Nothing to Say and Saying It Loudly

In a note on Gawker:

In an article dated May 18, 2003, the Times reported that trucker hats were no longer hip. The Times has since learned that trucker hats are still reasonably hip. The Times (or Gawker, on behalf of the Times) regrets the error.

Good to know that another fad hasn’t come and gone without my ever having even known about it.

We have a piper doon.

I repeat: a piper is doon.

All in. All done.

In a newsbit from IMDb:

Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt are bringing a new version of Roald Dahl’s classic novel Charlie And The Chocolate Factory to movie screens. The Hollywood couple will serve as producers of the Warner Bros. film through their company Plan B - the newly formed partnership of Aniston, Pitt, Brad Grey and Michael Siegel, who manages the interests of the Dahl estate.

Now the issue here is not that they are going to remake one of the finest movies ever, a staple of my own childhood. The issue is that there is now a production company called Plan B. Does everyone have something called Plan B? Now how can I name my restaurant Plan B when both a contraceptive and a film company are called that?

What is next? A gen-X soda? A candy bar?

I am watching the DVD of Dazed and Confused. I noticed something that makes me wonder. There is a scene near the beginning where Slater is helping a classmate with a project in shop. As I recall it, between the time when Slater advises the other student to use some gum to achieve a better seal on his pipe and when Slater says that you couldn’t handle a one hour drum solo on heavy acid, there was a bit of dialogue that went something like this:

Guy: Slater man what would we do without you?

Slater: Same thing, only slower.

This was, in my opinion, one of the best lines of the movie. The problem is that it seems to be missing completely from the DVD.

I wonder if there is some kind of conspiracy here.

This is pretty interesting - or maybe not. But I think so. RIAA Radar is a web doodad (for my not wanting to use the more WC term bookmarklet) that lets you check whether an album on Amazon is put out by an RIAA company. Many people, myself included, but not in a rabid way, are anti-RIAA.

It does raise another issue. Should I penalize a band that I like for trying to make it big? Should they lose out because they signed on to a big label?

I am aware that the artist receives but a pittance of the actual price I pay. But they have free will to not sign with an RIAA label. They can hold out for a larger cut of the profits. They can go to an independent label. Granted, distribution may not be as good and they are unlikely
to pay to have songs played on Clear Channel’s monopoly.

A sampling of recent purchases:

The question is whether bands that I think are pretty upstanding like Mojave 3, Wilco, and Jay Farrar (not a band so much as a dude) suffer for some principle. The White Stripes are another issue altogether.

I have been having pangs of put my money where my mouth is guilt lately. To wit, most of the music I listen to most of the time has come from other people. While I firmly believe that this is within the guidelines of fair use, I think that we should support bands that we listen to.

So I actually bought three Belle and Sebastian CDs last week. And then today I got two by Mojave 3. I don’t know if these last two count, however, because they were used. So really In Your Ear got the money. But the sentiment was there (and I got $2 off for no apparent reason - maybe I am some kind of preferred customer or something).

Also recently: Barn Burning, The Minus 5, and suitcase.