Music Monday: Like bands I like

I'm bitter that I won't be seeing Blur at the Olympics. Because evidently my subconscious feels like it's my right to see them at the Olympics.

So in their place, and to partially fill the gulf in my soul left by the suspicion that I will never get to see them in concert, here's Skip the Use. Their lead singer sounds quite a bit like Damon Albarn. But he's French so he's not as good. Also, they're not as good as Blur.



As a bonus, here they are, performing a Blur song, so it's close.

You think therefore it is

I try not to make a habit of contradicting the men and women that God has selected to lead His church. However, Elder Oaks is wrong.

In his famous/infamous 2005 fireside (humorously listed as Dating VERSES Hanging Out on LDS.org, further limiting its credibility) he outlined that a date is 3 things: Planned ahead, Paid for and Paired off. These criteria are of course utter bunk. He mentions in the talk how he got them from an 18 year old. Do you trust anything you hear from an 18 year old? If you’re older than 18 the answer should be no.  If you’re younger than 18 the answer should probably still be no.

Now I’m not going to tell you there is no such thing as truth or reality. But reality may not matter all that much. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet (let’s not get into the fact that Shakespeare may not have existed to even say that.) But if everyone in the world smelled a rose and decided they didn’t like it, it wouldn’t smell sweet. It would smell foul, because everyone agrees that to them, it does not smell sweet.

This isn’t an Emperor’s New Clothes situation. It’s not that the public en masse is agreeing to some lie in order to maintain social order. If everyone legitimately did not like the aroma of the rose, you couldn’t really argue that it smells good when everyone perceives it as not.

My definition of a date goes thusly: a date is when two people do something and consider it a date. Put another way, a date is in the eye of the beholder.

Now I fully understand why Elder Oaks did not give a talk about how reality is subjective and how crucial social processes can either exist or not exist depending on an individual’s thoughts and feelings. I get that. But my definition is the only one that matters.

It doesn’t matter if I plan, pair off and pay for an evening if the girl doesn’t consider it a date. If she doesn’t consider it a date, it wasn’t one. I can’t trick her into going on a date with me. I can’t count it as a date based on a technicality. And I can’t accidentally be on a date because those criteria were met.

And if I have a magical evening with a young lady but it was free, or we had friends with us, or it happened extemporaneously, but despite this the intimacy built from that shared experience brings us closer to romance, it would be ludicrous to disregard it as a date.

If it was a date to you, and it was a date to her, it was a date. Now here’s the rub: it may have been a date to only one of you. And if you discuss whether it was a date you run the risk of ruining it. You’ve violated the blinding of the experiment and the other participant is now being influenced by YOUR thoughts and feelings when their definition should only stem from THEIR thoughts and feelings. So I think it’s best to be avoided. Also it’s lame to ask “Was this a date?”

The trend of hanging out is alive and well seven years later. And I have no evidence of this, but I do suspect my generation of being significantly worse on average in the dating field than previous generations. I blame The Bachelor. But quibbling over what is and what is not a date is not the answer. I’m hardly one to be giving dating advice, as someone well into my menace years, but I’m going to do it anyway. What is/is not a date doesn’t matter. What matters is interactions that help you get to know others in a meaningful way, and help you learn to appreciate them. Even better is if these interactions are intentional, volitional and mutual.

So you could define dating as intentional interactions providing non-superficial information and building appreciation, but I feel that’s less accurate than a date being anything you consider a date. But if you promote those interactions, you’re promoting a breeding ground for, well, breeding. This can be done using dates, but can be done just as well from socializing and activities and discussions outside of “dates.”

But it’s much more basic and practical to give ten commandments than to say be good and hope it turns out ok. So I understand Elder Oaks giving a rough estimation of what would often constitute a date. But I often hear single folk (mostly single lady folk) debate whether an evening was a date. And my answer would be, it was if you want it to be one, and if it was a quality interaction, it doesn’t matter. I often hear single folk (exclusively single lady folk) bemoan their lack of dates. Well, we have a lucky loophole. Because if you can arrange intentional interactions providing non-superficial information and building appreciation, and you can, you don’t need to be asked out.

And when your family ask why you don’t date more, you can confidently state that reality is subjective and in your reality you’re dating up a storm.  

Let's Talk About Talk Shows

A couple things bring the subject to mind. Firstly, Conan appeared as a guest on Letterman this week, and their mutual distaste for Leno was a topic of much discussion. And the Carson/Letterman/Leno affair as well as the more recent Leno/Conan/Fallon changeup are quite interesting, and readily bring comparisons to mind.

Also this week, Craig Ferguson brought his show to Scotland and blew my mind, albeit a tiny corner of my mind. He was doing an interview with Mila Kunis whilst strolling through The Glasgow Necropolis. Later he ate dinner with David Sedaris and Rashida Jones, talking about colostomy bags, karma, ghosts, whatever came to mind. No audience, no laugh tracks, no plugging of upcoming movies. The cameraman just followed Craig around as he talked to celebrities, interspersed with going to tourist sites and visiting his childhood haunts. It didn’t fit my preconception of a talkshow at all, but it was in fact what I’d much prefer talk shows to be.

I’ll now rank and comment on the most popular comedic talk show hosts currently on television and why you should or should not watch them.  As a caveat, I don’t watch any of them regularly. I only watch when they have someone I want to hear from on. And when I do watch I generally only watch that interview, not the monologues or sketches. But with that in mind:

10. Carson Daly

He’s boring. There’s no reason to watch him.

9. Jay Leno

The ratings champ, but his target demographic seems to be the geriatric. But we all know how the old love to vote, so that’s probably why he’s the ratings champ. He does get the biggest stars but he’s just not funny.

8. Chelsea Handler

Generally she is not funny. She has moments here and there, but it’s not worth sifting through the dross. This SNL parody is remarkably accurate. I have no problem with blue humor, Chelsea just forgets to include the humor part. 

7. Bill Maher

Politics are much more aggravating for me than comedic, so Bill’s a hard sell. And the fact that he’s so far to the left further hinders my connection to him. But he is an intelligent person, and is at times quite funny. He is also rather pandering and far far too proud of himself, so if you’re looking for funny liberals on cable John Stewart is a much better bet.

6. Jimmy Kimmel

Jimmy has some of the best sketches in late night. And he seems genuinely amiable in his interviews. But I don’t feel like he’s as funny or interesting as those in the top half of this list.

5. Jimmy Fallon

The other Jimmy. What I like about him is he seems legitimately excited about everyone on his show. I also feel like he’s the most hip/current/in-the-know of anyone on the list. And I really appreciate his efforts to be innovative like the games he often plays, and how he uses his sketch and improv background readily.

 

4. David Letterman

When I think of the stereotypic talkshow host, I think Letterman. He gets big stars and while not hilarious, he is certainly funny and what you would call “a character.” And when he wants to know something, he’ll ask, and keep asking until you tell him almost like he sees himself as a journalist. Or maybe just someone that's been around long enough that they get their way. 

3. Graham Norton

I’m sure no one would have expected Graham in the top 3, and most haven’t heard of him. But he’s British so scores major points with me. More importantly he has a great format where he brings out all the night’s guests at once so they can bounce conversation off each other. One of the guests is usually a British comedian so if the other guests are dull Graham can always lean on the comedian and provide entertaining conversation. This format, plus his onstage computer, plus the fact that he’s legitimately funny make for a great chat show. On the downside he is a bit campy for my taste and I don’t like the story chair thing he does most episodes, but it’s still a good watch.

2. Craig Ferguson

Craig does whatever he feels like doing. He has a robot skeleton for a sidekick. He will dedicate a week to Doctor Who even though 95% of his audience has never seen a Doctor Who episode. He’ll make famous people play the harmonica and heap praise on them if they actually know how to. He’s not Letterman or Leno so doesn’t get first pick of guests but because of that will have people like Salman Rushdie on, who honestly is a much better guest than Scarlet Johansson. Craig interviews with an odd stream of consciousness as his only guide. If you say scapegoat he’ll ask if you’ve ever eaten a goat, then if you really think they can eat metal cans, then what your favorite canned food is. It must be a bit nerve wracking for the celebrities but it is entertaining. And most importantly Kristen Bell has been a guest 23 times (likely a couple more by now.)

1. Conan O’Brien

You may have thought Craig would be #1 with all that gushing. But it turns out that his whimsy does reach a saturation point; he is whacky but eventually you see that his bizarre style does go through patterns which repeat over and over. Conan is the complete package. Yes he has his own shtick, mostly revolving around self deprecation with a hint of slapstick. But he changes and evolves and his shtick comes across more as his personality rather than a show. He allows guests to plug whatever it is that they came to plug, but he’ll try to switch things around and make them interesting. His jokes, commentary and sketches tend to be a bit wittier than his competition. Those Harvard guys. I like Craig a lot, but objectively I think Conan puts together a better show. 

Honorable mentions to the best fictional hosts, Larry Sanders and Space Ghost. The semi-fictional Between Two Ferns. The almost talk shows The Daily Show and Colbert Report. And the best of daytime talk show (I'd assume) Ellen. 

Music Monday: Not girl pop

Music Monday: Fluff and fortified fluff

Unfortunately podcasts have been severely impairing my ability to listen to new albums. Those things are so time consuming. So I have nothing weighty or innovative to post. But instead I'll post a couple songs that while light on content, are fun and up tempo.  I pinky promise that my next music post will be horribly obscure indie minutiae that requires a dozen listens to comprehend.

Cher Lloyd - Want U Back

Cher was from the British X Factor. This version features Astro from the American X Factor, who I happen to hate. But the version of the song without him features her wearing very little clothing, so I opted for this one.



Marina and the Diamonds - Primadonna

I love me some Marina. Mostly I had to post this one so you can tell I know when I'm listening to pop fluff and when I'm listening to something with a bit more substance to it.