Without my asking, I mean. I'm looking at you, ESPN.com. If I wanted to watch your dinky little SportsCenter I would ask for it, thank you very much. Instead, if I am listening to music, for instance, your stupid web design makes me think that iTunes has freaked out and is playing some weird spoken word stuff that I don't even have on top of the Police (which is unnerving).
What's worse is the one on SoccerNet, where the people who are talking are British, so, if I'm listening to cricket, Aggers starts having a crazy argument about soccer that's completely unintelligible.
And, in a tabbed browser, the source of the trouble is not immediately evident, because sometimes I forget that I've clicked on ESPN (I check the sports a lot of times a day, so this happens more often than I'd care to admit).
So, you make me think my computer is broken, you cause me a lot of annoyance, and I don't even want to watch your stupid video. This makes me less likely to watch your stupid video. Well done.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Why is there a band called "Clap Your Hands Say Yeah?"
I've actually never heard their music. But I don't want to. Because their name is stupid (and because I saw a skinny, effete youth in women's jeans wearing one of their shirts--and yes, it was insipid and faux-vintage).
"Clap Your Hands Say Yeah" is, even in today's world, where novels seem to be named things that randomly occurred to their authors in a drug-induced haze, unwieldy and an impediment to conversation. It also leaves the public in two minds about this soi-disant indie band.
Either they take themselves extremely seriously and actually think that having a terrible name makes them better than everyone else, or they are making fun of everyone by having such a rubbish name (and therefore they still think they are better than everyone else).
Either way, they're jerks. Real bands are called things like "The Beatles," or "The Clash," or even, at a stretch, "Moxy Früvous." And they don't wear girls' trousers.
"Clap Your Hands Say Yeah" is, even in today's world, where novels seem to be named things that randomly occurred to their authors in a drug-induced haze, unwieldy and an impediment to conversation. It also leaves the public in two minds about this soi-disant indie band.
Either they take themselves extremely seriously and actually think that having a terrible name makes them better than everyone else, or they are making fun of everyone by having such a rubbish name (and therefore they still think they are better than everyone else).
Either way, they're jerks. Real bands are called things like "The Beatles," or "The Clash," or even, at a stretch, "Moxy Früvous." And they don't wear girls' trousers.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Why is there tennis wear that is not white?
Tonight, Roger Federer wore all black at the US Open. I want to know why. I do not approve. I also do know that tournaments other than Wimbledon do not require that the players wear white.
They should not have to. There are prudential, traditional, and aesthetic reasons to wear white. Also, this is tennis. It is not a tough sport, or one where an insistent personality is really a driving force (according to Rick Reilly of ESPN, Mr. Federer is a total sweetheart, which I believe). Therefore you should not have to assert your spectacular individuality. But here are the proper reasons.
White doesn't show sweat. Your blue, yellow, or what-have-you tops do show sweat, and that looks gross. I admit that black does not, but wearing black just feels hotter than wearing white.
It looks nicer when the players wear white. It looks cool and crisp. Also it does not give Nike license to make one of the hideous neon yellow and orange tops--you know what I'm talking about. Or the things that Serena Williams wears. But the white clothes of the players against the green of the grass at Wimbledon conjure up an image of Pimm's, strawberries, and a civilized, pleasurable summer. Andre Agassi in a top that a clown appears to have been sick on only conjures up everything everyone wants to forget about the 80s.
Also, tennis players wear white. Full stop.
Chumps.
They should not have to. There are prudential, traditional, and aesthetic reasons to wear white. Also, this is tennis. It is not a tough sport, or one where an insistent personality is really a driving force (according to Rick Reilly of ESPN, Mr. Federer is a total sweetheart, which I believe). Therefore you should not have to assert your spectacular individuality. But here are the proper reasons.
White doesn't show sweat. Your blue, yellow, or what-have-you tops do show sweat, and that looks gross. I admit that black does not, but wearing black just feels hotter than wearing white.
It looks nicer when the players wear white. It looks cool and crisp. Also it does not give Nike license to make one of the hideous neon yellow and orange tops--you know what I'm talking about. Or the things that Serena Williams wears. But the white clothes of the players against the green of the grass at Wimbledon conjure up an image of Pimm's, strawberries, and a civilized, pleasurable summer. Andre Agassi in a top that a clown appears to have been sick on only conjures up everything everyone wants to forget about the 80s.
Also, tennis players wear white. Full stop.
Chumps.
Why do people still think "One Love" is a good song?
I was going to do a more general post on coffee shop music, which is irritating enough, but this is the one that really gets my goat. (If you say, "man, you sure are complaining about things that happen in coffee shops an awful lot," I will congratulate you on your perspicacity and point out that if you spend a lot of time in coffee shops and are generally misanthropic there will be a lot of coffee-shop-related gripes.)
"One Love." This song is not very good, people. Furthermore, it's older than I am. Bob Marley is dead. So is John Lennon, I hear you cry. Well, "Imagine" is not a good song either.
There's a lot of reggae on coffee shop mixes. I don't know why. Perhaps through the mistaken conviction that reggae is interesting. Maybe it was, oh, thirty years ago. Regatta de Blanc is a good album, and experimental. But playing "One Love" in 2007 does not make you interesting or edgy, it makes you boring and stagnant.
The sentiment is good, you argue. Yeah, sure. Insipid and mawkish, but probably good. That's nice. The sentiment behind "You and Me and the Bottle Makes Three" is not that good, but it's an interesting and enjoyable song.
I think people listen to "One Love" because it assuages some guilt they have--for being capitalists and not just hanging out, for being white and not having dreadlocks, for having complexes and not being able to love--which is fine, but I don't want to cater to your annoying foibles. Play me something that's not hackneyed and repetitive.
"One Love." This song is not very good, people. Furthermore, it's older than I am. Bob Marley is dead. So is John Lennon, I hear you cry. Well, "Imagine" is not a good song either.
There's a lot of reggae on coffee shop mixes. I don't know why. Perhaps through the mistaken conviction that reggae is interesting. Maybe it was, oh, thirty years ago. Regatta de Blanc is a good album, and experimental. But playing "One Love" in 2007 does not make you interesting or edgy, it makes you boring and stagnant.
The sentiment is good, you argue. Yeah, sure. Insipid and mawkish, but probably good. That's nice. The sentiment behind "You and Me and the Bottle Makes Three" is not that good, but it's an interesting and enjoyable song.
I think people listen to "One Love" because it assuages some guilt they have--for being capitalists and not just hanging out, for being white and not having dreadlocks, for having complexes and not being able to love--which is fine, but I don't want to cater to your annoying foibles. Play me something that's not hackneyed and repetitive.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Why the Red Hot Chili Peppers?
Seriously, why?
For some reason, people play their "music" a lot. It makes me want to strangle things. Because it is terrible. And it's wheedlingly intrusive. I can't ignore it. I can ignore the Killers (thank goodness), and I can even ignore Avril Lavigne.
They were big eight years ago. I hated them then. They should be gone now. Do people actually like nasal, whiny, half-baked, quasi-country crap? "Californication?" Honestly?
I guess there are people who don't like the kind of music I like, and they are equally as offended when they are in a shop and someone plays, you know, the Beatles.
The difference is that these people are wrong.
(Oh, and Pearl Jam's remake of "Last Kiss?" WHY?)
For some reason, people play their "music" a lot. It makes me want to strangle things. Because it is terrible. And it's wheedlingly intrusive. I can't ignore it. I can ignore the Killers (thank goodness), and I can even ignore Avril Lavigne.
They were big eight years ago. I hated them then. They should be gone now. Do people actually like nasal, whiny, half-baked, quasi-country crap? "Californication?" Honestly?
I guess there are people who don't like the kind of music I like, and they are equally as offended when they are in a shop and someone plays, you know, the Beatles.
The difference is that these people are wrong.
(Oh, and Pearl Jam's remake of "Last Kiss?" WHY?)
Why do people walk past independent coffee houses to go to Starbucks?
So I'm sitting in a coffee shop. The coffee is good, which is kind of strange. When I was in college I went to Starbucks because the local coffee house exhibited a tendency to boil its coffee for about three months. Since I drink my coffee black, this was less than pleasant. Starbucks isn't great, but it's better than developing a time-to-ulcer that's negative.
Anyway, I'm drinking good coffee that costs $1.70 for a largish mug (even if you don't lie and tell them you're a student). And it's dollar refills, which is also excellent. Sometimes I look out the window. I see this girl go past. She's not particularly memorable. She's wearing a summer dress and has her hair in a ponytail. I read some more.
Fifteen minutes later she goes past, the other way. She's carrying a Starbucks cup. It probably cost four dollars. It supports a large corporation. I don't have anything in particular against large corporations, but I like entrepreneurs and I like good coffee, and if I can make entrepreneurs successful when they give me good coffee in exchange, that's what I'll do. My coffee shop is also Fair Trade and organic and all that sort of thing, about which I couldn't care less, but this girl didn't look like she hates hippies as much as I do (in fairness, it would be difficult).
She had to spend more money and walk maybe half a mile to three quarters of a mile farther to drink coffee that is both not as good and less socially conscious. Why do people do this?
Anyway, I'm drinking good coffee that costs $1.70 for a largish mug (even if you don't lie and tell them you're a student). And it's dollar refills, which is also excellent. Sometimes I look out the window. I see this girl go past. She's not particularly memorable. She's wearing a summer dress and has her hair in a ponytail. I read some more.
Fifteen minutes later she goes past, the other way. She's carrying a Starbucks cup. It probably cost four dollars. It supports a large corporation. I don't have anything in particular against large corporations, but I like entrepreneurs and I like good coffee, and if I can make entrepreneurs successful when they give me good coffee in exchange, that's what I'll do. My coffee shop is also Fair Trade and organic and all that sort of thing, about which I couldn't care less, but this girl didn't look like she hates hippies as much as I do (in fairness, it would be difficult).
She had to spend more money and walk maybe half a mile to three quarters of a mile farther to drink coffee that is both not as good and less socially conscious. Why do people do this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)