I know will humiliate me by admitting that they knew all along that Journey blows and that they wanted to get me to subscribe to their group think.  The sole reason this works from a wedding perspective is as a sing-along, in which case there are much more danceable (not to mention good) songs to which everyone knows all the lyrics.
You Shook Me All Night Long—AC/DC: This one is a necessary staple of the American wedding reception.  It’s semi-dirty, but not the total filth-fest of Pour Some Sugar On Me.  It’s a song that every teenager in America knows, yet it’s also 32 years old and thus if you’re under sixty, you are well aware of this song.  There’s no real “dance” to it, but it gets people to the floor.  The one con is that people often looked bewildered and confused when the guitar solo hits—but anyone who doesn’t respond by doing an Angus Young-style duck walk is out of their mind anyway.
Just Dance—Lady Gaga: Lady Gaga is one of those artists where I “kind of” get it.  I’ve never voluntarily listened to a Gaga song, but people like her music and dancing to it.  It’s pop fluff but it’s a wedding—are you supposed to play Velvet Underground or something?  While your ability to get people over the age of 30 to dance (unless they’re trying to just look cool for the young’ns), it’s a worthy addition to the playlist.
Livin On a Prayer—Bon Jovi: Basically, this song is the same as Don’t Stop Believin.  It’s a slightly better song with slightly worse singability.  I’d still pass.
Sweet Caroline—Neil Diamond: Is this a good song?  It really depends who you ask.  I’d say no.  Is it a danceable song?  No.  These first two criteria probably imply this is an absolute no, but it depends to an extent on who the clientele are.  The ONLY reason that this is an acceptable wedding song, unless the bride is named Caroline, is the chorus.  “Sweet Caroline…BUM BUM BUM,” the drunken crowd may yell.  This song’s viability as a wedding song is entirely contingent upon the openness of the bar/the rowdiness of the patrons.
Cupid Shuffle—Cupid: Is this a GOOD song?  Not especially.  It is, however, one of the easiest dance songs in the history of the universe.  It’s up there with Electric Slide though it’s a better song.  It belongs on a reception playlist.
Pour Some Sugar On Me—Def Leppard: Aforementioned as a nice, dumb 80s rock song along the lines of AC/DC, this song is equally a wedding staple.  It’s a worse song and although it gets played a lot, it doesn’t especially bring people to the floor.  Some people, in fact, get really annoyed by it.  I’m not too fond of this one for weddings, personally.
Love Shack—B52s: Quite simply, this is one of the most fun songs in history.  People gravitate towards the dance floor and belt songs out.  I don’t care if all the dancing is awkward, generic whitepeople meddling—it’s a top wedding song for sure.
Cha Cha Slide—DJ Casper: To me, you only need one group dance song per reception.  If you have to choose between this or Cupid Shuffle, I’d opt Cupid Shuffle.  Cha Cha Slide jumped the shark when Busch Stadium would play the “Everybody clap your hands” part before every tense moment of the World Series, anyway.
Dancing Queen—ABBA: Though ostensibly a dance song, this song never really is all that efficient in getting people to dance.  It doesn’t especially have rhythm—it’s just another example of standard pop fare that the band became known for.
Hey Ya—Outkast: Quite simply, this is a really, really depressing song.  Have you ever bothered to listen to the lyrics?  It’s not a love song.  With that said, because the “Shake it like a Polaroid picture” bit makes people move awkwardly, it sort of works.  Sort of.
Yeah—Usher: Its stock as a reception song has declined in the years since I stopped working receptions, but it remains a modern staple.  And while people over a certain age can’t really sing the full complement of lyrics efficiently, they can at least sing the title.  And that’s a plus.
Brown Eyed Girl—Van Morrison: People like this song plenty (though I can’t say I get it), but its dance potential is mediocre.  To me, if you’re going to opt for a Van Morrison song, you should go Moondance.  It’s a better, jazzier song that at works as a slow dance.
We Are Family—Sister Sledge: On the plus side, this is a song everybody knows.  It also tends to do well at getting people to come out and kind of dance.  However, it’s also a gigantic cliché.  It’s not the most original choice but I guess it kind of works.
Baby Got Back—Sir Mix a Lot: If you’re 40 or younger, you probably know pretty close to every word of this song.  If you don’t know the song, it would probably just kind of confuse the hell out of you, but you’re probably pretty confused by this point anyway.  It’s a great song if you wouldn’t be embarrassed for your grandmother to hear this song.
Single Ladies—Beyonce: Regrettably, this song completely blows.  It’s an unfortunate fact which goes underreported, that Beyonce is not good and that her music is generic pop-R&B crap.  But its video basically forever cemented that the song has a dance that everybody knows.  It’s also a day entirely about, well, putting a ring on it.  So unless you just absolutely loathe this song, it’s a go.
Friends in Low Places—Garth Brooks: This song really depends on who is getting married.  If this marriage is 1. Between cousins; 2. In a state which banned slavery in the 20th century; or 3. Involving a man with a mustache; then play it.  If not, it’s probably going to annoy the hell out of enough people that it’s not going to do too much for you.
Shout—The Isley Brothers: Everybody, regardless of age, dances to this song.  It’s really easy and even if you somehow didn’t know how to dance to it, it would take you a verse and a chorus and you’d know for life.  An absolute must.
Old Time Rock and Roll—Bob Seger: My animosity towards Bob Seger has been well documented, but to me, this is a low point of Bob Seger’s sellout phase.  This song is played at so many weddings that nobody will really question you if you do.  But why bother?
Tik Tok—Kesha: As with many, the appeal of this song depends on the clientele you’re hoping to cater to.  This one may have the youngest target audience ever—25 or younger, perhaps.  The thing is, younger people will be more receptive to dancing to old songs than vice versa, so this may be worth leaving at the cutting floor.
Celebration—Kool and the Gang: Am I the only person who get bummed out by this song?  This song has never made me want to celebrate.  And in spite of its era and what you might assume, it doesn’t especially work as a dance song.  I’d pass.  I may be alone.
Brick House—Commodores: This, along with Play That Funky Music, is the gold standard of pseudo-funk that people really tend to love in wedding receptions.  People will dance and people will be merry.  You really can’t ask anything more than this.
Let’s Get It Started—Black Eyed Peas: Unlike the horrible I Gotta Feeling, this one gets people moving.  It’s really more of a jump up and down kind of moving, but that’s something.  It’s motion.
Forget You—Cee Lo: Fuck censorship.  I don’t fucking give a shit if the fucking corporate assholes who made Cee Lo record this piece of shit re-record thought they knew what they were fucking doing.  Either you play the uncensored version and offend grandma or you play censored and sell your soul.
YMCA—Village People: Dance people know, check.  Catchy song, check.  I mean, duh.
Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy—Big and Rich: Yes, it’s a redneck song, but this one amuses me and seems to amuse many other people of questionable literacy.  The song makes people sway to some such degree, and drunk women seem to enjoy yelling the song’s title.  Which is fun.
Come On Eileen—Dexys Midnight Runners: Girl name songs are always a tenuous area.  I mean, what if the guy dated a girl named Eileen?  But if not, one thing I like about this song as a reception song is that, for a semi-danceable song, it’s different.  It’s folky and not funky.  Diversity is good here.
Stayin Alive—Bee Gees: Few songs are more synonymous with dancing.  Since nobody listens to the lyrics of this pretty goddamned depressing song (off the soundtrack of a secretly depressing movie), it’s gold.
Cotton Eye Joe—Rednex: Admittedly, I don’t get it.  But in terms of songs that get masses and masses of people to dance around like imbeciles, this song is the gold standard.  Receptions are all about getting people to act en masse.  This song is a fantastic way.
Jump Around—House Of Pain: This may be the easiest dancing song ever.  You literally just jump a lot.  It’s not tricky.  Once people have had a few too many, you need the most basic possible dance maneuvers.  This is the song for that.
Bust a Move—Young MC: There are few things that white people like to do more than feel like they’re cool by singing black songs.  I can’t say with a straight face I’ve ever seen this danced well.  But danced?  Oh my yes.
Electric Slide—Marcia Griffiths: We’ve had enough slides.  Uncle!
Hot in Herre—Nelly: This song ONLY works in St. Louis, because only in St. Louis will old people embrace this song.  It sort of depends on the religiousness of your party but this is a good one to get people riled up.
Evacuate the Dance Floor—Cascada: White people LOVE this shit, man.  It’s the kind of song that people bump and grind to ironically.  As in you can do it with relatives nearby and it’s not really that weird.
Macarena—Los Del Rio: It’s easy if you’re, like, slightly younger than I am to remember this, but this may have been the single biggest song of my lifetime.  Like, this shit was EVERYWHERE.  And it was such a simply dance that everyone remembers it.  Stupid?  Yes.  But memorable.
White Wedding—Billy Idol: Okay, it’s not a dance song.  And it’s not exactly a glowing standpoint towards weddings.  No.  Never.  Under no circumstances is this a good idea.
Get Low—Lil Jon: It really does depend on the liberalism of your relatives.  Would I feel comfortable yelling “From the window, to the walls, to the sweat running down my balls” around my family?  Um, kind of.  Not uncomfortable.  But some people wouldn’t feel so assured there.  Approach this song with caution, but for some people, it really excites them.
Mony Mony—Billy Idol: THIS is a preferred Billy Idol song.  It’s sort of a dance song and it allows drunken morons to yell the made up lyrics during it.
It’s Tricky—Run DMC: This has been dangerously underutilized at wedding receptions.  Not never used, but not used enough.  It’s one of those rockish old school rap songs that people love to sing along to.  And you can swing about a little bit.  Thumbs up.
Paper Planes—MIA: This song only has one reason to ever be played: So jagoffs like myself can mock shooting guns in the air during the chorus.  This is a warning to the world.  People like me will do this stupid move.  You must brace for that sort of thing.

The Best Fans in Baseball*



On Friday night, Johan Santana pitched the first no-hitter in the long history of the New York Mets.  In the top of the sixth inning, Cardinals outfielder and former Met Carlos Beltran drove a ball along the left field line which was called a foul ball.  It appeared to be a fair ball, which would have meant that Santana would not have thrown a no-hitter.

Was Carlos Beltran’s hit actually a fair ball?  Yes.  Should, in turn, Johan Santana have pitched a no-hitter?  No.  Hence, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran the headline “No-Hitter*” on Saturday’s edition.  But the more important questions should be: Had Beltran’s hit been properly called fair, would the Cardinals have scored a run?  Maybe.  Would it have made the difference between the eventual 8-0 Cardinals loss and a potential win?  Absolutely not.  So why the bitterness?

It would require insane delusion to believe that this blown call (and, again, I’m not disputing that the call was incorrect) meant the Cardinals would have somehow been spurred on to victory.  I mean, they didn’t score any more runs, much less get another hit, and the offense didn’t put up any runs the next day either (Note: The June 3, 2012 game has yet to be played, and thus if the Cardinals get no-hit again tonight, this is why I haven’t made mention of it.  I mean, it seems plausible).  So what exactly is the problem?  This isn’t the Premier League—run differential or hit differential doesn’t matter in any substantive way.  Say the Cardinals score 3 runs (this is a gigantic stretch, but just to be generous) as a result of Beltran being ruled fair—this means they lost 8-3.  It’s still a loss, the Cardinals are still at risk of getting swept tonight, so who cares?

Is it really bitterness towards the Mets?  The Cardinals and Mets formerly had a bit of a divisional rivalry, but the last year in which the Cardinals and Mets finished 1-2 in the same division (in either order) was 1987. You really couldn’t have gotten too engulfed in the whole pondscum Mets antagonism unless you were at least 12 at the time.  Which means that today, you’re 37 years old.  A majority of the Cardinals fans I know are younger than this, yet there is still anger about the no-hitter being called.

The reason that Cardinals fans are so turned off isn’t substantial; it’s pride-based.  It’s the notion that getting no-hit isn’t supposed to happen to the Cardinals.  The notion that we’re better than this.  Truthfully, while a poor hitting team is obviously more likely to get no-hit than a good hitting team, it doesn’t inhibit a team long-term any more than a seven run output would have.  The 2003 Yankees were the victims of arguably the most embarrassing no-hitter of all-time, one in which six pitchers (including such luminaries as Pete Munro and Kirk Saarloos), yet this didn’t stop them from going to the World Series.  Under the assumption that being no-hit is pure luck, the odds that a no-hit team would go on to play in the World Series is one in fifteen.  The 2003 Yankees, the most recent team to be no-hit and eventually go on to a World Series appearance, is the 19th most recent no-no.  So, whatever.

More important that the shame of being no-hit is what a no-hitter represents—general inferiority.  As much as people don’t want to admit it, St. Louis has an inferiority complex.  Now, don’t get me wrong—there are wonderful things about St. Louis.  But in terms of cultural or economical power, it can’t be compared to Chicago.  Hell, even though almost every other city in the country has a huge edge over Chicago when it comes to not being a crime-addled slum, St. Louis can’t even boast that.  Hence the Cardinals-Cubs rivalry.  Contrary to all logic, the dominant team’s fans seem to revile the inferior team more than the latter’s fans.  It’s because if you’re from the north side of Chicago, you’re from one of the most culturally dynamic epicenters of the world.  If you’re from Lakeview, your life is pretty stereotypically idyllic.  Even if you’re a hardcore Cubs fan, you don’t really NEED your team to do well.  You’ll move on.  Cardinals fans NEED the Cardinals to do well.  Luckily, they generally do.  If you’re reading this and aren’t from St. Louis, especially if you’re a Cardinals fan, you would be amazed the differences in downtown St. Louis between when there’s a game going on and when there isn’t.  Day and night in terms of cultural vibrancy.

St. Louis isn’t alone in this respect.  There’s a reason the best fans in football are Green Bay Packers fans.  Because, to a much greater extent than St. Louis, Green Bay ONLY has its successful sports team going for it.  In the NBA playoffs right now, Oklahoma City is having the sort of energy at its games than the Sacramento Kings had about a decade ago.  It’s a mid-sized town without much else to do getting excited.  The same thing happens in St. Louis.  St. Louis isn’t a major city.  It’s neither a minor city nor a small town nor completely irrelevant, but there are probably about 10-15 cities in the United States which could be considered “major.”  St. Louis isn’t one of them.

Cardinals fans shouldn’t be too upset about this.  At least our city’s one beacon is successful.  At least we aren’t Cleveland.  And even after being no-hit, the Cardinals are still a top-tier Major League Baseball franchise.  It’s fine.  Relax.  Congrats to Johan Santana on the no-hitter.  You’ve tied Bud Smith for career no-hitters.  May your legacy not be this one game—your two Cy Youngs should help.  For if the Mets or Cardinals go on to win the World Series this year, its respective fan bases will not and should not care whatsoever about one measly game in June.  Please, Cardinal nation—eschew the asterisk.  Please move on.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

10 Great Rock Albums (Nearly) Ruined By One Of Its Biggest Tracks


Not a list, per se.  More just an arrangement of ten albums which are acclaimed, either by critics or me, which are quite good but are weighed down immensely by one of its better known tracks, which often are a complete pile of shit.  Here's ten classics which would be better without a certain song.

The Beatles--The Beatles (The White Album): Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da.  Three songs from this album made their later career double-disc anthology.  Back in the USSR and While My Guitar Gently Weeps were correctly included.  What was third?  Blackbird?  Helter Skelter?  Or Paul McCartney's retarded tribute to how la la la life goes on.  Or something.

Bruce Springsteen--Born in the USA: Dancing in the Dark.  Seeing as this particular album had 28 commercial singles (citation needed), it seems borderline unfair to call a single one of its biggest track, but, well, it was the first single and it's his biggest chart hit and it had that video with Courteney Cox that for some reason Americans are expected to give a shit about existing.  While some of the singles of this album are quite average (No Surrender), only Dancing in the Dark completely blows.  But at least The Boss got to respond to the four fans out there who really got into Darkness on the Edge of Town but didn't think it was synthy enough.

The Cars--The Cars: My Best Friend's Girl.  This is an album that can't be considered underrated since most rock fans seem aware of its existence and its songs are quite well known, but I don't think a lot of people realize just how GREAT of an album this is.  The whole thing sounds like a greatest hits album, though this is unquestionably the worst of the hits.  I'm not entirely sure if it's the poor attempt to sound like Queen on vocal harmonies, the completely and totally forgettable instrumentation, or the stupid fucking Dane Cook movie, but this song just does not do it for me.

The Doors--The Doors: The End.  The Doors are so goddamned late-sixties.  About 60% of their songs are good and about 40% are pretentious bullshit.  Most of their debut is good.  Then comes the nearly twelve minute opus which existed (according to my theories) so that Marlon Brando had a song to die to.  I suspected and feared that once I hit college I'd start liking this song.  Luckily I was spared.

Led Zeppelin--Led Zeppelin IV: Stairway to Heaven.  LZ4, in my opinion, is in the tier of albums slightly below their first two and Houses of the Holy.  And it's because those songs didn't have a pile of shit like Stairway to Heaven to bog it down.  Oh, you say it's a popular song?  Is it popular because it's good or is it popular because douchebag high schoolers who are getting into guitar think learning how to play Stairway will make them deep?  Please, for the love of God, if you want an epic Zeppelin IV track, there's a reason He gave you When The Levee Breaks.

Lynyrd Skynyrd--Second Helping: Sweet Home Alabama.  No, seriously, this album is a quite eclectic mix of blues (The Ballad of Curtis Loew), hard rock (The Needle and the Spoon), and whatever else you want in between.  This patronizing ode to the sweet home of Not Lynyrd Skynyrd (from Jacksonville) became the defining track of the album though.  Ugh.

Nirvana--Nevermind: In Bloom.  Every other song on this album has something the others don't.  Teen Spirit has the fun Pixies vibe, Come As You Are has the seems-like-they're-intellectual-if-you-don't-actually-listen lyrics, Lithium has the guitar sound.  In Bloom has all of these things but worse than the other song.  In Bloom brings nothing to the table.  Cool video, though.

Oasis--What's the Story Morning Glory?: Don't Look Back in Anger.  This was the point where Noel Gallagher, being the arrogant dickhead that he is, decided, "You know how I have one of the best frontmen ever in my band/family?  Fuck him.  I'm going to, with my mediocre-at-best voice, start singing songs that Liam should clearly be singing.  And not even just doing Force of Nature or Falling Down or kind of mid-range songs that I might be better at, but songs which I clearly have no goddamned business singing.  Oh, and I'll also steal Imagine with absolutely no subtlety and when people point it out, I'll say it was an homage and get away with it."  That wanker.

Prince--Purple Rain: I Would Die 4 U: When Doves Cry--startlingly original.  Let's Go Crazy--rock powerhouse.  Purple Rain--an epic ballad.  And yet the single which followed in these footsteps was the most generic, eighties thing ever.  Mr. Nelson, you can do better than this.

Tom Petty--Full Moon Fever: Free Fallin.  Tom Petty made a questionable decision in launching a solo career (apparently most people didn't think he had been in the midst of one for the last dozen years), but the album turned out generally well.  Except this.  The reason people love Tom Petty is because he eschews boring ballads and makes songs like Refugee and The Waiting.  Not because he makes cheesy pop songs with videos that have prominent parts featuring skateboarders.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

The Rightful NL All-Star Lineup (With Rebuttals from a Cardinal Nation Rep)


Nearly two months into the season, it becomes worth mentioning what players deserve to be NL starters this year.  And here's my list.  I'm basing my list exclusively, without exception, on who leads in Wins Above Replacement.  With that said, I found a St. Louis Cardinals homer extraordinaire who hopes to prove why I am incorrect in my assertions.

Catcher: A.J. Ellis of the Dodgers is OPSing over .900 and is playing Gold Glove caliber defense, almost out of nowhere.  Carlos Ruiz is having a career year but it's hard to argue with Ellis right now.

The Fan: Clayton Kershaw and Roy Halladay are making Ellis and Ruiz look good.  But Yadi *makes* the Cardinals pitchers.  Even if he batted .000, which he doesn't, he'd deserve to start.  He's such a leader, replacing Pujol$.  But Pujol$ doesn't deserve to be a starter and he shouldn't have with the Cardinals either because he sux and just plays for the money.

First Base: Joey Votto of the Reds, even though Bryan LaHair is positively raking, is the man for the job.  The former MVP is on-basing .457.

The Fan: Allen Craig is slugging .765.  HELLO?!?!  I don't care if he's slugging that with one at-bat, he's the man.  And he's doing it for Torty.  Oh, wait, he's not on the ballot and Berkman is?  Well, I'd vote for Lance Berkman then.  Puma Prance!

Second Base: The weakest position, to be sure, but I'll go with Omar Infante of Miami.  .568 slugging is easily the best among second basemen and although he's not a great fielder, options are limited.

The Fan: Options are limited?  How about the guy who has the best steals-to-plate appearances ratio in the NL and hit the best home run all season?  Tyler Greene, man!  Tyler Greene is amazing and deserves to be an All-Star.  NO I WASN'T JUST CALLING FOR THE CARDINALS TO DFA HIM.  I'M NOT A BANDWAGONER.

Shortstop: It's excruciatingly close between Furcal and Houston's Jed Lowrie, but Lowrie, with about the same OPS, is a better fielder, so I've gotta go Jed.

The Fan: RAFAEL FURCAL IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE, YOU IDIOT!

Third Base: This one isn't too hard.  David Wright of the Mets is killing it right now.  His on-base is over .500 for God's sake.  There is no argument.

The Fan: Um, has David Wright ever won a World Series?  Better yet, has David Wright ever won a World Series BY HIMSELF?  No, he hasn't, didn't think so.  David Freese won a World Series and it's all about championships.

Outfield: Ryan Braun, Matt Kemp, Carlos Beltran.   Left to right.

The Fan: You finally got SOMEBODY right.  But Ryan Braun does steroids, and Matt Holliday is guided to greatness by all-time baseball genius Mark McGwire.  And Matt Kemp doesn't win titles.  And Rihanna is an idiot--she should have dated Jon Jay instead!

Pitcher: Clayton Kershaw of the Dodgers won the Cy Young last year and has only gotten better. The difference between best and worst is minimal but I'm going with The Claw here.

The Fan: You watch last night, stupid?  Did you SEE Adam Wainwright dominate?  And he even cried because he cares about baseball!  You ever see Kershaw cry?  No?  Then shut up.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

First of all, it's been way too long since I've posted anything.
But here goes...

Shirsey Search 2012

All good Cardinals fans have a shirsey, a t-shirt which has the appearance of a baseball jersey, in spite of 1. Being a t-shirt; 2. Being red rather than white or gray; 3. The fact that most Cardinals fans, including yours truly, looks dangerously unlike somebody who should participate in physical activity for a living.  But the shirsey is also a tremendous way to show support for one’s favorite players.

Now, my first shirsey was Larry Walker.  I basically had a choice between Larry Walker or Albert Pujols, as these were the two shirseys available.  I opted for Walker for a couple of reasons.  One, he was my favorite player on the 2005 Cardinals.  And two, everybody and their mother (this isn’t just an expression) owned a Pujols one.  The Walker shirsey was perfect…for the four months remaining in the season before Larry Walker was a former Cardinal.

I refrained from purchasing shirseys for the next half decade or so largely because there wasn’t a Cardinal who I deemed worthy of my money.  New Cardinals came and went and I just couldn’t bring myself to buy one.  Then, in 2011, when Lance Berkman came around, I knew I had my man.  He was similar to Walker—both were out-of-shape right fielders in the twilight of excellent, slightly below Hall of Fame standards careers whom I’d liked even as they played against the Cardinals.  However, Berkman was only on a one year deal and I didn’t want to get burned from a longevity perspective like I had with Larry Walker.  But once he signed an extension through 2012, and especially once I could rock the Puma shirsey through a playoff appearance, it became worth buying the Berkman.  Then he kind of saved the Cardinals’ asses in the World Series and with one swing of the bat completely justified owning his shirsey.  Even if he missed this entire season, it would have been worth it.

But with Puma’s recent injury woes comes the harsh reality that Lance Berkman’s shirsey will soon be dated.  Obviously, I can’t wear the Puma if he’s playing for a different team, so he’d have to be retired from my clothing rotation until his MLB retirement.  But now the question becomes: Who is next in line for following the brilliant legacies of Larry Walker and Lance Berkman as the player represented by my shirsey?  Let’s look at some candidates.

Chris Carpenter
Pros: Obviously, the guy is a behemoth.  He’s won a Cy Young, he shut out the Phillies in the closeout game of the NLDS, and he also kind of won Game 7 of the World Series.  He’s also a fierce competitor who deserves to be regarded as a Cardinal legend.  He’s, like, borderline to have his number retired good.
Cons: He isn’t long for the Majors.  He has, what, two or three years left?  I know he’s big enough that it’ll be respectable forever, like having a Bob Forsch, but it’s generally preferable to have an active MLBer.

Jaime Garcia
Pros: Good, young lefty starter who hasn’t completely and totally littered metro St. Louis with his shirseys.  Has a contract extension so seemingly would be long for El Birdos.
Cons: Jaime is still frustrating as hell—sometimes he pitches brilliantly and sometimes he gives up eleven runs in a game.  I, and I know I’m not alone, am not convinced that he’s going to be better than a weak #2 or strong #3 in the rotation.  Same reason I wouldn’t have bought a Donovan Osborne shirsey in the nineties.

Lance Lynn
Pros: Lance has a fantastic beard and is an up and coming pitcher.  And nobody owns a Lance Lynn shirsey right now.  My inner hipster is excited at the prospect of being the one person at Busch rocking the Lance Lynn.
Cons: He’s not totally proven and we have no especially good reason to believe he’s going to be a Cardinal for a long time.  Hell, if he gets traded to the Indians at 28, what am I supposed to do with the shirsey?

Shelby Miller
Pros: He may not be a Major Leaguer, but he seems like a sure thing.  Could easily be the staff ace for a decade.  He’s the most can’t-miss Cardinals pitching prospect since…
Cons: Rick Ankiel.  Also, he doesn’t have a number.  Also, he’s a total bro.  Pass.

Jason Motte
Pros: Unlike starters, there’s at least a decent chance of seeing him at every single game I go to.  While his beard/personality is maybe 15% of Brian Wilson’s, that still makes him the most dynamic member of the team.  He’s also good.
Cons: Closers never seem long for the Cardinals.  Jason Isringhausen and Ryan Franklin were both all-stars and then got run out of town.  Plus, even good closers I inevitably end up hating.

Marc Rzepczynski
Pros: The guy could end up in the rotation and this goes well for the obscurity factor.  Nobody owns a Marc Rzepczynski.  I’m not convinced he owns one.
Cons: While he COULD end up a starter, he could also end up being a middle of the road middle reliever for all of eternity.  Also, while I don’t mind going off the beaten path for the right shirsey, I’d probably have to customer order this one and it would be pay-by-character in many cases, so fuck it.

Adam Wainwright
Pros: Obviously a good pitcher.  Not the hardest one to find.
Cons: While I like Waino, I don’t love him in the same way that I love Carpenter.  He’s Axl Rose to Carp’s Slash—while Slash is a hardened badass who deserves your respect, Axl never lets you embrace him.  Also, Wainwright is pitching like shit this season, he’s thirty, and he’s not even assured to be with the club next year.

Yadier Molina
Pros: Long-termer, a perennial All-Star, and a definite St. Louis person to pick (as in he’s predominantly a defensive ace).
Cons: Yadi’s a girl shirsey.  Girls love Yadi because they think he’s cute—given that I most recently went with Lance Berkman, who is liked by women more as a ruggedly handsome/badass type, it should be obvious how I’d rather be perceived.  Also, my sister has a Yadi shirsey.  I can’t have the same kind as my sister.

Matt Adams
Pros: This is absolutely a great long-term choice.  Dude’s twenty-three, if he plays well he could be around for fifteen years, he’s an everyday player, and he, like all great Cardinals shirsey subjects, is fat.
Cons: He hasn’t played a Major League game (as of 5:11 p.m., May 20, 2012) so he could end up sucking royally.  Perhaps more daunting, he was given the number 53.  Do you really think he’s going to stay with the number 53?  I imagine a lot of Jon Jay fans have been burned by this.

Matt Carpenter
Pros: “Scrappy”, has diverse positional ability, the same fans who loved John May-buh-ry love this fellow scrapper who does not wear batting gloves.
Cons: He’s Matt Carpenter.  I imagine the Stan Royer shirseys never sold all that well either.

Daniel Descalso
Pros/Cons: See Matt Carpenter.

David Freese
Pros: The man whom I have dubbed “Freesus” (no, but seriously, that nickname is a good one) was my second favorite Cardinal even before the playoffs.  He’s a charming St. Louis native who is good, but not so good that he’s likely to be wooed by a huge free agency deal.
Cons: Freese is easily the biggest shirsey going, almost overnight.  It’s like being a Beatles fan.  “Oh, you like the Beatles?  How innovative and interesting you are.”  Pass.

Rafael Furcal
Pros: The guy is straight up killing it this year and will be around at least through 2013.  Also, why haven’t I seen a Furcal shirsey?  I know I live in Oakville but really?
Cons: I’m perfectly fine with Rafael Furcal but I don’t love him.  I’m open to buying a shirsey and learning to love him, but not if the guy’s only going to be around another year and a half.

Carlos Beltran
Pros: This is almost too perfect of a fit.  While not a pudgy white guy, he is a thirty-something, step-below-HOF right fielder who had a career resurgence with the Cardinals.
Cons: Unlike Walker and Berkman, I wasn’t really a Beltran “fan” per se before he joined the Cardinals.  I mean, I didn’t hate him, but I was more or less apathetic (except when he was on the 2004 Astros, in which case fuck him).  And he’s in the same boat as Furcal when it comes to shirsey longevity.  It’s also unlikely he’ll even reach Puma’s level of Cardinals iconicness.  He’s going to reach Will Clark’s level at best.

Allen Craig
Pros: Craig is young enough (27), he has traits I love in a player (positional diversity, clutch, he’s actually quite articulate and engaging), and his shirsey is a rarity.
Cons: Craig is not a starter.  He plays a lot but he’s not a starter.  I’m not inherently opposed to that, but it means he’s more likely to be disposable.  It could be a sad little memento in a couple years if the team doesn’t find a more consistent roster spot for him.

Matt Holliday
Pros: Holliday is one of the big bats on the team.  He also has a long term, big contract so he’s likely to have at least a few more years in St. Louis
Cons: On principle, if a guy can’t catch routine fly balls and gets picked off third base with the bases loaded in elimination World Series games, I can’t do it.

Jon Jay
Pros: Jay is somebody I’ve defended for years and he continues to prove me right.  He’s a consistent hitter and fielder and may have a nice little career with the Cardinals.
Cons: Number changes.  He’s #19 now but he could well be something else in a couple months.

Regrettably, I do not have a conclusion.  It is an ongoing process.  All suggestions are welcome.

Monday, April 9, 2012

Musings From The Cool Kid's Table

Now, it would be downright silly for me to write a blog post about how you shouldn't care if you're popular or you shouldn't care if you're cool.  Everyone has been told this and everyone at least claims to believe it.  But I'm not going to go that route.  So for the sake of this, let's assume that popularity is a desirable virtue.

We as a species do a really, really shitty job of evaluating it.

Popularity, as defined by whatever website Google links to for word definitions, is the state or condition of being liked, admired, or supported by many people.  Again, popularity is purely a metric to determine how many people like you or think highly of you.  It's really no more complex than that.  Yet the way we measure it is based on artificial factors which don't even come close to matching its definition.

For an example, I'm going to use Mean Girls.  Why?  Because you've seen it and you liked it and if you're a guy saying you thought it was stupid, it proves you're a closeted homosexual, because it's a damn funny movie.  But anyway, the point is that Mean Girls is the contemporary movie which most evokes the insane, over-the-top stereotypes which, in my experience, don't really exist a whole lot in high school.  Here, I'll give you a sentence which describes a large amount of the movie: A group of unusually attractive girls, who without coincidence do not have brains, spend their time tormenting the smart, unpopular kids while maintaining records of insults towards the unworthy dorks.

The following things are mostly or entirely myth:
1. The correlation between intelligence and attractiveness is largely untrue.  Attractive girls sometimes don't put much emphasis on their intelligence because they don't have to, but it doesn't mean it's not there.
2. The kids that are the least popular are the smart kids.  When I was in high school, the popular kids were relatively smart--maybe not total nerds but took advanced classes and certainly weren't threatening to fail out.  In reality, the kids who barely graduated were generally socially inept and often stoned out of their fucking minds.
3. The "popular kids" never, never, never, never tormented the "unpopular kids."  They might torment each other withing their little subgroup, but it's not like there's any reason for the populars to become bullies.
4. Most importantly, were the popular kids in your high school the vain kids who would ridicule others?  Did the popular kids exclude others?  If your motive is to be liked, excluding people is not the path to this.  Think about who your prom king or queen was.  Was this person necessarily a jock, or good-looking, or particularly good at anything?  Or was this person the person that everyone liked, the one who always was in a good mood and was friends with everybody?

The point of this is that we act is though there is a popular crowd in life.  Maybe in elementary school, but once you hit high school and through college and through, well, life, popularity is largely a myth.  There is no popular crowd.  In life, nobody cares if you're good at sports or if you're attractive or you go to all the coolest parties.  Yet people convince themselves, largely out of personal insecurity, to believe this.  Spoiler alert: If you're over 15 and you feel like you're part of the cool crowd, you aren't.  Not because you aren't "cool", but because 1. It doesn't exist; 2. You're a retarded douchebag.

If a "popular girl" were truly popular, people wouldn't murmur if she wins Homecoming Queen.  They'd cheer and be happy because somebody they liked was being elevated.  Hell, I'll even call her popular.  But when you're in college or you're in the workplace or you're with a large group of friends, and somebody is perceived, either by you or by someone else, as "popular", ask yourself this--who exactly is it that's being asked?

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

The Ten Songs Beady Eye Should Perform in Concert

For the zero of you that give a shit, Beady Eye is going to be touring this summer and performing Oasis songs.  Seeing as the band's four members have performed, and three have written, with Oasis, it makes sense.  And I can only hope that when Beady Eye dusts off Oasis tunes, they stick primarily to songs written by Liam Gallagher, Gem Archer, and Andy Bell.  As far as I'm concerned, the Liam/Gem/Andy songs belong to Beady Eye, Noel-sung Oasis songs belong to his solo project, and the Liam sung Noel songs (which are generally the best Oasis songs, as far as I'm concerned) belong sidelined until the inevitable Oasis reunion.  But here's my top ten choices for Beady Eye songs to perform.

10. Guess God Thinks I'm Abel--One of my favorite Oasis songs, period, and only this low on the list because it's not really a rock and roll, concert type song.  Don't Believe the Truth is second to Definitely Maybe for me because it's the moment where all four of Oasis's latter-day songwriters were making top-notch songs.  Again, other than the very last few seconds where it gets loud, it's an acoustic sort of jam.  But I've seen Liam and Gem perform this together pretty well and I'd love to see it performed.

9. To Be Where There's Life--The brilliant psychedelia and vibe of this song from Oasis's final album implied that future work would be more varied and decidedly retro.  It's just a good, fun song that could lead to some fun riffing between Gem and Andy.

8. Keep the Dream Alive--Andy's best Noel impression songwriting-wise, the song has a certain standard anthemic feel and opens itself up to some guitar solos.  It also seems like an appropriate song regardless of venue--it can be an acoustic ballad or a hard rocker (God only knows I'd prefer the latter, but the fact that I made a list of top non-Noel Oasis songs and didn't include Songbird probably indicates my preference for the rockers).

7. Ain't Got Nothin--It's short, it has a nice quick and dirty guitar riff, and there's not a boring moment in it.  Is it the best song Oasis ever did?  No.  But it's a song that should have been played in concerts.

6. I'm Outta Time--Certainly the best non-Noel single from Oasis, the only thing that concerns me here, more than its balladry, is that I wonder how much Noel influenced the sound of the song.  But overall, not a huge issue for me.  This wasn't Noel singing backing vocals (completely tangential side note: A law should be passed preventing either Noel or Liam from performing 'Columbia' without the other--for those two not to be the vocal harmonizers would be a crime)--Gem and Andy can play instruments.  It's not that complex of a song.  It'll work.

5. Better Man--This might be the most underrated Oasis song of them all.  For people to claim this was the low point of an album which included the two whiniest, worst Oasis singles of them all ('Stop Crying Your Heart Out' and 'Little By Little') is absurd--it has a great, funky sound.  It doesn't sound like any other Oasis song--it's partially why I question the notion that many reviewers had that 'Bring the Light' couldn't have been an Oasis song.  It's not like this is AC/DC we're talking about here--they could experiment.

4. A Bell Will Ring--If Better Man is the most underrated Oasis song, this is #2.  Maybe it's because it's Gem or maybe it's because it was around the point in most Oasis albums where the album starts to taper off, but this song, which became a minor concert staple during the Don't Believe the Truth tour, belongs on any Beady Eye tour.

3. Turn Up the Sun--This should be the first song played at any Beady Eye concert.  It's a pure anthem, somewhat fluffy and not at all socially relevant, but people don't listen to these bands because they will change your life.  People listen because they're fucking awesome.

2. Hung in a Bad Place--I was 13 when Heathen Chemistry came out, and several years away from discovering Oasis, but I can't even imagine how people reacted when they saw this.  "Okay, Hindu Times and Force of Nature, great start to an album.  Oh, great, the new rhythm guitarist wrote a song.  God damn it, is this going to be like Little James sort of crap?"  And then that riff kicks in and it's one of the best songs Oasis ever made.  If Noel had wrote this song, it would have been a single.

1. The Meaning of Soul--It's less than two minutes long but it's pure adrenaline.  It's not exactly a huge investment if you're Beady Eye to rip off this purely fun rocker.  It also has some of the loudest drums on any Oasis song other than 'Shock of the Lightning' and Chris Sharrock doesn't get enough attention.  So, come on Beady Eye, make this happen.