For those not aware WTTS (92.3) out of Bloomington is a Independently owned radio station. In essence that should make them cool but unfortunately it doesn't (much of the time). I will admit that it is the best station in the Indianapolis area (Doesn't say much for the Indianapolis radio scene). WTTS frustrates a great number of people because the station could be on the cutting edge of the modern rock music scene but they seem to be content to be a mindless mainstream “wuss” rock station.
Several days ago they revealed their list of the top 25 albums from the past 25 years (based on 92.3 VIP listeners). Check out the list and come back for my take.
Commentary below...
1. Legitimately they have nine albums (“Yankee Hotel Foxtrot”, “OK Computer”, “Automatic for the People”, “Purple Rain”, “A Rush of Blood to the Head”, “Graceland”, “Born in the USA”, “Nevermind” and “The Joshua Tree”) on the list that definitely lend credibility to their objective. I haven't been “all about” some of those above mentioned albums but I do respect them or more importantly respect the musical tastes of those people (or critics) that are into them. I will have to say that having a third of the list being legitimate was a pleasant surprise.
2. This is Coug Country so I don't have a problem with him having Scarecrow on the list. I can buy that.
3. The following classic rock albums (Peter Gabriel's “So”, Dire Straits' “Brothers in Arms” and The Police's “Synchronicity”) wouldn't make my list but they aren't bad choices for this particular viewing audience. They could have been a lot worse (Tonic or Collective Soul)
4. “Eric Clapton Unplugged”...I'm sorry but Clapton is arguable the most overrated rock artist of all time. I know personal tragedy is a key theme on the album...and I don't mean to be a dick...but that in itself doesn't automatically make for a great piece of work. It doesn't belong on the list or any list of “best albums.” When rock icons (allegedly) go sappy...the results normally aren't that awesome.
5. Let me see...which artist (or band) have two albums on the list...Springsteen...No. U2...No. REM....No. Nirvana....No. Prince...No. Oh wait...John Mayer and Dave Matthews Band. WTF....let me repeat that WTF!. This is why WTTS stinks so much of the time. I have no idea what about these two artists that is so appealing. Seriously...I don't get it. I guess people are into Dave because his music is “different”...I don't know...I just find it uninspiring and boring to listen to (which is problematic for a song). There's a few John Mayer songs that I don't mind but most of his songs are so “soft-rock” that I just can't handle it.
6. I never know what to make of Pearl Jam. Sometimes I'm into them...and sometimes I'm not. Sometimes I think there place in rock and roll history is overrated...and sometimes I think it isn't. I was never into Pearl Jam when they broke so I have no personal history or connection with them. I will definitely say that I don't have a problem with “Ten” being on the list but there is no way that it should be number 2. I do know that.
7. More WTF...Counting Crows, “August and Everything After” at number 3. Wow. That has me at a loss of words.
8. Including such albums by David Gray, Norah Jones and Alanis Morisette isn't to surprising considering that they play these artists incessantly. I don't dislike these artists but they only reinforce the notion of the station being wussy or catering to an audience that likes wuss-rock.
Ultimately, the list isn't half bad. It is hard to argue with “The Joshua Tree” not being number 1. I can buy that. Like I said before about a third of list is quite legit. Of course there were several head-scratching...WTF selections. That is to be expected.
There is one big omission from the list but really the album doesn't fit into WTTS's format. But come on... any list of the best albums from the past 25 years has to include this album.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
"Walk Hard" red band Trailer
I'll admit when I saw a trailer for Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox story in the theatre a few weeks ago I wasn't overly optimistic that the movie was going to be any good. That was too bad because I really like (and who doesn't) John C. Reilly.
Here's the red band trailer for the movie and things are looking up. I'm still not convinced that it's going to be a comedic gem but there is definitely potential.
Here's the red band trailer for the movie and things are looking up. I'm still not convinced that it's going to be a comedic gem but there is definitely potential.
Moorehead out...Klecko back in!
Via the indystar.com
This is pretty good news. Not to be mean but Moorehead was borderline worthless on offense.
It is good to see Klecko back. He rocks.
Aaron Moorehead's season is over. The Indianapolis Colts placed their veteran wide receiver on the injured reserve list with a back injury.
Moorehead, who's been a backup receiver since signing as an undrafted rookie in 2003, has been bothered by an unspecified back ailment much of the season. That situation was exacerbated in Sunday's win over Kansas City when he was hit in the back while attempting to catch a high pass from quarterback Peyton Manning.
The team filled Moorehead's spot on the active roster by re-signing veteran defensive tackle Dan Klecko. Klecko was waived last week to make room on the active roster for offensive tackle Corey Hilliard.
This is pretty good news. Not to be mean but Moorehead was borderline worthless on offense.
It is good to see Klecko back. He rocks.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
"Lions for Lambs" movie review
This week we take a look at a big movie with quiet box office results so far: Lions For Lambs (PG-13). Robert Redford directs and costars as a college professor who taught two students now serving in Afghanistan. Another plot line shows Meryl Streep as a reporter interviewing a U.S. Senator (Tom Cruise) about the latest foreign policy attempt to win the war on terror.
Ryan: I was surprised at first with how Lions for Lambs has been under performing at the box-office. After all, the movie boasts a cast of legendary stars (Cruise, Streep and Redford). But after seeing the movie I can see why the film has not caught on with an audience. Make no mistake about it, Lions for Lambs is not a bad movie, in fact it is quite engaging at times, but overall the movie is one-sided (to the political left), slightly pretentious and overly preachy. Right away the movie is alienating a conservative audience. Most right-leaning moviegoers are probably going to dismiss the film as liberal propaganda, and while that is not completely accurate, there is some degree of truth to it.
Andy: Dismissing Lions for Lambs as lefty propaganda would be an easy thing to do, but I came away from the movie impressed on a variety of levels. It does seem a bit like its pandering at times (especially in the sequences featuring Redford), but it does not grossly oversimplify the issues as many movies do. It acknowledges the complexities the war on terror and attempts to look at it on three different levels (government, military, citizen). If there is an underlying message, it is that people should be more involved, or at the very least better informed, in the world politics our country is practicing, and it's hard to find fault with that claim.
Ryan: Not only is the movie not going to appeal to conservatives, I don't believe it's going to do much for liberals either. Regrettably the movie is a big let down because it doesn't bring anything new to the table. It adds nothing fresh to our foreign policy discourse. It asks the same old questions and provides no new answers. If this film came out three or four years ago, it would be relevant. But in 2007, it isn't. It's already dated. Considering the talent involved in the film, one would have expected more.
Andy: I wouldn't be so quick to call the film dated, as the number of movies that have come out on these issues using contemporary language and events is actually pretty small, especially from Hollywood. The root of what makes the movie compelling to me is the performance of Tom Cruise. For years Cruise has been playing slick, smooth talking, vaguely likable characters, so it's in some ways surprising that it took him this long to play a politician. His speeches to Meryl Streep about the war on terror are framed by the filmmaker in a way to make us be distrustful of them. But Cruise lays them out logically, passionately, and in a way that a reasonable person would have trouble finding serious fault with. In its failure to seriously answer the question of why we should distrust what he is saying, Lions for Lambs becomes less declarative than it wanted to be, but more complex.
Ryan: Like I said before, there are moments of intrigue in the movie. The film is interconnected with three separate stories and some work better than others. The scenes with Cruise and Streep are the most engrossing and both actors do a superb job with their respected performances. The scene with Redford, as a professor talking to a lackadaisical student, is interesting and provides the real weight of the movie that of getting involved to make a difference. The storyline with the two soldiers is not on the same level of the other two narratives mainly because it is not developed as well as the other two stories.
Overall,though, this is a movie that should have been better than it is. Final grade: C+.
Andy: I'll agree that the story of the two soldiers was in some ways wasted. They are interesting characters portrayed by relatively unknown actors who did a pretty good job (Michael Pena and Derek Luke), but they simply weren't developed enough to hold the weight the film needed them to. It was probably worth having this plot be a little light to avoid the movie pushing much more over two hours, though.
Generally Lions for Lambs only misfires a bit, and is an interesting and entertaining movie. Final grade: B+.
Ryan: I was surprised at first with how Lions for Lambs has been under performing at the box-office. After all, the movie boasts a cast of legendary stars (Cruise, Streep and Redford). But after seeing the movie I can see why the film has not caught on with an audience. Make no mistake about it, Lions for Lambs is not a bad movie, in fact it is quite engaging at times, but overall the movie is one-sided (to the political left), slightly pretentious and overly preachy. Right away the movie is alienating a conservative audience. Most right-leaning moviegoers are probably going to dismiss the film as liberal propaganda, and while that is not completely accurate, there is some degree of truth to it.
Andy: Dismissing Lions for Lambs as lefty propaganda would be an easy thing to do, but I came away from the movie impressed on a variety of levels. It does seem a bit like its pandering at times (especially in the sequences featuring Redford), but it does not grossly oversimplify the issues as many movies do. It acknowledges the complexities the war on terror and attempts to look at it on three different levels (government, military, citizen). If there is an underlying message, it is that people should be more involved, or at the very least better informed, in the world politics our country is practicing, and it's hard to find fault with that claim.
Ryan: Not only is the movie not going to appeal to conservatives, I don't believe it's going to do much for liberals either. Regrettably the movie is a big let down because it doesn't bring anything new to the table. It adds nothing fresh to our foreign policy discourse. It asks the same old questions and provides no new answers. If this film came out three or four years ago, it would be relevant. But in 2007, it isn't. It's already dated. Considering the talent involved in the film, one would have expected more.
Andy: I wouldn't be so quick to call the film dated, as the number of movies that have come out on these issues using contemporary language and events is actually pretty small, especially from Hollywood. The root of what makes the movie compelling to me is the performance of Tom Cruise. For years Cruise has been playing slick, smooth talking, vaguely likable characters, so it's in some ways surprising that it took him this long to play a politician. His speeches to Meryl Streep about the war on terror are framed by the filmmaker in a way to make us be distrustful of them. But Cruise lays them out logically, passionately, and in a way that a reasonable person would have trouble finding serious fault with. In its failure to seriously answer the question of why we should distrust what he is saying, Lions for Lambs becomes less declarative than it wanted to be, but more complex.
Ryan: Like I said before, there are moments of intrigue in the movie. The film is interconnected with three separate stories and some work better than others. The scenes with Cruise and Streep are the most engrossing and both actors do a superb job with their respected performances. The scene with Redford, as a professor talking to a lackadaisical student, is interesting and provides the real weight of the movie that of getting involved to make a difference. The storyline with the two soldiers is not on the same level of the other two narratives mainly because it is not developed as well as the other two stories.
Overall,though, this is a movie that should have been better than it is. Final grade: C+.
Andy: I'll agree that the story of the two soldiers was in some ways wasted. They are interesting characters portrayed by relatively unknown actors who did a pretty good job (Michael Pena and Derek Luke), but they simply weren't developed enough to hold the weight the film needed them to. It was probably worth having this plot be a little light to avoid the movie pushing much more over two hours, though.
Generally Lions for Lambs only misfires a bit, and is an interesting and entertaining movie. Final grade: B+.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Klecko Released by Colts
My wife is upset...the Colts released her favorite Colt, Dan Klecko, today.
Honestly...not much of a surprise (since he rarely plays--even with the rash of injuries)...but he will always be part of Colts history with his touchdown reception in the AFC Championship game last year.
We'll miss you, Klecko.
Honestly...not much of a surprise (since he rarely plays--even with the rash of injuries)...but he will always be part of Colts history with his touchdown reception in the AFC Championship game last year.
We'll miss you, Klecko.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)